CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Study suggests severe obesity blunts antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines
by European Association for the Study of Obesity
May 6, 2022

New research being presented at this year's European Congress on Obesity (ECO) in Maastricht, Netherlands (4-7 May), suggests that adults (aged 18 or older) with severe obesity generate a significantly weaker immune response to COVID-19 vaccination compared to those with normal weight. The study is by Professor Volkan Demirhan Yumuk from Istanbul University in Turkey and colleagues.

The study also found that people with severe obesity (BMI of more than 40kg/m2) vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine generated significantly more antibodies than those vaccinated with CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2) vaccine, suggesting that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine might be a better choice for this vulnerable population.

Obesity is a disease complicating the course of COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibody response in adults with obesity may be compromised. Vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B and rabies, have shown reduced responses in people with obesity.

To find out more, researchers investigated antibody responses following Pfizer/BioNTech and CoronaVac vaccination in 124 adults (average age 42-63 years) with severe obesity who visited the Obesity Center at Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty Hospitals, between August and November 2021.They also recruited a control group of 166 normal weight adults (BMI less than 25kg/m2, average age 39-47 years) who were visiting the Cerrahpasa Hospitals Vaccination Unit.

Researchers measured antibody levels in blood samples taken from patients and normal weight controls who had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech or CoronaVac vaccine and had their second dose four weeks earlier. The participants were classified by infection history as either previously having COVID-19 or not (confirmed by their antibody profile).

Overall, 130 participants received two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and 160 participants two doses of CoronaVac, of whom 70 had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech, patients with severe obesity had antibody levels more than three times lower than normal weight controls (average 5,823 vs 19,371 AU/ml).

Similarly, in participants with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated with CoronaVac, patients with severe obesity had antibody levels 27 times lower than normal weight controls (average 178 vs 4,894 AU/ml).

However, in those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody levels in patients with severe obesity and vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech or CoronaVac were not significantly different from normal weight controls (average 39,043 vs 14,115 AU/ml and 3,221 vs 7,060 AU/ml, respectively).

Interestingly, the analyses found that in patients with severe obesity, with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody levels in those vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech were significantly higher than those vaccinated with CoronaVac.

"These results provide new information on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in people with severe obesity and reinforce the importance of prioritizing and increasing vaccine uptake in this vulnerable group", says Professor Yumuk. "Our study confirms that immune memory induced by prior infection alters the way in which people respond to vaccination and indicates that two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may generate significantly more antibodies than CoronaVac in people with severe obesity, regardless of infection history. However, further research is needed to determine whether these higher antibody levels provide greater protection against COVID-19."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Plant-based recombinant COVID-19 vaccine found to be effective
May 5, 2022

Coronavirus-like particles (CoVLP), which are produced in plants, combined with an adjuvant (Adjuvant System 03 [AS03]) forms a candidate vaccine that is effective for preventing COVID-19, according to a study published online May 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Karen J. Hager, from Medicago in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial at 85 centers involving 24,141 adults who were randomly assigned to receive two intramuscular injections of either the CoVLP+AS03 vaccine or placebo 21 days apart.

The researchers confirmed COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction assay in 165 participants from the intention-to-treat population. Vaccine efficacy was 69.5 percent against any symptomatic COVID-19 caused by five variants. In a post-hoc analysis, vaccine efficacy was 78.8 and 74.0 percent against moderate-to-severe disease and among those who were seronegative at baseline, respectively. In the vaccine group, there were no severe cases of COVID-19; the median viral load for breakthrough cases was more than 100-fold lower in the vaccine group versus the placebo group. Solicited adverse events were mainly mild or moderate and transient; they occurred more frequently in the vaccine group versus placebo group. Local adverse events occurred in 92.3 and 45.5 percent in the vaccine group and placebo group, respectively, and systemic adverse events occurred in 87.3 and 65.0 percent, respectively.

"The potential effect of this plant-based technology in the current pandemic will be greatly influenced by the evolution of the pandemic itself," the authors write. "However, the availability and further development of this platform could have important implications for pandemic readiness."

Several authors disclosed financial ties to Medicago and GlaxoSmithKline; the study was funded by Medicago, the manufacturer of the CoVLP+AS03 vaccine.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Shanghai Says Coronavirus Outbreak Under ‘Effective Control’ but Lockdown Will Last at Least Another Month
John Hayward
6 May 2022


Shanghai officials claimed on Friday that the city’s coronavirus outbreak is “under effective control” after a month under harsh lockdown restrictions – but the lockdown will continue.

Meanwhile, the city created some 9,000 permanent coronavirus testing stations in a bid to “normalize” mass testing forever.

“Currently, our city’s epidemic prevention and control situation is steadily improving, and the epidemic has come under effective control,” Shanghai vice major Wu Qing said on Friday.

Wu said the number of infections is on a “continuous downward trend” and claimed community transmission has been “effectively curbed,” but millions of Shanghai residents will remain sealed in their homes, and tight restrictions will be kept in place for at least another month.

“We cannot relax, we cannot slack off. Persistence is victory,” Wu said.

As Reuters reported on Friday, the people of Shanghai have noticed those “persistent” restrictions are not being relaxed in any logical way, and people are discovering their gates are still locked even though they were told they could leave their homes:

Though some 2.3 million Shanghai residents are still in sealed-off high-risk areas, another 16.67 million are in lower-risk “prevention zones”, meaning they can, in theory, leave their homes and roam around their communities.
However, many residents have been complaining that different community officials are applying the rules in different ways, with some people in “prevention zones” still unable to get out even though their area has reported no positive cases for weeks.
One large compound in central Shanghai’s Changning district, announced on Friday that it was relaxing restrictions within the compound and scaling back the number of volunteers helping to deliver food. But its residents could still not get out through its locked gates.​
China’s state-run Global Times on Thursday said the Shanghai lockdown would “likely” be lifted by the “end of May.”
Ignoring the cries of Shanghai’s imprisoned population, the Global Times described the lockdown as a “decisive and tough battle against Omicron,” even though it’s far from over by the Communist Party’s own admission, and much of the city is still a prison camp:

For some residents under precaution-level regions where no positive cases have been found for 14 days, one person from a household is allowed to go out to purchase daily necessities within certain areas. In order to avoid large gatherings, some communities strengthened preventive measures.
“Our community only allowed us to move freely within the community and reminded us to avoid gathering,” a 41-year-old Shanghai resident surnamed Jin told the Global Times on Thursday, who is living in a community under precaution status.

“China will surely win the war against COVID-19 [Chinese coronavirus] with its scientific and effective epidemic control policy that will stand the test of time, according to a meeting of the top leadership on Thursday,” the Global Times reported with unintentional hilarity.

While Chinese state media predicted Shanghai would swiftly bounce back after the lockdowns finally come to an end, more thoughtful observers inside and outside the city feared it might be ruined forever – transformed from a vibrant and glamorous financial hub into another dreary concentration camp with skyscrapers. As these critics noted, the Chinese Communist Party is repurposing propaganda slogans from the Xinjiang genocide to ensure public compliance with coronavirus lockdowns, with only very minor changes in wording – from “Round up everyone who should be rounded up” for the Xinjiang brainwashing camps to “Take in all who should be taken in” for the Shanghai quarantine camps.

Further evidence of an enduring change for the worse is that over 9,000 permanent coronavirus testing stations have been established in Shanghai. City officials described the stations as an effort to “normalize” mass coronavirus testing – and authoritarian responses -–as a permanent feature of life.

Other Chinese cities are creating thousands of permanent testing stations as well, along with regulations that constant negative tests are required to access public venues.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

FDA Limits Use of J&J Vaccine Over Blood Clotting Disorder, But Experts Say Pfizer, Moderna Shots Pose Similar Risk
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday put strict limits on the use of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine, citing the risk of a blood clotting condition, but experts say that Pfizer and Moderna pose similar risks.
By Julie Comber, Ph.D.
05/06/22

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday put strict limits on the use of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine, citing the risk of a blood-clotting condition the agency described as “rare and potentially life-threatening.”

In a statement Thursday, the FDA said the risk of vaccine recipients developing thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after receiving the vaccine “warrants limiting the authorized use of the vaccine.”

The FDA said it has identified 60 cases of vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, including nine deaths, out of about 18 million doses administered — although the condition is likely underreported.

Women 30 to 49 years old are at the highest risk of TTS from the J&J vaccine, with about eight cases per 1 million doses of vaccine administered, according to the FDA.

According to the latest data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 29, 2022, there were 13,873 reports of blood-clotting disorders following COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.

Of those, 6,227 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 4,943 reports to Moderna and 2,662 reports to J&J.

In the U.S., 575 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of April 29, including 339 million doses of Pfizer, 217 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of J&J.

The agency said the “known and potential benefits” of the J&J vaccine for preventing COVID-19 outweigh the known and potential risks for individuals 18 and older “for whom other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines are not accessible or clinically appropriate,” or “who elect to receive the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine because they would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”

The agency described TTS as “a syndrome of rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots in combination with low levels of blood platelets with onset of symptoms approximately one to two weeks following administration of the Janssen [J&J] COVID-19 vaccine.”

The updated restrictions to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, marketed under the Janssen brand, also apply to booster doses, CNN reported.

People who can still get the Janssen vaccine include:

  • Those who had a severe allergic reaction to the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine.
  • Those with personal concerns about the mRNA vaccines who would remain unvaccinated unless they can choose the Janssen vaccine.
  • Those with limited access to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Symptoms of TTS include shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, neurological symptoms (like headaches or blurred vision) or red spots just under the skin called “petechiae” found beyond the site of injection.

Experts question timing, and why just J&J?

Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said limiting the authorized use of the Janssen vaccine “demonstrates the robustness of our safety surveillance systems and our commitment to ensuring that science and data guide our decisions.”

Marks said:
“We’ve been closely monitoring the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and occurrence of TTS following its administration and have used updated information from our safety surveillance systems to revise the EUA.
“The agency will continue to monitor the safety of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and all other vaccines, and as has been the case throughout the pandemic, will thoroughly evaluate new safety information.”

However, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, had a different take on the news.

“It seems like the FDA pays lip service to the fact that the spike protein can cause clotting, and to the widespread reports of clotting, by punishing Janssen, who has become the ‘whipping boy’ of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers through the pandemic,” Hooker said.

“I believe this is partially because of the limited use of the Janssen vaccine in the U.S. as compared to Pfizer and Moderna,” he added.

Hooker said the FDA can limit the use of the J&J vaccine without significantly impacting vaccine distribution overall, “while having the appearance of addressing the myriad vaccine adverse events caused by all the types of COVID-19 vaccines.”

As of Thursday, CNN reported only 7.7% of those considered fully vaccinated received the J&J vaccine.

Dr. Pierre Kory, founder and president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told The Defender:
“My only hypothesis is this action is some attempt for the FDA to be able to claim that they took at least some action to protect the safety of the public, akin to ‘virtue signaling.’
“Having been a keen observer of their actions throughout the pandemic, I find this action to be completely insufficient and demonstrates a calculated attempt to ensure vaccinations with similarly dangerous vaccines continue.”

Dr. Meryl Nass questioned the timing of the FDA’s restriction of the EUA.

“Why did the FDA just throw the kill switch on the Janssen vaccine, when it knew of the thrombosis problems since the rollout?” Nass asked.

Nass told The Defender the FDA may have known about the thrombosis problem even before the Janssen vaccine rollout, “since the adenovirus vector platform is known to be associated with thrombosis” for “more than 15 years.”

Kory, who noted that all COVID-19 vaccines have had a high rate of adverse events, also questioned the timing of the new restrictions.

“I find the timing of this action to be both irrational and alarming given there is extensive data from around the world, much of it being censored from media and medical journals, that all the COVID-19 vaccines, not just Janssen, have long had unacceptable and diverse toxicity signals — beyond just clotting disorders from numerous pharmacovigilance databases and epidemiological and public health data reports,” Kory said.

As far back as April 2021, U.S. and European health officials were investigating whether the J&J COVID-19 vaccines were causing blood clots.

However, there was already mounting evidence the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could cause similar adverse reactions. U.S. regulatory officials were alerted to this risk as far back as December 2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in December 2021 recommended the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines over the J&J vaccine due to the risk of blood clots, despite data showing the Pfizer and Moderna shots also cause blood-clotting disorders.

In January 2021, shortly after the rollout of Pfizer’s vaccine in the U.S., The Defender reported on the death of a 56-year-old Florida doctor who developed a blood-clotting disorder after the Pfizer vaccine and died 12 days later.

The Defender also reported on numerous other deaths related to blood-clotting disorders that developed after the Moderna and J&J vaccines.

The J&J vaccine received EUA on Feb. 27, 2021.

On April 13, 2021, the FDA and CDC paused use of the vaccine to investigate six reported cases of TTS.

The agencies lifted the pause only 10 days later, after confirming a total of 15 cases of TTS had been reported to VAERS, including the original six reported cases, out of approximately 8 million doses administered.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Oops! CDC erroneously raises COVID-19 level to 'medium' in Washington state county
Officials in Pierce County say mistake was caused by data processing error and the current number of cases is far below the January peak of the Omicron wave.
By The Center Square Staff; Lawrence Wilson
Updated: May 7, 2022 - 12:10am

COVID-19 infection rates in Pierce County, Washington, have risen slightly but are not as high as the Centers for Disease Control has indicated, according to the Tacoma-Pierce County Department of Health.

The CDC moved the county’s Community Level to medium Thursday.

The Health Department reported on its website Friday that determination was reached in error due to data processing issues and stressed that the current number of cases is far below the January peak of the Omicron wave.

The discrepancies are due mostly to duplications in the data on hospital admissions. Also, the two agencies use different methods of counting infections, which can cause problems.

The Health Department counts the incidence of infection by the date of a positive COVID-19 test. The CDC counts cases based on the day test results are reported. Any lag between testing and reporting can produce duplications in the CDC system.

This is not the first time the Health Department of Pierce County has challenged data reported by the CDC.

Similar discrepancies occurred in February when the CDC unveiled its county-by-county COVID-19 tracing tool.

The Health Department announced that it is working with local hospitals and the CDC to resolve the discrepancies.

In the meantime, the it urges citizens to continue hand washing, vaccination, staying home when sick, and being tested after exposure to the virus.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

WHO: Nearly 15 million deaths associated with COVID-19
By MARIA CHENG
May 5, 2022

LONDON (AP) — The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 15 million people were killed either by coronavirus or by its impact on overwhelmed health systems during the first two years of the pandemic, more than double the current official death toll of over 6 million.

Most of the deaths occurred in Southeast Asia, Europe and the Americas, according to a WHO report issued Thursday.

The U.N. health agency’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, described the newly calculated figure as “sobering,” saying it should prompt countries to invest more in their capacities to quell future health emergencies.

WHO tasked scientists with determining the actual number of COVID-19 deaths between January 2020 and the end of last year. They estimated that between 13.3 million and 16.6 million people died either due to the coronavirus directly or because of factors somehow attributed to the pandemic’s impact on health systems, such as cancer patients who were unable to seek treatment when hospitals were full of COVID patients.

Based on that range, the scientists came up with an approximated total of 14.9 million.

The estimate was based on country-reported data and statistical modeling, but only about half of countries provided information. WHO said it wasn’t yet able to break down the data to distinguish between direct deaths from COVID-19 and those related to effects of the pandemic, but the agency plans a future project examining death certificates.

“This may seem like just a bean-counting exercise, but having these WHO numbers is so critical to understanding how we should combat future pandemics and continue to respond to this one,” said Dr. Albert Ko, an infectious diseases specialist at the Yale School of Public Health who was not linked to the WHO research.

For example, Ko said, South Korea’s decision to invest heavily in public health after it suffered a severe outbreak of MERS allowed it to escape COVID-19 with a per-capita death rate around a 20th of the one in the United States.

Accurately counting COVID-19 deaths has been problematic throughout the pandemic, as reports of confirmed cases represent only a fraction of the devastation wrought by the virus, largely because of limited testing. Government figures reported to WHO and a separate tally kept by Johns Hopkins University show more than 6.2 million reported virus deaths to date.

Scientists at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington calculated for a recent study published in the journal Lancet that there were more than 18 million COVID deaths from January 2020 to December 2021.

A team led by Canadian researchers estimated there were more than 3 million uncounted coronavirus deaths in India alone. WHO’s new analysis estimated that missed deaths in India alone ranged between 3.3 million to 6.5 million.

In a statement following the release of WHO’s data, India disputed the U.N. agency’s methodology. India’s Health and Family Welfare Ministry called the analysis and data collection methods “questionable” and complained that the new death estimates were released “without adequately addressing India’s concerns.”

Samira Asma, a senior WHO director, acknowledged that “numbers are sometimes controversial” and that all estimates are only an approximation of the virus’ catastrophic effects.

“It has become very obvious during the entire course of the pandemic, there have been data that is missing,” Asma told reporters during a press briefing on Thursday. “Basically, all of us were caught unprepared.”

Ko said the new figures from WHO might also explain some lingering mysteries about the pandemic, like why Africa appears to have been one of the least affected by the virus, despite its fragile health systems and low vaccination rates.

“Were the mortality rates so low because we couldn’t count the deaths, or was there some other factor to explain that?” he asked, citing the far higher mortality rates in the U.S. and Europe.

Dr. Bharat Pankhania, a public health specialist at Britain’s University of Exeter, said the world may never get close to measuring the true toll of COVID-19, particularly in poor countries.

“When you have a massive outbreak where people are dying in the streets because of a lack of oxygen, bodies were abandoned or people had to be cremated quickly because of cultural beliefs, we end up never knowing just how many people died,” he explained.

Pankhania said that while the estimated COVID-19 death toll still pales in comparison to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which experts estimate caused up to 100 million deaths, the fact that so many people died despite the advances of modern medicine, including vaccines, is shameful.

He also warned that the cost of COVID-19 could be far more damaging in the long term, given the increasing burden of caring for people with long COVID.

“With the Spanish flu, there was the flu and then there were some (lung) illnesses people suffered, but that was it,” he said. “There was not an enduring immunological condition that we’re seeing right now with COVID.”

“We do not know the extent to which people with long COVID will have their lives cut short and if they will have repeated infections that will cause them even more problems,” Pankhania said.
____
Krutika Pathi and Ashok Sharma in New Delhi contributed to this report.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI57qwB2fQI
15 million excess deaths
20 min 51sec
May 6, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

Official reported deaths https://covid19.who.int Cases, 513,384,685 Deaths, 6,246,828 Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Mortality Assessment https://www.who.int/data/technical-ad... Five working groups e.g. group one https://www.who.int/data/technical-ad... Convened jointly by the WHO and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) Methods used https://www.who.int/publications/m/it... https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/defaul... 14.9 million excess deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2... Full death toll associated directly or indirectly with the pandemic That is, excess mortality 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 Range 13.3 million to 16.6 million Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General These sobering data not only point to the impact of the pandemic but also to the need for all countries to invest in more resilient health systems that can sustain essential health services during crises, including stronger health information systems Generate better data for better decisions and better outcomes Excess mortality Number of deaths that have occurred and the number expected (in the absence of the pandemic) Direct and indirect deaths (due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society) Health care systems overburdened Deaths averted during the pandemic Motor-vehicle accidents, occupational injuries Most of the excess deaths (84%) South-East Asia, Europe, the Americas High-income and low-income countries, 15% of total 14.9 m Low income countries, 4% of total 14.9 m Sex Male, 57% of total 14.9 m Female, 43% of total 14.9 m Dr Samira Asma, Assistant Director-General for Data, Analytics and Delivery, WHO Measurement of excess mortality is an essential component to understand the impact of the pandemic. Shifts in mortality trends provide decision-makers information to guide policies to reduce mortality and effectively prevent future crises. Because of limited investments in data systems in many countries, the true extent of excess mortality often remains hidden These new estimates use the best available data and have been produced using a robust methodology and a completely transparent approach Dr Ibrahima Socé Fall, Assistant Director-General for Emergency Response Data is the foundation of our work every day to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable. Need to track outbreaks in real-time, everywhere We know where the data gaps are Mr Liu Zhenmin, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs The United Nations system is working together to deliver an authoritative assessment of the global toll of lives lost from the pandemic. This work is an important part of UN DESA’s ongoing collaboration with WHO and other partners to improve global mortality estimates Mr Stefan Schweinfest, Director of the Statistics Division of UN DESA Data deficiencies make it difficult to assess the true scope of a crisis, with serious consequences for people’s lives. The pandemic has been a stark reminder of the need for better coordination of data systems within countries and for increased international support for building better systems, including for the registration of deaths and other vital events.
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

People Can Still Get J&J Vaccine If They Have a Problem With Other Two Shots: White House
By Zachary Stieber
May 6, 2022

People who, for whatever reason, do not want to get a Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine can still get the Johnson & Johnson shot, a top White House health official said on May 6.

“If you have a problem with one of those two vaccines, then Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is still an option for you,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 coordinator.

He described the J&J vaccine as “high-quality” and “very good.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a day earlier said it “limited the authorized use” of the J&J shot because of the risk of potentially fatal blood clots.

But the actual emergency use authorization, which enables people to get the vaccine, was not altered at all.

In updated fact sheets to health care providers and recipients, the agency emphasized that the vaccine can cause the clots, known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, within approximately two weeks of vaccination.

People 18 and older “for whom other FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines are not accessible or clinically appropriate” can still get the vaccine, one of the sheets says. Additionally, adults who choose to get the shot “because they would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine” can still get it.

Those include “individuals who have personal concerns with receiving” the Pfizer and Moderna shots, the first vaccines built on messenger RNA technology to receive regulatory clearance.

“What the FDA is saying is, at this point, even though this is extremely rare, the bottom line is there are other options,” Jha said. “We have Moderna and Pfizer—both of which don’t have this side effect.”

However, the FDA isn’t officially limiting the J&J shot, according to Jha. Instead, regulators are “strongly recommending” people get one of the two other shots.

Jha also falsely said the update from the FDA was not based on new data. The regulatory agency said in its announcement that the move was based on “an updated analysis” of cases of the blood clots following administration of the J&J vaccine that were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a passive reporting system run by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That analysis found the reporting rate of the clots is 3.2 per million doses of vaccine administered. Overall, through March 18, 60 confirmed cases were identified, including nine fatalities.

The new determination was underpinned by the finding that the reporting rates of the condition and deaths tied to the clots “are not appreciably lower than previously reported,” the FDA said.

Other factors influencing the update include the agency not knowing what makes a person at risk for the clots and how individuals who get the clots “may rapidly deteriorate, despite prompt diagnosis and treatment.”

Jha was speaking on “CBS Mornings” and ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Johnson & Johnson said in a statement shortly after the FDA’s announcement that data continue to support “a favorable benefit-risk profile for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in adults, when compared with no vaccine” and that the company is continuing to work with authorities around the world to make sure people are warned about reports of the clots.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

China Locks Down City of 10 Million Amid New COVID Outbreak, Apple Supplier Takes a Hit
By Alex Wu
May 6, 2022

Another Chinese megacity is under lockdown due to a recent COVID-19 outbreak. Zhengzhou city, the provincial capital of China’s central Henan Province, is carrying out strict measures to contain the spread of the disease. But the lockdown could impact major manufacturers such as Apple supplier Foxconn, disrupting Apple’s supply chain.

Following Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Guangzhou, local authorities in Zhengzhou announced a week-long lockdown of the city with 10.5 million residents from May 4 to May 10.

According to official figures, around 70 cases were reported this week. However, due to Chinese authorities’ past record of underreporting infections and covering up information, it is difficult to assess the true scale of the current outbreak.

As soon as the lockdown order was announced, residents began panic buying, stocking up on food and supplies. Meanwhile, thousands of people tried to leave the city, causing severe traffic jams.

COVID Measures

Chinese media reported on April 30 that COVID infections were first detected among employees at a railway station in Zhengzhou and then began to spread across various communities.

On May 3, the authorities issued an official notice, “Order No. 73,” requiring most residents to work from home, to extend the spring break for students, to implement traffic control measures, and to prevent residents from leaving the city unless they have special permission to do so. The authorities also announced that three rounds of city-wide mass testing would be conducted during the lockdown.

According to the notice, the city’s buses and subways would reduce services, and taxis (including ride-hailing services) would operate on alternating schedules based on “odd and even” numbers of their license plates. Before boarding public transportation, passengers must have their health code scanned, body temperature checked, and wear masks. In addition, they also need to show proof of a negative nucleic acid test taken within 24 hours. The airport will continue to implement existing pandemic prevention and control measures.

The authorities also tightened control of people entering and leaving Zhengzhou, requiring all residents to remain in the city unless they get special permission to leave. People are not allowed to enter the city unless deemed necessary by authorities.

Authorities advised residents not to hoard supplies and not to panic. But after witnessing what happened to people in Shanghai after the lockdown, residents rushed to the stores to stock up on food and supplies.

Early last month, nearly 25 million residents in Shanghai were locked down, triggering a humanitarian crisis. Various media reported that people suffered from starvation and no access to medical care, and many committed suicide.

On May 3, a Zhengzhou resident surnamed Li told The Epoch Times: “This afternoon, everyone in Zhengzhou is rushing to stores to hoard food and supplies. Goods in many supermarkets have been sold out very quickly. The city is about to be shut down tomorrow. I will definitely go out to buy some [supplies]. I am afraid that Zhengzhou will become the next Shanghai. Almost all supermarkets sold out of supplies.”

The Epoch Times obtained a video shot by residents showing traffic jams and crowded supermarkets in Zhengzhou. Many people were rushing to buy food and supplies, and thousands tried to leave the city before the lockdown.

Apple Supplier Foxconn Affected by Lockdown

Taiwan electronics manufacturer Foxconn, a major Apple supplier, has a production base in Zhengzhou. The company said that its production in the industrial park will continue in a closed environment during the lockdown, causing manpower and supply shortages. However, authorities expect production to take a hit, and Apple’s supply chain could be affected.

Several Zhengzhou Foxconn recruitment staff posted on social media platforms that due to the lockdown, the company has suspended the recruitment of workers since May 4. At the same time, previous recruits cannot enter the factory to start working.

Taiwan’s Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua told the media on May 4 that the lockdown has an impact on Taiwanese business operations in mainland China. Wang said that the Chinese regime’s ongoing pandemic control measures will affect the supply chain and raw materials of production.

Li Jing, Hong Ning, Yi Ru contributed to the report.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The Triumph of Natural Immunity
By Martin Kulldorff
May 6, 2022

A new CDC study shows that around 75% of American children have already had covid. That means that they have strong natural immunity that protects them from covid infections as they get older. Despite this, the CDC, the FDA and other government agencies are pushing all of them to get vaccinated.

Why?

One important role of public health agencies during a pandemic is to conduct seroprevalence studies to determine how many people have developed antibodies to the disease from having been infected. That way we understand how the disease has spread and how it varies geographically and among different age groups. Spain did such a large, randomized survey early during the pandemic while Sweden did a series of smaller randomized surveys at regular intervals.

In the United States, this important task was left to individual scientists, but they only had resources to conduct small surveys in a limited area such as the Santa Clara County Study. The CDC has now finally got its act together with a national survey. The results are illuminating.

In April 2020, the Santa Clara study showed that 3% of its population had been infected. In February 2022, the CDC study shows that at least 58% percent of Americans have had covid, as evidenced by their anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, which are produced due to infections but not the vaccines. The numbers vary by age.

Screen-Shot-2022-05-06-at-8.47.55-AM-800x155.png


What does this mean? We know that natural immunity after covid recovery provides excellent protection against future infections, and while covid will be with us for the rest of our lives, it will be something that our immune system will cope with in the way it is handling the other four widely circulating coronaviruses.

It means that we are now transitioning from the pandemic stage to the endemic stage, and we will eventually reach herd immunity, the end point of every pandemic no matter what strategy is used.

Given these numbers, why are the CDC, the FDA and the government pushing hard for all children to get vaccinated against covid? Why are some schools and universities mandating covid vaccines for children and young adults? The majority already have superior natural immunity.

All of them are at minuscule risk from dying from covid even if they have not had it, a risk that is smaller than dying from any of a whole range of other causes such as motor vehicle accidents, drowning, homicide, suicide, drug overdoses or cancer. While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in covid mortality between older and younger people.

To sell a drug or a vaccine, we require pharmaceutical companies to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to show that it works to prevent serious health outcomes or death. Pfizer and Moderna have not done that. For adults they only showed a reduction in symptomatic disease.

To remedy this, a recent Danish study used the RCTs to evaluate all-cause mortality. For every 100 who die in the placebo group, there are 103 deaths among mRNA vaccinees, with a 95% confidence interval of 63 to 171. This contrasts with the adenovirus-vector vaccines (AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), with 37 deaths among the vaccinees (95% CI: 19-70).

For children, we do not even have this. The randomized covid vaccine trials show that they can prevent mild disease in children without a prior covid infection, but from observational studies we know that this protection wanes rapidly. The RCTs also show that the vaccines generate antibodies in children, but 75% of American children already have superior antibodies from natural infection.

There are no RCTs that show the vaccine prevents deaths or provides any other tangible benefit to children, while there could be harms. All vaccines come with some risks of adverse reactions, and while we know that they cause an increased risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) in young people, we do not yet have a complete picture of the safety profile for these vaccines.

The CDC, the FDA, schools, and universities are pushing covid vaccines without having shown any benefit to the majority of children who have already had covid. It is stunning how these institutions have abandoned 2,500 years of knowledge about natural immunity. For the minority of children without a prior covid infection, the RCTs only show a short-term reduction in mild disease.

The CDC could instead focus on catching up with regular childhood vaccines for measles, polio, and other serious childhood diseases. Those vaccinations were severely disrupted during lockdowns, and we now see an increase in measles and polio worldwide. Yet more collateral damage from two years of disastrous public health policy.

The medical establishment used to push for evidence-based medicine as a counterweight to “alternative medicine.” It is tragic how that philosophy has now been thrown out the window. If Pfizer and Moderna want these vaccines to be given to children, they should first conduct a randomized controlled trial that shows that they reduce hospitalization and all-cause mortality. They failed to do so for adults. They should not get away with that for our children.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ufBCj6ir8M
TWiV 897: COVID-19 clinical update #113 with Dr. Daniel Griffin
48 min 31 sec
May 7, 2022
Vincent Racaniello

In COVID-19 clinical update #113, Dr. Griffin discusses tocilizumab use in hospitalized Patients, IL-6 inhibitors and mortality, Baricitinib in hospitalized patients, post-infection neurological sequelae, comparative effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, phase 2/3 study of Paxlovid, infection relapse following Paxlovid, pre-hospital administration of Remdesivir, and hospitalization with different variants. Show notes at https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-897/
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Genetic Limit on Cell Division Could Explain COVID-19 Deaths Among Elderly
University of Washington
May 6, 2022

COVID-19 Deaths Among Elderly May Be Due to Genetic Limit on Cell Division
This illustration represents the core theory in a new modeling study led by the University of Washington: The circles represent the immune system’s aging, in which its ability to make new immunity cells remains constant until a person (represented by the human figures) reaches middle-age or older and then falls off significantly. The central blue figure represents an immune system T cell that attacks the virus. Credit: Michele Kellett and James Anderson/University of Washington

Your immune system’s ability to fight COVID-19, like any infection, largely depends on its ability to replicate the immune cells effective at destroying the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the disease. These cloned immune cells cannot be infinitely created, and a key hypothesis of a new University of Washington (UW) study is that the body’s ability to create these cloned cells falls off significantly in old age.

According to a new model created by UW research professor James Anderson, this genetically predetermined limit on your immune system may be the key to why COVID-19 has such a devastating effect on the elderly. Anderson is the lead author of a paper published on March 31, 2022, in the journal The Lancet eBioMedicine detailing this modeled link between aging, COVID-19, and mortality.

“When DNA split in cell division, the end cap — called a telomere — gets a little shorter with each division,” explains Anderson, who is a modeler of biological systems in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. “After a series of replications of a cell, it gets too short and stops further division. Not all cells or all animals have this limit, but immune cells in humans have this cell life.”


The average person’s immune system coasts along pretty good despite this limit until about 50 years old. That’s when enough core immune cells, called T cells, have shortened telomeres and cannot quickly clone themselves through cellular division in big enough numbers to attack and clear the COVID-19 virus, which has the trait of sharply reducing immune cell numbers, Anderson said. Importantly, he added, telomere lengths are inherited from your parents. Consequently, there are some differences in these lengths between people at every age as well as how old a person becomes before these lengths are mostly used up.

Anderson said the key difference between this understanding of aging, which has a threshold for when your immune system has run out of collective telomere length, and the idea that we all age consistently over time is the “most exciting” discovery of his research.

“Depending on your parents and very little on how you live, your longevity or, as our paper claims, your response to COVID-19 is a function of who you were when you were born,” he said, “which is kind of a big deal.”

To build this model the researchers used publicly available data on COVID-19 mortality from the Center for Disease Control and US Census Bureau and studies on telomeres, many of which were published by the co-authors over the past two decades.

Assembling telomere length information about a person or specific demographic, he said, could help doctors know who was less susceptible. And then they could allocate resources, such as booster shots, according to which populations and individuals may be more susceptible to COVID-19.

“I’m a modeler and see things through mathematical equations that I am interpreting by working with biologists, but the biologists need to look at the information through the model to guide their research questions,” Anderson said, admitting that “the dream of a modeler is to be able to actually influence the great biologists into thinking like modelers. That’s more difficult.”

One caution Anderson has about this model is that it might explain too much.

“There’s a lot of data supporting every parameter of the model and there is a nice logical train of thought for how you get from the data to the model,” he said of the model’s power. “But it is so simple and so intuitively appealing that we should be suspicious of it too. As a scientist, my hope is that we begin to understand further the immune system and population responses as a part of natural selection.”

Reference: “Telomere-length dependent T-cell clonal expansion: A model linking ageing to COVID-19 T-cell lymphopenia and mortality” by James J. Anderson, Ezra Susser, Konstantin G. Arbeev, Anatoliy I. Yashin, Daniel Levy, Simon Verhulst and Abraham Aviv, 31 March 2022, EBioMedicine.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.103978

Co-authors include Ezra Susser, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Konstantin Arbeev and Anatoliy Yashin, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University; Daniel Levy, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health; Simon Verhulst, University of Groningen, Netherlands; Abraham Aviv, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Why are there so many new omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?
by Sebastian Duchene and Ashleigh Porter, The Conversation
May 6, 2022

By now, many of us will be familiar with the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. This variant of concern has changed the course of the pandemic, leading to a dramatic rise in cases around the world.

We are also increasingly hearing about new omicron sub-variants with names such as BA.2, BA.4 and now BA.5. The concern is these sub-variants may lead to people becoming reinfected, leading to another rise in cases.

Why are we seeing more of these new sub-variants? Is the virus mutating faster? And what are the implications for the future of COVID?

Why are there so many types of omicron?

All viruses, SARS-CoV-2 included, mutate constantly. The vast majority of mutations have little to no effect on the ability of the virus to transmit from one person to another or to cause severe disease.

When a virus accumulates a substantial number of mutations, it's considered a different lineage (somewhat like a different branch on a family tree). But a viral lineage is not labeled a variant until it has accumulated several unique mutations known to enhance the ability of the virus to transmit and/or cause more severe disease.

This was the case for the BA lineage (sometimes known as B.1.1.529) the World Health Organization labeled omicron. Omicron has spread rapidly, representing almost all current cases with genomes sequenced globally.

Because omicron has spread swiftly, and has had many opportunities to mutate, it has also acquired specific mutations of its own. These have given rise to several sub-lineages, or sub-variants.

The first two were labeled BA.1 and BA.2. The current list now also includes BA.1.1, BA.3, BA.4 and BA.5.

We did see sub-variants of earlier versions of the virus, such as delta. However, omicron has outcompeted these, potentially because of its increased transmissibility. So sub-variants of earlier viral variants are much less common today and there is less emphasis in tracking them.

Why are the sub-variants a big deal?

There is evidence these omicron sub-variants—specifically BA.4 and BA.5—are particularly effective at reinfecting people with previous infections from BA.1 or other lineages. There is also concern these sub-variants may infect people who have been vaccinated.

So we expect to see a rapid rise in COVID cases in the coming weeks and months due to reinfections, which we are already seeing in South Africa.

However, recent research suggests a third dose of the COVID vaccine is the most effective way to slow the spread of omicron (including sub-variants) and prevent COVID-associated hospital admissions.

Recently, BA.2.12.1, has also drawn attention because it has been spreading rapidly in the United States and was recently detected in wastewater in Australia. Alarmingly, even if someone has been infected with the omicron sub-variant BA.1, re-infection is still possible with sub-lineages of BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 due to their capacity to evade immune responses.

Is the virus mutating faster?

You'd think SARS-CoV-2 is a super-speedy front-runner when it comes to mutations. But the virus actually mutates relatively slowly. Influenza viruses, for example, mutate at least four times faster.

SARS-CoV-2 does, however, have "mutational sprints" for short periods of time, our research shows. During one of these sprints, the virus can mutate four-fold faster than normal for a few weeks.

After such sprints, the lineage has more mutations, some of which may provide an advantage over other lineages. Examples include mutations that can help the virus become more transmissible, cause more severe disease, or evade our immune response, and thus we have new variants emerging.

Why the virus undergoes mutational sprints that lead to the emergence of variants is unclear. But there are two main theories about the origins of omicron and how it accumulated so many mutations.

First, the virus could have evolved in chronic (prolonged) infections in people who are immunosuppressed (have a weakened immune system).

Second, the virus could have "jumped" to another species, before infecting humans again.

What other tricks does the virus have?

Mutation is not the only way variants can emerge. The omicron XE variant appears to have resulted from a recombination event. This is where a single patient was infected with BA.1 and BA.2 at the same time. This coinfection led to a "genome swap" and a hybrid variant.

Other instances of recombination in SARS-CoV-2 have been reported between delta and omicron, resulting in what's been dubbed deltacron.

So far, recombinants do not appear to have higher transmissibility or cause more severe outcomes. But this could change rapidly with new recombinants. So scientists are closely monitoring them.

What might we see in the future?

As long as the virus is circulating, we will continue to see new virus lineages and variants. As omicron is the most common variant currently, it is likely we will see more omicron sub-variants, and potentially, even recombinant lineages.

Scientists will continue to track new mutations and recombination events (particularly with sub-variants). They will also use genomic technologies to predict how these might occur and any effect they may have on the behavior of the virus.

This knowledge will help us limit the spread and impact of variants and sub-variants. It will also guide the development of vaccines effective against multiple or specific variants.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Can Vaccines be Dangerous to Pregnant Women, Babies and Human Reproduction? - A Credible Mechanism of Action
Vaccine Safety Myth - Occasionally vaccines can damage endothelial blood-to-tissue barriers leading to pregnancy dramas and to infertility
Marc Girardot
11 hr ago

Those of you who have followed my articles over the past few months know I have developed, and - I believe - validated, a unified theory on vaccine toxicity, a theory that explains a number of adverse events related to the injection of anti-COVID vaccines, at least the transfecting sort. Today, I want to share with you another “Aha moment” - consistent with my theory - which I should have had a long time ago. I apologise for being a slow thinker…

I want to thank readers who have shared their stories, challenged me through their comments, and encouraged me to go beyond self evidences to discover new insights on this Covid crisis.

Again thank you to the generous contributors who have chosen the paying subscription. It is very appreciated under current circumstances.



Last summer, a British friend contacted me. His wife was pregnant with twins, and they had mixed feelings about vaccination. Having read my Biznews article on pre-existing immunity, the couple was seeking guidance putting me in a very difficult position. At the time, pharmaco-vigilance alerts had been flashing “DEFCON 1” for almost 8 months… and no one had done anything about it! Even though I understood the vascular system was being hit, I couldn’t put my finger on the mechanism of action that started the deleterious domino effect in some cases and not in others.

Today, I will outline in detail why vaccinating a pregnant is wrong and potentially dangerous.

A Universal Theory on Transfecting-Vaccine Toxicity

Let me summarise my findings on Covid vaccine toxicity for those who haven’t read my previous posts. Those who know my theory can skip this section.

For the record, this applies not only to mRNA/DNA vaccines, but also to more traditional attenuated vaccines. It is relatively simple:

  • the vast majority of vaccine nanoparticles end up in the circulatory system. We know that from the Pfizer documents. There’s no apparent reason to believe that would be specific to the BNT162b2 (Pfizer).
    Fact ✔
  • the vast majority of cells penetrated by vaccine elements will thus be endothelial cells covering the lining of our blood vessels, simply because the particles are largely trapped in the circulatory system.
    Fact ✔
  • all the transfected cells will inevitably be destroyed by the immune system targeting the spike protein or bits of mRNA, expressed outside these hacked cells.
    Fact ✔

  • Details are in the caption following the image
  • Destruction process of mRNA transfected cells by T-cells - Credit: P. Polykretis

  • however, if injected appropriately in the muscle, the muscle will act as “a saline bag delivering an intravenous drug”, very progressively, generally1 guaranteeing an homogeneous distribution. That can explain why many simply have no visible adverse reactions to the vaccines.
    Fact ✔
  • vasculature physiology of the Deltoid muscle inevitably means occasional accidental intravenous injection are bound to happen - partial or full.
    Fact ✔
  • the cluster of particles - subsequent to inadvertent intravenous injection - will mathematically change the map of the penetrated areas, and concentrate immune hits in one or several specific areas. That likely happens in the very first instants post injection, before any significant dilution.
    Fact ✔
  • concentrated hits will disrupt the local endothelial ecosystem, and repair might become impossible and start deleterious process, or be approximative fixing endothelial functions only partially. Depending on the location and the extent of the damage, the outcome will be widely variable.
    Fact ✔




  • three generic areas are likely to be impacted, each leading to different pathologies:
    • if in the aorta or the large arteries: endothelial wall destruction, coagulation, progressive destruction of smooth muscle cells, subsequent arterial rupture, haemorrhage…and/or likely clotting downstream.
    • if in the small arteries and capillaries: coagulation, clotting, necrosis and inflammation: heart, lungs, liver, spleen … disrupting partially or fully the function of the organ: myocarditis, pulmonary embolism, hepatitis...
    • if in blood-to-tissue endothelial barriers: as explained in last week’s article regarding the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), the destruction of specialised endothelial walls would greatly weaken the barrier protection letting through toxic components (albumine…) and immune cells in large quantity... triggering deleterious process more or less time dependent.
Many protective strategic barriers exists throughout the body - for example, in the retina, the ear, the thymus (where T-cells specialise) and the bone marrow (where all immune cell originate) … and they coincide with many adverse events locations and pathologies we have witnessed such as blindness, blurred vision, tinnitus, transient acquired immune deficiency…

Barriers Are There for A Good Reason…

Even a child knows barriers have a protective purpose: either to avoid falling into a cliff or a pool, avoid driving onto a track in front of a train… or avoid a crowd stampede…

Evolution didn’t come up with a wide numbers of special-purpose barriers just for the fun of it. Barriers in our bodies always prevent harmful events from occurring, and optimum elements to be provided when and where needed.

Several critical blood-to-tissue barriers play a critical role in our bodies filtering out toxic elements, selecting specific enabling nutrients at precise times, and also limiting immune cells that can be deleterious in a variety of locations, notably in the reproductive system.

[continued next post]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued]

Damaging blood-to-tissue barriers has necessarily serious reproductive consequences

You don’t want your husband’s T-cells mixing with his sperm cells, or your wife’s T-cells mixing with her ovocytes…your chances of having a fertile couple will probably plummet else these tight barriers probably wouldn’t exist.

Reproductive cells express unique genes that evidently are rarely encountered by the immune system. As such they can be perceived by the immune system as threats. For example, hTERT is a gene expressed to repair telomeres in the testis, so our babies start their lives with pristine genetics. hTERT is recuperated in 85% of cancers, and the immune system regularly reacts to this antigen… In other words, it’s “you”, but your immune system thinks it’s “foreign” because it never encountered that part of you, and it can end up destroying these reproductive cells.

Evidently, if the blood-to-tissue barrier is broken, trespassing immune cells will end up where they shouldn’t be and will inevitably do their job, triggering the destruction of reproductive cells.

The reproductive systems of both women and men are protected by a five endothelial blood-tissues barriers :

  • in Women:
    • the blood-follicle barrier (BFB) protects developing follicles in the ovary: it is thus fundamental to woman fertility
    • the blood-placenta barrier (BPB) feeds and protects the growing foetus; it needs to adapt as the placenta expands simultaneously with the foetus
    • the blood-milk barrier (BMB) protects the baby’s good health by controlling the quality of the milk supplied
  • in Men:
While it will take time to account for the true damage done to population fertility by these vaccines and their attacks on endothelial barriers, one can only be horrified to admit that already today in the US:

9% of men and 10% of women are infertile

As stated above, traditional attenuated vaccines also penetrate cells, even if they don’t hack them to produce an antigen. So adverse events that emerge more visibly today when a whole age-pyramid is vaccinated could well have been occurring in the past - invisible to the crowd and the medical community - when vaccination was done one class-age at a time … for decades.

The relative infertility equity across gender is very surprising to me given how different our reproductive systems are. It could be construed as a confirmation - or at least an intriguing hypothesis to investigate - that this loss in fertility is partly vaccine-induced.

Indeed transfecting vaccines will occasionally induce immune attacks against the protection barriers of ovocytes and sperm, possibly explaining the booming infertility levels - and the drop in sperm count - of the past decades.

Are the explosion of neurodegenerative diseases and the growing fertility problems each a different side of the same coin: the endothelial damage of over-prescribed vaccines?

The fact that 42% of women surveyed following Covid vaccination seem to have had increased menstrual bleeding post Covid-vaccination is indicative of a problem of massive proportion. Hopefully, only a small portion of that will ultimately be related to the vaccine…

The question is: Going forward, will 50% of couples have major difficulty becoming parents?

Why Vaccinating Pregnant Women Can Be Dangerous to the Foetus


Many doctors, health authorities and mainstream media have aggressively pushed for vaccinating pregnant women this past year. Frankly, when one considers the sensitive nature of pregnancy, the odds of Covid and the life-defining stakes, this is the sign of a truly dystopian society. Where has the Precautionary Principle gone ?!

Considering that the placenta acts both as a hospitable feeding cocoon to the baby-to-be-born as well as an adaptive protection, it is quite obvious that a pregnant woman should never be vaccinated given the possible nefarious consequences of vaccine endothelial transfection2 .

During the whole pregnancy, the placenta expands with the foetus, a nourishing infrastructure of blood vessels progressively growing and adapting to accompany the baby’s own accelerated growth. We know for a fact that these vaccine can disrupt not only the protection of the Blood-Placenta Barrier, but also the blood flow through clotting of the placental vasculature !

Any interruption or impediment to the normal development of the placenta will have serious repercussions on the baby. This is like waging war on the foetus by restricting his food supply and by risking destroying his cosy home … Sadly, we are witnessing many sinister signs that confirm the reality of this risk:

  • I recall a recent exchange on Substack with a grandmother who told me her daughter had vaccinated when she was pregnant and the baby was born underdeveloped. Apparently the blood vessels were restricted and hadn’t nourished sufficiently the baby … this is very much in line with inner blood vessel lining damage. And this can only have severe life-long consequences.
  • Multiple articles throughout the world are starting to emerge highlighting high levels of miscarriages and neonatal deaths with vaccinated pregnant women.

  • Some obstetricians and midwives are coming out:
    I’ve seen many, many, many complications in pregnant women, in moms and in foetuses, in children, offspring, foetal death, miscarriage, death of the foetus inside the mom.”
    Dr. James Thorp, MD board-certified in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • My dear friend Dr Jessica Rose was kind enough to prepare for us the pharmaco-vigilance data in VAERS, and found 1,615 spontaneous abortions to this date in the US. The under-reporting factor is likely to be very high, but at 41 that’s more than 66,000 spontaneous abortion in less than a year.

Credit: my friend Dr.Jessica Rose

Beyond the sheer fact that a healthy young woman doesn’t suffer from severe Covid, and therefore vaccination is absolutely not justified, it is quite evident that risking vaccine-induced endothelial damage during pregnancy is absolutely lunacy.

As a pregnant woman, you can’t eat blue cheese, but you can get injected 13 to 50 billion lipid nanoparticles - repeatedly - intended to hack healthy cells, produce innumerable toxic Spike proteins while your body is undergoing the most incredible and sensitive biological transformation: pregnancy…


Credit: NHS

We tend to forget that pregnancy is a major undertaking, an Herculean effort. We forget that, just a few decades ago, mothers-to-be would regularly die in labour. Adding the danger of these vaccines seems diabolically unfair, and quite honestly is heart breaking. Have we become barbarians?

Jean Rees @JeanRees10
DEATH -- 4 days post giving birth 32 yo female - MA 52 days post 2nd dose Pfizer "32 year old female received vaccines while pregnant with her 3rd child. Pt has asymptomatic Factor V Leiden. She delivered on 5/27/2021 and passed away on 5/31/2021."

Image
Image
March 23rd 2022
97 Retweets139 Likes



Any reasonably sane medical doctor should have forbidden these injections to pregnant women specifically. Doctors, health authorities and mainstream media all hold an unforgettable responsibility in the unwarranted death of tens of thousands of babies promised to a life of joy and happiness with their parents and siblings.

Having witnessed in utter awe and bliss the birth of four wonderful children, I find losing a child one of life’s most dire injustices. I find depriving a woman or a man of the capacity to share their love and to incarnate into a living little being attrociously unfair.

Where have we come as a civilisation that we kill our babies ? that we render our young infertile? What have we become ?

I will stop for tonight. I feel quite helpless as I write these lines to think what we have done as a society. I apologise. Killing our children is killing hope. They are our raison d’être. They are our innocence. They are an infinite joy.

It reminds me of my little girl asking me on a day I was dark: “Come and dance with me, my Prince!” and instantly illuminating my heart…

Love, Marc

PS: Vaccine nanoparticles injected directly in a vein will literally play pinball with your vascular system and have a very high probability of wreaking havoc with your health anywhere…




1
exceptions are also bound to happen when injecting billions of people…

2
Vaccine particule penetrate healthy cells = transfection = destruction by the immune system
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

On what basis are pregnant women being encouraged to take the Pfizer vaccine?
Sonia Elijah
May. 6, 2022, 4:00 p.m.
Opinion Article

Public furor has arisen over the FDA-release of Pfizer’s documents, not simply because the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep them confidential until 2096 but what the trove of data has exposed.

My analysis on the first wave of released documents was published in Trial Site News at the end of last year, long before any other media outlet reported on it. Since then, I’ve written several reports for Trial Site on subsequent Pfizer data dumps, which have highlighted numerous anomalies and alarming revelations. In my December 2021 report, I made reference to the missing information associated with the ‘Use in pregnancy and lactation which was somehow excluded from Pfizer’s original Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, submitted to the FDA. In the Pfizer amended version and in the subsequent reissue, 413 adverse cases were reported with 84 classified as serious.

Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.

public


The fact that out of the 270 pregnancies, 23 were reported as spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is disturbing but equally so is the further revelation that for the remaining 238 pregnancies ‘no outcome was provided.’

The data in the post-authorization report referenced above, was collected after emergency use authorization (EUA) was given in December 2020 for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2).

Pregnant women were officially excluded from Pfizer’s clinical trial

The elephant in the room appears to be the fact that Pfizer’s pivotal Phase 1/2/3 trial (which the FDA based their EUA upon) did not include pregnant women. This subpopulation was listed under Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol’s exclusion criteria, clearly stated in both the Nov 2020 version (on page 42) and in the updated March 2021 version (on page 81). The latter document was released by the FDA a year later on March 2022, thanks to the plaintiff group, PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) which filed a lawsuit against the FDA for failing to comply with their FOIA request for access to all the data the FDA relied upon to grant EUA for the Pfizer-BNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It’s also worth noting (see screenshot below) that on page 52 of the FDA’s EUA document it states there’s ‘insufficient data to make conclusion about the safety of the vaccine in..children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals..’

public


Also on page 6 in a document from the UK, entitled, ‘REG 174 Information for UK Healthcare Professionals,’ released around the same time as the FDA’s EUA in the US, it states, ‘There is limited experience with use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnant women..It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk.’ (See screenshot below)

public


COMIRNATY (the marketing name given to Pfizer’s BNT162B2 vaccine) was approved on August 23, 2021 for individuals aged 16 years and above. Buried within the package insert for COMIRNATY (that was last revised in December 2021) states, Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.’ (See screenshot below)

public


Shockingly, by spring of 2021, pregnant and lactating women were encouraged to the have this vaccine in the US (promoted by the CDC and other medical authorities) even when the FDA’s label (package insert) stated there was insufficient safety data.

What data did the US authorities rely on to say it was safe for pregnant women?


In February 2021, Pfizer began conducting their COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial in pregnant women, prior to that Pfizer and BioNTech completed a developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) study on rats (44 female rats in both the vaccine and placebo group) with BNT162b2, which was required by the FDA before starting the study in pregnant women. In Part 2 of my Trial Site News report on the Pfizer documents, I analysed the non-clinical overview report, which was released on the PHMPT website on March 1, 2022. Shockingly, it revealed no safety pharmacology, pharmacokinetic, genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies were done by Pfizer because they were not deemed ‘necessary.’

In early summer of 2021, a study (the DART study I make reference to above) entitled, ‘Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine’ was published in Elsevier and its online partner, Science Direct. The results of the DART study conducted on rats stated, ‘No adverse effects of BNT162b2 on rat offspring following maternal vaccination.’

Further statement was made:

‘Together with the safety profile in nonpregnant people, this ICH-compliant nonclinical safety data supports study of BNT162b2 in women of childbearing potential and pregnant and lactating women’.

It’s worth noting that all the authors of that study were Pfizer employees and that ‘Funding for this work came from BioNTech and Pfizer, Inc.’

This Pfizer-funded study done on rats, which was later used as evidence in paving the way that it was safe for pregnant women, starkly contradicts the alarming results seen in the ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’

The biased data the CDC relied on

In April 2021, the CDC recommended the Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women, based on a preliminary report from a retrospective cohort of >40,000 pregnant women. Of the total number, 36,015 were unvaccinated and a much smaller group of 10,064 received a COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen) at eight health care organization sites from Dec 15,2020- July 22, 2021. The report stated that ‘COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with preterm birth or small-for-gestational-age at birth overall, stratified by trimester of vaccination, or number of vaccine doses received during pregnancy, compared with unvaccinated pregnant women.’

The lead author of that report, Heather Lipkind is on the Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnancy Data Safety Monitoring Board. Kimberly Vesco, disclosed she receives institutional support from Pfizer. Candace Fuller disclosed she receives institutional research funding from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.

If you look at the table 2 of the vaccinated women, the majority were administered the vaccine in their third trimester!

public


This would have injected a significant confounding factor effecting the study results. This is because 80% of miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) occur in the first trimester. From the table above, only 1.7% of the 10,064 pregnant women were given the vaccine in their first trimester compared to 61.8% who were in their third. By the simple fact that COVID-19 vaccine was given to 61.8% of women in their third trimester renders this study limited and subject to significant bias.

This limitation was referenced in the report by the authors stating, ‘because of the timing of COVID-19 vaccine availability and the timing of the births in this cohort, few first-trimester vaccinations were observed.’

It’s interesting to note that the FDA still has not authorised any COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant women. They have also only fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (under the marketing name COMIRNATY) for people aged 16 years and above but granted emergency use authorization only for 12-15 year olds and from October 29, 2021 for 5-11 year olds.
The FDA packaging insert to this day, still states that there’s insufficient available safety data for pregnant women. Yet, despite the alarming results found in Pfizer’s cumulative adverse events report and the findings in the non-clinical review, which revealed that many safety studies were not done, the CDC continues to recommend this vaccine (with an estimated clinical trial completion date of February 2024 and no long term safety data) to pregnant women and not just to that subgroup but much younger age-groups of the population, which the FDA is just as guilty of.

Public furor has arisen over the FDA-release of Pfizer’s documents, not simply because the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep them confidential until 2096 but what the trove of data has exposed.

My analysis on the first wave of released documents was published in Trial Site News at the end of last year, long before any other media outlet reported on it. Since then, I’ve written several reports for Trial Site on subsequent Pfizer data dumps, which have highlighted numerous anomalies and alarming revelations. In my December 2021 report, I made reference to the missing information associated with the ‘Use in pregnancy and lactation which was somehow excluded from Pfizer’s original Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, submitted to the FDA. In the Pfizer amended version and in the subsequent reissue, 413 adverse cases were reported with 84 classified as serious.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment

05/06/22

COVID › NEWS

Exclusive: Pilots Injured by COVID Vaccines Speak Out: ‘I Will Probably Never Fly Again’

In interviews with The Defender, pilots injured by COVID-19 vaccines said despite a “culture of fear and intimidation” they are compelled to speak out against vaccine mandates that rob pilots of their careers — and in some cases their lives.

By
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

As a commercial pilot, Bob Snow had long looked forward to seeing his daughter follow in his footsteps by helping her learn to fly an airplane.

However, having received the COVID-19 vaccine “under duress,” this dream is no longer a possibility for Snow.

“I will probably never fly again,” Snow said in a video he made about his story. “I was hoping to teach my daughter to fly. She wants to be a pilot. That will probably never happen, all courtesy of the vaccine.”

Snow is one of a growing number of pilots coming forward to share stories of injuries they experienced after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Some of these accounts are “hair-raising and deeply disturbing,” according to Maureen Steele, a paralegal and head of media relations for the John Pierce Law Firm.

The firm represents U.S. Freedom Flyers (USFF), an organization opposing vaccine and mask mandates for pilots and airline staff, in a series of legal actions against the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and several airlines.

Josh Yoder, a pilot with a major commercial airline, Army combat veteran and former flight medic, is a co-founder of USFF.

In a recent interview with The Defender, Yoder said the FAA has been aware of cases of pilots suffering vaccine injuries since at least December 2021, when the California-based Advocates for Citizens’ Rights hand-delivered an open letter to the FAA, major airlines and their insurers.

Yoder said USFF “has received hundreds of phone calls from airline employees who are experiencing adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination,” describing the stories as “heartbreaking.”

According to Yoder, the warnings contained in the letter, including testimony by “world-renowned experts,” were “completely ignored,” adding that “we are now beginning to see the consequences.”

This is leading an increasing number of pilots to “come forward to expose the truth regarding these toxic injections,” Yoder said.

The Defender recently reported on a series of reports that have been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, involving pilots who sustained severe injuries and side effects following the COVID-19 vaccine.

Congressional testimony from Cody Flint, an agricultural pilot who has logged more than 10,000 flight hours, was included in this letter.

“The FAA has created a powder keg and lit the fuse,” Flint said in an interview with The Defender.

“We are now seeing pilots experiencing blood clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, dizziness and confusion at rates never seen before. Pilots are losing their careers and having to call in sick or go on medical leave from medical issues developing almost immediately after vaccination.”

Vaccine-injured pilots share stories with The Defender
Several pilots, including Bob Snow, shared their stories with The Defender in a recent series of interviews.

Snow, a captain with a major U.S. airline, told The Defender he received the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on Nov. 4, 2021, “as a result of an unambivalent company mandate to receive the vaccine or be terminated.”

According to Snow, he “began experiencing issues a little over two months” after receiving the vaccine. Due to a history of gastroenteritis, he underwent an endoscopy and an abdominal CT scan.

The results of the endoscopy were normal and Snow was awaiting the results of the CT scan when he suffered cardiac arrest on April 9, immediately after landing at Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport.

As Snow described it:

“I was very lucky to have collapsed when and where I did, as the aircraft was shut down at the gate post-flight and care was immediately provided.

“There was absolutely no warning preceding my collapse in the cockpit. It was literally as if someone ‘pulled the plug.’”

After receiving CPR and AED (automated external defibrillator) shocks to be revived, Snow spent almost a week in the hospital, where he was diagnosed with having sustained sudden cardiac arrest (SCA).

Medical studies indicate survival rates for out-of-hospital SCA cases are estimated at 10.8% to 11.4%.

Snow said:

“Needless to say, that’s not an encouraging number and I feel very, very lucky to have survived.

“Had this happened in a hotel, in flight, at home or almost anywhere else, I do not believe I would be here right now.”

Snow said prior to this incident, he had “no history of prior significant cardiac issues,” based on two EKGs (electrocardiograms) per year for each of the previous 10 years — none of which, according to Snow, “provided any indication of incipient issues that might lead to cardiac arrest.”

“I have no known family history to indicate a predisposition to developing significant cardiac issues at this point in my life,” Snow added.

Snow has been recuperating at home since April 15, while awaiting more tests that will provide a prognosis for his long-term survival.

However, it is likely that he will never fly again in any capacity.

Snow said, “[f]or now, it appears my flying career — indeed, likely all flying as a pilot — has come to a rapid and unexpected conclusion as SCA is a red flag to FAA medical certification.”

This, according to Snow, has resulted “in a significant loss of income and lifestyle,” adding that he has a college student and high school student at home and a non-working spouse who relied on his livelihood.

‘Last thing I remember is . . . praying I would make it’
Like Snow, Cody Flint had no prior medical history to indicate he was at risk.

“I have been extremely healthy my whole life with no underlying conditions,” said Flint, adding:

“As a pilot that held a second-class medical [certification], I was required to get a yearly FAA flight physical to show I was healthy enough to safely operate an airplane.

“I have renewed my medical every year since I was 17. The last FAA medical I received was on January 19, 2021. The medical showed I was perfectly healthy just 10 days before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Flint got his first (and only) dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on Feb. 1, 2021. He told The Defender:

“Within 30 minutes, I developed a severe burning headache at the base of my skull and blurred vision. After a few hours, the pain was constant, but didn’t seem to be getting worse. I thought the pain would go away, eventually. It did not.”

Two days later began his seasonal job as an agricultural pilot, which typically runs from February to October of each year, Flint said.

He said:

“Approximately one hour into my flight, I felt my condition starting to rapidly decline and I was developing severe tunnel vision. I pulled my airplane up to turn around to head home and immediately felt an extreme burst of pressure in my skull and ears.”

Flint initially considered landing on a nearby highway, unsure he’d make it back to the airstrip, but chose not to so as not to put the public in danger.

Instead, according to Flint:

“The last thing I remember is seeing our airstrip from a few miles out and praying I would make it.

“Later, my coworkers told me I landed and immediately stopped my plane. They described me as being unresponsive, shaking and slumped over in my seat … I do not remember landing or being pulled from the plane.”

Flint said various doctors, including his longtime hometown doctor, refused to consider that his recent COVID-19 vaccination caused his symptoms. Instead, he was prescribed Meclizine for vertigo and Xanax for panic attacks.

According to Flint, doctors told him he would be “completely better within two days.” But two days later, Flint “could barely walk without falling over.”

Seeking a second opinion, Flint visited the Ear & Balance Institute in Louisiana, where he was diagnosed with left and right perilymphatic fistulas (a lesion in the inner ear), and highly elevated intracranial pressure due to swelling in his brainstem.

As Flint described it, “[m]y intracranial pressure had risen so high that it caused both of my inner ears to ‘blow out.’” Doctors told him this is usually caused by major head trauma.

“Obviously, I did not have head trauma,” said Flint. “What I did have, though, was an unapproved and experimental ‘vaccine’ just two days prior to suffering this bodily damage.”

“My doctors [at the Ear & Balance Institute] clearly stated my health issues were a direct result of a severe adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine,” he added.

Flint says he now cannot receive renewed medical certification from the FAA due to the injuries he sustained, the physical condition he is currently in and “the fact that I will be on the FAA-unapproved medicine Diamox for the foreseeable future.”

Like Snow, Flint believes “it is … highly unlikely that I’ll ever be able to fly again,” adding, “On most days, I am too dizzy to even safely drive a vehicle.”

Greg Pierson, like Snow and Flint, shared a similar story. A commercial pilot with a major U.S. airline that is also a federal contractor, he was mandated to get vaccinated.

Pierson told The Defender:

“I felt extremely pressured to consider getting vaccinated, even though I am adamant against any mandates that violate personal freedom choices.

“I did research and consulted several medical professionals regarding the associated risks.

“I have never had a flu shot in my lifetime, so this was not something I wanted to do. I reluctantly received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine on August 26, 2021.”

For Pierson, the onset of symptoms was almost immediate, beginning “approximately 14 hours” after receiving the vaccine, when he experienced “an extremely erratic and highly elevated heart rate.”

Pierson visited a local emergency room, where he was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. His condition was stabilized and he was soon discharged, though he remained on medication to help his heart return to a normal rhythm.

While Pierson says he has not experienced any further episodes, he nevertheless still has not been cleared to return to the cockpit.

“I successfully passed all the required protocols to re-obtain my certification that will allow me to return to work,” he said, adding the FAA has had his records and test results since Feb. 16, but he still hasn’t received a determination.

“I have been on disability since this occurrence, and combined with the leave, the personal and financial impacts have been significant,” Pierson said.

Pierson also described a similar experience to that of Flint, regarding the attitudes of some medical professionals regarding the possibility that his condition was brought on by the COVID-19 vaccine.

“When I brought the subject up to the ER cardiologist, that it was obvious what triggered my onset, she simply stated ‘s*it happens,’” Pierson said.

Widow describes husband’s last days
Snow, Flint and Pierson are fortunate in that they have managed to survive, even if their flying careers are in jeopardy.

But other pilots have not been so lucky.

American Airlines pilot Wilburn Wolfe suffered a major seizure following his COVID-19 vaccination, which cost him his life. Fortunately, Wolfe was not on duty when his seizure hit.

Claudia Wolfe, his widow, shared her late husband’s story with The Defender.

Wolfe, a former Marine just a few years from retirement, “was definitely against getting this vaccine but was put in the position to take it or lose his job as a captain,” Claudia Wolfe said.

He received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Nov. 9, 2021.

Claudia Wolfe told The Defender:

“[The] first 10 days were without any event … [on] day 11, it started with a migraine-like headache which got better that afternoon after taking a couple of aspirin.

“Unfortunately, the migraine came back and he was hoping that it’s nothing else but a migraine.

“On November 22, 13 days after the COVID vaccine, he had a seizure. When paramedics arrived and my husband came out of the seizure, he was paralyzed on his right side, arm and leg, and was taken to the emergency room.”

At the emergency room, a CT scan showed he was experiencing brain bleeding, and he was admitted into intensive care. There, according to Claudia Wolfe, “he continued to have convulsions on his right hand … shortly after he was admitted, he had another seizure and doctors decided to sedate him and put him on a ventilator.”

“That was the last time I talked to my husband, before the seizure in the ICU,” Claudia Wolfe said.

Wolfe never regained consciousness and died on Nov. 26, 2021 — only 17 days after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Even if he had survived, he likely would not have been able to work as a pilot again.

As Claudia Wolfe explained:

“Doctors told me that he couldn’t work as a pilot anymore because he would have to be on seizure medication.

“But as the bleeding continued to spread I was told that he probably would not recognize me or his family and he probably would need a 24-hour facility to help him.

“This man was so strong and never needed a doctor, he was never sick enough to need one, and [he] just had a physical a couple months prior for his job as a pilot.”

Pilots describe culture of fear and reluctance to come forward
Pilots who spoke to The Defender described a culture of intimidation that has led to many of their colleagues fearing professional or personal consequences if they speak publicly about injuries following COVID-19 vaccination.

According to Yoder, “Many pilots and other airline employees capitulated to the tactics of threats, harassment and intimidation perpetrated by the very companies they serve.”

Yoder described airlines, as well as aviation industry unions, as “state actors” illegally “working in lockstep with the U.S. government” to “enforce unconstitutional mandates via a culture of fear.”

Snow told The Defender several of his colleagues shared stories of vaccine injuries with him:

“Since my SCA I have heard from several other airline personnel regarding potential vaccine injuries up to and including cardiac issues (chest pain and myocarditis).

“Many crewmembers are very reluctant to divulge potential significant health issues for fear of losing their FAA medical certification and, potentially, their careers.”

According to Snow, such fear exists “due to both concern for one’s career and also the fear of being portrayed as a vaccine skeptic.”

“There seems to be genuine reluctance on the part of corporations, businesses, government and the medical community in general to acknowledge the potential for COVID vaccine injury,” Snow said.

Claudia Wolfe also shared her experience, stating that following her husband’s death, she learned “of others that died after the COVID vaccine,” adding that “not many talk about it or believe this vaccine can harm or kill you.”

Pierson also expressed concerns, telling The Defender, “Some things I have stated publicly could have consequences in this regard.”

This culture of intimidation appears to extend beyond just accusations of being a “vaccine skeptic.”

Steele described incidents of airline employees’ non-work and online activities seemingly being monitored by their employers, who are then using this as a justification to question or harass those employees.

“I believe the airlines have people on staff that must be trolling the social media of employees and when they find a conservative, or someone they believe to be, they attack,” Steele said.

Steele said female employees appear to be particular targets of the airlines, as they “appear to be isolated and intimidated for hours on end.”

Flint connected incidents such as those described above to political interests, telling The Defender the FAA approved COVID-19 vaccines for pilots just two days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for such vaccines, on Dec. 10, 2020.

“I thought to myself, how could the FAA analyze the data and determine it was safe for pilots in just two days, when it took the FDA months to go over the trial data?” Flint said.

Flint said that was an especially jarring development, in light of the increased risk that pilots and cabin crew face:

“I was also extremely curious to know how the FAA is so certain that this vaccine will be safe for pilots when it’s obvious that Pfizer did not do a trial solely on pilots to find out if it would cause some of the serious health problems that immediately started to show up once the mass vaccination campaign [began].”

In the process, Flint stated, the FAA violated its own regulations.

Under the Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners: Pharmaceuticals (Therapeutic Medications) Do Not Issue – Do Not Fly, the FAA has a long-standing rule that states:

“FAA requires at least one year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes. This observation allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse reactions to manifest themselves.”

Flint said it “became painfully obvious” the FAA issued this guidance based not on science or safety, but political reasons.

“Why did the FAA abandon its own rules by encouraging pilots to take a brand-new experimental drug?” Flint asked. “This action by the FAA was totally unprecedented and extremely dangerous.”

Providing an example of such danger, Flint said, “it is now widely reported that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause blood clots,” adding that several peer-reviewed studies going back more than a decade “show pilots are approximately 60% more likely to experience blood clots due to the ‘nature of the job.’”

Supporting this assertion, on May 5, the FDA announced that it would restrict who could receive doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, due to the risk of blood clots.

/snip RTWT at Exclusive: Pilots Injured by COVID Vaccines Speak Out: ‘I Will Probably Never Fly Again’
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
This video is not available on youtube so I can't embed it. You can find it on Rumble at this link:


THE VANDEN BOSSCHE WARNING
The HighWire with Del Bigtree
1 hr 55 min
Published May 6, 2022

Acclaimed vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, sits down for his second groundbreaking interview with Del to explain why the intense pressure mass vaccination is putting on the Covid-19 virus will likely drive it to become catastrophically deadly.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I am posting what appears to be good news. however, if you watch the video I posted above with Geert Vanden Bossche, you may have the opposite opinion. fwiw.

(fair use applies)

The FDA Finally Admits We Should Treat COVID-19 Like The Flu
Dylan Housman Healthcare Reporter
May 03, 2022 8:37 PM ET

Top officials at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wrote Monday that, going forward, Americans will have to accept COVID-19 as another respiratory virus like influenza.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock and the agency’s top vaccine official, Dr. Peter Marks, wrote that COVID-19 will be in circulation for the foreseeable future and must be accepted as another common virus in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Like with influenza, this new reality will likely require annual COVID-19 shots to be tailored around the most threatening strains of the virus, the officials wrote.

From @US_FDA officials in @JAMA_current:
“society is moving toward a new normal that may well include annual COVID-19 vaccination alongside seasonal influenza vaccination”COVID-19 Vaccination—Becoming Part of the New Normal pic.twitter.com/Yp7gQChNvP
— Alexander Tin (@Alexander_Tin) May 2, 2022

“Widespread vaccine- and infection-induced immunity, combined with the availability of effective therapeutics, could blunt the effects of future outbreaks. Nonetheless, it is time to accept that the presence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is the new normal,” the officials wrote. “It will likely circulate globally for the foreseeable future, taking its place alongside other common respiratory viruses such as influenza. And it likely will require similar annual consideration for vaccine composition updates in consultation with the [FDA].”

In the earliest days of the pandemic, some elected officials and commentators attempted to equate COVID-19 to the flu, but the coronavirus pandemic turned out to be far deadlier, killing nearly one million Americans. However, since vaccines for the virus became widely available last year, the threat of mortality from COVID-19 has trended closer to seasonal influenza, although the former has been far more contagious.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Here is the article reference in the post above this. Again, if you watch the video with Geert and Del, you may have a completely different reaction upon reading it.

(fair use applies)

Viewpoint

COVID-19 Vaccination—Becoming Part of the New Normal
Peter Marks, MD, PhD1; Janet Woodcock, MD1; Robert Califf, MD1
Author Affiliations
JAMA. Published online May 2, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7469
COVID-19 Resource Center
May 2, 2022


As the US emerges from the recent Omicron surge of the COVID-19 pandemic following close to a million deaths in the country attributable to COVID-19, many people are hoping that the worst is over.1 Widespread vaccine- and infection-induced immunity, combined with the availability of effective therapeutics, could blunt the effects of future outbreaks. Nonetheless, it is time to accept that the presence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is the new normal. It will likely circulate globally for the foreseeable future, taking its place alongside other common respiratory viruses such as influenza. And it likely will require similar annual consideration for vaccine composition updates in consultation with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). A recent meeting of the VRBPAC on April 6, 2022, resulted in a lively discussion and agreement on many considerations for planning for upcoming approaches to COVID-19 vaccine strain composition decision-making, development, and recommendations.

COVID-19 vaccines, developed and deployed in record time based on foundational scientific and clinical research conducted over the preceding decade, have conservatively saved tens of thousands of lives in the US and many more across the globe.2 Although data show that third doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines provide more durable protection against the severe outcomes of hospitalization and death, only 45% of the US population has received a third vaccine dose, including only about 68% of those older than 65 years—the individuals at greatest risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19.3 Because fourth doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were only recently authorized for those older than 50 years, it is too early to assess their effects on protection against serious outcomes of COVID-19 in the US. However, robust observational data from Israel with a large sample size showed additional protection against hospitalization and death in that population.4

During this coming fall-to-winter period, 3 factors may come together to place the country’s population at risk of COVID-19, particularly those who are unvaccinated or who are not up-to-date with vaccination. These factors include (1) waning immunity from prior vaccine or prior infection, (2) further evolution of SARS-CoV-2, and (3) seasonality of respiratory virus infection, waves of which are generally more severe in the fall to winter months when individuals move their activities indoors.

By summer, decisions will need to be made for the 2022-2023 season about who should be eligible for vaccination with additional boosters and regarding vaccine composition. Administering additional COVID-19 vaccine doses to appropriate individuals this fall around the time of the usual influenza vaccine campaign has the potential to protect susceptible individuals against hospitalization and death, and therefore will be a topic for FDA consideration.

Those at greatest risk who might benefit most from vaccination include immunocompromised individuals and people older than 50 years, given the prevalence of comorbidities that increase the risk of severe disease and death in this latter group. Additional groups that might benefit include those who are unvaccinated (including children) or not up-to-date with vaccination (eg, those who have received only 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine or have not received a booster dose).5 The benefit of giving additional COVID-19 booster vaccines to otherwise healthy individuals 18 to 50 years of age who have already received primary vaccination and a first booster dose is not likely to have as marked an effect on hospitalization or death as in the other populations at higher risk (noted above). However, booster vaccinations could be associated with a reduction in health care utilization (eg, emergency department or urgent care center visits).

Around the same time that a decision is made regarding who should be eligible for vaccination, a decision will also need to be made on the COVID-19 vaccine composition. To provide maximal benefit across the entire age spectrum, careful consideration will need to be given to the choice of the SARS-CoV-2 variant(s) to cover in the COVID-19 vaccines for the fall and winter of the 2022-2023 season. This is because the variant(s) covered by the vaccine may have an important influence on both the extent and duration of protection against a future SARS-CoV-2 variant(s) that may circulate. Better alignment between the variant(s) covered by the vaccine and circulating variant(s) of SARS-CoV-2 might be expected to prevent a broader spectrum of disease, potentially for a longer time. In the event of a major fall or winter wave, a vaccine with optimal variant coverage might facilitate significant reductions in lost productivity and health care utilization from both acute and chronic complications of COVID-19, including postacute COVID-19 syndrome.6 Of note, in the past, such an overall public health benefit in an otherwise healthy younger population has been considered during the annual influenza vaccine campaign.7

In terms of practical considerations, at the recent meeting of the VRBPAC, there was relatively uniform agreement that a single vaccine composition used by all manufacturers was desirable and that data would be needed to inform and drive the selection of a monovalent, bivalent, or multivalent COVID-19 vaccine.8 There was also general agreement that, should a new vaccine composition be recommended based on the totality of the available clinical and epidemiologic evidence, optimally it could be used for both primary vaccination as well as booster administration.

The timeframe to determine the composition of the COVID-19 vaccine for the 2022-2023 season, to use alongside the seasonal influenza vaccine for administration in the Northern Hemisphere beginning in about October, is compressed because of the time required for manufacturing the necessary doses. A decision on composition will need to be made in the US by June 2022. Because of this timing, the FDA, in consultation with the VRBPAC, will need to arrive at a recommendation for the future composition of the US COVID-19 vaccines for 2022-2023 based on the available evidence and predictive modeling, with the understanding that there will be some inherent residual uncertainty about the further evolution of SARS-CoV-2. To date, the original, or prototype, vaccine composition deployed has been reasonably good at protecting against severe outcomes from COVID-19. However, a greater depth and duration of protection might be achieved with a vaccine covering currently circulating variants.

As plans are being developed for the coming fall and winter, it is critical that patients and caregivers understand the profound benefit of a booster dose of the mRNA vaccines or a second vaccine dose of any kind after the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine and that this understanding leads to action now in the face of a current uptick in infection rates. Clinicians should not be susceptible to inertia and should continue to recommend that patients get their COVID-19 vaccination status up to date, meaning primary vaccination and relevant booster(s). There is no evidence that getting vaccinated now will have adverse effects or toxicity that would preempt the administration of an additional vaccine dose in the fall months if there is evidence of waning of immunity, a new variant, or an adverse seasonal pattern.

Vaccines, as public health interventions, have been responsible over the past century for reducing an unimaginable amount of morbidity and for saving millions of lives. The eradication of smallpox and near elimination of several other infectious diseases are an unambiguous triumph of modern medicine. During the 2022-2023 COVID-19 vaccine planning and selection process, it is important to recognize that the fall season will present a major opportunity to improve COVID-19 vaccination coverage with the goal of minimizing future societal disruption and saving lives. With the plan for implementation of this year’s vaccine selection process, society is moving toward a new normal that may well include annual COVID-19 vaccination alongside seasonal influenza vaccination.

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, WO71-7232, Silver Spring, MD 20993 (peter.marks@fda.hhs.gov).
Published Online: May 2, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7469
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Related to roles held prior to his confirmation as FDA commissioner, Dr Califf reported receiving personal fees from Alphabet Inc (Google LLC and Verily Life Sciences LLC), Centessa Pharmaceuticals PLC, Clinetic Inc, Cytokinetics Inc, and Medicxi Ventures (UK) LLP outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Additional Information: Dr Marks is director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr Woodcock is principal deputy commissioner, and Dr Califf is commissioner, all at the US Food and Drug Administration.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Coronavirus wave this fall could infect 100 million, administration warns
The projections for fall and winter are part of a pitch for additional funding for vaccines, treatments and tests
By Yasmeen Abutaleb and Joel Achenbach
Yesterday at 6:51 p.m. EDT

The Biden administration is warning the United States could see 100 million coronavirus infections and a potentially significant wave of deaths this fall and winter, driven by new omicron subvariants that have shown a remarkable ability to escape immunity.

The projection, made Friday by a senior administration official during a background briefing as the nation approaches a covid death toll of 1 million, is part of a broader push to boost the nation’s readiness and persuade lawmakers to appropriate billions of dollars to purchase a new tranche of vaccines, tests and therapeutics.

In forecasting 100 million potential infections during a cold-weather wave later this year and early next, the official did not present new data or make a formal projection. Instead, he described the fall and winter wave as a scenario based on a range of outside models of the pandemic. Those projections assume that omicron and its subvariants will continue to dominate community spread, and there will not be a dramatically different strain of the virus, the official said, acknowledging the pandemic’s course could be altered by many factors.

Several experts agreed that a major wave this fall and winter is possible given waning immunity from vaccines and infections, loosened restrictions and the rise of variants better able to escape immune protections.

Many have warned that the return to more relaxed behaviors, from going maskless to participating in crowded indoor social gatherings, would lead to more infections. The seven-day national average of new infections more than doubled from 29,312 on March 30 to nearly 71,000 Friday, a little more than five weeks later.

“What they’re saying seems reasonable — it’s on the pessimistic side of what we projected in the covid-19 scenario modeling run,” said Justin Lessler, an epidemiologist at University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health. “It’s always hard to predict the future when it comes to covid, but I think we’re at a point now where it’s even harder than normal. Because there’s so much sensitivity, in terms of these long-term trends, to things we don’t understand exactly about the virus and about [human] behavior,” Lessler said.

Another modeler, epidemiologist Ali Mokdad of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, said in an email Friday that a winter surge is likely. His organization, which has made long-term forecasts despite the many uncertainties, just produced a new forecast that shows a modest bump in cases through the end of May and then a decline until the arrival of winter.

The administration official said the latest forecasts are being shared with lawmakers on Capitol Hill as the White House seeks to restart stalled negotiations over appropriating more funding for the coronavirus response. While the White House had sought $22.5 billion, key Senate lawmakers clinched a bipartisan deal for $10 billion in covid aid last month.
But a dispute over the administration’s decision to relax pandemic restrictions at the U.S. border upended swift passage of the deal, which has now languished for weeks.

White House officials have said they’re concerned that a significant portion of the nation’s supply of antivirals and tests will be exhausted as a result of an anticipated increase in cases in the South this summer. Without those tools, they say the country would be unprepared for a fall and winter surge, and deaths and hospitalizations could dramatically increase.

If Congress remains stalled, the official said, the administration would likely pull money that was set aside for more tests and therapeutics to purchase more vaccines — decisions that will leave the country more vulnerable than it should be.

The projected summer wave in the South, which would mirror similar upticks in 2020 and 2021, is particularly concerning because of the region’s lower vaccination and booster rates. While deaths in the Northeast have held steady amid a sharp increase in cases in that region over the last several weeks, the South remains more vulnerable because fewer people have gotten the shots, the official said.

That forecast is echoed by outside experts. “For some reason, we see a seasonality in these peaks. We’re seeing a very high rate of cases in the South during the summer months, possibly because so many people are inside because its so hot there,” said Mercedes Carnethon, epidemiologist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Part of the administration’s challenge in responding to the pandemic is that the virus keeps mutating in ways that have sometimes surprised scientists. Omicron, most notably, emerged in southern Africa with stunning speed in November with a package of mutations and came from a different part of the virus’s family tree than the delta variant it replaced. The origin of omicron remains unknown.

Omicron has since spun off many subvariants that are even more transmissible than the original strain. The BA.2 omicron subvariant continues to account for a majority of new infections in the United States, but the BA.2.12.1 subvariant is rapidly gaining ground and may soon become the most common strain. Meanwhile, two other highly transmissible variants, BA.4 and BA.5, have fueled a recent surge in infections in South Africa.

“Predicting new variants that are going to spill out — that’s total guesswork,” said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University. “Predicting that they’re going to be successful, that’s guesswork as well.”

Another big unknown that might affect the size and severity of another wave is whether there will be more effective vaccines available by fall. Both Pfizer and Moderna are working on new booster shots that combine different versions of the coronavirus to protect against variants, but it remains unclear whether they will be more effective than existing vaccines. Administration officials said they hope they will be able to distribute such boosters in the fall, particularly to the elderly and those most at risk of severe infection and death.

Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University, said the longer the time period between coronavirus waves, the greater the number of people who will be vulnerable to infection because of waning immunity.

“That just puts vulnerable people back at risk,” Dean said. “It seems likely there will continue to be these ups and downs.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Researchers Track COVID-19 Infection Dynamics in the Saliva and Nasal Cavities
By University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
May 7, 2022

A research team led by scientists at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) tracked the rise and fall of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that caused COVID-19) in the saliva and nasal cavities of people newly infected with the virus. The study was the first to follow acute COVID-19 infections over time through repeated sampling and to compare results from different testing methodologies.

The findings were reported in the journal Nature Microbiology.

“We capture the most complete, high-resolution, quantitative picture of how SARS-CoV-2 replicates and sheds in people during natural infection. There are no other data like this,” said U. of I. microbiology professor Christopher B. Brooke, who led the research with microbiology and statistics professor Pamela P. Martinez and pathobiology professor Rebecca L. Smith. “The study sheds light on several aspects of infection that were poorly understood, that are important for both public health purposes as well as just fundamental biology.”

The study grew out of the SHIELD: Target, Test, Tell initiative, the U. of I.’s COVID-19 response program, which began testing staff, students and faculty members twice per week in fall 2020. Illinois researchers realized that the testing data could be a treasure trove of information about the course of infection: for example, how fast different SARS-CoV-2 variants replicated, and how individuals differed in their ability to clear the infection. The team received Institutional Review Board approval to pursue such a study.

The National Institutes of Health stepped in to fund the effort to compare PCR tests, which amplify and detect viral RNA, with rapid antigen tests, which look for proteins associated with the virus. This funding made other aspects of the study possible.

Starting within 24 hours of an initial positive test, the team took daily nasal and saliva samples from adults who tested positive for COVID-19 infection. The 60 participants in the study ranged from 19 to 73 years old. The study followed each person up to 14 days.

Determining how long infected individuals may be shedding viable virus – in their saliva or nasal passages, for example – is key to understanding how the virus spreads and persists in a population, Brooke said. To do this, the team also used viral culture assays to measure the shedding of infectious virus in their samples.

“Just because you see a signal of virus by PCR or antigen tests doesn’t mean that there’s actually live virus there that could replicate and shed and transmit to someone else,” Brooke said.

Ruian Ke, a collaborator at Los Alamos National Laboratory and first author of the paper, used a variety of mathematical models to help the team understand how the data may reflect underlying infection processes and identify factors influencing the course of infection.

The effort revealed that some individuals were shedding live virus for only a day or two, while others continued to shed the virus for up to nine days.

“Based on that finding, we predict that those people who are shedding virus for more than a week are going to be a much greater risk of transmission than someone who only has live virus detectable for a day or two,” Brooke said.

“This is a very key finding,” Martinez said. “People have observed that viral transmission is heterogenous, but most attribute those differences to individual behavior. We assume that superspreaders are less cautious or are in contact with more people. This shows that intrinsic infection dynamics also play an important role.”

The researchers also discovered that viral genome loads – detectable with PCR technology – peaked much earlier in saliva samples than in nasal swabs.

This suggests “that saliva may serve as a superior sampling site for early detection of infection,” the researchers wrote.
The scientists saw no meaningful differences in the infection dynamics of early circulating variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the alpha variant. This indicates that the alpha variant’s higher transmissibility “cannot be explained by higher viral loads or delayed clearance,” the researchers wrote.

The team saw no meaningful correlations between people’s symptoms and the course of infection. While it is often assumed that those who have more symptoms are likely to be more infectious, that may not always hold true, Brooke said. The implications of this part of the research may be limited, however, by the fact that all the participants in the study were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and none were hospitalized.

“Overall, this study helps explain why some people are more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 than others,” Brooke said.


Reference: “Daily longitudinal sampling of SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals substantial heterogeneity in infectiousness” by Ruian Ke, Pamela P. Martinez, Rebecca L. Smith, Laura L. Gibson, Agha Mirza, Madison Conte, Nicholas Gallagher, Chun Huai Luo, Junko Jarrett, Ruifeng Zhou, Abigail Conte, Tongyu Liu, Mireille Farjo, Kimberly K. O. Walden, Gloria Rendon, Christopher J. Fields, Leyi Wang, Richard Fredrickson, Darci C. Edmonson, Melinda E. Baughman, Karen K. Chiu, Hannah Choi, Kevin R. Scardina, Shannon Bradley, Stacy L. Gloss, Crystal Reinhart, Jagadeesh Yedetore, Jessica Quicksall, Alyssa N. Owens, John Broach, Bruce Barton, Peter Lazar, William J. Heetderks, Matthew L. Robinson, Heba H. Mostafa, Yukari C. Manabe, Andrew Pekosz, David D. McManus and Christopher B. Brooke, 28 April 2022, Nature Microbiology.

DOI: 10.1038/s41564-022-01105-z

Brooke, Martinez and Smith are affiliates of the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology at the U. of I. Smith also is a faculty member in the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at Illinois.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health supported this research.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

COVID drug paxlovid might also fight long COVID
May 6, 2022

An antiviral drug used to treat high-risk COVID-19 patients may also benefit patients with long COVID, researchers say.

Paxlovid has U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization to treat COVID-19 patients who are older than 65 or have underlying health conditions such as obesity, diabetes or cancer. The pill includes the antivirals nirmatrelvir and ritonavir.

Treatment with Paxlovid must start within five days of the onset of symptoms and continue for five days, according to conditions of the authorization.

Now, a series of case reports from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) shows some success with Paxlovid in treating patients with long COVID. One-third of people infected with the coronavirus are thought to develop symptoms such as fatigue, headaches and brain fog associated with long COVID.

It's thought that long COVID may be caused by the immune system's ongoing reaction to the virus that remains in the body after the initial infection phase.

"Data from other studies shows that SARS-CoV-2 might linger for months," said study co-author Dr. Michael Peluso. He is an assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UCSF and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

"A recent study shows persistent shedding of virus from the gastrointestinal tract for up to seven months in some people. This doesn't mean the virus is infectious, but there might be pieces of the virus, or viral activity, that could be stimulating the immune system," Peluso said in a university news release.

The case reports included three patients in their 40s who had symptoms consistent with long COVID.

Two started taking Paxlovid weeks after the start of long COVID symptoms, contrary to the emergency authorization conditions. One was prescribed the antiviral after re-exposure to the virus more than seven weeks after symptom onset, and his health improved to near-normal, according to the researchers.

The other patient took Paxlovid about three weeks after symptom onset. She felt less fatigued the day after completing therapy, but still had shortness of breath and muscle pain.

"It seems that Paxlovid may benefit patients with long COVID, but there is no way to access the drug unless a doctor is willing to break the rules, which we are not advocating," Peluso said.

The third patient started taking Paxlovid within 24 hours of the start of COVID-19 symptoms, in line with the emergency use conditions. His symptoms improved, but returned four days after he completed Paxlovid therapy, with fever, runny nose, cough and chest pain. He also had elevated temperature and heart and respiratory rates.

About two weeks later, he developed brain fog, chest soreness, fatigue and discomfort after exertion—symptoms consistent with long COVID.

"The key aspect of this case is that longer courses of Paxlovid may be needed, and giving it too early might not be optimal," Peluso said. He noted that there is no safety data yet to support extended use of the drug.

The case series was posted online May 5 on the preprint server Research Square. It has not been peer-reviewed or published in a journal so the findings should be considered preliminary. The results need to be confirmed with future stringent studies, the authors emphasized.

"Only by doing rigorous studies will we get answers," Peluso said. "There is a critical need for this, given the large number of people who have had COVID, a significant subset of whom have long COVID."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

BOLDING IN ORIGINAL, not added by me


Preventable Deaths and D3.
The Ugly History of Vitamin D3 and Fauci's pro-Vaccine Bias
Robert W Malone MD, MS
19 hr ago

We had an inexpensive life-saving solution both before and during the pandemic…

The inconvenient truth is that even at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a very simple, inexpensive and effective treatment was available that could have saved the majority of lives lost (1-3). All that the WHO and public health bureaucracy had to do was to recommend and support people taking sufficient Vitamin D3. This failure to act traces back to the unscientific bias and pro-vaccine obsession of Dr. Anthony Fauci. And once again the legacy media, while being paid by the US government and the pharmaceutical industry to promote vaccination, acted by censoring, defaming and suppressing the ability of physicians to inform people of scientific truth. The disease you suffered, the loss of life among your family and friends, could have been greatly reduced by simply getting enough Vitamin D3. This is another example of what happens when unelected bureaucrats are allowed to control free speech. Crimes against humanity.

The effectiveness of Vitamin D3 as an immune system-boosting prophylactic treatment for influenza and other respiratory RNA viruses was first discovered in 2006 (4, 5). Despite that fact that this treatment is amazingly effective for preventing death (by strengthening your immune system), it has never been investigated by the NIH, promoted by the CDC or by the US government for the treatment of influenza. One major issue has been that uncontrolled variables of dosing, timing of dosing and disease status have resulted in inconsistent clinical trial results (much as we have seen with the Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine COVID trials). However, when Vitamin D3 is given prophylactically at sufficient doses, there is clear and compelling evidence that Vitamin D blood levels of around 50 ng/ml will substantially reduce symptomatic infection, severe disease and mortality.

Longstanding worldwide public health policy is that Vitamin D should be taken at sufficient levels (typically supplemented in milk products) to prevent the bone disease called rickets. But this is just a minimal level to prevent a very obvious debilitating disease. The recommended Vitamin D levels in our milk are not sufficient for the more subtle immune system-boosting effects of this critical vitamin/hormone. Our bodies’ way of normally producing Vitamin D requires a lot of sunlight, but life in the modern world and northern latitudes make this difficult- particular in winter months, which is often when the respiratory viruses cause the most disease and death. In a sense, disease and death from Influenza and other respiratory RNA viruses are a lifestyle disease. Just the way things are. Largely avoidable unnecessary death.

As I write the above, I am reminded that I recently spoke with a scientist and physician who was on a team at the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2006 which had discovered a surprising finding while analyzing data from warfighters. He and his team had been looking for things that could help explain why some soldiers got bad disease from circulating influenza viruses, while others did not. I hear a lot of stories, but this one was a first for me.

In any given year, soldiers pretty much all get exposed to the same influenza virus variants, so why the differences in medical outcomes? Important to keep in mind that lots of data suggest that the 1918 “Spanish Flu” that swept the world at the close of WW I and caused so many deaths in relatively young people may well have come from young US midwestern recruits exposed to pig influenza viruses. This version of the 1918 influenza origin story goes along the lines that these young farmer recruits brought a human-adapted pig virus from US to the European battle theater, where it incubated in the infectious disease petri dish of the horrible conditions of trench warfare, and then was spread worldwide to civilians by returning soldiers. The “Spanish Flu” label which the US mainstream media of the time applied to the disease was yet another case of propaganda designed to deflect responsibility for a lethal infectious disease outbreak (from the US Government). In any case, you can understand why the DoD and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in particular has a long history of influenza virus research - starting long before the CDC, NIH or NIAID ever existed.

This DoD research scientist and his team had conducted a retrospective study which tied higher baseline vitamin D levels to lowered respiratory virus infection and disease (influenza), using a military database to correlate vitamin D levels to flu levels and death. The DoD believed that if he presented his research to Dr. Fauci, then Director of NIAID (National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), that the US government might change direction by investing in this line of research and developing corresponding treatment guidelines. The DoD saw the potential of reducing influenza disease and death with this safe prophylactic, and directed him to contact Dr. Fauci to discuss this finding.

This scientist told me that he scheduled the meeting as assigned, and presented his rock-solid data to Dr. Fauci. He was then informed by Dr. Fauci that US policy is to control influenza in the USA with vaccines, not therapeutics. End of story.
No funding or support available for future work. Therefore, NIAID had no interest in pursuing Vitamin D3 as a prophylactic for respiratory diseases, such as influenza, and the DoD dropped the follow up. That means that over fifteen years ago, Dr. Fauci had already set the policies which informed the US government’s present response to COVID. Because that policy extends well beyond flu, it is the response that the US Government falls back on for all infectious disease outbreaks, including those that emerge due to a pandemic or viral biothreat. The official policy, set by Dr. Fauci, is that the US government wants vaccines for respiratory viruses above all else, and no other prophylactic solutions are to be promoted.

So, with that background, why would anyone expect anything else other than an exclusive USG obsession with a vaccine solution for an infectious respiratory disease such as COVID-19, even if there are excellent, cheap alternatives already available?

The data for the use of Vitamin D3 is extremely strong; there are now even randomized clinical trials supporting its use for the treatment of COVID (6), as well as many retrospective clinical trials showing its efficacy. The title of a major meta-analysis study published in October, 2021 is “COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” and that title pretty much says it all (7). Yet the NIH treatment guidelines found on their website in May 2022, state that:

“Recommendation: There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of Vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”

The CDC’s website says nothing about the link between Vitamin D3 levels and decreased severe disease and death in respiratory virus diseases, including COVID. The NIH guidelines cite a single study in which Vitamin D was given to COVID patients in the intensive care unit (late stage COVID) in Brazil as the sole criteria for their evaluation of Vitamin D. They even mention that this paper is flawed, writing that:

“It should be noted that this study had a small sample size and enrolled participants with a variety of comorbidities and concomitant medications. The time between symptom onset and randomization was relatively long”

Yet this admittedly flawed work is the cited study from which the NIH determined that there is no link between Vitamin D levels and reduced incidence and disease due to SARS-CoV-2, while ignoring all other data including superior studies. Clear documentation of the scientific bias which has resulted in so many poor public health management decisions throughout the current outbreak.

There is nothing in the CDC guidelines about the meta-analysis studies, retrospective studies and even randomized clinical trials concerning preventative use of Vitamin D3– just an oblique reference to clinicaltrials.gov if one wanted more information. This is shocking. Can this be explained by anything other than regulatory capture by the US government institutes within the department of Health and Human Services, including CDC, NIH, and FDA?

With an emerging infectious disease, drugs and therapeutics are often the first line of defense. Physicians use deductive reasoning when confronted with a new infectious disease or even any unknown disease. This is how they are taught to respond to a newly identified disease of any kind, because it is a very effective way to treat when faced with an unknown or even unclear diagnosis when there is no proven treatment plan (8). Begin by treating the symptoms until you can figure out the underlying pathophysiology.

With COVID, it became clear early on that the front-line physicians were able to develop effective therapies using this strategy. There were many drugs, and many treatments (including prophylactic Vitamin D3) that worked. These physicians made deductions and treated the symptoms. The numbers of lives saved using this method are astounding, but the government literally said that physicians should not use these treatments. Instead, the government instructed that patients were to go home and wait until their oxygen levels were so low, that their lips were turning blue. That was criminal on the part of the HHS and US government. Truly a crime against humanity.

There are doctors who ignored these guidelines and behaved like doctors should act- when they are committed to the Hippocratic oath. They saved lives. They formed quiet communities with other doctors to find viable treatments. Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson are two such doctors that have saved thousands and thousands of lives, as documented in their book titled: “Overcoming the COVID-19 Darkness: How Two Doctors Successfully Treated 7000 Patients” (9). Compare the case studies and protocols in this book and the many complementary case histories of physicians working on the front lines (for example in the USA Drs. Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Paul Marik, Vladimir (Zev) Zelenko, and Richard Urso, and Didier Raoult and his colleagues in France as just a few examples) to what happened when the US government became involved in dictating medical treatments for COVID.

Unfortunately, the US government did not support any of this frontline physician work', and in fact worked hard to undermine early multi-drug treatment using licensed drugs. Precisely as Dr. Fauci did 15 years ago when his learned of the role of vitamin D3 for the reduction of disease and death in respiratory diseases.

To further illustrate the enormous tragedy of this historic bias, just think of all the elderly who could have had a few more good years, whose grandchildren could have benefited from their wisdom, but instead died of the flu just because no one ever told them to keep their Vitamin D3 levels up. Because Dr. Fauci believes that vaccines should always be the first line of defense.

This also relates back to the faulty logic of vaccine-induced herd immunity. A logical fallacy that through the use of vaccines we could control influenza to a significant extent in the U.S. population. This is flawed because 1) influenza is constantly mutating to escape existing vaccines, 2) there is a large seasonal unvaccinated world population, and travelers are constantly bringing new strains to the USA, 3) the vaccines are at best 40% (and often much less) effective at preventing influenza disease (sound familiar?), and 4) there are enormous animal reservoirs which harbor and constantly develop new influenza virus strains. But due to the world’s success in eradicating smallpox, “official” public health (and Mr. Bill Gates) can not seem to understand that not all viruses are a DNA virus (like smallpox) that mutates extremely slowly and is only found in humans. Comparing smallpox to a rapidly mutating respiratory virus with a large animal reservoir is both illogical and naive.

But let’s take a step back in time, a decade back. Let’s imagine that Dr. Fauci had authorized the DoD or some other research entity to do a well-designed randomized clinical trial concerning the benefits of adequate D3 levels in preventing respiratory virus disease. If such a trial had been funded, results would have shown that higher vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve blood levels greater than 50 ng/ml helped prevent disease and death caused by influenza virus. Lets’ imagine that five years later (at the latest), a CDC guideline for D3 levels was put in place (particularly for the elderly). For sake of discussion, let’s even throw out a number. A conservative number, based on what we know now. That 50% of the people who have died from influenza could have been saved if they had sufficiently high vitamin D3 blood levels. Per a CDC website, on average 35.7 thousand people die per year of influenza. In other words, about 357,000 people have died of influenza over the last decade. Which means if 50% were saved by providing Vitamin D3 supplements, then 161,000 people could have been saved over the last decade in the USA by simply having the CDC advocate nationally for prophylactic administration of Vitamin D3. Think about that. A simple, pennies per day treatment that never happened. Why? Because Dr. Fauci believes that the USA uses vaccines to treat flu, and that vaccine-induced herd immunity is key – a fallacy that he has never revisited in his own mind.

Now let’s fast forward to COVID-19. How many people could have been saved from just having their levels of vitamin D3 brought up to 50 ng/ml (or higher!)? We knew about vitamin D3. It really didn’t take a randomized clinical trial to understand the link between D3 and RNA respiratory virus morbidity and mortality. The U.S.A alone could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Let alone all of the possible lives that could have been saved in the rest of the world.
That these lives were unnecessarily lost is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. A crime against humanity.

Many people (and physicians) rely on the CDC and NIH to guide them in healthcare and wellness decisions. It is way past time that these organizations step up to the plate and do their job, and stop relying on the unscientific biases of highly influential bureaucrats. That job being to protect the health of the public. Not advancing the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and its shareholders.

1. Brenner H, Holleczek B, Schottker B. Vitamin D Insufficiency and Deficiency and Mortality from Respiratory Diseases in a Cohort of Older Adults: Potential for Limiting the Death Toll during and beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic? Nutrients. 2020;12(8).
2. Ilie PC, Stefanescu S, Smith L. The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32(7):1195-8.
3. Maruotti A, Belloc F, Nicita A. Comments on: The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32(8):1621-3.
4. Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Umhau JC, Holick MF, Grant WB, Madronich S, et al. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;134(6):1129-40.
5. Grant WB, Garland CF. The role of vitamin D3 in preventing infections. Age Ageing. 2008;37(1):121-2.
6. Villasis-Keever MA, Lopez-Alarcon MG, Miranda-Novales G, Zurita-Cruz JN, Barrada-Vazquez AS, Gonzalez-Ibarra J, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent COVID-19 in Frontline Healthcare Workers. A Randomized Clinical Trial. Arch Med Res. 2022.
7. Borsche L, Glauner B, von Mendel J. COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13(10).
8. Shin HS. Reasoning processes in clinical reasoning: from the perspective of cognitive psychology. Korean J Med Educ. 2019;31(4):299-308.
9. Tyson B, Fareed, G.Crawford, M. Overcoming the COVID-19 Darkness: How Two Doctors Successfully Treated 7000 Patients. Amazon2022 Jan 7, 2022.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

BOLDING IN ORIGINAL, not added by me

More troubling data for the vaccine: athletes, UCSF, government silence
A 22X increase in athlete deaths that nobody can explain, 75% of UCSF/Marin radiology department says "no way" to the booster, and world governments no longer break out stats for vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.
Steve Kirsch
9 hr ago

If the vaccines are perfectly safe and effective, then explain these three items for me:

1. If the vaccine is so safe, then why is there a 22X increase in the athlete death rate of athletes in plain sight? Over the entire year from April 2021 to April 2022 there were 633 athlete deaths compared to an annual average of 29 per year, which is a 22X increase. What could have caused such a massive increase in Q3 and Q4 of 2021 and March of 2022 and why hasn’t it been identified? It wasn’t COVID. I sent an email to Professor Glen Pyle asking him for an interview on the updated numbers. I doubt he’ll respond. He never does.​
Athlete collapses and deaths chart from 1st January 2021 to 4th May 2022. Good Sciencing.
2. 75% of the radiology department at MarinHealth/UCSF have requested and received religious exemptions from the booster. I guarantee you that the religious community did not target these workers. These are the people doing the cardiac MRIs, etc. They are smart enough to put two and two together and save THEIR lives, but they are NEVER going to tell YOU that. I wrote an email just now to Dr. Bob Wachter at UCSF asking him to comment. I said if he refused to comment it would create vaccine hesitancy. I bet you he won’t comment. What does that tell you? It tells you to run for the hills if they want to give you a booster. How did I find out? From someone who works at the hospital. I can’t tell you who it was or he/she would be fired. None of these medical facilities will say a word to the public about what they are seeing. Why? Because the “New Rules of Medicine” are quite specific on this: “If you see something, say nothing” (see Rule #10 ).​
3. Governments have all decided to no longer break out data by vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. I think there may be a couple of holdouts still. Let me know in the comments. The odd thing is this: if the vaccines are so effective, why do they need to hide the data? Hmmm….​
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic

I'll post the article. Are you on a phone - it does seem like it's going to need some formatting and is long enough for 2 posts...


Vaccinated Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show
By Amanuensis / 7 May 2022 • 07.00

Over the past 15 months we’ve had a barrage of statistics presented to us shouting about how great the vaccines are at preventing hospitalisation from (or with) Covid. However, these statistics have been light on detail on how they were calculated and we’ve not seen much sight at all of the raw data that the statistics were based upon.

Until now. In April, a paper was published by the UKHSA (currently in pre-print, which means that it hasn’t yet undergone the usual peer-review process) on its statistical analysis of a selection of hospitalisation data by vaccination status. The intent of this paper was to support its statements that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation. However, the paper also includes the raw data upon which the UKHSA statistics were derived, and these data tell a very different story to that presented by the UKHSA. The data show:
  • Far higher accident and emergency admission rates for reasons other than Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
  • Much higher rates of hospitalisation due to non-Covid acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated.
  • Even higher A&E admissions and hospitalisations in the double-vaccinated (not boosted).
  • Even where the data suggest that the vaccines offer some protection (the risk of admission to intensive care resulting from Covid infection) the results look like they might be an artefact created by the assumptions used by the UKHSA.
image-10.png

Table 2 (numbers in brackets indicate the rates relative to the unvaccinated)

In addition, the data strongly suggest that the UKHSA is using an inappropriate method in its statistical analysis of vaccine effectiveness – the test-negative case-control (TNCC) method. It is likely that it has been significantly overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation.

The data released by the UKHSA and expounded below aren’t proof that the vaccines have caused a great deal of harm and injury to the population, but they do raise a huge red-flag that something is amiss. Urgent investigations need to be undertaken to clarify the situation regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

A note on the Test-Negative Case-Control (TNCC) method

The basic concept of measuring vaccine efficacy (in a trial) or effectiveness (based on real-world results) is relatively straightforward – simply calculate the ratio of the proportion of the vaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised) with the proportion of the unvaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised). However, while this simple method can work well, it can be affected by differences in the types of people vaccinated and unvaccinated and more powerful methods are preferred.

The ‘gold standard’ for measurement of vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) is the prospective matched cohort design. This is quite simple in concept – you simply divide the study into a number of groups of individuals with similar characteristics, based on the vulnerability to the disease and the typical effectiveness of vaccines. Matched cohort studies nearly always split into groups of similar age and sex, and will usually include many other factors thought to be related to risk of disease. For example, for Covid these might include race, BMI and whether the individual has diabetes – all factors identified in early data as being relevant risk factors.

The ‘prospective’ part means that the individuals are placed into their groups before they are given their doses of vaccine, but this isn’t the only way – it is possible to undertake a retrospective study where people are placed into their different groups after they are vaccinated (potentially some time after).

The problem with matched cohort trials is that they’re rather expensive and also require you to know what factors to control for when calculating vaccine efficacy/effectiveness. This led to the development of the test-negative case-control method. With this method you compare the ratio of positive (have the disease) to negative (don’t have the disease) tests results for a given condition (e.g. admission to hospital). This method, when applied correctly, automatically corrects for many biases, such as propensity to be tested or seek medical care, and is both accurate and removes much of the complexity and costs associated with matched-cohort studies. The important part is the ‘when applied correctly’ – if it is applied incorrectly then you end up with inaccurate and potentially misleading results.

The UKHSA data – Emergency admissions

Let’s apply the TNCC method to the data in the UKHSA paper on vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation. Fortunately, it offers raw data in its supplementary document. I’ll start with hospitalisations ‘with symptomatic Covid’ for those aged over 65 who presented to A&E for reasons other than accident/injury (Table S12 in the paper), and to keep things simple will look at ‘any vaccine’ (i.e., any number of doses) vs ‘no vaccine’ and only for the Omicron period (the data covers the period from 22nd November to 2nd February).

image-9.png

Table 1

To show the TNCC method in action we can use the figures in the table above to gain an estimate of VE using the TNCC methodology:
VE = 100 × (1 – (873÷140,931) ÷ (103÷1,705) ) = 90%
Thus even with this simplified case where we only consider the protection offered by the vaccines to the ‘vaccinated group’ (with any number of doses, though most are boosted in the over-65 age group), we can see that TNCC estimates that the vaccines offer significant protection from hospitalisation, around 90%.

But wait – those raw numbers for A&E presentation by vaccination status look more than a little suspicious. We know that during the study period approximately 10 million individuals aged over 65 had been vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, and around 600,000 remained unvaccinated. Thus we can present the raw figures above as a ‘per 100,000’ to remove the effect of the size of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups.

image-10.png

Table 2

Wow. According to the raw data the vaccinated are presenting to A&E without having Covid at around five times the rate of the unvaccinated. Sure, there are more hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the unvaccinated, but only by eight per 100,000.

In Table 2 above I have also included an estimate of vaccine effectiveness based on these raw data. Now, I’m being a bit naughty here as the data aren’t meant to be used this way – this is why I’ve used the UKHSA trick of greying out the text in the hope that no-one will notice. Nevertheless, for population-wide data this shouldn’t be too far out.

Now, I’m sure that epidemiologists up and down the land are shouting that the data shouldn’t be used in this way – and they’re right. It certainly doesn’t prove that the vaccinated are getting ill because of the vaccine. There are a number of reasons why this result might be found:
  • The vaccinated might be much more likely to be hypochondriacs/malingerers and thus be going to A&E even though they’re not ill at all. More realistically, the vaccinated might have a lower threshold for the severity of symptoms required to get medical assistance at A&E. If this was the case then there would be vaccinated individuals presenting themselves to A&E where the average unvaccinated person with similar symptoms wouldn’t.
  • The vaccinated might be much more unhealthy in general than the unvaccinated.
However, the sheer scale of the differences between the A&E visits not-for-Covid is huge, and given that these are population-wide figures I’d suggest that it couldn’t all be explained either by health seeking behaviours or because of general health – but I’d accept they they could certainly contribute.

Nevertheless, the TNCC assumption would be that the vaccinated are simply the type of people that are five times more likely to go to A&E (whether because of differences in behaviour or health) and thus they’re also going to be five times more likely to attend A&E with symptomatic Covid. The researchers would therefore adjust the figures to allow for this difference between the groups, boosting VE. I’d suggest that this latter point isn’t necessarily the case – it is very often the case that behaviours aren’t proportional like this, for example, just because an individual chooses to drive at 40mph in a 60mph zone, doesn’t mean he or she will drive at 20mph in a 30mph zone.

The alternative explanation:
  • Some of the visits to A&E might be due to a reaction / side-effect / complication of the vaccines.
  • The vaccines might have an impact on the immune system for diseases other than Covid, resulting in increased illness and thus presentation to A&E.
Just to be clear – we don’t know whether the vaccinated are seeing much higher admissions rates to A&E due to a vaccine effect or simply because the vaccinated have different behaviours and general health to the unvaccinated. However, anecdotal data on pressures on A&E services and on the general health of the nation (‘worst cold ever’) suggest that the vaccines may be at least partially responsible.

More on the emergency admissions data

The UKHSA paper also includes incidence by vaccination status (Table S12 again). We have to be a bit careful here as we don’t know when the individuals were vaccinated, but we do know that the incidence of Covid varied substantially through the period. Without information on which individuals were vaccinated on which date we run the risk of introducing a bias. However, we do have information about some aspects of the vaccinated population:
  • Around 600,000 individuals over the age of 65 remain unvaccinated, and this hasn’t changed much for over six months (this is why it was safe to use this assumption in the prior analysis).
  • The vaccination data suggest that around 90,000 individuals over the age of 65 took the first dose of vaccine during spring 2021 but didn’t receive the second dose.
  • The vaccination data suggest that around 440,000 individuals over the age of 65 took their first and second doses of vaccine according to the vaccination schedule (i.e., early/late spring 2021) but didn’t receive the booster/third dose.
Table S12 splits out hospitalisation data for those vaccinated with their first dose more than 28 days before their positive test, and vaccinated with their second dose more than 175 days before their positive test. Thus we can tentatively include these specific data in our analysis – individuals that had their first dose (only) or second dose (no booster) some time before the study period started.

image-11.png

Table 3 (numbers in brackets indicate the rates relative to the unvaccinated)

Two points immediately stand out.

First, the hospitalisation rate with symptomatic confirmed Covid in those that had a single dose of vaccine ‘some time before’ the study period is similar to the hospitalisation rate in the unvaccinated but their A&E presentation rate for ‘not Covid’ is 2.5 times the rate of the unvaccinated. The TNCC assumption would be that the similarity in the symptomatic Covid rate is a fluke and what’s important is that on average they’re simply the type of individuals that would go to A&E more often and if that group of individuals hadn’t been vaccinated they’d have had 2.5 times more hospitalisation rates ‘with Covid’. I suggest that it is far more likely that the single-dose individuals have no vaccine induced protection against hospitalisation but that they are very much more likely to attend A&E.

Second, the A&E attendance rate of the double-vaccinated (only) without Covid is very similar to the A&E attendance rate of the vaccinated (any dose). However, their hospitalisation rate ‘with Covid’ is 2.5 times greater than that of the vaccinated (any dose) – the double-dosed that didn’t take their booster appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’: increased A&E attendance (non-Covid) and increased admission rates ‘with Covid’.

Summary so far:
  • The UKHSA has provided us with some raw data on hospitalisations by vaccination status.
  • Examination of the data suggests that ‘with Covid’ hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated aren’t too far from those in the vaccinated (any dose). However, non-Covid admission rates for A&E are much much higher in the vaccinated (any dose) than the unvaccinated.
  • The TNCC approach would suggest that the vaccinated are simply ‘the type of people’ more likely to attend A&E and that the vaccines really do offer substantial protection against hospitalisation ‘with Covid’.
  • Examination of other data suggests that the single dosed have ‘with Covid’ rates similar to the unvaccinated but 2.5 greater A&E attendance (without Covid) and that the double dosed (only) appear to have the worst situation of all – much higher Covid hospitalisation and much higher non-Covid admission to A&E.
[continued next post]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued]

Admission rates for acute respiratory illness

Table S7 in the UKHSA paper presents data on hospitalisations after an A&E visit where the individual had symptomatic Covid (again, Omicron, over 65). This sounds like the condition for the previous table, but in that table the ‘Covid negative’ column counted all non-accident or injury A&E visits, whereas the data in Table S7 only consider those that had symptoms similar to Covid.

I’ll present only the rates this time (feel free to look up the raw numbers yourself).

image-12.png

Table 4

That’s perhaps even more interesting. In terms of the overall ratios it is a similar situation to the previous table – approximately 40% lower hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated, but around four-fold higher rates for admission with symptoms that look like Covid, but aren’t Covid. But the interesting part is in the detail:
  • Even though the absolute rates are very much lower, the unvaccinated still have the lowest admission rate to A&E. However, the difference for the data in the table above is that a doctor had assessed the individual and determined that he or she was ill enough to warrant hospitalisation. Thus the data in the table above are not influenced by the ‘symptom severity threshold’ that different individuals have before they’ll go to A&E. This is particularly of note because it suggests that the very high rates of presentation to A&E in the vaccinated in Table 1 and 2 are unlikely to be simply because of the vaccinated are more likely to go to A&E for ‘more trivial reasons’ than the unvaccinated – it looks like the vaccinated as a group really are more likely to be ill.
  • Over twice as many of the unvaccinated are hospitalised with symptomatic Covid than with a condition that looks like Covid but isn’t (17.5 vs 6.5 hospitalisations per 100,000). However, twice as many of the vaccinated are hospitalised with ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ than ‘with Covid’ (23 vs 11 hospitalisations per 100,000).
This latter point is important – one of the potential problems with vaccines (in general) is viral interference, that is, that a vaccine changes the immune response to other infectious diseases. Is it the case that the vaccines are significantly increasing the incidence of other respiratory infections? I note that last autumn/winter we had a mini-epidemic of what was popularly called ‘the worst cold ever’ – is this related?

However, the hospitalisation rate for symptomatic Covid might be more complex than it looks. In the UKHSA paper it appeared to define hospitalisation ‘with’ Covid to 14 days after the first positive test; if the individual presented to A&E after this 14 day period his or her data was excluded. It is possible that vaccination delays (rather than prevents) disease progression, in which case some of the hospitalisations with a condition that ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ might in fact be due to a Covid infection that took longer than 14 days to develop to the point where hospitalisation was necessary. In addition, if the vaccinated were more likely to test themselves earlier in the progression of the disease then they might also be more likely to ‘run out of time’ and present themselves after the 14 day period has finished.

There’s another interesting aspect of these data – overall, the unvaccinated appeared to get around 24 hospitalisations per 100,000 of an illness that ‘looked like Covid’ (whether it was Covid or not) whereas the vaccinated appeared to get around 34 hospitalisations per 100,000. By this measure, vaccination is associated with an increased risk of a serious respiratory illness (whether Covid or not).

Again, the single-dosed appear to have the same risk of Covid as the unvaccinated, but increased attendance with looks like Covid but isn’t, and the double-dosed appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’ – increased rates of attendance both with Covid and with looks like Covid but isn’t.

One more point – comparing Table 4 with Table 3, there appear to be far fewer admissions to A&E with Covid than without Covid. This indicates the current pressures on NHS A&E services are not related to Covid infections but ‘other things’.

The UKHSA data – Secondary uses data

The UKHSA paper also offers data using the NHS ‘secondary uses dataset’ (Table S10). This covers all hospitalisations and offers more granularity on the reasons for the hospitalisation and the level of treatment offered. The authors use a selection of the full dataset, where the admission was for an acute respiratory illness, and for several levels of seriousness.

First up are the data on hospitalisations for admissions for an acute respiratory illness where the individual was discharged the same day.

image-13.png

Table 5

Two aspects stand out:
  • The rate of serious Covid infection that warranted admission into hospital but that was not serious enough for an overnight stay was higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. This suggests that the vaccines increase the risk of being ‘somewhat unwell from Covid’. Note that this isn’t simply ‘infected’ – these individuals were deemed by experts to be sufficiently at risk of their illness to be admitted to hospital, even if they didn’t pass the threshold for an overnight observation/treatment.
  • The hospitalisation rate of ‘somewhat serious but not Covid’ acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated was around twice as great as that in the unvaccinated, and even higher in those having only one or two doses of vaccine
This time we see that overall the risk of ‘somewhat serious’ acute respiratory illness (whether due to Covid or not) appears to be similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and that those having taken one or two doses of vaccine (only) appear worst off.

What about a more serious symptomatic infection – perhaps acute respiratory illness requiring several days of hospitalisation and supplementary oxygen?

image-14.png

Table 6

Here, at last, we appear to see some benefit from the vaccines – the unvaccinated appear to be rather more likely to be hospitalised for a few days following Covid infection (acute respiratory illness requiring supplementary oxygen), and even though they also appear to be less likely to be similarly hospitalised without Covid, this isn’t by so great a margin to remove the protective effect of vaccination.

But yet, I keep returning to the matter of the 14 day limit after the positive test. Individuals typically get to the point where they require supplementary oxygen some time after infection. If the unvaccinated aren’t testing themselves at the point where symptoms start but the vaccinated are, then they’ll be relatively more likely to get to the stage where oxygen is required within that 14 day period. Any delay in symptomatic disease in the vaccinated would only make this effect worse.
Is the supposed effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing severe disease simply an artefact arising due to the fact that it takes longer to get to the point where the symptoms are severe, or due to the unvaccinated being more test-averse?
The UKHSA doesn’t report on the basis for the use of a 14 day limit – I’d very much like to see supporting data, or a sensitivity analysis in its paper, comparing rates for 14, 21 and 28 days after the positive test.

Conclusions

The UKHSA has at long last published raw data on hospitalisation rates by vaccine status, for those infected with Covid as well as those that aren’t. The results are very concerning, showing significantly higher A&E admission rates in the vaccinated for reasons other than Covid, and much less difference in admission rates for symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated than suggested by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness published by the UKHSA.

What I’ve shown here isn’t proof that the vaccines are causing harm – but it is a huge red-flag that strongly suggests that there might be a serious problem, and certainly indicates that a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.

Furthermore, the significant differences in the ‘negative test’ arm of the UKHSA data suggest that the test-negative case-control method is not appropriate, and that a full retrospective matched-cohort study into vaccine effectiveness and safety should be undertaken.

Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Going back to my post above of the video of the the interview between Geert and Del Bigtree. I can't stress enough how important that video is to watch. It's long but absolutely worth the time.

After watching that, watch this video:

(fair use applies)
Video at link, but I found it on youtube and embedded the youtube linked one in this post

COVID-19 cases continue to decline globally: WHO
Posted May 4 2022 12:44pm

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8DgUZP_9po
2 min 29 sec

Director-General of the World Health Organization Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus provided an update on the COVID-19 pandemic on Wednesday, saying that cases are continuing to decline globally and that weekly death rates from COVID-19 are at their lowest point since March 2020. He adds, however, that "South African scientists who identified Omicron late last year, have now reported two more Omicron sub-variants. BA.4 and BA.5 are the reason for a spike in cases in South Africa," he said.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

(RED BOLDED highlighting is mine, I highlighted it because I watched the Geert/Del interview - very relevant to what they were discussing.)

BA.4, BA.5 in Canada: What we know about the 2 new Omicron subvariants
By Saba Aziz Global News
Posted May 7, 2022 2:28 pm Updated May 7, 2022 2:47 pm

The World Health Organization (WHO) is closely monitoring two new COVID-19 subvariants of Omicron, the highly transmissible variant of concern now dominant around the world.

Since January, more than 300 cases of the BA.4 and BA.5 sub-lineages have been reported in several countries, according to data by cov-lineages.org. Most of those cases have been detected in South Africa.

As of May 3, Canada had detected three cases – two of BA.4 and one of BA.5, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) told Global News on Friday.

“As with all new sub-lineages of COVID-19, scientists from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), along with national and international experts, are actively monitoring and evaluating the BA.4 and BA.5 sub-lineages and the associated studies,” said PHAC spokesperson Anne Genier in an emailed statement.

WHO began tracking BA.4 and BA.5 in mid-April. They are in addition to previously discovered subvariants BA.1 and BA.2, the latter of which is dominating COVID-19’s global spread.

As part of their evolution, all viruses mutate over time and have subvariants that have a different genetic makeup than the original variant but a common origin.

The WHO says BA.4 and BA.5 have acquired a few additional mutations that may impact their characteristics.

Here is what we know so far about these subvariants.

Are BA.4, BA.5 more transmissible?

BA.4 and BA.5 are driving a spike in new COVID-19 cases in South Africa, according to the WHO.

Last week, more than 32,000 new infections were reported in the country, representing a 67 per cent increase from the week before, the weekly WHO update published on May 4 showed.

Data from South Africa is showing that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to have a growth advantage over other sub-lineages of Omicron, the WHO told Global News.

Because of additional mutations, BA.4 and BA.5 are about 10 per cent more transmissible compared to BA.2, said Dr. Donald Vinh, an infectious disease specialist and medical microbiologist at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC).

“The only way the virus is going to mutate and propagate is if it transmits within the community,” he said

“Therefore, the logical and scientific solution is to mitigate community transmission by any and all means necessary,” Vinh said, urging indoor masking, avoiding crowded areas, ventilation and vaccination.

Globally, the number of cases and the number of countries reporting the detection of these subvariants are rising, the UN health agency said in its weekly update.

As more cases are reported, experts say it is only a matter of time before they will replace previous strains and start to dominate.

“I think definitely they would take over because we see that they start to grow in South Africa, and when you see they (cases) start to go up, it means that they are taking over the previous one,”
said Dr. Horacio Bach, an infectious diseases expert at the University of British Columbia.

How will BA.4, BA.5 impact hospitalizations?

Scientists are trying to determine if BA.4 and BA.5 can cause more severe illness in people who are infected and lead to an increase in hospitalizations.

A number of studies are also under way that are looking at disease severity in the lab.

“It’s too soon to know whether these new subvariants can cause more severe disease than other Omicron subvariants, but early data suggest vaccination remains protective against severe disease and death,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreysus, WHO’s director-general, during a virtual news conference on May 4.

The WHO told Global News it is seeing some increase in hospitalization in South Africa but that can be expected when there is an increase in cases.

Vinh said it will be “extremely important” to keep a close eye on how BA.4 and BA.5 impact hospitalizations, not just in South Africa, but also in Europe.

“What we’ve seen so far in the last six waves is that what happens in Europe doesn’t just stay in Europe, it predates or predicts what happens in … parts of Canada,” said Vinh.

Will vaccines work against BA.4, BA.5?

A preprint study that has not been peer-reviewed was released on May 1 and concluded that BA.4 and BA.5 can dodge antibodies from earlier infection well enough to trigger a new wave, but are far less able to thrive in people vaccinated against COVID-19.

“It’s always concerning when you have a variant that is a little bit more transmissible and capable of dodging antibodies that were generated from the previous waves,” said Vinh.

South African scientists took blood samples from 39 participants previously infected by the original BA.1 Omicron lineage when it first showed up at the end of last year.

Fifteen were vaccinated; eight with Pfizer’s shot, seven with J&J’s — while the other 24 were not.

“The vaccinated group showed about five-fold higher neutralization capacity of BA.4 and BA.5 and should be better protected, although levels may decrease with waning,” the study’s authors said.

In the unvaccinated samples, there was an almost eightfold decrease in antibody production when exposed to BA.4 and BA.5, compared with the original BA.1 Omicron lineage. Blood from the vaccinated people showed a three-fold decrease.

Studies are under way to look at how effective prior immunity built up through either infection or vaccination is at protecting against BA.4 and BA.5 compared to other subvariants.

“As with all of the sub-lineages classified under Omicron, there is some level of immune escape,” said Dr. Maria Van Verkohve, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, in a Twitter video on May 3.

Dr @mvankerkhove shares the latest update on:
1️⃣ Omicron sub-lineages BA.4 and BA.5
2️⃣ Omicron sub-lineage BA.2.12.1
3️⃣ The importance to maintain, and even enhance, surveillance and sequencing to track #COVID19 evolution
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) May 3, 2022
[There is a video at the twitter link, it's about 2 minutes long - this is a longer version of that video on youtube (which I can embed here)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zrS6N5jPA
Q&A about the sublineages of the COVID-19 Omicron variant
4min 47sec ]

Bach said even if you are vaccinated, it is possible to get infected with the new variants.

Still, experts are hopeful that the current vaccines will work to prevent severe disease and death, encouraging people to get vaccinated.

“On a global scale, it really does mean that we need to get the entire world vaccinated adequately against COVID so that we can decrease the emergence of transmission and the emergence of variants,” said Vinh.

Tracking new variants

The WHO has stressed the need for countries to continue testing and sequencing for new variants.

“In many countries, we’re essentially blind to how the virus is mutating. We don’t know what’s coming next,” said WHO chief Ghebreysus.

The Canadian government has a strong monitoring program in place with the provinces and territories to identify COVID-19 variants in Canada, including the Omicron variant of concern and its sub-lineages, PHAC’s Genier said.

However, experts say provinces are not sufficiently keeping track of new variants leading to a “gross underestimate” of actual cases in the country.

“We absolutely need active surveillance of what is circulating in each of our provinces and our communities,” said Vinh.

“When Public Health Agency of Canada tells us that they’ve identified collectively three cases nationally, that is really just a gross underestimate of what’s actually circulating.”

— With files from Reuters
 
Last edited:

Tristan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
(fair use applies)

CDC Used Phone Location Data to Monitor Churches and Schools to Determine Whether Americans Followed Covid Lockdown Orders
By Cristina Laila
Published May 3, 2022 at 12:55pm

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used phone location data to track millions Americans in 2021.

The CDC monitored curfew zones, churches, schools, neighbor-to-neighbor visits and trips to pharmacies through SafeGraph, a controversial data broker.

The CDC purchased the phone data and used Covid-19 as an excuse to buy the data more quickly and in larger quantities according to documents exclusively obtained by Motherboard through a FOIA request.

The CDC used the data to determine whether Americans were complying with Covid lockdown orders.

Motherboard reported:

The documents reveal the expansive plan the CDC had last year to use location data from a highly controversial data broker. SafeGraph, the company the CDC paid $420,000 for access to one year of data to, includes Peter Thiel and the former head of Saudi intelligence among its investors. Google banned the company from the Play Store in June.​
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bought access to location data harvested from tens of millions of phones in the United States to perform analysis of compliance with curfews, track patterns of people visiting K-12 schools, and specifically monitor the effectiveness of policy in the Navajo Nation, according to CDC documents obtained by Motherboard. The documents also show that although the CDC used COVID-19 as a reason to buy access to the data more quickly, it intended to use it for more general CDC purposes.​
The CDC used the data for monitoring curfews, with the documents saying that SafeGraph’s data “has been critical for ongoing response efforts, such as hourly monitoring of activity in curfew zones or detailed counts of visits to participating pharmacies for vaccine monitoring.” The documents date from 2021.​
Motherboard obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the CDC.​
The documents contain a long list of what the CDC describes as 21 different “potential CDC use cases for data.” They include:​

    • "Track patterns of those visiting K-12 schools by the school and compare to 2019; compare with epi metrics [Environmental Performance Index] if possible.”
    • “Examination of the correlation of mobility patterns data and rise in COVID-19 cases […] Movement restrictions (Border closures, inter-regional and nigh curfews) to show compliance.”
    • “Examination of the effectiveness of public policy on [the] Navajo Nation.”

Read the full report by Motherboard here.



Nothing Orwellian about that, at all!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Pfizer and Todos Compelling Case Study Evidence for Paxlovid and Tollovid in Long Covid
by chessmaster
Sunday, May 08, 2022 - 6:10

There is no approved treatment for Long COVID (aka Long Haulers) and there are very few clinical trials for the debilitating condition, but Pfizer (PFE) and Todos Medical (TOMDF) might have stumbled onto a solution that could not only help the sufferers, but also help pull the United States economy out of the current downturn. Just two years ago it was crazy to think a little virus could have such a massive impact on the global economy. Long COVID afflicts between 15-30% of all COVID-19 infections so the Omnicron explosion over the winter had a huge numerical impact on the labor force and people’s ability to both return to work and to maintain productivity. In fact, some estimate that Long-COVID accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs (1.6 million total).

Big Stakes At Play in Solving Long Covid

Long Covid isn’t a small problem anymore, it's a big problem that is trickling down into worker productivity numbers and the growing labor shortage. The Bureau of Labor reported a nonfarm labor productivity drop of 7.5% in the latest quarter, the largest drop since 1947. The Guardian echoed that Long Covid could lead to a generation affected by disability. A permanent shift in the supply of workers is at stake unless a medical solution is found, and found quickly.



Lack of Clinical Trials for Long COVID


According to Reuters there are fewer than 20 clinical trials testing drug candidates, and the few that are in clinical trials are in the early stages. A search on clinicaltrials.gov revealed that there were more than 20 active studies under the “Long COVID” indication but many were observational in nature. Only one Long Haulers study using an investigational drug was completed—a trial for Long-COVID patients testing the monoclonal antibody, leronlimab, sponsored by Cytodyn (CYDY). Surprisingly, the results of the Long Covid trial were quite good and showed a clinically significant improvement in 18 out of 24 symptoms measured back in June 2021. There were reports that the company was waiting for FDA guidance regarding an approvable endpoint. As of this moment there has been no FDA industry guidance in Long Covid, but companies like Tonix Pharmaceuticals (TNXP) and Cortene Inc. are improvising and using other diseases like fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) that have a subpopulation of COVID-19 (and striking similarity and overlap of symptoms) to show a clinical benefit. Organicell Regenerative Medicine Inc. (OCEL) is using Zofrin in a phase 1 study, measuring a number of clinical symptoms and biomarkers over 60 days. Ampio Pharmaceuticals (AMPE) is also planning on conducting a phase 2 trial in Long Covid using their osteoarthritis and COVID-19 biologic called Ampion. The dearth of clinical trials are very much related to the lack of a validated test for Long Haulers as well as no industry guidance on an approvable endpoint.

COVID Policy Normalizing Mass Disability

To stem the tide of Long COVID cases, it is essential that public health policy is designed to prevent new infections. The surveillance testing needed to identify community spread disappeared as the government provided test kits to the nation, but walked away from central collection points that were shared in a database to quickly show spots of contagion. The government used to know the hot spots, but now they don’t even collect the data. Other preventive measures like the indoor mask mandates were dropped nationwide, sending the message to people that the pandemic is over and that the country has entered the endemic phase. Even social distancing has seemed to take a back seat in the resumption of daily life, but there are a few that believe that the pandemic isn’t over.

Surprisingly, Fauci just recently walked back his comments that the country is out of the “pandemic phase.” He sought to clarify that COVID-19 is under control but the pandemic isn’t over. Bill Gates also chimed in to say that the worst of the pandemic might still be ahead, but his book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic” is set to be released in the fall. COVID expert Dr. Eric Topol reminded everyone in February in his op-ed that the pandemic isn’t over and Omicron won’t be the last variant to haunt us. He took us on a trip down memory lane, to a point last year when we declared independence from the virus as the delta variant was percolating into another brutal wave. While no one is declaring victory, there is a sense of deja vu that this is the calm before the storm.

As the United States crosses the greater-than-100,000-daily-cases threshold this weekend, it’s reasonable to think policymakers may be wrong once again as they were last summer. When the administration turns a blind eye to prevention and containment of the virus it is bound to lead to a greater number of COVID-19 infections which translates to a higher number of debilitating Long COVID cases.

In March 2022, the Biden Administration came out with “The National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan” which had 4 key initiatives.



The anchor assumption in their plan is that “215 million Americans fully vaccinated, and an estimated two-thirds of eligible adults having received their booster shot” have protection from the virus and are less likely to die. Here we go again with a quadrupling down on the vaccination strategy, with a twist that if you have underlying medical conditions you can test and treat, but if you don’t have underlying medical conditions then you are probably not going to die but they will “support” you in case you do get Long Covid. There was only one mention in the plan of Long COVID and that was in reference to “support” for them. The White House is essentially normalizing mass infections which is essentially normalizing mass disability in the form of Long COVID. To the average person, Long COVID is a primary concern!

Viral Persistence: Key Theory Behind Long COVID

Many that contracted COVID-19 remembered the endless wait for a negative antigen test. People were reassured by the government that it was just viral fragments and they weren’t contagious after 5 days, but could anyone rule out an active virus that simply wasn’t transmissible? It took almost a year before the theory of viral persistence developed, whereby the virus was quietly hiding in reservoirs in the body and constantly irritating the immune system which was never able to get strong enough to get back to normal function and wipe out the virus. One recent preprint looked at COVID sniffer dogs which were 100% accurate in detecting active COVID-19. The dogs were tasked to sniff the sweat samples of Long COVID patients and had a 51.1% positivity rate versus zero false negatives in the control group. This represents real evidence that the PCR tests may not be able to detect COVID-19 while it exists in Long COVID patients. It also lends credence to the primary theory of viral persistence which is a fancy way of saying COVID that stays with you. This viral persistence is hypothesized to cause ongoing damage to the vascular system (endothelial cells), which can cause chronic hypoxia and coagulation abnormalities.

Other theories are surfacing like autoantibodies which are antibodies targeting endogenous proteins in the body. Autoantibodies manifest themselves as autoimmune diseases, but these are a result of an immune system that is not in homeostasis. For instance, the immune system will attack a protein that resembles COVID but is, in fact, a human protein. Because of this misidentification, the immune system’s attack response is directed at the patient’s tissues, and can persist for some time. So while autoimmune responses represent a subset of Long COVID patients, they still may be caused by or coexistent with viral persistence, which creates an antagonistic environment in the patient. There are also many latent viruses that seem to reemerge during Long COVID. The Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) is one of them and is associated with extreme fatigue and carries most of the symptoms prevalent in mononucleosis. One again there is an opportunistic infection that takes place due to a broken immune system kept at bay by an active viral infection. Lastly, all of these theories have a common overlap which is inflammation.

Encouraging Long COVID Case Studies

It looks like a race to get case studies between Pfizer and Todos which have been keying in on the 3CL protease as an antiviral target. Pfizer was the first to announce a case study with 2 patients. Dr. Steven Deeks, the author of the case study is a professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (USSF), and an expert in HIV cure research. He characterized the patient's chronic fatigue symptoms, felt like being hit by a truck. Dr. Deeks said that his case study and a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study, that reviewed the autopsies of 44 people who died of COVID-19, found widespread infection throughout the body, including in the brain, that lasted more than seven months beyond the onset of symptoms.

Another 3 case studies were announced by Dr. Michael Peluso. In his preprint, 2 patients recovered from treatment with Paxlovid but one experienced a viral rebound. Even though one patient was a failure, the doctor concluded "it provides evidence that we really need to study this soon, and ... systematically, which means randomized trials." Even though these case studies provide convincing justification of a clinical trial, Pfizer is still sitting on the fence and has no plans to proceed with a clinical trial yet. The FDA rebuke last week, not allowing extended use of Paxlovid, may be the reasoning behind the pause.

The issue with Paxlovid is that there is questionable long-term safety for the drug which is given as a combination of two drugs, ritonavir and nirmatrelvir. This combination was designed to be a short term antiviral to quell acute COVID infection, using ritonavir, an HIV drug, to slow down metabolism of the COVID-19 antiviral, nirmatrelvir. This would improve the drug’s duration of activity in the body. The issue is that patients have been observed to rebound into Long-COVID even after using this combination therapy, Paxlovid. The graphic below illustrates that a 3CL inhibitor might need to quell the virus longer so that the immune system can play catch up by removing the virally infected cells and spooling up neutralizing antibody production.



Tollovid is a 3CL protease inhibitor just like Paxlovid but it also has anti-cytokine properties and could be used during almost any phase of the disease. The CEO of Todos Medical gave a great video account about the differences between the molecules. The other major difference is that Tollvid is an all natural supplement versus a chemical drug. The all natural part means that there is unlikely to be any toxicity. Like Paxlovid, Tollovid has some interesting case studies suggesting that the supplement, which is designed for long-term use as a natural product, can reverse the Paxlovid rebound back into Long-COVID disease. There are 3 published case studies but the most interesting was a case of the reversal of a Paxlovid Long COVID patient using Tollovid. The case study matches a twitter Long COVID influencer.



The combined case studies of Paxlovid and Tollovid, along with the anecdotal reports and testimonials on Amazon.com are proof positive that 3CL protease inhibition is the way to go in treating Long COVID. To date very little has worked except immunomodulatory drugs like leronlimab, mariviroc, and Ampion but these trials are all stalled lacking an endpoint. A large opportunity exists to treat a huge number of patients. Through these amazing case reports it’s becoming increasingly clear that Long COVID could successfully be treated by bringing down the viral load and keeping it there. The challenge amongst 3CL protease inhibitors is using Paxlovid on a long term basis, but a more realistic solution is to embrace the all-natural 3CL protease inhibitor called Tollovid. The company has plans to do an observational study, but if you are a Long COVID sufferer or COVID-19 positive it's hard to wait for that evidence to come in when there is no downside to trying it via next day delivery from www.mytollovid.com.

Potential Practical Solutions

On the cusp of another COVID-19 wave, the call to action has never been greater. The White House is content to sit idly by and “support” the 15%+ that become inflicted with Long COVID with disability benefits without concern for the continued shrinkage of the labor force which would ultimately drive wage pressures and inflation, affecting all Americans. The FDA is content to say “no” to Paxlovid for extended use beyond 5 days to treat viral rebound which could ultimately lead to Long COVID. The government seems perfectly content with the vaccination strategy and inflation along with the deteriorating economy, but the real question is: are Americans excited about that future?

Americans clearly have a solution a couple clicks away from their doorstep. They can order an all natural 3CL protease inhibitor dietary supplement called Tollovid. It demonstrated in case studies that it is making a remarkable impact in treating Long COVID and getting durable responses without a viral rebound. Furthermore, we find out that the dietary supplement is 98% the same formulation as the drug Tollovir that eliminated death in hospitalized patients zero versus 23% mortality with remdesivir. There is no COVID-19 claim on the bottle because a clinical trial has not been accomplished, but did that stop people from taking Ivermectin? How is it possible that the masses haven’t risen up like they did with Ivermectin and taken matters into their own hands with respect to their healthcare decisions.

For the Long COVID sufferers out there that have tried everything and spent thousands if not tens of thousands on treatments, how is Tollovid not a value proposition. Are Long COVID sufferers really not willing to try a $150 dietary supplement with no side effects that by many accounts may work in hours to days? Will mainstream media silence this message or will it finally be heard and go viral? The truth about Long COVID is that it’s really just COVID your body hasn't cleared yet. Check out the Twitter feed for #Tollovid, it has really picked up steam after those case studies were published on Pfizer and Tollovid showing that 3CL protease inhibitors really do work.

Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge, and are not selected, edited or screened by Zero Hedge editors.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSN_8drbGy4
Cases down, long covid concerns
19 min 44 sec
May 8, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

Symptomatic cases, UK https://covid.joinzoe.com/data https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jqds... https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-... Down 27 % on the week Government figures 10 times lower UK R-value = 0.8 England, 0.8 Wales, 0.9 Scotland, 0.9. One in 27 people in the UK currently symptomatic BA.1 BA.2 symptoms BA.2 probably generate more mild symptoms BA.2 lower severity XE, not currently a big concern ONS https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... Cumulative percentage, tested positive, survey N = 535,116 27th April 2020 to 11th February 2022 70.7% in England (38.5 million people) 56.0% in Wales (1.7 million people) 72.2% in Northern Ireland (1.3 million people) 51.5% in Scotland (2.7 million people) Risk of reinfection 10 times higher in Omicron times (20 December 2021 to 20 March 2022) Compared with the period when the Delta variant was most common (17 May to 19 December 2021). Risk of death Risk of death involving Omicron variant was 67% lower than the Delta variant of COVID-19 Antibodies Self-reported long COVID 1.8 million people (2.8% of the population) As of 3 April 2022 73% symptoms at least 12 weeks 44% at least one year Features Fatigue, 51% Shortness of breath, 33% Loss of sense of smell, 26% Difficulty concentrating, 23% Symptoms adversely affected the day-to-day activities, 67%) In double-vaccinated people Self-reported long COVID was almost twice as common after Delta than after Omicron BA.1 infections Antibody levels https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/04/28/an... At or above the 179 ng/ml (16 and older) 98.8% in England 98.7% in Wales 99.0% in Northern Ireland 98.9% in Scotland Antibody level of 800 ng/ml 95.4% in England 95.6% in Wales 94.4% in Northern Ireland 94.7% in Scotland
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

COVID-19 Vaccines May Be Significantly Less Effective in People With Severe Obesity
By European Association for the Study of Obesity
May 8, 2022

Study suggests severe obesity blunts antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines.

Pfizer/BioNTech linked to a more robust antibody response than CoronaVac in people with severe obesity.

New research suggests that adults (aged 18 or older) with severe obesity generate a significantly weaker immune response to COVID-19 vaccination compared to those with normal weight. The study was conducted by Professor Volkan Demirhan Yumuk from Istanbul University in Turkey and colleagues and was presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO) in Maastricht, Netherlands (May 4-7).

The study also found that people with severe obesity (BMI of more than 40kg/m2) vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine generated significantly more antibodies than those vaccinated with CoronaVac (inactivated SARSCoV2) vaccine, suggesting that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine might be a better choice for this vulnerable population.

Obesity is a disease complicating the course of COVID-19, and the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibody response in adults with obesity may be compromised. Vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies, have shown reduced responses in people with obesity.

To find out more, researchers investigated antibody responses following Pfizer/BioNTech and CoronaVac vaccination in 124 adults (average age 42-63 years) with severe obesity who visited the Obesity Center at Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty Hospitals, between August and November 2021. They also recruited a control group of 166 normal weight adults (BMI less than 25kg/m2, average age 39-47 years) who were visiting the Cerrahpasa Hospitals Vaccination Unit.

Researchers measured antibody levels in blood samples taken from patients and normal weight controls who had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech or CoronaVac vaccine and had their second dose four weeks earlier. The participants were classified by infection history as either previously having COVID-19 or not (confirmed by their antibody profile).

Overall, 130 participants received two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and 160 participants two doses of CoronaVac, of whom 70 had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (see tables in notes to editors).

In those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech, patients with severe obesity had antibody levels more than three times lower than normal weight controls (average 5,823 vs 19,371 AU/ml).
Similarly, in participants with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated with CoronaVac, patients with severe obesity had antibody levels 27 times lower than normal weight controls (average 178 vs 4,894 AU/ml).

However, in those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody levels in patients with severe obesity and vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech or CoronaVac were not significantly different from normal weight controls (average 39,043 vs 14,115 AU/ml and 3,221 vs 7,060 AU/ml, respectively).

Interestingly, the analyses found that in patients with severe obesity, with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody levels in those vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech were significantly higher than those vaccinated with CoronaVac.

“These results provide new information on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in people with severe obesity and reinforce the importance of prioritizing and increasing vaccine uptake in this vulnerable group,” says Professor Yumuk. “Our study confirms that immune memory induced by prior infection alters the way in which people respond to vaccination and indicates that two doses of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may generate significantly more antibodies than CoronaVac in people with severe obesity, regardless of infection history. However, further research is needed to determine whether these higher antibody levels provide greater protection against COVID-19.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Cognitive Impairment From Severe COVID-19 Equivalent to 20 Years of Aging – Losing 10 IQ Points
By University of Cambridge
May 8, 2022

Cognitive impairment as a result of severe COVID-19 is similar to that sustained between 50 and 70 years of age and is the equivalent to losing 10 IQ points, say a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London.

The findings, published recently in the journal eClinicalMedicine, emerge from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) COVID-19 BioResource. The results of the study suggest the effects are still detectable more than six months after the acute illness, and that any recovery is at best gradual.

There is mounting evidence that COVID-19 can cause long-term cognitive and mental health issues, with recovered patients reporting symptoms including fatigue, “brain fog,” difficulty recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) months after infection. In the United Kingdom, a research study found that one in every seven people surveyed reported having symptoms such as cognitive difficulties 12 weeks after a positive COVID-19 test.

While even mild cases can lead to persistent cognitive symptoms, between a third and three-quarters of hospitalized patients report still suffering cognitive symptoms three to six months later.

To investigate this link in greater detail, researchers analyzed data from 46 people who received in-hospital care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, part of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. During their hospital stay, 16 patients were placed on mechanical ventilation. All of the patients were admitted between March and July of 2020 and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource.

The individuals underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests an average of six months after their acute illness using the Cognitron platform, which measures different aspects of mental faculties such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Scales measuring anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder were also assessed. Their data were compared against matched controls.

This is the first time that such rigorous assessment and comparison has been carried out in relation to the aftereffects of severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and with slower response times than the matched control population – and these deficits were still detectable when the patients were following up six months later. The effects were strongest for those who required mechanical ventilation. By comparing the patients to 66,008 members of the general public, the researchers estimate that the magnitude of cognitive loss is similar on average to that sustained with 20 years aging, between 50 and 70 years of age, and that this is equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.

Survivors scored particularly poorly on tasks such as verbal analogical reasoning, a finding that supports the commonly-reported problem of difficulty finding words. They also showed slower processing speeds, which aligns with previous observations post COVID-19 of decreased brain glucose consumption within the frontoparietal network of the brain, responsible for attention, complex problem-solving and working memory, among other functions.

Professor David Menon from the Division of Anaesthesia at the University of Cambridge, the study’s senior author, said: “Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these.”

While it is now well established that people who have recovered from severe COVID-19 illness can have a broad spectrum of symptoms of poor mental health – depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, low motivation, fatigue, low mood, and disturbed sleep – the team found that acute illness severity was better at predicting the cognitive deficits.

The patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, but the researchers say that any recovery in cognitive faculties was at best gradual and likely to be influenced by a number of factors including illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

Professor Menon added: “We followed some patients up as late as ten months after their acute infection, so we’re able to see a very slow improvement. While this was not statistically significant, it is at least heading in the right direction, but it is very possible that some of these individuals will never fully recover.”

There are several factors that could cause the cognitive deficits, say the researchers. Direct viral infection is possible, but unlikely to be a major cause; instead, it is more likely that a combination of factors contribute, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. However, emerging evidence suggests that the most important mechanism may be damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.

While this study looked at hospitalized cases, the team say that even those patients not sick enough to be admitted may also have tell-tale signs of mild impairment.

Professor Adam Hampshire from the Department of Brain Sciences at Imperial College London, the study’s first author, said: “Around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone and many more will have been very sick, but not admitted to hospital. This means there is a large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later. We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

Professor Menon and Professor Ed Bullmore from Cambridge’s Department of Psychiatry are co-leading working groups as part of the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS) that aim to identify biomarkers that relate to neurological impairments as a result of COVID-19, and the neuroimaging changes that are associated with these.


Reference: “Multivariate profile and acute-phase correlates of cognitive deficits in a COVID-19 hospitalised cohort” by Adam Hampshire, Doris A. Chatfield, Anne Manktelow MPhil, Amy Jolly, William Trender, Peter J. Hellyer, Martina Del Giovane, Virginia F.J. Newcombe, Joanne G. Outtrim, Ben Warne, Junaid Bhatti, Linda Pointon, Anne Elmer, Nyarie Sithole, John Bradley, Nathalie Kingston, Stephen J. Sawcer, Edward T. Bullmore, James B. Rowe, David K. Menon, the Cambridge NeuroCOVID Group, the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource, and Cambridge NIHR Clinical Research Facility, 28 April 2022, eClinicalMedicine.

DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101417

The research was funded by the NIHR BioResource, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and the Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust, with support from the NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

99.6% of Deaths in Vaccinated - 70% Boosted
Latest Health Canada Snapshot.
Sheldon Yakiwchuk
May 4

Health Canada has just updated their COVID dashboard. 99.96% of the COVID deaths in the last 1 week period were Vaccinated. 70% BOOSTED!

Last Sunday, I decided to drill out some information for a share on Twitter and showed the colossal failure of vaccines, reporting by Health Canada and the Injuries caused by the vaccines.

You can check the thread out:

Twitter avatar for @YakkStack Sheldon Yakiwchuk @YakkStack
There are currently 8,607 Unreported Vaccinated COVID deaths in Canada. This is up from 7994 from last month - average 20/day COVID mortalities missing. Why isn't Health Canada Reporting them? -Thread.
May 1st 2022
1,988 Retweets4,381 Likes


This was shared because of the last look at the figures for Canada, they showed that 81% of the COVID deaths in Canada were in the vaccinated population, where 55% were Boosted!

Yakk Stack
81% of COVID Deaths from the Last Week are in the Vaccinated Population - Canada Data
Read more
8 days ago · 20 likes · 10 comments · Sheldon Yakiwchuk


Because I watch this information more obsessively than I probably should, as soon as I refreshed my Health Canada Tab...I full on knew that the proverbial shit was hitting the fan in the numbers. You can visit the Health Canada information site: Link

If you want to actually keep historical tracking by PHAC or have a printable copy from the site, at the top right hand corner, click the PDF button and you'll get a downloadable format.

Image

So I can keep some consistency, instead of using the more colorful screen shots of the site, I'm going to use a snapshot of the data from the PDFs. At the top of this you will see the 2 dates we're looking at, April 10th and April 17th, 2022.

Image

And in checking out the bottom, highlighted in Red, you will see the Deaths. Column 1 is Unvaccinated, which shows that over the last week, the deaths increased from 9,511-9,512 or by 1 death, as in, there was only one unvaccinated COVID death over 7 days.

For some reason, the Cases not protected reduced by 1, from 783-782 ->(-1). 5 Deaths for the Partially Vaccinated, 63 for the Fully Vaccinated but the largest category of COVID death comes from the Boosted Population tipping in at 160 out of the 227 total deaths - 70%.

Where the rankings of all vaccinated deaths make up a total of 226/227 deaths working out to be - 99.95% of the total COVID Mortality on the week. Now for all of us, this should be pretty shocking info. For me, it's a ****ing nightmare...reason being...I've now got to go through the AB Provincial site for this same time period and see if I can figure out where Doctor Deena lied about the numbers of deaths in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated communities. And this will be a challenge, may not even be able to be done.

Quick update and I will be doing a better dive.

Just wanted you all to have copy to spread this as fast and far as you can.

We need answers.

We need action.

We’re done with this!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Breakdown of Alberta Provincial COVID Data, RE:April 10-17 - 99.56% COVID Deaths in Vaccinated, 70% in Boosted Populations.
Assembled.
Sheldon Yakiwchuk
May 6

Earlier this week, I dropped a substack on the Statistical Data provided by Health Canada on their COVID dashboard with “Vaccination Stratification”…(say that 5 times really fast).

Yakk Stack
99.6% of Deaths in Vaccinated - 70% Boosted
Read more
2 days ago · 52 likes · 17 comments · Sheldon Yakiwchuk


You tried, didn’t you?

I did too.

Anyways, I wanted to drill into what was going on in Alberta at this time because I don’t do weekly reports like the province does, it’d be boring and would most likely lose me followers and readers. BUT, when something out of the norm comes along, I think that it’s pretty important to drill into it and get a better grip on what’s actually going on with this and especially what is being said.

If you haven’t read through that substack, please take the time to do so…it’s really more than what can be summary of what the stats say, it helps lend itself to understanding and shows that this is information provided by Health Canada, links included as always.

taking this data and period of time, I've extrapolated a few things from the Alberta Provincial Data and will compare it to the message delivered by Dr. Deena Hinshaw. There are a few things at play, but I think I can get this all to make sense...Begin: On April 20th, 2022 where Dr. Hinshaw took to the airwaves and twitter to give her weekly update. In this time, she wanted to "remind Albertan’s what the Data Shows Us":

“As transmission continues with BA.2, we have seen more breakthrough infections in those with a full vaccine series.
Given that, I know there are questions about the importance of vaccines right now, and I want to remind Albertans of what the data shows us.”

Now, I don't know what ****ing data she's been looking at because her 2 main statements following are a complete contradiction to what the data actually shows us. Pushing the “Get the Jab” narrative that isn't supported provincially nor on a national level.

What she says:

When we look at the difference in the risk of severe outcomes by vaccination status, it is very clear that vaccines are critically important in lowering the risks for hospitalizations and deaths.

But current hospitalizations at this time - given the 2 day lag in reporting - show that 76% of the people in the hospital currently were vaccinated, 25.6% Fully, and 47.6% Boosted!

Image

They also made up 71% of the deaths for this time boosted making up 39% of these deaths, according to the 120 day report:

Image

She goes on to say:
“For those aged 80 and older, in whom the risk of severe outcomes is highest, those who were not vaccinated were more than four times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID in the last four months, and almost six times more likely to die from COVID than those who had three doses of vaccine.

When 77% of the deaths in this age group are in the Vaccinated and Boosted Community.

Huge Reduction in risk, hey?

Image

But wait…Why am I looking at statistics that are 3 weeks old again? Because the information that Hinshaw would have had to report to Health Canada for Federal Reporting on this, were included in the data that showed 99.56% of the Deaths for this period were in the Vaccinated Community, 70% of those were Boosted and throughout the entire country at this period of time, there was only 1 unvaccinated death.

In analyzing this...the dates are a little skewed, because...REASONS...and why have consistency in reporting if you don't plan on transparency?

A serious and united medical system, given the 2 day lag they allow themselves on a provincial level and 3 week delay on national, they could probably be a little more consistent for the sake of accuracy during a pandemic.

So, to have a look at what really happened during this time, you can go to the Alberta Provincial Dashboard and download the data for a review, click the link below and hit the download button, under “Case Data” →Link

Sort data by “Death Status” looking, extracting them by the status of “Died”, sort them by date and extract the deaths to match up with the Federal Reporting. To match up with the report from Hinshaw and Health Canada, there are a few things to keep in mind.
  1. Her report is supposed to be up-to-date as of the 18th, data reported to Apr 17.
  2. Health Canada is Apr 17, 2022, meaning data is up to the 16th, allowing for a day of lag.
  3. Your start date for sorting the data would be the 9th, not the 10th, to give you a full 1 week period. When you do this, you will find 56 deaths for this week.
Sorted by Age, you will see that the 80+ group made up 57% of all of these deaths:

Image

Where...you will see that this population is already more than 92% fully vaxxed, 83% boosted and still makes up almost 60% of the COVID Mortality for the Province, where there was only 1 single unvaccinated death for the entire country at this time.

Image

Even if that 1 poor unvaccinated soul who died was in Alberta, the highest risk population has never been defined by the number of vaccinations...it's always been defined by their pre-existing health conditions...

Image

Where those over the age of 60 still make up 90% of the cases:

Image

And...as I just just finished covering and published on substack, our risks didn't increase with variants; they increased because of failed knee-jerk reactions by the provincial government, increased risk followed NPIs that restricted movement, increased metabolic issues through consumption related diseases, decrease in personal doctor visits and harms caused by the vaccinations. Trying to prop up success in response to the overall failure in vaccines and allowing people to gain a false sense of security through vaccinations instead of cautioning those who are at risk due to their already failing health is akin to daring a child to poke a fork into an electrical outlet because he's wearing a rubber running shoes and probably won't feel a thing.

It's stupid.

It's dangerous.

It's insincere.

And should be grounds for dismissal of our Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province. Her consistent failures will continue to lead to the loss of confidence in our medical community will have profound and lasting impacts that cannot be tolerated!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Increased emergency cardiovascular events associated with vaccine rollout in Israel among 16-39-year-olds, study finds.
Association does not prove causation but further study is urgently needed.
KoolBeens Cafe (Dr. Mobeen Sayed)
May 6

A retrospective population-based study that analyzed call data from Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (IEMS) found a more than 25% increase in calls for both cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome among 16-39 year-olds during the first 5 months of 2021, as compared to the years 2019-2020.1 While cardiac conditions are caused by COVID-19 and are also reported as side effects of the vaccines, the peer-reviewed study published in Scientific Reports found that the emergency calls were “significantly associated” with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group, but not with COVID-19 infection rates. All of the vaccines administered in Israel were manufactured by Pfizer.

The authors say the findings “underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

Messenger RNA vaccines manufactured by Moderna (mRNA-1273) and Pfizer (BNT162b2) have been associated with an increased risk of myocarditis, especially in male adolescents and young adults. According to the United States Centre for Disease Control—drawing on self-reported data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—myocarditis has been reported typically after the second dose and within a week of vaccination.

Myocarditis causes inflammation of the heart muscle, which enlarges and weakens the organ, and creates scar tissue forcing it to work harder to circulate blood and oxygen throughout the body. Myopericarditis is inflammation of both the heart muscle and the layer (pericardium) surrounding the heart. According to the Myocarditis Foundation, the inflammation can be in response to a viral infection, or some other trigger including autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus.

Combining emergency call data with pandemic waves and vaccination rates

The study combines IEMS call volume data for cardiac arrest (CA) and for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with data on COVID-19 infection rates and vaccination rates over a span of two and half years, divided into three time periods: a 14-month “normal period” beginning in January 2019, prior to the pandemic; a ten-month “pandemic period” starting in March 2020, which includes two infection waves; and a “pandemic and vaccination period” from January to June 2021, which includes a third wave as well as Israel’s vaccination rollout for those aged 16 and older.

Here are some of the main observations (see Figures below for more detail):
  • Cardiac arrest calls (red line) appear to be decoupled from pandemic infection waves (grey line).
  • The increase in cardiac arrest calls (red line) appears to be associated with the vaccination rollout (purple and blue lines for 1st and 2nd dose respectively) and not with third wave (grey line).
  • The increase in cardiac arrest calls (red line) appears to be highly associated with the 2nd dose of the Pfizer vaccine (blue line).
  • The increase in cardiac arrest calls (red line) after April 2021 is associated with the single vaccine doses administered to individuals who were previously infected and recovered from COVID-19 (green line).
While the association between CA calls and the 1st and 2nd doses of vaccine seems to be a convincing one, the same cannot be said for the association between the single vaccine dose (green line) and the second spike in cardiac arrest calls (Figure 2). In this case, there seems to be a disconnect rather than an association.

To view the Figures relating to acute coronary syndrome (ACS)—which showed a similar association with Israel’s vaccination rollout— please go here.


Figure 1: Number of cardiac arrest calls (red line) from January 2019 to June 2021. Screen shot taken from IEMS call study (2022).



Figure 2: Number of cardiac arrest calls (red line) during the “pandemic and vaccination” period only. Screen shot taken from IEMS call study (2022).

Cardiac tissue changes can persist for months

When a group of patients aged 12-17 years, who presented in hospital with mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis returned for follow-up 3-6 months later, the majority continued to have “abnormal” heart MRI findings. This is according to a paper published in the Journal of Pediatrics, which was discussed in detail here. The authors of the study—most from the Department of Pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital—say that while abnormalities persisted, function had improved. They say the findings raise concerns for “potential longer-term effects” and plan to repeat the cardiac MRI on these patients at the 1-year postvaccine mark to re-assess.

The key point here is that when myopericarditis occurs, whether it’s a result of COVID-19 or the vaccine, there can be remnant damage to the heart and the signs of fibrosis and scarring can persist in a patient for a long time.

Who’s at higher risk, males or females?

The IEMS call data study also stated that while vaccine-induced myocarditis has been predominantly reported in males, the data indicate that the relative increases of CA and ACS events was larger in females. “This may suggest the potential underdiagnosis or under-self-reporting of myocarditis in females,” they write.

This observation seems to be supported by the findings of a population-based study published late last year in the British Medical Journal that found that Moderna’s vaccine was associated with a significantly increased risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis in the Danish population, compared with the unvaccinated, “primarily driven by an increased risk among individuals aged 12-39,” while Pfizer’s vaccine was only associated with a significantly increased risk among women.

At the same time, however, a population-based study out of Israel published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found that young male recipients of the Pfizer vaccine had the highest risk of myocarditis: a rate of approximately 1 per 26,000 males compared to 1 per 218,000 females after the 2nd vaccine dose. It also noted that the “incidence of myocarditis declined as the number of newly vaccinated persons decreased over time,” saying this was “suggestive of a possible causal relationship,” that may be related to the mRNA sequence that codes for the spike protein, or to the immune response that follows vaccination.

These varied findings about myocarditis risk suggest an urgent need for further investigation.

Critics of the Israel emergency call data study misrepresent it

Almost immediately after the IEMS call data study was published, an organization called Voices for Vaccines, a program of The Task Force for Global Health, tweeted the following:

What they found was there was a significant increase in these events for young people (16-39) right around the time when Israel was vaccinating its population, but no overall association with COVID-19 infection rates. They suggest the vaccine may be the cause…Let’s start with the obvious: correlation isn’t causation. The actual science of the paper is simply showing a correlation, without controlling for much.2

However, as previously stated, the authors were clear that the study “[did] not establish any causal relationships” but did nevertheless “raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis.”

The authors of the IEMS call analysis reference a number of studies (other than their own) that do establish a “probable causal relationship” between the messenger RNA vaccines and the adenovirus vaccine with myocarditis “primarily in children, young and middle-age adults.” These studies can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Contrary to what Voices of Vaccines asserts, the authors take great pains not to attribute causality by explaining that cardiac events are also prevalent among COVID-19 patients, and that since vaccine rollouts took place during community spread of the virus, identifying the driver of increased incidence “could be challenging.” They also say the increases in calls could be tied to “underlying causal mechanisms indirectly related to COVID-19,” such as patients “delaying seeking emergent care because of fear of the pandemic and lockdowns.”

The authors openly acknowledge the “main limitation” of the study:

[It] relies on aggregated data that do not include specific information regarding the affected patients, including hospital outcomes, underlying comorbidities as well as vaccination and COVID-19 positive status. Such related data are critical to determine the exact nature of the observed increase in CA and ACS calls in young people, and what the underlying causal factors are.

They also point to a key “policy implication”—one that is hardly controversial: EMS data should be incorporated into the current vaccine safety surveillance systems, along with self-reported data, to help identify public health trends, and to better understand “the risk-benefits of the vaccine” to “prevent potentially avoidable patient harm.”

In sum, the study used emergency service calls—a unique data source—which should be incorporated into our own vaccine safety surveillance systems, and the study findings warrant further investigation.

Watch Dr. Mobeen Syed’s summary video about the IEMS call study here.

1 There was a statistically significant 25.7% increase in calls for cardiac arrest (CA) and a 26% increase in calls related to acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

2 The Task Force for Global Health is an NGO based in Atlanta, Georgia, and is funded by corporations including pharmaceutical companies (18%), government, including the US CDC (58%), as well a number of foundations (19%).For more information about the Task Force and Voice for Vaccines, please take a look at this 2017 article by Peter Doshi, Associate Editor with the British Medical Journal. As the article is dated, funding amounts need updating.
 
Top