CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked

Deaths From “Unknown” Causes Are Now the Leading Killer in Alberta, Canada Following the Rollout of the Experimental Vaccine – 2021 Total Significantly Higher than 2019
By Julian Conradson
Published July 25, 2022

"Public health officials in the Canadian Province of Alberta are sounding the alarm after they recorded an unprecedented rise in deaths from “unknown” or “ill-defined” causes in 2020 and 2021. The total number of these deaths began rising at the start of the Covid pandemic but really began ballooning out of control following the rollout of the experimental jab.

According to the most recent data published by the Government of Alberta, deaths from “unknown” causes became the leading killer in the province – claiming more lives than heart disease, diabetes, and strokes, COMBINED – in 2021. When compared to pre-pandemic data the total number of deaths without a known cause is a staggering 7x higher than it was in 2019.

In total, there were 3,362 of these deaths in 2021, which is more than double the 1,464 in 2020. In 2019, there were only 522.

There is no data in this category prior to 2019.

The leading causes of death in the province are now as follows, via Calgary CTV News:

  1. Ill-defined and unknown causes (3,362)
  2. Dementia (2,135)
  3. Covid-19 (1,950)
  4. Chronic ischemic heart disease (1,939)
  5. Malignant neoplasms of the trachea, bronchitis, and lung (1,552)
  6. Acute myocardial infarction (1,075)
  7. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1,028)
  8. Diabetes Mellitus (728)
  9. Stroke (612)
  10. Accidental poisoning by and exposure to drugs and other substances (604)
According to Calgary CTV News, the province’s health officials have said they are looking into the data, but “have yet to provide an explanation for the sudden spike in deaths of unknown causes.”

Despite the ‘experts’ dragging their feet to come up with an explanation, there has been an astonishing amount of evidence linking the experimental vaccines to the sudden rise in unexpected deaths. Ever since the vaccine was first introduced in late 2020, insurance companies across the globe have reported a massive 40% increase in death claims, many of which involve working-aged individuals.

There has also been a jaw-dropping rise in mortality among millennials aged 25-34 over the past year and a half. Following the experimental vaccine’s rollout, all-cause mortality jumped by 84% in this age group.

Coincidentally – or not – Alberta’s spike in unexplained deaths coincides perfectly with the introduction of the experimental COVID vaccine. Furthermore, the public health bureaucracy’s failure to classify a cause of death for nearly 3,500 cases – especially with today’s modern technology – is downright inexcusable, albeit unsurprising.

It’s also worth pointing out that Covid deaths amounted to just over half of the total number of deaths with unknown causes, indicating that the spike in death is not being driven predominantly by the virus or the pandemic. This mirrors the data cited above, which also showed that a small percentage of the increase was attributable to Covid deaths.

Unfortunately for Americans, this type of data is being suppressed and our public health officials are doing everything in their power to downplay the adverse side effects that are caused by the experimental vaccines while continuing to green-light more doses. However, either way – if the vaccines are driving this massive uptick in unexplained death, or not – this issue needs to be seriously investigated, but the ‘experts are refusing to do so in order to keep the approved narrative intact.

Meanwhile, the body count just keeps on piling up. This universal Covid vaccination push will go down as one of – if not the – worst atrocities ever perpetrated on mankind.

How many more unexplained deaths need to keep popping up until Americans and the rest of the world see some accountability for what’s happened?

Sadly, we are likely in for a lot more in the near future."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

White House summit sets lofty goals for new Covid vaccines — but largely sidesteps questions of funding
By Lev Facher
July 26, 2022

WASHINGTON — Top White House officials spent Tuesday laying out a vision for a Covid vaccine utopia.

In the future they depicted, vaccines will be cheap and widely available. Instead of merely providing protection against hospitalization and death, they will stop infections from occurring in the first place. Instead of requiring a needle injection, they will be administered by nasal mist or skin patch.

Only on a few fleeting occasions, however, did President Biden’s top pandemic response advisers acknowledge the elephant in the room: money.

“Obviously, everyone has mentioned that investment is needed here,” Francis Collins, the former National Institutes of Health director and Biden’s acting science adviser, said, smiling, while moderating a panel about new methods of vaccine delivery. “It’s all going to come down to money.”

The cheery admission provided a brief reality check at the White House’s daylong “Summit on the Future of Covid-19 Vaccines.”

For the rest of the event, officials radiated optimism. Ashish Jha, Biden’s coronavirus response coordinator, began by setting forth a vision of vaccines that surpass the efficacy of those currently available.

“The vaccines we have are terrific,” he said. “We can do better than terrific.”

Other participants went further. Vaccines delivered as a skin patch — really a collection of microscopic needles “as long as a piece of paper is thick” — could provide immunity that’s stronger than any traditional vaccine injected into a muscle using a syringe.

Vaccines delivered as a nasal mist, other experts argued, could stop Covid transmission altogether, effectively bringing the pandemic to an end.

The tone remained upbeat throughout the event, and discussion often glossed over the enormous scientific challenges involved in the development of next-generation vaccines.

The audience at the event — likely the largest indoor gathering of U.S. public health leaders since the pandemic began in early 2020 — constituted a who’s-who of “Covid Twitter”: a collection of top academics and current or former Biden advisers, many of whom expressed delight at meeting each other in person for the first time.

Beyond Collins and Jha, attendees included former Food and Drug Administration official Luciana Borio; Baylor vaccinologist Peter Hotez; NYU’s Céline Gounder; Brown’s Megan Ranney; Penn’s Zeke Emanuel; and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center’s Trevor Bedford.

The White House itself was well-represented, too. Other officials present included David Kessler, the top science adviser to the Biden administration’s Covid-19 response; Alondra Nelson, the acting director of the White House science office; and Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Notably, however, the event did not include lawmakers, or any government official with substantial control over federal spending.

That didn’t stop participants from addressing the question of funds entirely. The success of such a sweeping vaccine initiative, they argued, hinges almost entirely on a significant investment from the government.

Richard Hatchett, the CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, asked wealthy nations to follow through on their pledge to help poorer governments buy vaccines.

Denise Octavia Smith, executive director of the National Association of Community Health Care Workers, warned that community health workers can’t be nearly as effective if they’re not paid fairly.

And Akiko Iwasaki, a Yale professor and co-founder of a company seeking to commercialize a vaccine booster delivered nasally, said she attended the event so that she could stress the need for government support.

“I’m really here to talk about the need for collaboration between the government, the private sector, and academia,” she said. “We need to move quickly to start testing these nasal vaccines, and that requires a significant U.S. government investment, both [financial] resources and help with the manufacturing.”

While it’s difficult to estimate the total cost of developing next-generation Covid vaccines, it will almost certainly require billions in federal funding to run large-scale clinical trials, scale up manufacturing capacity, and eventually purchase doses for distribution.

One official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that a funding request to Congress, worth as much as $12 billion, is in the works.

Lawmakers, however, have proven largely unwilling to provide the Biden administration with new funds to bolster its Covid-19 response. A $10 billion funding proposal, cast as essential for purchasing vaccines, tests, and therapeutics ahead of a potential surge in the fall and winter, has stagnated for months. Last month, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) accused the White House of peddling “patently false” information after the administration insisted the funds were essential, only to later move $10 billion from another pool of funds to purchase the supplies.

The White House has also not aggressively pursued funding for the $65 billion “Apollo-style” pandemic-preparedness plan it unveiled in September — nor has it sought money for its redux of the Obama administration’s “Cancer Moonshot.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Recent Fauci Claims Dismantled By Former CDC Director - And Fauci's Own Words
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Jul 26, 2022 - 07:10 PM

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been doing quite the tap-dance of late.

To review - as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, he funded risky gain-of-function research at a Chinese lab aimed at making bat coronavirus transmissible to humans.

Then, when a human-infecting bat coronavirus broke out down the street from the lab he funded, Fauci performed extensive damage control over the virus's origins - before taking a direct role in setting disastrous public policy which included economy-killing lockdowns that led to trillions in inflationary stimulus (which he now denies).
FAUCI YESTERDAY: "I didn't recommend locking anything down."
FAUCI IN OCTOBER 2020: "I recommended to the president that we shut the country down." pic.twitter.com/lvw59IBndA
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 26, 2022

Related:
Now that we're caught up - Fauci recently claims to have had an "open mind" about the possibility of a lab-leak, though he still says it's the least likely explanation for all of the above.

"It looks very much like this was a natural occurrence, but you keep an open mind," he told Fox News in a Friday interview.

Fauci repeated himself in an interview with The Hill on Monday.

I'm concerned that Fauci indicated yesterday to @HillTVLive that he had advanced knowledge that papers indicating a natural origin of COVID would publish today. pic.twitter.com/KkMVTFmDYt
— Emily Kopp (@emilyakopp) July 26, 2022

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield is calling BS:

As the Epoch Times' Jack Phillips notes:

When asked about Fauci’s recent comments on Monday, Redfield told Fox News that he still suspects COVID-19 emerged “from the laboratory” and “had to be educated in the laboratory to gain the efficient human-to-human transmission capability that it has.”

“There’s very little evidence, if you really want to be critical, to support” the natural emergence theory, he said. The former Trump administration official then compared COVID-19 to prior coronaviruses such as Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) that emerged about 10 years ago, saying that neither virus had the same transmission capacity as COVID-19.

“So it’s really exceptional that this virus is one of the most infectious viruses for man. And I still argue that’s because it was educated how to infect human tissue,” Redfield told Fox News.

Laboratory

The same Wuhan laboratory, he added, was the subject of a 2014 report amid claims that researchers performed research on bat-borne viruses that could impact humans.

“I’m disappointed in the [National Institutes of Health] for not leading an objective evaluation from the beginning,” Redfield told the outlet. “I think it really is antithetical to the science where they took a very strong position that people like myself who are somehow conspiratorial just because we have a different scientific hypothesis.”

* * *

Natural immunity

In a second bit of furious tap-dancing, Fauci completely deflected when he was asked why natural immunity from previous COVID-19 infections wasn't recognized as a legitimate protection when he was involved in setting public policy that included lockdowns and vaccine passports.

The topic was so woefully ignored that experts urged the Biden administration to formally recognize natural immunity - which Fauci now says they were 'always aware' of.

And yet, watch how he spins it now:

"Why was mass antibody testing never part of your covid response, why was natural immunity never taken seriously?" @bungarsargon asks Dr. Anthony Fauci—watch his response below: pic.twitter.com/2KQBC6cyUb
— Rising (@HillTVLive) July 25, 2022

And what did Fauci have to say about natural immunity when Pfizer and others didn't have an expensive vaccine with unproven long-term efficacy?

— Matthew Linder (@LinderMatthew) July 25, 2022
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Ron Paul: Ugly COVID Lies
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Jul 26, 2022 - 05:30 PM

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

After two years of unprecedented government tyranny in the name of fighting a virus, the prime instigators of this infamy are walking free, writing books, and openly pretending they never said the things they clearly said over and over.

Take Trump’s White House Covid response coordinator Deborah Birx, for example. She was, as the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker points out in a recent article, the principal architect of the disastrous “lockdown” policy that destroyed more lives than Covid itself. Birx knew that locking a country down in response to a virus was a radical move that would never be endorsed.

So, as she admits in her new book, she lied about it.



She sold the White House on the out-of-thin-air “fifteen days to slow the spread” all the while knowing there was no evidence it would do any such thing. As she wrote in her new book, Silent Invasion, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.”

She was playing for time with no evidence. As it turns out, she was also destroying the lives of millions of Americans. The hysteria she created led to countless businesses destroyed, countless suicides, major depressions, drug and alcohol addictions. It led to countless deaths due to delays in treatment for other diseases. It may turn out to be the most deadly mistake in medical history.

As she revealed in her book, she actually wanted to isolate every single person in the United States! Writing about how many people would be allowed to gather, she said: “If I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”

She wanted to prevent even two people from meeting. How is it possible that someone like this came to gain so much power over our lives? One virus and we suddenly become Communist China?

Last week in a Fox News interview she again revealed the extent of her treachery. After months of relentlessly demanding that all Americans get the Covid shots, she revealed that the “vaccines” were not vaccines at all!

“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection,” she told Fox.​
“And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.”​

So when did she know this?

Did she know it when she told ABC in late 2020 that “this is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal. And so that’s why I’m very enthusiastic about the vaccine”?

If she knew all along that the “vaccines” were not vaccines, why didn’t she tell us? Because, as she admits in her book, she believes it’s just fine to lie to people in order to get them to do what she wants.

She admits that she employed “subterfuge” against her boss – President Donald Trump – to implement Covid policies he opposed. So it should be no surprise that she lied to the American people about the efficacy of the Covid shots.

The big question now, after what appears to be a tsunami of vaccine-related injuries, is will anyone be forced to pay for the lies and subterfuge? Will anyone be held to account for the lives lost for the arrogance of the Birxes and Faucis of the world?
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Biden, Pharma Pressured Top FDA Officials to Approve Booster Timeline, Emails Reveal
Judicial Watch today announced it received 112 pages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that show top officials being pressured by “companies and for that matter the administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense.”
By Judicial Watch
07/26/22

Judicial Watch today announced it received 112 pages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that show top officials being pressured by “companies and for that matter the administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense.”

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in response to a February Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that was filed after HHS failed to respond to a Sept. 3, 2021, FOIA request for records of communication from the former director and deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause, respectively (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-00292)).

Drs. Gruber and Krause reportedly resigned during the White House’s push to approve the COVID-19 vaccine “booster shots.”

On Sept. 13, 2021, Gruber and Krause were among a group of resigning doctors who agreed that, “available evidence doesn’t yet indicate a need for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots among the general population …”

The records include an Aug. 25, 2021, email by Marion Gruber to her boss, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks:

“Over the last couple of days, Janssen has bombarded us with emails regarding their booster dose studies.

“I am also very concerned that companies (such as Pfizer and Janssen) are trying to put pressure on OVRR [Office of Vaccines Research and Review] by way of PR [public relations]. We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense (e.g., Sep 20)…. It appears that at least Pfizer’s data will not be aligned with this approach and the ‘n’ [test numbers] they have is grossly insufficient. Obviously, we have to review the data but we have taken a peek and have serious concerns.

“Lastly, and this is my personal opinion, data we have seen so far from various companies (Pfizer, Janssen, Moderna) appear to suggest that boosters are not needed.”

In an email exchange on Aug. 27, 2012, Gruber replies to an email from Maureen Hess, a communications specialist at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research:

“Well, the message appears to be ‘total buy-in in the need for boosters,’ this is not how I am writing the BD [likely board decision], I am trying to take a more neutral approach. This piece sounds as if we already decided to approve this supplement.”

Hess responds, “Okay, I’ll make some additional edits (but JW [likely Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock] was included on this statement so our edits may be rejected above us.”

After sending more emails about edits Hess made, Gruber replies, “From my perspective, this is as good as it can get. Obviously, this statements [sic] puts us into a real bind but the damage is already done.”

In an Aug. 20, 2021, email exchange Dr. Doran Fink, the Deputy Director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications raises questions regarding new data, that Moderna was submitting to FDA about its COVID vaccine. Fink told Drs. Gruber, Krause and other colleagues:

“I had to bite my tongue when Peter [likely Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] mentioned this morning we wouldn’t be doing rushed reviews anymore so as not to ask about the booster doses that the administration promised to everyone by Sept 20!

“And then there is the question of the data that will support these booster doses — maybe I’m wrong, but my understanding is that Pfizer is proposing that their sBLA include the Phase 1 booster data from a grand total of 23 subjects. I’m not sure what Moderna will have, but the data Fauci presented in the press conference from NIAID studies, which was ~25 subjects per treatment arm.”

Gruber states in an Aug. 17, 2021, email “They [Dr. Doran’s team] fully understand that the Acting Commissioner would like to approve this product [Pfizer COVID booster vaccine] very soon and are trying their best to complete their review and assessment, while at the same time, maintaining our high standards and scientific and clinical integrity.”

Philip Krause, in an Aug. 10, 2021 email, complains: “It sounds like Peter [likely Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks] thinks he has taken over all vaccine operations, not just the Pfizer BLA [Biologics License Application] …”

On Aug. 23, 2021, Dr. Arnold Monto, professor in the Department of Epidemiology of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, emails Drs. Gruber and Krause using the subject “VRBPAC and boosters.”

The email said:

“The Surgeon General last night made a statement that the FDA and CDC advisory committees would be reviewing Hope that he misspoke about the VRBPAC (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) Doesn’t seem to be enough time to get it organized Just got asked about flu vaccination and COVID boosters being given at the same time. Gave my personal information, don’t”

Gruber then replies to Monto: “We will be discussing the ‘booster question’ and related submissions including whether VRBPAC should be held. We do not know yet and you are right that timing will be an issue once again.”

On Sept. 22, 2021, the FDA approved the use of a booster dose of the Pfizer drug.

According to the organization’s news release, the FDA, “amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series” for people at “high risk” of “severe COVID-19.”

“These FDA documents confirm a politicized approval process for the controversial COVID-19 vaccine booster shots,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is a scandal that it took months and a federal lawsuit to these troubling facts about this unprecedented and seemingly never-ending vaccine operation.”

Through FOIA requests and lawsuits, Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:

  • Recently, National Institutes of Health (NIH) records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
  • HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
  • NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
  • HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high-level commitment from China.”
  • HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
  • HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
  • University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.
  • HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
  • Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.
  • HHS records include emails between NIH then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIAID, about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
  • HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
  • Fauci’s emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

40% of Women With The COVID Vaccine Have Reported Significant Effects on their Periods.
But remember: it’s all a “conspiracy theory,” according to the Big Pharma salespeople like Fauci.
by Natalie Winters
July 26, 2022

Nearly half of women receiving a COVID-19 vaccine reported heavier menstrual bleeding, according to new research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The figures come from a survey of over 35,000 women who were fully vaccinated, with the majority of the cohort receiving a Pfizer jab followed by Moderna.

“In this sample, 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles bled more heavily than usual, while 44% reported no change after being vaccinated,” summarized researchers, which counted funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the study.

“Respondents reported noticing changes to their period 1 to 7 days after vaccines (dose 1: 31.4%; dose 2: 37.0%), 8 to 14 days after vaccines (dose 1: 25.9%; dose 2: 23.6%), or more than 14 days after receiving their vaccines (dose 1: 29.9%; dose 2: 26.8%), with the rest of respondents reporting that they were menstruating when they received the vaccine (dose 1: 12.7%; dose 2: 12.5%),” explained the study.

In sum, 42.1 percent of women reported experiencing a heavier menstrual flow after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, 14.3 percent reported a mix of lighter or no change, and 43.6 percent reported no change in flow.

The new study, “Investigating Trends in Those who Experience Menstrual Bleeding Changes After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination,” was published in the journal Science Advances. Another study funded by the NIH found that COVID-19 vaccines had the potential to lengthen women’s menstrual cycles, as well.

The side effects of the “vaccines” – which have been dismissed by mainstream media outlets and social media fact-checkers as untrue – follows lobbying efforts on behalf of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna reaching record-high levels of spending and overall personnel hired. The massive lobbying campaigns are likely responsible for nationwide vaccine mandates, which have subsequently been struck down by district courts.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/0...n-institute-of-virology-reports-cholera-case/
Similarly, posing another conflict of interest, the chairman and former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Thomson Reuters Foundation – James C. Smith – is a top investor and board member for pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer.

At the time of publication, Reuters has not covered the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign study.

The outlet, however, has run stories titled “Vaccines not linked to menstrual changes; COVID, flu shots can go together” and “No link found between menstrual changes and COVID vaccines.”

The study also follows researchers concluding that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine resulted in a sustained loss in sperm count and could pose a risk to heart health, especially among young men, despite mockery by mainstream media outlets over the concerns.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

New England Journal of Medicine: Unvaccinated COVID Patients Are Contagious for LESS Time Than those Vaxed or Boosted.
Trust *this* science.
by Natalie Winters
July 22, 2022

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that people vaccinated against COVID-19 remained contagious with the virus for a longer period of time than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The disparity in contagiousness was particularly pronounced between the unvaccinated and individuals who did not receive a booster shot.

The findings were published in a letter to the editor signed by dozens of doctors from a variety of hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in June. From July 2021 through January 2022, researchers studied 66 participants who contracted COVID-19, including 32 people with the Delta variant and 34 with the Omicron variant.

Researchers compiled a variety of graphs tracking how long people remained contagious with the virus, using both PCR tests and viral cultures as indicators.

When the data was separated into the categories “unvaccinated,” “vaccinated,” and “boosted,” individuals who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine were contagious for a shorter period of time.

Regarding positive PCR tests, within the first 10 days of contracting the virus 68.75 percent of unvaccinated subjects were no longer contagious. In contrast, just 29.72 percent of vaccinated and 38.46 percent of boosted people were no longer contagious.

Fifteen days into the study, 93.75 percent and 92.31 percent of unvaccinated and boosted people, respectively, were no longer contagious; however, just 78.38 percent of vaccinated people weren’t contagious.

Screen-Shot-2022-07-22-at-3.56.08-PM-800x591.png

Study Data.

The study follows a host of similar reports and analyses conducted by researchers who deduced similar conclusions that undercut the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Natural immunity has also proven to be superior in fighting against the initial infection of COVID-19.

Despite these data points, which have been routinely censored by social media “fact-checkers,” the White House and mainstream media have continued to uncritically promote COVID-19 vaccines.

The embrace of COVID-19 vaccines by companies including Pfizer and Moderna follows massive lobbying campaigns and spending efforts by the pharmaceutical giants.






 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Here's the article referred to in the post above this.

(fair use applies)

Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection
July 21, 2022
N Engl J Med 2022; 387:275-277
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2202092

To the Editor:

The B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has a shorter incubation period and a higher transmission rate than previous variants.1,2 Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended shortening the strict isolation period for infected persons in non–health care settings from 10 days to 5 days after symptom onset or after the initial positive test, followed by 5 days of masking.3 However, the viral decay kinetics of the omicron variant and the duration of shedding of culturable virus have not been well characterized.

We used longitudinal sampling of nasal swabs for determination of viral load, sequencing, and viral culture in outpatients with newly diagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).4 From July 2021 through January 2022, we enrolled 66 participants, including 32 with samples that were sequenced and identified as the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant and 34 with samples that were sequenced and identified as the omicron subvariant BA.1, inclusive of sublineages. Participants who received Covid-19–specific therapies were excluded; all but 1 participant had symptomatic infection. This study was approved by the institutional review board and the institutional biosafety committee at Mass General Brigham, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

The characteristics of the participants were similar in the two variant groups except that more participants with omicron infection had received a booster vaccine than had those with delta infection (35% vs. 3%) (Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). In an analysis in which a Cox proportional-hazards model that adjusted for age, sex, and vaccination status was used, the number of days from an initial positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay to a negative PCR assay (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 1.15) and the number of days from an initial positive PCR assay to culture conversion (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.37) were similar in the two variant groups (Figure 1A through 1C and S1 through S3, and Tables S3 through S5). The median time from the initial positive PCR assay to culture conversion was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 5) in the delta group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the omicron group; the median time from symptom onset or the initial positive PCR assay, whichever was earlier, to culture conversion was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 7) and 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), respectively. There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status, although the sample size was quite small, which led to imprecision in the estimates (Figure 1D and 1E).

In this longitudinal cohort of participants, most of whom had symptomatic, nonsevere Covid-19 infection, the viral decay kinetics were similar with omicron infection and delta infection. Although vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease, we did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted.

Our results should be interpreted within the context of a small sample size, which limits precision, and the possibility of residual confounding in comparisons according to variant, vaccination status, and the time period of infection. Although culture positivity has been proposed as a possible proxy for infectiousness,5 additional studies are needed to correlate viral-culture positivity with confirmed transmission in order to inform isolation periods. Our data suggest that some persons who are infected with the omicron and delta SARS-CoV-2 variants shed culturable virus more than 5 days after symptom onset or an initial positive test.

Julie Boucau, Ph.D.
Caitlin Marino, B.S.
Ragon Institute, Cambridge, MA
James Regan, B.S.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
Rockib Uddin, B.S.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Manish C. Choudhary, Ph.D.
James P. Flynn, B.S.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
Geoffrey Chen, B.A.
Ashley M. Stuckwisch, B.S.
Josh Mathews, A.B.
May Y. Liew, B.A.
Arshdeep Singh, B.S.
Taryn Lipiner, M.P.H.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Autumn Kittilson, B.S.
Meghan Melberg, B.S.
Yijia Li, M.D.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
Rebecca F. Gilbert, B.A.
Zahra Reynolds, M.P.H.
Surabhi L. Iyer, B.A.
Grace C. Chamberlin, B.A.
Tammy D. Vyas, B.S.
Marcia B. Goldberg, M.D.
Jatin M. Vyas, M.D., Ph.D.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Jonathan Z. Li, M.D.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
Jacob E. Lemieux, M.D., D.Phil.
Mark J. Siedner, M.D., M.P.H.
Amy K. Barczak, M.D.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Supported by grants (to Drs. Goldberg, J.Z. Li, Lemieux, Siedner, and Barczak) from the Massachusetts Consortium for Pathogen Readiness, a grant (to Dr. Vyas) from the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, and a grant (P30 AI060354, to the BSL3 laboratory where viral culture work was performed) from the Harvard University Center for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org.
This letter was published on June 29, 2022, and updated on July 6, 2022, at NEJM.org.

Drs. J.Z. Li, Lemieux, Siedner, and Barczak contributed equally to this letter.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Smoking Linked to ‘Severe’ COVID-19 Complications: Study
By Jack Phillips
July 26, 2022

Individuals who reported smoking or vaping tobacco prior to COVID-19 hospitalization had a far likely higher chance of suffering severe complications as compared with nonsmokers, a recent study has found.

Researchers, who published their peer-reviewed findings in PLOS One, said they examined data on adults aged 18 and older who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 107 hospitals across the United States from January 2020 to March 2021. Those who were identified as smokers reported their status to the hospital, and people were categorized as smokers if they smoked cigarettes or vaped with e-cigarettes.

Records were found for 4,086 people who smoked and for 1,362 people who didn’t smoke, researchers said. They noted that there was no information about the duration of smoking or former smoking status.

“The study findings indicate smoking or vaping are associated with more severe COVID-19 independent of age, sex, race or medical history,” said a news release on a study published on Tuesday.

Smokers were 45 percent more likely to die of COVID-19 and 39 percent more likely to be placed on a mechanical ventilator than those who didn’t smoke, according to the study.

“Although the excessive risk due to smoking was independent of medical history and medication use,” the news release said, “smoking was a stronger risk factor for death in people between 18-59 years of age and those who were white or had obesity.”

Furthermore, smoking was associated with a greater risk factor for death in individuals aged 18 to 59 and among those who were white or obese, the study found.

“In general, people who smoke or vape tend to have a higher prevalence of other health conditions and risk factors that could play a role in how they are impacted by COVID-19,” said the study’s senior author, Aruni Bhatnagar with the University of Louisville.

Bhatnagar suggested that anti-smoking campaigns around COVID-19 should be initiated because there is a “robust and significant increase in the risk of severe COVID-19″ after the study’s findings were released.

“These findings provide the clearest evidence to date that people who smoke or vape have a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 and dying as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Bhatnagar also said, referring to another name for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

While there have been few studies published on smoking and COVID-19, the head of the federal National Institute on Drug Abuse said early on in the pandemic that people who vape nicotine or THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, are at a higher risk of virus-related complications.

“Preclinical studies show that e-cigarette aerosols can damage lung tissue, cause inflammation, and diminish the lungs’ ability to respond to infection,” Dr. Nora Volkow said in April 2020.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

A Pandemic of the Triple Vaccinated
By Ramesh Thakur
July 26, 2022

Deborah Birx was the White House Covid-19 response coordinator under President Donald Trump. Jeffrey Tucker recently wrote a brutal takedown of her deliberate misrepresentations of science and data in order to manipulate Trump into going along with her preferred but misguided policy interventions to deal with the Covid outbreak.

In an ABC podcast on December 15, 2020, she said: “I understand the safety of the vaccine … I understand the depth of the efficacy of this vaccine. This is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal.”

Appearing on Fox News on July 22, however, she claimed: “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.”

This might help to explain why there has been such a concerning collapse of public confidence in leading health institutions and “authorities.”

Biden’s claim of a pandemic of the unvaccinated

During a CNN Town Hall event on July 21, 2021, President Joe Biden said: “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you are not going to die.”

On May 16, 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed that vaccination did not just protect the individual, but also the community, because “by preventing the spread of the virus … you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere.”

Relying in the judgment of his chief medical adviser, Biden took to talking about the pandemic of the unvaccinated in a two-track effort both to encourage vaccine takeup and to vilify, demonize and shame those who remained uncertain enough of the balance of benefits and short and long-term risks of the rushed Covid-19 vaccines to avoid succumbing to the multiple pressures to go along with the zeitgeist in order to get along with everyone.

We have now had both Dr. Fauci, the public face of the US management of the pandemic, revered in some quarters and reviled in others, and President Biden himself get infected with Covid, despite both being double-vaccinated and double-boosted.

Inevitably, to try and stop the official narrative on the benefits of the vaccine from unraveling completely and in order to encourage continuing vaccine and boosters takeup, they insist that their updated vaccination status helped to limit the severity of their infection. This is based on a cult-like faith, akin to self-validating and self-canceling explanations put forth by astrologers for predictions that come true and don’t, as the case may be.

Although on July 20, Fauci admitted that the data do make it clear that “vaccines – because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus – don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked why the media was not holding Fauci “accountable for the costly national policies and the lockdowns that were utterly built upon his initial assertion that the vaccines would prevent transmission and end the pandemic.”

Equally, of course, one must ask again: if vaccines don’t stop transmission, how does the government justify vaccination mandates for travel to the US?

In a matching vein, the New South Wales (NSW) Health report for the week ending 16 July claims that: “The minority of the overall population who have not been vaccinated are significantly overrepresented among patients in hospitals and ICUs with Covid-19.”

The following challenges that claim using their own data.

By drawing on the distinction between the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines, it’s possible to argue that in NSW, rather than a pandemic of the unvaccinated, what we have witnessed is a pandemic of the triple-vaccinated.

NSW health facts

In September 2021, NSW had 844 staffed ICU beds, of which 173 (20.5 percent) were occupied by Covid-19 patients. (Australia-wide, the number of ICU beds is 2,183.) By January 2022, the number had increased to around 1,000. If necessary, this can be bumped up further by utilizing the limited number of ICU beds in private hospitals.

There are 9,500 general ward beds in public and another 3,000 beds in private hospitals in NSW. In mid-July 2022, there were 2,058 people in hospital with Covid-19 in NSW, or 21.7 percent of the public system’s capacity and 16.5 percent of the state’s total hospital beds capacity. An additional 6,500 people were in hospital for non-Covid reasons.

During the week of July 10–16, a total of 806 people were admitted to hospital with Covid-19, another 77 into ICU, and 142 people died with Covid-19 illness (though not necessarily as the primary cause of death). Moreover, of the 142 deaths, only four were aged below 60, so that people aged 60 and above accounted for 97.2 percent of all Covid-related deaths in the state.

Additionally, of the 142 dead, the vaccination status of 2 was not known. One hundred and eighteen of the remaining 140 – 84.3 percent – were at least double-vaccinated and 69 had received three doses of the vaccine: by far the biggest single cohort and almost equal to all the others combined. Hence the thought that perhaps what we are experiencing is a pandemic of the triple-vaccinated.

Efficacy vs. effectiveness

The Cambridge Dictionary defines efficacy as “how well a particular treatment or drug works under carefully controlled scientific testing conditions.” By contrast, effectiveness is defined as “how well a particular treatment or drug works when people are using it, as opposed to how well it works under carefully controlled scientific testing conditions.”

Thus doubts about the effectiveness of a new product in treating any disease can only be resolved once the vaccine is widely available and administered in the target population. GAVI (the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), now called Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a partnership between the World Health Organization, Unicef, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Writing for GAVI, Priya Joi offers similar definitions, describing “efficacy” as the measure of how much a vaccine prevents infection (and possibly also transmission) under ideal, controlled conditions where a vaccinated group is compared with a placebo group. She adds: “Vaccines do not always need to have an exceptionally high effectiveness to be useful, for example the influenza vaccine is 40-60% effective yet saves thousands of lives every year.”

Examining the percentage of the thrice-jabbed in hospital admissions, ICU beds, and dead against the baseline of their share in the overall population, preferably age-adjusted, is critical to calculating vaccine efficacy. I’m not sure how helpful that is to assessing the effectiveness of vaccines in keeping the absolute numbers down below the state’s or country’s capacity thresholds of hospital and ICU beds.

If the primary public health justification for universal vaccination is to reduce the burden on the health infrastructure and prevent hospitals and ICU capacity from being overwhelmed – which was indeed the main justification in the language of two-three weeks to flatten the curve – then the key question becomes: How effective are the vaccines in preventing hospital admissions and ICU occupancy? Their role in preventing infection by itself is less important than their effectiveness in controlling the severity of the disease.

For example, a report from the Dutch health ministry found that the effectiveness of two doses of vaccines after one year had fallen overall to 0 percent against hospitalizations and minus 20 percent against ICU admission. Perhaps more pertinently in relation to NSW, Dr. Eyal Shahar notes signs in Israel of a short-term fatality rate of a third dose.

Efficacy is more helpful to an individual in assessing the relative risk of infection if vaccinated or not. Because Covid vaccines were granted emergency-use authorization and long-term efficacy and safety profiles were simply not available, doubts have persisted about the integrity, credibility and long-term reliability of data and results from the trials conducted by the vaccine manufacturers.

Moreover, as we’ve been made aware with respect to the UK, different branches of the government like the Health Security Agency and the Office of National Statistics use different and hotly contested methodologies for calculating the numbers and proportions of the population infected by Covid, which in turn determines the estimated infection fatality rate (IFR).

In any case, even if we agree that the IFR and case fatality rate (CFR) of flu and Covid are broadly comparable by now, the scale and magnitude of Covid means that similar IFR and CFR still produce vastly different orders of challenges for public health policy.

By contrast the effectiveness of the vaccines for controlling hospital admissions, ICU bed occupancy and mortality is measured by solid and reliable information that is both accurate and comprehensive in Western countries. This makes vaccine effectiveness a better policy tool for deciding on population-wide mandates while efficacy might be the more relevant for informed individual decisions.

Covid in NSW

Figure-1-800x554.png


In the period for the weeks ending May 28 to July 16, 2022 in NSW, of those whose vaccination status was known, only eight unvaccinated people were among the 3,509 who required hospital admission (Figure 1). The numbers in ICU were 5 unvaccinated and 316 with 2-4 doses (Figure 2); the number of Covid dead were 110 unvaccinated and 662 with 2–4 doses (Figure 3).

With 83 percent of people at least double-vaccinated, they accounted for 99.4, 96.3, and 85.4 percent, respectively, of NSW Covid hospital admission, ICU and deaths in these seven weeks.

In the final week of this seven-week period, of those whose vaccination status was known, there were exactly zero – zilch, nada – unvaccinated people among the 624 hospital and 59 ICU Covid-19 admissions, compared to 615 with two, three and four vaccine doses in hospital and 58 in ICU beds. Just the triple-vaccinated, who account for 68 percent of the population of NSW, made up 57.5 percent in hospital, 53.7 percent in ICU and 53.5 percent of the Covid dead.

Figure-2-800x518.png


The claim that the unvaccinated are “significantly overrepresented” in Covid-19 hospital admissions and ICU occupancy is not just misleading, it’s downright false. Seriously, do they look at the data in their own reports before drawing policy conclusions?

Figure-3-800x564.png


As knowledge about the rapidly fading efficacy of the vaccines, and in particular of each successor booster dose, has firmed, and also as the vaccine escape properties of the newer variants of Covid-19 have become better known, the equivalent question now is: are we into the era of the pandemic of the triple -vaccinated? The biggest strain on NSW hospitals and ICU beds is coming from their numbers.

Public health officials can talk and dissemble all they want about the baselines for comparisons and pretend to possess great sophistication in their understanding of the current state of the disease. They still cannot spin their way out of the hard data.

Instead they are exhibiting a severe case of cognitive dissonance in encouraging the double-vaccinated to get boosted and double-boosted. The ineffectiveness of vaccines in reducing hospital admissions and ICU demand is in itself sufficient to torpedo vaccine mandates. Doubts on their efficacy and concerns about their adverse effects and long-term safety further strengthens the case against mandates.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

How Will Humans Survive an Apocalypse? A New Study Has an Answer
By Society for Risk Analysis
July 26, 2022

A study of Western Australia and China during the COVID-19 epidemic suggests that one possibility is to establish a safe refuge.

Establishing a safe refuge – on an island or in such remote locations like the moon or underwater – where a portion of the human population can remain alive has been proposed as a strategy to rescue humanity in the case of a devastating epidemic or another terrible worldwide catastrophe.

The COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent paper in the journal Risk Analysis, shows that a refuge is a viable idea and may not necessarily need to be remote or far away. The authors examine how and why China and Western Australia were effective refuges during the pandemic’s first two years in their analysis.

Seth Baum, a geographer and the executive director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute in Washington, D.C., and Vanessa Adams, a geographer at the University of Tasmania, investigated the case of China and Western Australia, two political jurisdictions that share borders with other countries but have managed to keep COVID-19 infections at a low level. The predicted number of cases per 100,000 people in China from March 2020 to January 2022 was 1,358 as opposed to 98,556 in the US and 142,365 in India. There were 48.8 official cases in Western Australia.

Previous research has shown that island nations like Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand are good candidates for a refuge — based on their success in keeping COVID-19 infections low in the first nine months of the pandemic. (A pandemic refuge is a place with low medical risk where a pathogen has not spread significantly.)

The new study, covering nearly two years of the pandemic, suggests that geographic isolation (or being on an island) is not a prerequisite for a pandemic refuge. “China is a very clear case in point,” says Baum. “It has succeeded despite having the world’s longest land border.”

In their paper, Baum and Adams examine both the differences and similarities between China and Western Australia. China is authoritarian, collectivist, and heavily populated in the most populous region of the world. Western Australia is democratic, individualist, and sparsely populated in one of the most remote regions of the world.

Yet the two jurisdictions are similar in other, important ways. Both have a high degree of centralization and a high capacity for self-isolation — China via its authoritarian government, Western Australia via its social isolation and strong economy driven by a booming mining industry. Both also have strong in-group cohesion and have been highly motivated to avoid pathogen spread. Both China and Western Australia have also maintained extensive trade with outside places throughout the pandemic.

“This is encouraging because it suggests that pandemic refuges can provide a high degree of economic support for outside populations during pandemics, an important element for achieving the global objective of refuges – the continuity of civilization,” says Baum.

“Pandemic refuges are a risk management policy concept worthy of serious consideration,” adds Adams, “alongside other public health measures such as vaccines and physical distancing.”

Reference: “Pandemic refuges: Lessons from 2 years of COVID-19” by Seth D. Baum and Vanessa M. Adams, 1 June 2022, Risk Analysis.

DOI: 10.1111/risa.13953
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Human lung proteins can advance or thwart SARS-CoV-2 infections
by University of California - Berkeley
July 27, 2022

Researchers have taken an important step toward understanding the microscopic battle that plays out between our lung cells and the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. A UC Berkeley-led study has identified specific proteins within our bodies that can promote or protect us from SARS-CoV-2 infections, potentially opening the door to new antiviral therapies.

In the study, published this week in Nature Genetics, researchers used CRISPR technology to test the impact of every human gene on SARS-CoV-2 infections in human lung cells. Their findings revealed new pathways that the virus relies on to infect cells, as well as the antiviral pathways that help protect against viral infection. Notably, they showed that mucins—the main component of mucus found in the lungs—seem to help block the SARS-CoV-2 virus from entering our cells.

"Our data suggest that mucins play a key role in restricting SARS-CoV-2 infection by acting as a barrier to viruses that are attempting to access our lung epithelial cells," said Scott Biering, the study's co-lead author and a postdoctoral researcher in Eva Harris's lab at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. "Further, our data suggest that mucin expression levels in an individual's lungs may impact COVID-19 disease progression."

Patrick Hsu—cofounder of the Arc Institute and Berkeley assistant professor of bioengineering, Deb Faculty Fellow and Innovative Genomics Institute Investigator—is the principal investigator of the study, which brought together researchers from 10 institutions. Harris, professor of public health at UC Berkeley, and Silvana Konermann, assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, were co-senior authors of the study. Other collaborators contributed from Stanford University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yale School of Medicine and Cornell University, and spanned disciplines ranging from immunology, bioengineering, epidemiology, molecular biology and genetics.

Together, the researchers were trying to determine how the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters human cells and replicates so efficiently during illness. They also wanted to identify specific defense mechanisms in human cells that might be able to fight infection, which could inspire new therapeutic strategies.



Researchers discovered that MUC1 and MUC4, types of mucins found in lung cell membranes, defend lung cells from infection. This finding is important because previous studies had suggested that an accumulation of mucus could be the reason why some people became seriously ill with COVID-19—since the mucus can make it difficult for people to breathe—and proposed using drugs to deplete mucus. This Berkeley-led study suggests that such a strategy could interfere with mucins that provide a valuable defense mechanism against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Still, mucins are complex, and more research is needed to fully understand them. The researchers discovered that other mucins—MUC5AC and MUC5B—which are secreted into the mucus lining of the lungs, either do nothing to stop SARS-CoV-2 infection or can even promote viral infection.

According to Biering, both the type and amount of mucus that each person produces may result in different outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 infection—and lead to different treatment strategies.

"Somebody who produces a lot of the right type of mucus could be very protected. But somebody who produces a lot of the wrong type of mucus might have more risk of infection," said Biering. "And somebody who produces very little of the right type also could be at more risk."

This is also the first study in which researchers looked at how the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with human lung cells, marking a critical advancement in COVID-19 research.

"It is well known that virus infection can be promoted or inhibited by our own proteins," said Biering. "But this is the first time that a systematic investigation of these host cell proteins has been conducted in human lung epithelial cells for SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Past studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection have used cell types that do not naturally contain the receptors or other pathways that the virus uses to infect our lungs. For this study, researchers wanted to use a more relevant cell type, human epithelial cells called Calu-3, found on the inner surface of the lung. Though this cell line is extremely challenging to work with, researchers managed to gain a more accurate understanding of the biology involved in human SARS-CoV-2 infections.

"[Using Calu-3 cells] was a huge advancement, given that these are very representative of the first cells the virus contacts and infects in humans, and it revealed new pathways not seen in other cell lines," said co-lead author Sylvia Sarnik, an assistant specialist in Hsu's lab at the time of the study. "Overall, this study is a step forward in understanding viral infection pathways and paves the way for research toward better treatments in the future."

The researchers conducted genome-wide CRISPR gain-of-function and loss-of-function screening to eliminate or overexpress every gene in the human genome. Then they measured the impact of these gene expression changes on SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lung epithelial cells. Importantly, many of the genes highlighted by this screen have yet to be investigated experimentally, providing a starting point for future work.

"You can run these massively parallel 'Hunger Games'-style experiments on human cells to see which genes you can change to tune the ability of our lung cells to survive or grow when the virus infects them," said Hsu.

"Our screen successfully identified hundreds of genes that were important for replication of SARS-CoV-2 and hundreds of genes that could restrict SARS-CoV-2," said Biering. "In this study, we chose to focus on understanding the role of these mucin proteins."

The researchers identified mucin glycoproteins as key restriction factors for infection in cells, both in mouse models and potentially in humans.

Researchers also studied how mucins would interact with other respiratory viruses, including influenza A virus, human parainfluenza virus, common cold coronaviruses and respiratory syncytial virus. As with SARS-CoV-2, the results were unpredictable.

"What we showed was mucins are broadly antiviral, but the story is actually much more complicated than that," said Hsu. "In fact, in some viruses, we found that mucin overexpression actually seemed to increase infectivity."

Future work will be critical to better understand how viruses interact with mucins, but, for now, these findings provide an important starting point. "This study helped us learn more about the virus and opened new avenues for research to further investigate druggable targets," said Sarnik.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I posted an MSM article about this a few posts up. This is the medical journal version.

(fair use applies)

White House pushes for next generation COVID vaccines
July 26, 2022

The White House on Tuesday held a summit with vaccine makers and scientists as it pushed for "next generation" COVID-19 vaccines that offer broader and more durable protection against the virus.

While current vaccines continue to confer strong protection against serious illness from COVID, the ongoing evolution of the virus has reduced their effectiveness against infection and transmission.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the efforts would be based on two pillars: "pan-coronavirus" vaccines that would stand up to variants and "mucosal" vaccines that are delivered nasally to stop the virus where it enters.

"The goal of that is not only to protect against disease, but to protect against acquisition, and by acquisition, transmission," he said of the intranasal vaccine.

Achieving a pan-coronavirus vaccine might be possible by taking pieces of different variants, which is called a "mosaic" approach.

Both ideas are far off from realization.

Nasal vaccines are being tested in mice, where they have shown promise, while vaccine developers Pfizer and BioNTech have announced they will work towards trials for universal coronavirus vaccines.

In a commentary for Science magazine, scientists Eric Topol and Akiko Iwasaki argued that a new funding program for next generation vaccines was needed, along the lines of Operation Warp Speed, which funneled $10 billion into vaccine development early in the pandemic.

"The objective of breaking the chain of transmission at the individual and population level will put us in a far better position to achieve containment of the virus, no less reducing the toll of sickness and long COVID," they said.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Epoch Times reported on this, posted a few posts up. Here is the study as reported from the medical page.

(fair use applies)

Smoking, vaping linked to higher risk of severe COVID-19 complications, including death
by American Heart Association
July 26, 2022

People who reported smoking or vaping prior to their hospitalization for COVID-19 were more likely than their counterparts who did not smoke or vape to experience severe complications, including death, from the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The findings are from a new study based on data from the American Heart Association's COVID-19 CVD Registry and published in PLOS ONE.

Researchers examined data on people over 18 years of age who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 107 registry-participating hospitals across the nation between January 2020 to March 2021. Smoking status was self-reported and people were classified as smoking if they reported currently using either traditional, combustible cigarettes or e-cigarette products, with no distinction between the two and no information on duration of smoking or former smoking status. For the final analysis, records were selected for 4,086 people with a 1:2 ratio of people who smoked (1,362) to people who did not smoke (2,724), with the two groups matched for no statistically significant difference in age, sex, race, medical history or medication.

The study findings indicate smoking or vaping are associated with more severe COVID-19 independent of age, sex, race or medical history:

  • People who reported smoking were 45% more likely to die and 39% more likely to receive mechanical ventilation when compared with those who did not smoke.
  • Although the excessive risk due to smoking was independent of medical history and medication use, smoking was a stronger risk factor for death in people between 18-59 years of age and those who were white or had obesity.

"In general, people who smoke or vape tend to have a higher prevalence of other health conditions and risk factors that could play a role in how they are impacted by COVID-19. However, the robust and significant increase in the risk of severe COVID-19 seen in our study, independent of medical history and medication use and particularly among young individuals, underscores the urgent need for extensive public health interventions such as anti-smoking campaigns and increased access to cessation therapy, especially in the age of COVID," said the study's senior author, Aruni Bhatnagar, Ph.D., FAHA, a professor of medicine, biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky. "These findings provide the clearest evidence to date that people who smoke or vape have a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 and dying as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Bhatnagar is co-director of the American Heart Association's Tobacco Center for Regulatory Science which supported the study in part with funding from the U. S. National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration research grants.

"We established the COVID-19 CVD Registry early on in the pandemic to better understand the link between COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease, specifically, to identify increased risk to help inform the diagnosis and care of people who are at highest risk for complications," said Sandeep R. Das, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., FAHA, co-chair of the steering committee for the American Heart Association COVID-19 CVD Registry Powered by Get With The Guidelines and director for Quality and Value in the Cardiology Division at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. "The findings of this study deliver on that goal and provide invaluable information individuals and their health care teams."

The American Heart Association launched the registry in 2020 to gather data specific to all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 as part of the Get With The Guidelines quality improvement program. Registry participation was offered at no cost to all U.S. hospitals caring for adults with active COVID-19 and with the infrastructure to support accurate data collection. More than 160 hospitals provided data on more than 79,000 patient records between 2020 and June 2022.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
If you scroll up to post 64,426, you'll see this article:
CRISPR therapeutics can damage the genome
I think these scientists need to check each other's research out. just sayin'....:whistle:



(fair use applies)

CRISPR technology demonstrates success in preventing and treating COVID
by Sarah Avery, Duke University
July 26, 2022

1658911953284.jpeg
Graphical abstract. Credit: Nature Chemical Biology (2022). DOI: 10.1038/s41589-022-01094-4


In what is believed to be a first, a research team led by Duke Health has demonstrated a way to use CRISPR technology to successfully prevent and treat COVID infections.

The proof-of-concept experiments, conducted in mice, modified a currently available lipid nanoparticle to deliver a specific CRISPR/Cas13 mRNA that generates an inhospitable environment in the lungs for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

If further research in humans validates the approach, it could lead to a prevention strategy that is not dependent on the ability of antibodies to recognize specific viral structures, so it would be effective regardless of how the virus mutates. The approach also has a treatment benefit, lowering the virus burden and forestalling an immune overreaction that can become deadly during infections.

The research appears online July 25 in the journal Nature Chemical Biology.

"Our results suggest that CRISPR technology represents a unique strategy for controlling SARS-CoV-2 infection and should be pursued as a potential approach for treating COVID," said senior author Qianben Wang, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Pathology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Wang and colleagues focused on a protease—an enzyme that breaks down protein—called cathepsin L, or CTSL. This protease is abundant in the lungs and has long been identified as playing a key role in SARS-CoV-2 and many other coronavirus infections, enabling the virus to enter host cells and proliferate.

Teams of other researchers have attempted to use CTSL inhibitors to thwart coronavirus infections for many years. Lab experiments were promising, but tests in animals showed disappointing results.

Applying CRISPR technology—basically turning down genes to knock out certain misfunctions or, in this case, the function of CTSL—Wang's team created a way to safely initiate CTSL inhibition.

The CRISPR/Cas13, delivered intravenously through a lipid nanoparticle, diminished CTSL in the animals' lungs, which effectively and safely blocked the SARS-CoV-2 virus from entering cells and infecting the host.

The benefits of the approach as a COVID prevention were time-limited, lasting several days rather than the months or years that vaccines offer. But if the delivery system can be developed as an inhalant instead of an IV, the drug could be self-administered as a preventive measure prior to or shortly after an airline trip or a large gathering.

Not only did the approach prevent infection, it also showed potential as a treatment. Further experiments in COVID-infected animals showed that the CRISPR-loaded nanoparticle decreased the viral load in the lungs of animals with COVID infections and inhibited the immune storm that triggers lethal cases. Treated animals had higher survival rates.

Wang said there are challenges ahead, notably developing a way to deliver the therapy as an inhalant, similar to how asthma therapies are taken.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that CRISPR/Cas13can be used as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection," Wang said. "This nanosystem can be easily adapted in the future to target infection by other DNA viruses such as hepatitis B."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Here is the debunking of the the story of the day:

(fair use applies)


Lie Exposed: BBC Says Covid-19 Came from Wuhan Market
BBC forgot to add Wuhan Institute of Virology to the map
Igor Chudov
9 hr ago

BBC has a new article out, about the “origins of Covid-19”:



Great, right? If BBC says that Covid origin studies point to the Wuhan seafood market as the source of Sars-Cov-2, then it must be so, right? After all, we trust the BBC and we especially trust science and scientific studies.

BBC’s map of early cases clustering around the market, offers the only real evidence that the BBC article provides, and looks extremely convincing:



I was almost convinced myself. I was just about ready to delete all my Covid origin articles, but at the very last moment, I decided to check with Google maps on the location of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Infectious Diseases (archive link). I placed both on the same picture as above, so you can see where they are in relation to the early outbreak cases:



Again, the dots represent the first recorded cases of Covid-19. The circled “X”’s are WIV and WIID. Please tell me, after seeing the second picture, are you still sure about the Wuhan’s market being the source? If you are capable of elementary thinking, which all of my subscribers certainly are, you would think that the BBC article is total bunk. And of course, you would be right!

So:
  • Why did BBC’s map exclude locations of WIV and WIID, which are obviously known to anyone in the news business who is writing about Covid, and are critically important to the story if they wanted to tell it truthfully?
  • Because if the article included these locations, it would be obvious to any reader that the article is total nonsense and is a completely laughable attempt at misdirection.
  • Therefore, BBC wanted to lie to us and mislead us by omission.
Okay, then, why did BBC decide to lie to us?

It lied because if BBC showed locations of WIV and WIID on the map, the story of Covid would sound something like this:

Dear Citizens! By pure accident, a Chinese virological laboratory released an experimental deadly virus, whose creation was funded by the NIH. But do not worry: purely by coincidence, NIH scientists also worked on a vaccine against such viruses. We are very fortunate that Moderna, with NIH help, in just TWO DAYS, was able to design a perfect vaccine against Sars-Cov-2. Never mind that previous vaccines took decades to develop. Science works faster now!

Dear Readers: you must take this vaccine. We are certain that it works and if you get vaccinated, you will not get the virus.

The virus stops with every vaccinated person. If you do not take our vaccine, you will be fired from your job, will be excluded from society, and will starve for disrespecting science and authorities. This vaccine is safe for pregnancy because there is no proof that it is unsafe for pregnancy (we made sure of that).

The crazy right-wing conspiracists, rogue scientists, and discredited doctors warning that the vaccine is not safe, have been fired from their jobs, lost medical licenses, and were removed from social networks and Google. Therefore, we now have total scientific and medical consensus about the vaccine. Please believe us, because all NIH-funded scientists and still-licensed doctors agree with us. If you do not believe this, you are an ignorant, anti-science fool and a “winter of death” awaits you.

Get vaccinated! Get vaccinated! Get vaccinated! Get vaccinated!


That would be a strange and somewhat less believable story, right? It would be much easier to deal with the general public if the public believed that the virus came from Wuhan’s “wet market”. That’s why BBC is publishing such obviously dishonest articles.



 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
This is a great substack article. I was wondering the same thing when I carefully looked at the graphs as the fact checker did. This author had the same reservations and dived into it deeply and explains it perfectly.


(fair use applies)

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
Do death statistics misrepresent impact of vaccines?
NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
15 hr ago

Reuters Fact Check recently published a fact check on a graph that you may have seen.

Image

The chart shows “the number of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status in England between April 1 and May 31. It reveals that 94% of deaths in that period were among those who are vaccinated.”

It originally came from a website called “The Expose”.

The Expose.png

Reuters Fact Check says “this statistic on its own is misleading as it fails to acknowledge the nation’s vaccination rate.”

Their verdict is this is “Misleading”. “A spokesperson for the Office for National Statistics told Reuters via email: “Looking at the proportion of deaths among the fully vaccinated without accounting for the vaccination rate is highly misleading. For instance, if everyone were vaccinated, 100% of people would die vaccinated.”

Lead Stories also fact checks the chart. They come up with the same figures as The Expose but again say the conclusion is misleading. They quote the UK Health Security Agency who say “The important statistic here is the rate of death for each group. Percentage wise, the proportion of deaths remains higher in those who are unvaccinated, compared to those who are vaccinated. Table 14 on page 45 of the report shows the rate of death per 100,000 people, split by age. As you can see, in every age group (barring in this report the very low numbers in the 18-29 age group under the 'deaths within 28-days' column), the rate of death is higher in those who are unvaccinated, compared to those who are vaccinated with at least three doses.”

Table 14.png

However, this in itself is misleading because they are using death rates from March to compare with deaths in May.

So what is going on? What is the truth? All data is from the ONS’ publication “Deaths by vaccination status, England”. So you can check it yourselves.

Firstly the number of deaths.

The Expose say that between 1 April 2022 and 31 May 2022 there were 288 unvaccinated deaths. This is correct.
The Expose also say 4,647 ‘ever vaccinated’ individuals died during the same time period. Again this is correct. So the unvaccinated represent just under 6% of deaths.

Finally, they claim that triple vaccinated individuals account for 4,215 of the deaths (85%). Again, this number is more or less correct (Under 3 death counts are reported as <3, so the exact number is uncertain). Furthermore, this number is the number of deaths in the ‘third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago category’ so doesn’t include booster deaths less than 21 days after vaccination (however, these are relatively few).

So the numbers of deaths are correct but what about the ‘misleading’ claim?

Yes, you could argue that this is misleading. Simpson’s paradox “is a phenomenon in probability and statistics in which a trend appears in several groups of data but disappears or reverses when the groups are combined”. Looking at the data as a whole could certainly produce the incorrect conclusion.

There is only one way to sort this out. Break the data down by age group and compare with the percentage of that population who are vaccinated.

Firstly looking at the unvaccinated population.



As you can see, 16% of deaths involving COVID-19 are in the unvaccinated 18-39 year old age range. However, 29.2% of the population in that age range are unvaccinated meaning there are far fewer deaths than there should be. This trend remains the same for 40-49 and 50-59. In the over 60s the percentage of deaths is slightly higher than the population size but only about 1% higher.

So, we can conclude that under 60s have a lower chance of dying if unvaccinated and for over 60s the amount of deaths is roughly equal to the population size.

Next triple jabbed deaths.



This time, with the triple jabbed, the percentage of deaths in each age group is lower than the percentage of triple jabbed people in the population in every age group. This is being slightly generous because it only includes >21 days since being jabbed instead of <21 days as well. However, most of the deaths are in >21 days so it won’t make too much difference.

So there are fewer deaths in the unvaccinated and triple jabbed when compared with their population sizes. What does this mean? It must mean there are more deaths in the one and two jabbed categories. This could be because healthier people decide not to get vaccinated or continue from jab to jab without any problems whilst the unhealthy stop jabbing due to ill health. Or it could mean than if you don’t continue getting jabbed, you become more susceptible to Covid. Or a combination of both.

So, let’s take a look at one dosed individuals.



Yes, my hypothesis was correct, the percentage of deaths in the one dosed is far higher than their population size. This applies to all age ranges.

Is the same true for the two dosed?



Yes it is. Percentage of deaths in this category is far higher in all age groups.

So whilst the Expose’s figures were correct, they were wrong to focus on the triple jabbed. The fact checkers were correct in saying that because a large proportion of the elderly are triple jabbed, you can expect a large proportion of deaths. They were correct in saying the figures should be broken down by age.

However, when broken down by age, we get the concerning statistics that one and two dosed individuals are far more likely to die of Covid. Is this an unhealthy population? Probably. But are boosters needed to continue protection before vaccine efficacy goes negative? Possibly. Certainly something that needs further looking in to.

Tomorrow, I will do a similar analysis on all-cause mortality to see if the percentage of deaths tallies with the population size.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic

Deaths From “Unknown” Causes Are Now the Leading Killer in Alberta, Canada Following the Rollout of the Experimental Vaccine – 2021 Total Significantly Higher than 2019
By Julian Conradson
Published July 25, 2022

"Public health officials in the Canadian Province of Alberta are sounding the alarm after they recorded an unprecedented rise in deaths from “unknown” or “ill-defined” causes in 2020 and 2021. The total number of these deaths began rising at the start of the Covid pandemic but really began ballooning out of control following the rollout of the experimental jab.

According to the most recent data published by the Government of Alberta, deaths from “unknown” causes became the leading killer in the province – claiming more lives than heart disease, diabetes, and strokes, COMBINED – in 2021. When compared to pre-pandemic data the total number of deaths without a known cause is a staggering 7x higher than it was in 2019.

In total, there were 3,362 of these deaths in 2021, which is more than double the 1,464 in 2020. In 2019, there were only 522.

There is no data in this category prior to 2019.

The leading causes of death in the province are now as follows, via Calgary CTV News:










According to Calgary CTV News, the province’s health officials have said they are looking into the data, but “have yet to provide an explanation for the sudden spike in deaths of unknown causes.”

Despite the ‘experts’ dragging their feet to come up with an explanation, there has been an astonishing amount of evidence linking the experimental vaccines to the sudden rise in unexpected deaths. Ever since the vaccine was first introduced in late 2020, insurance companies across the globe have reported a massive 40% increase in death claims, many of which involve working-aged individuals.

There has also been a jaw-dropping rise in mortality among millennials aged 25-34 over the past year and a half. Following the experimental vaccine’s rollout, all-cause mortality jumped by 84% in this age group.

Coincidentally – or not – Alberta’s spike in unexplained deaths coincides perfectly with the introduction of the experimental COVID vaccine. Furthermore, the public health bureaucracy’s failure to classify a cause of death for nearly 3,500 cases – especially with today’s modern technology – is downright inexcusable, albeit unsurprising.

It’s also worth pointing out that Covid deaths amounted to just over half of the total number of deaths with unknown causes, indicating that the spike in death is not being driven predominantly by the virus or the pandemic. This mirrors the data cited above, which also showed that a small percentage of the increase was attributable to Covid deaths.

Unfortunately for Americans, this type of data is being suppressed and our public health officials are doing everything in their power to downplay the adverse side effects that are caused by the experimental vaccines while continuing to green-light more doses. However, either way – if the vaccines are driving this massive uptick in unexplained death, or not – this issue needs to be seriously investigated, but the ‘experts are refusing to do so in order to keep the approved narrative intact.

Meanwhile, the body count just keeps on piling up. This universal Covid vaccination push will go down as one of – if not the – worst atrocities ever perpetrated on mankind.

How many more unexplained deaths need to keep popping up until Americans and the rest of the world see some accountability for what’s happened?

Sadly, we are likely in for a lot more in the near future."


Here is some more on this.

btw, a few days ago I posted a really funny video by Del Bigtree who was commenting on this study too. It was a short video, if you search the thread for Del Bigree it should come up.

(fair use applies)


What's the leading cause of death in Alberta in 2021?
It's not COVID.
Jessica Rose
2 hr ago


Mark Steyn did a good episode recently that you can watch here. In this episode, he covers the leading cause of death in Alberta, Canada. I had to check this out. I headed over to open.alberta.ca to see if I could download the data and plot it for myself. I could, and sure enough, Mark was correct.


Figure 1: Leading cause of death in Alberta for 2019, 2020 and 2021. Leading causes of death - Leading causes of death - Open Government

The number one cause of death listed in Alberta for 2021 was “Other ill-defined and unknown causes of mortality”. Not malignant neoplasms, not heart disease, not COVID-19: some ‘unknown’ cause. What do you think Canadians? Do you believe that the uh-anti-uh-Fringe-uh-minority-guy-uh, uh-pushing experimental injections into every uh-Canadian soul should look into those shots being the etiological agents? Should I also say it in French to appear intelligent? Croyez-vous que les euh-anti-euh-Fringe-euh-minority-guy-euh, euh-poussant des injections expérimentales dans chaque âme euh-canadienne devraient examiner ces injections comme étant les agents étiologiques? Duh.


Figure 2: Congratulations hair boy. Your father must be very proud.

A few more tidbits:
  1. There was no category entitled “Other ill-defined and unknown causes of mortality” previous to 2019.
  2. The number 1 cause of death up until 2021 was ischemic heart disease and organic dementia (for the past 20 years).
  3. The top 10 ranked leading causes of death in 2021 in Alberta show that Organic dementia has been ousted for this mystery death syndrome and that our mystery cause of death outranks it substantially: there is a 57% increase in death reports from mystery plate cause of death.
The following bar plot reveals #1 ranked cause of death for the past 20 years in Alberta, prior to the shots.


Figure 3: Leading causes of death in Alberta for the past 20 years. Leading causes of death - Leading causes of death - Open Government

And this bar plot shows what killed Albertans by rank other than the ‘mystery platter’ in 2021.


Figure 4: Number 1-10 ranked leading causes of death in Alberta for 2021. Leading causes of death - Leading causes of death - Open Government

Hey. Doesn’t this show that the ‘Other ill-defined and unknown causes of mortality’ death toll is 72.4% above the ‘COVID-19, virus identified’ death toll? Hmm. Funny that.

Let’s make a wild and caaarrrazy assumption that the ‘safe and effective’ COVID-19 shots are this so-called ‘Other-etc-he-who-shall-not-be named’ cause of death, then doesn’t this mean that almost twice as many deaths (1.7X) were attributed to the shots than to COVID-19 in Alberta in 2021? By the way, there’s also that #10 ranked cause of death called ‘Accidental poisoning by and exposure to drugs and other biological substances’ category. I wonder how many of those belong in #1.

Food for thought and neighbors. Spread the word.


Figure 5: It is rumored that if you listen closely, you may be able to hear the words of many a free-thinking and free-lancing news reporter making statements rather than asking questions at the risk of the thug cache thug-thuggering on them.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Here's the post, of Del making fun of this report: it was post #64,252, a bunch of pages up so I'm copying it again here so you don't have to hunt it down;)


What Could It Be? "Unknown" Reasons Have All of a Sudden Become the Leading Cause of Death

The number of people who died in Alberta from unknown causes in 2019 was around 500.
In 2020, that number rose to about 1500.
But in 2021, nearly 3500 people died from "unknown" causes!
Del Bigtree: "The leading cause of death in Alberta, Canada, is 'We don't freakin' know!'"

1 min 38 sec

 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1rCxsG0IkI
Lockdown cause of childhood hepatitis
20 min 26 sec
Jul 26, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

Serious hepatitis outbreak in children, immunity was NOT generated as normal in locked down children and now the specific viral cause has just been discovered https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/hepatitis/acu... Since 20th March Children under 16 35 countries UK, 12 liver transplants, Ireland 2 Immunosuppressant drugs for life No single virus had been identified in all cases https://www.hpsc.ie/news/acute-hepati... Hepatitis viruses A, B, C, E not detected in cases No link to current covid infection status Most / many cases were not covid vaccinated Symptoms of hepatitis Any one of the classic 3 Pale, grey-coloured stools Dark urine Jaundice Other symptoms include muscle and joint pain fever feeling and being sick feeling unusually tired all the time a general sense of feeling unwell loss of appetite tummy pain itchy skin A post lockdown phenomena? Two common viruses, spreading again after pandemic lockdowns infants exposed later than normal https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11... Detailed investigation, 9 early cases and 58 control subjects Median 3.9 years, 4 boys, 5 girls Preceding subacute history Abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting, between 1 to 11 weeks prior to acute hepatitis Using sequencing and real-time PCR Adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2), detected in the plasma of 9/9 and liver of 4/4 patients (normally causes no illness, requires a coinfecting "helper" virus) Age-matched healthy controls Adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2), detected in the plasma of 0/13 Children with adenovirus (HAdV) infection and normal liver function Adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2), detected in the plasma of 0/12 Children admitted to hospital with hepatitis of other aetiology Adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2), detected in the plasma of 0/33 AAV2 typically requires a coinfecting ‘helper’ virus to replicate Usually adenovirus (HAdV) or a herpesvirus Adenovirus (HAdV) Detected in 6/9 cases Human herpesvirus 6B (HHV6B) Detected in 3/9 cases Conclusion Acute non-A-E paediatric hepatitis is associated with the presence of Adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2) infection, which could represent a primary pathogen or a useful biomarker of recent Adenovirus (HAdV) or Herpesvirus (HHV6B) infection. Prof Judith Breuer, University College London and Great Ormond Street Hospital During the lockdown period when children were not mixing, they were not transmitting viruses to each other. They were not building up immunity to the common infections they would normally encounter. When the restrictions were lifted, children began to mix, viruses began to circulate freely - and they suddenly were exposed with this lack of prior immunity to a whole battery of new infections. Prof Emma Thomson, University of Glasgow Larger studies are urgently needed to investigate the role of AAV2 in paediatric hepatitis cases. We also need to understand more about seasonal circulation of AAV2, a virus that is not routinely monitored, it may be that a peak of adenovirus infection has coincided with a peak in AAV2 exposure, leading to an unusual manifestation of hepatitis in susceptible young children Class II HLA-DRB1*04:01 allele Identified in 8/9 cases (89%) (background frequency of 15.6% in Scottish blood donors) Adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2) mutations May be significant 9 capsid gene mutations over-represented in these cases altered phenotype, including substantial evasion of neutralising antibodies directed against wild-type AAV2, enhanced production yields, increased virion stability.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtLL45vQEF0
Omicron BA.5 vs. Vaccines and Previous Infection
28 min 11 sec
Jul 26, 2022
MedCram - Medical Lectures Explained CLEARLY

Roger Seheult, MD of MedCram examines the effectiveness of vaccinations and previous infection against the BA.5 omicron sub-variant of COVID-19 . See all Dr. Seheult's videos at: https://www.medcram.com (This video was recorded on July 25, 2022) Roger Seheult, MD is the co-founder and lead professor at https://www.medcram.com He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine and an Associate Professor at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine. LINKS / REFERENCES: Omicron spike function and neutralizing activity elicited by a comprehensive panel of vaccines (Science) | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s... COVID Variants vs. Coronavirus Vaccines (MedCram) | https://youtu.be/6aOMs1loXN0 COVID 19 Vaccine Deep Dive: Safety, Immunity, RNA Production (MedCram) | https://youtu.be/eK0C5tFHze8
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9dh_6-3Gkg
Experimental Plant-based Chewing Gum Neutralizes SARS-COV-2
16 min 55 sec
Streamed live 7 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

Chewing gum with plant-based antiviral proteins neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 If this study succeeds in its trials then we will be able to chew the virus out

URL list from Tuesday, Jul. 26 2022
Debulking different Corona (SARS-COV-2 delta, omicron, OC43) and influenza (H1N1, H3N2) virus strains by plant viral trap proteins in chewing gums to decrease infection and transmission - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...

1-s2.0-S0142961222003118-ga1_lrg.jpg (1385×886)
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image... Experimental chewing gum reduces Omicron in saliva; sexual dysfunction, hair loss among long COVID symptoms https://www.yahoo.com/news/experiment...

Chewing gum containing plant-based antiviral proteins neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses
https://www.news-medical.net/news/202...


ETA:

Here's an article on the experimental gum:

(fair use applies)

Could CHEWING GUM finally end the COVID pandemic - and stop the flu too? Scientists create new confection which traps virus particles in saliva, easing symptoms and lowering transmission risk
By Alex Oliveira For Dailymail.Com
Published: 21:25 EDT, 26 July 2022 | Updated: 00:22 EDT, 27 July 2022
  • The gum contains a plant-grown protein which traps the Covid-19 virus inside saliva, which slowing transmission from person to person and from cell to cell
  • The gum was developed by a team led by Dr. Henry Daniell of the Penn School of Dental Medicine, with help from scientists at the Perelman School of Medicine
  • Researchers are preparing to launch the first human trial, and hope the gum could serve as a low-cost and easy to use option for fighting Covid-19
Scientists have developed a chewing gum they say can trap COVID-19 in saliva, reducing symptoms and lowering the risk of passing the virus on.

The gum contains a plant-grown protein which traps the SARS-CoV-2 virus inside saliva, which slows transmission not just from person to person but also from cell to cell in patients.

That protein is normally used by COVID to enter the cells on infecting a person. But by replicating it, scientists at the Penn School of Dental Medicine have been able to confine the virus to the mouth of a person chewing the gum.

The treatment was developed by a team led by Dr. Henry Daniell of the Penn School of Dental Medicine, with help from scientists at the Perelman School of Medicine and the Penn School of Veterinary Medicine.

Researchers are preparing to launch the first clinical trial, and hope the gum could serve as a low-cost and easy to use option for fighting Covid-19.

'We are already using masks and other physical barriers to reduce the chance of transmission,' Daniell told Penn Today, 'This gum could be used as an additional tool in that fight.'

Before and after images showing SARS-CoV-2 infected micro-bubbles in a patient. The infection count dropped dramatically after treatment with the ACE2 gum

Before and after images showing SARS-CoV-2 infected micro-bubbles in a patient. The infection count dropped dramatically after treatment with the ACE2 gum

The gum contains copies of the ACE2 protein found on cell surfaces, which the coronavirus uses to break into cells and infect them.

In test-tube experiments using saliva from individuals infected with the Delta or Omicron variants, the virus particles attached themselves to the ACE2 'receptors' in the chewing gum and the viral load fell to undetectable levels, researchers reported in Biomaterials.

The 'viral trap' ACE2 proteins in the gum are carried within engineered lettuce cells. A second experimental chewing gum made with bean powder instead of lettuce cells not only traps SARS-CoV-2 particles in lab experiments but also influenza strains, other coronaviruses that cause common colds, and potentially other oral viruses such as human papillomavirus and herpesvirus, according to the paper.

'SARS-CoV-2 replicates in the salivary glands, and we know that when someone who is infected sneezes, coughs, or speaks some of that virus can be expelled and reach others,' Daniell said, 'This gum offers an opportunity to neutralize the virus in the saliva, giving us a simple way to possibly cut down on a source of disease transmission.'

Before the pandemic consumed the world in 2020, Daniell had been studying the ACE2 protein as a part of hypertension treatment research.

ACE2 had been previously shown to reduce viral loads in patients, and after hearing of work at the dental school develoing protein infused gum to fight plaque, Daniell began to wonder if the same principal could be used to fight Covid-19.

'Henry contacted me and asked if we had samples to test his approach, what kind of samples would be appropriate to test, and whether we could internally validate the level of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the saliva samples,' said Ronald Collman, a virologist at Penn Medicine who participated in the project, 'That led to a cross-school collaboration building on our microbiome studies.'

A chart demonstrating how the ACE2 laced gum interacts with Covid-19 viruses and curbs transmission

A chart demonstrating how the ACE2 laced gum interacts with Covid-19 viruses and curbs transmission

The researchers are now looking to begin a clinical trials with the hopes of eventually bringing the gum to market as another tool in the preventative arsenal against Covid.

The trial would see COVID-19 patients chew four ACE2 gum tablets each day for four days.

Collman said if scalable, the gum could be an affordable solution for Covid prevention - and it could also be deployed on other viruses, including the flu.

'Henry's approach of making the proteins in plants and using them orally is inexpensive, hopefully scalable; it really is clever,' he said.
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Z7UO1aLF4
BA.5 - What Therapies Are Still Effective?
23 min 51 sec
Streamed live 8 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

BA.5 - What Therapies Are Still Effective? Bebtelovimab and Remdesivir looked better. A Japanese study demonstrates the efficacy of various monoclonal antibodies and antivirals against Omicron BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5. Let's review.

URL list from Tuesday, Jul. 26 2022
Efficacy of Antibodies and Antiviral Drugs against Omicron BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 Subvariants | NEJM
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...

Microsoft Word - Takashita et al. NEJM_revised_Suppl_20220708.docx
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.105...

Development of a rapid Focus Reduction Neutralization Test Assay for measuring SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies - PMC
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

New data published in The New England Journal of Medicine show Evusheld retains neutralising activity against Omicron subvariants, including BA.5 https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-cen... As Omicron Mutates, Researchers Compare Efficacy of Therapeutic Antibodies and Antivirals | BioSpace
https://www.biospace.com/article/omic... bebtelovimab | Lilly COVID-19 Treatment https://www.covid19.lilly.com/bebtelo...

Sotrovimab | Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Information for HCPs
https://www.sotrovimab.com/ Casirivimab/imdevimab - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casiriv...

What is VEKLURY® (remdesivir)? | HCP
https://www.vekluryhcp.com/about/

Information for Patients | LAGEVRIO™ (molnupiravir)
https://www.lagevrio.com/patients/

PAXLOVID™ (nirmatrelvir tablets; ritonavir tablets) For Patients
https://www.paxlovid.com
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Biden emerges from COVID isolation, tells public: Get shots
By CHRIS MEGERIAN and DARLENE SUPERVILLE
yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden ended his COVID-19 isolation on Wednesday, telling Americans they can “live without fear” of the pandemic if they take advantage of booster shots and treatments, the protections he credited with his swift recovery.

“You don’t need to be president to get these tools to be used for your defense,” he said in the Rose Garden. “In fact, the same booster shots, the same at-home test, the same treatment that I got is available to you.”

The pandemic has killed more than 1 million people in the U.S. and it continues to disrupt daily life more than two years after it began. But Biden emphasized that people are far less likely to die from the disease despite a wave of new infections caused by a contagious variant known as BA.5, which is believed to have sickened the president as well.

“You can live without fear by doing what I did,” he said. “Get boosted, get tested and get treatment.”

He talked more about treatment than prevention, a sign of how the pandemic and his approach has evolved.

“Grandparents are hugging their kids and grandkids again. Weddings, birthdays, celebrations are happening in person again,” Biden said. “Let’s keep emerging from one of the darkest moments in our history.”

Biden drew a contrast to when President Donald Trump contracted COVID-19 and was treated at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

“He was severely ill. Thankfully, he recovered,” Biden said. “When I got COVID, I worked from upstairs in the White House.”

The difference, Biden said, is the availability of vaccines, treatments and home tests for catching infections early.

It was Biden’s first public appearance in person since he tested positive for COVID-19 on July 21. He walked out of the White House on Wednesday wearing his trademark aviator glasses and a dark face mask, which his doctor said he’ll continue wearing when in proximity to others for five more days.

White House staff assembled in the Rose Garden applauded Biden, who thanked them for their support as he finished his remarks.

“God bless you all, and now I get to go back to the Oval Office,” he said.

Biden tested negative for the virus on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, allowing him to end his isolation.

The variant that likely infected the president, BA.5, is an offshoot of the omicron strain that was first detected last year. It’s now responsible for 82% of cases in the country, with its cousin BA.4 contributing another 13%.

The summer wave of infections continues to disrupt society, particularly for people at high risk for severe disease who are encouraged to avoid exposure in places where transmission is high. The majority of people in the U.S. live in counties with high levels of spread and in those places the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends masks in indoor public spaces for everyone.

However, mask mandates have largely faded. In Los Angeles County, where face coverings are required on trains and buses, a slight slowing in cases may spare authorities from imposing an expanded mask order.

The latest variants are able to evade protection offered by vaccination, but the combination of vaccines and booster shots still lower the risk of hospitalization and death. More than 43,000 people in the U.S. are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 and about 430 die each day.

Paxlovid, an antiviral drug used to treat COVID-19, has also helped prevent more severe illness. Biden competed a five-day course of the pills.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician, wrote in Wednesday’s update that the president remains free of fever and had not used Tylenol in the past 36 hours.

Biden’s symptoms were almost “completely resolved,” O’Connor reported.

“Given these reassuring factors, the president will discontinue his strict isolation measures,” the doctor wrote.

By all accounts, Biden had a mild bout with the virus. O’Connor consistently wrote in his updates that Biden’s vital signs remained strong, and his temperature only became briefly elevated. He suffered from a runny nose, cough, sore throat and some body aches.

However, the infection was disruptive. Biden cancelled a trip to Pennsylvania, where he was going to detail his crime prevention plans and speak at at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser, and skipped a long weekend at his family home in Delaware.

First lady Jill Biden went without him, and Biden isolated in the White House residence. With voters already concerned about Biden’s age — he turns 80 in November — his aides emphasized that he was working despite his illness.

They released photos of him talking on the phone, and Biden participated in virtual meetings with advisers. His voice was hoarse and he coughed through a conversation on Friday, but he had significantly improved after the weekend.

“I’m not keeping the same hours, but I’m meeting all my requirements that have come before me,” Biden said Monday.

Although presidents benefit from household attendants, Biden’s infection brought a few unglamorous glimpses of life with COVID-19.

Shortly before 7 a.m. on Monday, he said, he felt “the nuzzle of my dog’s nose against my chest.”

“My wife’s not here, she usually takes him out,” he said.

Then, during another meeting on Tuesday, the dog interrupted the conversation by barking in the background.
___
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

How the omicron subvariant BA.5 became a master of disguise – and what it means for the current COVID-19 surge
Suresh V. Kuchipudi, Professor and Chair of Emerging Infectious Diseases, Penn State
Tue, July 26, 2022, 8:00 AM

The omicron subvariant known as BA.5 was first detected in South Africa in February 2022 and spread rapidly throughout the world. As of the second week of July 2022, BA.5 constituted nearly 80% of COVID-19 variants in the United States.

Soon after researchers in South Africa reported the original version of the omicron variant (B.1.1.529) on Nov. 24, 2021, many scientists – including me – speculated that if omicron’s numerous mutations made it either more transmissible or better at immune evasion than the preceding delta variant, omicron could become the dominant variant around the world.

The omicron variant did indeed become dominant early in 2022, and several sublineages, or subvariants, of omicron have since emerged: BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5, among others. With the continued appearance of such highly transmissible variants, it is evident that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is effectively using classic techniques that viruses use to escape the immune system. These escape strategies range from changing the shape of key proteins recognized by your immune system’s protective antibodies to camouflaging its genetic material to fool human cells into considering it a part of themselves instead of an invader to attack.

I am a virologist who studies emerging viruses and viruses that jumped from animals to humans, such as SARS-CoV-2. My research group has been tracking the transmission and evolution of SARS-CoV-2, evaluating changes in how well the omicron subvariants evade the immune system and the severity of disease they cause after infection.

How is virus transmissibility in a population measured?

The basic reproduction number, R0 – pronounced “R-naught” – measures the transmissibility of a virus in a yet-uninfected population.

Once a proportion of individuals in a population become immune due to prior infection or vaccination, epidemiologists use the term effective reproduction number, called Re or Rt, to measure the transmissibility of the virus. The Re of the omicron variant has been estimated to be 2.5 times higher than the delta variant. This increased transmissibility most likely helped omicron out-compete delta to become the dominant variant.

The larger question, then, is what is driving the evolution of omicron sublineages? The answer to that is a well-known process called natural selection. Natural selection is an evolutionary process where traits that give a species a reproductive advantage continue to be passed down to the next generation, while traits that don’t are phased out through competition. As SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate, natural selection will favor mutations that give the virus the greatest survival advantage.

What makes omicron and its offshoots so stealthy at spreading?

Several mechanisms contribute to the increased transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 variants. One is the ability to bind more strongly to the ACE2 receptor, a protein in the body that primarily helps regulate blood pressure but can also help SARS-CoV-2 enter cells. The more recent omicron sublineages have mutations that make them better at escaping antibody protection while retaining their ability to effectively bind to ACE2 receptors. The BA.5 sublineage can evade antibodies from both vaccination and prior infection.

Omicron sublineages BA.4 and BA.5 share several mutations with earlier omicron sublineages, but also have three unique mutations: L452R, F486V and reversion (or the lack of mutation) of R493Q. L452R and F486V in the spike protein help BA.5 escape antibodies. In addition, the L452R mutation helps the virus bind more effectively to the membrane of its host cell, a crucial feature associated with COVID-19 disease severity.

While the other mutation in BA.5, F486V, may help the sublineage escape from certain types of antibodies, it could decrease its ability to bind to ACE2. Strikingly, BA.5 appears to compensate for decreased ACE2 binding strength through another mutation, R493Q reversion, that is thought to restore its lost affinity for ACE2. The ability to successfully escape immunity while maintaining its ability to bind to ACE2 may have potentially contributed to the rapid global spread of BA.5.

In addition to these immune-evading mutations, SARS-CoV-2 has been evolving to suppress its hosts’ - in this case, humans’ – innate immunity. Innate immunity is the body’s first line of defense against invading pathogens, comprised of antiviral proteins that help fight viruses. SARS-CoV-2 has the ability to suppress the activation of some of these key antiviral proteins, meaning it’s able to effectively get past many of the body’s defenses. This explains the spread of infections among vaccinated or previously infected people.

Innate immunity exerts a strong selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2. Delta and omicron, the two most recent and highly successful SARS-CoV-2 variants, share several mutations that could be key in helping the virus breach innate immunity.

However, scientists do not yet fully understand what changes in BA.5 might allow it to do so.

What’s next?
BA.5 will not be the end game. As the virus continues to circulate, this evolutionary trend will likely lead to the emergence of more transmissible variants that are capable of immune escape.

While it is difficult to predict what variants will arrive next, we researchers cannot rule out the possibility that some of these variants could lead to increased disease severity and higher hospitalization rates. As the virus continues to evolve, most people will get COVID-19 multiple times despite vaccination status. This could be confusing and frustrating for some, and may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that vaccines protect you from severe disease and death, not necessarily from getting infected.

Research over the past two and a half years has helped scientists like me learn a lot about this new virus. However, many unanswered questions remain because the virus constantly evolves, and we are left trying to target a constantly moving goal post. While updating vaccines to match circulating variants is an option, it may not be practical in the short term because the virus evolves too quickly. Vaccines that generate antibodies against a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants and a cocktail of broad-ranging treatments, including monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs, will be critical in the fight against COVID-19.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Suresh V. Kuchipudi, Penn State.



 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I call this one 'fun with math'. Each side plays with the numbers to prove their point. The anti-vaxxers concentrate on the numbers not the percentages. The pro-vaxxers concentrate on the percentages and not the numbers. When only 20% of the population is unvaccinated, 23.9% of 20% is a lot less people (lower number) than 4.8% or 9.7% of 80% (much higher number). But the percentage is higher so they use that to try to make theirpoint. There was an excellent substack I posted last night that went into this in depth, scroll up just a few posts to read it to understand this better if you're not clear on what's going on. Also notice on the graph in the article the percentages are almost even now in the June/July time frame - when only 20% of the population is not vaxxed - the number difference must be even more spread out. Of course, they don't give numbers./ end my comment

(fair use applies)

Unvaccinated people died from COVID at a rate 3.5 times higher in June than those who got a booster, Wisconsin DHS said
Drake Bentley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Tue, July 26, 2022, 4:42 PM·5 min read

The Department of Health Services recently released June data surrounding COVID-19 illness after vaccination, and the numbers show that those unvaccinated are more likely to be hospitalized and die from the virus.

In the month of June, people who were unvaccinated were hospitalized at a rate nearly five times more than people who have received two doses, and 2.5 times the rate of those who have completed their primary series and got a booster dose.

For people who completed their primary series, the rate of COVID hospitalizations per 100,000 people is 4.8, while for those who completed the primary series and a booster, the rate is 9.7. The rate for unvaccinated people is 23.9 per 100,000 people.

People who were unvaccinated were 6.4 times more likely to die than those who have two doses of vaccine, and 3.5 times more likely than those who had received their primary series and booster dose.

For people who completed their primary series, the rate of COVID deaths per 100,000 people is 0.5, while for those who completed the primary series and a booster, the rate is 0.9. The rate for unvaccinated people is 3.2 per 100,000 people.

In the days following publication of this article, many readers contacted the Journal Sentinel wondering why data shows a higher rate of death and hospitalization among people who received a booster versus those who just completed a primary series. Dr. Ryan Westergaard, chief medical officer for DHS, addressed this issue in a May media briefing.

"These aren't the data that we look to when we try to answer the question, are vaccines and boosters recommended?

Those are clinical trials and what we call vaccine efficacy studies. And those data have shown that when we randomize people to vaccine or placebo or booster or no booster, that the risk per person, in that kind of well-designed study, is lower," Westergaard said.

In a statement, DHS spokesperson Elizabeth Goodsitt added "several additional factors affect case rates by vaccination status, making the interpretation of recent trends difficult. These include higher prevalence of previous infection among unvaccinated and un-boosted groups, difficulty in accounting for time since vaccination and waning protection, possible differences in testing practices such as use and reporting of at-home tests, and possible differences in COVID-19 prevention behaviors by age and vaccination status."

"People at higher risk for getting sick with COVID-19 (like older people and people who are moderately to severely immunocompromised) make up a larger proportion of the population that chooses to stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. These higher-risk groups are more likely to have coexisting health conditions and be hospitalized and die due to COVID-19 infection. According to Wisconsin data, 68% of adults older than 65 have received a booster dose compared to only about 21% of those 12-24 years old.

Put simply, older people make up the majority of boosted residents, as well as the majority of COVID-19 deaths.

And Goodsitt reminded: "All vaccinated groups have a lower risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 compared with people who are unvaccinated. DHS continues to recommend everyone get a booster or additional dose as soon as they become eligible."

Since the state started reporting illness after vaccination data in February 2021, unvaccinated people continue to have higher rates of death and hospitalizations than those who are vaccinated.

Rate of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people by vaccination status


Rate of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people by vaccination status
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Vaccines still key in curbing COVID amid Omicron BA.2.75 cases: Singapore experts
Wong Casandra ·Senior Reporter
Tue, July 26, 2022, 4:55 AM

SINGAPORE — COVID-19 vaccines remain broadly effective in reducing the severity of diseases and hospitalisation rates, even as they become less effective against the new Omicron BA.2.75 subvariant, said medical experts in Singapore.

The BA.2.75 strain, unofficially dubbed “Centaurus”, was first detected in India in May. Over 200 cases of the Omicron subvariant have been detected in over 10 other countries including in Singapore, the US, Australia, Canada, as well as the UK where such cases have sharply risen.

In Singapore, at least six such local cases and two imported cases, who had travelled to India, have been detected.

Authorities said all local cases had mild symptoms.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has designated BA.2.75 as an Omicron subvariant under monitoring, although its chief scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan, said there were not enough samples globally as yet to assess its severity.

Currently, the BA.5 and BA.4 subvariants are rapidly displacing the previously dominant BA.2 subvariant in many countries, including Singapore. The city-state is currently facing a wave of infections driven by both BA.5 and BA.4, but there are indications in early July that it is near or at its peak.

But there are fears that BA.2.75 may quickly overwhelm BA.1 and BA.2 as it has more unique mutations on the spike gene that have not been observed in other variants.

.@doctorsoumya explains what we know about the emergence of a potential Omicron sub-variant [referred as BA.2.75]
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) July 5, 2022

Too early to assess BA.2.75 subvariant's impact

The surge in the number of infections with BA.2.75 suggests that the COVID-19 virus continues to evolve to replace older lineages, said Yvonne Su, an associate professor at the Duke-National University of Singapore (Duke-NUS) Medical School's programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

But it is still too early to predict the effect of these mutations, said Prof Su, noting that it is not just the exact mutations that matter, but also the combination that can affect virus characteristics.

"It is therefore important to determine if BA.2.75 infection leads to increased virulence and more severe disease, especially in vulnerable groups such as the elderly but also infants and toddlers as they are still largely unvaccinated," she added, in response to queries from Yahoo News Singapore.

But experts said that while there will be more cases of infections due to evolving, new Omicron variants, there are likely to be fewer fatalities, in line with observations of COVID-19 figures around the globe.

This has happened with the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, which are more infectious because they could resist some of the immune response, said Professor Dale Fisher, who is on the WHO's Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network.

While they have caused more cases, there was no increase in the rate of severe diseases, added the senior consultant at National University Hospital’s Division of Infectious Diseases.

Infectious diseases expert Paul Tambyah, who drew parallels to the deadly 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, said that later variants of viruses tend to be more transmissible and less virulent.

"The vaccines currently in use target the original strain (originating from Wuhan in China) and thus, are expected to be less effective against newer variants than the original strains," he said.

"There will be more cases until there are few left in Singapore uninfected but there will definitely be fewer fatalities. This is in line with what has been seen all over the world."

Vaccination in S'pore to be extended to children aged 6 months to 4 years old

At 94 per cent, most of Singapore's total population have completed their full vaccination regimen while 79 per cent have received a booster shot. Those aged between 50 and 80 and above are allowed to get a second vaccine booster.

Under the national vaccination programme in Singapore, COVID-19 vaccines are offered to those aged five and above.
However, those below 18 must have the consent of their parents or guardians to receive their vaccination and can only be vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine.

Those aged five to 11 are given a smaller dose of the Pfizer vaccine, developed using messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, compared with adolescents and adults. Those aged 12 to 17 can only get the Pfizer vaccine.

For those aged 18 and above, apart from Pfizer, they can also choose from Novavax's protein-based Nuvaxovid, the inactivated CoronaVac developed by Chinese vaccine maker Sinovac and Moderna's MrNA Spikevax.

The Ministry of Health (MOH), in response to media queries on Monday (25 July), said it is currently doing the necessary preparation to roll out COVID-19 vaccines for young children aged between 6 months and four years, and aims to have the processes ready towards the fourth quarter of the year.

MOH did not specify which vaccines would be available for this age group.

The announcement comes after two children, aged 1.5 and four, recently died from COVID-19 in Singapore within the last four weeks – the only two fatalities caused by the coronavirus aged below 12 here.

Of the 1.7 million COVID-19 cases reported in Singapore since the start of the pandemic, about 64,000, or 3.9 per cent, were children aged under five, said MOH.The large majority of the 64,000 cases recover uneventfully at home, with 0.022 per cent requiring oxygen supplementation or intensive care unit (ICU) care.

In comparison, 0.17 per cent of patients in the 40 and above age group require ICU care, MOH noted.

"The incidence rate of ICU care amongst the 5 to 39 group is almost negligible," it added.

MOH also noted that the two deaths of the children translate to three deaths per 100,000 cases in the same age group, compared with 99 deaths per 100,000 cases for the 40 and above age group this year.

"This is not unique to COVID-19 as we see such patterns in other infectious diseases, where children 0 to 4 are much more resilient than older patients, but more vulnerable compared to older children and young adults," it added.

Before COVID-19, in 2018 and 2019, MOH recorded 3.1 deaths of children aged 0 to 4 years old per 100,000 person-years from pneumonia and influenza. Figures for 2018 and 2019 were used as a comparison as public health measures rolled out during the COVID-19 pandemic have significantly reduced the numbers for pneumonia and influenza, it added.

"There is currently no clear evidence that Omicron variants cause more severe disease. Severe cases among those aged 0 to 4 have been lower at 12 per 100,000 cases in 2022 compared to 41 per 100,000 cases in 2021," MOH said.

GO TO LINK TO WATCH ANOTHER VIDEO ON BA2.75
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

New Study Suggests How Frequently Long COVID May Happen In Kids
Marie Holmes - Huff Post
Wed, July 27, 2022, 4:16 PM

It’s been clear for some time that post-COVID conditions, also known as long COVID, are more commonly seen in adults than in children, but the true incidence of long COVID in kids was unknown. However, a new international study has finally shed some light on how many kids get long COVID, and which pediatric COVID patients are most at risk.

Researchers at the University of Calgary in Canada examined data collected from 36 emergency departments in eight countries. The families of 1,884 children who tested positive for COVID while in the emergency room were contacted 90 days later and asked about post-COVID conditions ― defined as “persistent, new, or returning symptoms or health problems” associated with the condition that brought them to the emergency department.

Overall, 5.8% of children who had tested positive for COVID reported post-COVID conditions. Rates were higher in children who ended up being hospitalized for 48 hours or more, who reported four or more symptoms in their initial visit to the emergency department, or who were ages 14 and up.

Approximately 9.8% of children who were hospitalized for 48 hours or more reported post-COVID conditions, while 4.6% of those who were discharged from the emergency room reported post-COVID issues. Researchers also found that children who were hospitalized and experienced “severe outcomes” within 14 days were more likely to report symptoms 90 days later than hospitalized children with less serious illness.

The most frequently reported symptom among children was fatigue or weakness, followed by cough and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. All of these are also symptoms commonly reported by adults with post-COVID conditions.

“Our results suggest that appropriate guidance and follow-up are needed, especially for children at high risk for long COVID,” Dr. Stephen Freedman, the study’s principal investigator, said in a statement.

“Our finding that children who had multiple COVID-19 symptoms initially were at higher risk for long COVID is consistent with studies in adults,” said Dr. Todd Florin, co-principal investigator of the study.

“Unfortunately, there are no known therapies for long COVID in children and more research is needed in this area,” Florin said. “However, if symptoms are significant, treatment targeting the symptoms is most important.”

It’s worth noting that all the children enrolled in the study had been brought to emergency departments, so they may have been more likely to exhibit serious symptoms. It’s also possible that some children were brought to the emergency room for an unrelated issue and tested positive for COVID while they were there. Regardless, the study shows that children who were sicker, as indicated by their hospitalization or the number of symptoms they reported, were more likely to report post-COVID conditions 90 days later.

Researchers followed a separate group of children who were seen in the ER but tested negative for COVID, and some of these children (5% of those hospitalized and 2.7% of those discharged from the ER) also reported symptoms such as fatigue, weakness and shortness of breath 90 days after they were seen in the emergency department.

Data from the study shows that post-COVID conditions such as these were reported approximately twice as often among children who had tested positive for COVID, compared to children who’d tested negative.

What all of this means for parents

Because of this study, “we may be able to predict which kids are at risk for long COVID,” Dr. Candice Jones, a board-certified pediatrician not affiliated with the study, told HuffPost.

Jones also noted that the rate of post-COVID conditions in children that researchers found is much lower than the rate among adult patients.

In addition to hand-washing and masking, vaccination protects children from all COVID-related risks. COVID vaccines are now available to all children ages 6 months and up. Millions of children in the U.S. have received COVID vaccinations, which both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics note are safe and effective.

“We know vaccination can prevent COVID infection, prevent severe illness, prevent hospitalization and death ― thus minimizing the child’s risk for long COVID,” Jones said.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Millions still without sense of smell or taste after Covid-19
Evan Bush - NBC News
Wed, July 27, 2022, 6:30 PM

Still struggling with your sense of smell after a bout with Covid-19? You’re far from alone.

About 5% of patients with confirmed cases of Covid-19 — some 27 million people worldwide — are estimated to have suffered a long-lasting loss of smell or taste, a new analysis suggests.

In the analysis published Wednesday in The BMJ (the peer-reviewed medical journal of the British Medical Association), researchers evaluated 18 previous studies of smell and taste loss across several continents and in varying demographic groups. About three quarters of those affected by loss of taste or smell regained those senses within 30 days.

Rates of recovery improved over time, but about 5% of people reported “persistent dysfunction” six months after their infection with Covid-19.

The analysis suggests loss of smell and taste could be a prolonged concern that requires more research and health resources for patients struggling with long-term symptoms.

Losing smell has been linked to higher death rates in older adults and has been shown to have major impacts on people’s emotional and psychological well-being, said Dr. Zara Patel, a rhinologist at Stanford University who was not involved in The BMJ research.

“Having these now millions more people worldwide with decreased ability to smell — that may simply be a new public health crisis,” Patel said.

Loss of smell was one of the most distinct markers of Covid-19 in the pandemic’s beginning days.

“You could track the pandemic across the globe” by analyzing Google searches about smell loss, Patel said.

The BMJ analysis gives a broad review of smell studies across the world and over time. Data from nearly 3,700 patients was included in the analysis.

Studies from North America, Europe and Asia were all included in the analysis, which noted that women were less likely to regain their senses of smell and taste than men. Patients with greater nasal congestion were less likely to recover, also.

The analysis showed steady increases in the proportion of patients who recovered their sense of smell over time. After 30 days, about 74% of patients had recovered it; after 90 days that number was up to 90%. After six months, about 96% of patients said they were able to smell again.

Scientists are beginning to grasp how Covid-19 affects the smelling function.

The coronavirus often causes swelling in the olfactory cleft, that is, the passages in the upper part of the nasal cavity where humans perceive the sense of smell and process flavor beyond basic tastes like sour or bitter.

Researchers think the virus does not initially infect the olfactory neurons but instead latches on to support cells, which help the neurons provide a signaling pathway.

Patients who suffered smell loss after Covid-19 make up a unique subset, said Dr. Aria Jafari, a rhinologist at the UW Medicine Sinus Center in Seattle, who was not involved in the new analysis. “They tend to get better and kind of quickly, which makes sense based on the cells that are affected.”

Jafari said about half of his patients deprived from the sense of smell likely had Covid-19 at some point. Many experienced dramatic impacts on their well-being because of the loss.

“They tend to be distraught about the loss of sense of smell. It’s such an important part of our every day and what makes us human,” Jafari said, adding that he’s treated a professional chef, a chocolatier and others whose livelihoods depend on their ability to determine smell and flavor. “The most common thing I hear is that it leads to social isolation and feeling disconnected from the world and society as they know it. And that can be really bothersome.”

Jafari said many patients also describe a transition period “that can be distressing” as their sense returns in which they smell things that aren’t present — like burning rubber or smoke — or experience abnormally foul smells.

People who are unable to smell or sense flavors can have higher rates of psychiatric illness, depression and anxiety, Jafari said. In an extreme case, Jafari said he treated a patient who became malnourished after losing the senses of smell and taste.

Smell underlies the way we interact with each other and make our way in the world, dictating “your first impressions of other people, the people we choose for sexual encounters or for lifelong partners,” Patel said. Cues from scent could subconsciously influence people’s attraction to others based on their underlying genetics, studies suggest.

The analysis relies on studies using data that was self-reported by patients. Patel said that could underestimate the true toll of smell dysfunction and skew some of the research findings because people are sometimes unable to perceive how much sensitivity they have lost.

The study’s authors agreed.

“Many previous studies have shown that objective smell testing can identify far more people with smell loss than if we asked them to self-report,” wrote Professor Song Tar Toh, an author of the study and head of the the department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery at Singapore General Hospital, in an email. “The true number of people affected is likely to be far higher than our estimate.”

Patel suspects the true rate of smell dysfunction among those who have experienced Covid-19 could be above 20%. It could be that women are not more likely to struggle with recovery, but are more perceptive of a prolonged deficit in their ability to smell.

“Women overall, have, on average, a more acute sense of smell than men,” Patel said. “We know people with a more acute sense of smell and taste are much more likely to recognize when they have a loss and are more likely to seek care for a loss.”

Jafari said The BMJ analysis generally tracks with his clinical experience and his observations of patients’ recoveries.

“It’s nice to collate data from all around the world to better understand what’s going on and take some variability out of these analyses specific to a patient population or institution,” Jafari said. “It increases the level of evidence, overall, to support what we, as sinus surgeons, see in our offices.”

Initial versions of the omicron variant seemed to affect the sense of smell less than previous waves of Covid-19, Patel said.
But the latest subvariant, BA.5, could be reversing that trend.

“We don’t have enough data yet to know for sure,” Patel said. “I’m now, in my clinic, starting to see an uptick again.”

Treatments are available for people who have lost their sense of taste and smell due to Covid-19.

Structured olfactory training — in which patients twice a day sniff essential oils like lemon, clove, eucalyptus and rose to stimulate different types of neurons — can reteach the brain to recognize different scents. Doctors will often prescribe a steroid rinse for the sinuses to decrease inflammation and aid training.

Some emerging evidence suggests supplements of Omega 3 fatty acids could be helpful for patients with smell dysfunction.

Patel and others are exploring other treatments, including nasal injections of platelet-rich plasma and electrical stimulation.

Patel said she hopes research funding and public interest in smell and taste dysfunction continue to grow so researchers can dive deeper and unlock new treatments.

Before the pandemic, “it was the orphan, Cinderella sense,” Patel said. “It’s only after so many millions of people have been affected or had loved ones affected that people are coming to understand the huge impacts smell and taste have on your quality of life.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)



Fauci on needing a second generation of COVID vaccines: 'We have multiple variants of concern ... And it's getting more complicated'
Anjalee Khemlani - ·Senior Reporter
Tue, July 26, 2022, 4:17 PM

A fall COVID-19 booster campaign has yet to take shape in the U.S., even as the country is experiencing a sharp surge in cases amid the dominance of the BA.5 variant.

It's one reason why the White House Covid-19 Response Team is pushing for eligible adults to get first or second boosters, depending on their age, and is contemplating expanding second boosters for all adults.

It's also why the White House is looking beyond the fall, in anticipation of having to fight the virus for some time to come.

That was the theme of a half-day summit hosted by the White House today, looking at the future of vaccines, including pan-coronavirus and nasal or patch delivery methods.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser, said the virus has proven to be a challenge and the current generation of vaccines is not going to be enough.

"Since September of 2020, this virus has continued to prove more than a formidable foe," Fauci, who is also the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said.

"We have multiple variants of concern that we need to deal with. And it's getting more complicated ... We have sublineages of sublineages," he added.

Vaccine upgrade

The current suite of vaccines authorized or approved in the U.S. focus on attacking the spike protein of the coronavirus, a rather small target that is susceptible to mutations that have kept the virus circulating globally.

David Kessler, chief science officer of the White House COVID-19 Response Team and a former FDA Commissioner, said that despite the historic feat of delivering 784 million doses (of which 601 million have been administered), there is consensus in the scientific community about the next steps.

"We need vaccines with longer duration and greater breadth of protection," he said.

"We don't know how this virus may continue to mutate and come back in a stronger form," Kessler added.

His comments echo the concerns of experts in the past few months, who worry that a fall booster campaign is not an effective strategy.

Boosters or memory cells?

Dr. Paul Offit, who says he isn't sure that every adult is in need of a boost, is among those experts, citing memory cell responses in the human immune system.

It's been a debate for some time in the medical community about whether or not those who are healthy and vaccinated are already primed to fight severe infection and if additional boosters should be relegated to the most vulnerable populations.

Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, recently told Yahoo Finance as much, saying, "I think what hasn't happened yet is neither of these companies, neither Moderna (MRNA) nor Pfizer (PFE) has shown that giving that dual vaccine, that bivalent vaccine, is clinically better than just giving the ancestral strain."

He and other experts on the FDA panel have voiced concern about a lack of attention on memory cell protection and the need for vaccines with more durable protection — as opposed to the highly effective, but quickly waning mRNA vaccines.

Sandeep Reddy, chief medical officer of ImmunityBio (IBRX), echoed the sentiment Tuesday, saying that his company is focusing on a different target than the spike protein in hopes of more durable protection.

"We clearly need antibodies, but we also need T cells in order to break the cycle of transmission," Reddy said.

Who is paying?

The U.S. government pulled all the stops to ensure widespread access to vaccines amid the pandemic, but Congress has made it clear the purse strings are tightening.

That has been clear in the White House's struggle to get approval for booster funding for all. It has prompted discussions about commercial access to the vaccines — of which only two vaccines are eligible to sell and market based on receiving full approval. Those are the current Pfizer/BioNTech (BNTX) and Moderna doses.

Kessler noted at the panel Tuesday that discussions about commercial availability — which puts the burden on insurers and individuals — are underway. But, he added, ensuring access to those with inadequate or no insurance is a priority.

Fauci noted that the overwhelming government investment in the research, development and in some cases manufacturing of the COVID-19 vaccines, and their availability to all Americans helped to save more than 2 million deaths.

Fauci cited a Commonwealth Fund analysis that also noted that more than 17 million hospitalizations, 66 million infections and just under $9 billion in health care costs were averted by the existence of vaccines.

But, he noted, a public-private partnership approach is key in continuing the effort, as was achieved through Operation Warp Speed.

"Industry partnership from the begging and de-risking ... is critically important," Fauci said.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
If you haven't watched the video they are referring to yet, scroll up, I posted it yesterday with a long comments/notes section of mine under it.



(fair use applies)
BOLDING IN ORIGINAL

Fauci, Birx, & The Small-Print That Destroyed America
by Tyler Durden
Wednesday, Jul 27, 2022 - 10:55 PM

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

In a maddening interview yesterday, Anthony Fauci performed his usual song and dance when faced with even the most mild questioning. He stonewalled in his trademarked way.

He spoke in long, drawn-out sentences, emphasizing the word consonants, punctuated by pauses and silences that convey the sense of precision without the reality.
He strung together terms that seem vaguely scientific which intimidated his interviewers into an overly cautious pose.

“Oh wow, I’m interviewing a very powerful person,” the interviewer thinks, “so I had better not say anything wrong!”
He’s been pulling this trick for 40 years. He is very good at it.

In this interview, several messages stands out: 1) in retrospect, we should have locked down even more, 2) he never pushed lockdowns; he was only passing on CDC guidance, and 3) he is utterly and completely blameless for all things, particularly in funding gain-of-function research which, in any case, is not responsible for the creation of the virus in Wuhan.

The first part is startling because many of us have had the sense that lockdowns are in disrepute. Far from it: Fauci’s message is that next time, the lockdowns will be harder and longer. And there certainly will be more. The third part I feel sure will be revealed in time. The fear that the virus escaped from the lab is likely what drove the lockdowns agenda.

What intrigues me the most is the second part, the claim that he never ordered lockdowns. This was the CDC and he only served as messenger. Everyone else is to blame for anything that went wrong.

In a second interview the same day, Fauci says this explicitly: “All I have ever done, if you go back and look at everything I’ve ever done, was to recommend common-sense, good CDC-recommended public health policies that have saved millions of lives. If you want to investigate me for that, go ahead.”

I’m going back to the March 16, 2020, press conference at which Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Donald Trump are announcing a fundamental change of life in the United States, one that would disregard all normal rights and liberties. It’s not entirely clear, to me in any case, that Trump knew what was happening even then. He had a sense that he was doing something to stop the spread but he didn’t know entirely what.

This has always puzzled me. It’s one thing for him to be hornswoggled into greenlighting the destruction of the economy that was booming and roaring under his administration. That’s bad enough. But to be confused even about the details of what he was ordering that day is next-level stuff.

The following exchange occurred that day. Trump is asked whether restaurants and other venues should close. Trump responds: “Right now we don’t have an order one way or the other. We don’t have an order, but I think it’s probably better that you don’t [go to restaurants].”

From that, I gather that Trump believed that he was not forcing anything on anyone.

A reporter asks for a clarification: “Telling people to avoid restaurants and bars is a different thing than saying that bars and restaurants should shut down over the next 15 days. So why was it seen as being imprudent or not necessarily to take that additional step offered at additional guidance?”

At this point, Trump demurs and turns over the microphone to Deborah Birx, who must not have been paying attention and says something vague about the virus living on hard surfaces.

At this point, Fauci interrupts and says: “I just want, there’s an answer to this.”

Fauci says the following: “The small print here. It’s really small print. ‘In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.’”

This was obviously a very startling thing to say—it means the end of regular life—but it is not clear that Trump was paying attention. A reporter asked a follow-up question. “So Mr. President, are you telling governors in those states then to close all their restaurants and their bars?”

Trump says: “Well we haven’t said that yet … we’re recommending things. No, we haven’t gone to that step yet. That could happen, but we haven’t gone there yet.”

I take from this exchange that Trump did not believe that he was calling for lockdowns. However, he believed that he might. And yet Fauci himself had just read from the CDC guidelines that called for exactly that.

Curious, I looked up the guidelines to which Fauci referred. It is a two-page PDF that was sent all over the country, the one labeled “15 Days to Flatten the Curve.”

They are here reproduced in graphic form:





The only part that truly matters is the section with a black background with white print, the part that looks like boilerplate fluff. It was not. It was the scraping of freedom itself.

As he demonstrated at the press conference, Fauci knew this fine print was there. He might even have been the one to make sure it was there and that it was too small for Trump to read. No question that Trump had no idea that it was there. He makes clear in the press conference that he didn’t know it was there. Even after Fauci highlighted its existence, Trump remained oblivious.

What does the fine print say? It’s the full loaf: lockdown.

“School operations can accelerate the spread of the coronavirus. Governors of states with evidence of community transmission should close schools in affected and surrounding areas. Governors should close schools in communities that are near areas of community transmission, even if those areas are in neighboring states. In addition, state and local officials should close schools where coronavirus has been identified in the population associated with the school. States and localities that close schools need to address childcare needs of critical responders, as well as the nutritional needs of children.”
“Older people are particularly at risk from the coronavirus. All states should follow Federal guidance and halt social visits to nursing homes and retirement and long-term care facilities.”
“In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.”


Consider the implications of this. Your mother is in the nursing home that you are paying for. But now you are even banned by the government from visiting. It’s an utterly shocking violation of human rights. You are deploying the state to separate families, as in a dystopian novel. It’s a death sentence.

As for schools, astounding. There was never any evidence that schools spread death and, in any case, we already knew that the risk of COVID to kids is near zero. Sweden never closed schools and not a single death resulted. And yet in the United States, the kids were denied education and likely traumatized for life.

As for the last sentence banning all gatherings—sports, weddings, funerals, gyms, malls—and completely wrecking all enterprise, this is an edict worthy of history’s most horrible despots in the annals of history.

And it was all buried right there in tiny print, so small the president of the United States didn’t even read it. What’s more, no one in his inner circle at the time read it. Surely, Fauci and Birx knew it was there. Any reporter in the room could have read it. It was only a few sentences but they overrode the U.S. Constitution, all American law, plus 500 years of progress in rights and liberties. And it came to America in small print!

What happened then? State health departments took the two-pager and rendered the small print into larger print. Here is a screen shot of the order from the state of Georgia.



The small print quickly became the large print that transformed life for everyone. You think there was no plot here? That this was just some mistake that somehow caused the end of America to be buried in the fine print? Wise up. This is a level of malice that is truly boundless.

As for Deborah Birx, she admits later in her book that the idea of 15 Days was always a trick. “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits.

This was how the chaos in American life began: in small print. Very quickly, this small print was extended to the entire world. And then extended to two years. And now we face a devastating economic, cultural, and political crisis. The population is demoralized and hope is nearly lost.

Who to blame? Anthony Fauci’s fingerprints are all over this sadistic caper, but he denies having anything to do with it.

It’s our fault, he says: We didn’t read the fine print.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Another article about that video. It's really a must watch :D


(fair use applies)


Fauci Claims He Never Recommended COVID-19 Lockdowns
By Jack Phillips
July 27, 2022


White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci claimed Monday that he never recommended “locking anything down” when pressed about what he would do differently regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

“First of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down,” Fauci replied during an interview published by The Hill’s “Rising” program on Monday, suggesting it had been a recommendation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Go back and look at my statements,” he added, “that we need to do everything we can to keep the schools open and safe.”

Although it’s unclear exactly what Fauci meant by lockdowns, in October 2020, Fauci had publicly recommended that former President Donald Trump “shut the whole country down,” although it’s not clear what he meant as presidents don’t have the authority to hand down sweeping lockdowns.

“When it became clear that we had community spread in the country … I recommended to the president that we shut the country down,” he said in an event with students at the College of the Holy Cross in October 2020.

If the United States didn’t “shut down completely the way China did,” then the spread of COVID-19 wouldn’t be stopped, Fauci continued to say at the time. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since early 2020 has pursued a “zero COVID” strategy that some analysts say is tantamount to economic suicide.

Closing Schools and Bars

In August 2020, Fauci said that public schools should remain closed across the country to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Fauci also publicly suggested multiple times in 2020 that bars and restaurants should remain closed, then arguing that there was a binary choice between opening schools or bars.

“You have a choice—either close the bars or close the schools. Because, if you have people congregating in bars, it’s likely you’re going to stay red,” the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said in November 2020.

Also during the interview with The Hill, Fauci said there should have been “much more stringent restrictions” imposed on asymptomatic people in 2020.

“We know now, two and a half years later, that anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of the transmission occur from someone without symptoms, either someone who never will get symptoms or someone who is in the pre-symptomatic stage,” he said.

It’s not clear how Fauci came to this conclusion about asymptomatic spread. Physician Aaron Kheriaty wrote for the Brownstone Institute that “no respiratory virus in history” has been known to spread asymptomatically.

“Had we known that then, the insidious nature of spread in the community would have been much more of an alarm and there would have been much, much more stringent restrictions in the sense of very, very heavy, encouraging people to wear masks, physical distancing or what have you,” added Fauci, who again called for mask-wearing in schools, workplaces, and “anything that brings people together in a closed environment” in some areas.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Microparticle Vaccine Provides Boosters Automatically
July 27th, 2022
38462dafad501a860be3955a2334d3ae

Conn Hastings

Researchers at MIT have created a microparticle vaccine that can provide booster doses automatically. The hollow microparticles resemble a coffee cup with a lid, and are made using poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), otherwise known as PLGA. The polymer breaks down over time in the body, releasing the contents of the hollow particles. By changing the composition of the polymer and the chemical groups attached to it, the researchers can tweak the release time, allowing them to deliver an assortment of particles that release at different times.

This would allow them to deliver the particles subcutaneously, and then as the particles break down the recipient would receive their initial dose and then booster doses at later dates. The technology could help to provide long-term immunity without the need to attend a clinic on multiple occasions and could help with the logistics of large-scale vaccination campaigns, such as those initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaccines are a cornerstone of public health initiatives, and have helped us to avoid the worst effects of many serious diseases and even eradicate certain diseases, such as smallpox. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines have provided some much-needed protection from the worst effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, the need to receive multiple doses of the vaccine, along with follow-up boosters, is a sticking point in terms of logistics. Missed appointments for second doses are always a possibility, and it would be easier (and likely cheaper) to just use a one-dose system.

This technology aims to achieve this, with booster doses becoming available within a vaccine recipient’s tissue over time. “This is a platform that can be broadly applicable to all types of vaccines, including recombinant protein-based vaccines, DNA-based vaccines, even RNA-based vaccines,” said Ana Jaklenec, one of the lead researchers that created the new technology. “Understanding the process of how the vaccines are released, which is what we described in this paper, has allowed us to work on formulations that address some of the instability that could be induced over time.”

To create the particles, the researchers use silicone molds to form the “cup” shape out of the polymer mixture, and then fill the hollow structures with the vaccine. They then apply a polymer “lid” and heat the particles slightly to fuse the lid and cup together, sealing the vaccine inside. The researchers can tweak the release profile of the particles by using polymers with slightly different chemical properties. “If you want the particle to release after six months for a certain application, we use the corresponding polymer, or if we want it to release after two days, we use another polymer,” said Morteza Sarmadi, another researcher involved in the study. “A broad range of applications can benefit from this observation.”

Study in Science Advances: Experimental and computational understanding of pulsatile release mechanism from biodegradable core-shell microparticles

Via: MIT
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

CDC Official Used Flawed Data to Justify COVID Shots for Infants and Children, Analysis Shows
An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used data from a flawed preprint study that exaggerated the risk of death for children from COVID-19 in her presentations to CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisors who were responsible for recommending Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines for infants and young children.
By Megan Redshaw
07/27/22

An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used data from a flawed preprint study that exaggerated the risk of death for children from COVID-19 in her presentations to CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisors who were responsible for recommending Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines for infants and young children.

The study, first published May 25 on the medRxiv preprint server, was authored by a group of U.K. researchers. On June 28, the authors published a revised version of the study, after critics questioned some of their original findings.

“It’s really disturbing that data this poor made its way into the meetings to discuss childhood COVID and that it took me less than a few minutes to find a major flaw (and then I found many more as I looked deeper),” said Kelley K, who was the first to point out some of the study’s flaws on her website COVID-Georgia.com.

After learning of Kelley’s analysis, The Defender reviewed the original preprint, confirmed Kelley’s findings and uncovered additional flaws in the original preprint and also in the June 28 revised version.

Study falsely claimed COVID was leading cause of death in U.S. children

During a June 17 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss pediatric COVID-19 vaccines in children under 5, Dr. Katherine Fleming-Dutra, a pediatrician and pediatric emergency medicine physician with the CDC, presented a table that falsely claimed COVID-19 was a leading cause of death in U.S. children.

Fleming-Dutra earlier that week presented the same table during the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee meeting, along with other slides from the original U.K. study that also falsely claimed COVID-19 as a “top 5 cause of death” in children.

The table, which was sourced from the U.K. study, was disseminated widely by physicians on Twitter who claimed the data “made the case” for vaccinating children under 5.

covid children leading cause death


The table was part of a slide deck on the epidemiology of COVID-19 in children and adolescents, developed under the direction of Fleming-Dutra.

A disclaimer at the end of the slide deck states, “The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The table illustrated the study’s claim that COVID-19 caused more than 1 million deaths in the U.S, including at least 1,433 deaths among children and young people ages 0 to 19 years old from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022.

The study’s authors originally ranked COVID-19 ninth among all causes of death in children and adolescents ages 0 to 19, fifth in disease-related causes of death — excluding accidents, assault and suicide — and first in deaths caused by infectious/respiratory diseases.

The authors stated they “only consider COVID-19 as an underlying — and not contributing — cause of death.”

However, that statement is false — because the study in fact cited data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which tabulates COVID-19 deaths by including any death certificate that mentions COVID-19, not just those cases where COVID-19 was the primary reason for death.

Using NCHS data, there were 1,433 pediatric COVID-19 deaths through April 30.

However, using the CDC’s own mortality statistics, which count only those deaths where the virus was the underlying cause, there were only 1,088 pediatric deaths — nearly 25% less than the NCHS and the study stated.

After the misleading data was brought to the attention of the authors, they revised the study to reduce the number of COVID-19 deaths among children and adolescents, from 1,433 deaths to 1,088 deaths — making COVID-19 the eighth leading cause of death in the 0 to 19 age group.

Cumulative versus annualized death rates — why it matters

According to Kelley K’s analysis, one key misleading aspect of the U.K. study was that it ranked cumulative COVID-19 deaths alongside annual rates for other causes of death.

Cumulative death rate refers to the proportion of a group that dies over a specified time interval. Annualized deaths are those that occur over the course of a year.

In ranking COVID-19 deaths by age group, the authors of the preprint included both cumulative (over 26 months) and annualized deaths, which inexplicably ranked COVID-19 twice for each age group, according to Kelley.

For instance, in the 1 to 4 age group, the paper listed cumulative COVID-19 deaths as the fifth leading cause of death.

The annualized COVID-19 deaths also appeared on the same list in their proper position.

For each age group, the cumulative COVID-19 death rate was more than double the annualized death rate.

Kelley recreated the results of the preprint using CDC WONDER, which utilizes “a rich ad-hoc query system for the analysis of public health data.”

Using that system, she obtained data where COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause of death during the time period listed in the original study. She then annualized the results.

Kelley also showed the annualized number of deaths when using only those deaths where COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause.

chart corrected covid data

Credit: Kelley/covid-georgia.com

When the data is annualized and includes only those deaths where the virus was the underlying cause, COVID-19 does not rank as a leading cause of death for young children, the Daily Caller reported.

For kids under age 1, COVID-19 ranks ninth — behind influenza and pneumonia, heart disease and homicide. And accidents are almost 25 times more likely to kill an infant than COVID-19, according to the CDC WONDER data.

Among kids ages 1 to 4 and 5 to 9, COVID-19 ranked in a four-way tie for the eighth leading cause of death. For ages 10 to 14, it ranked in a two-way tie for eighth. For teenagers between 15 and 19 years old, it dropped from fourth to sixth.

Even using correct data, there are still issues with showing the impact of COVID-19 deaths in children using rankings, according to Kelley.

Kelley wrote:

“Rankings overstate the impact of COVID, because the top few causes of death far outweigh the causes further down the list. For example, in ages 1 to 4, accidents account for almost 25 times as many deaths as COVID-19 on an annualized basis.

“Furthermore, for each of the 4 age groups covered by the CDC slide, the very broad ‘accidents’ is the leading cause of death. If we break that down further, causes of death like drownings, vehicle crashes, and drug overdoses, would be individual causes of death greater than COVID in various age groups.”

Why did U.K. researchers use U.S. COVID death data?

Another issue with the preprint is the use of pre-pandemic data from 2019, instead of 2020 or 2021, to compare other causes of death with COVID-19.

According to the CDC website on “excess deaths associated with COVID-19,” the nation’s response to the pandemic may have altered mortality patterns.

The CDC states:

“The estimates of excess deaths reported here may not be due to COVID-19, either directly or indirectly the pandemic may have changed mortality patterns for other causes of death.

“Upward trends in other causes of death (e.g., suicide, drug overdose, heart disease) may contribute to excess deaths in some jurisdictions. Future analyses of cause-specific excess mortality may provide additional information about these patterns.”

In addition, U.K. researchers incorrectly analyzed U.S. deaths, by using NCHS data instead of CDC WONDER data, raising the question of why they didn’t use data in their own country, Kelley said.

“Could it be because the U.S. counts COVID deaths very generously, so our data made it easier to present COVID as a leading cause of death in children?” Kelley asked.

“In addition, why did they inflate the counts by including 18- and 19-year-olds in the data, when the pediatric population is generally accepted to be 0-17?”

Kelley wrote:

“On the CDC side, how did Dr. Katherine E. Fleming-Dutra, M.D. at the CDC — a pediatrician and doctor of emergency medicine — not realize this data was seriously flawed and out of line with all other data about the impact of Covid on pediatric mortality?

“How did a pre-print get used in an ACIP and FDA presentation with such little oversight without the quality of the data being fully vetted? How did I uncover these issues, instead of them being identified by someone whose job it is to evaluate this kind of data?”

“We are forced to believe that the CDC researchers who put this data together are either incompetent or liars when all the mistakes go in the same direction,” Kelley said.

“It certainly seems like the CDC uses whatever data they can find to push their agenda without any consideration to its veracity,” she said.

Researchers revise preprint but still use mismatched data

In a revised preprint released June 28, the study’s authors admitted they improperly calculated COVID-19 deaths and adjusted the rankings for each age group using CDC WONDER data.

However, the researchers utilized several tactics to exaggerate COVID deaths in children in their revised version of the study.

First, the authors reduced the study period from March 1, 2020 – April 30, 2022, to April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022 — selecting the worst 12-month period of the pandemic.

The authors claimed that changing the date range “simplified” comparison time periods.

“We have fixed an error: our comparisons now use COVID-19 underlying cause of death data obtained from CDC Wonder. We have also simplified the comparison time periods,” the revised preprint states in a footnote.

[continued next post]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued from post above]

Researchers then concluded, “COVID-19 mortality is a leading cause of death in CYP [children and young people] aged 0-19 years in the U.S.”

The authors of the study admitted in the revision that “deaths among U.S. CYP are rare in general” so they argued the mortality burden of COVID-19 in the younger age groups is “best understood in the context of all other causes of CYP death.”

The authors also altered the study, adding a “percentage of top 10 deaths” to the table for children ages 1 to 4, instead of noting where COVID-19 fits as a percentage of all-cause deaths.

COVID-19 appears as the seventh leading cause of death in children ages 1 to 4, however, it comprises only 2.7% of total deaths. To put that into perspective, the six more frequent causes add up to 89.5%.

The COVID-19 deaths were then compared to deaths from a different time period.

leading-cause-of-death-covid-1024x792.png


Kelley tweeted:

6/ Keep in mind that even by manipulating the dates to choose the worst months of Covid they couldn’t get Covid to stay in the top 5 for age groups under 15. Is @CDCgov disappointed their big talking point has been officially busted? Will @CDCDirector ever admit it?
— Kelley K * covid-georgia.com (@KelleyKga) June 28, 2022

Dr. Susan Bewley, an obstetrician and BMJ award-winner, did a side-by-side comparison of the two preprints and concluded there should be a “major retraction” or “corrected post-publication” as the preprint was significantly altered.

Here are the pre-print changes demonstrated side by side. https://t.co/rs5GT7eRSl. This is what many papers would look like between draft 1 & submission. Less so after peer review. I’d praise the educational aspects, but it’d be a retraction / major correction post publication!
— Susan Bewley (@susan_bewley) June 29, 2022

CDC and FDA fail to acknowledge misleading data

The Daily Caller reached out to the CDC about its misleading data and asked how the study made it through the agency’s “rigorous review process.”

The CDC did not respond to multiple requests.

The Defender also contacted the CDC for comment on the preprint used as the basis for authorizing COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use in children. We were directed to call the CDC’s media relations department, but the number listed and provided by the CDC and its automated system is no longer a working number.

The Daily Caller also made multiple attempts to contact the FDA.

The FDA said:

“FDA speakers in the June 14-15th meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not cite the study in question in their presentations. FDA’s press release announcing the authorizations explains the basis for our determinations.”

But as the Daily Caller reported, and slides from the meeting show, that’s not entirely true.

Although the FDA itself did not present the paper during the meeting, the paper was presented by Fleming-Dutra who claimed COVID-19 was a leading cause of death among children and adolescents 1 to 19 years of age and cited the erroneous preprint and NCHS statistics as the source of the data.

That slide and others claiming COVID-19 was a leading cause of death among children helped form the basis of the panel’s decision to recommend expanding the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines to infants and toddlers.

The Daily Caller reached out to all 11 authors listed as contributors to the research. Only Dr. Deepti Gurdasani, an epidemiologist and senior lecturer at Queen Mary University of London responded.

Gurdasani wouldn’t comment on the effect of publishing flawed research affecting the healthcare of millions of children other than to chastise Fox host and Daily Caller co-founder, Tucker Carlson.

Another author of the study, Seth Flaxman, with the U.K’s University of Oxford, tweeted after the flaws in the paper were exposed that his team was working on a revised version of the study.

Our preprint on Covid mortality in children and young people (Covid-19 is a leading cause of death in children and young people ages 0-19 years in the United States) in the US was cited at the FDA VRBPAC and CDC ACIP meetings this past week. It shows: Covid-19 is a leading cause of death in children in the US. 1/3
— Seth Flaxman (@flaxter) June 19, 2022

To date, neither the CDC nor FDA have publically issued a comment or correction on the flawed study cited by the CDC during vaccine advisory meetings to determine whether COVID-19 vaccines should be authorized for infants and small children.

The study has not been retracted.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
This was a big story yesterday, looks like it's still being reported. I posted a substack debunking it last night, scroll up for that. And I'll be posting another substack about it in a few posts, scroll down for that one.

(fair use applies)

Scientists Trace Earliest Cases of COVID-19 to Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China
By University of Utah Health
July 27, 2022


An international team of scientists has determined that the earliest cases of COVID-19 in humans arose at a wholesale fish market in Wuhan China in December 2019. They linked these cases to bats, foxes, and other live mammals infected with the virus sold in the market either for consumption as meat or for their fur. The team of 18 researchers included a scientist at the University of Utah Health.

The finding confirms early reports, later dismissed by senior Chinese officials, that live animals sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market were the likely source of the pandemic that has claimed at least 6.4 million lives since it first emerged in China nearly three years ago. The study was published in the July 26, 2022, issue of Science.

“These are the most compelling and most detailed studies of what happened in Wuhan in the earliest stages of what would become the COVID-19 pandemic,” says Stephen Goldstein, Ph.D., a co-author of the study led by senior author Kristian Anderson, Ph.D., from the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla and first author Michael Worobey, Ph.D., from the University of Arizona. Goldstein is a post-doctoral researcher in the department of Human Genetics at University of Utah Health. “We have convincingly shown that the wild animal sales at the Huanan Market in Wuhan are implicated in the first human cases of the disease.”

Among the study’s key findings:
  • The emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can likely be traced to one or more of the 10 to 15 stalls in the market that sold live dogs, rats, badgers, porcupines, foxes, hares, marmots, hedgehogs, and Chinese Muntjac (a small deer). Health officials and researchers detected the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus on animal cages, carts, and drainage grates in these venues.
  • Neighborhoods within a half-mile of the market were the only areas where the virus was spreading in December 2019. Some researchers had previously suggested that the virus was brought into the market from elsewhere in the city and spread among its patrons. Instead, the new findings strongly suggest that the virus originated in the market via live animal sales, and slowly spread from there into nearby neighborhoods and then the city at large.
  • Two variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were detected at the market. That suggests both variants originated independently at the market and helps confirm the researchers’ hypothesis that the early spread of the infection began there. If the virus originated elsewhere, it’s more likely that only a single variant would have been found.
Moving forward, the researchers offer suggestions to public officials to lower the risk of future pandemics. Namely, they should seek a better understanding of the wildlife trade in China and elsewhere and promote more comprehensive testing of live animals sold in markets.

Reference: “The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic” by Michael Worobey, Joshua I. Levy, Lorena Malpica Serrano, Alexander Crits-Christoph, Jonathan E. Pekar, Stephen A. Goldstein, Angela L. Rasmussen, Moritz U. G. Kraemer, Chris Newman, Marion P. G. Koopmans, Marc A. Suchard, Joel O. Wertheim, Philippe Lemey, David L. Robertson, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut and Kristian G. Andersen, 26 July 2022, Science.

DOI: 10.1126/science.abp8715
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Scientists develop effective intranasal mumps-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate
by The Ohio State University
July 27, 2022

New research has advanced COVID-19 vaccine work in several ways: using a modified live attenuated mumps virus for delivery, showing that a more stable coronavirus spike protein stimulates a stronger immune response, and suggesting a dose up the nose has an advantage over a shot.

Based on these combined findings in rodent experiments, Ohio State University scientists envision one day incorporating a coronavirus antigen into the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine as a way to produce COVID-19 immunity in kids.

"We were pushing to make a vaccine for infants and children with the idea that if we could incorporate the mumps COVID vaccine into the MMR vaccine, you'd have protection against four pathogens—measles, mumps, rubella and SARS-CoV-2—in a single immunization program," said Jianrong Li, senior author of the study and a professor of virology in Ohio State's Department of Veterinary Biosciences and Infectious Diseases Institute.

"If infants and children could develop immunity against COVID infection with the MMR vaccine, that would be great—no extra immunization needed."

The research is published today (July 27, 2022) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To create the antigen that stimulates immunity in this vaccine candidate, researchers used a prefusion version of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the shape it is in on the surface of the virus before the virus infects a cell. The spike was locked into this form by changing six of its amino acids to prolines, an inflexible amino acid.

Experiments comparing the six-proline protein, 6P, to a spike protein with two prolines, 2P, showed that the 6P induces significantly more neutralizing antibodies in mice and golden Syrian hamsters than the 2P version. These are the first published results showing the 6P antigen is more effective than the 2P spike protein with which the existing mRNA and adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines were created, the researchers said.

"The 6P antigen is about 8 1/2 times better than 2P. That's a big deal—that's a lot more antibody production, which may become important since it looks like the virus is going to keep on evolving," said study co-author Mark Peeples, professor of pediatrics at Ohio State and a researcher at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus.

Li, in collaboration with Peeples and Veterinary Biosciences Professor Stefan Niewiesk, previously led development of a measles-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, but found that the mumps virus genome is even more amenable than measles to insertion of the spike protein gene. The study used a mumps vaccine strain that has been a component of the current MMR vaccine used in children since the 1960s. Once the 6P spike protein gene is inserted into the genome, the recombinant mumps virus replicates more slowly but is genetically stable and grows well in a World Health Organization-approved cell line for vaccine production.

In animals, the live attenuated mumps vaccine modified in this way generated high levels of the 6P protein antigen, which triggered a strong immune response.

Researchers compared the 6P spike protein vaccine candidate's effectiveness to a 2P version in mumps, and to mumps without the spike protein, in mice engineered to be highly susceptible to mumps infection and in golden Syrian hamsters, a standard animal model for SARS-CoV-2 studies. In all experiments, the 6P vaccine produced the best results: higher concentrations of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination, and after introduction of a SARS-CoV-2 virus challenge a few weeks later, protection from lung damage and significantly fewer viral particles in the lungs and nasal cavity.

"We didn't test the Omicron variant for this paper, but the 6P vaccine induced neutralizing antibodies and T cell activity against several variants of concern and offered complete protection from disease caused by the parent SARS-CoV-2 virus and the delta variant," Li said. "That's very important and suggests that if we use the 6P spike protein for vaccine protection in the future, we can enhance a vaccine's ability to protect humans."

In addition, the Li laboratory developed a rapid recombination system that enables the insertion of any antigen into a mumps or measles virus in a week. "With this technique, the MMR vaccine can be rapidly updated to protect against new SARS-CoV-2 variants as they emerge," said study first author Yuexiu Zhang, a major contributor to this technology in Li's lab.

Researchers vaccinated study animals by both injections and by drops into the nose, an attractive needle-free option that—the results suggested—provides superior protection against the coronavirus by inducing not only system-wide antibodies, but a broad response of specialized antibodies called IgA on mucosal surfaces of the airways as well, Li said.

"Like most of the injected vaccines, current mRNA and adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines primarily induce antibodies in the bloodstream. Unfortunately, antibodies in the bloodstream do not protect the mucosal site of the airways very well, which is the initial site of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In contrast to injected vaccines, our new intranasal vaccine may be the next generation of COVID-19 vaccine because it can induce robust IgA, which directly neutralizes the SARS-CoV-2 in the nose and airways tissues," said co-author Prosper Boyaka, professor of mucosal immunology and chair of veterinary biosciences at Ohio State.

Added Peeples, "Having those antibodies on the surface of the airways could be a real advantage compared to hoping that some of the antibodies in the bloodstream will end up in the respiratory tract."

The study findings also suggest that existing immunity to mumps from vaccination or previous infection may slow the initial stimulation of antibodies by the mumps-based COVID-19 vaccine, but does not prevent a strong, protective antibody response.

"That finding suggests this candidate can be used not only in infants, but also in adults who have mumps antibodies," Li said.

The team began work on this mumps-based vaccine almost a year ago, long before the June 17 federal approval of COVID-19 vaccines for children 6 months or older. Given the MMR's 50-plus-year history as a safe childhood vaccine, the scientists are now evaluating ways to modify the MMR with coronavirus antigens from multiple variants.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Face shields don't give high-level COVID protection, study shows
by University of East Anglia
July 27, 2022

If you wore a face shield during the pandemic, it probably didn't give you a high level of protection against COVID, according to new research from the University of East Anglia.

A study published today compared 13 styles of face shield in controlled laboratory settings.

While all the face shields provided some protection, none gave high levels of protection against external droplets.

As well as studying face shields in the lab, the research team surveyed people including health workers in middle income countries (Brazil and Nigeria) about their views on face shields as PPE.

Prof. Paul Hunter, from UEA's Norwich Medical School, said, "Face shields have been popular because they don't hinder breathing, they allow more natural communication than face masks and they provide splash protection.

"They were widely used through the COVID pandemic. But until now there hasn't been a great deal of evidence about how protective they really are—particularly taking into account how people use them in the real world, and especially in poorer parts of the world.

"We wanted to find out more about how protective different styles of face shields might be, both in the lab and in real world settings."

UEA researchers collaborated with staff at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Britain's regulator for workplace health and safety, who tested 13 face shield designs in a controlled laboratory setting, using a "coughing machine" that ejected fluorescent drops onto mannequin heads.

How much the mannequin face was contaminated by the simulated cough droplets was graded from most to least.

Dr. Julii Brainard, from UEA's Norwich Medical School, said, "The lab tests showed that all of the face shields provided some protection, but none gave high levels of protection against external droplet contamination. The level of protection provided was influenced by design features, as well as which way the mannequin had its head turned when it was 'coughed' at.

"We found that large gaps around the sides, and sometimes the bottom or top, allow respiratory droplets from other people to get to the face and this means exposure to possible viruses.

"The shields that offered most protection were closed across the forehead and extended well around the sides of the face and below the chin.

"It's important to know that the lab experiments are in the scenario of someone actively coughing at the shield wearer from close proximity. But the chances of droplets getting around the shield onto the face from just speaking are much lower."

To learn more about how face shields are used in a real world setting, the team surveyed more than 600 people across Nigeria and Brazil, including health care staff.

Dr. Brainard said, "We wanted to know about how users cleaned them, and the things that mattered most when choosing facial PPE during the pandemic.

"Not surprisingly, we found that people want proven protective products that are comfortable, stable on their head, easy to clean and that don't look strange.

"This study is important because acceptability of facial PPE during the pandemic has been mostly studied in richer countries like the UK or U.S. The participants in our study were in Nigeria and Brazil and we shouldn't assume that people in all countries view facial PPE in the same way.

"It is also important to understand what design features in face shields could be more or less protective, so that people are able to choose the most effective designs.

"Finally, we wanted to know how people cleaned reusable face shields—methylated or surgical spirits were popular, for instance, but so was plain water and soap. Some cleaning chemicals could be incompatible with shield coatings intended to prevent fogging or facilitate quick drying, for instance. Dust outside and fogging inside shields were occasional problems, too," she added.

A mixed methods study on effectiveness and appropriateness of face shield use as COVID-19 PPE in middle income countries' is published in the journal American Journal of Infection Control on July 28, 2022.

In a related project, the HSE team tested face shields available for use in the UK. The results of this work, together with more details of the cough simulator, are published in the journal Annals of Work Exposures and Health.

Dr. Brian Crook, a microbiologist in the HSE team, said, "It is important that people using any type of PPE to protect themselves from infection know how effective it is, but also it's limitations. We are working with an international standards committee to write guidance towards a better means of providing that information."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Human lung proteins can advance or thwart SARS-CoV-2 infections
by University of California - Berkeley
July 27, 2022

Researchers have taken an important step toward understanding the microscopic battle that plays out between our lung cells and the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. A UC Berkeley-led study has identified specific proteins within our bodies that can promote or protect us from SARS-CoV-2 infections, potentially opening the door to new antiviral therapies.

In the study, published this week in Nature Genetics, researchers used CRISPR technology to test the impact of every human gene on SARS-CoV-2 infections in human lung cells. Their findings revealed new pathways that the virus relies on to infect cells, as well as the antiviral pathways that help protect against viral infection. Notably, they showed that mucins—the main component of mucus found in the lungs—seem to help block the SARS-CoV-2 virus from entering our cells.

"Our data suggest that mucins play a key role in restricting SARS-CoV-2 infection by acting as a barrier to viruses that are attempting to access our lung epithelial cells," said Scott Biering, the study's co-lead author and a postdoctoral researcher in Eva Harris's lab at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. "Further, our data suggest that mucin expression levels in an individual's lungs may impact COVID-19 disease progression."

Patrick Hsu—cofounder of the Arc Institute and Berkeley assistant professor of bioengineering, Deb Faculty Fellow and Innovative Genomics Institute Investigator—is the principal investigator of the study, which brought together researchers from 10 institutions. Harris, professor of public health at UC Berkeley, and Silvana Konermann, assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, were co-senior authors of the study. Other collaborators contributed from Stanford University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Yale School of Medicine and Cornell University, and spanned disciplines ranging from immunology, bioengineering, epidemiology, molecular biology and genetics.

Together, the researchers were trying to determine how the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters human cells and replicates so efficiently during illness. They also wanted to identify specific defense mechanisms in human cells that might be able to fight infection, which could inspire new therapeutic strategies.

Researchers discovered that MUC1 and MUC4, types of mucins found in lung cell membranes, defend lung cells from infection. This finding is important because previous studies had suggested that an accumulation of mucus could be the reason why some people became seriously ill with COVID-19—since the mucus can make it difficult for people to breathe—and proposed using drugs to deplete mucus. This Berkeley-led study suggests that such a strategy could interfere with mucins that provide a valuable defense mechanism against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Still, mucins are complex, and more research is needed to fully understand them. The researchers discovered that other mucins—MUC5AC and MUC5B—which are secreted into the mucus lining of the lungs, either do nothing to stop SARS-CoV-2 infection or can even promote viral infection.

According to Biering, both the type and amount of mucus that each person produces may result in different outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 infection—and lead to different treatment strategies.

"Somebody who produces a lot of the right type of mucus could be very protected. But somebody who produces a lot of the wrong type of mucus might have more risk of infection," said Biering. "And somebody who produces very little of the right type also could be at more risk."

This is also the first study in which researchers looked at how the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with human lung cells, marking a critical advancement in COVID-19 research.

"It is well known that virus infection can be promoted or inhibited by our own proteins," said Biering. "But this is the first time that a systematic investigation of these host cell proteins has been conducted in human lung epithelial cells for SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Past studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection have used cell types that do not naturally contain the receptors or other pathways that the virus uses to infect our lungs. For this study, researchers wanted to use a more relevant cell type, human epithelial cells called Calu-3, found on the inner surface of the lung. Though this cell line is extremely challenging to work with, researchers managed to gain a more accurate understanding of the biology involved in human SARS-CoV-2 infections.

"[Using Calu-3 cells] was a huge advancement, given that these are very representative of the first cells the virus contacts and infects in humans, and it revealed new pathways not seen in other cell lines," said co-lead author Sylvia Sarnik, an assistant specialist in Hsu's lab at the time of the study. "Overall, this study is a step forward in understanding viral infection pathways and paves the way for research toward better treatments in the future."

The researchers conducted genome-wide CRISPR gain-of-function and loss-of-function screening to eliminate or overexpress every gene in the human genome. Then they measured the impact of these gene expression changes on SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lung epithelial cells. Importantly, many of the genes highlighted by this screen have yet to be investigated experimentally, providing a starting point for future work.

"You can run these massively parallel 'Hunger Games'-style experiments on human cells to see which genes you can change to tune the ability of our lung cells to survive or grow when the virus infects them," said Hsu.

"Our screen successfully identified hundreds of genes that were important for replication of SARS-CoV-2 and hundreds of genes that could restrict SARS-CoV-2," said Biering. "In this study, we chose to focus on understanding the role of these mucin proteins."

The researchers identified mucin glycoproteins as key restriction factors for infection in cells, both in mouse models and potentially in humans.

Researchers also studied how mucins would interact with other respiratory viruses, including influenza A virus, human parainfluenza virus, common cold coronaviruses and respiratory syncytial virus. As with SARS-CoV-2, the results were unpredictable.

"What we showed was mucins are broadly antiviral, but the story is actually much more complicated than that," said Hsu. "In fact, in some viruses, we found that mucin overexpression actually seemed to increase infectivity."

Future work will be critical to better understand how viruses interact with mucins, but, for now, these findings provide an important starting point. "This study helped us learn more about the virus and opened new avenues for research to further investigate druggable targets," said Sarnik.
 
Top