CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

[Heliobas Disciple]

Despite awareness of COVID-19 risks, many Americans say they're back to 'normal'

Many Americans know of the potential risks to themselves and their families from infection with COVID-19, but growing numbers say they have returned to living their "normal" pre-pandemic lives, according to July 2022 national survey data from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC).

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)



Despite awareness of COVID-19 risks, many Americans say they're back to 'normal'
by University of Pennsylvania
August 15, 2022



Credit: University of Pennsylvania

Many Americans know of the potential risks to themselves and their families from infection with COVID-19, but growing numbers say they have returned to living their "normal" pre-pandemic lives, according to July 2022 national survey data from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC).

Increasing numbers say they personally know someone who has died from COVID-19 and personally know someone who has suffered the lingering effects such as neurological problems and fatigue that are commonly known as "long COVID," according to the APPC survey, which was conducted July 12–18, 2022.

Despite awareness of the continuing risks of COVID-19, worries about its health effects have declined, the percentage of Americans who often or always wear masks indoors with people from outside their household has plummeted, and the number saying they have returned to living their "normal, pre-COVID-19 life" has more than doubled over the past six months.

The nationally representative panel of 1,580 U.S. adults, surveyed by SSRS for the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, was the seventh wave of the Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) survey whose respondents were first empaneled in April 2021. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All changes noted in this release from previous surveys are statistically significant. See the appendix and methodology for additional information, including the survey questions.

Highlights

The survey, conducted amid a surge in cases of the coronavirus BA.5 omicron subvariant and spreading cases of monkeypox, found that:

• Over half of Americans (54%) personally know at least one person who has died of COVID-19.
• Nearly 1 in 3 (31%) know someone who has experienced long COVID.
• Most of the public knows someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 despite being fully vaccinated—or being fully vaccinated and boosted.
• A majority of Americans (54%) say they rarely or never wear a mask indoors when with people from outside their household—more than double the proportion in January.
• 4 in 10 (41%) say they have already returned to their "normal, pre-COVID-19 life"—up from 16% in January.

"After more than two years of experience with COVID-19 and its effects, the public is largely aware of the nature and risks of infection," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. "A consistent percentage does not believe a pre-COVID normal will ever be restored. But a growing number have returned to their pre-COVID life. One can only hope that those in each group have accurately calculated the risks and benefits that their decision entails."

COVID-19 and vaccinations

How many have had COVID: Over half of those surveyed (54%) say they tested positive for COVID-19 or were "pretty sure they had it" at some point since the first April 2021 wave of the survey, and 17% of those individuals, about 9% of the overall adult population, report having had it more than once.

Vaxxed and boosted: Nearly 4 in 5 (78%) Americans report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, an increase from November 2021 (74%). Fully vaccinated means having had at least two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

• Among the vaccinated, 77% have received a booster shot. In other words, 59% of U.S. adults overall say they're fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and have received a booster.
• Most of those (65%) who report being boosted have received one booster shot, while 35% have received two boosters.

Likelihood the unvaxxed will get COVID-19: 7 out of 10 (70%) survey respondents think it is likely that someone who is not vaccinated for COVID-19 will get the illness in the next three months—a decline from the 83% who said this during the January 2022 surge in COVID cases.

Over half of those surveyed (53%) think it is likely that an individual who is vaccinated but not boosted will contract COVID-19 in the next three months.

A decline in health worries over COVID-19

As we noted in a July 29 news release, nearly 1 in 3 Americans (30%) are worried about getting COVID in the next three months, compared with nearly 1 in 5 (19%) who are worried about contracting monkeypox.

In July, fewer people worried that the health of family members will be seriously affected by having COVID-19 than in January 2022, though the public remains evenly divided between those who are and are not worried:

• About half of those surveyed (49%) are not worried that the health of someone in their family will be seriously affected from getting the coronavirus (up from 38% in January).
• And about half (48%) are worried that the health of family members will be seriously affected by contracting the coronavirus (down from 58% in January.)

People are even less worried about the effect on their own health if they contract COVID-19 than they are about their families' health:

59% are not worried that their own health will be seriously affected from getting the novel coronavirus, while 39% are worried.

And fewer people think hospitalization will be needed for unvaccinated individuals who contract COVID than previously:

Just over a third of those surveyed (36%) think that a sizable number of the unvaccinated ("21 percent or more") will require hospitalization if they get COVID, down from 45% in January and 51% in November 2021. A growing number (63%) think just a small portion of the unvaccinated ("20 percent or less") will need hospitalization if they get COVID-19.

A growing portion of the public (71%, up from 64% in April 2022) knows that long COVID—the long-term harmful effects such as neurological problems and fatigue that may ensue after having COVID-19—is caused by having COVID-19, though some people are still unsure. One in 5 people (22%, down from 29% in April) aren't sure that COVID-19 is the cause.



Credit: University of Pennsylvania

• Nearly a third of those surveyed (31%) say they know someone who has experienced long COVID, up from 24% in January.
• But fewer worry about actually getting long COVID—40% worry they will get long COVID if they are infected with COVID-19, down from 47% in January.

The actual proportion of people who have long COVID after being infected by COVID remains under study, and estimates can vary widely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A May CDC analysis of millions of health records found that 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors ages 18 to 64, and 1 in 4 of those 65 and older, experienced "an incident condition that might be attributable to previous COVID-19."

Treating COVID-19 with Paxlovid

Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of an oral antiviral medication called Paxlovid to treat COVID-19, a substantial majority of those we surveyed had little or no familiarity with it. The survey finds that 4 out of 5 people (79%) are not at all or not too familiar with Paxlovid, including over half (54%) who say they are not at all familiar with it.

Among those who have some familiarity with Paxlovid (including individuals who say they are very, somewhat, and not too familiar), 61% regard it as a "safe and effective treatment" for COVID-19, while 11% considered it "safe but ineffective." Paxlovid is authorized for treatment of "mild to moderate cases" of COVID-19 in patients who are at "high risk for progression" to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death, according to the FDA.

Breakthrough infections among the vaccinated

The CDC says that COVID-19 vaccines "help prevent against severe illness, hospitalization, and death" but people "who are vaccinated may still get COVID-19." Most of the public knows about the occurrence of these so-called breakthrough infections, according to the Annenberg survey.

• Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed (64%) say someone who is fully vaccinated against COVID is still somewhat or very likely to contract the disease, up from 55% in April.
• Over half of those surveyed (56%) know someone who tested positive for COVID-19 even though that person was fully vaccinated against COVID but had not received a booster shot—up from 49% in April.
• Over two-thirds of those surveyed (68%) know someone who tested positive for COVID-19 even though that person was fully vaccinated and had received a booster shot—up from 49% in April.
• A majority of those surveyed (57%) disagree with the idea that breakthrough infections are evidence that COVID-19 vaccines don't work. Under a quarter (23%) of survey respondents see breakthrough infections as evidence COVID-19 vaccines don't work.

For more on breakthrough infections, see FactCheck.org.

A decline in masking

Despite the risks from COVID-19, the Annenberg survey shows a sharp decline in the number of individuals who regularly wear masks to help protect themselves from getting COVID when they are in contact indoors with people who are not from their household.

"The wiliness of the newer subvariants and the realities that vaccinated immunity wanes and breakthrough infections can occur, among even those who are vaccinated and boosted, have increased the importance of other modes of protection," Jamieson noted. "These forms of protection include the use of high-quality, well-fitted masks when indoors with others who are not part of our households. Sadly, we are seeing a dramatic drop in this simple form of protection."

Asked if they wear a mask indoors when with other people who are not from their household:

• 54% say they never or rarely wear a mask, up from 46% in April and 25% in January. This is the first time a majority has said they never or rarely wear a mask since the question was first asked in September 2021.
• 43% sometimes, often, or always wear a mask, down from 51% in April and 72% in January.

Asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that everyone should wear a mask indoors when in contact with those who are not from their household—whether vaccinated or unvaccinated against COVID-19:

• 43% agreed that everyone should be masked indoors (down from 60% in January) under those conditions.
• Over 1 in 3 people (36%) disagreed (up from 24% in January), meaning that they did not think everyone should be masked in such circumstances.
• And 21% neither agreed nor disagreed (up from 16% in January).

Returning to a pre-pandemic 'normal'

Asked when they expected to return to normal, 4 in 10 of the respondents said they already had. But sizable numbers think the return to normal remains a year away, or will never occur:

• 41% say they already have returned to normal, up from 32% in April and 16% in January.
• But 42% think the return to normal is still more than a year away (19%) or never (23%)—less than the 57% who were in those two groups in January.

Who is and isn't back to normal

A regression analysis conducted by APPC researchers finds that:

• Survey respondents who are men, who report being or leaning Republican, who say they aren't regularly wearing masks, or who indicate they are less worried about getting COVID in the next few months are more likely to say that they have already returned to normal.
• Respondents who are women, who say they are Democrats or lean Democratic, who are 65 and older, who regularly wear masks indoors around non-household members, or who are more worried about getting COVID in the next few months are less likely to report that they have already returned to normal.

For more information about the survey, download the appendix and methodology.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) has released clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings. Based on two living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)


Clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma
by American College of Physicians
August 15, 2022

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) has released clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings. Based on two living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the guidelines provide five specific recommendations for treating patients with COVID-19 and suggest that CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset. The guidelines are published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. A team lead by AABB's Clinical Transfusion Medicine committee studied published research to inform the guidelines. The two living systematic reviews of RCTs evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022 comprised 33 RCTs assessing 21,916 participants.

Based on the data, the AABB recommends that non-hospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care. The AABB also recommends against CCP transfusion in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease but says that CCP transfusion should be added to usual standard of care for those who do not have SARS CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission and for those with preexisting immunosuppression. The AABB recommends against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19. The AABB summarized their findings with a good clinical practice statement: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.

Researchers summarized results using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. Recommendations were made under the assumption that patients would highly value avoiding risks for disease progression, morbidity, and mortality from COVID-19. Thus, when the data suggested that there was limited harm from CCP transfusions and that there was benefit to CCP, the panel was prepared to make recommendations for CCP.

The authors say there are several advantages of CCP. While SARS-CoV-2 evolves and new variants of concern (VOCs) emerge that may evade monoclonal antibodies, high-titer CCP continues to be effective. CCP is also relatively easy to collect, making it a less expensive therapeutic option than other passive antibody therapies.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

How COVID spawned a surge in superbugs, and what we can do about it

After years of progress in the battle against antimicrobial-resistance, so-called "superbugs" have made a concerning comeback in the age of COVID, with resistant hospital-onset infections and deaths soaring at least 15% in the first year of the pandemic alone, according to a new Centers for...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)


How COVID spawned a surge in superbugs, and what we can do about it
by Lisa Marshall, University of Colorado at Boulder
August 15, 2022

After years of progress in the battle against antimicrobial-resistance, so-called "superbugs" have made a concerning comeback in the age of COVID, with resistant hospital-onset infections and deaths soaring at least 15% in the first year of the pandemic alone, according to a new Centers for Disease Control report.

Each year, about 3 million people in the U.S. are infected with germs, like bacteria and fungi, that have developed resistance to the drugs designed to kill them. About 50,000 people die from these threats, often acquired in the very healthcare facilities designed to treat them. By 2050, some scientists predict, there could be more deaths from antibiotic resistance than from cancer.

Corrie Detweiler, a professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at CU Boulder, has spent her career trying to develop solutions to what some call "the shadow pandemic" of antimicrobial-resistance. CU Boulder Today spoke with her about why so many antimicrobial drugs won't work anymore, how COVID made things worse and what can be done to make things better.

How long have antibiotics been around, and how big of an impact did they have?

Modern antibiotics were discovered in 1928, with penicillin, but it wasn't until World War II that they started to be made in large amounts in the U.S. to treat soldiers. That demonstrated their true potential—many people who would have died from infections from battle wounds survived. Since then, they have had a massive impact. They have helped people to survive basic things like childbirth or falling on the playground or having minor surgery. Prior to antibiotics, people used to routinely die from those things, and as they stop working, such activities are going to become much more risky. You might think harder before you get your hip replaced. When your friend goes into childbirth, you might be concerned you won't see her alive again. We risk going back to a period 100 years ago when even a minor infection could mean death. It would radically change our lives.

What is a superbug, and how common are they?

A superbug is a bacterium or fungi that is resistant to clinical antimicrobials. They are increasingly common. Right now, for instance, the percentage of clinical isolates of Enterobacteriales (which includes things like Salmonella and E. coli) that are known to be resistant is around 35%. So, if you go into a hospital and get an infection like this, you have about a one in three chance of being either untreatable or not very treatable.

Prior to the pandemic, how were we doing in addressing this issue?

A lot of progress had been made, particularly in hospital-acquired infections, based on a better understanding of the problem and better guidelines about when to use antibiotics. Between 2012 and 2017, for instance, deaths from antimicrobial resistance fell by 18% overall and nearly 30% in hospitals. That all fell apart during COVID.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkZ8Dz4ca0o
Credit: University of Colorado at Boulder
1 min 24 sec

Why? How did COVID spawn an uptick?

We didn't know how to treat COVID, and, understandably, there was a fair amount of chaos in the medical system. People were using antibiotics more, often inappropriately. About 80% of COVID patients received antibiotics. People were given them prophylactically, prior to knowing they had a lung bacterial infection. That's not to say that none of (the patients) needed them. Some did. But the more you use antibiotics, the more you select for resistance. And that's how you eventually get a superbug.

What harm is it for me to take an antibiotic that I may not need, 'just in case?'

When you take an antibiotic that you don't need, you are essentially putting pressure on other microbes in your body to grow stronger. That could make you sick later or make someone in your household sick. You're also selecting for resistant bacteria that you evacuate out into the water system and can potentially spread antibiotic resistance. And then there is also a more selfish component, which is that antibiotics kill off your microbiota—the beneficial bacteria we all have within our nasal passages and our GI tract to keep us healthy. That makes you more vulnerable to illness.

What can society do to address this?

First, we need to go back to this idea of stewardship in hospitals—to only give out antibiotics when there is a clear need. We were doing the right thing. And then something terrible came along and messed it up, and it demonstrated that what we were doing was working well. That's a good thing. Second, we need to discover and develop novel classes of antibiotics. The last time a new class of antibiotics hit the market was in 1984. The fundamental problem is that they're not profitable to develop, compared to say a cancer drug. You can go to the drugstore and get a course of amoxicillin for $8. We need programs that reward industry and academic labs like ours for doing the early research.

What does your lab do?

We're using basic biology to try to figure out new ways to kill bacteria during an infection and identify compounds that work differently than existing drugs.

What can individuals do?

Don't pressure your doctor for an antibiotic unless there's evidence that you need one, and if your doctor does want to prescribe them ask why you need them. They should be able to explain why. If you do need one, take the whole course.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-08-contact-impeded-early-covid-.html

(fair use applies)


Delays in contact tracing impeded early COVID-19 containment
By University of Texas at Austin
August 15, 2022

Expected COVID-19 cases averted per contact traced as a function of lag from specimen collection from the index case to isolation of the contact from Nov. 8, 2020, to May 31, 2021, across a range of contact tracing scenarios, assuming R0=1.2. Left panel and right panel assume 40% and 80% of symptomatic cases are detected, respectively. The blue shading indicates contact tracing success rates of 25%, 50%, or 75%. The points are medians from 200 paired stochastic simulations, and the error bars are the interquartile ranges. Credit: The University of Texas at Austin

Contact tracing programs were deployed around the globe to slow the spread of COVID-19, but these programs could not prevent the multiple waves of transmission and loss of life that have occurred since March 2020. In a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at The University of Texas at Austin found that a five-day delay between identifying a case and isolating contacts was the Achilles' heel of a contact tracing program in a large U.S. city.

Using a mathematical model to analyze data collected by the program between October 2020 and January 2021, the study concludes that shortening that delay from five days to a single day would prevent 26.6% more infections under certain conditions. The findings can inform cities' efforts to increase the effectiveness of contact tracing programs, including those intended to mitigate the effects of emerging threats.

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium and Dell Medical School team built a data-driven model of a contact tracing program, using information collected by Dell Med under the authority of Austin Public Health. They simulated a large number of strategies for increasing the program's efficacy, including detecting a greater fraction of symptomatic cases, successfully tracing more contacts, and reducing the time taken to isolate a contact. All three of these levers can significantly slow the spread of COVID-19, but the feasibility of each strategy will depend on the availability of tests, contact tracing personnel, isolation facilities, and other key resources.

The bottom line: In a surging pandemic with a highly infectious virus, every day counts. In Austin, the researchers estimated that the time taken to isolate a contact was three days longer in the general community than in the university community. Reducing the number of days to isolation from five to two translates to about a 40% reduction in new infections.

"The challenge with COVID is that people can spread the virus before they have symptoms. So, the sooner we isolate contacts who may be infected, the better," said Darlene Bhavnani, an assistant professor of population health at Dell Medical School and collaborator with the consortium. "Preventing a single infection not only protects an individual but breaks the possible chain of transmission."

"Many COVID-19 contact tracing programs in the U.S. did not have the resources they needed to prevent the worst of the pandemic," said Lauren Ancel Meyers, director of the consortium and a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences at UT. "The answer is not to disband them but to bolster them. Looking ahead to COVID-19 and future pandemic threats, our study suggests that we should invest in technologies and strategies that increase the speed and success of tracing contacts."

Contact tracing programs not only slow spread, but also collect valuable information about the virus and disseminate critical health information throughout the community, Bhavnani said. "That nudge from the tracer to get tested, even if asymptomatic, as well as information about where and when to get tested, can save lives."

"Although PCR tests take only a few hours, delays in specimen submission, processing, recording and communication led to several delays," said Xutong Wang, the study's lead author and an alumna of the Meyers Lab and UT consortium.

"Having interoperable and integrated electronic health records and public health surveillance systems could facilitate the rapid reporting of test results," Bhavnani said. "Monkeypox is yet another example of a virus where rapid testing, case notification and contact tracing may be critical to containment."

Other authors are Zhanwei Du, previously of Meyers Lab and now with The University of Hong Kong, Emily James of Dell Med, Spencer J. Fox of Meyers Lab and Michael Lachmann of Santa Fe Institute. Meyers is the Cooley Centennial Professor of Integrative Biology and Statistics and Data Sciences at UT.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Forty-Four Percent of the Pregnancies in a Pfizer Study Ended in Miscarriages. Pfizer Misleadingly Reclassified Them - DailyClout

Pfizer Misleadingly Classified the 44 Percent of Pregnancies that Ended in Miscarriage. The FDA had access to this data by April 1, 2021.

dailyclout.io

(fair use applies)


Forty-Four Percent of the Pregnancies in a Pfizer Study Ended in Miscarriages. Pfizer Misleadingly Reclassified Them
by Berberine on Gettr
August 12, 2022

A Pfizer adverse events document released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 1, 2022, reveals chilling data showing 44 percent of pregnant women participating in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine trial suffered miscarriages. [125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-adverse-events.pdf, https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amaz...5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-adverse-events.zip]

A section of the document, on page 3643, called Listing of Subjects Reporting Pregnancy After Dose 1, shows that 50 women became pregnant during the trial. However, one must dig through the rest of the large document to learn that 22 of the 50 women suffered “Abortion Spontaneous,” “Abortion Spontaneous Complete,” “Abortion Spontaneous Incomplete,” or “Miscarriage.” [pp. 219, 561, 708, 1071, 1146, 1179, 1349, 1749, 1758, 1806, 1809, 3519, 3526, 3560, 3536, 3537, 3538, 3536, 3547, and 3551.]

The adverse events report cut-off date was March 13, 2021, and the FDA received the report from Pfizer on April 1, 2021. Thus, the FDA was aware of the horrifying rate of fetal death by the start of April 2021.

The women listed in Listing of Subjects Reporting Pregnancy After Dose 1 received between one and four injections each. 42 of the women received the trial drug right away. Eight received the placebo and were then unblinded and given the vaccine. So, by March 31, 2021, all the pregnant women in the trial had received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 version of the vaccine.

Pfizer notes the miscarriages as serious adverse events (SAEs) with ‘moderate’ (2) or ‘severe’ (3) toxicity ratings. However, all the miscarriages were reported as being unrelated to the trial vaccine – i.e., having ‘Other’ causes – and marked as ‘Recovered/resolved’ adverse effects. To reiterate, not only does Pfizer deny any vaccine-related causality and assert the losses of life had other causes, but it also categorizes losing a baby as a ‘resolved adverse effect’ – like a headache that went away.

Here are some questions the public should be asking:

• How did Pfizer determine their experimental vaccine product did not cause the miscarriages?
• What ‘Other’ causes did Pfizer identify, and how did it identify them?
• Did the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) simply accept the miscarriages as unrelated to the product, or did they demand information on those ‘Other’ causes?
• And, crucially, what happened to the pregnancies which were ongoing at the report cut-off date of March 13, 2021? Were healthy babies born? Were damaged babies born? Were there more miscarriages?

The FDA had access to this data by April 1, 2021. The agency knew that a significant percentage of pregnancies ended in ‘Abortion Spontaneous,’ yet it seems to have failed in its duty to study the data and investigate what basis Pfizer had for marking the fetal deaths as unrelated to the vaccine and having ‘Other’ causes. And, certainly, the FDA failed to inform the public of this very serious adverse event. Without that information, women were not able to give informed consent for receiving Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Covid Vaccines DO Cause Reinfections, After All

Scientific evidence shows significant increase of reinfections due to vaccination

igorchudov.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Covid Vaccines DO Cause Reinfections, After All
Scientific evidence shows significant increase of reinfections due to vaccination
Igor Chudov
17 hr ago


An incredible find from Arkmedic’s Telegram: a JAMA-published study that shows that the number of reinfections increases with every vaccine dose received! The more vaccines, the more reinfections, just as predicted by us.



The authors point out that the probability of reinfection was higher for people who received two or more doses. The increase in the risk of reinfection was statistically significant.



The article is rather short, but it shows clearly what my substack and other people were discussing: that Covid vaccines cause a higher rate of reinfections.

Igor’s Newsletter​

Finally Proven: Pfizer Vaccine Causes COVID Reinfections, Disables Natural Immunity!​

As most of my regular readers know, the topic of reinfections in vaccinated people was something I was interested in since the Fall of 2021. This issue is hugely important since if people can catch Covid more than once, this pandemic has the potential to never end…​

2 months ago · 627 likes · 417 comments · Igor Chudov​

Had the authors looked at boosted people, they would likely find an even greater share of reinfections among those.

We were promised salvation and how “Covid stops with every vaccinated person”. The outcome was diametrically opposite, with reinfections affecting mostly the boosted.

This article from four months ago predicted our current situation:

​

Igor’s Newsletter​

AIDS-Like "Chronic Covid" is Taking Over Europe, Australia and NZ​

This article will explain exactly why endless Covid reinfections happen, and the dangerous consequences that they lead to, based on recent scientific advances. What’s happening? When Omicron appeared around December of last year, the powers-to-be in most Western countries found themselves in a situation of mass vaccine failure, where a Covid variant Omic…​

4 months ago · 630 likes · 749 comments · Igor Chudov​

Another interesting find from the article is that reinfections disproportionately affect younger people 18-29 years old and are generally worse in under-50 people:



People under 50 are the ones who needed “vaccines” the least. And they are now getting MORE frequently reinfected, by a factor of two to five times more often than older people.

It’s not like we did not warn about it. I and El Gato Malo and others wrote about it in 2021. Did our health leadership disregard antivaxxers’ warnings on purpose? What was the goal of those who gave vaccines to people who did not need them in the first place?

.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

"disband the CDC" goes mainstream

the reflexivity of the overton window

boriquagato.substack.com

(fair use applies)


"disband the CDC" goes mainstream
the reflexivity of the overton window
el gato malo
16 hr ago



THIS article covers a great deal of ground that will be familiar to bad cattitude readers.

the CDC failed on virtually every measurable metric of covid response.

• they promoted the pseudoscience of lockdowns and masking trotting out study after study with cherry picked or outright fraudulent parameters.
• they made up ideas like “6 foot distancing” that lacked any basis whatsoever
• they failed to recognize or admit to airborne and aerosol transmission
• they pushed over-sensitive and irrelevant testing and fruitless and impossible contact tracing
• they claimed vaccines would stop spread
• they claimed vaccines would be 100% effective vs hospitalization and death
• they pushed 2 doses and done as the “path to get your life back” then 3, then 4, then booster forever all on the basis of shoddy science.
• and they systematically refused to do their appointed job of monitoring the adverse events of the vaccines.
• they destroyed schools and businesses and drove the US economy and society into a ditch.
• they made the lives of american children into a misery and cost them years of education and development despite their never having been at material risk.
• they vilified and attacked the sane and accurate folks like jay and martin and sunetra and the great barrington declaration which was, quite literally, just a simple and uncontroversial elucidation of 100 years of evidence based epidemiology.

and now they have finally come full circle and tried to slide into adopting the practices that the actual adults in the room had been advising all along.

it took the CDC years to finally be pummeled into arriving at the place the great barrington declaration started back in fall 2020.

this absolute panoply of total, tragic, and willful failure has become way too big to miss.

this agency is either so outlandishly incompetent or so desperately politicized and corrupt as to pose grave threat to the american people especially and specifically because it was allowed to dictate to them (either directly or by informing the choices of those who did) and perhaps most of all because people trusted them.

and so begins the new era.

what’s so endlessly fascinating to me here is how rapidly this has become mainstream.

in 2109 if you had said “disband the CDC” in the headline of a major national publication, all anyone would have seen was this:



people still believed. they still inhabited in their minds a warm, snuggly technocratic state where serious people at serious agencies did serious work to keep us safe.

of course we have experts and they know all about this and they will know what to do.

but now, the same people see the headline of “disband the CDC” and instead they say:



this is overton window reflexivity: try to push it too far under false pretense and it snaps back the other way.
with authority.

the scope of acceptable public discourse and ideas that are able to capture the center has, driven by an extravagant object lesson in the dangers of agency capture under technocratic rule, shifted extraordinarily because let’s face it:

there is nothing like seeing what you believe to be the robust apparatus of a high-tech safety state revealed to be a careening clown car of technocratic tyranny that has, to no good end, mowed down everything in its path for years and inflicted perhaps the most grievous peacetime harm america has ever experienced.

nosirreebob, there is not.

everyone saw the no pants emperor.

and now they are calling him out by name.

and this is a generational opportunity possessed of a very satisfying aspect of turnabout being fair play:

for as the acolytes of alinsky are so fond of saying, “one should never let a crisis go to waste” and let me tell you: this goes double for crises of public confidence.

people have had it with technocracy. it is so obviously incompetent and corrupt. that which was sold as safety turned out to be something altogether different.

and the false trade offs have become visible to the masses.

and “public safety” from evoked and exaggerated “great crises” has always been the one-way ratchet to technocratic tyranny.

trust us. we are the experts and you the lay. surrender just a bit more agency and we will make you safe.
yeah.

and now the ratchet may be broken.

technocracy runs on trust.

and trust is gone.

can anyone doubt that these powers and prerogatives will, if left lying around, once more be weaponized against we the people in service of kleptocracy and unwanted societal engineering “for our own good”?

these are not experts, they’re the marketing arm of big government’s big business totalitarian collaboration for plunder and profit. it’s not about safety, it’s about power.

you will lose your rights and your freedom, but you will gain nothing. as has been on such vivid display, their promises of safety and security are empty. they do not seek to provide such and would not know how to do so even if they sincerely sought to.

the simple fact is this:

the only thing more dangerous than playing in the NFL without a helmet is playing in the NFL without a helmet while believing you’re wearing one.

for he without a face mask will take extra care, but he with a false one will go in for the tackle and break every bone in his face.

these agencies of regulation and safety are false protection. they are worse than nothing because their dictates impose monstrous costs without regard to efficacy and inflict nothing but damage upon those they are intended to spare from it.

the lifeguard is coming to drown you.

and enough have seen it that the net harm of their existence is now a topic of common currency.
their hubris has revealed them for what they are and nemesis is rising.

rise with it.

do not let this crisis of confidence go to waste. this is a once in a generation change to crystalize societal norms around liberty and regulatory rollback.

it is no risk to remove these assailants of lives and livelihoods from power because they were not providing safety anyway.

taking off a false helmet renders you better protected and provides incentive to find structures that WILL protect you.

in a modern data age, the idea that we cannot do better with open systems of combined medical data provided by choice by the people themselves into secure, open source pools for competitive and transparent analysis checked and validated by real, universal peer review instead of the data suppression and shaping of the closed cloisters and cathedrals of policy is ridiculous.

such a system would be 1,000 times as powerful, impossible to capture, open, honest, and immune to suppression.
we could have it for the asking.

and the time to ask is now.

this data and the conclusions that may be drawn from it belong the the people, not to the state and it is far too important to be left in the hands of a small self-credentialed clerisy whose interests fail to align with ours.

open systems beget open societies which beget human flourishing.

or did you need another lesson before you’ll walk through this window?
.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

JAMA Article: More Evidence of ADE

You cannot get more infections in doubly vaccinated unless there is a problem

popularrationalism.substack.com

(fair use applies)


JAMA Article: More Evidence of ADE
You cannot get more infections in doubly vaccinated unless there is a problem
James Lyons-Weiler
16 hr ago

Study: Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland

“The probability of reinfection increased with time from the initial infection (odds ratio of 18 months vs 3 months, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) (Figure) and was higher among persons who had received 2 or more doses compared with 1 dose or less of vaccine (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78).”

“(In this) population-based cohort study, a substantial proportion of persons experienced SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during the first 74 days of the Omicron wave in Iceland, with rates as high 15.1% among those aged 18 to 29 years. Longer time from initial infection was associated with a higher probability of reinfection, although the difference was smaller than expected. Surprisingly, 2 or more doses of vaccine were associated with a slightly higher probability of reinfection compared with 1 dose or less.”

“Defining reinfection after 30 or more days or 90 or more days did not qualitatively change the results.”

Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland

Read the full study for caveats and limitations, but we should not be seeing this.

The vaccines were supposed to prevent infection.

(Thank you DR for pointing this study out to me).

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Eythorsson et al.: "Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland"

uh oh, does it say that more vaccine dose e.g. 2 or more vs 1, was linked to higher re-infection?

palexander.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Eythorsson et al.: "Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland"
uh oh, does it say that more vaccine dose e.g. 2 or more vs 1, was linked to higher re-infection?
Dr. Paul Alexander
3 hr ago

“The probability of reinfection increased with time from the initial infection (odds ratio of 18 months vs 3 months, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) (Figure) and was higher among persons who had received 2 or more doses compared with 1 dose or less of vaccine (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78). Defining reinfection after 30 or more days or 90 or more days did not qualitatively change the results….

In this population-based cohort study, a substantial proportion of persons experienced SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during the first 74 days of the Omicron wave in Iceland, with rates as high 15.1% among those aged 18 to 29 years. Longer time from initial infection was associated with a higher probability of reinfection, although the difference was smaller than expected. Surprisingly, 2 or more doses of vaccine were associated with a slightly higher probability of reinfection compared with 1 dose or less.”

SOURCE
​

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Confidential Pfizer Documents confirm 82-97% of COVID Vaccinated Pregnant Women sadly lost their Baby during Trial

by THE EXPOSÉ The confidential Pfizer documents that the FDA have been forced to publish by court order reveal that 82% to 97% of women who were mistakenly exposed to the mRNA Covid-19 injection either suffered a miscarriage or suffered having to witness the death of their newborn child upon...

2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Confidential Pfizer Documents confirm 82-97% of COVID Vaccinated Pregnant Women sadly lost their Baby during Trial
2nd Smartest Guy in the World
17 hr ago

by THE EXPOSÉ

The confidential Pfizer documents that the FDA have been forced to publish by court order reveal that 82% to 97% of women who were mistakenly exposed to the mRNA Covid-19 injection either suffered a miscarriage or suffered having to witness the death of their newborn child upon giving birth.

But Pfizer falsely claimed – “There were no safety signals that emerged from the review of these cases of use in pregnancy”.


The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on August 1st 2022.

One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.

Pfizer claim in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.


One-hundred-and-forty-six of those mother cases did not immediately report the immediate occurrence of any clinical adverse event. But 124 of the 270 mother cases did. Meaning 46% of the mothers exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.

Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.


A total of 4 serious foetus/baby cases were reported due to exposure to the Pfizer injection. The 4 serious cases involved the following events –

• Foetal growth restriction x2
• Premature baby x2
• Neonatal Death x1

But here’s where things get rather concerning. Pfizer state that of the 270 pregnancies they have absolutely no idea what happened in 238 of them.


But here are the known outcomes of the remaining pregnancies –

• Spontaneous Abortion (miscarriage) x23,
• Outcome pending x5,
• Premature baby with neonatal death x 2,
• Spontaneous Abortion with intrauterine death x2,
• Spontaneous Abortion with neonatal death x 1
• Normal outcome x1

There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer note that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.

When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figure.

That 82% figure is, however, very interesting when we consider the outcome of another study conducted by the Centers for Disease Controls V-Safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team. A study that was used to justify not just offering, but harassing pregnant women to get the Covid-19 injection in the UK.

We exclusively revealed in July 2021 how data had been manipulated by scientists carrying out a real world study for the CDC to show that Covid-19 vaccines were safe for use during pregnancy.

The authors claimed that the number of people to suffer a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) during the study was 104 out of 827 completed pregnancies, equating the risk of miscarriage at 12.6%; 7 – 12% lower than the risk of miscarriage in the general population.


Source

However, our analysis proved that these numbers were extremely misleading due to the fact that of the 827 completed pregnancies, 700 / 86% of the women had received a dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the third trimester of pregnancy, meaning it was impossible for them to suffer a miscarriage due to the fact they can only occur prior to week 20 of pregnancy.

This meant that just 127 women received either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the first/second trimester, with 104 of the woman sadly losing their baby.

Therefore the rate of incidence of miscarriage was 82%, not 12.6% as presented in the findings of the study, and the authors of the study have since admitted that they made a mistake, issuing a correction six months too late because the study has been used to justify Covid-19 vaccination of pregnant women and new mothers around the world.


Source

But there’s that 82% number again. So that’s two sets of data, Pfizer’s confidential data, and the CDC’s manipulated study that show the rate of pregnancy loss following Covid-19 vaccination to be 82%. Just a coincidence?

Highly unlikely when we consider what else Medicine Regulators and Pfizer tried to cover up.

A ‘Freedom of Information’ request alongside an in-depth dive into the only pregnancy/fertility study performed on the Pfizer Covid-19 injection reveals that Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid the dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy because the study found it increases the risk of birth defects and infertility.

You can read the full investigation here, but here’s a snippet of what should have been included in official public documents, and subsequently wasn’t –


Source

FOI reveals Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid the dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy because Study found it increases risk of Birth Defects & Infertility

A ‘Freedom of Information’ request alongside an in-depth dive into the only pregnancy/fertility study performed on the Pfizer Covid-19 injection has revealed that Medicine Regulators an…

expose-news.com

The FDA’S decision not to act on Pfizer’s data, and the cover-up of the animal study findings by both Pfizer and Medicine Regulators around the world has led to 4,113 foetal deaths being reported in the USA alone as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections as of 22nd April 2022.


And take a look at this data coming out of Scotland –


Click to enlarge

Public Health Scotland (PHS) has a full dashboard on Covid-19 wider impacts on the health care system, found here, and it includes a whole range of data from mental health statistics to pregnancies, cardiovascular disorders data, and cancer.

Official figures reveal that the rate of neonatal deaths increased to 4.6 per 1000 live births in March 2022, a 119% increase on the expected rate of deaths. This means the neonatal mortality rate breached an upper warning threshold known as the ‘control limit’ for the second time in at least four years.

The last time it breached was in September 2021, when neonatal deaths per 1000 live births climbed to 5.1. Although the rate fluctuates month to month, the figure for both September 2021 and March 2022 is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) has not formally announced they have launched an investigation, but this is what they are supposed to do when the upper warning threshold is reached, and they did so back in 2021.

At the time, PHS said the fact that the upper control limit has been exceeded “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred”. You can read more here.

We either have a serious issue here or a bucket load of terrible coincidences, and it’s all arisen thanks to this unbelievable claim made by Pfizer in their confidential documents in response to 82% to 97% of women mistakenly exposed to the Covid-19 injection during pregnancy losing their child –

​

“There were no safety signals that emerged from the review of these cases of use in pregnancy and while breast feeding.”​

See for yourself on pages 12 and 13 of the confidential document found here.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

This article is for subscribers only; some of it is available to non-subscribers so I will post what I can. If you want to read the rest of it, you can always subscribe to his substack!

mRNA Vaccines may trigger Autoimmunity in up to 20% of recipients

Huge piece of research that is currently in the pre-print stage for this paper. Reached out to Maria Cristina Sacchi (Italy) when I was informed about the paper. She kindly shared the abstract but not the full paper. Based on my research into COVID-19 autoimmunity, these results could have...

philipmcmillan.substack.com

(fair use applies)


mRNA Vaccines may trigger Autoimmunity in up to 20% of recipients
Dr Philip McMillan
17 hr ago

Huge piece of research that is currently in the pre-print stage for this paper. Reached out to Maria Cristina Sacchi (Italy) when I was informed about the paper. She kindly shared the abstract but not the full paper.


Based on my research into COVID-19 autoimmunity, these results could have significant implications.

It suggests that when monitoring Health Care Workers (HCW’s) over a 12 month period, they identified increased levels of antinuclear antibodies (ANA).

Measurement of ANA’s are a routine part of screening for multiple autoimmune diseases, and there has been increased prevalence in the general population over the past 20 years. This quote was taken from a paper looking at the prevalence across the USA

The prevalence of ANA was 11.0% in 1988-1991, 11.5% in 1999-2004, and 15.9% in 2011-2012 (trend P<0.0001), which corresponds to 22, 27, and 41 million affected individuals, respectively.​

Dinse, Gregg E., et al. "Increasing prevalence of antinuclear antibodies in the United States." Arthritis & Rheumatology 72.6 (2020): 1026-1035.​

What impact does mRNA vaccines have on autoantibodies?​

​

In this Italian study they looked at a cohort of 108 HCW’s following their antibody titres before vaccination, at three months and at 12 months after vaccination.

It showed that 20% of vaccine recipients who were negative for ANA’s became positive within 12 months of vaccination. Additionally, those HCW’s who were already positive showed increased antibody titre.


Compared to influenza vaccination which in general did not alter the percentage of healthy adults with positive autoantibodies.

Toplak, N., et al. "Autoimmune response following annual influenza vaccination in 92 apparently healthy adults." Autoimmunity reviews 8.2 (2008): 134-138.​

[the rest is only available to paid subscribers]

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Sin of Omission: Alberta's Paxlovid triage study.

I want to briefly go over the Alberta Health Services study released on medRxiv a couple of days ago. Generally, I am not particularly interested in studies attempting to justify the vaccination anymore but this study is something else: This is a triage study. The analysts involved in writing...

jestre.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Sin of Omission: Alberta's Paxlovid triage study.
Jestre
Aug 15

I want to briefly go over the Alberta Health Services study released on medRxiv a couple of days ago.

Generally, I am not particularly interested in studies attempting to justify the vaccination anymore but this study is something else: This is a triage study. The analysts involved in writing this study are interested in finding a way to justify a “rational allocation” of Paxlovid in the wider population.

Supply based health care services, rather than demand based, are the norm in Canada. Indeed, that is one of the reasons our health care services consistently rank amongst the most dysfunctional in the developed world, so I am not particularly surprised this study is being done. What irks me about this study, rather, is how much the authors are leaving out.

This study uses observational data from positive cases in January 2022 and labels itself as a “case-control” study. Both cases and controls are those that tested positive for the virus. The cases are those that had “severe outcomes”, which is defined as hospitalization, ICU, or death. Whereas, the controls are those who recovered without any of the above outcome.

Additionally, the authors have health data on individuals in the study and control for age, sex, vaccination status, and the “number of underlying conditions”. Finally, the study excludes those under 18, those who have previously tested positive for the virus, and those that had “non-COVID related outcomes”.

Personally, I am extremely underwhelmed by the methodology, outcome and control variables used, and the exclusions.

Methodology

There are hidden assumptions in this study design. In order for an unbiased estimate, it would be essential to assume that individuals in the population are testing positive for the same reason (as explained below if that sounds strange). This is similar to the assumptions of a test negative design, which has been thoroughly abused by public health officials during the last year and a half.

Simply put, this assumption is not satisfied. During the observation period, there was still mandatory testing requirements in Alberta. These requirements were heterogeneous between populations meaning the unvaccinated individuals would be testing at different times than vaccinated individuals. While vaccinated individuals would be testing for purposes like international travel, something they would presumably only be doing when feeling healthy, unvaccinated individuals would not.

During the month of January, in fact, Alberta switched their testing methods for PCR tests to “be focused on those with clinical risk factors for severe outcomes and those who live or work in high-risk settings”. Now, who do you think Alberta considered a person at risk for severe outcomes, a vaccinated or unvaccinated individual upon entry to the hospital? The unvaccinated person would be tested. Every time. Thus, even if the unvaccinated person was hospitalized for a different reason, they would be considered a positive case and a severe outcome.

Furthermore, health care workers may also test, vaccinated or not, but the amount of unvaccinated health care workers in Alberta was disproportionately small. The fact is that the groups testing positive were not equal and the unvaccinated individual had a higher chance of being tested upon entry to the hospital.

There are a lot of reasons to assume the data is heavily biased here and the authors of this study did not even bother to include data that shows time from testing positive to severe COVID. A disproportionate amount of unvaccinated individuals ending up hospitalized on day one would clearly show that these tests were driven by testing-at hospitalizations rather than COVID leading to hospitalizations.

The authors did exclude about half of the severe outcomes as they were “not from COVID”, but unfortunately, the accuracy of that information can safely be questioned. The public health messaging alone has created bias in society.
According to the “experts” at the time, vaccinated people don’t die from COVID and it is a death sentence for unvaccinated people. After so long inundating health care workers with that messaging, how can we trust them to make that call? We simply can’t. It would be more interesting to see who, in the entire data set including those who did not test positive at all, is winding up in the hospital and at what rate.

The outcome variable and control variables

Additionally, the authors grouping of “severe outcomes” is insane. To use a baseball analogy, a walk is not a grand slam. Nor is a hospitalization a death. These things should not be grouped together1. That introduces a huge amount of bias into the analysis.

Likewise, the number of underlying conditions should not be an explanatory variable. The authors had full data on all individuals but chose to group a bunch of unrelated illnesses. This introduces the same level of bias. Being clinically underweight is not the same as having cancer. It simply does not make sense to group these things together. Instead of number of underlying conditions as a variable, the underlying conditions themselves should have all been viewed separately.

In fact, the choice of cases and controls introduces bias in and of itself. The cases are, essentially, the chances of having a “severe outcome” if you test positive for the virus. Interestingly, unvaccinated people were less likely to test positive for the virus in this analysis. 92.26% of all cases are in the vaccinated. Even according to the Alberta numbers, which were out of date population estimates and almost certainly underestimates of the unvaccinated population, about 10-11% of those 18+ were unvaccinated.

Exclusions

To that point, the authors also don’t provide any data on the characteristics of the exclusions. Both the “not from COVID” and the “already had COVID” group could significantly change the outcome of the analysis.
The former exclusion is subjective depending on the biases of the health care worker. The latter exclusion doesn’t eliminate all those who have had the virus—just those who tested positive under varying circumstances. It’s unclear how much this would change the underlying analysis, but considering we are talking about quite small numbers in the case of severe outcomes, the exclusion may be significant.

There were other notable exclusions, which should not have occurred given the amount of data available to the authors. These are not individuals excluded from the study, but rather, variables excluded from the regression. Ethnicity, for example, is often associated with an large increase in poor outcomes. I find it unlikely that this information was not available to the authors of the study, yet it is absent. This is just one of the many variables that are clearly missing from the study. There may be a dozen other variables that the authors chose not to use.

I’m not impressed at all by the gatekeepers of the data releasing their poorly done studies. Any first year statistics student can run a regression. A well designed study should aim to be as careful as possible while working to eliminate or reduce bias. That was not done here. Not even close.

Honestly, they need to make this data completely open to the public. What is stopping them? Surely not the same privacy legislation that they ignored when implementing a vaccine passport system, right?



1 Interestingly, it appears that a single individual could have all three severe outcomes.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

One year later: How the Biden Admin, Big Tech, and Pfizer fooled Americans into taking "FDA approved" COVID vaccines that never actually existed

Comirnaty is a ghost shot.

dossier.substack.com

(fair use applies)


One year later: How the Biden Admin, Big Tech, and Pfizer fooled Americans into taking "FDA approved" COVID vaccines that never actually existed
Comirnaty is a ghost shot.
Jordan Schachtel
15 hr ago

It has been almost one year since the FDA gave full approval to Pfizer’s mRNA COVID injection. Yet many will be surprised to find out that this particular vaccine, in FDA approved form, has never actually existed, and will never exist. The Biden Administration’s highly touted FDA approval was a mere sleight of hand. It was bureaucratic trickery. There remains no FDA approved COVID vaccine that is actually available in the United States, and there may never be one.


On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty shot, the FDA cleared version of the emergency use authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.



Marked as a turning point in the battle against the virus, the Biden Administration, Government Health agencies, and Pfizer went on a full PR blitz to crush what they deemed “vaccine hesitancy.” Big Tech and media “fact checkers” also joined in on the mRNA uptake blitz campaign, with all of these forces maintaining a false reality in which FDA approved vaccines were readily available.

Bridget Naso @BridgetNaso
Dr. Anthony Fauci said surveys show 30% of unvaccinated Americans said if the vaccine was FDA approved they would get the shot. It was approved today and Fauci said “The time has come.”
August 24th 2021
8 Likes

CNN Breaking News @cnnbrk
President Biden says anyone who was waiting for an FDA-approved Covid vaccine should "go get your vaccination and get it today" cnn.it/3D3Q7ci
August 23rd 2021
356 Retweets2,665 Likes

Four emergency use authorization shots (and counting) later, It has became very clear, despite shoddy academic papers to the contrary, that the mRNA drug does not work, is particularly risky for young men, and is not in any way, shape, or form a vaccine by its traditional definition. But at the time of the FDA approval, “fully vaccinated” meant just two shots, and the government rubber stamp measure was weaponized to convince Americans to get the shot. “Safe and Effective,” and now, “FDA approved.”

Additionally, the Biden Administration leveraged this fraudulent FDA approved status to pressure private companies into coercing their employees to take the shot, Of course, they did not actually have access to an FDA approved shot. However, the campaign succeeded with flying colors, as millions of Americans were forced to take the shot under duress, as they couldn’t afford to be rendered unemployed by the biomedical security state.

CAP Action @CAPAction
"If you're a business leader, a nonprofit leader, a state or local leader who has been waiting on full FDA approval to require vaccinations, I call on you now to do that. Require it.” nbcnews.com/politics/white…
August 24th 2021
9 Retweets23 Likes

Twitter Moments @TwitterMoments
COVID-19 vaccines are approved by the FDA, not the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s wife, Dr. Christine Grady, is not involved in any vaccine research or approval process, the NIH said. https://t.co/AT5Gm1SHBT
October 21st 2021
5 Retweets30 Likes

The American government engaged in a pharmaceutical sales campaign, based on polling data, to trick its own citizens into taking a shot that they thought was FDA approved. However, everyone in America was being injected with — and continue to take — the legally distinct emergency use authorization (EUA) version of the shot. The FDA approved Comirnaty shot has never become available to the American public in the United States.

In the months following the initial FDA approval, Pfizer continued to make new excuses for why it was not rolling out the FDA approved version of the mRNA injection. The pharmaceutical company seemed to be playing what amounted to a shell game.

The Dossier
Shell Game? There remains no FDA approved COVID vaccine in the United States
I fact checked the fact checkers and couldn’t believe what I found. Despite the corporate press, Big Pharma, and the federal government telling us otherwise, it is absolutely true that there is no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States today. And there are no plans to make one available any time soon…
Read more
8 months ago · 267 likes · 81 comments · Jordan Schachtel

Finally, in June, as reported in The Dossier, Pfizer acknowledged in quiet filings to the CDC that they would never produce the FDA approved version of Comirnaty that was authorized on August 23, 2021.

The Dossier has the full timeline in our piece, “Ghost Shot,” which you can click below.

The Dossier
Ghost Shot: Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines
The August 23, 2021 FDA approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was a cause for celebration. Marked as a turning point in the battle against COVID19, the announcement was highly publicized by the Biden Administration with the clear intention to extinguish “vaccine hesitancy” and boost uptake…
Read more
2 months ago · 307 likes · 161 comments · Jordan Schachtel

The Dossier has been “fact checked” by the likes of Politifact and USA Today, which falsely claimed that there was indeed an FDA approved vaccine available to the public, when that is absolutely, provably not the case.

Now, as the one year anniversary for the FDA approval of Comirnaty approaches, we are left with more questions than answers. The Biden Administration, Big Pharma, and Big Tech teamed up to fool Americans into taking a shot that they thought was FDA approved, but it turns out, that shot never actually existed, and will never exist.
.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

A Picture is worth a Thousand Words

Again, no comment needed.The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider be…

nakedemperor.substack.com

(fair use applies)


A Picture is worth a Thousand Words
NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
17 hr ago


Again, no comment needed.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

kitten corner: if pfizer made electric vehicles

in shape rotation: illumination. in parody: truth.

boriquagato.substack.com

(fair use applies)


kitten corner: if pfizer made electric vehicles
in shape rotation: illumination. in parody: truth.
gatito bueno
15 hr ago

jeez you guys, i think maybe the pfizer hijacked elon musk’s twitter account!

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Evidence of higher reinfection among vaccinated?

Or maybe there's a bit more than what is being presented.

moderndiscontent.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Evidence of higher reinfection among vaccinated?
Or maybe there's a bit more than what is being presented.
Modern Discontent
8 hr ago

Right now I’ve been working on my post for NAC and clinical trials which hopefully will come out in a day or two.

I also try to peruse what else is on Substack and what else is being posted.

Today, there were quite a few people posting a JAMA study1 which, if true, would not bode well for the vaccinated.

The study in question was one study published in JAMA which looked at reinfection rates during the Omicron wave, and from the many reports that have come out it would appear that those who were vaccinated were more likely to become reinfected.

Not good! That would mean maybe something is happening with these vaccines leading to reinfections!

At least, as long as the evidence was there to support such an argument.

And here’s where we run into trouble. Not a little, but A LOT of trouble with this study.



As I’ve stated, several people have reported on this study, mostly referencing this part of the Results section with the important part bolded below:

The probability of reinfection increased with time from the initial infection (odds ratio of 18 months vs 3 months, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) (Figure) and was higher among persons who had received 2 or more doses compared with 1 dose or less of vaccine (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78). Defining reinfection after 30 or more days or 90 or more days did not qualitatively change the results.

Again, VERY CONCERNING IF TRUE.

And this is usually where the story ends and we pontificate on what this all means and how bad the vaccines are.

BUT​

Remember that there are A TON of problems with this study.​

For instance, this is a reinfection study, right? That would mean that we would need to have measures on reinfections. The researchers do provide this chart, suggesting that reinfection is more likely the more time has passed since the first infection. The researchers did break up this information into different age cohorts which is pretty nice.



From Figure. Note that for many of the graphs the difference between reinfection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are not all too dissimilar besides the 18-29 cohort.

These charts should really be read in reverse, but essentially what it graphs are the rates of reinfection based on time since the first infection.

What we can see is that the longer it has been since the first infection the more likely one is to become reinfected. Just compare the measures on the left and on the right side of the graph. You can also see the difference between vaccinated groups, such that the orange line (those who received two doses of vaccines) and the blue line (1 or fewer- and yes, it’s fewer, not less! I shall be a grammar nazi when it comes to this!) can be contrasted to see who is being reinfected at a higher rate.

What’ you’ll note is that, for the most part, these reinfection values between vaccine groups are somewhat comparable. There are 3 groups that show higher rates of reinfection between the 2-dose group compared to the 1 or fewer dosed groups2, but only one really stands out, and that’s the 18-29 age group. Now, this assessment is rather qualitative, but remember that results can be skewed by just a few additional data points. Here, it’s likely that the argument about higher infection rates among the 2-dose vaccinated presented by the researchers are being skewed by the 18-29 group. It would be interesting to see if removal of that age group removes that statistical significance.

But something that’s more strange, and something I didn’t realize before when I first saw this study, was the number of days the graphs went up to. If you notice, all of the graphs go past 600 days.

Here’s an example from the <17 group:



Remember, this graph is measuring time between infections, which means that 600 days would tell us an infection gap of more than 1.5 years!

This made me even more skeptical of this information and so I went to look back at the Methods and you can see this excerpt:

This population-based cohort study monitored all persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 for reinfection during the Omicron wave in Iceland, which was defined from December 1, 2021 (first diagnosed case of Omicron in Iceland) to the end of the study period on February 13, 2022. Data on all SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results performed in the country were obtained from Landspitali–The National University Hospital of Iceland, and data on vaccine status were obtained from the Icelandic Directorate of Health. Reinfection was defined as a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 60 or more days from a previous positive test.

The first bolded phrase is important- this study wasn’t a look at reinfection during Omicron, it was a study looking at reinfection between pre-Omicron and during the Omicron wave.

I referenced a Qatar study3 that used a cohort of unvaccinated individuals and measured reinfection. Remember from that study study that those who were infected before the Omicron wave showed low protection from infection with Omicron. VERY LOW, especially the longer the time period between infections- similar to what this study was arguing (Chemaitelly, et. al.):

Effectiveness varied for the primary-infection sub-cohorts (Figure 2B). It was ∼60% for those with a more recent primary infection, between June 1, 2021 and November 30, 2021, during Delta-dominated incidence.4, 34, 35 Effectiveness declined with time since primary infection and was 17.0% (95% CI: 10.1-23.5%) for those with a primary infection between December 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021, during Alpha-dominated incidence.4, 34, 35 However, higher effectiveness of ∼50% was estimated for those with a primary infection before August 31, 2020, during original-virus incidence (note discussion in Section S3).4, 34, 35 Fitting the waning of protection to a Gompertz curve suggested that effectiveness reaches 50% in the 8th month after primary infection and <10% by the 15th month (Figure 3).

Again, this was a group of unvaccinated, infected individuals who were included in the Qatar study.

So all of this just raises questions. How the heck can one get a measure for reinfection with nearly a 600 day gap in between infections?!

To find the answer, I put on my Brian Mowrey cap and went to the Supplemental materials to find answers.

I guess I was fortunate that the only important information here was two paragraphs long, but here’s one important paragraph:

The study population included all individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR in Iceland between February 28, 2020 and December 1, 2021. Three national testing programs were implemented during the study period; targeted testing based on clinical suspicion (from February 1, 2020), open invitation population screening (from March 13, 2020) and mandatory screening at the border (from June 15, 2020). All PCR-positive persons were prospectively followed at the Covid-19 Outpatient Clinic of Landspitali-The National University Hospital of Iceland, from which the data were obtained. For the main analysis, only those who had tested positive 60 days or longer before December 1, 2021 and had not died or been reinfected prior to that time were included. Sensitivity analyses were performed using definitions of 30 days or longer and 90 days or longer from the prior infection.

So let me get this straight; this study that looked at reinfection included people who got infected at the beginning of the pandemic?! Now granted, the Qatar study did have a similar inclusion criteria, but unlike the Qatar study this Icelandic study included people who were vaccinated and infected, meaning we are dealing with plenty of confounding variables (i.e. vaccination and timing of vaccination) that have not been controlled for.

All of this begs the question- who the hell were included in this study?!!

Table 1 mentions time elapsed from initial infection4, yet the definition of reinfection, and the inclusion criteria from the supplemental data mention a previous infection5, not an initial infection.



And I haven’t even discussed the timing of vaccination relative to reinfection!

Did someone get infected with Wuhan in March 2020, get vaccinated in July 2021, then get reinfected in January 2022? Was that included as a reinfection? I’m led to believe so, and yet such a measure should be highly contested.

Or maybe someone got vaccinated in July, infected in August, then reinfected in late December but all within the same year (2021).

But the first scenario is an infection → vaccination → reinfection sandwich while the second scenario would be vaccinated → infected → reinfected. Are these cohorts supposed to be comparable? I wouldn’t consider them to be- there’s far too many things going on to even consider them comparable, but again would these two just be lumped as 2 or more vaccinated and placed based on their time between infections?

I can’t find any information on demographics, and I suppose I should just post the last meaningful paragraph from the Supplemental Material. Note that the researchers likely meant December 28, 2020 and not 2021:

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland began on December 28, 2021. Initially, only nursing home residents and front-line healthcare workers were vaccinated. By June 24, 2021, Covid-19 vaccines were available free of charge to all persons aged 16 years and older, and by June 28, 2021 vaccines were additionally offered to children 12-15 years of age. All persons 16 years of age and older who had received their second vaccine dose more than 6 months before were scheduled for a booster dose between November 15 and December 8, 2021. All administered doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Iceland until December 1, 2021 were obtained from the Icelandic Directorate of Health. We defined a person’s vaccination status based on the number of vaccine doses he or she had received 14 days prior to December 1, 2021. Some combinations of age group and vaccine doses were extremely rare. Specifically, almost no persons aged 75 years and older had not received a single vaccine dose and few persons aged 17 years and younger and 18-29 years had received three or more doses. For this reason, we grouped together zero and one vaccine doses and two or more doses

[continued in next post]

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

[continued from post above]

Great, so not many people got one dose so we’ll just lump those people in with the unvaccinated group because why not? Same goes for the people who were boosted- let’s just lump them together with the 2-dose crowd and think that there’s nothing wrong with this!

Overall, I really have no idea what the hell is going on with this data, who goes where, or anything. I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to be gleaning from this study.

If my diatribe has gotten confusing, I’ll point out some of my biggest critics with this study as well as some additional points:

Like I mentioned above, only 4 people had 1 dose of the vaccine.​

Which vaccine? Not sure, the Supplemental material doesn’t say who got what, and neither does it anywhere else in the paper even though this would be a critical piece of information. There was mention in the Results that 2942 people had at least one dose of the (which the?) vaccine. Given the number from Table 1 above that mentions 2938 people had two doses, we can assume that only 4 people had one dose. Great, 4 people- so why even include this group? Why not just get rid of them and have an “unvaccinated6” group rather than dangle that 1 or fewer group cohort?

We don’t know the order of infection and vaccination.​

Which came first; the infection or the jab? Something else we are not provided, so we have no idea the sequence of events, let alone the time between each event (i.e. time between infection and vaccination or vaccination and reinfection, or even what order everything happened!)- only the time between one infection and another, and we don’t even know if what is being measured is an initial infection or a previous infection. How many people got infected with Wuhan right at the beginning of the pandemic but didn’t get reinfected until Omicron? What about Delta, or Alpha? Who got those? Nothing! We are told nothing about those variables!

Something funny with the adjusted odds ratios?​

What’s interesting is that the difference between the unadjusted odds ratio and the adjusted odds ratio are slightly different for each group (look at “age group” and “elapsed time” variables from Table 1), and yet the data point that people have latched onto- the 1.42 for the 2-dose or more group is so different from the 0.92 unadjusted group. Now, I’m not savvy with statistics but what has essentially happened here is that a value of 0.92 would argue that there were higher odds of becoming reinfected among the unvaccinated group (albeit very small odds), but adjusting to 1.42 now means that odds of reinfection are higher among the vaccinated. Essentially, the odds have swapped from one group to the other group. Again, I’m not good with statistics but I would have to wonder if going from unvaccinated → vaccinated would warrant some type of skepticism about the methodology.


A segment of Table 1. Note that the percentage of those infected were higher among the fewer
But what really seems strange is the reference for the adjustment:



I usually don’t pay attention to odds ratios but this seems like such a specific, niche reference point for the adjusted ratios. Even stranger, it appears that this reference was even included among the different age brackets.

Maybe someone with statistical wherewithal can explain whether this would be an appropriate adjustment, but I find it a bit too convenient for my liking to have such a stark difference in odds ratios based on this reference.

One argument I can make is that this 227 day is actually a reference to the median time for reinfection mentioned in the Results section, and so this person could have been used as a reference due to that association. Hopefully someone with more statistical knowledge can suggest if this was appropriate.

Did you read the study?​

7On Friday’s post I made mention about having thoughts be your own, and having that ability to look at information and assess its merits. I made such remarks because I’m genuinely concerned that people are just taking from whatever study they can find.

I’ll provide an excerpt from that post that I find fitting:

However, there’s been quite a few things that have been weighing on me these past few months, mostly revolving around Substack and the kind of atmosphere that has been emerging.
I’ve scurried around and looked at comment sections in other people’s posts, and I’ve been rather dismayed at the sort of comments I’ve seen.
People commenting that they don’t know what they are reading (i.e. they don’t understand the science behind some posts) but know that they’re supposed to be scared based on what was presented. I’ve seen other comments from people stating that they need to lay off of Substack for their own sanity because of all of the doomer posts.
These sorts of comments always struck a nerve in me. How can people not understand what they are reading, yet understand they’re supposed to react emotionally to said posts? Shouldn’t comprehension precede reaction?
[…]
Because of this I want to say one thing- make sure that you are control of your own thoughts and mental faculties. Make sure your thoughts are your own and not something you repeat without giving them second thoughts. Be careful of falling into groupthink and following personality figures from any side- there are fear merchants everywhere that may try to prey on you by telling you that “we’re all doomed” or that this is some “final warning” before everything goes to hell.
Make sure that you have some understanding of what you are reading. And if you don’t, reach out to publishers and ask them questions. Use Substack as a place of learning rather than another social media venue to get clapbacks and likes.
Likes are ephemeral; wisdom is perennial.

I think it’s ironic that this study would be one heavily referenced today in light of my own remarks.

Given the comments I’ve seen around this study and the number of people who have posted it, I’ve wondered how many people actually read and took apart the study.

Even stranger is that this study is one of the shortest studies out there, probably only two pages- one for the text, and 1 for the figures- although the Supplemental material would bump that number up to 3.

If it hasn’t been made clear yet, I think this is a generally pointless study. It does tell us that the risk of reinfection increases the more time has passed since the prior infection, but we can't say much about the role that vaccination is playing.

Far too many confounding variables not controlled for, no information about who got what vaccine, which variant people were infected with, demographics besides age and vaccine status, and the list can just keep going on8. We really can’t tell much from this study, and from what we can tell I have some concerns as to how that adjusted odds ratio number was reached9.

But given all of this why was this study so heavily referenced? Shouldn’t other people have noticed that there’s a few holes to this study, or that it didn’t provide the full picture?

Because of this I’m rather curious and I wanted to give a poll and see who actually read this study before they commented on it. No, this isn’t meant to shame people! But I think we need more honesty and transparency here.

If anyone is concerned they may be singled out based on the poll, be aware that I have no idea how people respond- I pretty much only see what you all see from the poll results.

With that in mind, remember to do a little more digging before taking things as they are presented, and consider doing your own research.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559165537015549952

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1559165537015549952?cxt=HHwWgMC-vfGyoqMrAAAA


Viva Frei @thevivafrei

I had to stop the montage for two reasons: 1) Any more images and the print would be illegibly small, and 2) I felt like I was going crazy at the absolute idiocy and insanity of the world in which we are currently living. Who drafted these syndicated responses?

9:10 AM · Aug 15, 2022

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

American Massacre. Steve Kirsch Claims "Hundreds of Thousands" of mRNA-Vaccine-related Deaths, "Millions" of Injuries. Is He Right?

I am inclined to say "Yes." Here is why.

naomiwolf.substack.com

(fair use applies)


American Massacre. Steve Kirsch Claims "Hundreds of Thousands" of mRNA-Vaccine-related Deaths, "Millions" of Injuries. Is He Right?
I am inclined to say "Yes." Here is why.
Dr Naomi Wolf
14 hr ago

On August 10, 2022, the Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur, and the now-Executive Director of Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF), appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. Kirsch made a number of claims that are well-documented among those of us who follow mRNA vaccine safety issues, but that may have been alarming surprises to a general audience.

Kirsch noted, for instance, that “the FDA and CDC falsely assured us that the approved COVID mRNA vaccines were safe and effective.” This statement is of course completely accurate. The reports by our War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers on DailyClout.io abundantly prove that this is correct, as have multiple other distinguished analysts such as Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Dr. Paul Alexander. Kirsch noted that “the COVID mRNA vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines created by man [for the general inoculation of the general US public].” He cites 250 deaths from a Sixty Minutes report on the smallpox vaccine, comparing that to the deaths from mRNA vaccine. Certainly, in regard to the deaths of babies we know is correct, with more babies of mRNA vaccinated mothers having died than have babies of mothers vaccinated with all earlier vaccines, combined. [Risks to Babies of Vaccinated Mothers as Reported in VAERS - DailyClout]

Kirsch also invoked the wedding of Wayne Allyn Root, the conservative talk show host and commentator. Root had pointed out that of 200 guests at his wedding eight months earlier, 26 of those had been seriously ill or injured, and seven had died; all of these were vaccinated. Root also had said that among his friends and family who had been at his wedding who were unvaccinated, none to his knowledge had gotten sick or died.

Steve Kirsch's Newsletter
Wayne Root's story is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to explain if the vaccines are safe
Executive summary Governments can report unreliable data. But individual anecdotes can be easily verified and can be hard to dispute, especially if there are thousands of reports that are all Black Swans. Even a single event with just 200 people, where everything is verifiable, is enough to sink the “safe and effective” narrative…
Read more
10 days ago · 679 likes · 824 comments · Steve Kirsch

Most controversially, perhaps, though, Kirsch stated that “hundreds of thousands” of people had died from the mRNA injections and that “millions” had suffered injuries related to these injections. Brian Kilmeade, the host, responded, “So you know, we can’t verify those numbers, these are numbers that you have.”

Steve Kirsch's Newsletter
Kirsch drops truth bombs on Fox about the vaccines being deadly; Fox host very unhappy
Executive Summary Someone had to go on Fox News and tell the truth about the injury and death rates about the COVID vaccines. It’s never been done before. They’ve all attempts or simply no…
Read more
5 days ago · 606 likes · 469 comments · Steve Kirsch

Kirsch was immediately attacked on other platforms, for the last two data points that he asserted regarding injuries and deaths. Media Matters — an organization of which he was an original donor — accused Kirsch of making false statements. But, in fact, the Media Matters content about this is truly weird: there is a headline stating that Kirsch “Lied” — strong language, bound to be picked up by SEO to blacken search results about Kirsch — but there is zero analysis presented, showing that to be the case: Fox News guest lies about the COVID vaccine killing “hundreds of thousands” and says it’s “the most dangerous vaccine ever created”. Kirsch contacted both founder David Brock by email, as well as the corrections email address, and to date, he reports, he has had no response. He tried to comment on the article itself to say that it was incorrect, but he said that the organization notified him that he was permanently banned from commenting.

(Media Matters, which is supposed to be a watchdog for accuracy, in on the prowl to target critics of mRNA vaccines, it seems, and I would love to see that possible contract. In spite of the fact that David Brock is a formerly friendly acquaintance of mine, Media Matters also, without having contacted me first for comment, made derisive and ultimately misogynist fun of me on Twitter in summer of 2021 for my having accurately described on that platform — indeed, broken the important story of — women’s menstrual problems post-mRNA vaccination. CDC colluded with Twitter in targeting me for this reporting, the America First Legal FOIA now reveals, and I was deplatformed from Twitter soon thereafter. Millions of women suffered subsequently for this public health story having been suppressed — after it was assailed by Media Matters).

Other outlets were shy of either verifying or debunking Kirsch’s claims.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Kirsch drops truth bombs on Fox about the vaccines being deadly; Fox host very unhappy
Executive Summary Someone had to go on Fox News and tell the truth about the injury and death rates about the COVID vaccines. It’s never been done before. They’ve all attempts or simply no…
Read more

Here is his article defending his use of these numbers:

Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Data justifying the claims I made on Fox News on Aug 10
Executive summary I appeared on Fox News on Aug 10. The transcript is here: Steve Kirsch on Tucker Carlson Tonight with Brian Kilmeade. …
Read more
3 days ago · 92 likes · 115 comments · Steve Kirsch

I empathize with Kirsch’s ire. He and I both come from, and are now distanced from, the worlds of the privileged, intellectually self-regarding bicoastal Left. It’s surreal to spend decades in those circles as a respected voice, thinking that we all agree on basic post-Enlightenment ideals such as open debate and the critical examination of fact-based evidence, only to find that once you cross that tripwire of asking basic questions about a just-rushed-into-production mRNA vaccine, you go in an instant from having been a thought leader to a nutcase — for doing just exactly what you have done for decades: examining the data.

I appreciate Kirsch’s honey-badger persistence around demanding that his interlocutors either debate — and debunk — his evidence, or else, if they can’t do so, that they must retract their accusations that he is wrong. Those are the rules of gentlemanly and gentlewomanly conduct around the search for truth, that we were all taught in our expensive universities. What has happened to it?

So, let us now ask; is Kirsch indeed correct about the claims he makes regarding the scale of deaths and the scale of injuries and illnesses from the mRNA vaccines?

I believe that Kirsch is indeed correct in his conclusions. But you do not have to rely on his arguments or his sources to reach this conclusion. I reached that conclusion not so much from the evidence that Kirsch provides, but rather, I believe that his conclusions are right from drawing on my independent research and from identifying other sources.

Kirsch has commissioned seven third-party polls that have sample sizes of 500 or more. In these polls, 7.6 per cent of households questioned reported what the respondent concluded was one or more deaths within the household attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine. 9.3 per cent of respondents reported that they themselves were injured by the COVID-19 vaccine; over half of these said that they had to seek medical treatment. This is suggestive, and useful as a starting point for independently-funded, peer-reviewed research. But there is a flaw with even good third-party polls: people who have been injured or lost a loved one may be more likely to speak to a pollster. Or the flaw can go in the other direction – people may be afraid to tell a stranger that they concluded that someone in their households was injured or killed by the mRNA vaccines.

I also think that Kirsch’s use of the Wayne Root anecdote is instructive — we often get early signals of systemic problems from anecdotal surveillance of those around us. But the sample size is too small, in my view, from which to draw a certain conclusion.

Lastly, Kirsch relies on the VAERS database and projects from it. I think that projecting from the VAERS database is important to indicate a general signal that again requires more investigation, but that it is too hypothetical a figure to invoke as confirmed fact, as we don’t know if the VAERS database underreports by a factor of 10x, or a factor of 41x (Kirsch’s estimate), or by some other variable. All we know for certain is that VAERS significantly underestimates.

I do agree with Kirsch’s numbers, though, by looking, as noted, at other sources. And this is what we should all do; there is shockingly little actual peer-reviewed research comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated populations and seeing objectively, from a large sample size, who is getting sick and who is dying post-mRNA vaccination. Until that body of research exists, we all do need to review multiple sources and investigate their conclusions for ourselves.

All solid evidence, though, points to the serious scale of harms that Kirsch invoked.

The German government found that .3 per cent of those who received the mRNA vaccine, reported injuries. [German Government Admits Covid Vaccines Cause Serious Injury for One in 5,000 Doses – But its Own Data Show the Real Rate is O]. Toby Young found that the German government data show one in 300 injured after vaccination.

Another investigator in Germany found .8% of the mRNA-vaccinated struggled with serious side effects and that that percentage was “in line with” data from other countries:

“Worries about high rates of serious vaccine side effects have been raised before in Germany. In May, Professor Harald Matthes, a scientist leading a separate study into the safety of the vaccines, said that according to his data around 0.8% of vaccinated people in Germany were struggling with serious side-effects. This was in line with international evidence, he said, and much more needs to be done to help them.

“The number is not surprising. It corresponds to what is known from other countries such as Sweden, Israel or Canada. Incidentally, even the manufacturers of the vaccines had already determined similar values in their studies… Most side effects, including severe ones, subside after three to six months, 80% heal. But unfortunately there are also some that last much longer.

In view of around half a million cases with serious side effects after Covid vaccinations in Germany, we doctors have to take action. We have to come to therapy offers, discuss them openly at congresses and in public without being considered anti-vaccination.”’ [German Government Admits Covid Vaccines Cause Serious Injury for One in 5,000 Doses – But its Own Data Show the Real Rate is O]

A board member from an insurer in Germany, BKK, came forward with numbers that support Steve Kirsch’s estimate of “millions” of vaccine injuries in a given country of millions of vaccinated citizens. [Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations Germany 2021 | Statista] “A search of the databases of all BKK health insurance companies found that, from January to August 2021, around 217,000 of about 11 million BKK policyholders had to be treated for vaccine side effects. Andreas Schöfbeck, the board member who spoke out, told Die Welt: “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 doctor visits by our insured persons due to vaccination complications to date to be realistic. Extrapolated to the total population, this figure would be three million.” That comes out as around ten times higher than the official figure from the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the Government agency responsible for vaccinations.” [Vaccine Side-Effects Up to 10 Times Higher Than Official Figures, Insurance Company Board Member Reveals]. So, in Germany alone, a credible source tasked with compensating disability claims reports 217,000 of 11 million – or 1.97% - two-dose mRNA vaccine recipients required medical treatment. If there are 83.7 million Germans, of whom 63.1 million are two-dose vaccinated, that translates into about 1,243,070 medically injured or sickened Germans. If you extend that percentage of the injured or sick to the 261,981,618 Americans with at least one dose of mRNA vaccines, the figure provided by the CDC, or the “fully vaccinated” 223,457,170 with two doses – that would be at least 4,402,106 vaccine-sickened or vaccine-injured Americans.

So, Steve Kirsch is right about “millions” of injuries and illnesses, using this insurance-industry and government-database derived metric. [COVID Data Tracker]

As we saw above, solid data are coming in from government databases that even more conservatively show mRNA vaccine injuries to be .3-.8% of the total vaccinated. In the US, using this even more cautious metric, if .3-.8% of 223,457,170 suffer serious illnesses or injuries, it is still a figure ranging from about 670,200 to 1,787,200. If it is the higher range, Steve Kirsch is right about “millions” of mRNA-vaccinated injuries. If so, the figure is about the same as the number of Americans diagnosed with cancer every year – that is, mRNA vaccine injuries would now represent a catastrophic public health problem. [Cancer Data and Statistics | CDC.]

If we take lower percentage, or somewhere in between, this is still a grossly unacceptable injury and illness rate of hundreds of thousands of Americans, putting it in the top ten causes of illness in America. If the figure is in the lowest range of all, mRNA vaccine-related injuries and illnesses would still be equal to the number of Americans who sustain strokes every year. Again, that would represent a massive public health crisis — but one that could be eased at once without claiming new sufferers. [Stroke Facts | cdc.gov.]

I do also believe that there may be “hundreds of thousands” of deaths from the mRNA vaccine in America. Here is why. This superb analysis from The Exposé argues, using UK government data, that “Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every single week due to COVID-19 vaccination”. I urge you to read it in full and share it:

2nd Smartest Guy in the World
PfizerGate: Official Government Reports prove Hundreds of Thousands of People are dying every single week due to Covid-19 Vaccination
by THE EXPOSÉ You were instructed to stay at home to protect the healthcare system. But while you did so, hospitals essentially had a holiday, and this is backed up by official data. You were told the answer to everyone’s prayers was to get the Covid-19 injection. But now that you have done so, the healthcare system is on the brink of collapse…
Read more


[continued next post]

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

[continued from post above]

In response to a FOIA request, the NHS confirmed that the ambulance calls in the UK starting in April 2021 revealed a rise in ambulance calls for those under 30; the data also show that there was an 82% rise in ambulance calls in 2021. The charts showing the escalation of calls for ambulances in this piece are truly shocking. The Exposé analysis also showed that VAERS revealed a 13,200% rise in myocarditis in the US in 2021 after mRNA vaccination. The Exposé also documents that there is a rise in excess deaths in 2021-22 not just in the UK, but in other countries in Europe. How do we know that these excess deaths are related to the mRNA vaccination? “In every single month since the beginning of 2022, partly vaccinated and double vaccinated 18-39-year-olds have been more likely to die than unvaccinated 18-39-year-olds.” [PfizerGate: Official Government Reports prove Hundreds of Thousands of People are dying every single week due to Covid-19 Vaccination] Mortality rates are lowest in every age category among — the unvaccinated. The analysis goes on, using UK government data, to show that “in all, 180,659 people died within 60 days of COVID vaccination between January 2021 and May 2022 in England.” The Exposé authors conclude that using UKHA numbers regarding the total vaccinated population in Britain, “one in every 246 people has died within 60 days of Covid-19 Vaccination in England.”

I also believe that deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine may be in the “hundreds of thousands” in the US from editing the Pfizer internal documents’ reports produced by the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers. Of the 42,000 plus adverse events recorded in the Pfizer documents, there were 1200 plus fatalities. [https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf] Four people died on the day that they were injected. 1200 is 2.8 percent of 42,000. Pfizer — notably — redacted the “n” - the total number of injections administered — from within their internal documents (that we have seen so far), so we don’t know what percent of the total vaccinated these 1200 plus deaths represent. (That redaction alone is notable. Why redact the total figure if the ratio of injuries and deaths to that total is not a problem?)

But, if there are 4.8 million vaccine injuries or illnesses in the United States — see the math above based on Germany’s data per the BKK whistleblower — and if the Pfizer 2.8 per cent rate out of adverse events recorded can be extended to the adverse events in the US — then 134,400 people in America may have died, of the total of 4.8 million Americans injured by the COVID-19 vaccine. So not “hundreds of thousands” of deaths in one year, but in two years, yes; Steve Kirsch would be right.

I also believe we will see “hundreds of thousands of deaths” from the COVID-19 vaccine, once we know how to look and record correctly, because of the way the mRNA vaccine works. My previous Substack, “Facing the Beast”, presented my evidence, based on the Pfizer documents analysis, as well as on evidence I found that the Pfizer vaccine is produced in the US and around the world in concert with a CCP-run company, Fosun Pharmaceuticals, and along with data from an August 2021 rat trial out of Hong Kong, that in my view the mRNA vaccine, at least those made by Pfizer, constitute a possible bioweapon.

Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf
Facing the Beast
I was relaxing in our screened porch in our little cottage in the forest, feeling rather pleased with myself. It had been an arduous week of the usual combat for liberty, but there had been victories. I was reading a decorating magazine (we all have our vices). The grass was dewy; birds were loud. The morning was glorious…
Read more
a month ago · 1,277 likes · 911 comments · Dr Naomi Wolf

I refer you to that essay for my complete presentation; but, for our purposes here, I note that the August 2021 Hong Kong rat experiment showed that one mRNA vaccine-ingredients injection in the bloodstream causes some damage to rats, and that the second injection causes catastrophic harms, including visibly enlarging the heart, creating white patches on the heart visible to the naked eye, damaging the liver, and generating cytokine storms. In all the messaging about the one dose/two dose “fully vaxxed” rhetoric, I never saw reporters asking the obvious question: why do you need two doses spaced close together? This is uncharacteristic of vaccines in general. What does it do? Why the wait? Why the repetition? And then, of course, there are the boosters.

Well, when you understand the Hong Kong rat study, and the role of the CCP in this mass injection program worldwide, you understand one possible reason for the repetition. In the last essay, I concluded that the Hong Kong rat study may well have been designed to show the CCP, which of course oversees all scientific experiments in both China and Hong Kong, how to kill or badly damage a mammalian subject slowly and imperceptibly.

So again: why the second dose? Why the boosters, especially since the Pfizer documents reveal that Pfizer knew a month out of the gate that the vaccines failed in efficacy in treating COVID-19? The repeated doses add toxicity to the subject, so you will get injuries and deaths slowly, over time, that cannot be directly traced to the vaccination.

That is why the all-cause mortality number is so important.

This US excess deaths figure is now hard to find, but here it is: “Since Feb. 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate there have been 942,431 excess deaths in the U.S. One insurance company executive estimated that death rates are currently up 40 percent over what they were pre-pandemic. The insurance industry experienced the largest year-over-year increase in payouts since the 1918 influenza pandemic.” [Excess deaths climb at significant rate during pandemic]

As in the UK, you would expect to find elevated heart disease data in America post-mRNA vaccination. But — you can’t. The American Heart Association statistics document titled “2021 Update” about US heart disease, ends with data from 2018. [Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics - 2021 Update]. CDC, for its part, stopped counting heart disease deaths in 2020. [Heart Disease Facts | cdc.gov]

Where are the 2021-2022 data for US deaths from heart disease?

Where indeed?

What you do find, though, in the US, is the legacy media engaged in CYA type stories to cover the fact that otherwise healthy people are dropping dead or else getting seriously ill, post-mRNA vaccination. Here is The Atlantic, in “America was in An Early-Death Crisis Long Before COVID”, trying to make a tortured argument, using a non-peer-reviewed study, that there are and have even before the pandemic been a category of one point one million “missing Americans.” Read it for the appalling sense of moral discomfort you get watching smart people twist and turn to evade the evidence of what is emerging as a massive gravesite, a massive hospital ward. [America Was in an Early-Death Crisis Long Before COVID], The article reveals a demented use of statistics. A/ The study that forms the basis of it is not yet peer-reviewed: “[Jacob] Bor’s study has yet to be formally reviewed” - but his colleagues say it’s awesome. B/ The unpublished study — which describes “a crisis of early death” in America — creates a purported category of “missing Americans” who suffered early death — especially, notably last year, 2021 — but there can no such thing. [Source: Bor Et Al.,: “MISSING AMERICANS: EARLY DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES, 1933-2021 (2022)”]. But there can be no such thing as mystery deaths in the United States. All deaths in the US require a death certificate. C/ The Atlantic attributes extra deaths to other causes — gun violence, suicide, drug overdoses — without evidence.

There are masses of other articles being produced along similar lines, seeking to normalize the sudden deaths and injuries of healthy children and young adults from heart attacks, collapse, blood clots and stroke.

I expect that there may be “hundreds of thousands'' of deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine in the near term in the US because of the way in which the mRNA vaccine directly invites other kinds of deaths — that can’t be directly linked to the vaccine when these deaths or debilities eventually occur. The internal Pfizer documents show side effects of thousands of instances of brain tumors, hemorrhages, strokes, encephalies, neurological issues such as MS, cancers that arise or else come roaring back (SM-102, purportedly in the Moderna vaccine, is an OSHA carcinogen); lung clots, blood clots, thrombocytopenia, epilepsy, liver damage, kidney failure and other horrific, disabling or ultimately murderous problems. Add to this the report that our Dr. Robert Chandler did proving that the toxic mRNA, spike protein and LNPs accumulate in vital organs, including in the brain and liver. [Pfizer Used Dangerous Assumptions, Rather than Research, to Guess at Outcomes - DailyClout] You have a recipe for slow damage, slow and unidentifiable death over time, especially if one accedes to “boosters” — that will look organic or mysterious when the problems manifest.

But this mRNA vaccine was designed to be sneaky, and in my view, with the evidence I present in “Facing the Beast,” I believe based on the primary source evidence in the 30 plus reports on the Pfizer documents from our highly credentialed research volunteers, all of the reports linked at cited on DailyClout.io, that it was designed by our adversaries to damage vital organs, to accumulate in reproductive organs, and to kill us slowly. In the months and years to come, if someone dies of these thousands of identified vaccine side effects, no one will call it a death “from the mRNA vaccine,” of course.

Add to that the fact that doctors are being instructed by licensing boards that they will be delicensed for “medical misinformation” if they tell patients that harms may have derived from the mRNA vaccine. I met a community of brave physicians, including pediatricians, at a Children’s Health Defense Oregon event a few weeks ago, who described being fired for simply giving their patients what the doctors saw as “informed consent” regarding the mRNA vaccines.

Here is what I will add to the testimony of Wayne Root - changing professions slightly to protect identities, but not enough for you, the reader, to fail to grasp the systemic nature of the harms and deaths unfolding in near proximity to us all:

Anecdotally: in my little town — a surveyor’s wife dropped dead of a stroke. The surveyor himself had a heart attack. A colleague of mine who had lung cancer well in remission, saw her lung cancer come back at a voracious pace; she now is at Stage Four. A colleague’s healthy brother dropped dead. A young adult’s friend dropped dead. A relative has kidney failure. A relative has tachycardia post-booster. A human rights leader dropped dead on a hike. A local community organizer has a thyroid tumor. The beloved volunteer for the local fire department suddenly died. The volunteer for a fire department one town over suddenly died. A relative fainted and hit her head so hard she had to have brain surgery, and she is now incapacitated. A young, healthy counselor at the therapy practice one state over has lung clots. A former colleague has a debilitating condition that she believes is “long COVID”, which I don’t have the heart to tell her corresponds to the side effects in the Pfizer documents. Two formerly healthy friends have myalgia — debilitating muscle pain — which I don’t have the heart to tell them is one of the top two side effects in the Pfizer documents. A health young woman had a “ministroke” while pregnant. Another healthy young adult has crippling joint pain — which is the top side effect listed in the Pfizer documents.

None of these people were told by their doctors that these are all side effects in the Pfizer documents, or that these harms are possibly mRNA vaccine related. The doctors themselves may not know. No one of these people, thus, has any idea that they may be vaccine-injured, or that the deaths of their loved ones may be vaccine-related deaths.

These folks were all, to my knowledge, mRNA-vaccinated.

Of my friends and colleagues who chose not to be vaccinated? To my knowledge, all are fine. I have not heard of any new serious health conditions or of any fatalities.

So — on balance, Steve Kirsch is right.

And on balance, more importantly, this is a massacre; the stealthiest massacre in American history; a novel kind of massacre; in which hundreds of thousands can be injured, or can even be killed, on a battlefield of which they are unaware; with bullets which they cannot even see; in a war about which they are told — that no evidence exists.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

26-Year-Old Neurosurgeon Dies in July, Making Seven Canadian Doctors to Die in Two Weeks

As time goes by, the death toll among Canada’s medical professionals rises. Another Canadian doctor, Dr. Ryan Buyting, a neurosurgery resident at Alberta Health Services (AHS) who was only 26 years old, passed away on July 26, 2022, according to his family. “It is with great sadness that we...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

(fair use applies)


26-Year-Old Neurosurgeon Dies in July, Making Seven Canadian Doctors to Die in Two Weeks
By Jim Hoft
Published August 15, 2022 at 12:45pm

As time goes by, the death toll among Canada’s medical professionals rises.

Another Canadian doctor, Dr. Ryan Buyting, a neurosurgery resident at Alberta Health Services (AHS) who was only 26 years old, passed away on July 26, 2022, according to his family.

“It is with great sadness that we acknowledge the loss of our beloved son Ryan Mackenzie Buyting on July 26, 2022,” an entry in his obituary read. “He was born on August 6, 1995, to Rob and Karyn (Broad) Buyting and was a loving brother to Jon and Lauryn.”

“Ryan was passionate, kind, intelligent, and thoughtful. His work ethic was exceptional and he excelled at everything he set out to do. He lived by strong values. He identified with Stoic philosophy and strived to emulate “The Four Agreements”: Be impeccable with your word, never take anything personally, never make assumptions and always do your best,” according to his obituary.

“Some people don’t believe in heroes. But they haven’t met my brother,” Ryan’s sister, Lauryn Buyting wrote on her social media account.

“Thank you for inspiring me to believe in myself a little more everyday and for giving me so many reasons to smile. Anyone who knows me, knows how much my brother meant to me and how much this loss will affect my life and my family,” she added.

His death has not been officially attributed to a specific reason, however, there have been speculations circulating online that he was fully vaccinated.

Dr. William Makis MD, cancer researcher at the University of Alberta and Nuclear Medicine Physician employed at the Cross. Cancer Institute (CCI) by Alberta Health Services (AHS) said that Canadian medical schools require all students and residents to be fully vaccinated.

Dr. Makis is also the author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

“I’ve just been informed that Dr. Ryan Buyting, age 26, who was a promising medical student from Dalhousie and had just started Neurosurgery residency at Alberta Health Services in Edmonton, Alberta, has “died suddenly,” he wrote.

“Canadian medical schools require ALL medical students and residents to be fully vaccinated (triple vaccinated) to be able to continue their education. I’ve stated before that those responsible (including Deans of Faculty of Medicine) should face criminal charges and long prison sentences,” he added.

On July 18, AHS published a news release saying they will no longer require COVID-19 immunization as condition of employment.

“Alberta Health Services (AHS) is rescinding its Immunization of Workers for COVID-19 Policy, effective July 18, meaning AHS healthcare workers will no longer be required to be immunized for COVID-19 as a condition of employment,” AHS announced.

Within the past two weeks, Canada has received news of seven deaths of physicians, the most recent being that of Dr. Candace Nayman, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

All five doctors were based in the Greater Toronto Area, with three practicing at the same hospital. Dr. Mazlouman is from Saskatchewan, Dr. Buyting is from Alberta.

Name and date of death:

• Dr. Paul Hannam, July 16 – cardiac arrest while running
• Dr. Lorne Segall, July 17 – lung cancer
• Dr. Stephen McKenzie, July 18 – serious illness
• Dr. Jakub Sawicki, July 19 – rare gastric cancer
• Dr. Shariar Jalali Mazlouman, July 23 – cardiac arrest while swimming
• Ryan Mackenzie Buyting, July 26 – unknown
• Dr. Candace Nayman, July 28 – cardiac arrest while swimming

Dr. William Makis MD has tracked thirteen Canadian doctors that have died.

“I’ve now tracked 13 Canadian doctors “sudden deaths” (thank you to everyone who contributed info). This is the most complete data set I’ve seen anywhere by far. Three doctors died while exercising (two swimming, one running), two of them were very high-level athletes. Three doctors died “in their sleep” unexpectedly. Two doctors also had aggressive cancer that had arisen within the past year. All of them were at least triple vaccinated due to illegal vaccine mandates. Remember: these are YOUNG healthy individuals who are always first in line to get jabbed. Vast majority of doctors will get their 4th and 5th jabs this summer and fall. Sadly, I expect many more deaths to come,” he wrote.

Source: Dr. William Makis MD/Gettr

Source: Dr. William Makis MD/Gettr

You can read the other articles below:

• Canadian Chief of Emergency Medicine, Olympic Sailor, and Marathon Runner Dies Suddenly While on a Run
• THREE DOCTORS From the Same Hospital “Die Suddenly” in the Same Week After Hospital Mandates Fourth COVID Shot
• 44-Year-Old Canadian Doctor Dies ‘Unexpectedly’ – Sixth Canadian Doctor to Die Within Two Weeks
• 27-Year-Old Triathlete Doctor in Canada Dies Four Days After She Collapses While Swimming – Fifth GTA Doctor to Die Within 2 Weeks

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Jill Biden tests positive for COVID-19, has 'mild' symptoms

First lady Jill Biden has tested positive for COVID-19 and is experiencing “mild symptoms.” The White House announced it on Tuesday.

apnews.com

(fair use applies)


Jill Biden tests positive for COVID-19, has ‘mild’ symptoms
By ZEKE MILLER
yesterday

KIAWAH ISLAND, S.C. (AP) — First lady Jill Biden tested positive for COVID-19 and was experiencing “mild symptoms,” the White House announced Tuesday. President Joe Biden continues to test negative after recently recovering from the virus but will wear a mask indoors for 10 days as a precaution.

The Bidens have been vacationing in South Carolina since Aug. 10, and the 71-year-old first lady began experiencing symptoms on Monday. Jill Biden, like her husband, has been twice-vaccinated and twice-boosted with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. She has been prescribed the antiviral drug Paxlovid and will isolate at the vacation home for at least five days.

“Close contacts of the First Lady have been notified,” her communications director, Elizabeth Alexander, said in a statement “She is currently staying at a private residence in South Carolina and will return home after she receives two consecutive negative COVID tests.”

The president tested negative for the virus on Tuesday morning, the White House said, but would be wearing a mask indoors for 10 days. He plans to return to Washington on Tuesday to sign Democrats’ landmark climate change and health care bill in the afternoon, before continuing to his home in Wilmington, Delaware.

He recovered from a rebound case of the virus on Aug. 7.

“Consistent with CDC guidance because he is a close contact of the First Lady, he will mask for 10 days when indoors and in close proximity to others,” the White House said. It said it would increase the president’s testing cadence and report those results.

Jill Biden will no longer travel to Florida later this week. She previously had announced her participation in events Thursday night and Friday at Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando in support of her Joining Forces initiative for military families.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

California appeals court rejects COVID-19 fines for church

A California church that defied safety regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic by holding large religious services won't have to pay about $200,000 in fines, a state appeals court ruled. Calvary Chapel San Jose and its pastors were held in contempt of court and fined in 2020 and 2021 for...

apnews.com

(fair use applies)


California appeals court rejects COVID-19 fines for church
today

A California church that defied safety regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic by holding large religious services won’t have to pay about $200,000 in fines, a state appeals court ruled.

Calvary Chapel San Jose and its pastors were held in contempt of court and fined in 2020 and 2021 for violating state and county limits on indoor public gatherings. The rules were aimed at preventing the spread through close contract of the virus, which has caused more than 10 million confirmed cases and more than 93,500 deaths since the pandemic began in mid-2020, according to state public health figures.

But on Monday, California’s 6th District Court of Appeal reversed those lower court decisions, citing a May 2020 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2021 that a ban by Gov. Gavin Newsom on indoor worship services in counties where COVID-19 was surging violated freedom of religion.

The decision by a newly conservative majority court came less than a year after the high court previously ruled the ban was justified on health and safety grounds.

The appellate court noted that the restrictions on indoor gatherings also applied to secular gatherings but were stricter for worship services than for secular activities such as going to grocery stores.

The ruling “is a great win for the sake of liberty and displays the justification for the courage shown by this church” and its pastors, Robert Tyler, a lawyer for the church, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Despite the ruling, Santa Clara County said it will continue to seek $2.3 million in penalties against the church for violating other COVID-19 rules that weren’t affected by the decision, such as requiring face masks during services in late 2020.

“Calvary did not dispute the fact of its numerous and serious violations during the height of the pandemic and before vaccinations were available,” a county statement said. “We will continue to hold Calvary accountable for putting our community’s health and safety at risk.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

New COVID bivalent vaccine expected in US in the fall

"Start Here" speaks with Sony Salzman, a coordinating producer for ABC News' Medical Unit, about the new bivalent booster shot for COVID.

abcnews.go.com

(fair use applies)



By New COVID bivalent vaccine expected in US in the fall
The UK just became the first country to approve the new booster shot.
by ABC NEWS
August 16, 2022, 4:28 PM

On Monday, the U.K. became the first country to approve a bivalent vaccine booster shot for adults, which would target both the original COVID virus and the Omicron variant.

This vaccine, which is likely going to be available in the U.S. starting in the fall, is expected to provide increased and longer-lasting protection against COVID and the new variants.

Sony Salzman, coordinating producer for ABC News’ Medical Unit, sat down with ABC News' podcast “Start Here” to discuss what people can expect from the new bivalent vaccine, and the way forward in the country’s vaccination strategy.

START HERE: Yesterday the U.K. became the first country on Earth to approve a new type of vaccine, a vaccine that was engineered with a more recent variant of COVID in mind. Let's check in with ABC's Sony Salzman from our Medical Unit. Sony, is this a turning point? What does this vaccine do?

SALZMAN: I think it is a turning point, Brad. I think what these new vaccines are going to do is shift us into the next phase of the pandemic, where like the annual flu shot each year or season, we have to kind of predict what the virus is going to do and engineer a vaccine that is the best defense against that virus.

The U.K. government just recently authorized a vaccine that is a combination shot, it is Moderna's combo shot. This is called a bivalent vaccine. And what it does is it still protects against that original Wuhan strain that emerged in 2020, but then it also protects against the newer BA1 Omicron strain. And so it combines both of those in the hopes of providing enhanced protection against the variants that are circulating right now.

START HERE: Right, so [with] Omicron cases absolutely skyrocketed in this country because people just did not have the same level of immunity as this variant came onto the scene. So how do I get one of these vaccines, Sony? I want one of these boosters. What's happening in the U.S.?

SALZMAN: So it is coming to the U.S., too, but what we're gonna get here is actually slightly different. FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, they looked at presentations from Moderna and Pfizer and what they said is, you know, that's all well and good, but even within Omicron, we have all these subvariants right? So Omicron BA1 was the first Omicron subvariant, but now here in the U.S. and globally, actually, BA5 is the dominant variant.

What the FDA did is they asked the companies to go back, look at the formula again, and re-tweak it a little bit so that it's a better match against BA5, and that is the version that they have ordered. The expectation is that that would be authorized in September or perhaps October, and be available sometime in the fall.

START HERE: So that sounds great; I guess that it would be the strain that's a little bit more recent, but will it work better? Because I gotta say Sony, I see school about to start and I'm thinking ‘dang, wouldn’t it be nice to get a new vaccine in play before kids are all indoors spreading it to each other's families.’ Is there a balancing act here between timeline and efficacy?

SALZMAN: Well, you know, just to set expectations, Brad, I do think it's really important to remember that even these vaccines that we're talking about the ones that are re-tweaked, and they're reformulated, and they're better matches against these new variants. The virus itself has changed so much that we are not going to get a bulletproof vaccine that protects you against any breakthrough infection.

START HERE: That's no longer the expectation for these vaccines…

SALZMAN: That's no longer the expectation, that's exactly right. So, you know, maybe at some point in the future, there is some really interesting vaccine science, early stages of development here but for these vaccines, and for the way that this virus has evolved, that is no longer the expectation.

The expectation is that they are going to have higher efficacy, particularly against severe illness, and also last longer so that kind of drop off doesn't happen as quickly. So that's the expectation here, but I want to be clear: either of these vaccines, whether you do a bivalent against BA1 or BA5, or anything to that effect, it's going to be better. Every scientist I've talked to says that this is the way forward.

We need to be updating the vaccines to be a better match for the variants that are circulating presently. But it's not going to be this kind of bulletproof approach where you have a vaccine that completely protects you against infection. That's not the expectation.

START HERE: Gotcha. In the meantime, we are hoping to see these Omicron-specific boosters here in the U.S. sometime in September. Sony Salzman from our Medical Unit, thanks a lot.

SALZMAN: Yeah, thank you Brad.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Updated COVID boosters could be available in 3 weeks, White House predicts

Newly updated COVID-19 boosters tailored to target a dominant strain of the virus will be available in the next three weeks or so, assuming the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work through their processes for authorization as expected. In late June...

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


Updated COVID boosters could be available in 3 weeks, White House predicts
CHEYENNE HASLETT - ABC News
Tue, August 16, 2022, 7:03 PM

Newly updated COVID-19 boosters tailored to target a dominant strain of the virus will be available in the next three weeks or so, assuming the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work through their processes for authorization as expected.

That was White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha's prediction Tuesday at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

In late June, the FDA directed Moderna and Pfizer to make vaccines for the upcoming winter that targeted the more contagious BA.5 omicron subvariant, along with the original COVID strain. That work has been underway and the next step is for the FDA and CDC to review data from the companies, once they've received it.

Neither the FDA nor the CDC has announced a timeline.

The rollout was expected sometime in September, but Jha's estimate on Tuesday was the most specific to date.

"We're going to know more about this in the upcoming weeks and these vaccines will become available by early to mid-September," he said, again including the caveat that FDA and CDC need to act before anything can be official.

"But the big picture, bottom line, is these are substantial upgrades in our vaccines," Jha said. "And those vaccines are coming very, very soon."

Jha also said that he was hopeful there will eventually be enough vaccine supply for any adult who wants a new booster to be able to get one, despite funding squabbles that forced the federal government to order only enough for the most vulnerable Americans.

"We're still working on trying to pull more resources from other places. I would like to get to a point where every adult in America who wants a vaccine can get one. I'm hopeful we will be there. We're not quite there yet in terms of how many vaccine doses we've been able to buy," Jha said.

"What's really limited us is a lack of resources, but we are pulling from other high-priority items. So my hope is that we're gonna be able to have this for every single adult in America. We will know more about that in the upcoming weeks I think," he added.

So far the U.S. has contracted for 105 million doses of the newly-updated boosters from Pfizer and 66 million doses from Moderna, the two leading COVID vaccine manufacturers for the country. Both contracts with Pfizer and Moderna include an option for hundreds of millions of more doses down the line, should the U.S. secure the money.

Between Pfizer and Moderna, if both companies were able to complete their orders, the U.S. would have about 171 million doses of the new shots. But more than 260 million Americans have had at least one vaccine dose already and would theoretically consider getting a booster.

On the other hand, demand for boosters has dropped with each campaign for people to get another shot. About 108 million people have received their first booster shot, for example.

The White House said it had pulled $5 billion to cover the cost of vaccines for this fall and winter. Between the $3.2 billion awarded to Pfizer and the $1.74 billion awarded to Moderna so far, the government has hit that ceiling.

Because fall and winter usually bring a high volume of flu cases, Jha also urged the public to get both their flu shots and updated COVID boosters as soon as they could -- or else risk a harsh winter of disease with far looser mitigation efforts than each winter of the pandemic so far.

"Our health care system is going to get into serious trouble unless we are very proactive about preventing it -- so if we do nothing and just sort of hope for the best, I think we could end up getting into a lot of trouble this fall and winter," Jha said.

People can get their flu and COVID shot on the same day, Jha noted, and he said he hopes that next year technology will have improved to the point that there's a two-in-one combination booster available for both the flu and COVID.

He also emphasized the importance of improving ventilation in businesses and schools, which was also prioritized in the latest CDC guidance issued last week.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Marshall Islands, Once Nearly COVID-Free, Confronts an Outbreak

As a remote nation in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands had been almost completely spared from COVID-19, registering just a handful of cases throughout the pandemic, with no community transmission detected. But in just over a week, more than 4,000 people have tested positive in a population of...

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


Marshall Islands, Once Nearly COVID-Free, Confronts an Outbreak
Daniel Victor - NYTimes
Tue, August 16, 2022, 1:46 PM

As a remote nation in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands had been almost completely spared from COVID-19, registering just a handful of cases throughout the pandemic, with no community transmission detected.

But in just over a week, more than 4,000 people have tested positive in a population of about 60,000, including the country’s secretary of health and human services, Jack Niedenthal. He has been providing updates on Facebook and said 75% of those tested in Majuro, the capital, had COVID-19, “an incredibly high positivity rate.”

In an interview Tuesday, Niedenthal said there was some panic and concern, given that the islands, about halfway between Hawaii and the Philippines, had not recorded a single COVID-19 case last year.

“So people were thinking, ‘Hey, these guys really know what they’re doing,’” he said. “The problem is, people started wanting to travel. They missed their loved ones. Some leaders traveled.”

As life began to return to normal, keeping the virus out was impossible, he said. Niedenthal expected the case count to continue rising, given the dense population. “The next three to four days are going to be pretty rough,” he said.

Hundreds of health care workers have been among the infected. At the hospital in Majuro, immunizations were halted because almost the entire team was out, most of the medical record keepers were out, and the housecleaning staff was reduced to one person, he said.

On Aug. 10, Niedenthal called health care workers back to work even if they tested positive, saying they would be screened and would not interact with patients. He said it was a drastic measure that “has been taken throughout the world and the Pacific as COVID numbers rise quickly and we are left with no other choice.”

Hospitalizations and deaths tend to lag behind case numbers, but as of this week, there had been few severe cases, including six deaths.

The population is highly vaccinated: 72% are fully vaccinated in Majuro, and 61% have boosters, according to government data. The Marshall Islands closed its borders in early March 2020, taking more drastic measures than its neighbors at the time. It was one of the last places on the planet to get its first cases, when two travelers were quarantined before spreading it in October 2020.

Niedenthal said the first known cases of the current outbreak were among a group of teenagers who had no travel history or known contact with anyone who had been in quarantine. “So we knew we were in trouble, because they came from a crowded community,” he said.

He said that over the past few days, people have been worried but that there was a strong sense of community on the islands. “It’s not like panic in the U.S. where everybody is buying toilet paper,” he said.

And unlike early in the pandemic, the islands now have access to COVID-19 treatments, such as Paxlovid, an antiviral medication shown to prevent serious COVID-19 cases, sent by the U.S. government. Representatives from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention arrived on the island in recent days to assist with the response.

Other governments have pitched in. Taiwan donated thousands of masks, protective gowns and other hygiene products, while American Samoa sent shipments of Paxlovid. The Australian government has provided protective equipment, testing kits, masks and face shields.

Angeline Heine Reimers, a government worker in Majuro, said catching the virus had become almost “unavoidable.” Many people live in multifamily homes, she said, adding that 15 of the 16 people who live in her house had contracted the virus.

“The good thing is that all of us had been vaccinated,” said Heine Reimers, 46, adding that each of their cases had been mild. Many Marshallese live with comorbidities that place them at higher risk if they are sickened, and the Marshall Islands has one of the highest rates of diabetes in the world, according to data compiled by the World Bank. “Everybody is just really scared,” Heine Reimers said.

Marie Davis Milne, the mayor of Ebon Atoll, about 240 miles southwest of Majuro, said authorities were trying to prevent the spread of the virus by stopping most planes and ships that travel between neighboring islands.

She said that in the past few days, she had volunteered at testing sites on Majuro, where some people had waited under the hot sun for hours. “Even if it rains, they don’t move,” Davis Milne said. “They don’t want to lose their place in line.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

A complicated fall vaccine campaign: Updated Covid boosters, flu shots, and how to time the jabs

The roll-out of updated Covid boosters will coincide with the logistical tangle of the regular flu shot drive, and there will be questions about timing the booster to provide the best protection through our third Covid winter.

www.statnews.com

(fair use applies)


A complicated fall vaccine campaign: Updated Covid boosters, flu shots, and how to time the jabs
By Andrew Joseph
Aug. 16, 2022

For the health officials who steer vaccination campaigns, it’s going to be a complicated fall.

The U.S. plan to roll out updated Covid-19 boosters will not only coincide with the logistical tangle of the regular flu shot drive, but will also face questions about when people should get the new shots to provide themselves with the best protection through our third Covid winter.

It’s a balancing act that health officials run into every year with flu. Vaccinating tens of millions of people takes weeks. People also need a few weeks after their shot for their immune systems to be fully primed. And yet, vaccinators don’t want to put shots in arms too early, either. The power of the flu shot wanes over months, so the concern is that someone who gets a shot in say, September, may lose a chunk of their protection if the peak of the season is going to be in February.

The power of the Covid vaccines also wanes, with their ability to block infection fading over the months — though, crucially, the protection they generate against severe outcomes is maintained for much longer. But part of the reason the country is rolling out an updated shot is to better match the forms of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are circulating now — to prevent more infections and to act as a drag on transmission during what could be another cold-season surge.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNuPwyzKtr8
3 min 21 sec

“When that comes out and we’ve got this extra coverage for the Omicron variants, that’ll be great,” said Sterling Ransone, a physician in Deltaville, Va., and the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. “The question is the timing. I want my patients to have the best protection they can.”

Complicating the process is that scientists don’t have a sense yet — after only two winters with SARS-2 — about just when the virus might peak, and how strong the seasonal factors are. The virus has been spreading incredibly effectively throughout this summer, but many experts do anticipate even more elevated transmission at some point this fall and winter, at least in colder parts of the country.

Even with flu, it’s still a bit of a guessing game as to which month the virus will peak, particularly as Covid-mitigation efforts have thrown off the regular behavior of other viruses. And while the past two flu seasons have been tamed by the efforts to slow Covid, Australia is in the midst of a severe flu season, which can often portend what the U.S. season will look like.

“We’ve got a narrow window,” Patsy Stinchfield, a pediatric nurse practitioner and the president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, said about the annual flu shots. “We want to make sure we’re not vaccinating too early, because then you risk a late season outbreak.”

Stinchfield said people should generally receive their flu shots by Halloween.

Ed Belongia, the director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, said that flu vaccines lose about 8% of their effectiveness each month. But there is an important balance, too. While October might be a better time to get a flu shot than September, September is better than never — a lesson that should be applied to the Covid campaign as well.

“There’s a potential tradeoff between giving the vaccine too early versus missing opportunities to vaccinate people who then never get the vaccine at all,” Belongia said.

Running the two vaccine campaigns simultaneously could also stretch clinics and public health departments even further, though there is the advantage of people being able to get both their Covid booster and flu shot at one time if they choose to do so.

With annual flu shots, there is a well-choreographed system in place to have the shots ready by fall. Health officials typically pick which strains will go into that season’s shot early in the year, giving manufacturers months to mass produce the vaccine. From filling and shipping vials, to purchasing syringes, to getting health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities vaccinated, it is in itself a big lift every year.

With the updated Covid shots, it seems to be even more of a sprint. The Biden administration has signaled the boosters could be available in September, presuming the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sign off on them. But it was only in late June that the FDA said the new boosters should target the original form of the virus as well as the spike protein of the BA.5 Omicron subvariant, the dominant lineage in the United States as of now.

“I used to think that flu was really challenging,” said Claire Hannan, the executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers. “There was never a year that was the same as the previous year. And I think the challenges around supply and trying to plan and optimal planning, they’re very difficult. And just when you think you’ve solved that, you haven’t. And throwing Covid boosters into the mix, it just makes it more complicated.”

Hannan said there wasn’t guidance yet from the federal government about how much of and when exactly the new Covid shots will be available. She also noted that public health departments are also fighting an unprecedented monkeypox outbreak, complete with a convoluted vaccine delivery process.

While the Biden administration hasn’t yet laid out its vision for the Covid booster campaign, it’s expected that it will be similar to when the original Covid boosters were authorized last fall, with more reliance on pharmacies and doctors’ offices and less on mass vaccination sites.

And in many ways, the sites are well practiced for another go-round with another Covid shot: they’ve dealt with different shots from different manufacturers, different booster doses, kids’ shots, and, already, extra boosters for older adults and people with certain health issues. One wrinkle, however, is that the updated shots are expected to be authorized only as boosters, whereas the primary series of shots will still use the original formulation.

Tinglong Dai, a health care operations expert at Johns Hopkins University, said that hospitals and clinics should be able to handle delivering the updated boosters. But he also pointed out that health officials need to embark on a crucial messaging campaign. Only about half those eligible for a first booster have received one, and people may wonder why they need an updated shot. It’s like someone with an iPhone 10 debating if they really need to upgrade to a newer model, Dai said.

Dai also said that the campaign needs to ensure easy access to both Covid and flu shots no matter where people live.

“The logistics aspects have been mostly resolved,” Dai said. “The challenge is now really to connect the supply and demand to access issues.”

With all the uncertainties around what the Covid winter might look like — when will the virus spike and just how high? what variant is going to be dominant? — Belongia said people shouldn’t try to time when they get their boosters to try to make sure their protection is maximized through whatever surge might come. Instead, people should just get the Covid shots when they can.

“Forecasting is a futile effort right now,” Belongia said. “If it’s available and authorized, the best thing is to not wait but to get it.”

Helen Branswell contributed reporting.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Coast Guard pushing questionably sourced Comirnaty vax on objectors: whistleblower

"All experienced members have no trust in the chain of command and feel responsible to research on their own to figure out if this is what it is," said military attorney R. Davis Younts.

justthenews.com

(fair use applies)


Coast Guard pushing questionably sourced Comirnaty vax on objectors: whistleblower
"All experienced members have no trust in the chain of command and feel responsible to research on their own to figure out if this is what it is," said military attorney R. Davis Younts.
By Natalia Mittelstadt
Updated: August 16, 2022 - 11:12pm

The Coast Guard is allegedly pushing unwilling service members to take a questionably sourced version of Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine that may not comply with FDA standards for the fully-approved version, according to an officer's sworn whistleblower statement.

The military can only legally force service members to receive vaccines that are fully approved by the FDA, not those under FDA emergency use authorization (EUA). While Comirnaty was fully approved by the FDA, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under EUA is not fully approved. Despite being identical vaccines, they are legally distinct.

When the EUA was reissued for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in July, the FDA noted, "There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19."

Although Comirnaty and Moderna's Spikevax have been approved, "there are not sufficient quantities of approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA," the FDA explained.

File
Pfizer LOA with 12-15 yo approval clean.pdf

Military attorney R. Davis Younts successfully argued before a Navy administrative separation board that the service's mandate for the experimental COVID vaccines was not a lawful order since the fully FDA-approved versions of the vaccines (such as Comirnaty) haven't been made available to military members.

A memo sent to Congress on Monday entitled "Whistleblower Report of Illegal Department of Defense Activity" included evidence from nine military officers across all the military branches who allege that "the Department of Defense (DoD) has unlawfully administered Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) products (i.e., products authorized but not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) as if they were fully licensed FDA approved products."

File
Whistleblower Report of Illegal DoD Activity_15Aug22.pdf

According to a declaration included in the report and written under penalty of perjury to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) by Coast Guard Lieutenant Chad Coppin, a shipment of vaccines labeled as Comirnaty was delivered in early June to his unit's medical clinic. However, when he checked the lot number with Pfizer to find out where it was manufactured, a representative said it was from France.

Coppin told Just the News that another Pfizer representative said the vendor location for that lot was in Kalamazoo, Mich. The representative didn't know if "vendor" meant the location was a manufacturing site or used for shipping, Coppin said.

File
Covid_vaccine_info.pdf

According to the FDA's Biologics License Application supplemental approval letter dated Dec. 16, 2021, the Comirnaty vaccine is supposed to be manufactured in Belgium. It does not mention Kalamazoo or France.

Both the original Aug. 23, 2021, Biologics License Application approval letter for Comirnaty and a more recent supplemental approval letter dated July 8, 2022 (after the Coast Guard received the Comirnaty shipment) for children ages 12-15, do mention Kalamazoo as a manufacturing location in addition to Belgium. However, Pfizer said in a statement that the vaccine approved last August wouldn't be produced but the vaccine that was later approved in December would be produced.

None of the approval letters mention France.

Coppin told Just the News that a Pfizer representative put him in touch with a director at the Department of Health and Human Services who was part of the vaccine rollout. The director thought that the vaccine at Coppin's clinic came from Kalamazoo, but after Coppin emailed the director a few questions and followed up when he didn't receive a response, the director said the Defense Department ordered him to stop talking with Coppin.

When Coppin asked the director if his questions were concerning, the director said that they weren't concerning to him. Coppin was later informed by his commander that the Pentagon said he was not to talk with the director anymore.

The label on the Comirnaty vials is not the same as the FDA fully-approved label, which Coppin confirmed both with the FDA's Purple Book and a Pfizer representative. The labels should be the same.

File
FDA-Approved_Comirnaty_Label.pdf

With the Comirnaty-labeled vaccines now available at some Coast Guard clinics, the service is "absolutely" pressuring reluctant service members to take the vaccine, Coppin told Just the News. He was given five days to comply with the mandate following the arrival of the Comirnaty shipment. After choosing not to receive the vaccine, he is receiving the Coast Guard equivalent to a letter of reprimand.

After slow-rolling vaccine mandate enforcement for nearly a year, the Coast Guard is now fast-tracking it, arguing that service members refusing vaccination after being denied religious exemption can't refuse the fully approved Comirnaty, according to Coppin.

It's a "huge deal" that the military is urging service members to take Comirnaty by citing its full FDA approval, Coppin said, because it implicitly undermines the legal authority previously claimed by the Pentagon to force the EUA vaccine on unwilling service members.

Although the Pentagon previously claimed the EUA vaccines were approved, in reality, Coppin alleges, service members were "coerced, lied to, and made to take a vaccine that was never fully approved," despite the legal requirement of informed consent before taking experimental drugs.

The guardsmen have been in a yearlong holding pattern during which they didn't know whether they'd be allowed to stay in the service or forced out, said Younts, who represents military clients being disciplined by their respective branches for seeking religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate. Now, with the five-day compliance deadline to receive the Comirnaty vaccine, they don't have time to plan or get a job, he added, explaining that many guardsmen have contracts with the service that are not yet finished so they were unable to give civilian employers a time for when they would be out of the service.

"The entire process for rolling out this is garbage" and "unprofessional," said Coppin, alleging the enforcement of the vaccine mandate is being made up by the military as they go along.

Younts told Just the News that the "real issue" for his clients is that the military is "still not being straightforward with us about the difference between EUA and full FDA approval." As a result, "there's a complete breakdown in morale, discipline, and trust," he claimed. "All experienced members have no trust in the chain of command and feel responsible to research on their own to figure out if this is what it is."

He said it's "frustrating" to his clients, as they're "losing faith in the military and chain of command" because the only thing that seems to matter to the military is having a fully-vaccinated force, not the actual health and safety of the force or its morale.

The military won't budge on its vaccine mandates despite new, more relaxed, CDC guidance on COVID released Thursday, Younts predicted, "but it absolutely should."

The CDC abandoned its prior COVID recommendations of testing and quarantine for asymptomatic COVID-19 infectees and close contacts; the six-foot rule; and preferential treatment for vaccinated people, especially those who are "up to date" on shots.

The Coast Guard told Just the News on Tuesday to contact Pfizer for information regarding the manufacturing and distribution of the vaccine.

When asked by Just the News about whether the Comirnaty vaccine at its clinics had FDA's full approval, unlike the EUA vaccines, the Coast Guard replied, "The Pfizer vaccine we are currently receiving and will continue to receive is fully licensed and labeled as such."

With regard to the new CDC guidance on COVID, the Coast Guard said, "There have been no changes to The Coast Guard's policy requiring our members to receive the COVID Vaccine."

Pfizer didn't respond to requests for comment.

Other highlights in the whistleblower report include:

• A sworn declaration by Army First Lieutenant Mark Bashaw, who said that when he checked the Comirnaty lot number, he found that it belonged to EUA vaccines, not the fully-approved vaccines.
• In a response in April to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the Defense Health Agency claimed it had no responsive records regarding Comirnaty vaccines that the DOD "ordered, received, has on stock, has available, administered to service members, by service branches" or that branches were scheduled to receive.
• An unsigned memo by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Gil Cisneros that replaces a memo by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Terry Adirim. Cisneros' memo says that if a service member rejects the EUA vaccine, DOD healthcare providers should "secure and administer" the fully-approved vaccine "prior to any punitive action being taken against the Service member." An internal review of Cisneros' memo conducted in October by then-Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) John Fedrigo found that it "subverts our current vaccination mandate and may open up the Air Force for increased litigation from individuals who have been mandated since 24 August to be vaccinated."

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Georgia to Use Federal Pandemic Funds to Give Residents Cash Payments

Georgia residents who receive government assistance are now eligible for cash payments of up to $350, officials announced ...

www.theepochtimes.com

(fair use applies)


Georgia to Use Federal Pandemic Funds to Give Residents Cash Payments
By Zachary Stieber
August 16, 2022

Georgia residents who receive government assistance are now eligible for cash payments of up to $350, officials announced on Aug. 15.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, said he made the decision to dedicate more than $1 billion in pandemic funds from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, which Democrats passed and President Joe Biden signed into law, to the payments.

Georgia residents who receive assistance from Medicaid, the food stamp program, and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, can receive up to $350.

Kemp said in a video message that the money will help people struggling due to inflation and “the harmful effects of President Biden’s economic agenda.”

“We will continue identifying ways to put money back into the pockets of hardworking Georgians,” he added.

Georgia First Lady Marty Kemp said the couple hopes families will use the money to pay for groceries, gas, childcare, and job training.

Eligibility hinges on having been enrolled in at least one of the programs by July 31. Even if they’re enrolled in multiple programs, they’ll only get one payment.

Those who are eligible will receive the one-time payments automatically, beginning in mid-September, according to the Georgia Department of Human Services Division of Family & Children Services.

Officials there advise people to log in to their online accounts and make sure their information is current.

To receive the quickest delivery of the payment, it is recommended to select “email” as the contact preference in the online account.

Approximately 3 million residents could get payments under the new initiative.

Criticism​

Kemp narrowly edged Democrat Stacey Abrams in the 2018 election, winning by 1.4 percent of the vote. After beating former U.S. Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) in a primary earlier this year, Kemp and Abrams are set up for a rematch in November.

Ahead of the election, and in addition to the new program, Kemp has suspended Georgia’s gas tax, given income tax rebates, and proposed using $2 billion in surplus for more rebates.

Abrams on Tuesday highlighted how Kemp opposed the American Rescue Plan, and called on people to vote for her because she “has a plan to put cash in pockets of our families AND make the investments our communities desperately need—all without raising taxes.”

She also said Kemp is to blame for inflation and soaring rents.

Alex Floyd, an Abrams campaign spokesman, told news outlets that Kemp’s announcements won’t be enough to earn him a second term.

“Kemp’s PR stunt is too little, too late,” he said.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Lack of Glove Changes at COVID-19 Testing Centers Led to Major Cross-Contamination

A lack of glove changes at COVID-19 testing centers in Belgium led to major cross-contamination of samples and a high rate of false positive results. This was the finding of research that was presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Li

scitechdaily.com

(fair use applies)


Lack of Glove Changes at COVID-19 Testing Centers Led to Major Cross-Contamination
By European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
August 16, 2022

Lack of glove changes at COVID-19 testing centers in Belgium led to major cross-contamination of samples and a high rate of false positive results.

A lack of glove changes at COVID-19 testing centers in Belgium led to major cross-contamination of samples and a high rate of false positive results. This was the finding of research that was presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal.

The introduction of large-scale PCR testing for COVID-19 presented a number of logistical challenges. A major one was a scarcity of personnel adequately trained to do nasopharyngeal swabbing.

Research from a government-funded lab in Belgium identified inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE) management in testing centers as a source of major cross-contamination.

Scientists at the COVID-19 Federal Platform, Department of Laboratory Medicine UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium were alerted to the problem in September 2021 after they noticed that 70% of samples that were taken that day at a testing center in Flemish Brabant, Flanders, had tested positive for COVID-19. The average positivity rate at the time was around 5-10%.

90% of the positive samples had a very low viral load. This hinted that they had been contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than being true positives.

The patients’ results were immediately withheld and a root-cause analysis (an investigation into the cause of the spike in positive samples) was carried out.

Lead researcher Bram Slechten says: “After excluding lab contamination we arranged the results from that day in chronological order by time of sample collection.

“We saw that no one had tested negative after a sample was collected from a patient with a very high viral load and immediately contacted the test center.

“This led to lack of glove-changing, in combination with high-paced sample collection by a new swabber and the breaking of a swab in the tube, being identified as the likely source of the contamination.

“Protocols at this test center were sharpened overnight and all the patients whose results were withheld were recalled for a new sample the next day. 100% of them were negative.”

To assess the scale of the problem, Mr. Slechten and colleagues then retrospectively checked four months of results (June-Sept 2021) of PCR tests from 11 testing centers for false positives.

A suspected series of contaminated samples was defined as a minimum of three weak positive samples (low viral load, <104 copies RNA/mL) after one positive sample with a high viral load (>106 copies RNA/mL).

They also visited the sites to assess the personnel.

The analysis identified potential cross-contamination events in 73% (8 out of 11) of the test centers. The percentage of samples suspected of being wrongly reported as positive widely varied per day and per center. The four-month average ranged from 0% to 3.4% per testing center.

The highest number of false positives at one testing center on a single day was 77 (out of 382 tests) — 20% of people tested that day. (All of these patients were given the opportunity to retest.)

Site visits identified the lack of glove changes between patients as being the source of cross-contamination.

“If the staff didn’t change gloves between each patient, it was almost certain that contamination would occur,” says Mr. Slechten. “We identified four reasons why changing of gloves didn’t happen: it was simply not in the protocol; correct protocol was in place but it was not followed due to lack of training of new members of staff; not having the right size of glove available; work pressure, some swabbers had to sample one patient every two minutes.”

In response to the study’s results, more rigorous PPE policies were put in place at all 11 testing centers at the end of October 2021.

This included managers being tasked with telling every staff member who swabbed patients about the importance of glove changing and test centers being contacted if there was a spike in their false positive rate.

Follow-up of one test center revealed the impact. Before the intervention, it had a daily positivity rate of 11% and an average false positivity rate of 3.4%. But occasionally, the false positive rate rose to 20%. After the intervention, the false positive rate fell to almost zero.

The team at UZ-Leuven is continuing to monitor rates of false positives, to detect any isolated cross-contamination events.

In addition, Sciensano (the Belgian scientific institute for public health) alerted all labs in Belgium to the issue in October 2021.

The researchers say that most of the cases of cross-contamination were detected in time to withhold the results and recall the patients, meaning the erroneous results weren’t given out. Some cases, however, went undetected, meaning that on some days, a lot of patients received a wrong result.

Mr. Slechten says: “Nasopharyngeal sampling involves close contact between the hand of the health professional, the patient and sample tube. Therefore, it is essential to change gloves between each patient.

“In the context of high-throughput sampling, insufficiently trained staff had to sample high numbers of patients in a limited time. This situation led to a high level of cross-contamination which had gone largely unrecognized, resulting in false positives and people self-isolating and taking time off work unnecessarily.

“Furthermore, each false positive generates high-risk contacts who may also need to be tested, increasing the burden for labs, testing centers, and contact tracing.”

He believes the false positives artificially inflated the COVID-19 case numbers for Belgium. He says: “It is hard to put a number on, however, because we saw a lot of differences between the test centers we studied. In addition, we only looked at test centers in one part of Belgium, making it hard to get the whole picture.

“It is very probable that this also occurred in other countries.

“While I don’t have detailed knowledge of the protocols in testing centers in other countries, the focus is generally on potential events within the lab environment. However, our research provides a perfect example of the importance of looking beyond the lab and keeping an eye on the entire testing chain.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus infecting astrocyte cells in the brain

A team of researchers affiliated with several institutions in Brazil has found evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus infecting astrocyte cells in the human brain. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes their study of the brains of people who...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)


Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus infecting astrocyte cells in the brain
by Bob Yirka , Medical Xpress
August 16, 2022



Cortical thickness atrophy after mild COVID-19 infection. Surface-based morphometry by high-resolution 3T MRI (A). Results from the analysis of 81 subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (who had mild respiratory symptoms and did not require hospitalization or oxygen support) compared with 81 healthy volunteers (without a diagnosis of COVID-19). The analysis was performed within an average (SD) of 57.23 (25.91) d after diagnosis. (B) Correlation between anxiety scores (BAI) and right orbital gyrus thickness. (C) Correlation between Color Trail B test (Z-TRAILB: z-scores were based on Brazilian normative data) and left gyrus rectus thickness. Data depict partial correlation coefficients (adjusted for fatigue). Credit: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2200960119

A team of researchers affiliated with several institutions in Brazil has found evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus infecting astrocyte cells in the human brain. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes their study of the brains of people who had died from COVID-19 and what was found.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, a large number of infected people have been complaining of neurological problems, such as brain fog, headaches and trouble paying attention. Because of that, medical scientists have been studying the problem to learn more about how the SARS-CoV-2 virus might infect the brain.

The work by the team on this new effort began with a study of 81 people who had been infected but had not died, or even been hospitalized. In comparing the group to a control group that had not been infected, the researchers found them to exhibit more symptoms of depression and anxiety. The researchers noted that such symptoms are typical of problems in the orbitofrontal cortex.

The researchers next dissected the brains of 26 people who had died from COVID-19, focusing specifically on the orbitofrontal cortex. In so doing, they found the virus present in astrocytes in five of them, though they note it was possible that the virus had been missed in the brains of some of the other dead patients.

Astrocytes exist in the brain but are not nerve cells; they are star-shaped glial cells that provide support for the neurons—they make and transport food to them. In taking a close look at the viruses that had infected the astrocytes, the researchers found they produced a protein that changed the behavior of the astrocytes—they made less lactate, which is food for neurons.

The researchers then looked into how the virus was able to infect the astrocytes. They found that spike proteins on the SARS-CoV-2 virus targeted different receptors than those that are targeted in the lungs, allowing them to bond with astrocytes. The end result, the researchers found, was death of neurons due to the inability of infected astrocytes to feed them.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Artificial intelligence can explain why each COVID-19 wave impacts people differently

Researchers have identified what they believe to be robust metabolic markers of COVID, a discovery that could lead to better understanding and treatments for people that suffer from symptoms of the disease months after diagnosis.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)


Artificial intelligence can explain why each COVID-19 wave impacts people differently
by University of Surrey
August 16, 2022

Researchers have identified what they believe to be robust metabolic markers of COVID, a discovery that could lead to better understanding and treatments for people that suffer from symptoms of the disease months after diagnosis.

Scientists from the University of Surrey collected blood samples of hospital patients and found that COVID-19 changed people's metabolism. The team observed that the effects of COVID-19 changed over time, with the first wave disrupting metabolites differently from the second.

While researchers observed that many patients' metabolites relaxed back to normal levels once they had recovered from COVID-19, a small number continued to be disrupted for several months after infection.

Dr. Holly-May Lewis, lead author of the study from the University of Surrey, says that "it is thought that around 2 million people suffer symptoms of COVID-19 a month after infection, and 800,000 people still experience symptoms a year later. So, it's clear that this virus will be with us for some time and, therefore, the scientific community is duty-bound to better understand COVID-19 and why, for some, symptoms seem to linger longer than average."

Surrey's study analyzed the blood samples of 164 hospital patients—123 with COVID-19 and 41 who provided a negative PCR test—across the first two waves of infection. Nineteen positive patients also provided samples two to seven months after infection.

Using an artificial intelligence model, the Surrey team identified six metabolites that can be used to identify COVID-19 with 91% accuracy.

Professor Melanie Bailey, corresponding author of the study from the University of Surrey, says that "to our knowledge, this is the first time it has been demonstrated that COVID-19 is now affecting patients' metabolism differently than it did in the initial wave—which we think is due to emerging variants. It is known that different COVID variants have various associated symptoms, so it makes sense that this would relate to changes in blood chemistry."

"With this in mind, we then deployed artificial intelligence to identify biomarkers characteristic of COVID-19, regardless of the COVID wave. This can help us better understand the limitations of the treatments being given and help to make better ones."

The paper has been published in the journal Metabolites.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

A fast, accurate, equipment-free diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 and its variants

SARS-CoV-2—continues to spread worldwide. Testing for the virus and its variants can help limit transmission and inform treatment decisions, and is therefore an important pillar of the public health response.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)



A fast, accurate, equipment-free diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 and its variants
by Princeton University
August 16, 2022


SHINEv.2 is a CRISPR-based diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 and its variants that can be performed with only five simple steps. Depicted is a version of SHINE v2 that reads out its results via a method similar to other viral home tests. Credit: Jon Arizti Sanz, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard

SARS-CoV-2—continues to spread worldwide. Testing for the virus and its variants can help limit transmission and inform treatment decisions, and is therefore an important pillar of the public health response.

Now, a team of researchers from Princeton University and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard have created an easy-to-use diagnostic test for COVID infection that is more sensitive than the commonly used at-home antigen tests, and that also allows for the rapid and specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants in point-of-care settings. The study was published May 30, 2022 in the journal Nature Biomedical Engineering.

"Viral infections are often challenging to detect—as we all realized in the early days of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic," said Cameron Myhrvold, an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton.

The improved test detects virus using a different mechanism than the more familiar clinic-based PCR or at-home antigen tests. Instead, the test detects virus using a technology known as CRISPR, which has found widespread use in gene editing. CRISPR originated from a system used by bacteria to detect and defend against viral infections, and is uniquely suited to rapidly identifying specific genetic sequences.

Myhrvold previously worked with Broad Institute member and Harvard University professor Pardis Sabeti to develop a CRISPR-based test that could be tailored to diagnose specific viral infections. In the wake of the pandemic's first wave in 2020, Myhrvold's team of researchers modified their test, which they called SHINE, to detect SARS-CoV-2 with remarkable sensitivity.

"The original version of SHINE was more of a lab-based test," said Myhrvold. "We wanted to make it possible to perform outside of a lab, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to self-test or test at home."

Jon Arizti-Sanz, a graduate student in medical engineering in the joint Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology department and whom Myhrvold is mentoring, spearheaded a collaborative effort between the two scientists' research teams to improve SHINE. First, the group focused on eliminating the need for specialized equipment to prepare patient samples for testing. Next, they optimized the test so that its reagents don't need to be kept in a freezer, which ensures that the test can be easily transported long distances.

They dubbed the improved test "SHINEv.2." After confirming that the altered test worked well in their own laboratory, the group sent a test kit to a laboratory in Nigeria to see whether it could survive a long period in transit and still retain its accuracy and sensitivity. It did. But then a new challenge arose for the team to address.

"While we were working on SHINEv.2, new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged, so we wanted to make tests for them," said Myhrvold.

The team was able to quickly adapt SHINEv.2 to discern between infections mounted by the Alpha, Beta, Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants in patient samples, and say the test can be rapidly modified to pick up on any other variants that may arise.

"The data indicating this approach can be used to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern by differential detection of genomic mutations could enable us to better prepare for the appearance of the next mutation," said Tony Hu, director of the Center for Intelligent Molecular Diagnostics and Weatherhead Presidential Chair at Tulane University. Hu reviewed the manuscript for Nature Biomedical Engineering.

Because it tests for the different variants all at once, this version of the test needs one special, but relatively inexpensive, piece of equipment to read out its results. Nonetheless, SHINEv.2 is much faster to perform, and requires much less equipment and expertise, than current approaches used to identify SARS-CoV-2 variants. The team envisions that it would mainly be used at doctors' offices, even ones with limited resources in remote locations, to help physicians determine which viral variant is afflicting their patient, and tailor therapies appropriately.

The team also wanted to create a version of their test that would be usable by people at home, which meant optimizing it so that it can be performed without any special equipment.

"We created a fully equipment-free version that can be performed by incubating the reaction using body heat—holding it in the underarm—or at room temperature," said Myhrvold. "Our goal was to minimize the need for heating as much as possible."

"The approach reported by authors could be a significant contribution for pandemic control by providing a method that requires minimal sample processing or heating," Hu said.

The home test doesn't discern between the different viral variants, but the minimal sample processing involved in this version of SHINEv.2 would be a boon to the home user—especially with a test that can accurately detect an infection with high sensitivity, picking up on cases that might be missed by other types of home tests. Myhrvold is optimistic that SHINEv.2 will soon be joining the front lines in the battle against SARS-CoV-2, and any other new pathogen that arises in the future.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Identification of new genomic regions that influence the severity of COVID-19 disease

An international collaboration of human geneticists involving researchers at Queen Mary University of London and the Genes & Health study has identified 11 new genomic regions that influence the severity of COVID-19 disease.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)


Identification of new genomic regions that influence the severity of COVID-19 disease
by Queen Mary, University of London
August 16, 2022



Overview of contributing studies in Host Genetics Initiative data freeze 6. A, Geographical overview of the contributing studies to the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative and composition by major continental ancestry groups. Ancestry groups are defined as Middle Eastern (MID), south Asian (SAS), east Asian (EAS), African (AFR), admixed American (AMR) and European (EUR). B, Principal components analysis highlighting the population structure and the sample ancestry of the individuals participating in the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative. This figure is reproduced from the original publication by the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative with modifications reflecting the updated analysis from data freeze 6. Credit: Nature (2022). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04826-7

An international collaboration of human geneticists involving researchers at Queen Mary University of London and the Genes & Health study has identified 11 new genomic regions that influence the severity of COVID-19 disease.

The results will help the team better understand why people get infected with SARS-CoV-2, and why some people get very severe disease, for example becoming hospitalized with COVID-19.

The paper "A first update on mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19" published in Nature on Wednesday, August 4, 2022, presents a genome-wide association study meta-analysis of more than 125,000 cases and over 2.5 million control individuals across 60 studies from 25 countries for three COVID-19-related phenotypes.

These phenotypes include individuals critically ill with COVID-19 who required respiratory support in hospital or died from the disease; individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19 hospitalized due to symptoms associated with the infection; and all cases with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of symptoms.

The study found that genetic variation in the gene that codes for lung surfactant proteins can affect the severity of COVID-19 disease. Lung surfactant helps "grease" lung movement when breathing and protects against some infections.

One variation in the Surfactant Protein D (SFTPD) gene confers risk for hospitalization and has been previously associated with increased risk of other lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and decreased lung function. SFTPD encodes surfactant protein D (SP-D), which participates in innate immune response, protecting the lungs against inhaled microorganisms.

Another genetic variation in an area named SLC22A31 also confers risk of hospitalization. SLC22A31 belongs to the family of solute carrier proteins that facilitate transport across membranes and is co-regulated with other surfactant proteins.

Professor David van Heel, Professor of Genetics at the Blizard Institute and Chief Investigator and Joint Lead for East London Genes & Health, said, "Some risk factors for COVID-19 disease severity have already been identified, such as obesity and older age. We also have protective treatments such as vaccines and drugs, but we wanted to know what role your genetic make-up plays.

"The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a major public health threat, especially in countries with low vaccination rates. The more we can understand about viral infection, the more we will know should there be any future pandemics."

The Genes & Health study hosted at the Blizard Institute at Queen Mary was one of many international cohorts who contributed to the multiple phenotype analyses of the initiative by providing data on British south Asians, who have had some of the worst health outcomes in the U.K. from COVID-19. Many other genetic studies have focused on people of white European ethnicity.

Thanks to this type of data, the initiative was able to test whether the effect of COVID-19-related genetic variants was markedly different across ancestry groups. The study did not detect obvious differences between ancestry groups, attributing observed differences in the effect of COVID-19-related genetic variants to the differing inclusion criteria across studies in terms of classifying COVID-19 severity. However, it was also noted that these differences across the studies might mask the true underlying differences in effect sizes between ancestry groups.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

New study indicates people with current cancer diagnosis may face severe complications from COVID-19

A new study has found that a current cancer diagnosis posed a significant risk for severe outcomes during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, including ICU admission and death. UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers took part in the study, which was published this week in...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)


New study indicates people with current cancer diagnosis may face severe complications from COVID-19
by Stephanie Winn, UC Davis
August 17, 2022

A new study has found that a current cancer diagnosis posed a significant risk for severe outcomes during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, including ICU admission and death. UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers took part in the study, which was published this week in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

"This was the second-largest study of COVID-19 patients in the United States, and it was funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)," said Elisa Tong, UC Davis internist and cancer prevention researcher. "The results showed that getting the COVID-19 vaccine significantly reduces the risk of death for cancer patients who develop COVID-19."

The study was led by researchers from the University of Wisconsin and included 104,590 patients at 21 health systems across the United States. The sample included hospitalized patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from February 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021. A total of 7,141 (6.8%) had a current diagnosis of cancer while 6,749 (6.5%) had a past history of cancer.

"UC Davis was selected as one of the 21 health systems to contribute diverse patient data for this nationwide COVID-19 research," said Tong. "We have been part of the NCI Cancer Center Cessation Initiative since it began in 2017 and our skillful research informatics team was key in making it possible to join such an ambitious research initiative at the beginning of the COVID pandemic."

Seven types of cancer were examined (leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma, prostate, breast, lung/bronchus, and digestive). All except cancer of the prostate were associated with a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality compared with no current or past cancer history. Stronger associations were noted for metastatic and hematologic (blood) cancers relative to non-metastatic solid tumor cancers.

"An encouraging finding was that individuals with a past history of most types of cancer who were infected and hospitalized with COVID-19 were not at higher risk for severe outcomes, including death, compared to those with no current or past cancer history," said Wendy Slutske of the University of Wisconsin, senior author of the paper. "This is an important and hopeful finding because cancer survivors represent an increasingly large segment of our population, due to advances in prevention, early detection and treatment."

"While mortality and ICU admission rates for COVID-19 decreased during the course of the pandemic, the increased risk of current cancer on severe outcomes from COVID-19 remained constant across the first two years of the pandemic (2020 and 2021)," said lead author Margaret Nolan of the University of Wisconsin.

Moreover, vaccination prior to COVID-19 hospital admission substantially decreased the risk of ICU admission and death, regardless of cancer status. Both patients with and without cancer appeared to benefit from vaccination.

"Bottom line, what's important for current cancer patients to know is that it is critically important to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and up to date on your boosters," Tong said.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Research Reveals COVID Lockdowns Claimed 20x More Life Years Than They Saved. » The National Pulse+

COVID-19 lockdowns could be responsible for claiming 20 times more lives than they were advertised to save, according to a new analysis published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The paper, which bases its conclusions on a comprehensive review of other...

thenationalpulse.com

(fair use applies)


Research Reveals COVID Lockdowns Claimed 20x More Life Years Than They Saved.
A new study reveals just how damaging the policy was.
by Natalie Winters
August 16, 2022

COVID-19 lockdowns could be responsible for claiming 20 times more lives than they were advertised to save, according to a new analysis published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

The paper, which bases its conclusions on a comprehensive review of other relevant, lockdown-focused literature, was authored by researchers at the Jerusalem College of Technology.

“In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth,” summarized the article, titled “Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?”

“The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past,” argue the researchers.

The team proceeds to quantify the estimated number of lives lost due to the COVID-19 mitigation measure, which drew strong support from Democrats and public health officials including Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Mike Pence:

The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save.​

The paper also exposes how governments and international health organizations’ embrace of lockdowns was at odds with their stance on the public health policy prior to COVID-19.

“It should be mentioned that the same conclusions—no clear benefit of lockdowns in case of pandemic—were made by national and international bodies before COVID-19 emerged. Namely, several governments prepared detailed plans of response to influenza- like pandemics years ago—see the programs of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2007) and the Israeli Ministry of Health (2007),”

Researchers singled out the World Health Organization (WHO), which published a comprehensive 91-page preparedness plan in October of 2019 that explicitly mentioned that:

• social distancing measures “can be highly disruptive” and should be carefully weighted;​

• travel-related measures are “unlikely to be successful”; “border closures may be​

considered only by small island nations in severe pandemics”;​

• and contact tracing and quarantine of exposed individuals are not recommended in any​

circumstances.​

The paper doesn’t argue that lockdowns were merely ineffective; however, adding that they actually claimed the lives of the people public health officials claimed to be protecting.

“The lockdown policies had a direct side effect of increasing mortality. Hospitals in Europe and USA were prepared to manage pretty small groups of highly contagious patients, while unprepared for a much more probable challenge—large-scale contagion. As a result, public health care facilities and nursing homes often became vehicles of contamination themselves—to a large extent because of the lockdown-based emergency policy implementation,” explained the paper, citing New York as an example.

“While our understanding of viral transmission mechanisms leads to the assumption that lockdowns may be an effective pandemic management tool, this assumption cannot be supported by the evidence-based analysis of the present COVID-19 pandemic, as well as of the 1918–1920 H1N1 influenza type-A pandemic (the Spanish Flu) and numerous less-severe pandemics in the past,” concludes the paper.

The findings follow the publication of other studies finding sizable drawbacks to lockdowns and other popular COVID-19 mitigation measures such as mask mandates.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Potentially Twice As Deadly For Two Variants That Are Now Long Gone: First bivalent COVID-19 booster DEATHVAX™ approved by UK medicines regulator

Another day, another bioterror scam perpetrated by BigPharma and the governments. Today’s eugenics crimes are brought to us courtesy of the shadiest of all legalized drug dealers in Moderna: The adapted COVID-19 vaccine made by Moderna targets two different coronavirus variants – the original...

2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Potentially Twice As Deadly For Two Variants That Are Now Long Gone: First bivalent COVID-19 booster DEATHVAX™ approved by UK medicines regulator
2nd Smartest Guy in the World
19 hr ago

Another day, another bioterror scam perpetrated by BigPharma and the governments.

Today’s eugenics crimes are brought to us courtesy of the shadiest of all legalized drug dealers in Moderna:

The adapted COVID-19 vaccine made by Moderna targets two different coronavirus variants – the original virus from 2020 and the Omicron variant.​

Think about the absurdity of this latest bideadly injection; how can anyone with any critical thinking accept a drug for strains that no longer exist. This is total madness.

​

The decision to grant approval for this booster vaccine in the UK was endorsed by the government’s independent expert scientific advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines, after carefully reviewing the evidence.​

​

In each dose of the booster vaccine, ‘Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron’, half of the vaccine (25 micrograms) targets the original virus strain from 2020 and the other half (25 micrograms) targets Omicron.​

The government that is aiding and abetting BigPharma and vice-versa has yet again approved another variation of the DEATHVAX™ injection. So now the EUA — yes these poisons are still EUA because the “emergency” will never end — is de facto further extended out.

There are now two smaller doses of Modified mRNA that still equal a full dose of indefinitely induced endogenous cytotoxic spike protein production that will NOT protect anyone from infection while causing p53 protein suppression (cancer) and causing VAIDS in everyone brainwashed enough to go for this latest bioweapon.

You may read the deranged UK government’s official press release here.

Edit: what is the exact alteration in this injection that results in the revision? There is no transparency on the actual tech; therefore, it could literally be anything or nothing changed and just more of the same poison.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Insanity by MODERNA, bivalent vaccine brought forward is as worthless & dangerous as present MODERNA & Pfizer mRNA vaccines; WHY? it's original Wuhan spike & BA.1 variant that is no longer dominant

Covid: UK first country to approve dual-strain vaccine - BBC News, Moderna Announces Omicron-Containing Bivalent Booster Candidate mRNA-1273.214 Demonstrates strong Antibody Response Against Omicron

palexander.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Insanity by MODERNA, bivalent vaccine brought forward is as worthless & dangerous as present MODERNA & Pfizer mRNA vaccines; WHY? it's original Wuhan spike & BA.1 variant that is no longer dominant
Covid: UK first country to approve dual-strain vaccine - BBC News, Moderna Announces Omicron-Containing Bivalent Booster Candidate mRNA-1273.214 Demonstrates strong Antibody Response Against Omicron
Dr. Paul Alexander
21 hr ago

This ‘new’ vaccine to be released in September by Moderna in UK, based on reports. This is junk science and will not work and actually drive infectious variants based on what has happened today. This is money making pharma leeches.

If you are bring a new so called ‘vaccine’ comprised of the initial Wuhan spike that has been long gone a year now and a sub-variant clade BA.1 that is non-dominant (near non-existent) today and thus does not match the circulating BA.5 sub-variant’s spike, then how in good heavens do you expect the vaccinal antibodies to work?

This is highly reckless and dangerous by Moderna and purely a money making outfit, for if they bring a vaccine now with the Wuhan strain for spike and the BA.1 clade, this means it will driving immunological response (antibodies) to Wuhan strain (spike) that is long gone, does not exist a year now and also, the BA.1 is no longer a dominant variant. So there will again be sub-optimal immune pressure (vaccinal antibodies) on the spike and this will drive immune escape and more infectious variants to emerge. This is a complete failure before it is even brought forward! This is a vaccine company seeking to make money on the backs of unsuspecting populations. Crooks, IMO.

SOURCE 1



SOURCE 2

“'Sharpened tool'

Moderna's vaccine targets both the original strain and the first Omicron variant (BA.1), which emerged last winter. It is known as a bivalent vaccine as it takes aim at two forms of Covid.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

iceland study shows 42% higher risk ratio for covid re-infection among the vaccinated

more viking honesty undermines CDC narratives but i'm not sure how much this really tells us

boriquagato.substack.com

(fair use applies)


iceland study shows 42% higher risk ratio for covid re-infection among the vaccinated
more viking honesty undermines CDC narratives but i'm not sure how much this really tells us
el gato malo
12 hr ago

we live in a time of widespread data suppression and manipulation. it’s become so de-rigueur in much of the west that the reflexive tendency is to doubt anything and everything. data series keep being disappeared or tainted with poor procedures and handling.

but more so than most, the nordic nations have tried to play it straight. their health systems seem more interested in actual answers that in propping up positional narratives and this has left their scientists possessed of a level of freedom not seen on our own shores. you can simply do the work, get the result, publish, and start a dialogue. you are not shunned and silenced, your grants taken and tenure terminated.

and perhaps we can see why those seeking to prop up the vaccine narrative are so desirous of preventing an honest look. because they keep taking looks at things like THIS.


several folks, including gatopal™ igor have spoken on this, but i wanted to toss in my 2c because i have some concerns about the quality of the evidence this study provides. it foots with several others and seems of a piece with much of what i have seen, but there is too much about its process and cohorting that we do not know for it to really rise to the standard of strong or possibly even meaningful evidence.

that said, if nothing else it’s a useful case study on things to assess evidence and how to read studies, so let’s look.
the study design is straightforward.

they took 11,536 people with past covid positives by PCR and followed them thru early omicron in iceland (dec 1 2021 to feb 13 2022)

it’s not clear to me why they ended it when they did or what effect that may have had. but it does seem like an odd end date given the epidemiological curves.


it’s also not remotely clear to me why they chose the classification buckets they did. instead of “no vaccine” vs “1 or more doses” as would seem fitting for any meaningful bayesian analysis of groups, they chose to compare 1 or fewer to 2 or more.

this likely injects large pro-vaccine bias as the single dosed have tended to be among the worst performers overall in many studies. why they should be bundled in with the unvaccinated is a highly relevant question. i see no end that this serves save trying to prop up notions of vaccine efficacy and this seems an odd choice and a significant failing in the study. can anyone think of a good reason to use this grouping other than “it’s how pfizer wanted to group terms for studies”? i cannot.

the data from the study is summarized here:


a couple of things pop.

first, re-infection was most common in the 18-29 year old cohort and the rate was nearly 4X the 75+. why this would be is not immediately clear to me. perhaps it’s social mixing, perhaps variance in testing rates, perhaps it’s a function of who had had covid more recently. but right away one starts to see some real potential issues around capture rates and a lack of randomization.

also, the 75+ group is only about 10% the size of the others.

there is a great potential for skew here:


the cohort itself was also a bit odd in that only 25.5% were double dosed or more vs 71.1% of the icelandic population. i suspect this may have to do with people there adhering to the more sensible and historically typical pattern of “not getting vaxxed if you’ve already had the disease” which was often a recommendation in nordic countries (though i am not sure what icelandic officials suggested in that regard) but it could be a lot of things.

what, if any, effect this might have is unclear, but it does mean we’re looking at a pretty non-representative sample.
the key claim of the study is the red box.

when you adjust for age and normalize to a reference individual of 18-29 years, you get a 1.42 risk ratio for 2 or more doses vs 1 or fewer.

the 95% confidence interval is 1.13-1.78 which makes this result statistically significant though they did not reference a p value.

the result (if one takes it at face value) is striking: this is either immune fixation or immune suppression. those who got jabbed were far more likely to get a second case of covid than those who did not even if we salt the unavaxxed by adding the single dosed.

but i think we need to be careful here. i’m not sure we can really hang our hat on this one.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/84005ab9-a214-45c8-b1c8-53cdb2e83e34_1080x1350.jpeg
i would love to see this data segmented by age cohort as a validation method and suspect it might be quite revealing. i’m not sure why the authors did not include it to help assess their age adjustments, for if there is a weakness to be found in this study it’s likely to be there in some sort of weighting bias or simpson’s paradox.

the cohorts (vaxxed vs unvaxxed) are not balanced for age, risk, or other status. there is no randomization and we have no idea what is lurking under the covers in terms of injected bias and divergence.

and this may matter a lot because the whole result of the study seems predicated on “adjustment” to purportedly mitigate these issues.

i always get pretty nervous about studies where the unadjusted risk ratio result is one side of unity and the adjusted result falls to the other as occurred here.

it means you’re literally flipping the outcome by applying a process to the data. when this happens, you need to be very, very sure that the data adjustments you applied were sound.

unadjusted risk ratio (to the left of the red box above) was 0.92 (0.81-1.05 not stat sig from zero effect) which means the whole “signal” comes from the adjustment.

that makes it A LOT harder to be sure you know what you are measuring especially as the raw data and adjustment method were not shared. it becomes something of a black box.

we know quite little about the underlying risk balance in the cohorts and possible selection bias in vaccination choices. the age variation was also so wide that a few more vaxxed elders that got re-infected could really skew an outcome as they might carry ~4X the weight of a 20 year old (and because the group was 90% smaller than others, it would be expected to have the potential for more variability (higher sd).)

perhaps owing to the conclusion and the paucity of similar work, this study is a result a lot of people seem taken with and that does find alignment with a great deal of other data and the idea that the jabs are making natural immunity less potent, but the quality of this evidence is not terribly high and numerous confounds appear possible.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/8d552613-52df-424b-b759-d53f78179451_717x777.jpeg
i’m just not sure we can really say much from it one way or the other.

we certainly cannot rule out the conclusion it reached, but i’m just not sure how sound it is and would need more granular data to develop a stronger opinion.

this study seems like a possible piece of mosaic data, but without knowing a great deal more about cohort composition and especially in light of such wide infection rate variance by age group and such profound risk ratio effect from age adjustment, it’s hard to call this terribly definitive however tempting that may be.

the most important confirmation bias to keep an eye on is always one’s own.

that said, this is a useful idea that seems well worth pursuing using better balanced study structure that would not require so much post facto adjustment. it’s one the CDC and US universities ought to be all over.
their lack of work or even interest here speaks volumes because, of course:

the easiest way to avoid finding out what you don’t want to know is not to ask.
.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Do you know how many people have been killed worldwide by their governments from the COVID shots?

It's around 12M. That is 40X the number of Americans who were killed in World War II. It's more than double the number killed by COVID.

stevekirsch.substack.com

(fair use applies)


Do you know how many people have been killed worldwide by their governments from the COVID shots?
It's around 12M. That is 40X the number of Americans who were killed in World War II. It's more than double the number killed by COVID.
Steve Kirsch
Aug 16


Margaret Anna Alice asked if anyone could estimate the global death toll from the COVID shots.

In my opinion, a reasonable estimate is to divide the number of doses by 1,000.

If you do that for the 600M doses delivered in the US, you get 600,000 deaths which is right in the ballpark.

A more conservative number is to divide the number of doses by 2,500. This is the number Mathew Crawford estimated from global data: 411 deaths per Million doses. Earlier, I offered a $1M reward to anyone who found a significant error in his work. No takers. This is documented on my Substack and in my Twitter stream, but of course everything I tweeted was deleted by Twitter as being unsafe. A free $1M no strings attached. Nobody accepted.

So that conservative estimate gets you to 5M killed (only 16X the number killed in World War II).

We are approaching the 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust over a period of 12 years.

But we are killing people worldwide at a rate at least 6X faster than the Germans did.

We are killing nearly close to 10,000 people every single day (the latest rate was roughly 8.46 million doses a day).

Interestingly, this is not self-limiting because 385,000 babies are born every day.

So the killing can go on indefinitely, even if the birth rate drops by 90% due to the shots.

In case you were wondering. I just thought I'd point that out.

Dose data was from this Bloomberg article: More Than 12.4 Billion Shots Given: Covid-19 Vaccine Tracker.

Summary

We are killing an awful lot of people, but world leaders are looking the other way and saying nothing while all of us watch the high number of death reports in the media of people who died “unexpectedly” and hear no explanation from the medical community or the CDC.

We are supposed to trust that they have things well in hand, even though they won’t appear on camera in front of anyone who doesn’t have scripted, pre-approved questions.

The vaccine is never mentioned in any of these unexplained death reports.

Yet people all over the world have noticed that these unexpected deaths are ONLY happening to the vaccinated. Hmmmm…. I wonder why?

The CDC will not require medical examiners to do the proper tests to make the association. They could easily do that. But they won’t. That tells you everything you need to know about the corruption.

So it will be an unexplained rise in unexplained deaths due to unknown causes because nobody in the mainstream media is ever going to admit they were wrong and ask a few unscripted questions.

Even Donald Trump is afraid to speak out about what is going on. He remains silent too.

This is why we have no debates, only censorship.

Hundreds of people at the CDC are aware of what is going on, but they aren’t going to speak out or they will lose their job. Even the people who have resigned are remaining silent. It’s really stunning.

So the killing continues unabated.
.