CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


VSS Scientific Updates During Pandemic Times #39
By Geert Vanden Bossche

September 24, 2022

1. Nature of Acquired Immune Responses, Epitope Specificity and Resultant Protection from SARS-CoV-2

From Geert: “Somebody else is voicing his concern about the miserable lack of knowledge on the critical interplay between the evolutionary dynamics of the virus and the ongoing changes in the population’s immune response. A simple citation from the abstract speaks volumes! :’…. to ignore a substantial body of well-attested immunological research in favour of expediency is a poor way to proceed’. It’s just that I don’t like all this euphemism!!”



2. Reevaluation of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Infection in Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Therapeutic Antibodies and mRNA-vaccine Antisera Using FcR- and ACE2-positive Cells

“Although sera collected from mRNA-vaccinated individuals exhibited neutralizing activity, some sera gradually exhibited dominance of ADE activity in a time-dependent manner. None of the sera examined exhibited neutralizing activity against infection with the Omicron strain. Rather, some ADE of Omicron infection was observed in some sera. These results suggest the possible emergence of adverse effects caused by these Abs in addition to the therapeutic or preventive effect.”



3. Pre-exposure to mRNA-LNP Inhibits Adaptive Immune Responses and Alters Innate Immune Fitness in an Inheritable Fashion

“Interestingly, mice pre-exposed to mRNA-LNPs can pass down the acquired immune traits to their offspring.”



4. Anti-Spike Mucosal IgA Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection

From Geert: ‘It’s mind-blowing how researchers are exhausting their creativity in trying to make people believe that C-19 vaccines still provide an immunological advantage. Meanwhile, they are ‘discovering’ that mucosal IgA in triple-vaccinated individuals correlate with a lower rate of vaccine breakthrough infections with Omicron, suggesting that IgA have broadly neutralizing capacity! They conclude:

“Taken together, these findings suggest that wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific mucosal IgA is protective against omicron infection. Further studies are warranted to determine whether vaccines that induce a combination of mucosal and systemic immune responses would confer stronger protection than intramuscular vaccines.”

However, their observation can easily be explained by the higher avidity of the mucosal IgA, which is due to its multimeric structure (this has already been documented for Influenza virus: IgA and IgG). However, due to their higher avidity, mucosal Abs will rapidly lose their binding capacity when antibodies start to wane. Consequently, they’ll rapidly reach suboptimal titers and thereby put immune pressure on a much broader spectrum of SARS-CoV-variants. This is to say that C-19 vaccines targeting the induction of mucosal IgA are expected to even enhance immune escape when administered during a pandemic. Conclusion: Mucosal vaccines do not constitute a sound approach to fighting the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.’



5. The Spanish Flu | DW Documentary

April 1918. As Europe plunged into WWI, an extremely virulent flu swept across every continent. Wrongly called ‘Spanish Flu,’ it raged for two years, causing the deaths of more than 50 million people before disappearing into oblivion. Where did the disease come from? How did it spread? What measures were put in place to restrain it? What lessons can we learn from this tragedy?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g3DCdByey0
42 min 26 sec
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Pfizer's Bourla has Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS)
Bourla has Covid Again, a Month After His Previous Bout

Igor Chudov
10 hr ago

Amazing news from Pfizer’s Albert Bourla.

Albert Bourla @AlbertBourla
I have tested positive for COVID. I’m feeling well & symptom free. I’ve not had the new bivalent booster yet, as I was following CDC guidelines to wait 3 months since my previous COVID case which was back in mid-August. While we’ve made great progress, the virus is still with us.
September 24th 2022
174 Retweets454 Likes

Mr. Bourla had his previous Covid infection in mid-August. Now he tested positive for Covid again, only a month after his previous illness. Albert is very lucky to be protected by his vaccine and previous booster doses!

Pfizer’s CEO says that he did not yet get the bivalent booster, because he wanted to wait 3 months after his most recent infection.

This is what the CDC said about this:



So, the CDC said that Bourla had a “low risk of reinfection” for three months after his last Covid — but Bourla got Covid a mere month after his previous infection.

Albert is not alone. Here’s a Redditor who is having his or her FIFTH Covid in 1.5 years:



Covid is not going anywhere.

Apparently, it is again rising strongly in the UK. The United States is usually about a month behind the UK. So, for now, the US is in the “Covid is over” phase.



Is Albert having VAIDS and is unable to get any kind of immunity?

He is definitely one person who I badly want to take his own 8-mouse booster as soon as possible.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Anthony Fauci still won't admit that prolonged school closures- fueled by his rhetoric- was bad policy
He claims it was ok to wait for adult vaccines. That's false, and omits the fact many cities waited long thereafter.

Vinay Prasad
16 hr ago

Recently in a television interview, outgoing Dr. Anthony Fauci defended the decision to close schools. He says that it made sense prior to adult vaccination— and once teachers were vaccinated, shutdowns were not prolonged.

Image

First, let me be clear: I think that it was forgivable to have closed schools for 4-6 weeks in March 2020. It wasn’t the right call, but it was forgivable because of uncertainty. The correct call was to keep elementary schools open, as Sweden did, but I don’t blame the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, and the US for closing school briefly. Of course, the story doesn’t end there.

A few weeks later it became clear: schools could be run safety (largely through Sweden’s experience), the risks to children were low, teachers did not have vastly elevated risks of death, and, by late summer, a German study proved that opening school did not drive substantive community transmission.

Many European nations reopened after 6 weeks (e.g. Switzerland) in the spring of 2020, while nearly all reopened by the fall of 2020. Some US states managed to reopen rapidly too, such as Florida, Texas and Rhode Island. But many cities remained closed: DC, Chicago, SF, Portland, Los Angeles.

During these months, Fauci went on television stirring up fear that reopening schools was dangerous. This would be disastrous advocacy. Even now, in 2022, with the benefit of hindsight, Fauci comments remain full of errors. He still doesn’t not get it— He was wrong; Spectacularly wrong; Once in a century error sort of wrong.

Let’s consider the errors in the quote.

  1. Fauci says it was OK to wait till you had “vaccines available for the general population” to reopen schools. This is profound ignorance. It is contradicted by the experience of nearly all European nations, as well as many US states (FL/ RI/ TX). The truth is that adult vaccines were not necessary to reopen schools, and many places on earth did not wait— to the benefit of their children.
  2. Fauci says shutdowns weren’t prolonged. This is false. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles closed schools to kids from March 2020, until the Fall of 2021. They did not reopen in the Spring of 2021—even after vaccines were prioritized to teachers (who took them, but whose unions still resisted return to school). Fauci appears to be ignorant of recent events.
Fauci elaborates in the interview to further fear-monger about the harms to children, but many of his statistics and comments are inaccurate.

Image

Here are some errors. Fauci laments the loss of 1400 kids, but the CDC tracker as of 9/21/22 says 1282, but more to point: it is unclear which deaths are due to COVID and which are from COVID. Fauci also doesn’t distinguish the risks to elementary kids which are profoundly different than teenagers. He doesn’t distinguish risks to health kids vs. those with co-morbidities. Finally, he has no evidence that school closure lowered this number! The best studies shows that closure did nearly nothing to alter it.



Fauci talks about long covid in kids, but this relies almost entirely on low quality research. Hirt and colleagues performed a systematic review of long-covid in kids and they find, “The reported proportion of children with post-COVID syndrome was up to 66.5% in children with and 53.3% in children without SARS-CoV-2 infection. All studies had seriously limited validity due to critical and serious risk of bias in multiple domains.”

In conclusion, Anthony Fauci did position himself initially as a forceful defender of school closure. When much of Western Europe and Ron DeSantis reopened— Fauci went on TV to criticize the Florida governor. Even now, 2 years later, Fauci clings to delusional ideas to justify closures. He denies the reality that many US cities—with strong allegiance to him— closed the longest. Fauci’s comments show a person not capable admitting error. I suspect these comments will not age well in history.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


CDC to report 67 vaccine deaths in 2021?
Margaret Menge
16 hr ago

Is the U.S. government about to confirm Covid vaccine deaths for the first time?

Bob Anderson, the head of mortality statistics for the CDC’s data shop, the National Center for Health Statistics, says their records show that 67 people died from a vaccine in 2021 — with most or all of these presumed to be from the Covid-19 vaccines.

The National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the CDC, is responsible for gathering and reporting out all morbidity and mortality statistics to policymakers and posting them publicly online.

The NCHS, Anderson says, is now finalizing all mortality data for 2021, the year in which more than 200 million Americans got a Covid-19 vaccine.

And one of the things they’re finalizing is the number of people who appear to have died from a vaccine.

In the NCHS system, there are now 67 deaths recorded as being caused by a vaccine, Anderson told this journalist exclusively.

The cause of death is taken from death certificates, which trickle in to the NCHS often months after a person has died.

“We’re trying to make sense of the terminology at the moment,” Anderson said. “What does it mean when a vaccine is mentioned on the death certificate? Does it mean that the vaccine was the cause, so we would try to look at the causal pathway and see if that made sense? Or does it mean the person simply had a vaccination?”

He said 67 is the number of deaths now in the NCHS system that are coded as being caused by a vaccine in 2021. This includes 16 in March, 10 in April and fewer than 10 in September, when the death rate spiked.

“These are not specific to the Covid vaccine and we’re not even sure necessarily that these are deaths caused by vaccines, although it appears that that is the case,” said Anderson.

The NCHS publishes weekly, monthly and annual mortality reports, detailing the number of people who died from the leading causes of death.

But it also publishes a vast array of other health information on its website, most of it accessible through the CDC Wonder database.

This includes an enumeration of Americans who have died from every conceivable cause. This can be found on CDC Wonder under the data set “Underlying cause of death.”

A search of this “Underlying cause of death” data shows at most 1-2 vaccine deaths per year from 1999 through 2020, the most recent year for which the data is available. (The table below shows deaths caused by a viral vaccine. In addition, there were two deaths from a bacterial vaccine, one in 2004 and one in 2007).



So 67 would mark a major increase — though it’s also likely to raise questions and give cause for complaint.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now shows 14,438 deaths following a Covid-19 vaccine from December 2020, when the vaccines were first introduced, to early September of 2022.

And a recent report on group life insurance claims for 2021 published by the Society of Actuaries shows the number of deaths among young people ages 35-44 doubled in the third quarter of 2021, right after college mandates went into effect and at the same time many U.S. corporations were announcing and enforcing vaccine mandates.



SOA Institute “Group Life Covid-19 Mortality Survey Report” August 2022

“It’s almost certainly underreported on death certificates for the reasons that we talked about,” said Anderson of the NCHS numbers. “I think medical examiners, coroners are going to be very reluctant to attribute the cause to a vaccine — to any vaccine, not just the Covid vaccine — if they don’t have actual evidence to suggest that that’s what the cause was. And simply knowing that the person was vaccinated recently isn’t generally going to be enough for the medical examiner or coroner to put that down on the death certificate.”

He agreed that we are unlikely to get an accurate accounting from death certificates of the real number of vaccine-caused deaths.

“I don’t think the death certificate, that the numbers are going to be an accurate reflection of the true mortality,” he said. “But I have no idea to what extent that’s an underestimate. It’s just impossible to know, based on the information that we have.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


The 'bivalent' nightmare begins - and there are already 549 reports in VAERS
And that's not including the URF...

Jessica Rose
19 hr ago

So the new COVID-19 injectable products have been rolled out. Amendments to the EUAs (anyone thinking that we are in an emergency for any reason other than having psychopathic billionaires infesting and controlling science and medicine needs to do some reading), were issued to Moderna TX Inc. and Pfizer Inc and as a result, many people all around the world are lining up to get injected with this new product.

You can head here to read about the ‘safety’ testing that they did. I am not going to summarize it because quite frankly, I believe it would be a waste of my time at this point. The Wuhan strain is extinct in humans, and the Omicron BA.4 and 5 variants are soon to be.

Here’s what I wanted to focus on: the VAERS reports associated with these particular injections as first exposures.
There are 549 reports filed to VAERS as of September 17th, 2022 and of these, 74 (13.5%) are primary exposures (1st shots). This is astonishing as these new products were EUA ‘authorized’ only at the beginning of September: just 2 weeks passed until the first reports actually made it to the front-end of VAERS. Can you say, ‘safety signal’?

Of the 74 reports filed for first exposures, 10 (~13.5%) classified as severe, so far. Believe me, I am going to be keeping a close eye on this. But, to be clear, this really pisses me off. Most people who are being injected with this new ‘bivalent’ shot are doing so as a follow-up to previous shots! They are not only mixing products now but they are mixing types of injections! These things are NOT the same product as the previous ones (see saRNA article) and we, as data analysts, need the data to be remotely clean to determine whether or not the AEs being reported are due to the new products, or simply the by-product of damage already done by previous injections.

I just want to take a moment express how disgusted and appalled I am by the lack of structure and scientific integrity involved in everything associated with these COVID-19 injectable product roll-outs.

So let’s go deeper. I thought that the most pertinent information that I might be able to extract from this confounded data would be the reports filed for people who had this new bivalent product as a first shot. So of the 13.5% of the reports filed for these new products as first exposures to any COVID-19 injectable product, 6 filed myocarditis reports (8.1%).

One of these reports, one in particular caught my attention. VAERS ID #2443946 was made by a 24-year-old Californian girl, without previous medical issues - prior to this first injection with the new ‘bivalent’ products. This girl experienced heart trauma within 24 hours of injection and reports the following:



“I’ll just rest and see.” Hmm. I wonder what her outcome will be?

Another report with VAERS ID #2428859 was filed for a 20-year-old from Washington who received this new crap as a second shot and ended up in the hospital with pericarditis.

I could keep going, but the point I want to make is this: even with this very early data, it is very easy to see that the clear danger signals - just as clearly as before.

If you know someone on the fence about getting injected with this COVID nonsense, I would advise them to wait.



This plot shows the distribution of the new ‘bivalent’ shots by age. It is clear that people are getting these as first exposures at all ages. But, for the most part, people are getting these ‘bivalent’ exposures as 4rth and 5th shots and comprise primarily younger (25-50) and older ages (60-80), respectively.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

FDA vaccine adviser warns healthy young people should NOT get new COVID booster: Says it's 'unfair to make them take a risk' after data suggested shot was not as effective as first batch
By Janon Fisher
Published: 00:18 EDT, 25 September 2022 | Updated: 06:38 EDT, 25 September 2022

  • Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA's Vaccine Advisory Committee, said he's not fully sold on the benefits of a third shot outweighing the harm
  • A newly developed dose, called a bivalent vaccine, is a cocktail of the original coronavirus strain combined with parts of the omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants
  • The CDC has reported that the old vaccine has side-effects like myocarditis, an - inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis, an inflammation of the heart's outer lining
  • So far, the only tests on the new shots have been done on lab mice

A top vaccine expert and pediatric doctor is cautioning parents of healthy young people to hold off getting the new COVID booster shot, saying it can carry risks and its efficacy hasn't yet been proven.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Advisory Committee, said he's not fully sold on the benefits of a third shot outweighing the harm.

'Who really benefits from another dose?' Offit said on CNN.

He did acknowledge that studies have shown people who are over 65, immuno-compromised or have a chronic ailments are less likely to be hospitalized with the virus if they've had a third or even fourth shot.

The newly developed dose, called a bivalent vaccine, is a cocktail of the original coronavirus strain combined with parts of the omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants. The hope being that people would be able to fight a broader range of more highly contagious virus mutations.

But writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, Offitt said preliminary data suggested the new bivalent vaccines were actually worse at warding off COVID infections than the first generation of shots.

He highlighted data comparing Moderna's original COVID vaccine and its new bivalent update. Of a test group given both shots, 11 people who'd received bivalent vaccines contracted the virus, while just five people who received the original 'monovalent' shot caught COVID.

Offit warned that the Biden administration that 'overselling' the new bivalent vaccines without more data could 'erode the public's trust' in them.

FDA advisor and vaccine maker Paul Offit: “A healthy young person is unlikely to benefit from a booster dose… If there’s not clear evidence of benefit, then it’s not fair to ask people to take a risk.” pic.twitter.com/SgBp5WZbMS
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 24, 2022

He explained that the FDA's recent approval of a the new vaccine cooked up by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech comes with little assurances and some risks.

'A healthy young person is unlikely to benefit from the extra dose,' he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that vaccine side-effects, like myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, an inflammation of the heart's outer lining, are rare, but they most often occur in adolescents and young men.

Myocarditis can even be fatal, with young people far less likely to suffer a severe COVID infection than older people.

'When you are asking people to get a vaccine, I think there has to be clear evidence of benefit,' he said, adding that it's unrealistic to have clinical trials of the latest dose. 'You'd like to have, at least, human data,' he said. So far, the only tests on the new shots have been done on lab mice.

'Right now they're saying we should trust mouse data,' he said, 'and I don't think that should ever be true.'

Offit voted against approval of the new vaccine.

'If there's not clear evidence of benefit, then it's not fair, I think, to ask people to take a risk no matter how small,' Offit said.

The doctor recently cautioned that pushing the new shot without the supporting evidence risks 'eroding the public's trust.'

He said the studies regarding the bivalent vaccine so far were 'underwhelming.'

The increased emphasis on boosters is at odds with President Joe Biden's recent announcement that 'the pandemic is over.'

'The pandemic is over,' Biden told 60 Minutes. 'We still have a problem with COVID. We're still doing a lot of work on it. But the pandemic is over. If you notice, no one's wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape, and so I think it's changing.'

The president's declaration runs counter with what his administration's health officials have been saying.

'We have a virus out there that's still circulating, still killing hundreds of Americans every day,' White House COVID-19 response coordinator, Ashish Jha, said at a September 9 press briefing.

'I think we all as Americans have to pull together to try to protect Americans … and do what we can to get our health-care system through what might be a difficult fall and winter ahead.'

He also may have submarined his own $22.4 billion request to Congress to continue the fight against the virus.

There have been about 54,000 new cases of the virus on average over the last two weeks, according to Johns Hopkins University, with about 400 Americans succumbing to the virus every day.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Possible 69% higher risk of Alzheimer's for older COVID survivors
Mary Van Beusekom
Sep 14, 2022

Older COVID-19 survivors may be at a 69% higher risk of developing Alzheimer's disease within 1 year of infection, according to a retrospective study of 6 million Americans 65 years and older published yesterday in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease.

The study, led by Case Western Reserve University researchers, involved analysis of the medical records of 6,245,282 adults aged 65 years and older who had medical visits but no previous diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease from February 2020 to May 2021. A total of 410,748 participants tested positive for COVID-19 during the study period, while 5,834,534 did not.

Ages 85 and older, women most at risk

COVID-19 survivors had a 69% higher risk of a new diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease within 1 year of infection than their uninfected peers (hazard ratio (HR), 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53 to 1.72). Participants aged 85 years and older and women were at particularly high risk (HRs, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.73 to 2.07] and 1.82 [95% CI, 1.69 to 1.97], respectively).

"Our findings call for research to understand the underlying mechanisms and for continuous surveillance of long-term impacts of COVID-19 on Alzheimer’s disease," the authors wrote.

The team said it's not clear whether COVID-19 triggers or accelerates development of Alzheimer's disease, noting that SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with inflammation and central nervous system disorders.

"The factors that play into the development of Alzheimer’s disease have been poorly understood, but two pieces considered important are prior infections, especially viral infections, and inflammation," coauthor Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, said in a Case Western press release.

More Alzheimer's could stress resources

Davis added that any increase in new-onset Alzheimer's disease translates to a higher number of older patients with an incurable disease could be substantial and may further strain the country's already stressed long-term care resources.

"We thought we had turned some of the tide on it by reducing general risk factors such as hypertension, heart disease, obesity and a sedentary lifestyle," she said. "Now, so many people in the U.S. have had COVID and the long-term consequences of COVID are still emerging. It is important to continue to monitor the impact of this disease on future disability."

In the release, the researchers said they plan to continue studying the potential effects of COVID-19 on Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases and whether certain populations may be especially vulnerable to them. They also plan to assess whether any drugs currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration could be repurposed to treat COVID-19's long-term effects.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Concomitant Administration of Flu & SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Lowers Antibody Titers Against Covid-19
Staff at TrialSite
Sep. 24, 2022, 8:00 a.m.

he recent White House guidance for people to take the bivalent BA.5 Covid-19 booster vaccine concurrently with the influenza shot was clearly not based on evidence. It's immunology 101 that introducing multiple antigens simultaneously will generally reduce the immune response to each antigen. However, that didn't stop the current heads of the executive branch of government from issuing their flippant comment that God gave us two arms so we could be vaccinated in each one simultaneously. A truly insensitive, frankly bizarre, and definitely inappropriate comment made by Biden’s Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha.

Are we Following Science?

This media has expressed concern about the questionable commitment to science associated with this current administration (to be fair, we were just as critical with the last one). A confluence of socio-economic, political, and even cultural interests at the top of American society could be influencing ongoing pandemic-related decision-making, unfortunately, possibly even more than what should be driving such decision-making: the data from new studies often reported by this platform.

Sometimes it seems like for every positive step forward based on real science, the administration does something based on junk science, taking us a step back. See “Junk Science Now Drives Government Policy While Biased Media Outlets Offer No Real Objectivity.”

What happened to following science wherever it takes us? One relevant study published in the peer review journal Vaccine involves a 480-participant randomized, open-label, controlled study conducted in Zhejiang Province, China, led by investigators affiliated with the provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Xiamen University as well as vaccine producer Sinovac Biotech.

Involving the Sinovac Covid-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, the results of this published study indicate that administering a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine concurrently with an influenza vaccine causes a significant reduction in immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers. This study was published last month, weeks before the incorrect White House guidance.

The net takeaway of the formal, randomized clinical trial underwritten by the Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province and China’s Science Foundation of National Health Commission shows a significant reduction in antibody titers when the influenza vaccine was co-administered with the second dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But There’s More…

In a major Anglo-American-sponsored study, vaccine producer Novavax collaborated with a large team of scientists employed at several prominent, UK-based academic medical centers in a randomized investigation into the co-administration of influenza vaccine and the Novavax SARS-CoV-2 protein subunit vaccine.

Represented by corresponding author Professor Paul T. Heath, FRCPCH, affiliated with the Vaccine Institute of St. George’s University of London as well as St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the study data leads us to another materially important observation: while it appears safe to administer concomitantly seasonal influenza vaccines and the NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 vaccine, more side effects were observed, as well as importantly, a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers in the co-administration group.

The authors, led by Professor Health, went on the record, first discussing side effects:

"Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%])."

Importantly, the author’s relay:

"A reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted."

This study was published back in Feb 2022 in the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

One would think that the top scientists and doctors under the employ of the White House (like Dr. Jha) or Dr. Anthony Fauci, for that matter, or importantly, other prominent contributors under the employ of Health and Human Services--whether that be under the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Food and Drug Administration--would have time by now to read up on the literature to provide informed guidance to the public.

So much for following the science. Maybe God gave us two arms for something other than vaccine receptacles.

TrialSite contributor Paul Elkins.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Peer-Reviewed Studies on Ivermectin Retracted ‘Without Explanation’: Dr. Pierre Kory
By Marina Zhang and Henry Jom
September 25, 2022

Both sides of the debate surrounding the controversial drug, ivermectin, agree it can kill SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. But some groups have characterized the drug as a COVID-19 “cure,” while others have classed it as “dangerous.”

While many published studies advise against using ivermectin for COVID-19, studies that showed statistically-significant benefits for the treatment have been taken down and retracted “without explanation.”

That’s according to Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist who is the president and co-founder of the Front Line Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).

Kory and a number of other physicians who support ivermectin use in treating COVID-19, especially in early treatment, were among those whose papers on ivermectin were retracted by journals that Kory alleges are “beholden to Big Pharma.”

“We saw peer reviewed articles—articles that passed peer review by experts in their field, including my own—retracted without explanation,” Kory said on Sept. 10 at a “Reclaiming Medicine” conference hosted by the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS) in Melbourne, Australia.

“I have numerous colleagues whose papers that were supportive of ivermectin in reasonably high impact journals—they were retracted. And then the only thing you’ll ever see published in high impact journal are supposedly negative studies,” he said.

“What I have noticed after having identified ivermectin, [and] publishing the first comprehensive review paper, is that we’ve had unrelenting media attacks on us as researchers.”

Kory said he has first hand knowledge of 88 controlled trials, including all of the health ministry programs around the world, that successfully used ivermectin in early COVID-19 treatment.

“I know the drug works and I’ve been disseminating that knowledge. Unfortunately, the narrative is that it doesn’t work and that it’s a horse dewormer,” Kory previously told host Jan Jekielek on Epoch TV’s American Thought Leaders program.

“They base that on a couple of trials published in high impact journals, and then they try to dismiss the drug. All of the complaints are from physicians and pharmacists. Not one patient has ever submitted a complaint against the care that I’ve delivered, and that pertains to my entire career,” he said.

Retracted Papers

At the conference, Kory identified three examples of manuscripts on ivermectin that were retracted after they were submitted to medical journal publications and passed peer review.

One example was a manuscript by Elgazzar et al., titled “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis,” which was retracted “without any opportunity of reply,” according to a letter to the editor by researchers Bryant et al.

Elgazzar’s manuscript was accused of data fabrication and plagiarism.

The second example was a review article by Zaidi and Dehgani-Mobaraki titled, “The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—an extensive review,” which was retracted by a journal’s editor-in-chief, who cited concerns with its methodology and conclusion.

“[T]he cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction,” the retraction notice states.

The third example was Kory’s own research article titled, “Review of the emerging evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19,” which he said was also retracted after passing peer-review.

Kory’s article was later amended by removing its original reference to the study by Elgazzar et al.

Kory also mentioned other papers, including one co-authored by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, titled “Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19.”

Omura shared one quarter of the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine in 2015 for his discoveries in ivermectin for river blindness and elephantiasis. One of the retracted study’s co-authors is Dr. Morimasa Yagisawa, the lead author of the study and Omura’s colleague.

“This [paper] was published by the Nobel Prize winner himself, he’s the world expert on ivermectin, and that was also ignored, and his pleas to use ivermectin were ignored,” Kory said.

In an interview with ABS-CBN news, Yagisawa said the World Health Organization (WHO) and other relevant state drug regulators “neglected all of such small trials” of ivermectin in COVID-19, stating supposed “heavy bias” and the need for three-phase studies, including placebo-controlled trials.

Kory told the conference: “You’re dealing with the vast amount of the nation’s, or the really the world’s, physicians who literally and very strongly believe that ivermectin is dangerous, it’s ineffective. [They’ve been led to think], ‘Only conspiracy theorists and unvaccinated people would ever want to use ivermectin.’ It’s absolutely atrocious what’s happened.”

He added: “This has never happened in our collective careers, ever. You have to understand something went really wrong in COVID.”

During a typical peer review process, an academic paper is scrutinized by other academics anonymously. The process is intended to see whether the paper passes muster, including to see whether findings from the study are valid, meaningful, or whether a given experiment performs its intended function. Peer-reviewed papers are generally considered to be more credible and valid compared to pre-prints—papers that have not been reviewed.

A retraction occurs when a published paper is deemed at a later time to be erroneous. This can be damaging to a researcher’s employment, funding, and reputation. Retractions are particularly damaging if initiated by the publisher or the editor, rather than the authors themselves.

Self-retractions initiated by the authors usually occur when authors later find mistakes in their study after publication. Such a move is generally associated with humility and integrity to further the accuracy of the sciences.

But when the editor or publisher retracts a paper, they usually say the decision was due to the alleged use of fraudulent data, plagiarism, untrue authorship claims, and other general misconduct related to professional code of ethics. All such reasons cited can impact the study authors’ reputation.
Evidence on Ivermectin Dismissed in Australia

Dr. Phillip Altman—a veteran and expert in the areas of clinical medical research and pharmaceutical drug regulatory affairs in Australia—said he made detailed submissions to Australia’s national COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Task Force where he provided successful national campaigns of early treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin for hundreds of millions of people in India, Mexico, Peru, and Brazil.

“These so-called experts did not even bother to respond,” he said on Sept. 10 at the “Reclaiming Medicine” conference.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia’s medicine and therapeutics regulator, said in a statement to The Epoch Times that while it “welcomes and encourages discussions” with prospective sponsors on the regulation process for potential COVID-19 treatments, “as at 15 September 2022, no application has been submitted to the TGA to support the use of ivermectin, either alone or in combination, for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.”

In Australia, doctors are permitted to prescribe ivermectin only for conditions approved by TGA. These conditions include scabies and certain parasitic infections. COVID-19 is not TGA-approved for ivermectin prescription.

The TGA told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that “more evidence” is required before ivermectin can be considered “a safe and effective treatment option” for COVID-19.

“This is the consensus view of international regulators and several top-tier medical journals,” a TGA spokesperson said.

Additionally, the U.S. government’s National Institute of Health (NIH) recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials.

Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, saying that taking large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Side effects of large doses of ivermectin include skin rashes, nausea, and vomiting, it says.

But at the same time, agency has long approved ivermectin to treat certain parasites, head lice, and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin has also been featured on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines for decades.

Treatment Benefit of Ivermectin

At the “Reclaiming Medicine” conference, Kory pointed to C19early.com, a website that compiles findings from hundreds of studies on various early treatment options for COVID-19.

The websites show the treatment benefit of each option through a forest plot.

A reading less than 1 indicates that the treatment option is better than doing nothing, and ivermectin has a number below 0.4 across 91 different studies, with an average improvement of 62 percent in overall improvement and 83 percent improvement as a prophylaxis—all significant results.

“If you look at the forest plot, these are all of the trials showing that it is large magnitude benefits [from ivermectin]. And when you average these and summarize all the patients, you find an astounding massive improvement in numbers of clinical outcomes,” Kory told the conference.

“If their efficacy was known to the world, it would blow up a marketplace in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

“I’ve never seen 88 controlled trials; usually after 5, 10, 15, it’s considered proven.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the FDA for comment.

A recent literature review published in the Journal of Antibiotics in 2021, a Nature-affiliated journal, found that ivermectin could pose 20 different actions against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These actions fell under umbrella functions that included preventing viral entry into host cells, and preventing viral propagation and inflammation.

The literature review cited an article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, in which authors compared ivermectin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and favipiravir for their ability to bind to target SARS-CoV-2 target proteins and block their actions.

Ivermectin showed that it had the highest binding affinity to S subunits on the spike protein, a component involved in viral entry. Authors stated the results imply that ivermectin is the most effective at impeding spike protein actions.

The drug can also bind to multiple sites on TMPRSS2, a SARS-CoV-2 protein that is critical to viral fusion into the cell. In the open configuration, ivermectin can also bind with greater affinity to the virus than remdesivir.

Ivermectin also had effects against viral spread in host cells, authors noted. According to the paper, when cells are infected by a virus, the cells send out messages to other nearby cells to inform them of a viral infection, making the cells more resistant to the virus. This message is impaired in COVID-19 by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but the ivermectin inhibits this viral action.

Ivermectin is also an anti-inflammatory, and can therefore prevent the over-activation of many inflammatory pathways, thereby preventing severe COVID-19 symptoms such as systemic inflammation, ongoing fever, pain, and so on, authors wrote.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ExGpJS_PA
Post covid Alzheimer's
17 min 54 sec

Sep 25, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

69% higher risk of Alzheimer's for older COVID survivors https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-persp... Older COVID-19 survivors, 69% higher risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, within 1 year of infection Medical records of 6,245,282 65 years and older Medical visits but no previous diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease February 2020 to May 2021 410,748 participants tested positive for COVID-19 5,834,534 did not test positive COVID-19 survivors had a 69% higher risk of a new diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease within 1 year of infection than their uninfected peers Hazard ratio 1.69; 95% (1.53 to 1.72) Most at risk Ages 85 and older, HR = 1.89 Women, HR = 1.82 Association of COVID-19 with New-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease https://content.iospress.com/articles... Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 411-414, 2022 13th September 2022 Infectious etiology of Alzheimer’s disease, postulated for decades So, is SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease? Retrospective cohort study N = 6,245,282 older adults (age ≥65 years), People with COVID-19 were at significantly increased risk for new diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease Within 360 days after the initial COVID-19 diagnosis Propensity-score matching COVID-19 cohort = 0.68% non-COVID-19 cohort = 0.35% (hazard ratio or HR:1.69) TriNetX Analytics Platform de-identified electronic health records Over 95 million patients Inpatient and outpatient visits 68 health care organizations 28% of the US population 50 states, covering diverse geographic, age, race/ethnic, income, and insurance groups Our findings call for research to understand the underlying mechanisms and for continuous surveillance of long-term impacts of COVID-19 on Alzheimer’s disease Not clear whether COVID-19 triggers or accelerates development of Alzheimer's disease SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with inflammation and central nervous system disorders Prior infections, especially viral infections, and inflammation Dr. Pamela Davis We thought we had turned some of the tide on it by reducing general risk factors such as hypertension, heart disease, obesity and a sedentary lifestyle Now, so many people in the U.S. have had COVID and the long-term consequences of COVID are still emerging. It is important to continue to monitor the impact of this disease on future disability Plan to continue studying the potential effects of COVID-19 on Alzheimer's, and other neurodegenerative diseases, whether certain populations may be especially vulnerable Assess, any drugs could be repurposed to treat COVID-19's long-term effects
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Did first vaccine doses cause a spike in Covid hospitalisations?
More evidence for an ever more apparent trend

NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
18 hr ago

In July, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the UK, released statistics for ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) hospital admissions by vaccination and pregnancy status, England’.

I first wrote about it here where I questioned why the <14 days since vaccination category was lumped in with the unvaccinated category. I requested that the ONS send me the <14 day data and separate the whole dataset by date.

The data is between 8 December 2020 and 31 August 2021 and my prediction was that when separated by date, the data would show that most of the unvaccinated were in hospital early on when nobody was vaccinated. Therefore, by lumping all the dates together it would seem that more unvaccinated than vaccinated were hospitalised with Covid, when in reality almost everyone at the time was unvaccinated.

Unfortunately, the ONS would not separate the data by date (either a weekly or monthly breakdown) “due to disclosure control of small numbers”. There are almost 10,000 hospital admissions recorded over a nine month period and normally only number under 5 or 10 would cause any disclosure problems. Therefore, my suspicions are still valid and I’m guessing that most of the data is from December 2020-January 2021, when admissions were high and vaccination rates were non existent. This allows them to say ‘look how many unvaccinated went to hospital with Covid’. Maybe I’m wrong but if I am, release the data so you can show me why.

However, the ONS did send me some of the data I requested - the number of hospital admissions that occurred between 0 and 14 days of vaccination. As outlined above, as this is not separated by date, comparing with the unvaccinated numbers is meaningless. However, comparing against the other vaccinated categories is interesting.

If we look at all single vaccinated women (pregnant & non-pregnant) and see how long after vaccination before they became hospitalised with Covid, we get this graph.



As you can see, out of all hospitalisations in single-vaccinated women, 43% of them occur within the first 14 days of vaccination. If we just look up to 90 days (because we don’t know how many days after 90 days the data went), 14 days represents 16% of the time but 50% of the infections happen in this time period.

When separated by pregnant and non-pregnant women, these percentages change but still 26% of pregnant women are hospitalised within 14 days and 45% of non-pregnant women.

Again, if only looking up to 90 days (with 14 days representing 16% of the time) 40% of pregnant women were hospitalised and 51% of non-pregnant women, within that 14 day time frame.

This pattern does not happen in the double vaccinated.



This time, only 8% of hospitalisations occur within 14 days. If looking just up to 90 days (with 14 days representing 16% of the time), only 14% of hospitalisations occur within 14 days.

When separated by pregnant and non-pregnant women, 13% of hospitalisations occur within 14 days of vaccination for pregnant women and 8% for non-pregnant women.

To conclude, it seems that a very high percentage of single jabbed women became hospitalised for Covid within 14 days of vaccination. This pattern does not happen after the second vaccination. Perhaps this may be explained if the data were broken down by date but for some reason, the ONS won’t release this.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


DEBATE: Did Our Health Authorities Actually Take COVID shots?
Are they TOO SMART to fall for their own BS? Or dumb enough?

Igor Chudov
15 hr ago

I posted an article yesterday, positing that Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla has VAIDS due to his multiple boosters, which caused him to have two COVID infections, separated by only one month:

Igor's Newsletter

Many of my readers remarked that Bourla’s announcement must be a lie and that Albert is too smart and too well-informed to take his own shot. Those readers suggested that perhaps Bourla is NOT having COVID for the second time in two months, but is just making stuff up for bivalent booster marketing purposes or to pretend to be vaccinated or some such.

The same types of comments were made when I wrote about Fauci’s Paxlovid rebound or Biden’s Paxlovid rebound. Please read the Fauci article as it explains why these quadruple-boosted people are having endless COVID rebounds:

Igor's Newsletter

Could it be that these authority people are faking their Covid vaccinations?

Arguments in Support of the “Faking Theory”​

Supporters of the “Faking Theory” are saying that these top-level charlatans and medical quacks like Dr. Fauci, or country leaders like Joe Biden, who promoted obviously unproven, experimental, and dangerous snake oil treatments, were smart, understood what was going on, and thus could not take Covid vaccines. So, say proponents of this theory, those leaders are now purposely faking reinfections and Covid rebounds to seem vaccinated and thus avoid scrutiny.

Many of my readers are healthy unvaccinated people, who had Covid once, or never, did not die of Covid, and who have many similarly situated friends and relatives. That colors their thinking. They instinctively understood, based on a variety of theories, the dangers of unproven and aggressively promoted solutions based on failed technologies. So, they question how others in positions of knowledge and authority, would be unwise enough to make the wrong decision and personally take the vaccine.

Since most of us are not scions of medicine or experts in decision making, and yet we figured it out, say those people, surely the sharpest minds promoting this crap know that they are lying about Covid vaccines being “safe and effective”, and thus would avoid injecting themselves with those products, which they have to lie to promote.

They point to videos of fake vaccinations by health leaders.



A founder and president of a Spanish pharma company PharmaMar was caught buying a fake vaccine passport:



Pfizer’s Albert Bourla was also not allowed to visit Israel because he was not fully vaccinated. He possibly was vaccinated later.



Germany’s Karl Lauterbach was also suspiciously caught lying about his booster status.



Igor's Newsletter

Arguments Against the “Faking Theory”​

Opponents of the “Faking Theory” think that our health leadership, led by the (Bill Gates-sponsored - I.C.) hysterical press, with objectors censored by Google and Facebook, went mad and suspended all critical thinking and was captivated by bad groupthink.

Such opponents use the personal circumstances of “Paxlovid rebounds” and frequent reinfections as prima facie evidence of these people’s vaccination status. They are saying that these specific individuals really took their own poison.

One prominent opponent of the “Faking Theory” is our friend-of-the-substack eugyppius, who suggested that the vaccinators have gone mad (paid link), and also this:


Eugyppius arguments are eloquent, well-reasoned, and worth exploring.

There is a video of Dr. Fauci having Paxlovid rebound and he does look sick:

CanadianPatriot1974 @CPatriot1974


Gavin Newsom was obviously sick after his booster shot last fall and disappeared from public view for 10 days!

Sam Parker @SamParkerSenate
Image
Image
Image


Here’s a remarkable post from Steve Kirsch, who found an INSIDER at the CDC who is giving him information (and I hope that it is not at attempt to leak bad information on purpose). The insider says that the entire CDC is pro-vax and all doubters were pushed out.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

In addition, it is one thing for regular people to buy fake vaccine passports (something which I always endorsed), and another thing for famous people to do the same thing without being caught. John Smith surely can find someone who would take $500 in cash, and enter John “into the system” without injecting anything. It is a lot harder for Tony Fauci to do without this being uncovered!

My Own Position​

My own position is restrained neutrality, colored by mistrust. I stick their own words to them. I am not a mind reader and I do not have X-ray vision. So I cannot read the minds of Dr. Fauci or Albert Bourla or Karl Lauterbach and I do not have the retroactive penetrating vision to see if they were injected with saline solution, instead of the vaccine, on camera. I am agnostic.

And, to be honest, while I would love to find out what they did to themselves, I do not care that much about it. They are evildoers anyway. As Australia’s Michael Gunner said about something else, their “personal vaccination status is utterly irrelevant”.

Squizz @SquizzSTK

What matters is what they did to us, not what went into their arms.

Please also consider the possibility that some of our “pandemic response leaders” possibly faked their vaccinations (like Karnataka health leaders), while some (like Tony Fauci or Joe Biden) did not.

DEBATE​

The question deserves a debate. I invite supporters and opponents of the Faking Theory to put forth coherent and well-written arguments in TOP-LEVEL REPLIES.

Start replies with
  • “FAKED — … … … “ — if you think that they faked their shots
  • “NOT FAKED - … … … “ if you think that they did take their own quack medicine”
  • “NUANCED - … … …” if you take a nuanced position
  • “SAFE AND EFFECTIVE — … … …” if you think that vaccines are helpful, safe, and effective, and you think that our health leaders did themselves a favor by honestly getting vaccinated. Yes, if you believe in such things, you are free to voice such an opinion on this substack. Your messages will NOT be deleted!
Please BE CIVIL. When we had our last debate, I promised to DELETE all nasty and impolite replies. Everyone was very nice and I ended up not deleting any messages. So please, be friendly to each other this time also, while vigorously disagreeing and not holding back any good thoughts. We are allies and we do not need to be rude to each other.

If your argument is not getting traction or upvotes, please do not get mad, okay? This is a debate! You might lose it! And that’s fine!

Winners and losers will NOT be announced.

Go ahead!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Dr. Paul Marik on why doctors aren't speaking out
My blue pilled friends can't figure out why, if the vaccines are so dangerous, aren't more doctors speaking out. Here's why.

Steve Kirsch
11 hr ago


Paul Marik speaks about the silencing of doctors who want to speak out about the COVID vaccines
48 min 54 sec


My blue pilled friends who believe the vaccines are safe have told me they would reconsider their position if just a single one of their own doctors came out against the vaccine. One of them said even if a “TV doctor” (such as Sanjay Gupta) said it was unsafe, they would reconsider their position.

I told them that doctors are afraid to speak out because they will lose their ability to practice medicine if they challenge the mainstream narrative.

My friends find that too hard to believe. They asked me incredulously, “Why would the medical community silence doctors who are trying to save lives?”

They didn’t believe my answer.

So I wanted to interview a doctor who is very highly respected and who is not an “anti-vaxxer” to explain it to them.

Here is my interview with Dr. Marik on the subject where he describes how he was personally retaliated by the medical community after he discovered early treatment work and the vaccines are unsafe. It’s really stunning. They actually had to fabricate patients who don’t exist.

Note also that Dr. Marik was a believer in the COVID vaccine; he took it just like he was told. It took him months looking at the evidence before he changed his mind.

I asked him in the interview, “Now that you realize the vaccines are not safe, could you have gotten it wrong this time?” He said, “No, the evidence is very clear.”

He regrets not having done his homework and trusting others when he took the shot. It was only after he looked at the data directly himself, he said the data was crystal clear.

When he started speaking out, he was retaliated against by the medical community.

Dr. Meryl Nass on doctors speaking out​


Meryl Nass, like Dr. Marik, has been punished for speaking out.

Meryl Nass explains why most doctors did not speak out against the COVID-19 treatment protocol or even bother to look at the data: they trust the system.

"First, this has never happened before, we've never told patients, go home and wait, do nothing until you turn blue, that's ridiculous. That is unlike everything about normal medical care. So, how did it come to be that doctors accepted it? Well, they're [doctors] custom to believing the federal government and what their computer and electronic record tells them to do. So, you punch in the diagnosis and some committee tells you how you're supposed to treat the patient and that is the basis for establishing whether you've committed malpractice. So, if Fauci creates a committee, and by the way, Fauci never created a treatment committee before, that is not part of NIH's role, its always been a CDC role, but he took it on for some reason, if he creates a standard and that is the standard and you vary from it, if anything happens to your patient, you are liable to the charge of malpractice. If you use his standard and all the patients die, you can't be sued because that's the standard of care."


Watch: Meryl Nass interview with Terry Gilberg

Take action to support Dr. Marik and other doctors who speak out​

If you believe that doctors and other medical professionals should be allowed to speak out without fear of retribution, please add your name to my petition here to show there is widespread support for this. This should take you less than 30 seconds and is important since legislators in states like California believe these doctors should be retaliated against.

You can view the signers here. The “sign up” link in the upper right is for Airtable, not for my petition.

Thanks.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Pfizer seeks to expand omicron booster to 5- to 11-year-olds
By The Associated Press
yesterday

Pfizer asked U.S. regulators Monday to expand use of its updated COVID-19 booster shot to children ages 5 to 11.

Elementary school-aged children already received kid-sized doses of Pfizer’s original vaccine, a third of the dose given to everyone 12 and older -- two primary shots plus a booster.

If the Food and Drug Administration agrees, they would start getting a kid-sized dose of the new omicron-targeted formula when it is time for their booster.

FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said last week he expected a decision on boosters for that age group soon.

Pfizer and its partner BioNTech also announced a new study of the omicron-focused booster in even younger children, those ages 6 months through 4 years, to test different doses.

Updated boosters made by both Pfizer and rival Moderna rolled out earlier this month for everyone 12 and older. They’re a tweak to vaccines that already have saved millions of lives -- a combination or “bivalent” shot that contains half the original recipe and half protection against the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron relatives responsible for most of today’s COVID-19 cases.

The hope is that the modified boosters will help tamp down continuing COVID-19 cases and blunt another winter surge. As of last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 4.4 million Americans had gotten an updated booster so far.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Canada won’t require masks on planes, drops vaccine mandate
By ROB GILLIES
yesterday

TORONTO (AP) — The Canadian government announced Monday it will no longer require people to wear masks on planes to guard against COVID-19..

Transport Canada said the existing rules for masks will come off Oct. 1

“We are able to do this because tens of millions of Canadians rolled up their sleeves and got vaccinated,” Transport Minister Omar Alghabra said.

Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the negative attitudes of some passengers have made it hard for airlines and crews to enforce the mask mandate in recent months, and cited that as a factor in the decision.

Government officials also confirmed Canada is dropping the vaccine requirement for people entering the country at the end of the month. The Associated Press reported last week that was likely.

Canada, like the United States, requires foreign nationals to be vaccinated when entering the country. No change in the mandate is expected in the U.S. in the near term.

Unvaccinated foreign travelers who are allowed to enter Canada are currently subject to mandatory arrival tests and a 14-day quarantine.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has agreed to let a cabinet order enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements at the border expire Sept. 30.

The government is also ending random COVID-19 testing at airports. Filling out information in what became an unpopular ArriveCan app will also no longer be required. Some blamed it for delays at airports.

The government will also no longer be required passengers to have pre-board tests for cruise ships.

“The removal of border measures has been facilitated by a number of factors, including modelling that indicates that Canada has largely passed the peak of the Omicron BA.4- and BA.5-fuelled wave, Canada’s high vaccination rates, lower hospitalization and death rates, as well as the availability and use of vaccine boosters (including new bivalent formulation), rapid tests, and treatments for COVID-19,” the government said in a release.

Removal of the vaccine mandate for non-citizens entering Canada means unvaccinated professional athletes like Major League Baseball players would be allowed to play in Toronto in the playoffs should the Blue Jays make the postseason.

It would also apply to the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League. Unvaccinated players are currently not allowed to cross the border into Canada.

The Public Health Agency of Canada still strongly recommends that people wear masks, particularly in crowded environments such as planes and trains.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Japan's COVID-19 herd immunity near 90% after Omicron wave -study
by Rocky Swift
Tue, September 27, 2022, 2:23 AM

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's population level immunity to COVID-19 has reached about 90% in major population areas after a recent Omicron wave, though that level of protection is likely to diminish in a matter of months, according to a study published on Tuesday.

That level of so-called "herd immunity" reflects partial protection imparted from both natural infection and vaccination, according to the Tokyo Foundation of Policy Research, which estimated the levels for 12 of Japan's most-populated prefectures.

People in Tokyo, Osaka and the southern prefecture of Okinawa got most of their immunity through contagion amid high case counts in those areas, particularly during a seventh wave of infections that peaked last month, the researchers found.

About 65% of Japan's population have received at least one COVID vaccine booster shot, compared to about 33% in the United States, based on government data.

Japan last week began distributing booster shots formulated to target the Omicron strain of the virus.

Japan currently requires a five-month interval for booster shots, though that may be too long to offer protection to elderly and vulnerable groups should a projected eighth wave emerge toward the end of the year, the researchers wrote.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


U.S. FDA clears additional lots of Moderna's Covid booster amid shortage
by Bhanvi Satija
Mon, September 26, 2022, 5:19 PM

(Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Monday it has authorized an additional five batches of Moderna Inc's updated Covid booster shots made at a Catalent facility in Indiana, after it deemed them safe for use.

Last week, the health regulator had allowed use of ten batches of Moderna's updated booster shots made at the Bloomington, Indiana facility, owned by a unit of Catalent Inc, which is currently not a part of the company's emergency use authorization.

The FDA had earlier said Moderna had requested authorization for additional batches in light of the current supply issues. It did not provide details on the number of doses cleared in both instances.

U.S. pharmacy chains like CVS Health and Walgreens Boots Alliance have been working with the U.S. government to acquire more Moderna doses and said they have not seen any supply issues for the Pfizer/BioNtech booster shot.

The U.S. government, which has sent out over 25 million of the COVID-19 booster shots targeting BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron, has ordered more than 170 million updated shots for this fall, in preparation for a broad revaccination campaign.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


CDC Has 4 Days to Release Data on COVID Vaccine Injuries Collected via V-safe App, Court Rules
A federal court in Texas is giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until Friday to release the first batch of data on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination collected by the agency via its V-safe app.

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
09/26/22

A federal court in Texas is giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) until Friday to release the first batch of data on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination collected by the agency via its V-safe app.

The order by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas-Austin Division follows a series of lawsuits filed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), an Austin-based nonprofit “focused on the scientific integrity of vaccines and [the] pharmaceutical industry.”

According to ICAN, the court order requires the CDC to release the first batch of 19 months’ worth of data collected from millions of participants who reported adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccination via the V-safe app between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 31, 2022.

In all, the CDC will be required to release more than 137 million health V-safe entries.

The CDC describes V-safe as a smartphone app that “provides personalized and confidential check-ins via text messages and web surveys,” enabling users to “quickly and easily share with CDC how you, or your dependent, feel after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.”

According to the CDC, “This information helps CDC monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in near real time,” adding that the purpose of the V-safe app “is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting.”

Public will ‘see for themselves the actual self-reported data’

The data collected via the V-safe app is “collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle,” with only the CDC having “access to the individualized survey data.”

Oracle’s access is limited to “aggregate deidentified data for reporting.”

This distinction led to the main thrust of ICAN’s lawsuits against the CDC. ICAN argued that “based on the CDC’s own documentation, the data submitted to V-safe is already available in deidentified form (with no personal health information) and could be immediately released to the public.”

ICAN submitted three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the deidentified data collected via V-safe, “in the same form in which Oracle can currently access it.”

However, ICAN said, the CDC “had apparently not read its own documentation regarding V-safe” and refused ICAN’s requests, claiming “information in the app is not deidentified.”

Even when ICAN clarified its FOIA request to specifically ask for “all data deidentified after [emphasis original] it was submitted to the V-safe app,” the CDC “administratively closed this request stating it was duplicative of the original request.”

ICAN responded by suing the CDC in federal court in December 2021, via its attorney, Aaron Siri, for the release of this data.

Siri also represented Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, the organization that sued the U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) for the release of data from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trials — a lawsuit that was successful.

Following a new FOIA request by ICAN in April 2022, for the release of “all data submitted to V-safe since January 1, 2020,” and the CDC’s subsequent refusal, ICAN filed a second lawsuit in May 2022.

ICAN said these successive refusals on the part of the CDC came “despite the CDC’s ability to immediately release this deidentified data pursuant to its own protocol,” based on the claim that “the information in the app is not deidentified.”

ICAN commented on the significance of the ruling, stating in a press release:

“This is a huge win for ICAN and for the American public, who will finally start to be able to see for themselves the actual self-reported nationwide data about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, called the ruling an “absolutely huge development.”

Hooker told The Defender:

“This is an absolutely huge development and I’ll be waiting with anticipation as the V-safe data are released.

“With CDC’s reluctance to release this information, one can only imagine that it will not reflect well on the whole COVID-19 vaccination program, especially given irregularities seen with VAERS [the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reporting and the shifting narrative of the CDC regarding COVID-19 guidance.”

Hooker has faced similar obstacles to those encountered by ICAN when requesting data from the CDC. He said he “submitted a FOIA for the V-safe pregnancy data early in the process and was denied.”

“I’m glad that Aaron [Siri] and ICAN stuck with it,” Hooker said. “I can only think of the lives that could have been spared if the CDC would have been forthcoming with this information in the first place.”

The data collected via the V-safe app is distinct from the data submitted to VAERS. ICAN described the distinction:

“The FDA and CDC have admitted their existing safety monitoring program, VAERS, was incapable of determining causation and therefore unreliable.

“The CDC has therefore deployed a new safety monitoring system for COVID-19 vaccines called V-safe, and now claims that these ‘vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history.’”

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Fact check: Project Runway mask outfit by designer named Kovid is not evidence of ‘predictive programming’
By Reuters Staff
9 Min Read

Viewed tens of thousands of times, a viral clip of fashion reality show Project Runway shows an outfit with a face mask designed by a contestant named Kovid Kapoor. While the 2019 scene is authentic, some users allege the video is evidence of “predictive programming”, implying that there was prior knowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic. This notion is false.

Most of the posts with this claim share a TikTok visible here that has gained over 2.7 million views as of the publishing of this check.

The video has also been shared on Facebook ( here ) , Instagram ( here ), Twitter ( here ) and YouTube ( here ).

Some users commenting on the video claim it is evidence of “predictive programming”. As explained by Ohio State University here , the term refers to the “theory that the government or other higher-ups are using fictional movies or books as a mass mind control tool to make the population more accepting of planned future events.”

Other users sharing the video ( here , here ) also refer to the term “plandemic”, which is frequently used in relation to conspiracy theories that the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax or a deliberately planned outbreak. The term was popularized by a video that has been removed from several social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube because it contained potentially harmful medical misinformation ( here ) . A breakdown of misinformation contained in the so-called “Plandemic” video can be seen in a Reuters fact check here .

THE SCENE​

The scene in question is part of episode 3 of season 17 of Project Runway, in which competitors had to design an outfit for the Head-to toe-challenge, which entails a complete editorial look with a single fabric pattern.

One of the designers of that season, Kovid Kapoor ( bit.ly/2Ib6xbd ) created an outfit with a red and black plaid fabric that included a matching face covering ( here , here )

The viral clip shows judges Nina Garcia, Karli Kloss, Elaine Welteroth, Brandon Maxwell and guest judge fashion designer Adam Selman reviewing Kapoor’s work. Around timestamp 0:12 ( bit.ly/3lLS2s1 ), one of the judges asks “What do you guys think of this mask?” “It’s sick, Brandon said it,” Welteroth responds.

Upon examining the footage of the complete episode, Reuters was able confirm that, that moments before this exchange Maxwell said he “thought, ‘oh she’s sick’, but like sick in a good way. It’s sick. The outfit is sick. The whole thing is perfect,” after the model walked out.

INSPIRATION​

Reuters contacted the designer, Kapoor ( kovidlab.com/about ), to provide more context on his design.

When asked about the claim, Kapoor told Reuters that he decided to include a face mask because he wanted to “put forth the issues of pollution.” He said he had been inspired by the Chipko Movement ( here ), a nonviolent social and ecological movement that was mostly led by women in rural villages in India.

Kapoor told Reuters via email that in our daily lives, “pollution is a reality that is [suffocating] our environment every single day. The use of a gas mask was a reference to the air pollution.”

Kapoor added that amid the COVID-19 pandemic, people had been calling him “a fake person/a simulation/a sell out who was ‘paid’ by the World Health Organization” and other organizations “to spread fear in people’s mind and give them a ‘warning’.” Kapoor dismissed those claims and said to “find humor in them.”

About sharing a similar sounding name to this year’s global pandemic, Kapoor referred to the Indian concept “kismat” or “kismet”, which is used to describe fate or destiny ( here ) . “I cannot be upset the cards were dealt to me… all I can do is make the most,” he said. “I genuinely think sharing the name has been a blessing.... I cannot be mad because people are curious and google me,” something that, according to Kapoor, helps his small business.

During the episode, the designer also said that his style draws inspiration from Asian markets. In response, guest celebrity stylist Marni Senofonte ( here ) suggested he include a mask. “In Korea, don’t they walk around with those gas masks?” she said.

For years, face masks have been commonly used in some Asian countries in response to airborne illnesses outbreaks and the increase of air pollution. As reported by Quartz in 2014 here, the custom dates back to the Spanish flu pandemic in the early 20th century, but more recently “it went from seasonal affectation to year-round habit”. According to the article, Japanese consumers bought “$230 million in surgical masks a year, and neighboring countries facing chronic pollution issues—most notably China and Korea—have also adopted the practice”.

The practice has even resulted in an Asian fashion trend known as “smog couture”, which features face masks as a fashionable accessory ( here , here ).

But the COVID-19 pandemic has made people from all around the world wear face coverings as a tool to reduce the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 ( here ). Earlier in November, the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention updated its previous guidance and stated that masks do not only protect others but also the wearer ( here , here )

KOVID​

The meaning of the name Kovid, which is of Indian origin and mostly used for boys, according to the namemeaning.org ( bit.ly/3gd5bJu ), is associated with terms such as “expert”, “academic” ( bit.ly/3oq3Ceo ) and “wise“ ( bit.ly/3lDnuZL ).

Re:Set, a wellbeing publication, reported here on how some Indians named Kovid have dealt with the pandemic. .

Another public figure with this name is Kovid Gupta ( here ), Indian-American screenwriter and filmmaker.

Reuters has debunked other claims that allege the COVID-19 pandemic was planned here , here , here .

VERDICT​

False. While authentic, this scene from Project Runway is not evidence of “predictive programming”. There is no public evidence to suggest the COVID-19 outbreak was deliberately planned. According to the designer Kovid Kapoor himself, his outfit drew inspiration from mask-wearing customs in some Asian countries, a trend pre-dating COVID-19, and was intended as an environmental statement.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts   here   .
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Pfizer’s figures for its new Bivalent Omicron Vaccine prove that the Old COVID Vax had a minus-44% negative efficacy after just 30 days
By The Exposé
September 26, 2022

We have been sold an antivaccine as a vaccine.

The old Pfizer COVID injection destroys the immune system at a rate greater than 1% per day.


By a concerned reader

According to Pfizer –

“Pfizer and BioNTech’s bivalent vaccine contains 15-µg of mRNA encoding the wild-type spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is present in the Original Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and 15-µg of mRNA encoding the spike protein of the Omicron | BA.4/BA.5 subvariants.

“Because the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants contain identical spike protein amino acid sequences, both can be targeted at once with a single mRNA strand.

“Apart from the addition of the mRNA sequence of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein, all other components of the vaccine remain unchanged.
” – Pfizer and BioNTech Granted FDA Emergency Use Authorization of Omicron BA.4/BA.5-Adapted Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Booster for Ages 12 Years and Older | Pfizer

“One month after administration, a booster dose of the Omicron-adapted monovalent candidates (30 µg and 60 µg) increased neutralizing (antibody) geometric mean titers (GMT) against Omicron BA.1 13.5 and 19.6-fold above pre-booster dose levels, while a booster dose of the Omicron-adapted bivalent candidates conferred a 9.1 and 10.9-fold increase in neutralizing (antibody) GMTs against Omicron BA.1.

“Both Omicron-adapted vaccine candidates were well-tolerated in participants who received one or the other Omicron-adapted vaccine”
Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Omicron-Adapted COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Demonstrate High Immune Response Against Omicron | Pfizer .

From this information, we shall now prove that the original vaccine shots destroy the immune system at a rate of 44% per month.

We have known that the vaccines in effect cause VAIDS. But we had not realised how quickly they do that until now…

Putting these results into a tabular form we get –

image-222.png


Looking at the table above we see that adding 30 ug of the original Pfizer vaccine against Wuhan Hu1 (that everybody has taken for the 1st and 2nd shots and the boosters up until September 2022), to 30ug of the new Omicron BA4/5 vaccine component decreases its effectiveness after one month from 19.6x to 10.9x a reduction of 44%.

Likewise adding 15ug of the old Wuhan Hu1 vaccine decreases the effectiveness of 15ug of the new Omicron BA4/5 vaccine component from 13.5x to 9.1x, a reduction of 33%.

Tabulating these results for Omicron BA1 neutralising antibody increase after one month we get the following –

image-223.png


These results lay bare what the Exposé has been demonstrating from government infection hospitalisation and death figures all over the world, many of which have now stopped publishing the relevant figures because they were worsening by the week and clearly displaying how lethal the vaccines are.

The original Pfizer vaccine not only had no efficacy against Omicron. It also progressively destroyed your immune system at the rate displayed above. It was an anti-vaccine against Omicron. It never had any positive effect on Omicron antibody levels.

Furthermore, 30 days after your Pfizer booster shot (30 ug of vaccine against Wuhan Hu1) you would have had 44% fewer antibodies against Omicron than you had before you took the booster according to Pfizer’s own figures.

It was NEVER an immunity booster.

It was always an immunity disruptor, an immunity compromiser, an immunity nullifier, an immunity degrader, an immunity reducer. It was an incredibly effective immunity destroyer.

Within 30 days of taking your Pfizer booster, you lost 44% of your first level (antibody) immune response against the original Omicron variant BA1. That is why the infection rates in the vaccinated were so much worse than the infection rates in the unvaccinated for Omicron.

We no longer need government figures to see this. Because Pfizer has gone and done it for us. Their figures clearly show that the original vaccine causes a new form of Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS) at an alarmingly fast rate of over 1% per day.

They were so keen to show the world how effective their new shots were, that they overlooked the fact that their data also proved how anti-effective their old shots were.

THE BIG REVELATION​


I need to state this again clearly because it is so important.

Pfizer’s figures for the new vax versus the old vax prove that the old vax did not work against Omicron.

Pfizer’s bivalent versus monovalent trial results shows that one shot (30ug) of the old vaccine destroys 44% of your Covid19 antibodies in 30 days.

Since one is not considered boosted until 14 days after the shot, it follows that the old boosters were never vaccines, they were always anti-vaccines, having a negative efficacy by day 14.

Most Pfizer vaccinations taken by the majority of humans on the planet prior to September 2022, have systematically destroyed their immune response at an initial rate greater than 1% per day (44% in 30 days).

Most Pfizer-vaccinated people now have VAIDS, and winter is coming.


I remember when I wrote an article analysing German government figures out of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. THey showed that vaccinated Germans were 8.1x more likely to be infected with Omicron than unvaccinated Germans.

I then looked at the official figures for Australia, and they showed that vaccinated people were more than 10x likely to be infected than the unvaxxed.

The German government immediately changed their figures and claimed: “Oh we made a mistake”.

They found another 911 unvaccinated people who had allegedly caught Omicron.

Are we really to believe that Germans, the best mechanical engineers in the world, routinely make mistakes with numbers?

This was no mistake. The Australian figures confirmed it back then. And Pfizer’s results above confirm it today.

There are half a million people in the UK with compromised immune systems. Many of them have absolutely zero antibodies to Omicron.

Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 actually did a reasonable documentary on them on Thursday, September 1 from 12:00 – 14:00. These people are condemned to spend the rest of their lives in total isolation having had 5 or 6 Covid vaccinations to no good end.

Their immune system can no longer produce ANY antibodies to Omicron. Jeremy interviewed several of them who confirmed that the COVID vaccines are useless for them. The government did not pay for them to discover that they had zero antibodies after 5 or 6 vaccinations. They had to have private testing done, which they paid for themselves, in order to find that out.

The solution for them is a drug called Evushield, which is a monoclonal antibody concoction. It literally gives them the antibodies that their immune system can no longer make. It is the Covid equivalent to antiretrovirals for AIDS.

The MHRA authorised the drug in March for immuno-compromised people. But you cannot get it on the NHS and you need 2 shots at £800 per shot. Many cannot afford it. So much for the NHS caring about the health of this country.

Obviously, if you cannot interact with anybody face to face, your earning capacity will be seriously reduced and the taxes you pay every year will likewise be significantly reduced. The idea that such a person is not worth £1600 to the economy over the rest of their lives is absurd.

An investment of £1600 would most likely be repaid within a year by the overall improvement to the economy from having another fit and healthy working person. And that is just the economic argument.

The social argument need not even be mentioned. Liz Truss is about to spend 200 Billion on energy apparently. We could fix every immuno-compromised person in the land for less than 1 billion. But that would not get any computer-generated Wuhan Hu1 spike proteins into them now, would it?

These immuno-compromised people had weak immunity to begin with and now have absolutely zero immunity in many cases. That is where we will all end up if we continue taking any vaccination containing the genetic code for Covid spike proteins or taking the spike proteins themselves as is the case with the Novavax vaccine.

One woman interviewed on the radio said that she had not had a hug in 2½ years. Jeremy Vine suggested that the government paid for Covid tested huggers to go and visit people like her. At least that gave her a laugh.

The tragic thing about these immune deficient people is that they are the ones least able to tolerate the immune system destruction mediated by the vaccines and yet they were always the first to be recommended to take the next shot.

They are the victims of the grossest medical negligence. They should all be given Evushield for that reason alone.

Pfizer has demonstrated a 44% immune degradation in 30 days at 30ug of the original Pfizer vaccine (the standard vaccine dose). I wonder if they will ever publish the 60 and 90-day figures?

There is no commercial need so to do, now that they have approval from all the regulators after a 30-day clinical trial. They stopped the 3½-year clinical trial number NCT04368728 from 2020 July 27 to 2024 February 8 of the original vaccine after 6 months, when they permitted the placebo group to become vaccinated.

A 30-day clinical trial is not a completed clinical trial. It is a joke. Fauci himself said recently that we don’t have time to finish the clinical trials of the bivalent booster.

They could have made an omicron booster 8 months ago, in which case they would have had time. They could have made a delta booster a year ago. But they plainly have no interest in providing an up-to-date booster. They just want an excuse to fill the public full of the original computer-generated spike proteins.

The FDA Authorised the Wrong Vaccine​

30ug of the new monovalent Pfizer vaccine increased neutralising antibodies by 19.6x after 30 days.

15ug + 15ug of the bivalent Pfizer vaccine increased neutralising antibodies by 9.1x after 30 days.

So the monovalent vaccine, the fully updated vaccine, was 2.15x better (19.6/9.1) than the bivalent vaccine.

It produced actually 115% more antibodies against Omicron than the bivalent vax, because it was fully updated rather than partially updated. The only disadvantage to the monovalent vaccine for the authorities is that it does not fill you up with computer-generated Wuhan Hu1 spike proteins.

So which one did the FDA authorise? COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters

They authorised the bivalent one of course. They did not authorise the monovalent one.

What’s happening here is that the old vaccine, designed against Wuhan Hu1 (which was never isolated and was computer generated and I doubt was ever in circulation) has zero efficacy against Omicron. All it does is progressively damage your immune system.

Whereas the new vaccine, being designed against Omicron, does have good initial efficacy against it as the figures above demonstrate. But all Covid variant spike proteins are anti-vaccines to the entire immune system and cause Vaccine Mediated AIDS progressively as more and more spike proteins infect your T cells.

This is true for both the new and old vaccines.

Conclusion​


We have been sold an anti-vaccine for Omicron as a vaccine for Omicron and Pfizer’s own figures now show it.

The reason the reduction in efficacy after 30 days is 11% higher with the 30ug + 30ug shot than it is with the 15ug + 15ug shot is that the larger the dose, the more spike proteins your body makes and the more damage they do to your immune system in 30 days.

If you want to cause no damage to your immune system then do not put any spike proteins or spike protein-producing vaccines into your body.

There is a great new study from Harvard, John’s Hopkins, Oxford, Edinburgh, California and other Universities showing that for every 1 person whom the vaccines saved from hospitalisation (according to government figures), 18-98 people suffered serious life-altering adverse reactions.

It is an amazing world wherein such prestigious universities are 6 months behind writers for the Exposé.

There was a fascinating comment by a switched-on woman in the Telegraph. She asked:

‘Is this whole Covid thing some kind of intelligence test?’

A brainwashing test from the globalist demons and a wisdom test from the nationalist God of freedom, who forced us into nations at Babel in order to prevent a global political monopoly such as the WEF, would be my answer.

Extrapolation of Results (for Mathematicians)​


We can project forward the antibody levels post-vaccination in the bivalent vaccinated compared to the monovalent vaccinated month by month by continuing to reduce them by 44.4% and 32.6% respectively every 30 days as follows

image-221.png


This analysis projects only the extra reduction in antibody levels caused by adding an equal quantity of the old vax to the new vax. It does not include the reduction in antibodies caused by the new vax spike proteins themselves. It also fails to take account of the fact that your immune system is gradually wiping out vaccinated cells, So that spike protein production will fall off progressively throughout the extrapolated period which will reduce the rate of attrition of antibodies. These two omitted factors are opposite in effect.

We know how much damage 30ug of spike protein (either new or old) does in the first month. It is 32.6%. So we should reduce all the figures above by an extra 32.6% per month.

We also know that spike protein production tails off reasonably quickly at more or less the same rate. So we shall assume that these two effects more or less cancel each other out.

The fascinating thing about the extrapolation is that the lower dose does much better than the higher dose from month 2 onwards (being less destructive to the immune system). This supports something I have been saying from the start of the vaccination program, namely that the doses are way too high. They are gene therapy doses, not vaccination doses.

The 60 ug shot fails to provide any extra protection and starts to go negative at 5 months.
The 30 ug shot fails to provide any extra protection and starts to go negative at 7 months.

A 1 ug shot would have provided extra protection for the entire pandemic and would not have caused nearly as many adverse reactions and would have killed almost nobody because most immune systems would have been able to deal with the 30x smaller number of spikes.

So here is what the new shots should have been if you are going to permit mRNA shots. Of course, nobody will implement this because the shots are not about health. But I am entitled to use hindsight here because the bivalent shots were both made and approved with hindsight available.

1. Use the 87½% of non-spike viral proteins rather than the 12½% of viral spike proteins
2. Reduce the dose from 30ug to 1ug
3. Regularly update the vaccination to include non-spike protein parts only from variants actually in circulation as we do with flu shots
4, Do not substitute Uracil for N1 Methyl Pseudouridine in the mRNA coding for the viral parts. That is a lethal gene hack that should never be approved by any regulator with any understanding of genetics.

But giving anybody a gene therapy shot for which no clinical studies have ever been permitted to continue for more than 6 months is extreme medical fraud (any act OR OMISSION intended to deceive).

And giving people a gene therapy shot for which no clinical studies have lasted more than 30 days is likewise criminal.

Any doctor who vaccinates people with these bivalent jabs knowing the Pfizer results above or knowing that we presently have only 30 days of clinical trial data to support them should be suspended. He has broken the Hippocratic oath. Indeed the administrations of the CDC, the FDA and the MHRA should be sacked for recommending and approving them.

The Novavax approach applied to the above would have been the best and most benign vaccination answer (indeed that is precisely what we presently do with flu shots and Covid19 is just another type of flu). But vitamin D3, direct sunlight, mouthwashes containing Cetyl Pyridinium Chloride and spending an hour breathing chlorinated air in an indoor pool facility, Ivermectin, Hydroxy Chloroquine and monoclonal antibodies are all more effective and less dangerous.

I am a supporter of Trump simply because he is not a politician. But his ‘Operation Warp Speed’ was and continues to be the worst medical intervention in the history of healthcare. And the sooner he recognises it the better. I suspect that he does recognise it but cannot publicly declare his position politically.

With regard to the extrapolation above, the performance of the new vaccinations is better than that of the old ones because they actually code for a variant in circulation (to some extent), rather than a computer-generated artefact that has never been isolated and was never in circulation IMHO. So they produce more directly focused protection.

But they are just as lethal to the immune system, the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system and to all body organs.

So they start from a higher point and their protection against the alleged Omicron variant lasts longer (7 months rather than 0 months).

But the spikes and the fake uracil are just as destructive to your general health as the old vaccine was. So their VAERS results will be equally as bad. So they are in effect just a greater fool’s paradise than their predecessors.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


CDC Publication on Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis Underscores ‘Biased Selective Analysis’: Cardiologist

By Enrico Trigoso
September 26, 2022

The CDC published a study surveying young people who suffered from myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in The Lancet on Sep. 21, showing the organization’s “biased selective analysis” and dismissing severe reactions to the controversial vaccines, according to cardiologist Dr. Sanjay Verma.

The Lancet published the survey of young people ages 12 to 29 who suffered from myocarditis—a severe heart inflammation disease—after taking a COVID vaccine, based on VAERS reports from Jan. 12 to Nov. 5, 2021.

The survey assessed patient outcomes at least 90 days after the onset of myocarditis symptoms after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

The Lancet publication shows that at least 90 days after myocarditis symptoms appeared, about 26 percent of surveyed young people still needed daily medication because of heart inflammation. Thirty percent of them said they felt pain and 20 percent said they had problems with their daily activities.

“ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] presentations have given us a glimpse of this data over the past year; however, this formal analysis truly underscores CDC’s biased selective analysis to advance an oversimplified agenda that may be causing irreparable harm,” Verma told The Epoch Times.

The CDC concludes in the study that “despite the higher than expected occurrence of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, the benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to outweigh the risk of myocarditis.”

‘Flawed Methodology’

Verma says that the methodology the CDC used for their study is “grossly flawed,” but even so, it showed that 99 patients out of 393, or 25 percent of the patients, received treatment in an intensive care unit, “which is much higher than the 2 percent noted in previous ACIP presentations [pdf] and much more severe than the oft-repeated ‘generally mild’ [description of myocarditis],” he added.

Half of the patients, or 178 people, who participated in the survey had ongoing heart inflammation symptoms during follow-up encounters.

At the median follow-up of 98 days, 28 percent (91 people) of those who were considered fully or possibly recovered (320 people) continued to have activity restrictions.

At the time of initial myocarditis hospitalization or diagnosis, 83 percent (267 people) had restrictions on physical activity.

Verma explains the flaws in the study’s methodology: “Sixty percent of reported cases of myocarditis were not even included in the final analysis (missing telephone contact or were unreachable). Those who were not reachable may have died (needs to be more thoroughly investigated). Many (38 percent) did not have complete diagnostic data at time of follow-up. Median interval from myocarditis onset to survey completion was 143 days for patients and 191 days for health care providers.”

Verma further notes that VAERS underestimates the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis “by 3-4 times,” a topic that he has reviewed (pdf) in great detail previously.

“An outstanding detailed and quantified analysis of the risk and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in children and young adults is in stark contrast to CDC’s erroneous conclusion,” Verma said.

“Any glimmer of hope that the agency was aiming for redemption by acknowledging the very public missteps made throughout the pandemic is stultified by their ongoing dismissiveness toward the severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations, especially myocarditis in children and young adults. The latest CDC publication is a thinly veiled attempt at having nothing more than a pretense of rigorous pharmacovigilance to ensure public safety,” the cardiologist said.

The Epoch Times recently reported on a study that claims to have found “irrefutable proof of causality” that the mRNA vaccines cause vascular and organ damage. A WHO fact-checking branch dismissed it, but was rebutted by the microbiologists who authored the study.

The Epoch Times reached out to the CDC and The Lancet for comment.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


FDA Vaccine Adviser Suggests Young Healthy People Shouldn’t Get Latest COVID Booster
By Jack Phillips
September 26, 2022

An adviser to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during an interview advised young people not to receive the recently approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster doses due to a lack of human testing.

Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, told CNN this weekend that he isn’t convinced that the new Omicron subvariant-specific boosters will provide any benefit to healthy, younger adults.

“When you’re asking people to get a vaccine, I think there has to be clear evidence of benefit,” he said in an on-air interview. “And we’re not going to have clinical studies, obviously, before this launches, but you’d like to have at least human data [on] people getting this vaccine, you see a clear and dramatic increase in neutralizing antibiotics, and then at least you have a correlate of protection against [Omicron subvariant] BA.4, BA.5.

“Because if you don’t have that, if there’s not clear evidence of benefit, then it’s not fair to ask people to take a risk, no matter how small. The benefits should be clear,” Offit said. “A healthy young person is unlikely to benefit from the extra dose.”

As for how the updated booster compares with the previous monovalent shot, “we don’t know for sure,” he wrote last week for The Wall Street Journal, “because the Food and Drug Administration authorized the new shot without clinical trials.”

During an FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting, Offit voted against the authorization.

Recommendation

On Sept. 1, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a recommendation to offer reformulated bivalent booster doses manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna.

The CDC recommendation is for Pfizer’s vaccine booster for Americans aged 12 years and older and for Moderna’s vaccine booster for U.S. adults. People are advised to get the updated vaccine boosters at least two months after their most recent shot.

The old COVID-19 boosters are no longer available, having been replaced by the bivalent ones. But the primary series of vaccines will remain the same, which is based on the original COVID-19 strain that emerged in Wuhan, China.

As she signed off on recommending the boosters, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated they were “formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant” and can “help restore protection” to the virus.

Her comment came as doctors questioned the lack of human data on the updated booster shots in a CDC advisory panel meeting earlier this month.

“I really do struggle with a vaccine that has no clinical data that has been reported for humans,” Dr. Oliver Brooks, one of the advisory committee members, said in the panel meeting.

But a CDC official, Dr. Melinda Wharton, downplayed concerns and said that members should consider that influenza vaccines are updated each year without any human data. Noting that “there will be some bumps in the road” as officials transition to the bivalent vaccines, Wharton said that it’s necessary to move toward updated shots that she believes will provide more protection.

Data published last week on the CDC’s website show that few Americans who are eligible for the bivalent shots have actually received them, coming weeks after they were approved on Sept. 1. About 4.4 million people have taken the updated shot, while the American Health Association had estimated that more than 200 million Americans were eligible.

The FDA and CDC didn’t respond by press time to a request for comment on Offit’s recent public statements.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


CDC Issues Overhaul to Mask Mandate in Hospitals and Nursing Homes

By Jack Phillips
September 26, 2022

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a change to its guidance late last week and will no longer require nursing homes and hospitals to require masking in some areas.

In a revision on Sept. 23, the CDC said that nursing home facilities and hospitals in a number of areas without “high” community transmission can choose not to require” all doctors, patients, and visitors to wear masks. It’s one of many changes to the CDC’s COVID-19 guidance since August when the agency’s leadership announced an overhaul of how it responds to pandemics.

“Updates were made to reflect the high levels of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools,” the CDC said.

Recent CDC data used to inform health care facilities shows that about 73 percent of counties in the United States are seeing “high” community transmission of COVID-19. About 26.9 percent, meanwhile, are meeting low, moderate, or substantial transmission, according to the data, indicating that facilities in those areas don’t have to mandate masks.

“Community transmission is the metric currently recommended to guide select practices in healthcare settings to allow for earlier intervention, before there is strain on the healthcare system and to better protect the individuals seeking care in these settings,” the CDC stated in its updated guidance.

Early on in the pandemic, the CDC recommended everyone wear masks or respirators in health care facilities or nursing homes. Exceptions were later included visitors who choose not to wear masks if they had updated COVID-19 vaccines and were alone with the person they were visiting.

“Vaccination status is no longer used to inform source control, screening testing, or post-exposure recommendations,” the guidance now says.

Holly Harmon, a senior vice president for the American Health Care Association as well as the National Center for Assisted Living, praised the recent CDC guidance change.

“While our commitment to infection prevention and control continues, adapting COVID protocols means recognizing the current stage of this pandemic as well as the importance of quality of life for our nation’s seniors,” Harmon said, reported CBS News.

Overhaul


In mid-August, new guidelines published by the federal agency no longer recommend staying at least six feet away from other people to reduce exposure.

And the agency stated at the time that it’s no longer recommending unvaccinated people to quarantine after exposure. Unvaccinated people who have been in close contact with an infected person aren’t advised to go through a five-day quarantine period if they haven’t tested positive or shown symptoms.

“CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection,” the CDC said at the time amid additional announced changes.

But notably, the CDC is still requiring non-citizen international travelers to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination before entering the United States, according to its website. The agency dropped testing for international travelers in June.

The Canadian government on Monday is ending its requirements that travelers crossing the U.S.–Canada border have to show proof of vaccination starting Oct. 1.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF4PebYeYpU
Common post covid neurology
20 min 27 sec

Sep 26, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

42%increased chance of developing a neuro problem after covid, equating to 7% of those infected. Dr. Al-Aly Overall, COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders worldwide Long-term neurologic outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159... https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing... https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/covid... Comprehensive evaluation of postacute neurologic sequelae at 1 year National healthcare databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Covid cohort = 154,068 (nonhospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care) Contemporary controls = 5,638,795 Historical controls = 5,859,621 (2017 data) Average age of 61 Estimate risks and burdens of incident neurologic disorders at 12 months following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection Longitudinal observational study design March 2020 through January 2021 (predates delta, omicron and other COVID variants) Results In the postacute phase of COVID-19, there was increased risk of an array of incident neurologic sequelae Ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke TIA Cognition and memory disorders Peripheral nervous system disorders Episodic disorders (e.g. migraine, seizures) Extrapyramidal and movement disorders Mental health disorders, (anxiety depression psychosis) Musculoskeletal disorders Sensory disorders Guillain–Barré syndrome Encephalitis or encephalopathy Headaches Hazard ratio of any neurologic sequela 1.42 (1.38 to 1.47) Burden 70.69 (63.54 to 78.01) per 1,000 persons at 12 months Or, 7.069% The risks and burdens were elevated even in people who did not require hospitalization during acute COVID-19 Risks and burdens increased according to the severity of the acute infection, from nonhospitalized to hospitalized to intensive care Dizzynes Taken together, our results provide evidence of increased risk of long-term neurologic disorders in people who had COVID-19. Incident neurologic outcomes in COVID-19 versus contemporary control Cerebrovascular disorders (at 12 months) Ischemic stroke HR 1.50, burden 3.40 per 1,000 Transient ischemic attacks HR 1.62, burden 2.03 Hemorrhagic stroke HR 2.19, burden 0.21 Cerebral venous thrombosis HR 2.69, burden 0.05 Composite of these cerebrovascular outcomes were HR 1.56, burden 4.92 Cognition and memory Risks of memory problems HR 1.77, burden 10.07 Alzheimer’s disease HR 2.03, burden 1.65 Composite of these cognition and memory outcomes were HR 1.80, Burden 10.35 Disorders of peripheral nerves Peripheral neuropathy HR 1.34, burden 5.64 Paresthesia HR 1.32, burden 2.89 Dysautonomia HR 1.30, burden 1.60 Bell’s palsy HR 1.48, burden 0.32 Composite of these disorders of peripheral nerves were HR 1.34, burden 8.64 Episodic disorders Migraine, epilepsy and seizures, headache disorders Composite of these episodic disorders were HR 1.32, burden 4.75 Extrapyramidal and movement disorders Abnormal involuntary movements, tremor, Parkinson-like disease, dystonia, myoclonus Composite of these extrapyramidal and movement disorders were HR 1.42, burden 3.98 Mental health disorders Major depressive disorders, stress and adjustment disorders, anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders Composite of these mental health disorders were HR 1.43, burden 25.00 Musculoskeletal disorders Joint pain, myalgia, myopathy Composite of these musculoskeletal disorders were HR 1.45, burden 40.09 Sensory disorders Hearing abnormalities, tinnitus, vision abnormalities, loss of smell, loss of taste Composite of these sensory disorders were HR 1.25, burden 17.03 Other neurologic or related disorders Dizziness, somnolence, Guillain–Barré syndrome, encephalitis or encephalopathy, transverse myelitis Composite of these other neurologic or related disorders were HR 1.46, burden 7.37 Composite outcome of any neurologic disorder Compared with the contemporary control group, there was increased risk and burden of any neurologic outcome HR 1.42, burden 70.69 Dr. Al-Aly It doesn’t matter if you are young or old, female or male, or what your race is. It doesn’t matter if you smoked or not, or if you had other unhealthy habits or conditions.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQyogVXHhFs
Myocarditis After Vaccines, 54% Youngsters Had Cardiac MRI Abnormalities after 90 Days
28 min 50 sec

Streamed live 9 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

In this study the researchers followed up youngsters from 12-29 years of age who had developed myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine. Let's review.

URL list from Monday, Sep. 26 2022

Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study - The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health
Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study
Persistent Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in a Cohort of Adolescents with Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine Myopericarditis - The Journal of Pediatrics
Follow-up cardiac magnetic resonance in children with vaccine-associated myocarditis - PMC
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Study finds different comorbidities have different impacts on COVID outcomes
by Oxford University Press
September 27, 2022

A new paper in Biology Methods & Protocols, published by Oxford University Press, indicates that some pre-existing conditions—including degenerative neurological diseases, dementia, and severe disabilities—matter a lot more than once thought when assessing who is at risk for death due to COVID-19.

COVID-19 has changed lives dramatically. In the United States, the disease may result in a mortality rate as much as 163 times higher than that associated with seasonal influenza. COVID-19 can also be more likely to result in patients needing mechanical ventilation or being admitted to intensive care.

Pre-existing conditions, or comorbidities, make severe illness or death from COVID-19 more likely. But assessing the risk of various conditions for COVID severity has been challenging. Researchers have proposed several mathematical models for predicting death from COVID-19 based on comorbidities. Medical establishments use these models since they help with patient management and resource allocation.

Many diseases increase the mortality rate because they weaken the immune system, make the patient more likely to develop infections, and cause end-organ dysfunction. One method for assessing the risk of various conditions is to group them under broad categories (like "malignancy") and predict outcomes for each category. Another method is to weigh different pre-existing conditions differently and use the sum to predict outcomes. The researchers here believe that these approaches have substantial flaws; the real impact of a specific pre-existing condition is often not well known, broadly similar diseases are often lumped together in prediction models even if the COVID-19 outcomes can be very different, and rare diseases are not well represented.

The researchers here believe that a better approach is to do a systematic survey of all pre-existing conditions, determine which have an impact on outcomes, and then use that to generate a predicted probability of death that represents the aggregate risk posed due to the comorbidity.

Using all diagnostic codes employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the researchers developed a new prediction model to estimate the probability of death from COVID-19. This is the largest study to date following patients with COVID-19 to predict mortality. Starting in 1997, researchers here used diagnoses from the first time a patient sought care until 14 days before a positive COVID-19 test and then compared that to COVID outcomes for the 347,220 COVID patients treated in Veterans Affairs facilities as of September 2021. They found that their new model, which they call PDeathDx, outperformed other conventional prediction models.

What is more, the researchers here found that certain underlying conditions are much more likely to result in death. These include degenerative neurological diseases, dementia, and severe disabilities. Because physicians don't associate these pre-existing conditions with respiratory injury or weakened immunity, conventional risk assessments fail to capture the serious COVID risk for patients with such conditions.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


People hospitalized with COVID-19 may have higher heart failure risk, study says
by Teddy Rosenbluth
September 26, 2022

People hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have heart failure after their discharge than those hospitalized for another reason, a Duke University study published this month found.

The study's findings, published in Nature Communications, support a growing body of research that suggests some people infected with COVID-19 go on to develop long-term heart problems.

Using health records of more than 580,000 patients admitted to U.S. hospitals, Duke researchers tracked how often those who had COVID went to the hospital for heart issues in the year after their discharge. They found the COVID group was 45% more likely to be diagnosed with heart failure when compared to patients hospitalized with something other than COVID.

Duke's study is the first to look at this question in a large, racially diverse population, said Dr. Marat Fudim, a Duke cardiologist and author on the paper.

A paper published in February found a similar link between cardiovascular disease, including heart failure, and COVID hospitalization in US Veterans Affairs hospital patients.

Fudim said that heart disease might in time be revealed to be a complication for those who had a milder COVID-19 infection.

"I think the next few years, we will uncover the true burden of long COVID," he said. "This article just tells us the worst of the worst."

An imperfect study

Fudim is the first to admit that his study has limitations.

He and other researchers used a data set from past hospitalizations and retrospectively ran an analysis. Which means that they can't say that COVID-19 causes heart failure—only that it's associated.

Randomized, controlled experiments are the gold standard in scientific research because researchers randomly assign participants to the groups they're comparing, making each group as similar as possible.

But randomly assigning a group of people to contract COVID-19 isn't ethical or feasible.

Right now, Fudim's study design is the best way scientists have to study the long-term impacts of COVID-19, said Dr. Ziyad Al- Aly, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis who authored the paper on VA hospitals.

"The truth is there is never, ever going to be a randomized study for COVID," he said.

Not everyone is convinced the findings point to a severe side effect from COVID. There may be too many other factors that could explain the link between a COVID hospitalization and heart failure, said Dr. Christopher Kelly, UNC cardiologist.

For example, people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 likely had pre-existing health conditions that could also explain why they went on to develop heart failure, Kelly said.

Those hospitalized for a non-COVID problem don't necessarily have those same chronic health problems if they were in the hospital for a minor procedure like gallbladder surgery, he said.

The Duke researchers statistically adjusted for a number of health problems that could go on to cause heart failure like obesity, diabetes, hypertension and kidney disease. Still, Kelly said there's no way to perfectly adjust for the differences between the groups.

Al-Aly said the Duke researchers could have made the study design slightly better by comparing the hospitalized COVID-19 patients to those hospitalized for an infection, who are more likely to have a similar set of preexisting health problems.

"There are tons of ways that you can explain the data that don't involve blaming COVID for them developing heart failure later," Kelly said. "There are differences that are unmeasurable and there are differences that you haven't thought about."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


New tool assesses which countries need COVID-19 vaccines the most
by University College London
September 26, 2022


new-tool-assesses-whic.jpg

Radar chart of participant responses in DCE (Black Dashed Line?=?Mean Weight) Credit: BMC Public Health (2022). DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13948-6

A new scoring tool that helps to "transparently" prioritize which countries are in greatest need of COVID-19 vaccines, has been developed by a UCL-led team of researchers.

The researchers say the tool considers afar wider range of factors than the current global COVAX facility, which has been criticized by some countries, particularly poorer nations for insufficient access and a lack of flexibility to response to local rapid rises in infections. The study, published in BMC Public Health, asked 28 experts from 13 different countries, what they thought were the most important factors for assessing countries' needs for vaccines.

The group of experts, who included individuals based at universities and national public health institutes from countries including the UK, Japan, Kenya, Norway and South Africa, regarded the most important consideration when deciding where vaccines were needed was the proportion of the overall population who were not fully vaccinated.

Other important factors included the proportion of high-risk population not fully vaccinated, health system capacity, capacity to purchase vaccines, and the proportion of the population who are classed as clinically vulnerable.

These important factors were then included in a choice task to determine how each factor should be weighted, in order to create a scoring tool.

It is hoped that the scoring tool will be able to make the process of allocating the COVID-19 vaccines across the globe fairer—by being explicit in the criteria used to identify needs and transparent about how the factors were identified and the evidence-based process used to derive the tool.

In the future it is hope that the tool will also be able to inform international discussions on how to respond to the next public health crisis.

Corresponding author, Dr. Vageesh Jain (UCL Institute for Global Health), says that "the equitable global allocation of COVID-19 vaccines has received considerable attention, although to date the concept of an 'equitable allocation' of vaccines has been poorly defined."

"Understanding vaccine equity requires an assessment of the need for vaccines across countries. This includes evaluating how resources are prioritized among those with varying needs, as well as ensuring that countries with similar needs for vaccines have comparable levels of access."

Currently vaccines are allocated using the COVAX Facility, which aims to allocate enough vaccines to cover 20% of each national population. It also considers a small range of metrics (like vulnerability to severe disease) and a qualitative assessment.

However, the COVAX-Facility has suffered from insufficient access to vaccines. This was amplified by the arrival of the Omicron variant, which led to high-income countries initially administering more booster doses than all vaccine doses combined in low-income countries.

Dr. Jain says that "the current process being used to allocate scarce vaccines across countries, which was hastily designed during a global health crisis, warrants scrutiny and, if possible, improvement."

"Assessing needs for COVID-19 vaccines is complex, given the extensive but variable impacts of epidemics across populations and the diversity present in social value judgements."

"But our study has found that several factors exist, extending beyond traditional metrics, which may lead to particular countries having a greater need for vaccines compared to others."

"On average, the proportion of the overall population and of the high-risk population not fully vaccinated, were the most highly valued factors related to vaccine needs. Several other factors found to be important, such as the economic impact of lockdowns are not routinely considered in global vaccine allocation mechanisms."

"It is likely that we will see a similar situation arise with regards to vaccine equity and monkeypox—with vaccines being a key part of outbreak control. However, we have already witnessed richer countries buying up most of the vaccines leaving a general lack of supply for the rest of the world."

"This transparent scoring tool will aid qualitative assessments to further the role of equity in global vaccine allocation."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Vaccinating women infected with COVID during pregnancy prior to delivery provides antibodies to newborns
by University of California, Los Angeles
September 26, 2022

Women with COVID in pregnancy who are subsequently vaccinated after recovery, but prior to delivery, are more likely to pass antibodies on to the child than similarly infected but unvaccinated mothers are. Researchers who studied a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers found that 78% of their infants tested at birth had antibodies. Of these infants, 3 of 4 born to unvaccinated mothers had evidence of antibodies while all of those from vaccinated mothers carried COVID antibodies.

At six months, 52% of the babies, from both vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers, carried antibodies. The decrease in that percentage is due to a combination of infants of vaccinated mothers carrying more antibodies than those from unvaccinated mothers at birth, a waning of detectable antibodies over time, and some participants leaving the trial prior to the 6-month point. Some infants born to unvaccinated mothers had no detectable antibodies at birth.

There are currently no approved COVID vaccines for newborns under the age of six months. Transplacental transfer of antibodies to the infant from the mother during pregnancy may provide protection against COVID during the first six months of life. Also, little is known about the impact of mothers' COVID severity, timing of infection and subsequent vaccination on both maternal and infant antibodies over time.

In a longitudinal study, researchers collected blood samples from pregnant women and infants at the time closest to infection, birth, and six months postpartum: samples were collected from 148 women and 122 newborns at birth, and another 45 maternal and 48 infant samples were taken at six months. Some participants dropped out of the trial during the intervening time, and some mothers gave birth to twins or triplets, accounting for the differences in numbers tested.

This is one of the largest longitudinal studies of mothers and infants with a history of COVID infection during the mother's pregnancy. However, the researchers note some limitations to the study. Due to the study's design, associations may not imply causation, they did not have vaccinated controls without a history of COVID infection for comparison, and they had a high attrition rate in study subjects by the 6-month point.

In this analysis, the mother's vaccination status was the strongest predictor of antibody transfer to the infants, who were more likely to have detectable antibodies at birth. This may be an effective strategy to boost COVID antibodies not just in mothers, but in infants before they are eligible for the vaccine at six months of age.

"Several studies have demonstrated that mothers with a history of COVID during pregnancy may pass antibodies to their babies at delivery," said lead author Dr. Mary Cambou, clinical instructor in the UCLA Division of Infectious Diseases. "However, our study was able to examine several factors, including timing, the severity of COVID disease, and subsequent vaccination, on both maternal and infant levels at birth and at six months. Vaccination following infection and prior to delivery was the strongest predictor of infant antibodies at birth. Notably, infant levels dropped significantly by six months, emphasizing the importance of starting the COVID vaccine series as early as six months."

The study is published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Remdesivir-resistant version of COVID-19 detected in organ transplant recipients
by NYU Langone Health
September 26, 2022


remdesivir-resistant-v.jpg

2A Relation between the timing of remdesivir exposure and the subsequent development of the de novo RdRp V792I mutation in Case 1. Select Ct values are provided at points when the patient was symptomatic. A Ct of 34.1 was obtained 153 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19 when the patient experienced durable resolution of all symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. 2B Case 1 CT of the abdomen demonstrating mass-like thickening along the renal graft (arrow) contiguous with the abdominal wall. 2C Case 1 cutaneous findings along the left abdomen overlying the renal graft. Biopsy yielded cells consistent with PTLD. 2D Relation between the timing of remdesivir exposure and the subsequent development of the de novo RdRp V792I mutation in Case 2. A Ct value of 17.4 was obtained when the patient was readmitted with worsening pulmonary symptoms. A Ct value of 26 was obtained 32 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19 when the patient experienced marked improvement in symptoms and their oxygen requirement had resolved. 2E Case 2 CT of the chest demonstrating multifocal nodules, many of which are surrounded by ground-glass opacities. Arrow indicates a cavitary lesion. An elevated galactomannan level from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid suggested the diagnosis of pulmonary aspergillosis. Credit: Clinical Infectious Diseases (2022). DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1800050/v1

Recent studies have shown that patients with weakened immune systems—which enables the virus that causes COVID-19 to remain longer in the body, copy itself, and continually change—may enable the development of new, slightly different versions of the virus (variants). These patients include those treated with drugs that suppress the immune system to keep it from rejecting a newly transplanted organ.

A new study, led by researchers at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Long Island School of Medicine, shows that two kidney transplant patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs, and who later had a lengthy COVID-19 infection, developed a version of the virus with a genetic change (mutation) that made it resistant to the antiviral therapy remdesivir.

This treatment is among the first antiviral drugs approved for use in the pandemic and remains an important weapon against the pandemic coronavirus. Remdesivir is especially important for treating transplant recipients since the more recently developed Paxlovid (a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir) can interfere with immunosuppressants sometimes used in these patients, say the study authors.

The study results reflect a standard problem in antiviral medicine, in which the rapid and error-prone reproductive process of viruses continuously creates slightly different genetic versions of themselves. Some randomly develop the qualities needed to resist the drug treatment. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic virus, remdesivir is thought to work by interfering with the virus's ability to create copies of itself through the action of a polymerase, a viral enzyme.

According to the findings, both patients were initially infected with a version of the coronavirus that did not carry the mutation that provides resistance to remdesivir. However, following treatment with the antiviral agent, the virus developed the V7921 RNA-dependent polymerase (V7921) gene mutation, which has previously been shown in laboratory settings to make the virus more resistant to remdesivir.

"Our findings may help explain how the coronavirus continues to develop resistance to treatment," says study lead author John Hogan, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health. "It is possible that the antiviral treatment itself, combined with the patients' weakened immune systems, may have driven the evolution of this concerning mutation."

Despite the availability of vaccines and several drug therapies for COVID-19, experts say people with compromised immune systems, such as transplant patients and those with cancer or untreated HIV, remain at high risk for the disease. The new study, publishing online Sept. 26 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, is the first to identify the remdesivir-resistant V7921 mutation in organ-transplant patients treated with the antiviral drug, according to Hogan.

For the investigation, the study team collected samples from the nostrils of the two patients in their 50s and 60s who had received a kidney transplant and were using immunosuppressant drugs. Despite being vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to the surgery, both developed symptoms of the disease, such as fatigue, cough, and fever, that lingered for months.

The study team examined the genetic makeup of the viral samples at the NYU Langone Genome Technology Center by comparing small snips of the letter-like genetic code to identify mutations found in each strain. These genetic flags, researchers say, offer results similar to those from tests used to trace people's ancestry and for the tracking of other viral outbreaks, including influenza, HIV, and Ebola.

According to the report, both patients were treated for COVID-19 with remdesivir but were readmitted to the hospital several weeks later as their symptoms worsened once again. They survived their illnesses.

However, when the researchers reanalyzed the viruses, they confirmed the presence of the V7921 mutation, which had not been present before the transplant recipients received their remdesivir treatment.

"Our results highlight the importance of continuing to monitor how the coronavirus changes over time and keeping on the lookout for genetic mutations that allow the virus to overcome the medical community's efforts to thwart it," says study senior author and genomicist Adriana Heguy, Ph.D. "In the future, physicians might also screen for such mutations before making treatment decisions for their most vulnerable patients," adds Heguy, a professor in the Department of Pathology at NYU Langone.

Heguy adds that the emergence of treatment-resistant mutations may also require the development of additional antiviral therapies or development of combination medications to control infection. Similar approaches to antiviral treatment led to success in the HIV epidemic.

Heguy, also director of NYU Langone's Genome Technology Center, says the study authors' next plan to further explore mutations that allow the coronavirus's ability to escape vaccines and therapies. One avenue of interest is in the spike protein, a structure used by the virus to hook onto the surface of human cells as a first step in infecting them. Notably, monoclonal antibody treatments used to treat COVID-19 bind to this same spike protein in order to prevent the virus from attacking cells or to make it more vulnerable to the body's defenses.

Heguy cautions that as a small case study, the investigation offers a limited perspective of viral development.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


National study confirms that mRNA vaccines protect against serious COVID-19 during pregnancy
by Regenstrief Institute
September 26, 2022

The first large, real-world study of the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy found these vaccines, especially two initial doses followed by a booster, are effective in protecting against serious disease in expectant mothers whether the shots are administered before or during pregnancy.

Pregnant women were excluded from COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials, so this new study fills a significant knowledge gap, providing strong evidence that vaccinating women who are or might become pregnant protects against hospitalization for the disease during pregnancy.

"That two doses plus a booster are known to be safe and demonstrate protection against severe disease in pregnant women is reassuring, given growing evidence of increased risk of poor maternal outcomes associated with COVID-19 infection during pregnancy," said study co-author Brian Dixon, Ph.D., MPA, director of public health informatics for Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.

"This strongly suggests that, along with other preventive measures that expectant mothers or women who are considering getting pregnant can take to promote a healthy pregnancy, getting vaccinated and boosted against COVID should be high on the list." Dr. Dixon is also the interim director of the Regenstrief Center for Biomedical Informatics.

The researchers found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination protects pregnant women against emergency department (E.D.) or urgent care center visits and protects even more strongly against hospitalizations for COVID-19, three venues for receipt of medical attention for the disease. As with other evaluations of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults, a lower effectiveness in protecting against E.D. and urgent care visits than for hospitalizations was seen in pregnant women, most significantly in the Omicron period among those receiving only two vaccine doses.

Also, similar to findings among non-pregnant adults, two-dose protection waned over time (after four months) and vaccine effectiveness was highest among pregnant women with three doses (initial two vaccinations plus a booster shot).

Data on a total of 3,445 E.D. or urgent care visits and 781 hospitalizations among pregnant women with COVID-19 confirmed by molecular testing was extracted from electronic medical records from 306 hospitals and 164 E.D. and urgent care facilities in eight health systems across 10 U.S. states.

"This study indicates that pregnancy doesn't diminish mRNA vaccine performance in protecting against severe COVID-19 despite immune differences between pregnant and non-pregnant women," said study co-author Shaun Grannis, M.D., M.S., vice president for data and analytics at Regenstrief Institute, Regenstrief Professor of Medical Informatics and professor of family medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine.

"Vaccine utilization among expectant mothers remains low compared to similarly aged non-pregnant individuals for both the first two vaccines and a booster dose. Hopefully this study will provide pregnant women with the evidence they need to get vaccinated and boosted."

Current guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant women receive two vaccine doses and a booster dose, with a preference for mRNA vaccines.

"Estimation of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Medically Attended COVID-19 in Pregnancy During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance in the United States" is published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


JAMA: mRNA Vaccine Shedding in Breast Milk Proven!
Journal of American Medical Association Urges to Avoid Breastfeeding After Vaccination!

Igor Chudov
8 hr ago

The times are changing! Remember how we said that vaccine shedding is a real thing and breastfeeding after vaccination is dangerous? Our warnings were dismissed as “misinformation” and we were cast as ignorant, science-denying cranks.

Well, now the Journal of American Medical Association published a letter (archive link) that proved conclusively that mRNA vaccine shedding is real! The vaccine mRNA is indeed shed in breast milk and is affecting babies that receive said milk.

This letter provides lab results proving that concerns of the so-called “antivaxxers” were fully justified!



The JAMA letter is quite simple. Scientists picked 11 lactating women, who received Pfizer (6 women) or Moderna (5 women) vaccines during lactation.

After vaccination, breast milk was analyzed for the presence of mRNA nanoparticles. Not surprisingly, 7 samples were POSITIVE for the presence of mRNA.

The authors also point out that the promises of mRNA vaccines that “vaccine stays in the shoulder” were lies. The vaccine traveled to the breasts and was transferred into breast milk.
These data demonstrate for the first time to our knowledge the biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA to mammary cells and the potential ability of tissue EVs to package the vaccine mRNA that can be transported to distant cells.
Little has been reported on lipid nanoparticle biodistribution and localization in human tissues after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.
Despite that, the authors say the following, possibly to get their letter past the JAMA censors:
The sporadic presence and trace quantities of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA detected in EBM suggest that breastfeeding after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is safe, particularly beyond 48 hours after vaccination.
Your first reading of the above sentence might suggest that the authors said “COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is safe”. But it is ominously qualified with “particularly beyond 48 hours after vaccination”, plainly meaning that breastfeeding within 48 hours after vaccination is NOT safe.

It is sad that researchers have to say things (it is safe and effective) that contradict the plain meaning of this article (women shed mRNA nanoparticles on their infants). Our friend Modern Discontent recently posted a great guide to reading scientific papers, where he also lamented how article conclusions often contradict article data. This article is a perfect example of that, and there is plenty more of such examples in the Covid world.

This is why paying attention to what the article says, beyond platitudes, is paramount.

Wildly Differing Concentrations of mRNA make it MORE Dangerous​

Look at this chart showing concentrations of mRNA in milk. The worst concentration was EIGHT TIMES the lowest concentration. This means that likely, in a larger sample of women, the disparity between highest and lowest values would be even greater.



What is the deadly concentration of mRNA that could cause the death of an infant in the Pfizer trial (see below)? Nobody knows and the FDA does not care.

The detection limit (per supplement) was 1 pg/mL. What if levels just below 1 pg/mL could be harmful? We have no idea.

Dead Infant

Confidential Pfizer documents, which the FDA wanted to hide from us for 75 years, show a case of an infant, possibly killed by mRNA nanoparticles shed by a recently vaccinated mother.
Igor’s Newsletter
Pfizer Confidential: 1 infant DEATH vs 1 Successful Birth
Hat tip to Claus L who reminded me that new Pfizer documents were released. Summary: Only two births were recorded, one was successful and another resulted in infant death. Breastfeeding indeed affects infants and proves mRNA vaccine shedding by breastfeeding mothers…
6 months ago · 315 likes · 211 comments · Igor Chudov

The “neonatal death” and numerous other neonatal problems in infants exposed to vaccinated mothers’ breast milk are discussed in my article above.



Astute reader ChrisCoonsToupee located the VAERS entry for this dead infant.



They Lied to Us

Remember how we were assured that “vaccines are safe for mothers”?



Turned out that not only they were NOT safe, but also that the fact-checkers and authorities outright lied about safety, since they studiously avoided collecting any data that would confirm it! They also IGNORED Pfizer’s own reports of 17 neonatal problems and wanted to hide that for 75 years.

Now we know WHAT they wanted to hide.

They could have done this simple study two years ago. But they did not even bother to conduct such a trivial check!

Why?

 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Spike Protein Generated by Covid-19 Vaccination is Now Proven to Pass Through Breast Milk. The Impact on Breastfeeding Babies is Unknown! However, Vaccination of Breastfeeding Women is Safe!
It passes though breastmilk, distributes through the body, has unknown consequences, but is still safe, particularly later than 48 hours, because the finding is sporadic? Are they criminally insane?

SuperSally888
5 hr ago

Philippines Obstetrics and Gynecological Society (POGS) recommends Covid-19 vaccination and boosting of pregnant and breastfeeding women at any time and following the same schedule as non-pregnant women (2022 POGS video here).

Ironically the POGS Practice Bulletin both states that the covid-19 vaccines haven’t been tested in pregnant and breastfeeding women AND that they are safe and effective for this group. I have previously discussed this here.


This just published research letter in JAMA, documents research which looked for the presence of Vaccine mRNA in human breastmilk.



The researchers confirmed that vaccine mRNA passes into breast milk, particularly in the first 48 hours.



Then the discussion. I honestly don’t understand their conclusion, that the detected presence, suggests safety, particularly after 48 hours (meaning it is not safe prior to 48 hours?). It goes to the baby! There will be cumulative dosing. The mRNA can distribute to all organ systems. Doesn’t this mean the baby gets the vaccine as well as the mum, via breastmilk?



The limitations of the study include small sample size. Lack of functional studies. Lack of studies on cumulative exposure? Interference with other vaccines?



HOLY #@!%! Did they just say it was safe solely in order to get their article published in the face of overwhelming censorship and denialism from the mainsteam medical community controllers and media?? I cannot draw any other conclusion!
  1. Vaccine mRNA is confirmed to be present in breastmilk, particularly in the first 48 hours post-dosing.
  2. We don’t know if that mRNA is active.
  3. We do know that vaccine mRNA is distributed to all organ systems (from rat studies).
  4. We don’t know the functional consequences, bioaccumulation, etc.

BUT WE KNOW IT IS SAFE! UNBELIEVABLE!

There have been reports of breastfed babies dying after their mother’s were vaccinated! Now we have a confirmed mechanism! Active vaccine components pass through breast milk!

Discussed by Igor Chudov! Thank you Igor for bringing this letter to my attention!

Igor’s Newsletter
JAMA: mRNA Vaccine Shedding in Breast Milk Proven!
The times are changing! Remember how we said that vaccine shedding is a real thing and breastfeeding after vaccination is dangerous? Our warnings were dismissed as “misinformation” and we were cast as ignorant, science-denying cranks. Well, now the Journal of American Medical Association published a letter…
3 hours ago · 222 likes · 245 comments · Igor Chudov

If vaccine mRNA components pass through breastmilk, do the spike proteins subsequently generated from those vaccine components also pass through breastmilk? With what consequences?

POGS you are put on notice! Stop the vaccination of pregnant and breastfeeding women! You are charged as guardians of pregnant women and their precious babies! You have a duty of care. You have a duty of caution! If you do not act on this data, you are culpable!

If any of my readers are Doctors, you are also placed on notice! Please share this finding with your patients, with your professional bodies!

If you my reader are pregnant/ breastfeeding or have pregnant / breastfeeding friends please share this research letter.

The findings are more damning by the day! Please speak up less you share the blame of what is happening!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


WARNING: If we do not stop this COVID gene injection now, this non-neutralizing failed injection, we will drive soon a variant both infectious & virulent/lethal that will cause massive severity
Geert VB warns: 'The combination of rapidly decreasing C-19 morbidity and rapidly decreasing neutralizing Ab capacity in vaccinees is an extremely poor prognostic sign....'

Dr. Paul Alexander
18 hr ago

We have been arguing near daily now that the non-neutralizing, highly antigen specific, vaccine induced antibodies, are driving immune escape, original antigenic sin, antibody dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI) and of disease (ADED) in the vaccinee who is becoming infected, ill, and potential death.

This COVID vaccine, whatever they call it, must be stopped! It is driving massive infectious pressure in the midst of sub-optimal immune pressure in the population and as such, driving the emergence of natural selection variants that on the one hand, enhances and facilitates infection in the upper respiratory tract (and thus transmission) while blocking severe illness in the lower respiratory tract (blocks transfection from infected cells to uninfected cells in the LRT and the formation of syncytia which is correlated with severe illness). The same non-neutralizing antibodies are doing this yet there is serious risk that selected variants will overcome this blocking and will overcome the sub-optimal immune pressure on ‘virulence’. This would result in variants selected for that will cause severe disease in the lower lungs. We may be facing this in the winter.

This vaccine must be stopped! This COVID gene platform vaccine especially mRNA, is causing the variants and infections in vaccinees and thus the larger population is at risk, yet will cause a very severe variant to emerge. This is the risk we are afraid of. The potential is real. The new bivalent booster is failed out of the box, even the 8-10 mice got infected in the lungs and nostrils. This bivalent booster is a joke and not even double COVID infected Bourla will take it.

I/we are warning you again! Never in your healthy children!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


DEATHVAX™ Adverse Events Rising: Europe Is Facing a Dementia Problem
2nd Smartest Guy in the World
20 hr ago

We now know that one of the of myriad slow kill bioweapon adverse events is the systemic increase of amyloid plaques. This buildup over time increases the chances of succumbing to dementia, and just like the heretofore unheard of SADS, we are yet again now being told that the latest new disease is childhood dementia.

Europe had an incredibly high uptake of the DEATHVAX™ so expect the below 2050 projects to be significantly higher within the next 5 years, and we will also need to pay especially close attention to Pfizer’s petri dish nation of Israel as well as Canada and Australia; to wit:


The more DEATHVAX™ uptake across never-ending boosters, the faster the rates of dementia and population reduction.

From the statista report:
Dementia affects more than 55 million people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This number is expected to rise to 78 million by 2030 and 139 million by 2050, as we experience an aging population.
Dementia-related symptoms are caused by various diseases and traumas that affect the brain, such as Alzheimer's disease or a stroke. It disrupts memory and other cognitive functions, impacting one’s ability to perform daily tasks.
At least in this report “climate change” was not blamed for the surge in dementia.

More importantly, anything but the DEATHVAX™ is to be blamed.

And it would not be the global eugenics program that it is without the One World Government’s medical node the WHO being involved, and carefully “monitoring” this rise in dementia (and autism, cancer, SIDS, myocarditis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and so on and so forth).

Expect that one day the truth will finally come out and charts like the above will have bars of State sanctioned “vaccine” schedules.

...
 
(fair use applies)


National study confirms that mRNA vaccines protect against serious COVID-19 during pregnancy
by Regenstrief Institute
September 26, 2022

The first large, real-world study of the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy found these vaccines, especially two initial doses followed by a booster, are effective in protecting against serious disease in expectant mothers whether the shots are administered before or during pregnancy.

Pregnant women were excluded from COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials, so this new study fills a significant knowledge gap, providing strong evidence that vaccinating women who are or might become pregnant protects against hospitalization for the disease during pregnancy.

"That two doses plus a booster are known to be safe and demonstrate protection against severe disease in pregnant women is reassuring, given growing evidence of increased risk of poor maternal outcomes associated with COVID-19 infection during pregnancy," said study co-author Brian Dixon, Ph.D., MPA, director of public health informatics for Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.

"This strongly suggests that, along with other preventive measures that expectant mothers or women who are considering getting pregnant can take to promote a healthy pregnancy, getting vaccinated and boosted against COVID should be high on the list." Dr. Dixon is also the interim director of the Regenstrief Center for Biomedical Informatics.

The researchers found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination protects pregnant women against emergency department (E.D.) or urgent care center visits and protects even more strongly against hospitalizations for COVID-19, three venues for receipt of medical attention for the disease. As with other evaluations of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults, a lower effectiveness in protecting against E.D. and urgent care visits than for hospitalizations was seen in pregnant women, most significantly in the Omicron period among those receiving only two vaccine doses.

Also, similar to findings among non-pregnant adults, two-dose protection waned over time (after four months) and vaccine effectiveness was highest among pregnant women with three doses (initial two vaccinations plus a booster shot).

Data on a total of 3,445 E.D. or urgent care visits and 781 hospitalizations among pregnant women with COVID-19 confirmed by molecular testing was extracted from electronic medical records from 306 hospitals and 164 E.D. and urgent care facilities in eight health systems across 10 U.S. states.

"This study indicates that pregnancy doesn't diminish mRNA vaccine performance in protecting against severe COVID-19 despite immune differences between pregnant and non-pregnant women," said study co-author Shaun Grannis, M.D., M.S., vice president for data and analytics at Regenstrief Institute, Regenstrief Professor of Medical Informatics and professor of family medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine.

"Vaccine utilization among expectant mothers remains low compared to similarly aged non-pregnant individuals for both the first two vaccines and a booster dose. Hopefully this study will provide pregnant women with the evidence they need to get vaccinated and boosted."

Current guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant women receive two vaccine doses and a booster dose, with a preference for mRNA vaccines.

"Estimation of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Medically Attended COVID-19 in Pregnancy During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance in the United States" is published in JAMA Network Open.
Medicalxpress.com is getting a big, pointy lump of coal shoved up their collective asses for Christmas from me:fgr:
 

psychgirl

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


WARNING: If we do not stop this COVID gene injection now, this non-neutralizing failed injection, we will drive soon a variant both infectious & virulent/lethal that will cause massive severity
Geert VB warns: 'The combination of rapidly decreasing C-19 morbidity and rapidly decreasing neutralizing Ab capacity in vaccinees is an extremely poor prognostic sign....'

Dr. Paul Alexander
18 hr ago

We have been arguing near daily now that the non-neutralizing, highly antigen specific, vaccine induced antibodies, are driving immune escape, original antigenic sin, antibody dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI) and of disease (ADED) in the vaccinee who is becoming infected, ill, and potential death.

This COVID vaccine, whatever they call it, must be stopped! It is driving massive infectious pressure in the midst of sub-optimal immune pressure in the population and as such, driving the emergence of natural selection variants that on the one hand, enhances and facilitates infection in the upper respiratory tract (and thus transmission) while blocking severe illness in the lower respiratory tract (blocks transfection from infected cells to uninfected cells in the LRT and the formation of syncytia which is correlated with severe illness). The same non-neutralizing antibodies are doing this yet there is serious risk that selected variants will overcome this blocking and will overcome the sub-optimal immune pressure on ‘virulence’. This would result in variants selected for that will cause severe disease in the lower lungs. We may be facing this in the winter.

This vaccine must be stopped! This COVID gene platform vaccine especially mRNA, is causing the variants and infections in vaccinees and thus the larger population is at risk, yet will cause a very severe variant to emerge. This is the risk we are afraid of. The potential is real. The new bivalent booster is failed out of the box, even the 8-10 mice got infected in the lungs and nostrils. This bivalent booster is a joke and not even double COVID infected Bourla will take it.

I/we are warning you again! Never in your healthy children!
Dear God!!….I pray this possible wave doesn’t happen!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I sometimes have to hold my nose when I post from there. It's news though and it shows what those in the medical community were thinking and when they were thinking it so I think it adds to the thread even if I don't agree with it;)

HD
 
Top