Despite the regime of self isolation, you need additional physical load to prepare for the infection. In this sense walking is
less efficient then running, biking, paying tennis/badmin, or swimming for training your lungs and heart, but of course better then
nothing. At least, walking outside increases the level of vitamin D due to expose to the sun. Which to a certain extent
determines the efficiency of your immune response to the infection. which decline in winter months.
Also standard hygienic measures allow to lessen the virus load which acts somewhat similar to the the dose of radiation; the
higher the load the more chances you have to develop pneumonia.
With respiratory diseases no matter what level of precautions you adopt the question for people who are susceptible is not if you
get it, but when. You need either be vaccinated, or infected and recover from the virus. If you are susceptible, you simply can't
escape your fate "in a long run". But, first of all, not all people are susceptible to this virus. Among passengers and crew of
Diamond Princess only 20% were susceptible despite large virus load typical for ship environment. Similar picture can be found on
the other cruise ships and USS Theodor Roosevelt.
Also self-isolation can postpone infection until better methods treating the disease are found. What we will probably get is the
temporary decline of epidemic in a month or two and then possibly the second, less drastic, wave starting from November-December.
Look at the Hispanic Flu propagation: it was in three waves with the second wave being the most devastating. The most
victims were young people. For COVID-19 the main category of victims are old and frail people (especially 70+).
Along with the status of your immune system, the health and excess volume of your lungs are two factors that determine whether
you will survive acute form of pneumonia in case of infection (or whatever this condition is -- is not very clear what it is ). But
again, most people just get acute bronchitis type of disease. In this sense swimmers, singers, runners and serious badminton/tennis
or similar sports players have a distinct advantage.
Other then known "generic" facts it is not clear why some people get severe cases while other do not. And that's the most
important question to answer. Looks like in play are such factors as your sex, age, medications you take, arterial pressure, blood
group, and chronic conditions (especially cardiovascular, being overweight, and diabetis ), if any. Some like taking ACE medication
for arterial pressure have significant influence on the outcome. For obvious reasons cardiovascular diseases diminish your chances
to survive as soon as you get pneumonia as this is a stress for the cardiovascular system.
Virus load definitely have a huge influence -- people with high virus load (medical workers) typically get more serious form of
COVID-19. People who take ACE inhibitors for arterial pressure might also be especially vulnerable and more often get severe
forms.
It looks like younger people who do not smoke and exercise have some advantage (there are contradictory data that smokers are
more affected but more rarely get into severe levels of the disease) , although after 50-55 this advantage diminishes for men, as
immune system became less and less efficient each year. Women of the same age are in better shape in this respect. And generally
constitute only around 33% of all patients.
I hope that methods of treating this virus pneumonia will improve in a couple of months so winning the time before you get sick
is very important. In this sense, CDC is completely dysfunctional organization as it could get direct information from Korea
autopsies and treatments. That was not done.
Add to this corruption and perverse incentives (hospitals get more money putting you on ventilator, despite some evidence
that it is not optimal way to treat COVID-19 and in most case oxygen is enough)
For example, there is some information that usage of ventilators actually worsen the prognosis for the severe cases of COVID-19
due to the additional damage to the lungs. It looks like oxygen-only treatment and less invasive methods are a better deal.
The disease is very nasty even in medium form. There are somewhat interesting interview with those those suffered from COVID-19
which gives you some clues what to expect:
One recent hypothesis that I have read is the virus among other thing attacks hemoglobin in blood (like malaria) and essentially
put you in conditions of high altitude living. If this is true, then NY Governor Cuomo quest for 40K ventilators is deeply
misguided. That's probably why anti-malarial drugs are somewhat effective for treating COVID-19. But this is still a pure
speculation.
NOTE:In France, the sudden loss of smell is considered proof of Covid-19 infection, no further tests required
It is interesting how vulnerable modern interconnected society is to such viruses, despite all the progress in genomics. This virus
actually in an extremely clever virus as it has long incubation period and hit hard only around 7% of infected. All others spread it
while sick (around three weeks I think) but personally do not experience much inconvenience. There are also rumors about the
existence of a completely "asymptomatic" patients. But even if such exists they are a very small percentage of infected. Some (often
minor) symptoms usually are present.
Can asymptomatic patients transmit the virus is unclear and some researchers say that yes they can. If true this makes this
epidemic almost impossible to contain. But I hope that this is false.
This infection is transmitted mostly from an infected person with symptoms like with cough of sneezing via aerosol with viruses
and occurs in closed space (churches proved to be an idea place for spreading the infection), or at densely packed spaces outside
(stadiums, lines, festivals, etc) over 80% of infected were infected in family settings.
So wearing masks in public places is a necessary precaution. As here we are talking not about filtering of the viruses but about
filtering of droplets. In this sense any mask is OK but
of course it is not hermetic and decrease your chances to be infected five times or more. And if you are infected it prevent you
from infecting many other people.
For 93% of infected this is like a regular flu and does not have any adverse health consequences. Only around 7% get virus
pneumonia detectable with X-rays. It usually develops one week or so from the onset of the disease.
All or most affected get some scarring of lungs (fibrosis) visible via X-ray. In severe cases (for example for people who were on
ventilator) this is serious consequences that increase your chances dying later. But out of those unlucky 7%, only around 20% develop
breathing problems. They are progressively worse for older population and, probably, smokers. Some tiny percent (do not remember
exact percentage) need oxygen and in worst cases ventilator. Approximately half of those who need ventilator dies. Total mortality
is probably around 0.2% (based of cruise ship data, where 100% of people were tested) despite the fact that often cited range is
much higher (because total number of infected is probably much larger in countries affected than the number of tested positively.)
If you are less that 55 I would not worry too much. Your chances to get virus pneumonia are negligible, especially if you are
wearing a mask while shopping and in other public places, and take recommended hygienic measures. Viruses survive on phones and
keyboards for a couple of days. So disinfection of such things on daily basis might be also a good precaution. On cardboard
and clothing virus does not survive for long enough to represent a real danger outside of hospital setting or other settings with
very high concentration of viruses.
But the main factor -- your age and the state of your health
can't be changed. And state of your immune system -- the main barrier for the virus can't be changed too. Also spending more
time on fresh air and under direct sun exposure might improve it a little bit.
Is there a date? With COVID-19, information is changing rapidly. So, it’s important to know
when the article was published and last updated so you can be sure you’re getting the most current data.
Who is the author? If you’re reading about the latest medical advances for COVID-19, make
sure the author is qualified. Or, look for a medical review by a doctor or other health professional. You should
be able to easily find a bio that shares the author’s or reviewer’s professional qualifications.
Are sources listed?
If an article refers to a study from China, you should be able to get information about the study. Some
sites will directly link to a scientific journal article. For others, you may have to scroll down to click on a
source list. Beware of vague references to research that you can’t easily validate.
If an expert is referenced, check their qualifications online as well. Do they have the education and
expertise to give their opinion?
Is the website legitimate?
If it feels like you’re reading an advertisement, you probably are. Check the website’s ‘about’ page to
find out who supports the organization and what their mission and values are. Are they committed to educating
the public about a health issue or are they raising awareness about a product?
Sometimes a fake site will try to match its logo or URL to a legitimate website. Look closely to make sure
you’re at the right place.
Is the information available on other websites? COVID-19-related news trends are typically
consistent across legitimate websites. If you’re reading something that sounds different or contrary to what
you’re seeing elsewhere, start digging. If someone is making a recommendation you’re not sure of, look to sites
like the CDC, WHO, or your state’s Department of Public Health for guidance. And of course, call your doctor.
A good news is that judging from Diamond Princess cruise ship experience less then 20% of people are susceptible to the virus even
if they are over 50. For everybody else the immune system simply kills the virus and the person never becomes infected. Also a
large number of people who are tested positive never develop any symptoms and might be false positives of the test.
Like with everything luck depends on your lack.: contact with infected person often lead to infection. Especially in public
transport
where people are very close to each other.
Below are somewhat reworded CDC recommendations
Stop touching your face, especially eyes and nose!
The CDC also recommends that
you avoid touching your face — specifically,
your eyes, nose, and mouth, which are entry portals for coronavirus and other germs. If an infected person coughs or sneezes on a surface,
and you touch that contaminated surface and then touch your facial mucous membranes — the eyes, nose, and mouth — you could become infected.
Wash your hands.
Washing your hands regularly is the best way
to protect yourself from coronavirus — assuming you’re doing it correctly. The CDC recommends getting your hands wet with warm or cold
water; lathering your entire hands, including under the nails, with soap; scrubbing your hands for 20 seconds; rinsing with clean water;
and finally, either letting your hands air-dry or using a clean towel.
“Wash them especially well if you’re about to eat,” Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine,
wrote in the New York Times.
“Wash them after you’ve blown your nose, coughed or sneezed. Make it routine that all members of the household wash their hands when
they get home.”
It’s also not a bad idea to carry around a hand sanitizer for times when you’re not near a sink, though you should make sure it contains
at least 60 percent alcohol. However, experts stress that washing your hands thoroughly — and frequently — is the best preventative
measure.
If you have a chronic illness, are elderly, or have a compromised immune system …
While COVID-19 will cause mild symptoms in the majority of infected people, Jan Carette, associate professor at the Department of Microbiology
and Immunology at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, says that the elderly — especially those with chronic conditions, like hypertension
or diabetes — are at greater risk for more severe disease.In this case, he recommends that those who are especially
susceptible practice the above precautions as well as avoid people who display flulike symptoms.
If you’re traveling …
If you have upcoming travel plans, it’s a good idea to stay up-to-date on the
CDC’s travel warnings for specific countries. In general,
it’s safest to avoid nonessential travel to countries with a sustained COVID-19 presence; right now, this includes Iran, China, South
Korea, and Italy. For individuals who are especially susceptible to viral infections, including the elderly and those with existing
medical conditions, the CDC advises avoiding travel to Japan as well.
Currently, the CDC doesn’t have any additional recommendations for domestic travel, though this could change as the virus spreads further
in the United States. But according to the CDC’s website,
the risk of infection on an airplane is low. “Because of how air circulates and is filtered on airplanes, most viruses and other germs
do not spread easily,” they write. However, they recommend that travelers wash their hands frequently and avoid contact with sick passengers.
An analysis by British academics, published by the UK Government's official scientific
advisory group, says that they believe it is "almost certain" that a SARS-Cov-2 variant will
emerge that "leads to current vaccine failure." SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes
Covid-19.
The analysis has not been peer-reviewed, the early research is theoretical, and does not
provide any proof that such a variant is in circulation now. Documents like it are released "as
pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an
emergency."
The paper is dated July 26, and was published by the British government on Friday.
The scientists write that because eradication of the virus is "unlikely," they have "high
confidence" that variants will continue to emerge. They say it is "almost certain" that there
will be "a gradual or punctuated accumulation of antigenic variation that eventually leads to
current vaccine failure."
They recommend that authorities continue to reduce virus transmission as much as possible to
reduce the chance of a new, vaccine-resistant variant.
They also recommend that research focus on new vaccines that not only prevent hospital
admission and disease, but also "induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity."
The goal, they say, should be "to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated
individuals," and to "reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals."
Research is already underway at several companies that make the Covid-19 vaccines to address
new variants.
The views were expressed in a paper "by group of academics on scenarios for the longer
term evolution of SARS-CoV-2," and discussed and published by the UK's Scientific Advisory
Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
They write that some variants that have emerged over the past few months "show a reduced
susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely."
But they caution that these variants emerged "before vaccination was widespread," and that
"as vaccines become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can
evade vaccine-acquired immunity will increase."
This is an issue that SAGE has warned about before.
In minutes from its July 7 meeting, SAGE scientists wrote that "the combination of high
prevalence and high levels of vaccination creates the conditions in which an immune escape
variant is most likely to emerge." It said at the time that "the likelihood of this happening
is unknown, but such a variant would present a significant risk both in the UK and
internationally."
Hundreds of staffers at two major hospitals in San Francisco have tested positive for
coronavirus in July, with most of them being breakthrough cases of the highly infectious Delta
variant, The New York
Times reported Saturday evening.
The University of California, San Francisco Medical Center told media outlets that 183 of
its 35,000 staffers tested positive. Of those infected, 84% were fully vaccinated, and just two
vaccinated staff members required hospitalization for their symptoms.
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, at least 50 members out of the total 7,500
hospital staff were infected, with 75-80% of them vaccinated. None of those staffers required
hospitalization.
... ... ...
Day also
told ABC7 News that at least 99% of the cases at UCSF were traced back to community spread,
but that hospital officials are still investigating and conducting contact tracing.
He added that most of the cases presented mild to moderate symptoms, and some were
completely asymptomatic. He said the cases were spread among doctors, nurses, and ancillary
staff.
"We sort of are seeing that across the board," he said. "We have so far not detected any
patient-to-staff or staff-to-patient transmission right now."
The Delta variant has also been known to spread among vaccinated people in breakthrough
cases, prompting the agency this week to recommend that even fully vaccinated people
wear masks indoors in areas with high transmission rates.
The CDC emphasized that getting vaccinated is still highly beneficial and is a crucial
component to combatting the coronavirus - even the Delta variant.
"Getting vaccinated continues to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death, even
with Delta," CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told media on Tuesday.
4 This is what Republicans said as Capitol police told their stories on the Hill Russia
Calls Joe Biden's Comments on Nation's Economy 'Inherently
A reversal in federal health guidance calling for fully vaccinated individuals to don masks
in certain indoor areas amid high and substantial viral spread has left some experts
divided.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rolled out the latest guidance on
Tuesday, with agency head Dr. Rochelle Walensky citing "worrisome" new science necessitating
the update.
"In recent days, I have seen new scientific data from sequenced outbreak investigations
showing that the delta variant behaves uniquely differently from past strains of the virus that
cause COVID-19," Walensky told reporters over a call. "Information on the delta variant from
several states and other countries indicate that in rare occasions, some vaccinated people
infected with the delta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread the virus to
others."
"... If there's any demographic that isn't at risk, it's children. Children were never an issue when it came to COVID. Their caseload was never the majority, the plurality, or even a fraction that you could call 'significant.' ..."
"... If they do contract COVID, it's usually not a bad case. A child's survival rate is a whopping 99.995 percent when it comes to infection. They're virtually bulletproof. ..."
"... Since the start of the pandemic, only 335 kids under the age of 18 have died from COVID. Is one too many? Of course. It's tragic but hardly cause for a national panic. By this logic, we can no longer drive automobiles. Too much death. ..."
"... Schools have also never been a source of super spread. The schools in Irvine, California reopened in September of 2020. A report last March noted at the time, that of the 23,000 students in the Irvine School District, just 17 contracted COVID. How many of the 3,000 employees? Only three. And this was when the vaccine was not readily available. ..."
"... Should people still be careful? Sure, but this isn't a 'Apocalypse Now' mentality. ..."
They have nowhere to go. The liberal media and the experts see another avenue to lock us
down -- and they're going full bore. The Delta variant, which doesn't make you sicker nor is it
more lethal, is a problem for the unvaccinated. But we're not locking down again. No way.
There's a midterm election coming up, so no -- not even Joe Biden is going to back such a move.
It's the same reason why there will be no mandatory vaccination protocol. There's an election
coming up. If this were a national emergency, politics be damned -- everyone gets a shot,
right? They're readily available to everyone who can get them. That should be the mindset. It's
not. Why? Because obviously, it's not a do-or-die situation. If a mandatory vaccination mandate
is being kept in the desk until after an election, it's all politics. We've known this for
months.
And now, they're trying to gaslight us on children and COVID. Fellas, I have bad news. We've
been paying attention. If there's any demographic that isn't at risk, it's children.
Children were never an issue when it came to COVID. Their caseload was never the majority, the
plurality, or even a fraction that you could call 'significant.' This notion that children
are under threat is science fiction and it doesn't help that a hyper-partisan Surgeon General,
Vivek Murthy, who was not shy about wanting to declare gun violence a national health issue, is
peddling this fearmongering.
The science is clear. Children generally do not get it or spread it. If they do contract
COVID, it's usually not a bad case. A child's survival rate is a whopping 99.995 percent when
it comes to infection. They're virtually bulletproof.
Since the start of the pandemic, only 335 kids under the age of 18 have died from COVID.
Is one too many? Of course. It's tragic but hardly cause for a national panic. By this logic,
we can no longer drive automobiles. Too much death.
Schools have also never been a source of super spread. The schools in Irvine, California
reopened in September of 2020. A report last March noted at the time, that of the 23,000
students in the Irvine School District,
just 17 contracted COVID. How many of the 3,000 employees? Only three. And this was when
the vaccine was not readily available.
The vaccines right now are not available for kids under the age of 12. They're not at-risk.
They're not carriers. Should people still be careful? Sure, but this isn't a 'Apocalypse
Now' mentality. Also, the store-bought masks that people, like Fauci, are saying kids
under three should wear don't stop the spread of COVID. Fauci mentioned
that in his emails .
After the virus infects a person itdoes not care whther the person vaccinated or not. The
person spread virus like any other infected person, depending of course on the severity of
symptoms, which supposedly should be lighter n vaccinated people. Is this so difficult to
understand that for vitus any infected person is a lunchpad for infections, vaccinated or
unvaccinated... A lot of pseudoscience is typical for neoliberal MSM.
Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the Delta
variant of COVID-19 is equally contagious whether it's contracted by a vaccinated or
unvaccinated person.
A week after the crowds descended upon Provincetown, Massachusetts, to celebrate the Fourth
of July -- the holiday President Joe Biden hoped would mark the nation's liberation from
COVID-19 -- the manager of the Cape Cod beach town said he was aware of "a handful of positive
COVID cases among folks" who spent time there.
"We are in touch with the Health Department and Outer Cape Health Services and are closely
monitoring the data," Alex Morse told reporters.
The announcement wasn't unusual with roughly half of the country still unvaccinated and
flare-ups of the virus popping up in various states.
But within weeks, health officials seemed to be on to something much bigger. The outbreak
quickly grew to the hundreds and most of them appeared to be vaccinated.
As of Thursday, 882 people were tied to the Provincetown outbreak. Among those living in
Massachusetts, 74% of them were fully immunized, yet officials said the vast majority were also
reporting symptoms. Seven people were reported hospitalized.
The initial findings of the investigation led by the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health, in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, seemed to have huge
implications.
CDC Warns Vaccinated People Can Pass COVID to Others Even if you're vaccinated, you should
wear a mask in places of high transmissibility -- and you could give COVID to someone else.
These eyebrow-raising facts were revealed yesterday by the CDC.
In response, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky joined SiriusXM's Doctor Radio Reports and
opened up to show host Dr. Marc Siegel about the delta variant and evidence that it's something
that fully vaccinated people may pass along to others, and the idea of making COVID-19 vaccines
mandatory.
If a vaccinated person experiences any symptoms of COVID-19 listed by the CDC, the public
health agency recommends getting tested and isolating from others until a result is received.
If the test is positive, an infected vaccinated person should isolate at home for 10 days.
According to the CDC's guidelines
for the fully vaccinated, those infected with the delta variant can spread it to
others.
The existence of breakthrough cases doesn't mean that vaccines aren't doing their job,
experts say. In fact, merely coming down with a mild infection rather than a severe one is
often evidence that the vaccine is doing its job in helping your immune system fight the virus.
Since the existing vaccines were developed to combat the alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2, it makes
sense that they're not as effective in combating the delta variant, whose mutations have shown
to some extent to evade the immune response from the vaccines. Yet all the COVID-19 vaccines
are mostly able to stop the infection worsening.
"In a vaccinated person, what will happen is that we already have cells that very
specifically recognize an infected cell, and can aggressively target that infection so that the
virus can no longer replicate," said Dr. Nicole Baumgarth, a professor of Immunology and
Infectious Diseases at University of California–Davis. "Even if we cannot stop the
infection from happening, [the vaccine] stops it very early in its tracks; the less virus
replication you have, the less symptoms you will have, the less disease and it gets easier for
the immune system to mop up the little bit of virus."
Signs of infection, like a fever, develop when the immune system has been activated to fight
it.
"Some of the signs of disease are actually signs that the immune system has been activated,"
Baumgarth said. "That's one response to the body to fight the viruses, to increase the
temperature."
Baumgarth said it is in fact accurate to think of a breakthrough infection as a "booster
shot." However, Baumgarth would not advocate for people to purposely expose themselves to the
virus. Yet a mild breakthrough case does build one's immunity against the virus.
Of course, given the possibility of spreading the virus further, it is best not to get
infected at all.
Last week, Israel's health ministry
released preliminary data suggesting that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine's ability to
protect against a mild coronavirus infection may have decreased precipitously, even though it
remains effective against severe illness and death from COVID-19. The reason for the decrease
in the vaccine's effectiveness may be both because of transient immunity and the virulent
delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, which is more adept at overcoming the vaccine's defenses.
The delta variant is now the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in Israel, where researchers now
estimate that the two-shot Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective in preventing an infection
within the country. That is about half as effective as the vaccine was two weeks ago, when it
purportedly exhibited
64% effectiveness against coronavirus infection in Israel -- though at that point in time,
the delta variant was less widespread. Upon its public release in late 2020, Pfizer-BioNTech's
mRNA
vaccine was reported to have an efficacy of 95%.
On a positive note, research data shows that the Pfizer vaccine is still effective at
preventing serious illness; at least 88 percent effective in protecting against
hospitalization; and 91 percent effective at preventing severe illness.
The key issue problem is whether Delta can successfully spread in fully vaccinated
population? If the answer is yes, then the current policy is stupid. Another important question
is whether the current generation of vaccines provides any real benefits for people younger then
30?
In short, the article like this looks like another attempt to change the narrative as it
demonstrates abandonment of the previous idea of herd immunity. Suddenly, because of
proliferation of breakthrough infections, it is not longer a goal.
Post-vaccination infections, or breakthroughs,
might occasionally turn symptomatic , but they
aren't shameful or aberrant . They also aren't proof that the shots are failing .
These cases are, on average, gentler and less symptomatic;
faster-resolving, with less virus lingering -- and, it appears, less likely to pass the
pathogen on. The immunity offered by vaccines works in iterations and gradations, not
absolutes. It does not make a person completely impervious to infection. It also does not
evaporate when a few microbes breach a body's barriers. A breakthrough, despite what it might
seem, does not cause our defenses to crumble or even break ; it does not erase the
protection that's already been built. Rather than setting up fragile and penetrable shields,
vaccines reinforce the defenses we already have , so that we can encounter the virus
safely and potentially build further upon that protection.
To understand the anatomy of a breakthrough case, it's helpful to think of the human body as
a castle. Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona, compares
immunization to reinforcing such a stronghold against assault.
Without vaccination, the castle's defenders have no idea an attack is coming. They might
have stationed a few aggressive guard dogs outside, but these mutts aren't terribly discerning:
They're the system's innate defenders , fast-acting and brutal, but short-lived and woefully imprecise.
They'll sink their teeth into anything they don't recognize, and are easily duped by stealthier
invaders. If only quarrelsome canines stand between the virus and the castle's treasures,
that's a pretty flimsy first line of defense. But it's essentially the situation that many
uninoculated people are in. Other fighters, who operate with more precision and punch -- the
body's adaptive
cells -- will eventually be roused. Without prior warning, though, they'll come out in full
force only after a weeks - long delay , by which time the virus
may have run roughshod over everything it can. At that point, the fight may, quite literally,
be at a fever pitch, fueling worsening symptoms.
Post-vaccination infections, or breakthroughs,
might occasionally turn symptomatic , but they
aren't shameful or aberrant . They also aren't proof that the shots are failing .
These cases are, on average, gentler and less symptomatic;
faster-resolving, with less virus lingering -- and, it appears, less likely to pass the
pathogen on. The immunity offered by vaccines works in iterations and gradations, not
absolutes. It does not make a person completely impervious to infection. It also does not
evaporate when a few microbes breach a body's barriers. A breakthrough, despite what it might
seem, does not cause our defenses to crumble or even break ; it does not erase the
protection that's already been built. Rather than setting up fragile and penetrable shields,
vaccines reinforce the defenses we already have , so that we can encounter the virus
safely and potentially build further upon that protection.
To understand the anatomy of a breakthrough case, it's helpful to think of the human body as
a castle. Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona, compares
immunization to reinforcing such a stronghold against assault.
Without vaccination, the castle's defenders have no idea an attack is coming. They might
have stationed a few aggressive guard dogs outside, but these mutts aren't terribly discerning:
They're the system's innate defenders , fast-acting and brutal, but short-lived and woefully imprecise.
They'll sink their teeth into anything they don't recognize, and are easily duped by stealthier
invaders. If only quarrelsome canines stand between the virus and the castle's treasures,
that's a pretty flimsy first line of defense. But it's essentially the situation that many
uninoculated people are in. Other fighters, who operate with more precision and punch -- the
body's adaptive
cells -- will eventually be roused. Without prior warning, though, they'll come out in full
force only after a weeks - long delay , by which time the virus
may have run roughshod over everything it can. At that point, the fight may, quite literally,
be at a fever pitch, fueling worsening symptoms.
... ... ...
The choice isn't about getting vaccinated or getting infected. It's about
bolstering our defenses so that we are ready to fight an infection from the best position
possible -- with our defensive wits about us, and well-armored bodies in tow.
Three antiviral monoclonal antibody treatments to prevent severe Covid-19 and
hospitalization. Shipments of one such drug are paused because it wasn't effective against
variants, but doctors can continue prescribing the two others: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
Inc.'s REGEN-COV and Vir Biotechnology Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline PLC's sotrovimab.
The antiviral remdesivir , made by Gilead Sciences Inc., to help clear the virus in
hospitalized patients.
Convalescent plasma , a highly concentrated solution of antibodies taken from recovered
Covid-19 patients, also for use in hospitals.
The immune-suppressing rheumatoid arthritis drugs baricitinib and tocilizumab , to rein
in the potentially lethal inflammation experienced by many hospitalized patients.
Dexamethasone , a generic steroid, recommended for use in severely ill patients. It is
now the most common treatment in hospitalized patients.
"... Federal officials concentrated their resources on quickly developing vaccines, with success. However, a relative dearth of drug research focused on coronaviruses, despite previous outbreaks, held back a fast response on treatments ..."
"... Red Texas btw had 1,387 new cases today. A state with 30 million people. 5 (yes that's five) deaths. The fourth straight day new cases fell. Weird how those stats aren't making it into the fear-mongering articles. ..."
"... Israel is struggling with a fourth wave of infections, and the Israeli Health Ministry announced at that Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant there. People who have had Covid and recovered are not being reinfected at a high rate. ..."
"... Time to stop the fear-mongering and hysteria. There is risk to everything in life, and you can't hide under the bed for the rest of your lives because something might happen. Let's get back to normal and stop being held prisoner by confused people like Fauci who don't understand their 15 minutes of fame are long over. ..."
Federal officials concentrated their resources on quickly developing vaccines, with
success. However, a relative dearth of drug research focused on coronaviruses, despite previous
outbreaks, held back a fast response on treatments . Scattered U.S. clinical trials
competed against each other for patients. When effective yet hard-to-administer drugs were
developed, a fragmented American healthcare system struggled to deliver them to patients.
Covid-19 cases, and the need for treatments, are continuing. U.S. hospitals are bracing for
new surges of cases with the
Delta variant spreading
... The Biden administration recently said it would
spend $3.2 billion to support the development of Covid-19 antiviral pills.
... ... ...
A lack of knowledge among healthcare providers has made it difficult to get even the
available treatments. When Bob Bellin of Austin, Texas, tested positive for Covid-19 last
December, he remembered that then-President Donald Trump had
taken a monoclonal antibody treatment from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Suffering from a mild cough and a headache, the retiree was worried about his chances of
developing a bad case of the virus because he has a compromised immune system condition. He
says he called a telemedicine provider to inquire about antibody treatment, but the physician
assistant on the call initially didn't know about it. After some pleading, the healthcare
worker agreed to research the drug's availability, he says.
Several minutes later, she got back to him with the names of sites where he could get the
antibody treatment. The next week, Mr. Bellin received the infusion over a three-hour visit. A
week later, he started his regular running routine again.
... ... ...
Remdesivir, first authorized by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2020 and later
granted full approval, is now given to roughly half of all hospitalized patients. Yet patients
often recover slowly regardless of whether they receive the treatment or not, doctors say.
"The effect of remdesivir is something a statistician can show you in a trial of 1,000
people, but it's not something where you really can see a day-to-day impact on your patients,"
says Dr. Griffin of ProHealth.
... ... ...
The Recovery study, which has examined at least 12 drugs so far, found the most effective of
all Covid-19 treatments for hospitalized patients to date, dexamethasone, which cut the risk of
death in patients on ventilators by a third. The Oxford scientists
reported the results in June 2020 , less than three months after they first began
evaluating it.
... ... ...
Last November, the FDA authorized the first drugs designed specifically to target Covid-19
in people who weren't hospitalized based on preliminary trial results. These monoclonal
antibodies were modeled after the natural antibodies people produce to fight the new
coronavirus.
Researchers at companies including Regeneron and Eli Lilly & Co. developed these monoclonal
antibody therapies in less than a year, compared with the decade or longer it usually takes to
bring a drug to market. The work was sped by earlier research by Regeneron and others to
develop antibodies for the MERS virus. The new drugs worked well in early Covid-19 patients,
reducing the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in trials.
Yet of the nearly one million doses shipped to hospitals and clinics from November through
early May, just 49% were used by patients over the period.
One factor in their limited use was the fact that influential panels that issue Covid-19
treatment guidelines balked at endorsing them before full clinical trial data was available.
The NIH and the Infectious Diseases Society of America didn't recommend using the drugs until
February and March, respectively, after Lilly provided results from a Phase 3 study.
... ... ...
The hospital treated 1,469 patients with the drugs through early July, and as many as 30
people a day at the peak, says Jonathan Parsons, a pulmonologist and executive vice chair of
clinical operations for Wexner's internal medicine department.
Of the patients treated so far, 4.8% have gone on to be hospitalized, compared with an
estimated 8% to 9% for similar patients not infused with the drug, he says.
Looking ahead, the best solution would be an antiviral that can be taken early in the
disease as a pill, doctors say.
Finding highly effective treatments with tolerable side effects is likely to take years and
require more coordination between government, universities and industry...
The posts below are sad - Trump, Trump, Trump. A man who's been gone for eight months. I
guess that's better than dealing with Biden's endless problems. I suppose letting in
thousands of illegals, many with covid, still isn't an issue?
Love the constant blaming of "delta" on unvaxxed Trump supporters. Sure, it's mostly red
states, but the enormous fact that keeps getting ignored is the fact over 60% of whites have
vaxxed. African Americans? 9%. Yes 9%. That means millions of adult AAs who can get shots,
won't.
Not surprising is AAs make up a large portion of the current hospital load (which still
isn't bad). Of course all the media and the people making this political want to say
is...it's "red states". I guess they don't want to offend Biden's voting base?
Red Texas btw had 1,387 new cases today. A state with 30 million people. 5 (yes that's
five) deaths. The fourth straight day new cases fell. Weird how those stats aren't making it
into the fear-mongering articles.
jack Canzonetta SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
FDA, CDC, FAUCI all downplayed Regeneron's treatment--a super treatment --I also asked my
about DR above Regeneron's treatment .. We were discussing a plan in case I contracted the
Wuhan lab virus, he didn't say much Regeneron - I also found out the outlets to receive it
were limited and they had produced many of product.. Fauci was singing only one note--Moderna
--
Catherine G Attara-Fink SUBSCRIBER 27 minutes ago
How about we need treatment for those who have been vaccinated and get Covid after the
fact???
thomas barloon SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Today I saw a 50 year old man with active pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) . Each time he coughs,
he releases millions of tuberculosis organisms into to the air and fills the rooms he enters
with infectious active bacteria. Should our patient with active tuberculosis be allowed to go
when and where he wants? Would you enter a cafe where he is eating or enter a room where he
is living? Of course, most would hope the man with active TB stays home and takes medication
to treat his active infection. Now, in many states, people with active COVID are allowed to
enter cafes and stores. Who are those with acitive COVID? One does not know until one tests
and traces and isolates. And an effective vaccine is also available and monoclonal antibodies
are available to all. Why do doctors not use HCQ and Invermectin and zinc? Simple. These and
many other medications do not work. Yes, the results are available for all to read for free
in NEJM, JAMA, Nature. Follow facts not fantasy.
William Lamb SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I guessed face mask might not be in this picture, since there are those who claimed it is
ineffective and covered one smile. Beside, it is their constutional rights to infect others
and care less for their fellow American, when they see that it is good to share the same
misery to others.
Dick Motley SUBSCRIBER 56 minutes ago
What an ironic post. You DO realize the vaccines are also categorized as emergency use
because they're also considered experimental right? And you HAVE heard about adverse
reactions to the vaccines, right? And you HAVE heard about "breakthrough" cases (reinfection)
among the vaccinated, right?
Sorry, did I say "ironic"? I meant "moronic".
Jamilla Graves SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
It would be irresponsible for the WSJ to spread propaganda about drugs that have been
disproven as treatments against and to prevent COVID-19.
jes merrell SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
Agreed. It is equally irresponsible for the layman poster to spread propaganda such as "tens
of thousands" of doctors are doing what?
If the poster is a physician, virologist or immunologist, offer your credentials along with
your medical advice. It will then have credibility, your opinions have none.
Mikey Metz SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
"Fragmented health care" is correct. When will Congress and at least 60 percent of Americans
wake up and realize health care in a capitalized society does not work like Target Corp. or
any business that works in a competitive environment. And to read how little money is spent
in this area is horrible. The world has dealt with terrible viruses forever--and the feet
dragging continues.
We are not in Russia or China where the state mandates what to do. with your thinking it has
to be difficult for you to be in a country where there is freedom of choice.
Who are you to tell 50% of the population of the country what to do? Who are you to mandate
to get an experimental vaccine? This is everyone's individual decision. If you are vaccinated
you are safe. Didn't Biden say you are 100% safe?
Richard Dole SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago
Let's see, all the Science (actual peer reviewed studies) indicate that those who have
recovered from COVID (naturally vaccinated) or been jabbed are good to go, have broad
immunity. So why worry about others if you are protected........
J Domingo SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago (Edited)
So why worry about others if you are protected........
Because this is not about protecting people.
It is about controlling people.
That is the only explanation for why Covid survivors are put on the BAD list. If they
don't line up and demonstrate their servility, they are in trouble.
T
Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary based on how
an individual's antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were generated: over the course of a naturally
acquired infection or from a COVID-19 vaccine. The new evidence shows that protective
antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2
variants carrying "single letter" changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to
antibodies acquired from an infection. These results add to evidence that people with
acquired immunity may have differing levels of protection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
More importantly, the data provide further documentation that those who've had and recovered
from a COVID-19 infection still stand to benefit from getting vaccinated.
J Domingo SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago (Edited)
Israel is struggling with a fourth wave of infections, and the Israeli Health Ministry
announced at that Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant there.
People who have had Covid and recovered are not being reinfected at a high rate.
Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary...
Quoting a study that is not yet published provides little useful information,
and cannot be used to conclude vaccination is superior to recovery from natural infection.
Thomas Erb SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
you missed a part of the Israeli quote
The two-dose vaccine still works very well in preventing people from getting seriously
sick, demonstrating 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against
severe illness, according to the Israeli data.
David Richardson SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
Because I still have about a 20% chance of getting the Delta virus if I am in direct contact
with unvaccinated and unmasked people. I then have a 10% chance of getting seriously ill.
But, the many people who post exactly the same question know this data. It is reported daily
by outlets ranging from the MSM to Fox. You just don't like it . It cuts your argument that
unvaccinated people are not a concern or threat to vaccinated people to shreds Man up. Or, at
least, shut up. If you or others decide not to get vaccinated you are materially raising the
immediate risk to others and--perhaps even worse--the odds that you will bread an even worse
variant.
Hersh Goel SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
you do not have a 20% chance of getting Delta virus from unvaccinated pople - dont shake
hands, dont hug or kiss. dont get in crowded places like elevators. wear an eye shield and
mask - your risk is essentially zero. The evidence is the thousands of unvaccinated health
care workers who took care of covid 19 cases for over a year.
But if you want to have 'direct contact' with people, thats a choice you make.
T Swan SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
This from India news, July 1, 2021
'Not a long-drawn process': Bharat Biotech expecting WHO approval soon As several European
countries are accepting WHO-listed Covishield, Covaxin too is expected to receive WHO
approval soon.
Stephen Carroll SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago
The highest rates of unvaccinated people live in the inner cities. In order to get support
from liberals the Democrats have neglected these inner city people so it would not disprove
their narrative that it is suburban conservatives that are failing to get vaccinated.
Nikola Sizgorich SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago
Time to stop the fear-mongering and hysteria. There is risk to everything in life, and
you can't hide under the bed for the rest of your lives because something might happen. Let's
get back to normal and stop being held prisoner by confused people like Fauci who don't
understand their 15 minutes of fame are long over.
K Baker SUBSCRIBER 4 hours ago
Everybody knows a person can still get covid even if a person is fully vaccinated and spread
it to other people. Except JD. He will Spin that a 1000 different ways to try to confuse
people. He is talking to himself.
J Domingo SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Everybody knows a person can still get covid even if a person is fully vaccinated...
That's truly funny.
"You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." Joe Biden, speaking
at the CNN Town Hall in Cincinnati, OH, July 21, 2021
K Baker, and most D's don't even know what their confused leader believes and is
saying publicly about the vaccine.
Without misinformation, the Left would be bereft of information.
There is clear and mounting evidence that – though rare – breakthrough COVID-19
infections can occur, even in the fully vaccinated. This is particularly true with emerging
variants of concern.
The CDC has been following these data closely. By mid-July 2021, nearly 60% of the U.S.
population age 18 or older had been fully vaccinated. Infections in those who are fully
vaccinated are rare, and serious outcomes from COVID-19 in that population are even rarer
– though they do still occur. However, the CDC stopped tracking nonhospitalized cases of
COVID-19 for people with and without symptoms among fully vaccinated individuals on May 1,
2021.
The risk of infection leading to serious illness and death, however, differs starkly between
vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
... ... ...
One recent preliminary report from Israel is sobering, however. Before the delta variant
became widespread, from January to April 2021 , Israel reported
that the Pfizer vaccine was 97% effective in preventing symptomatic disease. However,
since June 6 ,
with the delta variant circulating more widely, the Pfizer vaccine has been 64% effective in
preventing symptomatic disease, according to preliminary data reported by Israel's Ministry of
Health in early July.
And in another new
report that is not yet peer-reviewed , researchers compared blood serum antibodies from
people vaccinated with Pfizer Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines and found that the
J&J vaccine lent much lower
protection against delta, beta and other variants, compared with the mRNA-based
vaccines.
Despite the power of Covid-19 vaccines in cutting the risk of hospitalization and death from
the disease,
fully vaccinated people can get very sick and die from the virus in rare cases. Those
individuals tend to be older than 65 or have weakened immune systems or other severe medical
conditions, an NBC News survey of health officials nationwide found.
"Throughout the pandemic, people who died of Covid-19 were most likely to be older, and that
continues to be true with breakthrough cases," a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health said in an email.
In Oregon, about 10 percent of the breakthrough infections reported to the state were in
people living in nursing homes or congregate care facilities, and the majority of deaths were
older people.
Shira Doron on All Things Considered | July 19, 2021
COVID-19 cases are trending upwards across the country. In Massachusetts, where vaccination rates are relatively high, cases
are still on the rise" and a cluster in Provincetown among mostly vaccinated individuals caused the town to issue a new mask advisory
Monday. Tufts Medical Center epidemiologist Dr. Shira Doron spoke with Arun Rath on GBH's All Things Considered about where
thing stand in the Commonweath and the nation.
Arun Rath: It probably makes sense to start with today's news out of Provincetown. The town is putting its indoor mask
advisory back in place after more than 100 new COVID cases popped up after the July Fourth holiday. What do you make of that uptick
and the response?
Shira Doron: Well, the outbreak is unexpected. It's not what we've been seeing. There's quite a bit of transmission there
reported between vaccinated individuals. And really, what we've seen so far, has been that, certainly, breakthrough cases occur in
vaccinated individuals" usually they have mild symptoms, which we do believe to be the case here" but usually they don't transmit
to others, so the fact that there are so many cases" 132 reported" that a good proportion of them are vaccinated and that it appears
that there was transmission among them is unusual. And so it makes sense for health authorities there to take some swift and rather
aggressive action, at least for the moment, to try to control the outbreak, and then continue to study what might have happened there,
because there's still so much we don't know.
Rath: Interesting. So that uptick of 100 cases is as unusual as it sounds, that's sort of why the response is what it is.
Doron: Yes, we really haven't seen anything quite like this yet.
Rath: Are you concerned that we will start to see other incidents like this?
Doron: I hope not. I hope that this was, you know, an anomaly that was probably related to the fact that the delta variant
is so very contagious that some people who harbor it have very, very high viral loads in the respiratory tract. The fact that it
was a holiday weekend, very crowded bars and nightclubs, some rain that drove people inside more than usual, and that perhaps all
of those things came together this one time to cause this outbreak...
"Researchers estimate that 25 deaths in a population of some 12 million children in
England gives a broad, overall mortality rate of 2 per million children."
Despite the above-cited statistics, 56% of big-D
Democrats supported mandating vaccines for schoolchildren in a July 2021 poll.
4 Details on FBI inquiry into Kavanaugh draw fire from Democrats Democrats' divide on voting
rights widens as Biden faces pressure
Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer announced on Thursday that 20
percent of new COVID-19 cases identified in Los Angeles County were in vaccinated
individuals.
..."The Delta variant is a game-changer," Ferrer said. With the Delta variant driving
community spread and positive case numbers up in LA County, the percentage of breakthrough
cases in fully-vaccinated people has gone up as well. The daily average case rate was 7.1 per
100,000 people on July 15 and shot up to 12.9 on Thursday.
... about 53 percent of LA County residents are fully vaccinated against coronavirus. About
58 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 are fully vaccinated.
... Vaccinated people are still far more likely to be able to fight off the virus when
exposed. Vaccinated people are also much less likely to advance to serious illness or death,
with 90 percent of nationwide hospitalizations or fatalities occurring in unvaccinated
people.
...
new data shows people infected with the delta strain can carry up to 1,000 times more virus
in their nasal passages than those infected with the original strain.
"I think people are underestimating how bad this is going to get," said Dr. Ashish Jha. "We
are in for a very tough August, probably a very tough September before this really turns
around."
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
told reporters at a briefing Thursday that the delta variant "is one of the most infectious
respiratory viruses we know of, and that I have seen in my 20 year career."
Jha told CNBC's " The News with Shepard
Smith ," that the infection rate could be worse if it were winter, and predicted the delta
spike could peak within two months.
"It might peak in September, but we are far away from the peak, right now we are doing
40,000 cases a day, it's going to go substantially higher before it peaks," Jha said.
The delta variant has spread rapidly through the U.S., accounting for more than 83% of
sequenced cases in the U.S. right now, up from 50% the week of July 3, according to the
CDC.
At delta variant of Covid-19 spreads across many Western and
Southern U.S. states, its high transmission rate could increase them number of immune to the
virus people from about 50% to 85%" even if vaccination rates continue to plateau, Dr. Scott
Gottlieb, a former chief of the Food and Drug Administration, said.
Gottlieb noted that millions of Americans remain vulnerable and now
have a "choice in terms of how [they] acquire immunity."
Both vaccinated and those who have natural immunity still have
increased risk Gottlieb said, pointing to data showing immunity among individuals naturally
infected with Covid-19" and particularly those who are older" declines after about eight
months. It looks like the decline for vaccinated people is even faster and that's why there are
talks about booster shots
He predicted Covid will effectively act as a "second circulating flu
this winter," though he said its prominence "could be a little worse."
In Mexico, an estimated 84% of cases are delta infections, which may be a warning that this
variant may also be endemic in Latin America.
If the virus continues to mutate as fast as did in 2020 and 2021 herd immunity against this
virus might never be achieved.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
"I wouldn't be declaring mission accomplished. I think this is going to be a long fight,"
Gottlieb said Sunday. "You're seeing a decoupling between cases, hospitalizations and deaths
because there's so much immunity in the population""not just through vaccination""but also
through prior infection... But this is likely to become an endemic virus. We're going to have
to deal with it."
KEY BACKGROUND
Since the start of the pandemic, experts have long said Covid-19's threat would largely
wane once herd immunity is reached,
referring to a large-enough proportion of immunity that effectively makes
person-to-person transmission highly unlikely within a community. If the virus cominutes to
mutated in a ways it did in 202 and 2021 this might not happen all and herd immunity against
this virus might never be achived.
If we assume that 80% of population is vaccinated and 30-40% of vaccinated can be infected and spread the virus, that simply means
that like in case of flu and other coronaviruses herd immunity from COVID-19 will never be achieved as in one year the virus sufficiently
mutates to infect significant percentage of previously vaccinated people. The situation with mass vaccination of children looks pretty
absurd, if not criminal
The news is peppered with anecdotal evidence of breakthrough cases. The headlines are terrifying and the personal stories are
tragic:
Boston Globe : "79 fully vaccinated Massachusetts residents have died, 303 hospitalized in very rare COVID "˜breakthrough'
cases, officials say"
The Guardian : "COVID outbreak among vaccinated Vegas hospital workers underscores Delta risks"
NBC : "Illinois Coronavirus Updates: Breakthrough COVID Cases Are 2% of State's Deaths This Year"
So, why do breakthrough cases happen?
We shouldn't think of vaccine protection as binary (yes or no). It's better to think of protection on a spectrum: On one end the
vaccine will protect people in every situation and on the other end it doesn't protect people at all. And each of us land somewhere
in between.
There are many factors that determine where we land:
There's of course the variants. Depending which variant you come in contact with determines your level of protection. mRNA
vaccines' efficacy is now ~88% against Delta. If 100 people got COVID19, Pfizer/Moderna could have prevented 88 of them. 12 people
would have still gotten some form of the disease. On the other hand, if people came in contact with the original strain, 95 (out
of a 100) would have been prevented.
Some of us just don't have immune systems that can build protection. For example, it looks like
certain drugs for
immunocompromised patients reduce and/or prevent protection. Also, older adults are less protected.
Behaviors, too, can predict your place on this spectrum. If a vaccinated person is exposed to a large enough dose of a virus
OR exposed to enough unvaccinated people where transmission is high, the virus can overcome the vaccine and cause infection, even
among the sturdiest of immune defenses.
And then there's just luck. Even if you compare
twins , the level of protection
can differ. Some people will just create fewer or less strong defense mechanisms (antibodies, T cells, and/or memory B cells).
And we don't really know why.
Nonetheless, should the virus make it through, Dr. Ali Ellebody, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis,
said it best:
"It becomes a race [against] time. The pathogen rushes to copy itself, and the immune system recruits more defenders. The longer
the tussle drags on, the more likely the disease is to manifest."
It's important to monitor all breakthrough cases.
If we closely monitor them, we can answer some very critical questions like"¦
Are breakthrough cases happening at the rate in which we expect?
Who's most likely to break through?
What is the rate of a mild breakthrough case vs. severe breakthrough case?
Are variants, like Delta, causing more (or more severe) breakthrough cases than other variants?
A study was published describing breakthrough
cases between January 1-April 30. During this time among 101 million fully vaccinated Americans, 10,262 breakthrough infections were
reported to the CDC. Who were they?
63% female
Median age was 58 years (age range was 40""74 years)
10% were hospitalized
2% died. Median age of patients who died was 82 years (age range was 71""89 years)
Genomic sequence data were available for 5% of breakthrough cases
64% were identified as a Variant of Concern (this was before Delta emerged)
Beginning May 1, 2021, though, the CDC transitioned from monitoring all breakthrough infections to investigating only those among
patients who are hospitalized or die. The CDC doesn't have the infrastructure to rigorously investigate all breakthrough cases. They
needed to prioritize their operation, so they decided to focus on cases of highest clinical and public health significance.
The CDC continuously publishes the latest count on their
website . As of July
6, there were 5,186 severe breakthrough cases. This includes 988 deaths (although it's important to notice the footnote stating
that 255 of these were not directly related to COVID19).
... ... ...
From February 1 to June 21, 123,620 Delta cases were sequenced in the UK. Among those, 10,834 cases were among fully vaccinated
( i.e. breakthrough cases) and 71,932 cases among the unvaccinated. While this isn't all of the breakthrough cases, this gives
an even closer estimate to the "true" rate of breakthrough cases due to Delta. But even this is among patients who went to the hospital.
We still don't know the asymptomatic and/or mild breakthrough rate.
It really angers me that the CDC isn't tracking all breakthroughs even if they don't investigate everything, because we are
losing so much information, such as what's going on here.
There have been a couple of Delta breakthrough CLUSTERS in the news lately, so there may be fully vaxxed people who are superspreaders.
I don't think you can attribute these to individual immune system issues.
In this cluster, the sources had a vaccine with lower effectiveness, and they probably stood pretty close together, even though
outdoors. But the other folks had mRNA. All guests were required to be fully vaxxed.
Question: Many of the news reports about breakthrough cases show that groups of friends or couples who are all fully vaccinated
but spent time together somehow *all* ended up as breakthrough cases. With the 88% vaccine efficacy rate, how does that work? For
example, if a husband who is fully vaccinated is infected as a breakthrough case, shouldn't it be highly unprobable mathematically
that his fully vaccinated wife also then contracts it from him?
Thanks for this! Katelyn, you are a gem. As a retired fed health professional, I have kind of an embedded risk vs threat meter
after all those years of working. I am cringing at everyone going back to normal, like the pandemic is over. I over quote Yogi Berra
- it ain't over till it's over.
As a fully vaccinated person, I have continued to mask indoors as my kids are not vaccinated and I do not want to risk spreading
it to them. I am now getting nervous about outdoor interactions i.e school dropoffs, outdoor bday parties, etc. with potentially
unvaccinated individuals. The wedding and Vegas pool party stories have made me a bit nervous. Any thoughts?
I wish I could put an attachment here but in the same vein of all of this, my sister , who is a diehard anti vaxxer sent me a
snip of the Israel Health ministry case reporting from last week which breaks down cases of fully vaccinated and non vaccinated by
age group. The chart shows almost higher percentage of vaccinated individuals with cases and show small case load but overall high
percent . She is running with this information saying this proves that the vaccine makes you more suspepticle to covid and is causing
the current issues. Local, I know you have explained this data reporting misunderstanding before but can you explain again why the
data looks skewed in Israel ? Also check me on my chart
Johnson and Johnson vaccine was ineffective against South African mutation. So why Delta, and
especially Delta Plus variant which has the same mutation as South African variant (Beta in new
classification). Thus like South African variant is has further advantages in infected already
vaccinated people
Delta plus variant of SARS-CoV-2- What do we know so far
The Delta
variant of the COVID-19 virus continues to spread. It now
constitutes 83% of the COVID cases in the U.S.
And now, as CBS2's Dr. Max Gomez reported Wednesday, a preliminary study not yet peer
reviewed suggests that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine may
not be as effective against the Delta variant as the other two authorized vaccines.
... The J&J vaccine has been given to more than 13 million people
Those conclusions differ from smaller clinical results released by J&J earlier this
month that said a single dose of their vaccine did protect against Delta, even eight months
after inoculation.
Those differences could be because the new study looked at antibodies in the lab compared to
real world immunity in people, which would include T-cell immunity. Peer review would help
determine that contribution to protection.
To come to this conclusion, scientists from the Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic
Immunology and Infectious Disease looked at more than 100 health workers at three centres
across India. Titled "Sars-Cov-2 B.1.617.2
Delta Variant Emergence and Vaccine Breakthrough: Collaborative Study". One of the centres
was Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (SGRH) in Delhi. It is yet to be peer reviewed.
Researchers of this study found that the Delta variant, which emerged in India, dominates
vaccine-breakthrough infections with higher respiratory viral loads compared to non-Delta
infections.
They also saw that this variant generates greater transmission among the fully vaccinated
healthcare workers. Moreover, the study found that, in vitro, the Delta variant is around
eight-fold less sensitive to vaccine-elicited antibodies compared to the original
virus.
Hence, they came to the conclusion that Delta variant is both more transmissible and
better able to evade the immunity a patient gets from previous infection as compared to
previously circulating coronaviruses.
Mandatory vaccination with experimental vaccines is abhorrent and it should have us all
worried.
Unfortunately majorities in many countries have accepted this in the name of protecting
public health.
This is a very tragic situation and should be given our full attention.
And no, no one should be blackmailed to have these vaccines because they work in a
hospital, or a care home. They have the right to refuse at least as long as these vaccines
are in the experimental phase.
In Greece they are already preparing laws to make vaccination mandatory for doctors,
health workers, teachers and firefighters.
60% of people being admitted to the hospital with Covid-19 in England are fully vaccinated,
Sky News
reported .
According to Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific advisor, Covid patients
have received two doses of the Covid vaccine.
"In terms of the number of people in hospital who've been double-vaccinated, we know it's
around 60% of the people being admitted to hospital with COVID," Vallance said.
"We do expect there to be over 1,000 people per day being hospitalized with coronavirus
because of the increase in infections," he added. "But the rates should be lower than they have
been previously because of the protective effects of vaccination."
Update: Now Sir Patrick Vallance is claiming he misspoke during Monday's presser!
"Correcting a statistic I gave at the press conference today, 19 July. About 60% of
hospitalisations from covid are not from double vaccinated people, rather 60% of
hospitalisations from covid are currently from unvaccinated people." Vallance said in a
tweet.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that
children in diapers wear masks until they are fully vaccinated. Coincidentally, Yvonne
Maldonado is the Chair of the AAP's Committee on Infectious Diseases AND she runs the trial of
the Pfizer vaccine on 2 to 5-year-olds.
60% of people being admitted to the hospital with Covid-19 in England are fully vaccinated,
Sky News
reported .
According to Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific advisor, Covid patients
have received two doses of the Covid vaccine.
"In terms of the number of people in hospital who've been double-vaccinated, we know it's
around 60% of the people being admitted to hospital with COVID," Vallance said.
"We do expect there to be over 1,000 people per day being hospitalized with coronavirus
because of the increase in infections," he added. "But the rates should be lower than they have
been previously because of the protective effects of vaccination."
Update: Now Sir Patrick Vallance is claiming he misspoke during Monday's presser!
"Correcting a statistic I gave at the press conference today, 19 July. About 60% of
hospitalisations from covid are not from double vaccinated people, rather 60% of
hospitalisations from covid are currently from unvaccinated people." Vallance said in a
tweet.
Vaccinated people who have experienced Covid-19 symptoms in the past 10 days, however,
should get tested and isolate themselves from others for 10 days if their test is positive, the
CDC has recommended.
Look like Delta variant is less toxic then previous and led to fewer deaths and
hospitalization, as often happen with later mutations of the virus.
The key here is the rate of infection of already vaccinated, not the fact that
hospitalizations and death stats decoupled from new cases stats. If the significant percentage of
vaccinated can be infected by Delta (say, over 20%) that could well be the last nail into the
coffin of "herd immunity" delusion promoted by Fauci and other high level medical bureaucrats.
There were never herd immunity from coronaviruses as they mutate too quickly to achieve it. That
does not means that vaccination is useless, especially for those who live in big cities and use
public transportation or need to meet customers during each working way. But that makes the idea
of "total vaccination" effort including children over 12 as useless as quarantine efforts before
widespread riots.
Two weeks ago, when markets were merrily melting up without a worry in the world, and
certainly were not paying attention to the recent spike in Delta cases, we showed that unlike
in 2020 when covid hospitalizations and deaths promptly followed - with a slight lag - any move
higher in new covid cases, now that vast swaths of the population have been vaccinated, there
has been a clear decoupling between new cases on one hand, and hospitalizations and fatalities
on the other
... Yet while infections may indeed be rising, Fauci purposefully refused to address the
real elephant in the room: is there a concurrent surge in hospitalizations and/or deaths: after
all, it those that matter - especially if the Delta variant results in a much weaker form of
covid as many have speculated - and not the cases outright.
...
Where we do agree with Kolanovic, however, is where he repeats what we said two weeks ago
with the chart shown at the top of this post, namely that the "Delta variant is a key risk to
the call, but encouragingly the link between the case count and hospitalizations/deaths in the
UK and other countries has weakened meaningfully (Figure 1)." In short cases and
hospitalizations have decoupled... just as we showed they have even if the government's
propaganda spin masters refuse to acknowledge.
As the Delta variant takes hold, some of the first COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated
population are being detected. According to the states data, 74 vaccinated California's have
died, however, the report states it is unknown if the primary cause of death in these cases was
COVID-19 or if there were other alternate causes.
... At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital one of seven COVID patients was vaccinated.
According to the latest
state data, 20.4 million fully vaccinated individuals, 10,430 post-vaccination cases
(0.051%) have been identified.
Bob Wachter @Bob_Wachter If
you're wondering how bad Delta really is, even in highly vaccinated SF (76% of >age 12 fully
vaxxed) & still w/ a lot of masking (most folks in stores), we're seeing a pretty steep
Covid uptick. Daily cases up 4-fold (10->42; Fig L), hospital pts doubled (9->19;
R)(Thread 1/4) 3:41 PM · Jul 15,
2021 · Twitter Web App 2,064
Retweets 285 Quote Tweets 3,874 LikesBob Wachter @Bob_Wachter · Jul 15 Replying to
@Bob_Wachter Uptick mirrored
@ucsfhospitals : Covid
inpatients (we were at ~3 pts two-wks ago) now 13 (Fig L). Overall test positivity rate was
well below 1%; it's now up to 2.6% (Fig R). Even more worrisome, test positivity rate in
asymptomatic pts was ~0.15%, now up 6-fold to 0.9%. (2/4) 14 93 362 Bob Wachter @Bob_Wachter · Jul 15 I don't have
vaccinated/unvaxxed breakdown for SF & UCSF – I assume most severe cases are in
unvaxxed. But even for vaxxed, w/ more Covid in air expect more breakthru cases. As for me, I'm
back to double-mask in stores. Still indoor dining but might abort if trends continue.(3/4) 88
197 719 Bob Wachter @Bob_Wachter
· Jul 15 The SF # s are still
fairly low, & are cause for caution, not panic. But this kind of uptick in SF (U.S.'s
vaccination leader) shows that Delta is very real – the places w/ much lower vax rates
may well get clobbered. Alas, doesn't seem like there are many persuadables left.(4/4) 67 185
854 Derek Reilly @DerekReilly19
· Jul 15 Replying to
@Bob_Wachter 42 and 19? Come on
Bob seriously. 1 1 8 kenlipartito
@kenlipartito · Jul 15 Really. It's not like
this thing grows exponentially, right? 3 26 Show replies geva kra oz @gevakraoz · Jul 15 Replying to @Bob_Wachter @Meir_Rubin Can't Working
@ArianneM12 · Jul 15 Replying to @Bob_Wachter Was waiting on the post 4th of
July consequences. Hopefully they all live 1 5 Stressedout @TMD666 · Jul 15 Replying to @Bob_Wachter Any advice for @CDCgov ? They missed the window of opportunity.
What can @CDCgov do in addition to
vaccine to bring delta under control? 6 6 Michaela Barnes @mabarnes9 · Jul 15 Replying to
@Bob_Wachter Montgomery County MD
where I live has 81.8% of 12yo and up fully vaccinated per CDC and we're also seeing big %
upticks from very low numbers. 6 10 75 Show replies 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗺
𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗲𝗿, 𝗠𝗗 @grahamwalker
· Jul 15 Replying to @Bob_Wachter Same Bob; anecdotally have
started seeing COVID again in the ED when previously hadn't seen any in months, thus far only
in unvaccinated patients. It's baaack, despite us being probably the most vaccinated large city
in the US.
In the last month or so, about 20-25% of the cases in Fayette County have been
breakthroughs. Health leaders say it was expected that vaccinated people could still catch the
virus, but the important thing is they are much less likely to get severely ill as a
result.
... "Some of that is likely because of the Delta variant, but also because people who are
vaccinated are likely not taking as many precautions as they did before," spokesperson Kevin
Hall said. "This could be compared to wearing your seatbelt. It does protect you, they still
don't go 120 miles an hour down the interstate. You need to still take precautions."
Hall said they've also seen a few cases where unvaccinated people bring the virus home and
infect vaccinated family members.
He said even though there isn't a mandate, those safety precautions, like wearing a mask
around crowds, are still encouraged.
As of Monday, there were 3,200 new COVID-19 cases in California, and now, medical doctors
are noticing some of the first numbers of COVID vaccine breakthrough cases.
...According to the states data, 74 vaccinated California's have died, however, the report
states it is unknown if the primary cause of death in these cases was COVID-19 or if there were
other alternate causes.
... According to the latest
state data, 20.4 million fully vaccinated individuals, 10,430 post-vaccination cases
(0.051%) have been identified.
That's one in almost 2,000 vaccinated Californians reporting a breakthrough case.
Recently, India has seen a significant rise in new COVID-19 cases predominantly caused by
the delta variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2. Similar to the alpha (B.1.1.7), beta (B.1.351),
and gamma (P.1) variants, the delta variant has gained beneficial mutations in the spike
protein , which make it more infectious and pathogenic than previously circulating
variants.
The delta variant belongs to the B.1.617 lineage that is currently circulating in more than
50 countries. Because of its significant threat to public health, the delta variant has been
designated as the Variant of Concern (VOC) by the World Health Organization.
Studies investigating vaccine efficacy against
emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants have indicated that the delta variant is partially resistant to
vaccine-induced antibodies. A study conducted in the UK has indicated that the Pfizer/BioNTech
COVID-19 vaccines is 88% effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the delta
variant.
In the current study, the scientists have described the transmission of delta variants among
family members who were attending a wedding ceremony with 92 guests. The wedding events were
held outside in a large open-air tent, and all guests were fully vaccinated.
Important
observations
The scientists identified a total of six individuals at the wedding ceremony who tested
positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were symptomatic. Of them, one developed severe COVID-19 requiring
monoclonal antibody infusion and one died eventually. Based on encounter timings and viral
sequence similarities, the scientists suggested that two persons traveling from India probably
have transmitted the delta variant to other guests during the wedding events.
Of two guests from India, one was a man without any comorbidities, and one was a woman with
diabetes. They both received the 2 nd dose of Covaxin (BBV152) 10 days before
traveling to the wedding venue. Moreover, they tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 before boarding
the flight.
Soon after developing symptoms including fatigue, cough, and fever, both guests from India
tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. At day 6 post-wedding, the man without comorbidity
was admitted to a hospital because of worsening symptoms. One month after the wedding, he died
due to COVID-19 related complications.
Four other guests who also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had confirmed interactions with
the guests from India. Of 4 guests who were fully immunized with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna
COVID-19 vaccine, one developed severe COVID-19 that required infusion of monoclonal
antibodies.
Testing of viral variant
Nasopharyngeal
swab samples were collected from all six guests and analyzed by reverse
transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect viral variants. All samples tested
positive for the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 and negative for the alpha variant. All
positive samples were subsequently sequenced by Swift Normalase Amplicon Panels with multiple
overlapping amplicons to identify the causative variant. The findings revealed that all six
guests were infected with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.617.2).
Study
significance
Six vaccine breakthrough cases identified in the study highlight the notion that
antibodies elicited by Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, and Covaxin BBV152 may not
be sufficient to provide full protection against the delta variant. Although some people fail
to develop adequate immunity in response to vaccination, none of the patients identified in the
study had a history of vaccine failure.
As mentioned by the scientists, mutations in three antigenic regions of the spike
receptor-binding domain (450–469 IDf, 480–499 IDg, and 522–646 IDh) could
potentially reduce the susceptibility of delta variant to antibody-mediated neutralization.
For the purpose of this surveillance, a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the
detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14
days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.
Identifying and investigating hospitalized or fatal
vaccine breakthrough cases
As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases
to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause.
This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical
and public health importance.
Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April
2021 are available .
State health departments report vaccine breakthrough cases to CDC. CDC now monitors reported
hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases for clustering by patient demographics,
geographic location, time since vaccination, vaccine type, and SARS-CoV-2 lineage. Reported
data include hospitalized or fatal breakthrough cases due to any cause, including causes not
related to COVID-19.
... ... ...
As of July 12, 2021, more than 159 million people in
the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
During the same time, CDC received reports from 48 U.S. states and territories of 5,492
patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.
Total number of vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC
Hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC
Infections and even hospitalizations due to COVID-19 have begun to increase since the Fourth
of July weekend. And it turns out that those vaccinated against the disease aren't completely
immune, as state officials revealed that there have been thousands of breakthrough infections
-- and even dozens of deaths -- among people who have gotten their shots since the rollout
began.
... ... ...
As of July 10, 4,450 vaccinated people in Massachusetts had tested positive for COVID-19
since the rollout began this past winter, according to the state's Department of Public
Health.
That 's just over 0.1 percent -- or one in a thousand -- of the 4,195,844 people in
Massachusetts who were fully vaccinated at the time.
Of that tiny faction, the overwhelming majority of cases weren't severe.
DPH officials say that 303 -- or 6.8 percent -- of the breakthrough infections involved
hospitalization and a total of 79 vaccinated individuals in Massachusetts have died.
... ... ...
Since June 25, the average number of new positive COVID-19 tests in the state has nearly
doubled, from 64 to 122. DPH officials also reported 208 new confirmed COVID-19 cases
Wednesday, the first single-day report over 200
since early June , a time when the state's testing rate was nearly a third higher.
Over the same time period, the state's positivity rate more than doubled from 0.31 percent
to 0.72 percent.
Following a steady decline this spring, hospitalizations have also increased from a low of
80 statewide COVID-19 patients on July 4 to 102 as of Tuesday.
...
According to the CDC, the Delta accounted for 10 percent of new cases in Massachusetts as of
June 22, but that data is now nearly a month old -- and predates the current uptick.
Cassandra Pierre, a Boston Medical Center epidemiologist and Boston University professor,
says the recent uptick in overall cases in "somewhat concerning" given the national rise of the
Delta variant.
"We have some data to show that the delta variant is responsible for more hospitalizations
than the previous dominant variant and while the jury is out on whether it's also more virulent
(capable of causing severe illness) we've begun to see COVID-related death rates rise in some
of the hardest hit states," Pierre told Boston in an email.
... ... ...
While experts have
predicted a mild, seasonal uptick in COVID-19 cases this fall, Pierre says the recent
increase is earlier than anticipated. She noted that the rainy weather over the Fourth of July
weekend may have pushed more gatherings and activities indoors.
DPH guidance says that unvaccinated resident should continue to wear masks when near people
outside their household, especially indoors. While the Delta variant has caused some cities and
organizations to extend that mask guidance to all individuals, regardless of vaccination
status, the still-low case rates have yet to induce such a move in Massachusetts.
... ... ...
State officials say they don't have a breakdown of the recent infections among vaccinated
and unvaccinated individuals, in part because the data on breakthrough cases is reported
separately (while health care providers report all positive tests directly to the state,
breakthrough cases are first reported to the CDC, and then to state officials).
However, earlier data on breakthrough infection
obtained by the Herald through a public records request suggests that there have
been 543 breakthrough cases between June 19 and July 10. That's roughly 30 percent of the 1,809
positive cases reported by the state over the same time period, meaning 70 percent of new cases
were among the minority of residents who were not fully vaccinated.
... over 83 percent of Massachusetts adults have gotten at least one shot
There's quite a bit about COVID-19 and vaccines that we still don't know.
While the vaccines are up to 95 percent effective against COVID-19, there have been
breakthrough cases. That's where those who are vaccinated test positive. The CDC
was monitoring all reported breakthroughs . However, back in May, as more people got
vaccinated, the feds transitioned to focusing on cases where someone went to the hospital or
died. They said that data would have the greatest importance.
"The question is are we getting more cases than we should be seeing as breakthrough cases,"
Dr. Jill Roberts at USF Health said. "That's really hard to determine because there isn't a
good source of data, so there's a lot of people looking at this. They're sequencing this strain
from the people who got breakthrough cases to see if it's really Delta variant or if the thing
has mutated again."
"We're trying to figure out what's going on. Is this really, truly a vaccine failure or is
it expected numbers? And without the data, we can't tell," she added.
Dr. Roberts says she would like to see
more information on variants – like which populations contracted them, if they're
vaccinated, and what they do for living so doctors can have a better idea of infection
control.
As states cut back on their COVID-19 data collection and fail to document
"breakthrough" cases , we are left to guess how often and where people are being infected.
I have said this a few times and now it is becoming real.
Read deeper to let me explain why the phrase "breakthrough" may be a disservice to the
public.
At least 11 employees of Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center tested positive for COVID-19
after attending a party on June 7, according to Southern Nevada Health District emails
obtained through records requests by the Brown Institute for Media Innovation's Documenting COVID-19
project . The emails, which were shared with the Review-Journal, indicate that eight of
the employees had been fully vaccinated in December and January, meaning that the virus had
"broken through" the protection of inoculation.
Two other employees who were infected had received one dose of a double-dose vaccination.
One was unvaccinated. At least 10 of the 11 had the delta variant, a more easily
transmissible strain of the virus.
One question is whether the vaccines had been properly stored. But the hospital that
administered them said there was no problem with storage. Was there something unique about this
party that made transmission more possible?
Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and some states have stopped
gathering as much data as they once did. Again, the Las Vegas Journal-Review:
Beginning May 1, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped monitoring all
reported vaccine breakthrough cases, focusing instead on those resulting in hospitalization
or death. The state of Nevada and the health district, in turn, stopped reporting totals of
identified cases.
However, in a June 22 email, a health district official told other agency officials there
had been 471 identified breakthrough cases in Clark County, with 53 resulting in
hospitalization and eight in death. In other words, there were nearly 10 times as many
breakthrough cases identified as were publicly disclosed.
Nobody promised that there would be no breakthroughs. As WCVB explains , as with
any vaccine -- especially one protecting against a fast-changing virus -- some fully vaccinated
people will still get sick or become virus carriers. Remember, even in breakthrough cases,
vaccinated patients are far less likely to become seriously ill.
The Atlantic raises the issue of whether using the word "breakthrough" is harmful to the
public's understanding. Because, really, these are expected infections:
The thing to know about the COVID-19 vaccines is that they're flame retardants, not
impenetrable firewalls, when it comes to the coronavirus. Some vaccinated people are still
getting infected, and a small subset of these individuals is still getting sick -- and
this is completely expected .
We're really, really bad at communicating that second point, which is all about
breakthroughs, a concept that has, not entirely accurately, become synonymous with vaccine
failure. It's a problem that goes far beyond semantics: Bungling the messaging around our
shots' astounding success has made it hard to convey the truly minimal risk that the
vaccinated face, and
the enormous gamble taken by those who eschew the jabs .
As of July 6, 2021, more than 157 million people in
the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
During the same time, CDC received reports from 48 U.S. states and territories of 5,186
patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.
(CDC)
Keep in mind that the CDC no longer gathers "breakthrough" data unless the person ends up in
the hospital. This means that it misses a lot of cases since we know from the data that most
breakthrough cases do not result in sickness serious enough to send a person to the hospital.
To get an idea of what the data looks like when all "breakthrough" cases are reported,
look at the
January through April data , before the CDC changed its rules. More than 10,000 cases were
reported in that timeframe.
I like the way The Atlantic put all of this in perspective:
The overwhelming majority of the COVID-19 cases we're seeing are among the unvaccinated.
And when the virus does affect the immunized, it seems to accumulate to lower levels, and
spread less enthusiastically to new hosts; it's causing, on average, milder and more
transient symptoms.
It does raise questions that the cheap, non-profit, one-shot J&J, which did not need
special storage, got various problems that may also be related to the production of the
vaccines (one case was publicized, https://time.com/5951709/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-error/).
All in all, it seems to have caused less critical effects than Pfizer, but its seems Pfizer
was "lucky" on that (grin).
What are the most common side effects from the Pfizer vaccine? It's the only one available
in my country as the Govt only accepts vaccines with 90%+ effectiveness and of the four
vaccines we did deals for (Pfizer, AZ, J&J, Novavax) only Pfizer measures up (haven't
heard about results from Novavax, too far down the queue for Moderna and Sputnik V doesn't
exist apparently as we are a 5 eyes country).
Heard of allergic reactions that can be fatal for the very old or very sick, and heart
inflammation issues. The way the heart issues were reported in the media (in the context of
the trials for 12-16 y.o.) made it seem they only effected the young but apparently a problem
for everyone. Doesn't seem as serious as the AZ/J&J clotting issues as it usually clears
up without treatment? My parents are both over 65 and have had their 1st Pfizer doses, no
side effects so far for Dad and a tetanus shot-style sore arm for Mum that lasted a couple of
days.
A Freedom of Information request to the Australian drugs regulator that approved the
Pfizer vaccine confirms that they have never seen the study data.
A freedom of information request (FOI) request was made by one of our members in
February 2021 to the Australian drugs regulator, the TGA (Therapeutic Good Administration)
to ask what should have been simple questions. The TGA is the Australian equivalent of the
FDA (US), MHRA (UK) and EMA (Europe) and is held in high regard worldwide. Essentially the
FOI questions were:
1/ Did the TGA request the raw data from Pfizer
2/ Did any of the committees approving the vaccine look at the raw data and/or discuss
it
3/ What were the "studies" referred to in the approval document relating to teratogenicity
(risk of harm to a fetus)
The rationale of the request relates to concern over the validity and verifiability of
Pfizer's data given its legal history (and expressed by Peter Doshi in the BMJ in February)
as well as the proven concerns over fraudulent data relating to Covid-19 as seen in the
"Lancetgate" scandal of June 2020.
The document ... is a redacted version of the documents that were sent by the TGA in
response to this request. What they show is that the TGA never saw or requested the patient
data from Pfizer and simply accepted their reporting of their study as true. This means
that when the head of the TGA John Skerritt said that "the safety evidence is pretty
thorough" on the 6th February (here) his words would ring hollow to most Australians who
have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the TGA had actually looked at the patient data
themselves.
A further concerning aspect of the FOI request is the efforts to which the TGA appeared
to go to suppress the request – initially requesting a 6 months extension in view of
a "voluminous request" which eventually yielded only one document of 14 pages, heavily
redacted. This required an instruction from the Office of the Information Commissioner to
the TGA to answer the request by the 26th May, a deadline that the TGA also failed to
meet.
Eventually the only document that was produced from the FOI request was a heavily
redacted single study (not studies, as claimed in the TGA assessment document) showing that
the only investigation into the effects on the fetus was performed on 44 rats with no long
term data on the offspring. It is impossible to assess this study fully because 98% of the
document was removed in order to protect Pfizer's intellectual property (points 32-44 of
the report)...
... Doctors for Covid Ethics remain concerned that the TGA's failure to validate the
Pfizer data has been replicated at other agencies worldwide (FDA, MHRA and EMA). It is
currently not known whether any of the major agencies has independently verified, or
attempted to verify, Pfizer's data, before proceeding with provisional/emergency
authorisation of Pfizer's mRNA therapy vaccine.
Bet this information about how the TGA applied so-called rigour to checking Pfizer's data
before approving the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment sure gladdens your heart, don't it?
Why there is so much social pressure if the idea of "herd immunity" became a fiasco after
emergence of Delta variant, which like South African variant can infect vaccinated people and
thus can spread in vaccinated population (although not as quickly as in unvaccinated population).
What government medical bureaucrats like Fauci are hiding ?
I am retired in the US so I only see some of the working world through others eyes. What I
am seeing more of is pressure to take the vaccine in US even though the infection numbers are
going down in most states.
I have shared before that I have a cousin, my age, that got one of the mRNA vaccines and
now has some sort of blood cancer. I believe this is related to the mRNA vaccines and that
more cases like my cousin will occur and eventually it will effect an "important" someone who
the MSM can't suppress the connection to the vaccines and the flood gates of related cases
like my cousin will open....can you imagine what the blowback will be??.....the jaded in me
says they are planning on that blowback to keep the chaos/fear/manipulation level
high.....its all China's fault/snark
What is the final straw that will bring the barbarian shit show to a halt? Inquiring minds
want to know. What will finally break through the brainwashing?
One more post about the new coronavirus, the associated COVID-19 and the "dreaded"
vaccines. Caveat emptor, I am not a medically trained person, just a curious information
hoarder.
While sars-cov-2 primarily targets epithelial cells, the damaging COVID-19 syndrome
appears to be largely related to mast cells. Mast cells are part of the innate immune system
and are the oldest form af immune system. The mast cells are also involved in tissue growth
and regeneration.
I read an interesting article that made a link between secondary dengue syndrome and
covid, suggesting that both are forms of slow-motion anaphylaxis. Classical anaphylaxis
reactions(as eg. peanut allergy) are mediated by mast cells.
It seems that both "long covid" and similar symptoms that arise as complications from
vaccinations are related to an overactivated mast cell system. Check out "mast cell
activation syndrome" for more info. Ivermectin, quercetin and other "maverick" medications
that appear to hold no antiviral efficacy could simply be what quiets the mast cells and
dampens the inflammatory chain reaction.
On another note, there are the reported blood clotting incidents with the Astra Zeneca
vaccine. There is an ongoing discussion that these are caused by improper application of the
vaccine. It has to be injected intramuscularly, and not intravenously. In the former
case, the innate immune system (mast cells) triggers and the reaction is primarily contained
locally in the muscle tissue. From there the larger immune system is informed about the
invader. In case of accidental intravenous application, the vaccine attaches to blood
platelets. This in turn triggers a reaction in the spleen, causing the adaptive immune system
to attack the platelets and white blood cells in an autoimmune type reaction.
So, for the mRNA vaccines (and also COVID itself), it could be important to have a
stabilized mast cell system.
For the Astra Zeneca and (J&J?) vaccine, asking the person applying the vaccine to
draw blood before injecting (in order to test for accidental venous injection) is
important.
Well, at least that's what I understand from what I've picked up lately. Do your own
research and correct me on anything above that I wrote in well-meant ignorance.
Long covid, and other virus that can take a long tome to recover from I believe trigger
inflammation of the myelin sheath that insulates the nerves.
How interesting that you should mention that. The proverbial affliction featuring
inflammation of myelin sheaths is multiple sclerosis. Mast cells are suspected to play a
major role in the onset of ms.
Another similar find was that palmitoylethanolamide, which is sometimes used to ameliorate
ms progression and symptoms, was proposed for
combating severe lung inflammation in covid-19
On an entirely different track, "antiparasitic" ivermectin was shown to remarkably aid
wound healing and decrease scar tissue formation. As I stated in the previous post, mast
cells are involved also in tissue growth and regeneration, so this could be related. (I have
in the past personally used mimosa hostilis root bark infusion to heal third degree burn
wounds without any scarring, who knows if and what substance in that plant (also known as
tepezcohuite - "skin tree") might have similar effects on mast cells.)
Anyway, to end the speculation here are two medical articles pointing out the relation
between severe covid and mast cell activation:
Oh and here's the article (appears to be self-published but no less interesting)
speculating on the parallels between covid and secondary dengue virus infection syndrome:
For the purpose of this surveillance, a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the
detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14
days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.
Identifying and investigating hospitalized or fatal
vaccine breakthrough cases
As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases
to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause.
This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical
and public health importance.
Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April
2021 are available .
State health departments report vaccine breakthrough cases to CDC. CDC now monitors reported
hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases for clustering by patient demographics,
geographic location, time since vaccination, vaccine type, and SARS-CoV-2 lineage. Reported
data include hospitalized or fatal breakthrough cases due to any cause, including causes not
related to COVID-19.
To the fullest extent possible, respiratory specimens that test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA
are collected for genomic sequencing to identify the virus lineage that caused the
infection.
Some health departments may continue to report all vaccine breakthrough cases to the
national database and can continue to submit specimens to CDC for sequencing. However, CDC will
focus its monitoring on reported hospitalized and fatal cases.
Developing a data access
and management system for reporting COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases
CDC developed a national COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough REDCap database where designated
state health department investigators can enter, store, and manage data for cases in their
jurisdiction. State health departments have full access to data for cases reported from their
jurisdiction.
Ultimately, CDC will use the National
Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) to identify vaccine breakthrough cases.
Once CDC has confirmed that a state can report vaccination history data to NNDSS, CDC will
identify vaccine breakthrough cases through that system. At that time, the state health
departments can stop reporting cases directly into the REDCap database. After this change, CDC
will upload the available data reported to NNDSS into REDCap database for further review and
confirmation by the state health department.
Hospitalized or fatal COVID-19 vaccine
breakthrough cases reported to CDC as of June 21, 2021
As of June 21, 2021, more than 150 million people in
the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
During the same time, CDC received reports from 47 U.S. states and territories of 4,115
patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.
Total number of vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC
Hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC
4,115
Female
2,001
(49%)
People aged ≥65 years
3,124
(76%)
Asymptomatic infections
750
(18%)
Hospitalizations*
3,907
(95%)
Deaths†
750
(18%)
*1,004 (26%) of 3,907 hospitalizations reported as asymptomatic or not related to
COVID-19.
†142 (19%) of 750 fatal cases reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.
Previous data on all vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC from January–April
2021 are available .
How to interpret
these data
The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC likely are an
undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. National surveillance
relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative.
These surveillance data are a snapshot and help identify patterns and look for signals among
vaccine breakthrough cases.
Data on patients with vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died will be
updated regularly. Studies are being conducted in multiple U.S. sites that will include
information on all vaccine breakthrough infections regardless of clinical status to supplement
the national surveillance.
COVID-19 vaccines are effective
Vaccine breakthrough cases occur in only a small percentage of vaccinated people. To
date, no unexpected patterns have been identified in the case demographics or vaccine
characteristics among people with reported vaccine breakthrough infections.
COVID-19 vaccines are effective. CDC recommends that everyone 12 years of age and older
get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as they can.
People who have been fully
vaccinated can resume activities that they did prior to the pandemic.
Looks like two doses of Pfizer vaccine are effective against hospitalization (but not from
infection) from the Delta variant, according to UK data.
Roughly 10 per cent of infections in the US are linked to the variant, but that rate is
doubling every two weeks, the former FDA chief told CBS
News on Sunday .
"That doesn't mean that we're going to see a sharp uptick in infections, but it does mean
that this is going to take over," he said. "And I think the risk is really to the fall that
this could spike a new epidemic heading into the fall."
The more-contagious B 1.161.2 variant – a common development as a virus replicates
through transmission – was first discovered in India and has emerged as a dominant
strain in the UK, responsible for roughly 90 per cent of new infections there.
The more-transmissible delta variant first found in India and now spread widely in the U.K.
is expected to become the dominant strain in the U.S., said Rochelle Walensky, director of the
Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. She added that full vaccination provides good
protection against it.
The Los Angeles
County health agency suggested to residents that they wear masks -- regardless of vaccination
status -- due to the so-called " Delta " COVID-19 variant.
... ... ...
The World Health Organization (WHO) has similarly called on people to wear masks due to the
Delta variant, which is believed to have emerged in India. Meanwhile, Hong Kong officials also
announced this week that it will ban travelers from the UK over concerns about the
strain.
Those warnings came after officials in Israel said that half the adults infected in a recent
Delta COVID-19 outbreak fully vaccinated, according to the
Wall Street Journal late last week.
However, some have said that the concerns about the Delta strain are overblown.
"Don't let the fearmongers win," wrote Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on
Tuesday.
"New public England study of delta variant shows 44 deaths out of 53,822 (.08%) in
unvaccinated group."
Separately, pharmaceutical giant Moderna said that its two-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine works
against the Delta strain, which will likely be used in future arguments against new masking or
lockdown mandates.
"These new data are encouraging and reinforce our belief that the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine
should remain protective against newly detected variants," CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a
press release issued on Tuesday about the findings.
I agree. If the US scientists are so worried about the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 leaked
from a laboratory, why don't they also ask their government to investigate their own
labs?
And also, the corruption of the medical profession, to which he is now speaking (it's
running as I write this). The interviewer is using the words "medical mafia", citing the
later manifestations we've seen this year. But this interview seems that it will do much to
illustrate the long process of corruption that has happened over the years and decades, and
this is very valuable to learn.
The interviewer is using the words "medical mafia", citing the later manifestations
we've seen this year
Yes, the circuitous depravity they've engaged, the 'offer you can't refuse' has worked
wonders, as the interviewer attests his young peers who've taken the jab only to
regain their 'freedom', like my youngest daughter, 30, against my spoken preference, and my
silent prayers.
← Craig Kelly MP a true Australian hero warns there could have been 50,000 deaths
from Covid vax. NSW Health - Covid PCR tests at 40 cycles , double the recommended rate
yielding 80 per cent false positives* Jun 28. Posted by Editor, cairnsnews. Letter to the
Editor.
Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in
July carried barely any traces of the virus and it could be because today's tests are 'too
sensitive', experts say.
... PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests
typically take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very
small amounts of the virus that don't pose a risk.
Experts say a reasonable cutoff for the virus would be 30 or 35 cycles, according to
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside.
Mina said he would set the cutoff at 30.
New York's state lab Wadsworth analyzed cycle thresholds values in already processed
COVID-19 PCR tests and found in July that 794 positive tests were based on a threshold of
40 cycles.
With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive.
About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a
cycle threshold of 40 would have been considered negative if the threshold were 30 cycles,
Mina said.
This one big fraud. And Fauci is implicated. the fact that in the USA the results of the test
do not come with the number of amplifications used speaks volumes about the current medical
establishement.
Notable quotes:
"... With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30. ..."
"... It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests -- that they're just returning a positive or a negative,' Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York, said. ..."
Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in July
carried barely any traces of the virus and it could be because today's tests are 'too
sensitive', experts say.
... PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests typically
take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very small amounts of
the virus that don't pose a risk.
... ... ...
Experts say a reasonable cutoff for the virus would be 30 or 35 cycles, according to Juliet
Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside.
Mina said he would set the cutoff at 30.
New York's state lab Wadsworth analyzed cycle thresholds values in already processed
COVID-19 PCR tests and found in July that 794 positive tests were based on a threshold of 40
cycles.
With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive.
About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle
threshold of 40 would have been considered negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Mina
said.
'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,' he said.
The Food and Drug Administration said that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges
used to determine who is positive and 'commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their
own.'
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle
threshold measures for 'policy decision'.
The CDC said its own calculations suggest its extremely hard to detect a live virus in a
sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.
It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from
all these tests -- that they're just returning a positive or a negative,' Angela Rasmussen, a
virologist at Columbia University in New York, said.
Authorities doe not telling truth: people who already have COVID do not need to be
vaccinated. Also if Delta varient can infect vaccineted in conserable quantities how any resobale
person can maintain this goal of "herg immunity". How it can be achieved if a vaccinated person
can be infected and thus spread the disease both amoung vaccinated cohort and among the
unvaccinated cohort. The fact the vaccinated people are infected with Delta changes the game and
here Senator Paul is wrong.
Pushing vaccination on chidren in such curcumstances changes nothing is became a very
questionable move both from scientific an from ethical perspective.
America's favourite Chinese lab funding coronavirus doomonger doctor Anthony Fauci announced
Tuesday that there are now two Americas, a vaccinated America and an unvaccinated America.
As Senator Rand Paul noted
earlier this week , there is a boat load of misinformation on the matter coming from a
government that is indiscriminately pushing vaccinations:
There are now two Americas. One that's retarded. And one that wants Fauci on a
lamppost.
liberty2 1 hour ago (Edited)
Note that the officials said there's no such thing as "herd immunity" last year. Now
this year they keep saying that we can reach "herd immunity" if we are 70% vaxxed! Terms
are used if it fits their narrative.
Ride_the_kali_yuga 3 hours ago (Edited)
In the Covidian Cult, there is true believers in one side and heretics on the other
side. Vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Divide and rule strategy, as always. Do not undurestimate the ratio of retarded people
among the population, it has been growing like a cancer for decades. It amazes me how
perfectly coordinated those MSM Covidian propaganda events appears worldwide.
In here France, 2 days ago, most MSM have all simultaneously gone full berserk (without
any reason) blaming the reluctant ones. One of them on TV said something like : "if it was
me, i will use police to drag those who refuse these "vaccines" from their home and force
it on them"
This was priceless, this little man has morbid obesity. We now officialy all live on the
twilight zone on steroids. Land whales dictate how people should consider their own health.
This ride seems to never end.
We now have officialy entered the dehumanization phase of the unvaxxed. The sanitary
gulag is not far from here.
NIRP-BTFD 1 hour ago
There are 2 Americas. The 0.01% (the rulers that own everything) and the serfs.
DemandSider 1 hour ago
Exactly, parasite and host. Fauci would be the former, obviously.
Uncomfortable Truths democrats don't have in their tool kit:
1) Flu is still down 98% and would normally account for a large percentage of the covid
deaths.
2) 20% more babies were born in 1946 than in 1945. Deaths are increasing but not that
much. This is accounts for the rest of the covid deaths.
3) Coronavirus' are among the highest mutating virus types and can not be eliminated by
vaccine.
4) If the COVID symptoms arise from SARS-CoV-2 which came from bats and pangolins: then
vaccinating Humans will have zero effect in eliminating the virus.
5) COVID is a set of symptoms not a virus. The virus is called SARS. This is a
relationship like how AIDS is the symptom set that arises out of HIV. To talk about a
vaccine for COVID as a medical professional is malpractice.
6) 50% of the people getting the "delta" variant are previously vaccinated. In clinical
terms that means the vaccine experimental trial has failed.
If you still believe in mandating masks and vaccines then you are a fascist or your IQ
is too low and should give up your right to vote.
Bacon's Rebellion 9 hours ago (Edited) remove link
//////////////////////////////////////////////
The Delta Variant in the UK
//////////////////////////////////////////////
June 25 th , 2021 - Public Health England
Summary:
Higher rates of "cases" for the "unvaccinated" with higher rates of hospitalizations and
DEATHS for the "fully vaccinated" .
Overnight Hospitalization required:
1.11% of the "Fully Vaccinated"
0.89% of the "Unvaccinated"
Deaths:
50 were "Fully Vaccinated" = 0.69% died
38 were "Unvaccinated" = 0.07% died
Death rate was 9.86 times higher for the vaccinated!
IF - 53,822 "Unvaccinated" cases = 38 deaths
Will - 53,822 "Vaccinated" cases = 375 deaths?
Will - the 142,000,000 "Fully Vaccinated" people in the USA suffer 979,800 Delta variant
Deaths?
(Link downloads a PDF | SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern)
1. Flu deaths have been greatly exaggerated in recent years in order to push the flu
vaccine. Just like Covid, they changed the definition of flu to count more deaths, so they
could push the vaccine. Most of them are general respiratory deaths that can be/were
reclassified to Covid.
2. There was a baby boom in 1946 and that was 75 years ago, so we should start seeing an
acceleration from that about now, but there also has been massive population growth since
then, so the effect will be muted.
3. I don't claim to understand virology, but if these things mutate so fast, they likely
get less virulent rather than more. It certainly calls into question the entire vaccine
program.
4. Vaxx the bats... I thought many of them died off from their own virus a few years
ago, but I saw millions of them fly out from under a bridge in Austin a couple years
ago.
6. This is logic beyond the understanding level of the idiot media folks - they would
never be able to ask the question.
Nathan Hale PREMIUM 10 hours ago
It was a fungal infection that was/is killing bats in the US, for the record
Bacon's Rebellion 8 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Imagine the clusterphuek in the court system if these vaccines are connected with
miscarriages...lawyers are salivating...your employer coerced you into vaccination...your
baby died inside you...geesh...how anyone could take that chance!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
An experiment on "millions of people"
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Angela Merkel: All of these vaccines are conditionally approved. In the course of this
conditional approval, we are gaining experience for the first time on what happens if
this vaccine is used on millions of people? ...In the phase of the conditional approval
of such a vaccine is then very closely monitored - that is why everything is monitored so
specifically - what side effects can happen or what cases or what certain things can
occur.
Loads in German - Use Chrome to read in English:
Angela Merkel:
Sigh. 11 hours ago remove link
The Delta Strain is supposedly more fearful and deadly and contagious than the
'original' product, why, exactly?
Where are the studies comparing the relative efficacy and methodology of the vectors?
You recall the diagrams, the sneeze in one aisle of a supermarket, the blue haze covering
three aisles? Is the Delta Strain so contagious it now goes seven aisles?
Instead of the diagram of the beachgoer getting virus'd from the airborne particulates
from someone sneezing on a surfboard, are the viruses now coming in from further offshore,
the oil rig 40 miles out?
Instead of just old people, who are easily infected with everything that comes along,
now we must fear that kids and teens are susceptible? (Perhaps that's because they've worn
masks for so long they aren't getting 'natural' immunological defenses?)
This is just another worldwide scare tactic designed to keep the masks on and the
economy slowed. Look to the "Climate Change" set and the "One World Government" set for
reasons why we're facing these "new" strains.
aegis551 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link
CDC says we have nothing to worry about. Covid will never get here.
CDC says we have the ability to defeat this thing they said would never get here.
CDC says dont worry you dont need to wear masks. Because they wont protect you from the
virus.
CDC says some anti-viral medications may work. CDC corrects itself 24hrs later and says
only a vaccine can save us. Dr Fauci admits he and his family have been taking
hydroxychloroquine since the pandemic began. Even though they dont work.
CDC mandates everyone to wear masks because they will stop the spread.
CDC says we need to lock down for 2 weeks to stop the spread. CDC then mandates
lockdowns in perpetuity.
CDC says, etc, etc...
Why the hell is anyone listening to the CDC?
pods 10 hours ago remove link
Usually for any scam if you look under the cover you will find the hand of
government.
Ex. Pfizer has a vested interest of to keep their shots on the market. Profit motive and
to repay their development costs for their mRNA shots. Clinical trials are not cheap.
Pfizer will use contacts to nudge policy in a direction that benefits them. Doesnt have
to be evil, their job is to make stuff and sell it.
Why is Pfizer (could really be any of them) in this position? Because there was a
government policy to rush a product to market, Operation Warp Speed.
If that policy was never enacted none of these companies would have undertaken the
development of these shots with the resources they did. It would merely be pinheads doing
animal studies still at this point because a typical vaccine takes a decade to develop, and
mRNA has not been proven safe, so it would take longer to prove safety in target
populations, including mutagenic/teratagenic studies.
So really it was a government policy that landed us where we are at now. This is not a
political statement. No left/right BS is intended. Just a deductive theory of how the world
works, at a level above the left/right pigpen.
Brushy 10 hours ago remove link
Rand Paul didnt tweet the most important part of that study;
Delta variant deaths;
117 total deaths
44 unvaccinated
23 single dose
50 fully vaccinated
Thats 73 deaths for those who have been fully or partially vaccinated vs only 44 deaths
for the unvaxxed. Its looking more and more like the "Delta variant" is just code for
vaccine injury.
FrankDrakman 10 hours ago remove link
On the one page of data shown, I calculated the following: (rounded)
Unvaxxed: 35,000/34 deaths ~= 1/1000
One shot < 21 days: 4,000/1 deaths ~= 1/4000
One shot > 21 days: 9,000/10 deaths ~= 1/900
Two shots > 14 days: 4,000/26 deaths = 1/150
The second shot's the killer!
Morse_Code 8 hours ago
The virus is a poor excuse for the "Great Reset" into corporate fascism and to check out
the "Chicken Little" theory of the 'Sky is Falling' social syndrome.
They have already convinced society that white people are bad, men are really women, we
don't need police if they take our guns away and inflation is good, the U.S. is better
because of illegal immigration and that Biden won.
RathdrumGal 10 hours ago
I 100% agree. My career was spent in Critical Care nursing. I have seen people die and I
have seen what torture comes from a fear of death. I am much more afraid of a vancomycin
resistant enterococcus than COVID. Two days ago I was jet boating in Hell's Canyon in 117
degree heat. It was red neck heaven, no one on our boat was masked. We stopped for lunch on
the way home in a college town. So many young healthy looking people wearing masks, with
their young children masked! They can't all be on chemo, and I assume if they are that
afraid of COVID they have been vaccinated. What gives?
The US Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk of myocarditis and
pericarditis to fact sheets for Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccines Friday.
The warning notes that reports of adverse events following vaccination -- particularly after
the second dose -- suggest increased risks of both types of heart inflammation.
Earlier this week, vaccine advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
heard that the agency had received about 1,200 reports of such heart inflammation after 300
million doses of the two vaccines had been given.
This is a fiasco for Fauci "herd immunity" campaign and the US goverment official strategy --
full, if necessary compulsive, vaccination of population with the first generation of vaccines.
It means that people vaccinated with the the first generation vaccines can become infected with
Delta variant and spread the virus much like unvaccinated people.
An Israeli receives a coronavirus vaccine in Tel Aviv, Israel, on January 6. Sebastian
Scheiner/AP As many as half of new COVID-19 cases in Israel are vaccinated people, a health
official suggested. The Delta variant, not as easily beaten by vaccines as other variants, is
driving Israel's surge. The figure is likely an estimate, as the health ministry is still
analyzing the cases. As Israel faces a surge in cases driven by the Delta variant, its health
officials suggested that as many as half of new cases were among people who'd been
vaccinated.
Fully vaccinated people who've come into contact with the Delta variant have no immunity and
have to quarantine, Chezy Levy, the director-general of Israel's health ministry, said on
Wednesday, Haaretz reported. Levy told the state broadcaster Kan Bet that about 40% to 50% of
new cases appeared to be people who had been vaccinated, Haaretz reported.
He did not appear to specify a time frame for the new cases. The figure is likely an
estimate, as the ministry is still analyzing the cases. On Monday, Levy said that a third of
the new daily cases were people who had been vaccinated.
This is a fiasco for Fauci "herd immunity" campaign. It means that vaccinated people can
become infected and spread the virus much like unvaccinated people.
Cases of the Delta variant of coronavirus have almost doubled in a week
with 73 people now confirmed to have died after testing positive for the variant, 26 of whom
had had both vaccine doses.
Public Health England (PHE) said that as of Monday, the UK has seen 75,953 confirmed cases
of the Delta variant first identified in India, up 33,630 - or 79% - from the previous
week.
While just 26 people died more than two weeks after their second COVID-19 vaccine dose from
the Delta variant, more than 30.6 million in the UK have had both jabs, according to the
latest
government figures .
PHE said a total of 806 people in England have been admitted to hospital with the Delta
variant as of 14 June, a rise of 423 on the previous week.
So we have real problems with vaccines as Delta mutation puts the end of Fauci and company
fake dream about herd immunity -- it infects vaccinated people, but we can't discuss that the US medical establishment is corrupt,
in bed with Big Pharma and failed us.
This "medical bolshevism" should better be stopped.
Notable quotes:
"... Johnson said Sheryl Ruettgers will detail "severe neurological reactions that still inhibit her ability to live a normal life, including muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia" that she experienced after getting the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this month. ..."
Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson announced plans to hold a news conference to
discuss adverse reactions related to the COVID-19 vaccine, drawing backlash from health care
experts who view the move as "dangerous" and a way to promote misinformation.
In a statement Friday, Johnson said he plans to give a platform to six people from across
the country who claim to have had negative health reactions after receiving the coronavirus
jab. Johnson said the conference will take place Monday to allow the individuals to tell their
stories and discuss issues that have been "repeatedly ignored" by the medical community,
according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The Republican senator, who has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and has previously
advocated for alternative and unproven drug treatments to COVID-19, faced immediate backlash
from critics who feel the event will be a platform for spreading misinformation about the
safety of vaccines.
Dr. Jeff Huebner, a doctor in Madison, Wisconsin, said that Johnson was "promoting dangerous
and unfounded claims" about the vaccine that contradict medical research and analysis.
"As a member of the Wisconsin medical community I'm gravely concerned about the impact his
event and remarks will have on our ability to return to normal and protect Wisconsinites from
COVID-19.," Huebner said in a statement, the Journal Sentinel reported .
Joanna Bisgrove, a Wisconsin primary care doctor, told FOX6 that Johnson's statements and
event are "putting people at risk and already hurting people."
Tony Evers, the state's Democratic governor, added Friday that Johnson was being "reckless
and irresponsible" and said the event was "jeopardizing the health and safety" of the state's
vaccine rollout and economic recovery.
.@SenRonJohnson, you're being reckless and irresponsible. The #COVID19 vaccine is safe and
effective and based on years of science and research. Every time you suggest otherwise,
you're jeopardizing the health and safety of the people of our state and our economic
recovery.
-- Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) June 25, 2021
In defense, Johnson said Friday that he is "just asking questions" and isn't against the
vaccine.
"We're all supporters of vaccines. As I've repeatedly said, I'm glad that hundreds of
millions of Americans have been vaccinated, but I don't think authorities can ignore and censor
some of the issues," Johnson said in a tweet responding to Evers. "On Monday, we'll bring light
to stories that deserve to be seen, heard & believed."
Monday's event in Milwaukee will include statements from former Green Bay Packers player Ken
Ruettgers and his wife, Sheryl.
Johnson said Sheryl Ruettgers will detail "severe neurological reactions that still inhibit
her ability to live a normal life, including muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia"
that she experienced after getting the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this month.
Additional testimonies will be heard from individuals from Ohio, Missouri, Utah, Michigan
and Tennessee.
The medical community has long stressed that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine far
outweigh the risks of possible side effects. Earlier this week, top U.S. health officials, medical agencies, laboratory and hospital
associations issued a statement reiterating the benefits by stating that getting vaccinated is
the "best way to protect yourself, your loved ones, your community, and to return to a more
normal lifestyle safely and quickly."
Newsweek contacted Johnson for additional comment, but did not hear back in time for
publication.
Newsweek, in partnership with NewsGuard, is dedicated to providing accurate and
verifiable vaccine and health information. With NewsGuard's HealthGuard browser extension,
users can verify if a website is a trustworthy source of health information. Visit the Newsweek
VaxFacts website to learn more and to download the HealthGuard browser extension.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional
Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the
University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon .
Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities
effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of
September 2021.
There is a recording of Dr.
Christian's meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine
at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical
Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of
Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.
In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint
that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent
of Covid vaccines for children.
Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in
2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and
Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also
the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.
On June 17, Dr. Christian
released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the
Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent
any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan.
"I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being."
Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a
patient should always be "fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of
the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention."
"This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in
humans"¦ before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must
know the risks of m-RNA vaccines," he wrote.
Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across "a single vaccinated child or
parent who has been adequately informed" about Covid vaccines for children.
Among his points, he stated that:
The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and
are in fact under "interim authorization" in Canada and "emergency use authorization" in
the US. He noted that "full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety
considerations "" this has not happened."
That in order to qualify for "emergency use authorization" there must be an emergency.
While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health
care workers, he said, "Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of
Covid is less than 0.003% "" this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu.
There is no emergency in children."
Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.
M-RNA vaccines have been "associated with several thousand deaths" in the Vaccine
Adverse Reporting System in the US. "These appear to be unusual, compared to the total
number of vaccines administered." He called it a "strong signal that should not be
ignored."
He noted that vaccines have already caused "serious medical problems for kids"
worldwide, including "a real and significantly increased risk" of myocarditis, inflammation
of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the
German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the
vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.
The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on
June 21, 2021, alleging that they had "received information that you are engaging in activities
designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination
contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian
public health authorities."
Dr. Christian's concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him. The
US Centre for Disease Control had an "emergency meeting" today to discuss the growing cases of
myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.
The CDC released
new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times
the expected rate in 12 "" 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued
public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.
The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which
contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that " Children should not be
vaccinated for the moment ." Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new
guidance was posted which stated that "Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of
age."
Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing "network of ethical, moral physicians and
scientists" who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed
consent. He said, physicians must "always put their patients and humanity first."
Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality
in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP
Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle
expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.
Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship
of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid.
"We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very
esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science
and medicine," says Mr. Cameron.
The Justice Centre
represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary
proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote
in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided
submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn's behalf, defending the right of physicians to
express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is
entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms "" including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting
to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of
public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the
government.
Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public
health policies, as he was removed from his
position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health
Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr.
Strang as the province's Chief Medical Officer.
"Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is
arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific", states Mr. Cameron.
"Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent
on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only
regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College
of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns," Mr. Cameron concludes.
Mr. Apotheosis 4 hours ago
These mother f'ers are seriously evil. To the bone evil.
high5mail 3 hours ago
I'm Canadian and the sooner they throw Trudeau and Manitoba's Pallister out of office
won't be too soon.
It is effen ridiculous what this country turned into. Makes California appear to be a
free place compared to here and that is saying something.
I am jealous of people living in Florida, Texas and South Dakota. They don't know how
lucky they are that some people in power there are not only intelligent but have
cajones...
No_Pretzel_Logic 2 hours ago
The Davos crowd is clutching most of the Western countries by the short hairs.
Yank....how does that feel, plebe?
"... Noorchashm also called on Pfizer and Modern to institute "clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in anyone recently recovering from COVID, as well as any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers -- and to actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them." ..."
"... 'It's a colossal error to vaccinate people who have had prior infections, and this is totally avoidable harm we are causing. Why are we rushing to vaccinate people who we know are immune and don't stand to gain any benefit? If I do anything medically unnecessary to someone as a doctor, I'm opening them up to potential harm. If you've had a recent infection and you have viral antigens in your tissues, you can literally and immunologically cause tissue damage." ..."
"... "We know that natural SARS CoV-2 virus can affect the heart. It can cause blood clots that can lead to heart attacks and strokes and myocarditis. The virus can trigger an immune response or inflammation to the heart. Anywhere the virus goes the immune system will target that tissue and cause problems. If you've had a prior infection and you have antigens in the tissues where the virus goes, like the heart, and you activate the immune response [with a vaccine], you're going to activate damage." ..."
In an interview with The Defender, Marie Follmer said no one warned her that her 19-year-old son -- a healthy, elite athlete
who had recovered from COVID -- shouldn't get the Pfizer vaccine because it would put him at greater risk of developing myocarditis.
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters
by
subscribing to our top news of the day . It's free .
Greyson Follmer, an Ohio State University (OSU) student, was an elite athlete and member of the university's chapter of the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (ROTC).
But, according to his mother, the 19-year-old from Ohio is looking at a very different future now, after he developed severe
heart complications following his second dose of Pfizer's COVID vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender , Marie
Follmer said nobody warned her about the potential for increased risks of COVID vaccine-related adverse events for people like her
son, who already had COVID and had acquired
natural immunity.
Greyson has played sports since he was 4 years old. He was an athlete who played in the state soccer championship in high school
and then went on to OSU and started college during the COVID pandemic. He also joined ROTC his freshman year and was very active
-- running several miles every day with heavy packs on his back.
Greyson was perfectly healthy and had no underlying conditions except for asthma -- which didn't affect his athletic abilities
-- and food allergies.
Like most students early on in the year, Greyson and his friends got COVID.
Though most had no symptoms, Greyson experienced mild flu symptoms -- though they were nothing like his post-vaccine symptoms,
Follmer explained.
The university required students who had COVID to quarantine. It also required them to get a heart MRI before they could return
to school. Follmer thought that was strange, but she made sure her son got one.
When the cardiac MRI came back it showed Greyson's heart was enlarged with slight inflammation. The cardiologist thought it could
be related to being an elite athlete, and signed a release for Greyson to return to school.
"He wasn't 100%, but he was recovering. He was able to go skiing, return to ROTC and went on spring break," Follmer said.
Follmer and her husband got vaccinated first with
Moderna . When a friend of Follmer secured appointments for the kids to be vaccinated, she drove to OSU, picked up Greyson and
told him he was going to get vaccinated.
Greyson received his first dose of
Pfizer
on April 16, and a second dose on May 7. After the first dose Greyson experienced minor symptoms, but his mother didn't connect them
to the COVID vaccine.
It was after his second dose that things really changed, Follmer said.
'My son feels like he's having a heart attack 24/7," Follmer said. "He now has high blood pressure, severe chest pains, back pain,
elevated kidney levels, hypothyroidism, inflamed lymph nodes in different areas of his body, and he can't work or exercise."
Follmer said Greyson feels like he's dying and has to sleep all the time. He likely won't be able to go back to ROTC and doesn't
know if he will be able to return to school in August. Greyson experienced broken feet from soccer and said nothing compares to the
chest pain he feels now.
'A perfectly healthy kid has gone downhill," his mom said.
Doctors initially attributed the heart problems Greyson experienced in May, after the vaccine, to the COVID he had in September
2020. Believing he was a "long-hauler," they referred her son to the Ohio COVID Clinic.
According to the
Harvard
Gazette , "COVID long-haulers" is a term used to describe those who continue to feel symptoms of COVID long after the expected
recovery time. Patients tend to be younger, and in some cases, initially experienced only mild symptoms.
On June 15, Greyson was taken by emergency medicine services to Ohio Health
. Follmer said she knew her son's symptoms were connected to the Pfizer vaccine, but nobody knew how to help him.
Greyson has seen numerous doctors and specialists. His family has spent more than $12,000 in one month. Lab work is covered by
insurance but his other treatments are not. Greyson is doing stem cell treatments, taking Ivermectin and numerous supplements to
support his condition.
Doctors project it will take him two years to fully recover, though there's no research or information on how to treat
myocarditis
brought on by a COVID vaccine.
In the meantime, Greyson can't mow the grass, work or go to school. He walks around holding his chest and is in counseling to
cope with the effects this has had on his life, his mother said.
Follmer said she's not an
anti-vaccine
person, especially because she has a young daughter who could get sick. None of her children had ever had reactions to vaccines.
Follmer's 11-year-old daughter is immunocompromised. Even though all of her children had been exposed to COVID, she thought she
was protecting her daughter by having her son vaccinated.
Follmer explained:
'I think what's frustrating to me right now is that nobody told me that if you have an enlarged heart or heart inflammation, don't
get the shot. Not one person ever told us this. I never would have thought in a million years my kid would get sick.
'I was ready to give my daughter the vaccine -- she is going to be 12 in August and has one lung and a reconstructive airway.
There is no way on this planet I would give her the vaccine now. Greyson's twin brother will also not be getting the vaccine after
seeing what his brother has gone through."
Follmer said no one told her about reporting her son's
adverse reaction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Vaccine
Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). "If I hadn't put it on Facebook and someone hadn't told me to put it in VAERS, I would
have never known to do it."
Follmer said she has since reported her son's
adverse reaction to VAERS (ID1395886), but no one has followed up on her son's case nor has the report been added to the system.
She also tried calling the CDC to see if someone there could help them.
'I just want him better. That's the bottom line," Follmer said. I just want everyone to know -- don't be naive like I was and
think that this can't happen to your kids."
Cardiothoracic surgeon warns against vaccinating people who've already had COVID
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a surgeon , immunologist
and patient safety advocate, wrote
several letters to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shortly after the agency granted Pfizer and Moderna
Emergency Use Authorization for their COVID vaccines.
In his letters, Noorchashm urged the FDA to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine
injuries and deaths.
Noorchashm also
called on Pfizer and Modern to institute "clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in anyone recently
recovering from COVID, as well as any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers -- and to actively screen as many patients with
high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them."
According
to Noorchashm , it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus
persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved.
When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen
are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.
"In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the
brain,"
explained Noorchashm . "So these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in
the recently infected. Following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and
damaged."
In an interview with The Defender , Noorchashm said
Greyson's case reminded him of
Everest Romney -- the all-American basketball player who was hospitalized after his second dose of Pfizer for blood clots in
his brain.
According to Noorchasm, both Romney and Greyson had acquired natural immunity because they'd been infected with COVID, and they
likely did not stand to
gain any benefit from a COVID vaccine.
Noorchashm explained:
'It's a colossal error to vaccinate people who have had prior infections, and this is totally avoidable harm we are causing. Why
are we rushing to vaccinate people who we know are immune and don't stand to gain any benefit? If I do anything medically unnecessary
to someone as a doctor, I'm opening them up to potential harm. If you've had a recent infection and you have viral antigens in your
tissues, you can literally and immunologically cause tissue damage."
Medical necessity is on the ground floor of everything doctors do in regards to safety, Noorchasm said. "If you want to be a safe
hospital, doctor, practitioner or health agency you would not do anything that's not necessary to people or fundamentally not beneficial.
There's only a probability of harm if there's no medical necessity," he said.
When asked specifically about myocarditis, Noorchashm said this is the original prediction and prognostication he made to the
FDA.
Noorchashm said:
"We know that natural SARS CoV-2 virus can affect the heart. It can cause blood clots that can lead to heart attacks and strokes
and myocarditis. The virus can trigger an immune response or inflammation to the heart. Anywhere the virus goes the immune system
will target that tissue and cause problems. If you've had a prior infection and you have antigens in the tissues where the virus
goes, like the heart, and you activate the immune response [with a vaccine], you're going to activate damage."
Noorchashm, who is pro-vaccine, said shots need to be spread out for people who are not immune and want to be vaccinated, and
the FDA and CDC should think carefully about limiting the shot to one dose, especially in young people, or increasing the duration
between first and second doses.
In his
letter to the FDA , Noorchashm recommended actively screening as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably
possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.
"If someone has a known history of COVID, there should not be any rush to get them vaccinated," Noorchashm said. "That should
be our national policy.
If you've either had COVID, or you have laboratory evidence of immunity, you shouldn't rush into getting vaccinated ."
On Covid, Israel, which used Pfizer vaccines, and had only last week removed indoor mask
mandates, has now reinstituted them, and is asking its citizens not to go abroad over concerns
the Delta variant is surging
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) safety panel said there is a "likely
association" of mild heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults after they were
vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The
initial cases of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, inflammation
of the membrane surrounding the heart, reported on the federal government's tracking system
were generally mild, especially compared to traditional myocarditis, scientists said.
Most cases have been mild, with symptoms like fatigue, chest pain and disturbances in heart
rhythm that quickly clear up within a day or so. CDC scientists said they will need to follow
up with patients in the months ahead in order to get a complete picture of the impact.
"Clinical presentation of myocarditis cases following vaccination has been distinct,
occurring most often within one week after dose two, with chest pain as the most common
presentation," said Grace Lee, chairwoman of the CDC's vaccine safety committee.
Officials said they are tracking about 1,200 initial reports of the rare heart inflammation
following doses of mRNA coronavirus vaccines have been filed with the federal government's
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), though they have not yet been definitively
linked to the vaccines.
Most reports came from people in their late teens and early 20s, and many more occurred
after the second dose than the first.
...There were more cases in males than females, and the cases essentially disappeared in
older age groups.
The agency said there have been 267 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported after
receiving one dose of the mRNA vaccines and 827 reported cases after two doses through June
11.
But the reports are preliminary, and do not mean the health issues have been linked to the
vaccine. The database is meant as a repository of all events observed after vaccination.
There were 323 confirmed reports of myocarditis and pericarditis for people under the age of
29, which is the group CDC is investigating. Among those confirmed, 218 people have fully
recovered. Nine people were hospitalized, with two in intensive care as of June 11, according
to the CDC.
There have been about 300 million vaccine doses administered nationwide.
Scientists have emphasized this occurrence is rate - for both mRNA vaccines combined, there
were 12.6 heart inflammation cases per million doses.
The highest confirmed rate of myocarditis and pericarditis was about 20 cases per 1 million
doses with Moderna's vaccine, compared to 8 cases per million for Pfizer's.
Officials emphasized that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks, and noted that for
every million doses of mRNA vaccine given, there are far more COVID-19 cases and
hospitalizations prevented compared to the number of potential myocarditis cases.
@Peripatetic Itch pregnant the first time, my obgyn hands me a list of common foods and
drinks to avoid, and now the government wants to inject an experimental drug into me? No
thanks. You don't even need to go to conspiracies and shadowy research for that one. I have
to avoid caffeine, but untested drug is OK?
I don't even want the J&J one (when I'm done with babymaking) even though it seems
closer to a traditional vaccine. I read it was something already existing from efforts to
develop an HIV shot, but they seem to have a recurring issues with contamination where they
manufacture it. Too many diversity hires, maybe.
On the other hand, the MSM seems to downplay the mRNA complications and overplay the
J&J ones, which is curious.
J&J also creates spike proteins, it just does it with a viral vector instead of mRNA.
Sputnik and Sinovac are traditional vaccines if you can get them.
Does WHO try to fearmonger the importance of vaccination using Delta (Indian) mutation as the
"eminent threat". While that real problem is that vaccines are much less effective against this
train (although probably not to the extent South African mutation wiped out the credibility of
the first generation vaccines from the USA, especially Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (
Moderna Developing Vaccine Booster Shot for Virus Strain Identified in South Africa - WSJ
"Moderna said its vaccine induced production of neutralizing antibodies against the strain first
identified in the U.K., known as B.1.1.7, at levels comparable to prior variants. Yet
neutralization decreased sharply in the case of the strain in South Africa, known as
B.1.351,"
A weak protection against the South Africa variant suggests the flow of "total vaccination"
propaganda and clear deficiencies of several first generation vaccines.
As the mutant COVID-19 strain known as "Delta" picks up steam across Europe and the US, one
of the WHO's leading doctors has just expressed concern about recent research published in the
Lancet showing that the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines aren't as effective at protecting
against "Delta".
Answering a question from a reporter during the organization's regular Monday briefing in
Geneva, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said that there is data "showing a reduction in neutralization"
for the Delta variant, but not as much as the "Beta" variant - better known as the mutant
strain that was first discovered in South Africa.
play_arrow
Johnny Walker 1 minute ago
"Asking the CDC to look into vaccine safety is like asking the fox to guard the chicken
coop."-- Dr Rimland Ph.D.
Unbelievabubble 40 seconds ago
Less WHO doctor, more WITCH doctor.
Mike Rotsch 2 minutes ago
It's kinda like a never-ending Henry Kissinger interview. On one hand, we're told that
he's some kind of a genius and master of political science. On the other hand, he has
absolutely nothing but a lifetime of consistent and predictable failure to show for it.
It is not clear if Ivermectin is effective. But were are government studies on this important
topic. Where is out "vaccines zealot" Fauci and his institute results ?
On December 8, 2020, when most of America was consumed with what The Guardian called Donald
Trump's "desperate, mendacious, frenzied and sometimes farcical" attempt to remain president,
the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the "
Medical Response to
Covid-19 ." One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had
great news.
"We have a solution to this crisis," he said unequivocally.
"There is a drug that is proving to have a miraculous impact."
Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in
other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and
elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi OÌ„mura win the Nobel Prize in 2015 . As far
as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic
Covid-19 bullet?
Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts
had been stifled, because "every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail." A
Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an
unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a
potential solution" disallow calls for more research and more study" because not enough
research and study had been done. Once, people weren't allowed to take drugs before they got
FDA approval. Now, they can't talk about them.
If Ivermectin is ever recognized as effective against the Wu-flu, all the "vaccines"
will become illegal. They are ONLY authorized for emergency use because no other safe and
recognized treatment is available. So the pharmaceutical companies will pull out all the
stops to prevent that happening. Expect a new article in The Lancet any day now, "proving"
that it doesn't work.
chumlee 5 hours ago
Exactly!!
Pinto Currency 3 hours ago
Breakthrough: Ivermectin Inhibits Covid Spike Protein Binding
" Ivermectin... has shown great efficacy in the fight against covid-19. For the first
time, medical researchers have documented how ivermectin docks to the SARS-CoV-2 spike
receptor-binding domain that is attached to the ACE2 receptor."
ClimbingTheLog 5 hours ago remove link
the Lancet may well do that but c19ivermectin.com has a hundred studies now showing the
Lancet as being part of the coverup.
Demologos 4 hours ago
Great video discussing several treatments including Ivermectin. Of course, it's already
pulled from YouTube, after nearly 600K views, but it can be found on odysee.com .
Dr. Bret Weinstein ( Dark Horse Podcast) is the moderator with Dr. Robert Malone (one of
the inventors of mRNA vaccine technology) and Steve Kirsch. Search "how to save the world
in three easy steps". Video is 3 hours but well worth your time.
h/t to a ZH commenter a few days ago.
Demologos 4 hours ago
Ivermectin peer-reviewed meta study released today. Dr. Tess Lawrie.
More importantly, had Ivermectin and HCQ (As well as prophylactic Vitamnin-D
supplementation in the Northern Hemisphere) been approved as (effective, cheap and AE-free)
treatments for "Covid" under the laws of many countries, especially the US, it would not
have been possible to approve the experimental gene therapies under the EUA mechanism.
Which would, of course, have scuttled the entire profitable psyop.
LetThemEatRand 6 hours ago
Your answer is clearly the correct one (vaccine would not be allowed if there are
effective treatments). Guys like Taibbi can't accept that obvious and correct explanation
for the question in his article, because doing so means admitting that there is a vast
conspiracy going on regarding COVID. So he will only entertain stupid answers like "well,
Trump said it was effective, therefore people said it wasn't." This is already what we're
hearing with regard to the Wuhan lab.
RedDog1 7 hours ago
Big tech = Ministry of Truth.
paranoid.dragon 7 hours ago
Big Tech = created by Pentagon
Not Your Father's ZH 7 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Dr. "Follow The Science" Fauci controls a $7 billion budget that uses vaccines as
weaponry. Kennedy Jr. discloses that the chronic disease rate in the US in 1968 when Fauci
became director of the Institute of Infectious Disease was 6% and now is 54%. Fauci turned
his agency into an incubator of prescription drugs and vaccines. His agency has a financial
conflict of interest in vaccine patents.
Fauci runs a medical dictatorship, says Kennedy. Fauci gives away 13 times more money
than billionaire Gates.
edotabin 5 hours ago remove link
The EUA cannot be given if there are alternatives. Of course they knew. How do I
know?
1. World famous French scientist (Raoult) notices hydroxychloroquine works and starts
speaking about it. Lancet publishes false study stating the opposite. They eventually are
forced to retract study. They continue to give the medication to very late- stage patients
and gave wrong doses so as to purposely continue to discredit its effectiveness. Sales of
drug banned in Europe and Dr. Raoult goes from being world-renowned to invisible. Many
pharmacists in the US refuse to fill prescriptions.
2. Ivermectin shows fantastic results in India and elsewhere. Numbers start dropping
like a rock. The situation is stabilized. What happens? Ivermectin is bad-mouthed and in
some areas of India it is banned. As a matter of fact, read this:
As scientists start to assess the impact that COVID-19 has had on patients and the American
medical system more broadly,
Bloomberg reports that hospitals across the US have seen a surge in patients receiving
single- and double-lung transplants.
Transplants are necessary for only the most serious COVID-19 cases. In these patients -
pretty much always patients with comorbidities - COVID-19 ravages the lung tissue, leaving
nodules in the lungs incapable of absorbing oxygen from the air and transmitting it to the
blood stream. For many patients, the grueling procedure may be the only solution after
experiencing the worst lung damage caused by the virus - when the body fails to properly
respond to, and heal from, the hyper-inflammatory response provoked by COVID-19.
... ... ...
Fortunately, COVID-19 vaccines supposedly offer "100% protection" against "severe" COVID-19
symptoms. Though patients with comorbiditis may still be at risk as variants like the "delta"
strain continue to spread.
DanishViking 7 hours ago (Edited)
Fear mongering article sourced from Bloomberg (surprised?), pushing the jab
narrative
ohm 4 hours ago
If your dumb enough to believe the vaccines are 95% or 100% effective against anything,
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the
absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and
without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they
give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the
AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the
J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech
vaccines.
Agreed, watch Dr. (cardiologist) Peter McCullough testifying to the Texas Senate.
Essentially he said 85% didn't have to die if treated early and properly. Lung damage would
have been avoided as well. I would add massive (30-50 grams, initially and repeated daily
until symptoms alleviated) doses of IV vitamin C to the protocol. IV C has been used
successfully for more than 70 years on Polio and other viruses. Look up Dr. Klenner.
My understanding is that Sputnik is an adenovirus vector vaccine, not really a
"traditional" vaccine. The Chinese vaccine is a traditional attenuated virus vaccine and
there is a SANOFI protein fragment vaccine in Phase III trials, which I think also uses a
proven technology. While I think that Sputnik is better than the messenger RNA genetic
treatments, which creep me out, I still prefer to wait for more traditional vaccines to be
approved, if I have to be vaccinated at all.
But why design a biological weapon that works best against the elderly and already
infirm?
It is an adenovirus viral vector vaccine – a "neutered" adenovirus is used as a
vector to inject DNA coding for viral proteins in the cells and make them produce/present
them to the immune system. In fact it's somewhat similar to what Pfizer or Moderna do with
lipidic nanoparticules as vector and mRNA as "source code" for protein synthesis.
This vaccine technology is fairly recent and IIRC only used in four CODID-19 (Suptnik V,
AstraZenecca, J&J and one of the Chinese vaccines – maybe two) and two Ebola
vaccines.
If you want "traditional", you should look into the sub-unit – for the moment it's
Russian EpiVacCorona and CoviVac – or inactivated virus based vaccines, IIRC chinese
only for the moment.
The primary goal of the response to SARS-Cov-2 was to have everyone in the World forced to
have a vaccine on a regular basis. The lies reached mountainous proportions.
I am no more interested in Russia's vaccine than anyone else's. Perhaps it will prove to
be somewhat safer, although it also directs the patients cells to produce the spike protein.
Perhaps it is not as likely to go everywhere, including the circulatory system, which may
make it safer.
But, I see no reason for vaccines for anyone under 70, and for those over 70 and everyone
else there are effective treatments, like HCQ and Ivermectin the ban on these will probably
end someday, just like the ban on discussing the origins of SARS-Cov-2.
@Ultrafart the Brave he
"spike protein", they actually inject it directly, encapsulated in said adenovirus envelope.
You may be misunderstanding how adenovirus vector vaccines work. You are right that these
vaccines do not instruct human cells to synthesize the protein (as mRNA vaccines do) but they
are not delivering the protein directly, what they do is to carry the gene that synthesizes the
protein, the gene is carried in the genetic make up of the adenovirus. The foreign gene is
inserted into the adenovirus. Usually a crucial gene for replication of the adenovirus is
replaced (gene swapping) with the foreign gene that synthesizes the protein of interest
rendering the adenovirus impotent.
Covid-19 also causes pericarditis in a small number of the people infected.
The problem with the data is that we have no ways of knowing how many of those people had been
exposed to coronavirus in the weeks before getting the vaccine, or were people who had the
long-term covid-19 problem.
Here is a case of someone for whom pericarditis was the only symptom of infection.
Definitely false, at least for COVID, can't comment about the vaccine but I strongly suspect
it doesn't apply there. There are multiple cases of people who were perfectly healthy that
ended up with severe pulmonary fibrosis, requiring a lung transplant, solely because of COVID.
If the patient wasn't otherwise healthy before getting COVID, odds are super high that they
wouldn't have even been eligible for transplant anyways as they likely would not even survive
the surgery.
Azfamily.com is the joint website for KTVK and KPHO television stations based in Phoenix,
Arizona. The website covers local news, sports, weather, entertainment, crime and TV
programming information.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180 (2020)
Overall, we rate azfamily.com Least Biased based on balanced story selection and minimal
editorializing. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean
Re:
Anecdotes aren't scientific proof of anything. There are super-healthy firefighters and
special ops soldiers falling dead of coronary and lung disease all the time. I had a family
member like that, died at the age of 30 due to an unknown and underlying heart condition,
super-fit, was just sitting in the sun one afternoon and dropped dead. You don't need an
underlying heart condition...
Any serious disturbance of the immune system homeostasis may result with a secondary
streptococcal infection of the heart muscle - i.e. inflammation of the heart muscle.
I.e. Myocarditis.
I've had that twice.
Once due to influenza resulting in a high fever, as a teenager.
The night of the fever I could barely catch my breath to speak and in the morning mom had to
take me by the hand to the local health center which was literally down the road from us.
I can't speak to the vaccine review process, but this is completely false for the drug
review process. I would in the drug research sphere (I'm in IT, but I have been in it for over
20 years so I know how it works) and you are 100% incorrect. Phase 1 trials are conducted on
healthy people. These are usually first in man studies looking for any side effects from the
drug, so they want healthy people who are not on other medication. It then goes on to phase 2
trials, which are designed to see if the drug works. So if it is a high blood pressure drug, it
is given to people with high blood pressure to see if the drug actually works and does what
they want it to. These people are often on other medications. There is not a requirement they
not be on other medications unless they know of negative interactions or the other drugs also
may do something similar to the drug they are testing (which means the results could be
skewed). Then the drug goes onto phase 3 trials which compare the drug to other drugs used for
the same thing to see if the new drug performs better.
So as you can see, no, drugs are not "only ever tested on otherwise healthy people who
aren't taking other medications or have other pre-existing health conditions". It is true they
cannot test the interaction witha ll other drugs or conditions, since that would be practically
impossible, but the idea that drugs are not tested on people with any other conditions is
completely wrong.
Reply to This Parent Share Flag as InappropriateRe:
Actually, no. But for rare side-effects, there is only "phase 4" testing, i.e. you vaccinate
the target population and check what happens. The numbers from the article are too low to be
found in any systematic test, simple statistics already gives you that. Nobody can run a drug
test on about 10M people and that is what you would need here. Re:Did they cut
corners? (
Score: 5 , Insightful) by Xest (
935314 ) on Thursday June 10, 2021 @05:47PM ( #61474896 )
I don't think so; typically medicines are always updated post approval when they're in the
open market and new side effects are found because realistically if you're talking about a 1 in
500,000 issue the ability to even get 500,000 test subjects for most medicines is flat out
impossible because a lot of the time you're talking about medicines for conditions that there
just aren't even that many people suffering from it at any given time. The only reason it's
making headlines this time is because we're talking about medicines that everyone is getting,
so those rare case are, in absolute numbers, more obvious.
If you have a vaccine for something that isn't given as broadly, it's possible you'd simply
never see such rare outcomes even though they're theoretically possible. So this isn't really a
function of lack of testing prior to release as it is business as usual making headlines
because it's relevant to everyone. If for example rabies, or Japanese encephalitis vaccines had
side effects like this you wouldn't expect the UK's medicines regulator to even notice because
the rarity with which those vaccines are given out in the UK is small, but that doesn't mean
that rare side effects not found during testing like this aren't a possibility.
IMO it's only really an issue when for example as with the AZ vaccine the British government
tried to bury it out of nationalist pride - first by saying it wasn't a real issue and Europe
as just bitter about Brexit, then lying and saying it's only a 1 in 1 million chance, before
finally admitting a few weeks back it's a 1 in 60,000 chance of getting a blood clot and
effectively, in real terms, phasing out the AZ vaccine in the UK because no one else after that
point is now getting it in the UK other than for second doses.
So all we're really doing here is seeing everything happen at high speed - whereas with many
vaccines or medicines it might take many years before millions of people are treated with them
for enough cases of a rare side effect to be noticed, here we're just seeing it in a much
shorter time frame - that's not because rushing it has made things less safe, it's just made
issues that are typically noticed over years or even decades in classically vetted medicines
get noticed within months instead because of the sheer numbers involved.
Reply to This Parent Share Flag as Inappropriate
2 hidden commentsRe:
> Sure but that's a function of what people like Trump have done to politics
Wait, now we're blaming Trump for making politics political?
The parent isn't blaming Trump and those of his ilk for making politics "political". He/She
is blaming them for making politics a completely toxic winner take all game where those you
disagree with are enemies. Trump didn't start this trend (arguably it goes back to the 1960s),
but he did accelerate it.
Politics can be about thoughtful compromise, but that requires a certain kind of politician,
one who is in very short supply in the current political climate in the US.
It's really not our ex-president (who lost .. and lost and lost.. he's really one of
the biggets losers ever).
It started with Mitch McConnell and the republican senate in 2007 when they told
incoming VP Biden, the republicans intended to vote "no" to everything Obama proposed- even if
they had proposed it themselves under bush.
McConnell and what's left of the republican party (most the sane conservatives have
left now) are a real threat to our democratic republic.
Simply, if you test by giving it to 10,000 but the adverse event happens in 1 in
12,000, you probably won't see it. And if adverse events just end up sporadically reported,
maybe or maybe not, and just go undiagnosed, who knows when you'll see it.
This is why, regardless of politics, beliefs, pro/anti-vax, etc., the only real test
of what will happen to 100,000,000 people is when you give it to 100,000,000 people (and then
pay very close attention). We're not firing projectiles which follow precise mathematical laws,
these are living systems.
Vaccine companies are like, you want to give this to hundreds of millions of people?
Fine, we want complete absence of liability. You want to advise the public that it is safe?
Fine, say what you want, make sure we can never be sued, because we can't humanly know what
will actually happen when you roll it out en masse. We can't and it would be irrational and
unreasonable to expect that we could.
This is pure empiricism--safe vaccines are known safe because they're been out there
for may years, decades even, and been given to hundreds of millions. Safe because we know from
experience, not because we extrapolated from small tests and principles. Actually a lot of the
scares around vaccines are from theoretical ideas, i.e. still science, just difference of
opinions. ("anti-vax" plays on the notion that they're all quacks, but it is easy to pay
attention and find all the ones which have impressive credentials -- it is intellectually
honest to try to find the best and most qualified people on the opposing side, rather than just
point to the worst).
The technology is amazing. mRNA as a platform is an amazing technology. Imagine you go
to the doctor, and they diagnose something, and they just tap a few keys on the PC, and a
machine prints some molecules into a solution, and they inject you right there and
then--replacing pills, chemo, radiation, you name it. Totally customised health treatments
which your body can manufacture itself. As they say on their website, it is an operating system
with many potential apps to run on it.
But there's no magic crystal ball to substitute for real world, give it to a billion
people, and wait 100 years to study the long term effects. Unless you think you're god. If you
want to play god, you can say, well let's just give it to everyone--we think it'll probably be
ok, based on data so far, and we can fix the bugs later.
Reply to This Parent Share Flag as InappropriateRe:Did they cut
corners? (
Score: 5 , Insightful) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday June 10, 2021
@05:51PM ( #61474904 ) There
have been 226 cases of these side effects out of 140M+ persons vaccinated in the US. Your
explanation for rare occurrences of side effects: "Those drug companies must have cut corners
or lied!" How about the 0.00016% chance of the side effect is by definition of the word "rare"?
Reply to This Parent Share Flag as InappropriateVery possible many are
not reported Not everyone rushes to the hospital if they feel slightly ill after the
shot. In most cases, the inflammation maybe mild enough where people don't even know something
is not right. Re: Yes not
all cases may have been reported; however, 226 out of 140+M is still a ridiculously low number.
Also heart inflammation is not heart burn. It is a serious condition. Re:
Just wait until they find out the fatality rate of Aspirin. ›
Wildtype Covid has an overall Infection Fatality Rate of about 0.8% in the US (based
on our age/demographics).
With the latest variants such as Delta (Indian) you're needing about 80-90% immunity
to stop the spread. And that's assuming it wouldn't mutate further with that high of levels of
infection.
0.008 IFR * 140 million Americans have now been fully vaccinated * 0.8 herd immunity
factor * 0.9 vaccine effectiveness. = 800,000 deaths have been prevented by the
vaccines.
3 people of those 140 million vaccinated Americans have gone into the ICU for
treatment. 0 have died.
Even if all 3 die... even if those 3 are 1% of the actual number who developed
problems in died. Even if you wildly inflated the assumptions about how many will die you're
looking at 300 deaths vs 800,000 deaths.
What they're going to do is review the data and confirm that everybody receiving a
vaccination is still less likely to die from the vaccine than Covid or if there are any groups
they should carve out to not be recommended to receive vaccine. If it's only a problematic side
effect in people with families who have a history of severe heart disease and if you're under
18 and have no risk factors for severe covid side effects they might say "Ok this 1% of the
population should take the vaccine, but they should carefully monitor their
condition."
U.S. public health advisers will meet to discuss a potential link between Covid-19 shots
that use messenger RNA technology and heart inflammation after hundreds of vaccinated people
experienced a condition called myocarditis.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices will gather on June 18 to discuss an increase in reported cases of the condition,
particularly among adolescents and young adults. Covid vaccines made by Moderna Inc. and
partners Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE's use mRNA technology.
Since April, the CDC has seen a spike in reports of myocarditis along with pericarditis, an
inflammation of the membrane around the heart. The cases, while rare, have occurred mostly in
male teens and young adults.
The CDC has identified a total of 216 cases of heart inflammation after the first dose of an
mRNA shot, and another 573 cases after the second dose. The median age of people with
myocarditis or pericarditis following the first dose was 30, and 24 among the second-dose
cases. There were 475 cases identified among those under the age of 30.
Most patients have responded well to treatment and rest, according to the agency, and more
than 8 in 10 have had full relief from their symptoms. The agency is further examining the
cases by age.
About 130 million Americans have received the full two-dose regimen of one of the two
authorized mRNA vaccines. Many teenagers have now received their first dose of the
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which was cleared for adolescents 12 and older on May 10.
"We're still learning about the rates of myocarditis and pericarditis," Tom Shimabukuro, a
safety expert of CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, said
Thursday in a Food and Drug Administration panel meeting. "As we gather more information we'll
begin to get a better idea of the post-vaccination rates and hopefully be able to get more
detailed information by age group."
Shimabukuro said the U.S. data is consistent with findings from Israel's vaccinated
population.
"It's hard to deny that there's some event that seems to be occurring," said Cody Meissner,
head of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Division at Tufts Medical Center, at the FDA's
advisory committee meeting on Thursday.
Genome sequencing has confirmed the cases in Victoria are from the variant that was first
detected in India.
Merlino said in a separate statement on Wednesday that authorities had discerned that
one in 10 current cases had caught the variant of the virus now spreading in Victoria from
a stranger.
"... Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School. He is author of "The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care""and How to Fix It," just out in paperback. ..."
The news about the U.S. Covid pandemic is even better than you've heard. Some 80% to 85% of
American adults are immune to the virus: More than 64% have received at least one vaccine dose
and, of those who haven't, roughly half have natural immunity from prior infection. There's
ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health
leaders should pay it heed.
Only around 10% of Americans have had confirmed positive Covid tests, but four to six times
as many have likely had the infection. A February study in Nature used antibody
screenings in late summer 2020 to estimate there had been seven times as many actual cases as
confirmed cases. A similar study , by the University of Albany and New
York State Department of Health, revealed that by the end of March 2020""the first month of New
York's pandemic""23% of the city's population had antibodies. That share necessarily increased
as the pandemic spread.
The contribution of natural immunity should speed up the timeline for returning fully to
normal. With more than 8 in 10 adults protected from either contracting or transmitting the
virus, it can't readily propagate by jumping around in the population. In public health, we
call that herd immunity, defined broadly on the Johns Hopkins Covid information webpage as
"when most of a population is immune." It's not eradication, but it's powerful.
Without accounting for natural immunity, we are far from Anthony Fauci's stated target of
70% to 85% of the population becoming immune through full vaccination. But the effect of
natural immunity is all around us. The plummeting case numbers in late April and May weren't
the result of vaccination alone, and they came amid a loosening of both restrictions and
behavior.
In Los Angeles, 45% of city residents were found to have antibodies in February. Once
vaccines were introduced, the seven-day average of daily Covid cases fell from a peak of more
than 15,000 on Jan. 11 to 253 four months later, even as people became more mobile. That sharp
decline, which came far faster than health officials expected, can't be accounted for by
vaccination rates, which were below 50% during that time.
Natural immunity is durable. Researchers from Washington University in St. Louis reported last month that
11 months after a mild infection immune cells were still capable of producing protective
antibodies. The authors concluded that prior Covid infection induces a "robust" and "long-lived
humoral immune response," leading some scientists to suggest that natural immunity is probably
lifelong. Because infection began months earlier than vaccination, we have more follow-up data
on the duration of natural immunity than on vaccinated immunity.
Washington University's lab findings are consistent with physicians' bedside observations.
After treating Covid for 16 months, we haven't seen significance incidence of re-infection. In
Italy no re-infection clusters have been observed . In a
large study
from Denmark, less than 0.7% of people who tested positive for Covid, including those who were
asymptomatic, ever tested positive again""a "breakthrough infection" rate similar to that of
vaccines. These numbers are especially low considering the sensitivity of Covid PCR tests,
which can sometimes detect a single viral particle in a blood sample. It often takes thousands
to make you sick.
Skeptics of natural immunity point to Manaus, capital of the Brazilian state of Amazonas,
where reports in January suggested a wave of re-infections despite herd immunity. But the
initial estimate of those infected was incorrect because
it was based on antibody testing among those who donated convalescent plasma""an
unrepresentative subgroup of the population. A follow-up study
debunked the re-infection hypothesis and found only three confirmed re-infections in the entire
state, whose population exceeds four million. Other studies have confirmed that re-infections
are rare and usually asymptomatic or mild.
Some health officials warn of possible variants resistant to natural immunity. But none of
the hundreds of variants observed so far have evaded either natural or vaccinated immunity with
the three vaccines authorized in the U.S.
Should the previously infected be vaccinated? My clinical advice to healthy patients with
natural immunity is that one shot is sufficient, and maybe not even necessary, although it
could increase the long-term durability of immunity. A University of Pennsylvania
study of people previously infected with Covid found that a single vaccine dose triggered a
strong immune response, with no increase in that response after a second dose. A separate
study from New York's Mount
Sinai School of Medicine concluded that "the antibody response to the first vaccine dose in
individuals with pre-existing immunity is equal to or even exceeds the titers found in
naïve"""never-infected"""individuals after the second dose."
Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic published a study this week of 1,359
people previously infected with Covid who were unvaccinated. None of the subjects subsequently
became infected, leading the researchers to conclude that "individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2
infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination."
What's the harm of underestimating or disregarding the protection afforded by natural
immunity? It almost certainly cost American lives by misallocating vaccine doses earlier this
year, and is still doing so in countries where Covid is prevalent and shots are scarce. It
continues to delay full reopening and prolongs the state of fear that has many people wearing
masks even when there's no mandate, or reason, to do so.
Dr. Fauci said last Aug. 13 that when you have fewer than 10 cases per 100,000, "you should
be able to open up safely and clearly." The U.S. reached that point in mid-May. It's time to
stop the fear mongering and level with the public about the incredible capabilities of both
modern medical research and the human body's immune system.
Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of
Public Health and Carey Business School. He is author of "The Price We Pay: What Broke American
Health Care""and How to Fix It," just out in paperback.
Molnupiravir is currently being evaluated in Phase 3 MOVe-OUT study to treat
non-hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and at least one risk factor
associated with poor disease outcomes.
Through the agreement, if molnupiravir receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or
approval, Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply about 1.7 million courses of
molnupiravir to the government.
Merck has been investing to scale up the production of molnupiravir and expects to have more
than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of 2021.
The company is also planning to submit applications for emergency use or approval to
regulatory bodies outside the U.S. It is currently in discussions with other countries
interested in advance purchase agreements for molnupiravir.
Merck is developing molnupiravir in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics .
Price Action: MRK shares are up 0.55% at $72.80 during the premarket session on the last
check Wednesday.
Emergency meeting in eight more days.. ??? An emergency meeting would be something held
tonight; an emergency meeting that can wait days needs to call it differently --"out of schedule
meeting" or something like that.
What happens when you have inflammation and damage? You get scar tissue. Do you really think
that this doesn't have lasting effect? These guys will have problems ater in life with their
hearts and it won't because of McDonalds....
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Thursday that it will convene an
"emergency meeting"
of its advisers on June 18th to discuss rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart
inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
The new details about myocarditis and pericarditis emerged first in presentations to a
panel of independent advisers for the Food and Drug Administration, who are meeting
Thursday to discuss how the regulator should approach emergency use authorization for using
COVID-19 vaccines in younger children.
As CBS reports, the CDC previously
disclosed that reports of heart inflammation were detected mostly in younger men and
teenage boys following their second dose, and that there
was a "higher number of observed than expected" cases in 16- to 24-year-olds. Last month,
the CDC urged providers to "ask about prior COVID-19 vaccination" in patients with symptoms of
heart inflammation.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.464.0_en.html#goog_595720652 Wall Street
Bounces, After Selloff Fed Boosts Liquidity NOW PLAYING SoftBank Said to Plan $14 Billion Sale
of Alibaba Shares China's Companies Have Worst Quarter on Record, Beige Book Says U.S.-Saudi
Oil Alliance Under Consideration, Brouillette Says ETF Volumes Surge in Current Market
Environment Investors Have Given Up on a V-Shaped Recovery, BNY's Young Cautions
We'll leave the judgment up to someone far more qualified...
Does anyone else not find it odd that after discovering 800 cases in the VAERS database the
"emergency" meeting is in 7 days ? ... and in the meantime, every public health authority
figure is encouraging parents to get their young children vaccinated ?
The reports of myocarditis or pericarditis were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a passive
reporting system run jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
Food and Drug Administration, through May 31.
The bulk of the reports described heart inflammation appearing after the second of two doses
of either the Pfizer of Moderna vaccines, both of which utilize messenger RNA technology.
Authorities stress that anybody can submit reports through the reporting system but
authorities have already verified that 226 of the reports meet the CDC's working case
definition, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a deputy director at the agency, said during a presentation of
the data. Followup and review are in progress for the rest.
Of the 285 case reports for which the disposition was known at the time of the review, 270
patients had been discharged and 15 were still hospitalized, officials said. Myocarditis
typically requires hospital care. No deaths were reported.
A slide on myocarditis reports post-COVID-19 vaccination is shown during the Food and Drug
Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting on June
10, 2021. (FDA/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
The CDC
announced last month that it was investigating reports of heart inflammation in teenagers
and young adults who received a COVID-19 vaccine, though it took no definitive action besides
saying it would continue reviewing case data.
An advisory committee to the agency, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said
in a little-noticed update published dated May 24 and published on June
1 that data from VAERS showed that in the 30 days following the second dose of mRNA
vaccinations, "there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis
cases in 16""24-year-olds."
Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, an active reporting system that relies on nine
healthcare organizations in seven states, did not show higher than expected cases, it
added.
"However, analyses suggest that these data need to be carefully followed as more persons
in younger age groups are vaccinated," the advisory committee's vaccine safety workgroup said
in its report.
Israel's Health Ministry
said that same day that it found 275 cases of heart inflammation among the more than 5
million people in the country who received a vaccine between December 2020 and May. An Israeli
study found "a probable link" between receiving the second dose of the Pfizer jab "and the
appearance of myocarditis among men aged 16 to 30," the ministry said.
Shimabukuro said the U.S. passive surveillance data "are consistent with the surveillance
data that emerged from Israel."
The figures are also consistent with other case reports and data from the Department of
Defense.
The vast majority of the U.S. reports deal with male patients. Approximately 300 preliminary
reports indicated the patients suffered chest pain, with nearly as many having elevated cardiac
enzymes.
Family members watch as a 12-year-old is inoculated with Pfizer's vaccine against COVID-19
at Dekalb Pediatric Center in Decatur, Ga., on May 11, 2021. (Chris Aluka Berry/Reuters)
A case report
examining myocarditis in seven adolescents following vaccination with Pfizer's jab,
published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, this month, said
all seven developed the inflammation within 4 days of receiving the second dose, did not have
evidence of COVID-19 infection, and did not meet the criteria for MIS-C, a rare disease.
The seven males, between the ages of 14 and 19, all required hospital care but each was
eventually discharged.
Authors, who did not respond to requests for comment, said no link has been established
between the vaccines and myocarditis and that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.
But they also urged healthcare workers "to consider myocarditis in the evaluation of
adolescents and young adults who develop chest pain after COVID-19 vaccination."
A
commentary on the study published in the same journal, said "there are some concerns
regarding this case series that might suggest a causal relationship and therefore warrant
further analysis through established surveillance systems."
"First, the consistent timing of symptoms in these seven cases after the second
vaccination suggests a uniform biological process. Second, the similarities in clinical
findings and laboratory characteristics in this series suggest a common etiology. Finally,
these cases occurred in the context of a dearth of circulation of common respiratory viruses
known to be associated with myocarditis, and thorough diagnostic evaluations did not identify
infectious etiologies," they added.
The expected number of myocarditis/pericarditis cases in those aged 16 or 17, based on
background incidence rates and the number of doses administered to that population through May
31, is between two and 19. But based on the VAERS reports, the number is 79.
Likewise, the expected number for cases among young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 is
eight to 83. The number based on the reports is 196.
"In the 16- to 17 year-olds and the 18- to 24-year-olds, the observed reports are exceeding
the expected based on the known background rates that are published in literature," Shimabukuro
told members of a Food and Drug Administration vaccine advisory committee in the meeting on
Thursday, though he cautioned that not all the reports will "turn out to be true
myocarditis/pericarditis reports."
" Of note, of these 528 reports after second dose with symptom onset within 30 days, over
half of them were in these younger age groups, 12""24 years old , whereas roughly 9 percent of
total doses administered were in those age groups, so we "clearly have an imbalance there," he
added later.
A slide on myocarditis reports post-COVID-19 vaccination is shown during the Food and Drug
Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting on June
10, 2021. (FDA/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which comes from nine healthcare groups that have
collectively administered over 8.8 million doses""only some 284,000 of those have been given to
12- to 17-year-olds""did not indicate safety concerns, with just 60 myocarditis or pericarditis
events reported through May 29, the doctor continued.
A Food and Drug Administration surveillance system, the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety
Initiative, which utilizes claims data from CVS and two other partners, has detected 99 cases
of myocarditis/pericarditis in the 42 days following vaccination among some 3.1 million shots
given to people between the ages of 12 and 64, the panel was told earlier by an official from
the drug regulating agency.
Another 1,260 were reported in people 65 or older through claims data from Medicare claims
data.
Neither number raised safety signals, Steve Anderson, director of the FDA's Office of
Biostatistics and Epidemiology said.
Dr. Cody Meissner, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Disease at the Tufts
Children's Hospital, and a member of the panel that heard from Shimabukuro and others, said
after the presentations that he was "struck by the fact" that myocarditis "occurs more commonly
after the second dose."
"It's a pretty specific interval of time, it's primarily after the mRNA vaccines as far as
we know, we know that the consistent age, there's a lack of alternative explanations even
though these patients have been pretty well worked up, and it's a widespread occurrence
because, as you said, Israel has found a pretty similar situation," he said during the
meeting.
He asked Shimabukuro about the rates of blood clots seen in women between the ages of 30 and
49 after vaccination""most of the clots appeared in that population after getting a Johnson
& Johnson shot, though officials ultimately lifted a pause,
saying the benefits outweighed the risks ""and to restate the rate of incidence of
myocarditis in adolescents after a jab.
Shimabukuro said that in contrast with the clotting situation, when data showed "strong
evidence of a causal relationship fairly early on," further study is needed on heart
inflammation.
"At this point, I think we're still learning about the rates of myocarditis and
pericarditis. We continue to collect more information both in VAERS and continue to get more
information in VSD, and I think as gather more information we'll begin to get a better idea of
the post-vaccination rates and hopefully will be able to get more detailed information by age
group," he said.
"It's still early," he added, noting that authorization for a vaccine for 12- to
-15-year-olds didn't come
until mid-May while immunization of older adolescents largely came later than shots for
adults.
"I believe that we will ultimately have sufficient information to answer those questions,"
he said.
A general view of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in
Atlanta, Ga., on Sept. 30, 2014. (Tami Chappell/Reuters)
Another panel member, Dr. Jay Portnoy, director of the Division of Allergy, Asthma, &
Immunology at Children's Mercy Hospitals & Clinics, asked for a comparison between the
adverse events in vaccinated versus unvaccinated persons, saying if the adverse event rate was
lower in those who are vaccinated, then it would still be worth getting a jab.
Shimabukuro said a risk-benefit assessment would be provided by the CDC's advisory panel,
known as ACIP, on vaccines during a meeting next week.
A CDC spokeswoman also referenced the upcoming meeting, which will take place on June 18,
after saying reports of myocarditis remain rare, given that over 300 million doses have been
administered in the United States.
"Given the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, these reports are rare. More
than 18 million people between ages 12-24 have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine
in the United States," she told The Epoch Times via email.
"CDC continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for everyone 12 years and older. Getting
vaccinated is the best way to help protect yourself and your family from COVID-19."
A Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the company is aware of federal
data indicating "rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, predominantly in male
adolescents and young adults, after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination." It noted that federal officials
have not concluded that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause either condition, before expressing
support for an assessment of suspected adverse events.
"With a vast number of people vaccinated to date, the benefit risk profile of our vaccine
remains positive," the spokesperson added.
Moderna did not return an inquiry.
Dr. Monica Gandhi, professor of medicine and associate chief at the University of
California, San Francisco, told The Epoch Times in an email that in light of the increased risk
of myocarditis above expected rates among young people, especially after the second dose,
parents should keep a close eye out for when guidance is issued by federal authorities.
"Possibilities include only vaccinating children without prior infection as there is an
association between prior COVID and this adverse effect; giving 1 dose instead of 2 below the
age of 20; addressing the dosage of the vaccine (currently at 30 micrograms down to the age
of 12, which is the same dose as in adults); and extending the duration between doses 1 and 2
for younger people," she said.
"I look forward to ACIP guidance on this over the next few weeks."
BugMan 13 minutes ago
"The infamous spike protein of the coronavirus gets into the blood where it circulates
for several days post-vaccination and then accumulated in organs and tissues including the
spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands, and in quite high concentrations in the
ovaries"; "a large number of studies has shown that the most severe effects of SARS-CoV-2,
the virus that causes COVID-19, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects
of the spike protein of the virus itself."
I don't see how the CDC, Fauci, Wuhan (CCP), Fort Detrick, Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak and
the WHO are going to get out of this: the 'vaccine' mRNA spike protein is toxic, it is a
pathogenic protein that causes clotting, heart problems and may be associated with
infertility...
bringonthebigone 1 hour ago
The heart has almost no repair capability. Even mild damage at that age likely takes
years or decades off life expectancy. Seems likely the number of undiscovered cases far far
exceed the number reported.
I Write Code 1 hour ago
"Possibilities include only vaccinating children without prior infection as there is
an association between prior COVID and this adverse effect; giving 1 dose instead of 2
below the age of 20; addressing the dosage of the vaccine (currently at 30 micrograms
down to the age of 12, which is the same dose as in adults); and extending the duration
between doses 1 and 2 for younger people," she said
No kidding Doctor Obvious.
BUT extending the duration is probably the wrong move, or if you do, cut the second dose
by 90%.
Hear me now, believe me later.
MRob 5 minutes ago remove link
Watching latest Brett Weinstein interview, Dark Horse, guest claimed the numbers of
complications from the vaccine could be anything up to 100x the official figures. Unlikely,
but emphasises that the error bar is massive. Above reporting system is voluntary, and
people have been censored from knowing what to even look for, and propagandised from
considering their issues could be due to the vaccine. Vaccine complication groups of fb
were deleted, with 70k or 120k people in them. Such a screwed up situation. With the
suppression of ivermectin etc, this is nuremberg trials level for sure.
1. The vaccine is not tailored to the individual and therefore never 100% safe it is not
possible when working with statistics and probability as your guide.
2. The reporting system is next to non-existent even under vaers because that is the
measure of liability for those making people take gene therapies / vaccines.
Therein lies your two fundamental problems ... too fix it though you have too destroy
the whole system it should never have been put in place that way.
hoytmonger 36 minutes ago
In Idaho, the Idaho National Guard is "assisting" vaccination of students at their
middle school...
So the commenter on here, vasilievich mentioned he and his wife got the vax and his wife
went into cardiac arrest shortly after (4 days ago)...they are in their 80's...(God help
them)...several others have noted they knew people that went into cardiac arrest after the
vax...seems to be much, much more common than they are letting on...
Seabass120 36 minutes ago
My wife got her second Pfizer vacc and now cannot go into the sun without breaking out
into hives. Prior to the jab, she was outside daily.
JoKe Biden 27 minutes ago
Yep so predictable, some of the statements will read something like this.
The FDA and CDC have confidence that the vaccine is safe and effective in preventing
COVID-19.
The FDA has determined that the available data show that the vaccine's known and
potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks in individuals 18 years of age
and older.
At this time, the available data suggest that the chance of heart inflammation
occurring is very low, but the FDA and CDC will remain vigilant in continuing to
investigate this risk.
_Rorschach 25 minutes ago
its not a vaccine
its gene therapy
ebworthen 38 minutes ago
An untested genetic experiment and not a "vaccine" in any sense of the word.
toady 19 minutes ago
"Just say no"
-Nancy Reagan
RawDrum 20 minutes ago
Imagine being a parent who got their teenage child injected with an experiment jab for
something they are at trivial risk of any impact from, that has no-one liable should it go
wrong, in an American for profit health insurance system, doing zero research and
outsourcing critical thinking to media, big tech and pharma corporations engaged in obvious
censorship and obfuscation, and that resulted in your child having an enlarged heart
impacting the rest of their shortened life.
YOLO!
LetThemEatRand 1 hour ago
"The chances of dying from COVID for the young are almost impossible to measure they are
so small" - doesn't matter. Any risk is too much. You must wear a mask and stay home and be
vaccinated when we're ready for that.
"The chances of dying from the COVID vaccine are unknown and documented cases of serious
side effects are growing." - it's a tiny risk, doesn't outweigh the benefit of the
vaccine.
RedSeaPedestrian 43 minutes ago
From Pfizer: "With a vast number of people vaccinated to date, the benefit risk profile
of our vaccine remains positive," the spokesperson added.
Tell that to the families that have had a loved one die from the "jab".
Farmer Dave 24 minutes ago
My dad has been fighting this for a month. He got the jab and ended up in the hospital
with blood clots and the heart inflammation. He is a tough old man and seems to be getting
better. I told him if he would have heeded my warnings about the jab he wouldn't be sick.
Anyone who gives this jab to a child is an idiot.
fackbankz 44 minutes ago (Edited)
If any other product killed 5000 people and injured 200,000, it would be pulled, not
pushed.
There is no such thing as "mild" myocarditis, especially in juveniles. If they live,
they will have a lifetime of heart problems and will likely never be able to enjoy fun
activities like sports or sex. I'm only saying this to inoculate you against the incoming
PR blitz of, "Oh, it's just a few mild cases of heart inflammation."
We must avenge this crime against humanity. My hope is that it is done through courts
and due process, but if ends up just being heads on pikes, so be it.
Dr. Gonzo 47 minutes ago
Biden is giving away 500,000 of these serums to our lucky Vassals. Eh hem. I mean
Allies. For a special thank you from the Empire.
nowhereman 19 minutes ago remove link
After asking yourself a couple more questions like that, and you begin to understand
that it's never been about a "virus" it's about the jab.
"Population decimated by rare blood clots", "Extremely rare side effects devastate
many", "Benefits far outweigh risks as die off causes labor shortages", "Scientists explain
how lab created viruses evolve naturally", "New variants cause only mild symptoms in
vaccinated travelers", "Annual vaccination necessary for return to new normal, CEO of
CALPERS says."
Headlines in a mentally ill society.
TieOneOn 47 minutes ago
Looks like 'Gain of Function' is full steam ahead......
Befits 10 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
They are not panicked. They will do a farce meeting and declare " the benefits of the
Covid 19 vax outweigh the risks". Even for the young men who " in very small number of
cases where there is no clear causal link between the Covid vax and myocarditis". Then when
the microphone is off and the transcription is ended they will laugh their asses off "
these fools will buy it
🤣🤣🤣🤣
". Cha Ching...
boyplunger7777 10 minutes ago
By late summer, should the general public begin to experience serious side effects, the
nation will go into full blown panic...
You_Cant_Quit_Me 9 minutes ago
They'll just say it's a variant of COVID-19 and blame that
Cabreado 38 minutes ago (Edited)
The CDC has been sufficiently exposed, and they're trying to save face with the
masses.
Good luck finding any non-corrupt oversight to resolve this situation... that of a rogue
CDC.
Otherwise it would've happened a long, long time ago.
Rubicon727 1 hour ago
What the CDC refuses to admit is the EU system, that keeps far more accurate deaths,
severe illnesses can be looked at any time of the day. Link to EUdraVigilance.com . They've shown many examples of severe
repercussions from the different kinds of Covid vaccines that have harmed, or killed people
for weeks now.
Now you tell us, how is it this is just NOW emerging from the CDC? Explain that.
Lt. Shicekopf 4 minutes ago
Why are kids getting jabbed? In the off chance they contract this virus there is a 99.8%
chance of recovery. I just do not get it.
AriusArmenian 3 minutes ago
Money.
allfactsmatter 21 minutes ago
The mrNA technology is a new technique for vaccine development.
Despite this, the Pfizer and Modern "vaccines" have been tested LESS than traditional
vaccines. Yet the FDA and CDC says the risks from these shots are acceptable.
Keep in mind that healthy young men have almost NO mortality risk from COVID, and
receive no benefit from these shots as a direct consequence.
Big Government and Big Pharma are gambling with people's lives with these Frankenvirus
vaccines.
liberty2 27 minutes ago
Not a vaccine, they label it as a vaccine to have immunity to lawsuits, no pun intended.
They also call it a vaccine to get emergency authorization. It's not APPROVED, only
authorized, there's a difference. There's NO law mandating the vax, NONE. Your employer can
be sued for discrimination or you can claim Workman's Comp if you should suffer side
effects.
Danoc 29 minutes ago
Can't wait for Fauci's next round of explanation.
opaopaopa 26 minutes ago
all rounds are the same:
"it's the Science"
fackbankz 10 minutes ago
"A few minor cases of heart inflammation, nothing to worry about. Benefits outweigh the
risks."
You know the drill.
Any other product that caused 800 cases of lifelong heart problems in young people would
have been pulled, not pushed, and it's probably a lot more than 800.
TonTon 58 minutes ago
Looks like they are hardly even checking for Myocarditis in the 50+ age bracket and
especially in the 65+ age bracket given it's less than the normal rate for this age group.
I'm sure they are just putting it down to some of the many coincidences happening after
people get the 'jab.' Given that the rate is less than normal though you could be forgiven
for thinking that they are ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING information on side effects. We are
experiencing and epidemic of coincidences these days.
"... Singapore found that the mutation accounted for 95% of the local Covid samples linked to variants of concern. ..."
"... Higher rates of transmission and a reduction in the effectiveness of vaccines have made understanding the strain's effects especially critical. ..."
"... Some patients develop micro thrombi , or small blood clots, so severe that they led affected tissue to die and develop gangrene , said Ganesh Manudhane , a Mumbai cardiologist ..."
"... Doctors are also finding instances of clots forming in blood vessels that supply the intestines , causing patients to experience stomach pain -- their only symptom, local media have reported. ..."
"... But with emerging evidence delta and at least one other variant may be adept at evading vaccine-induced antibodies, pharmaceutical companies are under pressure to tweak existing shots or develop new ones. ..."
The coronavirus variant driving India's devastating Covid-19 second wave is the most
infectious to emerge so far. Doctors now want to know if it's also more severe.
Hearing impairment, severe gastric upsets and blood clots leading to gangrene, symptoms not
typically seen in Covid patients, have been linked by doctors in India to the so-called delta
variant. In England and Scotland, early evidence suggests the strain -- which is also now
dominant there -- carries a higher risk of
hospitalization .
Delta, also known as B.1.617.2, has spread to more than 60 countries over the past six
months and triggered travel curbs from Australia to the
U.S . A spike in infections, fueled by the variant, has forced U.K. to
reconsider its plans for reopening later this month, with a local report saying it may be
pushed back
by two weeks. Singapore found that the mutation accounted for 95% of the local Covid
samples linked to variants of concern.
Higher rates of transmission and a reduction in the effectiveness of vaccines have made
understanding the strain's effects especially critical.
... ... ...
"˜New Enemy'
"Last year, we thought we had learned about our new enemy, but it changed," Ghafur said.
"This virus has become so, so unpredictable."
Stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, hearing loss and joint pain are among the
ailments Covid patients are experiencing, according to six doctors treating patients across
India. The beta and gamma variants -- first detected in South Africa and Brazil respectively --
have shown little or no evidence of triggering unusual clinical signs, according to a
study
by researchers from the University of New South Wales last month.
Some patients develop
micro thrombi , or small blood clots, so severe that they led affected tissue to die and
develop
gangrene , said Ganesh Manudhane , a
Mumbai cardiologist , who has treated eight patients for thrombotic complications at the
Seven Hills Hospital during the past two months. Two required amputations of fingers or a
foot.
"I saw three-to-four cases the whole of last year, and now it's one patient a week,"
Manudhane said.
India has reported 18.6 million Covid cases thus far in 2021, compared with 10.3 million
last year. The delta variant was the "primary cause" behind the country's deadlier second wave
and is 50% more contagious than the alpha strain that was first spotted in the U.K., according
to a
recent study by an Indian government panel.
The surge in cases may have driven an increase in the frequency with which rare Covid
complications are being observed. Even still, Manudhane said he is baffled by the blood clots
he's seeing in patients across age groups with no past history of coagulation-related
problems.
"We suspect it could be because of the new virus variant," he said. Manudhane is collecting
data to study why some people develop the clots and others don't.
Doctors are also finding instances of clots forming in blood vessels that supply the
intestines , causing patients to experience stomach pain -- their only symptom, local media
have reported.
Some Covid patients are also seeking medical care for hearing loss, swelling around the neck
and severe tonsillitis, said Hetal Marfatia, an ear nose and throat surgeon at Mumbai's King
Edward Memorial Hospital.
The unusual presentations for delta and a closely related variant known as kappa, whose
spread led to a fourth lockdown in the Australian city of Melbourne, are still being confirmed,
said Raina MacIntyre, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales in
Sydney. "In the meanwhile, it is important to take note of this and be aware of possible
atypical presentations," she said.
The most alarming aspect of the current outbreak in India is the rapidity with which the
virus is spreading, including to children, said Chetan Mundada, a pediatrician with the
Yashoda group
of hospitals in Hyderabad.
... But with emerging evidence delta and at least one other variant may be adept at
evading vaccine-induced antibodies, pharmaceutical companies are under pressure to tweak
existing shots or develop new ones.
@Bacon's Rebellion We'll see soon enough. The India/Delta variant is in the US and the
British say that it's more infectious than the British variant. If it's here, it will spread
fast and that means that a lot of people who have taken the vaccine will be exposed.
"... In today's world, brimful as it is with opinion and falsehoods masquerading as facts, you'd think the one place you can depend on for verifiable facts is science. You'd be wrong. Many billions of dollars' worth of wrong. ..."
"... A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test -- that the original results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches. But what they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid. ..."
"... "Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research," observed C. Glenn Begley, then Amgen's head of global cancer research, "this was a shocking result." ..."
"... A group at Bayer HealthCare in Germany similarly found that only 25% of published papers on which it was basing R&D; projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge resources should be abandoned. ..."
"... "The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated further," ..."
"... Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal -- Nature and Science lead the list -- encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws. ..."
"... Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers to read them. ..."
"... But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It's reached the National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers' approach to publication. ..."
"... PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the "perverse incentives" in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman, director of NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture. ..."
"... The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path. ..."
In today's world, brimful as it is with opinion and falsehoods masquerading as facts, you'd think the one place you can depend
on for verifiable facts is science. You'd be wrong. Many billions of dollars' worth of wrong.
A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark
papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending
millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test -- that the original
results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches. But what
they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid.
"Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research," observed C. Glenn Begley, then Amgen's head of global cancer research,
"this was a shocking result."
Unfortunately, it wasn't unique. A group at Bayer HealthCare in Germany similarly found that only 25% of published
papers on which it was basing R&D; projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge
resources should be abandoned. Whole fields of research, including some in which patients were already participating in clinical trials, are based
on science that hasn't been, and possibly can't be, validated.
"The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated
further,"
says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Economist recently estimated spending on biomedical R&D; in industrialized countries at $59
billion a year. That's how much could be at risk from faulty fundamental research.
Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal -- Nature
and Science lead the list -- encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which
a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have
the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.
"The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims," he says. "And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having
splashy papers in Science or Nature -- it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention."
Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals
pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers
to read them.
But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It's reached the
National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers' approach to publication. Its new
PubMed Commons system allows qualified scientists to post
ongoing comments about published papers. The goal is to wean scientists from the idea that a cursory, one-time peer review is enough
to validate a research study, and substitute a process of continuing scrutiny, so that poor research can be identified quickly and
good research can be picked out of the crowd and find a wider audience.
PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the "perverse incentives" in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman,
director of NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture.
The Commons is currently in its pilot phase, during which only registered users among the cadre of researchers whose work appears
in PubMed -- NCBI's clearinghouse for citations from biomedical journals and online sources -- can post comments and read them.
Once the full system is launched, possibly within weeks, commenters still will have to be members of that select group, but the
comments will be public.
Science and Nature both acknowledge that peer review is imperfect. Science's executive editor, Monica Bradford, told me by email
that her journal, which is published by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, understands that for papers based on
large volumes of statistical data -- where cherry-picking or flawed interpretation can contribute to erroneous conclusions -- "increased
vigilance is required." Nature says that it now commissions expert statisticians to examine data in some papers.
But they both defend pre-publication peer review as an essential element in the scientific process -- a "reasonable and fair"
process, Bradford says.
Yet there's been some push-back by the prestige journals against the idea that they're encouraging flawed work -- and that their
business model amounts to profiteering. Earlier this month, Science published a piece by journalist John Bohannon about what happened
when he sent a spoof paper with flaws that could have been noticed by a high school chemistry student to 304 open-access chemistry
journals (those that charge researchers to publish their papers, but make them available for free). It was accepted by
more than half of them.
One that didn't bite was PloS One, an online open-access journal sponsored
by the Public Library of Science, which Eisen co-founded. In fact, PloS One was among the few journals that identified the fake
paper's methodological and ethical flaws.
What was curious, however, was that although Bohannon asserted that his sting showed how the open-access movement was part of
"an emerging Wild West in academic publishing," it was the traditionalist Science that published the most dubious recent academic
paper of all.
This was a 2010 paper by then-NASA biochemist Felisa Wolfe-Simon
and colleagues claiming that they had found bacteria growing in Mono Lake that were uniquely able to subsist on arsenic and even
used arsenic to build the backbone of their DNA.
The publication in Science was accompanied by a breathless press release and press conference sponsored by NASA, which had an
institutional interest in promoting the idea of alternative life forms. But almost immediately it was debunked by other scientists
for spectacularly poor methodology and an invalid conclusion. Wolfe-Simon, who didn't respond to a request for comment last week,
has defended her interpretation
of her results as "viable." She hasn't withdrawn the paper, nor has Science, which has published numerous
critiques of the work . Wolfe-Simon is now
associated with the prestigious Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
To Eisen, the Wolfe-Simon affair represents the "perfect storm of scientists obsessed with making a big splash and issuing press
releases" -- the natural outcome of a system in which there's no career gain in trying to replicate and validate previous work,
as important as that process is for the advancement of science.
"A paper that actually shows a previous paper is true would never get published in an important journal," he says, "and it would
be almost impossible to get that work funded."
However, the real threat to research and development doesn't come from one-time events like the arsenic study, but from the dissemination
of findings that look plausible on the surface but don't stand up to scrutiny, as Begley and his Amgen colleagues found.
The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources
devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest
of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to
get back on the right path.
GEORGE SCANGOS: Well, a strong message is, I think it's a really important day in the fight
against COVID-19. We have an antibody drug that we have developed, brought through a phase
three trial. The initial analysis of that showed that we had an 85% reduction in reducing
hospitalization or death and on patients who had taken it. So that's quite an impressive
number.
COVID cases are going down in the US now, but they're not going away. We're going to
continue to need good therapies for the foreseeable future, and we're really quite excited
about what we can do now, for not only patients in the US but around the world.
ADAM SHAPIRO: George, congratulations. Help us understand what the drug actually does. It's
not an antiviral. Or is it an antiviral? Or does it prevent the issues that wind up making
people seriously ill and then eventually, perhaps, dying?
GEORGE SCANGOS: No, it is an antiviral. The antibody recognizes the virus, it binds to the
virus, and it does two things, actually, which distinguishes it from some of the other drugs
that are on the market. First, it prevents the virus from infecting cells. And secondly, when
people are already infected, there are a number of cells that are already infected, and they're
making even more viral particles. So this particular antibody is capable of blocking the
infection of new cells and killing those cells that are already infected with the virus to
prevent making even more viral particles.
... ... ...
ADAM SHAPIRO: Is it a pill? Is it like-- Regeneron, I think, is administered via IV. Is a
simpler way to administer this drug?
GEORGE SCANGOS: No, this is also intravenous, so you administer just like the other
antibodies. We are quickly working on just a normal injection-- intramuscular injection-- so it
would be similar to what you get with the vaccine or a flu shot. And that's in clinical trials
right now, but the medicine for which we had the EUA is administered IV.
... ... ...
ADAM SHAPIRO: The biotechnology that makes this an effective drug, does it have applications
for viral issues other than COVID-19? Could you be growing this for other remedies?
GEORGE SCANGOS: Well, that's a very interesting question. This particular antibody, as
opposed to all of the other COVID antibodies, is able to protect against other coronaviruses in
addition to the COVID coronavirus-- this coronavirus. Doesn't protect against all
coronaviruses, but, for example it would protect against SARS, we believe, and a whole family
of coronaviruses.
So we do believe that it's important to bring forward drugs that can not only treat this
pandemic but have the potential to be effective in future pandemics. And we're taking that
approach with not only COVID but flu and other diseases as well. Yeah.
JULIE LA ROCHE: Well, George Scangos, president and CEO of Vir Biotechnology, I thank you so
much for joining us. And congratulations, again, on the latest as it relates to your treatment
and this, of course, important fight against COVID-19.
Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug placed the same radioactive category as
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of COVID-19, has reemerged as a promising treatment
in the battle to extinguish the pandemic.
New York Times best-selling author
Michael Capuzzo has called it the "
drug that cracked Covid ," writing that there are "hundreds of thousands, actually
millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are
living and not dying."
Have to have a surgery, met with surgeon today. Second question after how are you was have you had your covid shot? I said
no. He said why not? I said I was waiting until it was approved by FDA. He said that would be 5 years and Covid would be over
by then. I said OK. He said he refused to do surgery on anyone not vaxed for Covid. I said Ok, and left. So....now looking for
another surgeon. So there is that. Pretty dismayed, actually.
RedSeaPedestrian 4 hours ago
He violated your HIPAA protections. If you want a bit of revenge, turn him in.
The fines can be quite hefty.
HIPAA violations are taken very seriously. Anyone other than a licensed health care professional asking a private person about
their health conditions, including vaccinations, is against HIPAA regulations. NONE OF THE HIPAA LAWS WERE REPEALED OR RESCINDED
DUE TO COVID.
The minimum penalty for a criminal HIPAA violation is $50,000 per instance and can rise to $250k.
A private individual breaking HIPAA regulations can be fined $100, the company they work for if broken within a work environment
will be fined $50k.
So if I am not wearing a mask, and you ask for proof of vaccination, you just got your business a $50k fine.
Red Sea- He is a Surgeon that specializes in the surgery I need, no HIPAA violation. But thank you.
RedSeaPedestrian 4 hours ago
Did the surgeon tell you that? Read the link.
Quia Possum 4 hours ago (Edited)
Anyone other than a licensed health care professional asking a private person about their health conditions, including vaccinations,
is against HIPAA regulations.
BS. HIPAA only applies to medical record holders, not random people, and violations are by the record holder divulging information
that they should not. Asking prying questions is rude but not a HIPAA violation.
The USA vaccination efforts were badly thought out and badly implemented, resulting in dramatic economic losses for non-existent
public health gains. Looks like governments suspected that "the genie is out of the bottle" -- pathogen escaped from biolab in
the USA or China and badly overreacted, creating unnecessary economic losses and mass unemployment comparable with the Great
Depression.
There is no need to vaccinate people who already have had COVID-19. Natural immunity is much better than a vaccine that was rushed through the FDA.
Also many people are naturally immune to COVID-19 due tot he fact that they have previous coronavirus infection. This issue is
completely ignored in neoliberal MSM/
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and government statistics. ..."
"... So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus ..."
"... This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview. ..."
Dr. Adrian Burrowes, Family Medicine Physician &CFP Physicians Group CEO, joined Yahoo Finance to discuss the latest on covid-19.
Thomas 2 hours ago
I had Covid twice. Once in 2020 and once this year. The first time I had it I coughed for two whole months. I had a fever off
and on and I had to sleep with an extra pillow. I was miserable but I thought it was the flu because we didn't know the virus
was here yet. It was only after I was tested for antibodies several months later did I learn that I had it.
This past January, I got it again after some co-workers came down with it and we all were tested. I was quarantined for 10
days. During this 10 day period, I was only sick for 1 day with a slight stomach ache and diarrhea.
The rest of the time I was out doing yard work and cutting dead limbs out of my trees.
I told my wife that if my T-Cells had that good of memory to protect me that well, I probably won't get the shot. After all,
what can the shot do for me that the virus hasn't already.
Mike -> Thomas 38 minutes ago
Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of
us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and
government statistics.
With the time, I hope enough Americans will develop the same herd immunity to propaganda masquerading as news, unhealthy "guidance"
from government health agencies and corrupt intelligent agencies' deceptions that serve self-centered bureaucrats and political
operatives, not the country. G-d Bless!
Ed 3 hours ago
So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe
them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus, and did not have a vaccine. and yet you hear nothing
about it, could it be that people gained immunity and so it is not a horrible thing as this engineered virus. and remember that
SARS started in the same area of the world as this covid 19.
AB 3 hours ago
This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer
is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview.
The USA vaccination efforts were badly thought out and badly implemented, resulting in dramatic economic losses for non-existent
public health gains. Looks like governments suspected that "the genie is out of the bottle" -- pathogen escaped from biolab in
the USA or China and badly overreacted, creating unnecessary economic losses and mass unemployment comparable with the Great
Depression.
There is no need to vaccinate people who already have had COVID-19. Natural immunity is much better than a vaccine that was rushed through the FDA.
Also many people are naturally immune to COVID-19 due tot he fact that they have previous coronavirus infection. This issue is
completely ignored in neoliberal MSM/
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and government statistics. ..."
"... So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus ..."
"... This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview. ..."
Dr. Adrian Burrowes, Family Medicine Physician &CFP Physicians Group CEO, joined Yahoo Finance to discuss the latest on covid-19.
Thomas 2 hours ago
I had Covid twice. Once in 2020 and once this year. The first time I had it I coughed for two whole months. I had a fever off
and on and I had to sleep with an extra pillow. I was miserable but I thought it was the flu because we didn't know the virus
was here yet. It was only after I was tested for antibodies several months later did I learn that I had it.
This past January, I got it again after some co-workers came down with it and we all were tested. I was quarantined for 10
days. During this 10 day period, I was only sick for 1 day with a slight stomach ache and diarrhea.
The rest of the time I was out doing yard work and cutting dead limbs out of my trees.
I told my wife that if my T-Cells had that good of memory to protect me that well, I probably won't get the shot. After all,
what can the shot do for me that the virus hasn't already.
Mike -> Thomas 38 minutes ago
Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of
us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and
government statistics.
With the time, I hope enough Americans will develop the same herd immunity to propaganda masquerading as news, unhealthy "guidance"
from government health agencies and corrupt intelligent agencies' deceptions that serve self-centered bureaucrats and political
operatives, not the country. G-d Bless!
Ed 3 hours ago
So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe
them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus, and did not have a vaccine. and yet you hear nothing
about it, could it be that people gained immunity and so it is not a horrible thing as this engineered virus. and remember that
SARS started in the same area of the world as this covid 19.
AB 3 hours ago
This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer
is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview.
Last week,
we reported that several increasingly desperate communities across India have been embracing a controversial (at least, in the
US) strategy for trying to mitigate the fallout from the crisis. Communities have been doling out inexpensive anti-malaria drugs
as a prophylactic against COVID-19, citing scant data showing it could help lower mortality and hospitalization rates - which is
critical given India's nationwide shortage of hospital beds and oxygen to sustain seriously ill patients.
The drug in question, ivermectin, is in some ways similar to hydroxychloroquine, which also showed some evidence of being an effective
prophylactic to protect the most vulnerable against COVID-19 (President Trump memorably informed the press that he was taking it
daily at one point). But since India is mostly cut off from adequate supplies of vaccines and therapeutics like Gilead's remdesivir
(which studies have shown isn't all that effective anyway), public health officials have been forced to improvise.
The
Times of India published an editorial this week signed by Dr. Vikas Sukhatme and Vidula Sukhatme, two American academics and
medical professionals, suggesting a handful of cheap, commonplace drugs that could be taken as prophylactics by the most vulnerable
patients in India. The drugs aren't approved to treat COVID, but nevertheless have shown "remarkable promise in preventing or treating
the new coronavirus." Deploying them would likely reduce mortality and hospitalizations. While some of the drugs are currently being
tested in large-scale randomized trials, there's no time to wait for the outcome.
Instead, Indian health authorities should issue guidelines recommending use of the most promising drugs for each stage of COVID-19.
By so doing, physicians will be encouraged to prescribe them as interventions. The resulting data should of course be tracked for
any insights it might show.
The two main drugs cited by the doctors, ivermectin and fluvoxamine, have proven effective, and anecdotal unpublished data from
more than 400 acutely ill COVID-19 patients suggests that prescribing fluvoxamine and ivermectin together may be even more efficacious.
While daily case numbers have retreated from the peak in India, hospitalizations and mortality remain near all-time highs. Of
course, as developing nations fight to waive IP protections for COVID vaccines, the notion that cheap existing drugs might be effective
at combating COVID would represent yet another threat to Big Pharma's bottom line.
Read the full editorial below:
The COVID-19 humanitarian calamity unfolding in India is on a scale not seen in this pandemic. This is an extraordinary situation
"" and it may benefit from an extraordinary response.
There exist affordable, readily available and minimally toxic drugs approved for non-COVID-19 use which show remarkable promise
in preventing or treating the new coronavirus. Deploying these drugs in India is likely to rapidly reduce the number of COVID-19
patients, reduce the number requiring hospitalization, supplemental oxygen and intensive care and improve outcomes in hospitalized
patients.
Some of these drugs are being tested in large-scale randomized clinical trials in the US and abroad but in most cases, definitive
efficacy data is pending. With the current COVID-19 situation in India, we do not have time to wait for results of these studies.
Importantly, currently available safety and outcomes data on these drugs is strong enough that it is time to incorporate them into
national practice guidelines. Indian authorities should issue such guidelines on the most promising drugs for each stage of COVID-19.
By so doing, physicians will be encouraged to use these interventions. The resulting real world data from a few healthcare settings
in select cities should be tracked in real time and guidelines suitably revised. If such measures were adopted, we could see effects
in 3-4 weeks. This strategy might be unusual but it is not unheard of: France has the Temporary Recommendation for Use, a "regulatory
instrument which aims to allow, on a temporary basis, the use of a medicinal product to allow its effectiveness to be evaluated on
the basis of its use."
The choice of drugs is critical. We have worked closely with personnel at the Food and Drug Administration and have connected
with the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health to evaluate the merits of repurposed drugs. Based on a mechanistic
rationale, data in animal models, human retrospective analyses, clinical trials (some randomized, others not) and anecdotal human
data, we created a prioritized list of interventions that hold the greatest promise and that could be deployed at scale. For instance,
there is strong data from a randomized trial and a real-world study that administering fluvoxamine sharply reduces the need for hospitalization
in COVID-19 outpatients. Moreover, anecdotal unpublished data in over 400 acutely ill COVID-19 patients from several community practitioners
suggests that administering fluvoxamine and ivermectin together may be even more efficacious.
Intervention as early as possible after symptom onset is key. Ivermectin is already listed as a "MAY DO" on the ICMR and Indian
government guidelines for treatment of acute mild COVID-19 and we suggest that fluvoxamine be added in this category. Also, ivermectin
in the prophylactic setting merits serious consideration. For the hospitalized, there are treatments currently used for other conditions
that might reduce the need for ventilator support and lower the risk of death. These include inhaled adenosine, cyproheptadine and
dipyridamole. For ideas for which there is rather limited human data, the government should offer pre-approved pilot protocols and
funding for rapid implementation in select centers rather than issue a recommendation for use.
To be clear, it would be ideal to pursue large clinical trials to test the efficacy of all promising interventions. A randomized
adaptive design could efficiently sift through the many possibilities. It may be possible to rapidly set up parallel protocols in
India if government authorities can expedite the regulatory process and offer funding. US trial investigators can be persuaded to
provide protocols and web-based data collection tools.
We hope that the Indian government will take advantage of repurposed drug research and use temporary use authorizations or guidelines
to rapidly promote the most promising therapies at a national level while in parallel aggressively encourage pilot studies and large-scale
clinical trials with shovel-ready protocols and funding. Given the current situation, India has little to lose in piloting these
approaches: the potential gains could benefit not just the country but the world.
Well, it's official. One of my friends in the USSA who was fully vaccinated (Phizer I
think) within the past 3 months just got a positive COVID test. Teenage son brought it back
home and they all have it now.
uncle tungsten @40 - It looks like that bogus quote is used often, including by academics
and the paper I found was basically hidden, so it's an easy mistake to make by Strategic
Culture (whoever wrote that article). I had never seen/heard of that one so I looked it up
due to the non-contemporaneous looking language. Surprised to learn that "under-cover" is
actually a more recent term than "un-American" which I would have thought originated in the
1920s or 30s - or even 40s (WWII). According to that paper I found, it was first coined/used
just two years after Rush's passing. Go figure. Seems that several more of Rush's quotes as
told in the present day seem to be bogus as well.
"... may have contained downstream effects of some endothelial changes that would give rise to the hypercoagulable state that is characteristic of the disease ..."
"... We suggest that, in part, the presence of spike protein in circulation may contribute to the hypercoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients and may cause severe impairment of fibrinolysis. Such lytic impairment may be the direct cause of the large microclots we have noted here ..."
The researchers examined the fluorescent amyloid signals in abnormal clots and in healthy
platelet-poor plasma (PPP) with or without spike protein.
This showed a marked increase in dense abnormal amyloid clots, called amyloid deposits, in
PPP to which spike was added, with or without thrombin. Thrombin alone also created an
extensive fibrin clot. However, there was a significant increase in the percentage area of
amyloid deposits.
The greatest change followed the addition of both spike and thrombin.
Platelet
activation
When whole blood was exposed to spike protein even at low concentrations, the erythrocytes
showed agglutination, hyperactivated platelets were seen, with membrane spreading and the
formation of platelet-derived microparticles.
In all samples, spontaneous amyloid deposits formed after exposure to the spike protein
without the need for thrombin exposure.
Clotting in microfluidics channels
Microfluidics systems were set up to simulate extensive endothelial damage, with resulting
hypercoagulability. This showed that COVID-19 produced changes in the clotting profile of the
PPP.
Clot formation in healthy PPP occurred slowly and gradually, to a moderate size, and with
orderly clot layers that allowed blood flow to occur through the channel's center. These clots
were easily removed by flushing the channel at 1 mL/min.
The PPP from COVID-19 patients showed large disorderly clots that often projected into the
channel's center and obstructed the flow. These clots were impossible to dislodge at the
earlier flow rate or even at a higher flow.
Again, large clots formed in PPP from COVID-19 patients when it was exposed to thrombin in
about 90 seconds. However, most of the clotting happened in one burst, with not much
propagation of the clot thereafter, indicating rapid consumption of the thrombin.
This was not the case with PPP exposed to spike protein, where a fibrous laminar clot was
combined with a chaotic clot. Moderate flow disruption was also observed. These clots could
also be removed with similar ease. This intermediate state could be due to the absence of
multiple other biological factors that may have hindered the formation of the characteristic
clots seen in COVID-19 patients.
Mass spectrometry
The results of mass spectrometry of the healthy PPP with spike protein showed changes in the
structure of the beta and gamma fibrin(ogen) proteins, together with complement 3 and
prothrombin. These proteins showed resistance to degradation by trypsin, a powerful proteolytic
enzyme, in the presence of spike protein.
What are the implications?
The researchers show that the spike S1 not only interacts directly with both platelets and
with the key clotting protein fibrinogen and its activated form, fibrin, causing changes in the
protein that, in turn, alter the way blood clots.
In PPP, the addition of thrombin was found to induce fibrinogen's polymerization into a
fibrin mesh. Exposure to spike protein was shown to precipitate dense clots.
When spikes and thrombin were added to healthy PPP, the formation of abnormal amyloid
deposits was increased. These also showed significant changes in the blood cells'
ultrastructure, including the red cells and platelets.
The presence of extensive spontaneous fibrin networks following the addition of the spike
protein to whole blood matches the ultrastructural appearance seen on COVID-19-positive blood
smears. Here again, the primary features were anomalous clotting, amyloid in the clots, and
spontaneous fibrin network formation.
The study also shows that it may alter blood flow in COVID-19. The microfluidics simulation
showed that the PPP from COVID-19 patients, which is almost pure fibrinogen, formed large
obstructing clots. The PPP " may have contained downstream effects of some endothelial
changes that would give rise to the hypercoagulable state that is characteristic of the
disease ."
" We suggest that, in part, the presence of spike protein in circulation may
contribute to the hypercoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients and may cause severe
impairment of fibrinolysis. Such lytic impairment may be the direct cause of the large
microclots we have noted here ."
Thus, the free S1 subunit has harmful effects on the host even without direct infection of
the cells themselves. This strengthens the case for targeting the spike protein via antibodies
and vaccines.
*Important Notice
medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and,
therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related
behavior, or treated as established information.
"... Neutralization of B.1.617 and B.1.618 spike protein variants by REGN10933 and REGN10987. Image Credit: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.14.444076v1.full.pdf ..."
India's surge in SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infections are
linked to the new variants B.1.617 and B.1.618, with mutated spike proteins . In
recent months, it has caused a devastating second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is reported that from
3 January 2020 to 17 May 2021, there have been over 25 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 with
over 274 thousand deaths.
The mutations in these variants may contribute to the increased transmissibility of the
virus, and could potentially result in re-infection or resistance to the vaccine-elicited
antibodies. The mutations are driven by selective pressure for increased affinity for its
receptor, ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme), and escape from neutralizing
antibodies . This raises concern over the fitness of the Indian SARS-CoV-2 variants and
their ability to escape the vaccine-elicited immune response.
In this context, researchers from the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA, tested
the neutralization of B.1.617 and B.1.618 SARS-CoV-2 variant spike proteins and determined
their resistance to neutralization by convalescent sera, vaccine-elicited antibodies, and
therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.
To achieve this they generated lentiviruses pseudotyped by the variant proteins. They found
that these viruses with B.1.617 and B.1.618 spike proteins were neutralized with a 2-5-fold
decrease in titer by convalescent
sera and vaccine-elicited antibodies.
They observed a modest neutralization resistance to the vaccine-elicited antibodies. This is
good news as it suggests that the current vaccines will protect against the B.1.617 and B.1.618
42 variants. This study, led by Professor Nathaniel R. Landau, is recently posted on the
bioRxiv * server.
Our results lend confidence that current vaccines will provide protection against variants
identified to date."
The researchers also found that the resistance was caused by the L452R, E484Q, and E484K
mutations. Further, they reported that the variants were partially resistant to REGN10933,
which is one of the two mAbs constituting the Regeneron COV2 therapy (casirivimab (REGN10933)
with imdevimab (REGN10987), for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19).
The B.1.617 encodes a spike protein with the mutations L452R, E484Q, D614G, and P681R while
the B.1.618 spike has mutations Î"145-146, E484K, and D614G. The B.1.617 variant spike
protein contains L452R and E484Q mutations in the RBD in addition to D614G and the P681R
mutation near the proteolytic processing site and the B.1.618 spike has E484K in the RBD in
addition to D614G and the N-terminal deletion Î"145-146.
The researchers generated the lentiviral virions, expressing the spike proteins at a level
similar to that of wild-type D614G. They also tested the infectivity of the virus, reporting
that the B.1.617 spike protein (L452R/E484Q/P681R) was >2-fold increase in infectivity while
B.1.618 was similar to wild-type D614G.
Significantly, they found that the increased infectivity of the B.1.617 spike was attributed
to L452R mutation, which caused a 3.5-fold increase in infectivity and, in combination with
E484Q caused a 3-fold increase. Other point mutations had an insignificant effect on the
infectivity.
Both variants B.1.617 and B.1.618 have increased affinity for ACE2 and the researchers found
that both are partially resistant to the monoclonal antibodies. They discussed the mutations,
the expressed proteins, and the subsequent effect on binding and infection.
In this study, the researchers reported that the virus variants B.1.617 and B.1.618 spike
were partially resistant to neutralization, with an average 3.9-fold and 2.7-fold decrease in
IC50 for convalescent sera and antibodies elicited by Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines,
respectively. The neutralization resistance was mediated by the L452R, E484Q, and E484K
mutations. The resistance of these variants is similar to the previous variants.
Even with the 3-4-fold decrease in neutralization titer of vaccine-elicited antibodies,
average titers were around 1:500, a titer well above that found in the sera of individuals
who have recovered from infection with earlier unmutated viruses."
Significantly, this study reassures that the vaccinated individuals will remain protected
against the B.1.617 and B.1.618 variants.
Commenting on the other vaccines, the researchers said, "The analyses in this study were
restricted to the mRNA-based vaccines but there is no reason to believe that vector-based
vaccines such as that of Johnson and Johnson that express a stabilized, native, full-length
spike protein would be different with regarding antibody neutralization of virus
variants."
*Important Notice
bioRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and,
therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related
behavior, or treated as established information.
Dr. Marty Makary made the comments during a recent interview, noting that "natural immunity works" and it is wrong to vilify those
who don't want the vaccine because they have already recovered from the virus.
Makary criticised "the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history" for not clearly communicating the scientific
facts about natural immunity compared to the kind of immunity developed through vaccines.
" There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,"
Makary emphasised.
"We are not seeing reinfections, and when they do happen, they're rare. Their symptoms are mild or are asymptomatic," the professor
added.
"Please, ignore the CDC guidance," he urged, adding "Live a normal life, unless you are unvaccinated and did not have the infection,
in which case you need to be careful."
"We've got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them," Makary further asserted.
The professor's comments come amid a plethora of
media generated propaganda suggesting that natural immunity isn't enough, and that those who do not choose to take the vaccine
should be socially ostracisedJustus D. Barnes 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
I would not call it a hoax as some people do get sick and die.
However. Some people are allergic to peanuts. So lets force everyone to get vaccinated against peanuts?
I think of this whole thing as $#IT politicians shoving their $#IT policies down stupid peoples throats. In a free America
any thoughtful person would asses the danger that corona or a peanut would present to them personally and then take the action
they thought best. IMHO If your state does not let you make the choice for yourself then you join a class action lawsuit against
your state or move.
FurnitureFireSale 4 hours ago remove link
And that's the problem in that what America has become: a bunch of thoughtless sheep that do what their idols tell them to
do; what the commercials tell them to do; what the brainwashing convinces them to do. There are many, many of them and a good
amount of thoughtful ones (us)too. It is the latter having these discussions about these therapies, no matter how much the MSM
and FAANG's try to supress it. Many highly intelligent people I know have gone ahead and gotten their shots. Several in my circle
have not- never will. The have nots understand just what is going on. The liberal states that are pushing this agenda need to
be reeled in via a class action. One should not be forced to move based upon their vaccination status. It's as arbitrary as saying
"move to a state where they don't serve peanuts". You're exactly right.
sun tzu 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Deaths from purely from covid was probably in the 25,000 range in the past 14 months, which is less than half of 5 months of
flu deaths each year. Some died due to pneumonia or cytokine storm. Others died when the spike proteins got into their blood and
caused clots. The vast majority died with covid, either real or thru a false positives. Probably 25-50K were murdered on ventilators.
philipat 1 hour ago remove link
As I have written about previously, the CDC/WHO are playing (political) games with science and their actions only discredit
themselves and raise other obvious questions which challenge the official explanation(s) of events, in summary as follows:
The definition of Herd Immunity has been changed (including in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) to EXCLUDE natural immunity
as a contributing factor. This is scientifically false because naturally acquired immunity is the best type of immunity because
it is a complete immune response which conveys long-lasting immunity and prevents transmission of any virus. This is NOT true
for the "vaccines" whose manufacturers only claim a reduction in the severity of any symptoms. The obvious conclusion based
on the science is that naturally immune people have a stronger claim on "Vaccine Passports" than the vaccinated.
Not only is it unnecessary for naturally immune people to be vaccinated, there are potential dangers in doing so. Based
again on scientific knowledge from earlier attempts to develop vaccines for CoVs, there is a very real risk of ADE (Antibody
Dependent Enhancement), also described as Pathogenic Priming from occurring when people with non-neutralizing antibodies are
exposed to further challenge from either a live virus or high concentrations of viral antigen. This can potentially occur in
both vaccinated people (we will know during the next "Flu" season) and in naturally immune people exposed to high concentrations
of viral antigen which triggers non-neutralizing antibodies. The subsequent autoimmune reaction can result from a triggered
"cytokine storm" which can result in the shutdown of vital organs and death,
Ironically, this MIGHT explain some of the many AEs being seen with the "vaccines" where an autoimmune effect is seen.
The only possible reason for the above denials 1-2) of the science is so as to comply with the official narrative that everyone
needs vaccination "" presumably for reasons other than science and public health.
The CDC still recommends the RT-qPCR test to diagnose "new cases" at a cycle threshold (Ct) of >35 cycles, typically run
at 35-45 or even 50 cycles. This despite the fact they fully understand that at these high cycle counts, the numbers of "false
positives" are high (up to 95% in some labs). However, in coming to terms with "a few breakthrough cases" of disease in vaccinated
people, CDC has been running trials to sequence the virus (in the hope of blaming new variants) obtained from such people.
However, to be included, only samples from patients confirmed positive with a PCR test run at a Ct of <28 cycles are allowed.
Why the difference?
The dilemma for CDC here is obvious. If they recommend that for reasons of accuracy, ALL PCR tests are run at a Ct of <28,
they will not be able to find many "new cases" (a/k/a false positives) to inflate the case numbers and have ample material
to blame "Covid deaths" on. If they run the trials on "breakthrough infections" at a Ct of >35 (as recommended for general
use) they will "confirm" (by their own definition) thousands of such " extremely rare breakthrough cases". This clearly demonstrates
duplicity on the part of CDC and destroys their credibility, which has been built on science not politics.
The Virus origin dilemma. The Overton window has allowed two, and only two, "explanations" for the origin of the virus.
Setting aside the fact that whenever the Establishment presents a limited number of explanations for anything, they are always
all wrong (and in this case there are other explanations surrounding the Military Games, held in Wuhan at around the time the
first patients were recorded) it is now obvious that the desired conclusion is a "leak" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology
(WIV). That means we must also set aside the fact that Bio Safety Level 4 labs don't just "leak" "" I can attest to this from
personal experience of BSL training.
The dilemma for the Authorities with this explanation, not yet widely recognised, is that if indeed this is the explanation,
it means that wild SARS-CoV-2 virus (and other man made variants in the "gain of function" research, was being experimented
with in WIV so as to infect the respiratory system of those "infected". Other bodily contamination transported out of the lab
is entirely impossible due to the security features built-in at BSL-4 facilities (Pressure gradients, UV exit lighting, 3 changes
of clothing involving showers with various chemical components etc. "" these are SERIOUS safety precautions)
That being the case, why then has it not been possible to isolate and purify said virus (and its variants) for the purposes
of confirming its existence and for use in more accurate tests and diagnostics plus for use in making natural (real) vaccines?
konputa 4 hours ago
The CDC are vaccine pushers and owners of numerous vaccine patents. It seems to me they are doing their job as intended, it's
just that the public misunderstands their purpose. Their mission isn't public health.
CheapBastard 5 hours ago (Edited)
That's exactly what my doc told me. Stay healthy and take the relevant supplements like Vitamin D. Most likely have immunity
from previous Flu infections with cross-over protection.
Problem is for the CDC and Big Pharma is their Fear **** can't be promoted and they can't make mind-numbing profits from natural
immunity.
What a mess_man 4 hours ago
We knew this last spring with the Diamond Princess.
Kentucky Republican discusses why he questioned the top health official over funding of the controversial Wuhan Institute of Virology
on 'Fox News Primetime.' #FoxNews #FoxNewsPrimetime
"Based on the lack of a rational explanation for the actions of the WHO, Merck, FDA and Unitaid, we conclude that they result
from an active disinformation campaign ... "
Thank you for the latest release from FLCCC. When you find the time to comment, you always supply powerful material - I am
extraordinarily grateful for this.
I just spent the time to read the release, and I was absorbed from beginning to end. Of course, there's some unavoidable scientific
terminology, but very little, and most of the document stands as a revolutionary manifesto, a call to action, a call to resist
the misinformation and the disinformation permeating the COVID-19 pandemic.
The document illustrates in a verifiable and succinct charge how the WHO has loaded the dice against the use of ivermectin
as both a prophylactic and a treatment for COVID-19, in order to argue against its adoption - and this, in a world that is increasingly
adopting its use because it quite simply works.
It works, and the results from all over the world are recorded by doctors, showing that it works up to a 90% effectiveness
in the main and close to 100% in some cases, and it does this with negligible collateral harm demonstrated across billions of
doses and many decades - and the WHO, despite that in 2018 it formally lauded its safety, now says that it doesn't work and that
it may be dangerous.
~~
So what is the Why of the WHO?
This release from FLCCC explains why and describes the underlying, systemic rottenness in the western medical system, how it
has been tainted for decades by corporations and large funding sources - and how the common doctors, fighting to do no harm and
to save lives, are up against a wall of opposition during this pandemic that is breathtakingly huge.
The FLCCC press release goes beyond the medical science and explains also the corporate tactics that have demolished scientific
method. It presents a call to action, and sketches the only tools we have to resist. It says much that we already know - but these
are doctors and awarded researchers telling us all the things that are so obviously fishy in the institutional responses
to the pandemic.
Big Pharma, Big Science, Big Media, Big Tech, Big Government, Big Foundations - all in collusion, all following the trail originally
blazed by Big Tobacco.
See, we know how it works because we've watched it for decades. The FLCCC release does us the service of reminding us and enumerating
the instances when corporate venality (my word, not theirs) has destroyed the truth simply to make money.
Looks like the chance to win a million bucks can give vaccination rates a real shot in the
arm.
Ohio saw its COVID-19 vaccination rate jump 45% between May 14-19 as compared to the
previous week, thanks in part to the state's Vax-A-Million lottery,
Gov. Mike DeWine told reporters on Wednesday . Last week, the state said it recorded a 28%
spike in vaccinations in the days following the lottery announcement.
Each week, adult Ohioans who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose will enter a
random drawing to win a million dollars. And younger vaccinated Ohio residents between the ages
of 12 and 17 will be part of a weekly random drawing to get a four-year scholarship to an Ohio
public university, which will include tuition, room, board and books. There will be five
winners for each prize selected over the next five weeks.Wednesday night, the Ohio lottery
announced the first two winners: Abbigail Bugenske of Silverton, near Cincinnati, won $1
million, while Joseph Costello of Englewood, near Dayton, won the college scholarship. Each
Wednesday moving forward, another adult and another teen winner will be revealed at 7:29 p.m.
through June 23.
More than 2.7 million adults registered for the cash prizes, and more than 100,000 teens are
vying for the scholarships.
I continue to be troubled by the Western Covid response of new vaccines.
Unless you haven't read Big Pharma bragging, they are projecting revenues of $100 billion
this year with $20+ projected by Pfizer alone. Given my jaded economics view of the industry
and Western governments owned by the financial elite, it is not beyond my belief that this
controlled taking advantage of a health care crisis is conscious war criminal behavior just
like the ongoing (since at least 2008) loading of the US Treasury with debt while the profits
go to private finance elite.
Back to further financialization of the Health Care world. I never saw the 1973 movie
Soylent Green but below is the last Wiki line about the movie that resonates with my
perspective of the Western brainwashed becoming a new income stream for Big Health just like
wars are income streams for the MIC
"
While being taken away, Thorn shouts out to the surrounding crowd, "Soylent Green is
people!"
"
When you go to a poker game, look around and can't see who the sucker of the evening is,
take a hint, its you
Its time to shoot the TV folks and end other brainwashing inputs that make it so you can't
see how the world really works.....private finance barbarism which is currently in a
civilization war with China's not barbarism/public finance approach.
With Grieved's friendly update.....
The shit show Narrative will continue until it doesn't..
Five people between D.C., Maryland and Virginia have been tested for the
new strain of coronavirus. There are no confirmed cases in the DMV. Something went wrong.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.460.0_en.html#goog_322948139 Author: Nick
Boykin (WUSA9), Jordan Fischer Published: 10:47 PM EST January 27, 2020 Updated: 3:33 PM EST
January 28, 2020
WASHINGTON -- With worries about the coronavirus spreading nationally, the National
Institute of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is working
on a vaccine to help combat the virus.
At its Bethesda headquarters, NIAID will be working with a company called Moderna, who
received a grant from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. Their mission is to
accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases during an outbreak,
according to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) . CEPI is helping
fund the grant money being used.
Two other organizations, Inovia Pharmaceuticals and The University of Queensland, also
received grants, according to CEPI.
"NIAID has mobilized a research response to 2019-nCoV that builds on experience with
SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and other emerging pathogens," NIAID said in a statement about the grant.
"NIAID has begun early stage development of an mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccine for 2019-nCoV. mRNA
vaccines direct the body's cells to express a protein to elicit a broad immune response
including high levels of neutralizing antibodies. The expressed protein is designed based on
knowledge of the virus structure, but the platform does not contain live or inactivated virus.
The mRNA platform can be quickly adapted and manufactured efficiently."
"... was vaccinated before it was available to any of us peasants. About 3 weeks ago she was home sick with Covid. He husband got it too, and he was also vaccinated as well. ..."
My 29 year old niece that is as skinny as a broom stick is an RN in a pedes unit, and was vaccinated before it was available to
any of us peasants. About 3 weeks ago she was home sick with Covid. He husband got it too, and he was also vaccinated as well.
PHE figures show Covid outbreak is STILL flat despite rapid spread of Indian variant as
expert says it won't stop lockdown easing plans but SAGE adviser warns third wave has begun and
all 10 areas with biggest outbreaks are mutant strain hotspots
Some 95 out of 149 local authorities in England saw Covid cases dip last week. Dr Yvonne
Doyle said the latest data was 'hugely encouraging' but that there was still concern over the
Indian variant.
Last December, Yeadon, a British national,
filed
a petition
with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to immediately suspend testing on these experimental vaccines due to many
safety concerns, including pathogenic priming, which involves "
an exaggerated immune reaction,
especially when the test person is confronted with the real, 'wild' virus after vaccination
."
In their
white
paper
on the topic, AFLDS warned that such reactions, which can be fatal, "
are difficult to
prove
," as they are often interpreted as infection with "
a worse virus
," or, perhaps, a
more dangerous variant.
Having maintained that there is "
no
need of vaccines
" for COVID-19, Yeadon emphasizes below, "
PLEASE warn every person not to go
near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them
."
At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said:
"
I'm well
aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world's population. I feel great
fear, but I'm not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and
Reiner
Fuellmich
in Germany. I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I've ever
made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products."
"
In the U.K., it's abundantly clear that the authorities are bent
on a course which will result in administering 'vaccines' to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even
if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those
people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call
'mechanistic': inbuilt in the way they work.
"
"
But all the other people, those in good health and younger than
60 years, perhaps a little older, they don't perish from the virus. In this large group, it's wholly unethical to administer
something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized. In no other
era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention. Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know
this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
"
"
While I don't know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one
of which relates to money and that motive doesn't work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and
giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it's something else. Appreciating that, by entire population, it is
also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that's what I interpret to be an evil
act."
"There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the
design of these 'vaccines' results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has
adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune
'complement system'), I'm determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of
unwanted effects from these agents.
"
INTERVIEWER: In a
talk
you
gave four months ago, you said:
The most
likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the
data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80 percent
similar to SARS, so I think that's the best comparison that anyone can provide.
The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists
studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested
whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They
were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they're so similar; it's cross immunity.
So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should
be robust for at least 17 years. I think it's entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people's
T cells were the same as if you've been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained.
So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.
In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.
The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the
Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about
variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the
lawyers
who
will be challenging those future measures?
DR. YEADON:
"What I
outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we're seeing with SARS-CoV-2. The study is from one of the best labs
in their field.
"So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell
immunity
by
measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not 'high throughout' and they
are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I'm aware of is not yet commercially available,
but research only in U.K.
"However, I expect the company could be induced to provide
test
kits
"for research" on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non-vaccinated Israelis,
it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50percent of people had prior immunity & additionally
around 25percent have been infected & are now immune.
"Personally, I wouldn't want to deal with the authorities on their
own terms: that you're suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn't need to be proving you're not a
health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned
about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated."
INTERVIEWER: My understanding of a "
leaky
vaccine
" is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop
transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.
For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of
chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek's Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the
only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is
utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.
Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too
rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract
serious disease and die.
Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the
susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven't already had COVID-19?
Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?
And if many already have the aforementioned previous "17-year SARS immunity", would that then
not protect from any super-variant?
DR. YEADON: "I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or
will lead to 'dangerous variants'. I am worried that it's some kind of trick.
"As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes
into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don't become more dangerous.
"No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the
Wuhan sequence.
"It's a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to "escape immunity".
"Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person
(whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it's empirically supported by high-quality
research.
"The
research
I
refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which
recognize ALL the variants.
"
This
paper
shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.
"I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very
malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance
when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are
probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few 'natural experiments', people who
unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with
antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some
contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.
"The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish
to receive a vaccine (as is their right).
"The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in
asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did
not need to become a public health crisis."
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big
pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?
DR. YEADON: "Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I
founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA. Always good quality
interactions.
"Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They're funded by public money. They should never accept money from a
private body.
"So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.
"The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the 'hack' of their files while reviewing the Pfizer
vaccine.
"You can find examples on
Reiner
Fuellmich
's 'Corona Committee' online.
"Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.
"Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we
went
public
with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood
clots.
"I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn't an option for the regulator.
"I must return to the issue of 'top up vaccines' (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and
used to gain unparalleled power over us.
"PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.
"As there's no need for them, yet they're being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only
deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.
"For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world's population over the next few years, the
systems being put in place right now will enable it.
"It's my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation."
Not sure of Yeadon's claim disputing Bossche's suggestion of new strains arising from vaccination. We are
early on with the program but also seeing need to check that problem in Israel:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/south-african-covid-19-variant-break-through-pfizer-vaccine-14598714
And Bossche's idea of vaccination, is not "more," of the same. But different. Can't use that argument of Yeadon's to override all
that Bossche happens to be saying.
Michael Yeadon, wasn't just any scientist. The 60-year-old is a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an
allergy and respiratory researcher. He later co-founded a biotech firm that the Swiss drugmaker Novartis purchased for at least $325
million.
In recent months, Yeadon (pronounced Yee-don) has emerged as an unlikely hero of the so-called anti-vaxxers, whose adherents
question the safety of many vaccines, including for the coronavirus. The anti-vaxxer movement has amplified Yeadon's skeptical views
about COVID-19 vaccines and tests, government-mandated lockdowns and the arc of the pandemic. Yeadon has said he personally doesn't
oppose the use of all vaccines. But many health experts and government officials worry that opinions like his fuel vaccine hesitancy
– a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated – that could prolong the pandemic. COVID-19 has already killed more than 2.6 million
people worldwide.
"These claims are false, dangerous and deeply irresponsible," said a spokesman for Britain's Department of Health & Social Care,
when asked about Yeadon's views. "COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to protect people from coronavirus and will save thousands of
lives."
Recent reports of blood clots and abnormal bleeding in a small number of recipients of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine have cast
doubt on that shot's safety, leading several European countries to suspend its use.
The developments are likely to fuel vaccine
hesitancy further, although there is no evidence of a causative link between the AstraZeneca product and the affected patients'
conditions.
... ... ...
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pictured in 2016, was recently banned on Instagram because of his COVID-19 vaccine posts. REUTERS/Stephanie
Keith
The visage and views of Yeadon, widely identified as an "Ex-VP of Pfizer,'' can be seen on social media in languages including
German, Portuguese, Danish and Czech. A Facebook post carries a video from November in which Yeadon claimed that the pandemic
"fundamentally is over." The post has been viewed more than a million times.
In October, Yeadon wrote a column for the United Kingdom's Daily Mail newspaper that also appeared on MailOnline, one of the world's
most-visited news websites. It declared that deaths caused by COVID-19, which then totaled about 45,000 in Britain, will soon
"fizzle out" and Britons "should immediately be allowed to resume normal life." Since then, the disease has killed about another
80,000 people in the UK.
Yeadon isn't the only respected scientist to have challenged the scientific consensus on COVID-19 and expressed controversial views.
Michael Levitt, a winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry, told the Stanford Daily last summer that he expected the pandemic
would end in the United States in 2020 and kill no more than 175,000 Americans – a third of the [overinflated, so probably right
estimate --NNB] current total
– and "when we come to look back, we're going to say that wasn't such a terrible disease."
And
Luc Montagnier, another Nobel Prize winner, said last year that he believed the coronavirus was created in a Chinese lab
.
Many experts doubt that, but so far there is no way to prove or disprove it.
Levitt told Reuters that his projections about the pandemic in the United States were wrong, but he still believes COVID-19
eventually won't be seen as "a terrible disease" and that lockdowns "caused a great deal of collateral damage and may not have been
needed." Montagnier didn't respond to a request for comment.
...
... ...
Clare Craig, a British pathologist, compared Yeadon's treatment on Twitter – where some users derided his views as nonsense and
dangerous – to medieval societies burning heretics at the stake.
"There is no other way to see it than the burning of the witches," said Craig, who has criticized lockdowns and COVID-19 tests.
"Science is always a series of questions and the testing of those questions and when we are not allowed to ask those questions, then
science is lost."
Money quote: "I think the PCR test at present is throwing up so many false positives that in
fact we're misdiagnosing the cause of the deaths that are being reported. The number of deaths at
the moment is normal for the time of year. So if I'm right and the pandemic is fundamentally
over, what's going on? And I think quite simply it's not over because SAGE says it's not!"
Notable quotes:
"... You also don't set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn't been extensively tested on human subjects." ..."
Michael Yeadon has voiced [his concerns about government policies regarding COVID-19] and it
has left everyone shocked. As Pfizer pharmaceuticals breaks news for
bringing corona virus vaccine , a former vice president and chief scientists of the company
Michael Yeadon said that there is no need for any vaccine to end the ongoing pandemic.
According to a report published in the Lockdown Sceptics, Yeadon wrote: "There is absolutely
no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. You do not vaccinate people who aren't at risk
from the disease. You also don't set about
planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn't been
extensively tested on human subjects." Yeadon made the comment on the vaccine development
while criticizing the role played by the Scientific Advisory
Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the UK.
SAGE is tasked with a role to determine public lockdown policies; in the UK, as a response
to the COVID-19 virus. He added, "SAGE says everyone was susceptible and only 7 per cent have
been infected. They have ignored all precedent in the field of immunology memory against
respiratory viruses. They have either not seen or disregarded excellent quality work from
numerous world-leading clinical immunologists; which show that around 30 per cent of the
population had prior immunity."
Michael Yeadon wrote "They should also have excluded from 'susceptible' a large subset; of
the youngest children, who appear not to become infected biology; means their cells express
less of the spike protein receptor, called ACE2. I have not assumed all young children don't
participate in transmission, but believe a two-thirds value is very conservative. It's not
material anyway. So SAGE is demonstrably wrong in one really crucial variable, they assumed no
prior immunity, whereas the evidence clearly points; to a value of around 30 per cent (and
nearly 40 per cent if you include some young children, who technically are 'resistant' rather
than 'immune')."
He concluded that the pandemic is effectively over and; can easily be handled by a properly
functioning NHS (National Health Service).
America's Frontline Doctors ( AFLDS ) today filed a motion in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama requesting a temporary restraining
order against the emergency use authorization (EUA) permitting using the COVID-19 vaccines
in children under the age of 16, and that no further expansion of the EUAs to children under
the age of 16 be granted prior to the resolution of these issues at trial.
The case will challenge the EUAs for the injections on several counts, based on the law and
scientific evidence that the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked
immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause
substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and that numerous laws have been
broken in the process of granting these EUAs and foisting these injections on the American
people.
AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold spoke about the
reasons for filing the motion: "We doctors are pro-vaccine, but this is not a vaccine," she
said. "This is an experimental biological agent whose harms are well-documented (although
suppressed and censored) and growing rapidly, and we will not support using America's children
as guinea pigs."
She continued: "We insist that the EUA not be relinquished prematurely; certainly not before
trials are complete - October 31, 2022 for Moderna and April 27, 2023 for Pfizer. We are
shocked at the mere discussion of this, and will not be silent while Americans are used as
guinea pigs for a virus with survivability of 99.8% globally and 99.97% under age 70.
"Under age 20 it is 99.997% - 'statistical zero'.
"There are 104 children age 0-17 who died from COVID-19 and 287 from COVID + Influenza - out
of ~72 million. This equals zero risk. And we doctors won't stand for children being offered
something they do not need and of whom some unknown percentage will suffer."
AFLDS Pediatric Director Dr. Angie
Farella explained: "My greatest concerns with the vaccination of children under the age of
18 is the fact that there is no prior study of these individuals before December of 2020."
She went on to say: "Children were not included in the trials, and the adult trials do not
have any long-term safety data currently available."
AFLDS Legal Director Ali Shultz commented on AFLDS' filing:
"Not many people could have taken this on. Dr. Simone Gold is a doctor, and a lawyer, and a
fierce warrior who will stop at nothing to protect humanity.
"She has a certain finesse in developing the right team to see this medical/legal mission
through."
To read the motion and all supporting documents, click here .
Cycle testing - running the same test over and over unitl you get the results you want and
then stopping.
Believe it or not this is the same foolishness that goes into radiometric dating of how
old rocks are. It's why you can take a warm chunk of lava and send it in to the dating lab
and get a result of over 25 million years old.
Trust the science folks - resistance is futile
By the way if the test shows negative after 30 cycles - it means that there is not enough
virus in your system for it be dangerous and that your body can deal with it on its own. By
the time you get to 35 cycles it is amplified so much that it will show any virus fragment in
your system - and at such miniscule amounts that the body does not even know its there - and
its not a problem. When you get 40 cycles and above the test will have to be positive because
there is always some virus fragments in your system. The single fact that they can run +40
cycles and get a negative result shows that this test is actually garbage from the start.
Dr Phuckit 16 hours ago remove link
My own interpretation of Government Data, tells me anything above 25 cycles is
fraudulent.
It looks like the CDC has come to their senses, but still bordering towards fraudulent
data.
At 30 cycles it's 50/50 chance of being right. But right for what exactly because it still
can't detect a virus, can't determine if it was a new infection or an old infection not even
active. Above 40+ even a rock will test positive.
What all this has accomplished though, is Corporations now have DNA samples of most of
worlds population , and these F'wits that weren't sick couldn't opt-in fast enough. Imagine
if these Corporations had said, we want your DNA for our Database, how many would have
volunteered ?
These Corporations now have the capability to target specific people with DNA for any evil
purpose they might have in the future. Perhaps this was the plan all along, DNA
collection.
Dr Phuckit 15 hours ago
The CDC can't stop the flood of lawsuits about to unfold, they are now trying to minimize
the damage to it's control and bank account. And the CDC is nothing but an interface between
All Pharmaceutical Companies and Government. They have no real power to mandate anything, all
they can do is recommend because it's about as Federal as the Federal Reserve.
shakypudding 16 hours ago remove link
The rt-CPR tests were sanctioned per emergency use authorizations (EUA) which means no
prior certification of efficacy. This rendered the lab results useless except for
propaganda.
The vaccines were also issued per emergency use authorization (EUA) which means no prior
certification of efficacy. How and why can this happen? Emergency use authorizations are
permitted when alternative treatments are not officially recognized, such as HCQ, Ivermectin
and vitamin D.
Had the government sanctioned alternative treatments such as HCQ, Ivermectin and vitamin D
millions of drug company profits and government kickbacks would have been forfeited.
Additionally, the opportunity for extending social programs of conditioning and control
would have been forgone by your overlords.
New policies will artificially deflate "breakthrough infections" in the vaccinated, while
the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and
testing for "Covid19" in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy "vaccines" are
effective at preventing the alleged disease.
They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late
April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the
change).
The trick is in their reporting of what they call "breakthrough infections" – that is
people who are fully "vaccinated" against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.
Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention –
to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition
of "Covid case", used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a
"Covid19 case", even if they never experienced any symptoms .
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all , and
now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated
people.
Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected "breakthrough
infections".
From the CDC's instructions for state health authorities on handling "possible breakthrough
infections" (uploaded to their website in late April):
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct
value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)
Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the
world going into the 40s.
Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result,
despite experts warning that this was pointless ( even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless ).
But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved
from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number
of "breakthrough infections" being officially recorded.
Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as "covid cases".
That's right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the
virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough
infections that don't result in hospitalisation or death .
As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough
cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any
cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest
clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April
26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.
Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no
longer count as a "Covid case" but only if you've been vaccinated.
The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of
diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed
with Covid19 than vaccinated people.
Consider
Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40
cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a "covid case".
Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks
bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn't die they are
NOT a Covid case.
Person C , who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and
respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they're not officially a
Covid case either.
The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a "disease" that can appear or disappear
depending on how you measure it.
To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to "Covid" since December
2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.
If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the
only possible result can be that the official records show "Covid" is much more prevalent among
the latter than the former.
This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise
the other.
What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception? play_arrow
ArkansasAngie 7 hours ago remove link
Reminds me of money supply numbers. And inflation numbers. And GDP numbers. And
unemployment numbers. Oh ... and votes
JakeIsNotFake 14 hours ago remove link
What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?
Well, before 3/20, this would have been a FELONY. Each time a lab provided a patient with
KNOWINGLY FALSE test results, the lab and the doctor would have been subject to a 16 month
term in the state penitentiary. For each instance.
Can you imagine getting a positive, terminal prognosis, committing a well deserved murder,
and then not dying?
New policies will artificially deflate "breakthrough infections" in the vaccinated, while
the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and
testing for "Covid19" in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy "vaccines" are
effective at preventing the alleged disease.
They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late
April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the
change).
The trick is in their reporting of what they call "breakthrough infections" – that is
people who are fully "vaccinated" against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.
Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention –
to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition
of "Covid case", used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a
"Covid19 case", even if they never experienced any symptoms .
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all , and
now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated
people.
Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected "breakthrough
infections".
From the CDC's instructions for state health authorities on handling "possible breakthrough
infections" (uploaded to their website in late April):
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct
value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)
Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the
world going into the 40s.
18 play_arrow
Just a Little Froth in the Market 15 hours ago
They are manipulating the numbers to make it look like only the unvaxxed get infected.
That is fraud, and this rogue agency needs to be stopped.
Enraged 1 hour ago remove link
The CDC is not an independent government agency, but is actually a subsidiary of Big
Pharma.
The CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year
in vaccination sales.
There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, HIV,
Anthrax, Rabies, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Group A Strep, Pneumococcal disease,
Meningococcal disease, RSV, Gastroenteritis, Japanese encephalitis, SARS, Rift Valley Fever,
and chlamydophila pneumoniae.
People might be starting to get the impression that the federal regime, which owns the
media, judiciary, academia, bureaucracy, and big tech, are attempting to manipulate
information to increase their power and wealth. The elites have confiscated almost ALL the
commoners wealth and now they want the rest of the money and complete and total control. Mao
or Stalin would be proud of these fascists.
LetThemEatRand 17 hours ago
Imagine living under the rule of a globalist oligarchy that controls the Press. That.
JakeIsNotFake 14 hours ago remove link
What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?
Well, before 3/20, this would have been a FELONY. Each time a lab provided a patient with
KNOWINGLY FALSE test results, the lab and the doctor would have been subject to a 16 month
term in the state penitentiary. For each instance.
Can you imagine getting a positive, terminal prognosis, committing a well deserved murder,
and then not dying?
Oopsie! My bad.
gregga777 14 hours ago
Government, and that especially includes the so-called "Scientists" in government service,
are Corrupt, Incompetent, Unaccountable and Untrustworthy. The Government's so-called
"Scientists," including those funded by Government contracts, are no more trustworthy than
politicians.
PeterLong 14 hours ago
Sometimes you have no choice. We had to undergo surgical procedures in a hospital and had
to get tested a few days before. Whether they use the same parameters for these type cases as
for others I don't know. Perhaps they are reluctant to turn away or delay surgical cases for
BS reasons and therefore possibly use more realistic standards , but my opinion of the entire
medical industry has become so low that I could believe anything. I still wonder about
hospital and other medical practices finances concenring this scam. Have they continued to
profit somehow despite being shut down in some ways?
Beebee 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Same here, Peter. Hubby's mother broke her elbow last year. And we had to bring her to
tests to do surgery. She was negative. But, afterwards, suddenly, developed lymphoma. Now, I
wonder about these tests! The cancer chemo was delayed due to all this stuff. She had so many
Covid tests, all negative, and just now completed the chemo rounds. It's not necessary and
they do make a profit. She is the only reason we stay here, otherwise we would moved from NY.
She's a mess, and I resent the fact the hold-ups are due to testing.
fewer 36 minutes ago
Hospitals made tons of money on this. Uncle Sugar pays so much, and the administrators
always slice & dice the budget/reports so they seem on the edge of bankruptcy no matter
what. Naturally all of this is "debunked" by (((the usual sources))).
Here's one fact that the "debunkers" deliberately ignore: the feds pay for all the
treatment of uninsured C19 patients... including illegals . Normally if an illegal comes to
the ED and needs to be admitted, the hospital can't refuse to do that and instead has to eat
the cost (well, they pass the cost on to hardworking, insurance having people like you and
me, but bear with me).
If they admit the person for a reason *other* than C19, then the hospital still eats the
cost. Now, tell me, what's the incentive here if an illegal comes in with a bunch of
comorbidities and needs admission to manage those? What should be recorded as the admitting
diagnosis/problem if they can get swabbed for a high Ct PCR test (a meaningless positive
result)?
lasvegaspersona 7 hours ago
After more than 50 years in medicine, I tell friends and family, 'stay away from us if you
can'. Modern medicine is a rats nest of false positive testing and chasing trivial
abnormalities on imaging studies.
The sad part is patients feel relieved when they are told 'nothing was finally
found'....this after great expense of time and money.
spiff 54 minutes ago
Caught Red-Handed
Yes, define "Caught". I have a feeling life will continue without consequences for the
perpetrator of this fraud, or even your average person knowing about it.
_triplesix_ 14 hours ago
CDC, FBI, CIA, DHS, NIH, EPA, DOE...shall I go on?
Drater 6 hours ago
FAA, TSA, SEC, FCC, NHTSA, DOJ
JakeIsNotFake 13 hours ago
CDC is .gov. As an NGO, (funded by 99% .gov and 1% phony donations), the CDC can legally,
(not honestly), claim they are just an advisory body.
While noteing the distinction, please pay attention to the language: Mask mandate,
guidelines, advisories are NOT laws. Just like travel advisories, protocols, and best
practice. These are all weasel words. And totally unenforceable.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Everything is rigged, this plandemic, elections, markets you name it because when there's
currency to be made you'll always have someone more than willing to do it. Big pharma is
making a killing literally in this case and tax slaves paid for the gene therapy shots
creation. And all the rubes who took the shot will pay much more than just currency for their
naivety.
archipusz 11 hours ago
We can speculate all we want about what the agenda is of the CDC.
But what we know is that it has nothing to do with the truth or our health.
Enraged 1 hour ago remove link
The CDC is not an independent government agency, but is actually a subsidiary of Big
Pharma.
The CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year
in vaccination sales.
There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, HIV,
Anthrax, Rabies, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Group A Strep, Pneumococcal disease,
Meningococcal disease, RSV, Gastroenteritis, Japanese encephalitis, SARS, Rift Valley Fever,
and chlamydophila pneumoniae.
amazing they do not even try to hide the deception.
but reporting on such deception will have one labeled a "conspiracy theorist", and the FBI
classifies "conspiracy theorists" as "domestic terrorists".
That's right, re-stating publicly available comments and policies of government agencies
and officials will have you branded as a domestic terrorist.
And the "intellectuals" in the media, academia, and "think-tanks" have abandoned all logic
and common sense to serve their masters in the government and big pharma.
history will not forget.
smacker 12 hours ago
Very good article which rightly exposes the CDC and all those around it for being utterly
corrupt and are perpetrating a fake pandemic with sinister objectives.
crazzziecanuck 11 hours ago
You realize, it's Putin's fault. Putin can rig a presidential election, it's child's play
for him to manipulate the CDC to do his evil bidding.
Everything is Putin's fault: Trump, COVID, 737 Max crashes, slavery, crucifixion of
Christ, the end of the dinosaurs, and so on.
archipusz 13 hours ago
Notice how Rand Paul will argue with Fauci about policy over when we should wear a mask,
BUT WILL NOT DARE ASK THEM WHY THEY HAVE, AND ARE, COMMITTING CRIMINAL FRAUD WITH THE PCR
TESTING?
Demystified 2 hours ago
It's a rigged game, a scam. These people are so dishonest, and intent on falsifying Covid
test results by applying different standards for vaccinated and unvaccinated people? They are
perpetuating a fraud on the people.
You have to be brain dead to not see what they are doing.
Robert De Zero 3 hours ago remove link
This is so evil. Medicalized dictatorship, supported by propaganda media, is here.
Alien 851 4 hours ago
This is NEWS??? Are you kidding?
It was March 2020 when they changed the rules on reporting of Covid deaths to run the
count as high as possible. It is still used in fear headlines today! How about wildly
fluctuation "new cases" that seem to totally respect state borders...?
For God's sake, wake the hell up!!!!
In March, the CDC redefined what is to be reported by Medical Examiners in the US. One
of them gave examples of Covid Death cases reporting criteria:
"The case definition is very simplistic," Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois
Department of Public Health, explains. "It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID
positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a
few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a
COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had
COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death."
Sweden presently offers 3 different COVID-19 jabs: Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, with the
latter being the most widely available (while other European states like Germany have sought to
offer substitutes to younger patients, who are more vulnerable to dangerous cerebral blood
clots, which are a rare - but not unheard of - side effect).
The number of suspected adverse reactions from the two shots seems relatively small when
compared to the 19,961 reports linked to AstraZeneca's Vaxzevria, while the AstraZeneca shot
only accounts for about 26% of the roughly 2.7MM vaccines that have been administered so far in
Sweden, but makes up around 63% of the side effects reports.
Ebba Hallberg, an official with the Medical Products Agency, told Swedish media that it was
unusual to receive so many reports of side effects. She added that the tally was likely higher
because of public focus on the new vaccines.To head off complaints that many of the incidences
of side effects were minor, she said healthcare providers are likely only reporting the more
"serious" side effects.
One Swedish media outlet said the number of complaints filed in just a few months exceeded
the number typically filed over 4 years, which underscores the public anxieties about the COVID
vaccines.
In March, Sweden was one of several nations to temporarily suspend the use of the
AstraZeneca jab, following reports of abnormal blood clotting in recipients. AstraZeneca, as
well as the European Medicines Agency, have insisted that the vaccine is safe after it came
under scrutiny.
4 hours ago remove link
I honestly don't understand how anyone could inject this toxic shot into someone's arm, see
with their own eyes someone having a severe adverse reaction, and then continue to get back to
work injecting more people. What the hell is wrong with these people? play_arrow 51 play_arrow
2
Friedrich not Salma 4 hours ago
It's the teevee. I asked a 75 year old man today "Do you think the nightly news would ever
lie to you?" His answer: "No, I would certainly hope not, or at least not intentionally."
I walked him through how the news is full of Pharma ads and how there was no chance Pharma
would put up with a pharma investigative segment. He at least gave it some thought. His son
wouldn't budge on the idea that the teevee would ever lie.
Billy the Poet 4 hours ago
Ask them to show you the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then point out that both the TV and
the government lie.
zvzzt 2 hours ago
Even worse (IMHO), if they make a mistake, they'll turn and twist in every way to avoid
any blame, making things worse along the way. Promote the 'fvcker-ups" so they don't rock any
boats.
Zero skin in the game, zero accountability ("you can always vote them away if you dont
like them", right.... ) and thus zero credibility.
And than the endless comment "It's all part of the political game/theatre"... Destroying
lives, destroying value, killing people accross the globe and depressing people for no other
reason than a "game"? Lowest form of life. MSM is just a willing toothless prostitute.
Pie rre 56 minutes ago (Edited)
I used to search the Web for anecdotal experiences with meds my doctor advises me to take.
I Used to be successful but not any longer so I imagine the pharm industry now has bots that
search for and bury them.
PrivetHedge 3 hours ago
Nuremberg Code: Informed Consent.
Deliberate misinformation and witholding of valid information = people doom
themselves.
There are laws, as you know. Many laws and safeguards.
But we are way beyond laws and democracy now, this is a sustained onslaught: a slaughter
of the naive and careless. Leaving a core population who know exactly what they did: and who
did it. This is probably the biggest flaw in their plan. Plenty of powerful people who don't
want this plan.
As more and more see it, we could see some pushback. Already Gates is becoming a liability
for Technocracy, some in the Trilateral Commision will want him gone. Same with Fauci, the
poison dwarf's credibility is shot and they need a new puppet.
theWHTMANN 4 hours ago
I heard today that the number of vax deaths in the US is 4,191 - more than the combined
vax deaths for all vaccinations in 20 years. In 1976, 25 people died of swine flu vax and
they stopped it in its tracks. Hmmm.
aspnaz again 4 hours ago
FDA worked for the people in the 70s, it now rubber stamps for corporations trying to rip
you off for evermore useless and more dangerous drugs.
Billy the Poet 3 hours ago
From the 5/7/2021 release of VAERS data:
Found 4,057 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died
Apparently side-effect reports make it to VAERS only if the adverse reaction or death
occurs within 1-2 days of the administration of the vaccine. So if someone's skin falls off
on day 3, too bad, not counted .
PrivetHedge 3 hours ago remove link
Yes, CDC is hiding the numbers, most deaths we see are from January.
Now they are coming for our CHILDREN .
(CNN) A Colorado mass vaccination site paused operations this week after 11
people experienced adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine
. More than 1,700 people received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Wednesday at Dick's
Sporting Goods Park, a soccer stadium where the state of Colorado and health care provider
Centura Health operate a mass
vaccination site . The 11 people reported feeling nauseous and dizzy after they were
vaccinated, Colorado health officials said. Two of the patients were transported to a hospital
"out of an abundance of caution," while the other nine were given juice and water to recover,
according to a statement from the Colorado State Joint Information Center. Don't freak out
if you get these side effects from a Covid-19 vaccine. They can actually be a good sign
Officials didn't elaborate on the two hospital patients' conditions. "The state has no reason
to believe that people who were vaccinated today at Dick's Sporting Goods Park should be
concerned," state health officials said. The site closed early on Wednesday afternoon, before
another 640 people were scheduled to receive their vaccine. Their appointments have been
rescheduled to Sunday, Centura Health said. Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Five
Things Newsletter. "close Email Capture Inline
Zone" Do you want the news summarized each morning? We've got you.
Sign Me Up
By subscribing you agree to our
privacy policy. Despite the hospital transport, the side effects the 11 patients reported
were "consistent with what can be expected" from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Covid-19
Incident Commander Scott Bookman said in a statement. "We know it can be alarming to hear about
people getting transported to the hospital, and we want to assure Coloradoans that the CDC and
public health are closely monitoring all the authorized vaccines continually," Bookman said.
"Based on everything we know, it remains true that the best vaccine to get is the one you can
get the soonest." Severe side effects from Covid-19 vaccines are rare It's relatively
common to experience side effects from any of the three vaccines available in the US -- about
10% to 15% of volunteers in vaccine trials developed "quite noticeable side effects," former
Operation Warp Speed Chief Scientific Adviser Moncef Slaoui said late last year. The most
common side effects are arm soreness, fatigue, body aches and, in some cases, a low-grade
fever. Nausea, like the 11 patients in Colorado experienced, headaches and swelling at the
injection site may occur, too, according to the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Severe side effects, like an allergic reaction, are far less
common, occurring around every two to five per million people, Baylor College of Medicine dean
Dr. Peter Hotez told CNN earlier
this month . Johnson & Johnson vaccine is effective Health officials continue to
combat the stigma that Johnson & Johnson is a lesser vaccine than the Moderna and Pfizer
two-shot offerings, which a
recent CDC study found are 90% effective at preventing Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson's
vaccine was
found to be 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe illness. It's difficult to draw
comparisons between Johnson & Johnson and the two-shot alternatives, though, because the
Johnson & Johnson vaccine was studied after highly contagious variants of coronavirus were
discovered, said
Dr. Leana Wen , a CNN medical analyst. The vaccine was found to be effective in preventing
severe disease in South Africa, where a contagious variant became dominant, and no patients who
received the vaccine were hospitalized or died. "Having a vaccine that is clearly effective
against this type of mutation is a distinct advantage," she told CNN in March.
CNN's Holly Yan and Katia Hetter contributed to this report.
In Germany, one researcher thinks he has found what is triggering the clots. Andreas Greinacher, a blood expert, and his team at the
University of Greifswald believe so-called viral vector vaccines -- which use modified harmless cold viruses, known as adenoviruses, to
convey genetic material into vaccine recipients to fight the coronavirus -- could cause an autoimmune response that leads to blood
clots. According to Prof. Greinacher, that reaction could be tied to stray proteins and a preservative he has found in the
AstraZeneca vaccine.
Prof. Greinacher and his team has just begun examining Johnson & Johnson's vaccine but has identified more than 1,000 proteins in
AstraZeneca's vaccine derived from human cells, as well as a preservative known as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA. Their
hypothesis is that EDTA, which is common to drugs and other products, helps those proteins stray into the bloodstream, where they
bind to a blood component called platelet factor 4, or PF4, forming complexes that activate the production of antibodies.
The inflammation caused by the vaccines, combined with the PF4 complexes, could trick the immune system into believing the body had
been infected by bacteria, triggering an archaic defense mechanism that then runs out of control and causes clotting and bleeding.
Prof. Andreas Greinacher is looking at the possible cause of an autoimmune response that leads to blood clots.
PHOTO:
MANUELA JANKE/UMG
Prof. Greinacher has compared the activation of the dormant response -- which has been supplanted in the evolution of the human immune
system, but still lurks in its foundations -- to "awakening a sleeping dragon."
Prof. John Kelton of McMaster University in Canada, whose outfit runs Canada's reference lab for testing patients with
blood-clotting symptoms after vaccination, said the lab replicated some of Prof. Greinacher's research and confirmed his findings.
... ... ...
One reason vaccine-induced clotting might not have been reported in the past is because shots using viral vector technology haven't
been administered at scale. The Russian vaccine Sputnik V and the shot by CanSino Biologics from China use the same technology as
AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, but haven't been linked to the condition so far.
The only similar shot widely administered before the pandemic is one against Ebola by Johnson & Johnson, which was given to at least
60,000 people as of last July.
Clotting occurs between one in 28,000 and one in 100,000, according to European data -- extremely rare amid the hundreds of millions of
doses administered so far, yet higher than one in 150,000 previously assumed by some medical authorities, Prof. Greinacher said.
Most of the hundreds of people who have been diagnosed recover, but between a fifth and a third have died, and others could suffer
permanent consequences.
Data from U.S. and European regulators so far suggest young women are primarily affected by the condition. But several
scientists, including Sabine Eichinger, a senior Austrian hematologist who treated one of the first-known patients, have said the
correlation could reflect that medical workers and teachers were among the first to get the vaccines in Europe, and the majority of
them are younger women
.
Anton Pottegård, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Southern Denmark, co-wrote a study of more than 280,000
people in Denmark and Norway who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The study, which was published in the British Medical Journal on
May 5, found the incidence of rare but severe blood clots among vaccine recipients was 2.5 in 100,000.
For such a large country it is reasonable to expect the new mutations will emerge or already
emerged: " India is sequencing far less than 1% of daily positive samples. An early goal was to
aim for 5% of cases, but that became unrealistic once cases ballooned. The world leader, the
U.K., has been
sequencing up to 10% of samples at points in the pandemic."
... the B.1.617 variant is outpacing other variants, including the variant first identified
in the U.K.
... B.1.617 is the fourth to be classified by the WHO as a variant of concern. The U.N.
agency has also given the same designation to the B.1.1.7 variant, the B.1.35 variant found in
South Africa and the P.1 variant discovered by researchers in Brazil.
Recent research on the B.1.617 variant -- not yet peer-reviewed and published -- has shown
that it broke through to infect fully vaccinated staff at a hospital in New Delhi, though none
of them got seriously ill. A separate paper, also available before publication, found that the
variant showed evasion against a drug cocktail often used on Covid-19 patients and that it had
better entry into some cell lines, mainly in the lungs and gut. The paper also found the
variant "evaded antibodies induced by infection or vaccination, although with moderate
efficiency."
"... Why is healthy 24-year-old Jennifer Gates jumping the line to get the vaccination when older at-risk Americans can't get an appointment? You may not have inherited your father's genius as you claim, but you certainly have his sense of entitlement. ..."
Why is healthy 24-year-old Jennifer Gates jumping the line to get the vaccination when older at-risk Americans can't
get an appointment? You may not have inherited your father's genius as you claim, but you certainly have his sense of
entitlement.
Why do so many people who are fully
vaccinated care whether I have been vaccinated or not? They seem to think that vaccines only "work" if everyone is vaccinated.
I am getting vax shamed by my family
for not getting the vaccine yet, especially from my brother who is a surgeon. What's wrong with waiting until there is more data
if you're young and healthy with no underlying conditions?
(nytimes.com) 64
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday April 11, 2021 @03:34PM from the big-thank-you dept. Long-time
Slashdot reader destinyland writes: The New York Times tells
the story of Hungarian-born Dr. Kariko, whose father was a butcher and who growing up had never
met a scientist â€" but knew they wanted to be
one . Despite earning a Ph.D. at Hungary's University of Szeged and working as a
postdoctoral fellow at its Biological Research Center, Kariko never found a permanent position
after moving to the U.S., "instead clinging to the fringes of academia."
Now 66 years old,
Dr. Kariko is suddenly being hailed as "one of the heroes of Covid-19 vaccine development,"
after spending an entire career focused on mRNA, "convinced mRNA could be used to instruct
cells to make their own medicines, including vaccines."
From the article: For many years her career at the University of Pennsylvania was fragile.
She migrated from lab to lab, relying on one senior scientist after another to take her in. She
never made more than $60,000 a year... She needed grants to pursue ideas that seemed wild and
fanciful. She did not get them, even as more mundane research was rewarded. "When your idea is
against the conventional wisdom that makes sense to the star chamber, it is very hard to break
out," said Dr. David Langer, a neurosurgeon who has worked with Dr. Kariko... Kariko's husband,
Bela Francia, manager of an apartment complex, once calculated that her endless workdays meant
she was earning about a dollar an hour.
The Times also describes a formative experience in 1989 with cardiologist Elliot Barnathan:
One fateful day, the two scientists hovered over a dot-matrix printer in a narrow room at
the end of a long hall. A gamma counter, needed to track the radioactive molecule, was attached
to a printer. It began to spew data.
Their detector had found new proteins produced by cells that were never supposed to make
them â€" suggesting that mRNA could be used to direct any cell to make any protein,
at will.
"I felt like a god," Dr. Kariko recalled.
Yet Kariko was eventually left without a lab or funds for research, until a chance meeting at a
photocopying machine led to a partnership with Dr. Drew Weissman of the University of
Pennsylvania: "We both started writing grants," Dr. Weissman said. "We didn't get most of
them. People were not interested in mRNA. The people who reviewed the grants said mRNA will not
be a good therapeutic, so don't bother.'" Leading scientific journals rejected their work. When
the research finally was published , in
Immunity , it got little attention... "We talked to pharmaceutical companies and venture
capitalists. No one cared," Dr. Weissman said. "We were screaming a lot, but no one would
listen."
Eventually, though, two biotech companies took notice of the work: Moderna, in the United
States, and BioNTech, in Germany. Pfizer partnered with BioNTech, and the two now help fund Dr.
Weissman's lab.
The question is why the vaccine needed for teen, not if they are protected or not. If not natural immunity better then
immunity from Pfizer vaccine and teenagers not in danger of getting virus pneumonia in any case -- the main rational for the
development of Pfizer vaccine.
(arstechnica.com) 91
Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday March
31, 2021 @06:40PM from the vaccinated-adolescents dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report
from Ars Technica:
The company also said that the vaccine was well-tolerated in the
age group, spurring only the standard side effects seen in people ages 16 to 25. The vaccine is
already authorized for use in people age 16 and over.
The vaccine appeared more effective at spurring defensive immune responses in adolescents
ages 12 to 15 than in the 16- to 25-year-old group, producing even higher levels of antibodies
that were able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2. In a measure of neutralizing antibodies, vaccinated
youths in the new trial had geometric mean titers (GMTs) of 1,239.5, compared with the GMTs of
705.1 previously seen in those ages 16 to 25, Pfizer noted.
The trial involved 2,260
adolescents ages 12 to 15, of which 1,131 were vaccinated and 1,129 received a placebo.
There
were 18 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the trial, all of which were in the placebo group.
In
today's press release, the company trumpeted that the vaccine demonstrated "100 percent
efficacy." The trial was not primarily designed to assess efficacy, however. It was primarily
assessing relative immune responses, so it will require more data to fully evaluate efficacy.
Additionally, Pfizer and BioNTech have only released top-line trial results, not the full data
from the trial, which has not been peer-reviewed.
(www.cbc.caThe scientist who won the race to deliver
the first widely used coronavirus vaccine says people can rest assured the shots are safe, and
that the technology behind it will soon be used to
fight another global scourge -- cancer . Ozlem Tureci, who founded the German company
BioNTech with her husband, Ugur Sahin, was working on a way to harness the body's immune system
to tackle tumors when they learned last year of an unknown virus infecting people in China.
Over breakfast, the couple decided to apply the technology they'd been researching for two
decades to the new threat.
Britain authorized BioNTech's mRNA vaccine for use in December, followed a week later by
Canada. Dozens of other countries, including the U.S., have followed suit and tens of millions
of people worldwide have since received the shot developed together with U.S. pharmaceutical
giant Pfizer. [...] As BioNTech's profile has grown during the pandemic, so has its value,
adding much-needed funds the company will be able to use to pursue its original goal of
developing a new tool against cancer. The vaccine made by BioNTech-Pfizer and U.S. rival
Moderna uses messenger RNA, or mRNA, to carry instructions into the human body for making
proteins that prime it to attack a specific virus. The same principle can be applied to get the
immune system to take on tumors.
"We have several different cancer vaccines based on mRNA," said Tureci. Asked when such a
therapy might be available, Tureci said "that's very difficult to predict in innovative
development. But we expect that within only a couple of years, we will also have our vaccines
[against] cancer at a place where we can offer them to people." For now, Tureci and Sahin are
trying to ensure the vaccines governments have ordered are delivered and that the shots respond
effectively to any new mutation in the virus.
The variant, called B.1.1.7, has also been
reported in at least 94 countries and detected in 50 jurisdictions in the U.S., Fauci said
during a White House news briefing on the pandemic, adding that the numbers are likely growing.
The U.K. first identified the B.1.1.7 strain, which appears to spread more easily and quickly
than other variants, last fall. It has since spread across the world, including the U.S., Fauci
said. U.S. researchers have identified 5,567 cases through genetic sequencing as of Thursday,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. health officials say the
variant could become the dominant strain in the U.S. by the end of this month or in early
April. New variants are especially a concern for public health officials as they could become
more resistant to antibody treatments and vaccines. Top health officials, including Fauci, have
urged Americans to get vaccinated as quickly as possible, saying the virus can't mutate if it
can't infect hosts and replicate.
The executive
order reads, in part: "No Florida government entity, or its subdivisions, agents, or assigns,
shall be permitted to issue vaccine passports, vaccine passes, or other standardized
documentation for the purpose of certifying an individual's COVID-19 vaccination status to a
third party, or otherwise publish or share any individual's COVID-19 vaccination record or
similar health information."
(nytimes.com)
505
Posted by msmash on Monday May 03, 2021 @12:07PM from the closer-look dept. Widely circulating
coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach.
The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore
normalcy. From a report :
Early in the pandemic, when vaccines for the coronavirus were still just a glimmer on
the horizon, the term "herd immunity" came to signify the endgame: the point when enough
Americans would be protected from the virus so we could be rid of the pathogen and reclaim
our lives. Now, more than half of adults in the United States have been inoculated with at
least one dose of a vaccine. But daily vaccination rates are slipping, and there is
widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity
threshold is not attainable -- at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever.
Instead, they are coming to the conclusion that rather than making a long-promised exit, the
virus will most likely become a manageable threat that will continue to circulate in the
United States for years to come, still causing hospitalizations and deaths but in much
smaller numbers.
How much smaller is uncertain and depends in part on how much of the nation, and the
world, becomes vaccinated and how the coronavirus evolves. It is already clear, however, that
the virus is changing too quickly, new variants are spreading too easily and vaccination is
proceeding too slowly for herd immunity to be within reach anytime soon. Continued
immunizations, especially for people at highest risk because of age, exposure or health
status, will be crucial to limiting the severity of outbreaks, if not their frequency,
experts believe. "The virus is unlikely to go away," said Rustom Antia, an evolutionary
biologist at Emory University in Atlanta.
"But we want to do all we can to check that it's likely to become a mild infection."
The shift in outlook presents a new challenge for public health authorities. The drive for
herd immunity -- by the summer, some experts once thought possible -- captured the
imagination of large segments of the public. To say the goal will not be attained adds
another "why bother" to the list of reasons that vaccine skeptics use to avoid being
inoculated.
Yet vaccinations remain the key to transforming the virus into a controllable threat,
experts said. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Biden administration's top adviser on Covid-19,
acknowledged the shift in experts' thinking. "People were getting confused and thinking
you're never going to get the infections down until you reach this mystical level of herd
immunity, whatever that number is," he said.
There is no or very little (depending of type of vaccine) immunity from South African mutation in the USA for people who
already were vaccinated.
From comments: "Herd Immunity or Heard on the Street immunity? COVID was way over-played in order to get Biden in the WH. Now
the shoes on the other foot and the Herd Concept is eroding pretty darn fast"... "Here in the US, it's undeniable that the quantity
of covid cases were intentionally over counted -- likely for political reasons."
"If the re-infection rate is near zero and those who are the most vulnerable are 95% inoculated why should the remaining
unvaccinated (mostly youth) be needed to reach herd immunity? Their reaction to COVID-19 is either undetectable or no worse than a
mild cold. Some people, journalists, just do not want to think and/or act logically."
Notable quotes:
"... For example, there is no herd immunity from South African mutation in the USA for those who were immunized with the Moderna vaccine and Johnson and Johnson vaccine ..."
"... And more mutations will follow this and the next year. So the concept of "herd immunity" when applied to coronaviruses looks to me fuzzy; in this sense this is the goal that the nation probably can't achieve. Remember the "flattering of the curve" fiasco in NYC. Quarantine measures were completely decimated by Floyd-gate riots and authorities were forced to swallow the bitter pill. Measures they advocated proved to be useless and economically damaging. ..."
"... Coronaviruses like C19 are a moving target. Moreover, there are large swats of the US population that have weakened immune system (including some seniors) who that does not respond to vaccination, creating no protection. In large cities like NYC they will serve as the reservoir of virus mutations vaccination, or no vaccination. ..."
"... We have Fauci making unfounded statements that confuse everyone and now economists are going to tell us when herd immunity will become operative. Can't do any worse than the 'media docs'. ..."
Some view herd immunity -- the point at which a critical mass of a population become immune to a disease-causing virus or bacteria -- as a
key factor in determining when Covid-19 will be conquered and economies will return to normal. Until herd immunity is reached, some
say, governments will restrict activities to prevent the disease's spread, resulting in fewer goods and services being produced and
consumed.
Other economists say businesses can reopen and economic activity can rebound without full herd immunity, and likely will.
Part of the challenge for economists is that it is hard to know exactly when a given place will achieve herd immunity, if ever.
For
Covid-19
, epidemiologists generally believe it will require having at least 60% to 80% of a population develop antibodies,
curbing the virus's ability to spread.
... ... ...
Economists at
Goldman
Sachs Group
Inc.
have
tried to incorporate immunity estimates into their forecasts by looking at daily vaccination progress around the world and take
account of estimates of how many people have already been infected.
According to their calculations, 60% of the population in the U.S. and U.K. are already immune to Covid-19; the biggest economies
of Europe will get there by August.
Serg Bezrukov
I agree with Umesh Patil.
For example, there is no herd immunity from South African mutation in the USA for those who were immunized with the Moderna
vaccine and Johnson and Johnson vaccine
.
And more mutations will follow this and the next year. So the concept of "herd immunity" when applied to coronaviruses looks
to me fuzzy; in this sense this is the goal that the nation probably can't achieve. Remember the "flattering of the curve"
fiasco in NYC. Quarantine measures were completely decimated by Floyd-gate riots and authorities were forced to swallow the
bitter pill. Measures they advocated proved to be useless and economically damaging.
Coronaviruses like C19 are a moving target. Moreover, there are large swats of the US population that have
weakened
immune system
(including
some seniors) who that does not respond to vaccination, creating no protection. In large cities like NYC they will serve as the
reservoir of virus mutations vaccination, or no vaccination.
Rick Schaler
SUBSCRIBER
3 hours ago
We have Fauci making unfounded statements that confuse everyone and now economists are going to tell us when herd
immunity will become operative. Can't do any worse than the 'media docs'.
In April, the CDC reported that an
unvaccinated health-care worker set off an outbreak in a mostly vaccinated Kentucky nursing
home.
Several vaccinated seniors got sick and one vaccinated resident died.
*
To be absolutely clear: The vaccines worked to protect most residents. But no vaccine is
perfect, and the
COVID-19 vaccines won't stop all infections , especially for some people with weak immune
systems.
Governments and companies may find that soft bribery is the best way to get the no-vaxxers
to the clinics. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, for example,
has linked her state reopening policies to progress in shots, letting restaurants and bars
increase their occupancy once 60 percent of the state has been vaccinated, and promising to
lift mask orders when 70 percent of Michiganders have received both doses.
... the cultural backlash against domestic restrictions could be prodigious. If blue-state
governors and sports stadiums deny economic activities to the unvaccinated while red-state
stadiums allow anybody to sit at a bar or in the bleachers, it will deepen the culture-war
tensions between scolding liberals and accommodating conservatives in a way that might not be
good for Democrats politically, even if they have the upper hand in the public-health
argument.
This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is
closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of
both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous
Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to
Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.
Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New
World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his
own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the
philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is
more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less
wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with
sadism and fear.
The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley.
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?
Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements
that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of
them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the
Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred
to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there
was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty
years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental.
These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There
are potential
disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are
nothing new .
Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive
drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless
adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will
suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots,
seizures, heart failure.
As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets,
the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make
it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning
to campus.
The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed
virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If
they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask
requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides
exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!
Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now
the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer
expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about
money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to
convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and
as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and
inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented
with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his
like-minded tyrants drunk on power.
Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID,
of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be
vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than
they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids
from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting
" on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children,
and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.
Huxley also wrote this:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they
will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be
able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height
of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."
Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those
of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to
do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the
righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.
As C.J. Hopkins has
written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are
soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of
discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley
also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other
sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what
Critical Race Theory is all about.
Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the
software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called
the vaccines " an operating
system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't
hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to
what they have in mind.
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love
their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of
painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.
This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised
population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people
around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3
billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.
In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it
is so profound:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never
changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173
Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)
If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will
immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's
of millions will be right there with me.
strych10 14 hours ago
Welcome to the club.
We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.
Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago
I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.
Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)
I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically
for the worse...
sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago
You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?
bothneither 2 hours ago
Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma.
Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.
Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)
Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal
gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism
demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this
poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to
unite, much less resist.
Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k
reported so far this year.
Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?
Nelbev 10 hours ago
Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention
mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III
trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get
covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally,
I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested
experimental vaccine.
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out
now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave
New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what
these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths
actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their
script.
Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago
If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.
They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly
likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo
triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten
up , Aldous.
Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in
The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent
bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.
"... Not a single resource on the Pfizer Executive team or Board of Directors has been injected with the Pfizer (experimental poison yet) vaccine yet. - C Weissman. Excuses allegedly provided offering the less fortunate an opportunity to go first. Don't laugh. True story. Some real humanitarians. ..."
Not a single resource on the Pfizer Executive team or Board of Directors has been injected
with the Pfizer (experimental poison yet) vaccine yet. - C Weissman. Excuses allegedly provided offering the less fortunate an opportunity to go first. Don't
laugh. True story. Some real humanitarians.
single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine protects against two of the most concerning
coronavirus variants, but perhaps only in people who have
overcome the infection naturally, research suggests.
An effective immunisation programme has long been hailed as a route out of the pandemic, however, the emergence of new variants
in Kent, South Africa and India has left many concerned the virus may no longer respond to the UK's three approved jabs.
Results suggest the workers who had overcome a mild or asymptomatic infection with the original coronavirus variant experienced
"significantly enhanced protection" against the so-called Kent and South Africa variants post-jab.
The workers who had not fought off the coronavirus had a weaker immune response after the vaccine, potentially leaving them at
risk of the variants.
A person's immune system may be "primed" after overcoming the coronavirus naturally, raising the potency of its response following
the first vaccine dose.
The results may highlight the importance of getting the second jab when called up, with the first dose similarly priming the immune
system.
The coronavirus can acquire new mutations as it replicates, some of which may enable variants to spread more easily, evade vaccines
or cause more severe disease. (Stock, Getty Images)
"Our findings show people who have had their first dose of vaccine, and who have not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2
[the coronavirus], are not fully protected against the circulating variants of concern," said lead author Professor Rosemary Boyton.
TEL AVIV: The Pfizer vaccine is effective against the Indian variant of Covid-19, albeit at
a reduced efficacy level, Israeli authorities have said, say reports.
Israel, which has been touted as one of the world’s vaccination success
stories due to its sweeping inoculation campaign against Covid-19, has identified eight cases
of the so-called “Indian†variant of the novel coronavirus, just
days after the country ended its outdoors mask mandate
... ... ...
The Indian variant has been identified in both the UK and in Ireland.
“The impression is that the Pfizer vaccine has efficacy against it,
albeit a reduced efficacy,†the Israel’s health ministry
director-general, Hezi Levy, told Kan public radio, saying the number of cases of the variant
in Israel now stood at eight.
Israel has already vaccinated 81 per cent of its 9.3 million population, all residents above
the age of 16.
Double mutant variant
Indian authorities had in January detected a “double mutantâ€
variant of the virus, with changes to the SARS-nCov-2 virus spike protein similar to those in
both UK and South Africa at once.
While the UK variant was known to be more infectious, the South African variant was believed
to be deadlier â€" and triggered reduced efficacy rates in existing vaccines.
AstraZeneca had announced plans to develop a modification to its vaccine to better tackle
the threat of new variants, aiming to prepare this by the end of the year.
Pfizer, meanwhile, has said those who had already taken its vaccine may require a third dose
within 6-12 months, as their immunity to the virus starts to wane.
(Reuters) - A laboratory study suggests that the South African variant of the coronavirus
may reduce protective antibodies elicited by the Pfizer Inc/BioNTech SE vaccine by two-thirds,
and it is not clear if the shot will be effective against the mutation, the companies said on
Wednesday.
The study found the vaccine was still able to neutralize the virus and there is not yet
evidence from trials in people that the variant reduces vaccine protection, the companies
said.
Still, they are making investments and talking to regulators about developing an updated
version of their mRNA vaccine or a booster shot, if needed.
For the study, scientists from the companies and the University of Texas Medical Branch
(UTMB) developed an engineered virus that contained the same mutations carried on the spike
portion of the highly contagious coronavirus variant first discovered in South Africa, known as
B.1.351. The spike, used by the virus to enter human cells, is the primary target of many
COVID-19 vaccines.
Researchers tested the engineered virus against blood taken from people who had been given
the vaccine, and found a two- thirds reduction in the level of neutralizing antibodies compared
with its effect on the most common version of the virus prevalent in U.S. trials.
Their findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Because there is no established benchmark yet to determine what level of antibodies are
needed to protect against the virus, it is unclear whether that two-thirds reduction will
render the vaccine ineffective against the variant spreading around the world.
However, UTMB professor and study co-author Pei-Yong Shi said he believes the Pfizer vaccine
will likely be protective against the variant.
“We don’t know what the minimum neutralizing number
is. We don’t have that cutoff line,†he said, adding that he
suspects the immune response observed is likely to be significantly above where it needs to be
to provide protection.
That is because in clinical trials, both the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar shot from
Moderna Inc conferred some protection after a single dose with an antibody response lower than
the reduced levels caused by the South African variant in the laboratory study.
Even if the concerning variant significantly reduces effectiveness, the vaccine should still
help protect against severe disease and death, he noted. Health experts have said that is the
most important factor in keeping stretched healthcare systems from becoming overwhelmed.
More work is needed to understand whether the vaccine works against the South African
variant, Shi said, including clinical trials and the development of correlates of protection -
the benchmarks to determine what antibody levels are protective.
Pfizer and BioNTech said they were doing similar lab work to understand whether their
vaccine is effective against another variant first found in Brazil.
Moderna published a correspondence in NEJM on Wednesday with similar data previously
disclosed elsewhere that showed a sixfold drop antibody levels versus the South African
variant.
Moderna also said the actual efficacy of its vaccine against the South African variant is
yet to be determined. The company has previously said it believes the vaccine will work against
the variant.
The Pfizer vaccine was able to neutralize a coronavirus variant first identified in Brazil
in a new lab study, a positive sign for the vaccine's effectiveness.
...
The study also found strong neutralization of the B.1.1.7 variant, first identified in the
U.K., though that was already expected.
... The study authors cautioned that their results are based on a study in a lab and must
ultimately be validated by real-world evidence.
The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can “break
through†Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a
study in Israel found.
The South African coronavirus variant managed to penetrate the protection offered by two
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to some degree, though it remains unclear just how much
efficacy is lost, it said.
... ... ...
The research, released on Saturday, compared nearly 400 people who tested positive for
COVID-19 two weeks or more after they received one or two doses of the vaccine, against the
same number of unvaccinated patients with the disease.
It matched age and gender, among other characteristics.
The South African variant, B.1.351, was found to make up about 1 percent of all the
COVID-19 cases across all the people studied, according to the study by Tel Aviv University and
Israel’s largest healthcare provider, Clalit. But among patients who had
received two doses of the vaccine, the variant’s prevalence rate was eight
times higher than those unvaccinated â€" 5.4 percent versus 0.7 percent.
This suggests the vaccine is less effective against the South African variant, compared with
the original coronavirus and a variant first identified in Britain that has come to comprise
nearly all COVID-19 cases in Israel, the researchers said.
“ We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African
variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared with the unvaccinated group. This
means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the
vaccine’s protection,†said Tel Aviv
University’s Adi Stern who led the study.
However, the researchers cautioned that the study only had a small sample size of people
infected with the South African variant because of its rarity in Israel.
They also said the research was not intended to deduce overall vaccine effectiveness against
any variant, since it only looked at people who had already tested positive for COVID-19, not
at overall infection rates.
Pfizer and BioNTech could not be immediately reached for comment outside business hours.
... ... ...
Almost 53 percent of Israel’s 9.3 million population has received both
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Israel has largely reopened its economy in recent weeks as the pandemic appeared to recede,
with infection rates, severe illness and hospitalisations dropping sharply.
About one-third of Israelis are below the age of 16, which means they are still not eligible
for the shot.
March 9, 2021 -- The Pfizer/ and Moderna vaccines
don’t work as well against the coronavirus variant first discovered in South
Africa as they do against the dominant virus strain first seen in United Kingdom, a new study
says.
In the study, 10 blood samples were taken from people who received the Pfizer vaccine, 28
days after the second dose, and 12 samples from those who received the Moderna vaccine , 43 days after the
second dose, Business Insider reported, citing a study published in Nature .
The goal was to find out how well the blood sample antibodies
“neutralized†the original coronavirus, the variant from South
Africa (called B.1.351), and the variant found in the U.K. (B.1.1.7).
The key finding: The percentage of positive antibodies that neutralized the South African
variant was 12.4 fold lower for the Moderna vaccine than against the original coronavirus and
10.3 fold lower for the Pfizer vaccine
, the study says.
The researchers found that the two vaccines still appear to work well against the variant
first found in the U.K.
“Overall, the neutralizing activity against B.1.1.7 was essentially
unchanged, but significantly lower against B.1.351,†the study said.
Both Pfizer and Moderna have previously said their vaccines work better against the U.K.
variant than the South African variant.
The new lab study differed from previous studies because it used real forms of the variant
taken from people who’d been infected with the virus. Earlier studies used
manufactured forms of the South African variant and showed a higher level of effectiveness for
the vaccines.
The variant first detected last fall in South Africa has now been reported in several
countries. The CDC says that in the United States, 81 cases have been found in 20 states.
More than 3,000 cases of the UK variant have been found in the U.S., with every state except
Vermont, South Dakota, and Oklahoma reporting cases as of March 8, the CDC says. Health experts
say it may soon become the dominant coronavirus strain in the country.
Researchers acknowledged the sample size was small and it’s not fully
known how the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will work in real life against the South African
variant. Both companies have said they’re developing booster shots targeted
for the South African variant.
"I Just Wanted A Little More Time" - Texas Nurse Was Fired For Refusing COVID Vaccine
BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY, MAY 02, 2021 - 02:55 PM
Many hospital systems around the country have
been surprised by the number of nurses who have passed on being vaccinated (either because
they had already been infected, or simply because they didn't want the vaccine). But as federal
public health officials crank up the pressure on Americans to submit to the vaccine as unused
jabs pile up, one nurse in Texas complained to local journalists that she was fired simply
because she refused the jab.
Nurse Michelle Fuentes told Dallas-Fort
Worth CBS affiliate KRIV-TV that she had been terminated after working for 10 years at
Houston Methodist Hospital, allegedly because she refused to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.
"I knew that the date was looming over my head of me to get the vaccine and we were
constantly being pressured and pressured," Michelle Fuentes said.
According to their report, at the start of April, Houston Methodist announced it would
require all employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine by June 7. However, the hospital system asked
employees who refused to get the vaccine to submit documentation for consideration for a
medical or religious exemption. The paperwork was reportedly due by May 3.
Michelle Fuentes
Fuentes said she told her employer that she needed more time to make a decision to do more
"research" on her own, but instead wound up turning in her two weeks notice.
"I just needed a little bit more time and little bit more research to be
done,†Fuentes said.
A spokesperson for the hospital system said 90% of its employees are vaccinated, and that
only two have resigned so far. Fuentes said when she didn't agree to stay quiet about the
reason for her departure, she was not allowed to complete her final two weeks and was
immediately escorted out of the hospital by security.
Finally, Fuentes told the press that she wants to wait until all clinical trials are
completed before she decides to get the vaccine or not. She stressed she is not against
vaccines and gets the flu vaccine every year. Fuentes even volunteered to work in the COVID
unit. Despite reassurances that vaccines are safe, and that their vast public benefit outweighs
any risks, recent concerns about vaccine side effects have included
incidents of rare but deadly cerebral blood clots , and also an impact on the menstrual
cycle.
Trials of the
Novavax , Janssen/Johnson & Johnson , and AstraZeneca
vaccines in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant of concern represents virtually all of the
circulating SARS-CoV-2, seemed to justify those concerns. The South Africa trials found lower
vaccine efficacy compared with trials in other countries where B.1.351
wasn’t dominant.
The pivotal trials of the
Pfizer-BioNTech and
Moderna vaccines, the first 2 authorized by the FDA, were conducted mainly in the US before
any cases of infection by B.1.351 or other variants of concern had been detected in the
country.
Much of the current data on the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines’ efficacy
against SARS-CoV-2 variants has come from laboratory studies in which researchers exposed serum
samples from immunized individuals to genetically engineered versions of concerning variants
and then measured neutralizing antibody titers. Such studies repeatedly have shown the vaccines
elicit lower levels of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants than against older,
more common isolates.
For example, in a February 17 letter to the editor in The New England Journal
of Medicine , scientists described testing serum samples from individuals immunized with 2
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against recombinant viruses containing some or all of the
spike protein mutations found in the B.1.351 variant. Neutralization of B.1.351 was
approximately two-thirds lower than that of USA-WA1/2020, an early SARS-CoV-2 isolate.
In another letter
published the same day, researchers reported measuring neutralizing antibody activity in serum
samples from participants in the phase 1 trial of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. One week after
the participants received the second dose, neutralizing antibody titers induced by a
recombinant virus bearing the B.1.351 spike protein were 6-fold lower than those induced by a
recombinant virus bearing the original Wuhan-Hu-1 spike protein.
However, that still might be sufficient to protect against COVID-19, or at least severe
COVID-19.
“Fortunately, neutralization titers induced by vaccination are high, and
even with a 6-fold decrease, serum can still effectively neutralize the virus,â€
Fauci and 2 NIAID colleagues wrote in a JAMA ï"¿ editorial posted February 11. And, they noted,
lower vaccine efficacy in the South African clinical trials could be related to geographic or
population differences.
... ... ...
Without immune correlates of protection, only real-world experience can provide answers
about COVID-19 vaccines’ efficacy against illness and death from SARS-CoV-2
variants.
“For right now, you know that a line is crossed if you see people fully
immunized with the vaccines [who], nonetheless, when infected with the variants, are being
hospitalized,†Offit said at a February 4 COVID-19 Vaccine Analysis Team press briefing.
At first glance, findings from a phase 2 trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in South
Africa seemed quite discouraging, spurring that country to
suspend its planned rollout of the vaccine. The trial found that the vaccine did not
protect against mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the B.1.351 variant. The findings , posted February 12, had not
been peer reviewed.
However, “the study was not really designed to determine whether the
vaccine could protect against severe COVID or not,†principal investigator Shabir
Madhi, MBBCH, PhD, a vaccinologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and
cofounder and codirector of the African Leadership Initiative for Vaccinology Expertise, said
in a February 7 briefing about the results. Participants, who
numbered only about 2000, were youngâ€"average age 31 yearsâ€"and
healthy, so their risk of severe disease was low, vaccinated or not, explained Madhi, who also
led Novavax’s vaccine trial in South Africa.
Novavax
and
Janssen conducted larger trials in South Africa than Oxford and AstraZeneca. Although both
of their vaccines had lower efficacy rates in South Africa than in trials in other countries,
vaccinated participants who received the Janssen vaccine were still less likely to require
hospitalization for COVID-19 than those who received placebo shots, and Madhi recently
told Nature he
expected that to be the case with the Novavax vaccine as well.
.. ... ...
Pfizer and BioNTech
announced February 25 that they had begun evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of a
third dose of their vaccine to see whether it would boost immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants. In
addition, the companies said they are discussing with regulatory agencies, including the FDA, a
clinical study to evaluate a modified vaccine based on the B.1.351 variant.
“The companies are hoping to pursue the validation of future modified mRNA
vaccines with a regulatory pathway similar to what is currently in place for flu
vaccines,†according to a press release.
Moderna
announced February 24 that it had shipped a booster vaccine candidate based on B.1.351 to
the NIAID for a phase 1 trial. And Novavax, whose first-generation vaccine
hasn’t been authorized yet in the US, announced January 28 it was working on
developing a booster, a combination bivalent vaccine, or both to protect against variants. The
company said it expected to begin clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021.
Modifying vaccines to target variants isn’t difficult. For example, with
Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines,
“it’s very convenient, because, basically, all you do is
change a computer program and the synthetic for the synthesizing portion of this and you can
change the vaccine,†Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which regulates vaccines, said during a January
29 American Medical Association (AMA)
webinar . “But the question is, what do we need from the FDA perspective
to feel comfortable having that deployed.â€
On February 22, the FDA updated its nonbinding
guidance for vaccine manufacturers to include information about what the agency would like
to see when evaluating vaccines that have been modified to address emerging SARS-CoV-2
variants.
The updated guidance advises manufacturers to conduct studies comparing neutralizing
antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 induced by the modified vaccine with those induced by the
prototype vaccine. One such study should use serum samples from people who
hadn’t been previously vaccinated or infected with SARS-CoV-2, while another
study would use serum samples from people previously vaccinated with a prototype vaccine who
then received an experimental booster against variants of concern.
The Hard Part
Modifying COVID-19 vaccines would probably be the most straightforward step in dealing with
SARS-CoV-2 variants. “For vaccines and biologics, it’s
the manufacturing process that defines the product, and the manufacturing process
isn’t changing,†Baylor explained.
More challenging will be deciding when and how to deploy COVID-19 vaccines 2.0. The
influenza model, in which surveillance during the Southern Hemisphere’s flu
season identifies the circulating strains to target with vaccines in the Northern
Hemisphere’s coming flu season, doesn’t work for
SARS-CoV-2, Baylor noted.
“The challenge for COVID is what variant do you pick†when
modifying a vaccine, he said. “How often does it change?â€
Once that’s decided, would people who’ve already
received the original COVID-19 vaccine get a booster shot to protect against variants of
concern while vaccine-naive individuals receive the original vaccine and the booster rolled
into one? “Do we have the capacity to make both?†Baylor
asked.
Plus, the need to deploy vaccines or boosters targeting new variants would complicate the
already rocky rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, in part due to inexperience in vaccinating US
adults en masse.
“How do we deploy this?†Baylor said of next-generation
COVID-19 vaccines. “When do we pull the trigger to actually do
this?â€
"... What remains to be seen is how long the mRNA stays viable, how it is down regulated and let us hope it is stable and not prone to telling the cell about something else to build. ..."
45North1 6 hours ago (Edited) 45North1 6 hours ago (Edited)
mRNA based vaccines are mis-named, they are a gene therapy, triggering the manufacture of
antigens to work on virus.
What remains to be seen is how long the mRNA stays viable, how it is down regulated and let
us hope it is stable and not prone to telling the cell about something else to build.
They could push this as an annual thing.
I would prefer the Sputnik V which is made to make the immune system do the work, and maybe
retain that memory for years (?).
It's true that most common cold coronaviruses only provide immunity for a year or two.
HOWEVER, there is significant cross-immunity between coronaviruses.
Meaning that if we can just get the PTB to drop this ridiculous charade of mandated masks,
blanket testing and partial shutdowns of everything from restaurants to government offices to
baseball games, we can get back to a NORMAL situation in which everyone gets exposed to some
kind of coronavirus disease several times a year, expanding and extending the cross-immunities
that made eighty percent of the population IMMUNE to Covid-19 when it first arrived.
Before this hysteria hit, medical science had begun to take its first baby-steps towards
admitting that humans are biological creatures that exist in a biological environment, in which
our relationships with many microbes are not merely harmless, but essential . To cut ourselves
off from the living world is to die. Sterility kills. Isolating ourselves from all potential
sources of infection inevitably destroys our ability to resist infection when we are finally
exposed . The last thing we need is a world of germ-free "bubbles". If we are to lead healthy
and wholesome lives, we need to reject the fundamental principles on which the worldwide
covid-19 response has been based. Look at Africa. They did nothing. They are healthy and
happy.
Bay Area Guy 4 hours ago remove link
These things are described as vaccines, but they aren’t. The not so fine
print says that they supposedly prevent recipients from getting serious cases of CoVid. (Tell
that to the 74 who died.). That shots will be needed every year was a foregone conclusion.
Anyone who thought differently was naive. There are enormous dollars to be made with a virus
that’s endemic. And with countries jumping on the vaccine passport
bandwagon, not just for travel, but for doing everyday things, Big Pharma is going to rake in
trillions from this.
Some scientists have used the term vaccine resistance to describe the
reduced efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against some variants. But that confuses matters by
suggesting vaccines are analogous to antibiotics, University of Washington biologist Carl
Bergstrom, PhD, who studies evolution and medicine, said in an interview. "The key point for me
is that in antibiotic resistance, the changes happen in people who are on antibiotics," he
said, while antigenic escape by SARS-CoV-2 occurs in people who haven't been
vaccinated.
When viruses replicate, Penn State biologist David Kennedy, PhD, explained in an interview,
the cycle is like a classic childhood game. "Viruses copying themselves, it's almost like a
game of telephone," said Kennedy, who studies pathogen evolution. "They repeat what they
thought they heard, so they make mistakes all the time."
Despite those many mistakes, Kennedy noted, he's unaware of any vaccines against viral
diseases other than seasonal flu that have had to be updated because of changes in the virus.
Hepatitis B virus developed " vaccine escape mutations ," but they posed
no health risks, he said.
It can only be a coincidence that Emer Cooke, who was appointed head of the EMA in November 2020, was head of the European Federation
of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), a European lobbying association for the pharmaceutical industry, in which
are among others AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer members. She worked there until 1998 and then switched directly to
the EU.
(I see hungarytoday.hu has already censored the government table out of the article.)
Immediately, a scandal ensued, with herds of righteous grant-eaters explaining why the government stats are not to be believed.
All in all, funny slapstick, I like it.
In a basic sense, there are two types of pressures that lead to mutations that allow the
virus to proliferate at a rate greater than its predecessor. Sometimes these advantages lead to
the emergence of a new dominant strain throughout a population.
The first one is the pressure to infect. A mutation occurs that allows the virus to more
reliably enter a host cell. In other words, the outer protein structure has changed to better
attach and go through a channel in the cell membrane. This type of mutation may be the
predominant mechanism that allows certain strains to spread more easily.
The second is the pressure to evade. A mutation occurs that allows the virus to dodge the
host immune system, a person’s own immune system fighting the virus. This
type of mutation gives rise to strains that can make the person more sick and a vaccine less
effective.
Mutations in the new coronavirus could reduce the effectiveness of vaccines against it. But
vaccines themselves can also drive viral mutations, depending on exactly how the shots are
deployed and how effective they are.
So far, vaccines still appear to work against the new strains â€" though
scientists are warily watching a variant that first appeared in South Africa since it seems to
reduce vaccine effectiveness. And evolution isn't standing still, so scientists realize they
may need to update vaccines to keep them working reliably.
What's going on here is somewhat similar to a larger, and more concerning problem in
medicine: Many bacteria have gradually evolved the ability to survive even when walloped by a
large dose of antibiotics. That problem has created new strains of deadly, drug-resistant
germs.
Viruses also evolve, but the process is different and the result is usually much less severe
when it comes to vaccines. When a virus such as the coronavirus infects someone, that
person's immune system mounts a response. Viruses produce slight variations when they multiply,
and if any of these variants can evade a person's immune response, those variants are more
likely to survive and possibly to spread to other people
Snyder is not even close to understanding what is going on, but I will give him credit for
at least noticing how insane the mRNA experiments are - and bringing up money and big
pharma.
Here is a well-documented dose of reality for anyone interested in the truth -
"... Remember how Oxford-AZ was going to offer the vaccine pro-bono and Billy Baphomet said they had to charge for it? Pfizer (with a big Black Rock stake) has tried repeatedly to take over AZ (similar BlackRock stake of around 8%) but has been rebuffed. I wouldn't be surprised if AZ is about to be humbled. ..."
"... Oligarchical collectivism is equally happy with fascism, communism or any other variety of state corporatism. Is this why the socialist/communist left has disappeared (it's redundant)? ..."
This is gearing up to a money circus indeed. From the Graud:
"EU starts legal action against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls
Firm says it will 'strongly defend itself' against claim it breached agreement to supply Covid jab"
There will be the usual Left/ Right theatre with interminable wrangling over accusations of incompetence, corruption and a
more responsible system for allocating funds . all over a totally unnecessary and potentially lethal vax for a hyped up flu variant.
Moneycircus , Apr 27, 2021 2:44 PM Reply to
Corarden
Remember how Oxford-AZ was going to offer the vaccine pro-bono and Billy Baphomet said they had to charge for it? Pfizer
(with a big Black Rock stake) has tried repeatedly to take over AZ (similar BlackRock stake of around 8%) but has been
rebuffed. I wouldn't be surprised if AZ is about to be humbled.
There is no Department of Commerce, Securities and Exchange Commission, or Competition Commission -- effectively they've disappeared.
Monopoly is the order of the day.
Oligarchical collectivism is equally happy with fascism, communism or any other variety of state corporatism. Is this why
the socialist/communist left has disappeared (it's redundant)?
The recreation of IG Farben (including Bayer-Monsanto) which was a longstanding Rockefeller partner the green light to Amazon
dominance in retail the inevitably centralized nature of subsidized "Green" energy the social credit system implied by replacing
money with digital store credits the attempt to abolish individual self-determination in the interest of "keeping everybody safe"
the intention is clear as day.
TEL AVIV: The Pfizer vaccine is effective against the Indian variant of Covid-19, albeit at
a reduced efficacy level, Israeli authorities have said, say reports.
Israel, which has been touted as one of the world’s vaccination success
stories due to its sweeping inoculation campaign against Covid-19, has identified eight cases
of the so-called “Indian†variant of the novel coronavirus, just
days after the country ended its outdoors mask mandate
... ... ...
The Indian variant has been identified in both the UK and in Ireland.
“The impression is that the Pfizer vaccine has efficacy against it,
albeit a reduced efficacy,†the Israel’s health ministry
director-general, Hezi Levy, told Kan public radio, saying the number of cases of the variant
in Israel now stood at eight.
Israel has already vaccinated 81 per cent of its 9.3 million population, all residents above
the age of 16.
Double mutant variant
Indian authorities had in January detected a “double mutantâ€
variant of the virus, with changes to the SARS-nCov-2 virus spike protein similar to those in
both UK and South Africa at once.
While the UK variant was known to be more infectious, the South African variant was believed
to be deadlier â€" and triggered reduced efficacy rates in existing vaccines.
AstraZeneca had announced plans to develop a modification to its vaccine to better tackle
the threat of new variants, aiming to prepare this by the end of the year.
Pfizer, meanwhile, has said those who had already taken its vaccine may require a third dose
within 6-12 months, as their immunity to the virus starts to wane.
The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can “break
through†Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a
study in Israel found.
The South African coronavirus variant managed to penetrate the protection offered by two
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to some degree, though it remains unclear just how much
efficacy is lost, it said.
... ... ...
The research, released on Saturday, compared nearly 400 people who tested positive for
COVID-19 two weeks or more after they received one or two doses of the vaccine, against the
same number of unvaccinated patients with the disease.
It matched age and gender, among other characteristics.
The South African variant, B.1.351, was found to make up about 1 percent of all the
COVID-19 cases across all the people studied, according to the study by Tel Aviv University and
Israel’s largest healthcare provider, Clalit. But among patients who had
received two doses of the vaccine, the variant’s prevalence rate was eight
times higher than those unvaccinated â€" 5.4 percent versus 0.7 percent.
This suggests the vaccine is less effective against the South African variant, compared with
the original coronavirus and a variant first identified in Britain that has come to comprise
nearly all COVID-19 cases in Israel, the researchers said.
“ We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African
variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared with the unvaccinated group. This
means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the
vaccine’s protection,†said Tel Aviv
University’s Adi Stern who led the study.
However, the researchers cautioned that the study only had a small sample size of people
infected with the South African variant because of its rarity in Israel.
They also said the research was not intended to deduce overall vaccine effectiveness against
any variant, since it only looked at people who had already tested positive for COVID-19, not
at overall infection rates.
Pfizer and BioNTech could not be immediately reached for comment outside business hours.
... ... ...
Almost 53 percent of Israel’s 9.3 million population has received both
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Israel has largely reopened its economy in recent weeks as the pandemic appeared to recede,
with infection rates, severe illness and hospitalisations dropping sharply.
About one-third of Israelis are below the age of 16, which means they are still not eligible
for the shot.
Trials of the
Novavax , Janssen/Johnson & Johnson , and AstraZeneca
vaccines in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant of concern represents virtually all of the
circulating SARS-CoV-2, seemed to justify those concerns. The South Africa trials found lower
vaccine efficacy compared with trials in other countries where B.1.351
wasn’t dominant.
The pivotal trials of the
Pfizer-BioNTech and
Moderna vaccines, the first 2 authorized by the FDA, were conducted mainly in the US before
any cases of infection by B.1.351 or other variants of concern had been detected in the
country.
Much of the current data on the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines’ efficacy
against SARS-CoV-2 variants has come from laboratory studies in which researchers exposed serum
samples from immunized individuals to genetically engineered versions of concerning variants
and then measured neutralizing antibody titers. Such studies repeatedly have shown the vaccines
elicit lower levels of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants than against older,
more common isolates.
For example, in a February 17 letter to the editor in The New England Journal
of Medicine , scientists described testing serum samples from individuals immunized with 2
doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against recombinant viruses containing some or all of the
spike protein mutations found in the B.1.351 variant. Neutralization of B.1.351 was
approximately two-thirds lower than that of USA-WA1/2020, an early SARS-CoV-2 isolate.
In another letter
published the same day, researchers reported measuring neutralizing antibody activity in serum
samples from participants in the phase 1 trial of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. One week after
the participants received the second dose, neutralizing antibody titers induced by a
recombinant virus bearing the B.1.351 spike protein were 6-fold lower than those induced by a
recombinant virus bearing the original Wuhan-Hu-1 spike protein.
However, that still might be sufficient to protect against COVID-19, or at least severe
COVID-19.
“Fortunately, neutralization titers induced by vaccination are high, and
even with a 6-fold decrease, serum can still effectively neutralize the virus,â€
Fauci and 2 NIAID colleagues wrote in a JAMA ï"¿ editorial posted February 11. And, they noted,
lower vaccine efficacy in the South African clinical trials could be related to geographic or
population differences.
... ... ...
Without immune correlates of protection, only real-world experience can provide answers
about COVID-19 vaccines’ efficacy against illness and death from SARS-CoV-2
variants.
“For right now, you know that a line is crossed if you see people fully
immunized with the vaccines [who], nonetheless, when infected with the variants, are being
hospitalized,†Offit said at a February 4 COVID-19 Vaccine Analysis Team press briefing.
At first glance, findings from a phase 2 trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in South
Africa seemed quite discouraging, spurring that country to
suspend its planned rollout of the vaccine. The trial found that the vaccine did not
protect against mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the B.1.351 variant. The findings , posted February 12, had not
been peer reviewed.
However, “the study was not really designed to determine whether the
vaccine could protect against severe COVID or not,†principal investigator Shabir
Madhi, MBBCH, PhD, a vaccinologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and
cofounder and codirector of the African Leadership Initiative for Vaccinology Expertise, said
in a February 7 briefing about the results. Participants, who
numbered only about 2000, were youngâ€"average age 31 yearsâ€"and
healthy, so their risk of severe disease was low, vaccinated or not, explained Madhi, who also
led Novavax’s vaccine trial in South Africa.
Novavax
and
Janssen conducted larger trials in South Africa than Oxford and AstraZeneca. Although both
of their vaccines had lower efficacy rates in South Africa than in trials in other countries,
vaccinated participants who received the Janssen vaccine were still less likely to require
hospitalization for COVID-19 than those who received placebo shots, and Madhi recently
told Nature he
expected that to be the case with the Novavax vaccine as well.
.. ... ...
Pfizer and BioNTech
announced February 25 that they had begun evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of a
third dose of their vaccine to see whether it would boost immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants. In
addition, the companies said they are discussing with regulatory agencies, including the FDA, a
clinical study to evaluate a modified vaccine based on the B.1.351 variant.
“The companies are hoping to pursue the validation of future modified mRNA
vaccines with a regulatory pathway similar to what is currently in place for flu
vaccines,†according to a press release.
Moderna
announced February 24 that it had shipped a booster vaccine candidate based on B.1.351 to
the NIAID for a phase 1 trial. And Novavax, whose first-generation vaccine
hasn’t been authorized yet in the US, announced January 28 it was working on
developing a booster, a combination bivalent vaccine, or both to protect against variants. The
company said it expected to begin clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021.
Modifying vaccines to target variants isn’t difficult. For example, with
Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines,
“it’s very convenient, because, basically, all you do is
change a computer program and the synthetic for the synthesizing portion of this and you can
change the vaccine,†Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which regulates vaccines, said during a January
29 American Medical Association (AMA)
webinar . “But the question is, what do we need from the FDA perspective
to feel comfortable having that deployed.â€
On February 22, the FDA updated its nonbinding
guidance for vaccine manufacturers to include information about what the agency would like
to see when evaluating vaccines that have been modified to address emerging SARS-CoV-2
variants.
The updated guidance advises manufacturers to conduct studies comparing neutralizing
antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 induced by the modified vaccine with those induced by the
prototype vaccine. One such study should use serum samples from people who
hadn’t been previously vaccinated or infected with SARS-CoV-2, while another
study would use serum samples from people previously vaccinated with a prototype vaccine who
then received an experimental booster against variants of concern.
The Hard Part
Modifying COVID-19 vaccines would probably be the most straightforward step in dealing with
SARS-CoV-2 variants. “For vaccines and biologics, it’s
the manufacturing process that defines the product, and the manufacturing process
isn’t changing,†Baylor explained.
More challenging will be deciding when and how to deploy COVID-19 vaccines 2.0. The
influenza model, in which surveillance during the Southern Hemisphere’s flu
season identifies the circulating strains to target with vaccines in the Northern
Hemisphere’s coming flu season, doesn’t work for
SARS-CoV-2, Baylor noted.
“The challenge for COVID is what variant do you pick†when
modifying a vaccine, he said. “How often does it change?â€
Once that’s decided, would people who’ve already
received the original COVID-19 vaccine get a booster shot to protect against variants of
concern while vaccine-naive individuals receive the original vaccine and the booster rolled
into one? “Do we have the capacity to make both?†Baylor
asked.
Plus, the need to deploy vaccines or boosters targeting new variants would complicate the
already rocky rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, in part due to inexperience in vaccinating US
adults en masse.
“How do we deploy this?†Baylor said of next-generation
COVID-19 vaccines. “When do we pull the trigger to actually do
this?â€
IF vaccines worked it shouldn't matter to a vaccinated person whether you have a
vaccination or not.
The entire "what about the poor wretch that is so ill he cannot survive a vaccine" is just
virtue signaling tripe. FIRST no person has a claim on your life. Period, the only exception
being your own children. And even that has finite limits.
The more truthful complaint is "I KNOW it is a scientific fact that flu vaccines are at
BEST 70%, and often closer to 40% effective. So I am afraid of my own shadow." This exposes a
risk aversion that has long since crossed over into the mental illness of full on
uncontrollable paranoia.
Let the person that is so sick they cannot be around other people self isolate. Let the
person that is so terrified they cannot function in society self isolate too!
The fake outrage and virtue signaling sociopaths have well and truly outlived the patience
of everyone on the planet that doesn't require psychotropic drugs to make it through the
day.
"... If anyone had listened to Dr. Fauci or any of the mainstream press, they would think the vaccine is totally 100% safe. ..."
"... the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, would disagree with Dr. Fauci and the mainstream media. ..."
"... According to the most recent data from VAERS found on the CDC website , 3.018 people have been reported died after taking the COVID-19 Vaccine. These deaths constitute 64.45% of all vaccine deaths. So, not only have the COVID vaccines killed 3,018 people, but 6 in 10 recorded deaths from vaccines were from a COVID vaccine alone ..."
"... ABC News reports that 189.4 million flu vaccines were distributed in the 2020-2021 season. Of that, VAERS reports a grand total of 598 people have died from the vaccines. ..."
If anyone had listened to Dr. Fauci or any of the mainstream press, they would think the vaccine is totally 100% safe. They
would think that anyone who says differently is a conspiracy theorist with enough tinfoil to build a radio antenna that would
reach the Andromeda Galaxy.
However, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, would disagree with Dr. Fauci and the
mainstream media.
According to the most recent data from VAERS found on the CDC website
, 3.018 people have been reported died after taking the COVID-19 Vaccine. These deaths constitute 64.45% of all vaccine deaths.
So, not only have the COVID vaccines killed 3,018 people, but 6 in 10 recorded deaths from vaccines were from a COVID vaccine
alone:
Breaking this down by data, ABC News reports that
189.4
million flu vaccines were distributed in the 2020-2021 season. Of that, VAERS reports a grand total of 598 people have died
from the vaccines.
So, considering more people have taken the Flu vaccine than a COVID vaccine, and far fewer people have died with a flu vaccine
than a COVID vaccine, it is not at all accurate to suggest the Coronavirus vaccine is as safe as a flu vaccine. The VAERS reporting
system says completely differently.
Granted, just because a report goes into VAERS, it doesn't mean that it has been fully investigated and confirmed, but the
CDC's webpage for VAERS says that it is a useful tool to provide
an early warning of safety problems with vaccines:
The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a
vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly
detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals."
If a safety signal is found in VAERS,
further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization
Safety Assessment (CISA) project.
These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks
and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.
This is particularly alarming to say the least, since the COVID vaccine alone has been responsible for
120,000 adverse reactions in general, it would be a good idea to discuss getting the vaccine with your doctor to see if it
is the right choice for you."
QuiteShocking 5 hours ago remove link
We've probably already have herd immunity in many places..
Pfizer and BioNTech said they have asked European regulators to authorise their Covid-19
vaccine for those aged 12-15, a move seen as a crucial step towards achieving herd
immunity.
The companies already filed a similar request with US authorities earlier this month. Their
vaccine is currently only approved for use in people aged 16 and over.
In a joint statement released yesterday, Pfizer and BioNTech said they had submitted a
request with the Amsterdam-based European Medicines Agency (EMA) to expand the use of their jab
to include "adolescents 12 to 15 years of age".
Mr Ugur Sahin, co-founder and CEO of Germany's BioNTech, on Thursday said the jab could be
available for those age groups from next month if EU approval is granted.
The move comes after Phase 3 trial data showed the vaccine provided "robust antibody
responses" and was 100 per cent effective in warding off the disease among those aged 12 to 15.
"The vaccine also was generally well tolerated," the statement added.
In an interview with Der Spiegel weekly, Mr Sahin said he expected regulators' evaluation of
the data to take four to six weeks.
If approved, the green light would apply to all 27 European Union member states.
Pfizer and BioNTech added that they also plan to seek authorisations "with other regulatory
authorities worldwide".
No coronavirus vaccines are currently authorised for use on children.
While children and teenagers are less likely to develop severe Covid-19 symptoms, they make
up a large part of the population and inoculating them is considered key to ending the
pandemic.
The prospect of getting older children jabbed before the next school year begins would also
ease the strain on parents who are juggling the demands of homeschooling while keeping up with
jobs.
"It's very important to enable children a return to their normal school lives and allow them
to meet with family and friends," Mr Sahin told Spiegel.
BioNTech and Pfizer are also racing to get their jab approved for younger kids, from six
months upwards.
"In July, the first results for five- to 12-year-olds could be available, and those for
younger children in September," Mr Sahin said.
Ongoing trials so far are "very encouraging", he added, suggesting that "children are very
well protected by the vaccine".
The BioNTech/Pfizer shot is based on mRNA technology and was the first Covid-19 jab to be
approved in the West late last year
The Pfizer
-BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized in the U.S. for people 16 years and older. The
companies have asked U.S. health regulators to authorize the vaccine for people 12 years and
older. Mr. Zients said if the FDA authorizes Pfizer's vaccine for adolescents, the
administration will have "both a robust plan and sufficient supply" to administer those
shots.
Shots from Moderna
Inc. and Johnson &
Johnson are authorized in the U.S. for people 18 years and older. Both companies are
testing their vaccines in adolescents.
Mr. Biden's senior Covid-19 advisers say they are reaching out to pediatricians, citing them
as "an important point of trust" who can help encourage parents to vaccinate their children
once shots are approved. The administration hopes children in high school will be vaccinated
going into the fall school year.
Many school districts are still providing hybrid in-person and remote learning, though some
of the largest districts across the country plan to fully reopen in the fall for in-person
instruction.
Estimates have differed on how much of the population would need to be vaccinated to stop
the virus from circulating, but many health experts are using
70% to 80% as a goal . As of Thursday, 52% of adults in the U.S. had gotten at least one
dose of a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That proportion
ranged from 72% in New Hampshire to 39% in Mississippi.
Podcaster Joe Rogan has become a target of critics on social media after saying he believes
young and healthy people likely don't need Covid-19 vaccines and even opined that inoculating
children is "crazy."
Rogan quickly began trending on social media on Tuesday after a recent clip from his
podcast, 'The Joe Rogan Experience,' prompted critics to accuse him of spreading Covid-19
disinformation and feeding into vaccine hesitancy.
In fact, Rogan said on his show that he believes getting vaccinated is "safe" for
most people – before he argued that not everyone has to get a jab.
"I think for the most part, it's safe to get vaccinated. I do. But if you're like
21-years-old and you say to me, 'should I get vaccinated?' I'll go no," Rogan said in the
clip, first posted by a journalist for the left-wing Media Matters.
The podcaster went on to argue that a healthy person who exercises regularly, eats well, and
has no health conditions that weaken their immune system likely "don't need to worry about
this."
The group Rogan believes should not be subjected to vaccines at all is children, revealing
his own two kids both got Covid-19 and claiming that in the end, "it was nothing."
Adding that he is not "diminishing" that children have died from the virus, Rogan
blasted people who are pushing for children to be vaccinated when most are far less vulnerable
to the virus than adults.
"You should be vaccinated if you're vulnerable," Rogan said.
Rogan's vaccine opinion has gotten him once again on the firing line against liberal
critics. The former 'Fear Factor' host has become a frequent target since his podcast
exclusively moved to Spotify and quickly became the network's most popular show. He's been
criticized for everything from his views on trans women in sports to his openness to interviews
with controversial figures such as Alex Jones.
Others also criticized Spotify, which has even seen employees protest the hiring of Rogan
since the platform went into business with him in what was reportedly a $100 million
contract.
While Rogan cited his own experience with his children when criticizing mass vaccinations,
kids and even younger adults are also statistically far less vulnerable to the virus than older
people. According to data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), people under 45 account for less than 3% of the Covid-19 deaths
in the US. The highest is 65 and older, which covers over 80%.
Comorbidities – underlying conditions that weaken the immune system, such as diabetes
and hypertension – are also frequent among the hundreds of thousands of patients who have
died from the virus.
There are currently no vaccines on the market authorized for anyone under 16 to take.
Pfizer's vaccine is approved for patients 16 and older, while Moderna has been approved for
people 18 and over.
During another episode of his podcast this year, Rogan revealed he is not planning on
getting a vaccine himself. Asked whether he would get the vaccine when available, he replied,
"no. I mean I would if I felt like I needed it."
The Pfizer vaccine could cause
severe neurodegenerative
diseases caused by brain prions created by the mRNA-style vaccine. National File reported, "'The current RNA based SARSCoV-2
vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing,' the report declares. 'In this
paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to induce prion-based disease in vaccine recipients.' Prion-based
diseases are, according to the CDC, a form of neurodegenerative diseases, meaning that the Pfizer vaccine is potentially likely to
cause long term damage and negative health effects with regards to the brain."
In a shocking new
report on the COVID-19 vaccines, it has been discovered that the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine
may have long term health effects not previously disclosed, including “ALS,
Alzheimer's, and other neurological degenerative diseases.â€
“The current RNA based SARSCoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an
emergency order without extensive long term safety testing,†the report declares.
“In this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to
induce prion-based disease in vaccine recipients.†Prion-based diseases are,
according to the CDC, a form of neurodegenerative diseases, meaning that the Pfizer vaccine is
potentially likely to cause long term damage and negative health effects with regards to the
brain.
This is especially concerning since the Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, an untested type
of vaccine which creates new proteins and can actually integrate into the human genome , according to
a report from the National Library of Medicine. In other words, degenerative brain conditions
may appear at any time in your life after receiving the vaccine.
“The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target
interaction were analyzed for the potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR
DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma (FUS) into their pathologic prion
conformations,†explains the report. TDP-43 is a protein known to cause dementia,
ALS and even Alzheimer's, according to Alzpedia . Similarly, the FUS protein is known
to cause ALS and Hereditary Essential Tremors, according to the Human Genome Database .
The experiment done for the report was to determine whether or not these two harmful
proteins embed themselves into our DNA, as an mRNA vaccine is expected to do. The report
determined that “the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce
TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations,†meaning that
both proteins have the potential to embed themselves into our DNA and cause harmful
neurological diseases.
The report's abstract summary concludes that “The
enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that
regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine
may cause much more harm than benefit.†The report itself ends with this warning:
“The vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original
infection.â€
National File actually reached out to the CDC to inquire as to why the Pfizer vaccine is
still being distributed despite these credible allegations. No response was received prior to
publication.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said people will “likely†need a
third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated. His comments
were made public Thursday but were taped April 1.
Bourla said it’s possible people will need to get vaccinated against the
coronavirus annually.
From the very beginning of this crisis, I have been warning my readers that any immunity would
be very temporary.
Natural COVID immunity is very temporary, and immunity conferred by the vaccines is very
temporary too.
The CEO of Pfizer is comparing the COVID vaccines to flu shots. Every year millions of
Americans rush out to get their flu shots, and the CEO of Pfizer is admitting that it looks like
the COVID vaccines will be on a similar schedule
…
“There are vaccines that’s like polio that one dose is
enough, there are vaccines like pneumococcal vaccine that one dose is enough for adults and
there are vaccines like flu that you need every year,†Bourla said.
“The Covid virus looks more like the influenza virus than the polio
virus.â€
If people are going to need a new shot every year, that means that COVID will be with us for a
very long time to come.
This is essentially an admission that the COVID pandemic will not be ending any time soon.
Needless to say, Pfizer stands to make giant mountains of money if COVID vaccines become a
yearly thing, and we need to keep that in mind.
A lot of people that I know are going to be extremely upset when they finally realize that the
two shots that they got only provide temporary immunity.
And of course lots of people are still getting sick after being fully vaccinated. According to
the CDC, so far there have been almost 6,000 documented cases of people being infected after
getting two shots, and dozens of them
have died …
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that roughly 5,800 people who received a
coronavirus vaccine still ultimately came down with the disease anyway, according to CNN.
Of those 5,800, 396 of them (roughly 7 percent) were hospitalized; 74 of the vaccinated
people ultimately died. The report proves that the vaccines, though frequently touted by the
government and the media, are not guaranteed to prevent everyone from contracting the
virus.
That wasn’t supposed to happen.
But it is happening.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the current vaccines will fare against
variants that have already developed and variants that will develop in the future.
At this point we just don’t know how effective the vaccines will be, but
the New York Times
is assuring us that we don’t have anything to be concerned
about…
“I use the term
‘scariants,’†said Dr. Eric Topol, professor
of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif., referring to much of the media
coverage of the variants.
“Even my wife was saying, ‘What about this double
mutant?’ It drives me nuts. People are scared unnecessarily. If
you’re fully vaccinated, two weeks post dose, you
shouldn’t have to worry about variants at all.â€
Really?
I have a feeling that Dr. Eric Topol will end up eating those words.
The reason why a new flu vaccine comes out every year is because the flu is constantly
changing and mutating.
The same thing is happening to COVID, and there are already dozens of mutant variations
spreading around the globe.
To me, Dr. Eric Topol’s statement was exceedingly irresponsible, especially
considering some of the studies that have come out lately. Here is just one example
…
Two doses of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine were found to have only a 10.4% efficacy
against mild-to-moderate infections caused by the B.1.351 South Africa variant, according to a
phase 1b-2 clinical trial published
on Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine . This is a cause for grave concern as the
South African variants share similar mutations to the other variants leaving those vaccinated
with the AstraZeneca vaccine potentially exposed to multiple variants.
In this article, I haven’t even discussed all of the side effects that we
have been witnessing. A few days ago, the FDA issued an unprecedented order regarding the Johnson
and Johnson vaccine because it was
causing blood clots in a number of cases…
This week, the Food and Drug Administration called for a halt in the administration of the
single dose vaccine for COVID-19 manufactured by Johnson and Johnson. The halt was ascribed to
the rare incidence of blood clots that could potentially be related to the vaccine.
I am glad that the FDA decided to step in, but the order came too late
for this guy …
When the news broke about the pause of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine Tuesday, one Coast
family was already living with a tragedy they believe was caused by the vaccine.
It started out as a normal day for 43-year-old Brad Malagarie of St. Martin. This busy
father of seven spent the morning at his D’Iberville office before heading
to get a Johnson & Johnson vaccine a little after noon.
He returned to work, and within three hours coworkers noticed he was unresponsive at his
desk.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that rushing experimental vaccines
through the testing process was a really bad idea.
We should be putting the safety of the American people first, and nobody knows for sure what
the long-term effects of these experimental treatments will be.
In this day and age, we all need to do our own research and we all need to think for
ourselves, because the big pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with profits than anything
else.
If you are harmed by their experimental therapies, the big pharmaceutical companies
won’t be there to pick up the pieces for you if something goes horribly
wrong.
* * *
Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The
Future Of America†is now available in paperback and for the
Kindle on Amazon.
So...
Requiring Vaccine IDs or passports violates medical privacy - Right?
Unvaccinated are NOT a threat because the vaccinated are protected - Right?
Preventing unvaccinated from participating in society is discrimination - Right?
_arrow
The Antisoiler 5 hours ago remove link
It appears they are moving in the direction of mandating a vaccine subscription, where you
will pay monthly or yearly.
Trends indicate subscription based revenue generation is a win-win for both producer,
consumer, and eugenicist.
Remember, you will own nothing and be happy about it. You will be free from the burden of
asset management. And, you'll essentially be a slave, working till you drop into a grave or
incinerator.
Fed Supporter 6 hours ago remove link
Sorry Michael Snyder, you are flat out wrong about natural immunity not lasting very
long.
A corona virus from 17 years ago, every year those who were infected get tested for
immunity, and guess what every year for 17 year those previously infected individuals still
have immunity.
Further, the current corona virus , Covid, is 80% similiar to the one from 17 years ago.
Some virologits estimate that 30% of the world has cross immunity and can not get Covid.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you need to do more research. You are parroting the MSM
outlets who were selling fear and citing quacks from stanford, etc that said "we just don't
know", No they do know they just wanted to ramp fear sky high. Memory T cells are a thing.
May 18, 2020 â€" Blood samples from the patient, who had SARS in 2003, contained
an ... Antibody that inhibits the new coronavirus discovered in patient who had SARS 17 years
ago ... Antibodies form part of the body's immune response to pathogens. ... But Vir
Biotechnology has fast-tracked the antibody for development ...
Here we studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and
non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1 ) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ( n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and
CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein. Next, we showed that patients (
n = 23) who recovered from SARS (the disease associated with SARS-CoV infection) possess
long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the
outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of
SARS-CoV-2. We also detected SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in individuals with no history of
SARS, COVID-19 or contact with individuals who had SARS and/or COVID-19 ( n = 37).
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in uninfected donors exhibited a, etc.
Fed Supporter 6 hours ago
BTW natural immunity is way better than Mrna vaccines, which are narrowly tailored to target
proteins on the spike protein. Once it mutates, like the South Africa and UK mutations, the
pfizer vaccine will need modified to target the new mutations hence yearly boosters at $180 a
pop. We will be chasing this thing forever, always behind on catching the mutated viruses.
Invest in Pfizer their stock will go so high, they are going to make a ton of money off the
sheep.
Also, some doctors, said it is not wise to get vaccinated for corvid if you already had
it.
Also isn't peculiar the mutations all occurred in countries that ran human trials, Brazil,
UK, SA, Israel. These countries were the first to have humans vaccinated and they are the first
to have mutations.
Bacon's Rebellion 4 hours ago
"Just look at the number of medicines pulled from pharmacies in the last 20 years that the
FDC originally said were perfectly safe"
Think for yourself 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
also, the mRNA vaccine 'targets' the s-proteins by genetically hijacking your cell to
construct biochemical factories to create these s-proteins. Not only is it a fixed overhead (no
off switch, it's in your genes now) but that overhead is spent building parts that are designed
to inflame your immune system. Even after so-called 'immunity' is acquired, those biochemical
factories will keep working to produce, the immune system will keep working against the
low-level inflammation, so the cells will not only be spending fuel on negative output, but the
spare viral proteins floating around it's creating are just begging to be assimilated into even
more mutant strains.
I am convinced that the mRNA 'vaccine' is exponentially increasing the mutation potential of
covid-19.
Libertarian777 5 hours ago
THIS GUY GETS IT. Lack of antibodies does not mean immunity disappears.
Pazuzu 4 hours ago
Upvoted for clever use of term 'virologits'. If ever there were a bunch of gits the virology
bunch fits the bill.
Josey Yahoo 6 hours ago remove link
Is anybody else stating to feel like they are being played?
For a year now I have been saying that this is a flu, just another flu, being blown into a
major issue to literally destroy our nation.
First the lockdowns, to destroy small business, as the large companies will gladly assist in
the elimination of cash. NOTE, the immediate calls for cash not to be used as it would transmit
the virus, then all of a sudden a coin shortage, when was the last time that happened, oh,
that's right, NEVER!
....
freedommusic 4 hours ago (Edited)
> Huh? Unvaccinated are a threat to other Unvaccinated people who want to get vaccinated
and don't want to die.
No problem that's what your double mask, self isolating, and social distancing is for. Since
it is SO EFFECTIVE , it will provide the necessary protection until all the smart people get
vaccinated.
Then all the unwashed, ignorant, unvaccinated fools will die off as a result of natural
selection.
Everyone wins here and nature wins.
RIGHT?
taketheredpill 6 hours ago
Or maybe the vaccine is 99.9925% Effective (6000 sick out of 80 Million with full dose) and
Pharma guys rounded up?
Bacon's Rebellion 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link
ummm.
Assuming 100% accuracy of the "cause of death" being Covid19:
Covid19 survival rates for all age groups:
563,000 dead / 329,000,000 total population = 99.829% survival.
Covid19 survival rates over the age of 75:
245,000 dead / 55,000,000 people = 99.555% survival rate.
Covid19 survival rates under the age of 55:
40,000 dead / 229,000,000 people = 99.983% survival rate.
Covid19 survival rates under the age of 25:
550 dead / 103,000,000 people = 99.9995% survival rate.
Explain to us why in the world we need to vaccinate the 16 to 25 folks? Vaccination DOES NOT
MEAN you can't catch it or spread it...
"" We don't know yet whether or not it prevents you from getting infected where you're not
with symptoms...but you have virus in your nasopharynx that you could then infect an
unvaccinated person who might be vulnerable, and you will inadvertently and innocently get them
sick," Fauci explained."
The whole vaccine jive talk is packed with "Could", "Maybe", "Possibly", "Likely",
"Unknown"...ect.
"UNLESS....you get people to lock down, wash hands, wear masks etc."
Yeah, we did that, and we have 31,000,000 confirmed cases.
How many people contracted Covid19 but were never tested?
Estimating the Fraction of Unreported COVID-19
"The results are striking: ...The range of results across model assumptions and time periods
utilized vary between 6 to 24 unreported cases."
So, at 6 unreported for every reported, more than half of the US population has been
exposed...your masks and lockdowns have been a huge failure....
186,000,000 infections and 563,000 dead = .3% death rate.
Bacon, don't confuse taketheredpill with facts, his mind is already made. I'll bet he is a
paid sock puppet or just some sick liberal trolling one of the few places post comments that
make sense, and that aren't a bunch of collectivist mindless sheep.
russellthetreeman PREMIUM 6 hours ago
It's not a vaccine. It doesn't even come close to halfway meeting the definition of a
vaccine.
It's not a pandemic. It doesn't even come close to halfway meeting the definition of a
pandemic.
The sars cov 2 virus has a known survival rate of WELL over 99+%.
sun tzu 6 hours ago remove link
The average sheep thinks over 30 million Americans died of covid-19 last year. Idiocy
rules
A Lunatic 6 hours ago (Edited)
That still pales in comparison to the 150 million gun deaths we had last year, according to
Joe.
Bacon's Rebellion 5 hours ago
"It's not a vaccine"...correct, it's a drug that forces your immune system to do something
it doesn't want to do.
The original mRNA researcher when it actually, sorta, worked "I felt like God!"
All BS. My wife and I are unvaccinated and have travelled half the country, always maskless,
over the past year. Not sick, haven’t been sick. Our dog is fine, too.
sun tzu 6 hours ago
Same here. I've been to Mexico 3 times too. Nobody around me, family and co-workers, has
gotten sick or died.
Lead Engineer PREMIUM 6 hours ago
And the CDC estimates that over 30% of the population has been infected. So if we assume
that another 20% had previous natural immunity and another 50% of the susceptible have been
vaccinated, then you can see that this pandemic is rapidly going extinct.
Captive1 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link
" From the very beginning of this crisis, I have been warning my readers that any immunity
would be very temporary. Natural COVID immunity is very temporary, and immunity conferred by
the vaccines is very temporary too."
Disqualifying statement. There is no data to support this statement. Antibody surveillance
studies have shown durability and case studies have demonstrated no reinfections to those who
had an initial antibody response on the first infection. Not to mention T Cell memory. He
doesn't know what he's talking about. Immune memory to COV2 is long lived and protective across
multiple strains. I would link the papers but I'm not helping people not be retarded anymore.
Big pharma wants you to believe that immunity is temporary to drive profit. It's not.
Huxley's Ghost 6 hours ago remove link
We know so little about the immune system (really the entire human body); basic concepts,
yes but effect of environment, innate experience, stressors, diet, etc..not a clue. Individual
immune systems because of all these factors are more like fingerprints--vastly unique to each
unit. The endocrine and immune systems are black boxes to the medical community but they act
like are doing more than spit-balling.
Huxley's Ghost 5 hours ago remove link
In theory, they (vaccine companies) annually analyze what strains are prevalent in the world
and predicted to have the greatest impact. Those strains get selected for production of the
annual flu shot; it could be the case that the same strain(s) prevailed. Or not. These days you
can't believe anything anymore.
Last time I had the flu shot was over 30 years ago. I had flu once since then and took
Tamiflu, which was miraculous in its speed (identify and dose early while viral load is low) of
effect, minimal/no side effects, and efficacy. I was back on my feet in about 36 hours--fully.
I have heard people report horrible abdominal/GI issues (temporary). I was lucky.
strych10 3 hours ago remove link
OK, I've said this before but I will repeat it, ultra basic here:
Natural immunity tends to be both "deeper" and "broader" than what one of these mRNA
(straight up or adeno vector, doesn't matter) can provide.
When a virus infects you there are a lot of different things that happen. The two that
matter the most for the purposes of this discussion are as follows:
1) Your body sees a wide array of viral surface proteins and gets a look at the actual
capsid and lipid envelope too. Particularly after you immune system shreds up some of the
buggers and looks at the pieces.
2) Your body gets to see millions of variations on this, including the most statistically
common variations in surface protein structure.
This means that your body develops a set of antibodies that is much wider than a single
introduced protein can provide.
With the vax you get one structure, lab controlled QC, a single "image" of the target if you
will. In the wild you get a bunch of various proteins and a ton of variation in their physical
shape, hundreds or thousands of images from various angles.
The result is that you get a relatively wide array of antibodies and a hugely wider picture
of what is "not self". This makes it easier for your body to recognize the same or similar
infectious agent/infection next time. You also now have a set of antibodies with variable
structure making it more likely that they can neutralize a mutant strain of the same virus (or
something substantially similar) or at least blunt the next virus' attack long enough to buy
time for your immune system to learn about it without you getting a serious illness.
duck_fur 2 hours ago
You seem to have a background in virology. What of the issue of coding errors - either
during or after manufacture - within the mRNA payload? What of the possibility of the expressed
protein exhibiting a fold due to the error(s)?
strych10 1 hour ago
I'm not a virologist. I'm a cell biologist.
So, trying not to make this a full on basic genetics class...
Yes, what you're asking is possible. It's also statistically rare. The root of misformed
proteins tends to be genetic code error or a mistake in copying that code into mRNA.
Ribosomes, which translate mRNA into a protein, tend to be very good at their job and if
they make an error can often detect it, back up and fix it and then begin sequencing again.
Errors do occur but they're rare. At this stage more common is an issue of improper folding of
the protein resulting in an improper tertiary structure and the inability to form a quaternary
structure due to this. (A quaternary structure is an overall structure formed by multiple
proteins folded to fit together into a larger unit which serves a purpose. For example,
hemoglobin is formed from four separate proteins that fold up and then can fit together to form
hemoglobin.)
So, assuming that the QC is good, which I have no reason to believe that it is not, coding
errors are not really a problem. It's the fact that the QC is too good.
But then you have to step back and ask if this matters. Yes and no, and I'll give you a
quick explanation of each.
An antibody is, essentially, like a Y of gum you're sticking on the key to a lock. The virus
has a key that unlocks the cell, the antibody prevents these two things from coming into
physical contact so the key can never open the lock. Once bound this antibody also marks
whatever it has bound to for destruction by other parts of the immune system. That in
mind...
Yes: If CoV-2 were to mutate to the point that the spike proteins in question changed enough
that an antibody couldn't bind to the virion then the virus could evade the antibodies that
neutralize the virion and mark it for destruction.
No: In order to do this, generally, you need quite a bit of mutation to change the physical
structure of the spike. In a lot of cases this would make the virion non-operational because
the same change that allows it to avoid the antibodies also means it can no longer fit that key
into the desired lock.
So, does it really matter? Again, yes and no. If the virus can "figure out" a key that still
opens the desired lock (or another one) and doesn't fit the antibody it will avoid the immune
system until the immune system figures out what's going on. This takes some time. Infected
cells have to signal that they're infected, inspection has to be done, antibodies synthesized
etc.
So, IMHO, and it's just my opinion: the fear of "breakthrough" is rather overblown. However,
it is still real. In a natural infection there is less chance of this kind of "breakthrough"
because your body has more data on the invader meaning that the invader usually needs to change
a lot more in order to evade the immune system hence "broader" and "deeper". That said, there
are viruses that are pretty good at this. Influenza A is one of them.
This is the root of what you may have heard last year about "T-cell immunity". People had
previously encountered a disease substantially similar to CoV-2 and it was similar enough that
they produced an antibody that neutralized CoV-2.
Quasimodo. 48 minutes ago remove link
If you have breakthrough, you have a new virus. A mutation, not just a variant. Most
variants have only slight changes in protein. A variant is more likely to spread and be more
virulant if it is less deadly since the host survives long enough to spread the virus further,
while a deadlier form (although could happen) will die out quickly as more hosts will die
strych10 15 minutes ago
I actually had to ask my wife about the technical definition about this.
For CoV-2 to change enough to be "not CoV-2" it would require significantly more alteration
than you're stating here.
The things that would change the classification are things like capsid shape, nucleic acid
type, mechanism of infiltration or exfiltration.
You need far more than simply the ability to evade current immune response. Hence why
Influenza A can jump species, come back and still be Influenza A.
Codery 1 hour ago
Ya but that’s just like science, can you explain how any of that helps
get rid of Trump?
strych10 1 hour ago remove link
Yes, in three letters. CNN.
sun tzu 6 hours ago remove link
Stay away from big hospitals. They are contract killers for big pharma
Sluggo315 3 hours ago
My older brother that has three or four co-morbidities (weight, BP, asthma, one more I
think) was rushed to the hospital for a bowel blockage. He spent the night in the emergency
room, and was admitted into the hospital for tests. They put him on the COVID floor. Tell me
these hospitals are not in on it too!!!?
TheTruthisSomewhere 5 hours ago remove link
The article unfortunately is going from the erroneous position that this is worse than the
flu. It is not the statistics are cooked and it is a testdemic. Variants are always less potent
and yes people have natural immunity to this. It is almost a Gaslighting article based on quasi
facts and hearsay.
Joe Rogan: "I think it's safe to get vaccinated, but if you're 21 years old ... if you're a
healthy person and you're exercising all of the time and you're young and you're eating well, I
don't think you need to worry about this." https://twitter.com/i/status/1387077145156063234
It is unclear how Fauci response correlates with the fact that existing vaccines are less
effective or (in case of Pfizer and South African strain) ineffective against new mutations. Does
he acts as Big Pharma lobbyist, or what ?
Also, you have to be skeptical of pharmaceutical companies and the fact that they cannot be
sued if something goes wrong with the vaccine.
White House
health adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and communications director Kate Bedingfield have made a point
of belittling and attacking podcaster Joe Rogan for daring to have a mixed opinion on Covid-19
vaccines.
As Rogan has skyrocketed over the years to arguably the most influential and successful
podcaster around, he has also turned into an intensely controversial figure, mainly for
liberals who fear his willingness to give a platform to right-wing figures like Alex Jones and
his less-than-PC takes on everything from transgender athletes to Covid-19 vaccines.
The latter is what landed the former 'Fear Factor' host in the hot seat this week as a clip
from a recent episode of 'The Joe Rogan Experience' made its way across social media and
critics painted Rogan as an anti-vaxxer spreading disinformation.
The controversy stems from Rogan saying, during a conversation with fellow comic Dave
Smith, he would not recommend that a healthy person in their early 20s get a Covid-19 vaccine
as they are not as vulnerable to the virus as older generations (who account for the majority of Covid
deaths in the US) and people with preexisting medical conditions.
The Spotify podcaster also said pushing for kids to be vaccinated is "crazy," citing his
own childrens' history with getting Covid-19, as both recovered relatively quickly.
Critics painted Rogan's comments as an angry anti-vaxx rant, urging his millions of
listeners to avoid getting inoculated against Covid-19. However, they ignored the fact that
Rogan says in the clip (and has said in the past) that getting vaccinated seems mostly safe
and is indeed "important" for certain people.
Criticism of Rogan reached a bizarre new level on Wednesday when the White House appeared to
launch a coordinated effort to disparage and belittle the podcaster, completely dismissing his
opinions.
In multiple interviews, Fauci blasted Rogan for ignoring "societal responsibilities,"
arguing even young and healthy people should get vaccinated as asymptomatic individuals can
still spread the virus.
The infectious disease expert also believes "kids of all ages" will be vaccinated by the
end of the year – there are no vaccines on the market in the US approved for anyone under
16 – and everyone should "absolutely" get inoculated.
Bedingfield also dismissed Rogan's opinion in a CNN interview where she said Rogan not being
a doctor basically strips his words of any merit.
"I guess my first question would be, did Joe Rogan become a medical doctor while we
weren't looking?" she asked. "I'm not sure that taking scientific and medical advice
from Joe Rogan is perhaps the most productive way for people to get their information."
Initial social media criticism of Rogan is one thing, but the White House pitting themselves
against a private citizen having an open and frank discussion on a podcast is concerning. It's
alarming enough that White House officials busy with vaccination efforts and a still-fresh
administration would take the time to debate Rogan on the subject, but the responses to his
discussion also show that administration officials are fearful of open debate and conversations
about the vaccines. If one even strays from the belief that vaccines are 100% safe and every
single person, regardless of age or health, should take them, they are attacked, at least if
you have the following that Rogan has.
Rogan's discussions on Covid-19 vaccines do not boil down to a debate on whether getting
inoculated against the virus is good for everyone or not. The recent viral clip even opens with
the podcaster saying vaccines are safe, and he acknowledges that what he says about children
and young, healthy people is not true across the board. He merely expresses concerns as a
father and gives a personal opinion that in no way discourages everyone from getting a
vaccine.
Looking at Fauci and Bedingfield's responses, it appears they aren't even debating what
Rogan actually said.
Fauci, who has been a controversial figure himself and
accused of flip-flopping multiple positions during the pandemic, argues that it is the
potential transmission of the virus from one person to another that is the reason everyone
should be vaccinated. Rogan never talks about the risk of transmission though. He simply makes
the argument that a healthy individual who is younger may not need a vaccination to protect
themselves from the deadlier aspects of Covid.
Bedingfield's argument is even lamer as she says without a "Dr." title, Rogan simply
can't have concerns about vaccinations for children and others. She argues no one should take
"medical advice" from a podcaster, setting Rogan up as a man who presented himself as
some kind of expert on vaccines, dishing out advice to his listeners, who apparently aren't
intelligent enough to make up their own minds, according to these critics.
Fauci and Bedingfield and any other White House official who decides to paint Rogan as the
face of anti-vaxxers should be ashamed of themselves. Their personal attacks are an
opportunistic way to take a shot at someone who has somehow become a near-pariah on the left,
and to discourage open and frank discussions about vaccines. Their swift dismissal of a
comedian who is not quite waving the flag for every single person to be vaccinated shows that
they don't want discussion from citizens they want compliance and for people to keep nodding
their heads at their ever-changing talking points and guidelines.
It really doesn't matter who is right in the White House versus Joe Rogan debate because
there shouldn't be a White House versus Joe Rogan debate. Ironically, Fauci and Bedingfield
have probably made more people aware of Rogan's comments by addressing them. They and other
officials have taken questionable criticism of a fairly harmless conversation and used it to
create a false narrative about one man to strike fear into anyone who would dare consider what
he or anyone else would say above what they do.
CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla is a veterinarian! Ha ha ha. Franci depends on this guy to give
out experiment mRNA treatments to humans...what a total joke
AGuy 2 hours ago
CEO runs a business, not scientific R&D! Pfizer has thousands of employees to do the
R&D work.
That's said, I don't have much faith in the vaccines. I think efficiency will drop over time
requiring frequent booster shots as well as virus strains that render the current vaccine
useless. Time will tell.
"... In the hard-hit state of Maharashtra, the double mutant has already become the dominant strain, according to Dr. Anurag Agrawal, director of the CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology. In samples collected in the state from January to March, over 60% were of the double-mutant variant, according to a study by the National Institute of Virology in Pune ..."
"... That research could inform future vaccine development, especially booster shots that will target particular variants of Covid-19, Dr. Pinsky said. ..."
...The Indian variant has 13 mutations, but gets its name from two mutations similar to those seen separately in other variants.
In other variants, one mutation is associated with making the virus more infectious and appears better at evading antibodies, while
the other is similar to one that has shown signs of being able to sidestep some of the body’s immune responses.
It was first discovered in India in a sample collected in October, said Dr. Rakesh Mishra, director of the CSIR Centre for Cellular
and Molecular Biology, which operates one of the 10 state-run labs charged with genomic sequencing of the virus. Recent data points
to its rapid spread through some regions of India.
In the hard-hit state of Maharashtra, the double mutant has already become the dominant strain, according to Dr. Anurag Agrawal,
director of the CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology. In samples collected in the state from January to March, over
60% were of the double-mutant variant, according to a study by the National Institute of Virology in Pune
For the country overall, this variant made up 70.4% of the samples collected during the week ended March 25, compared with 16.1%
just three weeks earlier, according to Covid CG, a tracking tool from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. The tool uses data
from the GISAID Initiative, a global database for coronavirus genomes.
... The virus has already hopped to at least 21 countries, according to researchers at four universities that track viral lineages.
Genetic sequencing has turned up cases in the U.S., Germany, Turkey and Nigeria, among others. In the U.K, genome sequencers have
found the variant among people who haven’t traveled, suggesting it has spread within the community.
... In California, at least 20 confirmed or presumptive cases of the double mutant have been discovered since late March, according
to Dr. Benjamin Pinsky, director of Clinical Virology Laboratory at Stanford University. Dr. Pinsky said samples have already been
sent to collaborators at other laboratories, where research is under way to test how the virus reacts to monoclonal antibodies and
plasmas from infected or vaccinated people.
That research could inform future vaccine development, especially booster shots that will target particular variants of Covid-19,
Dr. Pinsky said.
Many young people are now falling ill and showing up at hospitals with severe symptoms, doctors and public-health experts said.
In this surge, people age 26 to 44 account for about 40% of total cases and 10% of deaths, Dr. Kant said, compared with the previous
wave, when almost all of the deaths were those aged 60 and above.
Note one of the qualifiers in the death stats: "(3) No clear link between vaccinations and deaths has been found to date" --
it appears these public health agencies have set a high bar for causation in order to obfuscate the truth.
Another lie used by the Western governments is the claim about the need for 'herd immunity' via vaccination and the aim of
70% of a population.
In fact, giving the vaccine to the +70 and the people who consider themselves at risk and want to be vaccinated is enough to reduce
the mortality drastically.
When smallpox was extincted the WHO goal was 80% vaccination. Not achieved anywhere. Smallpox is gone.
The ‘vaccine’ does not make anyone immune. It creates antibodies that circulate in bloodstream. It is an airborne respiratory
disease. Inside surface of lungs is principal locus of infection. There is no blood on inner surface of lung and thus no antibodies.
The blood is close enough to the lung surface for exchange of O2 and CO2, the larger antibody molecule remains in the capillary.
The epithelial cells lining the lung become infected with no resistance from any ‘vaccine’ related antibody. If the antibody
is useful it will be much later in course of disease.
This is why vaccines for airborne diseases have always been difficult, unreliable. Suddenly, under political pressure, all
sorts of non-possible things are claimed. Or inferred and suggested.
We have no idea how far along herd immunity might be. No one is looking. Anyone who wants to investigate herd immunity is a
political enemy. The sort of testing that would be required Is possible, can be done, has been done, is relatively slow and difficult.
Would need big grants from political bodies. When this all started survivors of SARS-COVID One (from 2003-2005) were asked to
give blood. When that blood was exposed to samples of SARS-COVID2 t-cells remembered just what to do, immediately identified the
2 virus as a familiar antigen and ripped it apart. After fifteen years the t-cells still knew what to do. The One virus is only
80% similar to the 2 virus. Herd immunity will happen. Nothing is being done that will make that come any sooner.
I have read enough articles about the side effects of these "vaccines" to think that the countries denied the opportunity to
be injected should almost be thanking their lucky stars. What is even more remiss, IMO, is that no one anywhere is being apprised
of the NEEd for adequate Vit. D levels to combat the virus, nor of at least 2 of the relatively cheap and available therapeutics
that can be given in a protocol including other medications/vitamins (hydroxchloroquine and ivermectin).
This is one of those stories where it is a good mental exercise to try to extract the facts scattered in the layers of BS.
It was just incredible. So here is my summary.
Part 1: the facts
Russia delivered 200,000 doses of Sputnik V gratis to Slovakia with a contract to deliver 2M more doses. The US/NATO agents
busted a gasket, replaced the prime minister and prevented Slovakia from using any of the vaccines. They even refused to return
the 200,000 doses so that Russia could use them somewhere else.
Part 2: the hysterical wailing
Evil Putin is using a divide and conquer strategy to try to destroy Europe but NATO vigilance prevented the Slovakians from
being poisoned by this defective product and foiled the local Russian collaborators. Russia is eagerly peddling Sputnik V because
it is the first new export item they have developed since the end of the Cold War [I don't know I thought Novichok was pretty
good]. India is reconsidering their purchase because the Russians are also selling it to Pakistan (??????? wtf is that supposed
to mean?????)
I can't believe an article like this got past any editor, is there a point where people in the U.S. will catch onto the
fact that they are reading complete nonsense?
Novichok is a Soviet-era family of (apparently) non-lethal super-lethal supremely-dangerous nerve agents that you can safely
carry around in a perfume bottle even though it is applied as a gel on a door-nob.
Or in a water bottle. Whatever. I've lost track. Was it sprinkled on someone's underpants, or was that last week's explanation?
But definitely not developed for the post-cold war export market.
I do like the "fact" that the Slovakians are complaining that the State Institute for Drug Control doesn't know the details
of the contract signed with Russia.
Ahem. There is now a new government.
So the institutions of state can solve that particular puzzle by opening the filing cabinet in the Prime Ministers Office and
having a sticky-beak inside.
Perhaps Matovic took the key with him when he vacated the office?
"... Science now means refusing to know anything but the narrative. There is just no way we shall know how bad a problem the vaccine is. My supposition that the son-in-law's problems are connected to vaccine could be pure ex post facto rubbish. We shall never know because we refuse to look. ..."
Regarding the three articles posted on covid and thrombosis.
The first article, the NEJM article, reports six younger patients died of thrombosis,
presumably cerebral venous thrombosis. Although the article is so poorly written it is hard
to even know. Patients were in "Germany and Austria" but past that all we have is lab test
reports. Not even clear if the authors ever saw the patients. Cerebral venous thrombosis is
extremely rare in younger patients. The article does make the Astra Zeneca jab the cause of
death, obscuring that by referring to it as ChAdOx1 -Covid-19
Second article is basically "nothing to see here" plus "Look! -- - A squirrel!!!" And
would be entirely dismissed but for the third article, from Gamaleya Center which basically
says "You filthy swine! You inject your citizens with raw sewage and then act surprised you
have problems."
The son-in-law has had a series of cardiac problems. Following his vaccination. Doctors
tell him the vaccination is entirely safe, absolutely no reported cardiac or circulatory
problems reported anywhere. And any who say otherwise are conspiracy theorists he should quit
listening to. Making NEJM conspiracy theorists.
Science now means refusing to know anything
but the narrative. There is just no way we shall know how bad a problem the vaccine is. My
supposition that the son-in-law's problems are connected to vaccine could be pure ex post
facto rubbish. We shall never know because we refuse to look.
Yesterday there was a multitudinary demonstration in London against pandemic measures and mainly against implementation of
"vaccination passports" not reported by the media, not even the alt-media...
Also there were these past days huge demonstrations in Germany agsint Special Pandemic Powers Laws, currently being signed
thorughout the whole EU without people´s knowledge nor escrutiny...
Increasingly are appearing unknown vaccines side effects, as cardiologic ones and effects on menstrual cycle...
Also registered in Israel, Pfizer vaccine caused more deaths only in Israel than even AstraZeneca in whole Europe..
Then this is the vaccine currently monopolizing EU strategy of vaccination through lobbyist like Thierry breton, responsible
for EU internal market, The European Council of Foreign Relations ( which labels the Russian vaccine as a risk on EU health security,
and pressures coming from the US DoS...
Anyway, the risk of suffering a blood clot with AstraZeneca has doubled in 15 days...and Boris Johnson has already announced
that Covid-19 vaccines will not end the pandemic and that "new" meds will be needed to counter next highly likely next fall coming
waves...in spite of alleged British succes with vaccines...
It is a matter of time that the EU citizenry becomes aware that there are spurious interests in blocking EU acess to safe,
efficient and cheap vaccines while promoting dangerous ones as a single possiblity which not only offer more risk thatn benefits
but also will not provide any kind of immunity, in the best case they prived a slight protection against serious Covid-19 infection.
Who are those profitting from the vaccines...and why there is a war on vaccines, as this is a mutibillion business with no
end in sight, as the pandemic will be eternal by design..
Taking into account who are the main shareholders, one is prone to think that this is the way some countries have decided they
will capitalize their accute debt crisis, by looting from others, as always...
Also, how is that Moderna registered the patent of its vaccine already in September, past year, when the pandemic was not even
declared yet, not even in China...????
A resistance movement against the "new pandemic fascist world order" in surging in Europe.
Images of yesterday greatest in recent history demonstration so far in UK against lockdowns, masks, "vaccine passports" and
authoritarian measures on this pandemic alibi..
Also, a resistance movement has surged in France on initiative of artists, philosophers, intellectuals and fed up people who
usually think on the arbitrariness and absurdity of certain pandemic measures especially outdoors...with a song "Danser Encore"
rising a new resistance hymn...
- On z/h was a posting claiming that in US, there is poor correlation between states enforcing
stricter measures and states having better outcomes. Difficult to assess because they play very loose with the died of covid assessment.
I suspect this is valid as I dont see the pandaphiles pointing finger at florida texas with any effect.
- It has been noted that the promoters of the pandemic seem to have very low confidence in performance of the vacine as they
propose to continue strict control measures.
- Institutions are requiring vacination and signing of release - requiring people to accept medical treatment with a vaccine
which is not approved by FDA. Frightening on many levels.
A comprehensive analysis of adverse events during clinical trials and over the course of
mass vaccinations with the Sputnik V vaccine showed that there were no cases of cerebral venous
sinus thrombosis (CVST).
All vaccines based on adenoviral vector platform are different and not directly comparable.
In particular, AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1-S vaccine uses chimpanzee adenovirus to
deliver the antigen, consisting of S-protein combined with leader sequence of tissue-type
plasminogen activator. The vaccine from Johnson&Johnson uses human adenovirus serotype Ad26
and full-length S-protein stabilized by mutations. In addition, it is produced using the PER.C6
cell line (embryonic retinal cells), which is not widely represented among other registered
products.
Sputnik V is a two-component vaccine in which adenovirus serotypes 5 and 26 are used. A
fragment of tissue-type plasminogen activator is not used, and the antigen insert is an
unmodified full-length S-protein. Sputnik V vaccine is produced with the HEK293 cell line,
which has long been safely used for the production of biotechnological products.
Thus, all of the above vaccines based on adenoviral vectors have significant differences in
their structure and production technology. Therefore, there is no reason and no justification
to extrapolate safety data from one vaccine to safety data from other vaccines.
The quality and safety of Sputnik V are, among other things, assured by the fact that,
unlike other vaccines, it uses a 4-stage purification technology that includes two stages of
chromatography and two stages of tangential flow filtration. This purification technology helps
to obtain a highly purified product that goes through mandatory control including the analysis
of free DNA presence. In addition, the volume of nucleic acid is several dozen times lower in
adenoviral vectors compared to Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (1 to 2 mcg vs 50 to 100 mcg,
correspondingly).
A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine on April 9, 2021, discusses that
the cause of the thrombosis in some patients vaccinated with other vaccines could be
insufficient purification that leads to the emergence of significant quantities of free DNA.
Insufficient purification or use of very high doses of target DNA/RNA can result in adverse
interaction of a patient’s antibodies that activate thrombocytes with
elements of the vaccine itself and/or free DNA/RNA, which can form a complex with the PF4
factor.
The Gamaleya Center is ready to share its purification technology with other vaccine
producers in order to help them minimize the risk of adverse effects during
vaccination.
Statements in this site are substantiated with facts that will stand in a court of law. Informed Consent requires a flow of information.
Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents.
Anyone trying to take down this site will be named as codefendant in Nuremberg 2.0 for being an accomplice to crimes against humanity.
That includes social media. Lawyers are standing by.
Did you know?
1. The FDA did not approve
Moderna or Pfizer mRNA gene therapeutics they dubbed "vaccines".
It simply authorized them. Fauci
confirms. 19 doctors warned
the world of the dangers. AstraZeneca is being dropped by 24
countries . Johnson & Johnson
is a
Viral Vector (1) vaccine that was given
Emergency Use Authorization on Feb. 27, 2021. Several States have halted its distribution due to
formation of blood clots . The CDC confirms.
It also confirms (2)
the Pfizer & Moderna jabs are the
deadliest of all "vaccines"
3. The FDA & CDC have not revealed to the public over 20 adverse effects, including Death, related to Covid19 vaccines, which
were discussed in an
October 2020 meeting
. 3,186 deaths from Covid19 vaccines are reported by the
National Vaccine Information Center as at 4/16/2021, and
one-third of the deaths occurred within 48 hours. For clarification purposes in this article, Covid19 is regarded as an influenza
variant. Some will argue that it was developed in a
Gain-of-Function lab. That is moot. The primary
consideration is whether an experimental vaccine is warranted for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. I am for tried, true and
tested (safe) vaccines. I am NOT for experimental vaccines backed by disastrous animal studies
Others call it
Information
Therapy that hacks the software of life, according to Moderna's [Mode RNA] chief scientist. You essentially become a GMO.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has mapped out eight mechanisms
of how the Covid jab is going to kill people
5. The mRNA jab does
not prevent you from contracting Covid19 or from transmitting it. Dr. Steve Hotze
elaborates .
Fauci confirms . The
CDC
graph underscores that reality, proving vaccines are ineffective and vaccine passports are totally useless. 87 million Americans
have been vaccinated as at 4/20/21, of which 7,157 have contracted Covid after being
vaccinated , resulting
in 88 deaths
Did you also know?
6. The CDC inflated the death rate for Covid19 - that was not isolated - by instructing medical practitioners in its
March 24, 2020 directive to ascribe the cause of death as Covid19 for all deaths, irrespective if patients were tested positive
for Covid19 or if they had other comorbidities, so as to ramp up the fear, and doctors have publicly stated they are being pressured
to mark Covid19 on death certificates, here is a list:
and that 60,000
Americans have been dying weekly, consistently, before and after the covid scare - more
data - while
deaths by influenza and other diseases have plummeted
7. The CDC later admitted that
94% of deaths had underlying conditions. That means that of the 527,000 deaths reported as Covid19 - the influenza variant
- only 6% were caused directly by Covid19, or 31,620. That brings the true case fatality rate to 0.12% out of the 27 million cases
8. The survival rate for Covid19 is, therefore, roughly 99.9%. When using the state population as the denominator, the death
rate is even lower, ranging from 36 to 247 deaths per
100,000 . As at March 19, 2021, even with the doctored numbers and faulty tests, the CDC arrived at the following
survival rates :
Ages 0-17 99.998%
Ages 18-49 99.95%
Ages 50-64 99.4%
Ages 65+ 91%
9. The CDC lumped
pneumonia, influenza, and Covid19 into a new epidemic it called PIC in order to inflate Covid19 deaths. The
CDC
stats for week of July 3, 2020 confirm that pneumonia and influenza combine with Covid to inflate the death rate. The Feb.
5, 2021
report
does the same. The duplicity is underscored in the
search results page , where only "(P&I)" is mentioned, but PIC graphs appear upon clicking the links. Deaths by influenza
have dropped from 61,000
in 2018 to 22,000 in 2020, while
medical
malpractice is the third leading cause of deaths in the US
10.
Hospitals are paid $13,000 for every Covid19 admission, and $39,000 for every patient that is put on a ventilator, on average.
More proof
Are you aware that...
11. The PCR tests do not detect SARS-CoV-2 particles, but particles from any number of viruses you might have contracted in
the past, and that a lawsuit for crimes against humanity
is being launched by a German attorney for this fraud. Even
Fauci admits PCR
tests don't work. The WHO
backs him up . In this CDC document , testing guidelines
state that false negatives and positives are possible - page 39. The PCR test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial
or viral pathogens - page 40. But most importantly, on page 42, SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated in the first instance: "Since no
quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted,
assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA".
Neither the CDC can provide samples of SARS-CoV-2, nor can
Stanford and Cornell
labs , and in a CNN interview
Fauci said he was not getting tested and there is no need to test asymptomatic people. He
reiterates that asymptomatic people have never been the driving force
of a pandemic. Again, the
WHO backs him up
12. There are
class action lawsuits in the works, naming Anthony Fauci as defendant, amongst others. Here's a partial list :
- a lawsuit against the
CDC was filed for illegally withholding information under FOIA
- the WHO has a lawsuit brought against
it by German lawyer, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, for crimes against humanity. Here is an
update
- nurses are suing a hospital CEO for covering up
the Covid fraud
- California teachers are
suing for being pressured to get an experimental vaccine, the
press release
- the Government of Norway is facing a crimes against humanity
lawsuit
- the UK Goverment will be facing a
lawsuit for crimes against humanity
- Human Rights attorney, Leigh Dundas , is going after California
for trying to vaccinate children without parental consent
- a British law firm is fighting
against 'No Jab, No Pay, No Job'
And we're just getting warmed up
13. Therapeutics and prophylactics for coronaviruses, like Hydroxychloroquine, have been approved in
WHO ,
CDC and NIH websites, but were intentionally kept
out of the public eye in order to fast track vaccines. Now, some
doctors are pleading that Ivermectin be used as a sure
cure
14. Front Line Doctors
who try to explain the benefits of proven therapeutics are being silenced, and some have had their license
suspended . A concise summary by Dr. Simone Gold, who is also an attorney and founder of
America's Front Line Doctors , is a
must watch . As well, the
British Medical Journal has broken rank and is citing
corruption and suppression of science
15. Fauci and the CDC
has flip-flopped on masks ,
contaminated surfaces ,
asymptomatic spread ,
testing ,
and has only recently acknowledged that
herd immunity is achieved
when antibodies are spread by those who beat the disease (the 99.9%), but still recommends social distancing, only now from
6 feet to 3 feet , resulting in this lockdown
map . Speaking of
herd immunity, the WHO changed its
June 7, 2020 definition "Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population
is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection" to "Herd immunity', also known as 'population
immunity', is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination
is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it" in
Nov. 13, 2020
... and that
16. Injuries
and deaths by mRNA jabs keep rising.
VAERS reports 10,152 serious injuries as at 4/16/21. In the first quarter of 2021 there has been a 6000% increase in vaccine
deaths from the same period a
year ago
17. The CDC at one time recommended DDT for in home use, and used
the same fear tactics to sell vaccines for
H1N1
18. Documents prove that the media was to be the
key player in creating the
hype leading up to the promotion of vaccines, that a VACCINATE WITH CONFIDENCE
paper by the
CDC exists, along with its
British equivalent
, and that lockdowns are used as a
carrot .
19. Politicians are caught on camera talking about the
theater of wearing masks, and the NCBI,
a division of the NIH, published a paper on
the complete ineffectiveness of masks. Even the
CDC warns of the dangers of masks
20. The CDC owns the patent for the coronavirus that is transmitted
to humans; a patent for a
Covid19 test was filed in 2015, and Covid19 test kits were being shipped
around the world in 2018
... or that
21. The Covid19 Vaccine was developed in just a
few hours
23. Bill Gates, who
invested $10 Billion into vaccines,
boasts of how he injects kids with genetically modified organisms, and can't wait for the next pandemic
to hit
24. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccine
passports . Parenthetically, various domain names for
"vaccinepassport" were
filed in 2016 by an entity in Milan, Italy
25. Bill Gates is on record pushing for the right vaccines to
lower the world population by 10% to 15%, and a call
has been made for his arrest and trial at the International Criminal Court
for crimes against humanity
Finally, did you know?
26. Covid variant vaccines are to be marketed without
safety trials
, Fauci confirmed it
, and that antibodies/antigens to SARS-CoV-2 are found in
saliva , making the use of masks counterproductive
in achieving herd immunity
27. The CDC, that props itself up with statements like:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the agency Americans trust with their lives. As a global leader in
public health, CDC is the nation's premier health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency. Whether we are protecting the
American people from public health threats, researching emerging diseases, or mobilizing public health programs with our domestic
and international partners, we rely on our employees to make a real difference in the health and well-being of people here and
around the world."
buys and resells vaccines at a markup, about $4.6 Billion worth every year, and owns over 20 vaccine patents - according to
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - and is listed on
Dun & Bradstreet
28. The consent forms in hospitals
disguise vaccines as "biogenics", and
blood brokers have paid up to $1,000 for blood samples of recovered Covid19 people
29. It's against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations
on a person, and informed consent overrides public
policy. Federal law prohibits employers and others from using vaccines under EUA as a
condition of employment. A Nevada attorney is ready to do battle
- September 2019. The WHO's Global Preparedness Monitoring Board established as one of its progress indicators the release
of two lethal pathogens by September 2020.
See pg 39
- 2018. Bill Gates' INSTITUTE FOR DISEASE MODELING released a video modeling a pandemic starting at
Wuhan,
China
33. The Pfizer, Moderna and J&J jabs were developed using fetal cell lines, that is, cells grown in labs originally obtained
from aborted fetuses
decades ago . The argument used by pro-vaxers is that these are not the original cells, but descendants or duplicates of the
originals. The medical term is MRC-5 . You have a right
to decline any vaccine that was developed with or contains MRC-5. Furthermore, there are people who cannot take vaccines because
of medical contraindications. A vaccine passport would discriminate against these people as they attempt to live life in American
society. A vaccine passport violates The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12101) .
34. Lockdowns have had no effect on the
death rate . Here's
another
report . And here we can
see how Covid
respects borders
35. On March 2020, the British Government discussed tactics it would use to ensure citizens complied with the loss of their
rights and freedoms and these have included –
Using media to increase the sense of personal threat
Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others
Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors
Using social disapproval for those who do not comply
If ten percent of vaccinated people still get the virus it is hoax not vaccine. The argument
that it prevents serious illness is moot as serious illness is probably less then 1% of COVID-19
infections and happens most to people at risk (over 70, with several other serious medical
conditions, morbidly obese, with compromised immune system, etc)
The jab is great. Except now you need THREE of them. And except from the fact that you can
still get covid. And that you are still adviced to keep distance. And to wear a mask. And a
vaccine passport. And all the side effects. Like death. Great! I want it!!!
get nothing and like it 3 hours ago (Edited)
But for gods sake you must get the jab. Otherwise you "could" get the virus 50/50 chance,
which would kill you .01% of you are under 60 and healthy, or put you in the hospital maybe
.1%, or make you really sick like the flu 25% chance and the jab does that with 50% of people
or you don't even know you have it 30%. And if you do by chance get it, you have natural
immunity. So yes get the jab for sure ...
3rd Dose Of Pfizer's COVID Vaccine "Likely" Needed To Combat Mutant COVID Strains, CEO Says
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, APR 15, 2021 - 03:33 PM
As American waits for the CDC to finish a review of blood-clotting risks associated with Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine,
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourlas has warned reporters that recipients of the Pfizer vaccine - the most widely distributed jab in the
US - will "likely" need to receive a third "booster" shot within 12 months of being vaccinated, and possibly as early as six
months after receiving their second dose.
The news is hardly a surprise. Comments and rumors about the need for booster shots have been reported by the US media
since
late last year
. But on Thursday, Bourlas said a booster shout would likely be necessary, and that patients may need to be
vaccinated against COVID annually, similar to the way that flu vaccines are developed and distributed.
"It is extremely important to suppress the pool of people that can be susceptible to the virus," he told CNBC's Bertha Coombs
during an event with CVS Health. Bourlas added that vaccines will need to be used to combat not just COVID, but the evolving
mutant strains - or "variants" - like B.1.1.7, known as the "Kent" strain, which has been blamed for some of the botched
rollout in the US.
Bourlas isn't the only major public health official warning about the need for booster shots. On Thursday, the Biden
administration's Covid response chief science officer David Kessler said Americans should expect to receive booster shots to
protect against coronavirus variants. He noted that while the current crop of COVID jabs is highly effective, they could be
"challenged" by the new variants.
New data released earlier this month by Pfizer said that updated data from its clinical trial showed its vaccine to be highly
effective six months after the second dose. The data was based on more than 12K vaccinated participants. More data is still
needed to determine whether protections last after six months, however. Pfizer and German partner BioNTech began studying a
third dose of their vaccine in late February.
The booster shot is aimed at protecting against future variants, which may be better at evading antibodies from vaccine than
earlier strains of the virus. About 144 volunteers will be given the third dose, mostly those who participated in the
vaccine's early-stage U.S. testing last year.
"We don't know everything at this moment," he told House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Response. "We are studying the
durability of the antibody response," he said. "It seems strong but there is some waning of that and no doubt the variants
challenge...they make these vaccines work harder. So I think for planning purposes, planning purposes only, I think we should
expect that we may have to boost."
Bourla said the company would likely try out the third doses first on a select group of individuals who participated in the
original studies.
Yearly
Shot = Damn people are stupid. Maybe I can make it monthly
S. Archer
37 minutes ago
It
won't end with a 3rd shot. This crap is going to become annual. Every year we'll be harassed about whether
we have had our covid shots or not. I for one will not be participating. GTFO with that crap.
Around 20 years ago, the work of two researchers -- Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó -- helped overcome two primary barriers that had
been standing in the way of utilizing mRNA technology: an inflammatory effect on the body that made test animals ill, and the
fragile nature of the molecule itself, both of which hindered its utility.
Despite those advancements, and the wealth of research that's been carried out since, the fact remains that the two mRNA vaccines in
use today are the first of their kind. That may be in part because it's difficult to generate interest and funding to support
pursuing "non-mainstream" science outside of a crisis, Duprex said -- what he characterized as "a shortsighted way to think about
biology."
Only now, amid a devastating pandemic, has this technology reached mainstream prominence. "Given the choice, I would have rather
avoided this past year," Weissman said. "But we didn't, and now RNA is going to be our future."
Here's a look at how, exactly, these vaccines manage to pull off this feat and some of the key research breakthroughs that made this
moment possible.
How messenger RNA vaccines work
In order to develop these vaccines, researchers took the RNA-based genetic sequence of the coronavirus and turned it into DNA. This
crucial step allowed them to identify the "instructions" necessary to create the spike protein, engineer corresponding synthetic
mRNA and package that into their vaccines.
mRNA, as its moniker implies, is a messenger. This particular type of RNA is tasked with delivering messages to microscopic cellular
machines called ribosomes, located in the cytoplasm of our cells, which are responsible for synthesizing proteins. Those ribosomes
then interpret that message to make proteins and start executing its instructions, explained Phillip Sharp, a molecular biologist
and MIT professor who shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for his contribution to our understanding of RNA.
Dendritic cells, the watchdogs of the immune system, play an essential role in responding to pathogens. They patrol the body in
search of foreign invaders and, when they find one, start stimulating an immune response. When these cells encounter mRNA that's
been injected via vaccination, their ribosomes decode the message and allow the cells to temporarily display spike proteins
identical to the ones found on the coronavirus's exterior, Weissman said.
"Dendritic cells make the spike protein and then they present it to other immune cells and activate them to start the immune
response," he added.
An
animated visual of the coronavirus. Megan McGrew/PBS NewsHour
What does the coronavirus look like?
Like the other members of its viral family, SARS-CoV-2 -- the official name for the coronavirus -- is an RNA virus. Simply put,
each individual virus is composed of single strands of genetic material protected by a fatty outer layer that's coated in
spike proteins. Those "spikes" are what the virus uses to hijack our cells and use our molecular machinery to make more copies
of itself.
The proteins allow the dendritic cells to alert two more key players in the immune system -- T cells and B cells -- that if they see
those same spikes on any other cell, they should recognize them as a foreign invaders and either destroy them or generate antibodies
to neutralize them immediately.
"There's a memory component of those cell populations, and that stays in your body over a long period of time," Sharp said. "If a
similar virus infects you, those memory cells are ready to go. They are all perfected to go out and kill that virus."
mRNA naturally degrades rapidly over time, so once it has served its purpose, it simply breaks down. The dendritic cells that
expressed the spike protein eventually die and are replaced by new ones that continue to pick up that vaccine-delivered mRNA and
repeat the process all over again in the course of about two weeks following immunization.
Some members of the public have expressed concern over unfounded speculation that these vaccines could negatively affect the body.
But it is impossible for an mRNA vaccine to alter your DNA because synthetic mRNA operates only in the cytoplasm and is incapable of
entering any other parts of our cells, such as the nucleus.
Like virtually all vaccines, those that use mRNA can trigger temporary symptoms like a fever, fatigue and soreness at the injection
site that dissipate within a few days. But clinical trials that took place before the vaccines were authorized, as well as those
that have followed, all suggest that these vaccines are both safe and effective at preventing serious illness and death.
"It's always, always much more risky to get the disease than it is to get the vaccine," Duprex said.
How did we get here?
mRNA was first
injected
into the muscles of mice in 1990
with the intention to deliver therapeutic proteins. But that effort "didn't go very far,"
according to Weissman, in large part due to the strong inflammatory response it induced, which severely sickened the animals
involved.
That's because in both animals and humans, cells feature a number of different receptors that can recognize mRNA as a foreign
substance that must be destroyed. Those receptors help these cells distinguish their fellow cells from invaders like viruses,
bacteria or even tumor cells.
Both RNA and DNA are composed of four nucleotides. More than a decade after that first injection in mice, Weissman and Karikó, who
now serves as senior vice president at BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to manufacture their joint vaccine, figured out a way
to
insert
an modified nucleotide
that allows the synthetic mRNA to masquerade as a normal cell and circumvent those receptors, no longer
triggering extreme inflammation. It also made the mRNA-spurred protein production more efficient.
"Our big discovery was that we could modify the RNA to make it non-inflammatory. And that had a couple of important features to it,
but the first was that it greatly increased the amount of protein made off of the RNA," which increased potency, Weissman said.
With the inflammation problem solved, Weissman and Karikó then turned to tweaking how mRNA is delivered so it could actually do its
job once injected into the body. mRNA is an inherently "labile," or unstable, material that can degrade rapidly to the point of
being rendered ineffective.
After testing around 40 different types of delivery systems, the researchers found their golden ticket: lipid nanoparticles. These
"droplets of fat" coat the mRNA and allow it to successfully enter our cells, which are also encapsulated in an oily substance.
Traditional vaccines are typically formulated with adjuvants that are designed to stimulate the immune response in their recipients.
In what Weissman described as a lucky development, lipid nanoparticles happened to act as an adjuvant that stimulated a specific
type of "helper cell" that promotes antibody responses.
"We use the lipid nanoparticles to get over a lot of the fragility [problems] because that protected the [mRNA] after you injected
it into people, and it promoted these cells to take up the [mRNA] and start the vaccine process," Weissman said.
Where mRNA stands today
In the years since Weissman and Karikó made these breakthroughs, mRNA research has continued to march on. Weissman and his current
colleagues have worked on a variety of mRNA vaccines, including a "universal" flu shot that could cover
a
majority of influenza viruses
and has so far proven to be effective in animal trials.
Compared to traditional vaccine platforms that require a series of complex steps, like growing mammalian cells in massive quantities
and a viral purification process that looks different depending on the pathogen you're working with, mRNA is now easy to manufacture
at a fairly large scale.
Instead of needing "to reinvent the wheel every time you make a new vaccine," Weissman said, "with [mRNA,] it's the same reaction,
and the only thing you have to do is plug in the new sequence for any virus, so that makes it very easy to produce a new vaccine."
Both Moderna and Pfizer's vaccines generated above 90 percent protection after two doses during clinical trials that played out
before new variants of the virus marginally reduced their efficacy. Even so, the two give recipients remarkably high levels of
protection, particularly
against
severe disease and death
.
The CDC recently released new research that found these vaccines reduce a fully vaccinated person's chance of
getting
infected with the coronavirus
by 90 percent in "real-world" settings like the workplace.
Given that no vaccines have ever been approved to immunize people against any kind of coronavirus, and that the FDA's original hope
was to secure one with
at
least 50 percent efficacy
to curb the pandemic, these results represent yet another significant milestone in annals of RNA
technology.
Much more research lies ahead for these vaccines, both of which have been rolled out in the United States and in some other
countries over the past few months. In addition to continuing to track safety and efficacy data, researchers need to know how well
these vaccines
prevent
recipients from transmitting COVID-19
and how long the protection they offer lasts. Until we know the answers to those
questions, recipients should keep following pandemic precautions like wearing a mask, even after they've gotten their two doses,
experts say.
Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, a one dose shot that uses a
different
yet similarly innovative platform
to deliver immunity compared to mRNA, has also been authorized for use in the United States.
Its strong efficacy and ability to be stored at a less strict temperature range makes experts hopeful that the rollout of this
vaccine will help
close
some gaps in vaccine access
both in this country and abroad.
In tackling COVID-19, Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines have "paved the way," Duprex said, when it comes to illustrating the utility of
synthetic mRNA. And yet, while he anticipates that researchers will "only get better" at making tweaks that allow for better
delivery and stability of this technology, he notes that we're still in the early days of harnessing its utility -- we also can't
assume that mRNA is "the next big panacea" that will solve all of our problems.
But, Duprex said, "the beautiful thing about this is this just gives us another brush for the palette of novel therapeutics [and]
novel ideas that somebody in the next generation of scientists are going to be able to [use to] paint."
SYDNEY, Aug 20 - Triple therapy specialist Professor Thomas Borody, famous for curing peptic
ulcers using a Triple Antibiotic Therapy saving millions of lives, has released the Triple
Therapy Protocol for COVID-19 to Australian GPs, who can legally prescribe it to COVID-19
positive patients, or prescribe it as a preventative medication. Borody says this could be the
fastest and safest way to end the pandemic in Australia within 6-8 weeks.
Professor Thomas Borody MB, BS, BSc(Med), MD, PhD, DSc, FRACP, FACP, FACG, AGAF, FRS(N)
said:
"The three medications are on chemist shelves right now. GPs can email [email protected] to obtain the dosing protocol and COVID-19 treatment
information for their patients.
"GPs can legally prescribe the therapy today as an "off label" treatment according to
Australian Guidelines - a standard practice in medicine. In fact more than 60% of prescriptions
in Australia are "off-label". It's not a new concept. It's happening every day to manage
diseases and save lives."
Professor Borody continued:
"We have a therapy that can fight COVID-19. The medications have been around for 50 years,
they are cheap, FDA and TGA approved, and have an outstanding safety profile. Why are we just
waiting around for a vaccine? To save lives we should be using whatever is safe and available
right now. We could lead the world in this fight.
"Australia has some of the best medical and science people in the world - indeed the
Ivermectin connection was first discovered by Dr Kylie Wagstaff's team at Monash University in
April. How long do we need to wait before Australian politicians get behind Australian medical
science and use 'war room' tactics with safe and approved medications."
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a
virologist at the University of California , Riverside. "I'm
shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure
at 30, or even less.
Moderna Inc.'s vaccine remained more than 90% effective after six months, according to a new
analysis of data from the company's final-stage trial.
Beginning two weeks after the second dose, the shot was more than 90% effective overall, and
more than 95% effective at preventing severe cases, according to a statement. The company
didn't release further details and said the follow-up results were preliminary as the study is
continuing.
If we assume that 10% of vaccinated who get infected (the vaccine does not prevent infection but does prevent development of
virus pneumonia) will get virus pneumonia and if the effectiveness will drop further in 12 month this means that this particular
vaccine is a grandiose failure.
Notable quotes:
"... Actual death count means the number of death where CODID-19 is primary cause means deaths from virus pneumonia only. All other needs to be excluded, IMHO. As money are involved, I think the statistics is grossly exaggerated. ..."
"... If we assume that 10% of vaccinated who get infected (the vaccine does not prevent infection but does prevent development of virus pneumonia) will get virus pneumonia and if the effectiveness will drop further in 12 month this means that this particular vaccine is a grandiose failure. ..."
Scientists at the VA's Office of Research and Development in White River Junction, Vermont, have found that the vaccines can provide
immunity for at least seven to nine months, a time frame similar to the immune response generated in people who have had COVID-19.
The study examined antibodies in some of the 240,000 veterans who have contracted COVID-19, Dr. Richard Stone, VA's acting under
secretary for health, said Friday.
Speaking to reporters during a news conference Friday with VA Secretary Denis McDonough, Dr. Richard Stone:
"The evidence is that between seven and nine months, we can feel comfortable that you are still protected. We think it will
be longer than that. That is not a limitation,"
While several studies have shown that immunity following a COVID-19 infection can last at least six months, and perhaps as many
as eight months, research on the lasting impact of COVID-19 vaccines is ongoing, and scientists have been hesitant to discuss the
time frame before all the data is compiled.
But the VA's findings, Stone said, could "extend" the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's message that immunity from
a vaccine lasts at least six months. Dr. Richard Stone:
"Right now it appears we will be able to publish in the next few weeks."
The belief right now in Covid-19 like the flu is an endemic disease just like influenza. The issue then is how to reduce mortality
and hospitalizations going forward
Likbez, April 13, 2021 6:18 pm
> The issue then is how to reduce mortality and hospitalizations going forward
In order to reduce mortality it is important to have valid statistical data of the number of infections (not positive PcR tests
without specifying the number of amplifications )
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in
the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
[why?]
The C.D.C.'s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample
above a threshold
of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share
them with contact-tracing organizations. [why?]
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of
California, Riverside. "I'm shocked
that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less.
Actual death count means the number of death where CODID-19 is primary cause means deaths from virus pneumonia only.
All other needs to be excluded, IMHO. As money are involved, I think the statistics is grossly exaggerated.
In this respect, one effect that does need a valid explanation is almost total elimination of deaths from influenza this season.
How this could be?
Development of direct methods of treating COVID-19 is also important and can help to reduce "real" mortality. This policy of
putting all money on a single method - vaccination - looks pretty questionable to me, taking into account that coronaviruses mutate
rapidly which limits the duration of vaccination, and the possibility of discovering long term side effects.
What about effective antibody treatment and new medications that supposedly can prevent the development of virus pneumonia?
Which means that death from COVID-19 can be eliminated without vaccination as only pneumonia is deadly in this case.
Traditionally pneumonia is the main cause of deaths among elderly so the fact that now this is the COVID-19 pneumonia changes
very little in statistics of death for the elderly. Post-influenza bacterial pneumonia is dangerous enough for this category of
people, so COVID-19 pneumonia changes almost nothing here.
This wide-scale biological experiment with vaccination for age groups below, say, 50, does not look too promising if the effectiveness
of the vaccine is limited to a single virus season. Which is what the CEO of Pfizer hinted recently.
If we assume that 10% of vaccinated who get infected (the vaccine does not prevent infection but does prevent development of
virus pneumonia) will get virus pneumonia and if the effectiveness will drop further in 12 month this means that this particular
vaccine is a grandiose failure.
Also constant vaccine cheerleading in neoliberal MSM became a little bit annoying as for age groups below, say 50, this virus
does not represent serious, statistically significant danger.
And what if we discover serious side effects of Pfizer or Moderna vaccine a year or two from now ? Then what?
IMHO attempt to immunize people below 25 or 30 years old without serious health problems would be highly questionable and possible
harmful. And, unfortunately, I saw many such people in lines.
Also, one size does not fit all here. There areas with high density of population like NYC and vicinity (NY metropolitan
area). Where the risk is highest and the virus represent serious and immanent threat due to the specifics of this env. Which
is unhealthy env to start with.
And there are rural areas ( like in PA ) where so far there were no cases of COVID-19. At all.
It is wrong to treat them identically.
Also the value of vaccination depends on occupation, along with the age and general health. People who need to contact
many other people can benefit more from the vaccination.
For them the small risk of complications from the vaccine is far less than the risk of being infected and develop COVID-19
pneumonia. For people living more or less isolated life, and, especially, people paranoid about this virus - not so much.
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
Drs. Gottlieb and McClellan say therapeutic antibodies and drugs like remdesivir and dexamethasone have been the
only options. We disagree and have published detailed reviews of successful early treatment.
Thousands of lives have been saved.
Two drugs used, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, have two of the best safety records on the market, with
billions of doses safely prescribed.
The former commissioners suggest judging drugs on whether they "shorten the duration of symptoms or reduce viral
load" -- poorly measured and unimportant outcomes compared with hospitalization and mortality. We already have
evidence for generics reducing Covid death rates. Agencies should devote their efforts to confirming these results
instead of chasing new, more expensive drugs.
"... Dr. Kaplan is a faculty member at the Stanford School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Center and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. He has served as associate director of the National Institutes of Health and chief science officer at the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ..."
Distrust of the establishment plays a role in vaccine hesitancy, but it's probably time to
back off on the prevailing commentary suggesting that those avoiding vaccines are
irresponsible, uninformed or politically manipulated. Achieving herd immunity requires that
about 70% of Americans are vaccinated or contract Covid and develop natural immunity, which
official numbers place around 10% of the population. Polls consistently show that 21% say they
will definitely not get the vaccine and about a third rate their chances of taking the vaccine
as less than 50%. It's better to address common fears and concerns respectfully and
informatively than with hectoring and condescension.
Dr. Kaplan is a faculty member at the Stanford School of Medicine Clinical Excellence
Research Center and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. He has served as associate
director of the National Institutes of Health and chief science officer at the U.S. Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
I just checked the CDC Covid vaccine tracker and most states are under 30%.
I think they may get 5% more to take the jab, but thats about it!
Txjac 20 hours ago
At the hospital where my sister works they have had to ask them to stop shipping the
vaccine. Not many are lining up to take it. Seems like we have an overabundance of it here in
Houston
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to "diagnose" Sars-Cov-2 infection,
the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19
patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to
compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness --
strictly speaking their "sensitivity"[
1 ] and "specificity" -- by comparison with a "gold standard," meaning the most accurate
method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as
Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an
ABC TV interview in an answer to the
question "How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?" :
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we've already
got blood cultures, that's our gold standard we've been using for decades, and we could match
this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don't have a gold standard test."
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper "Interpreting a COVID-19 test result"
, published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that there is a
"lack of such a clear-cut 'gold-standard' for COVID-19 testing."
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19
diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and
purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that,
"pragmatically" COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, "may be
the best available 'gold standard'." But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the
gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for
COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of
Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal
Association of German Internists, conceded to us[
2 ].
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis --
contrary to Watson's statement -- cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, "experts" such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an
unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis "may be the best available gold standard,"
if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself,
that is virus isolation, wouldn't be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn't
answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded
to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either,
though she wrote us
on June 2nd : "I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a
chance."
NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where
the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus
researchers such as Luc Montagnier
or Dominic Dwyer state , particle purification -- i.e. the separation of an object from
everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified
100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende -- is an essential
pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the
particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the
smallest pieces of DNA or RNA -- but it cannot determine where these particles came from
. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences
because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are
part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the
presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the
context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in
vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with "yes" -- and NB., nobody said
purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like "No, we did not obtain an
electron micrograph showing the degree of purification" (see below).
We asked several study authors "Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?", they
gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. "Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening
human health" Nature Medicine , March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified
virus."
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. "Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in
Korea with COVID-19", Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives , February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and
concentrate the virus cultured in cells."
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. "Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in
Korea", Journal of Korean Medical Science , February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of
purification."
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., "A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China", 2019,
New England Journal of Medicine , February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: "[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones."
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs
(EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could
have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show
purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral.
(In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term "isolation" in their
papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification)
process. Consequently, in this context the term "isolation" is misused).
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new
coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like
particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the
existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001,
Science published an "impassioned plea to the younger generation" from several
veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction [ ] tell little or
nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick.
[It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint."[
3 ]
And that's why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2
has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one."[
4 ]
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the
scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which
the PCR tests are finally being "calibrated," belong to a specific virus -- in this case
SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent
of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation
and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that
satisfies the four Koch's postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and
Rosemary Frei
recently revealed for OffGuardian .
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by
the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have
done it, in reality, did not succeed.
One example is a study published in Nature on
May 7 . This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet
any of the postulates.
For instance, the alleged "infected" laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical
symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should
actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the
slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible,
not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the
weight went back to normal again.
Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies . And let's not
forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not
the case.
Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about
SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 -- the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University
of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the
aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm
(virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) -- could answer the
following question I have sent them:
If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do
you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new
virus?
Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are
added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can
"stress" the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were
not
previously detectable -- an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew
attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in
1983 .
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of
Christian Drosten, Germany's most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the
German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be "accepted" (
not validated! ) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.
But we didn't get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we
achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
Regarding our question "Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle
purification was carried out?," the Charité concedes that they didn't use purified
particles.
And although they claim "virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing
for the virus," in their paper ( Corman et
al. ) they state:
RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg,
Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden,
Germany),"
Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral .
Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn't even go through
a proper peer review process , nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls
-- although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really
solid.
IRRATIONAL TEST RESULTS
It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without
widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is
independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational
test results.
For example, already in February the health authority in China's Guangdong province reported
that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test "negative,"
and then tested
"positive" again .
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29
out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between
"negative", "positive" and
"dubious" .
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18
patients and the majority went from "positive" to "negative" back to "positive" at least once,
and up to
five times in one patient .
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February
that the PCR tests are
"only 30 to 50 per cent accurate" ; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular
Diagnostics Laboratory sent a l
etter to the WHO's coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020,
saying that:
It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase
quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating
many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive
cases."
In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a
viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded
scare among the "positive" people tested.
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly
"positive" (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the
virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of
people without disease in whom the test is correctly "negative" (a test with a specificity of
95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).
With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.
In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an
article in which the PPV has been calculated with
three different prevalence scenarios .
The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to
calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the
calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica
Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.
But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and
that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt
reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have "a shockingly low" PPV.
In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only
30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested "positive" are not "positive" at
all . Yet "they are prescribed quarantine," as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.
In a second scenario of the journal's article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is
assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the
"positive" tests are false "positives."
That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered
"positive" worldwide -- supposing that the true "positives" really have a viral infection -- we
would get almost 2 million false "positives."
All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files
that the so-called "SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests" are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
positive results [ ] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other
viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."
Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not
intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by
Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[
5 ].
To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by
TIB Molbiol -- which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol -- and
distributed by Roche we can read:
These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus
infection"
And:
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures."
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE TESTS CAN MEASURE THE "VIRAL LOAD"?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect
the targeted
genes .
Moreover, in the product
descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are
"qualitative" tests , contrary to the fact that the "q" in "qPCR" stands for
"quantitative." And if these tests are not "quantitative" tests, they don't show how many
viral particles are in the body .
That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real
world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral
particles actively replicating in their body.
That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure
the so-called
"viral load," i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. "But this has never been
proven. That is an enormous scandal," as the journalist
Jon Rappoport points out .
This is not only because the term "viral load" is deception. If you put the question "what
is viral load?" at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the
bloodstream. They're surprised to learn it's actually RNA molecules.
Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is "burdened"
with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which
has not yet happened):
You take, let's say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from
them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never
know who the patients are and what condition they're in. The testers run their PCR on the
tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found.
Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they
claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so
much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick -- or are they fit as a
fiddle?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité
to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. -- the so-called
"Drosten PCR test"
-- is a quantitative test.
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question "yes". Instead, the
Charité wrote:
If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases
these are [ ] limited to qualitative detection."
Furthermore, the "Drosten PCR test" uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary
assay , while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as
confirmatory assay .
According to
Corman et al ., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses , while the other
assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled "SARS-CoV-2".
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that
is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm,
recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as "positive" even if just the E-gene
assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses! )
gives a "positive" result .
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as
specific .
That change of algorithm increased the "case" numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are
produced for example by Roche
,
TIB Molbiol and
R-Biopharm .
HIGH CQ VALUES MAKE THE TEST RESULTS EVEN MORE MEANINGLESS
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a "cycle quantification" (Cq) value of
over 35, and some, including the "Drosten PCR test", even have a Cq of 45.
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real
signal from biological samples.
"Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally
should not be reported," as it says in the MIQE guidelines
.
MIQE stands for "Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR
Experiments", a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for
evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something
seriously wrong with your PCR."
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin , Professor of Molecular
Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of
Quantitative PCR which has been called "the bible of qPCR."
In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that "the use of such arbitrary Cq
cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too
high (increasing false "positive" results)."
And, according to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern
regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.
If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from
background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is
a higher probability of false positives.
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual
PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be
converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase -- hence the "RT"
at the beginning of "PCR" or "qPCR."
But this transformation process is "widely recognized as inefficient and variable,"
as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto
and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019
paper .
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.
For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to
cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a
factor of 10 (see above interview).
Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation
becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test's reliable informative
value.
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called
COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests -- even if they are
confronted with questions regarding their validity?
Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these
questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under
lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with
even a spark of scientific understanding.
Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive
role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial
ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal
showed in 2010 .
And
experts criticize"that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have
continued, even grown" since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is
obviously no better
off .
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act
in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in
the least justify frightening people who have been tested "positive" and imposing lockdown
measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to
suicide.
And a "positive" result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then
all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly
toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with
pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article
"Fatal
Therapie."
Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown
measures, while the "COVID-19" death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of
diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a "positive" test result whose value could not
be more doubtful.
...But an analysis of various studies of how different types of UV light interacts with SARS-CoV-2 found that COVID should
disintegrate even more quickly when exposed to summer sunlight, which features more short-wave radiation,
one
reason risk of contracting the virus outdoors during the summer is much, much lower than being indoors in the winter.
In practice, the team found that "inactivation" of virus particles rendered in
simulated saliva was more than 8x faster than scientists believed in conditions similar to summer sunlight.
A July 2020 experimental study tested the power of UV light on SARS-CoV-2, contained in simulated saliva, and found the
virus was inactivated in under 20 minutes.
However, a theory published a month later suggested sunlight could achieve the same effect, which didn't quite add up. This
second study concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was three times more sensitive to UV radiation in sunlight than the influenza A
virus.
The vast majority of coronavirus particles were rendered inactive within 30 minutes
of exposure to midday summer sunlight,
whereas the virus could survive for days under winter sunlight.
"The experimentally observed inactivation in simulated saliva is over eight times
faster than would have been expected from the theory,"
Luzzatto-Feigiz and his team said. "So, scientists don't
yet know what's going on."
The UC Santa Barbara team hypothesized that the process that destroys the virus is similar to a process seen in wastewater
treatment plants.
The team suspects that, as the UVC doesn't reach the Earth, instead of directly attacking the RNA, the long-wave UVA in
sunlight interacts with molecules in the virus' environment, such as saliva, which speeds up the inactivation, in a process
witnessed previously in wastewater treatment.
Their research suggests that an air filtration system equipped with certain types of UVA-emitters
could
dramatically reduce the spread of viral particles indoors.
For some reason, all this research about the effects of sunlight on the virus has been ignored by governments like the Spanish
government, which recently ordered masks to be worn outdoors, something the country's hospitality industry fears will destroy
more already-embattled businesses while contributing nothing to the public safety effort. But maybe soon that will change.
play_arrow
Doom Porn Star
20 hours ago
It was
intentional.
UV and
Vit D were established months ago.
There
are companies that even rolled out airplane sterilizing devices that merely bombard the cabin with intense
UV.
Fools
locked themselves and their children in their homes, Zoomed those meetings instead of meeting in the sun,
watched Netflix and CNN in stead of hiking or going to beach an such, doing what they were told and waiting
for a miracle pill or shot to solve all those lousy lifestyle choices..
HC-CZ
20 hours ago
UV
and vitamin D has been known for centuries, our grandmothers were adamant about getting us out into the
sun.
edotabin
19 hours ago
Lefties are dangerously stupid and gullible people.
Chlorine Dioxide is not bleach. It is an alternative treatment that many people praise and should be very
thoroughly studied by scientists. However, there's no $$$ in it
The
heat will not kill anything off anything if everyone is stuck in their home. Florida, in contrast to other
places, had the worst numbers in the summer. This was probably because everyone there goes inside (AC)
during the summer. If you remember Florida was doing quite well in the winter and spring because everyone is
outside. It is a climate issue that drives behaviors that , in turn, affects transmission.
TBT or not TBT
19 hours ago
Public transport was and remains a big problem. In America proper, unlike in NYC for example, we have
cars, and ample parking. We fixed stupid here.
McStain
17 hours ago
FL has
a very geriatric population. FL deaths should have been off the lying charts.
But
they weren't.
The
northern blue zoo cities had the deaths, generally obese and/or very old.
This
entire fiasco is a scam.
this_circus_is_no_fun
19 hours ago
I was
never crazy about Trump. However, objectively, many of his statements on CV were completely correct,
especially the ones for which he received harsh criticisms.
It's like the flu = CORRECT
We should have opened up last Easter = CORRECT
Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment =
CORRECT
Sunlight destroys the virus = CORRECT
Part
of his problem was that he didn't use precise scientific language when he made these statements. Also, since
his enemies would have attacked him anyway, he should have let real experts speak on his behalf and should
never had allowed Faux-chi anywhere near a microphone.
Walter Melon
19 hours ago
He did
let the "experts" speak, including opposing views like Fauci. You may recall Trump was having daily news
conferences for a while there, surrounded by his advisors.
Your
main stream news outlets, though, didn't show that. They just showed the (apparent but not real) gaffes.
How's that make you feel, that critical data was
hidden from you on purpose?
RiverRoad
15 hours ago
How
about that video of Fauci giving the "thumbs-up" to Acosta as he, Fauci, hung back and made sure he was the
last to leave the room. I almost threw up when I saw that.
RiverRoad
15 hours ago
Trump
should have kicked Fauci upstairs to a broom closet somewhere.
Billy the Poet
19 hours ago
Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons -- Why Are Some Governors Blocking Physicians' Attempts to Save Lives in Coronavirus
Pandemic?
While
governors have been handing down orders, doctors in the U.S. and overseas have been reporting remarkable
success in treating COVID-19 patients: reductions in hospitalization, less need for scarce ventilators, less
need for ICU and intubations, and significantly lower death rates.
Several Governors jumped on this
restriction bandwagon soon after President Trump announced at a recent Corona Task Force briefing that
chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine showed hope in treating COVID-19,
based on several small clinical
studies from Johns Hopkins, France, and (at last count) eight other countries. He did not say he recommended
these medicines, as some media have falsely stated.
If
they acknowledge that there are effective cheap generic treatments available for a "disease" with an
overall 99.7% survival rate (99.95% below age 70) there would be no justification for experimental
vaccines with a high incidence of severe AEs and unknown longer-term effects.
And, of course, no vaccines = no "Vaccine Passports" to start the 24/7 surveillance/ID Card regime, the
precursor to the social credit score implementation.
GemJedi
20 hours ago
BS,
the media smacked down anything Trump suggested. If he talked about vitamins and sunlight, the New York
Times would write about Trump trying to kill people because of vitamin toxicity (at absurd levels) and skin
cancer.
Omega Point
20 hours ago
This
has been known for a looong time. Our public officials have been lying. The best defense against any virus
is a healthy immune system.
Don't be Vitamin D deficient
Don't be obese
Where
has this message been? Why haven't our public health officials been promoting this message?
Follow
these rules and a large % of the deaths "attributed" to Covid could have been prevented. But people have
made lifestyle choices to stuff their faces with junk food and not get out in the sun for Vitamin D or take
Vitamin D supplements. Don't force me to wear a mask because you choose to make yourself fat and not go
outside.
Omni Consumer Product
19 hours ago
Because your advice is 100% unprofitable for the pharma-industrial complex
kickasso
17 hours ago
Bingo.
Vaccine production => Big profits.
Vitamin D production => Small profits.
Sign Felled
19 hours ago
(Edited)
So...isolating people indoors, closing fitness centers, limiting their access to "elective" medical care and
restricting their breathing isn't healthy for them? Gosh, who could have imagined that!
Agent Smith
19 hours ago
No but
it is highly profitable
Mr. Magniloquent
19 hours ago
remove
link
My
oldest daughter would have fun helping me tear down the "caution" tape on the playgrounds. My pocket knife
would make quick work of the ***-ties on swings too. Having those shut down for "covid" was one insult too
far. The silver lining, was that stay-at-home orders allowed us to meet a lot of great people. The sheeple
cowered at home obediently, and polite society had a nice times at the park.
Lt. Shicekopf
19 hours ago
Imagine the mindset of locking down playgrounds. Then, imagine a world where the outlaw is the one
unlocking a playground for kids to play and be kids.
HC-CZ
20 hours ago
That
sunlight and UV rays kills virus and bacteria has been known for centuries. The first use of UV lighting for
disinfection was in 1910. It is a technology that has been well established for a very long time.
The
trick that the news used to insinuate that UV light was ineffective was by claiming that UV did not kill
COVID. Technically true, as noted, it doesn't kill it. It just renders it ineffective.
Trump
proven right, again.
12Doberman
20 hours ago
(Edited)
There
is debate as to whether viruses are even "alive."
TBT or not TBT
18 hours ago
Irrelevant, if ionizing radiation wrecks the instructions encoded in the virus. UV damages the bonds in
genetic molecules. UV photon energy well exceeds that needed to break such bonds.
Wayoutwilly
16 hours ago
remove
link
Yeah,
all these fvckers are liars.
I am a
believer on the sunlight though. I've worked outdoors all my life and had one case of seasonal flu in my 35
+ years of adulthood.
never
had a flu shot and never will.
Boris Badenov
15 hours ago
This
explains why the LOCKDOWNS seemed to target natural Vitamin D : Its the SUNLIGHT
ITSELF
stupid:
1)
Close BEACHES, ban OUTDOOR Sports, close PLAYGROUNDS
2)
Cover your FACE, stay INDOORS, No Walking around in Los Angeles
3)
Explains why The SUNSHINE STATE is doing so well.
How
could the CDC and Fauci be EXACTLY
PRECISELY
180
degrees wrong?
insanityantidote
17 hours ago
UV
light and vitamin D in sunlight. By all means stop the lockdowns and let people live.
Faeriedust
16 hours ago
Problem being that that only works in rural areas where people actually
go
outside
for prolonged periods of time. In cities, access to limited green space is subtly limited to
those in the upper middle class and above, and people spend 10 months out of the year and 9 hours out of
the day in small, cramped indoor spaces with low-level lighting. They become so used to this that they
complain when entering my own house or office, where I attempt to keep the lighting at a level of at
least 1/3 that typical outdoors. They say it's
too
bright
and happily fill their light fixtures with fraudulently-sold "60-watt
equivalent
"
lightbulbs that provide only 77% of the light of the old 60-watt bulbs they're sold to replace. The only
exposure to ultraviolet radiation that they get is those with enough money to bake themselves in "tanning
beds". Because, you know,
real natural (free)
world BAD
,
fake world (manufactured and sold
to you) GOOD
.
Let
the idiots die and good riddance. Evolution has to be good for
something
.
Confining people in badly ventilated apartments during the quarantine was a serious misstep.
If apartment has a patio (on the first floor) or balcony that somewhat can be compensated, but if
not that is clearly harmful for the health of people, especially children and was a blunder.
Another Fauci blunder so to speak.
Based on CDC data on sterilization of corona viruses in general, I calculated a half life
of about 12-15 seconds in full sun exposure last spring. To reduce virus to 1 part in a
million, which is roughly 2^20, would take 4-5 minutes. This is the level generally
recommended as sterile for viruses. Obviously this is only for item in full sun. Your car is
basically sterile for this reason after a few minutes, and doesn't need disinfection...ever.
And high temperatures help this as well.
And yet Spain bleached a beach. I guess they don't understand that the beach gets sun
exposure.
el_buffer 17 hours ago
Well friggin duh.
It's RADIATION.
You think those UV generators in hospitals are there for a TikTok black-light
dance-party?
UV light smashes nucleotide chains into pieces faster than an Antifa near a glass
window.
Oh...and in doing so...causes CANCER.
curiousweb 17 hours ago
Not Far-UVC. Apparently kills airborne viruses very fast at low energy dosages within a
wavelength harmless to humans. Can be used continuously.
"... Should Merck succeed in demonstrating that molnupiravir is effective and free of serious side effects, it could be a boon to the company, and to society, for many years to come. ..."
"... Viruses are uniquely difficult to attack with drugs. They hijack human cells and set up machinery to churn out copies of themselves, creating a challenge: destroying the virus without harming the cells. Success, when it comes, can be fleeting, because viruses mutate to survive. ..."
"... It interferes in replication, preventing a threat from causing severe infection. Molnupiravir doesn't stop the virus from replicating, though; instead, the drug introduces errors into the virus's RNA that are then replicated until it's defunct. ..."
"... With antivirals such as this, "basically you're going to put a piece of sand in the gears and hope it stops the impact of the virus," says Gomez, the former Niaid scientist. ..."
The antiviral drug molnupiravir, still in clinical trials, would give doctors an important new treatment and a weapon against coronaviruses and future pandemics
Drugmakers see an opportunity to add to the arsenal of potential therapies. There are 246 antivirals in development, according to the
Biotechnology Innovation Organization
, an industry trade group. And companies as big as
Pfizer Inc.
and as little-known as
Veru Inc.
are testing them in pill form. Merck's molnupiravir is among the furthest along. Its developers hope the pills can be
prescribed widely to anyone who gets sick. Think Tamiflu for Covid.
The hurdle, beyond ensuring the drug works, is making sure it's safe. Developers of antivirals have been dealing with the thorny issues
they pose for decades. Should Merck succeed in demonstrating that molnupiravir is effective and free of serious side effects, it could
be a boon to the company, and to society, for many years to come.
Viruses are uniquely difficult to attack with drugs. They hijack human cells and set up machinery to churn out copies of themselves,
creating a challenge: destroying the virus without harming the cells. Success, when it comes, can be fleeting, because viruses mutate
to survive.
The first antiviral approved in the U.S. was idoxuridine, a herpes treatment regulators green-lit in 1963, generations after the discovery
of antibiotics. It's among a widely used class of drugs called nucleoside analogues -- synthetic versions of nucleosides, critical building
blocks of DNA and its counterpart, RNA, the messenger molecule that delivers instructions to a cell's protein-making factories. Nucleoside
analogues prevent viruses from replicating, or from replicating effectively, inside cells.
Concerns that idoxuridine was toxic to the heart led it to be recommended only for topical use -- the sort of hurdle that kept antiviral
drug development slow. The AIDS crisis of the 1980s invigorated the field. "Until HIV came along, there were precious few antivirals,"
says Saye Khoo, a professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Liverpool. Rising death rates and the public outcry
about the virus prompted companies and governments to pour millions of dollars into an area that hadn't seen that kind of investment
before.
The breakthroughs were meaningful. Khoo says scientists discovered that some people appeared to have a
natural resistance
to getting HIV -- they lacked a receptor allowing the virus to enter cells -- leading to a new class of drugs. They
also realized that antivirals would need to be adaptable enough to deal with mutations, and that potent combination therapies involving
multiple drugs could prevent the evolution and spread of drug resistance. At the same time, some of the new treatments had serious side
effects, including anemia and liver problems, pushing drugmakers to continually improve upon their treatments.
During this era, the U.S. government also started to boost its pandemic preparedness, with an emphasis on guarding against bioterrorism.
President Bill Clinton, alarmed after reading the Richard Preston novel
The Cobra Event
, in which a terrorist unleashes a virus that causes a fictional ailment called brainpox, convened a group of
cabinet members and scientists in April 1998 to assess such threats. That led to the formation of what's now called the
Strategic National Stockpile
, whose objective was to have enough emergency medicines and materials to deploy within 12 hours of
an official request in times of crisis.
Following the Sept. 11 and anthrax attacks of 2001, the Bush administration directed the stockpile
to procure products such as smallpox vaccines. Then, in 2006, Congress authorized the formation of the Biomedical Advanced Research
and Development Authority, or
Barda
, to help develop treatments and vaccines for public-health threats.
Pharma's next major advance in antivirals came in 2013, a $1,000-per-pill hepatitis C cure produced by Gilead. The company was
roundly criticized
for setting so high a price for such a widely used drug...
... ... ...
The chemical compound on which molnupiravir is based -- C9H13N3O6, or N4-hydroxycytidine -- has been known for decades. Like idoxuridine,
the herpes drug, it's a nucleoside analogue. It interferes in replication, preventing a threat from causing severe infection. Molnupiravir
doesn't stop the virus from replicating, though; instead, the drug introduces errors into the virus's RNA that are then replicated until
it's defunct.
With antivirals such as this, "basically you're going to put a piece of sand in the gears and hope it stops the impact of the virus,"
says Gomez, the former Niaid scientist. But, he adds, stopping the virus by creating errors in the genetic code or through other means
can come with unintended consequences. "You don't know where the sand might end up in the other parts of the body." A company called
Pharmasset Inc.
(a hepatitis C drugmaker Gilead bought in 2011) investigated molnupiravir's main ingredient around the turn of the
century, but it abandoned development over concerns that it was mutagenic, meaning it could lead to birth defects.
Painter dusted off the chemical structure of molnupiravir years ago. Prompted by a concern raised by the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
, a unit of the U.S. Department of Defense, he was looking for a countermeasure against weaponized
Venezuelan equine encephalitis, the stuff of
Cobra Event
-level nightmares. A chemist who holds 45 patents, some for hepatitis B and HIV antiviral drugs in use today, Painter
has made a career of bridging the gap between academic drug discovery and the biotech and pharma industries that get treatments across
the finish line. He took the chemical structure that Pharmasset had once studied and screened it against a wide range of viruses, including
SARS and MERS. In late 2016 he made it possible to use in pill form by modifying that chemical structure into a "prodrug," which meant
the compound would break down in the body, allowing the part that interferes with viral replication to be properly absorbed into the
bloodstream.
After his initial research, Painter settled on influenza, an ever-present threat, as molnupiravir's first target and prepared to launch
an NIH-funded safety trial in early 2020. He also applied for funding from Barda but didn't get it. Rick Bright, then the agency's director,
later noted in a
whistleblower complaint
about the Trump administration's pandemic response that, though his supervisor at the
Department of Health and Human Services
was excited about molnupiravir and wanted to fund it, Bright had been reluctant to invest
when it was first presented to him in the fall of 2019. Other nucleoside analogues had caused birth defects in animals, and he wanted
more safety data before signing off.
The EU handling of the vaccine supply has also caused splits within the EU. Many countries
including Austria, Hungary and Czech republic are going to be using the Sputnik vaccine
despite it not being approved by the EMA. This is a definite ite deplomatic win for Russia
and further shows that these countries will no longer sacrifice national interest when
ordered to do so.
The experimental mRNA injections are not vaccines. They do not give immunity or prevent
transmission. Their purpose is to mitigate symptoms so that the sick person does not get sick
enough to require hospitalisation and emergency approval was given on that basis.
Typically vaccines, such as the one for measles, provide lifelong immunity. It is unclear how
coronavirus vaccines fair against mutations of COVID-19. The question is can vaccinated people
provide for COVID-19 the new platform for mutations.
Efficiency is probably aroun 80% ( if calculated as (850-77)/(850+77) ) not 91% as the
article claims.
The Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE remains highly effective six months
after its second dose, an indication that protection could last for an even longer period.
The findings, released on Thursday, emerged from a continuing review of how volunteers in
the shot's late-stage trial were faring and whether they contracted Covid-19 with symptoms.
... Of the 927 cases of symptomatic Covid-19 observed through March 13, 850 were in people
who received a placebo and 77 in people who were vaccinated, according to the companies.
That corresponds to a vaccine efficacy of 91.3% up to six months after getting the second
dose, Pfizer and BioNTech said.
The protection remained generally consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity, as well
as among individuals with underlying health conditions, the companies said.
The vaccine was also 95% to 100% effective against severe disease, with the precise figure
depending on whether researchers used a definition of severe disease from the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention or one from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Some 800 trial subjects were enrolled in South Africa, where a more contagious variant of
the virus was first identified. Among those volunteers, there were nine cases of Covid-19, all
in people who got a placebo. Sequencing confirmed six of the nine cases were of the variant.
...the vaccine generated a slightly lower immune response against the variant than the more
common strain circulating in the U.S., but was
still effective at neutralizing the variant virus .
Of the 697 cases of symptomatic Covid-19 among study subjects in the U.S., 647 were in
people who received a placebo, with the rest in vaccinated subjects, indicating 92.6% efficacy,
according to the companies.
...They are also in discussions with regulators about studying a tweaked version of their
vaccine that researchers designed to protect against the variant found in South Africa.
Pfizer has previously said it anticipates producing the Covid-19 shots for at least several
years on the expectation that booster shots will be needed annually or every few years to
maintain protection.
There are a lot of issues with vaccine rollout. One issue is that they do not check if a person has immunity to
the virus or not.
Another issue is how long vaccine will be effective is the next year we might face yet another strain of the virus.
Coronaviruses are mutating viruses and that's why previous attempts to create vaccine failed.
Are those people who demonstrate a severe reaction to the vaccine the same people who would get severe case of COVID-19 if
infected ?
Yes another issue is "emergency use". Long time effects are not known. We do not know why immunity for some people do not emerge
and they became ill even after being immunized. We do not know how long immunization status hold. Will it weaken in six months
to the level when infection became possible again or. and how effective it is against new strains.
So this rush with vaccine rollout is a large scale biological experiment with uncertain consequences.
For the past few weeks on Twitter, Berenson has mischaracterized just about every detail regarding the vaccines
to make the dubious case that most people would be better off avoiding them. As his conspiratorial nonsense accelerates
toward the pandemic's finish line, he has proved himself
the
Secretariat of being wrong
:
He has blamed the vaccines
for causing spikes
in
severe illness
, by pointing to data that actually demonstrate their safety and effectiveness.
He has suggested that
countries
such as Israel have suffered
from their early vaccine rollout, even though deaths and hospitalizations among
vaccinated groups in Israel have plummeted.
He has implied that for
most non-seniors, the side effects of the vaccines are worse than having COVID-19 itself -- even though, according to the
CDC, the pandemic has killed
tens
of thousands of people
under 50 and the vaccines
have
not conclusively killed anybody
.
Usually, I would refrain from lavishing attention on
someone so blatantly incorrect. But with vaccine resistance
hovering
around 30 percent of the general population, and with 40 percent
of Republicans saying they won't get a shot, debunking
vaccine skepticism, particularly in right-wing circles, is a matter of life and death.
Berenson's TV appearances are more misdirection than
outright fiction, and his Twitter feed blends internet-y irony and scientific jargon in a way that may obscure what he's
actually saying. To pin him down, I emailed several questions to him last week. Below, I will lay out, as clearly and
fairly as I can, his claims about the vaccines and how dangerously, unflaggingly, and superlatively wrong they are.
Before I go point by point through his wrong
positions, let me be exquisitely clear about
what is true
. The vaccines work. They
worked in the clinical trials, and they're working around the world. The vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and
Johnson & Johnson seem to provide
stronger
and more lasting protection
against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants than natural infection. They are
excellent
at reducing symptomatic infection
. Even better, they are extraordinarily
successful
at
preventing severe illness from COVID-19. Countries that have vaccinated large percentages of their population quickly, such
as the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Israel, have all seen sharp and sustained declines in hospitalizations among the
elderly. Meanwhile, countries that have lagged in the vaccination effort -- including the U.K.'s neighbors France and Italy,
and Israel's neighbor Jordan -- have struggled to contain the virus. The authorized vaccines are marvels, and the case against
them relies on half-truths, untruths, and obfuscations.
Berenson's claim:
In country after country, "cases rise after vaccination campaigns begin," he wrote in an
email.
The reality:
In
country after country, cases decline after vaccination campaigns begin.
One of Berenson's themes is that the mRNA vaccines
are badly underperforming outside the clinical trials and are possibly even causing a spike in cases after the first shot.
But just this week, CDC researchers studying real-world conditions came to the opposite
conclusion
:
The mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer are 90 percent effective two weeks after the second dose, in line with the trial
data. "COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons," they concluded.
Still, Berenson pushes the argument that the vaccines
are causing suspicious illness and death. On
Twitter
and
in his email to me, Berenson claimed that
an
"excellent" Denmark study
showed a 40 percent rise in infections immediately after nursing-home residents received
their first vaccine shot.
I reached out to
that
study's lead author
, Ida Rask Moustsen-Helms at the Statens Serum Institut, who said that Berenson had mischaracterized
her findings. She explained to me that the Danish nursing homes in question were already experiencing a significant
COVID-19 outbreak when vaccinations began. Many people in the long-term-care facilities were likely already sick before
their vaccine was administered, and "these people would technically count as vaccinated with confirmed COVID-19, even if
the infection happened prior to the vaccination or its immune response," she said. With limited vaccines, countries ought
to give the first vaccines to the groups most likely to get COVID-19. That's exactly what seems to have happened here.
Berenson is scaremongering about the vaccines by essentially criticizing their wise distribution.
In our emails, Berenson further argued that many of
the perceived benefits of the vaccines are illusory. "It is very hard to distinguish the course of the epidemic this winter
in countries that have vaccinated heavily, such as Israel and the UK, and those that have not, such as Canada and Germany,"
he wrote.
This is hogwash. In the U.K. and Israel,
hospitalizations have fallen by at least 70 percent since mid-January, and they remain low. In
Canada
,
hospitalizations fell by significantly less, and in Germany, the seven-day average of COVID-19 cases has more than
doubled
since
mid-February; its government has
debated
a new lockdown
.
This stage of the pandemic is a race between the
variants and the vaccines. In many states, such as Michigan and New York, normalizing behavior combined with more
contagious strains of the virus are pushing up cases again. This is not evidence that America's vaccination campaign isn't
working. Quite the opposite: It highlights the urgency of moving faster to deliver vaccines, which are our best chance to
control the spread of contagious variants.
Berenson's claim:
Pfizer-BioNTech's clinical-trial data prove that the companies are being shady about vaccine
efficacy.
The reality:
His
"proof" is a total mischaracterization of trial data.
Berenson seems to enjoy spelunking through research to
find esoteric statistics that he then dresses up with spooky language to make confusing points that sow doubt about the
vaccines. Arguing that COVID-19 cases spike after the first dose, he
directs
people
to the
Pfizer-BioNTech
FDA briefing document
, which reports hundreds of "suspected but unconfirmed" COVID-19 cases in the trial's vaccine
group that aren't counted as positive cases in the final efficacy analysis.
But "suspected but unconfirmed" doesn't refer to
participants who were probably sick with COVID-19. On the contrary, it refers to participants who reported various
symptoms, such as a cough or a sore throat, and then took a PCR test --
and then that test
came back negative.
"His point is absolutely stupid, and I would know
because I enrolled participants in the Pfizer-BioNTech trial," Kawsar Talaat, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins
University, told me. "He's talking about people who call in and say, 'I have a runny nose.' So we mark them as 'suspected.'
Then we ask them to take a PCR test, and we test their swab, and if the test comes back negative, the FDA says it's
'unconfirmed.' That's what
suspected but unconfirmed
means."
When I emailed Pfizer and BioNTech representatives
about Berenson's claim, they struggled to even understand what I was talking about. Someone was taking a group of several
thousand people who had tested negative for COVID-19 and, from afar, diagnosing all of them with COVID-19? "Does not make
sense," a BioNTech spokesperson responded curtly.
If you were enrolled in Berenson's vaccine trial for
SARS-CoV-2 and never contracted the virus, but one day you told a clinician that you had a bit of a cough, Berenson would
mark you down as "infected with COVID-19" and blame the vaccine. That's the logic here, and, as you can tell, it's not
really logic; it just seems like an attempt to find something -- anything -- wrong with the vaccines.
Berenson's claim:
The mRNA vaccines dangerously suppress your immune system, possibly causing severe illness
and even death.
The reality:
His
claim is based on a total misunderstanding of how the immune system works.
Berenson wrote in an email that "the first dose of
the mRNA vaccine temporarily suppresses the immune system." He has claimed on
Twitter
that
the mRNA vaccines "transiently suppress lymphocytes," or our white blood cells, and suggested that this might lead to
"post-vaccination deaths."
Scientists tore this one to shreds. "The claim he is
making is simply fearmongering, connecting a simple physiological event with bogus claims of deaths," Shane Crotty, a
researcher at the Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, told me.
"The observation of lymphocyte numbers temporarily dropping in blood is actually a common phenomenon in immune responses."
A little background is useful here: White blood cells
are the immune system's scouts. After an effective vaccination, some of them leave the blood and go to the site of
inflammation, such as the arm that received the shot. "The cells are not gone," Crotty said. "They come back to the blood
in a few days. It is generally a good sign of an immune response, not the opposite." To demonstrate that the vaccines are
counterproductive, then, Berenson is pointing to the very biological mechanism that strongly suggests they're working just
as scientists expected.
Readers are surely familiar with other biological
events that sound bad in the short term but are part of a normal, healthy process. When you lift weights at the gym, your
muscles experience small tears that recover and then strengthen over time. Imagine if some loudmouth started screaming in
the middle of the weight room, "You all think you're building your muscles, but actually you're tearing them to shreds, and
it could kill you!" You would probably carry on calmly, assuming that this guy just got a little overexcited after finding
a Yahoo Answers article about muscle formation and stopped reading after the first paragraph. Berenson's claim is basically
a version of that, but for your immune system.
"Actually," Talaat said, "his argument is even worse
than your analogy. Muscles really do tear at the gym. But lymphocytes don't go away. They just move. What he's describing
as dangerous in these tweets is just the regular functioning of our immune system."
Berenson's claim:
In Israel, the shots are causing a scary number of deaths and hospitalizations.
The reality:
Israel
is a sensational vaccine success story: a nearly open economy where COVID-19 rates are plunging.
See
for yourself!
On February 11, Berenson
warned
his
followers that early data from Israel proved that vaccine advocates "need to start ratcheting down expectations." This was
a strange claim to make at the time: An Israeli health-care provider had
reported
no
deaths and four severe cases among its first 523,000 fully vaccinated people. But the claim seems even more ridiculous now,
in light of Israel's incredible success since then. New positive cases in Israel are down
roughly
95 percent
since January. Deaths have plunged, even though the economy is
almost
fully open
.
When I asked Berenson to explain his beef with
Israel's vaccine record, he sent
a
link to a news story in Hebrew
that, he said, reported "several hundred deaths and hospitalizations and thousands of
infections in people who have received both doses." I can't read Hebrew, so I reached out to someone who can, Eran Segal, a
computational biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. He replied by email: "This link actually
shows that the vast majority of those who died were NOT vaccinated." By Segal's calculations, the vaccines have reduced the
risk of death by more than 90 percent in the Israeli population. Segal also said that "numbers of infections only went
down, and even more so among the age groups who were first to vaccinate."
Berenson is wrong about all sorts of little things
when it comes to Israel, but I want to emphasize how straightforward and obvious the big picture is here. Israel is
a
world leader in vaccinations
. Its COVID-19 cases have plunged, and its economy is roaring back to life.
Berenson's claim:
Healthy people under 70 shouldn't get a vaccine.
The reality:
Outside
of extremely rare cases, every adult should get a vaccine -- and if it's authorized for children, children should get it
too.
I wanted to know where Berenson stood on the most
important question: Who does he think should get a vaccine, and who does he think shouldn't? This was the core of his
answer:
For most healthy people under 50 -- and certainly under 35 -- the side effects
from the shots are likely to be worse than a case of Covid. Over 70, sure. The grey zone is somewhere in the middle and
probably depends on personal risk factors.
This response has two huge problems. First, although
the disease clearly gets more severe with age, drawing a line at 70 is nonsensical. Those in their 50s and early 60s are
three times more likely to die from this disease than a 40-something, and
400 times
more
likely to die than a teenager, according to the CDC.
According to virologist and vaccine expert, Geert Vanden Bossche, this experimental
procedure causes the recipients body to start producing antibodies specific for Covid but
practically eliminates a bodies natural ability to produce antibodies capable of eliminating
Covid variants or any other diseases.
In other words, taking the jab ruins our natural immune system. Those who have been
"vaccinated" and travel around freely become super-spreaders of the variant mutations. Notice
the recent news reports indicating a rising number cases involving covid variants.
Very well put, but the window is closed. We are all going to have to pass through the
totalitarian crucible (maybe gauntlet is a better term) unless we die along the way. Too many
people have bought into this nonsense for sense to prevail without a brutal systemic failure.
And it will be a while, so make a point of putting some relevant time capsules together so
that the people of the future will have some real hard copy to study, as the electronic files
will not survive.
I listened to this interview but why does this jab do that but others (flu, measles, hpv,
etc ) do not do the same thing?
I get that part of his argument is that this vaccine is "leaky", that is to say it doesn't
stop the virus but accelerates its evolution/mutation rate. However, I still didn't grok the
way this vaccine is different in terms of compromising our natural immunity compared to other
vaccines which apparently don't (Bossche is not complete anti-vax).
previous vaccines primed the immune system by using offensive dead or attenuated virus
combined with other junk designed to piss off your system.
mRNA vaccines actually create the offending particles by burrowing into your cells and
using them as partial Covid spike protein factories. this REALLY pisses off your immune
system. and it is feared it could cause cytokine storms (dangerous excessive immune response)
upon exposure to the wild virus.
@Vax-r-us ts
rid of the plasma cells making them within a few months.
Our authorities have rejected the use of pharmacological treatments (such as
glucocorticoids in serious cases to dampen cytokine storm, published by Chinese for treating
Covid-19 in March, 2020) and aspirin, to minimize clotting from Covid-19. There are a host of
well-understood approved drugs that in combination may be effective prophylactically. As most
of the censored dissident scientists have noted, just keeping healthy and avoiding vitamin/
nutrient deficiencies (a major problem in the elderly) may be enough to avoid serious case of
Covid-19 without vaccines.
The European Union
's drugs regulator said a link between AstraZeneca Plc 's Covid-19 vaccine and a rare
type of blood clot is possible, identifying at least 62 cases of the condition while insisting
the shot's benefits still outweigh its risks.
The comments further cloud the picture around the vaccine after Germany restricted it to
older people this week amid growing concerns about side effects. That could slow Europe's
already lagging immunization program as virus cases surge anew.
The European Medicines
Agency said its safety committee will probably issue an updated recommendation next week.
If the panel concludes there's a connection between the clots and Astra's vaccine, the EMA will
change its recommendations to patients and health-care officials, Executive Director Emer Cooke
said.
"At the moment, at this stage of our investigations, the link is possible, and we cannot say
any more than that at this point," Cooke said in a press conference. For now, there's no
evidence to support restricting use of the vaccine in any population of people, she said.
... .... ....
Concerns surrounding the Astra shot have focused on an unusual type of blood clot known as
cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. It's associated with a low number of blood platelets and
occurs most commonly in women between the ages of 30 and 45 -- a group that, in the EU, has
been disproportionately vaccinated with Astra's shot, EMA officials said.In individuals under
the age of 60, health authorities are seeing more cases of the rare clots in people who
recently got the Astra vaccine than would be normally expected, said Peter Arlett, EMA's head
of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology. The agency has identified about one report per 100,000
people under the age of 60 who got the vaccine in the European economic area. It hasn't yet
been able to identify specific risk factors, however, such as age, gender or previous medical
history of clotting disorders.
The figure of 62 cases of the rare clots includes all side effects reported in the EMA's
EudraVigilance system, which includes cases both in and outside Europe, the agency said.
The count dates to March 22, and additional cases have occurred since then.
Looking beyond the rare clots, most of the adverse reactions reported in patients who had
received Astra's vaccine occurred in the U.K., where it has been used most and where the
government has defended the homegrown shot. A March 8 review identified 246 reactions
involving various types of artery blockages or blood clots in Britain, including a range of
conditions. That's out of 269 instances in a dozen countries, which included about 40 deaths,
the regulator
said . Just because the reactions were reported after vaccination doesn't mean they're
linked to the vaccine.
So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us?
No, not those who haven't been "vaccinated" yet. Us. The "Covidiots." The "Covid
deniers." The "science deniers." The "reality deniers." Those who refuse to get "vaccinated,"
ever.
There is no place for us in New Normal society. The New Normals know this and so do we. To
them, we are a suspicious, alien tribe of people. We do not share their ideological beliefs. We
do not perform their loyalty rituals, or we do so only grudgingly, because they force us to do
so. We traffic in arcane "conspiracy theories," like "pre-March-2020 science," "natural herd
immunity," "population-adjusted death rates," "Sweden," "Florida," and other heresies.
They do not trust us. We are strangers among them. They suspect we feel superior to them.
They believe we are conspiring against them, that we want to deceive them, confuse them, cheat
them, pervert their culture, abuse their children, contaminate their precious bodily fluids,
and perpetrate God knows what other horrors.
So they are discussing the need to segregate us, how to segregate us, when to segregate us,
in order to protect society from us. In their eyes, we are no more than
criminals , or, worse, a plague , an infestation. In the
words of someone (I can't quite recall who), "getting rid of the Unvaccinated is not a question
of ideology. It is a question of cleanliness," or something like that. (I'll have to hunt down
and fact-check that quote. I might have taken it out of context.)
Nice thoughts but the high priests of the new secular cult of scientism are playing a zero
sum game. It's an either/or for them; slavery or scalp. The rituals of the cult reinforce the
dogma. The continual washing of hands as an act of purification. The mask as an act of
penance for your defiling breath. Forced solitude to keep you in front of the 24 hour Cult
broadcasts on tv. Social distancing as a way to inculcate insular thinking. Any resistors to
the new rituals will be brought to a tribunal of neo torquemadas. Perhaps a better way to be
thinking of the resistance is in terms of knighthood.
" immediately suffered anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, during the 15-minute
waiting period after the experimental shot. She was transported to Stormont Vail Health in
Topeka, where she was pronounced dead "
she was 68 – sounds like she was dead in about 15 min.
Why nobody answer the question how long vaccine will be effective for this mutating
coronavirus. Pfizer CEO has had the audacity to suggest that people should be vaccinated each
year. Bit as we know "Ye cannot serve God and mammon"; so any such CEO pronouncement should be
taken with a grain of salt. He is a corporate crook first and foremost trying to maximize the
profits at the expense of people. In 2009 Pfizer was assessed the largest fine in history for
deliberate medical fraud
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
but after lengthy appeals their attorneys managed to get the judgment reduced by almost two
billion dollars.
In the study of efficiency of Pfizer vaccines out of 36,000 participants split into two
groups (one greo got real vaccine, the other placebo), nine vaccinated participants became
infected with the virus, compared with 169 individuals injected with the placebo. But one
individual in the vaccinated group had a sever case of COVID-19 which raises a lot questions. Why
this could ever happen?
So the vaccine in not 100% protective even against the strain of the virus it was developed
for. But there is a difference both in the number of infected and the outcomes in two groups. We
cannot presume that the experiences of 19,000 vaccinated individuals will extrapolate to millions
of people. For example, it's impossible to detect less common side-effects. It is clear that the
efficiency of the vaccine in real world will be lower than in controlled groups study and side
effects might be more pronounced.
The open question is whether it will provide any protection in one year. It's almost certain
that the immune response initially generated will wane over time. If not, this is a very
questionable initiative: taking substantial risk for very little temporary benefit. It is also
unclear whether it will be effective against new strains, or vaccinated people will serve as a
catalysts for the development of new strains.
That's why previously there were no vaccines against the coronaviruses at all. The second
question is whether vaccinated people can curry and spread the virus beciang a danger to all
other people. And the last is whether vaccinated people will became a platform for development of
the new strains of the virus. And we now know that it is possible to became infected aeven after
being vaccinated, so vaccinated people can serve as the platform for development of new strains
of the virus.
my intention is not to criticize the vaccines themselves, but the manner by which they are
being shoved down our throats. That, I object to strongly because it violates the people's
right to informed consent. A lopsided, nationwide public relations blitz that relentlessly
glorifies vaccines while deliberately excluding even the slightest criticism from respected
professionals, does not respect the rights of the people. It's brainwashing, pure and
simple.
And why have behavioral psychologists been employed by the government to promote the
vaccination campaign? Why have they concocted a strategy designed "to change people's beliefs
and feelings about vaccination" to inform "people about the prosocial benefits of vaccination",
and to "intervene on behavior directly", which means that you're given an appointment, and told
that you will be getting your vaccination at the end of the session." Psychologists call this a
"presumptive recommendation" which effectively eliminates the element of personal choice by
creating a scenario in which getting vaccinated is a fait accompli. How is this not
coercion?
It is coercion, subconscious coercion. The doctor is strong-arming the patient into getting
vaccinated by making it look like its standard procedure. That puts pressure on the patient to
follow the path of least resistance, which is compliance. It's a clever tactic, but it is also
transparently manipulative.
The behavioral psychologists who have helped to shape the government's policy, believe that
the emphasis should be placed on the "safety and effectiveness" of the vaccines. That's the
cornerstone for building public support. At the same time, they show no interest in providing
evidence that would support their claims, which suggests that "safe and effective" is nothing
more than a meaningless bromide that is invoked to dupe the sheeple into getting
inoculated.
You might have also heard the term "vaccine hesitancy" used to describe the people who have
decided not to get vaccinated. The moniker is clearly intended to denigrate vaccine skeptics by
suggesting that they have a mental condition, like paranoid schizophrenia. This is an effective
way to discredit one's enemies, but it also shows the glaring weakness of the pro-vaccine
position. If the proponents of vaccination had something of substance to offer, they would rely
on facts and data rather than ad hominin attacks. As it happens, the facts do not support their
position. Besides, "vaccine hesitancy" is not a character flaw or a mental condition, it's the
sign of someone who has taken responsibility for his own health and welfare. Ask yourself this:
Why would a normal, rational person be eager to have an experimental cocktail injected into his
bloodstream potentially triggering all manner of long-term ailments or death? Is that the
choice a normal person would make?
As far as I can see, behavioral psychologists are playing a critical role in this mass
vaccination campaign. According to a report put out by the National Institutes of Health, it
appears that a rapid response team has been formed to attack the opinions of people who
challenge the "official narrative". Check out this blurb from the report titled "COVID-19
Vaccination: Communication: Applying Behavioral and Social Science to Address Vaccine Hesitancy
and Foster Vaccine Confidence":
Mitigate the impact of COVID-19-related misinformation
The spread of health-related misinformation was a significant public health concern well
before the COVID-19 pandemic. During the last decade, vaccine-related discourse online and
in the media has been plagued by misinformation. Anti-vaccine groups have leveraged political
and social divisions to diminish trust in vaccines, pushed false narratives questioning the
safety and effectiveness of vaccines, spread false claims about adverse outcomes, and
downplayed the risks of the disease's vaccines protect against. .
COVID-19 vaccine communication efforts cannot ignore misinformation and must take
actions, informed by behavioral and communication research, to identify emerging rumors and
respond in a way that is informed by behavioral science. Real-time, agile, and scalable
monitoring of discourse concerning COVID 19 vaccination -- including conspiracy theories,
rumors, and myths -- can support a swiftly developed and implemented response.
"Misinformation surveillance" efforts should identify the most prominent sources of
misinformation, the tactics being used, and the groups most at risk of being exposed to and
influenced by the rumors. This information, in addition to data regarding the dynamics and
patterns of misinformation spread, could help inform the appropriate response and best
targets for intervention efforts .
Repeat: "Misinformation surveillance""disinformation agents" " the
ulterior motives of these actors "??
Really? Now who's sounding paranoid?
This is very scary stuff. Agents of the state now identify critics of the Covid vaccine
as their mortal enemies. How did we get here? And how did we get to the point where the
government is targeting people who don't agree with them? This is way beyond Orwell. We have
entered some creepy alternate universe.
Here's more on the topic from a statement by Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American
Psychological Association, in response to the approval by an advisory panel of the Food and
Drug Administration of a vaccine against COVID-19:
"We recognize that there are pockets of resistance to vaccines , distrust of the
medical establishment and misinformation about vaccines generally .Some populations
are understandably less likely to accept vaccinations due to a legacy of mistrust rooted in
unethical public health practices.
"It is critical that leaders across the political spectrum unite behind messages of
vaccine safety and transparency." ..
Enlist credible spokespeople who can connect with diverse communities, especially
those where mistrust and skepticism run high. When leaders talk about vaccines as standard
practices, as opposed to options, people are more likely to accept them. Research
suggests building trust and providing clear information about vaccines can improve
vaccination uptake rates. It is critical that leaders across the political spectrum unite
behind vaccine safety and transparency, clearly explaining what is in the vaccine and what it
does and doesn't do in the body.
Consider the wide variety of factors that motivate human behavior. Behavioral science
indicates that people are more likely to adhere to vaccine recommendations when they believe
they are susceptible to the illness, when they want to protect others, when they believe
the vaccine is safe or at least safer than the illness, and when their concerns and questions
are managed respectfully by doctors and experts." ( "APA Welcomes Step Toward
First U.S. Vaccine Approval" , American Psychological Association)
Is it really ethical for the APA to be involved in a mass vaccination campaign? Is this the
role an organization like this should play in a democratic society? Should the APA use its
unique understanding of human behavior to persuade people on behalf of the government and big
pharma? And, more importantly, if behavioral psychologists helped to shape the government's
strategy on mass vaccination, then in what other policies were they involved? Were these the
"professionals" who conjured up the pandemic restrictions? Were the masks, the social
distancing and the lockdowns all promoted by "experts" as a way to undermine normal human
relations and inflict the maximum psychological pain on the American people? Was the intention
to create a weak and submissive population that would willingly accept the dismantling of
democratic institutions, the dramatic restructuring of the economy, and the imposition of a new
political order?"
These questions need to be answered.
Surprisingly, the resistance to vaccination is nearly as strong today as it was a year ago.
According to PEW Research:
(only) "69% of the public intends to get a vaccine – or already has .
Those who do not currently plan to get a vaccine (30% of the public) list a range
of reasons why. Majorities cite concerns about side effects (72%), a sense that vaccines were
developed and tested too quickly (67%) and a desire to know more about how well they work
(61%) as major reasons why they do not intend to get vaccinated.
Smaller shares of those not planning to get a vaccine say past mistakes by the medical
care system (46%) or a sense they don't need it (42%) are major reasons why they don't plan
to get a vaccine; 36% of this group (11% of all U.S. adults) say a major reason they would
pass on receiving a coronavirus vaccine is that they don't get vaccines generally.
So, despite the nonstop propaganda blitz, a significant portion of the population remains
unconvinced, unimpressed and steadfast. Go figure? Of course, this is just Round 1. Soon,
persuasion will turn into coercion, and from coercion to outright force. It's already clear
that air-travel will require vaccine passports, and that public transit, concerts, libraries,
restaurants and, perhaps, even grocery stores could follow soon after. Vaccination looks to be
the defining issue of the next few years at least. And those who resist the edicts of the state
will increasingly find themselves on the outside; outcasts in their own country.
Right. US government policy is ulterior constraint and coercion of voluntary consent to
medical experimentation in the meaning of Nuremberg Code Article 1, and it's illegal in
federal and universal-jurisdiction law. APA got with the program on torture, so of course
they're going to help with coercive medical experimentation.
The first time it goes to court, they lose. This is why you see Pharma shills like That
Would Be Telling breezily trying to rush approval – Oh, we'll get oodles of data now,
so we don't have to wait so long for final approval!! Final approval opens up new
possibilities for corrupt Big Pharma coercion under color of law.
But the case law encourages deference to emergency action to contain an outbreak. So as
more people knuckle under and get shot up, the outbreak goes away, the exigency no longer
weighs against denial of our rights. If the health emergency continues after extensive
vaccination, well, Why the hell is that? So judicial review is something Big Pharma will
avoid at all costs, not least because it might open the ultimate can of worms, violations of
the *False Claims Act* to obtain a *fraudulent EUA* . Big Pharma corruptly suppressed
alternatives to justify the EUA. This is a litigation bonanza that will make the tobacco
settlement and opioid claims look like chump change.
A pharmaceutical company is typically responsible for the harm done by new drugs it has
developed. The Covid-vaccines are being released under emergency use authorizations which
shield the Pharma companies from such liability under most circumstances.
To minimize the liability related to new drug development, a typical new drug goes through
a development process which takes 6-7 years of a clinical work (testing on increasing numbers
of test subjects) to gain approval. During the clinical phase, 4 out of 5 drug candidates
typically fail because of inefficacy or harmful side effects.
These vaccines are being released after only one year of clinical testing, so essentially,
we are using the entire population as test subjects. And if experience is any guide many of
them (perhaps all of them) will fail due to harmful side effects.
I am going to wait at least two years. By then, we should have a pretty good idea of the
reality of the situation. I am providing a useful service to the drug development process by
being a member of the "control group".
My father was sick for several days with a respiratory illness and tested positive for the
virus. He had had the first of two Moderna shots three weeks prior.
@mongoos opinion." -Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Reichsminister Of Propaganda
That's right. It was to protect the population from internal enemies.
By then Bernays had already created propaganda techniques, and NSDAP thought leaders were
figuring out ways to combat the big lie from finance oligarchs of the west.
Do you really think that the average sheeple can think for themselves? Only a small fraction
of the population is capable of critical thought. It has always been that way – a large
component of the population wants to be told what to do, and they want to do the right
thing.
If they were critical thinkers they wouldn't be wearing a mask while in their car driving
alone.
They say that vaccines are "safe". My definition of"safe" is that the chance of dying post
vaccine is the same as any other vaccine. VAERS data shows 166 deaths for all of 2020. As of
3-11-21, there have been 1642 deaths, 50X the rate. If they would just come out and say the
death rate is higher but you still have a 1000 times greater chance of dying without it, I'd
get it. But instead I'm wondering what else they're lying about.
Also, they say to trust the science, but I never hear from scientists, only public
relations, profiteers, etc. You'll get a much more honest answer from the car mechanic than the
salesman.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), led by Imran Ahmed, has published a hit
list of the top 10 "anti-vaxxers" they want eradicated from public platforms
CCDH, while anonymously funded, can easily be linked to a number of technocratic centers
within the globalist network that seeks to take over global governance through the Great
Reset
from Dr. Mercola's latest article, of today, March 26th.
The level of corruption of science (and medicine is just a branch of science) in the USA is
really astounding. It is Lysenkoism, pure and simple. And vaccine debate, or absence of thereof
is just a tip of the iceberg, one manifestations of corrupt nature of neoliberalism in the USA
and the level of amorality and corruption of the neoliberal elite. After all the essence of
neoliberalism is "profits before people".
Notable quotes:
"... it's what it looks like to me too... pfizer must be laughing all the way to the bank, or blackrock - whatever.. i guess the johnston vaccine or whatever will have to be pushed harder too.. https://www.holdingschannel.com/13f/blackrock-inc-top-holdings/ ..."
Well these aren't vaccines as much as flu-shots. Indeed they're already buzzing about
combining the annual flu jab with the covid 'vaccine' for inoculation once or twice a year
depending on the severity of variant season. Vaccines are supposed to offer protection
against disease for long periods of time. The flu shot isn't a vaccine and neither are these
Covid jabs. And contrary to a comment above these 'vaccines' have proven very effective to
'cure' serious Covid patients, much like the gene-therapies being used to great effect.
I certainly wouldn't take the experimental mRNA 'vaccines' until much more data is in. Is
there a reason the mRNA rabies vaccine hasn't been approved after years of trying? And of
course folks are quick the forget the Moderna/Pfizer medicines have not been approved either
except for "emergency use."
And now finally there is out in the open debate about the origins of the 'novel' Corona
virus of which so many react as if it is not novel at all. Not to say we'll ever know the
truth - imagine the legal liability of setting off a global pandemic.
There is something rotten in the state of covid. Let's put on our gasmasks and get to the
bottom of it.
Most people are not grasping the serious wrong-headedness of this mass vaccination effort.
I transcribed a germane section of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche's interview so folks here can
please read it until they understand what he's saying. (I inserted punctuation and paragraphs
to make it more readable.)
"If you go to war, you better make sure you have the right weapon. The weapon in itself
can be an excellent weapon, and that is what I'm saying about the current vaccines, I mean
just brilliant people who have been making these vaccines in no time and with regulatory
approval and everything, so the weapon in itself is excellent. The question is, is this the
right weapon for the kind of war that is going on right now? And there, my answer is
definitely no. Because these are prophylactic vaccines, and prophylactic vaccines should
typically not be administered to people who are exposed to high infectious pressure. So don't
forget we are administering these vaccines in the heat of a pandemic.
"So in other words, while we are preparing our weapon, we are fully attacked by the virus
– the virus is everywhere – so that is a very different scenario from using such
vaccines in a setting where the vaccinee is barely or not exposed to the virus. And I'm
saying this because if you have a high infectious pressure, it's so easy for the virus to
jump from one person to the other. So, if you're immune response is just mounting, as we see
right now with a number of people who get their first dose – they get their first dose,
the antibodies are not fully mature, [inaudible] are not very high, so their immune response
is sub-optimal. But they are in the midst of this war. While they are mounting an immune
response they are fully attacked by the virus. And every single time – I mean, this is
textbook knowledge – every time you have an immune response that is sub-optimal in the
presence of an infection, in the presence of a virus that infects that person, you are at
risk for immune escape. So that means that the virus can escape from the immune response.
"So I'm saying that these vaccines – I mean, in their own right of course, are
excellent – but to use them in the midst of a pandemic and do mass vaccinations,
because then you provide within a very short period of time with high antibody [types ?]
[inaudible] I mean, that wouldn't matter if you could eradicate if you could prevent
infection. But these vaccines don't prevent infection – they protect against
disease.
"Because unfortunately, we look no further than the end of our nose, in the sense that
hospitalization, that's all that counts – you know, getting people away from the
hospital. But in the meantime, you're not realizing that we give, all the time during this
pandemic, by our interventions the opportunity to escape the immune system. And that is of
course a very, very dangerous thing, especially when we realize that these guys they only
need 10 hours to replicate.
"So we think that by making new vaccines – new vaccines against the new infectious
strains – we think we're going to catch up. It's impossible to catch up. The virus is
not going to wait until we have those vaccines ready. I mean, this thing continues. As I was
saying, the thing is, I mean, if you do this in the midst of a pandemic, that is an enormous
problem. These vaccines are excellent, but they are not made for administration to millions
of people in the midst, in the heat of a pandemic. So that is my point."
Mass vaccination apparently is accelerating the mutation of more dangerous variants. Do
the experts not understand that the antigen-specific antibodies the vaccinations are
eliciting, actually compromise people's innate broadly-based immune resistance to
variants?
@ defaultcitizen | Mar 30 2021 16:55 utc | 24 who wrote
"
.....Yet some persist in shouting "The King is NAKED!" in the land of the blind and deaf and
naked – their words quickly washed away by the next wave of crashing yaddayadda.
Inspiring. Admirable. I need a double shot, now and then, to keep my courage and anger up.
Graffiti on the cyber time-tunnel hearkens the occasional weary voyager.
"
Thanks for that and the sentiments about what b has to go through to keep churning out the
truth he finds within his bias like we all have.
We are an interesting species struggling to evolve or perish it seems and yet adding my
textual white noise to yours feels positive in some way and so I do it. I think it is a small
percentage that don't feel the impotent rage of our social system and that rage is causing it
to lose trust.
I have been waiting over 50 years for the failure tipping point in the private finance
based social system and I feel it is close. But I have to admit I felt more positive in the
middle of the Occupy movement because their were people in the streets and it was focused on
Wall Street....and it sure as heck isn't now.....sigh
AstraZeneca has been plagued with problems that get lots of media attention (production
problems, suspected health problems, etc.)
And the J&J vaccine is still hard to find. There are now dozens of places to get a
vaccine in NYC but I could only find 4 or 5 that give the J&J vaccine (along with one of
the mRNA shots) - at least two of which note that they are not giving "first dose" shots and
another says (in a FAQ on their site) that they are only receiving Moderna vaccines "at this
time".
IMO we are being herded into the mRNA vaccines.
But if you complain to others about that (as I have) you are treated as though you are
"anti-vaxx / anti-science.
karlof1 – The "anti-vaxxer – anti-science" smear is analogous to
"anti-American" if one criticizes U.S. foreign policy. Simplistic demonization is encouraged
by the mainstream media with news delivered in sound bites in order to dumb down the populace
and manufacture consent (or paranoia).
That's why I see getting vaccinated now as a waste of time and medicine. My lifestyle
hasn't changed much at all with the pandemic, although my employment of precautions has
soared. That will change with our cross-country road trip during the month of April as we
interact with many more people and visit their homes. Yes, aside from lodgings, they'll be
kin--but--unprotected interactions with kin are often the source of infection. As we see
cases soar once again, it's clear that the vaccine was seen as some sort of panacea when it's
not that at all. People ought to wonder why they're prompted to get a new flu shot annually;
it's because it mutates and a different formula's required. I've never had a flu shot and
don't get the flu, mainly because of my lifestyle. What's most important for me is my
preferred vaccine--Sputnik V--isn't available in my nation and may never be approved for use
here. For me, the AIDS experience is my reference--Sex wasn't deadly until it suddenly was
(All STDs were never considered in the same league) which prompted a change in behavior. Same
with COVID, although flu is clearly a deadly virus for many.
A: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is authorized to prevent coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in
individuals 16 years of age and older.
FDA evaluated and analyzed the safety and effectiveness data from clinical trials conducted
in tens of thousands of study participants and manufacturing information submitted by
Pfizer-BioNTech. FDA has determined that the totality of the available data provides clear
evidence that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19 and
support that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the
vaccine's use in millions of people 16 years of age and older, including healthy individuals.
Q: What data is available to the public to review?
A: FDA posted data and analysis in a briefing document made available in connection with the
December 10, 2020, meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
Following issuance of the
emergency use authorization , the Letter of Authorization, Fact Sheets and Full EUA
Prescribing Information are
posted on FDA's web site. FDA has also posted the review memo for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine, which summarizes FDA's review of the safety and effectiveness data, including clinical
data, submitted in support of the request for emergency use authorization.
Q: How well does Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine prevent COVID-19?
A: The data to support the EUA include an analysis of 36,523 participants in the ongoing
randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S. participants,
who completed the 2-dose vaccination regimen and did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection
through 7 days after the second dose. Among these participants, 18,198 received the vaccine and
18,325 received saline placebo.
A: The available safety data to support the EUA include 37,586 of the participants enrolled
in an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S.
participants. These participants, 18,801 of whom received the vaccine and 18,785 of whom
received saline placebo, were followed for a median of 2 months after receiving the 2nd dose.
This is consistent with the recommendations set forth in FDA's October 2020
Guidance on Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19 .
The most commonly reported side effects were pain at the injection site, tiredness,
headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, and fever. Side effects typically started within two
days of vaccination and resolved 1-2 day later. Of note, more people experienced these side
effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination
providers and recipients to expect that that there may be some side effects after either dose,
but even more so after the second dose.
FDA also evaluated additional safety data from the larger database that included
participants enrolled later during the study who had shorter follow-up (the total database
included 43,448 participants, 21,720 of whom received vaccine and 21,728 of whom received
saline placebo) . FDA determined that the findings were similar to those in the population of
participants with a median follow-up of 2 months after the 2nd dose.
Q: Is information available about serious adverse events?
A: Serious adverse events, while uncommon (<1.0%), were observed at slightly higher
numerical rates in the vaccine study group compared to the saline placebo study group, both
overall and for certain specific adverse events occurring in very small numbers. These
represented common medical events that occur in the general population at similar frequency.
Upon further review by FDA, these imbalances do not raise a safety concern, nor do they suggest
a causal relationship to vaccination for the vast majority of reported serious adverse
events.
Serious adverse events considered by FDA to be plausibly related to the vaccine or
vaccination procedure were one case of shoulder injury at the vaccination site and one case of
swollen lymph node in the armpit opposite the vaccination arm.
No safety concerns were identified in subgroup analyses by age, race, ethnicity, medical
comorbidities, or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been reported following
administration of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine during mass vaccination outside of the
clinical trial setting. Information pertaining to severe allergic reaction is included in
the Fact Sheet for Vaccine Providers, Fact Sheet for Vaccine Recipients and the EUA Prescribing
Information.
Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more
widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
Table 4. Systemic reactions in persons aged >55 years, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
vaccine and placebo
Table 4. Systemic reactions in persons aged >55 years, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
and Placebo
Dose 1
Dose 2
Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine
N=1802
Placebo
N=1792
Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine
N=1660
Placebo
N=1646
Fever
≥38.0°C
26 (1.4)
7 (0.4)
181 (10.9)
4 (0.2)
≥38.0°C to 38.4°C
23 (1.3)
2 (0.1)
131 (7.9)
2 (0.1)
>38.4°C to 38.9°C
1 (0.1)
3 (0.2)
45 (2.7)
1 (0.1)
>38.9°C to 40.0°C
1 (0.1)
2 (0.1)
5 (0.3)
1 (0.1)
>40.0°C
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Fatigue a , n (%)
Any
615 (34.1)
405 (22.6)
839 (50.5)
277 (16.8)
Mild
373 (20.7)
252 (14.1)
351 (21.1)
161 (9.8)
Moderate
240 (13.3)
150 (8.4)
442 (26.6)
114 (6.9)
Severe
2 (0.1)
3 (0.2)
46 (2.8)
2 (0.1)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Headache a , n (%)
Any
454 (25.2)
325 (18.1)
647 (39.0)
229 (13.9)
Mild
348 (19.3)
242 (13.5)
422 (25.4)
165 (10.0)
Moderate
104 (5.8)
80 (4.5)
216 (13.0)
60 (3.6)
Severe
2 (0.1)
3 (0.2)
9 (0.5)
4 (0.2)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Chills a , n (%)
Any
113 (6.3)
57 (3.2)
377 (22.7)
46 (2.8)
Mild
87 (4.8)
40 (2.2)
199 (12.0)
35 (2.1)
Moderate
26 (1.4)
16 (0.9)
161 (9.7)
11 (0.7)
Severe
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
17 (1.0)
0 (0)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Vomiting b , n (%)
Any
9 (0.5)
9 (0.5)
11 (0.7)
5 (0.3)
Mild
8 (0.4)
9 (0.5)
9 (0.5)
5 (0.3)
Moderate
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
Severe
3 (0.2)
0 (0)
1 (0.1)
0 (0)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Diarrhea c , n (%)
Any
147 (8.2)
118 (6.6)
137 (8.3)
99 (6.0)
Mild
118 (6.5)
100 (5.6)
114 (6.9)
73 (4.4)
Moderate
26 (1.4)
17 (0.9)
21 (1.3)
22 (1.3)
Severe
3 (0.2)
1 (0.1)
2 (0.1)
4 (0.2)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
New or worsening muscle pain a , n (%)
Any
251 (13.9)
149 (8.3)
477 (28.7)
87 (5.3)
Mild
168 (9.3)
100 (5.6)
202 (12.2)
57 (3.5)
Moderate
82 (4.6)
46 (2.6)
259 (15.6)
29 (1.8)
Severe
1 (0.1)
3 (0.2)
16 (1.0)
1 (0.1)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
New or worsening joint pain a , n (%)
Any
155 (8.6)
109 (6.1)
313 (18.9)
61 (3.7)
Mild
101 (5.6)
68 (3.8)
161 (9.7)
35 (2.1)
Moderate
52 (2.9)
40 (2.2)
145 (8.7)
25 (1.5)
Severe
2 (0.1)
1 (0.1)
7 (0.4)
1 (0.1)
Grade 4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Use of antipyretic or pain medication
358 (19.9)
213 (11.9)
625 (37.7)
161 (9.8)
a Mild: does not interfere with activity; moderate: some interference with
activity; severe: prevents daily activity; Grade 4: emergency room visit or hospitalization for
severe fatigue, severe headache, severe muscle pain, or severe joint pain.
b Mild: 1 to 2 times in 24 hours; moderate: >2 times in 24 hours; severe:
requires intravenous hydration; Grade 4: emergency room visit or hospitalization for severe
vomiting.
c Mild: 2 to 3 loose stools in 24 hours; moderate: 4 to 5 loose stools in 24
hours; severe: 6 or more loose stools in 24 hours; Grade 4: emergency room visit or
hospitalization for severe diarrhea. Unsolicited Adverse Events
Reports of lymphadenopathy were imbalanced with 58 more cases in the vaccine group (64) than
the placebo group (6); lymphadenopathy is plausibly related to the vaccine. Lymphadenopathy
occurred in the arm and neck region and was reported within 2 to 4 days after vaccination. The
average duration of lymphadenopathy was approximately 10 days. Bell's palsy was reported by
four vaccine recipients and none of the placebo recipients. The observed frequency of reported
Bell's palsy in the vaccine group is consistent with the background rate in the general
population, and there is no basis upon which to conclude a causal relationship.
Serious
Adverse Events
Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in
death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing
hospitalization, or resulted in persistent disability/incapacity. The proportions of
participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group and
0.5% in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events in the vaccine group which
were numerically higher than in the placebo group were appendicitis (7 in vaccine vs 2 in
placebo), acute myocardial infarction (3 vs 0), and cerebrovascular accident (3 vs 1).
Cardiovascular serious adverse events were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups. Two
serious adverse events were considered by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as possibly
related to vaccine: shoulder injury possibly related to vaccine administration or to the
vaccine itself, and lymphadenopathy involving the axilla contralateral to the vaccine injection
site. Otherwise, occurrence of severe adverse events involving system organ classes and
specific preferred terms were balanced between vaccine and placebo groups.
There were mentions of treatments, just not in the US. I don't know about whether the same
has been in Europe, but in China very early on during the pandemic, various treatments were
tried and discussed. China drew on its experience of fighting SARS, and their findings were
actually published, such as in Lancet. I believe Italy consequently made routine use of one
of the method, that of serum from recovered patients (and later in the US too) on patients in
critical care units, which was first tried and endorsed in China. Serum wasn't a panacea but
in most cases found helpful. However, in China itself the popular treatment was a combination
of traditional western medicine for pneumonia and traditional Chinese herbal medicine for
respiratory ailments. The findings were conveyed to countries that China assisted early on,
such as Italy and Serbia. Chinese herbal medicine was also included in aid packages that were
sent oversea to stranded Chinese expats. China also discussed at length the use of
remdesivir, and dismissed it as being ineffective.
Actually there were discussions of treatments in the US too, if you recall Ole Pres Trump
urged the drinking of Dittol, Lysol, and other germ killers. I didn't recall him urging the
use of injection method, but like always there are daredevils in the US that went that far
:)
Just one quote: "COVID - 19 has always been a treatable sickness"
Well said and thank you. My government posts a pathetic thing entitled "Covid 19
Vaccination and treatment" and there is ZERO information on early stage treatment. It is all
vaccine, vaccine, vaccine.
When I next visit my GP I will ask her for details of her treatment regime should I ever
receive a +ve test but I suspect what the answer will be.
Every disease is treatable to some extent. I have the Chinese Covid treatment manual of
considerable volume, fully translated to english.
Here is version 7 March 2020 and it is no doubt thoroughly revised since that date.
The almost total surrender of professionals in medical practice to self censorship and
the brutal insistence on toeing the line to the official mantra is religious obscurantism of
the worst order. It is the totalitarian stuff that led to the witch hunts and fatwas and the
excommunications and now the cancel culture.
The advocates of this oppression of clinical practice are the enemies of humanity and
the saboteurs of science.
That brief video is well worth considering as it demands an answer as to why this path
of death causing ignorance was ever advocated let alone accepted. Let a thousand flowers
bloom and a thousand ideas be considered.
It looks like the vaccinated will be the petri dishes from which the variants arise, but
the unvaccinated who will be vilified...sadistically genius...that's how hegemon rolls
I'm opting out of this sick game myself as long as possible.
"In the document the CP (Civilian Probe) points at a government attempt to conceal its
dealing with Pfizer. The document states that "the Pfizer-Israel agreement is suffocated with
redacted segments, consequently, it is not possible to analyze it legally and/or fully grasp
Its implications as far as public health is concerned This concealment casts a heavy shadow
over anyone who took part in the (Israeli/Pfizer) negotiations ".
...
"On the one hand, the state did not inform the citizens that Pfizer's vaccine is in
experimental stages that have not yet been completed, and that at this stage they are
actually taking part in the experiment. On the other hand, the state did not maintain
transparent and open control and monitoring systems for the public. As a result, there is a
serious concern that this critical and negligent omission stems from: (a) the fear that such
disclosure could interfere with the fulfilment of the objectives that may be implied by the
Israel-Pfizer agreement or (b) the fear of diminishing demand for the exceptional number of
vaccines that were purchased by Israel in advance, and/or (c) the fear of revealing
unflattering results of the 'experiment' being carried out in Israel."
...
every world citizen who is concerned about the future of humanity should be alarmed by the
CP's findings and particularly by the desperate and relentless attempts to suppress free
academic, scientific and ethical discussion about Covid, the so-called 'vaccines' or anything
else."
The industry needs some good PR right now. After all, its refusal to share its vaccine
technology could end up costing millions of lives in the developing world. In addition, it
could mean trillions of dollars of lost output as countries need to shut down large segments
of their economy. But the NYT is there to help. It ran a lengthy article about the issue,
which contains much useful information, but it maintains a framing favorable to the
pharmaceutical industry. At the end of the piece, after giving the argument for broader
sharing of technology and over-riding the industry's government-granted patent monopolies,
the piece tells readers: "But governments cannot afford to sabotage companies that need
profit to survive."
If the reporters/editors had read their piece, they would know that the companies in
question had already made large profits, through being paid directly for their research and
building manufacturing facilities, as was the case with Moderna and BioNtech (Pfizer's German
partner), or with advance purchase agreements. No one is suggesting that these companies
should not make a profit, so it is not clear on what planet this assertion originated.
It is possible to make profits directly on government contracts, as major military
contractors like Lockheed and Boeing could explain to the New York Times. The advantage of
having direct contracts for biomedical research is that a requirement of the contract could
be that all findings are fully open-source so that researchers all over the world can benefit
from them. (I discuss a mechanism for direct funding in chapter 5 of Rigged [it's free].)
... ... ...
It is probably worth mentioning inequality in this piece. The NYT, like most intellectual
types, has done considerable hand-wringing over inequality in recent years, both overall and
racial inequality. It is a safe bet that giving more money to pharmaceutical companies will
mean more inequality and certainly benefit whites far more than Blacks. It might be useful if
the paper paid a little attention to the policies that create
inequality instead of just bemoaning it as an unfortunate feature of the economy.
Yes, the NYT is really good at covering the impact of policies that increase inequality
and perpetuate structural racism but avoids drawing any lines to the policies themselves --
and the politics that create these policies -- by treating the status quo as a kind of
state of nature.
Innovation in vaccine design comes from advances in fundamental science, which is funded
not by companies, but by NIH and NSF (predominantly). Pharma employs scientists trained
using federal funds, freely uses federally funded resources, open access publications and
open source software paid for through federal funds, buys up commercializable technologies
in form of startups that grow out of federal science and funded by SBIR and STTR grants,
kills most of them and overcharges taxpayers for the product. That's rarely mentioned. As
is the fact that pharma actually sucks at the only thing that they are supposed to be good
at - manufacturing. Quality problems have been plaguing AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna -
something that is discussed in trade publications and FDA meetings but doesn't make it to
the NYT or TV news.
@Anonymous etting where lots of people are taking, you do come out as anti-vaxxer
sentiment. That's where social pressure builds in and some weak mind cave in or Some took it
because their career is on the line.
There's only 32% of healthcare workers getting the vaccine here in the States. It's
like the MSM and some people from higher up are pushing the idea that vaccination is a must
and suggesting the vaccine passport.
What in the world, the United States of America, the beacon of Truth, the land of the
Free, pioneers of Science caved into this idea of vaccine must be administered to
everyone? The same can be said for all other social phenomena as well...
Excessive zeal might hurt. I would understand vaccination of faculty, especially older one.
But students are young and young people do not have the same level of risk from COVID-19as older
people. If vaccine has side effects Rutgers University will be liable for damages.
Rutgers University is requiring students to get the COVID-19 vaccine before they come back
for the fall semester, and one expert thinks that other colleges will do the same.
"Rutgers is on fairly solid ground and we're likely to see a good number of universities,
both public and private, start to mandate the vaccine," Eric Feldman, professor of medical
ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told Yahoo Finance
Live (video above).
Rutgers, a public university in New Jersey, is the first prominent U.S. higher education
institution to
mandate COVID vaccines for the fall semester. Students will be required to show proof of
vaccination -- or receive an exemption -- before coming to campus to attend classes or live in
university housing.
Students who are under the age of 17 will only be eligible for the Pfizer vaccine, while
older students will be able to receive a Moderna, Pfizer, or Johnson & Johnson
inoculation.
Drug companies are lobbying the Biden administration to block a push at the WTO by India,
South Africa and about 80 other countries for a temporary waiver on patent protections for the
new vaccines. The pharmaceutical industry argues that innovation as well as vaccine quality and
safety depend on maintaining exclusive intellectual property rights.
"Eliminating those protections would undermine the global response to the pandemic,"
industry executives and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, their
powerful lobbying group, warned President Biden in a letter this month. Biden has sided with
the drug companies so far. The United States on March 10 joined Britain, the E.U. and
Switzerland in blocking the push for waivers.
In an exclusive interview with Lester Holt, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla discusses
the company's Covid-19 vaccine -- including the potential for a booster shot, vaccine trials
for children and more.
Do you really trust this guy? Research The World Economic Forum, read who they are tied to
and the goals the have (in their own words) you will be shocked
Welcome to technocracy! Oh your Antivirus definitions aren't up to date, we need to plug
you into Windows update before we can let you onto the Internet of Idiots.
How good is this vaccine if, and I quote "the weakling that who are affect the whole
society" (great English but that's just a side note) So his product does not provide immunity
longer than 6 months essentially, requires a yearly dose (profit) and requires 100% to take
it in order to work. What a joke!
As CEO, much of Bourla's compensation is in stock. He's a very well-paid drug salesman. He
won't tell us the objective truth about his company's vaccine. It would hurt stock price and
his own wealth. C'mon, NBC ... Interview an objective scientist. This is just an ad in
disguise.
pfizer need get advices from expert financial, how to improve spinoff and improve
shareholder interest to make a better company. dividend, number of shareholder, debt ,
variant of products.
So the data suggests 52% immunity after 1st dose and 6 months protection with current
data, but possible a 3rd dose at 6 months or a year to cover variants and unknown protection
after 2nd dosage after 6 months, but 95% in the first 3 months. OKAAAAYYY.. ahhh.. hummm.. i
think i'll keep the mask on after the 3rd dose! oops, wait 2nd dose, but maybe no 3rd.
nevermind. "Doctor Bourla, are you optimistic"? .....Ahhhhh, well Lester, yes, no and maybe
but we'll have to wait and see...
I'd like to know why you haven't asked the CEO why his company gets blanket immunity???
Why did you not ask this man how many people have died so far after getting your second
dose?? And can you please tell us what some of the really serious adverse effects that some
people have been experiencing after the second dose??
What are the long-term effects of this vaccine on people's brain?, is there any indication
that this gene therapy which is being called a vaccine will cause early-onset dementia
because of Spike protein will start attacking the brain?
How many pregnant women have had a miscarriage after getting a second dose or even first
dose for that matter,??
What are the long-term effects of this gene therapy on women that are in childbearing
ages??
What will the gene therapy that's being called a vaccine do to the fetus when it comes to
full term are there any indications that there's going to be some long-term effects like
birth defects or genetic effects problems with the ability of this fetus to develop to full
term in reference to their sexual organs?? The reason I mention these things is because these
people that are associated with this vaccine believe in Eugenics and believe in depopulation
because of not only their psychosis but because of climate change we absolutely have to
reduce the population!!! Is this gene therapy vaccine being used to sterilize many human
beings so that we don't get into this overpopulation and then we will not be able to deal
with climate change???
And why haven't we asked this man has his company ever worked on an mRNA vaccine before
and ever tested on any animals whatsoever prior to this covid-19 planned pandemic??
If the answer is yes and these animals were Gravely injured there for this mRNA couldn't
come to full fruition and now it's being used on human beings because we're in this plan
pandemic is this just another way to experiment on the population with this mRNA gene
therapy? Another question if there was no plan pandemic would Pfizer have rolled out an mRNA
vaccine for the cold which is caused by a Coronavirus?
Does anybody think that Pfizer Maderna or anybody else would be getting approval to
experiment on the masses if there wasn't a covid-19 planned pandemic??
How come nobody is asking the CEO where is he getting the biological material to make this
mRNA?? I am just really really really curious white nobody wants to ask that question and why
people are allowing these people to inject them and they had no idea where these companies
are getting the MRNA from is it from aborted fetuses is it from jellyfish is it from where
what biological stores are they getting this mRNA
from.?????????????????????????????????????????????
Before you decide to take this vaccine why don't you see if you can get the answers to any
of these questions and my challenge to you is that you will not I repeat you will not be
getting the answer to any of these question. And the story you just will not get the answer.
The person that sticking you with this gene therapy won't tell you your doctor won't tell you
the media won't tell you dr. Fauci won't tell you and I bet you anything that CEO will not
tell you... WAKE UPPPP
Older adults who received a single dose, the proportion testing positive for antibodies
was just 34.7 per cent in those aged 80 and over for the Pfizer vaccine.
I am frustrated to read the raft of cynical comments on Pfizer's achievement in takIng the
vaccine from a lab success to a huge mass immunisation program. Before mindlessly bashing
pharmaceutical companies find out the answer to the question "Why are you not terrified of
polio". I am old enough to remember the last of the polio epidemics, the terror and the
social disruption. Stopped dead by Dr Salk and big pharma. If you lack the scientific
knowledge to criticize intelligently and propose improvements, say nothing
Covid deaths US 523,082 UK 122,415 Mexico 184,474 Canada 21,915 China 4,636 Australia 909
NZ 26 Taiwan 9. Two thirds of the Covid variants originate from the US making Covid the US
virus. There are 15 Covid variants, 10 from the US, 2 from the UK and 1 each from South
Africa, Brazil and China. Traitor Trump's "Do nothing" pandemic strategy will be written into
the history books as America's biggest-ever failure.
Why are you not reporting the side effects and death happening to many post vaccine? Why
are you not reporting that people in Israel are being coerced into taking this experimental
product and without proper knowledge and informed consent?
The twice repeated 52% number is purposeful lie, not a slip-up or confusion. Why did
Lester not call him out on this? 52% includes cases before the vaccine even had a chance to
take effect. Lester was totally hoodwinked. Moderna was much more upfront on their data.
WION
2.16M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Pfizer has become a terror. The US pharma company is reportedly asking for military bases and sovereign assets as guarantee
for vaccines. WION's Palki Sharma has the details.
World renown vaccine specialist, Geert Vanden Bossche, gave a groundbreaking interview this
week risking his reputation and his career by bravely speaking out against administration of
#Covid19 vaccines.
In what may be one of the most important stories ever covered by The Highwire, the vaccine
developer shared his extreme concerns about these vaccines in particular and why we may be on
track to creating a global immunity catastrophe.
Anthony Fauci, DDS 2 hours ago
Could someone clarify one thing: is Dr. Bossche referring to all the COV2 vaccines or just
the mRNA ones (i.e. Pfizer and Moderna)? Chris Moyler 5 hours ago
Polite question
Does Bossche's CV qualify him to be described as "a world renowned vaccine specialist? 0
Nancy Woolf 6 hours ago
The vaccine companies admit there will be adverse effects, including death, but claim that
the benefits out-weigh these risks (millions of lives saved without proof, etc.). The companies
and the CDC does claim, however, that the spike protein mRNA will never get into the cell
nucleus and alter cellular DNA. This is a provable lie. Stem cells divide to replace cells
damaged by SARS viruses. When the stem cell is dividing, the nuclear membrane dissolves. Hence
the spike mRNA can alter the DNA by reverse transcription. Another possibility is the
nanocapsule will penetrate the nuclear membrane. If the spike protein contributes to
antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease, then permanently encoding the spike protein in
stem cell DNA will likely cause long-term chronic or recurring disease. Auto-immune attacks
will damage organs, and the repair and replacement cells will elicit a new round of auto-immune
attacks. Many scientists on the boards of these vaccine companies have research programs on
stem cells and must know these are viable risks. Vaccinated persons who develop disease or die
should have organ tissues assayed for spike protein DNA. That would prove one way or the other
if intentional lies are being delivered to the public. LM BENZ 8 hours ago
Excellent and practical information. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that have been
made to believe that the only solution is the current vaccine. But if you watch the interview
in its entirety, Geert does NOT denounce vaccines. He denounces THIS ONE.
All any of us can do, before blindly rolling up our sleeves, is be INFORMED. And not be so
arrogant that we refuse to listen and heed warnings and advice. And unless you are anywhere as
educated and knowledgeable as Geert, I trust you will leave your "karening " to yourselves
lives depend on it.
He has posted his letter to governments etc., on his LinkedIn account. Its worth a read.
Phil 9 hours ago
Has it been even proven medically/scientifically that this virus actually exists? There are
many professionals coming out now saying it has not been medically proven that this is an
actual (non-flu) virus. And additionally, whatever happened to the flu? Has Covid replaced it
or defeated it or ? Correct me if I am wrong but seasonally the flu kills 50k-60k people. And
then how many people have actually died as a DIRECT result of this alleged COVID-19 virus?
Jack Heginbotham 10 hours ago
I suggest most Virologists are over educated thespians with silver tongues.
Of all the illness causing pathogens out there, viruses are the most innocuous because almost
all are susceptible to a healthy immune system.
Bacteria have always been the deadliest because they can infect, thrive & kill in humans
with healthy immune systems. I suspect bacterial pneumonia was one of the leading causes of
death until antibiotics became available. Plasmodium Protozoa [Malaria pathogen] continue to
kill 500,000/year. The number would likely be in the millions had we not discovered effective
treatments.
However, PRIONS are the most deadly pathogen known to man. All prion diseases have longer
incubation periods than most other pathogens and they are always lethal. They are incredibly
small so extremely difficult to detect and even harder to kill. Many suspect that Alzheimer's
syndrome is caused by some type of prion.
If I were a Godless, Crazy Megalomaniac with an agenda of ruling the World and eliminating
several billion useless humans using up my global resourses:
I would find a way to distill and then distribute prions [which remain dormant for several
years] in the annual flu shot. To make certain all those undesirables targeted with the tainted
vaccines get injected: make the vaccine mandatory. Spike it for the next 3 years. In 5-10 years
people start acting like non-flesh eating zombies then die. Each successive year, the number of
deaths continue to climb. By the time the stupid sheep realize what transpired, it will be too
late. 26 Jill 10 hours ago
The highly inaccurate pcr test was the cause of this so called pandemic of a virus that has
not been isolated. I urge everyone to go to some of Reiner Fuellmich interviews where he
explains. He has international EXPERTS. Also has a WHO whistleblower interview.
9 Sharles 12 hours ago
The reason for decline in cases is because the northern hemisphere is coming out of their
flu season, nothing to do with the vax. 24 Anna 12 hours ago
What would the implications be for, say, blood transfusions, in the future? Tara Fairweather 15 hours ago
Go back in history & look at the 1918 Spanish flu, masks mandates, vaccines, the war
& the Global monetary change system that occurred all at the same time. Coincidence, I
think not. Discernment & common Sense should have prevailed by now. I pray for the ones who
are not woke🙏🏻 31 Tom Camilleri 15 hours ago
If Geert is correct, it seems that the pandemic was used to justify the development of a new
technology that is not necessarily the most applicable to the current situation but would be a
versatile tool with many questionable potential applications going forward; an enticing toy, if
you will, for those who might think that the world is their laboratory. We need to be informed
by this without succumbing to alarmism or panic. Shelley 15 hours ago
What is unclear to me is why this scientist (Geert) claims that he has no problem with the
vaccines being developed to fight covid-19, yet also says they permanently disable or
ineffectuate one's own natural immunity. That is a crazy, catastrophic outcome of a vaccine by
itself. Totally unacceptable
So there are 2 issues really – a) how the covid-19 vaccines actually operate within
the human body, causing harm (by permanently knocking out a person's natural immunity); and b)
the effect of mass vaccination of sub-effective vaccines during a pandemic, driving increasing
viral lethality that society or science will not be able to counter. Two completely separate
issues, but they are not treated here as separate concerns.
I would really like to see more examination, analysis and explanation of the first concern.
If the general population understood how harmful the vaccine actually is to themselves
personally, it would demotivate a large percentage of the population to accept the vaccine, and
possible dramatically reduce the risk of the 2nd concern. Procopio 19 hours ago
He has post doctoral training in Animal virology and he is spreading misinformation. He has
not been on any significant academic site. He probably did work on animal diseases with the
companies you cite.
The new strains were starting independently in multiple countries before the vaccinations
started. That is what successful viruses do, they mutate. How does he expect to not vaccinate
globally and prophylactically. That is the essence of vaccination to reduce the spread of
deadly diseases. You treat people who can get the disease and spread it. Not every child that
got german measles became deaf, but it was enough of a risk that mass vaccination was deemed
necessary. A normal influenza death number is between 20-60K per year, we had 500000+ with
shutting our whole country down. we still don't know the long term ramifications of neurologic
or respiratory compromise will be. The vet seems to think that asymptomatic individuals should
be studied for why the clear the virus from their systems, he doesn't even acknowledge that
many of them pulmonary changes on xray indicating that they may in fact be compromised in the
future. 0 Gavin Wyatt 22 hours ago
The biggest over reaction in all of human history which is becoming something more because
of human over reaction – do not take this vaccination. I know I will not willingly take
it. June B 1 day ago
I trust my natural immune system against any and all man-made interferences! I have reached
76 years of age with no interference from the "scientists". I care for my God-given protection
and it works! In England the NK cells are called T-cells and they give orders for the bone
marrow to make Killer T-cells to destroy pathogens. Those in power are on a culling of humans
and these genetic engineering injections will do what they are supposed to do!!
The answer is to stop all injections and boost natural immune systems. It is time "scientists"
stopped messing with natural protections against disease and looked to enhance them naturally!
This "medicine " is 100 years old but we and other living creatures have existed for millenia.
Hsaive 1 day ago
If Dr. Bossche is so talented and worked for Gates a GAVI, (He calls not-for-profit) why was
he not involved in the development of the mRNA injections? His name never comes up. Hsaive 1
day ago
Variants Do Not Exist Because SARS-CoV-2 does not exist -- - Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Says
"Halt All Covid-19 Mass Vaccinations Immediately" – BUT BEWARE! .Bossche then claims the
global population must undergo another round of mass vaccinations! https://tinyurl.com/azyfa8fs rod densmore 1 day ago
I read Dr Vanden Bossche's letter he seems to be advocating we don't mess with herd immunity
vaccines interfere with natural immunity, etc. Sweden chose this option initially in the
pandemic and that approach has been reversed lately because too many people died. He is
experienced enough to propose concrete steps to be taken that could mitigate against the
dangers of the possibilities he brings up i wish he'd done that. As a 60 something year old
person with some co-morbidities i do not have a low risk if i got COVID i can't wait to get my
second shot. As for new variants they are caused by mutations of the virus and if there is less
virus there will be less mutations trying to link vaccines to somehow be a cause of variants is
very fuzzy logic. Jill 1 day ago
What baffles me; they have been giving flu shots for years due to new varients. Question we
need to ask is have we seen a more virulent strain due to this
US worrying about vaccine competition is so stupid when only a handful of countries have
got their hands on enough vaccines right now, and when US and UK are hoarding them like
crazy. It's not a 0-sum game for now, every bit helps. Gee, EU is in a bad state due to all
pharmas failing to deliver.
Besides, it's funny to see US complaining about Russia badmouthing MRNA (so Pfizer and
Moderna) when it's Astra-Zeneca which is gets gloomy headlines on a daily basis.
That said, I'd have no issue with Western countries relying on MRNA vaccines and taking
the bulk of them, as long as it means the easier to produce and distribute, Sputnik, AZ, J/J,
the Chinese ones, are reserved for the rest of the world; it's probably the best way to
ensure most countries will vaccinate their most vulnerable citizens in a realistic timeframe
- at least before the year is over, if not earlier.
As for Latin America, Chile is doing great, and is relying mostly on Sinovax for now if I
remember correctly - like many others, it probably ordered a ton of other vaccines, but won't
need them, so hopefully they'll be sent to neighbouring countries instead.
"The West does not see vaccines from a professional and scientific perspective and now
wants to use its technological advantages to squeeze China. While the West accuses China of
engaging in vaccine diplomacy, the very one that wants to engage in vaccine diplomacy is
the West," said Zuo.
--//--
@ Posted by: suzan | Mar 15 2021 21:33 utc | 69
Human adenovirus is a completely different technology than chimpanzee adenovirus, and both
are completely different technologies from mRNA. Just three completely different things.
All viruses interact with their hosts' DNA and can potentially alter them forever. Indeed,
we can restore fragments from very old viruses on the basis of DNA of third species. That is
a natural and unavoidable aspect of life, and cannot and will never change.
Either way, the debate you bring up is moot point, because DNA mutation is not the issue
with mRNA and chimpanzee adenovirus. The crux of the debate is this: human adenoviral
vaccines are an already existing technology, tried and tested. We know they work and we know
they're safe. That's not the case with the other two, which are completely untried and
untested until last year.
Right now it is difficult to ascertain whether the euro -scare over the A-Z jab causing
blood clots is tosh or not. The Pfizer jab also had a recipient suffer a blood clot, in
amerika, early in the vaccine rollout so it is not inconceivable that all covid vaccines may
have a propensity for inducing thrombosis in a small percentage of recipients.
On the other hand about one in one thousand humans die from thrombosis, so it may well be
that these were just unlucky humans whose number came up coincidentally with their covid
jab.
There is a little evidence however which indicates that at least some of the thrombosis
deaths occured outside the range of 'normal' for thrombosis. Norway and Denmark two countries
with well established public health systems and far more comprehensive than most other
countries medical databases of their patients, were the first to blow the whistle. There were
allegedly features of these post jab thromboses which took them outside the range of
normal.
The deaths occurred in citizens at a younger age than is normal for thrombosis death and
the blood clots occurred in lungs which had a lower than usual number of platelets in the
blood, which is the opposite of what one would expect since platelets are an important part
of clotting, how is that people with lower than usual platelets in their blood developed
clots.
So in the last 18 hours more and more Euro states are suspending use of the AZ vaccine while
this data is researched.
The Irish health mob are delaying by saying there is no evidence at all to show a link
between vaccination and thrombosis, which is correct, but all that means is no one has
demonstrated a physiological, biochemical process that explains how this could occur. Of
course not - the vaccine is only 3 months into a massive rollout, the research required to
find then prove such a link, if there is one, is likely years off.
On the other hand the entire yarn may be just another story put out by the puppets of
competitors in an extremely lucrative immature market.
Every embassy in every nation on this old rock of ours, spends a large chunk of time and
energy pushing products and services which the nation the particular embassy represents, will
profit from.
That includes involvement by 'intelligence' services located in embassies.
It is probable that a great deal of the industrial espionage to uncover the trade secrets
which countries such as england & amerika are forever trying to steal from others,
friends & alleged enemies alike, are in fact undertaken by their national foreign
intelligence agencies, MI6 and CIA.
We should be surprised if the CIA etc weren't attempting to blackmail and browbeat the puppet
leaders of nations (Bolsonaro is most definitely a puppet) to buy products from their
country.
I agree it is wrong and publicising it is essential, but as I said there should be no
surprise. Aotearoa has recently (about two weeks ago), announced that the population will all
be vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The jabs will be free or extremely low cost for
most (certainly much less than the USD $60 Pfizer demands) and I had been wondering how
Pharmac, the national agency which makes decisions on all drug purchases managed to beat
Pfizer down. Pharmac has a reputation for favouring generics ahead of hi-cost originals.
Perhaps they didn't, although I reckon Pharmac being Pharmac they would have got a pretty
good deal but maybe not as good as usual since Aotearoa governments, particularly ersatz left
administrations have a habit of doing easy deals with five eyes partners as a way of avoiding
agreeing to actions that will alienate voters, even worse lose trade or even sometimes tho
rarely, because the inhumanity is too great.
eg Australia is in
big trouble with China over PM Morrison's stupid claims about covid and Uyghur chinese,
whereas Aotearoa is not. Despite pressure from USuk, Aotearoa hasn't jumped aboard the "let's
all sledge China" ship. If that was achieved by kowtowing to amerikan bullies over less
vital, less public and less divisive issues, good on them. That is a major from me who has
little other than contempt for the neolib twats in control of Aotearoa.
Or it could be that it is like the AZ thrombosis thing could be, no connection at all.
Blind Freddie can see the last G7 was about creating a chimera of mass vaccination as a way
to 'open up' and have the rich getting even richer, in that fantasy it is naive to expect
that there won't be many slips twixt cup and lip. All we can do is try to discern fact from
fantasy and protect as many other as possible by getting them to do the same.
K @ 84 – I agree 100%, and would add there are other ulterior motives besides profit
and gaining public consent, namely attempting to exert political and economic control of
competing/dissenting countries. The fact that some of the world's elite have organized such
contemptuous mafia-like organizations that demonstrate total disregard for human life and
dignity is enough to seriously question their motives in this case as well.
U.S. And Its Five Eye Partners Use 'Persuasion', Sabotage And Disinformation To Gain
Vaccine Supremacy
The U.S. and some of its allies are engaged in efforts to malign the Russian Sputink V
vaccine and to promote the more expensive mRNA vaccines produced by 'western' companies.
The mRNA vaccines hyped in the U.S. media are simply too expensive to be used around the
world. If we want to limit the global effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic we will have to use
the cheaper vector based vaccines.
That the AstraZeneka vaccine was immediately attacked in U.S. media by an unqualified
writer quoting an investment bank and the U.S. pharma promoting (Remdesivir!) Antony Fauci is
quite suspicious. Pfizer and Moderna expect to make billions of dollars with their vaccines.
They will use all possible ways and means to defeat any potential competition.
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia,
recently noted how unfair competition practices are used to keep some vaccines away from
nations who urgently need it:
Producers are struggling for the global vaccine market worth $100 billion, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.
Some producers compete unfairly, sell a small batch of vaccines at a lower price on the
condition to be an exclusive supplier, Putin said, speaking at a video meeting on measures to
boost investment activity in Moscow.
"We see how competitors behave in the global vaccine market worth $100 billion. They come,
sell a small batch of their vaccine at a discount, on the condition that everything else will
be purchased only from this producer," he said.
To no one's astonishment the U.S. government is directly involved in manipulations of
vaccine accessibility. As Brazil Wire
found :
The US Department of Health and Human Services recently published its Annual Report for 2020.
"2020 was one of the most challenging years in the history of our country and in the
history of the Department of Health and Human Services", former US Secretary of Health and
Human Services Alex Azar introduces the report.
"There is an end to the pandemic in sight", he continues, "with the delivery of safe and
effective vaccines through Operation Warp Speed".
Tucked away on page 48, the report shockingly reveals how the US pressured Brazil to
reject Russia's Sputnik V vaccine.
The HHS Annual Report is here . On page 5 it
says:
Developing a strategy for supporting global vaccine access : HHS's Office of Global Affairs
(OGA) led the development of an interagency strategy, coordinated through the National
Security Council, to provide international access to COVID-19 vaccines once domestic needs
are met .
"Once domestic needs are met" is certainly not an altruistic or even reasonably prioritizing
strategy one should be proud of. A sensible effort to save lives and to end the pandemic would
prioritize risk groups in every country of this planet before inoculating people at home who
have little risk of serious Covid-19 complications.
On page 47 the HHS report notes that the U.S. is coordinating with its Five Eyes spy
partners on vaccine 'messaging':
Combating vaccine hesitancy globally : OGA leads a group of the Five Eyes countries (U.K.,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States) on vaccine confidence, aligning our
nations' efforts and sharing best practices to enhance vaccine confidence messaging globally.
One page on we learn what such communication entails:
Combatting [sic!] malign influences in the Americas : OGA used diplomatic relations in the
Americas region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia, who are
working to increase their influence in the region to the detriment of US safety and security.
OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to strengthen diplomatic ties and offer
technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade countries in the region from accepting aid
from these ill-intentioned states. Examples include using OGA's Health Attaché office
to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical
assistance in lieu of Panama accepting an offer of Cuban doctors.
"To persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine" is, simply said, criminal
behavior that has near genocidal consequences. Brazil is currently getting swamped with a
more
infectious variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its medical institutions are
near a breakdown :
"It feels like we're putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound," said Eduarda Santa Rosa Barata, a
31-year-old infectologist who works in three ICUs in the north-eastern capital of Pernambuco
state, all now stretched to the limit. "We're engaged in damage reduction You open new beds
and they fill up immediately."
A few days earlier, Barata had admitted a 37-year-old man who had no underlying medical
conditions but whose lungs were so badly damaged he needed intubation. "It seems so random,"
she said. "It's a bizarre disease. It's frightening."
...
"Before the end of 2020, you'd get a family and one member would be infected but not the
other three or four members, even though they lived in the same environment. You don't see
this any more. If there's one confirmed case, everyone ends up getting infected by the
virus," he said. "It's obvious that this new variant is now circulating among us."
Panama, which under U.S. pressure rejected an offer from Cuba for medical support, has one
of the highest death rates from Covid-19. That is one reason why its economy shrank by 18% .
Opening Bolivia to health diplomacy : After decades of silence between the U.S. and Bolivia,
OGA re-established health diplomatic relations with the Ministry of Health of Bolivia
following national elections. Re-engaging allows the U.S. to strengthen ties in the region,
which is important for influence in regional and multilateral fora , including the Pan
American Health Organization.
What was "following national elections" in Bolivia was
a fascist coup which produced repression and tyranny. The U.S. used its cooperation with
the coup plotters to influence other organizations.
Meanwhile the U.S. is also falsely stating that Russia is spreading vaccine disinformation.
Following a Wall Street Journal piece planted by U.S. officials these
claimed , without evidence, that Russia was sowing fear about the mRNA vaccines:
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that four publications, all serving as fronts for
Russian intelligence, have targeted Western-produced COVID-19 vaccines with misleading
coverage that exaggerates the risk of side effects and raises questions about their efficacy.
The State Department confirmed that report on Monday, saying U.S. officials had identified
four Russian online platforms that were spreading disinformation about the COVID-19
vaccines.
In each case, the Russian outlets were repeating actual news reports ,,,
The 'Russian outlets' repeated the news 'western' news agencies were distributing. It is
nice though to see acknowledged that such is often disinformation.
There are some signs that the U.S. is coordinating with its spy partners to malign the
very
efficient Sputnik V vaccine . The British Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) recently
put up a comment that warns of Russia's soft power gain
through vaccine diplomacy especially in South America:
Sputnik V's rapid foray into new markets in Latin America may indeed have longer-term
implications in an area that has traditionally been the US's backyard. Argentina gratefully
received more than half a million doses in January. It served as an embassy of sorts for
Sputnik V; reportedly, Argentinian delegations to Moscow in late 2020 translated reams of
details into Spanish and shared these with Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay and Chile to speed
up their ability to decide. Bolivia's first batch arrived at the end of January. By
mid-February, Mexico received its first 200,000 doses. By mid-March, Brazil and Peru appeared
close to sealing respective deals.
This is followed by musings about potential sabotage targets:
There are several factors that could make Sputnik V's current bounce shortlived. The
inability to deliver supplies quickly is an immediate one. Russia has acknowledged its
production squeeze, raising doubts about its ability to honour its vaccine pledges. It is
dependent on plants in the likes of Brazil, India and South Korea upholding good
manufacturing practice and delivering at speed and scale on Moscow's promise to provide
hundreds of millions of quality vials quickly.
The piece closes with an ominous call to action:
The biomedical science of Sputnik V may well be genuinely welcome worldwide, once full data
is available and has been appropriately interrogated. But the corresponding political
ramifications of deeper and wider Russian influence globally may not be so beneficial. The UK
and the US must not be blindsided to the full extent of Russian vaccine diplomacy already
underway.
The U.S. efforts to prevent Russian vaccine distribution failed in Argentina where President
Alberto Fernández has led an early
and successful effort to introduce the Russian vaccine:
Amid plenty of public skepticism, Buenos Aires sent missions to Moscow in October and
December 2020 to inspect data from the vaccine's phase 3 trial.
An Argentine presidential aide said the delegation had translated hundreds of pages of
information about the vaccine into Spanish -- necessary for approval -- which it later shared
with other governments in the region, including Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, and
Chile.
This is how, a day before the phase 3 results were published, trucks of Sputnik V shots
were already trundling through Bolivia's countryside. A photo of a delivery in a
poultry truck draped in a Bolivian flag -- a creative (and health department-
approved ) solution for cold storage requirements -- went viral. Argentina began
vaccinating with Sputnik this past December, meanwhile, and Mexico announced the purchase of
24 million Sputnik doses on Jan. 25.
U.S. efforts to dissuade countries from acquiring Sputnik V have not be fully successful.
That again requires to launch a propaganda campaign to malign Sputnik V wherever it is
distributed:
1. #Putin: "Global market for #COVID19 vaccines is worth $100 billion. We see how
competitors of our producers behave: they enter a country [that is in need for vaccines],
sell a small batch of vaccines on a discounted price but condition the sale with that...
2. "...the country will only purchase that vaccine from that producer in the future. So,
there's a real fight for the markets".
3. $100 billion is a big market. #Russia makes over $15 bln on arms sales (unofficial
stats have it as high as $55 bln), about $25 bln for agricultural sales; around the same
amount on gas sales (thou it depends on supplies), oil and oil products a little over than
$100 bln.
4. So all of a sudden there's this huge market and there's heavy fight over it.
@dimsmirnov175 cites an anonymous "source in the #Kremlin" who said that Russian intel
services are aware that their foreign counterparts seek to launch a massive infowar against
#Russia/n vaccines
5.The source reportedly said that soon there'll be many reports over #Russia/n vaccines
inefficiency & that they even health dangerous. Allegedly, even "staged cases of massive
losses of human life after using Sputnik V will be propagated via @USAID, @georgesoros
@thomsonreuters
6. The target audience for this campaign will be European countries who registered
#SputnikV for their emergency use – #Hungary, #Slovakia, #Montenegro, #SanMarino and
N.#Macedonia.
7. On a parallel track,#US & allies, according to the "Kremlin source" 'd release
"investigations" about "incompetence of #Russia/n specialists in vaccination & immunology
to halt their certification by @WHO, other relevant agencies , lower demand for RU vaccines
from other countries
8. "The #Kremlin source" adds #US "aggressively promotes @pfizer, eyes to make sure US
free of not only from the payment of possible compensation to citizens in lawsuits in the
event of side effects, but also from liability for negligence of the direct manufacturer"
9.#SputnikV now world's 2nd in terms of demand with 50+ countries having provided permit
for its use. Struggle for markets in #Europe,#LatinAmerica,#Africa #Asia will get even bigger
when we'll [most likely] learn that vaccination is not a one time deal but a seasonal routine
/END
PS.This chart is telling in the kinda tricks one may pull: #Russia's #SputnikV completed
all the stages, but designers of the chart (1) put it at the bottom (2) don't use its product
name (3) mark it with (*) caveating its effectiveness as if ABC "independently fact-checked"
others
Graphics like the above are only one example of media manipulations in support of 'western'
vaccine 'diplomacy'.
This is more than just arrogance:
The West's reaction was not exactly objective in August 2020 when Russia presented the
world's first corona vaccine. Words like "vaccine muck from Moscow", "nasty vaccine
propaganda", and accusations of "clumsy manipulations" of a "high-risk experiment on humans".
Distrust, malice and suspicion were easier to find. One newspaper quipped that Sputnik V was
effective not only against the virus, but also against "homosexuality as well as epilspsy and
hives."
That these efforts will keep people away from other good and available vaccines and that
this will inevitably cost a number of them their lives, is seen as a reasonable price for
gaining vaccine supremacy.
Posted by b on March 15, 2021 at 12:16 UTC |
Permalink
Nice compilation B on what basically is another big sign of western decadence and immorality.
As you very well state what is needed is a global vaccination of groups at risk to avoid
mutations and new variants of the virus, and not vaccination within borders while others
wait.
One more jewel in the arrogant statements denigrating SputnikV, the clown -literally-
Zelensky stating that Ukraine won't approve SputnikV because Ukrainians are not "rabbits" to
be subjected to experiments. He should know, he has pulled more than one rabbit from his top
hat.
Reminds me of the government's efforts against Rearden metal in the novel Atlas Shrugged. One
must appreciate the irony that the US, the epicenter of Randian ideology, is trying this.
"Strengthening Health Cooperation and U.S. Humanitarian Leadership
Combatting malign influences in the Americas: OGA used diplomatic relations in the Americas
region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia, who are working
to increase their influence in the region to the detriment of US safety and
security.
Examples include using OGA's Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject
the Russian COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical assistance in lieu of Panama
accepting an offer of Cuban doctors."
The Russia-USA vaccine battle obscures another, possibly more important one: mRNA
vaccines vs. all the rest.
Moderna got much of its early funding from the US Military. The Military is interested in
mRNSA as a bio-weapons defense - the tech allows quick formulations to protect soldiers. But
the ability to better defend against bio-weapons also makes USA use of bio-weapons more
likely. Just the side that has an effective defense against ballistic missiles is more likely
to use them.
Given such knowledge, one can question the many problems of the OxfordAstroZeneca (OAZ)
vaccine (latest: Norway is looking into the possibility that the OAZ vaccine causes blood
clots) and the late entry of the J&J vaccine (a full three months behind Sputnik V and
Sinopharm).
But wait, there's more: By not fighting SARS-COV-2 effectively (like some countries did),
mutations were virtually certain to happen. That makes the mRNA technology incredibly
valuable for ability to quickly adjust to new strains. And who knows what other viruses will
unexpectedly /sarc pop up in the near future?
Will American sheeple ever be allowed to question the Trump Administration many failures
in fighting the pandemic - starting with Trump's bogus air travel ban and his lying about the
severity of the virus? Not likely. New York State Governor Cuomo is now being hounded out of
office with flimsy sex allegations to (IMO) prevent a review of the policy of sending people
home to "self-isolate". "Self-isolate" and the "bend the curve" goal (instead of defeat the
virus) virtually guaranteed that the pandemic would continue to spread.
librul@3
My wife and I received the J & J jab last week, I'll keep you all updated on us. We're
70, she has #2 diabetes but healthy and not overweight. I'm healthy, skinny. We live rural,
raise and forage mushrooms, herbs, forbes, 90% of our meat is deer we harvest and process but
we're almost vegetarian. So, no extra health issues beyond her #2d. She had a little bit of a
sore arm for 24 hours. Neither of us had other symptoms after the jab. covid is happening
here, friends, neighbors, relatives have had it, hospitals are struggling to keep up.
what this summary of the vaccine shows me is that the nation states are marketing agents
and mafia like defenders of the makers of the products of those private parties who have
control over the nation states (government).
What a marketing tool, the rule of law and the use of nation state force to market privately
produced products.
clearly the nation state system and its agencies have by their actions proven themselves
to be a problem in need of fixing for the 8 billion people who occupy the planet.
Early on, there was reporting that the novel (as in recently created) corona virus was
mutating rapidly - approximately every 4th transmission was claimed.
I believe it was noted that this behavior was typical for virus, novel on in particular.
The term mutate is both appropriate and used to frighten.
It seems this is a largely political beast.
When you live in a social system that has global private finance at its core, what do you
expect?
The West is proud of its barbarism and flaunts its lie/cheat/steal mentality. We are
standing by hopeful as that meme drives itself into the ground taking many with it. We just
hope it isn't all of us in a pique of self loathing when the bottom is near.
What a shit show to live in the middle of. It is almost like folk think its weird to do
things for the right reasons instead of profit....and they call themselves Christians as they
blindly follow their devilish leadership.
Hypothetically, genetic research gives us the means of widespread, genetically targeted,
destruction and new tools for pharmaceutical development. Dangerous situation in a
neo-liberal world order.
Of course Russia has no need to spread fear about US mRNA vaccines, because these are the
most expensive and difficult to distribute, and the US has conspired to prevent any
humanitarian distribution, an historic disgrace. Many will long remember that Russia offered
vaccines at cost while the US maximized profits, and Bill Gates obliged Astrazeneca to seek
profit rather than humanitarian distribution.
But Russian vaccine production has underperformed. I cannot even find a number for
it but if I look at deaths per million, 6 day rolling average, Russia is not in a sustained
downtrend yet. When a country reaches heard immunity, this will go into a sustained
downtrend. Russia has not even been able to vaccinate their own population...
"Johnson & Johnson's vaccine is the third coronavirus vaccine to receive FDA approval,
but the first vaccine requiring just one shot for vaccination. The drug showed a 67
percent effectiveness against moderate to severe COVID-19 infections and about an 85
percent effectiveness against the most serious illnesses . While two other FDA-approved
vaccines have efficacy rates in the 90s, Johnson & Johnson's drug was shown to
prevent 100 percent of hospitalizations in a clinical study of around 44,000 participants
in the United States. "
If the jab has a 67% efficacy against moderate to severe infections, how can it have an 85
percent effectiveness against the most severe infections? How can it prevent 100% of
haspitalizations in 44,000 subjects? Unless perhaps the figure of 67% represents people who
took the shot after contracting the disease? But that doesn't make sense either.
Statistical illiteracy on the part of the writer? How much of all that is true?
I don't know yet. My preference is non-mRNA but I'll wait as long as I can.
mRNA vaccines may be the only game in town if the virus keeps mutating quickly and/or new
viruses are introduced.
What I object to is the near complete lack of cynicism. Many moa readers will recall the
phrase: "Question Authority" from the 1960's. We need that same spirit today.
The 'woke' generation isn't quite 'there' yet.
That's the number according to international standards and rhe number which allows
comparison to other vaccines. All the other quoted numbers are just there in order to
obfuscate the fact that it is significantly less efficient than the mRNA vaccines.
The 'woke' are currently focused on race and sex with some concern for inequality and a
living wage. 'Anti-war' isn't yet on the radar screen for most of them, though it should
be.
jackrabbit @ 12, thanks SO much for that excellent video link! As the two participants
were discussing, I had the thought that the vaccine situation they are analyzing is very much
like the GMO experimentation we have all been subjected to around the world when those seeds
were presented to us, and the virus being a part of our life system, is like the weeds which
were enabled by the practise of using GMO seeds and then spraying the crops with virulent
herbicides those seeds were now inoculated to resist --- it all meant that the situation in
farmer's fields, while the crops themselves survive (much as do inoculated with the vaccine
persons) the situation at large gets worse!
It is an excellent conversation also on the side issue of whether science benefits from
shutting down dissent. We should all think about that!!
Vaccines in the strict sense of the term use weakened or inactive forms of the virus they
target to stimulate the immune response. MRNA vaccines don't: they insert a protein
resembling a protein on the coronavirus's outer coat into the RNA of your cells so your body
makes these proteins itself to prime the immune response. That's my understanding and I stand
to be corrected by others.
That first link in your post is to Geert van den Bossche and is an excellent interview.
Worth the time. Somewhat annoying music at start, in all ways the best take I have
encountered on how mRNA works. Much more accessible than some of what that author has been
putting in print.
The Adenovirus vector vaccines are DNA vaccines. The primary difference between them
(Sputnik V, Astrozenica, J & J and some more) is the type of Adenovirus vector used, for
example human or chimp, how they are cultured, and the specifics of production and
processing.
All of them use a segment of DNA that codes for a Covid-2 Spike protein which is
genetically inserted into the adenovirus delivery system.
The mRNA vaccines use nanolipids to stabilize the mRNA segments and similarly code for
Covid-2 spike protein.
The adenovirus DNA vaccines enter the cell nucleus where they begin the process
transcribing DNA code to mRNA, the desired antigen trigger of the immune process. The mRNA to
protein production factories are the ribosomes, housed in the (non nuclear) cytoplasm.
These DNA and mRNA vaccines all differ from traditional first-order vaccines which culture
the virus being targeted, kill it so it can not reproduce, and injected it into the patient,
a process called innoculation (dead virus jab which stimulates wide variety of anitbodies),
vs vaccination (nucleic acid code traveling on a vector or in nano lipid packet which
stimulates production of a specific antigen "spike" protein in this instance.
One problem I haven't heard any assessment about is what happens in the cell when degraded
forms of genetic code, either mRNA or DNA, resulting from perhaps shoddy manufacture or
sloppy handling? Would there still be biological activity? Producing what proteins?
Quality control across the process and delivery system is probably of extreme importance
in ensuring vaccine safety.
That is an excellent question. Also there is no certainty what is happening when all
apparently goes to plan. Extensive tissue sampling and analysis needs doing. Best way to do
all of that is on autopsy. Autopsies are not being done. It is as if no one wants to
know.
Main difference is mRNA is absolutely new. There has never before been an mRNA product
turned loose on the general population. Moderna had a rabies investigational product that did
get as far as human testing, it was shut down early. Moderna we know is funded by DARPA,
In-Q-Tel, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein. In existence for thirty or forty years, depending
which story you desire to believe. Never had a saleable product until now. Trust us.
The Pfizer mRNA product is entirely acquired from BioNTech. Try to find out anything about
them. Next try to find out anything about them that passes the laugh test.
If you want to know something about how mRNA gene therapy is alleged to work would suggest
reading or watching what Geert van den Bossche has been saying since he started to talk. He
is a vaccine developer. A man who has spent his career in the lab creating vaccines. He
believes in vaccines. Formerly worked with GAVI and Gates Foundation. Not an anti-Vaxxer.
It's Profit over People yet again, and such shouldn't be any surprise. The
geopolitical aspects show an extremely desperate Outlaw US Empire that has lost all its soft
power through its inhumane behavior. That it thinks it can recoup some of what it lost by
continuing to act inhumanely proves the absolute sordid quality of the minds at work. And
then there's the lies and deceit, and to think that the people managing this campaign are
allowed to raise children!
Having discovered that Mexico has Sputnik V, I'll be going South as soon as I get my
renewed passport.
So the end result is a world with uneven levels of vaccination. Seems like this will
simply keep covid around for a very long time for the sake of anti-Russia geopolitics and big
Western pharma profits. The world will end up becoming a medical dystopia for years to
come.
Erelis @ 53; "So the end result is a world with uneven levels of vaccination. Seems like
this will simply keep covid around for a very long time for the sake of anti-Russia
geopolitics and big Western pharma profits. The world will end up becoming a medical dystopia
for years to come."
Yep, afraid you're right.....But then hey, profits uber alles....
@ 29 jackrabbit... thanks... i see this much the same way as you....
@ 37 b... thanks for this additional article.. i quote from it below..
"There are lots of players in the vaccine version of the great game. Both China and Russia
are aggressively practicing vaccine diplomacy. As is the EU. The primary goal of U.S. vaccine
diplomacy seems to be to ensure the profits of Big Pharma, rather than on maximizing the
number of people vaccinated, in the shortest possible time. Could these priorities shift?
Perhaps. Time will tell. India has stepped forward to represent the perspective of developing
countries, drawing on its role as a major vaccine manufacturer – and perhaps sometime
soon – developer."
Sputnik V is being distributed in Russia. My daughter and her boyfriend, as nursing
students were required to be vaccinated, or show antibodies from a recovered case of
COVID-19. My daughter has had COVID-19 and fully recovered, and her boyfriend had his first
vaccination. Unlike most western countries, there is no panic, and lockdowns are on an as
needed basis.
Russia reacted very quickly to the virus and closed its borders early.
As S commented here several weeks ago, Russian travel agencies and Aeroflot were arranging
special vaccine charters I might also take advantage of, and Mexico has a long history of
welcoming medical patients from El Norte seeking treatments unavailable here.
If you go to the US CDC website you will see that all current vaccines for Covid are only
under "emergency" approval.
It is also clearly stated that they will not work in all cases and that the Pharma Industry
is not liable when they cause harm.
I don't want a jab that is messing with my DNA in the first palce but I absoliutely don't
want one that is not yet fully tested.
In addition what does "fully tested" even mean in a corrupt system where you can hardly
find a single truth on any topic in 24 hours of news broadcasting?
How is it that people are ultra critical of political corruption yet as happy as lambs to
trust BIg Pharma in spite of endless lies, corruption and human damage in the last 100 years.
Why isn't it obvious that Big Pharma is part of the problem. You can't be part of the problem
and the solution at the same time.
There is a place for vaccines but for vaccines to fit into the category of preventative
medicine, like good food, exercise, vitamins etc or modalities like acupuncture or herbalism
etc , they also need to prove they are as harmless as good food, intelligent exercise or
vitamins. In my opinion they should be part of any national health system, subject to the
most rigorous and independent testing, and they should be free.
Preventative medicine should have an almost zero chance of killing or maiming anyone.
Otherwise it's just the product of the same philosophy of "collateral damage" than Empires
use to control the human world.
I question vaccine logic when it denies the human capacity to evolve to protect itself and
I especially question Vaccines for profit. I'm not an anti vaxxer, but I am also not going to
happily inject a cocktail of chemicals and animal/human DNA proteins directly into my
bloodstream. I am well aware that vaccines have used dead or active animal proteins for a
very long time, part of the reason why i try to avoid them at all costs.
Where is the research that proves that injecting foreign DNA into our blood is safe long
term for the overall health of human beings , not just for immunity to one disease? Obviously
the current vaccines are not killing people in great numbers, but they
are killing some. And anyway, not killing a patient isn't the criteria for "safe"! What other
effects will be long term?
Saying that we just don't know is naive. Obviously bio tech labs have been experimenting
for decades on the effect of genetic mutation on animals and humans. Just as they knew the
long terms outcomes of GMO crops but kept is secret, they will also be well aware of the long
terms effects of GMO vaccines and also keeping it very secret.
There doesn't need to be a micro chip in a vaccine to make it a bio weapon.
Will the gene activating vaccines become a biological weapon just as GMO seeds have?
I've watched presentations explaining the science of the current vaccines, and I do not
feel at all re-assured that the genetic response will behave as predicted in every case, or
even in any case. Gaining immunity from Covid is pointless if it renders people more
succeptable to potentially worse health conditions down the track.
I have no expertise in this field, I'm just a concerned human being trying to make sense
of very complicated science that also happens to have no legal liability. What could possibly
go wrong? Einstein would be sympathetic given what happened with his science.
We should be questioning the argument for vaccines over antibody testing and preventative
medicine at the very least. But that is not even a mainstream conversation at this point.
Somebody mentioned in the comments that in Russia you can get antibody testing and not
need the vaccine. This sounds more like a balanced approach to me. That isn't an option in
most places that I am aware of.
Manufacturing of consent for genetic intervention in humans is now happening very
successfully all over the world due to covid. The created hysteria that vaccines are the only
way to save the planet is so reminiscent of WMD's in Iraq and GMO seeds in the developing
countries . Anyone notice that millions of Indian farmers are now rejecting the Bio-Tech
because GMO seeds and their accompanying poisons are destroying lives and the planet?
These are not separate issues.
Suddenly there is a $100 Billion covid Vaccine market. And strangely Pharma seems to be
the only class that is a-political and borderless. Even making profits in our favourite anti
western countries. What a coup! And how is this possible?
I never really understood the intense media campaign against anti-vaxxers until now. I
mean why would a relatively few traumatised parents really be a bother to Big Pharma? The
answer is that they aren't.
Creating a public enemy and gaining consent was the goal and boy has it worked a
treat!
Just in time for the biggest Vaccine $$$$ jackpot of all time.
It couldn't have worked out better if they had planned it.
I'm not an epidemiologist nor medically trained on trial procedures and norms but i have
the following questions:
1. Efficacy figures:
Is it determined by looking for antibodies in the test subjects? If so how much is good
enough and who sets the bar? If not...
2. Viral exposure post inoculation:
I don't believe they lock the test subjects up in a room pumped full of covid19 goodness to
get the absolute efficacy figures so whatever efficacy would be highly dependant on the test
cohort and their environmental exposure.
e.g. A cohort that are made up of front line workers in a hotpot/basket case like Brazil
will necessarily be more prone to be exposed to the virus than say a cohort that fairly
represents the population. Conversely a vaccine tested on a less exposed cohort will also
more likely to get a better efficacy figure.
So is this why we're seeing lower and sometimes inconsistent figures on particular
vaccines. The sinovac coronavac comes to mind. Figures in Brazil was wildly different to
others in turkey and Indonesia.
... Actually i smell political meddling with the Brazil trial, similar to what b pointed
out in his piece, but i digress.
3. Endpoint
Isn't the whole idea of the vaccine to avoid deaths and suffering? If so even the 'lowly'
coronavac with its low efficacy was able to prevent 100% of severe cases that requires
hospitalization. Of the 30 or 40% that it 'wasn't' effective for, it was just mild symptoms
and did not require any intervention. Pretty good for a Chinese /3rd World vaccine that
doesn't even need -70c logistics.
What I'm saying is there's a lot of cherry picking, manipulations, stacked decks and
absolute bullshit because of vaccine politics. Sadly the sheeple are buying it all.
For me, because of my need to travel to both the 'free world' and the totalitarian regime
that is China, i will probably need to get jabbed by 2 vaccines due to the vaccine politics
that is taking shape right in front of your eyes. It pains me to think that in doing so I'll
make another 2 doses unavailable to someone else.
What can you do: i do believe all the vaccines are effective and if you're otherwise
healthy you should go and take the jab, whichever one (may be pass on the AZ for now). Your
govt have already blown your money on it, and they don't have a long use-by date.
The world is acutely supply-limited and your support to vaccinate will ironically slow
down the empire in trying to corner the vaccine market politically. Why? Because they will
not be able to spin up production as quickly as RUS+CHN+other countries who are working with
RUS+CHN to spin up their own production.
At the end MRNA is a mil tech and i can't see the 'free world' giving that up to anyone
else until its common knowledge. So the longer it is supplied-limited, the better for the
uptake of the other vaccines to put a nip on the brewing vaccine-racism where you can only
travel to certain places depending on which jab you took.
I am absolutely appalled by the blinkered focus on vaccines to the detriment of
therapeutic treatment. Of course, no one should be surprised by this, considering, as Putin
puts it, there is now a sudden and lucrative $100 billion c19 vaccine market (what
incentive!). So the entire medical world (minus a few) discovered that c19 was amenable to
vaccine production and completely buried efforts to discover/develop successful
treatments.
Ask anybody (in the global north) that has had c19 what they were told to do. Just about
all of them will probably say that they were told to go home and self-care/quarantine until
they have symptoms that are bad enough for them to be hospitalized. Doctors don't want to
treat c19 because they've been told by government guidance that there is no treatment
(a complete lie!). Meanwhile, those few brave doctors have actually tried to treat patients
before they get worse and there have been a few discoveries (IVM is the best example) of
various treatments that are highly effective.
So now we find even the least vulnerable, such as 20/30 year olds, all clamoring to
get a vaccine, any supposed vaccine, when all they really need is some vit D and to take
varied prophylaxis proven to work and they'd be perfectly fine. A responsible gov response
would be to vaccinate the most vulnerable and treat the least vulnerable. Instead, we have
mass hysteria to vaccine all human beings alive and still force 3 year olds to mask and take
two tests a week, all for the sake of protecting pharma profits. Absurd.
Gosh, there's so much enthusiasm for inoculation around here one almost forgets that there
are many of us, even
inside the industry, who don't want ANY of these injections.
And as a kind of aside, the extreme harvesting of their blue blood is apparently wreaking
havoc on the horseshoe crab
community , an extremely important link in the old ecological chain.
The Adenovirus vector vaccines are DNA vaccines. The primary difference between them
(Sputnik V, Astrozenica, J & J and some more) is the type of Adenovirus vector used, for
example human or chimp, how they are cultured, and the specifics of production and
processing.
All of them use a segment of DNA that codes for a Covid-2 Spike protein which is
genetically inserted into the adenovirus delivery system.
The mRNA vaccines use nanolipids to stabilize the mRNA segments and similarly code for
Covid-2 spike protein.
The adenovirus DNA vaccines enter the cell nucleus where they begin the process
transcribing DNA code to mRNA, the desired antigen trigger of the immune process. The mRNA to
protein production factories are the ribosomes, housed in the (non nuclear) cytoplasm.
These DNA and mRNA vaccines all differ from traditional first-order vaccines which culture
the virus being targeted, kill it so it can not reproduce, and injected it into the patient,
a process called innoculation (dead virus jab which stimulates wide variety of anitbodies),
vs vaccination (nucleic acid code traveling on a vector or in nano lipid packet which
stimulates production of a specific antigen "spike" protein in this instance.
One problem I haven't heard any assessment about is what happens in the cell when degraded
forms of genetic code, either mRNA or DNA, resulting from perhaps shoddy manufacture or
sloppy handling? Would there still be biological activity? Producing what proteins?
Quality control across the process and delivery system is probably of extreme importance
in ensuring vaccine safety.
I would hope others will look at the video @ 12 - lots of meat in that for a discussion
and very important information from the Israeli vaccinations for the covid virus! I look
forward to further consideration of the thesis. The important part is that the findings don't
disagree with the efficacy of the vaccine, they simply point to a change in the virus itself
being somehow linked to the vaccinations. I would like to know if this is also the case when
vaccinations of the more traditional type are being used, or whether this is only true of
certain ones.
And again, if this is a false correlation, I would like to know that as well. I've sent
the video to my daughter who is a hospital worker.
mina @ 52, thanks for your link. The headline to the article reads: "SARS-CoV-2 evolution
during treatment of chronic infection." I was only able to read a line at a time, due to the
set up on my computer, but it looks as though it is a more clinical study of patients being
treated with remisidivir (sp? sorry) on the virus as they were being treated, and that those
mutations were occurring rapidly during course of treatment. One wonders, then, is that a
corroboration of the study linked @ 12 but not specifically related to any vaccine per se,
and does it mean that the mutations are occurring within the hospitalization process in
general (and possibly also out in the environment) as well as in conjunction with vaccine
jabs, so that while some get treated, others are more likely to suffer from those mutations?
Or as seems to be the claim at the video, are the virulent mutations occurring in conjunction
with the vaccinations only?
The video supposes that more vaccinations may be necessary as the virus mutates and other
dangerous ones come on scene. The question being can the human body suffer these annually or
more often as well as, say,they have had less potent 'flu vaccinations every year? (That's
assuming the 'flu jabs are harmless, but I won't go there.)
I'm not a clinical expert, but it seemed the mutations were occurring in Mina's link in a
petri dish, not just out in the general atmosphere, and that those mutations seem to be less
virulent, not more. Whereas in the video @ 12, the deaths had doubled in conjunction with the
vaccinations.
I'm not anti vax per se. But this is a different situation from other cases. It really
does need to be studied without the economic factor entering in, so that the best solution
can be taken, or the world is going to be very badly off just following what powerful nations
tell them to do.
PHE found a 48% increase in infection risk among over 80s in the week after the first
jab. The FDA found 40%. Now a study from Denmark finds 40%. Will the Government publish the
data to set our minds at ease?
In the last 24 hours, a number of national governments including Denmark, Norway, Thailand,
and Iceland, announced that they will temporarily halt the use of the COVID-19 vaccine that was
developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University.
The Danish Health Ministry stated that the suspension was a precautionary measure following
dozens of reports of blood-clotting by patients who had been vaccinated. There has been at
least one fatality.
As I've written many times before, I'm not anti-vaccine. But I am pro-data and
pro-reason.
And it seems sensible to pause and assess the data when a brand new and comparatively
untested vaccine may be linked to serious side effects.
The problem, of course, is that this story doesn't conform to the narrative that the media
wants you to believe. So they're either NOT reporting on it, or they're running counter-stories
to reinforce their agenda.
Newsweek already came to the rescue with an article stating unequivocally that there is "no
evidence to show COVID vaccines have caused deaths or serious illnesses. . ." including blood
clots.
Another article entitled "What to Know About Serious Covid Vaccine Reactions" dismissed any
potential reaction, including death, by declaring "no connection to vaccines has been
established."
The Associated Press wrote, "The vast majority of people being vaccinated at the moment are
elderly or have got underlying diseases", and that "it would be difficult to determine whether
a vaccine shot is responsible" for blood clots.
(Nevermind that you could apply that same argument to COVID deaths, i.e. the vast majority
of COVID deaths are elderly or people with underlying diseases, so we should simply ignore that
data when making policy decisions )
Certainly most vaccinations worldwide have shown, at least in the short term, few side
effects. And it's obviously possible that the blood clot issues may not be related to the
vaccine.
But it's extraordinary that the media is willing to deliberately ignore any signs or data
that might undermine what they want you to believe.
First, a couple of quotes from this article, with my comments following each. And then an
article that ties the two together, and MUST BE READ.
"Professor of Government Ethics Played Key Role in Nursing Home Death Coverup
Last spring, the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit patients
who had recently been treated for Covid-19. This led to a spike in Covid deaths inside
nursing homes, which are filled with elderly people in the highest risk category for serious
Covid-19 cases."
The exact same thing happened in the UK, elderly and in some cases DYING elderly patients
were sent back to their care home from the hospitals they were being treated in, AGAINST the
wishes of the care homes and medical ethics, even though it was known they were infected with
the virus, the care homes were ORDERED to take them back. So, guesss what happened ?, that`s
right, THOUSANDS OF DEATHS , of both the sent back and those in the care home that then
became infected. THAT WAS ALL OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED.
Several nations halt distribution of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine
"The problem, of course, is that this story doesn't conform to the narrative that the
media wants you to believe. So they're either NOT reporting on it, or they're running
counter-stories to reinforce their agenda. Newsweek already came to the rescue with an
article stating unequivocally that there is "no evidence to show COVID vaccines have caused
deaths or serious illnesses. . ." including blood clots. Another article entitled "What to
Know About Serious Covid Vaccine Reactions" dismissed any potential reaction, including
death, by declaring "no connection to vaccines has been established."
When investigating a series of crimes, the police look for any possible connections, the
common denominator that ties the crimes together and thereby highlights possible
suspects.
So what`s the common denominator in ALL of these blood clot deaths ?, they ALL HAD HAD THE
VACCINE !!!!. Now if that`s not a smoking gun, a starting point of investigation, WTF IS
????.
The articles bullet points.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted for developing countries, in part because it
doesn't require the deep-freeze cold storage that mRNA vaccines do, so the logistics
surrounding distribution are less complex
Patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called
Vaccitech, investors of which include Google Ventures, the Wellcome Trust, the Chinese
branch of Sequoia Capital, the Chinese drug company Fosun Pharma and the British
government
While AstraZeneca has promised it will not make any profit from its vaccine, there's a
time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and
AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date
The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was co-developed by Adrian Hill, who has long-term
ties to the British eugenics movement through his work with the Wellcome Trust's Centre for
Human Genetics and affiliation with the Galton Institute, formerly the U.K. Eugenics
Society
Members of the Galton Institute have called for population reduction in Latin America,
South and Southeast Asia and Africa, the very areas where the AstraZeneca vaccine is being
promoted
Amazing isn`t it that Gates and his Welcome Trust keep on coming up in connection with the
virus, coincidence ?. Probably not. It`s also very deeply concerning and ALARMING to find the
BRITISH GOVERNMENT itself implicated !!!, VERY CONCERNING AND ALARMIN INDEED !!!.
As reported by FDA/CDC:
FDA - U.S. Food and Drug Administration
CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
"SINCE NO QUANTIFIED VIRUS ISOLATES OF THE 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time
the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the
2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length
RNA..."
Scroll to page 42 link:
https://www.fda.gov/media/1...
Kary Mullis: PCR Test Inventor Calls Dr Fauci a Fraud (polymerase chain reaction, or
reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction)
https://odysee.com/@Quantum...
Disturbing Vaccine Facts - (The WHO etc. "Experts & Leaders" of infectious disease
proving from their own mouths Vaccines are not safe)
https://www.bitchute.com/vi...
Norway Investigates Whether AstraZeneca Vaccine Caused Deadly Blood Clots
BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, MAR 12, 2021 - 10:34
Update (1124ET):
As the first AstraZeneca shots arrive in South America via
the WHO's Covax program, the international public-health agency has promised to investigate reports that the vaccine may be
linked to dangerous blood clots.
Yesterday, Europe's
already
struggling
COVID vaccine rollout took another hit when
more
than half a dozen nations
stopped doling out COVID vaccines created by AstraZeneca following reports that some patients
who received the vaccine developed life-threatening lung clots, with at least one person having subsequently died as a
result.
While health authorities in Denmark, one of the first countries to halt the AstraZeneca-Oxford jab, said it was impossible
to tell if there was any connection, the spate of suspicious cases is apparently enough to prompt health authorities to
take a closer look. On Friday morning, Thailand became the first non-European country to halt the AstraZeneca vaccine,
while several other nations, including Canada, Australia, the Philippines and South Korea, have all said they would move
forward.
Bulgaria became the latest European nation to suspend the vaccine on Friday. According to
Reuters
,
the Bulgarian government wants the EMA to send over a written statement outlining its argument about why it should allow
vaccinations to go forward.
The World Health Organization on Friday said there is no reason to stop using the
Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, as a growing number of countries in Europe and
elsewhere have moved to halt its use over blood clot concerns.
Italy, Romania and Thailand joined at least eight
European nations this week in suspending the injections either from specific batches or as
part of a total freeze, citing the potential adverse events despite a
lack of formal evidence that the shot is unsafe.
A WHO spokeswoman, Margaret Harris,
said at a briefing that an advisory committee was investigating reports of individuals
falling ill or dying after developing blood clots in the post-vaccination period, but that no
causal link had been established.
Christian Daily, a Los Angeles-based media outlet, reported on Friday that according to a
whistleblower, COVID-19 vaccinations from the Pfizer shots have resulted in a significant
number of deaths and serious injuries in a German nursing home. The report said, "A
conscientious whistleblower, who is also a caregiver at the nursing facility where the
incident happened, stepped forward to expose what transpired behind the scenes of the
COVID-19 vaccine rollout, a report says."
[...]
The coverage reported, "Seven out of 31 people living in the nursing home died after
getting injected with their first dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The whistleblower
added that after the second dose was administered, one died and eleven more got seriously
sick." Christian Daily analyzed that, "This means that out of the 31 elderly people that
got vaccinated in that nursing home, 25 percent of them died shortly after while the lives
of 36 percent were jeopardized."
[...]
The article also looked back to prior deaths from other European countries of elderly
people after receiving the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Western companies including
Pfizer. For example, 46 elderly people in a Spanish nursing home died following their
vaccinations, and 16 senior citizens died after getting vaccine shots in Switzerland.
Our problem is not so much bad will (and here I disagree with my esteemed colleague
Mike
Whitney ) but the noble and quixotic desire to save mankind from some perceived peril. P.G.
Wodehouse tells us of four scouts who, in their quest for a good deed, helped an old lady to
cross the street, and reported to their guide. All four of you were needed for that, asked an
amazed guide. Well, she put up quite a strong resistance, they replied. Until recently, only
governments played God and that was bad enough. But now every Tom, Dick and Harry with an extra
billion dollars in his pocket wants to save mankind.
Very interesting week.. what I saw was a lot of people are beginning to understand how
dysfunctional the USA government has become.. The oligarchs who own the International Nation
State Franchising operation. .you know, the franchises that govern the local nation states
are being discovered one by one, as part of the dysfunction that has been used to manipulate
all of hamanity . .
Most people have begun to under the meaning of having a President that is not elected by
the people and that it does not matter if the people go to the poles and vote, because their
vote does not count, the electoral college appoints both President and VP.
Most people are beginning to understand their concerns are not explainable because the
government is conducted in secret and the media, 92% owned by just 6 people world wide. has
complete control over the information environments <=in each separate nation state. The
MSM is where, until recently, most people got their information from <= so most people's
information until recently has been completely shaped by the private owners of the media that
controls each franchised nation state separately.
The meaning to democracy <=actually to lack of it, of a six person owned, private
monopoly in media is starting to become understood by everyone, even the guy that cleans the
commodes: those who must cover up their sins and those seeking to discover the sins of those
seeking to hide their sins <=everyone is beginning to understand. Private control, by
monopoly ownership of media, has protected the nation state franchisees from being discovered
for too long. The nation state system has not only allowed, but fostered and promoted global
unrest. Media is independent of top down nation state control, its an alternative way that
the owners of the Franchise system enforce their intentions and control the narrative.. The
USA has not been shy about acting on behalf of desperate private media to prevent out of the
box disclosures about global corruption < intent clearly shown in the trial going on in
Britain designed to bring Julian Assange into prosecution range. Documents Mr. Assange
disclosured revealed how those who govern and those who benefit by Useing government
accomplish their corruptions. Devil forbid! The Assange extradition trial reports that
disclosing crimes of those in government is light years more terrible than holding up a
corner grocery store.
Discussion should center not on finding a vaccine, which probably will often not work, but on
finding and implementing a way to prevent corona virus of any vintage or flavor from
infecting a single cell in a single person..(virus carried by mosquitoes is controlled by
eradicating the mosquito)<=why not infection prevention instead of infection by vaccine?
<=Because all vintages and flavors of the corona viri use essentially the same process to
infect human cells <=preventing infection, which would eliminate the risk posed by the
virus, seems primal to waiting for victims of infection to get sick so the vaccine can work
its claimed magic. Many are working on prevention <= government will stop work on
prevention, if it could find those working on prevention. Infection stopped <=would upset
their feudal lords in the pharmaceutical industry and <=your great protectors at the FDA
and NIH and HS would use the powers vested in their crimes by the government to stop the
governed humanity from being able to protect itself by method of prevention. Government
power depends on citizen dependence.
So much freedom from those who govern <=its difficult to move about.
Posted by: Palinurus | Nov 27 2020 10:21 utc | 102
---------------------------------------------------
The judges in Portugal drew their conclusion basing on the following technicalities:
1.
The judges also said that only a doctor can "diagnose" someone with a disease, and were
critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one .
<--- It says nothing about PCR test "worthless".
2.
In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The
two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, "the test's reliability
depends on the number of cycles used '' and that "the test's reliability depends on
the viral load present .'
<--- The judges simply argued on technicality: the higher the cycle threshold
(Ct) of a PCR test is, the higher the chance of the test turning out
positively.
Several recent publications, based on more than 100 studies, have attempted to propose a
cutoff Ct value and duration of eviction , with a consensus at approximately
Ct >30 and at least 10 days, respectively. However, in an article published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, Bullard et al reported that patients could not be contagious
with Ct >25 as the virus is not detected in culture above this value.
The real argument is probably whether decision-makers (doctors, public health
authority) should take the lower Ct for PCR tests or not, which affects their consequential
decisions, for example, quarantine time of 10-day vs 14-day, the effectiveness control of
Covid 19 contagion.
@ Posted by: Palinurus | Nov 27 2020 10:21 utc | 102
lulu @ 121 is correct: diagnosis ≠ track and tracing.
PCR is just for track and tracing, not for diagnosis. The diagnosis protocol is much
longer and burdensome, and includes an MRI of the lungs if I'm not mistaken (and can only be
made by a doctor). The Portuguese judges are, therefore, also correct.
@ Posted by: oldhippie | Nov 27 2020 19:23 utc | 127
There are two problems with your theory:
1) Fauci is not a reliable source;
2) China uses a 40-cycle PCR test, used it on Wuhan's entire population (almost 10
million) after a scare and found no positive results.
We already talked about the Portuguese case. The judges were probably amid a labor dispute
and, in a pro-business decision, reiterated that PCR is not diagnosis.
Administer a test 10 million times and every result the same? And you believe this?
Amplify a signal by a trillion and there is never a problem with noise? Oh, it is in Chinese
wonderland, makes perfect sense.
Always apples and oranges with you. Same as it it would be talking to an illiterate. Or a
wall.
... no one can deny the astonishing fact that in just 8 weeks of mass vaccination
the total number of Covid-19 deaths in the Jewish State almost doubled from the number
accumulated in the prior ten months...
At the time Israel vaccinated itself, it was witnessing a sharp exponential rise in
morbidity and death. Palestine, literally the same land, saw its number of cases and deaths
plummeting.
Bourla [Pfizer CEO] and PM Netanyahu should make an intellectual effort and explain to
us how it's possible that in Gaza, an open-air prison and one of the most densely populated
pieces of land on this planet, the numbers of Covid-19 cases are minimal and without a
'vaccine.'
But Palestine is not alone, as the situation in Jordan is similar. While Israel saw its
Covid-19 death figures breaking through the roof, Jordan's Covid-19 deaths from
mid-November onwards look like a slippery slope. [down that is]
And then there is another ghastly issue revealed in this closed experiment:
Since Israel morphed into a nation of Guinea pigs, a virus that used to prey on the elderly
and those with severe health issues has now changed its nature completely. After just 2
months of a 'successful' mass vaccination campaign, 76% of new Covid-19 cases are under 39.
Only 5.5% are over 60. 40% of critical patients are under 60. The country has also detected
a sharp rise in Covid-19 cases amongst pregnant women, with m ore than a few in critical
condition. In the last few weeks, new-born Covid-19 cases saw a large 1300% spike (from 400
cases in under two-year-olds on November 20 to 5,800 in February 2021).
The evidence collected in Israel points at a close correlation between mass vaccination,
cases and deaths. This correlation points at the possibility that it is the vaccinated who
actually spread the virus or even a range of mutants that are responsible for the radical
shift in symptoms above.
Atzmon closes with black humor:
I am obviously not the only one who sees that something went dramatically wrong in Israel.
A group of dissenting researchers who looked into the numbers involved with the current
Pfizer Israeli experiment
published a detailed study two week ago. "We conclude" they wrote, "that the Pfizer
vaccines, for the elderly, killed during the 5-week vaccination period about 40 times more
people than the disease itself would have killed, and about 260 times more people than the
disease among the younger age class."
Based on the Pfizer/Israeli 'laboratory' experiment, I drew the following sarcastic
conclusion: If you catch coronavirus you may die, but if you follow the Pfizer path, not
only do you have a 95% chance to survive on top of the 99.98% provided by Covid-19, you may
also kill some other people on the way.
The upside is that we can watch it in real time (until someone turns the lights off). Only
the Pfizer jab (I hesitate to use 'vaccine') is available and mandatory in Israel. Nothing
for the Palestinians as - blockaded.
Swissmedic said the average age of the deaths was 86 and most of them had pre-existing
diseases, adding there was no evidence to suggest that the vaccines were the cause of
death.
However:
A Chinese immunologist who requested anonymity told the Global Times that the large-scale
use of mRNA vaccines carries the risk of causing abnormal immune dysfunction, allergy or
even death, especially among the elderly and people with underlying diseases.
So we have a situation where a vaccine against a disease that mainly kills the elderly
can't be used on the elderly. Awesome design.
Sometimes I'm in awe with grandiosity of the Western intellect.
"Then you have the testing of the antibiotic Trovan in Kano, Nigeria, to assess its
effectiveness against meningitis. Eleven children died in the trial – five after taking
Trovan, six after taking an older antibiotic used as a comparison drug.
Others suffered blindness, deafness, and brain damage, which may or may not have been due
to the trials. We'll never know, because the Big Pharma company responsible settled out of
court when sued by the Nigerian government (denying us the whole truth but giving off very
guilty vibes), having been accused of conducting an illegal study with no permission from the
children or their parents.
The name of the company? Pfizer. And you wonder why black Africans (or any other sane
person) might be wary of a vaccine with that name on it. "
There was also a tetanus shot drive in Kenya many years ago that targeted women and girls
in the main: odd when you think that men and boys tend to spend more time outdoors doing
things that put them at higher risk of getting puncture wounds or wounds infected with
tetanus bacteria. Some people associated with the Roman Catholic Church in Kenya decided to
do some investigation and discovered that the tetanus shots contained sterility agents.
jen@40 speaks of a "sterilizing agent" in anti-tetanus vaccines in Kenya. I did not know
there was any chemical agent capable of sterilizing women with a single shot. What was this
stuff?
blue dotterel@39 tells a fairly plausible horror story about Pfizer and Trovan, except for
the part about how more children dead *from another antibiotic* is somehow evidence against
Pfizer and Trovan.
@ jen and others - tetanus shots... aside from agreeing with @ Piotr Berman | Feb 27 2021
16:18 utc | 48, i would just like to point out it is typically the women who are planting and
gardening... working with the soil increases the risk posed which the tetanus shot is
supposed to lessen... i wonder if this ought to be factored into all this??
Steven Johnson @ 45, M @ 46, Piotr Berman @ 48 and others:
As GM @ 47 has referenced, the agent found in the tetanus vaccines is HCG which is
produced naturally by a woman's body during pregnancy. When combined with a weakened tetanus
toxin and introduced into the human body, the combination induces the immunity system to
react against both tetanus and HCG. The Kenyan Catholic bishops' group had the vaccines
tested in 4 laboratories in Kenya and the labs found HCG in the shots.
The WHO tetanus vaccination program, begun in the 1990s, targeted women and teenage girls
in Kenya as a high proportion of newborn babies die from tetanus as a result of the umbilical
cord being cut with unsanitised instruments. I must admit I was not aware of this when I
posted my earlier comment and did some more reading after posting. The mothers themselves are
also often at the risk of contracting tetanus from giving birth, often through tears that
occur naturally in the vaginal region. The custom of female genital mutilation that may still
occur in parts of Africa despite govt bans in many countries adds to the tetanus risk. In
addition many girls are married off at a young age.
Abby Ohlheiser wrote a November 2014 article for The Washington Post on the tetanus
vaccination program in Kenya. Barflies should be able to find it on Google or other search
engines.
What is the relevance of this discussion besides being an addition to Bluedotterel's
mention of the RT.com article stating that people of colour were wary of COVID-19 vaccines
because of past history in which they were guinea pigs for medical experiments? The relevance
is that there are fears and rumours that the Pfizer/Biontech mRNA treatment for the COVID-19
virus contains instructions for cells to replicate a spike protein on the coronavirus's coat
that is the same as or similar to a protein that helps the placenta attach to the uterine
wall. There is concern that the treatment will induce the immunity system to react against
the protein in a pregnant woman's body leading to miscarriage. Whether the effects of the
treatment might be long-term or not, long after the initial inoculation, is another
issue.
The linked article seems to be about the vaccine developed in India that matches what Jen
described as used in Kenya.
30-40 years ago, Indian government was interested in improved methods of birth control,
and Indian labs developed and tested such vaccine. It seems like a legitimate birth control
method, the described tests were on women with at least two children, presumably with proper
consent, although later the issues of consent etc. were a hot political subject in India.
BTW, hGC is present in men too, and in animals, anti-hGC antibodies were affecting
(eliminating) male fertility as well.
On one hand, the anti-fertility vaccination described there requires three shots, and
perhaps the fourth one if the achieved level of anti-hGC antibodies is too low, so if used as
one-shot tetanus vaccine, it may be ineffective. On the other hand, surreptitious use of such
vaccine, without the consent for their designed effect, is not ethical.
Speaking of 'under-the-table'/underhanded stealth vaccines...
EXCLUSIVE: Dr. [Ralph (gain of function virus researcher)] Baric Was Reviewing
Moderna's and Dr. Fauci's Nih-NIAD Coronavirus Vaccine in December 2019! What's Going
On?
On DECEMBER 12, 2019 an agreement was signed (pg 105) that Dr. Ralph Baric of the
University of North Carolina would receive "mRNA corona virus vaccine candidates developed
and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna"
Section applying to material transfer of experimental mRNA CV therapy vaccine candidate(s)
to Baric labs/UNC: Pgs 105-107.
Ralph Baric's signature: 12/12/2019; pg 107.
[For those whose memory is fuzzy, 12/12/2019 was ~1.5 months *before* Wuhan Covid
pandemic outbreak was publically acknowledged by US.gov/CDC/NIH/WHO or China !?]
One-Third of Deaths Reported to CDC After COVID Vaccines Occurred within 48 Hours of
Vaccination
According to new data released today, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID
vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.
VAERS is the primary mechanism in the U.S. for reporting adverse vaccine reactions.
Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a determination can be made
as to whether the reported adverse event was directly or indirectly caused by the
vaccine.
[...]
The latest VAERS data show that 799 of the deaths were reported in the U.S., and that
about one-third of those deaths occurred within 48 hours of the individual receiving the
vaccination.
As is consistent with previous VAERS data reports, 192 of the reported deaths -- or 21%
-- were cardiac-related. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Dr. J. Patrick
Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
December that mRNA vaccines like those developed by Pfizer and Moderna could cause heart
attacks and other injuries in ways not assessed in safety trials.
Of the 929 deaths reported since Dec. 14, 2020, the average age of the deceased was
77.8 and the youngest was 23. Fifty-two percent of the reported deaths were among men,
45% were women and 3% are unknown. Fifty-eight percent of the deaths were reported in
people who received the Pfizer vaccine, and 41% were related to the Moderna vaccine.
States with the highest reported number of deaths were: California (71); Florida (50);
Ohio (38); New York (31); Kentucky (41); Michigan (31); and Texas (31).
As Chris Martenson (PhD in pathology from Duke University) outlines in the 2020 Year in
Review with Dave Collum (PhD Columbia, Chemistry, teaches at Cornell): a medical "case" is
one in which a patient is presenting symptoms and requires medical attention. That's a case.
PCR tests were never meant to discern whether somebody is an "infected case" or not, and as
Collum elaborated in that same interview, "with a Cycle Threshold over 35, you can get a
positive PCR test out of a dog's ass".
Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths
will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1 – Q2 2021.
According to the media, this is true. According to reality, it isn't. In CNN-style "fact
checking" parlance, it would thus score as "partially true".
"Covid Related Deaths" is a well worn catch-all. What is known to anybody keeping track: the
vast majority of COVID fatalities are with COVID, not from it. We all know this, for some
reason it doesn't seem to matter. The overall survival rate for this thing is somewhere around
97% or higher. Most people don't know anybody in their immediate circle of friends and family
that have actually died from it.
It can be terrible virus to catch and become sick with, and it's tragic to die from. But the
majority of people either exhibit flu like symptoms and shrug it off or remain completely
asymptomatic. Overall it causes fewer fatalities to society than either alcohol (3 million
deaths per year, globally) or driving (1.5 million) or for that matter air pollution at 4.2
million.
Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented.
Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected
Q2 2021.
Ever since the novel coronavirus,
SARS-CoV-2, began jumping from human to human, it's been mutating. The molecular machinery the virus uses to read and
make copies of its genetic code isn't great at proofreading; minor typos made in the copying process can go uncorrected.
Each time the virus lands in a new human victim, it infects a cell and makes an army of clones, some carrying genetic
errors. Those error-bearing clones then continue on, infecting more cells, more people. Each cycle, each infection
offers more opportunity for errors. And, over time, those errors, those mutations, accumulate.
Some of these changes are meaningless. Some are lost in the frenetic
viral manufacturing. But some become permanent fixtures, passed on from virus to virus, human to human. Maybe it happens
by chance; maybe it's because the change helps the virus survive in some small way. But in aggregate, viral strains
carrying one notable mutation can start carrying others. Collections of notable mutations start popping up in viral
lineages, and sometimes they seem to have an edge over their relatives. That's when these distinct viruses -- these
variants -- get concerning.
Scientists around the world have been closely tracking mutations and
variants since the pandemic began, watching some rise and fall without much ado. But in recent months, they have become
disquieted by at least three variants. These variants of concern, or VOCs, have raised critical questions -- and alarm -- over
whether they can spread more easily than previous viral varieties, whether they can evade therapies and vaccines, or
even whether they're deadlier.
Here, we'll run down what we know and what we don't know about these
variants. With much research yet to be done, there's a lot of unanswered questions. But researchers are working quickly
to address the most important unknowns. High on the list is whether the vaccines we already have will be effective
against the variants. So far, it seems likely that they will be. Still, the virus is sending a clear message: with
rampant transmission accelerating viral evolution, more variants will arise and we need to be prepared.
With more data becoming available by the day, we'll update this story
with significant findings as they come along. Before we get to the data we have, a quick note on names: it's problematic
to identify diseases or infectious agents -- in this case, virus variants -- based on where they were identified. Such
geographic associations risk creating stigma and may discourage reporting, so there is an
active
discussion
in the scientific community about how best to name the current variants. In the interim, it has become
all too common to refer to these by their country of origin. We'll try to avoid that as much as possible while making
clear which variants we're talking about.
B.1.1.7
Alternate names
:
501Y.V1 and VOC 202012/01
Geographic association
: United Kingdom
Number of countries reporting cases
:
70
Increased transmissibility
: Yes
Increased disease severity/mortality
: A "realistic
possibility"
Vaccine efficacy
: Still effective
In early December 2020, researchers and officials in the UK began
warning of a new variant that seemed to be spreading abnormally fast while carrying an unusually large number of
mutations -- 23. The first record of the variant in the UK stretched back to two samples taken from infected people on
September 20 and September 21. In a matter of weeks, the variant began making up a larger and larger proportion of total
cases there. Researchers quickly suspected the variant had evolved to become more transmissible -- that is, it's able to
spread more easily from person to person.
Data analyses since December have supported that hypothesis, but
researchers are still working out exactly how much more transmissible it is compared to earlier versions. In early
January, UK researchers released preliminary results from a series of models that estimated the variant tacks on
an
additional 0.36 to 0.68 onto SARS-CoV-2's observed reproduction number
. That means, on average, people infected with
B.1.1.7 will go on to infect an
additional
0.36 to 0.68 people on top of how many
they would have infected if they were carrying an earlier version of the virus. More recent estimates have been roughly
in this range, suggesting B.1.1.7 has around a
47
percent
or
56
percent increase
in transmission.
B.1.1.7 has now been detected in more than 60 countries beyond the UK,
including the United States, where it has been found in
at
least two dozen states
. A
modeling
study
published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on January 15 estimated that it will become the
predominant strain in the US in March.
Mutations
Some of the mutations B.1.1.7 carries seem to help explain the virus's
newfound ability. The variant carries
23
mutations
in all: 13 mutations that change the virus's protein sequences (non-synonymous), four deletions, and six
synonymous mutations. Of B.1.1.7's mutations, eight occur in the virus's spike protein, the now notorious club-like
protein that juts out from the virus's spherical particle. That spike is what the virus uses to latch onto and infect
cells, which the protein accomplishes by binding a receptor on the outside of human cells called ACE2.
So far, we know that
at
least three
of B.1.1.7's eight spike mutations may be relevant to the variant's boosted transmission. Chief among
them is a mutation that changes one of the spike proteins' critical amino acids -- the amino acid at position 501 of
spike's protein sequence. Specifically, the mutation changes the amino acid at 501 from an asparagine (N) to a tyrosine
(Y), so the mutation is written as N501Y. The 501 amino acid is critical because it lies within the area of spike that
directly binds to ACE2 -- called the receptor binding domain (RBD) -- and it is one of just six key contact residues in the
RBD.
Lab
experiments
have suggested that changing from an N to a Y at 501 increases spike's ability to bind ACE2, and
experiments
in mice
linked the mutation to increased infectiousness and disease.
After N501Y, there's P681H. The mutation at position 681 -- changing the
amino acid from a proline (P) to a histidine (H) -- falls near a unique furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2's spike protein.
For SARS-CoV-2 to successfully get into a cell after binding ACE2, the spike protein needs to be cleaved into its two
subunits by enzymes. The split changes spike's conformation and activates it, allowing it to fuse itself to the cell
membrane and dump its contents into the now-infected cell. In
animal
studies
, the furin cleavage site seemed to boost the virus's ability to enter cells. Researchers suspect the new
mutation may boost entry further.
Enlarge
/
A patient prepares to receive an injection of the
Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine by Royal Navy medics at a vaccination center set up at Bath racecourse in Bath,
southwest England.
Adrian DENNIS / AFP / Getty Images
The third spike mutation known to be significant is a deletion of six nucleotides in its genetic
code, which leads to the loss of two amino acids at positions 69 and 70 in the spike protein. It's unclear what this
deletion does for the virus exactly, but it has arisen a number of times in different lineages, suggesting it
offers
an advantage
. For now, there is one clear consequence for researchers: the deletion messes up a diagnostic test for
SARS-CoV-2. The test is a three-target RT-PCR test, meaning it works by detecting three snippets of the SARS-CoV-2
genome, including one in the gene that codes for spike. When this 69-70 deletion is present, the test will show up
negative for the spike gene but positive for the other two SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences. This result is referred to as "
S
gene dropout
" and is now used to help identify infections caused by B.1.1.7.
Advertisement
These three mutations are the most notable in B.1.1.7 for now. There's
scant data on the other 20, but researchers are working swiftly to assess what each might do on its own or in
combination with the others.
Disease
severity/mortality
When researchers first raised concerns about B.1.1.7, all of those
issues related to increased transmissibility. Preliminary evidence looking at infection outcomes did not suggest that
B.1.1.7 was causing more severe disease or more deaths than other virus strains. Still, some saw little comfort in this,
given that any increase in the total number of infections still leads to more severe cases and deaths in absolute
numbers.
The situation took a darker turn January 21, when a UK government
advisory group -- NERVTAG -- found
preliminary
evidence
that "there is a realistic possibility that infection with VOC B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk
of death compared to infection with non-VOC viruses."
So far, some experts are not yet convinced by the preliminary evidence
presented, and they're calling for much more data before any conclusions are drawn. For one thing, the full data sets
behind some of the analyses done so far have not been published, and some of them relied on comparing small numbers of
deaths in people infected with B.1.1.7 with larger numbers of deaths in people infected with other strains. Some experts
also wonder whether the calculated increase in deaths could simply be explained by overburdened hospitals rather than a
deadlier variant.
Vaccine
efficacy
With increased infectiousness and the possibility of being deadlier, a
critical question raised by B.1.1.7 is whether or not the current vaccines we have -- mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech
and Moderna -- will work against the variant. So far, the answer appears to be yes.
On January 19, researchers at Pfizer and BioNTech released
a
non-peer reviewed study
where they pitted antibody-laden blood from 16 people given their mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2)
against a pseudovirus that carried B.1.1.7's mutated spike protein. The researchers found that the vaccines' antibodies
were just as good at neutralizing the pseudovirus with B.1.1.7's mutated spike protein as they were at neutralizing a
pseudovirus with the spike protein from a reference SARS-CoV-2 virus.
"These data make it unlikely that the B.1.1.7 lineage will escape
BNT162b2-mediated protection," the researchers concluded.
Likewise, on January 25, Moderna released its own
non-peer
reviewed study
, which was similar in design. They tested the antibodies from eight people given their mRNA vaccine
against a pseudovirus bearing B.1.1.7's mutated spike protein. Again, the antibodies neutralized the pseudovirus at
levels comparable to those seen with a pseudovirus carrying a reference spike protein.
Yet
another
similar study
, led by researchers at Columbia University and released January 26, found the same results. Antibodies
from 12 people who received Moderna's vaccine and 10 people who received Pfizer's vaccine were able to neutralize a
pseudovirus containing B.1.1.7's mutated spike protein, with only a modest drop in potency compared with neutralization
of a pseudovirus carrying a reference spike protein.
Vaccine manufacturer Merck has abandoned development of two coronavirus vaccines, saying
that after extensive research it was concluded that the shots offered less protection than
just contracting the virus itself and developing antibodies.
The company announced that the shots V590 and V591 were 'well tolerated' by test
patients, however they generated an 'inferior' immune system response in comparison with
natural infection.
UK Column News – 22nd January 2021
PART ONE
WHO BELATEDLY ADMITS LIMITATIONS OF PCR TEST
INSTITUTIONAL FRAUD ON GLOBAL SCALE REVEALED
Countries bankrupted, children's future compromised. Nuremberg trials await.
WHO must have known how PCR test worked in Jan 2020. Now they admit, a year later, that tests
are misleading. One day after Biden installed as the illegitimate president of the U.S.
KEEP TESTING AND YOU WILL FIND ANYTHING – EXACTLY WHAT KARY MULLIS SAID
TRANSLATION: SET THE GAIN TOO HIGH AND YOU GET FALSE DETECTIONS
The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient's
viral load.
Kary Mullis won a Nobel Prize for inventing the test so should know its limitations. Sadly he
died, Aug 2019. Mullis said his PCR test should not be used to diagnose illness. PCR test can
detect DNA fragments from past diseases or from your body. Claims of "Covid" detection
actually detects these irrelevant fragments. PCR findings are supposed to be backed up by
clinical diagnosis of illness.
GBP 500 BRIBE FOR A JAB UNDER CONSIDERATION
UK unHEALTH SECRETARY MATT HANDCOCK SEES NO LIMIT TO GOV SPENDING
Environment Sec George Eustace says it's on the table
Mike Robinson: this is probably a trial balloon to see who the narrative fares. 500 a person
will be 450 million a week. UK borrowing hit a record in Dec.
Patrick Henningsen: the question is how much will it cost the gov to find new cases.
PM WON'T COMMIT TO ENDING LOCKDOWN
ANYWAY HE TALKS POSH SO THAT SHOULD PERSUADE YOU.
BoJo talks plum bull, chews words, talks guff, won't commit.
STILL NO INFORMATION ON WHETHER DEATHS ARE RISING OR WHY
NHS REMAINS EFFECTIVELY CLOSED TO ALL ILLNESSES
Are people dying from failure to treat elderly with flu or pneumonia?
MHRA'S CEO JUNE RAINE: NOTHING UNUSUAL IN ADVERSE REACTIONS
EU CRITICISED HASTY APPROVAL
Reports are coming in thick and fast to the yellow card adverse reaction scheme.
Raine is a career civil servant. Been on WHO safety committees. "Risk communication and
patient involvement" is her speciality.
Pfizer jab was "judged safe" and "far outweigh any risk", Raine said in Dec 2020, although
there had been no risk assessment. She also claimed the UK regulator did not cut any corners.
Yet phase three tests were not completed and won't be until Jan 2023. The EU criticised
"hasty" UK approval.
Mike Robinson: the public is the phase three trial. The public at large is the test
group.
UNIONS NOW OBLIGING MEMBERS TO COMPLY WITH VACCINATIONS.
HISTORIC SUPPORT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES ABANDONED.
Patrick Henningsen: what happened to the left. They used to question the government and
favour liberty. Now unions are channeling gov policy and requiring members to get
vaccinations to work.
Mike Robinson: gov says vaccine is not mandatory but employers and unions are making it
so.
OVER-50s SAGA GROUP FALLS IN LINE WITH VAX PASSPORTS
MEMBERS REBEL AGAINST UNLAWFUL DEMANDS AND VIRTUE SIGNALLING
Saga says members must be "vaccinated" against Covid 14 days before travel. Members say
demand violates Nuremberg code, accuse company of virtue signalling.
Mike Robinson: dozens of companies seek to profit from the security and surveillance space
and health profits.
Patrick Henningsen: this is a gravy train driven by hoped-for profits.
JUST SAY NO -- CONVENTION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
UNESCO ARTICLE 6 GIVES RIGHT TO REFUSE VACCINATION WITH NO RETRIBUTION
"The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person
concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice."
Mike Robinson: the principle is there but it is not binding in any way
NORTHERN IRELAND LOCKDOWN EXTENDED TO MAR 5
HONG KONG LAUNCHES FIRST LOCKDOWN. WEST MAY COPY
Patrick Henningsen: Where China goes, the west follows. Targeted lockdowns, focused on
cities, boroughs, housing estates. Only people with negative tests will be allowed off the
leash
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL INSTALLATION FAKENESS
OFFICIAL PORTRAITS OF BIDEN ARE VERY ORANGE
Trumpian imagery, strange presence of PermaOrange in U.S. presidential photos.
Patrick Henningsen: Lack of attendees blamed on social distancing. loads of sports events see
none of this distancing, the NFL football for instance.
GUSHING MEDIA FINALLY FREE
TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME ABATES TEMPORARILY
CNN Jeffrey Toobin (fumbulator): Lights laid down from the Lincoln statue to the obelisk were
"like Joe Biden's arms embracing America". Toobin resigned in October after playing with
himself on a Zoom call. CNN was happy to hire him.
CNN Jeff Zeleny: Their majesties Obama, Bush and Clint, recorded a video reflecting "the
majesty of the passage of power, importance of upholding democracy".
Mike Robinson: but Bill Clinson fell asleep!!!
CNN overcome with Biden on stage with Obama "The comforting sight of the Clintons and the
Bushes and the Obamas, the Avengers, the Marvel superheroes back together, with their friend
Joe Biden all of them sharing the view of a lot of Americans that we did narrowly avert
catastrophe all there to butress their buddy Joe Biden."
Patrick Henningsen: see the infantilization of politics. It has become a spectator sport
and politicians have become Marvel superheroes.
EXECUTIVE ORDER: MASK WEARING AND DISTANCING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY
UNLESS YOU ARE DOT GOV
Trump issued the lowest number of executive orders in recent times. Biden issued 17 on day
one and plans dozens in the first weeks of his installation.
BBC: KAMALA HARRIS A PRESIDENT IN WAITING?
ALREADY ASSUMED HAZY KAMALA WILL TAKE OVER
Patrick Henningsen: Joe Biden is not in his prime. He lacks the energy to lead the U.S. -- he
could barely campaign.
MARK SEDWILL RUNNING UK FOREIGN POLICY
NAME APPEARS AS HEAD OF VARIOUS QUASI GOV BODIES
China is a major set piece. Britain makes a play to outdo the EU on its aproach to China.
COP 26 and climate change take prominence. Biden due to visit Britain for G7 in Cornwall in
Jun 2021. D10 floated as democracy election: G7 + India, South Korea and Australia
Mike Robinson: the war narrative is broader than Covid -- aim in this case being to peel
India away from BRICS
MACRON CALLS ON BIDEN FOR GREATER U.S. INVOLVEMENT
OTAN AKBAR!
Obama doctrine, Clinton doctrine is back – arming "moderate rebels", targeting Syria,
Sahel region for western interests. Biden admin will need to make greater commitments on
Syria and Iraq, sending troops back, undoing Trump's withdrawal.
Moneycircus , Jan 23, 2021 5:52 PM Reply to
Moneycircus
UK Column News – 22nd January 2021
PART TWO
MAGICAL BAGHDAD BOMBING DAY AFTER BIDEN INSTALLATION
PROMPTS DEMAND TO ADD THOUSANDS OF U.S. TROOPS TO COMBAT REGIONAL TERROR
Bomb went off in market not far from U.S. embassy. Islamic State claimed responsibility for
two bombs that killed over 30 and injured 100 in central Baghdad.
Patrick Henningsen: we've been told for months that terrorism has been declining in Iraq.
Suddenly with Biden comes a new narrative and bombs. If a third party wanted to influence his
policy this would be the way to do it.
ISIS 'WE BOMBED RANDOM MARKET -- PLEASE OCCUPY IRAQ AGAIN.'
FOREIGN POLICY IS ABOUT BOMBS, INCLUSION AND GENDER
Averil Haines put forward as DNI. Haines is a protégé of Clapper and
Brennan.
Women and minorities are filling all these posts. The appearance of diversity: watch policy
not change.
LIBERTY GROUPS RESIST FURTHER CLAMPDOWN ON "TERROR"
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENT https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/No_Domestic_Terrorism_Charge_1_19_2021-1.pdf
Patrick Henningsen: Obama administration saw a mass shooting events every second week –
pipe bombs and country in permanent fear. At least half the terror events were driven by FBI
informants. Dubious events like San Bernardino were used to justify foreign policy adventures
in Syria.
Me: In contrast, apart from Las Vegas just after he took office, Trump admin saw relatively
few mass shootings.
ASSANGE PARDON REPORTEDLY BLOCKED BY MITCH MCCONNELL
TUCKER CARLSON ASSERTS THAT COMPROMISED RINO THREATENED TRUMP
McConnell "sent word over to the White House: if you pardon Julian Assange, we are much more
likely to convice you in an impeachment trial."
Patrick Henningsen: such horse trading would not be unusual. Trump missed a chance to go down
in history as a champion of free speech and an honest press.
Donald Trump shattered a lot of Republican records. That's not going to be reversed by
hunting down Trump and his supporters.
CHATHAM HOUSE MASTERCLASS IN MANIPULATING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
JAN 2019 INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS CONFERENCE
Communication and public engagement – MARC VAN RANST – 9: Importance of using the
media to push messaging:
https://player.vimeo.com/video/320913130
Sitting in the front row was the UK's Jonathn Van Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for
England
Marc van Ranst's Masterclass on Manipulating Public Fear for CFR-Chatham Ho.:
"Day one is so important. You start your comms with the press and people. One voice, one
message . In Belgium they appointed a non politician [van Ranst himself] to do that. You are
then not attacked politically. That was a big advantage. In Brussels you can play the
complete naive guy.
"You have to be omnipresent so you attract media attention. You have to make a contract with
them that if they call you, you will pick up the phone. If you do that you can profit from
these early days to get complete carpet coverage and they are not going to search for
alternative voices. And if you do that it makes things easier.
"Then you say we have a certain number of H1N1 deaths, that are unavoidable. I used a quote
from Sir Donaldson that at the peak of the epidemic, 40 people would die per day in UK, and I
calculated that for Belgium to show there would be 7 deaths a day. That is true in every
year (laughter) but talking about fatalities gets attention because people don't usually
think about anyone dying from influenza.
"A couple of days later you had the first death of H1N1 in the country and the scene was set
and it was already talked about."
Mike Robinson: The point he made about deaths is important. You take a number that is
normal, it happens every year but it is not usually reported. You start reporting it and
people think there is something special about that number. Then you add on the effects of
lockdown and you say this is really serious, even though the excess mortality is little
different to what's happened in history."
From the ZH article; "None of this was for your health. It was to get rid of Orange Man
Bad".
100%. The WHO's revised guidance
effectively says the majority of infection data from PCR testing is meaningless. ZH notes
Florida as a possible exception. The original guidance issued on 2020/12/14 seems to have
been scrubbed from the WHO's website but was archived here: ( https://web.archive.org/web/20210102051357/https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users).
">https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users).">https://web.archive.org/web/20210102051357/https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users).
The revised guidance calls for a retest upon a weak positive* result and publication of the
Ct value along with the result.
*Why no retest after a weak negative, am I missing something re the risk of false negative
results? Otherwise weeding out false positives only looks a lot like a policy to drive down
reported infection rates.
The next stage of course is for the CDC to update their guidance (not updated since
October) and revise the stats - hey presto pandemic over, all under the Biden
administration.
This is the most audacious, yet transparent, PSYOP of all time. I just can't believe
someone, somewhere doesn't have hard intel. on whoever is running it.
Introduction: using a technique to lock down society
All current propaganda on the COVID-19 pandemic is based on an assumption that is
considered obvious, true and no longer questioned:
Positive RT-PCR test means being sick with COVID. This assumption is misleading .
Very few people, including doctors, understand how a PCR test works.
RT-PCR means R eal T ime- P olymerase C hain R eaction.
In French, it means: Réaction de Polymérisation en Chaîne en Temps
Réel.
In medicine, we use this tool mainly to diagnose a viral infection.
Starting from a clinical situation with the presence or absence of particular symptoms in a
patient, we consider different diagnoses based on tests.
In the case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use the RT-PCR
technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture.
We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an
inflammatory syndrome!
It is a laboratory, molecular biology technique of gene amplification because it looks for
gene traces (DNA or RNA) by amplifying them.
In addition to medicine, other fields of application are genetics, research, industry and
forensics.
The technique is carried out in a specialized laboratory , it cannot be done in any
laboratory, even a hospital. This entails a certain cost, and a delay sometimes of several days
between the sample and the result.
Today, since the emergence of the new disease called COVID-19 ( CO rona VI rus D isease-20
19 ), the RT-PCR diagnostic technique is used to define positive cases, confirmed as SARS-CoV-2
(coronavirus responsible for the new acute respiratory distress syndrome called COVID-19).
These positive cases are assimilated to COVID-19 cases, some of whom are hospitalized or
even admitted to intensive care units.
Official postulate of our managers: positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. [1]
This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all
restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color
codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even,
even more importantly, in schools [2].
This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some
governments , supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify
excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the
destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the
degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of
a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients
.
Technical aspects: to better understand and not be manipulated
The PCR technique was developed by chemist Kary B. Mullis in 1986. Kary Mullis was awarded
the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.
Although this is disputed [3], Kary Mullis himself is said to have criticized the interest
of PCR as a diagnostic tool for an infection, especially a viral one.
He stated that if PCR was a good tool for research, it was a very bad tool in medicine, in
the clinic [4].
Mullis was referring to the AIDS virus (HIV retrovirus or HIV) [5], before the COVID-19
pandemic, but this opinion on the limitation of the technique in viral infections [6], by its
creator, cannot be dismissed out of hand; it must be taken into account!
PCR was perfected in 1992.
As the analysis can be performed in real time, continuously, it becomes RT (Real-Time)
– PCR , even more efficient.
It can be done from any molecule, including those of the living, the nucleic acids that make
up the genes:
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)
RNA (Ribonucleic Acid)
Viruses are not considered as "living" beings, they are packets of information (DNA or RNA)
forming a genome.
It is by an amplification technique (multiplication) that the molecule sought is highlighted
and this point is very important.
RT-PCR is an amplification technique [7].
If there is DNA or RNA of the desired element in a sample, it is not identifiable as
such.
This DNA or RNA must be amplified (multiplied) a certain number of times , sometimes a very
large number of times, before it can be detected. From a minute trace, up to billions of copies
of a specific sample can be obtained, but this does not mean that there is all that amount in
the organism being tested.
In the case of COVID-19, the element sought by RT-PCR is SARS-CoV-2, an RNA virus [8].
There are DNA viruses such as Herpes and Varicella viruses.
The most well known RNA viruses , in addition to coronaviruses, are Influenza, Measles,
EBOLA, ZIKA viruses.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, RNA virus, an additional specific step is required, a
transcription of RNA into DNA by means of an enzyme, Reverse Transcriptase.
This step precedes the amplification phase.
It is not the whole virus that is identified, but sequences of its viral genome.
This does not mean that this gene sequence, a fragment of the virus, is not specific to the
virus being sought, but it is an important nuance nonetheless:
RT-PCR does not reveal any virus, but only parts, specific gene sequences of the virus.
At the beginning of the year, the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced.
It consists of about 30,000 base pairs. The nucleic acid (DNA-RNA), the component of the
genes, is a sequence of bases. In comparison, the human genome has more than 3 billion base
pairs.
Teams are continuously monitoring the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome as it evolves
[9-10-11], through the mutations it undergoes. Today, there are many variants [12].
By taking a few specific genes from the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it is possible to initiate RT-PCR
on a sample from the respiratory tract.
For COVID-19 disease, which has a nasopharyngeal (nose) and oropharyngeal (mouth) entry
point, the sample should be taken from the upper respiratory tract as deeply as possible in
order to avoid contamination by saliva in particular.
A
ll the people tested said that it is very painful [13].
The Gold Standard (preferred site for sampling) is the nasopharyngeal (nasal) approach , the
most painful route.
If there is a contraindication to the nasal approach, or preferably to the individual being
tested, depending on the official organs, the oropharyngeal approach (through the mouth) is
also acceptable. The test may trigger a nausea/vomiting reflex in the individual being
tested.
Normally, for the result of an RT-PCR test to be considered reliable, amplification from 3
different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required .
"The primers are single-stranded DNA sequences specific to the virus. They guarantee the
specificity of the amplification reaction. " [14]
"The first test developed at La Charité in Berlin by Dr. Victor Corman and his
associates in January 2020 allows to highlight the RNA sequences present in 3 genes of the
virus called E, RdRp and N . To know if the sequences of these genes are present in the RNA
samples collected, it is necessary to amplify the sequences of these 3 genes in order to
obtain a signal sufficient for their detection and quantification. "[15].
The essential notion of Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or Ct positivity threshold [16].
An RT-PCR test is negative (no traces of the desired element) or positive (presence of
traces of the desired element).
However, even if the desired element is present in a minute, negligible quantity, the
principle of RT-PCR is to be able to finally highlight it by continuing the amplification
cycles as much as necessary.
RT-PCR can push up to 60 amplification cycles, or even more!
Here is how it works:
Cycle 1: target x 2 (2 copies)
Cycle 2: target x 4 (4 copies)
Cycle 3: target x 8 (8 copies)
Cycle 4: target x 16 (16 copies)
Cycle 5; target x 32 (32 copies)
Etc exponentially up to 40 to 60 cycles!
When we say that the Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or RT-PCR positivity threshold) is
equal to 40, it means that the laboratory has used 40 amplification cycles , i.e. obtained 2
40 copies.
This is what underlies the sensitivity of the RT-PCR assay.
While it is true that in medicine we like to have high specificity and sensitivity of the
tests to avoid false positives and false negatives, in the case of COVID-19 disease, this
hypersensitivity of the RT-PCR test caused by the number of amplification cycles used has
backfired.
This over-sensitivity of the RT-PCR test is deleterious and misleading!
It detaches us from the medical reality which must remain based on the real clinical state
of the person: is the person ill, does he or she have symptoms?
That is the most important thing!
As I said at the beginning of the article, in medicine we always start from the person: we
examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical
signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and
experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.
Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.
We constantly compare the test results with the patient's clinical condition (symptoms and
signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and
treatments.
Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the
opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by
this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.
None of my clinical colleagues can contradict me.
Apart from very special cases such as genetic screening for certain categories of
populations (age groups, sex) and certain cancers or family genetic diseases, we always work in
this direction: from the person (symptoms, signs) to the appropriate tests, never the other way
around.
This is the conclusion of an article in the Swiss Medical Journal (RMS) published in 2007,
written by doctors Katia Jaton and Gilbert Greub microbiologists from the University of
Lausanne :
"To interpret the result of a PCR, it is essential that clinicians and microbiologists
share their experiences, so that the analytical and clinical levels of interpretation can be
combined."
It would be indefensible to give everyone an electrocardiogram to screen everyone who might
have a heart attack one day.
On the other hand, in certain clinical contexts or on the basis of specific evocative
symptoms, there, yes, an electrocardiogram can be beneficial.
Back to RT-PCR and Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold).
In the case of an infectious disease, especially a viral one, the notion of contagiousness
is another important element.
Since some scientific circles consider that an asymptomatic person can transmit the virus,
they believe it is important to test for the presence of virus, even if the person is
asymptomatic, thus extending the indication of RT-PCR to everyone.
Are RT-PCR tests good tests for contagiousness? [17]
This question brings us back to the notion of viral load and therefore Ct .
The relationship between contagiousness and viral load is disputed by some people [18] and
no formal proof, to date, allows us to make a decision.
However, common sense gives obvious credence to the notion that the more virus a person has
inside him or her , especially in the upper airways (oropharynx and nasopharynx), with symptoms
such as coughing and sneezing, the higher the risk of contagiousness , proportional to the
viral load and the importance of the person's symptoms.
This is called common sense , and although modern medicine has benefited greatly from the
contribution of science through statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), it is still based
primarily on common sense, experience and empiricism.
Medicine is the art of healing .
No test measures the amount of virus in the sample!
RT-PCR is qualitative : positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the
virus).
This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number
of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.
The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered
to be (high).
The higher the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the lower the viral load is considered
to be (low).
Thus, the French National Reference Centre (CNR), in the acute phase of the pandemic,
estimated that the peak of viral shedding occurred at the onset of symptoms, with an amount of
virus corresponding to approximately 10 8 (100 million) copies of SARS-CoV-2 viral
RNA on average (French COVID-19 cohort data) with a variable duration of shedding in the upper
airways (from 5 days to more than 5 weeks) [19].
This number of 108 (100 million) copies/μl corresponds to a very low Ct.
A Ct of 32 corresponds to 10-15 copies/μl.
A Ct of 35 corresponds to about 1 copy/μl.
Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!
In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!
The French Society of Microbiology (SFM) issued an opinion on September 25, 2020 in which it
does not recommend quantitative results, and it recommends to make positive up to a Ct of 37
for a single gene [20]!
With 1 copy/μl of a sample (Ct 35) , without cough, without symptoms, one can understand
why all these doctors and scientists say that a positive RT-PCR test means nothing , nothing at
all in terms of medicine and clinic!
Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence
of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify
their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the
impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!
There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!
In an article published on the website of the New York Times (NYT) on Saturday, August 29,
American experts from Harvard University are surprised that RT-PCR tests as practiced can serve
as tests of contagiousness, even more so as evidence of pandemic progression in the case of
SARS-CoV-2 infection [21].
According to them, the threshold (Ct) considered results in positive diagnoses in people who
do not represent any risk of transmitting the virus!
The binary "yes/no" answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard
University School of Public Health.
"It's the amount of virus that should dictate the course of action for each patient
tested. "
The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or
not of the person!
This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine
whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.
According to them: " We are going to put tens of thousands of people in confinement, in
isolation, for nothing. " [22]. 22] And inflict suffering, anguish, economic and
psychological dramas by the thousands!
Most RT-PCR tests set the Ct at 40, according to the NYT. Some set it at 37.
"Tests with such high thresholds (Ct) may not only detect live virus but also gene
fragments, remnants of an old infection that do not represent any particular danger," the
experts said.
A virologist at the University of California admits that an RT-PCR test with a Ct greater
than 35 is too sensitive. " A more reasonable threshold would be between 30 and 35, "
she adds.
Almost no laboratory specifies the Ct (number of amplification cycles performed) or the
number of copies of viral RNA per sample μl.
Here is an example of a laboratory result (approved by Sciensano, the Belgian national
reference center) in an RT-PCR negative patient:
No mention of Ct.
In the NYT, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts,
New York and Nevada that mention them.
Conclusion?
" Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. "
The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at
the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.
" With a Ct threshold of 35 , approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be
considered positive ," said the NYT.
"And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30 ! "
In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40
would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT. And yet, all these people
had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while
they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.
In France, the Centre National de Référence (CNR), the French Society of
Microbiology (SFM) continue to push Ct to 37 and recommend to laboratories to use only one gene
of the virus as a primer.
I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to
extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of
the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.
Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article
published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance
: " The probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above
35." [23]
In addition, currently, the National Reference Center in France only evaluates the
sensitivity of commercially available reagent kits, not their specificity: serious doubts
persist about the possibility of cross-reactivity with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such as
other benign cold coronaviruses. [20]
It is potentially the same situation in other countries, including Belgium.
Similarly, mutations in the virus may have invalidated certain primers (genes) used to
detect SARS-CoV-2: the manufacturers give no guarantees on this, and if the AFP fast-checking
journalists tell you otherwise, test their good faith by asking for these guarantees, these
proofs.
If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to
you and will prove their good faith.
We must demand that the RT-PCR results be returned mentioning the Ct used because beyond
Ct 30, a positive RT-PCR test means nothing.
We must listen to the scientists and doctors, specialists, virologists who recommend the
use of adapted Ct, lower, at 30 . An alternative is to obtain the number of copies of viral
RNA/μl or /ml sample. [23]
We need to go back to the patient, to the person, to his or her clinical condition
(presence or absence of symptoms) and from there to judge the appropriateness of testing and
the best way to interpret the result.
Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct
threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way.
Even a symptomatic person should not automatically be tested, as long as they can place
themselves in isolation for 7 days.
Let's stop this debauchery of RT-PCR testing at too high Ct levels and return to clinical,
quality medicine.
Once we understand how RT-PCR testing works, it becomes impossible to let the current
government routine screening strategy, inexplicably supported by the virologists in the safety
councils, continue.
My hope is that, finally, properly informed, more and more people will demand that this
strategy be stopped , because it is all of us, enlightened, guided by real benevolence and
common sense, who must decide our collective and individual destinies.
No one else should do it for us, especially when we realize that those who decide are no
longer reasonable or rational.
Summary of important points :
The RT-PCR test is a laboratory diagnostic technique that is not well suited to clinical
medicine.
It is a binary, qualitative diagnostic technique that confirms (positive test) or not
(negative test) the presence of an element in the medium being analyzed. In the case of
SARS-CoV-2, the element is a fragment of the viral genome, not the virus itself.
In medicine, even in an epidemic or pandemic situation, it is dangerous to place tests,
examinations, techniques above clinical evaluation (symptoms, signs). It is the opposite that
guarantees quality medicine.
The main limitation (weakness) of the RT-PCR test, in the current pandemic situation, is
its extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not
chosen. Today, experts recommend using a maximum Ct threshold of 30.
This Ct threshold must be informed with the positive RT-PCR result so that the physician
knows how to interpret this positive result, especially in an asymptomatic person, in order
to avoid unnecessary isolation, quarantine, psychological trauma.
In addition to mentioning the Ct used, laboratories must continue to ensure the
specificity of their detection kits for SARS-CoV-2, taking into account its most recent
mutations, and must continue to use three genes from the viral genome being studied as
primers or, if not, mention it.
Overall Conclusion
Is the obstinacy of governments to use the current disastrous strategy, systematic screening
by RT-PCR, due to ignorance?
Is it due to stupidity?
To a kind of cognitive trap trapping their ego?
In any case, we should be able to question them, and if among the readers of this article
there are still honest journalists, or naive politicians, or people who have the possibility to
question our rulers, then do so, using these clear and scientific arguments.
It is all the more incomprehensible that our rulers have surrounded themselves with some of
the most experienced specialists in these matters.
If I have been able to gather this information myself, shared, I remind you, by competent
people above all suspicion of conspiracy, such as Hélène Banoun, Pierre Sonigo,
Jean-François Toussaint, Christophe De Brouwer, whose intelligence, intellectual honesty
and legitimacy cannot be questioned, then the Belgian, French and Quebec scientific advisors,
etc., know all this as well.
So?
What's going on?
Why continue in this distorted direction, obstinately making mistakes?
It is not insignificant to reimpose confinements, curfews, quarantines, reduced social
bubbles, to shake up again our shaky economies, to plunge entire families into precariousness,
to sow so much fear and anxiety generating a real state of post-traumatic stress worldwide, to
reduce access to care for other pathologies that nevertheless reduce life expectancy much more
than COVID-19! [24]
Is there intent to harm?
Is there an intention to use the alibi of a pandemic to move humanity towards an outcome it
would otherwise never have accepted? In any case, not like that!
Would this hypothesis, which modern censors will hasten to label "conspiracy", be the most
valid explanation for all this?
Indeed, if we draw a straight line from the present events, if they are maintained, we could
find ourselves once again confined with hundreds, thousands of human beings forced to remain
inactive, which, for the professions of catering, entertainment, sales, fairgrounds,
itinerants, canvassers, risks being catastrophic with bankruptcies, unemployment, depression,
suicides by the hundreds of thousands. [25-26-27-28]
The impact on education, on our children, on teaching, on medicine with long planned care,
operations, treatments to be cancelled, postponed, will be profound and destructive.
"We risk a looming food crisis if action is not taken quickly." [29].
It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria ,
because famine, poverty, massive unemployment will kill, mow down many more people than
SARS-CoV-2!
Does all this make sense in the face of a disease that is declining, over-diagnosed and
misinterpreted by this misuse of overly sensitively calibrated PCR tests?
For many, the continuous wearing of the mask seems to have become a new norm.
Even if it is constantly downplayed by some health professionals and fact-checking
journalists, other doctors warn of the harmful consequences, both medical and psychological, of
this hygienic obsession which, maintained permanently, is in fact an abnormality!
What a hindrance to social relations, which are the true foundation of a physically and
psychologically healthy humanity!
Some dare to find all this normal, or a lesser price to pay in the face of the pandemic of
positive PCR tests.
Isolation, distancing, masking of the face, impoverishment of emotional communication, fear
of touching and kissing even within families, communities, between relatives
Spontaneous gestures of daily life hindered and replaced by mechanical and controlled
gestures
Terrified children, kept in permanent fear and guilt
All this will have a deep, lasting and negative impact on human organisms, in their
physical, mental, emotional and representation of the world and society.
This is not normal!
We cannot let our rulers, for whatever reason, organize our collective suicide any
longer.
Translated from French by Global Research. Original source: Mondialisation.ca
Dr Pascal Sacré is a physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned
public health analyst, Charleroi, Belgium. He is a Research Associate of the entre for Research
on Globalization (CRG)
****
Professionals whose references and comments are the basis of this article in its scientific
aspect (especially and mainly on RT-PCR):
The chart below, first shared as part of Pfizer's Phase 3 trial data, suggested that there
might be a short delay before immunity begins in patients who received the vaccne.
However, in Israel, health experts revealed yesterday that the immunity provided by the
vaccine, especially during the initial weeks between the first and second dose, might be even
lower than all that.
Because on Wednesday, Dr. Nachman Ash, better known to some as "Israel's Dr. Fauci", said
the first batch of COVID jabs didn't increase immunity as much as they had hoped.
He told local media Army Radio that "many people have been infected between the first and
second injections of the vaccine," adding that It can take 10 days or more for the immunity to
kick in.
Of course, none of this is particularly unexpected. As
we first reported three weeks ago , local media in Israel reported that hundreds of
patients had been infected after receiving their first dose.
Meanwhile, in the US, Joe Biden and his administration are invoking wartime powers to secure
supplies of critical raw materials needed for vaccine production, as a recent logistical
slip-up ruined 21 shipments of the Moderna vaccine, forcing NYC to delay more than 20K jab
appointments.
iambrambles 3 hours ago (Edited)
I must be the only one who read the Pfizer BioNTech docs.
Out of around 30,000 people, half were given vaccines and half placebos.
In the placebo population of 15,000, something like 130 got COVID
In the vaccination population of 15,000, something like 20 got COVID
The 95% is a complete and utter fabrication, made by comparing that 20 to the 130.....out
of 30,000. We all know how Big PHarma cheats the system: they tailor the sample population.
For example, if the placebo population was 90% >50yo/10% <50yo, and the vaccination
population was 89% >50yo/11% <50yo, you would find that indeed, that 1% (150 people)
could easily swing the result, when the result is:
99.3% placebo didnt get covid
99.93% vaccinated didnt get covid
Pandelis 3 hours ago
if that was true, dr. faucistein would have noticed it ...
iambrambles 2 hours ago (Edited)
Re-read the study. It was 44,000, and in total, out of 44,000, 180 got COVID (150 placebo
to 30 vaccinated).
The first round of Pfizer vaccine was wholly ineffective, at 52%. They cherrypicked 94
individuals out of ths study to share the results, and after the second dose, the effectivity
rate was 92%.
So in all, I dont think anyone noticed how ridiculous this vaccine is in the first place:
if youre 99% likely to not even GET covid, why would you get a vaccine?
The second question is, why didnt Pfizer share results of specifically at danger groups,
like those 55+ or with pre-existing conditions?
And it was 44,000 people across 152 countries....so the results are simply too prone to
error to even be relevant. 44,000 and only 180 in total contracted COVID, how could you make
heads or tails of the data?
The short answer to both of these questions regarding the COVID-19 'casedemic' and the
fallacy of asymptomatic PCR testing is YES and YES!
The only answer was always yes. No one should be surprised that everyone in the political
'health sector' managed to delay or ignore any real science , not in the name of the truth
mind you, but because of their opposition to the administration.
That's right, there's really no other way to put it. We had initial science, which in any
movie script would have been that one moment where the 'nobody' scientist gets called into
the Whitehouse to explain his life saving discovery. Instead, in our reality, those
scientists were ridiculed and told they were either wrong, or the science wasn't accurate
enough (never mind wanting to further support it so we could confirm or deny). These people
played games in hopes of running out the clock.
Put yourself in an alternate role- if you were in a position to make official guidelines
and recommendations and you realized there was science (mind you, people that spend their
careers doing this) that said 'there is a good probability that doing xyz will save a
life'..would you decide not to explore it? Would you decide not to share it with others?
Wonder what would have happened if let's say, the 'pandemic' would have occurred two years
into presidency instead of the last 3/4 of it. Just throwing that out there for thought.
Now, when the dust settles, suddenly the WHO, Fauci and everyone else is willing to admit
the science. I guess better late than never.
Give Me Some Truth 6 hours ago (Edited)
Plus, "new cases" are almost certainly going to plummet on their own . Reasons: We will
soon leave the "cold land flu" season, fewer people will be tested, and the number of people
who have already contracted the virus continues to grow. This means that the pool of people
who could test positive in the future will be much smaller (because people who have already
had the virus now have acquired natural immunity).
Bottom line: The coming huge decline in "new cases" will almost assuredly have nothing to
do with the number of people who have received both doses of the vaccine.
Demologos 6 hours ago remove link
Masks are great for spreading viruses and bacterial infections unless strict protocols are
followed. Remember last year when every news report on Covid ended with a segment on mask
hygiene and proper fitting? Me neither.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 8 hours ago (Edited)
The CT will be lowered AFTER 100 days of masks and then the Biden miracle happens.
Luci Feric 8 hours ago
* miracle
You're welcome!
Luci
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 8 hours ago
Thank you Luci. I knew that didn't look right.
Luci Feric 8 hours ago
You're welcome!
karzai_luver 9 hours ago
The WHO/NIH/CDC are political grifters.
The leaderships are political hacks.
Why they still have any cred is unreal.
They have been late wrong and lie forever.
The examples are too numerous to post here.
dark pools of soros 9 hours ago
same reason people still eat fast food... the flashy marketing
crow1234 9 hours ago
Here's my surprised face 😮
F all this ****!
Give Me Some Truth 9 hours ago
Excellent analysis and kudos for highlighting the key role of the PCR tests in
establishing the narrative.
However, the key reason the PCR tests WILL be changed was not mentioned: This HAS to
happen to "prove" that the vaccines "work."
Once the PCR tests are changed, cases will plummet by 90 percent. The "miracle vaccines"
will get all the credit.
More importantly, by changing the PCR tests t his precludes the possibility of large
numbers of people "testing positive" AFTER receiving two doses of the vaccine. This would not
be good for the old credibility and trust of authorities and "public health officials" who
have been pushing mass vaccination.
P.S. I still wonder if the tens of thousands of people in the vaccine trial weren't tested
with PCR tests that had already been "adjusted." This would explain those "95 percent
effective" claims.
tangent 9 hours ago
That is likely all true, but it has the ridiculous flaw of people with the vaccine still
getting the same positive rates as those without the vaccine. Very funny! But then again,
people don't seem to snap into reality when they learn the population is still going up same
as last year and the year before that... very foolish thinking to think that is a
pandemic.
"... As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample. ..."
Right On Cue For Biden, WHO Admits High-Cycle PCR Tests Produce COVID False Positives
BY TYLER DURDEN THURSDAY, JAN 21, 2021 - 6:30
Were the 'conspiracy theorists' just proven right about the "fake rescue plan" for
COVID? Did the 'science-deniers' just get confirmation that it was political after all ? The short answer to both of these questions regarding the COVID-19 'casedemic' and the
fallacy of asymptomatic PCR testing is YES and YES!
We have detailed the controversy surrounding America's COVID "casedemic" and the misleading
results of the PCR test and its amplification procedure in great detail over the past few
months. As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles,
the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the
virus was in the original sample.
Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric
by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how
infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However,
as JustTheNews reports, health departments across the country are
failing to collect that data .
In fact, as far
back as October, we brought the world's attention to the COVID-19 "casedemic" and the
disturbing reality of high-cycle threshold PCR tests being worse than useless as indicators of
COVID-19 "sickness".
PJMedia's Stacey Lennox said at the time:
Biden will issue national standards, like the plexiglass barriers in restaurants he spoke
about during the debate, and pressure governors to implement mask mandates using the federal
government's financial leverage.
Some hack at the CDC or FDA will issue new guidance lowering the Ct the labs use , and
cases will magically start to fall.
In reality, the change will only eliminate false positives, but most Americans won't know
that.
Good old Uncle Joe will be the hero, even though it is Deep-State actors in the health
bureaucracies who won't solve a problem with testing they have been aware of for months. TDS
is a heck of a drug.
And now,
as Lennox explains in detail below, we have been proved 100% correct as less than one hour
after President Biden's inauguration, the WHO proved us right .
In August of last year, The New York Times published an article stating that as many as
90% of COVID-19 tests in
three states were not indicative of active illness . In other words, they were picking up
viral debris incapable of causing infection or being transmitted because the cycle threshold
(Ct) of the PCR testing amplified the sample too many times.
Labs in the United States were using a Ct of 37-40. Epidemiologists interviewed at the time
said a Ct of around 30 was probably more appropriate. This means the CDC's COVID-19 test
standards for the PCR test would pick up an excessive number of false positives. The Times
report noted the CDC's own data suggested the PCR did not detect live virus over a Ct of 33.
The reporter also noted that clinicians were not receiving the Ct value as part of the test
results.
Yet a PCR test instruction document from the CDC that had been revised five times as of July 13, 2020 ,
specified testing and interpretation of the test using a Ct of 40. On September 28, 2020, a
study published
in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases from Jaafar et al. had asserted, based on
patient labs and clinical data involving nearly 4,000 patients, that a Ct of 30 was appropriate
for making public policy. An update to the CDC instructions for PCR testing from December 1, 2020 , still uses a
Ct of 40.
"I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give
people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact it
is."
So, of course, the Mendacious Midget™ had spoken, and the guidelines went back to
testing everyone, all the time, with an oversensitive test.
The idea that asymptomatic spread was a concern as of August was just one of many lies Dr.
Fauci told. At the beginning of the pandemic in late January, he said:
The one thing historically that people need to realize is that even if there is some
asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type,
asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is
always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit,
an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.
There is not a single study or meta-analysis that differs from Fauci's original
assessment.
Today, within an hour of Joe Biden being inaugurated and signing an executive order
mandating masks on all federal property, the WHO
sent out a notice to lab professionals using the PCR test . It said:
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak
positive results is needed ( 1 ).
The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient's
viral load.
Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should
be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
literally one hour after Biden takes the oath, the WHO admits that PCR testing at high
amplification rates alters the predictive value of the tests and results in a huge number of
false positives pic.twitter.com/iDtXmappRw
This translates to "in the absence of symptoms, a high Ct value means you are highly
unlikely to become ill or get anyone else sick in the absence of very recent exposure to an
infected person."
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers
must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay
specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and
epidemiological information.
In short, a positive PCR test in the absence of symptoms means nothing at a Ct of higher
than 30, according to the experts interviewed by the New York Times and according to Jaafar et
al. Yet positive tests is the number CNN loves flashing on the screen.
If the percentage found by the Times in August holds, there have been approximately 2.43
million actual cases to date, not 24.3 million.
There is also no way to calculate the deaths from COVID-19 rather than deaths with some dead
viral debris in the nostrils.
What I have referred to as the "casedemic" since September will be magically solved just in
time for Joe Biden to look like a hero. For doing absolutely nothing.
Do not tell me there is not a politicized deep state in our health agencies. Do not ever
tell me I need to listen to Dr. Anthony Fauci again. And every business owner who has been
ruined because of lockdowns due to a high number of "cases" should be livid. Any parent whose
child has lost a year of school should be furious.
None of this was for your health. It was to get rid of Orange Man Bad.
now they will drop the cycle rates and you can watch the curve go negative... like
magic... because the new magic man isn't the bad man and the masks he ordered
worked!!!!!
As an aside, this also clearly explains the disappearance of the "flu" during this season as
the plethora of high Ct PCR Tests supposedly pointing to a surge in COVID are nothing of the
sort.
As
Stephen Lendman noted previously , claiming "lockdowns stopped flu in its tracks,
(outbreaks) plummet(ting) by 98% in the United States" ignored that what's called COVID is
merely seasonal influenza combined with false positives (extremely high Ct) from PCR-Tests.
And for that reason, the great 2020 disappearing flu passes largely under the mass media's
radar. Media proliferated mass deception and the power of repetition get most people to believe
and having successfully "killed the flu", they will now do the same with COVID... and, if
allowed by our betters, we will all return to the new normal they desire.
Give Me Some Truth 5 hours ago remove link
The governor of Florida has proposed a law that is ingenious, or at least very important
(if passed). He simply wrote into his proposed bill that labs have to disclose the cT levels
in all "positive" COVID results.
He obviously put this language in the bill/regulations because he knew "public health
officials" would try to continue to conceal this information.
If this law is enacted, we will learn WHEN the PCR tests were adjusted . We will then be
able to see how the number of "positive cases" changes (read: declines significantly).
Here's hoping this law is enacted (with no loopholes) ... and that many more states enact
the same legislation.
philipat 9 hours ago
Loved that banner at the Vienna protest last weekend "Make Infuenza Great Again"
Fed-up with being Sick and Tired 7 hours ago
...The CT standards have been all over the place and inconsistent. It became quite clear
to my family and myself when we started readin: "ASYMPTOMATIC COVID cases surge" MONTHS
AGO!
The smartest little kid in our family, a young Girl at age 15 and is a BIG fan of Biology
and has decided that Virology will be her studies in college, said: "Daddy, is there a
disease if there are no symptoms?"
NO ONE AROUND THE TABLE had a clear answer. There were attempts and then the press started
talking: "YOU CAN CARRY COVID and not know it, so wear a mask!!!"
The ludicrous nature this entire charade started to unfold! SO, 40 degrees, you are not
stupid, just ignorant of the facts.
Go out and do your own homework before you continue to act like an expert in Virology. YOU
ARE NOT. We are all bystanders to a fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons.
Boing_Snap 6 hours ago
Educated people know that these Tests were fake, the propaganda used was not for our
consumption, just the masses whom are only looking at headlines, which is the majority of
humanity.
Putting the manipulation of the tests together with a, heavens forbid a "Conspiracy
Theory", kept the indoctrinated away from looking at it. So now that is changing, good.
The Indoctrinated are most of the population, they range across the spectrum, scholars and
professionals included. Getting them to think for themselves will not be easy.
Oceania2020 6 hours ago (Edited)
Some of the dumbest words ever spoken...
"Google it".
checkessential 4 hours ago
At least FB and Twitter will prove that whatever you Google is true regardless of the
facts.
"So far this season, the county has recorded 39 influenza cases, compared to 1,220 cases
at this point last season. Flu season generally runs from October through May, with flu
activity peaking in December and February. The county says it's "very likely" physical
distancing, hand washing, and mask-wearing are contributing to the low flu activity".
As Fed-up with being Sick and Tired stated - you've got to be absolutely clueless and or
completely ignorant to not see these idiotic and contradictory statements by the San Diego
county health dept.....
When the noble coronavirus is the common flu virus to begin with! Yet, there's record
number of people getting covid all while having historically low cases of the flu _ thanks to
the masks! 🤯🤯 wake up ffs
xpxhxoxexnxixx 5 hours ago
So then how would you explain the inability for the WHO, Fauci and anyone else in that
club not using the publicly available data since April, as you said, and revising the way we
test and measure 'cases'? Biden would never go against the media lol so unless you have a
link gtfo.
MrBoompi 4 hours ago
This is a straw man argument. No diagnostic test like this is 100% accurate and nobody
would ever make such a stupid claim. But what if someone had, accurately, stated that the pcr
test is 5% accurate?
THIS IS TRUE
Ophiuchus PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Do you think they will admit Building 7 was a controlled demolition?
Dash8 6 hours ago
There's nothing left of it, it was all shipped to china with the rest of the
evidence...
Ophiuchus PREMIUM 9 hours ago (Edited)
Do you think they will admit that powerful politicians in America are controlled by sex
with young children?
They will never admit to anything.
All politicians in positions of power, rape and murder children. Lin Wood knows. Start
there.............
"Referring to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert as a "serial child molester", a federal
judge imposed a sentence of 15 months in prison, two years' supervised release, and a
$250,000 fine. Hastert was imprisoned in 2016 and was released 13 months later." --- Why not
15 years? When politicians in D.C. get caught raping children, it's a slap on the wrist.
Suzy Q 8 hours ago
I have not researched this at all and cannot verify any of it, but here it is
Except, I have looked at the part about wrinkled flags. I can only go so far down the
rabbit hole before I have to stop.
JRobby 7 hours ago (Edited)
Yea, just post it anyway. You are probably safe in a secure area.
There are at least 7 or 8 major Psy Ops running right now not to mention hundreds of minor
ones.
Suzy Q 2 hours ago
There are things that cannot be unseen and I'd prefer not to see those things.
daveO 30 minutes ago (Edited)
"G5 said many other people are going to face justice, but only one will have a public
trial -- John Brennan, the Anti-Trump American intelligence official who served as the
Director of the CIA from March 2013 to January 2017. He will have a public trial, and if
convicted, will be hanged."
If so, I hope the hanging is televised.
"Some find it difficult to believe that McCain and GHWB were executed. What is the point
of killing a dying person?
The point is they cannot escape by retiring, resigning or living out. What they have done
remains, and their families are also demonized. The audience is SPECIFICALLY for DEEP
STATE."
This would explain Beijing Biden's inauguration with 200K flags and no civilians.
Livingston 7 minutes ago
A Pay-Per-View of John Brennan being hanged would be a huge money maker. Could probably
balance the budget singlehandedly!
daveO 38 minutes ago
Bingo! It's why Hunter fled Delaware to marry a "movie producer" in May, 2019.
philipat 8 hours ago
No, that's not how these things work. You NEVER admit anything, just bury the facts,
censor as much as possible (to control the narrative) and stick to the official narrative
always no matter how discredited or ridiculous it may be. In fact, the strategy is "If you
can't win the debate don't have the debate".
And BTW, not only Building 7
Hal n back 7 hours ago (Edited)
Look at your car insurance card. After an accident, do not admit you were wrong.
for that, because of frivilous lawsuts there ends up being unnecessary settlement by
insurers to avoid trial.
the plaintiffs and attys usually avoid a counter suit so they have no problem
Would anything really surprise anyone at this point?
JethroBodine_ 5 hours ago (Edited)
Never ever believe anything the CIA says. Everything they say is a limited hangout.
Planes hit the towers but certainly were not the cause of three sky scrappers falling at
near free fall speed, symmetrically and into their own footprint.
That said, a jumbo jet did not hit the pentagon!
systemsplanet 8 hours ago
One day people who rushed out to inject the covid vaccine will begin to question what the
hell they just injected in their arm.
deadcat2 8 hours ago
The kind of sheep that do that are the sort that complain if there are no lamb chops for
dinner.
prairie oysters PREMIUM 7 hours ago
There is (I hope) a very clever metaphor buried in "lamb chops."
Giant Meteor 6 hours ago
Lambs get slaughtered .. eaten
Or placed in petting zoos
SwmngwShrks 5 hours ago
Its a Simpsons reference..."D'Oh!"
JRobby 7 hours ago
No THEY won't
EVER
Same reason they do this totally obvious $h!t.
GreatUncle 7 hours ago
We can only hope we get too hang people for the "intentional" 1st degree murder of
1000's.
Sick Monkey 7 hours ago
The flu is one of many infectious diseases. It's like we traveled through space and landed
on a planet that has only two infectious diseases. They focus on those two like some sort of
marketing campaign. A gold mine for big tech. Get your shot today! Call now and we'll throw
in another 2 of your choice. Buy one and get another two for free. Limited time offer.
Marla Singer 9 hours ago
When you think about the lengths the permanent fusion party had to go to to get their
candidate over the finish line: constant media bombardment against Trump, nation wide
lockdowns, social media blackouts, election fraud, false flag events, and a militarized
inauguration, I have to imagine it's a pretty fragile win.
camel717 6 hours ago
This is what I've been trying to tell people. After everything the democrats, celebrities
pandering, media etc. did to keep Trump out, as well as the mail in ballots (which, if didn't
happen, Trump would've won in a landslide) did to help Biden win, he barely ******* won. HE
BARELY WON.
It was made out to look like the entire world was against Trump and he still won sans
fraud and mail in ballots.
The future isn't as bleak as people think. There will be another red wave in 2022 I
suspect, unless mail ins continue to be the norm which democrats certainly will try because
it's their only path to victory at this point.
Iron Lady 1 hour ago
Xiden's inauguration video on commietube had 16,000 down votes and 4,000 up votes last I
checked. The views were very low.
Trump's farewell at Andrews had 800,000 views in real time at RSBN.
Cautiously Pessimistic 9 hours ago
It has not even been a full 24hrs since Biden was sworn in and already the shenanigans
have started. Once again, Trump, his administration and that small part of the press that
still has journalistic integrity is proven right. This was predicted. It will be interesting
to see what else moves from the conspiracy theory to the CONSPIRACY FACT column over the next
days and weeks.
" A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant,
to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent
jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the
respondant to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If
the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the
respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must
vacate the office.
The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on
the respondant, not on the demandant. "
Could be highly entertaining.
Ophiuchus PREMIUM 8 hours ago
It matters not as it will never be covered by the controlled media.
thunderchief 9 hours ago
Scamdemic. Enough said.
GreatUncle 7 hours ago
I prefer to view it as a tool.
The virus was intentionally released to create the desired effect and it was equally
useful to get rid of Trump at the same time.
Still think vaccine id - digital id - digital currency and the economic lock for the
globalists is the end game to usher in the great reset where everybody will be made a
slave.
Even now more and more Karen's are pushing for everybody to be forced vaccinated or
excluded from society where they will die a lingering economic death.
Walter Melon 7 hours ago
Up vote - who here knew this was going to happen a year ago?
AAA 7 hours ago
Not a whole year ago but atleast a couple of months :)
Hal n back 7 hours ago
It started when singapore reported its ct was 35. Not 40.
vealparm 1 hour ago
You can research my posts here....I was proclaiming the "ConVid-19 scam" way back in the
early spring.
I am 77 and have been around the block a few times with lying lawyers and politicians, I
called Fauci an actor/operative the second time I saw him and hear his spiel. The more I
learned about him and his past left me with no doubt.
We have all lived a dystopian tyranny for the past year engineered by world wide hard
Leftists.
Neil Patrick Harris 9 hours ago
Sure the timing is suspect but I doubt they will suddenly lift lockdowns and let us go
back to normal. This is about much more than removing Trump, it's The Great Reset.
Ophiuchus PREMIUM 8 hours ago
I call it the 'Great Extermination'.
Suzy Q 8 hours ago
de Blahsio is demanding NYC reopen, as if it was the business owners that demanded the
shut down. What a clown
philipat 8 hours ago
Yes agreed, Covid was a cover vehicle which allowed various different agendas to be
implemented simultaneously. Primarily the Global financial Reset. And since they are still
not ready with that, the covid scam will have to be extended for a good amount of time yet
(At least another 12-18 months). That is why the "beaking news" about mutations to more
deadly strains which will require new measures, new vaccines etc (Except that, just by magic,
the existing vaccines still work just fine against the existing mutations so the vaccination
campaign can continue. But they seemingly already are able to predict that the future mutant
strains will not and will require new vaccines. More gravy for big pharma, more controls
etc.)
Unknown User 1 hour ago
They want to issue electronic documents and money to control all movement and activity of
the entire world.
OutWithLibs 7 hours ago (Edited)
Passed a line of cars yesterday waiting for the control vaccine. No less than 4 miles
long, undoubtedly several hours in their cars. Upon completing errands I returned the same
way and the line was disbursing. Apparently the county ran out of shots. People are so scared
they'll wait in line for something that is not known to cure anything, caused death after
injection, invented faster than any vaccine in history and has never had trials. The control
is almost complete. Just add vaccination certificates to shop, buy gas, go see grandma, and
the communism will be complete.
CaMuPaSh 9 hours ago (Edited)
You know it's about over when:
Astra-Zeneca mfg. facility in India is burning down (today).
Astra-Zeneca mfg. facility in Wales is in danger of flooding (today).
Pfizer (a Rothschild Co. thanks to E. Macron) has fizzled.
Sputnik (RU) is being accepted by an increasing number of countries. EU, ME SA
Mutti Merkle is going for Sputnik.
...and the U.S.?
....a distant last.
The only thing selling in the ussa is masks (made in CN) for the next 100 days.
Oh, the days of reconciliation and roses are upon us with a vengeance.
Not a vaccine more like gene therapy if it does not use any of the viral component in
it.
So you have the gene therapy but you will still catch the virus the intent is for your
body to have been mutated to switch on your immune system more violently to fight it.
Thing is that response is not going to be good for some folks as the response itself puts
pressure on your body just like the virus.
Virus does not kill you the symptomatic response does.
LA_Goldbug 6 hours ago
The lady's English is not perfect, but the information is very valuable,
We told you there was no pandemic. We kept reporting there were no deaths around us and
some posters kept arguing we were covid holocaust deniers. We were right and you were a shill
for an evil agenda.
The world is under attack. Most governments are onboard. Why do you need a vaccine
passport for a pandemic that never happened?
youngman 8 hours ago
because of the money involved.....billions of dollars for the drug companies
Bob Lidd 8 hours ago
it's all about control at this point.......
steve golf 8 hours ago (Edited)
fake vaccination certificates will be easy to print. Problem is getting it on the
database, if there is one, and there will be, but will airlines check the database or just
look at the certificate?
Cobb 8 hours ago
If only there was a digital certificate or better yet a way to insert a gel into the skin
that could provide pertinent data when scanned.
toejam 2 hours ago
What are you talking about? The vaccine is to kill or maim you. How is this not
understood?
pods 8 hours ago
Is anyone shocked? 100 days of diapers combined with a million or so vaccine shots and
voila, gone by spring.
Nobody will hang. The machine will roll on until the next financial blowup. Then probably
aliens will cause us to print 20 trillion more in debt.
We are Rome, circa 470 AD.
buzzsaw99 8 hours ago
Nobody will hang...
we might hang if we complain about it long enough.
Indelible Scars 8 hours ago
It's hard to believe that people are still falling for this AT ALL.
NIRP-BTFD 8 hours ago
Humanity reached peak stupidity.
AlphaDawg 8 hours ago (Edited)
Hands up, in Feb, March I was worried. An engineered P4 lab CCP virus.
By April, after saying wait for next 2 weeks a couple of times, I realised it was a
complete SCAM.
Not to mention the supression of Hydroxy and airports open.
GreatUncle 7 hours ago
Same ... the reality though never became what was being reported so by end of April I
started having very serious doubts over it. Then the more you learned it became to obvious
this was a hoax "lethal" virus although the virus may exist.
Then you find out that most who actually died were unfit overweight with existing medical
condition to me implies there is a virus but not dangerous to many people.
Now the majority of the population in society because of the Karen's are now incarcerated
by unfit overweight people with 2 or more comorbidities.
No-Go zone 6 hours ago
... that sheeple ...
Lanka 9 hours ago
The false positives of the PCR tests were known 6 months ago. Historically, ZH would have
reported that in timely fashion. Another failure of ZH, cow-towing to the MSM.
NIRP-BTFD 9 hours ago
ZH are opportunistic money makers. They got paid of to do covid propaganda early on.
deadcat2 8 hours ago
Not true. I've read number of articles on ZH saying the PCR test was producing false
positives and posters like me have been saying this from the very beginning. I suggest you
read Lew Rockwell's site if you want a really good insight into the covid farce.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 6 hours ago (Edited)
There are multiple Tylers reporting multiple POVs.
There is "Wuhan Lab" Tyler, who was dominant at the start.
There is "Daily Case Count" Tyler (similar to MSM).
There is "Covid Conspiracy" Tyler (this article)
There are republished 3rd party blogs.
ImpliedVol 2 hours ago
ZH has been reporting on PCR tests. The first article about it was posted in March of
2020.
masks stopped all other flu but not covid. It takes a ****** commie to believe that.
TRM 5 hours ago
It's the longer name man. You know that 0.1 micron "influenza" is stopped but the 0.1
micron "covid-19" isn't. It's all those extra letters in the name that masks, distancing
& lockdowns work on.
HANGTHEOWL 7 hours ago
"Were the 'conspiracy theorists' just proven right about the "fake rescue plan" for
COVID?"
We are not conspiracy theorists,,,we are people telling you the truth,,,,,,
Notice even when they have to admit we were right,,they try to demonize us at the same
time,,,,,,
uchibenkei 6 hours ago
yeah. were the conspiracy theorists right? why not ask "were the mainstreamers lying this
whole time?"
HANGTHEOWL 6 hours ago
egg-zactly,,,,,,
deadcat2 8 hours ago
I'm in the UK (a cesspit on the edge of Europe) and I've been asking from the start,
including emailing members of parliament, who decided that the PCR test should be amplified
45 times? Was it a government minister, some committee of scientists, or the laboratories
themselves? WHO MADE THE DECISION to amplify the PCR test 45 times and why? The creator of
the test, Kerry Mullis, stated that it should never be amplified more than 30 times. He even
said the PCR test wasn't suitable to test for an infection either.
Had the test been limited to 30 times, there would have been next to no 'cases' as they
are called and perfectly healthy people with no symptoms would not find themselves under
house arrest in their millions.
Stinkbug 1 8 hours ago
And where is Kerry Mullis now, when we need him? Dead. A couple of months after exposing
Fauci publicly, died at age 56 of 'pneumonia'.
Parasiticfilth 2 hours ago (Edited)
So if COVID is so contagious, why do they have to go all the way up your nasal cavity,
almost to your brain to get a sample?
Shouldn't there be samples everywhere?
I mean apparently the virus spreads faster than Kamala Harris' legs.
HANGTHEOWL 2 hours ago
That is just another part of this hoax that does not make sense,,,,,,if you dig into the
history of virology,,you find the same nonsense time and time again,,,,,take rabies for
instance,,,they say that rabies is transmitted by the saliva of the animal when it bites
you,,,,but they have to kill the animal and check the brain to actually see if it had
rabies,,,,,,why not just test the saliva,,,???,,why,,,??,,because rabies is just another
fraud,,,,
duck_fur 2 hours ago
I'd never put those two things together. You're right. Why not test the saliva since it
was the alleged vector of transmission? That really does not make sense.
HANGTHEOWL 1 hour ago
Many years ago,,I read an old study from some university they did back in the early
40's,,maybe even 30's,,,where they took the heads of dogs that had died from natural
causes,,and sent them in to be tested for rabies,,,,they came back positive,,,,it seems what
they test for in the brain as a marker for rabies,,,is also found in healthy brains,,,,,,it
is just another one of the fraud Louis Pasteur's scams,,,
duck_fur 2 hours ago
Hehe...that's funny right there. Upvote for you.
WesternCommunity 2 hours ago
Heels Up Harris. Pulled herself up by her kneepads, with the ugly looks like a polished
turd Willie Brown, Speaker of the Calffornia State Assembly.
Cobb 8 hours ago
Day 2 of Biden regime and he's still a huge POS.
Smokey PREMIUM 8 hours ago
Getting huger by the hour
Farmerz 6 hours ago
Trump was stupid not to fire this Fauci guy, another Clinton lapdog.
Eric Post 6 hours ago
Fauci is civil service, it doesn't not come under any president to fire him.
Farmerz 6 hours ago
We all read the tweets Fauci wrote "fawning" over Clinton here on ZH months ago. At
minimum, Trump could have brought out a different face explaining the test cycle standard the
CDC was using. Could have been mentioned at the debates. Wasn't.
Trump just didn't do his homework.
Iron Lady 1 hour ago
Please. If Trump had pushed back at all they would have just called him a science denier
like they do the rest of us.
Red Corvair 6 hours ago
Trump is not part of the establishment, but he was part of the game all along. He never
drained that swamp. And look and behold, that swamp is more alive and kicking than ever.
Hoss N. Pfeffer 4 hours ago
And now after defeating Trump the alligators are emboldened, aggressive, and hungry.
Everybody All American 6 hours ago
Dr. Fauci was brought to the fore by none other than Mike Pence I do beilieve.
Reaper 6 hours ago
Everything the government says is a lie.
Voice_of_Doom 6 hours ago
Just goes to show you the amazing power the globalist have and how well organized they
are.
LA_Goldbug 6 hours ago
They own the Media and the Politicians !!!!
scytalerules 6 hours ago
"globalists" "chicoms" lol
George Bayou 6 hours ago
They still can't prove effectiveness of masks but continue to swear by them.
convid21 7 hours ago
Even with a CT of 30, your still going to get 50% false positives
At 15 you'd get some Negatives but not many false Positives.
This test should not be used it's not accurate, not reliable and not fit for purpose.
It's doesn't have any science in it all.
The Governments are only using this to invoke fear in the Public by finding False
Positives.
In their view it's better to find more than less, and more leads to lockdowns which
demands a VAXX.
Which means the VAXX is a result of Fraud.
Pair Of Dimes Shift 7 hours ago
The nasal test is QUANTITATIVE not QUALITATIVE.
Completely useless for the application.
Even the antibody test isn't 100% because not everybody produces IgG all of the time when
an infection is present.
Anyone who believes in it is a paid-for moron, or maybe just a common or garden idiot.
Obamanism666 2 hours ago
Start wearing the mask or 2 masks then go up to Karens and lambast them for only one mask.
The mask is also good for hiding your mouth when doing sheep sounds...... drive the Karens
crazy.
Made sheep sounds on the subway today, 5 People got really upset.
Could be even better that wearing a MAGA hat to trigger them.
If caught just say "well if I act like a sheep, I might as well sound like one"
You appear to be the last remaining covidtard troll in the group downvoting everyone.
Soon, you will be out of a job trolling on here. 🤣🤣🤪🤪
Klaus Smith 6 hours ago
Creepy Joe just inaugurated and Covid disappears. YES! That's the hero we need! Hail
Biden!
Space-Time Continuum 7 hours ago (Edited)
All thanks to the most popular president of all times, as we've seen all those million
people there at the inauguration cheering for him.
Pro_sanity 1 hour ago
It still sucks to be vindicated. Plus it was so obvious. Anyone who didn't see through
this from very early on is a total nit wit who shouldn't be allowed to even drive a car.
Shirley Yugest 6 hours ago
There is no covid-19 pandemic. There is only covid-19 panic. The reason for this is the
"DEM" in panDEMic is now in the WH.
9-Month Cycle 7 hours ago
We knew that last year. The inventor himself let everybody know what was up with AIDS
testing in Africa years ago. Run it over and over and over and everybody is positive.
Come on, man!! David Icke.... Alex Jones..... do you not gather information online? Only
watch the boob tube?
Pair Of Dimes Shift 7 hours ago
Welcome to what some of us knew 6 months ago, normie sheep!
According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 29 percent of those who work in a
health care delivery setting said they would probably not, or definitely would not, take
the vaccine, even if it were free and deemed safe by scientists.
Experts say the reasons for vaccine hesitancy among health workers are similar to
concerns held by the general population, including worries about potential side effects.
Some may also be taking a wait-and-see approach to find out how the vaccine affects people
who take it earlier.
"I am definitely concerned that health care workers are electing to wait to get
vaccinated," said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization
and Respiratory Diseases.
Those healthcare workers know their system. They're not stupid.
According to Le Monde, the hacked documents primarily detail issues that the EMA had with
the Pfizer/BioNTech drug. The regulator apparently had three "major issues" with the
vaccine: certain manufacturing sites used for its production had not yet been inspected,
data on batches produced for commercial use were still missing, and, most importantly,
available data revealed qualitative differences between the commercial batches and those
used during clinical trials.
Those worries confirm my fears over those mRNA vaccines: there's an abyss that separates
theory from practice, and another abyss after that that separates practice from
manufacturing, in medical/biological sciences. The human body is not your average machine: it
is millions of times more complex.
And those worries are purely practical. Even the theory behind the mRNA therapy/vaccine is
still far from complete; the field of epigenetics is still very young, a little more than ten
years old, and there's a lot to investigate.
No proof that those deaths were solely attributed to a respiratory virus. It is suspected at
best.
Ellen77 Gaius_Marius 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 09:08 PM
The portuguese court ruled that When running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the
accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.
AwareAussie Gaius_Marius 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 05:09 PM
But there is proof that_death_stats have been_faked, that the_alleged virus is not
as_dangerous as they promote, that_there is another_agenda behind_lockdowns, etc etc. I also
suspect that this crazy_boss_story is another bigpsyop, as it would likely be an exceedingly
rare event to take measures such as those mentioned. In any case I'd_quit on the_spot if any
employer tried that with me.
oddthinker 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 02:14 PM
Nuremburg Code provisions of informed consent are international law. Neither government
bodies and agencies, or private and public employers may coerce you into accepting the role
of a long term trial subject for an experimental drug. Agency and free will is yours to
refuse that drug.
AMstone oddthinker 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 11:32 PM
Unit 731 was never disbanded, just relocated.
V.B. 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 08:53 PM
the covid hoax is absolute madness, it must be stopped, it's rapidly spiraling into something
worse than north korea, worse than worst sharia countries, people are losing all their
freedoms, are being fined massively for noncrimes, medical experiments are done on people
without their full consent, how this madness can go on for this long is beyond me, are people
really that dumb? This isn't black death, it isn't even remotely close, some very old, very
sick people probably died a few month earlier, yes it's bad, no it's not excuse to destroy
world, kill economies, stop all other medical care - measures that will kill way more than
covid-19(84) ever will Average covid victim in UK is 82.4 year old, and that's above average
life expetency in UK, according to many studies anywhere between 96 and 99% of people who
supposedly died of covid had co-morbidities - meaning they were seriously sick even before
catching it It's absolute farce, and the biggest hoax, biggest evil joke in history. Besides
they tried it before in 2009 with the swine flu, it was very much similar to this, there was
also rushed vaccine that had bad side effects, massive corruption that enabled it got exposed
and it faded into obscurity but people never learned.
V.B. V.B. 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 09:00 PM
You should present facts to all your mоrоn friends who still support this hoax,
if they can't make a case for their support (which is not possible if you follow all facts
anyway) - and they still refuse to admit they are wrong then stop talking to them, you are
indirectly helping to support this hoax by being friends and supporting people who support
useless and harmful covid measures like lockdowns and masks, sacrafices must be made
otherways you will lose all, you are already losing all, you can't even meet thos
іdіоts anymore in much of the Western world and beyond with all the curfews
and ban on visits. I am already doing the very thing - I presented clear facts, clear logic
to one of my long term half-friends and he refused to budge even one inch, all his arguments
boiled down to calling me 'conspiracy theorist' and refusing to even admit possibility that
goverments might have gone rogue or fallen for the hoax themselves. However during the
discussion I uncovered that he is a secret leftist, he never talked about his political
views, but this discussion forced out certain facts that revealed that he has leftist
poltical views despite being reasonably wealthy bussinessman, and you would think it's the
proletariat that support socialism...
SavantMan 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 04:59 PM
We need to instill fear in the people who make these decisions. I think the time has come for
there to be actual repercussions for these pieces of you know what.
AwareAussie SavantMan 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 05:22 PM
The solution is both peaceful and lawful. Revert back to common law (the highest laws of the
lands edit: dating back to the Magna Carta), convene common law courts and juries, and hold
those traitors and criminals accountable. This is what happened in the last American civil
war, but it is well hidden. It is coming back now very fast. Research it and get on board
right now.
HappyBag 2 days ago 14 Jan, 2021 08:08 PM
I read that about the plumbing firm, well that's easily resolved, the plumbers can go self
employed. I would certainly never work for an employer that dictated my health or demanded my
records. Then the public can then make their own choice on who does their work - a barmy boss
who dictates mandatory vaccinations (what next, no smokers and nobody who has the odd beer?),
or a normal person?
In the setting of COVID-19, almost every country in the world closed its borders, locked
down its citizens, and forced businesses to close. Today, most governments still restrict
travel, economic activity, and social gatherings.
The justification for these unprecedented measures has been a growing number of COVID-19
cases. This has unleashed an epidemic of COVID testing - with PCR and rapid antigen tests as
the means of identifying positive COVID cases. Our very own Dr. John Hunt examines the science
behind COVID testing, whether the testing paradigms are effective, and the rationality behind
government response to the virus.
What COVID tests mean and don't mean
RT-PCR tests can be designed to be highly sensitive to the presence of the original viral
RNA in a clinical sample. But a highly sensitive test risks poor specificity for actual
infectious disease.
Rapid antigen tests are different. They measure viral protein. They do so by reacting a
clinical sample with one or two lab-created antibodies that are labeled with a measurable
marker. These antigen tests are often poorly specific, meaning they can show as positive in the
absence of any actual viral protein or any COVID disease.
For a lab test, what does it
mean to be sensitive ? What does it mean to be specific ?
I'll use COVID to help explain these terms. In order to do this correctly, we need to avoid
using the language of the media and government because those institutions tend to mislead us
via language manipulation. For example, they've wrongly taught us that a COVID-positive test is
synonymous with COVID- disease. It isn't, as you will soon see.
So for this article, I will use the term "Relevant Infectious COVID Disease" to mean a
condition, caused by COVID-19, in which a patient is sickened by the virus or has (in their
airways) living replicating virus capable of being transmitted to others. This seems a fair
definition of what we should be caring about in this disease. If the patient isn't sick and
isn't capable of transmitting the disease, then any COVID RNA or protein that may appear in a
test is not relevant, nor infectious, and therefore of little to no consequence.
You can think of a test's sensitivity like this: In a group of 100 people who absolutely
have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many people does the test actually report as
"positive?" For a test that is 95% sensitive, 95 of these 100 patients with the true disease
will be reported by the test as COVID positive and 5 will be missed.
Specificity : In a group of 100 people who absolutely do not have Relevant Infectious COVID
Disease, how many will be reported by the test as "negative?" For a test that is 95% specific,
95 of these healthy people will be reported as COVID-negative and 5 will be incorrectly
reported as COVID-positive
Sensitivity and Specificity are inherent characteristics of a test, not of a patient, not of
a disease, and not of a population. These terms are very different than Positive Predictive
Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV). PPV and NPV are affected not only by the
test's sensitivity and specificity but also by the characteristics of the people chosen to be
tested and, particularly, the patients' underlying likelihood of actually having true Relevant
Infectious COVID Disease. The Positive Predictive Value -- the chance a positive test actually
indicates a true disease -- is greatly improved if you test people who are likely to have
COVID, and, importantly, avoid testing people unlikely to have COVID.
If you do a COVID test with 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity in 1,000 patients who are
feverish, have snot pouring out of their noses, are coughing profusely, and are short of
breath, then you are using that test as a diagnostic test in people who currently have a
reasonable up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. Let's say 500 of them
do actually have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, and the others have a common cold. This 95%
sensitive test will correctly identify 475 of these people who are truly ill with COVID as
being COVID-positive, and it will miss 25 of them. This same test is also 95% specific, which
means it will falsely label 25 of the 500 non-COVID patients as COVID-positive. Although the
test isn't perfect it has a Positive Predictive Value of 95% in this group of people, and is a
pretty good test overall .
But what if you run this very same COVID test on everyone in the population? Let's
guesstimate that the up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID in the US at this
moment is about 0.5% (suggesting that 5 out of 1000 people currently have the actual
transmittable disease right now, which is a high estimate). How does this same 95%
sensitive/95% specific test work in this screening setting? The good news is that this test
will likely identify the 5 people out of every 1000 with Relevant Infectious COVID! Yay! The
bad news is that, out of every 1000 people, it will also falsely label 50 people as
COVID-positive who don't have Relevant Infectious COVID. Out of 55 people with positive tests
in each group of 1000 people, 5 actually have the disease. 50 of the tests are false positives.
With a Positive Predictive Value of only 9%, one could say that's a pretty lousy test. It's far
lousier if you test only people with no symptoms (such as screening a school, jobsite, or
college), in whom the up-front likelihood of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease is
substantially lower.
The very same test that is pretty good when testing people who are actually ill or at risk
is lousy when screening people who aren't.
In the first scenario (with symptoms), the test is being used correctly for diagnosis. In
the second scenario (no symptoms), the test is being used wrongly for screening .
A diagnostic test is used to diagnose a patient the doctor thinks has a reasonable chance of
having the disease (having symptoms like fever, cough, a snotty nose, and shortness of breath
during a viral season).
A screening test is used to check for the presence of a disease in a person without symptoms
and no heightened risk of having the disease.
A screening test may be appropriate to use when it has very high specificity (99% or more),
when the prevalence of the disease in the population is pretty high, and when there is
something we can do about the disease if we identify it. However, if the prevalence of a
disease is low (as is the case for Relevant Infectious COVID) and the test isn't adequately
specific (as is the case with PCR and rapid antigen tests for the COVID virus), then using such
a test as a screening measure in healthy people is forcing the test to be lousy. The more it is
used wrongly, the more misinformation ensues.
Our health authorities are recommending more testing of asymptomatic people. In other words,
they are encouraging the wrong and lousy application of these tests. Our health officials are
doing what a first-year medical student should know better than to do. It's enough of a
concerning error that it leaves two likely conclusions:
1) that our leading government health officials are truly incompetent and/or
2) that we, as a nation, are being intentionally gaslighted/manipulated. Or it could be
both.
(Another conclusion you should consider is that my analysis of these tests is incorrect.
I'm open to a challenge.)
So what if you, as an individual, get a positive PCR test result (one that has 95%
specificity) without having symptoms of COVID-19 or recent exposure to a true Relevant
Infectious COVID Disease patient? What do you do? Well, with that positive test, your risk of
having COVID has just increased from less than 5 in 1,000 (the general population risk) to
about somewhere perhaps 5 in 55 (the risk of actual Relevant Infectious COVID Disease in
asymptomatic people with a COVID-19-positive test). That's an 18-fold increase in risk,
amounting to a 9% risk of you having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease (or a 91% chance of you
being totally healthy). That may be a relevant increase in risk in your mind, enough that you
choose to avoid exposing your friends and family to your higher risk compared to the general
population. But if the government spends resources to contact-trace you, then they are
contact-tracing 91% of people uselessly. And they are deciding whether to lock us down based on
the wrong notion that COVID-positive tests in healthy people are epidemiologically accurate
when indeed they are mostly wrong.
For the 50 asymptomatic low-risk people falsely popping positive out of each group of 1,000,
what makes them pop positive? For a rapid antigen test, it is because the test is never meant
for use as a screening test in healthy asymptomatic people because it's not specific enough.
For a PCR test, positivity confidently means that there was COVID RNA in that sample, sure, but
your nose or mouth very likely just filtered some dead bits of viral debris from the dust
particles in the air as you walked through CVS to get the test before you learned you were
supposed to use the drive-through. PCR can be way too sensitive.
A few strands of RNA are irrelevant. Even a few hundred fully intact viral particles are not
likely to infect or cause disease. Humans aren't that wimpy. But keep in mind that there is a
very small chance that the test popped positive because you are about to get sick with
COVID-19, and the test caught you, by pure luck, just before you are to become sick.
On top of this wrong use of diagnostic tests as screening tests, the government has been
subsidizing hospitals for taking care of COVID-19-positive patients. Let's say a hospital
performs a COVID test 4 times during a hospital stay as a screening test in a patient who has
no symptoms of COVID. If that test pops positive once and negative three times, the hospital
will report that patient as having COVID-19, even though the one positive result is highly
likely to have been a false positive. Why do hospitals do this testing so much? In part,
because they'll get $14,000 more from the government for each patient they declare has
COVID-19.
When we see statistics of COVID-19 deaths, we should recognize that some substantial
percentage of them should be called "Deaths with a COVID-19-positive test." When we see reports
of case numbers rising, we should know that they are defining "case" as anyone with a
COVID-19-positive test, which, as you might now realize, is really a garbage number.
Summary:
We have an epidemic of COVID-positive tests that is substantially larger than the
epidemic of identified Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. In contrast, people with actual,
mild cases of COVID-disease aren't all getting tested. So the data, on which lockdowns are
supposedly justified, are lousy.
The data on COVID hospitalizations and deaths in the US are exaggerated by a government
subsidization scheme that incentivizes the improper use of tests in people without
particular risk of the disease.
Avoid getting tested for COVID unless you are symptomatic yourself, have had exposure to
someone who was both symptomatic and tested positive for COVID, or have some other personal
reason that makes sense.
Know that getting tested before traveling abroad puts you at a modest risk of getting a
false-positive test result, which will assuredly screw up your trip. It's a new political
risk of travel.
There is a lot more to this viral testing game, and there are a lot of weird incentives.
There are gray areas and room for debate.
Yes, the COVID disease can kill people. But a positive test won't kill anybody. Sadly,
every COVID-positive test empowers those politicians and bureaucrats who have a
natural bent to control people -- the sociopaths and their ilk.
* * *
John Hunt, MD is a pediatric pulmonologist/allergist/immunologist, a former tenured
Associate Professor and academic medical researcher, who has extensive experience and
publications involving PCR, antigen testing, and analysis of respiratory fluid. He is
internationally recognized as an expert in aerosol/respiratory droplet collection and analysis.
He's also Doug Casey's coauthor for the High Ground novels Speculator, Drug Lord, and the just-released
Assassin , and he is a founding member of the LLC that owns International Man.
* * *
Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of
control, let alone how to prepare How will you protect yourself in the event of an economic
crisis? New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released a guide that
will show you exactly how.
Click here to download the PDF now .
------ Two things I would like information or opinion on are as follows;
In France, those that are about be vaccinated by Pfizer must sign a legal form that is 56
pages long (not a joke ! - Including by seniors with pre or declared-alzheimers), which, I
presume, covers all possible forms of immunity for Pfizer, and unwanted side effects,
expected or not. BUT does this "form" have hidden traps? One possible trap is that the French
Government have signed one of the secret "accords" that give big Pharma the "right" (ability)
to sue the French or other Governments if for any reason they do not make the profit they
"expected or wanted" to make.
The Governments concerned will have to make up any shortfall. even if due to popular
pressures on the Gov. The "settlement" was to be overseen by an ISDN (arbitration) tribunal.
Whose three members were taken from 15 US law firms specializing in Company (Corporate) law,
even if one nominally was supposed to represent the Government. No input from "other
interested parties" was to be allowed, and deliberations and names of "Lawyers" were also to
be kept secret.
This was one part of the Trade "agreement" on services. The one which was to be kept
secret for five years and those signing it to remain anonymous. Was it in fact signed?
Was it in fact signed by other Governments as well. This would go a long way to explain the
obsessions by some Ministers to force vaccinations against common sense. (on children
etc)
-----
The second is more extreme; As the "vaccinated+" human body has been modified by an injection
by either Pfizer or Modena, will these companies have any "rights" on the living result. (I'm
thinking of Monsanto/Beyer and their attempts to Patent the living.) Normally this would be a
long-shot idea, but these days I don't trust them.
This is just one individual case; but the condition is so rare that it does require
independent investigation about potential side effects of the vaccine. Is immune
thrombocytopenia one of them ?
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – Questions remain in the death of a 56-year-old Miami Beach doctor
who died Sunday, just a little over two weeks after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, our
sister station WPLG-TV in Miami reported.
Gregory Michael, M.D., whose website states he was in private practice in obstetrics and
gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, received the vaccine at the hospital where he was
affiliated on Dec. 18.
It is not clear, however, if the 56-year-old doctor's death is related to the shot, but
an investigation is underway.
A Facebook post by Michael's wife described him as "very healthy." His website said he
was an avid tournament and big game fisherman and also a rescue certified scuba diver.
His wife said that three days after getting the shot, Michael noticed severe broken
blood vessels on his feet and hands, prompting him to go the emergency room.
There, he was diagnosed with immune
thrombocytopenia *, which prevents blood from clotting. After two weeks of
treatment, she writes on the Facebook post, Michael had a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the
lack of platelets, which took his life in a matter of minutes, she said.
She said her husband was an advocate of the vaccine.
A spokesperson from Mount Sinai, who cited patient privacy restrictions, said in a
statement:
"To the extent that we are aware of an incident involving any patient, the appropriate
agencies are contacted immediately and have our full cooperation."
Florida's Department of Health confirmed that they referred the case to the Centers for
Disease Control for investigation. A CDC spokesperson told Local 10 News that "they will
evaluate the situation as more information becomes available and provide timely updates on
what is known and any necessary actions."
* When immune system attacks/destroys platelet cells in the blood
Re: "I have what I suppose to be a foolish question about the Pfizer vaccine, which in
order to remain viable has to be kept in an extreme frozen condition until being used. The
question is, what happens to the vaccine as it is brought to human body temperature, (which
is, I assume, what must be done before it can be safely injected)?"
-juliania | Jan 10 2021 18:03 utc | 21
Not a foolish question at all--and not one that I have yet heard any of the Holy Annointed
Vessels of Covid Science TRUTH (ie Dr. 'Gain of Function' Fauci, Bill Gates et al) give an
understandable explanation for.
Speaking purely from the perspective of someone with technical background in the
chemistry/medical fields and having no direct insider info about the Pfizer mRNA vaccine
specifically,
the vaccine's Spike protein coding mRNA 'payload' must be packaged inside a protective
"liposome" a synthetic lipid bi-layer vesicle.
The liposome protects the mRNA payload from being chewed up/destroyed while it is still in
the extracellular space (blood plasma, lymph etc) by plasma nucleases before the spike mRNA
is able reach and enter the body's cells where it is then replicated and translated into
(antigenic [immune system recognizing/inducing]) viral spike proteins.
The RNA-liposome vesicles have a limited stability at room temperature in aqueous saline
conditions, and an even shorter half-life in the blood stream at body temperature. They are
most stable when keptvery cold in deep freeze <~70 degree C) with some physiologically
compatible "antifreeze" (eg polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, or syrupy sugar-like
mixtures) that keep liposome-disrupting ice crystals from forming during the deep freeze
storage temps.
Now to address your question, my guess is the reconstitution procedure is to bring the
antifreeze-stablized -70C vaccine vials to >0 degrees C, and then add physiological
saline, and then inject within the protocol-defined stability-safe time range.
Mike Ellwood (Oxon UK) , Jan 9, 2021 1:09 AM Reply to
George Mc
I presume that people who get the vaccine(s) will then start testing positive with the PCR
test, if they are tested soon afterwards, or even some time afterwards. And so they should,
really, since, in a sense, they have been "infected" with some version of the so-called
virus. At least that's more or less how vaccination is supposed to work, isn't it?
If that does start happening, I will be fascinated (in a blackly comic way) to see the
official reaction. I think it's all going to go very pear shaped (even more than it is now),
in ways we probably can't begin to imagine yet.
"... A risk reduction of 0.84%. Oh! A barely perceptible "efficacy." ..."
"... An analysis of available positive RT-PCR tests and mortality results led the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine estimated a very tentative COVID 19 Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of around 1.4%. Based upon the figures reported to the FDA by Pfizer and BioNTech, this indicates a broad population based mortality risk from COVID 19 of 1.4(0.88/100) which is 0.012%. ..."
"... If we look at the "V-Safe Active Surveillance for COVID 19 Vaccines" reported by the U.S. Center For Disease Control (CDC), early indications of the recorded "Health Impact Events" (HIE) reveal a worrying level of adverse reactions from the mRNA vaccine. The CDC define an HIE as: ..."
"... On December the 18th 112,807 people were injected with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the U.S. Of these, 3,150 were subsequently unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional . This is an HIE rate of 2.8%. ..."
"... This suggests that among the first 10 million people to receive the vaccine in the UK, around 280,000 may find themselves unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work and require medical care as a result. As it is the most vulnerable who are the first to receive this vaccine, given the tiny risk of mortality from the COVID 19 disease, it is by no means clear that this is a risk worth taking. ..."
"... The obvious problem with these vaccines, is that no reliable fit for purpose diagnostic test exists as of this moment. As far I know, no one in power is even talking about any need for an effective test. How are they able to prove that a vaccine is effective without a reliable, valid test? ..."
"... Rahm Emmanuel said "never let a crisis go to waste". Crisis do not need to be real motivate the necessary panic for a change. ..."
"... What is the evidence so far on side effects and long-term effects of Covid vaccinations? Obtained in half a year on test subjects and within a week on nursing home residents? ..."
OVID 19 vaccine trials appear to have caused some confusion. Hopefully, this article might
help clear things up a bit. People genuinely appear to believe that the COVID 19 vaccines have
undergone clinical trials and have been proven to be both safe and effective. That belief is
simply wrong.
The main point is this. If you decide to have Pfizer and BioNTech's experimental mRNA-based BNT162b2 (BNT) vaccine, or any other
claimed COVID 19 vaccine for that matter, you are a test subject in a drug trial.
The mRNA in the BNT vaccine was sequenced from the 3rd iteration of the original WUHAN
published Genome SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3). However, the WHO protocols Pfizer used to produce the
mRNA do not appear to identify any nucleotide sequences that are unique to the
SARS-CoV-2 virus. When
investigator Fran Leader questioned Pfizer they confirmed:
The DNA template does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected
person.
Nor are there any completed clinical trials for these vaccines. Trials are ongoing. If you
are jabbed with one, you are the guinea pig. This may be fine with you but it's not a leap of
faith I or my loved ones wish to take. However, everyone is different.
On December the 8th the BBC reported
a study in the Lancet and categorically stated:
The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe and effective, giving good protection,
researchers have confirmed
The BBC had no justification to make this claim. The
study in the Lancet did not confirm anything of the sort. The researchers wrote:
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious
against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
This was an interim analysis funded by, among others, CEPI and the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation. The analysis was based upon trials which are years from completion and
haven't reported anything. The researchers also stated:
There were no peer-reviewed publications available on efficacy of any severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines
There is no clear scientific evidence establishing either the safety or efficacy of proposed
COVID 19 vaccines. The BBC and other MSM reports that this evidence exists are false.
We are going to focus on Pfizer and BioNTech's BNT vaccine but all the manufacturers have
essentially exploited the same trick. The regulators and governments have worked with the
pharmaceutical corporations to conflate the limited data from the initial, or phase one, trials
with the incomplete and ongoing data collection from the substantially larger phase two and
three trials. The MSM have then falsely claimed the 1,2,3 phase trials are complete and
insinuated that the untested data demonstrates vaccine efficacy and safety.
In reality, not only has the reporting of existing data been manipulated to show efficacy
that isn't evident in the raw data itself, the most important and meaningful phases of the
trials have barely begun, let alone been completed.
Recently the UK Financial Times
reported that the UK regulators (the MHRA) are due to approve Astrazeneca/Oxfords AZD1222
[ChAdOx1] COVID 19 Vaccine. The FT revealed an anonymous statement from the UK Department of
health:
The medicines regulator is reviewing the final data from the University of
Oxford/AstraZeneca phase 3 clinical trials to determine whether the vaccine meets their
strict standards of quality, safety and effectiveness.
Thus giving the public the impression that the trials are complete and that the regulators
have strict safety standards. The 1,2,3 phase trial for AZD1222 was registered with the U.S.
Centre for Disease Control as
clinical trial NCT04516746 [Archived 29th December 2020]. It is incomplete and the
estimated end date is February 21st 2023. The CDC state:
No Study Results Posted
Astrazeneca are years away from reporting any "final data." It is impossible for the
UK Department of Health to review it, because it doesn't exist.
NCT04516746 is one of four trials of AZD1222. Another
Russian arm of the AZD1222 trial was suspended after a Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse
Reaction (SUSAR) event occurred. The SUSAR supposedly happened in the United Kingdom after a 37 year old
women developed inflammation of the spinal chord. It appears the Russian Ministry of Health
have yet to reinstate their arm of the Astrazeneca/Oxford trial while it has resumed in the UK
and elsewhere.
On November 18th Pfizer and BioNTech announced they had
concluded their phase three trial of BNT. They had demonstrated efficacy of 95% and U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) safety data
milestone had been met.
The only part of this claim that was true was compliance with FDA emergency safety data
milestones. They have not concluded their phase three trials. They haven't even fully
completed phase one.
Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act ) so called
"unapproved" drugs are allowed on the market in emergencies . Similarly, in the
UK, authorisation under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 (as amended)
permits the same.
Having also been approved in the UK, this is why the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA) state:
This medicinal product does not have a UK marketing authorisation
The fact that there are no completed clinical trials for the Pfizer and BioNTech BNT vaccine
also
explains why the FDA State:
Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more
widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
[There is] currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine
in sub-populations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating
individuals, and immunocompromised individuals ..[the] risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over
time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown.
Yet the first people to receive this vaccine are the most vulnerable in society, many of
whom are immunocompromised. The precautionary principle appears to have been abandoned. The
notion that the purpose of the BNT vaccine roll out is to save life appears
untenable.
The Pfizer announcement enabled politicians to pretend to cry on national television while
others were really excited. UK Prime Minister
Boris Johnson said it was "fantastic news," and the BBC said it was "good
news" and "really encouraging." Everyone was thoroughly impressed with the 95%
effective claim.
However, this was based upon relative risk reduction . That is the
declared percentage difference between the vaccinated group's 8/18310 chance (0.044%) of
developing COVID 19 against a 162/18319 (0.88%) chance of COVID 19 symptoms without the
vaccine. As this larger group of 43,000 people have yet to be trialled, there is no basis for
this claimed outcome. But it is what it is, and we can use these reported figures here.
It should be noted this only refers to an alleged reduction of COVID 19 symptoms among those
who have the virus. The tested endpoints do
not demonstrate that the vaccine will either reduce the spread of infection or save lives.
It should also be noted that these figures suggest the threat from COVID 19 is vanishingly
small.
Using Pfizer's figures, the relative risk reduction is 100(1 – (0.044/0.88)). Which is
95%. Voila!
This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute
risk reduction. The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is
supposedly 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the
vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%.
A risk reduction of 0.84%. Oh! A barely perceptible "efficacy."
By using the relative instead of absolute risk reduction, the mainstream media (MSM) were
free to market the mRNA vaccine for Pfizer and BioNTech (and other interested parties) with
impressive sounding claims . These
weren't remotely truthful, not only because they relied upon statistical manipulation but
because no one had a clue about BNT's safety or efficacy. To this day, there are no clinical
trial results.
THE CLINICAL TRIALS THAT DON'T EXIST
An analysis of available positive RT-PCR tests and mortality results led the Oxford Centre for
Evidence Based Medicine estimated a very tentative COVID 19 Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of
around 1.4%. Based upon the figures reported to the FDA by Pfizer and BioNTech, this indicates
a broad population based mortality risk from COVID 19 of 1.4(0.88/100) which is 0.012%.
Please bear this incredibly remote risk in mind as we discuss the early indication of the
apparent threat to public health presented by the mRNA vaccine.
It is reasonable to work in terms of population risk because, while the chance of COVID 19
mortality seemingly increases with age, with the average age of death being 82 and a mortality
distribution indistinguishable from standard mortality, the intention is to give the vaccine to everybody .
If we look at the "V-Safe Active Surveillance for COVID 19 Vaccines" reported by the
U.S. Center For Disease Control (CDC),
early indications of the recorded "Health Impact Events" (HIE) reveal a worrying level
of adverse reactions from the mRNA vaccine. The CDC define an HIE as:
Unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or
health care professional
On December the 18th 112,807 people were injected with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the
U.S. Of these, 3,150 were subsequently unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to
work, required care from doctor or health care professional . This is an HIE rate of 2.8%.
This suggests that among the first 10 million people to receive the vaccine in the UK,
around 280,000 may find themselves unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work
and require medical care as a result. As it is the most vulnerable who are the first to receive
this vaccine, given the tiny risk of mortality from the COVID 19 disease, it is by no means
clear that this is a risk worth taking.
Not that any of the other vaccines seem any better. So far the CDC have noted
more than 5,000 HIE's for all vaccine being trialled on the population. Clearly, the
potential exists that the vaccines will contribute to more deaths than the disease they
allegedly protects vulnerable people against.
The Pfizer/BioNTech trial was registered as clinical trial number NCT04368728 with the CDC. Having recently
discussed what I am about to share with you with people who simply refused to believe the
evidence of their own eyes, I think it is important to stress that this is the Phase 3 Clinical
Trial which Pfizer claimed they had concluded in their press release. There isn't another one.
This is it .
The CDC state:
When available, study results information is included in the study record under the Study
Results tab .After study results information has been submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, but
before it is posted, the results tab in the study record is labeled "Results Submitted.
At the time of writing (21st December 2020) as can be seen by date of the archived ClinicalTrials.gov web-page , the Study Results tab
reads "No Results Posted." That is because there are no posted or submitted results from the
Pfizer BioNTech trial of the BNT162b2 vaccine:
No Study Results Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for this Study
Mainstream media reports , giving the
impression that these vaccines have been found to be effective and safe are not
evidence and they are not based on science. They are based on political policy and they report
dangerous pseudo-scientific babble, masquerading as science journalism.
There will of course be mindless anti-rationalists who will call
this dangerous antivaxxer nonsense. All the time insisting that it is perfectly safe to give a
vaccine with a questionable safety profile, for which there are no completed clinical trials,
to the most vulnerable people in our society.
I am running out of patience with these people.
VACCINE SAFETY?
The start date for NCT04368728 was April 29th and the estimated trial completion date is
January 27th 2023. The estimated end date of the primary or phase one of a three phase
trial is June 13th 2021.
According to the " Current Primary Outcome Measures," the minimum time frame for
Pfizer to assess serious adverse events (SAE's) is "6 months after last dose." This is the
minimum term for assessing SAE's in phase one of the trial.
Phase one is the only part of the NCT04368728 trial to have been
completed and published . It was published on the 14th October, 5 months and two weeks
after the start date. Most of that period was taken up with recruitment an allocation. The
minimum term for assessing SAE's has not been met during Phase One.
During Phase One, 195 participants were split into 13 groups of 15 people. In each group 12
received one of two potential mRNA vaccine candidates (either BNT162b1 or BNT162b2) and 3 a
placebo.
39 people aged between 18-55 and another 39 people aged between 65-85 received the BNT
vaccine, now approved for global distribution. The threat of COVID 19, though tiny overall, is
statistically zero for
those aged 18-55. Those with any measurable risk from COVID 19 were in the older age group.
Of the 39 older people who received 2 doses of BNT about half of them experienced
"fatigue," roughly 15% had "chills" and 3 of them had a fever. The
common side effects of BNT included nausea, headache (a very common BNT induced nervous
system disorder) arthralgia and myalgia (very common), fatigue, chills and fever (again very
common.) Other than fatigue, no one in the placebo group suffered these problems.
Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates: Figure 3,
'Participants 65 – 85 yr of age'
[Archived 29.10.2020] , [Original]
The study states:
Pfizer was responsible for the trial design; for the collection, analysis, and
interpretation of the data; and for the writing of the report.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that while Pfizer see the side effects of their
vaccine as fatigue, chills and fever, the CDC refer to them as people who can't work and
need medical care.
The UK Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the BNT vaccine, to
be given to vulnerable British people, based upon a study of 39 older people. This study
reported a pretty high adverse reaction rate. It was produced exclusively from the R&D of
the vaccine manufacturer. The MHRA questioned nothing.
They "approved" BNT in the certain knowledge that there were no completed clinical
trials for this vaccine. In their Public Assessment Report they state:
At the time of writing, the main clinical study is still on-going .It was concluded that
BNT162b2 has been shown to be effective in the prevention of COVID-19. Furthermore, the side
effects observed with use of this vaccine are considered to be similar to those seen with
other vaccines. Therefore, the MHRA concluded that the benefits are greater than the
risks.
This conclusion and approval not only lacks supporting evidence it is utterly at odds with
what little is known about BNT. While Pfizer and BioNTech only completed trials of the vaccine
on 39 relevant test subjects, the results, even from this practically inconsequential effort,
suggest the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk presented by COVID 19. By a
considerable margin.
This undoubtedly explains why the MHRA ordered software from European suppliers to deal with the slew
of vaccine adverse reaction they presumably anticipate. They stated:
The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the
expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) .it is not possible to
retrofit the MHRA's legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a
Covid-19 vaccine.
From the way the manufacturers, politicians, regulators and the MSM have approached vaccine
safety, it is clear that they collectively have a total disregard for the welfare of vulnerable
people. We really must put aside this infantile notion that "the authorities" care about
us or our loved ones. We mean nothing to them.
COVID 19 is only an appreciable risk for the
most vulnerable in society. It is a risk to the infirm elderly and people with existing
life threatening conditions.
If we look at the exclusion criteria
for Phase One, these people were not in the cohort tested. Anyone with high blood pressure,
asthma, diabetes or a high BMI were excluded from the alleged safety trial. But the vaccine is
being given to the most vulnerable first.
Of the 39 older people at most risk in the phase one study, none of them had the serious
comorbidities which the overwhelming majority of those who die "with" COVID 19 possess.
The people actually at risk from COVID 19 nominally entered the BNT trials at phase 2 and 3.
However, it appears every effort has been made to limit, if not completely remove, their number
too. "Immunocompromised or individuals with known or suspected immunodeficiency," were
excluded.
Immunodeficiency is caused by a wide range of health conditions
. Conditions such as undernutrition, polytrauma, stress after surgery, diabetes and cancer lead
to immunodeficiency. The people with the comorbidities associated with so called COVID 19
deaths were practically ruled out from the BNT vaccine trials.
NCT04368728 was designed as a 1,2,3 trial with all phases running concurrently. With regards
to assessing safety Pfizer described systemic events as:
Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new
or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.
The first 360 subjects randomised into the phase 2 and 3 trials underwent monitoring for
systemic events for less than a week, following each dose:
In the first 360 participants randomized into Phase 2/3, percentage of participants
reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]
The same cohort of 360 test subjects were also monitored for Serious Adverse Events (SAE's)
for up to 6 months in phase 2 and 3:
In the first 360 participants randomized into Phase 2/3, percentage of participants
reporting serious adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 6 months after the last
dose]
Pfizer also intend to report the percentage of all test subjects who suffer SAE's:
Percentage of participants in Phase 2/3 reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1
through 6 month after the last dose ]
But there are no reported results from either phase 2 or 3. No one has the faintest idea
what the health risks of BNT are, especially for those it is supposedly designed to protect,
and no one in authority gives a damn. Phase 2/3 clinical trials are now a moot point
anyway.
The regulatory agencies have already approved the vaccine and health services have started
injecting people with BNT. They do so after the manufacturers failed to properly test its
safety on a 39 people who were in the at risk group but did not have the comorbidity
that leads to claimed COVID 19 deaths.
The degree to which people have been misled into believing that these vaccines are known to
be either safe or effective is almost beyond imagination.
Sadly, we don't need imagination. The evidence is clear.
Paul Nicholls , Jan 4, 2021 2:23 AM
The've been practicing this scam for a while now. Everything happening now has already had
a few dry runs, perfecting all aspects of the current hoax.
that "Pfizer's Phase lll trial has been published in a peer–reviewed journal and
included over 40,000 volunteers in 152 sites worldwide".
Kalen , Jan 4, 2021 1:11 AM
Death porn continues:
from ABC
California funeral homes run out of space as pandemic rages.
We are led to believe that mountains of corpses pile up because .. of ongoing massive
COVID die out.
In order to keep up with the flood of bodies, Maldonado has rented extra 50-foot
(15-meter) refrigerators for two of the four facilities she runs in LA and surrounding
counties. Continental has also been delaying pickups at hospitals for a day or two while they
deal with residential clients.
Pure panic. Only to be informed why we have piling up bodies in hospitals and
mortuaries.
Bob Achermann, executive director of the California Funeral Directors Association, said
that the whole process of burying and cremating bodies has slowed down, including embalming
bodies and obtaining death certificates. During normal times, cremation might happen within a
day or two; now it takes at least a week or longer.
so to summarize typical for flu season increased numbers of flu, pneumonia deaths are
processed six to seven times slower than a year ago, causing obvious pile up.
Like with sex porn, COVID death porn is best left unexamined in detail not scrutinized too
much, better left to porn induced sick imagination targeting consumers, otherwise reality
will turn them off.
Igor , Jan 4, 2021 12:54 AM
The obvious problem with these vaccines, is that no reliable fit for purpose diagnostic
test exists as of this moment. As far I know, no one in power is even talking about any need for an effective test. How are they able to prove that a vaccine is effective without a reliable, valid test?
Rahm Emmanuel said "never let a crisis go to waste". Crisis do not need to be real motivate the necessary panic for a change.
I suspect they are only testing whether the persons immune system produces some tcells etc
from giving them this rubbish they cannot possible then infer one will be immune to any sort
of cold, flu or pneumonia
Schmitz Katze , Jan 3, 2021 11:57 PM
Moderna admits here that what they inject with their vaccines is an "operating
system."
"Our mRNA technology platform functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can
plug and play interchangeably with different programs" I can´t find anything what a vaccinated person is supposed to do when the operating
system inside his/her body crashes -- It´s Doctor Bill´s ultimate solution to
solve climate change, I suppose.
It used to be the case that if we felt unwell we'd take time off to stay at home to
recover, or that we'd go to hospital.
This new bill makes it possible for a healthy person to be tested (with a fraudulently
used PCR test) to prove positive, followed by forced incarceration in a detention centre as
if a common or garden prisoner.
Imprisonment without trial for no crime in the land of the free.
I have the feeling the rich will not be targeted, only the poor. If this was happening in
North Korea people would be horrified. Any politician enabling this act is enabling fascism
and tyranny.
Call me clueless, but this doesn't have a chance of actually passing does it?? Will they put everyone on trains at Grand Central and ship you off? For your own good?
taking a shit on the floor and pissing on the curtains, then tearing off the roof .
October , Jan 3, 2021 10:27 PM
Wow. Britain is going to mix vaccines according to this . In France meanwhile, after getting off to a very slow start, they're thinking of
appointing an advisory committee of randomly selected citizens (?) to define their
immunisation strategy.
Said committee will submit its report in the summer .
moneycircus , Jan 3, 2021 11:12 PM Reply to October
I call them Britain's Scient-icians. They make it up as they go along. From the NYT article "There are no data on this idea whatsoever," said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell
University. Officials in Britain "seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just
trying to guess their way out of a mess."
Kalen , Jan 3, 2021 9:59 PM
As author pointed out no SC2 viral genetic material is used in Pfizer, Moderna and AZN
bioagents wrongly called vaccines .. because they do not have them available (or they do not
exist). In fact even Chinese making so called traditional attenuated vaccines or Russians
making adenovirus vector bioagents do not have them either. Instead of entire virus they use
only spike protein only for achieving immunogenicity. But where the spike proteins come
from.
ABC explained in September on AZN example.
Britain's Oxford University and AstraZeneca are making what scientists call a "viral
vector" vaccine but a good analogy is the Trojan horse.The shots are made witha harmless virus –a cold virusthat normally infects chimpanzees
– that carries the spike protein's genetic material into the body. [infecting human
cells]Two possible competitors to AZN are made with different human [common] cold
viruses.
Yes. What is being tried on people by Moderna Pfizer, AZN and others are experimental
bioagents that solicit antibodies that alledgedly block common cold's subclass of
coronaviruses' spikes, not particularly SC2 virus spikes because they do not have them
isolated.
No supposed experimental "vaccines" make any attempt to eradicate, neutralize SC2 virus
itself if it exists, (if COVID exists) as so far there is no proof of either.
Those phantom pseudo-vaccines supposedly to protect us from phantom disease have nothing
to do with published SC2 virus RNA or with COVID clinical disease they are bio-technological
experiments with drug delivery systems aimed as harvesting human cell to production of
certain proteins altering cell functions and metabolism.
In this particular case Moderna and Pfizer bioagents make regular human cells grow non
human protein spikes fooling immune system into increasing antibody production, marking human
cells for eradication and attacking human cells by killer TCells (Lymphocytes).
Those are human cells, not infected by active reproducible virus that are being destroyed
according to the mRNA vaccine model and that is why unprecedented in comparison with other
vaccines prevalence of severe disease like, incapacitating symptoms of infection with
artificial bioagents themselves. Anything beyond little redness and swollen tissue around
injection site not to mention loss of consciousness is cause of serious concern.
if this is the case those experimental "vaccinations" developed with no animal studies to
establish safety and toxicity set up perfect conditions for cytokines shocks, pathogen
priming and ADE all longer term deadly complications of coronavirus vaccinations encountered
in the past coronaviruses vaccine research.
In Quebec City (Canada), the first doses of Pfizer/Biotech vaccine were for the folks and
employees of an old age pensioners residence. They got their shot on Dec. 14. On Dec. 30, 66
vaccinated residents and 20 employees got COVID. Explanation from health authorities: the
vaccines needs 14 days to be efficient. But positive tests were announced after 14 days.
Here's the article in French:
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1760058/eclosion-covid-chsld-saint-antoine-quebec-vaccin
And yesterday, I fell on this Sputnik article: 240 Israelis Test Positive for Coronavirus
After Getting
Vaccinated
This sums it up quite nicely. There are other who say essentially the same thing, perhaps
from a different angle.
Money might be a secondary, short-term benefit, but money as understood today won't
probably matter for very long anymore.
It's about total control solidified by technologies. Eventually, eradicating people deemed
non-essential. The psychopaths probably think that they can manage with robots.
Well, if that happens, the solace for us, who fall by the wayside, will be that the world
created by the TFIC will eventually atrophy, implode. These fuckers have no culture, no vital
creativity. They thrive on technocratic dullness, control. They can live on what's creative
spirits have created thus far, but that will only take them so far.
As other commenters have eluded too the introduction of health passports are coming,
digital IDS, the Chinese social credit system.
It's a fascist global coup from the WEF, IMF, Gates, Big Tech etc.
Unfortunately too many people and even those who know something isn't right are thinking
it's just hysteria or the governments don't know what they're doing.
Schmitz Katze , Jan 3, 2021 8:09 PM
What is the evidence so far on side effects and long-term effects of Covid vaccinations?
Obtained in half a year on test subjects and within a week on nursing home residents?
Questions like this and common sense will be banned in the near future. Sheep will bleat
ten times a day: Vaccination is good because the government is only ever concerned with our
welfare and health. Apart from that, vaccinating with an untested vaccine is Kismet.
For sane people, if one follows the Pfizer/Biontech package insert, the vaccination is a
dareDevil act. With some probability, the vaccinated person will only become slightly ill
– even that is not certain – but he/she can still become infected and infect
his/her fellow men.
What´s the big selling point about Covid vaccinations again? Something along the lines
of „ to save your fellow men(sch) from infection, right?
People in Germany are inundated with magazine covers the likes of Der Stern with
headlines:"Vaccination is charity" with Christmas nativity scene. This is the most malicious
manipulation I have seen about experimental m RNA-based vaccinations so far. The opposite is
the case. Pharmaceutical corporations use people who are vaccinated now as guinea pigs for
their studies which are laid out on the two following test years.
What can be more selfish than this ice-cold profit motivation?
Have they no shame, one might ask?
As for Der Stern, this magazine has sold the big hoax with the Hitler diaries as a scoop.
It all follows. https://shop.stern.de/de_DE/einzelhefte/einzelausgaben/stern-epaper-53-2020/1990689.html
Steve , Jan 3, 2021 7:29 PM
The background to the mRNA tech in this opinion piece is interesting
" Scientific breakthroughs like this don't come from nowhere. Messenger RNA was first
discovered in the early 1960s but it wasn't until the late 1980s that scientists learned how
to make it from scratch. Then a new hurdle emerged. When scientists injected mRNA into
animals, it induced such a severe immune response that the animals died. It was Dr Katalin
Kariko, working with immunologist Dr Drew Weissman, who figured out how to stop
that severe immune response from happening. And that was crucial for mRNA vaccines to be
trialled in humans."
Major Covid Vaccine Glitch Emerges: Most Europeans, Including Hospital Staff, Refuse To
Take It BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY, DEC 27, 2020 - 21:50
All is not going according to plan in the biggest global rollout of what is arguably the
most important vaccine in a century, and it is not just growing US mistrust in the covid
injection effort that was rolled out in record time: an unexpected spike in allergic reactions
to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (and now, Moderna
too ) may prove catastrophic to widespread acceptance unless scientists can figure out what
is causing it after the FDA's rushed approval, and is also why as we
reported yesterday , scientists are scrambling to identify the potential culprit causing
the allergic reactions.
Making matters worse, Europe rolled out a huge COVID-19 vaccination drive on Sunday to try
to rein in the coronavirus pandemic but even more Europeans than American are sceptical about
the speed at which the vaccines have been tested and approved and reluctant to have the
shot.
While the European Union has secured contracts drugmakers including Pfizer, Moderna and
AstraZeneca, for a total of more than two billion doses and has set a goal for all adults to be
inoculated next year, this is looking increasingly like a pipe dream: according to recent
surveys, the local population has expressed "high levels of hesitancy" towards inoculation in
countries from France to Poland, with many used to vaccines taking decades to develop, not just
months.
"I don't think there's a vaccine in history that has been tested so quickly," Ireneusz
Sikorski, 41, said as he stepped out of a church in central Warsaw with his two children.
"I am not saying vaccination shouldn't be taking place. But I am not going to test an
unverified vaccine on my children, or on myself."
Smart: why take the risk of getting vaccinated when others will do it, resulting in the same
outcome.
Surveys in Poland, where distrust in public institutions runs deep, show that fewer than 40%
of people planning to get vaccinated. Worse,
according to Reuters on Sunday, only half the medical staff in a Warsaw hospital where the
country's first shot was administered had signed up. And if the doctors don't trust the
vaccine, one can be certain that the broader population will refuse to take it.
The situation is similar in Spain, one of Europe's hardest-hit countries, where 28-year-old
singer and music composer German summarizes the skepticism of a broad range of the population,
and plans to wait for now.
"No one close to me has had it (COVID-19). I'm obviously not saying it doesn't exist
because lots of people have died of it, but for now I wouldn't have it (the vaccine)."
A Christian Orthodox bishop in Bulgaria, where 45% of people have said they would not get a
shot and 40% plan to wait to see if any negative side effects appear - meaning only 15% of the
population will actually volunteer for a vaccine in the near future - is in the tiny minority
when it comes to taking the vaccine.
"Myself, I am vaccinated against everything I can be," Bishop Tihon told reporters after
getting his shot, standing alongside the health minister in Sofia. He spoke about anxiety over
polio before vaccination became available in the 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, the establishment is pounding the table on why the vaccines are safe despite the
record short time in development (even though not even the "scientists" can explain what is
behind the spike in vaccine allergic reactions), and claiming that the new technology behind
the mRNA vaccine is all one needs to know... when it is precisely this new technology that is
sparking the skepticism.
"We'll look back on the advances made in 2020 and say: 'That was a moment when science
really did make a leap forward'," said Jeremy Farrar, director of the Oxford University
Clinical Research Unit, which is backed by the Wellcome Trust. Oxford also received $750MM from
Bill Gates in June in the billionaire's quest to vaccinate the world against Covid.
Only problem: nobody in Europe seems to care about these "scientific" justifications.
Independent pollster Alpha Research said its recent survey suggested that fewer than one in
five Bulgarians from the first groups to be offered the vaccine - frontline medics,
pharmacists, teachers and nursing home staff - planned to volunteer to get a shot.
An IPSOS survey of 15 countries published on Nov. 5 showed then that 54% of French would
have a COVID vaccine if one were available. The figure was 64% in Italy and Spain, 79% in
Britain and 87% in China.
Since then things have gone far worse, and a more recent IFOP poll showed that only 41%
people in France would take the shot . This means that a vast majority will not .
Not even in Sweden, where public trust in authorities is absurdly and inexplicably high, is
there a universal trust in the vaccine, with at least one in three saying they won't get the
shot: "If someone gave me 10 million euro, I wouldn't take it," Lisa Renberg, 32, told Reuters
on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, in a paradoxical attempt to force more to sign up - not realizing that it will
only have the precisely opposite effect - Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki urged Poles
on Sunday to sign up for vaccination, saying the herd immunity effect depended on them. Critics
have accused Warsaw's "nationalist leaders" of being too accepting of anti-vaccination
attitudes in the past in an effort to garner conservative support. Well... let's check back on
said attitude in 10 years and see if perhaps it was the right one.
For now, however, the more European governments pressure their populations to get immunized,
the fewer the people who will actually sign up and the worse the vaccine rollout will be, that
much we can be 100% sure of.
OT: but related, vaccines distributed the U.S. breathlessly announced the success
of operation warp speed and claimed that 20M doses would be distributed (shots in arm) by the
end of this year, now we know the number is 2M .
Does anyone know how many doses of Sputnik V have been distributed year to date?
Yesterday in a especial program at private TV, it was stated by several representatives of
the medical profession all very snobishly dressed, that there have not been other adverse
effects so far except headhache, and joints pain..whic his not true, there have been also
transverse mielitys, several anaphilactic shocks, and even deaths...
Telated, and with respect Brexit, one wonders how it is that after Brexit comes into effect,
and after the EU populations are submitted to harsh restrictions of movements and meeting,
especially travelling since March, several whole families of Britons managed to get into our
countries carrying the new strain of the virus which is 70% more virulent...How is that UK
citizens are more free than nationals, and what the Brexit serves for...
One would say that this new strain came so opportune to be blamed in case of a possible
failure of the few experimented vaccines, or, if not, the population will be blamed for no
vaccinating themselves enough. This way the governments wash their responsability in the
previous misshandling of this pandemic,ingtroduce curtails of freedoms and rights which
previously would have been impossible to do without fierce contestations in the streets, and
avoid answering why they did not forced the laboratories instead into investigating on drugs
that cure the Covid-19 infection, as the one administered to Trump is being investigated right
now in the UK...Of course, drugs that cure an infection which anyway could dissapear in a year
automathically ends profitting from vaccines.
One watch at all this data and gets the impression that he is being taken for a ride...
All of the above are legitimate questions the cintizenry are making to themselves, in lack
of public comparecence of officials and heads of laboratiories implied to public and open
questioning. The secrecy of all this highly controbutes to the distrust of the people. the
people is being treated as herd, and never better said, illiterates who can not see further
their own extende arm, and used a guinea pigs while morevoer left to pay the bill, as the
ammount to be spent in these vaccines is an astronomic price which, of course, will never be
taken out from the oligarchs.
Posted by: H.Schmatz | Dec 27 2020 15:55 utc |
6 Conflict of interests between major Big Pharma corporations and official drug
organisms:
Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Efficacy? Where is the evidence to prove it? What's behind all that
"fanciful" and encouraging news? And what about the links between state vaccine regulatory
agencies and the pharmaceutical industry?Thread.
That should have been in the first paragraph. There were so far less than ten severe allergic
reactions,no death, with more than 1 million vaccinated. That is 1 in 100,000 cases. About
the same rate that allergic reactions to penicillin are reported. Meanwhile the U.S. has seen
100 deaths per 100,000 from Covid-19.
Do you think 1 in 100,000 is acceptable? I don't think it is, at least for a vaccine that's
intended (I know it won't, but it would if it could) to for more than 7 billion people, against
a disease that has a mortality rate of circa 1.5%.
Notice that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, so far, have only been inoculated on VIPs or
healthcare professionals. Those who had grave anaphylactic episodes did so in a secure
environment, inside fully equipped hospitals, ready to be saved if needed.
Now imagine a Third World environment, where billions of people would received the vaccine
and be ready to go a few minutes later.
Luckily, the Third World will mainly receive the Chinese and Russian vaccines, which cause,
as far as we know, no allergic reactions. Now imagine a world where China and Russia didn't
exist, a world where capitalism reigned supreme, and 7 billion had to receive the Pfizer and
Moderna vaccines. This would make the Holocaust look like a book for children - and I mean that
in the literal sense, not invoking Goodwin's Law (just make the calculations).
Penicillin is a completely different case: it was the only game in town when it came out,
and the flu killed a lot more than the antibiotic did. Flu was basically a death sentence to a
child before penicillin was discovered, and was a serious threat even to an adult. Besides,
Penicillin is a cure, not a vaccine - completely different scenarios, as the person with a flu
lives in a different risk-reward system than a person who may or may not ever get COVID-19.
Vaccines that kill one in 100,000 patients do exist (e.g. yellow fever, which is a live
virus vaccine) - but they are for exotic and much deadlier diseases, so a much lower number of
people are inoculated with it and the risk is well worth it. To release such an expensive and
risky vaccine when there are cheaper and safer options is irresponsible on the part of the
laboratories, in my opinion.
Vk - 1 in 100,000 is incredibly good. Be assured that any vaccine that would potentially be
effective against this virus would have at least this level of issue. That we don't know the
complications rate of the Russian or Chinese vaccines does not mean that the rates are
zero!
As to your argument, you don't see the benefit of vaccinating where potentially millions of
people could die and the economies be completely wrecked? What the hell?
(1) In this interview with ZDF, Prof. Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, who is the head of the drug
commission of physician in Germany, considers the development of Covid vaccines as a positive
thing but finds faults with politicians, especially German health minister Spahn, for putting
political pressure on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to accelerate the approval of
vaccines, especially the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Prof. Ludwig also belongs to EMA management
board. Most importantly, when asked whether he'd take the vaccine, his response was NO.
That's because he feels that we hardly know anything about its long term adverse effects
. https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/corona-impfstoff-zulassung-kritik-ludwig-100.html
(2) Toxicologist Prof. Hockertz unequivocally states that for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine
there exist hardly any preclinical toxicological and pharmacological data (phases 1 and
2) . He points out that even in cases of orphan drugs, the regulation allows a telescoping
of the Phase 3 clinical study, but NEVER of the preclinical studies. In his words, the way
Phases 1 and 2 have been skipped is criminal in nature. At the very end of the interview
(which is in German), he quotes the response from Pfizer as "No data available" on his
request for toxicological and pharmaceutical data from preclinical studies!!
He also notes that recently Swissmedic (national authorization and supervisory authority for
drugs and medical products in Switzerland) has concluded that the Pfizer vaccine submission
lacks evidence of safety, efficacy and quality! Swissmedic is independent of EMA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=iiTrttV7Q8A&feature=youtu.be
Prof. Hockertz is a past director of institute for experimental toxicology and clinical
toxicology at University of Hamburg Eppendorf. And before that he was a member of the
directorate of Fraunhofer Institutes for Toxicology and Environmental Medicine in Hannover.
I am not saying that the vaccine is dangerous - I have no data to support that conclusion.
But there is no data to support that the vaccine is safe either.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 27 2020 19:44 utc |
26
@vk
You, as usually, in your apparently well informed kinda Marxist narrative, insert always
some of disinfo which makes me suspect about your real golas here.
You are stating that the Pfizer vaccine was admnistered only to a few VIPs...
Which VIPS are those? Do not be you referring to Pence? He could well have been inoculated
with phisiologic solution as he is reincident, like that time when he transported empty aid
boxes in the past for another photo op. Another example, please?
They are inoculating first super elders, in their last 80s and 90s in the nursing homes,
mainly private, young nurses and nursing home employees working there...which points at that
thosve employees probably would be fired if they do not agree on being vaccinated
They have taken the caution to not inoculate first the people between 50 and 60 which are
those who most could suffer a serious adverse effect, by the possible presence of
preconditions, in fact the most prejudiced by Covid-19 infection....
In fact, not even in Russia there are officials vaccinated yet, and that even with the less
harmful Russian vaccine....
In the press some are displaying a huge effort naming this event a "estelar moment for
humanity"...
The people, over whom all the sticks fall, have not but producing memes due the current
histeria displayed on TV and MSM...
I have just seen a report from `ACIP Covid-19 Vaccine Work Group at CDC' in the US. (ACIP
stands for Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices.)
This is a report on anaphylaxis following m-RNA covid-19 vaccine receipt, and the report
includes a table headed: 'V-Safe Active Surveillance for Covid-19 Vaccine'.
The table lists the number of registrants with a recorded first dose by December 18th as
112,807 and the number of Health Impact Events as 3,150.
Health Impact Events are defined as individuals, `unable to perform normal daily
activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health professional'.
That is 2.79%, and it is within days of receiving the vaccine.
If 60 million people in the UK have the vaccine we can, therefore, expect 1.67 million
people to be unable to work, perform normal daily activities and to require care from a
doctor or health professional.
If six billion people worldwide have the vaccine, we can expect 167 million people to be
`unable to work, perform normal daily activities, require care from doctor or heath
professional'.
And that is just the short-term effect of the vaccine. We obviously don't know what will
happen in the months and years ahead.
Thank you. I'm not sure we're seeing what we think we're seeing here.
In the CDC report, page 4 says 6 cases of anaphylaxis were discovered by 2300 hours, EST on
December 18.
Page 6 cites the number of Health Impact Events as 3,150, and this at an earlier time, 1730
hours, EST on December 18.
After studying this, I conclude that they are not claiming 3,150 cases of anaphylaxis in the
data tabulated from earlier that night.
I currently assume that page 6 is referring to surveillance measures taken rather than cases
found - the slide is titled "V-safe Active Surveillance for COVID-19 Vaccines". So, this would
mean that they had monitored those patients for anaphylaxis as of 1730 hours, but in the data
finalized as of 5.5 hours later they were only reporting 6 cases.
I actually hope this is the case, although I'm not a fan of the Pfizer vaccine. If I'm
wrong, and Dr. Coleman's take is correct, then the world just blew up - but I would think we'd
hear more about this. Anaphylaxis is serious and mandates medical attention. This is the UK, at
the very start of a rapid rollout, so I have to think that a major occurrence would spill into
broad alarm that we'd hear.
The origins of the RT-PCR on which it is based our whole strategy against the Covid-19
pandemic, how it was created and in a rush published in a scientific private review, without
obliged previous peer review, and which the conflict of interests are and how some people are
profiting from this pandemic:
The statement that the new strain of Covid-19 is 70 percent more contagious is nothing, but
a claim made by politicians so far, Christian Drosten, the head of the virology department at
the Berlin's Charite center -- one of Europe's largest university hospitals -- told the German
radio broadcaster Deutschlandfunk.
"Suddenly, there is this figure out there, 70 percent, and no one even knows what is
meant by that," he said. The virologist believes there is just not enough data to really
say that the new strain is any more dangerous than the other existing ones.
The data provided by the British scientists on the new strain is still incomplete, Drosten
said, adding that even preliminary analysis results would arrive within a week. The fact that
discovery of a new strain coincided with a sharp rise of new infection cases in southeast
England also does not necessarily mean that the new virus is to blame, the virologist
believes.
"The question is whether the virus is to blame or whether it was just a local epidemic
outbreak, or the lockdown was not so strict and transmission mechanisms were in place in an
area where this particular strain happened to be," he said.
It was also too early to say whether this virus actually transmits faster. To do so, one
needs to "look at who infected whom and how long it took," Drosten explained, adding
that "one would be surprised" if such a parameter as the virus infectiousness would
significantly change all of a sudden now.
What is known so far is that a mutation present in the new strain lets it form a stronger
binding with human cells. Still, according to Drosten, that does not automatically mean quicker
reproduction since the virus stays with one cell for a longer period of time than it could and
probably should to successfully replicate.
The scientist also said that similar coronavirus mutations already repeatedly appeared
during the pandemic only to disappear at some point. He also said that the new strain is
unlikely to affect any coronavirus vaccine's effectiveness since an immune response formed
through vaccination is a complex process that would hardly be affected by a minor change in the
virus structure.
Still, Drosten admitted that the officials were right to be cautious and temporarily ban all
travel to and from the UK now that the whole situation is still unclear. "Of course, as a
politician, one has to act out of caution here," he said, adding that the current policy
approaches could be "corrected" once more information is available.
The discovery of a new coronavirus strain prompted many nations to suspend all travel to and
from the UK. The list of countries that joined the international quarantine of the UK includes
the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Germany and Poland, as well as Russia. Some nations
outside Europe, like Iran, Argentina, Chile and El Salvador also cut transportation links with
the UK.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, suspended travel not just to the UK but to other nations
as well. The moves came as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the new Covid-19
strain is supposedly 70 percent more contagious and announced a strict Tier 4 lockdown in part
of the country, including London.
Certain countries try to portray this Covid as the plaque. If we remember even the WHO
confirmed that the Covid is way milder than the common flu. So if we are not obliged to get a
flu shot, we certainly don't need the Covid "God knows what's in it" vaccine. In the winter
months, especially December every year millions of people get the flu, and in some cases its
unfortunately deadly. But the authorities are trying to say that every case of the flu is
Corona virus which is basically a big lie. It is something new, but way milder and in most of
the cases our body can fight it off. Vaccination is being rushed, the FDA had no real
solution to resolve the ifs and buts, and now out of a sudden they have approved it, and we
have a deadly virus that's going to vipe our civilisation of the planet?That's a lot of
disinformation and rubbish. But the big question is liability? These farmaceutical giants
clearly say that in case of any trouble they won't be liable? So why would anyone want it if
there's no guarantee for a human life? If someone thinks that the vaccine is going to save
us, they are just delusional. Get a flu shot if you badly want to stop the panic and you will
be OK. The Covid 19 vaccine in my opinion is a rushed experiment, and needs time to prove
itself worthy...
Guest 11 hours ago 21 Dec, 2020 03:31 PM
It's a single amino acid change in the spike protein associated with the ACE receptor
mechanism that gives the virus access to a cell. There are many such changes going on and it
came via Europe and did not original in the UK. Talk about talked up, hyperboli and general
incompetence. And I'm not talking about this article!
In a press conference on Saturday, Chief Science Adviser Patrick Vallance said B.1.1.7,
which first appeared in a virus isolated on 20 September, accounted for about 26% of
cases in mid-November. "By the week commencing the ninth of December, these figures were much
higher," he said. "So, in London, over 60% of all the cases were the new variant."
Johnson added that the slew of mutations may have increased the virus' transmissibility by
70%.
...
Not being an ??-ologist, that paragraph indicates to me that a virus with greater
transmissibiliy will REPLACE/DISPLACE the original Covid19 strain. Since the emerging
consensus among virologists is that the B.1.1.7 variant is no more deadly than the original,
then the only reason it matters is that more people will catch the mutated version than would
have caught COVID19 - thus putting more pressure on an already over-stressed healthcare
system.
Since it looks as though a vaccine isn't going to be a Silver Bullet for many months, if
not many, many months, I find it peculiar that more effort wasn't expended on pursuing a
TREATMENT to reduce the severity of COVID symptoms.
I caught CGTN News this morning and China has officially abandoned a 'promising' TREATMENT
it was working on because the stats indicate that it doesn't work...
I do not think the B.1.1.7 strain is any more infectious than over SARS-COV-2 strains. It
prevails because UK has reached a level of herd immunity against the other strains.
It is falsely claimed that a 70% infection rate is required for herd immunity. The 70%
applies to vaccines, which are distributed evenly throughout the population. For the epidemic
to calm down only a very small portion of the population needs to become immune. This same
population is most likely to spread the infection but also most likely to be infected. For
any vaccination campaign it would be difficult to find this vector population, but the virus
will find it all by itself. It now seems that this vector population is young people who
frequent bars and nightclubs. A bartender in
ski resorts can infect hundreds, but he is also most likely to be first infected.
"British medical journal The Lancet published research on Phase I and Phase II clinical
trials of the vaccine, revealing no adverse effects in patients and triggering an effective
immune response. More than 50 countries have requested roughly 2.4 billion doses across India,
Brazil, China, Argentina, South Korea and numerous others."
As of Dec. 18, 3,150 out of 272,001 recipients reported what the agency terms "Health
Impact Events" after getting vaccinated. The definition of the term is: "unable to perform
normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care
professional."
WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives Warnings concerning high CT value of
tests are months too late so why are they appearing now? The potential explanation is
shockingly cynical. Kit Knightly
While this information is accurate, it has also been available for months, so we must ask:
why are they reporting it now? Is it to make it appear the vaccine works?
The "gold standard" Sars-Cov-2 tests are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR
works by taking nucleotides – tiny fragments of DNA or RNA – and replicating them
until they become something large enough to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with
each cycle doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes to produce
something identifiable is known as the "cycle threshold" or "CT value". The higher the CT
value, the less likely you are to be detecting anything significant.
This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the presence of Sars-Cov-2
will result in false-positive results.
To quote their own words [our emphasis]:
Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment
of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may
lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a
positive result.
They go on to explain [again, our emphasis]:
The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating
virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct
value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many
cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between
background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.
Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention. That PCR tests
were easily manipulated and potentially highly inaccurate has been one of the oft-repeated
battle cries of those of us opposing the "pandemic" narrative, and the policies it's being
used to sell.
Many articles have been
written about it, by many experts in the field, medical
journalists and other
researchers . It's been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using
a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless.
Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, was clear that it
wasn't
meant as a diagnostic tool , saying:
with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody."
And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something
seriously wrong with your PCR."
Even Dr Anthony Fauci has publicly admitted that a cycle
threshold over 35 is going to be detecting "dead nucleotides", not a living virus.
Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests
with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s.
So why has the WHO finally decided to say this is wrong? What reason could they have for
finally choosing to recognise this simple reality?
The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical: We have a vaccine now. We don't need
false positives anymore.
Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure. So, after everyone has been
vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done "under the new WHO guidelines" ,
and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+.
Lo and behold, the number of "positive cases" will plummet, and we'll have confirmation
that our miracle vaccine works.
as long as we all do as we're told. Any signs of dissent – masses of people refusing
the vaccine, for example – and the CT value can start to climb again, and they bring back
their magical disease .
Hugo , Dec 21, 2020 4:14 AM
In an interview, Dr. Wodarg said he had checked his own blood oxygen saturation with a
simple test on his finger after wearing a mask for several minutes. It had dropped from 98
to 94 percent. It is different when climbers hike in regions with low oxygen levels; the
organism gets used to this and reacts by producing red blood cells. 50 percent of the
oxygen we take in is consumed by our brain alone.
That is why the consequences for children wearing a mask are so devastating: their
brains are still growing. The constant inhalation of their own carbon dioxide makes them
sleepy, lame, unfocused and listless. In addition, the mask creates a hotbed of moisture in
which germs thrive. If, on the other hand, we snort into the crook of our arms, they dry
out. Open windows prolong life. Especially for smokers, whose organism is pre-damaged, for
example, by a lifelong lack of oxygen.
TFS , Dec 20, 2020 11:09 AM
Former Brexit Party letter to the Secretary of State for Health:
Excellent letter, reply requested by 22 December. A long list of questions to be
answered but, if the Government truly has a grip on what they are doing and can demonstrate
that they have the supporting evidence, the questions should not be difficult to answer.
When I was a civil servant in a London HQ many years ago now, we regularly received
requests like this, often with 24 hours notice to reply, and we would have to drop
everything else to deal with them. All the receiving Minister's office do is send the
request to the appropriate policy unit where responsibility for drafting answers could be
shared between any number of staff – one member of staff might deal with, say, three
simple questions or one more complex question. But meeting the deadline should not be a
problem if one assumes the information is readily accessible as we would be led to believe.
We shall see.
Quote from letter: "We trust that this letter will be taken seriously"
In my best pantomime voice 'Oh no it won't.'
aspnaz , Dec 20, 2020 2:33 AM
Read chapter 11 "What happened to the scientific method" of Kary Mullis's (inventor of
the PCR test) "Dancing in the mind field" ( https://b-ok.cc/book/1523791/8aa4c2 ) to get his
take on why these people are so corrupt.
In summary, he describes what I would call the "Science Industrial Complex" which is
basically useless people leaching money from the government teat by creating "imminent
disasters" that scare the population, and hence motivate the politicians, into handing out
research grants for the most ridiculous projects without any real scientific proof, such as
climate change.
Here is an extract:
Imagine two hypothetical labs competing for public funds.
One of those labs announces in a series of scientific papers that they have found some
unexpected and very interesting phenomena in the upper atmosphere that contradict the
currently accepted theories on the radiogenic formation of carbon-14. This could have a
dramatic impact on the radioisotopic dating of fossils. The time frame for human evolution
might be a tenth of what has previously been concluded. We may have evolved from the
fossils in the Oldavai Gorge in only a couple of hundred thousand years. All of biology may
be much younger than we think. More research would be required to confirm this. Biologists
all over the world are curious and very excited. The lab is requesting a million dollars
from the National Science Foundation to conduct a more detailed study.
A second lab working on upper atmospheric physics calls a press conference to report
preliminary data on what appears to be a giant hole in the ozone layer and warns the
reporters that if something isn't done about it -- including millions of dollars in grants
to study it further -- the world as we know it will be coming to a tragic end. Skin cancer
is epidemic, and there are reports of sheep going blind from looking up to the sky. People
are starting to worry about having sunglasses that shield their eyes from ultraviolet
light. Children begin to learn about it in school, and they are taught to notice the
intensity of the UV light when they get off the bus.
Which one of these two laboratories will get funding? Follow the money trail from your
pocket to the laboratories and notice that it passes through politicians who need you and
by the interest groups who with the media train you.
from "Dancing in the mind field" by Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test.
There are different sciences that use different methods. The so-called "scientific
method" itself is based on speculative philosophical principles that cannot be proven in or
by science since they specify the very conditions required for the scientific knowledge
process to exist and to operate.
Mirriam-Webster defines it as: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data
through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses".
Can you illustrate your point with some examples of scientific methods that differ from
the above?
I think that Mullis is pointing out where the above scientific method, however you may
want to describe it but involving the fundementals of proof of a hypothesis using empirical
evidence, has been overtaken by commercial interests in a way that uses the credibility of
the scientific method to sell untested hypotheses that provide some financial gain to the
sponsor.
"Can you clarify what you find questionable about the corona virus vaccines?"
Disclaimer: I am not an epidemiologist or medical professional. I get information from
various sources especially OTHER THAN mainstream media. Some of those credible sources, such
as Dr. Mike Yeadon ,
subsequently have been censored because they don't purvey the medical establishment's
requisite narrative. This is what I have learned:
These COVID-19 vaccines can be characterized as 'experimental.' Some past vaccines have a
spotty record. They typically require many years of clinical trials to determine safety and
efficacy. A vaccine for Coronavirus has never been developed before, in spite of having been
researched to combat previous epidemics of SARS and MERS. This one was completed in a very
short time, and the handling and delivery requirements are stringent.
True efficacy and the protocol used for testing the presence of viral infection in the
relatively small clinical trials are unclear. We know the rt-PCR test to identify the
presence of "COVID-19 infection" has been misapplied on a large scale. The FDA approval of
these vaccines is based on that test, which has been proven to show a large proportion of
false positives. A Portuguese high court ruled against the legality of this test to determine
infection. Effectiveness of a vaccine is probably very short term, possibly only a few weeks.
It is unknown whether natural immunity in a healthy individual (the body's own defense) might
be equally effective.
Potential side effects are yet to be revealed, besides the few documented cases of
allergic reactions thus far. Potential long term health impacts are unknown, and due to the
Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines' 'invasion' of the body with mRNA at the cellular level,
they could be serious. Only time will tell, so one must ask, "do I want to volunteer to
become a clinical test subject?"
Social controls, so-called "immunity passes" which may not even have validity, are an
infringement on individual freedoms and rights and are already being used in some places.
That also paves the way for future vaccination requirements against a person's will, and
given the financial imperatives of the medical establishment and its collusion with
oligarchs, there may exist ulterior motives that are unacceptable.
SECOND health worker in Alaska suffers allergic reaction after getting Pfizer Covid-19 jab
The hunt for profit and power has now resulted in people being used as live test animals for
a "vaccine" that is totally unnecessary. This stuff is criminal to the extreme.
Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a
combination of public and private involvement.
...
Exploratory Stage
This stage involves basic laboratory research and often lasts 2-4 years.
...
Pre-Clinical Stage
Many candidate vaccines never progress beyond this stage because they fail to produce
the desired immune response. The pre-clinical stages often lasts 1-2 years and usually
involves researchers in private industry.
...
Phase I Vaccine Trials
...
Phase II Vaccine Trials
...
Phase III Vaccine Trials
...
Post-Licensure Monitoring of Vaccines
...
Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a
combination of public and private involvement.
I happen to have scheduled an appointment with my primary care doctor early in
January.
This is my first meeting with this particular doctor (my previous doctor recently moved
elsewhere).
I wonder how pushy this new doctor will be about my taking the vaccine right away.
My first question will be about *which* vaccine.
I just found this quote somewhere:
Indeed, NIH chief Francis Collins, MD, PhD, when asked during a press briefing last week
whether people will be able to choose their vaccine, said there won't be enough doses in
December for the whole country and "people who get offered one should feel quite happy
about that."
Note to self: "feel quite happy about that".
Maybe there is actually something to the good doctor's advice
as how many happy corpses have you seen?
I posted @14 an article. Here is a section from the article I didn't mention.
VAERS
The CDC and FDA established The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in 1990. The goal
of VAERS, according to the CDC, is "to detect possible signals of adverse events associated
with vaccines." (A signal in this case is evidence of a possible adverse event that emerges
in the data collected.) About 30,000 events are reported each year to VAERS. Between 10%
and 15% of these reports describe serious medical events that result in hospitalization,
life-threatening illness, disability, or death.
VAERS is a voluntary reporting system. Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider,
or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse
event may report that event and information about it to VAERS. The CDC then investigates
the event and tries to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the
vaccination.
Over 4,000 adverse reactions (hospitalization, life-threatening illness, disability, or
death) to vaccines are *reported* each year.
That is in a normal year, with vaccines that have gone thru the normal vetting procedure.
I would say let's see what next year's numbers are. Except who the heck will trust their
numbers?
Vaccines were clearly rushed. Also the nature of coronaviruses makes creation of vaccine like
shooting at moving target. So each of them is more dangerous then usual and it is unclear how
useful they are. How much it is difficult to tell.
Clearly, the lockdowns and medical tyranny is not a phenomenon isolated from the power
struggle, it is obviously a weapon of the establishment, used against the people, to prevent
them from organizing independently.
I am also hearing considerable chatter that many medical professionals including doctors
and nurses are going to REFUSE to take the poorly tested and questionable Covid vaccine for
fear of damaging side effects. And why should they? Why take a vaccine for a virus that
only threatens less than 0.3% of the public outside of nursing homes?
Exactly, when applying real scientific method and rational thinking, it is clear that the
risk of covid is negligible, while the risk of the "vaccine" is huge. Once you realize that
this is a weapon used in a power struggle and not a medical crisis, you also realize the
enormity of the crime committed. It is very encouraging to hear that this is being understood
more and more.
We have to offer people a choice outside of tyranny, otherwise many will go along with the
tyranny.
@Bert anonymous
pro HCQ people that IMO were completely flawed.
' vitamins D and C " . – Is there a decease that a claim that vitamins C and
D are a panacea for it would not be heard?
" Latin America and South Asia " – There is good reason that in Western
science double blind studies are believed to be necessary to verify various claims. There are
places in the less developed countries that are less strict and it is very likely that they
jump to unwarranted conclusions by Western science standards. Should the claims coming from
the third world be researched and evaluated in the West? Yes, absolutely.
"... PCR-tests (their essential details are not known to you or me) can be easily used to artificially, adjust" the number that you need as a legitimatization for your politics. Yes, there are without doubt that many dead people. ..."
the paper that established the Drosten PCR test for the Wuhan strain of coronavirus that
has subsequently been adopted with indecent haste by the Merkel government along with WHO
for worldwide use–resulting in severe lockdowns globally and an economic and social
catastrophe–was never peer-reviewed before its publication by Eurosurveillance
journal. The critics point out that, "the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to
Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On
January 23rd 2020 the paper was online."
Incredibly, the Drosten test protocol, which he had already sent to WHO in Geneva on 17
January, was officially recommended by WHO as the worldwide test to determine presence of
Wuhan coronavirus, even before the paper had been published.
As the critical authors point out, for a subject so complex and important to world
health and security, a serious 24-hour "peer review" from at least two experts in the field
is not possible.
How is it possible that a credible scientific study in the means to test for COVID-19 is
completed, peer-reviewed and accepted as the general standard in less than a couple of weeks
after China announces the emergence of a new virus ?????
How is it possible that a credible scientific study in the means to test for COVID-19 is
completed, peer-reviewed and accepted as the general standard in less than a couple of
weeks after China announces the emergence of a new virus ?????
Thank you for every word in your post. +++ The frenetic scramble to demonstrate the
infallibility of private financed science over public funded and cautious institutions seems
to be the driver here. As soon as I grasped the Bill Gates link with the WHO it was clear
that neo liberal economics had engulfed the world leading health institution.
You simply cannot believe their blather as it is entirely at the service of neo liberal
economics and therefore propaganda first, second, and third with a veneer of science fact
somewhere.
Down South | Dec 13 2020 21:06 utc | 36 and @vk 30
I applaud you, Down South, and I cannot see the qualification vk has for his claims. I
would not sign each sentence of the Engdahl paper but as a gross evaluation it is
correct.
If you get a PCR test done in Germany you cannot be sure that the ORF-1-gen, that is specific
for CoV-2, has been tested too. So this test may mistake with Corona-something. You cannot
learn the applied number of cycles which is of essential importance for the interpretation of
this test.
The test was not seriously validated. There was no need to speed up with this paper at
Eurosvurveillance, justified only for selling the test. Drosten is co-editor of
Eurosurveillance. Undeclared conflicts of interest are, in my opinion, reason enough to
reject this paper.
And, @vk, I have no idea about your motivation to spread this propaganda. In Germany there is
now very heavy censorship also in social media. What you cite is the standard excuse those
lovers of censorship sell here.
Sorry, that is nonsense. The Drosten paper has not been peer-reviewed. That first. How
deep the scientific flaws in it are neither you or I can assess. And the hair-rising
conflicts of interest were never communicated.
As sad canuck | Dec 13 2020 22:45 utc | 48 showed with a brilliant example these
PCR-tests (their essential details are not known to you or me) can be easily used to
artificially, adjust" the number that you need as a legitimatization for your politics. Yes,
there are without doubt that many dead people. But again: in this politicized
environment neither you nor I know what the reason of their death was.
...Even if we assume that half of the PCR covid results are false positives, what would
that establish? Wouldn't that just demonstrate that the fatality rate is twice as high? And
isn't diagnosis still done by a doctor anyway? The tests are just screening.
Basically, what is with the hyperventilating about false positives? What am I missing
here?
7) China is doing PCRs since the dawn of time and there is not an explosion of new cases
as the anti-PCR squad is claiming. On the contrary: when they decided to re-test all the
Wuhan inhabitants with obligatory PCR tests, they found none, zero, nada positive
results.
Posted by: Down South | Dec 13 2020 17:55 utc | 16
Posted by: vk | Dec 13 2020 18:45 utc | 19
As I understand it, the false positives are a result of poorly conducting the analyses
through putting the samples through too many cycles. If you intensify the concentration of
the virus more than 25 cycles, you are likely to get false positives. This apparently has
been a problem in the US and other EU countries.
Any country that conducts the test properly significantly reduces the probability of false
positives.
None of them are arguing that COVID-19 does not exist, it is that the maximum reasonably
reliable Ct value is 30 cycles.and as you increase the cycles above that you start getting
more false positive results as only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected.
The issue that the report raised is that the WHO and Drosden are recommending a Ct of
45 . The higher the cycles the more the "cases" the more drastic the action the
government will take to bring the number of "cases" down.
Therefore, to ensure that the government action is reasonable it is necessary to ensure
that the information the government is using to justify such action is indeed reasonable and
justifiable.
You have to be an absolute idiot to think that government diktats should simply be obeyed
and not questioned especially by people who have the necessary credentials to evaluate such
information.
Well, it is sad to note absolute lack of intellectual curiosity about something that most
likely will not pass without profoundly changing western societies. On side note it would be
good to recognise both taoist and christian way of handling the exception of sickness –
being sick of sickness is way less dangerous than people being religiously afraid of
contamination, of sick people, and organising accordingly.
Most likely this, now already mental, curse will not pass before one or all of the
following happens:
– forced vaccination using either public or private coercion or both,
– global (or regional) digital health IDs and tracking systems,
– social, health and education sectors of lesser states will be overridden and forced
open to global international providers,
– not to mention that the precendent of tiers and lockdowns is established and can be
used repeatedly for the purpose of global health imperialism. There'll be the mandate to
force people self-isolate as well.
One could say these are the markings of global sanitary dictature. Or, this could be the
way to make formal the hidden features of the system currently in use. The spooky license
will be made official. All the tracking, etc.
The Drosten testing non-protocol is faulty to the core, and – without doubt –
it is enabling corruption of both politics and science (cormandrostenreview.com).
Resulting actions are criminal in their essence – that is the reason why we are
seeing leaders of nations acting in such a bizarre way. The truth is being established by the
means of spectacle. Once harsh and overdecisive, then lacking in resoluteness – even in
the EU the countries still can not coordinate simple and relevant statistics.
China has nothing to gain from this virus, hence there it is mostly over and done with.
Seems to go for Russia as well.
vk @ 40 said "of course the scientific standards for times of emergency do fall because of
time constraints. That doesn't mean the debunk attempts aren't equally flawed".
I'm sorry but this is not the way science works and cutting corners during emergencies is
an even worse practice. The amplification issue, lack of Standard Operational Protocol, and
clear bias and hijacking of the peer review process for this paper which formed the
foundation of PCR implementation is utterly and completely outrageous. But of course not
surprising. It's clear that all UN agencies including WHO have been corrupted. Right from the
beginning there has been a consistent and widespread effort to discredit any testing method
aside from PCR. Are you not even remotely interested why?
It's easy to see how COVID testing with a flawed PCR testing procedure rolls out and I
will give you an example from a place that I am familiar with. COVID has magically
disappeared in Thailand, but large number of positive cases are appearing in Thai who are
returning and in foreign visitors. These PCR positives are occurring in spite of all
returnees having tested negative just prior to boarding their flight to Thailand. Almost all
of the positives in returning residents are also of the asymptomatic variety. I would wager
that the amplification level for a domestic PCR test is 25 while the returning resident test
level is set at 35 or higher. Lacking transparency and a Standard Operational Protocol for
the RT-PCR test, including a universally accepted amplification level, you can create any
result you want, any time, any place. These are serious issues and you can't label people who
have issues with scientific integrity as deniers or misleading.
The entire justification of PCR as a public health tool (as opposed to a diagnostic tool)
has been vaporized and I cannot for the life of me understand why you don't "get it" or the
wider implications.
RE: "None of these experts talk about the way to stop COVID before it hits"
-Posted by: Lurk | Dec 13 2020 17:13 utc | 11
That is not correct in the case of Dr. McCullough.
In both the late Oct YT at #8 and the late Nov YT at post #9 he addresses the "Four
Pillars of Pandemic Response", with the first pillar being *preventative actions*
(masks/transmission limiting measures/index case tracking etc).
McCullough also points out in the latter YT that, in the case of the US, Canada, UK and
much of western EU, 'First Pillar' measures have failed miserably to stop the resurgent wave
of covid.
In late November Debs is dead and I wrote about the ruthless
vaccine competition . The cause were the ambiguous results of the non-profit AstraZeneca
vaccine trials which led to delighted criticism from those who prefer commercial vaccine
suppliers.
The good news today is that cooperation between vaccine developers is still possible and can
lead to better results.
As Debs had opined:
In the real world that means if the AstraZeneca vaccine is more than 60% efficacious (which
is better than any flu vaccine - 95% is new big pharma BS IMO) and has no major side effects
(one case of MS tells us nothing for the reason I outlined above), then it will be that or
nothing for a sizeable slab of the world's population.
If everyone falls for big pharma's transparent attempt to stop this possible vaccine in
its tracks, prior to testing completion, then that will mean no vaccine for billions of our
fellow humans , so rather than joining in the big pharma sabotage, it makes better sense to
consider that vaccine more objectively than de Noli, that Harvard minion of corporations
seems to do.
I agreed with that and discussed the most likely reason why the AstraZeneca vaccine did not
create a higher efficacy:
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses an adenovirus as 'vector' to deliver a DNA sequence that human
cells then use to create one specific (but harmless) SARS-CoV-2 protein. The immune system
will then learn to attack that protein. Afterwards it should be able to protect against
SARS-CoV-2 infections.
...
In order to safeguard against cases where an already existing immunity to human adenoviruses
may impede inoculation AstraZeneca is using a chimpanzee-originated version of an adenovirus
as a vector. The Russian Sputnik V vaccine, hyped by Prof. de
Noli on RT , uses two doses with different human adenoviruses (Ad-26, Ad-5) as
vectors to increase the chance of inoculation. Other vaccine developers, CanSino Biologics
and Johnson & Johnson, are also using adenovirus vectors. Sinopharm's vaccine uses an
inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus.
AstraZeneca found by chance that its vaccine works best when the first dose is smaller
than the second one. Vector immunity can explain why this is the case.
A first high dose will create some immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus but also some
immunity against the vector virus, the chimpanzee-originated adenovirus. When a first high
dose has trained the immune system to fight the vector virus the second 'booster' vaccine
dose using the same vector will become inefficient. A lower first dose can make sure that the
second higher dose is not prematurely defeated by vector immunity but can still do its
work.
Unbeknownst to me the Russian developers of the Sputnik V vaccine had come to the same
conclusion:
"... Multiple COVID-19 vaccines are currently in phase 3 trials with efficacy assessed as prevention of virologically confirmed disease. WHO recommends that successful vaccines should show disease risk reduction of at least 50%, with 95% CI that true vaccine efficacy exceeds 30%. However, the impact of these COVID-19 vaccines on infection and thus transmission is not being assessed. Even if vaccines were able to confer protection from disease, they might not reduce transmission similarly. ..."
"... A note before I begin: This is not a recommendation not to be vaccinated against Coronavirus. It's an encouragement to decide for yourself and your family when to be vaccinated and which vaccine to choose based on the most accurate information available. That said, let's proceed. ..."
"... "Done right, vaccines end pandemics. Done wrong, pandemics end vaccines." -- Andy Slavitt here ..."
"... Based on the numbers released from phase 3 trials, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective, but 1% of the time . In the same way, the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective, but 2% of the time . ..."
"... For comparison, let's look at the absolute numbers from the Moderna test. In the unprotected population, 1.23% of the people who could have been exposed to the virus, got it. In the vaccinated population exposed to the same conditions, a little less than 0.07% got the virus. Subtracting the two, the absolute gain in protection was 1.16% -- that is, taking the vaccine bought you a little over 1% in absolute protection. ..."
"... any studies or testing on fertility? what about breast feeding? what about long term symptoms? [ hint ; the manufacturers have nothing] what does that tell you? ..."
"... Pharma/FDA: "We can't worry about that right now. We have a pandemic to fight. And investors to consider. And year-end bonuses are coming up. And a political class looking for a quick fix." ..."
"... Indeed we can't worry about that now say Pharma, that's why you absolutely must completely indemnify us from any financial repercussions too. ..."
"... just yesterday the Pfizer vaccine vaccine reported a number of issues with allergic reactions. It raised the question on whether they deliberately excluded people with known allergies from their test subjects (this is not uncommon in early drug testing as a safety precaution). If even 1% have a serious allergic reaction, this would throw the benefit/risk balance out. ..."
"... Is it O/Z, or the Pfizer one? NHS yesterday issued a guideline to stop vaccinating anyone with "history of allergic reactions", which was for Pfizer vaccine. ..."
"... That "1% of the time" and "2% of the time" reflects the approximate likelihood that a subject from among the test groups was exposed to a high enough dose of SARS2-CoV to cause symptoms and a positive PCR test over the course of the trial. It has absolutely zero to do with the efficacy or lack thereof of the vaccines. Let me repeat that. The overall proportion of infection among all trial participants has no bearing, in and of itself, on the actual efficacy. ..."
"... As such, this Pfizer vaccine and possibly the Moderna one too if it has the same problem, will require that patients be monitored for anaphylactic symptoms for some significant duration of time (an hour?) after the injection. Now consider this potential possibility in light of the other logistical difficulties surrounding the vaccine distribution and administration to huge numbers. It probably won't be via drive-thru service. ..."
"... Well, the anaphylaxis, regardless of state of health, indicates that there are antigens present in the formulation which are unrelated to the protein the vaccine will manufacture in cells. While it can even be a mucopolysaccharide rather than a protein, the fact remains that the carrier is not benign and we are not being provided with all the information. ..."
"... Yep, I am wondering of the consequences of rushing out the vaccines and I am convinced the pressure is 99% political. There are governments too eager to announce mass vaccination and putting too much confidence in early reports so worried they are with the socioeconomic impact of the pandemic. And this can show (will show) problematic if mass vaccination is started before a thorough examination of further trial results and problems like allergic reaction and others that might surge in the course of the trials. ..."
"... We provide people very little education and most others end up specialists. Yet at the same time everyone knows everything and needs to know everything because everyone is trying to screw you over. And worse yet, most people do not know that they are stupid or can speak about a topic knowing they are probably wrong. ..."
"... It's all so damn stressful I will just take my chances without the vaccine and be as careful as I can not to infect others. I know a lot about human biology, but not enough about vaccines and the companies and the people who own them. I do not trust the government because it is controlled by corporations and not the people. ..."
"... Can the pharma companies stand behind the claim that it's 95% effective without resorting to numerical semantics or lobbying for liability shields? If so then by all means tell the public that the vaccines are 95% effective. If they say "well we did say it's 95% but what we meant was " then we are in the territory of bait and switch. ..."
"... There's too much at stake to leave even little room for exaggerated claims from profiteers because the anti-vaxxers will have a field day exploiting any discrepancy between claimed and actual performance for these vaccines and guess what, with that will go public trust. ..."
"... people are going to alter their behaviour based on these claims once vaccinated, so 95% should mean 95% in absolute terms and contra-indications should also be clearly communicated to at-risk populations. Auditable transparency should be the name of the game, if we've learnt anything from the 737max debacle it's that companies, when left to their own devices, place profit ahead of human lives. ..."
"... Why should Vietnam show a terrible "absolute effectiveness" compared to France if the goal is to analyze the same vaccine? As the number of people exposed to the virus approaches the entirety of the population (if half were vaccinated and all members are susceptible to infection) the number would approach the vaccine efficacy as the companies define it. ..."
"... I would even ditch the '95% effective' language. They need to say 'if 10,000 people were exposed to the virus, ordinarily about n1 would get infected. With this vaccine, the number infected was n2. This is language people can grasp. ..."
"... I was born three years before doctors began giving a new drug on the market declared safe in pregnancy to mothers for morning sickness. It was called Thalidomide. ..."
"... The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms. ..."
"... A temperature of 104.9 in an adult with a functional immune system (we are not talking about babies and kids – they are different) is extraordinary after a vaccination. 104.9 means that the immune system has been activated enough to take it up a few notches to DEF CON 1. This is very unusual in infectious disease – some parasites and ameba do this routinely – and things like sepsis syndrome can – but for the most part, getting a temperature up this high is definitely not normal. It is certainly not a good sign for a vaccine. A vaccine should not be stimulating the immune system to this degree – EVER. Idiosyncratic reactions in a very rare patient is one thing – if this is happening more often – this is not a good sign for that vaccine. ..."
"... This is medically important for two reasons. 1) That level of fever if sustained can damage permanently multiple organs. 2) Vaccines should simply not be activating the immune system to that degree – it is completely inappropriate. It is very normal for people to have a brief temp of 99 or 100 after a vaccine – this is a completely different level. ..."
"... The Vaccine Drumbeat in my jurisdiction is increasing and I'm sure will become deafening. Talk show radio hosts actually giving medical advice. No recommendations to consult with a doctor regarding your personal health circumstances and risks or those of your loved ones. ..."
"... This is all orchestrated by Public Health officials who apparently have never heard of personal health care. We are all just one big Herd. To me this is a desecration of the doctor patient relationship by so-called health professionals. All of which is extremely dangerous and bad medical advice. ..."
"... Re: companies mandating staff to be vaccinated to market their establishments as "safe". The tone and substance of the post is clearly meant to be a "proceed with caution" advisory on taking the vaccine, despite the author being at pains to emphasize that it's not an "encouragement to reject vaccines". ..."
"... Don't forget they are using flawed PCR tests and except for Moderna in the US all other countries and companies where studies have been conducted are using another vaccine instead of a true saline or inert placebo. ..."
"... Not to mention most of these Pharmaceutical Companies have been sued for tens of billions of dollars for harmful drugs , buried information, fraud ect. We're supposed to trust them with safety studies for medical products they have indemnity for. Thank you for pointing out how deceptive these numbers can be for the average person. ..."
"... The problem is, given the PCR is acknowledged to generate a lot of false positives, then the success rate will be overstated, because the denominator in the success rate calculations will be swollen with subjects who didn't actually have the CV19 virus to start with ..."
Yves here. It's good to see Tom Neuburger discussing a possible misperception by some of
what the "95% effective" Covid mRNA vaccine results touted by Pfizer and Moderna mean, when
they are on the verge of receiving an FDA Emergency Use Authorization to allow their
release.
While we have your attention, we'll point out another misperception, which the press is
amplifying, that having been vaccinated would prevent the recipient from transmitting Covid.
For instance, some business owners are saying they will require employees to be vaccinated, not
because they are concerned about worker safety, but because they intend to market their venue
as safe for customers by virtue of having vaccinated staff.
At this point, the effect of any of the Covid vaccines on disease transmission is a known
unknown. From
Wired in late November :
The problem is, a Covid-19 vaccine that only prevents illness -- which is to say, symptoms
-- might not prevent infection with the virus or transmission of it to other people. Worst
case, a vaccinated person could still be an asymptomatic carrier. That could be bad.
The article further points out that so far, only the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has evidence
that it reduces transmission, as opposed to protecting recipients of the disease.
A more technical explanation from The
Lancet , in September:
Multiple COVID-19 vaccines are currently in phase 3 trials with efficacy assessed as
prevention of virologically confirmed disease. WHO recommends that successful vaccines should
show disease risk reduction of at least 50%, with 95% CI that true vaccine efficacy exceeds
30%. However, the impact of these COVID-19 vaccines on infection and thus transmission is not
being assessed. Even if vaccines were able to confer protection from disease, they might not
reduce transmission similarly.
Challenge studies in vaccinated primates showed reductions in pathology, symptoms, and
viral load in the lower respiratory tract, but failed to elicit sterilising immunity in the
upper airways. Sterilising immunity in the upper airways has been claimed for one vaccine,
but peer-reviewed publication of these data are awaited.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at Substack
Excessive haste could have fatal consequences, since public trust and wide vaccination
are the only ways any vaccine, even the best ones, can work.
A note before I begin: This is not a recommendation not to be vaccinated
against Coronavirus. It's an encouragement to decide for yourself and your family when to be
vaccinated and which vaccine to choose based on the most accurate information available. That
said, let's proceed.
"Done right, vaccines end pandemics. Done wrong, pandemics end vaccines." -- Andy
Slavitt here
People in the United States, along with people in all of the rest of the world, are eager
for a vaccine that provides immunity to the Covid-19 virus. Drug manufacturers, with a market
of tens of billions of injections to sell into, are eager to roll one off the production
line. Both groups are highly incentivized to get a vaccine into distribution quickly.
Hundreds of Billions in Potential Revenue
Let's look at the revenue side first. Here, for example, is what the three leading vaccine
candidates are projected to cost in the UK according to a recent Sky
News piece :
In two years the earth is projected to hold 8 billion
people , and most leading vaccine candidates require at least two doses. Let's be
conservative: If Moderna, say, sold its Covid vaccine to 1 billion people at ₤28 (about
$37) per dose, the revenue stream from those sales would turn into real money fast -- $74
billion in revenue at retail prices in less than two years.And that's for capturing
less than a sixth of the global market. A vaccine manufacturer that captures a third of
that market would swim in wealth till the climate crisis took us all.
For comparison, consider Moderna's recent revenue profile .
For the last few years, Moderna income has run between $60 and $200 million per year. Revenue
for just the last quarter , however, jumped to $158 million. Moderna is clearly set for
a windfall.
Needless to say, something like $100 billion or more in revenue would more than cover the
cost of Covid vaccine development, so why the high price retail prices? One can only guess.
How Effective Is "Effective"?
About effectiveness, much is claimed. From the same Sky News article:
The UK has become the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19
vaccine for use.
The government says the jab [vaccine], which has been given the green light by independent
health regulator MHRA, will be rolled out across the UK from early next week.
Studies have shown the jab is 95% effective and works in all age groups. [emphasis
added]
Moderna claims similar effectiveness -- 94% -- for its own vaccine candidate. But what does
effectiveness mean?
To a lay person, a phrase like "95% effective" means one of two things: either that she or
he, upon exposure to the virus, is protected 95% of the time, or that 95% of the people who
take the vaccine are protected 100% of the time.
And this is where the mutual eagerness of the two highly motivated groups -- the public; the
profiteers -- intersect. The public wants to hear "95% effectiveness" and think it knows what
those words means. The drug companies want the same thing as the public; it wants the public to
think it knows what those words mean.
But in the world of drug advertising, the word "effective" does not mean what you think it means . The other way to
look at effectiveness is this: Based on the numbers released from phase 3 trials, the Pfizer
vaccine is 95% effective, but 1% of the time . In the same way, the Moderna vaccine is
94% effective, but 2% of the time .
Relative Effectiveness
To sort this out, let's look at real numbers, thanks to Twitter friend David
Windt.
For the Moderna product, the phase 3 trial contained 30,000 individuals divided between
those given the vaccine and those given a placebo. Let's assume that individuals in each group
were allowed to roam freely "in the wild" -- that is, told to live their regular lives among
the general population, including going out infrequently, staying masked, and practicing social
distance -- as opposed being proactively and aggressively exposed to the virus by the
researchers, which would be highly immoral, to say the least.
In the Moderna vaccinated group, 11 people out of 15,000 got the virus (by Moderna's
definition of what "got the virus means") for an overall infection rate of 0.07% . (There's
disagreement about whether the drug company's "got the virus" measurements are well chosen; see
the Forbes article "
Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed ." But we'll ignore
that point for now.)
In the Moderna placebo group, 185 people of 15,000 got the virus, for an overall infection
rate of 1.23% .
Do you see where this is headed? If you divide 0.07% by 1.23%, you get a 5.7% infection rate
-- or inversely, a 94% protection rate, which is what's claimed. But that's a percentage of a
percentage, a ratio of a ratio, something called the "relative rate" in the medical profession.
What this really means is that, of the 1.23% of people who would have gotten the virus in the
vaccinated group, 94% of them didn't.
But Moderna isn't testing 30,000 people who are infected with the virus, or even 15,000
people. Only 185 people "got the virus" (by their definition) in the placebo group. That
population was reduced to 11 people with vaccination. These are very small numbers. As stated
above, the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective -- but only 1.23% of the time.
(For another way to see that using a percentage of a percentage, or a ratio of a ratio, is
confusing, consider an advertisement that claims a company's new product is "twice as
effective" as its old one. If the old product was effective only 2% of the time, and you knew
this, would you buy the new one?)
Infection rates in those clinical trials seem low, by the way, which could be just an
accident of statistics, or something off in their way of measuring who is counted as infected.
From the start of the pandemic until now, the overall disease rate for Maricopa County, a
high-infection zone, is 5034 per
100,000 people , or 5% . At the lower end, the overall disease rate for Multnomah County, a
less-infected but still urban county, is 2363 per
100,000 people , or 2.4% .
Both rates are higher than the infection rates of the Moderna and Pfizer placebo groups. As
stated, Moderna's placebo group experienced a 1.23% infection rate, and Pfizer's placebo group
was infected just 0.75% of the time. Does this
indicate a difference in how "infection" is determined, or just something else about these
studies? Hard to tell at this point.
None of this is to imply dishonesty on the part of the drug companies. Measuring
"effectiveness" using the relative rate of infection is common in that world. It's just more
meaningful when the overall infection rate of a pathogen is, say, 70% or higher, instead of 5%
or less.
Absolute Effectiveness
For comparison, let's look at the absolute numbers from the Moderna test. In the
unprotected population, 1.23% of the people who could have been exposed to the virus, got it.
In the vaccinated population exposed to the same conditions, a little less than 0.07% got the
virus. Subtracting the two, the absolute gain in protection was 1.16% -- that is, taking the
vaccine bought you a little over 1% in absolute protection.
The numbers for the Pfizer vaccine are similar. According to Windt , "the
infection rate was reduced slightly, from 0.75% to 0.04% – that's "95% efficacy" [but]
these results do NOT mean that 95% of those vaccinated are protected." In absolute terms,
taking the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of getting the virus by just 0.71%.
Do you trust any of these drug manufacturers and their massively under-tested vaccines
enough that you would take whatever risk is associated with their product to gain that amount
of protection? I know good doctors who won't, and others who will.
Testing and Public Trust
I want to point to two articles about testing and public trust. First from MIT in November,
consider
this caution about public trust:
Covid-19 vaccines shouldn't get emergency-use authorization
Public trust in vaccines is already in decline. The FDA should proceed with
caution.
The pace of covid-19 vaccine research has been astonishing: there are more than 200 vaccine candidates in
some stage of development, including several that are already in phase 3
clinical trials , mere months after covid-19 became a global public health emergency. In
order for the FDA to approve a vaccine, however, not only do these clinical trials need to be
completed -- a process that typically involves following tens of thousands of participants
for at least six months -- but the agency also needs to inspect production facilities, review
detailed manufacturing plans and data about the product's stability, and pore over reams of
trial data. This review can easily take a year or more.
Excessive haste could have fatal consequences, since public confidence and wide vaccination
are the only ways any vaccine, even the best ones, can work: "Public health experts caution
that vaccines don't protect people; only vaccinations do . A vaccine that hasn't gained enough
public trust will therefore have a limited ability to control the pandemic even if it's highly
effective." [emphasis mine]
One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents
infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with
the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not
infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these
trials when they should be of critical importance.
It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never
prevent infection . Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an
infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference
between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation. [emphasis added]
Is this true of the latest trials? Last September is forever in Covid years. I'll look at
this side of the issue in a follow-up piece, but my early research says that the Forbes
point is still valid. If this turns out to be the flaw Forbes thinks it is, public trust
could be even more greatly eroded as these vaccines fail to deliver what's we're led to expect
of them.
To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate?
As I said before, this is an not an encouragement reject the vaccines. It's an
encouragement to decide about them wisely by considering a number of factors -- your need to
feel "safe," your need to end this constant quarantine, and society's need to inoculate nearly
everyone, versus your trust in the approval process, your personal level of caution, and the
benefit of taking a relatively untested product to reduce your Covid risk by maybe 2% in
absolute terms.
There are Covid hot-spots after all, areas of the country and the world where
infections are soaring, and even low infection rates come at a heavy price. Covid has changed
for the worse both the way we live and our
economy . And people do die from it.
Maybe the first vaccines out of the gate, perhaps these three, will be everything a mother
could want for her family and nation. But even if these products are are very very good, they
have to be trusted to be effective.
If that trust is given blindly, and then betrayed, the consequences will be severe.
any studies or testing on fertility? what about breast feeding? what about long term
symptoms? [ hint ; the manufacturers have nothing] what does that tell you?
Pharma/FDA: "We can't worry about that right now. We have a pandemic to fight. And
investors to consider. And year-end bonuses are coming up. And a political class looking for
a quick fix."
Yeadon appears to be being branded as a nut in the mainstream British media (and, indeed,
Associated Press have published an article refuting the allegation that the vaccine causes
sterility, by disproving assertions that Wodarg & Yeadon did not make.) In my book, that
probably means he is not 180 degrees wrong
I don't know the answer to this, but just yesterday the Pfizer vaccine vaccine reported a
number of issues with allergic reactions. It raised the question on whether they deliberately
excluded people with known allergies from their test subjects (this is not uncommon in early
drug testing as a safety precaution). If even 1% have a serious allergic reaction, this would
throw the benefit/risk balance out.
The potential harm of getting his roll out badly wrong could be catastrophic for public
health policy for decades to come. I've a very bad feeling that there have been too many
incentives built in to cut corners and fudge data. Who wants to be the mid level scientist in
one of those companies with an awkward question to raise during a weekly meeting? We may well
be throwing a dice and hoping for the best, rather than focusing on getting the right
answer.
Is it O/Z, or the Pfizer one? NHS yesterday issued a guideline to stop vaccinating anyone
with "history of allergic reactions", which was for Pfizer vaccine.
If it's just one vaccine, it could be an oversight. If both/all, it could be a real
problem – as you say, a potential catastrophe for decades.
With all due respect, the author and his Twitter friend seem very confused about how to
interpret the efficacy numbers. The quantitative reasoning is fundamentally erroneous.
> The other way to look at effectiveness is this: Based on the numbers released from
phase 3 trials, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective, but 1% of the time. In the same way, the
Moderna vaccine is 94% effective, but 2% of the time.
That "1% of the time" and "2% of the time" reflects the approximate likelihood that a
subject from among the test groups was exposed to a high enough dose of SARS2-CoV to cause
symptoms and a positive PCR test over the course of the trial. It has absolutely zero to do
with the efficacy or lack thereof of the vaccines. Let me repeat that. The overall proportion
of infection among all trial participants has no bearing, in and of itself, on the actual
efficacy.
Note that these percentages are smaller than the overall "rate" of infection (proper term
would be "proportion") in e.g. Maricopa Cty, AZ because the latter proportions are with
regard to the entire pandemic whereas the proportions observed in the vaccine studies reflect
the limited duration of the study. Also keep in mind that a fair amount of data collection
likely happened over the summer before the cases started skyrocketing again.
With that said, the problem, such as it is, with the low percentage of people who got
infected is that it reduces the effective sample size, relative to the number of people who
actually enrolled in the study. However, the sample sizes are not so small as to be
inadequate to demonstrate high efficacy for the purposes of these trials.
Now, there are plenty of caveats here if you really want to pick these thing apart. The
author correctly notes that these studies demonstrate efficacy in terms of getting full-blown
symptomatic COVID-19, not in terms of preventing transmission or avoiding the disease
entirely.
Also, the results only apply to the *sampled population*, which are the people among the
test subjects who became positive. Is that population *representative* of the whole
population? Does it include children? The elderly? People of different social class and/or
living situations? People of different "colors"? People with history of severe allergies? And
are the proportions of each of these (and any others I *can't* think of) similar within the
sampled population as in the whole population?
Second, the result assumes that the study is blinded. Blinded means that subjects don't
know whether they have been given a real vaccine or a placebo. If subjects are not blinded,
they may alter their own behavior accordingly. For example, a test subject who knows (s)he is
vaccined might be more nonchalant about social interactions, which could increase their
frequency of exposure to COVID vs. subjects who knew they got placebo.
While the studies themselves have surely taken precautions to avoid accidentally
un-blinding the subjects (unless an adverse reaction occurs, which is handled separately in
the data), the media has reported repeatedly and extensively, while these trails are
on-going, that side-effects are common. This is very bad because this information gives test
subjects knowledge they can use to judge whether they are actually vaccinated or not. Even if
said subjects are wrong in their assessment, simply believing they have extra knowledge can
change their behavior, and if this phenomenon is not identical between the placebo and
experimental groups, it will throw off the results. An analogy in the legal world is how
jurors are advised not to watch or listen to news reports about the trial they are serving
in. Whether they choose to believe or disbelieve the reported information, it has the
potential to harm their impartiality.
By the way, I'm not trying to defend these vaccines or their manufacturers for their own
sake. The author is correct that these vaccines are "under-tested", and I believe pushing
them onto the market so quickly comes with substantial risks, both directly to public health
and indirectly via potential severe damage to trust and credibility. I adhere to the maxim
that Murphy was an optimist, and Murphy would say that there's a lot that can go wrong in
this scenario.
Thanks. I was concerned that the emphasis trying to undercut the 95% claim was overegged,
but I had separately been bothered by how small the effective sample was. It appears the
Pfizer sample was skewed by excluding people who were allergic and not having read their data
release, it isn't clear how up front they were about that (you'd think the NHS wouldn't have
gone about injecting their staff willy nilly and getting two severe bad reactions the first
day if they had had a clue).
You're welcome, but I'm not sure I explained as well as I could have.
The reports of serious allergic reactions from the Pfizer vaccine on its debut day
surprised me. I imagined lots of things that could go wrong, but two bad reactions on the
first day? Perhaps these incidents will be limited to people with "a history of serious
allergic reactions", but I also know that anaphylaxis is unpredictable and I know many people
anecdotally who only had such a reaction later in life.
As such, this Pfizer vaccine and possibly the Moderna one too if it has the same problem,
will require that patients be monitored for anaphylactic symptoms for some significant
duration of time (an hour?) after the injection. Now consider this potential possibility in
light of the other logistical difficulties surrounding the vaccine distribution and
administration to huge numbers. It probably won't be via drive-thru service.
As I understand it the 2 people in the UK who suffered the reaction were aware of their
allergy issues and carried epi-pens, but the allergic effects just weren't flagged in any of
the resources accompanying the rolled-out vaccine or asked of them when they got the jab.
Which rather speaks of a rushed and botched process to me.
Well, the anaphylaxis, regardless of state of health, indicates that there are antigens
present in the formulation which are unrelated to the protein the vaccine will manufacture in
cells. While it can even be a mucopolysaccharide rather than a protein, the fact remains that
the carrier is not benign and we are not being provided with all the information.
In the Adenovirus carrier vaccines the virus shell is in itself immunogenic, which makes a
booster problematic unless, as with Sputnik 5, different adenoviruses are used for the
primary and booster.
I intend to be vaccinated, but I'm witholding judgement until more data is presented about
the currently highlighted vaccines until I see data on either attenuated virus or adjuvated
purified protein vaccines.
Coming from a time before polio vaccination, what I have not lost sight of is the fact
that vaccination in general has been breathtakingly successful in improving and maintaining
our health at low cost.
AZ say that Phase III of their trials was double blind with 40k subjects. The official
title of the study is A Phase III Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicenter
Study in Adults to Determine the Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of AZD1222, a
Non-replicating ChAdOx1 Vector Vaccine, for the Prevention of COVID-19 whose start date was
August 2020, Primary completion date as March 2021, and Estimated study completion date as
February 2023. A lttle more data can be found at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746
(ClinicalTrials.gov of the NIH).
One could be forgiven for thinking that the trials are currently not finished. If so, does
that mean the vaccine was rushed out with all the consequences resulting from that?
Yep, I am wondering of the consequences of rushing out the vaccines and I am convinced the
pressure is 99% political. There are governments too eager to announce mass vaccination and
putting too much confidence in early reports so worried they are with the socioeconomic
impact of the pandemic. And this can show (will show) problematic if mass vaccination is
started before a thorough examination of further trial results and problems like allergic
reaction and others that might surge in the course of the trials.
It is absolutely unwise to throw ourselves into a rush based on early reports that account
for very little exposure time and which are biased by the nature of the vaccine. One cannot
even suppose that the placebo group and the vaccinated group behaved similarly given the high
reactogenicity reported by the vaccines (particularly the RNA vaccines). This reports were
obtained with data gathered about 12 weeks after the trial start. Imagine, given that two
shoots were provided and each shoot produces quite a nasty reaction that can last nearly a
week, nearly 20% of the time the subjects that were vaccinated were suffering symptoms
related with the vaccination and this would alter their behaviour significantly compared with
the placebo subjects.
Given the time course of antibody production after vaccination, with a peak shortly after
the second shoot, the results are biased by the peak and the real protective rate will be
different when specific immunoglobulin levels decline. One can consider this 95% efficacy as
transient efficacy and we will almost certainly see that further data reveals a sharp
reduction. Repeating 95%! 95! all the time will probably result in a sense of deception later
that could be counterproductive.
I don't think data is fudge, that would be really, really stupid, but it is being badly
misinterpreted and can conduct to cutting corners to mass deployment with unintended
consequences.
Yes, but as the post does explain, that 40K participants translates into a very small
number that contracted the disease (and in the injection group, were assumed to have gotten
it but beat it back). So the effective sample was way way smaller.
Exactly. The number of infections are so small that while one may estimate efficacy, the
power of the estimate (beta error; calling something true when it is in fact, false) is high.
The best I could really see statistically given the data is the ability to reject the null
hypothesis in a F-test (no difference between the groups) with reasonable confidence (1
– alpha; the chance of rejecting something as false when it is in fact true).
As with any sample from a larger population, it is important to understand the uncertainty
of the estimate, which at least Oxford/AZ is providing.
They published the CI, and if I recall correctly it was 95% of something like 92%-98.5%
effective. The sample size was just big enough to calculate it, but just so. But what's more
important, in my opinion, is that the method they used to calculate the effectiveness of the
vaccine are the same they use for every other vaccine. I.e.: they're not doing exception for
this one, which is important. We know it's a Phase III study with the limitations of all
Phase III studies.
Ah, thanks. I was puzzled by the argument, because it seemed a bit like saying that
routinely carrying umbrellas did not provide 95% protection against rain because it only
rained some of the time. More relevantly, though, consider vaccinations against tropical
diseases. I've had many and need to check on them before I go to certain countries. They are
generally considered highly effective – it's assumed, 100% or nearly so in some cases.
But if, say, 10000 vaccinated people visit a country in the course of a year, but only 500
come into contact with a contagious source (which would not be surprising) and none get ill,
then the efficacy of the vaccine would presumably only be 0.05% according to the logic of the
article. So what, as a layman, am I missing, (apart from the issue of sample size)?
> Ah, thanks. I was puzzled by the argument, because it seemed a bit like saying that
routinely carrying umbrellas did not provide 95% protection against rain because it only
rained some of the time.
isn't this precisely why the burden of interpreting the efficacy claims shouldn't be
offloaded to the general public? If the numbers require a level of maths proficiency not many
can lay claim to to interpret then therein lie opportunities for misrepresentation via
numerical sleight of hand, which if history is anything to go by, will be exploited to
hoodwink an unsuspecting public, especially with a pot of gold filled to the brim with
billions of dollars lying in wait. Most laymen don't have the maths chops to pick apart the
claims and will most likely throw their hands in the air and walk away with "it's 95%
effective" as the takeaway, caveats of data interpretation be damned. The efficacy should be
communicated to the public in as simple and absolute terms as possible, in a language that is
a sharp departure from that usually employed in the fine print of legal documents to make
things unintelligible while embedding opportunities for plausible deniability should things
go belly up.
I think what was said here is important. We provide people very little education and most
others end up specialists. Yet at the same time everyone knows everything and needs to know
everything because everyone is trying to screw you over. And worse yet, most people do not
know that they are stupid or can speak about a topic knowing they are probably wrong.
It's all so damn stressful I will just take my chances without the vaccine and be as
careful as I can not to infect others. I know a lot about human biology, but not enough about
vaccines and the companies and the people who own them. I do not trust the government because
it is controlled by corporations and not the people.
A nice visual would answer this question but I can't find one with DuckDuckGo.
There are two separate groups of people (each 15,000 in the Moderna case), placebo and
vaccine. We'll measure the (small) subset of each group that gets infected and compare the
numbers.
If 100 in the placebo group get infected and 100 in the vaccine group get infected, that
vaccine was 0% effective. No apparent benefit from the vaccine, outcomes look identical.
If 100 in the placebo group and 50 in the vaccine group get infected, that vaccine was
about 50% effective. Not great. Maybe the severity of disease was less in the vaccine group,
but that's a secondary goal and not what we're measuring primarily.
100 in the placebo group and 5 in the vaccine group get infected. That's called 95%
effective.
The size of our trial dictates our level of confidence in these numbers. If our original
groups of people were tiny and/or we have barely any infections in either group, we can't say
much anything with confidence because small numbers of infections in either group can swing
the numbers in either direction.
I was an engineering major so I have no issues with interpreting the data, however it's
laid out. The same can't be said for some members of the general public, hence my assertion
that the claims on efficacy should leave very little room for "depends on how you look at it,
absolute vs relative" interpretations that will serve only to confuse.
Can the pharma
companies stand behind the claim that it's 95% effective without resorting to numerical
semantics or lobbying for liability shields? If so then by all means tell the public that the
vaccines are 95% effective. If they say "well we did say it's 95% but what we meant was "
then we are in the territory of bait and switch.
There's too much at stake to leave even little room for exaggerated claims from profiteers
because the anti-vaxxers will have a field day exploiting any discrepancy between claimed and
actual performance for these vaccines and guess what, with that will go public trust.
I can get behind what you're saying, but how might you suggest this be communicated? It
seems like a failure of the press if they can't convey the essential fact that there were two
groups of people and it looks like there were significantly fewer (but not zero) infections
among the 15,000 that got the vaccine.
People (especially managers) usually want one single metric to compare even if it's
woefully inadequate. Quantifying reductions in infection or maybe severe disease seem like
reasonable single-metric comparisons to me.
The 95% efficacy claim shouldn't depend on the lens you wear to interpret the data, that's
my point. As Stephen the tech critic mentions, people are going to alter their behaviour
based on these claims once vaccinated, so 95% should mean 95% in absolute terms and
contra-indications should also be clearly communicated to at-risk populations. Auditable
transparency should be the name of the game, if we've learnt anything from the 737max debacle
it's that companies, when left to their own devices, place profit ahead of human lives.
I guess "absolute effectiveness" as a metric like the author defines it is might be a
reasonable for people assessing their individual risk or as a public health metric but it's a
moving target and totally specific to a certain population over a certain span of time, so
it's not especially useful for comparing vaccines. I don't think explaining it sounds any
easier than the other numbers.
Why should Vietnam show a terrible "absolute effectiveness" compared to France if the goal
is to analyze the same vaccine? As the number of people exposed to the virus approaches the
entirety of the population (if half were vaccinated and all members are susceptible to
infection) the number would approach the vaccine efficacy as the companies define it.
Our back-and-forth is proving my point, you and I are somewhat equipped with the
intellectual/statistical/mathematical wherewithal to do an analytical deep dive and look at
the data from different angles, some (most?) people aren't. It's this knowledgeable that the
general population lack the mathematical grasp to make sense of marketing claims, especially
those presented as numbers, that companies exploit to mislead the public. That's why I
contend that the claims should be presented as simply as possible, stripped of opportunities
for profiteers to obsfuscate anything. Freebird has a suggestion below, which I'm 100% on
board with
Exactly. I would even ditch the '95% effective' language. They need to say 'if 10,000
people were exposed to the virus, ordinarily about n1 would get infected. With this vaccine,
the number infected was n2. This is language people can grasp.
Except that even the above language can still be interpreted through different "lenses".
Certainly with the relatively sample size, it should be clarified that there's a pretty big
"bubble" of uncertainty around the 'n', just considering the basic statistics.
But suppose that for the 75 years and older population the vaccine only works at 50%
efficacy, so if I'm 81.5 years old and the TV tells me that the vaccine prevents "9500 out of
10000 infections", I might take myself out of isolation when that may be otherwise
ill-advised. Likewise, if I'm an allergy sufferer, I might want to know if said suffers have
a 1 in 100 chance of a severe allergic reaction vs. say 1 in 10000 for the general populace.
So how do we communicate all these nuances in a way that makes them understandable to the
wider public? I don't really see an easy way.
In a sense, this is what doctors and regulatory authorities are supposed to do for people,
but much of that is broken right now. Western societies have utterly failed to contain the
virus when it doing so would have been much easier, and they refuse to take the steps
required to contain it now. They have forced themselves into a situation with no
alternatives. They are grasping for a "Hollywood solution" in the form of a high-tech vaccine
"developed in a single weekend".
Where n/10000 is so small, if I wanted to be a Covid-denier I would point to that tiny
number and argue that not getting vaccinated is already 100%-1.23% = 98.77% effective.
To get it right, I have to think about the period of the trial. In X week trial period, my
chance of infection might be 1.23%.
At 4X weeks it approaches 5%.
16X weeks (caeteris paribus) we're talking about serious risk.
But 16X might be a year, and we need test results sooner than that.
I hate that fallacy, the binary of 0.X% COVID death vs 99.Y% full recovery. It ignores
Long COVID risk, potentially affecting 20% of symptomatic patients per a UK study. It ignores
the pain, medical cost (especially in no-Medicare4All Murica), & lost-wages opportunity
cost of a non-death hospitalized case.
It is shameful that Long COVID is barely discussed by public health experts, politicians,
or CorpMedia.
if 10,000 people were exposed to the virus, ordinarily about n would get infected
I don't think anyone can possibly put a number on this. It seems like the answer is likely
to be 10,000 unless some people have some innate immunity for reasons we don't understand.
Exposure isn't really binary, someone singing in a phone booth choir with a sick person is
much more likely to get infected than if they were just passing by a sick person in the
grocery store.
It's a very different statement than what the post author tries to capture with "absolute
accuracy" which scales from zero (no cases) to the vaccine efficacy for a whole
population.
Surely the only way to achieve "absolute accuracy" would be to ensure that both groups are
a) identical in age ranges from 0 – 100, sex and biology/medical history, b) subject
100% of both groups to identical exposure to the virus, and c) isolate both groups from each
other and the general population for a fortnight to prevent additional exposure from outside.
In the absence of the above there is too much scope for a) deliberate and nefarious
manipulation, and b) uncontrollable input influencing the numbers. IMHO.
I was born three years before doctors began giving a new drug on the market declared safe
in pregnancy to mothers for morning sickness. It was called Thalidomide.
Exactly! We can never know what 'n' is unless we purposely expose a population to Covid
and then measure how many of them come down with the disease – and to me, that would be
a highly unethical test to employ. So that 'n' as described is meaningless at best.
All we can know is how many people given the placebo come down with the disease v. how
many of the group that get the vaccine come down with the disease and go from there. We know
that not all of the people in either group will be exposed since most of them probably are
taking precaution they can to avoid the disease like most of us – which means that the
numbers of people who do get Covid will be small – and that is where 'statistically
significant' comes into play. If there is any criticism it would be there – did they
test enough people and long enough to get statistically significant numbers?
If you want 'absolute accuracy', then you have to be willing to throw ethics out the
window and purposely give people Covid. Then you can study the effects and get 'real numbers'
if that is what is necessary to convince the critics.
But they don't know how many were infected. This is a leap of logic in your example. They
had a number of infections identified in each group and INFERRED an infection rate, as in
assumed that the rate of contracting the disease was the same in the injected group as in the
control.
There's more cause for pause given that a top HIV expert pointed out that the bar for
designating an infection is too low:
The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted
Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case
of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache,
fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing
to prevent common cold symptoms.
Where is the leap in my logic? A lower threshold for diagnosing disease (risking more
false or dubious positives) is bad for the pharma companies.
False positives in the vaccine group are disproportionally worse for efficacy when the
manufacturers want to be able to claim an order of magnitude fewer infections for that
group.
Ah, thanks. I was puzzled by the argument, because it seemed a bit like saying that
routinely carrying umbrellas did not provide 95% protection against rain because it only
rained some of the time.
I'm glad it wasn't only me, although I was thinking along the lines that parachutes are
highly effective in only the 1–2% of the population that goes skydiving. (But, to
analogize to COVID-19 somewhat, you'd end up in a plane about to be pushed out without
expecting it or wanting to.) It struck me as a way not to interpret the
statistics.
But if, say, 10000 vaccinated people visit a country in the course of a year, but only
500 come into contact with a contagious source (which would not be surprising) and none get
ill, then the efficacy of the vaccine would presumably only be 0.05% according to the logic
of the article.
Actually, it would about 0% plus whatever smoothing coefficient you choose to apply for
your prior (Jeffreys would give 0.5 / 500.5 = ~0.1%). The number of vaccinated people here is
has an indirect impact, via Bayesian chaining – it will give you a confidence interval
for the number of exposed people (via a binomial with the maximum at about 500/10000 = 5%),
which is then propagated into the confidence interval of the number of infected ones.
Apparently I can't form a sentence this early in the morning.
My concern is that the vaccine creates a class of people who are asymptomatic carriers
that 1) continue to spread the disease and 2) may still have damage from the disease, because
we have seen that asymptomatic carriers can still get lung and heart damage .
How would you know someone is an asymptomatic carrier unless you tested them?
Is that population *representative* of the whole population? Does it include children?
The elderly? People of different social class and/or living situations? People of different
"colors"? People with history of severe allergies? And are the proportions of each of these
(and any others I *can't* think of) similar within the sampled population as in the whole
population?
Probably. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Unlikely. Close. Also, no pregnant people. But the vaccine
has not been approved for children nor pregnant people.
Second, the result assumes that the study is blinded.
It was randomized and double-blinded.
the media has reported repeatedly and extensively, while these trails are on-going, that
side-effects are common
The common side effect was redness, swelling, and pain in the injection area. Mild side
effects in less than 10% (otherwise, it would have not been approved by the NHS). I don't
think that's enough to "unblind" participants, at least in significant numbers.
The author is correct that these vaccines are "under-tested"
Do we know if they've weakened the criteria in the approval process? Because I might be
wrong/misinformed, but from what I've read, any other vaccine at any other time would get a
Phase IV approval with the data provided.
I do agree with the part that we shouldn't lift all the restrictions just because we have
the vaccine. Only when and if infection rates drop down to anecdotal, we can slowly and
carefully begin to get back to normal (whatever that may be).
You are understating the side effects. Many people feel like crap for a day:
High fever, body aches, headaches and exhaustion are some of the symptoms participants
in Moderna and Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine trials say they felt after receiving the
shots.
While the symptoms were uncomfortable, and at times intense, they often went away after
a day, sometimes less.
Is feeling crap for a day a mild symptoms ? i don't know either way in terms or what
is considered mild, but it doesn't sound too severe.
The article appears to over egg the efficacy concerns. Did they want people 30, 000 to be
deliberately infected to test the exact number. I think a large number of human challenge
trials are ongoing. I think its reasonable to except the efficacy to be over 80% but the
exact number is to be determined with further studies.
If you can't take a day off from work, and many can't, it's not trivial. And Pfizer
appears to have underplayed the fever issue. Some experts took note of the fact that everyone
who took the Pfizer vaccine in the trials was encouraged to take acetaminophen afterwards.
That's not normal. IM Doc wrote this in today's Links:
Thank you for the link regarding the nurse who had the reaction to the vaccine.
A few words of clarification for your readers from a physician of 30 years.
A temperature of 104.9 in an adult with a functional immune system (we are not talking
about babies and kids – they are different) is extraordinary after a vaccination.
104.9 means that the immune system has been activated enough to take it up a few notches to
DEF CON 1. This is very unusual in infectious disease – some parasites and ameba do
this routinely – and things like sepsis syndrome can – but for the most part,
getting a temperature up this high is definitely not normal. It is certainly not a good
sign for a vaccine. A vaccine should not be stimulating the immune system to this degree
– EVER. Idiosyncratic reactions in a very rare patient is one thing – if this
is happening more often – this is not a good sign for that vaccine.
The nurse in the article is absolutely correct – a temperature of 104.9 after a
vaccine administration is a grade 4 reportable event.
This is medically important for two reasons. 1) That level of fever if sustained can
damage permanently multiple organs. 2) Vaccines should simply not be activating the immune
system to that degree – it is completely inappropriate. It is very normal for people
to have a brief temp of 99 or 100 after a vaccine – this is a completely different
level.
From what I can tell in the Pfizer documents – "fever" is not uncommon as a side
effect to their vaccine. I cannot determine in any location what their parameters are for
"fever". As stated above – it is accepted that multiple vaccines will give a patient
a slight fever as a side effect maybe up to a day. But not 104.5. How many of these
patients classified as "fever" in their information and glossies were actually 103? 104?
There is no transparency – and that is the problem.
And if you read the comments above from those who are statistically well versed, the issue
is that the effective sample is so small that there is a high degree of statistical
uncertainty around the efficacy numbers. And that's before getting to the fact that messenger
RNA technology (the one used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) have never before been used
(except in a Zika trial of ~100, too small to be reliable) and the long term effects are
unknown.
There are plenty of MDs who never prescribe a new med that has been out less than a year
to patients. I won't take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. I'll wait for a conventional vaccine
(there are plenty in trials, so several are likely to win approval).
But as I understand it, the point is precisely that the sample is unrepresentative. What
the trials did is ethical equivalent of randomly choosing 185 people, vaccinating them, then
infecting then with the virus and then observing that only 11 got sick.
I really appreciate the explanation. There is another element that has bothered me from
the beginning of the phase 2/3 trial: that any and all symptoms are self reported. I'm in the
Pfizer trial and received the doses in August and I asked repeatadly what level of
pain/discomfort/deviation from the norm would warrant reporting and was told ANY change. But
I am curious how many asked that and actually did it. Meaning, my guess is that the level of
infections in the placebo group is actually higher when combined with the truly asymptomatic.
But the same may be true in the vaccine group as well. They are trying to root out the
asymptomatic spread with challenge trials, if they get approved.
You are right about his weird choice of language but his point is accurate
in ANY medical intervention one wants to know BOTH Relative efficacy and Absolute.
This vaccine reduced the RELATIVE rate of infections dramatically.. But since the overall
incidence of infections was low, the ABSOLUTe reduction was very small. This is also true of say STATINs in low risk patients.
The Vaccine Drumbeat in my jurisdiction is increasing and I'm sure will become deafening.
Talk show radio hosts actually giving medical advice. No recommendations to consult with a
doctor regarding your personal health circumstances and risks or those of your loved
ones.
This is all orchestrated by Public Health officials who apparently have never heard of
personal health care. We are all just one big Herd. To me this is a desecration of the doctor
patient relationship by so-called health professionals. All of which is extremely dangerous
and bad medical advice.
They're trying to prevent people who *cannot* take the vaccine for whatever reason from
dying, by encouraging people who are merely worried but have no actual reason not to take the
vaccine other than paranoia and ungrounded conspiracy-mongering to take the bloody thing.
This seems like, y'know, their job, and entirely praiseworthy.
The disease *does* see us as one big herd, or rather as a pile of individual infectable
cells. It seems right to deal with the response to it on the same level.
Re: companies mandating staff to be vaccinated to market their establishments as "safe".
The tone and substance of the post is clearly meant to be a "proceed with caution" advisory
on taking the vaccine, despite the author being at pains to emphasize that it's not an
"encouragement to reject vaccines".
Some quarters of the labour market are clearly going to
render this moot for the serfs who'll be required to either sign up to be guinea pigs or lose
their jobs, wow. Swallow the tail risk of unknown medium to long-term health effects of these
rapidly developed vaccines for the short term gain of a (most likely crap) salary? So agency
over one's health is now signed over to employers as a means to eke out a meagre existence,
double wow.
Don't forget they are using flawed PCR tests and except for Moderna in the US all other
countries and companies where studies have been conducted are using another vaccine instead
of a true saline or inert placebo.
Not to mention most of these Pharmaceutical Companies have been sued for tens of billions of
dollars for harmful drugs , buried information, fraud ect. We're supposed to trust them with
safety studies for medical products they have indemnity for. Thank you for pointing out how
deceptive these numbers can be for the average person.
My understanding (and my understanding of all this is not perfect!) is that PCR tests are
flawed (a) because they iterate an amplification process until they find something, and that
something could be the remnants of another CV caused by a cold you had 3 months previously
and (b) at least in the UK, the testing labs are not necessarily as well-versed in the hygiene
procedures you need to avoid cross-contamination. So there is a high risk of false
positives.
Moreover, if I am reading the background to the clinical trials correctly, they count as
"success" situations where someone who has one positive PCR test plus some fairly common cold
symptoms does not then go on to develop full-blown CV19 symptoms. The problem is, given the PCR is acknowledged to generate a lot of false positives, then the success rate will be
overstated, because the denominator in the success rate calculations will be swollen with
subjects who didn't actually have the CV19 virus to start with
(I can't quite believe that the test can be that dumb, so perhaps I am totally wrong about
that? But I fear I am not.)
The Cycle Threshold of a sample (for PCR tests that provide it) gives some indication of
the quantity of virus in the sample. I think that for only viral fragments a very high CT
value (low amount of virus) will be an indicator that repeat testing may be necessary. I
haven't read the actual protocols to learn how they handle this.
The problem is, given the PCR is acknowledged to generate a lot of false positives, then
the success rate will be overstated
I don't follow your thinking here, if false positives are equally distributed across the
placebo and vaccine groups then it will make the vaccine look less effective.
Let's say 100 people really get infected in the placebo group and 10 in the vaccine group
(90% efficacy). If you add an equal number of false positives to both groups, it can only
push efficacy number down. If we add 10 to each group, efficacy is down to ~80%. If we add 20
to each group, efficacy is down to 75%.
A question that this raises for me is whether sterilising immunity is conferred by the
innate immune response to infection with live virus.
If not, then "herd immunity" would not be achieved by letting the virus "run" through the
population, as has been advocated by some. The commentary I have seen on this generally
assumes that people who have recovered from infection are not only protected from disease
symptoms, but cannot for some length of time become reinfected and asymptomatic spreaders.
Perhaps they can.
This is a very bad prospect for vulnerable populations.
If a vaccinated individual can still transmit COVID, then herd immunity may not be practical.
"Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease ..Immune
individuals are unlikely to contribute to disease transmission, disrupting chains of
infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immune
individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come
into contact with an infectious individual."
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this. What do the 'numbers' look like
for a proven vaccine that's been around for several decades or more (e.g. smallpox, polio,
etc)?
Are these vaccines truly "95% effective": illness prevented and infection eliminated in
95% of everyone vaccinated. Period?
Not everyone is going to be exposed to Covid-19 just like not everyone is going to be
exposed to the flu. So why do you take the flu vaccine? Isn't it because if you are unlucky
and DO get exposed, you have some protection from getting sick?
Not everyone was going to be exposed to small pox or polio, but for those that were
unlucky enough to get exposed, those vaccines protected MOST of them from getting the
diseases, I'm not sure what the 'effectiveness' of those vaccines were, but you don't hear of
small pox or polio pandemics any more. Isn't that what a vaccine is supposed to do?
The reason for getting a Covid-19 vaccine is just the same. You may never be exposed to
Covid-19 so the vaccine will have nothing to protect you from – so, according to this
article, it's effectiveness for you will be zero. Remember only 185 of 15,000 people who were
taking the placebo got exposed. So, if you are unlucky and do get exposed, wouldn't you like
to have some protection from what Covid-19 can do? And what the numbers are saying is that IF
you do get exposed to Covid-19 that you have a 95% chance of being protected and NOT getting
that disease. To me that sounds a whole lot better than nothing!
I call articles like the above "fun with math". They send you down the wrong path when it
comes to what you can rationally expect from vaccines and they provide fodder for the
anti-vaxxers.
That said, I wish we had more time to see what the possible side effects are, but sadly
Covid is killing people at a too rapid pace for us to wait for the perfect vaccine.
I have a growing problem with the claims without any proof of efficacy. One of the vaccine
makers bragged about creating the vaccine "one weekend" Vaccines take years to develop. That
these are miraculously appearing within months by companies with a financial interest in
being first. In a word, bushwa.
So far many claims have been made that have passed no test to justify. Only immunity from
prosecution and personal responsibility are important to the vaccine makers at this point.
The populous waits on bated breath for every word they spew.
Dr. Chris Martenson has a few things to say about it from his perspective as an expert in
pathology. We, the people, desparately need rational voices that know statistics to begin
with. Numbers are always mistaken for facts when presented by those alleged to be in
authority. It doesn't mean they understand them, or are working hard to be certain that the
statistics are accurate, not just supportive of their claims.
I would make this silly prediction based on what I know now;
Prophylaxis with Ivermectin and vitamin supplements has already shown much higher efficacy in
preventing infection, transmission, length of symptoms and outcome. But it doesn't make huge
profits. There are no horrible side effects.
When was the last time we were asked to accept a drug that was supported by the pharma
companies? Statins? The benefits only seem to appear if one is hospitalized in critical care.
The side effects may have injured more than the drug helped. But this sacred cow too is
making companies lots of money.
Stop the viral functions vs. alter the body chemistry. When did our science think this was
acceptable to alter our functioning immune systems and then say it was AOK? Was it just the
lucre? We can't imagine that our science has become snake oil from where it began.
I am not an expert or have medical training. I do read a lot. Re "Vaccines take years to
develop", you are correct. From my reading, the basic science for mRNA started in 1983. What
happened afterwards has irony. The principle scientist/investigator repeatedly had difficulty
in getting grant money to do her study because granting agencies did not think that the mRNA
would be accepted by the human body. It was thought that the auto immune system would
automatically reject it. The principle scientist/investigator failed to get tenure at her
university because she was not able to bring much grant money to the university. Nonetheless,
she persevered and finally together with a collaborator, they found a way of introducing mRNA
without alerting the immune system. Their work was published in 2005. Their work was largely
unnoticed except for two people who saw the medical opportunity provided by mRNA. Further
study was done and eventually medical science and entrepreneurship merged together which led
to the formation of BioNtech (based on the words, "biopharmaceuticals", "New",
"Technologies") and Moderna (based on the words "Modified", "RNA"). Neither BioNtech nor
Moderna had a vaccine a year ago. Instead, they had the technology. When the genetic code for
the virus was released to the world by Chinese scientists, BioNtech and Moderna could then
program their mRNA technology for the Sars-Cov-2 virus. With their technology, it could be
said that they already had a head start in making the vaccine. The principle scientist and
her collaborator work separately. One is now employed with Moderna and the other is with
BioNtech.
None of the "Western" developers would of course now give any credit to their Chinese
helpers!!! We only hear of "China steals our intellectual property."
Remember the days when Jonas Salk refused to patent and make money from his polio
vaccine?
They had a head start in making this vaccine *and possibly all future ones too*. This is a
game-changer: it's quite possible that future diseases may routinely have a vaccine entering
clinical trials *days* after its genome is known, rather than having to work on it for months
to decades first.
(Now all we have to do is convince people that it's not a dark plot and that actually
these things do save lives.)
I too am getting dizzy with all these statistics and caveats. I have had a flu jab every
year for the last 12. I have had bugs of one kind or another over the years but I only had
some kind of flu once -- this February as it happens. There is no way that anybody can
estimate how many flu bugs I was exposed to and what their impact would be on a healthy man
in his 60s in the last decade. Anyway, I don't worry about the statistics but make a simple
risk assessment. Is the risk of a flu vaccine less than the risk of getting flu? The answer
has to be yes.
With covid19 vaccinations I don't much care whether it's efficacy can be measured as 95%
or 70% or 60%. Anything is better than nothing. Anyway, it's like wearing masks. Its efficacy
depends upon large numbers of people being vaccinated. I help protect you as well as myself
and you protect me as well as yourself. I worry that large numbers of people will decide not
to have any vaccine, ensuring that covid19 will continue to kill unprotected people.
Only one thing concerns me at present. Safety. Sadly, enough doubts have been raised about
the two new experimental vaccines to make me think the risk is not worth it. I will wait for
the Oxford vaccine to become available I think -- while trying to keep a sensible open-minded
watching brief.
There is no reason that you should go right out and get poked with these barely-tested,
and IMHO experimental vaccines.
Salk and Sabin were hailed as heroes – which they were – for giving humanity
polio vaccines. What has gone down the memory hole though, is how Pharma family blogged up
the production of the vaccines. You should really check these links to see how bad this
was/is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40 (90% of US
children and 60% of adults inoculated with polio vaccine contaminated with a monkey virus
that turns out be carcinogenic – it's also passed down in-utero, so we all have
increased likelihood of certain cancers, thanks pharma)
Public health is standing between greedy sociopaths and a big pile of cash, and it'll
probably get run over. I fail to see why we should expect a sound vaccine in this
environment.
I haven't seen my parents in a year. My parents haven't seen anyone in a year.
There's a bloody good reason to go out and get vaccinated for us!
There's a reason for everyone else too: some old and vulnerable people won't be able to
get vaccinated, which means they'll be stuck in isolation until enough people have
been vaccinated that they don't need to worry about dying of this thing every time they go
out in public or meet anyone ever.
Whether or not the vaccine is capable of interrupting transmission absolutely should have
been front and centre in these studies especially when it's presented to people with an
extremely low chance of being harmed by the virus (ie. the fit & young who might be the
ones likely to be affected by any fertility issues).
It could be assumed that less severe symptoms means less chance for spread which may be
the case, but then I can't see how logically that fits with the mainstream view that of the
virus as something that is transmitted asymptomatically so readily anyway? (Although I think
this asymptomatic spread idea is probably wildly overblown).
Asymptomatic and presymptomatic are not the same. Studies show that most of the
asymptomatic people who transmit the disease end up developing symptoms (I've seen systematic
reviews that show anything between 83% to 94%). I.e.: asymptomatic transmission is possible,
but mostly by presymptomatic people.
As a practical matter, I expect that these vaccines will reduce the incidence and severity
of both disease and transmission in the treated populations, and do so with little risk to
the treated indivduals, so that there is very likely to be a net benefit to a treated
individual, to the population of treated individuals, and [to a lesser exent] to the
non-treated individuals in the general population.
I am confident that more information will emerge to support and refine the above
hypotheses. It will only be a matter of degree. Speaking as a 69 year-old physician, I would
take any of the three leading vaccines at the first opportunity. I expect that when we look
back in a few years we will see that the immunized population did better than the age-sex-etc
matched non-immunized population. To some extent, my wife and I are relying on unbalanced
articles like this to at least temporarily deter some people from having the vaccine, so that
we can get to the front of the line more quickly.
Out of curiosity, what informs your confidence in these vaccines apart from the press
releases and efficacy claims from the pharma companies developing them? Is it something we
the general public aren't privy to that physicians have given the heads up on? I'm in now way
being flippant, it's just that a good number of doctors I know personally wouldn't go near
any of these vaccines, at least not until there's enough data backing up their efficacy in
the real world.
it's just that a good number of doctors I know personally wouldn't go near any of these
vaccines, at least not until there's enough data backing up their efficacy in the real
world.
That's a pretty contradictory position. You don't get real world data unless real world
people take the vaccine. Very telling of those -probably wealthy- doctors to let others
assume that risk. Let's not forget that tens of thousands of people already took the vaccine
with significantly fewer assurances. I guess it's alright to go to poor and desperate people
first? That's what I call solidarity and prosocial behavior.
No, the doctors aren't convinced by the studies and the claims emerging from that, at
least not yet. If signing up to be a guinea pig for something you're not entirely convinced
of is your idea of solidarity and pro-social behaviour then by all means, go right ahead,
they're not stopping you. By the way, more data can be the result of more extensive clinical
trials with better designed studies that aren't "designed to succeed", and is not limited to
being obtained from poor people being lined up to volunteer as guinea pigs, as you imply.
In any event all of this "being at the head of the queue" talk is academic for us in
Africa, the big wealthy nations have resolved to hoard the supplies of whatever credible
vaccine becomes available. Maybe you could lobby them to share in the name of solidarity.
If signing up to be a guinea pig for something you're not entirely convinced of is your
idea of solidarity and pro-social behaviour then by all means, go right ahead, they're not
stopping you
If you put it like that, and people interpret it like that, no clinical trials ever would
happen, except in Nazi Germany, where they forced people to submit to medical experiments
(see, we can all be overly dramatic). If the vaccine is not good enough for you, it shouldn't
be good enough for anybody, and we never get a vaccine for anything, ever.
Therefore, yes, I will gladly accept the vaccine once it's my turn, because at this point
is civic duty and safety is as guaranteed as any other Phase IV drug. Again, the two
alternatives are being a hypocrite or not having a vaccine.
Maybe you could lobby them to share in the name of solidarity
Even better, I advocate to allow the vaccine to be produced in developing countries
freely, without IP concerns. I doubt the wealthy countries will accept the proposal, but I
also hope those countries will ignore international law and manufacture it for local
consumption anyway.
I don't know if it's selfishness on the doctors' part, or just so much familiarity with
the avarice of the pharmaceutical industry that they don't trust the data that has been
molded into a neat report, likely as not full of hidden flaws or deliberately misleading
conclusions. Unfortunately the truth will not come out til a lot of people have taken the
vaccines, and I can't blame a front line worker for not wanting to be at the front of the
line.
I don't doubt the avarice of Big Pharma. I count on it. But the people who actually
developed the vaccine and actually run the experiments won't see a penny of the billions
Pfizer is going to make with this vaccine. At that point, I would expect at least a couple of
trustworthy sources, with a conscience and without billions to blind it, would blow the
whistle on any data manipulation. Like all conspiracies, the more people are involved, the
shorter they live. Thousands have participated in the Phase III. So far, all the complains
come from people who don't trust Pfizer because Pfizer is not trustworthy, and people who are
concerned for political reasons. And don't get me wrong, you can't trust Pfizer and there are
clear political concerns, but as long as it's just that, keeping an eye open and taking the
vaccine is the right thing to do. Again, because otherwise we probably won't get a vaccine in
decades, if ever.
I have a good friend who is a practicing MD dealing with Covid patients who I talk to
regularly about the vaccines and the epidemic. He has a low opinion of how the trials have
been conducted and thinks that there is a high chance of several surprising issues popping up
(like the adverse reactions mentioned above). He, contrary to you, intends to let the early
vaccine recipient's finish the more comprehensive testing which should have occurred as part
of the stage 3 trials.
Dr. Smith
You are no doubt aware that mRNA "vaccines" are not really vaccines at all in the
conventional sense, but rather might more accurately be termed "genetic immune response
modifiers.' This approach to disease control has been speculated about for some time and
subject to investigation, but has never been administered at scale in a human population.
"Testing" to observe whether recipients immediately fall ill after the first or second shot
is essentially meaningless except to the extent that it may retard or stop entirely the use
of the drug. There are enough theoretical pitfalls with this radical methodology that no one
can predict their long term impact. Perhaps after three years, but certainly not after 90
days.
Conventional vaccines like those for Polio and Smallpox utilize modified or disabled forms
of the disease pathogens to stimulate antibodies to provide resistance when they encounter
the disease "in the wild." We have decades of experience and millions of cases using this
type of vaccine which lends a high level of confidence that a new conventional vaccine can be
used safely on a new pathogen.
MD's like yourself have years of experience and training in identifying and treating
disease -- certainly far beyond that of the the average layman. But you are also the product
of a culture that determines how you think about your practice. For example, "Only medicines
that have gone through the approval and patent process are suitable for human use." Or, "All
medicines obtained from foreign countries are suspect or dangerous." Or: "Authorities like
the AMA, NIH or WHO are the only reliable sources of information" Or: "Deviating from
approved practice can/will result in lawsuits and being barred from practicing medicine."
By all means dash to the head of the Pfizer/Moderna Corvid vaccine line. We need more
willing volunteers like yourself so authorities like Bill Gates won't have to test new
vaccines on poor children in Africa and India to determine whether the side effects include
sterility or the re-emergence of Polio.
Considering the questions that people have been asking on this website on how the mRNA
vaccine works, I doubt that most people understand that this is not like the other vaccines
that people have taken, and uses a completely different mechanism for eliciting an immune
response than traditional vaccines.
It uses exactly the same mechanism: presentation of an antigen on cell surfaces. It even
uses the same antigen as some of the more conventional SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The
antigen is even produced in the same place: the inside of the recipients' cells. The only
unusual thing is where the RNA comes from that is used to do this: is it on its own, or does
it come packaged with other viral RNA implementing a complete working virus not common in
human populations which has been modified to produce this antigen?
(I don't know why anyone would consider it safer to take a traditional vaccine which has
an actual working virus in it, even if said virus only causes a mild cold, than it would be
to take these new ones which have no viral replication machinery whatsoever . The
Moderna/biontech stuff is new, but not because it was previously believed unsafe, merely
because eukaryotes are vicious to naked RNA outside their cells and destroy it on sight with
some of the most efficient enzymes known because, well, it's a sign of viral infection. So
RNA-based vaccines never got close to getting inside enough cells to be useful, so you needed
a whole viral capsid to do the job, like the more traditional Astra-Zeneca vaccine.
That's the problem that's been solved.)
There will be some who make the specious argument that only ~2% of the subjects in the
study got symptomatic Covid, so "big deal". That sort of argument would carry more weight if
it had been expressed in terms of "cases per unit time". In this case, it looks as though the
median time was about 2 months.
I expect that as time goes on we would find that a very large proportion of the control
group [maybe 10%] would develop clinical symptoms, and a much larger proportion would develop
asymptomatic disease [which carries a poorly defined risk of serious but silent damage to the
heart, brain, etc].
As good studies emerge, like BioNTech, we can read the original peer reviewed literature
and the commentaries on it, and draw our own conclusions:
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination -- An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2034717?query=RP
To some extent, my wife and I are relying on unbalanced articles like this to at least
temporarily deter some people from having the vaccine, so that we can get to the front of the
line more quickly.
Fine by me. The more human guinea-pigs that stand between me and this stuff – and
remain standing – the more likely I'll be to take it. Eventually. Tho' if your
confidence is justified and you help take Runder1 perhaps I won't even have to risk it.
While there are some clear misunderstandings about these numbers from both sides, several
pointed out that we have zero knowledge about other aspects of the vaccine, such as:
1) Can people still transmit the virus after "successful" immunization from the vaccine?
2) How long will the immunity from vaccination last?
3) How long before a vaccine-resistant mutation emerges?
We should be focused on better testing (both developing and administering), pervasive
contact tracing, and innovative technologies such as air filtering with vertical flow, better
masks, better public support for masks, better strategies for isolating sick individuals in
crowded situations, better treatments. What terrifies me about the vaccine craze is that it
is distracting everyone from doing the right things not just to stem the death toll from this
pandemic, but also from using this as a learning experience to be better prepared for the
next one.
There is the expression "closing the barn doors after the cows have gone." A more complete
analogy in this case would be "a fire started in the barn, luckily the cows were able to run
out the open door. We went into the barn and closed the door from the inside without a fire
extinguisher."
The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted
Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case
of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache,
fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing
to prevent common cold symptoms.
Why is that damning? The lower their threshold for a positive, the more likely they are to
have false positives. False positives in the vaccine group make the efficacy values
plunge.
It is totally counterproductive if the intention is to game the results. Then the smart
play would be to only count serious disease.
By tomorrow, according to Worldmeters, 5% of the population in the US will have tested
positive for c-19-studies have put the actual penetration of those infected at anywhere from
2X to 10X the counted numbers (16 million, or so). Are persons that have been tested
positive, or carry antibodies, exempt from any mass vaccination program? It seems to me the
enormous rush to get vaccines to market is the fear that, lockdowns notwithstanding, we are
heading towards that time when a majority of the US population will have already become
infected. I can envision the panic in big phamas boardrooms as the see that every week
another million potential customers are removed from their expected profit sheets.
It's worse than that. Not long ago some were saying how the number of American dead in
this pandemic was approaching the number killed in Vietnam. Now the daily total exceeds that
lost on 9/11 and is accelerating.
Not to worry. Simply denying the ability to fly, work, drive a car, or go to the
supermarket to everyone without a digital vaccine certification card will ensure a high level
of compliance with the Universal Mandate and continued joy in the boardrooms of Pfizer. The
goal is to monetize Pharma Power, not to control Corid19. So bringing all those who have
self-vaccinated by contacting a mild case of the disease or have a strong T-cell immunity
response into the Fold is just good business.
Speaking of business opportunities, printing black market certification cards @ $100 each
promises to put BitCoin to shame.
About that 5% of the US population that have tested positive:
At the conventional PCR Cr of 40 about 5% will have a viral loading such that they are
actively spreading infection to others. The other 95% could be more accurately termed as
false positives.
The goal is to monetize Pharma Power, not to control Corid19.
I assume it's probably some degree of both. I mean just cause something might be
true doesn't mean it is true.
At the conventional PCR Cr of 40 about 5% will have a viral loading such that they are
actively spreading infection to others. The other 95% could be more accurately termed as
false positives.
I also question these numbers and/or reasoning. Do you have a link supporting this
statement?
I too have a problem with the way my source arrived at their 97% false positive claim. The
internal logic is indeed correct, but it feels like using statistics in a less than
transparent manner.
Regarding monetizing Pharma Power: The Norwegian institute CEPI – Coalition for
Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was founded in 2017 with the goal (amongst others) of being
in the forefront in the development of vaccines for new infectious diseases and their
distribution at an affordable price (or no price if countries can't afford it) throughout the
world. Funding for CEPI has come from the governments, trusts and foundations. Read all about
it here. https://cepi.net
What happened with CEPI and the development of Covid vaccines? The pharma companies would
not give up their right to determine prices, for "competitive business reasons".
Goggle Translate of an NRK article:
https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/ble-makteslost-vitne-til-dod-_-selv-om-vaksinen-fantes-1.15060685
-- -- -
The pharmaceutical industry, on the other hand, did not like the rules, according to Richard
Hatchett. He has been the director of CEPI since April 2017, when he left his job as deputy
commander of BARDA. It is the agency of the US Department of Health that buys and develops
vaccines.
In a sensational article, Hatchett explains what happened to CEPI's policy:
CEPI's rules are based on the idealism on which the coalition was founded. However,
several multinational vaccine companies said they did not "reflect the business reality of
vaccine developers," according to the CEPI director. They also disliked the fact that CEPI
should be able to set the price.
-- -
Before Covid-19 was identified last December, CEPI had raised three-fourths of the $1 billion
it determined was necessary to fund the innovative research for expedited development of
vaccines to treat new epidemics. Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia and Norway, as well as the
Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, had given $460 million. In the
last two years, CEPI has used that money to provide grants for some leading edge
biotechnologies that could revolutionize vaccine research and production.
But what has played mostly out of public view over that same time was the organization's
failed effort to get large pharmaceutical firms to agree to be partners without insisting on
substantial profits or proprietary rights to research that CEPI helped to finance and produce
(my bolding). That did not surprise many industry observers who knew that since the 1930s,
the National Institutes of Health had spent over $900 billion on grants that drug firms
relied on to patent brand-name medications.
-- -- -- --
The band plays on: Tanz mit Laibach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glu9wA4HjE0
Several lines of evidence show that immunity after COVID-19 wanes quite rapidly, and that
immunity after immuniztion with several of the vaccines persists quite nicely, both in animal
and human models. The reason for this is that the vaccines are engineered to stimulate strong
defensive responses which include both antibody-mediated immunity and T-cell mediated
immunity. Many of the vaccine candidates include adjuvants, which are materials which
facilitate and enhance the immune response to the antigens in the vaccine.
just a thought to all who venture here now and again,
this post represents the reason i make Naked Capitalism my first click of the day
the content and the comments are priceless
and the combination unique and invaluable
The big unknown is of course the number of people in the test population who were actually
exposed to the infection. If everyone in the test population were exposed and only 11 of the
15000 vaccinated developed symptons then we have 11/15000 or 99.9% effectiveness. However, if
only 5% (1500)were actually exposed to infection during the test period then we have 11/750
or 98.5%, which looks pretty good. Does this sound logical? Ok the other unknown is the
number of people in the vaccinated population whose own immune systems would have defeated
the virus without the vaccine. That's where the ratio helps 1-11/185 or 94% effective. Looks
good to me.
The assumption is that the exposure rate was the same in both groups, therefore the
expected number of infections in both groups should be about the same. The inoculated group
had 5% the number of cases of the placebo group, and that's where the 95% effectiveness rate
comes from. Whether you like how they calculated it or not, the important thing to understand
is that there's nothing special or ad-hoc about this method, this is how they calculate the
effectiveness of all vaccines (and prophylactic treatments in general), and the effectiveness
of a good flu vaccine is around 60%, and it's frequently as low as 40%.
The author also fails to address one other important issue: the trials have so far not
demonstrated that these vaccines prevent real morbiidity mortality.
to do so, the trials would have needed to be MUCH larger.
Still, preventing symptomatic infection looks good. Does that translate into preventing
mortality? We dont yet know. The published data admits this . the differnce in severe cases
HAD Extremely wide confidence intervals.
Stopping transmission would be nice. But instilling sufficient immunity to not become
seriously ill, much less die, is REALLY nice. If we could cut our current 3,000 deaths a day
by even 50%, wouldn't that be great?
Note I am a month into recovery from COVID, caught from my son, who probably caught it
from anti-maskers at the factory where he works. (He's in a high-metal-dust environment, his
clothes are a different color by the end of the day, so for someone to not wear a mask is
political correctness taken way too far.) We were both fortunate – he was back to
12-hours days once his quarantine was done. I still have some head cold symptoms, but it is
that time of year. However, I know multiple people who have been hospitalized, and one person
who died. One 30-something RN whose avocation is boxing (eg, he was in extraordinary physical
condition) ended up critical. And all this was before Thanksgiving, before the current
explosion of cases and consequent deterioration of the care that those critically ill will
receive.
As to the math, it's unfortunate from a statistical sense that right now wasn't the core
of the testing period. The number of cases among the placebo group would be far higher, and
it would be easier to explain to the vast majority of the population who are not trained in
statistical thinking. Even there humility is needed: I have formal training, graduate school
courses in math stats and econometrics, and decades of empirical work employing that
training. Nevertheless my reflexes remain those of a normal human in terms of misperceiving
the impact of long odds. I have to consciously apply my training.
Finally, the above paragraph reflects a mind game. It's not unfortunate in a human sense
that the vaccines are far enough along to grant provisional approval. If only they'd been
available even earlier
Am I being overly cynical, or does it occur to anyone else that making a vaccine that just
prevents symptoms but doesn't prevent infection and transmission will tend to make the virus
endemic, rather than extinguishing it. This will gradually increase the dangers to the
unvaccinated population, creating a class of sick whose 'access' to vaccination has not
actually provided vaccine. Assuming the vaccination will need to be refreshed, it also
creates a large group of hostages repeat customers. -- Nice lungs you got
there, it'd be a shame if somethin' were to happen to 'em
And here we see the inevitable result of poor analysis: the author speculates the vaccine
may not prevent transmission; of course, many readers interpret this as "the vaccine doesn't
stop transmission" and now will spread this speculation as rock hard fact.
I'm starting to think the best health measure we could take would be to dismantle the
internet. Crowdsourced wisdom will be our end.
another option is ending public health as a path to riches, as this is the primary reason
for most of the skepticism, who would you like to blame that on?
Seems to me it's the inevitable result of a broken health care system
By requiring that the vaccine provides durable sterilizing immunity you've set the bar
higher, maybe by orders of magnitude, I don't think the science is there for anyone to know
for this virus.
I think Mike Smitka makes a compelling case for setting a lower threshold in preventing
serious disease is priority number one, and one can say that without being a shill for the
pharma companies. If none of the vaccines provide durable immunity it is of course great for
their collective bottom lines, but if you know of an immunologist who thinks that they're
doing so deliberately I would be very interested to see a link.
Errr this disease is endemic. With approaching a billion likely cases at this
point, extinguishing it is a pipe-dream. It'll be almost as hard to exterminate as it is to
exterminate the flu. That horse has left the barn. It probably left the barn before the end
of last year
Indeed. At least at present, however, there is one big difference with flu: low levels of
mutation (perhaps zero = a single strain) for the surface proteins of SARS-CoV-2, so that the
vaccines currently being approved will continue to be effective. So while we may need a
booster every year or two, depending on how long the immunity from a given vaccine, it will
"work."
In contrast flu vaccines protect against only a few strains (the most common vaccine type
in the US targets 3), but with many, many strains in circulation at any given time (and new
ones arising on a regular basis), those may not be the right strains. Hence new vaccines are
developed 2x a year to target the strains epidemiologists predict will be the most prevalent.
They can for example look at the strains prevalent in the winter in the southern hemisphere,
and use what they see to guide their choices. Ditto what's going on in winter in the north to
guide vaccines for administration in the south. Needless to say, those predictions are not
always accurate, and even if they do target the 3 most prevalent strains, you may by chance
be exposed to one of the strains not included. Adding more strains to the flu vaccine doesn't
work, as the body won't react equally to all of them: put in 6 strains, and your body may
generate weak immunity to 2, very weak to another 2, and none at all to the last 2. (My body
might develop moderate immunity to 1 and none to 5.)
Over time we may see substantive mutations that affect vaccine efficacy. But with the
current vaccines, it would in principle be possible to wipe out the virus that causes COVID,
assuming that a very high proportion of the population gets vaccinated (and potentially
revaccinated), and constant monitoring for new zoonotic outbreaks among humans catching it
from animal populations in which it would remain endemic.
I don't expect that to happen. That's because, thankfully, average mortality rates for
COVID are well under 1%, whereas for smallpox they were 20%-30%. Too many people will be lax
about immunizations, while governments will not enact the draconian policies that would be
needed to offset that – unlike if we saw a reemergence of smallpox.
I am frustrated but hopeful that viable treatments will be approved for use like CytoDyn's
Leronlimab. I personally would choose a proven safe and effective treatment vs any of the
vaccines!
Antiviral treatments or monoclonal antibodies are only useful if you apply them very early
in the course of disease. Most people, by the time they show up in the hospital, can not
benefit from these treatments and can have worse outcomes. I suggest searching for Dr. Daniel
Griffin's material about the "phases of covid" to understand how clinical protocols are
evolving.
"With only about 20,000 people have received this Pfizer's vaccine. Will unexpected
safety issues arise when the number grows to millions and possibly billions of people? Will
side effects emerge with longer follow-up? Implementing a vaccine that requires two doses
is challenging. What happens to the inevitable large number of recipients who miss their
second dose? How long will the vaccine remain effective? Does the vaccine prevent
asymptomatic disease and limit transmission? And what about the groups of people who were
not represented in this trial, such as children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised
patients of various sorts?"
I can 100% answer at least the last question: the vaccine has not been approved for
children nor pregnant woman, and immunocompromised people never get vaccines. They are
protected by herd immunity or not at all. Same for people with allergic reactions to any of
the vaccine components.
As usual, we won't have the answer to most of the other questions until we're further into
Phase IV, which just started.
Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies
against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., "Response to nCoV2019
Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses" -
http://virological.org/t/response-to-ncov2019-against-backdrop-of-endogenous-retroviruses/396
, which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the
development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite
for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS
viruses.
There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would
also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would
then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women
essentially becoming infertile.
To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials
provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential)
fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included.
Cycle threshold is everything with the PCR test. Anything above 35 is rubbish. 97% false
positives. Chris Martenson just presented some compelling information regarding these tests.
A recent paper basically shoots down a paper ( Corman-Drosten paper ) that was rushed to
press (before any real peer review) in January 2020 that declared the PCR test the end all
best way to test for covid. NOT TRUE. It was never meant for this purpose and is now being
grossly abused by TPTB. The paper says:
3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles); In case of
virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious
virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR
as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most
laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected
is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in
3]
Most testing sites are using a cycle threshold of 40 or more meaning the results mean
nothing. In fact many labs are using a CT of 47! The paper goes on to say:
3. The number of amplification cycles It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere
in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a
positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a
SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is
deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a
Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected . PCR data
evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable. Review Report
by an International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS) - Corman-Drosten et
al., Eurosurveillance 2020 (Updated: 29.11.2020) Citing Jaafar et al. 2020 [3]: "At Ct = 35,
the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive." In
other words, there was no successful virus isolation of SARS-CoV-2 at those high Ct values.
Further, scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct
values of 35 [22]. Between 30 and 35 there is a grey area, where a positive test cannot be
established with certainty. This area should be excluded. Of course, one could perform 45 PCR
cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have
to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a
Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable
Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a
significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at
which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This
important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to
date.
Hillary's Fish Taco 6 hours ago remove link
The PCR test will go down in history as the biggest part of this scamdemic. Covid 19 was a
novel virus resulting in a bad flu that killed the elderly and the already ill.
That will be Covid's legacy...the politicians will be shamed for all eternity.
We have detailed the controversy surrounding America's COVID "casedemic" and the misleading
results of the PCR test and its amplification procedure in great detail over the past few
months.
As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles,
the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the
virus was in the original sample.
Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric
by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how
infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However,
as JustTheNews reports, health departments across the country are
failing to collect that data .
Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:
2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July
tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: " With a Ct threshold of
35 , approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive ," said the
NYT.
"And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! "
4. A new study from the
Infectious Diseases Society of America , found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of
PCR test "positives" are not "cases" since the virus cannot be cultured, it's dead. And by
35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.
5. PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the
key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives"
in any clinical sense , since
it cannot make you or anyone else sick
So, in summary, with regard to our current
"casedemic", positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a "case" of anything.
They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab. It may be enough to make you sick, but
according to the New York Times and their experts, probably won't. And certainly not sufficient
replication of the virus to make anyone else sick. But you will be sent home for ten days
anyway, even if you never have a sniffle. And this is the number the media breathlessly
reports... and is used to fearmonger mask mandates and lockdowns nationwide...
All of which is background for an intriguing decision made by Florida's Department of Health
(and signed off on by Florida's Republican Governor Ron deSantis).
For the first time in the history of the pandemic, a state will require that all labs in the
state report the critical "cycle threshold" level of every COVID-19 test they perform .
All positive, negative and indeterminate COVID-19 laboratory results must be reported to
FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately. This includes all COVID-19
test types - polymerase chain reaction (PCR), other RNA, antigen and antibody results.
Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges , as applicable, must be reported
by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.
Full press release below:
3 hours ago
Try this on for size, pulled it from the comments at Naturalnews.com :
I have a PhD in virology and immunology. I'm a clinical lab scientist and have tested 1500
"supposed" positive Covid 19 samples collected here in S. California. When my lab team and I
did the testing through Koch's postulates and observation under a SEM (scanning electron
microscope), we found NO Covid in any of the 1500 samples.
What we found was that all of the 1500 samples were mostly Influenza A and some were
influenza B, but not a single case of Covid, and we did not use the B.S. PCR test.
We then sent the remainder of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a few of the University
of California labs and they found the same results as we did, NO COVID. They found influenza A
and B.
All of us then spoke to the CDC and asked for viable samples of COVID, which CDC said they
could not provide as they did not have any samples. We have now come to the firm conclusion
through all our research and lab work, that the COVID 19 was imaginary and fictitious. The flu
was called Covid and most of the 225,000 dead were dead through co-morbidities such as heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, emphysema etc. and they then got the flu which further weakened
their immune system and they died. I have yet to find a single viable sample of Covid 19 to
work with. We at the 7 universities that did the lab tests on these 1500 samples are now suing
the CDC for Covid 19 fraud. the CDC has yet to send us a single viable, isolated and purifed
sample of Covid 19.
If they can't or won't send us a viable sample, I say there is no Covid 19, it is
fictitious. The four research papers that do describe the genomic extracts of the Covid 19
virus never were successful in isolating and purifying the samples. All the four papers written
on Covid 19 only describe small bits of RNA which were only 37 to 40 base pairs long which is
NOT A VIRUS. A viral genome is typically 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs. With as bad as Covid is
supposed to be all over the place, how come no one in any lab world wide has ever isolated and
purified this virus in its entirety? That's because they've never really found the virus, all
they've ever found was small pieces of RNA which were never identified as the virus anyway. So
what we're dealing with is just another flu strain like every year... play_arrow 30
play_arrow
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall 3 hours ago (Edited)
Tks my point exactly in general, setting aside any Trump innuendo but keeping straight up
"scientific method(s)"
And if I were to continue my post it would be similar based upon what you have written
hereto:
Sorry Rick DeSantis, the question I would have been really impressed by you asking is not
the back end falsifiable PCR testing but the front end question I have been asking for 12
months!: please provide me from five different independent laboratories, via independent gold
standard, an empirically isolated, separated, purified, and replicated as sole direct
external biological causation agent, for one or all "COVID19" symptoms to any human being, as
"contagious/pathogenic" "virus."
I would nominate Rick DeSantis for the Nobel Prize on that experiment! ;-)
Sardonicus 3 hours ago
No one is testing for, or counting, financial deaths.
There are way more of those.
sparkadore 2 hours ago
The brainwashing is very real. The MSM simply report the daily memo sent to them by the
spin Doctors in the alphabet agencies. Social media and search engine algorithms have been
adjusted to assist you in RightThink.
That leaves the comment section in zh as the voice in the wilderness.
God help us all.
Bastiat 2 hours ago
Heard from a friend the other day: an elderly health compromised couple both got ill and
went to the doctor to get tested for flu. The doctor tested them for COVID and, surprise,
they both came back "positive." No test for flu. So, 2 new "COVID cases" and perhaps another
"COVID" death. Meanwhile flu deaths have dropped off the chart for the season.
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis 3 hours ago
And this is how the imbecile Biden and his ilk will claim 'victory' over the vid. They
chose 'cases' as the benchmark so they'll simply change how a 'case' is defined all the while
hiding behind the 'science' while never citing the 'science' or explaining why their cherry
picked 'science' is valid.
How interesting that 'science' has now been transformed by those that desire to 'rule'
into religious mystery. It must be believed, never questioned, you are guilty of something
and therefore must self-regulate, but they'll provide absolution.
idontcare 2 hours ago (Edited)
Truth if you consider that only 6% of the 277K+ deaths have been categorized as CV19
deaths without co-morbidities according to the CDC's own data. My # just uses the total # of
"reported deaths" ("w/ CV" not necessarily "from CV") accdg to the CDC.
Patrick Bateman Jr. 1 hour ago
I just divided 260,000 by 350 million. My math might be off. But that 99.999 stretches out
even farther into the 9's if we take out the Covid deaths with co-morbidities and use the
6%.
We are destroying an entire way of life and allowing the media, state, and others to
dictate our behavior in our homes over a stronger variant of the flu that has virtually no
chance of killing us. You can go mad thinking about it too much
ThePub'Lick_Hare 2 hours ago
Time for every state to follow Florida by class action suit. This farce has gone on too
long. Kudos to Florida for taking the initiative. Now at last people can ask relevant
questions and insist on proper protocol. The Portuguese High Court saw false COVID testing
for what it is, the spark and flame of a reign of terror. Time to douse the flames and the
douche-bags inflaming the scam-demic.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 3 hours ago (Edited)
Lowering the test magnification nation wide would be a brilliant covid rescue plan for
whoever wins the presidency.
daveO 3 hours ago
Whoever wins the presidency is not running this SCAMDEMIC. But, yes, they will do it by
spring.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 2 hours ago (Edited)
" Whoever wins the presidency " Will get the credit.
Agree, covid hysteria is being controlled by some group more powerful than our
president.
deFLorable hillbilly 2 hours ago (Edited)
Ron DeSantis is the best governor, by far, in any of the 57 states.
He is fearless and pro-American.
PS- I forgot about Noem in SD. It’s a tie. That chick rocks red, white and blue
too.
LiberateUS 2 hours ago (Edited)
#3 .Desantis is extremely knowledgeable about the pcr test, extremely intelligent, and a
person of integrity. C 19 is just another annual flu that affects only already sick or very
elderly people. He knows that, and using CT of 25 or lower will reveal only people who have a
virus load that will cause symptoms and illness. Those are the people that need medical
attention. Everyone has small virus particles in their bloodstream, which are harmless.
Vaccines inject viruses into your bloodstream.
bustdriver 2 hours ago
"Approximately 150,000 people die every day, worldwide. That’s 52 million people
that have died so far this year. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number 1 cause of
death globally, taking an estimated 17.9 million lives each year. Close to 800,000 people die
due to suicide every year, which is one person every 40 seconds.
Coronavirus has killed 1.5 million people worldwide so far this year.
Perhaps this can offer a little perspective"
fackbankz 2 hours ago
I bet you'll see a marked decrease in deaths from CVDs in 2020 because a lot of them are
being blamed on Covid-1984.
If you are generally aware, the PCR test is used to amplify small amount of genetic
material so as to recognize patterns of DNA by "cycling." (Also, for RNA virus, the RNA is
converted to DNA in order to be detected, it's just the way the test works) This is how we
have been able to recognize the genomes in Egyptian mummies and Wooly Mammoths. It works
because if you amplify and cycle enough times to "grow" legitimate DNA fragments, you get
something with with a fair amount of specificity. W hat is becoming more and more apparent is
that the PCR test was not designed as a diagnostic tool for infection, and really cannot
function as one without having a huge amount of false positives, period.
When it comes to COVID, the presence of viral particles picked up by the PCR technique
does not and has not been quantitatively linked to an active "symptomatic" infection. It
simply cannot be so, because infection threshold as a result of viral load is different for
each patient. It turns out, if you "cycle" over around 25 times, the false positivity of
COVID infection starts getting very high.
I and others have explained in blogs how people can be exposed to virus, and mount a
simple innate immune response and never know any differently. When you test these people with
very low viral loads, who are not sick, you can find the viral RNA code that is used to
"diagnose" if you cycle enough times. The last I read, Labcorp cycles at least 40 times to
detect viral genome fragments. The PCR test was never intended for diagnosis of infection but
as a qualitative test for presence of parts of a virus genome. I know there has been some
confusion circulating the net about what the inventor Kary Mullis had said about that. But we
walk daily with people who have any number of parts of killer virus or bacterial genomes
which one could pick up with a PCR test if one had the specific test for it. Would we claim
that that individual was an infected patient? No!
So given all that, PeakProsperity's Chris
Martenson explains below , in great details, the answer to the most important question you
should ask if you or a loved one gets a positive PCR test result .
"What's the Cycle Threshold (CT) value for that test?"
Sounds wonky but it's actually really important to understand. A low CT value means someone
is loaded with virus. A high value, oppositely, means less of a viral load.
Beyond a certain level the load is insufficient to either infect someone else or be of any
clinical or epidemiological relevance whatsoever.
The problem? Governments all over the country and world are basing their decisions on CT
values that are very high. Too high.
Jon Rappoport (excellent blog) nails it in some of his recent posts.
.
"July 16, 2020, podcast, 'This Week in Virology': Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the
PCR Covid test is useless and misleading when the test is run at '35 cycles or higher.' A
positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.
"Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci's key quote: ' If you get [perform the
test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more the chances of it being replication-competent [aka
accurate] are miniscule you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result]
from a 37 threshold cycle even 36 '
"Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be
wrongly interpreted as relevant.
"That's called a false positive.
"What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public
use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.
"Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly
participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because millions of Americans are being
told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and
"The total number of Covid cases in America -- which is based on the test -- is a gross
falsity.
"The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case
numbers.
play_arrow
GenuineAmerican 3 hours ago
Fauci has lied again the PCR maximum cycle for a accurate test results is 25 NOT 35. PCR
is run, or should be run at 21-25 cycles everything else will give a false positive. Had a
friend in Scottsdale MAYO. I had to go to this god-forsaken place to get him out. They were
running the PCR at 42 cycles to keep him in the hospital because he had very, very good UNION
insurance!! The health industries are all crooks, lying to people to get more money being
paid to the orgainizations by the feds.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 7 hours ago
IQ tests were always seriously flawed, just like the PCR test
U.S TOTAL DEATHS
2015: 2,602,000
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,649,000
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,909,000
According to usalivestats(dot)com, there are 2,486,700 so far this year. There could be a lag
in reports, but I doubt enough to fulfill their doomsday claims. The CDC still admits only 6%
of these "COVID" are without 2 or more comorbidities, so that's about 25,000 or so. This is a
mild flu season. Here are the recent flu numbers:
FLU DEATHS 2010's
2010: 36,656
2011: 12,447
2012: 42,570
2013: 37,930
2014: 51,376
2015: 22,705
2016: 38,230
2017: 61,099
2018: 34,157
choctaw charley 5 hours ago remove link
so what's the purpose behind the bogus plandemic. In order to institute a one world
plantation several things have to happen. Foremost is the sense of "nationhood". a nation can
be thought of as modeled on the family unit. We look similar, we share religious beliefs,
economic and political views and we have a common history which we take pride in. We trust
rely on and help another. If you have half a brain you don't need me to describe how all
these are under attack. So how does the plandemic play into this? Yesterday you neighbor was
your neighbor. Today he is behind a mask because the government tells you that he is a threat
to you and your family and you to his! The plandemic was used to to hugely expand the mail-in
ballot fraud further driving in the wedge suspicion. Then there is this: when you get your
covid test there will be a permanent file created with your name on it. It will contain your
genetic code and the test result. this will become the social register that is all over
Europe. Get a traffic ticket; late in making a payment; engage in disapproved political
activity as I am doing at this moment? All these will find their way into your file and will
in the future determine the rate you pay on your home mortgage whether you can be employed in
a government job, what you have to endure to board a commercial aircraft etc. There is also a
great likelihood that contained in the vaccine will be a tracking component. Consider also
population segment most vulnerable to covid: older retired people drawing on an already
bankrupt social security ponzi scheme. Hitler referred to these as "Useless Eaters". He had a
system in place to rid society of these. Later these faciliries were expanded to include the
Jewish population.
flyonmywall 9 hours ago
I've done lots of PCR in my life. If you have to do over 35 cycles to detect or amplify
something, you're probably barking up the wrong tree or there is something wrong with your
assay.
Once you ramp up the cycles to past 35-40 cycles, you're just amplifying non-specific
competing amplification products, of which there are always some.
You could have the best designed primers in the world, there is always some random ****
that happens to get amplified at high cycle counts.
Zero-Hegemon 4 hours ago
False positives are beneficial for obtaining COVID money and creating hysteria.
KimAsa 9 hours ago (Edited)
these psychopaths have redesignated the normal course of annual deaths from heart disease,
and other common ailments that old people die from, to Covid 19, to create the illusion of a
deadly pandemic. they claim to have isolated this virus out of one side of their mouth, out
the the other side they claim it has mutated (how many times?) so can't produce proof that
this virus even exists. and out of their ******* they claim to have developed a vaccine?
this is and always has been about the vaccinating the public for free moral agency
prevention.
Ride_the_kali_yuga 9 hours ago
Covid "tests" are an efficient way to feed the false pandemic narrative with nonsensical
numbers of "contaminations". Masks are a mark of submission.
africoman 9 hours ago
Re-posting someone's comment from this article
Here
If the masks work -- Why the six feet?
If the six feet works -- Why the masks?
If both of the above work -- Why the lockdowns?
If all three of the above work -- Why the vaccine?
If the vaccine is safe -- Why protect it with a no liability clause?
If the vaccine is safe---Why not test it on animals first before using it on
humans?
If SARS-CoV-2 exists -- Why has it never been isolated?
If SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated -- How can an effective vaccine be
developed?
If the RT-PCR test works -- Why so many false positives?
If Kary Mullis, the inventor of the RT-PCR test who conveniently died in August 2019,
says his test shouldn't be used to diagnose infectious diseases -- Why use it to detect
SARS-CoV-2?
If there is an epidemic---Why so many empty hospitals?
If large numbers of people are dying from SARS-CoV-2---Why so many fake causes of death
on death certificates?
If SARS-CoV-2 exists -- Why give doctors financial incentives to diagnose
SARS-CoV-2?
If the official COVID-19 narrative is defensible -- Why censor people who dispute this
narrative?
by John Wear, (retired) lawyer, accountant, and author.
Excellent points, now let's threw a monkey wrench in it to the Operation Warp Speed
play_arrow
Schooey 6 hours ago
Its all BS
KimAsa 9 hours ago (Edited)
these psychopaths have redesignated the normal course of annual deaths from heart disease,
and other common ailments that old people die from, to Covid 19, to create the illusion of a
deadly pandemic. they claim to have isolated this virus out of one side of their mouth, out
the the other side they claim it has mutated (how many times?) so can't produce proof that
this virus even exists. and out of their ******* they claim to have developed a vaccine?
this is and always has been about the vaccinating the public for free moral agency
prevention.
Ms No 8 hours ago
They actually murdered people with the lockdown too though. Knowingly and
premeditated...certainly some of those were also declared covid.
smacker 8 hours ago
" this is and always has been about the vaccinating the public "
Correct.
That has become clear. What we are only now slowing learning is what the sinister motive
is.
kellys_eye 9 hours ago
Is the test for Covid or Covid-19. Can it tell the difference? The 'normal' flu and
influenza are both corona viruses and this is the 'high season' for such cases in the
Northern hemisphere.
Strangely (or not) the incidence of actual flu and influenza are suspiciously MUCH lower
than they should be.
Ergo - tests that prove 'positive' for Covid are likely either false OR reporting on the
flu/influenza.
The LIES keep mounting and mounting.
Harry Tools 5 hours ago
there is no pandemic
RedNeckMother 3 hours ago
I will add another: FDA: 40 recommendation for testing
And let's not forget the comments by Fauci that if they're testing at 35 they're going to
get a lot of false positives.
There's an attorney in Ohio who has filed a FOI to obtain all the ct levels used by the
labs testing in Ohio. It will be very interesting once that is revealed - I'm sure our
governor already knows the answer. If I recall, the NYT itself did an article on this very
topic awhile back and estimated that 90% of the positive results in CT and NY were bogus. And
going from 40 to 35 I believe reduces positives by 63%.
We're being played.
MoreFreedom 5 hours ago remove link
Dr. Martenson's videos are very good. He's clear.
As for "the science" and scientists, we all make mistakes. If we didn't make mistakes, we
wouldn't have scientists pointing out other scientist's mistakes. But it's not a question of
whose science is correct, it's that science is no excuse for taking away peoples'
liberty.
SRV 7 hours ago
The inventor of the test (Dr Kary Mullis) was very outspoken that it was NOT developed for
human virus confirmation...he died of cancer just weeks before the first Covid cases
(hmmmm).
The test procedure was developed as a screening tool in lab research, and he won a Nobel
Prize for it!
It's in your face proof of the scam we're all being subjected to that almost no one ever
questioned (brilliant move really)... ONE cycle above 35 (each cycle doubles the
amplification) will explode the the false positives.
And... if you have no symptoms you DO NOT have the virus (remember how much play the
"asymptomatic" BS story got early on... another psyop). Notice how none of the athletes never
get sick and are back in two weeks... yet it's never questioned by a soul paid to look the
other way!
smacker 9 hours ago
" What is becoming more and more apparent is that the PCR test was not designed
as a diagnostic tool for infection, and really cannot function as one without having
a huge amount of false positives, period. "
This is not knew and didn't need to become "more and more apparent".
The inventor of the PCR test Kary Mullis is on video record stating it. Sadly his
expert
knowledge has been wilfully ignored by the political elites and countless talking heads
and "experts" because it doesn't suit them and didn't fit their agenda.
It's time to prepare the gallows and stock up with rope.
smacker 7 hours ago remove link
The PCR test is used precisely because it can be manipulated to produce as many "cases" as
wanted.
Just turn the dial up on "amplification cycles" and hey presto, you get as many positives
as you want.
The cases are not genuine cases but simply PCR positive tests, but are reported as "cases"
and then
"infections" by MSM who are "In On It".
The idea is "FEAR Management" which allows draconian CovID rules like lockdowns and tiers
and
social distancing to be introduced which accustoms people to being managed and
controlled.
It then ramps up demand for vaccines which is the ultimate objective. Initially (or soon
after), the
vaccines will contain nano-technology - dust-chips - which will be used for surveillance and
control.
Some say they will also contain ingredients to render people infertile (ie population
control).
We are seeing in plain sight the biggest coup ever against mankind.
It must be stopped.
smacker 7 hours ago remove link
The PCR test is used precisely because it can be manipulated to produce as many "cases" as
wanted.
Just turn the dial up on "amplification cycles" and hey presto, you get as many positives
as you want.
The cases are not genuine cases but simply PCR positive tests, but are reported as "cases"
and then
"infections" by MSM who are "In On It".
The idea is "FEAR Management" which allows draconian CovID rules like lockdowns and tiers
and
social distancing to be introduced which accustoms people to being managed and
controlled.
It then ramps up demand for vaccines which is the ultimate objective. Initially (or soon
after), the
vaccines will contain nano-technology - dust-chips - which will be used for surveillance and
control.
Some say they will also contain ingredients to render people infertile (ie population
control).
We are seeing in plain sight the biggest coup ever against mankind.
A Japanese research team said Wednesday that it has detected neutralizing antibodies in 98%
of people six months after they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Another study performed in the
UK found that antibodies found evidence that antibody
levels start to degrade within six months.
The team, led by Yokohama City University professor Takeharu Yamanaka, is already planning
to conduct a follow-up study to see whether these people will still have such antibodies a year
after their infections.
But in the survey data released Wednesday, researcher checked blood samples from 376 people
who had already recovered - the largest study of its type in Japan. The samples were collected
six months after the patients were infected.
According to a report on the study published by Nippon, Yamanaka said that "in general,
people with neutralizing antibodies are believed to carry a low risk of reinfection...This
gives some hope" for the effectiveness of the vaccines that are soon to be delivered to the
public.
As the west prepares to roll out the first wave of COVID-19 vaccinations, scientists will be
watching closely for more data to try an ascertain whether COVID-19 can truly be defeated, or
whether it might morph into a flu-like seasonal infection.
By Peter Andrews , Irish science journalist and writer based in London. He has a
background in the life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in
genetics A peer review of the paper on which most Covid testing is based has
comprehensively debunked the science behind it, finding major flaws. They conclude it's utterly
unsuitable as a means for diagnosis – and the fall-out is immense.
Last week, I reported on a landmark ruling from
Portugal, where a court had ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally
confined four people to a hotel this summer. They had done so because one of the people had
tested positive for Covid in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – but the court had
found the test fundamentally flawed and basically inadmissible.
Now the PCR testing supremacy under which we all now live has received another crushing
blow. A peer review from
a group of 22 international experts has found 10 "major flaws" in the main protocol for such
tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study , called the
Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting
Covid.
The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being
submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in
history. What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70
percent of Covid kits worldwide. It's cheap, fast – and absolutely useless.
Among the fatal flaws
that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:
is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design
is enormously variable
cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments
has no positive or negative controls
has no standard operating procedure
does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed
Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it
gets worse. As has been noted previously , no
threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles,
almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to
some
studies.
The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at
least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of
Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of
them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing!
The 22 members of the consortium that has challenged this shoddy science
deserve huge credit. The scientists, from Europe, the USA, and Japan, comprise senior molecular
geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, with many decades of experience
between them.
They have issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper, writing:
" Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident
that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the
publication. '' Talk about putting the pressure on.
It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about
the Covid orthodoxy relies on 'case numbers', which are largely the results of the now
widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are
being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely
to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who
asserts that, in the
UK, there is no 'second wave' and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the
PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the
contrary.
Why was this paper rushed to publication in January, despite clearly not meeting proper
standards? Why did none of the checks and balances that are meant to prevent bad science
dictating public policy kick into action? And why did it take so long for anyone in the
scientific community to challenge its faulty methodology? These questions lead to dark
ruminations, which I will save for another day.
Even more pressing is the question of what is going to be done about this now. The people
responsible for writing and publishing the paper have to be held accountable. But also, all PCR
testing based on the Corman-Drosten protocol should be stopped with immediate effect. All those
who are so-called current 'Covid cases', diagnosed based on that protocol, should be told they
no longer have to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and 'infection rates'
should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry. And lockdowns, shutdowns, and other
restrictions should be urgently reviewed and relaxed.
Because this latest blow to PCR testing raises the probability that we are not enduring a
killer virus pandemic, but a false positive pseudo-epidemic. And one on which we are destroying
our economies, wrecking people's livelihoods and causing more deaths than Covid-19 will ever
claim.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
-reclusive Israeli billionaire, Vivi Nevo, who sounds from the write-up like a latter
day Jeffrey Epstein replacement figure
-use of covid rt-Pcr tests in US under ulterior motives as a HIPPA dodge to mass-collect
DNA for Big data/Big tracking and other purposes.
The PCR test, DNA harvesting and false positives
The validity of the PCR tests in diagnosing Covid-19 has been the subject of much
scientific discussion with a growing number of medical experts and analysts dismissing
the PCR test as unreliable and inconclusive due to the high percentage of false
positives. It is also claimed that this widespread DNA collection under the pretext of
Covid-19 could be a covert genetic information harvest on the pretext of extracting viral
DNA from all the genetic material.
I spoke with a medical expert who will remain anonymous for security reasons and he
informed me that the PCR test is "not designed to diagnose disease." He told me:
"The test identifies a genetic sequence being present in a sample and then copies
it, thereby increasing the amount of genetic material. Each test cycle copies and
increases the genetic material. A specific amount of GM is required to meet a threshold
of detection. The test will keep copying until it is possible to say the virus is
"detected". Therein lies the problem. After "Covid" infection, when the virus has been
removed by the immune system, some viral genetic debris can remain for many months. A
tiny fragment viral, genetic material debris will be found and multiplied by many, many
cycles until the detection threshold is reached. This is a false positive."
He informed me that most labs are running upwards of 40 cycles. "In at least 4
examples of RT PCR testing in the US, it was found that 90% of the positive tests were
actually false."
He also told me "the real reason they are pushing the testing is control. They want a
rapid test to be used every day, multiple times per day to gain entry to school, work,
restaurants, entertainment centres etc. It is conditioning."
The sinister question is whether all this genetic DNA information is passed on to
undisclosed entities for "research purposes" without the patient's knowledge.
By Peter Andrews , Irish science journalist and writer based in London. He has a
background in life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in
genetics. Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one
was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the
widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.
Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the
forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be unlawful. The case centred on the reliability (or
lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.
The
verdict , delivered on November 11, followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus
filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority. This body had been
appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who
claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists
were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for
coronavirus in a PCR test - the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore made to
quarantine as well.
Unreliable, with a strong chance of false positives
The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that
the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by
confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can "diagnose"
someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed
by one.
They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test,
the most commonly used check for Covid.
The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: "In view of current
scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt
that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2
virus."
In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The
two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, "the test's reliability
depends on the number of cycles used'' and that "the test's reliability depends on the
viral load present.'' In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR
testing.
Tested positive? There could be as little as a 3% chance it's correct
This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be
aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are
performed, or the 'cycle threshold.' This number in most American and European labs is
35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35
cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles.
(Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).
Earlier this year, data from three US
states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the
virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive
could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the
virus.
The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by "some of the leading European and world
specialists," which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that
if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that
person actually being infected is less than three percent, and that "the probability of
receiving a false positive is 97% or higher."
While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese labs was
unknown, they took this as further proof that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The
implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated
that there was "no way this court would ever be able to determine" whether the tourist
who tested positive was indeed a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed
to it.
It is a sad indictment of our mainstream media that such a landmark ruling, of such obvious
and pressing international importance, has been roundly ignored. If one were making (flimsy)
excuses for them, one could say that the case escaped the notice of most science editors
because it has been published in Portuguese. But there is a full
English translation of the appeal, and alternative media managed
to pick it up.
And it isn't as if Portugal is some remote, mysterious nation where news is unreliable or
whose judges are suspect – this is a western EU country with a large population and a
similar legal system to many other parts of Europe. And it is not the only country whose
institutions are clashing with received wisdom on Covid. Finland's national health authority
has
disputed the WHO's recommendation to test as many people as possible for coronavirus,
saying it would be a waste of taxpayer's money, while poorer South East Asian countries are
holding off on ordering
vaccines, citing an improper use of finite resources.
Testing, especially PCR testing, is the basis for the entire house of cards of Covid
restrictions that are wreaking havoc worldwide. From testing comes case numbers. From case
numbers come the 'R number,' the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the 'dreaded' R
number comes the lockdowns and the restrictions, such as England's new and baffling tiered
restrictions that come into force next week.
The daily barrage of statistics is familiar to us all by this point, but as time goes on the
evidence that something may be deeply amiss with the whole foundation of our reaction to this
pandemic – the testing regime – continues to mount
The First World is leaving the "sweet spot" of its capitalist development stage, marked by
a relatively inflated petit-bourgeois middle class, and is reentering a proletarianization
phase. Call it the reproletarianization of the First World.
@ Posted by: Debsisdead | Nov 27 2020 1:35 utc | 69
You didn't read the link I provided. I'll recap:
1) Western Big Pharma "forgot" how to develop new vaccines over these last decades because
they're not profitable. That opened the gates for Gamaleya to occupy the sector, therefore
dominating the main technology used today, human adenovirus; (see Dmitriev's "forbidden
op-ed").
Proof of this is J&J's difficulty in developing a simple human adenovirus vaccine (by the
time they finish theirs, we'll already have billions of Sputnik V and Sinovac doses
produced). The reason we still don't have an effective cold vaccine is because we don't have
enough investment, not because it is impossible;
2) Sputnik V and Sinovac (and other Chinese variants) use a known, tested and tried
technology for their vaccines - human adenovirus -, while Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca use
untested and untried technologies (mRNA and chimpanzee adenovirus). It is the difference
between the known and the unknown, except that this time hundreds of millions of human lives
are at the table. We suspect the Western pharmaceuticals are resorting to these exotic
technologies because they want something they can patent and sell at monopolistic prices to
national governments; (see Dmitriev's "forbidden op-ed" and his "questions")
3) mRNA technology is only effective theoretically. In the real world, it potentially has
devastating effects on the human body. It is already known it can potentially cause
infertility. It very likely has carcinogenic properties; (see Dmitriev's "questions")
4) chimpanzee adenovirus technology doesn't make any sense when you already have a viable
human adenovirus option. Besides the fact that it can cause more adverse effects on a human
(because the virus is strange to the human organism), the doctor I linked raised the question
of contamination when extracting the adenovirus from the chimpanzees (contamination rate of
10%, or one in ten). It also cause sever spinal cord inflammation - contrary to the official
version in much more than one patient. It also probably killed a healthy 28-year old subject
in the Brazilian trials (the Brazilian MSM initially "leaked" he was on the placebo group;
later even this version was put into doubt)
5) silver bullet vaccines are very rare (e.g. polio). Most likely scenario, these vaccines
will just shield you from a severe case of COVID-19, thus relieving the pressure over the
national healthcare systems. Deaths of COVID-19 only begin to pile up exponentially after the
limit of the healthcare system is surpassed (Italy). That's the "line of death", after which
COVID-19 really begins to ravage entire populations. In this scenario, it doesn't make any
sense not to go with the tried and tested technology of human adenovirus, over which Gamaleya
has primacy, or, second best, the Chinese vaccines, which will be produced the most because
China has manufacture supremacy. In the Russian and Chinese options, you have the choice
between the best and the most available - a common decision any working class family takes
daily in the free market for the purchase of their goods;
6) AstraZeneca will still have privileges in the British market. Evidence of this is the
British MSM being the first to publish the fake news that it had 90% efficacy, while the
American MSM went with the 70% figure. Make no mistakes: the AstraZeneca will be the only
option in the NHS for the British people, with or without transverse myelitis;
7) The "half dose" mistake simply doesn't happen in the Big Pharma. It is simply not
believable. The story is clearly a pathetic attempt of the British to create a comparison
with the story of the penicillin discovery (by a British scientist), which also happened by
accident. There wasn't half dose and, even if that really happened (the doctors involved
should be immediately fired), you would be giving credence to the homeopathy thesis, which
states the lower the dose, the stronger the effect. Doesn't make any sense.
AstraZeneca, by the way, is already feeling the heat. It will have to redo its trials
because nobody was born yesterday:
Interesting read from F William Engdahl who takes a deeper look at the Pfizer
vaccine
Suspicious events
However it seems Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, doesn't share the confidence of his
own claims. On the day his company issued its press release on the proposed vaccine
trials, he sold 62% of his stock in Pfizer, making millions profit in the deal. He made
the sell order in a special option in August so it would not appear as "insider selling",
however he also timed it just after the US elections and the mainstream media
illegitimately declared Joe Biden President-elect.
It seems from appearances that Bourla had a pretty clear conflict of interest in the
timing of his press release on the same day.
It appears the Outlaw US Empire has put all its chips on the table in favor of vaccines
providing the path to "normalcy" :
"US Covid-19 vaccinations may begin as soon as December 11, reach enough people for
return to normalcy in May – program chief."
When was it determined that the two potential vaccines on offer have "efficacy rates of
about 95 percent" since the reports posted here were extremely dubious about them being
effective at all? More:
"An FDA vaccine advisory committee is scheduled to meet on December 10 and may grant
Pfizer's request for emergency use authorization that day, Dr. Moncef Slaoui said on Sunday
during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. The Trump administration stands ready to ship
the vaccine to immunization sites in all 50 states within 24 hours, he said, so the first
doses would be administered to recipients on December 11 or December 12."
As for a vaccine being a panacea, this is from the editorial I linked @56:
"The US has made certain breakthroughs in vaccine development, but so have China, Russia
and other countries. The US' attitude toward vaccines seems much too optimistic. As WHO
Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on November 16, ' A vaccine will
complement the other tools we have, not replace them a vaccine on its own will not end the
pandemic .'" [My Emphasis]
So yet again, the USA's citizenry is being told by the two institutions it trusts the
least--federal government and media--that the End is Near IF they imbibe the new
Miracle.
Gilead's remdesivir is not recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, regardless
of how ill they are, as there is no evidence the drug improves survival or reduces the need for
ventilation, a World Health Organization panel said on Friday.
As researchers struggle to understand what makes infection with COVID-19 so mild in some
cases, and so deadly in others, we have kept a close eye out for any new links between symptoms
different strains of the virus. And on Wednesday we noticed new comments from South Australia's
top health official who warned that a particularly deadly strain of SARS-CoV-2 is circulating
in the state.
Chief Health Officer Professor Nicola Spurrier explained that the reason for the recently
imposed six-day lockdown is the fact that "this particular strain has had certain
characteristics" she said.
The State of South Australia,
which became home to this dramatic scene yesterday , is also bracing for the risk that this
new strain could spread more quickly, in addition to being more deadly. Professor Spurrier said
a typical generation, or stage, of the virus was only about three days.
"We also know, because of that characteristic, that what we call a generation, is only
about three days and a generation is when one case is passing it on to the next level, and
then that (next) level, so if they pass it on to two people, they will pass it on to another
lot of people, and that is your third generation," she said.
Already, the virus has progressed to the fifth generation, she said.
"At the moment in SA we have done contact tracing to the fourth generation but the fifth
generation is out there in our community and at the moment we are contact tracing to get on
to that generation and that is the Woodville pizza bar."
Authorities have traced the local outbreak to a pizza shop in Parafield. The cluster began
with a worker at Peppers Warmouth, which is being used as a quarantine hotel, was infected with
the virus.
Covid-19 is a dangerous disease and I take precautions to protect myself. However, the
public depiction of the disease in the media and the actions being taken by most
governments cannot but raise some very serious questions.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Nov 1 2020 18:14 utc | 16
Based on this data, the ECDC should publish a weekly map of EU member states, broken down
by regions, to support member states in their decision-making. Areas should be marked in
the following colours:
green if the 14-day notification rate is lower than 25 and the test positivity rate
below 4%
orange if the 14-day notification rate is lower than 50 but the test positivity
rate is 4% or higher or, if the 14-day notification rate is between 25 and150 and the
test positivity rate is below 4%
red if the 14-day notification rate is 50 or higher and the test positivity rate is
4% or higher or if the 14-day notification rate is higher than 150
grey if there is insufficient information or if the testing rate is lower than
300
You will notice how the measures to be taken by individual countries are absolutely (as
in 100%) dependent on the worst metric possible according to the demonstrated
performance of rtPCR tests. We are being recommended to use the wrong metric! None of us
wishes any of our health systems to collapse, however their occupancy objectively varies
with the cumulative individual immune response of the population NOT with the
precariously measured transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 via rtPCR tests. Remember that the
only reason we are worried about virus transmissibility is because of eventual severe
developments of the disease in a fraction of the population and a possible breakdown of
health systems as a consequence.
The relevant failure of rtPCR testing is its inability to estimate accurately the viral
load (let's not put in question the assumption that viral load is the most important
criteria for a severe development of C-19, while also leaving aside aggravating
comorbidities). rtPCR testing, under the current state of knowledge, is the equivalent of
measuring a patient's temperature with a thermometer but no doctor knows the average body
temperature, and its natural healthy interval, nor would the thermometer provide a number
on a scale, merely reporting that a patient has something other than "0". This would
constitute a USELESS thermometer.
From the same recommendation as above, quote:
Free movement restrictions
Member states should not restrict the free movement of persons travelling to or from
green areas. [LOL - great opening, they know full well under these criteria there will be
barely any in the next months]
If considering whether to apply restrictions, they should respect the differences in
the epidemiological situation between orange and red areas and act in a proportionate
manner. They should also take into account the epidemiological situation in their own
territory.
Member states should in principle not refuse entry to persons travelling from other
member states. Those member states that consider it necessary to introduce restrictions
could require persons travelling from non-green areas to:
undergo quarantine
undergo a test after arrival
Member states may offer the option of replacing this test with a test carried out
before arrival.
Member states could also require persons entering their territory to submit passenger
locator forms. A common European passenger locator form should be developed for possible
common use.
"Test, test, test" remember? The above simply becomes arbitrary according to the
criteria defined. This is not policy based on solid science! Such arbitrary policies
usually serve unstated purposes (I'll refrain here to expand on those) while throwing some
false pretext to the masses in order to seek their consent, exploiting their limited
ability to validate the pretext as legitimate science.
So then... what could be a valid metric that allows us to prevent "eventual severe
developments of the disease and a possible breakdown of health systems"? This is the
question we should be asking! Myself, I would be satisfied, in substitution of rtPCR
testing, with the use of new Hospitalizations, ICU and even Deaths as much better metrics,
since these are true fractions of the disease development against any population and even
allow to calibrate for its health system performance, much less vulnerable to duplications
and false positive accounting.
rtPCR testing is absolutely absurd for the purposes it is being used (ie. country wide
government response policy), instead of being limited to clinical diagnostic tool of the
individual suspect of some respiratory disease to be used by a qualified practitioner, and,
at best, a screening tool to get a handle on local outbreaks (schools, workplaces,
residences, etc).
Hanging on this fallacy lies the destruction of most western economies and an ominous
verge into the police state, neither are overstatements given what we have seen so far.
Thanks for the link, Jen. But it's not that a PCR test cannot detect a SARS-cov2
virus. The problem is that there is no standardized and validated PCR test for detecting
SARS-Cov2 virus. I believe in Germany alone there are 200+ variations of the test currently
being used.
My concerns about the remaining four points remain.
@ Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 1 2020 23:49 utc | 56
Thanks for adding additional meat to my argument, including the issue with "viral load",
which together with the state of the immune system of the host will decide whether or not
an infected person will get sick. PCR can be extremely sensitive but that's only part of
the picture.
And as I have mentioned in my response to Jen I am yet to find good answers to my
remaining the 4 points in my first post (#16)
If this is humor, this is very dark humor. The saddest thing of all in this is that very
little of Glenn's excellent article is new. One of Donald Trump's presidency greatest
accomplishment has been to show me how the main stream media 'plays' its dirty games... The
entire mainstream media collectively abandoned its integrity during the last decade.
It's beyond what Orwell could have ever possibly imagined. Targeted gaslighting on an
individual basis using social media to brainwash people into believing whatever they want you
to believe?
I just paid for an annual subscription out of a total frustration with the current
outrageous, unfair, evil and dishonest media situation in the US (and elsewhere also).
Totalitarism is approaching and I have decided to participate in the fight against the
threatening darkness. Good luck.
Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and
mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify "positive"
patients, whereby "positive" is usually equated with "infected."
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless
as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called
SARS-CoV-2.
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test."
The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by
Reuters and the BBC
.
Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the Heute j ournal -- one of the most
important news magazines on German television -- was passing the mantra of the corona dogma
on to his audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test -- that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really
understand how much the coronavirus is spreading."
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it
equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the
Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a
manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of
times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19
patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard
to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness
-- strictly speaking their "sensitivity"[1] and "specificity" -- by comparison with a "gold
standard," meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But
as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an
ABC TV interview in an answer to
the question "How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?" :
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we've already
got blood cultures, that's our gold standard we've been using for decades, and we could
match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don't have a gold standard test."
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper "Interpreting a COVID-19 test
result" , published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that
there is a "lack of such a clear-cut 'gold-standard' for COVID-19 testing."
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19
diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and
purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that,
"pragmatically" COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, "may
be the best available 'gold standard'." But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the
gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for
COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of
Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal
Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis --
contrary to Watson's statement -- cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold
standard.
In addition, "experts" such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an
unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis "may be the best available gold
standard," if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the
virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn't be the best available/possible gold standard.
But she hasn't answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has
not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the
same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd : "I will
try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance."
No proof for the RNA being of viral origin
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know
where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus
researchers such as Luc
Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state , particle purification -- i.e. the separation of an
object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie
Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende --
is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that
the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even
the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA -- but it cannot determine where these particles came from
. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences
because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets
are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the
presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the
context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in
vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with "yes" -- and NB., nobody said
purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like "No, we did not obtain an
electron micrograph showing the degree of purification" (see below).
We asked several study authors "Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?",
they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. "Emergence of a novel human coronavirus
threatening human health" Nature Medicine , March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified
virus."
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. "Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in
Korea with COVID-19", Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives , February
2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and
concentrate the virus cultured in cells."
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. "Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in
Korea", Journal of Korean Medical Science , February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of
purification."
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., "A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China",
2019, New England Journal of Medicine , February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: "[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones."
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs
(EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could
have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not
show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be
viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term "isolation"
in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation
(purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term "isolation" is misused).
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new
coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like
particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the
existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001,
Science published an "impassioned plea to the younger generation" from several
veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction [ ] tell little
or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people
sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his
fingerprint."[3]
And that's why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2
has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one."[4]
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the
scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for
which the PCR tests are finally being "calibrated," belong to a specific virus -- in this
case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent
of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus
isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an
experiment that satisfies the four Koch's postulates. But there is no such experiment, as
Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei
recently revealed for OffGuardian .
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least
by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they
have done it, in reality, did not succeed.
One example is a study published in Nature
on May 7 . This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not
meet any of the postulates.
For instance, the alleged "infected" laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical
symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should
actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the
slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are
negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also
because the weight went back to normal again.
Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies . And let's not
forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not
the case.
Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about
SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 -- the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé
(University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology),
the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg
Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) -- could answer
the following question I have sent them:
If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how
do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific
new virus?
Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that
are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can
"stress" the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were
not
previously detectable -- an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew
attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in
1983 .
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer
of Christian Drosten, Germany's most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor
to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be
"accepted" (
not validated! ) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.
But we didn't get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end,
we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
Regarding our question "Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate
particle purification was carried out?," the Charité concedes that they didn't use
purified particles.
And although they claim "virologists at the Charité are sure that they are
testing for the virus," in their paper ( Corman et
al. ) they state:
RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg,
Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden,
Germany),"
Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral .
Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn't even go
through a proper peer review process , nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied
by controls -- although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes
really solid.
Irrational rest results
It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without
widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is
independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational
test results.
For example, already in February the health authority in China's Guangdong province
reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test
"negative," and then
tested "positive" again .
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out
of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between
"negative", "positive" and
"dubious" .
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily
on 18 patients and the majority went from "positive" to "negative" back to "positive" at
least once, and up to five times in one
patient .
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February
that the PCR tests are
"only 30 to 50 per cent accurate" ; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular
Diagnostics Laboratory sent a l
etter to the WHO's coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020,
saying that:
It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse
Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens
are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real
positive cases."
In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a
viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded
scare among the "positive" people tested.
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly
"positive" (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the
virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of
people without disease in whom the test is correctly "negative" (a test with a specificity of
95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).
With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.
In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published
an article in which the PPV has been calculated with
three different prevalence scenarios .
The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible
to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because
the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by
Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.
But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct
and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches
Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have "a shockingly
low" PPV.
In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was
only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested "positive" are not
"positive" at all . Yet "they are prescribed quarantine," as even the Ärzteblatt notes
critically.
In a second scenario of the journal's article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is
assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the
"positive" tests are false "positives."
That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered
"positive" worldwide -- supposing that the true "positives" really have a viral infection --
we would get almost 2 million false "positives."
All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files
that the so-called "SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests" are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
positive results [ ] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other
viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."
Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not
intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by
Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[
5 ].
To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced
by TIB Molbiol -- which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol -- and
distributed by Roche we can read:
These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus
infection"
And:
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures."
Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the "viral load"?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even
detect the targeted
genes .
Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for
SARS-COV-2 it says they are
"qualitative" tests , contrary to the fact that the "q" in "qPCR" stands for
"quantitative." And if these tests are not "quantitative" tests, they don't show how many
viral particles are in the body .
That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real
world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral
particles actively replicating in their body.
That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure
the so-called
"viral load," i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. "But this has never been
proven. That is an enormous scandal," as the journalist
Jon Rappoport points out .
This is not only because the term "viral load" is deception. If you put the question "what
is viral load?" at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the
bloodstream. They're surprised to learn it's actually RNA molecules.
Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is "burdened"
with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out
(which has not yet happened):
You take, let's say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples
from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will
never know who the patients are and what condition they're in. The testers run their PCR on
the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they
found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of
what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because
they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick -- or are they
fit as a fiddle?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the
Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. --
the so-called "Drosten PCR
test" -- is a quantitative test.
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question "yes". Instead, the
Charité wrote:
If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases
these are [ ] limited to qualitative detection."
Furthermore, the "Drosten PCR test" uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary
assay , while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as
confirmatory assay .
According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses , while
the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled
"SARS-CoV-2".
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test
that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the
algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as "positive" even if just
the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses! )
gives a "positive" result .
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as
specific .
That change of algorithm increased the "case" numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are
produced for example by Roche
,
TIB Molbiol and
R-Biopharm .
High CQ values make the test results even more meaningless
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a "cycle quantification" (Cq) value
of over 35, and some, including the "Drosten PCR test", even have a Cq of 45.
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real
signal from biological samples.
"Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and
generally should not be reported," as it says in the MIQE guidelines
.
MIQE stands for "Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR
Experiments", a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for
evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something
seriously wrong with your PCR."
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin , Professor of Molecular
Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of
Quantitative PCR which has been called "the bible of qPCR."
In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that "the use of such arbitrary Cq
cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too
high (increasing false "positive" results)."
And, according to him, a Cq of 20 to 30 should be aimed at, and there is concern regarding
the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.
If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from
background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there
is a higher probability of false positives.
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual
PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be
converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase -- hence the "RT"
at the beginning of "PCR" or "qPCR."
But this transformation process is "widely recognized as inefficient and variable,"
as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto
and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019
paper .
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.
For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA
to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by
a factor of 10 (see above interview).
Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation
becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test's reliable informative
value.
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called
COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests -- even if they are
confronted with questions regarding their validity?
Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these
questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under
lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with
even a spark of scientific understanding.
Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a
decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has
financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal
showed in 2010 .
And
experts criticize"that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have
continued, even grown" since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is
obviously no better
off .
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act
in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not
in the least justify frightening people who have been tested "positive" and imposing lockdown
measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to
suicide.
And a "positive" result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because
then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with
highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with
pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article
"Fatal
Therapie."
Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the
lockdown measures, while the "COVID-19" death statistics comprise also patients who died of a
variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a "positive" test result whose
value could not be more doubtful.
Addendum: We thank Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Val Turner in particular who made
valuable contributions to the realization of this article.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to
your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Torsten Engelbrecht is an award-winning journalist and author from Hamburg, Germany. In
2006 he co-authored Virus-Mania with Dr Klaus Kohnlein, and in 2009 he won the German Alternate
Media Award . He has also written for Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times
Deutschland and many others.
Konstantin Demeter is a freelance photographer and an independent researcher. Together
with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the "COVID-19" crisis in
the online magazine Rubikon, as well as contributions on the monetary system, geopolitics,
and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers.
"... COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period. ..."
"... "Current data do not support long range aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as seen with measles or tuberculosis. Short-range inhalation of aerosols is a possibility for COVID-19, as with many respiratory pathogens. However, this cannot easily be distinguished from 'droplet' transmission based on epidemiologic patterns. Short-range transmission is a possibility particularly in crowded medical wards and inadequately ventilated spaces ." ..."
"... Kimberly A. Prather, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Atmospheric Chemistry, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. ..."
"... Linsey C Marr, PhD, Charles P. Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech. ..."
"... Donald K Milton, MD, DrPH, Professor of Environment Health at The University of Maryland School of Public Health. ..."
Right now, the CDC website does not acknowledge that aerosols typically spread SARS-CoV-2
beyond 6 feet, instead
saying :
" COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet)
for a prolonged period. Spread happens when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks,
and droplets from their mouth or nose are launched into the air and land in the mouths or
noses of people nearby. The droplets can also be inhaled into the lungs."
The site says that respiratory droplets can land on various surfaces, and people can become
infected from
touching those surfaces and then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. It goes on to say,
"Current data do not support long range aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as
seen with measles or tuberculosis. Short-range inhalation of aerosols is a possibility for
COVID-19, as with many respiratory pathogens. However, this cannot easily be distinguished
from 'droplet' transmission based on epidemiologic patterns. Short-range transmission is a
possibility particularly in crowded medical wards and inadequately ventilated
spaces ."
Confusion has surrounded the use of words like "aerosols" and "droplets" because they have
not been consistently defined. And the word "airborne" takes on special meaning for infectious
disease experts and public health officials because of the question of whether infection can be
readily spread by "airborne transmission." If SARS-CoV-2 is readily spread by airborne
transmission, then more stringent infection control measures would need to be adopted, as is
done with airborne diseases such as measles and tuberculosis. But the CDC has told CBS News
chief medical correspondent Dr. Jonathan LaPook that even if airborne spread is playing a role
with SARS-CoV-2, the role does not appear to be nearly as important as with airborne infections
like measles and tuberculosis.
All this may sound like wonky scientific discussion that is deep in the weeds -- and it is
-- but it has big implications as people try to figure out how to stay safe during the
pandemic. Some pieces of advice are intuitively obvious: wear a mask, wash your hands, avoid
crowds, keep your distance from others, outdoors is safer than indoors. But what about that "6
foot" rule for maintaining social distance? If the virus can travel indoors for distances
greater than 6 feet, isn't it logical to wear a mask
indoors whenever you are with people who are not part of your "pod" or "bubble?"
Understanding the basic science behind how SARS-CoV-2 travels through the air should help
give us strategies for staying safe. Unfortunately, there are still many open questions. For
example, even if aerosols produced by an infected person can float across a room, and even if
the aerosols contain some viable virus, how do we know how significant a role that possible
mode of transmission is playing in the pandemic?
Aerosols can be thought of as cigarette smoke. While they are most concentrated close to
someone who has the infection, they can travel farther than 6 feet, linger, build up in the air
and remain infectious for hours. As a consequence, to lessen the chance of inhaling this virus,
it is vital to take all of the following steps:
Indoors:
Practice physical distancing -- the farther the better.
Wear a face mask when you are with others, even when you can maintain physical
distancing. Face masks not only lessen the amount of virus coming from people who have the
infection, but also lessen the chance of you inhaling the virus.
Improve ventilation by opening windows. Learn how to clean the air effectively with
methods such as filtration.
Outdoors:
Wear a face mask if you cannot physically distance by at least 6 feet or, ideally,
more.
Whenever possible, move group activities outside.
Whether you are indoors or outdoors, remember that your risk increases with the duration of
your exposure to others.
With the question of transmission, it's not just the public that has been confused. There's
also been confusion among scientists, medical professionals and public health officials, in
part because they have often used the words "droplets" and "aerosols" differently. To address
the confusion, participants in an August workshop on airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggested these definitions for
respiratory droplets and aerosols::
Droplets are larger than 100 microns and fall to the ground within 6 feet,
traveling like tiny cannonballs.
Aerosols are smaller than 100 microns, are highly concentrated close to a
person, can travel farther than 6 feet and can linger and build up in the air, especially
in rooms with poor ventilation.
All respiratory activities, including breathing, talking and singing, produce far more
aerosols than droplets. A person is far more likely to inhale aerosols than to be sprayed by a
droplet, even at short range. The exact percentage of transmission by droplets versus aerosols
is still to be determined. But we know from epidemiologic and other data, especially superspreading
events , that infection does occur through inhalation of aerosols.
In short, how are we getting infected by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is: In the air. Once we
acknowledge this, we can use tools we already have to help end this pandemic.
Kimberly A. Prather, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Atmospheric Chemistry, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.
Linsey C Marr, PhD, Charles P. Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Virginia Tech.
Donald K Milton, MD, DrPH, Professor of Environment Health at The University of Maryland
School of Public Health.
Belgian daily newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws examined the tests carried out by AZ Delta, one
of the largest labs in the country, and made a stunning discovery. Almost half of all positive
cases reported throughout June, July and August were actually people with an old infection.
The problem, it turns out, lies in the PCR Covid-19 tests. The paper reports that scientific
data reveals virus particles can be detected up to 83 days after the actual infection. This led
to instances where people were no longer contagious, but were still registered as positive
cases. According to HLN, all of these people had to be quarantined.
Belgian experts sounded the alarm in mid-July, when coronavirus numbers spiked after a
relief in June, and even insisted that the second wave had already begun for the country.
"We may have had to deal with old infections largely in the summer months," the lab's
clinical biologist Frederik Van Hoecke told the paper.
"Following PCR-confirmation of the President's diagnosis, as a precautionary measure he
received a single 8 gram dose of Regeneron's polyclonal antibody cocktail . He
completed the infusion without incident. In addition to the polyclonal antibodies, the
President has been taking zinc, vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin and a daily aspirin."
When the cookie crumbled, no hydroxycloroquine was taken - even in a case of of initial
phase of the disease. It is below even a single aspirin in the COVID-19's treatment food
chain (which is being ministered, among other supplements, just to keep Trump's body strong
while the main drug takes effect, as is normal to old patients).
On the bright side, at least we know the name of the real deal: Regeneron.
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders,
planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A
trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."
"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of
propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.
Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western
government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding,
from what they said to where they said it.
The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle,
carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out
a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.
US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels,
from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also
organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the
UK's Channel 4.
More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK
government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media
activists.
Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the
leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on
major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient
TV .
These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian
armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a
network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push
pro-opposition talking points.
Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's
Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided
opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."
"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.
The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense,
known more commonly as the White Helmets.
ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria
Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White
Helmets in the United States.
It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria
Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm
wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone
--------------
Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck,
Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply
involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country.
The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation
has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.
A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.
I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it
implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.
The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in
the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.
Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not
involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where
more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism
of US/UK gov'ts and media.
OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli
interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that
(impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites
like a fiddle.
I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are
going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows
naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the
US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're
also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's
jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the
remaining jihadis and unite Syria.
The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the
British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
(JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th
Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon
MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial
operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was
headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct
parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those
contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also
reservists in the 77th.
I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center
(formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and
cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those
guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when
I was penetrating those hackers.
Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think
they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they
were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups.
They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as
MISO. I don't know what the difference is.
There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.
There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by
the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.
It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same
sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber
one carried out that crusade and escalated it.
That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom
(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications
to obscure the real war.)
"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious
fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.
Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve
that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the
earth, as noted in the article.
The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort
to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of
a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.
Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called
the 'Fourth Estate'.
They are more correctly described as a Fifth Column , one far more open and sworn to
destroy our country and its foundational citizens – and taxpayers – as any that
ever operated during World War II. You would think this would be of vital interest to people
who loudly declare themselves to be "Nazi-punchers", but who time and again show themselves to
be merely low-level street terrorists informed and inspired by Mao's Red Guard and the
irredeemable thugs of the African National Congress.
One wonders what's preventing them from
mimicking the Red Terror waged by the leftists of Spain, when the battle for "freedom" involved
the disinterment of the graves of Catholic clergy to better pose the corpses in blasphemous
positions. Imagine how depraved those Mostly Peaceful protesters had to have been for even a
leftist-supporting site such as Wikipedia to baldly state
The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832
Roman Catholic priests, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military
coup), attacks on the Spanish nobility, industrialists, and conservative politicians, as well
as the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.
Directly in the crosshairs this time are small and medium-sized owner-operated businesses
– the true backbone of American freedom and prosperity – who have largely been
sacrificed in exchange for the knock-kneed offerings of Danegeld from our giant conglomerates,
all of whom have prospered immensely from the suffering and privation brought on by the
Democratic lockdown of society – and the total shutdown of our economy.
Think! – have you read a single article charting how the government war on small
business directly enriched Amazon.com and
world's richest autocrat, Jeff Bezos? . who then funnels his windfall into a newspaper that
blatantly pimps for the Democratic Party, which translates into a vast payday for the DNC, not
least from its newly-approved partnership with the shadowy and many-tentacled Soros-surrogate
group, BLM?
The result is what you'd expect when a fringe group operates with the full cooperation and
partnership of major industry and both political parties (don't confuse Trump with a
standard-issue Republican, please – he may have terrible flaws, but that isn't one of
them) – 10% of the population holding the other 90% in a chokehold with only one set of
rules: no arrest and prosecution for Bolshevik violence and terror ..but the zero-tolerance
heavy hand of corrupt Leviathan coming down hard against any and all citizens who fight back
or, eventually – inevitably – who even struggle against their restraints.
Short of the sudden arrival of celestial horsemen to punish the guilty and reward the
set-upon, it has become clear that the only answer is the one that the Powers That Be claim to
be dead set against: racial separatism. (Particularly when we consider that all that will be
necessary to turn America into Hell on earth will be the adoption of Ibram Kendi's First Law,
sometimes known as equality of outcome :
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the
U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is
evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.
Could any "amendment" be more terrifyingly totalitarian than this?)
White and black separation would, instead, accomplish two goals, both more important than
Kendi's quick fix: we would learn soon enough about actual equality of outcomes (which
is why no Communist, black or white, wants anything to do with the creation of one more failed
basket-case black state), and much more importantly, white families can sleep secure in their
beds at night, without worrying about Apache raids at midnight, egged on and recorded for
"posterity" by that Fourth Estate/Fifth Column referred to up top. Because the fact of the
matter is that, even should some combination of government and law-enforcement halt the burning
and looting of America – as things stand now, none of the worst malefactors will ever see
the inside of a prison cell .which means any ceasefire will only be temporary, to be violently
ripped asunder the moment they sense white Americans have at last lowered their guard once
more. And living in perpetual paranoid readiness for violent uprisings and mindless destruction
is no way to live at all.
Trump has it half right, a border wall is the answer: only it needs to run
lengthwise , between the Southern and Northern borders. If we don't use the next four
years to plan out such a separation, fretting over our children's children will be a fruitless
exercise – those who aren't murdered will be captured and 'go native' .and in case you
haven't looked at a globe lately, there's no place left to run.
As a recovering journalist, I can point out that even on a rinkydink rag in a small city,
where I got fired for being a real journalist back in the early '70's; he who owns the
presses and distribution networks calls the tune. It's a matter of working-class (no matter
how middle-class your income or social-status) versus the ownership class. The latter wins
every time.
In March, as the United States faced a shortage of COVID-19 diagnostic tests to determine who was currently infected with the
virus, the Food and Drug Administration began allowing antibody tests into the country without FDA review or formal clearance.
A COVID-19 molecular diagnostic test, sometimes referred to as a virology test, is often conducted through a nasal or throat
swab. It is designed to detect if you presently have the COVID-19 virus.
A COVID-19 antibody test, or serology test, usually involves a blood sample and determines the presence of antibodies, which may
signal that you previously had the viral infection.
"The two different types of tests give us complementary information about the pandemic," said Dr. Alex Marson, an infectious
disease specialist and the director of the Gladstone UCSF Institute for Genomic Immunology. "The one tells us about who's
actively infected. The other tells us who has been infected."
Dr. Marson and Dr. Patrick Hsu, an assistant professor of bioengineering at the University of California, Berkeley both told 60
Minutes it is presently unknown if a positive antibody test means protection from future infection.
"We do not know if a positive antibody test means that you have protective immunity," said Dr. Hsu. "It will certainly mean that
in some cases, but how much, and for how long, and how many times? We do not yet know. People should not assume that, if you have
a positive antibody test that you're immune, [that] you don't need to wear a mask, and [that] you don't need to socially
distance."
A small sample size study from China published on June 18 in
Nature
Medicine
found antibodies could fade in as soon as two to three months after the time of infection.
Both Dr. Marson and Dr. Hsu were interviewed by 60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi as part of a three-month investigation
into the accuracy of antibody tests available in the U.S. The physicians assembled a team of scientists to study the accuracy of
COVID-19 antibody tests in early March.
The accuracy of antibody tests are measured by their sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity refers to a test's ability
to determine if someone has COVID-19 antibodies present in his or her body. The specificity refers to a test's ability to
distinguish who does not have COVID-19 antibodies.
In the early months of the pandemic, hundreds of companies from around the world were selling antibody tests in the U.S. with
varying levels of accuracy.
In May, the FDA amended its policy and began requiring developers of antibody tests to apply for emergency authorization and
submit data to prove their tests work. The FBI
warns
the
policy change has not stopped scammers from trying to infiltrate the U.S. market with fraudulent or inferior quality tests.
The FDA also teamed with the other government agencies including the National Institutes of Health to track the accuracy of some
antibody tests and on June 18 published
performance
results
for 21 of them.
The FDA's list includes both rapid serology tests that are often processed on-location and tests that require blood samples be
sent to a laboratory.
ARRAY / AP
"I will say that the best tests, especially tests where blood samples are being sent off to labs, seem to have responsible test
performance characteristics," Dr. Marson told Alfonsi. "Does that mean that they're perfect? No"
The FDA says the prevalence of COVID-19 in a specific area and amongst different groups of people will factor into the likelihood
of false positive or false negative results.
"I think when you ever get a positive test, it's important to undergo confirmatory testing, whether with a different antibody
test, or an independent test that looks for a different viral antigen, or a different antibody isotype," Dr. Hsu told 60 Minutes.
"This will be a way that we can guard against false positives. The statistical likelihood that you would test false positive
twice is generally quite unlikely if you use independent tests."
Getting multiple independent tests might be more difficult than it sounds.
Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp are two of the largest laboratory testing providers in the U.S. They have collectively processed
more than 3.5 million COVID-19 serology tests.
Quest told 60 Minutes it presently offers antibody tests manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, EUROIMMUN AG, and Ortho Clinical
Diagnostics. LabCorp said it currently uses serology tests made by Abbott and Roche.
Both lab companies told 60 Minutes they do not allow patients to choose which antibody test is used ahead of a sample being
processed.
Quest said the testing platform used to process a sample depends on a lab's volume and capacity. The company said it can run
200,000 serology tests per day and has conducted 2.1 million since April.
LabCorp said it began serology testing on a limited basis in March and now has the ability to run 300,000 samples a day. It does
not disclose the daily volume of antibody testing, but told 60 Minutes it has processed approximately 1.4 million tests so far.
As of June 27, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported
more
than 32 million tests have been processed in the U.S. with a positivity rate of 9%. The CDC declined to tell 60 Minutes the
specific sources of its aggregated data. A spokesperson told 60 Minutes the 32 million tests include both viral and antibody test
results. The CDC also says not all test results are reported to them.
A Government Accountability Office
report
released
on June 25, 2020 says the watchdog agency found that the CDC has made mistakes in its collection of data about COVID-19 testing.
It says the CDC was gathering data about testing that combined antibody tests with diagnostic tests in their overall testing
numbers, a practice that has been criticized by scientists as mixing apples and oranges.
The CDC made an effort to correct this practice and advise states to separate virology and serology test results, but the overall
testing numbers from prior to June may still be inaccurate. Given the problems with accuracy of some antibody tests, it is also
unclear whether all antibody positives should be considered true positives.
The video above was produced by Keith Zubrow and Sarah Shafer Prediger. It was edited by Sarah
Shafer Prediger.
People may have antibodies for at least four months after they get COVID-19, a study
published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests.
The study pulled from a massive dataset from Iceland, looking for the presence of antibodies
in more than 30,000 blood samples. The samples came from three groups of people: those with
confirmed COVID-19 cases, those who had been exposed to the virus but weren't necessarily
infected, and those who had no known exposure.
The researchers focused on a small subset of 487 people who had had more than one antibody
test, which allowed researchers to see whether antibody levels remained stable or faded over
time. In this group, the researchers found, antibody levels increased in the first two months
after diagnosis and remained stable for the next two months.
Stefánsson said the study detected antibodies in a significant number of people who
had been asymptomatic and were never tested for COVID-19.
Not everyone developed antibodies after infection, the authors wrote, suggesting that some
people might have weaker immune responses to the virus. It's possible, however, that those
people had false positive diagnostic tests and were never sick in the first place.
The researchers noted several other interesting trends. Antibody levels were higher in older
patients and in those with more severe disease. Women also had lower antibody levels compared
to men, and smokers had lower antibody levels than nonsmokers.
"What they're seeing here is that they're inducing a pretty strong immune response," said
Jason Kindrachuk, an assistant professor of medical microbiology & infectious diseases at
the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg.
But while the data suggest that antibody levels remain stable for at least four months,
questions remain.
"What we don't know is really the million-dollar question: How do these antibodies reflect
immunity against this virus and inhibition of this virus," said Kindrachuk, who wasn't involved
with the research. "Just because you see antibodies being produced, it doesn't tell you that
those antibodies are going to act specifically against the virus."
In other words, it's unclear whether the antibodies will protect people from being
reinfected.
Confirmed cases of people being reinfected with the coronavirus are exceedingly rare. Last
week, it was reported that four people were reinfected, the only such instances out of more
than 25 million cases worldwide.
In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its quarantine guidelines,
saying people with confirmed COVID-19 didn't need to be tested again for three months if they
didn't develop any symptoms.
The study isn't the first to show that antibodies can stick around for some time after
infection.
The data in the new study are in line with those in a July preprint article showing that
antibody levels were stable for at least three months in patients who had recovered from the
virus in New York City, said Elitza Theel, director of the infectious diseases serology
laboratory at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
S EVIDENCE MOUNTS THAT THE "GOLD STANDARD" TEST FOR DETECTING COVID-19 IS UNRELIABLE, WHY ARE HEALTH OFFICIALS AROUND THE WORLD
CALLING FOR MORE TESTS?
In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have told the public to "get tested" to help
track the spread of SARS-CoV-2. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into
question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patients status. This article is a brief examination of the evidence that the
PCR test is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions.
HOUSTON HEALTH AUTHORITY HAS CONCERNS ABOUT PCR TEST
On August 31, I attended a press conference in Houston to
ask the Mayor and Houston Health Authority about reports regarding problems with the Texas Department of State Health Services'
numbers on COVID-19 cases. TLAV has
previously
reported on these concerns with the COVID-19 case numbers in Texas. I also had a chance to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David
Persse about concerns around the test used to detect COVID-19.
The most common test is a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) lab test. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley
scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The test is designed to detect the presence of a virus by
amplifying the virus' genetic material so it can be detected by scientists. The test is viewed as the gold standard, however, it
is not without problems.
The PCR test uses chemicals to amplify the virus's genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until
a virus is recovered. This "cycle threshold" has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.
Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of
"yes" for positive or "no" for negative. "But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It's an inverse relationship,
so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample," Persse explained. "Some labs will report out to
40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets
reported to us as positive and we don't know any different."
Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?
"Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone
else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?," Dr. Persse asked in the lobby
of Houston City Hall. He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold.
Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse and others.
UK PARLIAMENT AND SCIENTISTS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PCR TEST
In the first weeks of September a number of important revelations regarding the PCR test have come to light. First, new research
from the University of Oxford's Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test
poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study,
Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity
assessment – a systematic review , said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the
risk of "sample contamination" and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.
The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the "genetic
photocopying" technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up
fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, namely that,
"A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation
of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health."
Heneghan, who is also the the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine,told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests
should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned
by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive
test result. He also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK. Heneghan
also stated that setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are
healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.
The UK's leading health agency, Public Health England, released an update on the testing methods used to detect COVID-19 and appeared
to agree with Professor Heneghan regarding
the concerns on the cycle threshold. On September 9, PHE
released an update which concluded, "all laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of
detection."
This is not the first time Heneghan's work has directly impacted the UK's COVID-19 policies. In July, UK health secretary Matt
Hancock called for an "urgent review" of the daily COVID-19 death
numbers produced by Public Health England after it was revealed the stats included people who died from other causes.
The Guardian reported:
Their analysis suggests PHE cross-checks the latest notifications of deaths against a database of positive test results
– so that anyone who has ever tested positive is recorded in the COVID-19 death statistics.
A Department of Health and Social Care source said: 'You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms,
then hit by a bus in July and you'd be recorded as a COVID death.'"
On September 8, Heneghan tweeted out another
study on the limitations of the PCR test. The study,
"SARS-CoV-2 Testing: The Limit of Detection Matters"
, examines the limit of detection (LoD) for RNA. The researchers note similar problems with the PCR test and the cycle threshold,
concluding, "the ultimate lesson from these studies bears repetition: LoD matters and directly impacts efforts to identify, control,
and contain outbreaks during this pandemic."
Heneghan also recently told the BMJ , "one issue
in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised."
"In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test
result," Heneghan explained. "We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the
window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does."
Heneghan says he is concerned that as soon as there is the appearance of an outbreak there is panic and over-reacting. "This
is a huge problem because politicians are operating in a non-evidence-based way when it comes to non-drug interventions," he
stated.
THE EVIDENCE FOR FALSE POSITIVES IS OVERWHELMING
A recent
report from NPR outlines the dangers of false positives with the PCR tests. Andrew Cohen, director of the Center for Research
on Aquatic Bioinvasions, was hired by the state of California to study an invasion of non-native mussels. The researchers took water
samples and used a PCR test to search for genetic material from the mussels. After the tests came back overwhelmingly positive, Cohen
grew suspicious.
"I began to realize that many of these -- if not all of these -- were false positives, especially when they started being reported
in waters that had chemistry that would not allow the mussels to reproduce and establish themselves," he told NPR. NPR notes
that, depending on the lab, there was a 2 to 8 percent false positive rate.
Once COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, Cohen said he began asking if the reports of people with absolutely no symptoms and positive
PCR test results could be false positives. "I began wondering whether these asymptomatic carriers weren't in large part or in
whole part the human counterparts of those false-positive results of quagga and zebra mussels in all those water bodies across the
West," he said.
Cohen emphasized the importance of researchers taking potential false positive PCR results seriously. "As near as we can tell,
the medical establishment and public health authorities and researchers appear to be assuming that the false-positive rate in in
the PCR based test is zero, or at least so low that we can ignore it."
Cohen is correct that the scientific authorities need to take false positives seriously, especially when a person can be sent
to isolate or quarantine for weeks due to a positive test result. Even the
U.S. FDA's own fact sheet on testing acknowledges the
dangers posed by false positives:
"The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test
results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for
isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact
with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work, the delayed
diagnosis and treatment for the true infection causing the symptoms, unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other
unintended adverse effects."
Professor Heneghan believes the confusion around COVID-19 has come as a result of a shift away from "evidence-based medicine."
In a recent opinion piece
published at
The Spectator , Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based
Medicine, University of Oxford, wrote that patients have become a "prisoner of a system labelling him or her as 'positive' when we
are not sure what that label means." The two scientists offer this conclusion and warning:
Governments are producing a series of contradictory and confusing policies which have a brief shelf life as the next crisis
emerges. It is increasingly clear the evidence is often ignored. Keeping up to date is a full time occupation, and the advances
of the last 30 years have at best been put on hold.
The duties of a
good doctor
include working in partnership with patients to inform them about what they want or need in a way they can understand, and respecting
their rights to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care. Questions need to be asked as to how this will occur
if you don't see your doctor, particularly if all you have to do is queue in at a drive in to get your answer.
And ultimately what is a 'good test'? We think it's the test which helps your doctor narrow the uncertainty around the origins
and management of your problem.
In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering'
and spreading 'misinformation'.
In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering'
and spreading 'misinformation'.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California,
Riverside. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed
negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. "I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,"
he said.
Notable quotes:
"... PCR tests still have a role, he and other experts said. For example, their sensitivity is an asset when identifying newly infected people to enroll in clinical trials of drugs. ..."
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
Tests authorized by the F.D.A. provide only a yes-no answer to infection, and will identify as positive patients with low
amounts of virus in their bodies. Credit... Johnny Milano for The New York Times
Some of the nation's leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over
coronavirus testing in
the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts
of the virus.
Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who
are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without
symptoms, as recently suggested
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
"The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward," said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard
T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.
"In fact, we should be ramping up testing of all different people," he said, "but we have to do it through whole different mechanisms."
In what may be a step in this direction, the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would purchase 150 million rapid
tests.
The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question
of whether a patient is infected.
But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include
a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient's body.
"We've been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus -- that's all," Dr. Mina said. "We're using
that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making."
But yes-no isn't good enough, he added. It's the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient's next steps. "It's
really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue," Dr. Mina said.
The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or
viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent
to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to
90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the
rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually
need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at
40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect
the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no
particular risk -- akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California,
Riverside. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes
would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient's sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard
for the test to return a positive result -- at least, one worth acting on.
Image
"It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests, that they're just
returning a positive or a negative," one virologist said. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times
The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine
who is positive, and that " commercial manufacturers and
laboratories set their own."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures "for policy decisions."
The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures "can be used properly
and with assurance that we know what they mean."
The C.D.C.'s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample
above a threshold of 33 cycles
. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing
organizations.
For example, North Carolina's state lab uses the Thermo Fisher coronavirus test, which automatically classifies results based
on a cutoff of 37 cycles. A spokeswoman for the lab said testers did not have access to the precise numbers.
This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.
"It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests -- that they're just
returning a positive or a negative," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.
"It would be useful information to know if somebody's positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load," she
added.
Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York's state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed
their numbers at The Times's request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.
With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be
judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed
negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. "I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,"
he said.
Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.
"I'm really shocked that it could be that high -- the proportion of people with high C.T. value results," said Dr. Ashish Jha,
director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. "Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing."
Dr. Jha said he had thought of the PCR test as a problem because it cannot scale to the volume, frequency or speed of tests needed.
"But what I am realizing is that a really substantial part of the problem is that we're not even testing the people who we need to
be testing," he said.
The number of people with positive results who aren't infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director
of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. "That worries me a lot, just because it's so high," he said, adding that the organization
intended to meet with Dr. Mina to discuss the issue.
The F.D.A. noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these
infections.
But that problem is easily solved, Dr. Mina said: "Test them again, six hours later or 15 hours later or whatever," he said. A
rapid test would find these patients quickly, even if it were less sensitive, because their viral loads would quickly rise.
PCR tests still have a role, he and other experts said. For example, their sensitivity is an asset when identifying newly infected
people to enroll in clinical trials of drugs.
But with 20 percent or more of people testing positive for the virus in some parts of the country, Dr. Mina and other researchers
are questioning the use of PCR tests as a frontline diagnostic tool.
People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at
the current testing rates, "you're not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in
that window," Dr. Mina added.
Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the
outbreaks raging now, he said, what's needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone
who needs it -- even if the tests are less sensitive.
"It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including
the superspreaders," Dr. Mina said. "That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero."
An earlier version of this article, using information provided by a laboratory spokesman, misstated the number of positive coronavirus
tests in July processed by Wadsworth Center, New York's state lab. It was 872 tests, not 794. Based on that error, the article also
misstated the number of tests that would no longer qualify as positive with a C.T. value of 35 cycles. It is about 43 percent of
the tests, not about half of them. Similarly, the article misstated the number of tests that would no longer qualify as positive
if cycles were limited to 30. It is about 63 percent of the tests, not about 70 percent.
Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter for The Times, focusing on science and global health. She is the 2019 winner of the Victor Cohn
Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting. @ apoorva_nyc A
version of this article appears in print on Aug. 30, 2020 , Section A, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: You're Positive.
But Are You Contagious? Tests May Be Too Sensitive, Experts Say . Order Reprints
| Today's Paper |
Subscribe
PCR stands for polymerase chain
reaction , a molecular biology technique for amplifying segments of DNA, by generating
multiple copies using DNA polymerase enzymes under controlled conditions. As little as a single
copy of a DNA segment or gene can be cloned into millions of copies, allowing detection using
dyes and other visualization techniques.
Developed in 1983, the process of PCR has made it possible to perform DNA sequencing and identify
the order of nucleotides in individual genes. The method uses thermal cycling or the repeated
heating and cooling of the reaction for DNA melting and replication. As PCR continues, the
"new" DNA is used as a template for replication and a chain reaction ensues, exponentially
amplifying the DNA template.
PCR techniques are applied in many areas of biotechnology including protein engineering , cloning,
forensics (DNA fingerprinting), paternity testing, the diagnosis of hereditary and/or
infectious diseases, and for the analysis
of environmental samples.
In forensics, in particular, PCR is especially useful because it amplifies even the smallest
amount of DNA evidence. PCR can also be used to analyze DNA that is thousands of years old, and
these techniques have been used to identify everything from an 800,000-year-old mammoth to
mummies from around the world.
PCR ProcedureInitialization
This step is necessary only for DNA polymerases that require hot-start PCR. The reaction is
heated to between 94 and 96 °C and held for 1-9 minutes.
Denaturation
If the procedure does not require initialization, denaturation is the first step. The
reaction is heated to 94-98 °C for 20-30 seconds. The DNA template's hydrogen bonds are
disrupted and single-stranded DNA molecules are created.
Annealing
The reaction temperature is lower to between 50 and 65 °C and held for 20-40 seconds.
The primers anneal to the single-stranded DNA template. The temperature is extremely important
during this step. If it's too hot, the primer might not bind. If it's too cold, the primer
might bind imperfectly. A good bond is formed when the primer sequence closely matches the
template sequence.
Extension/Elongation
The temperature during this step varies depending upon the type of polymerase. The DNA
polymerase synthesizes a completely new DNA strand.
Final Elongation
This step is performed at 70-74 °C for 5-15 minutes after the final PCR
cycle.
Final Hold
This step is optional. The temperature is kept at 4-15 °C and strops the
reaction.
Three Stages of the PCR ProcedureExponential Amplification
During every cycle, product (the specific piece of DNA that is being replicated) is
doubled.
Leveling-off Stage
As the DNA polymerase loses activity and consumes reagents, the reaction
slows.
Vaccine against coronaviruses is a very tricky business as the virus tend to mutate with
time. Still it looks like Russian found some nw avenue to tackle this problem which might be more
efficient then alternatives.
Western reporters to not like to correct their own false reporting. They rather reinforce it
as much as possible. Only when overwhelmed by the facts will they silently admit that they were
wrong in the first place. Here is a prime example of how that's done.
In mid-August we exposed how 'western' media lied about the approval for phase-3 testing of
the Russian Sputnik vaccine against Covid-19. They said that Russia claimed the vaccine was
ready to go population wide. That never was the case.
Russia has not approved a vaccine against Covid-19 and it is not skipping large-scale
clinical trials. The Russia regulator gave a preliminary approval for a vaccine candidate to
start the large-scale clinical trial. [...]
Science Magazine is one of the few media who
got it right : ...
One of the false reports we pointed out was by the New York Times Moscow
correspondent Andrew E. Kramer:
Russia has become the first country in the world to approve a vaccine for the coronavirus,
President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Tuesday, though global health authorities say the
vaccine has yet to complete critical, late-stage clinical trials to determine its safety and
effectiveness.
...
By skipping large-scale clinical trials, the Russian dash for a vaccine has raised widespread
concern that it is circumventing vital steps -- and potentially endangering people -- in
order to score global propaganda points.
Russia had, as we and Science Magazine reported, never the intent to skip
large-scale clinical trials. Kramer made that up.
In new report today Kramer reinforces his previous false and disproven claims to lament
about an alleged slow distribution of the Sputnik vaccine in Russia:
More than a month after becoming the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine, Russia
has yet to administer it to a large population outside a clinical trial, health officials and
outside experts say.
The approval, which came with much fanfare, occurred before Russia had tested the vaccine
in late-stage trials for possible side effects and for its disease-fighting ability. It was
seen as a political gesture by President Vladimir V. Putin to assert victory in the global
race for a vaccine.
It is not clear whether the slow start to the vaccination campaign is a result of limited
production capacity or second thoughts about inoculating the population with an unproven
product.
The Times author reinforces his own lie that Russia had declared its vaccine ready
for population wide application. It had never done that. The official registration of the
vaccine by the relevant authorities was only a necessary precondition to start the large scale
phase-3 testing of the vaccine. There never was a Russian intent to distribute the vaccine to a
large population without phase-3 testing.
In the bottom third of his long piece Kramer comes near to admitting that. There he
describes that the Sputnik phase-3 testing is now ongoing. That contradicts all of his previous
reporting on the issues though he himself never says that. But even now he is getting the
details wrong:
The trial in Russia began on Sept. 9, and Russian officials have said they expect early
results before the end of the year, though the Gamaleya Institute, the scientific body that
developed the vaccine, has scheduled the trial to continue until May.
That timeline is similar to the testing schedules announced by the three pharmaceutical
companies testing potential vaccines in the United States, AstraZeneca, Moderna and
Pfizer.
...
The Russian late-stage, or Phase 3, clinical trial is being carried out entirely in Moscow,
where 30,000 people will receive the vaccine and 10,000 will get a placebo.
Yevgenia Zubova, a spokeswoman for the Moscow city health department, said in an interview
that the vaccine was available only to trial participants.
Those last two paragraphs, which completely debunk Kramer's original reporting, should have
been at the very top of the piece. They are buried down in paragraph 23 and 24 of a 29
paragraphs story that starts out with an epic repeat of the previously made false claims.
Post-registration clinical trials involving more than 40,000 people in Russia will be
launched in a week starting from August, 24. A number of countries, such as UAE, Saudi
Arabia, Philippines and possibly India or Brazil will join the clinical trials of Sputnik V
locally. [...] Mass production of the vaccine is expected to start in September 2020.
That testing of Sputnik V will also happen outside of Moscow has been confirmed
by recent reports :
Russia's sovereign wealth fund will supply 100 million doses of its potential coronavirus
vaccine to Indian drug company Dr Reddy's Laboratories, the fund said on Wednesday, as Moscow
speeds up plans to distribute its shot abroad.
...
Dr Reddy's, one of India's top pharmaceutical companies, will carry out Phase III clinical
trials of Sputnik-V in India, RDIF said.
It is not Russia that is fudging the testing of its vaccine. It is the Trump administration
that is
planning to do so out of political reasons:
We have the protocols. Now we know how there will very likely be an Emergency Use Approval
(EUA) for a vaccine prior to November 3. The company and political motivations are fully
aligned.
In contrast to the U.S. the Russian testing of its Sputnik vaccine will be -as usual- of
high integrity and will strictly follow the protocols such trials are supposed to follow. In
paragraph 29, the very last one in today's NYT story, the author at last admits as
much :
[W]hen medicines are tested, Russia has an exceptionally good track record on managing
clinical trials , according to a database of U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspections of
clinical trials around the world. The F.D.A. found a lower percentage of trials with problems
in Russia than in any other European country or the United States.
If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was
developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia than
one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots with a
politicized regulator under the Trump administration.
Posted by b on September 20, 2020 at 12:12 UTC |
Permalink
If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was
developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia
than one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots
with a politicized regulator under the Trump administration.
To top it off, Gamaleya's vaccine simply has the better science behind it. It uses two
human adenoviruses, in opposition to the single chimpanzee adenovirus used by the AstraZeneca
one (the Chinese one also uses only one adenovirus, but I don't remember if it is human or
chimpanzee).
No other laboratory in the world is using Gamaleya's technology - which it already
dominates. Two American laboratories (Moderna and one more that I forgot the name) are
testing the untried and dangerous mRNA technology. It is very unlikely those two mRNA
vaccines will ever come out to the public; those two labs probably just cashed in their USD 2
billion checks they received from the USG.
This gives force to my original hypothesis: the Anglo-Saxon laboratories are exploiting
exotic technologies for their vaccines because they want something the can patent, thus
charging astronomical prices to the national governments and thus emerge from this pandemic
even richer.
--//--
Speaking of AstraZeneca (Oxford), it released its blueprints yesterday after "public
pressure":
The USG is, behind the scenes (I already posted the link here in the open thread),
extremely worried about this vaccine.
AstraZeneca will try to get what it can get, but the fact is it's game over for them. The
thing here is that the Gamaleya alternative is better and if the USA (where the vaccine
makers will really make money) wants to get political, it will simply opt for one of the many
American vaccines that will come out - ready or not, satisfactory or not - next year. As a
British vaccine, AstraZeneca-Oxford will, at best, have to do with the British market, which
is very tiny for a big pharmaceutical company.
It is better if they just cancel the trials and abandon production.
If I had money I'd fly to Russia for their vaccine. They made theirs for the people and in
Amerika we make it for profits and protect the makes from lawsuits.
To be frank, at this point, ironically, it's Big Pharma's own self-interest that might help
us to counter Trump's lunacy. There are enough anti-vaxxers around for them not to want a
screwed up vaccine and a big scandal that would only comfort the vaxxers and sow mistrust
among the population. They need people to assume vaccines are well done and mostly harmless
if they want to keep making profit with them. Trump is only interested in a victory in the
next few weeks, Pharma business is interested in making profits for the next decades.
That's quite a damning indictment of our Western system, but then 2020 is a milestone, the
threshold beyond which it won't be possible to consider the Western liberal capitalistic
system as the superior one, if not the best one possible - quite the opposite.
The Kramer reporting is highly unusual. Normally the important information should be in the
third paragraph from the end and now it's in the sixth and seventh last.
Anyway, while I agree that this vaccine should be treated as an entirely legitimate effort
I want to add:
- phase 1/2 testing did appear a too lightweight and the article on it in the Lancet has been
criticized by russian scientists (
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/09/08/leading-scientists-question-highly-improbable-russian-vaccine-results-published-in-lancet-a71384).
- one family of vaccines can be more controversial and experimental than another and the
judgement of the testers can take this in account when considering shortcuts.
- One should distinguish what the makers of the vaccine claim with the political
(exaggerated) statements from Putin about it .
- The statements on testing on the Sputnikvaccine have changed over time. In the beginning it
said 2000 people in Russia and it listed 4 more countries(UAE, KSA, Brazil,Mexico). That was
insufficient. Several of these countries have been omitted since, and others have been added.
One can say that the intent to do decent testing was always there but the confirmed planning
was not.
- rollout to large population was impossible anyway at an early stage because the production
capacity was limited.
Kramer is not wrong, he simply lies. In the Relotius media this is standard practice when
covering politically sensitive topics, combined with omissions.
Of course, many well-researched and truthful articles are published in the nyt, faz, nzz etc.
That is exactly what makes these media so refined and what they base their claim to be
quality media on. One lies and distort as little and as targeted as possible.
The Europena and Australian vassals of the USA would not be given a choice to choose the more
authetic option of the vaccine. But Israel would probably opt for the Russian version without
consequence. It's over for the West!
Nobody is saying the Gamaleya vaccine will be the second coming of the polio vaccine.
Whichever COVID-19 vaccine comes out will inevitably be imperfect (in relation to the already
tested and tried vaccines everybody takes nowadays).
Your worries are all legitimate. Indeed, Gamaleya publicly admitted phases 1 and 2 of its
trials has small samples of subjects.
However, you also have to take into account that the science is solid (two human
adenoviruses, a tested and tried technology) and that Gamaleya is the center of excellence in
adenovirus vaccine technology. That's why - and not because it is Russian - we can trust
Gamaleya's vaccine is, given the circumstances (pandemic), reliable. The fact Gamaleya
already dominated the adenovirus technology also explains why it was the first laboratory to
come out with a solution - it simply used a tested and tried method it already dominated,
while the other pharmaceuticals are basically having to relearn how to develop a vaccine
and/or are adventuring in uncharted territory because they want something they can
patent.
So yes, we can search and find defects in Gamaleya's trials - but the strongest argument
in its favor is not the trials, it's the solid science and technology behind it.
Vk and the wabbit - right on. And Thanks to you, B, for this clear and straightforwardly
informative piece (as usual).
Is it any surprise that the NYT uses the usual propaganda format of truth (when it accords
with the ruling elites perspective) and lies (when "reporting on" what is happening in those
"bad hat" countries)? And might I add that NPR and the BBC World Service do exactly the same
thing, boosting the US-UK-NATO worldview (which equals the western
corporate-captitalist-imperialist, oh so exceptional, ruling elites world position) while
denigrating Russia, China, Iran (and now Lukashenko - indeed the Beeb refuses to pronounce
his name properly, always reducing it to the feminine form, and believe me, as born and
raised Brit, that's deliberate) via lies, lies and more lies. And via those weasely words:
"likely," "Highly likely" and so on and on ....
All that this latest vaccine competition (western) will produce is more anti-vaxxers. And
this time round, sensibly so.
Tuyzefot (5): it is common for the NYT to lead with propaganda and bury the facts at the end
of the article.
I noticed it decades ago in articles covering Palestine. I learned to skip whatever was
printed on the front page and immediately jump to the final five paragraphs found deep within
the paper. I guess they print the facts at all there only as a bizarre way of covering their
asses in a feeble attempt at integrity.
The vaccine uses a unique two-vector human adenovirus technology which no-one else in
the world currently has for COVID-19.
[...]
On the surface the Sputnik V trial with 76 participants seems smaller in size compared
to 1,077 people that, for example, AstraZeneca had in its Phase 1-2 studies. However,
the design of the Sputnik V trial was much more efficient and based on better
assumptions.
[...]
The post-registration studies involving more than 40,000 people started in Russia on
August 26, before AstraZeneca has started its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. with 30,000
participants. Clinical trials in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Philippines,
India and Brazil will begin this month. The preliminary results of the Phase 3 trial will
be published in October-November 2020.
[...]
Q.: Why has the Sputnik V vaccine already become eligible for emergency use
registration?
Because of the very positive results of the Phase 1-2 trials and because the human
adenoviral vector-based delivery platform has been proven the safest vaccine delivery
platform over decades including through 75 international scientific publications and in
more than 250 clinical trials.
[...]
Some other companies are using human adenoviral vector-based platforms for their
COVID-19 vaccines. For example, Johnson & Johnson uses only Ad26 vector and China's
CanSino only Ad5 while Sputnik V uses both of these vectors. The work of Johnson &
Johnson and CanSino not only validates the Russian approach but also shows Sputnik V's
advantage as studies have demonstrated that two different vectors produce better
results than one.
[...]
The monkey adenovirus and mRNA vaccines have never been used and approved before and
their research is lagging the proven human adenoviral vector-based platform by at least 20
years. However, their developers have already secured supply contracts worth billions of
dollars from Western governments and may potentially apply for fast-track registration --
while receiving full indemnity at the same time.
At the end of the Q&A, Dmitriev counters his Western colleagues:
Question 1: Are there any long-term studies of mRNA and monkey adenovirus vector-based
technologies for carcinogenic effects and impact on fertility? (Hint: there are none)
Question 2: Could their absence be the reason why some of the leading pharmaceutical
firms making COVID-19 vaccines based on these technologies pushed the countries buying
their vaccines for full indemnification from lawsuits if something goes wrong?
Question 3: Why is Western media not reporting a lack of long term studies for mRNA and
monkey adenoviral vector-based vaccines?
The constant Russia bashing is a disconnect from the truth and the real world.
It is annoying to wade through.
Far more important, it is crippling for a nation if its leadership actually does
disconnect from reality and believe its own fantasy.
Disconnect from reality, belief in convenient fantasy, is exactly how the Democrats went
from losing with Hillary to running again with Hillary II, the same donors and advisers and
influence peddlers pushing the same right wing triangulation by the Democratic Party.
Maybe they can squeak out a win this time. It should not be close.
Far more important, there are things that need doing, things that would win like health
care for all, that they simply won't offer or run on. We are not going to get from them what
we need, we know that, and that is why they again have a squeaker election even against a
joke like Trump.
Perfect example of the free and unfettered press at work. What do you mean we're just a
propaganda rag? See, right down at the bottom, the bit you didn't bother to read down to,
right next to the denture ad, we told the truth. So there! Balanced and accurate reporting!
Trump's "national security" state has managed to kill 200000 by him the autocrat in chief to
come out and tell the truth as he admitted so to Woodward. This fucking American national
security phobia is costing American lives more than all past 70 years of national security
wars.
@JohnH 13 , it was hm, a joke. There is indeed rule of thumb that you have to look fore the
third to last paragraph. I upgraded it into something of a law, which is then violated in
this case.
@vk 10, I wouldn't call it my worries, just that I think B. posted a version which was too
simple and rosy. In the meantime I saw your post 14 which I roughly expected but hadn't read
about yet.
Andrew Kramer's reporting on the Sputnik V vaccine is deliberately written to discredit the
Russians and anything and everything they do, which includes the way they conduct scientific
and medical research (because it's govt-funded, not funded by global pharmaceutical
corporations) and the way they run their healthcare system (not privatised).
First, Kramer says the Kremlin approved the vaccine: this is to set up Moscow and Putin in
particular as rash, so that the supposed "roll-out" of the vaccine can be (secondly)
portrayed as inefficient.
Kramer knows he is lying which is why his piece is long (he knows most NYT readers are
time-poor and want the celebrity news and baseball results) and the most important
information is squeezed into the last two paragraphs of his article.
I tried linking to that Moscow Times article at your link and either I hit a dead end or
the newspaper removed the article, which does not surprise me since that newspaper is as
credible as The New York Times. It used to be given away f o r free in Moscow but I believe
it now exists only as an online paper.
@Jen, you have to remove the last two characters ').' because I omitted a space. The article
in the moscow times is ok and not too alarming. It is also not discrediting the lancet
article. Just raising concerns.
From comments: "Article is poorly written by someone who does not know medical science. There
are no viral "cells" so the headline is a put off right away. The comment about "sensitivity" is
misplaced as PCR tests are too sensitive: ergo false positives. I believe "specificity" is the
word the author was searching for. If a test lumps true positives with false positives, then it
lacks specificity."
That's because new research from the University of Oxford's Center for Evidence-Based
Medicine and the University of the West of England has found that the swab-based technique used
for most COVID-19 testing is at risk of returning "false positives" since copies of the virus's
RNA detected by the tests might simply be dead, inactive material from a weeks-old infection.
Although patients infected with COVID-19 are typically only infectious for a week or less,
tests can be triggered by virus genetic material left over from a weeks-old infection.
The team's research involved analyzing 25 studies on the widely used polymerase chain
reaction test. PCR tests use material collected with a swab - the most common type of test
around the world, and especially in the US - then utilize a "genetic photocopying" technique
that allows scientists to magnify the small sample of genetic material collected, which they
can then analyze for signs of viral RNA.
What the researchers here have effectively found is that these PCR tests just aren't
sensitive enough to distinguish if the viral material is active and infectious, or dead and
inert.
For those who desire a more comprehensive understanding of how these tests work, the chart
below can be helpful.
Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study, said there was a risk that a surge
in testing across the UK was increasing the risk of this sample contamination occurring and it
may explain why the number of Covid-19 cases is rising but the number of deaths is static.
"Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of 'new' mild cases and people re-testing
positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply
clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with," he
told the Spectator.
Professor Heneghan added that international scrutiny might be required to avoid "the dangers
of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities." ZKnight 14 minutes ago
Fake science. How about purify the virus first and establish a gold standard for testing
first. No, of course not because the CDC has a patent for Covid-19 and nobody is allowed to try
find it to see if it exists. play_arrow LogicFusion 27 minutes ago
Everybody is a Covid-19 / Coronavirus expert now!
Read about the failed coin dealer and convicted felon's performance. It's hilarious!
Covid -19 has been so politicized that I don't believe a word of any publication for or
against testing, existence of the Virus, or anything that provokes testing or issues opinions
about locking down communities. Just like the riots, Covid news is just plain boring.
play_arrow ominous 3 hours ago
"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws" - Mayer Amschel
Rothschild. play_arrow play_arrow tangent 4 hours ago remove link
People who recommend a vaccine for an entirely cured virus should lose their license to
practice medicine. 99.9% cure rate applying to people who take it before being hospitalized is
one of the biggest success stories in the history of medicine for HCQ. Not only that, but there
are multiple other likely cures that simply have not been studied well. You'd think people
would appreciate the fact that the common cold has been cured, but instead they just whine that
big pharma isn't getting those bucko bucks.
I honestly expected a ticker tape parade like in the movies when that first cure study came
out. But instead they took a massive **** on the study and on the doctor... ****ty world we
live in. ay_arrow Pair Of Dimes Shift 2 hours ago
An exec (55+) at my company is gung ho about the vaccine.
Unfortunately, I just had to give him a "wait and see" response although I know vaccines for
coronaviruses are impossible. play_arrow 2 play_arrow ThanksIwillHaveAnother 4 hours ago
(Edited)
Viruses are not full cells. They are DNA/RNA wrapped with a protein the clings to a cell
then the cell imports the DNA/RNA to start making its proteins. So what is inactive? If that
person sneezes on another person depending on immune system status that other person could get
a bad infection. y_arrow 4 CrabbyR 3 hours ago
viruses utilizes CELL structures and host DNA to replicate dna or rna according to the
viruses genetic code, the protein jacket is the final product to
disguise the virus from detection and to bind on another cell after the compromised cell
RUPTURES, there's more to it but if it cannot copy itself effectively it can become nonviable
and unable to infect another cell. It replicates DNA inside a host cell, It is not a complete
organism and cannot replicate unless it can inject its DNA into a host cell. Antibodies cling
to viruses and destroy this ability to bind to a target cell. A non viable virus has a damaged
coat or DNA RNA that has to many Dimers (damage or code breaks) Bacteria is more in line with
what you think a virus is y_arrow onewayticket2 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
they lost me when they changed the definition of "death" to include "presumed, untested"
cases (while bI@#$% ing at me that we needed to "follow the science")....and even got busted
for the laughable motorcycle accident being classified as a covid death and the Labs that were
sending in 100% positive results. (until they were caught) play_arrow OutaTime43 4 hours ago
remove link
The test detects RNA. Not necessarily viable virus. Also, it will detect RNA presence in an
individual who may already have antibodies and may be immune. We are bombarded daily by viruses
of which we already have immunity. play_arrow sun tzu 10 hours ago
Shocking news that the South Koreans already discovered and published back in May. Western
big pharma driven medicine is garbage 😂😂😂
Interesting play_arrow play_arrow Jack Mehoff 1 more time 9 hours ago
Business as usual play_arrow play_arrow Argon1 7 hours ago
Preparation for agenda 2021 in 2017. play_arrow 1 play_arrow CrabbyR 4 hours ago
WOW.......ties a few strands from other sources together into a real ugly picture play_arrow
play_arrow Welsh Bard 10 hours ago
The professor who won the Nobel prize for work in this field, said that the way this test is
being operated with over forty cycles, means that any results are entirely meaningless.
In Britain, having spent over £15 billion setting up PCR testing systems and a shaky
test and trace apparatus on top of that, it appears that 90% of positive results now appear to
be false. This is compounded by the fact that when a hot spot develops, more testing is done to
show a rapid increase in more false positive results, meaning further new lockdowns and even
more testing to prove yet more false positive results ad infinitum.
Now whether this is by design or ineptitude, people must decide for themselves but the
outcome is utter chaos.
For those countries who have not followed the Swedish model especially countries like
Australia and New Zealand who have set up complete isolation, now face a future perpetually cut
off from the rest of the world.
Okay, new techniques will and are coming along to treat the disease like HCQ when used
correctly maybe as a prophylactic and a vaccine that will need to be constantly upgraded like
the Flu vaccine, means that the whole world has painted itself into a corner unless drastic
revision is now made to the whole sorry mess.
In the meantime, we will now be stuck with digital currency and the introduction of ID
Health Cards that will limit people in how they travel where they work and access to a whole
heap of things like government services.
Welcome to the new world order! play_arrow 1 KuriousKat 11 hours ago (Edited) remove
link
Don't tell the Shameless Aussie gov that after arresting hundreds for simply voicing doubt
on need to lockdown entire city...Next time it will be thousands and not a damn thing they can
do to stop it..These people are trickling us the truth how worthless the tests are when pretty
much everyone knows. play_arrow espirit 12 hours ago remove link
Lessee.
WHO
Imperial College
John Hopkins
CDC
Line all those peeps up against the wall, and the first one to rat gets to live.
I'll provide my own ammo... ay_arrow Sick Monkey 6 hours ago
Not everyone working in these agencies are dishonest but like you and I we have to work and
eat.
Most of them are trapped in this mess with bills to pay threatened by NDA.
play_arrow 1 Urban Roman 12 hours ago
Not particularly new news. Been talked about since April at least -- it's an RNA virus, it
has its own polymerase, and it leaves lots of RNA fragments in its wake.
The Corona family of viruses make 5 or 6 strands with partial copies of their RNA molecule.
negative copies are made first, and then copied again into positive copies. Finally the one big
RNA is made with the entire genome on it.
So about a dozen RNA molecules are made for each finished virus particle that is produced.
And finally, a variety of different primers are used for the PCR tests, some are matched to the
small partial RNA copies and others are matched to various features on the large whole-virus
RNA. They can give different results for the same sample.
So, someone who registers on a PCR test has probably been exposed to the virus, but the test
gives no clue as to whether it is an active infection, or the person is contagious, or they are
just coming down with it, or they got over it six months ago. play_arrow 4 play_arrow 1
10 play_arrow gordo 12 hours ago remove link
Sweden, no masks, no lock downs, ALL SCHOOLS OPEN, herd immunity, no second wave.
Still think your masks and lock downs are working muppets?
1 play_arrow The 3rd Dimentia 13 hours ago
https://youtu.be/sjYvitCeMPc
SARS-CoV2 and the Rise of Medical Technocracy. Lee Merritt, M.D. play_arrow 3 play_arrow
hugin-o-munin 13 hours ago
I'm glad to see that many are starting to counter the official narrative.
We've been asleep for too long and allowed these agendas to fester to the point we're at now
where a college dropout software salesman and a former 3rd world communist terrorist (neither
of whom have any medical degree) are dictating to the world how everyone needs to get a DNA
altering vaccine and a medical ID. It's completely nuts and bonkers yet more or less the entire
planet's governments follow in 'lockstep' with ever more draconian laws and regulations
incarcerating people in their own homes, making them wear masks causing oxygen deprivation and
shutting down the entire world economy.
lay_arrow Warthog777 , 13 hours ago
Article is poorly written by someone who does not know medical science. There are no viral
"cells" so the headline is a put off right away. The comment about "sensitivity" is misplaced
as PCR tests are too sensitive: ergo false positives. I believe "specificity" is the word the
author was searching for. If a test lumps true positives with false positives, then it lacks
specificity.
Anyone who would use the term "virus cells", has no clue what they're talking about and
should be completely disregarded. Viruses are not cells. PCR tests are searching for
something your body produces in response to a virus as well. They are not produced
specifically for a singular virus either. The entire concept of PCR testing is garbage. This
**** was a scam from the get-go.
hugin-o-munin , 13 hours ago
Yes it is evident now that this entire pandemic is false and political. The goal seems to
be to vaccinate entire populations and the question people need to ask is - why? what for?
Aside from the obvious economic motives there are some more sinister plans that most people
will have a hard time accepting but these need to be looked at. Several years ago there were
a group of doctors and researchers that died of suspicious suicides who were collaborating
and studying vaccines and the link to autism.
The effort was led by Dr.Jeffrey Bradstreet who was researching the natural substance
GcMAF and how this could boost the immune system. What he discovered was that many vaccines
had a compound/substance called Nagalase in them that is unnatural and has a detrimental
effect on the immune system and function of GcMAF (which is produced by our own bodies) and
has no business at all being in vaccines. Just before he was able to blow the whistle on this
he also died of a suspicious 'suicide' and today most of the clinics and research groups
working on GcMAF have been destroyed and ruined. Draw your own conclusions.
snblitz , 14 hours ago
Dr. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test. He said it was ineffective for this purpose.
Though he was addressing its use in a prior virus hoax unleashed upon the world.
I bet you didn't know this scam has been used before.
That is why I was able to call out the scam right from the start. The second I saw them
using the PCR again, I knew it was from the same playbook.
snblitz , 14 hours ago
So many lies.
Viruses are not alive. They have no metabolic functions. They cannot move.
Don't believe me? Get a degree is virology or microbiology or just a read a book on the
subject. Or capture a wuhan-virus yourself and watch it under a microscope. It won't move. It
won't consume anything. It will just sit there inert.
The problem is that you are being lied to at a scale you cannot imagine.
I know, off to the fema re-education camp for me for spreading false information about the
wuhan-virus.
Though I am not the one spreading fear and hysteria.
aldousd , 13 hours ago
There article is confused, but the work of the doctor is not. Viruses use your cells to
reproduce. When your immune system targets the virus it actually kills your own cell which
has become host to the virus. The virus particles and markers, and the DNA of the virus can
be detected in these dead cells, but dead cells cannot serve as a factory for more viruses.
So it's effectively a dead virus infected cell. Not a dead virus cell.
So while the transcription of the idea here was done by an idiot, it's not an idiotic
idea. The tests cannot tell if the virus came in a living cell that is actively producing
more viruses or a dead host cell that has been assassinated by your immune system. That's
what they're talking about here.
mstyle , 11 hours ago
what about the chromosome 8 stuff that has been mentioned lately?
(since you appear to be rather intelligent)
hugin-o-munin , 11 hours ago
Thanks. Well the chromosome 8 discovery in the PCR test specifications/details is strange
and worrying because it makes you wonder why it's part of this at all. Some believe it's to
get more false positive results while others believe it is what the mRNA vaccines are
intended to target and if that's right then it's really sinister. What exactly is the plan?
To make all of us get Downs Syndrome? I don't know but judging by all their other lies and
schemes it wouldn't surprise me.
IRC162 , 14 hours ago
Fuggin progressives and their pandemic political prop. But really this reaction is the
same as their reaction to 'racial injustice'. They focus on feelings before the facts are
known in order to achieve their end, and then do their best to bury/ignore the facts when
they are gathered later.
94% COVID deaths with multiple comorbidities.
10 unarmed blacks killed by police in 2019 (6 were in self-defense).
adr , 15 hours ago
Why didn't you mention that nearly all labs are running 35-40 cycles which guarantees a
positive test, simply from noise.
The inventor of the test said if you don't find anything after 15 cycles, it probably
isn't there. After 20 cycles the noise starts to be greater than any real information. By 30,
the test is mostly noise. More than 35, the test is completely worthless.
Of course I've been saying this for five months, but most people didn't listen. After the
NYT article came out, people I know started saying, "How did you know?"
I said, "Because I have critical thinking skills. Why didn't you believe me? Name a time
I've steered you wrong."
Antiduck , 14 hours ago
333 labs in florida had 100% positivity. (stupid word.)
ZenStick , 12 hours ago
Exactly correct.
Nobody will touch this line of reasoning in public or on media.
Bastages.
Identify as Ferengi , 15 hours ago
See above, Born2Bwired.
The PCR test is not useful for what they are using it for apparently. This has been
known since the beginning. Here is quote regarding AIDS:
"Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR, is thoroughly
convinced that HIV is not the cause of "AIDS". With regard to the viral load tests, which
attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: "Quantitative PCR is an
oxymoron." PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is
unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral
load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect
free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some
cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but
not viruses themselves.
What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can
accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle
into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the
signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential,
the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of
many orders of magnitude."
This is a freebie so you should be able to get into this article and pickup on additional
detail. Those who were treated early on had a better result from remdesivir than those who were
treated later after contracting Covid. This was already know,.
Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir
or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women;
56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed
the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and
6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group.
On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher
odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds
ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02).
The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care
groups was not significantly different ( P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum
test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the
10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia
(6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients
compared with standard care.
Some Limitations: This study has several limitations. First, the original protocol was
written when COVID-19 cases were largely confined to Asia and the clinical understanding of
disease was limited to case series. This led to a change in the primary end point on the first
day of study enrollment as it became clear that hospital discharge rates varied greatly across
regions and the ordinal scale had become standard for interventional COVID-19 studies. Second,
the study used an open-label design, which potentially led to biases in patient care and
reporting of data. Third, because of the urgent circumstances in which the study was conducted,
virologic outcomes such as effect of remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 viral load were not assessed.
Fourth, other laboratory parameters that may have aided in identifying additional predictors of
outcomes were not routinely collected. Fifth, the ordinal scale used to evaluate outcomes was
not ideal for detecting differences in patients with moderate COVID-19, especially for a
clinical situation in which discharge decisions may be driven by factors other than clinical
improvement.
Conclusions: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a
10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical
status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients
randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in
clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical
importance.
While experts across the world search for a vaccine to tackle the dangerous new infection,
Russian health bosses have identified a trio of existing medicines to combat 2019-nCoV in
adults.
The new coronavirus can be fought with ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon
beta-1b, they believe. These drugs are typically used to treat hepatitis C, HIV and multiple
sclerosis respectively.
The Ministry of Health advisory not only offers recommendations, but also describes how the
treatments work and in what quantities they should be prescribed. The guidelines are intended
for doctors in hospitals throughout the country.
... ... ...
One of the drugs recommended, ribavirin, was used in the treatment of the 2003 Chinese SARS
outbreak, which infected over 8,000 people and killed 774 across 17 different countries. The
new coronavirus has shown a sizeable genetic similarity with SARS, with one sequence comparison
showing a match of 79.5%.
The ministry also instructs that, in order to prevent and reduce the severity of symptoms,
medication should be consumed within two days of contact with an infected person. Their
prevention recommendations also include sanitary and hygiene rules, such as handwashing and
wearing protective masks.
As scientists race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, experts say obesity could prove an
impediment -- a sobering prospect for a nation in which nearly half of all adults are
obese.
For a world crippled by the coronavirus, salvation hinges on a vaccine.
But in the United States, where at least 4.6 million people have been infected and nearly
155,000 have died, the promise of that vaccine is hampered by a vexing epidemic that long
preceded COVID-19: obesity.
Scientists know that vaccines engineered to protect the public from influenza, hepatitis B,
tetanus and rabies can be less effective in obese adults than in the general population,
leaving them more vulnerable to infection and illness. There is little reason to believe,
obesity researchers say, that COVID-19 vaccines will be any different.
"Will we have a COVID vaccine next year tailored to the obese? No way," said Raz Shaikh,
an associate professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
"Will it still work in the obese? Our prediction is no."
More than 107 million American adults are obese, and their ability to return safely to work,
care for their families and resume daily life could be curtailed if the coronavirus vaccine
delivers weak immunity for them.
In March, still early in the global pandemic, a little-noticed study from China found that
heavier Chinese patients afflicted with COVID-19 were more likely to die than leaner ones,
suggesting a perilous future awaited the U.S., whose population is among the heaviest in the
world.
As intensive care units in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere filled with patients, the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that obese people with a body mass
index of 40 or more -- known as morbid obesity or about 100 pounds overweight -- were among the
groups at highest risk of becoming severely ill with COVID-19. About 9% of American adults are
in that category.
As weeks passed and a clearer picture of who was being hospitalized came into focus, federal
health officials expanded their warning to include people with a body mass index of
30 or more. That vastly expanded the ranks of those considered vulnerable to the most
severe cases of infection, to 42.4% of American adults.
Obesity has long been known to be a significant risk factor for death from cardiovascular
disease and cancer. But scientists in the emerging field of immunometabolism are finding
obesity also interferes with the body's immune response, putting obese people at greater risk
of infection from pathogens such as influenza and the novel coronavirus. In the case of
influenza, obesity has emerged as a factor making it more difficult to vaccinate adults against
infection. The question is whether that will hold true for COVID-19.
A healthy immune system turns inflammation on and off as needed, calling on white blood
cells and sending out proteins to fight infection. Vaccines harness that inflammatory response.
But blood tests show that obese people and people with related metabolic risk factors such as
high blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels experience a state of chronic mild
inflammation ; the inflammation turns on and stays on.
Adipose tissue -- or fat -- in the belly, the liver and other organs is not inert; it
contains specialized cells that send out molecules, like the hormone leptin, that scientists
suspect induces this chronic state of inflammation. While the exact biological mechanisms are
still being investigated, chronic inflammation seems to interfere with the immune response to
vaccines, possibly subjecting obese people to preventable illnesses even after vaccination.
An effective vaccine fuels a controlled burn inside the body, searing into cellular memory a
mock invasion that never truly happened.
Evidence that obese people have a blunted response to common vaccines was first observed in
1985 when obese hospital employees who received the hepatitis B vaccine showed a significant
decline in protection 11 months later that was not observed in non-obese employees. The finding
was replicated in a follow-up study that used longer needles to ensure the vaccine was injected
into muscle and not fat.
Researchers found similar problems with the hepatitis A vaccine, and other studies have
found significant declines in the antibody protection induced by tetanus and rabies vaccines in
obese people.
"Obesity is a serious global problem, and the suboptimal vaccine-induced immune responses
observed in the obese population cannot be ignored," pleaded researchers from the Mayo
Clinic's Vaccine Research Group in a 2015 study published in the journal Vaccine.
Vaccines also are known to be less effective in older adults, which is why those 65 and
older receive a supercharged annual influenza vaccine that contains far more flu virus antigens
to help juice up their immune response.
By contrast, the diminished protection of the obese population -- both adults and children
-- has been largely ignored.
"I'm not entirely sure why vaccine efficacy in this population hasn't been more well
reported," said Catherine Andersen, an assistant professor of biology at Fairfield University
who studies obesity and metabolic diseases. "It's a missed opportunity for greater public
health intervention."
In 2017, scientists at UNC-Chapel Hill provided a critical clue about the limitations of the
influenza vaccine. In a paper published in the International
Journal of Obesity , they showed for the first time that vaccinated obese adults were twice
as likely as adults of a healthy weight to develop influenza or flu-like illness.
Curiously, they found that adults with obesity did produce a protective level of antibodies
to the influenza vaccine, but they still responded poorly.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"That was the mystery," said Chad Petit, an influenza virologist at the University of
Alabama.
One hypothesis, Petit said, is that obesity may trigger a metabolic dysregulation of T
cells, white blood cells critical to the immune response.
"It's not insurmountable," said Petit, who is researching COVID-19 in obese patients. "We
can design better vaccines that might overcome this discrepancy."
Historically, people with high BMIs often have been excluded from drug trials because they
frequently have related chronic conditions that might mask the results. The clinical trials
underway to test the safety and efficacy of a coronavirus vaccine do not have a BMI exclusion
and will include people with obesity, said Dr. Larry Corey, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, who is overseeing the phase 3 trials sponsored by the National Institutes of
Health.
Although trial coordinators are not specifically focused on obesity as a potential
complication, Corey said, participants' BMI will be documented and results evaluated.
Dr. Timothy Garvey, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes research at the University
of Alabama, was among those who stressed that, despite the lingering questions, it is still
safer for obese people to get vaccinated than not.
"The influenza vaccine still works in patients with obesity, but just not as well," Garvey
said. "We still want them to get vaccinated."
This new
study detailed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on May 20,
discovered that the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which grows in abundance as the
individual grows, might be the reason that less than two percent of all individuals infected
with SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease - are children.
Researchers had suspected that COVID-19 susceptibility could be linked to the amount of gene
expression of ACE2 seen in the nasal cavity, given that the
enzyme acts as a receptor to allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to pass into the body.
To investigate this potential link, researchers looked for a relationship between the two -
the level of gene expression of ACE2 in the nose and COVID-19 infection - by taking nasal swabs
from 305 people involved in an asthma study . Researchers hypothesized that the lower the
levels of enzyme gene expression, the less likely it is a person will be infected by
COVID-19.
Researchers said they chose to swab the nose because it is one of the first access points
for SARS-CoV-2 to infect an individual.
Samples were taken from both asthmatic (49.8 percent) and non-asthmatic patients. The 305
people involved in the study were between four to 60 years of age.
Researchers said they found a clear association between ACE2 expression and age - opening up
a possible explanation as to why most children, who tend to have lower levels of enzyme
expression, are less susceptible to COVID-19.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Supinda Bunyavanich, professor of Genetics and Genomic Sciences and Paediatrics at Mount
Sinai, said in a
press release that the study found "that there are low levels of ACE2 expression in the
nasal passages of younger children, and this ACE2 level increases with age into adulthood.
"This might explain why children have been largely spared in the pandemic," Bunyavanich
said.
Last week we warned
readers to be cautious about new COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting how key parts of the clinical
trials are being skipped as big pharma will not be held accountable for adverse side effects
for administering the experimental drugs.
A senior executive from AstraZeneca, Britain's second-largest drugmaker, told
Reuters that his company was just granted protection from all legal action if the company's
vaccine led to damaging side effects.
As the world awaits a COVID-19 vaccine, the next big advance in battling the pandemic could
come from a class of biotech therapies widely used against cancer and other disorders -
antibodies designed specifically to attack this new virus.
Last week we warned
readers to be cautious about new COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting how key parts of the clinical
trials are being skipped as big pharma will not be held accountable for adverse side effects
for administering the experimental drugs.
A senior executive from AstraZeneca, Britain's second-largest drugmaker, told
Reuters that his company was just granted protection from all legal action if the company's
vaccine led to damaging side effects.
"... And while being overweight does not seem to increase people's chances of contracting COVID-19 according to the study, it can affect the respiratory system, and potentially immune function as well. ..."
Just in case Americans - the most obese nation in the world - needed another reason to lose
some weight, here it is.
In what is emerging as a perfidious Catch 22, at a time when the US population is rapidly
gaining weight due to mandatory work from home regulation (hence the Covid 19 pounds ) as
described
here and
here , while a surge in domestic alcohol consumption is only making the matters
worse...
... Public Health England has published a
paper titled " Excess Weight and COVID-19 Insights from new evidence ", indicating that the
risks of hospitalization, intensive care treatment and death increase progressively with
increasing body mass index (BMI) above the healthy weight range even after adjustment for
potential confounding factors, including demographic and socioeconomic factors. In other words,
the fatter one is, the higher the risk that person may die from covid.
Some more details: according to the Public Health England paper, the hazard ratios of ICU
admission patients who are overweight (BMI ≥25-29.9), obese (BMI ≥30-34.9) or severely
obese (BMI ≥35) are 1.64, 2.59 and 4.35, respectively see figure below) relative to patients
with a BMI of ≥20-24.9.
And while being overweight does not seem to increase people's chances of contracting
COVID-19 according to the study, it can affect the respiratory system, and potentially immune
function as well.
And since no crisis will ever be put to waste by a nanny state which after the covid
pandemic will control virtually every aspect of our lives, the British government plans to
initiate an anti-obesity campaign including strict rules on how junk food is advertised and
sold in the UK.
This book is likely required reading for those who have suffered from COVID-19. It's only
76 pages, but only costs $1.99 for the Kindle edition. I downloaded a copy from the Internet
and will tuck it away for when I'm unlucky (assuming I would live long enough to try
them.)
Russia's health minister is preparing a mass vaccination campaign against the novel
coronavirus for October, local news agencies reported on Saturday, after a vaccine completed
clinical trials.
Health Minister Mikhail Murashko said the Gamaleya Institute, a state research facility in
Moscow, had completed clinical trials of the vaccine and paperwork is being prepared to
register it, Interfax news agency reported.
He said doctors and teachers would be the first to be vaccinated.
" We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any,
protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to
Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that
is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30
minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is
therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction
to anxiety over the pandemic."
The problem of false positives from Covid-19 tests means UK is inflating its numbers – and taking wrong decisions
Rob Lyons
Rob Lyons
is a UK journalist specialising in science, environmental and health issues. He is the author of '
Panic
on a Plate: How Society Developed an Eating Disorder'.
A sign is seen at a drive-through coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) testing facility in Hyde Park, following the outbreak of the coronavirus disease, London, Britain, June 11,
2020
When seven staff at a Scottish football club tested positive for coronavirus, alarm bells went off. But really alarming was
when six of those results turned out to be wrong. Such inaccurate tests are exaggerating the problem.
Last weekend, at very
short notice, the UK reintroduced quarantine measures for people arriving from Spain. For those already in Spain, or for whom
it was too late to postpone their trip, the decision is very inconvenient. For those who can't work at home when they return,
it may mean missing out on wages for the two weeks they will have to spend in isolation when they get back. But what if the
apparent rise in cases has been exaggerated by seemingly small flaws with testing?
The potential for problems
was illustrated by Scottish football team St Mirren last week. The club, based in Paisley, a town just west of Glasgow,
reported seven positive test results for Covid-19 among its staff. Alarm bells went off about what this might mean for the new
Scottish football season. But this
"cluster"
was a mirage. When the seven people
were re-tested using a more accurate method,
just
one
of them was found to be Covid-positive.
In Spain, half of the
reported
cases
have
been in people who had no symptoms. We know that many people who test positive never suffer any symptoms. But what if many of
these people don't have Covid-19 at all?
If that sounds
implausible, it's important to know that tests are not perfect. There are currently two kinds of tests to see if you have the
disease. One kind, the molecular real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, looks for genetic material from the virus.
This kind seems to be very accurate, but it's expensive and time-consuming. The other kind, the antigen test, detects specific
proteins on the surface of the virus. This is quicker, easier and cheaper, but it's much less accurate. In developed
countries, RT-PCR testing is the norm, but poorer countries may have to make do with antigen testing.
The difficulty at the
moment is that there are relatively few cases of Covid-19 in the community, but more and more testing is being done. So even
if the RT-PCR test has a high
"specificity"
– that is, a tiny fraction of test
results are false positives – the number could actually be quite significant. For example, let's say that 99.9 percent of the
time, a test correctly identifies someone without the disease as negative. Just 0.1 percent of tests produce false positives.
Recently, in the UK, it
was estimated that 0.04 percent of people had the virus outside of care homes and hospitals. So, if we tested 10,000 people,
we should find four cases of Covid-19, on average. Of the 9,996 other people tested, in this hypothetical example, 0.1 percent
who don't have the virus would also test positive – that's 9.996 – in other words, 10 people. So, even if the test is very
accurate indeed, we could easily end up with four positive tests from people who really do have the virus and 10 false
positives from people who don't.
For any particular
individual, the chances of the test being a false positive is small. But when we look at the big picture, we could easily be
fooled into thinking that there are many more cases than there really are. Indeed, with a test accuracy of 99.9 percent, if
you tested a million people, none of whom actually had the disease, you would produce 1,000 positive results. And for tests
with less accuracy – as with St Mirren FC – the situation could be even worse.
The UK government has now
performed nearly 11 million tests. Could there be 11,000
"cases"
that are simply
a
mistake
? In turn, that means governments and other authorities might be introducing additional restrictions on people's
lives that are actually unnecessary.
The problem of false positives is much less significant when the disease really is in wide circulation. It doesn't change the
picture much for the period from mid-March through to the start of June. (In any event, in the UK at least, there was very
little testing capacity thanks to the jaw-dropping incompetence of bodies like Public Health England.)
Let's look at the latest
figures. On Sunday, July 26, for example, 142,954 tests were processed. Of these, 747 were found to be positive. If 0.1
percent of tests are false positives, we would expect 142 of those 747 positives to be false. If the test turns out to be
slightly less accurate – perhaps 'only' 99.5 percent accurate (which still seems very good), then 710, almost all the reported
positives, could be false.
We should also bear in
mind, when trying to assess the overall situation, that there will be some false negatives. There will also be people who
don't show symptoms who do have the virus and never get tested. But this understanding shows that we do need to be careful
about reading too much into every small blip in the number of cases. We should be particularly sceptical about imposing new
restrictions like mandatory quarantine. And if we rely solely on these tests, we could have the crazy situation where Covid-19
apparently never disappears, even when nobody has got it.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
I remember signs on businesses that said "No shirts, no shoes: no service". I don't recall
morons screaming at underpaid clerks about their constitutional right not to wear a shirt or
shoes.
Population density has at least something to do with it. Big cities are the hardest hit, as
would be expected. The US death rate per capita is below that of Belgium, the UK, Spain, Italy,
Sweden, Peru (which is surprising), Chile (another surprise), and France.
I fail to see your problem with masks. My grandfather wore a gas mask on the front during
World War 1. I wear a mask, indeed a N99 mask, when sawing concrete or doing fine wood
sanding. When I was in the chemical process industry, some stations had Oxygen rebreathers to
deal with the hazards in case of accidents.
Medical staff have always worn respirators around
patients with airborne diseases, as have researchers handling such agents. Covid-19,
Tuberculosis, and late stage plague are all airborne. Wearing a mask when in a situation when
you are potentially exposed is common sense.
So wearing my N99 mask when I go shopping is a trivial additional step. I actually wear
nitrile gloves as well - I had them for dealing with paints and solvents.
Now I have had to give up eating out and going to my professional society meetings. I am
not happy about that, but I am not willfully stupid. I am approaching 70...
To me : A proper person dresses properly for the occasion. A proper person has high
regard for both himself and others. A proper person does not smoke in a no smoking zone. A
proper person places his child in a child restraint seat while riding in a car. And on and
on with other safety festures that we accept.You get my point.
What I would have you do is to do the three things that I mentioned.
Social distance. Good hygiene protocol. And yes wear a mask. A rhetorical question.
Would you permit a surgeon and every other person in an operating room go about the surgery
masklessess?
Real science and evidence won't convince the Coronadoom kool-aid drinkers. Masks are all
about signalling one's virtue and submission to arbitrary rules and to be seen as "doing
something". That the virus has an IFR in the range of flu and that mask are ineffective in
stopping spread of viruses doesn't matter to them. They want to force everyone to abdicate
human dignity and act in the same paranoid, abject manner as they do. It's all political
and has been form the beginning.
So if masks are ineffective, are you comfortable having your surgery team not wear masks
and breathe all over you while you're cut open? If not, why not, since masks are
ineffective?
I work in a hospital. The people who say Covid is just flu both don't understand how bad
Covid is and also don't understand how deadly the flu can be.
A third thing they don't understand is that cloth or surgical masks are about preventing
asymptomatic transmission, which is a real thing. I've seen people die from Covid that they
caught from someone who was "perfectly healthy."
It is such a simple, small thing to do, and has nothing to do with virtue signalling and
everything to do with not killing other people because you're carrying a virus and don't
know it. Some of the most Trump supporting people I've ever met work in this hospital and
wear masks everywhere they go to protect others, because they understand what Covid is.
C'mon people, if other countries can get this right without all the hand-wringing, so
can we.
Umm, actually I am a frontline non clinical hospital worker. I guess you're a bot but if
my reasoning is emotive can you kindly share the peer reviewed data upon which you base
your perspective?
On June 26, a small South San Francisco company called Vaxart made a surprise announcement:
A coronavirus vaccine it was working on had been selected by the U.S. government to be part of
Operation Warp Speed, the flagship federal initiative to quickly develop drugs to combat
Covid-19.
Vaxart's shares soared. Company insiders, who weeks earlier had received stock options worth
a few million dollars, saw the value of those awards increase sixfold. And a hedge fund that
partly controlled the company walked away with more than $200 million in instant profits.
The race is on to develop a coronavirus vaccine, and some companies and investors are
betting that the winners stand to earn vast profits from selling hundreds of millions -- or
even billions -- of doses to a desperate public.
Across the pharmaceutical and medical industries, senior executives and board members are
capitalizing on that dynamic.
They are making millions of dollars after announcing positive developments, including
support from the government, in their efforts to fight Covid-19. After such announcements,
insiders from at least 11 companies -- most of them smaller firms whose fortunes often hinge on
the success or failure of a single drug -- have sold shares worth well over $1 billion since
March, according to figures compiled for The New York Times by Equilar, a data
provider.
In some cases, company insiders are profiting from regularly scheduled compensation or
automatic stock trades. But in other situations, senior officials appear to be pouncing on
opportunities to cash out while their stock prices are sky high. And some companies have
awarded stock options to executives shortly before market-moving announcements about their
vaccine progress.
The sudden windfalls highlight the powerful financial incentives for company officials to
generate positive headlines in the race
for coronavirus vaccines and treatments , even if the drugs might never pan out.
Some companies are attracting government scrutiny for potentially using their associations
with Operation Warp Speed as marketing ploys.
For example, the headline on Vaxart's news release declared: "Vaxart's Covid-19 Vaccine
Selected for the U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed." But the reality is more complex.
Vaxart's vaccine candidate was included in a trial on primates that a federal agency was
organizing in conjunction with Operation Warp Speed. But Vaxart is not among the companies
selected to receive significant financial support from Warp Speed to produce hundreds of
millions of vaccine doses.
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has entered into funding agreements with
certain vaccine manufacturers, and we are negotiating with others. Neither is the case with
Vaxart," said Michael R. Caputo, the department's assistant secretary for public affairs.
"Vaxart's vaccine candidate was selected to participate in preliminary U.S. government studies
to determine potential areas for possible Operation Warp Speed partnership and support. At this
time, those studies are ongoing, and no determinations have been made."
Some officials at the Department of Health and Human Services have grown concerned about
whether companies including Vaxart are trying to inflate their stock prices by exaggerating
their roles in Warp Speed, a senior Trump administration official said. The department has
relayed those concerns to the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the official, who spoke
on the condition of anonymity.
It isn't clear if the commission is looking into the matter. An S.E.C. spokeswoman declined
to comment.
"Vaxart abides by good corporate governance guidelines and policies and makes decisions in
accordance with the best interests of the company and its shareholders," Vaxart's chief
executive, Andrei Floroiu, said in a statement on Friday. Referring to Operation Warp Speed, he
added, "We believe that Vaxart's Covid-19 vaccine is the most exciting one in O.W.S. because it
is the only oral vaccine (a pill) in O.W.S."
Well-timed stock transactions are generally legal. But investors and corporate governance
experts say they can create the appearance that executives are profiting from inside
information, and could erode public confidence in the pharmaceutical industry when the world is
looking to these companies to cure Covid-19.
"It is inappropriate for drug company executives to cash in on a crisis," said Ben Wakana,
executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs, a nonprofit advocacy group. "Every day,
Americans wake up and make sacrifices during this pandemic. Drug companies see this as a
payday."
Executives at a long list of companies have reaped seven- or eight-figure profits thanks to
their work on coronavirus vaccines and treatments.
Shares of Regeneron, a biotech company in Tarrytown, N.Y., have climbed nearly 80 percent
since early February, when it announced a collaboration with the Department of Health and Human
Services to develop a Covid-19 treatment. Since then, the company's top executives and board
members have sold nearly $700 million in stock. The chief executive, Leonard Schleifer, sold
$178 million of shares on a single day in May.
Alexandra Bowie, a spokeswoman for Regeneron, said most of those sales had been scheduled in
advance through programs that automatically sell executives' shares if the stock hits a certain
price.
Moderna, a 10-year-old vaccine developer based in Cambridge, Mass., that has never brought a
product to market, announced in late January that it was working on a coronavirus vaccine. It
has issued a stream of news releases hailing its vaccine progress, and its stock has more than
tripled, giving the company a market value of almost $30 billion.
Moderna insiders have sold about $248 million of shares since that January announcement,
most of it after the company
was selected in April to receive federal funding to support its vaccine efforts.
While some of those sales were scheduled in advance, others were more spur of the moment.
Flagship Ventures, an investment fund run by the company's founder and chairman, Noubar Afeyan,
sold more than $68 million worth of Moderna shares on May 21. Those transactions were not
scheduled in advance, according to securities filings.
Executives and board members at Luminex, Quidel and Emergent BioSolutions have sold shares
worth a combined $85 million after announcing they were working on vaccines, treatments or
testing solutions.
At other companies, executives and board members received large grants of stock options
shortly before the companies announced good news that lifted the value of those options.
Novavax, a drugmaker in
Gaithersburg, Md., began working on a vaccine early this year. This spring, the company
reported promising preliminary test results and a $1.6
billion deal with the Trump administration.
In April, with its shares below $24, Novavax issued a batch of new stock awards to all its
employees "in acknowledgment of the extraordinary work of our employees to implement a new
vaccine program." Four senior executives, including the chief executive, Stanley Erck, received
stock options that were worth less than $20 million at the time.
Since then, Novavax's stock has rocketed to more than $130 a share. At least on paper, the
four executives' stock options are worth more than $100 million.
So long as the company hits a milestone with its vaccine testing, which it is expected to
achieve soon, the executives will be able to use the options to buy discounted Novavax shares
as early as next year, regardless of whether the company develops a successful vaccine.
Silvia Taylor, a Novavax spokeswoman, said the stock awards were designed "to incentivize
and retain our employees during this critical time." She added that "there is no guarantee they
will retain their value."
Two other drugmakers, Translate Bio and Inovio, awarded large batches of stock options to
executives and board members shortly before they announced progress on their coronavirus
vaccines, sending shares higher. Representatives of the companies said the options were
regularly scheduled annual grants.
Vaxart, though, is where the most money was made the fastest.
At the start of the year, its shares were around 35 cents. Then in late January, Vaxart
began working on an orally administered coronavirus vaccine, and its shares started rising.
Vaxart's largest shareholder was a New York hedge fund, Armistice Capital, which last year
acquired nearly two-thirds of the company's shares. Two Armistice executives, including the
hedge fund's founder, Steven Boyd,
joined Vaxart's board of directors. The hedge fund also purchased rights, known as
warrants, to buy 21 million more Vaxart shares at some point in the future for as little as 30
cents each.
Vaxart has never brought a vaccine to market. It has just 15 employees. But throughout the
spring, Vaxart announced positive preliminary data for its vaccine, along with a partnership
with a company that could manufacture it. By late April, with investors sensing the potential
for big profits, the company's shares had reached $3.66 -- a tenfold increase from January.
On June 8, Vaxart changed the terms of its warrants agreement with Armistice, making it
easier for the hedge fund to rapidly acquire the 21 million shares, rather than having to buy
and sell in smaller batches.
One week later, Vaxart announced that its chief executive was stepping down, though he would
remain chairman. The new C.E.O., Mr. Floroiu, had previously worked with Mr. Boyd, Armistice's
founder, at the hedge fund and the consulting firm McKinsey.
On June 25, Vaxart announced that it had signed a letter of intent with another company that
might help it mass-produce a coronavirus vaccine. Vaxart's shares nearly doubled that day.
The next day, Vaxart issued its news release saying it had been
selected for Operation Warp Speed. Its shares instantly doubled again, at one pointing
hitting $14, their highest level in years.
"We are very pleased to be one of the few companies selected by Operation Warp Speed, and
that ours is the only oral vaccine being evaluated," Mr. Floroiu said.
Armistice took advantage of the stock's exponential increase -- at that point up more than
3,600 percent since January. On June 26, a Friday, and the next Monday, the hedge fund
exercised its warrants to buy nearly 21 million Vaxart shares for either 30 cents or $1.10 a
share -- purchases it would not have been able to make as quickly had its agreement with Vaxart
not been modified weeks earlier.
Armistice then immediately sold the shares at prices from $6.58 to $12.89 a share, according
to securities filings. The hedge fund's profits were immense: more than $197 million.
"It looks like the warrants may have been reconfigured at a time when they knew good news
was coming," said Robert Daines, a professor at Stanford Law School who is an expert on
corporate governance. "That's a valuable change, made right as the company's stock price was
about to rise."
At the same time, the hedge fund also unloaded some of the Vaxart shares it had previously
bought, notching tens of millions of dollars in additional profits.
By the end of that Monday, June 29, Armistice had sold almost all of its Vaxart shares.
Mr. Boyd and Armistice declined to comment.
Mr. Floroiu said the change to the Armistice agreement "was in the best interests of Vaxart
and its stockholders" and helped it raise money to work on the Covid-19 vaccine.
He and other Vaxart board members also were positioned for big personal profits. When he
became chief executive in mid-June, Mr. Floroiu received stock options that were worth about
$4.3 million. A month later, those options were worth more than $28 million.
Normally when companies issue stock options to executives, the options can't be exercised
for months or years. Because of the unusual terms and the run-up in Vaxart's stock price, most
of Mr. Floroiu's can be cashed in now.
Vaxart's board members also received large grants of stock options, giving them the right to
buy shares in the company at prices well below where the stock is now trading. The higher the
shares fly, the bigger the profits.
"Vaxart is disrupting the vaccine world," Mr. Floroiu boasted during a virtual investor
conference on Thursday. He added that his impression was that "it's OK to make a profit from
Covid vaccines, as long as you're not profiteering."
Craig
Murray lambasts a Russophobic media that celebrates a supposed cyber attack on UK vaccine research, ignores collapse
of key evidence of a "hack" and dabbles in dubious memorabilia.
The Guardian's
headquarters
in London.
(Bryantbob,
CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Andrew Marr, center, in 2014.
(
Financial
Times
, Flickr)
A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The latest is the accusation
that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination research. This is another totally evidence-free
accusation. But it misses the point anyway.
The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that there was an effort to
obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research
results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community.
As I have
reported
before
, the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common research and common vaccine
solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and
disadvantage the global poor).
What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the fact that Russia had
just
bought
the very research specified. You don't steal things you already own.
Evidence of CIA Hacks
If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with certainty the whereabouts of
hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to India, Australia or South Africa depending on where
I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging broadcasting restrictions.
More pertinently,
WikiLeaks'
Vault
7 release of CIA material showed the
specific
programs
for the CIA in how to leave clues to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable
evidence that the CIA do computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of
Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the mainstream media knows to
be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.
Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that former Labour Party Leader
Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen
by an evil Russian who left his name of Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this
narrative. Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking Corbyn.
Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared to open up the NHS
"market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on pharmaceutical prices, I should be very
grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who
leaked evidence of just how systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted insider, and I very much
suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted insider.
When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the whistle.
On the core subject here: By necessity, a
pandemic requires a cooperative international response. Only one country has refused to do so: The US. In their supreme
arrogance, our ruling class lost track the fact that the US needs the rest of the world, not the other way way around.
Study identifies six different "types" of COVID-19
A new study of COVID-19 , based on
data from a symptom tracker app, determined that there are six distinct "types" of the disease involving different clusters of symptoms.
The discovery could potentially open new possibilities for how doctors can better treat individual patients and predict what level
of hospital care they would need.
Researchers from
King's College London
studied data from approximately 1,600 U.K. and U.S. patients who regularly logged their symptoms in the COVID Symptom Tracker App
in March and April.
Typically, doctors will look for
key symptoms
such as cough, fever and
loss
of the sense of smell to detect COVID-19. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, says the six different "types" of COVID-19
can vary by severity and come with their own set of symptoms.
"I think it's very, very interesting," Dr. Bob Lahita, who is not affiliated with the study, told CBSN anchors Vladimir Duthiers
and Anne-Marie Green. "Among the patients I see, those who recovered, many of them present different ways: some people with fever
and some without fever, and some with
nausea and vomiting, some people with diarrhea , etc."
The six clusters of symptoms outlined in the study are:
Flu-like with no fever: Headache, loss of smell, muscle pains, cough, sore throat, chest pain, no fever.
Flu-like with fever: Headache, loss of smell, cough, sore throat, hoarseness, fever, loss of appetite.
Gastrointestinal: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, diarrhea, sore throat, chest pain, no cough.
Severe level one, fatigue: Headache, loss of smell, cough, fever, hoarseness, chest pain, fatigue.
Severe level two, confusion: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness, sore throat, chest
pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain.
Severe level three, abdominal and respiratory: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness,
sore throat, chest pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain, shortness of breath, diarrhea, abdominal pain.
The first level, "flu-like with no fever," is associated with headaches, loss of smell, muscle pains, cough, sore throat and chest
pain. Patients at this level have a 1.5% chance of needing breathing support such as oxygen or a ventilator.
The second type, "flu-like with fever," includes symptoms like loss of appetite, headache, loss of smell, cough, sore throat,
hoarseness and fever. Researchers say about 4.4% of patients at this level needed breathing support.
Patients with the third type, simply described as "gastrointestinal," do not have a cough as part of their illness. Instead, they
experience headache, diarrhea, loss of smell, loss of appetite, sore throat and chest pain, and about 3.3% needed breathing support.
Lahita referred to the following three clusters of COVID-19 as the "really severe types."
In type four, or "severe level one," patients experience fatigue along with headache, loss of smell, cough, fever, hoarseness
and chest pain. Patients at this level needed breathing support at a rate of 8.6%.
Type five, "severe level two," includes the symptoms of type four along with loss of appetite, sore throat and muscle pain, and
is mainly distinguished by
confusion
.
"That means you don't know where you are or where you live, whether you are in or out of the hospital, who your relatives are,"
Lahita explained. "That is very scary." Almost 10% of patients at that level need breathing support.
The most severe type of COVID-19 is referred to as "severe level three, abdominal and respiratory," and has all the above symptoms
along with abdominal pain, shortness of breath and diarrhea. Nearly 20% of these patients need breathing support.
"Those are the severe level threes who wind up on a ventilator, and then it is touch-and-go as to whether they survive the
infection entirely," Lahita said.
The U.K. researchers also found that only 16% of patients with type one COVID-19 required hospitalization, compared with nearly
half of the patients with type six.
Patients in the severe clusters also tended to be older or with pre-existing conditions and weakened immune systems, compared
to those in the first three.
Scientists hope the discovery, once further studied, could help predict what types of care patients with COVID-19 might need,
and give doctors the ability to predict which patients would fall into which category.
"I'm very happy that these six types have been identified and can give us an idea of a prognosis going forward for patients who
are afflicted with this virus," Lahita said.
More talk about T-cells and B-cells (per Volchkov) Australia
T-cell and B-cell research
To recap: Volchkov, a Russian geneticist/medical researcher, was quoted in a John Helmer
article that he believes the true COVID-19/nCOV/SARS-2 immunity comes from T-cell and B-cell
activity. His view is based upon multiple European studies employing a very expensive
T-cell/B-cell test called ELISPOT - and is that the actual nCOV infection rate is likely far
higher than spot PCR or antibody tests can ever detect. In particular, if 20% of people
tested by PCR or antibody tests show exposure, the likely actual exposure rate is 3 times
higher (60% vs. 20%).
This has huge ramifications if true: it means places with high nCOV death rates have likely
already achieved herd immunity levels.
One thing is true: death rates in every single nation and region with a high nCOV
death/million count have fallen dramatically.
People are still dying, but they are dying at a far lower CFR/IFR rate.
IF, and I mean *IF*, this is true, this means the lockdown strategies actually did very
little to "contain" the outbreak.
This is why looking at the historical behavior in different US states is so important.
California locked down early, but the nCOV mortality rates (both absolute and relative) have
basically been flat from April until now.
"... This boosts the hypothesis that normal speaking and breathing, not just coughing and sneezing, are responsible for spreading COVID-19 -- and that infectious doses of the virus can travel distances far greater than the six feet (two meters) urged by social distancing guidelines. ..."
"... The paper was posted to the medrxiv.org website, where most cutting-edge research during the pandemic has first been made public. ..."
"... The team managed to collect microdroplets as small as one micron in diameter. They then placed these samples into a culture to make them grow, finding that three of the 18 samples tested were able to replicate. For Santarpia, this represents proof that microdroplets, which also travel much greater distances than big droplets, are capable of infecting people. "It is replicated in cell culture and therefore infectious," he said. ..."
Scientists have known for several months the new coronavirus can become suspended in
microdroplets expelled by patients when they speak and breathe, but until now there was no
proof that these tiny particles are infectious.
A new study by scientists at the University of Nebraska that was uploaded to a medical
preprint site this week has shown for the first time that SARS-CoV-2 taken from microdroplets,
defined as under five microns, can replicate in lab conditions.
This boosts the hypothesis that normal speaking and breathing, not just coughing and
sneezing, are responsible for spreading COVID-19 -- and that infectious doses of the virus can
travel distances far greater than the six feet (two meters) urged by social distancing
guidelines.
The results are still considered preliminary and have not yet appeared in a peer-reviewed
journal, which would lend more credibility to the methods devised by the scientists.
The paper was posted to the medrxiv.org website, where most cutting-edge research during the
pandemic has first been made public.
The same team wrote a paper in March showing that the virus remains airborne in the rooms of
hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and this study will soon be published in a journal, according
to the lead author.
"It is actually fairly difficult" to collect the samples, Joshua Santarpia, an associate
professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center told AFP.
The team used a device the size of a cell phone for the purpose, but "the concentrations are
typically very low, your chances of recovering material are small."
The scientists took air samples from five rooms of bedridden patients, at a height of about
a foot (30 centimeters) over the foot of their beds.
The patients were talking, which produces microdroplets that become suspended in the air for
several hours in what is referred to as an "aerosol," and some were coughing.
The team managed to collect microdroplets as small as one micron in diameter. They then placed these samples into a culture to make them grow, finding that three of the
18 samples tested were able to replicate. For Santarpia, this represents proof that microdroplets, which also travel much greater
distances than big droplets, are capable of infecting people. "It is replicated in cell culture and therefore infectious," he said.
Why we wear masks
The potential for microdroplet transmission of the coronavirus was at one stage thought to
be improbable by health authorities across the world. Later, scientists began to change their mind and acknowledge it may be a possibility, which
is the rationale for universal masking.
The World Health Organization was among the last to shift its position, doing so on July
7.
"I feel like the debate has become more political than scientific," said Santarpia. "I think most scientists that work on infectious diseases agree that there's likely an
airborne component, though we may quibble over how large."
Linsey Marr, a professor at Virginia Tech who is a leading expert on aerial transmission of
viruses and wasn't involved in the study, said it was rare to obtain measurements of the amount
of virus present in air.
"Based on what we know about other diseases and what we know so far about SARS-CoV-2, I
think we can assume that if the virus is 'infectious in aerosols,' then we can become infected
by breathing them in," she told AFP.
Last week, we shared news of what Russia's scientific community had touted as a major
breakthrough in the development of a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2: A vaccine trial at Moscow's
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University had yielded the first successful human trials.
The American business press slavishly parrots every Moderna press release as the company
regurgitates its Phase 1 trial results, despite the fact that the politically-connected biotech
company's stage 3 clinical trials won't begin until later this month. Meanwhile, its CEO
Stephane Bancel and other executives have cashed in on their Moderna shares,
prompting SEC chief Jay Clayton to sheepishly caution against credibility-destroying insider
selling.
Despite all of this, we didn't hear a peep out of the western press about
the Sechenov trial's accomplishments . However, a few days later, with anxieties about
Russia-backed electoral interference intensifying and 'national polls' hinting at a Biden
landslide,
the British press reported on a new 'policy paper' accusing those pesky Ruskies of trying
to steal British research involving COVID-19 vaccines. Intel shared by Canada and the US
purportedly supported this conclusion, though Russia has vehemently denied the accusations.
But that's not all: Around the same time, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab accused Russia of
trying to meddle in the UK's December election (which returned the Tories to power and ended
the reign of opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn).
Were these reports about Russia's vaccine-trial successes merely a smokescreen? The British
might see it that way, but on Monday, US-based Bloomberg News published an interesting report
claiming that certain Russian VIPs had been administered experimental doses of a vaccine
prototype as early as April. Reportedly developed by Moscow's Gamaleya Institute and financed
by the state-run Russian Direct Investment Fund, this Russian vaccine candidate is a so-called
"viral vector vaccine" based on human adenovirus - a common cold virus fused with the spike
protein of SARS CoV-2 to stimulate a human immune response.
It's similar to a vaccine being developed by China's CanSino Biologics, according to
Bloomberg.
Scores of members of Russia's business and political elite have been given early access to
an experimental vaccine against Covid-19, according to people familiar with the effort, as
the country races to be among the first to develop an inoculation.
Top executives at companies including aluminum giant United Co. Rusal, as well as
billionaire tycoons and government officials began getting shots developed by the state-run
Gamaleya Institute in Moscow as early as April, the people said. They declined to be
identified as the information isn't public.
The Gamaleya vaccine, financed by the state-run Russian Direct Investment Fund and backed
by the military, last week completed a phase 1 trial involving Russian military personnel.
The institute hasn't published results for the study, which involved about 40 people, but has
begun the next stage of trials with a larger group.
Gamaleya's press office couldn't be reached by phone Sunday. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov didn't respond to a text message asking whether President Vladimir Putin or others in
his administration have had the shots. A government spokesman couldn't immediately
comment.
Wait... so the Russians hacked the British vaccine research, traveled back in time, then
decided to test their vaccine prototype on some of the most powerful people in Russia's (highly
unequal) society? Well, they had to first travel to the future to steal the time-travel
technology from the Americans (bear with us...we're still piecing it all together).
The program under which members of Russia's business and political elite have been given
the chance to volunteer for doses of the experimental vaccine is legal but kept under wraps
to avoid a crush of potential participants, according to a researcher familiar with the
effort. He said several hundred people have been involved. Bloomberg confirmed dozens who
have had the shots but none would allow their names to be published.
It's not clear how participants are selected and they aren't part of the official studies,
though they are monitored and their results logged by the institute. Patients usually get the
shots - two are needed to produce an immune response Gamaleya says will last for about two
years - at a Moscow clinic connected to the institute. Participants aren't charged a fee and
sign releases that they know the risks involved.
Dmitriev of the RDIF said he and his family had taken the shots and noted that a
significant number of other volunteers have also been given the opportunity. He declined to
provide further details. The Gamaleya Institute said it vaccinated its director, as well as
the team working on the trial, when it started. In May, state-controlled Sberbank recruited
volunteers among employees to test the institute's vaccine.
O ne top executive who had the vaccine said he experienced no side effects. He said he
decided to risk taking the experimental shots in order to be able to live a normal life and
have business meetings as usual. Other participants have reported fever and muscle aches
after getting the shots.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Is it so hard to believe that Russia had enough faith in its vaccine prototype that it would
allow certain individuals the choice of receiving an early dose? After all, EU governments are
already buying up millions of doses of Moderna's still-largely-untested vaccine candidate.
Similarly, is it possible that Russian spies were simply monitoring the competition?
Who knows? When it comes to the shadowy world of espionage, the public rarely hears the full
story. Russia's outbreak has slowed in recent weeks as it has been overtaken by India, which
now counts more than 1 million confirmed cases. Meanwhile Russia has confirmed more than
750,000 cases of Covid-19, the fourth-largest total in the world.
pdate (0935ET): A coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Oxford and AstraZeneca has
shown promise in an early trial which found it to be safe for human consumption while reliably
producing antibodies that are effective at stopping the virus.
In what looked like a coordinated one-two punch, one of the top researchers leading the
Oxford-Astrazeneca trials said in an interview published Monday morning that the research was
making "good progress". Minutes later, the Lancet published the first Phase 1/2 trial results,
which showed that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine caused "robust immune responses" and was
"tolerated" by all study subjects.
That interview was published Monday morning in the US, just minutes before the Lancet
released the results of a Phase 1/2 study of the Oxford-AZ vaccine, the most highly anticipated
COVID-19 news of the day.
There are currently more than 137 vaccine candidates undergoing preclinical development, and
23 in early clinical development, according to WHO. Of these, candidates from Moderna and the
Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership are two of the most closely followed prototypes. Governments
have already started ordering the vaccine from Moderna, even though approval is still months,
perhaps years, away.
According to the Lancet, research has shown that vaccine candidates from Cansino and
Astra-Oxford trial have been making good progress, and while they couldn't say much
conclusively, the Astra-Oxford trial showed no worrisome "adverse effects".
The Phase 1/2 trial, one of the first human studies of the vaccine, showed an appropriate
"immune response". Patients who received 2 doses instead of one saw a stronger response. All
patients who received the vaccine generated the desired immune response.
Oxford's candidate "showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased
antibody responses. These results "support large scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in
an ongoing phase 3 program." The Oxford-AZ study included 1,077 participants spread across 5
test sites in and around the UK.
In the study, researchers measured the number of antibodies, and the strength of the immune
response, after administering single doses and double doses of the vaccine to various groups of
study subjects, and compared those results with a control group who received another vaccine.
Pain and swelling caused by the injection were easily treated with paracetemol.
There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19
group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per
million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG
responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted
following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses
against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when
measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster
dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of
ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with
antibody levels measured by ELISA (R²=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001).
The result: The vaccine candidate has been deemed safe enough to move on to 'Phase 3', which
would involve large-scale human trials.
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased
antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular
immune responses, support largescale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase
3 programme.
By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny – May 21, 2020 – an osteopathic medical doctor,
board-certified in three specialties. She is the founder of Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center, a medical clinic located
near Cleveland, Ohio. Her company, Courses4Mastery.com provides online education and
training regarding all aspects of vaccines and vaccination.
_____________________________
In 1965, scientists identified the first human coronavirus; it was associated with the
common cold. The Coronavirus family, named for their crown-like appearance, currently includes
36 viruses.
Within that group, there are 4 common viruses that have been causing infection in humans for
more than sixty years. In addition, three pandemic coronaviruses that can infect humans: SARS,
MERS, and now, SARS-CoV-2.
As the news of deaths in China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran began to saturate every form of
media 24/7, we became familiar with a new term: COVID-19. To be clear, the name of the newly
identified coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2, short for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Coronavirus-2. This virus is associated with fever, cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath,
the complex of symptoms that form the diagnosis of COVID-19.
The Trump administration declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, then on
February 2 placed a ban on the entry of most travelers who had recently been in China. On
February 4, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a declaration of
public health emergency and activated the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act,
otherwise known as the PREP
Act. This nefarious legislation provides complete protection of manufacturers from
liability for all products, technologies, biologics, or any vaccine developed as a medical
countermeasure against COVID-19. For those nervously waiting for the vaccine to become
available, be sure to understand the PREP Act
before rushing to the get in line.
Calls for testing – to see if a person is or isn't infected – began soon after
the emergency was declared, but performing those tests was initially slow due to an inadequate
number of test kits. As the kits became available, those
developed by the CDC had a defect: The reagents reacted to the
negative control sample , making the test inaccurate and the kits unusable.
In various
countries, thousands of test kits purchased from China were found to be contaminated with
the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. No one really knows how that happened, but theories spread like
wildfire. Could the test kit infect the person being tested? Or, did it mean the test would
return a false-positive result, driving up the numbers of those said to be infected so those in
power could implement stronger lockdowns and accelerate the hockey-stick unemployment rates?
Neither of those questions has been adequately answered.
Mandatory Testing of what?
Authorities claim that testing is important for public health officials to assess if their
mitigation efforts – "shelter in place" and "social distancing" and "wearing a mask"
– are making a difference to "flatten the curve." Officials also claim that testing is
necessary to know how many persons are infected within a community and to understand the nature
of how coronaviruses spread.
Are these reasons sufficient to give up our health freedom and our personal rights, being
tested and shamed in public?
Despite the challenges with test kits, testing began. By the end of March 2020, more than 1
million people had been tested across the US. By May 9, the number tested had grown to over
8.7M. Testing methods include a swab of the
nasal passages or by inserting a long, uncomfortable swab through the nose to scrape the back of the
throat. Specimens have also been obtained bronchoalveolar lavage, from
sputum , and from stool
specimens.
The call for mandatory testing has been gathering steam and becoming ever more onerous. In
Washington state, Governor Inslee
has declared:
Individuals that refuse to cooperate with contact tracers and/or refuse testing, those
individuals will not be allowed to leave their homes to purchase basic necessities such as
groceries and/or prescriptions. Those persons will need to make arrangements through friends,
family, or state provided 'family support' personnel .
But what do the results really mean?
Who Should Be Tested
On May 8, 2020, the CDC has listed specific priorities
for when testing should be done. As of May 16, more than 11-million samples have been
collected and more than 3700 specimens have not yet been evaluated.
High Priority
Hospitalized patients with symptoms
Healthcare facility workers, workers in living settings, and first responders with
symptoms
Residents in long-term care facilities or other congregate living settings, including
prisons and shelters, with symptoms
Priority
Persons with symptoms of potential COVID-19 infection, including fever, cough, shortness
of breath, chills, muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, vomiting or diarrhea, and/or sore
throat
Persons without symptoms who are prioritized by health departments or clinicians
, for any reason, including but not limited to public health monitoring, sentinel
surveillance, or screening of asymptomatic individuals according to state and local
plans.
Read that last priority again: That means virtually everyone can be required to get a
test.
Is that a violation of your personal rights? And, if you submit to testing, what does a
"positive test" actually mean?
Types of Testing: RT-PCR
PCR, short for polymerase chain reaction , is a highly specific laboratory technique. The
key to understanding
PCR testing is that PCR can identify an individual specific virus within a viral
family.
However, a PCR test can only be used to identify DNA viruses; the SARS-CoV2 virus is an RNA
virus. Therefore, multiple steps must be taken to "magnify" the amount of genetic material in
the specimen. Researchers used a method called RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain
reaction, to specifically identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's a complicated process. To read
more about it, go
here and here.
If a nasal or a blood sample contains a tiny snip of RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, RT-PCR
can identify it, leading to a high probability that the person has been exposed to the
SARS-CoV-2 virus.
However – and this is important – a positive RT-PCR test result does not
necessarily indicate a full virus is present. The virus must be fully intact to be
transmitted and cause illness.
RT-PCR Testing: The Importance of Timing
Even if a person has had all the symptoms associated with a coronavirus infection or has
been closely exposed to persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the probability of a
RT-PCR test being positive decreases with the number of days past the onset of symptoms.
For a nasal swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 94% on day
0 to about 67% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 2% chance of a positive result.
For a throat swab , the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 88% on
day 0 to about 47% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 1% chance of a positive result.
In other words, the longer the time frame between the onset of symptoms and the time a
person is tested, the more likely the test will be negative.
Repeat testing of persons who have a negative test may (eventually) confirm the presence of
viral RNA, but this is impractical. Additionally, repeated testing of the same person can lead
to even more confusing results: The test may go from negative, to positive, then back to
negative again as the immune system clears out the coronavirus infection and moves to
recovery.
And what makes this testing even more confusing is that the
FDA admits that "The detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily equate with an
infectious virus."
Let's break that down:
You've had all the symptoms of COVID19, but your RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is
negative.
Does that mean you're "good to go" – you can go to work, go to school or you can
travel? OR
Does that mean your influenza-like illness was caused by some other pathogen, possibly
one of the four coronaviruses that have been in circulation for 60 years? OR
Does that mean the result is a false-negative and you still have the infection, but it
isn't detectable by current tests? OR
Does that mean it was a sample was inadequately taken due to the faulty technique by the
technician? OR
Does that mean you have not been exposed, and you are susceptible to contracting the
infection, and you need to stay in quarantine?
So, what does a "positive" test actually mean? And that's the problem:
No one knows for sure.
Another Type of Testing: Antibodies
According to the nonprofit Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics
(FIND) , more than 200 serologic blood tests, to test for antibodies, are either now
available or in development.
There are two primary types of antibodies that are assessed for nearly any type of
infection: IgM and IgG. While several new testing devices are being touted as a home test, they
are not the same as a home pregnancy test or a glucometer to you're your blood sugar. The blood
spot or saliva specimen can be collected at home, must it must then be sent to a laboratory for
analysis. It can take a few days – or longer – to get the results. With so many
tests in the pipeline, the ability to test at home will be changing over time.
The first antibody to rise is IgM. It rises quickly after the onset of the infection and is
usually a sign of an acute, or current, infection. The IgM levels diminish quickly as the
infection resolves. The
FDA admits they do not know how long the IgM remains present for SARS-CoV-2 as the
infection is being cleared.
The interpretation of an IgG antibody is more difficult. This antibody is an indicator of a
past infection. The test is often not specific enough to determine if the past infection was
caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus or one of the four common coronaviruses that cause
influenza-like illness.
Because serology testing can yield a negative test result even if the patient is actively
infected (e.g., the body has not yet developed in response to the virus) or maybe falsely
positive (e.g., if the antibody indicates a past infection by a different coronavirus), this
type of testing should not be used to diagnose an acute or active COVID-19 infection.
Similarly, the CDC says the
following regarding antibody testing:
If you test positive:
A positive test result shows you have antibodies as a result of an infection with
SARS-CoV-2, or possibly a related coronavirus.
It's unclear if those antibodies can provide protection (immunity) against getting
infected again. This means that we do not know at this time if antibodies make you immune
to the virus.
If you have no symptoms, you likely do not have an active infection and no additional
follow-up is needed.
It's possible you might test positive for antibodies and you might not have or have
ever had symptoms of COVID-19. This is known as having an asymptomatic infection [ie you
have a healthy immune system!]
An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
If you test negative
If you test negative for antibodies, you probably did not have a previous infection.
However, you could have a current infection because antibodies don't show up for 1 to 3
weeks after infection.
Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people may not
develop antibodies.
An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
What? Wait!
Doesn't the vaccine industry call the IgG a "protective antibody"?
Isn't this the marker of immunity they assess after you've had an infection with measles
or chickenpox or mumps to determine if you are immune to future infections?
Isn't this the marker of induced immunity they are trying to achieve by administering a
vaccine?
If the FDA does not know if an IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 after recovering from the
infection is protective against a future infection, then they certainly don't know if an
antibody caused by a vaccine will prevent infection either.
Doesn't this completely eliminate the theory that antibodies afford protection and
antibodies from vaccines are necessary to keep you from getting sick?
Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to
understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be
able to get out from under this.
H.R.6666 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through
the Director of the CDC to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing and
then to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals. The contact tracers would be
authorized to test people in their homes and as necessary, quarantine people in place.
Where do they intend to do this testing? Besides mobile units to test people in their homes,
the bill identifies eight specific locations where the testing and contract tracing could
occur: schools, health clinics, universities, churches, and "any other type of entity" the
secretary of HHS wants to use.
The bill would allocate $100 billion in
2020 "and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year
during which the emergency period continues."
But what are they looking for?
Is your test supposed to be positive – saying you've been exposed and you've
possibly recovered?
Or is your test supposed to be negative , meaning, you are healthy?
Or does a completely negative test – negative RT-PCR test and no IgG antibody mean
you're susceptible to infection and you need to stay in quarantine?
The virus is rapidly mutating, which is rather typical of RNA viruses. In a
study published in April 2020, researchers have discovered that the novel coronavirus has
mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations. If your RT-PCR test is positive, does
this identify exposure to the pandemic virus or exposure to one of the genetic variations? The
same can be said about the vaccines under development: With each mutation, is the vaccine more
likely to be all risk and no benefit when it reaches the market?
What You Can Do
Across the nation, police are being told to not apprehend criminals but instead, to arrest
parents at playgrounds, to arrest lone surfers on public beaches, to fine ministers and
congregation members sitting in their cars listening to a service on the radio, and to restrict
movement by creating one-way sidewalks.
People have had enough. They are beginning to see the huge scam that has been perpetrated on
the entire world over a viral infection with a global death rate of
1.4% (meaning, 1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6%
recover). This is far fewer deaths than a severe flu season.
We're already starting to see the thrust to take our power back:
In Virginia, people went to the beaches en mass,
ignoring social distancing and the orders of the Governor to stay home.
The central California city of Atwater has declared itself a "sanctuary
city," allowing business owners and churches to open, openly defying Democratic
California
Gov. Gavin Newsom's coronavirus-related stay-at-home order.
The truth about wearing
masks is starting to come out and people are voting with their feet. Retired
neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, warns that not only do face masks fail to protect healthy
people from contracting an illness, but they create serious health risks to the wearer.
While they shut us down and held us hostage in our homes, they changed our society, our
lives, our world.
I am not willing to accept this is the "new normal."
I won't submit to testing.
I will refuse mandatory vaccination.
I will stop wearing a mask.
I will not be afraid of standing next to a friend or family member and will not obey the
concept of "social distancing."
I will understand that an asymptomatic carrier is a normal, healthy person and I will not
buy into the fear that I might "catch something" from a normal, healthy person.
It's time for Americans to resist with non-violent civil disobedience. Be brave. Be bold.
Put on the full armor of God, as found in Ephesians
6:10-20 in the Bible, to stand against the world rulers of this present darkness. With God
on our side, all things are possible.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
he American profit-based healthcare system impacts us in more ways than just our gargantuan
bill at the excretion end of an emergency room visit. Right now, our lovable idiotic inhumane
healthcare system is acting as a hurdle to the manufacture and procurement of the right drugs
to treat Covid-19.
One of the drugs currently trumpeted as our savior is
Remdesivir . Despite sounding like the name of a Hobbit in Middle Earth, some reports from
the corporate media make it sound like the drug will thrust us face-first into a fresh world of
happiness -- water parks and restaurants and random no-holds-barred make-outs with strangers. A
world where when someone sneezes, we don't dive under our desk with an adult diaper strapped on
our face as a makeshift mask.
There's only one problem. The big pharma company that owns Remdesivir, Gilead, has already
made clear their plans to profiteer from this pandemic. As TheLA
Timesput
it –
Drugmaker Gillead says it's doing you a favor by setting the price for its pending COVID-19
treatment, Remdesivir, at more than $2,000 for government agencies and over $3,000 for private
insurers."
How does the CEO of Gilead, Daniel O'Day, justify this disgusting price point? He claims
they're under-pricing Remdesivir.
He said , "In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it
provides. Earlier hospital discharge would result in hospital savings of approximately $12,000
per patient."
The value it provides?? So, if a doctor saves someone's life with heart surgery, then that
guy owes the doctor the entire worth of the rest of his life? Millions of dollars? Maybe he
should become the surgeon's butler or wet nurse.
Saying something should cost even close to the value it provides ranks up there as one of
the stupidest arguments ever spoken. (Second only to when the people at Mountain Dew argued
that human beings would love a Doritos-flavored soft drink named "Dewitos.")
So, for a dude taking Viagra who can now get it up, he owes the makers of Viagra – what?
– sex with his wife? Or does he just owe them 300 orgasms? Or perhaps he owes them the
child he's able to produce while taking the pills. ("Dear Cialis Folks, I'm emailing to ask for
a mailing address to send you my 2-year-old, Robbie. Fair is fair. I want to give you the value
of your goods. Just be careful – he bites a lot. And he's already totally racist. Not
sure how he picked that up so young.")
But there's another catch to Gilead's price-gouging shenanigans. They didn't create
Remdesivir. We did. You and me.
Public Citizen revealed that
Gilead raked in over $70 million from taxpayers. Plus, federal scientists ran the team that
found out Remdesivir also worked against Coronaviruses. And, " The National
Institutes of Health ran the trial that led to Remdesivir's emergency use authorization,
and public funding is supporting clinical trials around the world today."
You and I paid for the creation and research behind Remdesivir. There is absolutely no
reason we should fill the pockets of Gilead's preposterously rich CEO and its board. Most
countries realize this. Most countries don't behave this way. Most countries have some tiny
modicum of respect for the lives of their citizens. America is not most countries.
Back to the
LA Times , "Nearly all other developed countries limit how much pharmaceutical
companies can charge for prescription meds. The U.S. doesn't operate like that. We allow drug
companies to charge as much as they please "
Perhaps prescription meds that cost the same as landing a man on Mars (in a pair of Jimmy
Choo heels) are the reason 42
percent of new cancer patients have their entire life savings wiped out within two years.
The average amount drained from a patient is nearly $100,000, and the entire medical costs for
U.S. cancer patients per year is $80
billion . Why ever change a system that piles such bulbous mountains of cash in the vaults
of those running the show?
Apparently most other national governments don't want to ruin the lives of every cancer
survivor. As to why not, one can only guess.
But this story gets crazier. Not only is Remdesivir way over-priced, we're not even sure it
does much. Some studies show it achieves almost nothing. Meanwhile, according to theIntercept
–
[A]nother Covid-19 treatment has quietly been shown to be more effective. A three-drug
regimen offered a greater reduction in the time it took patients to recover than Remdesivir
did. People who took the combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin
got better in seven days as opposed to 12 days for those who didn't take it."
However, I have yet to hear of a mad rush to hoard those drugs. Why is that? Probably
because those drugs don't have colossal marketing campaigns that would make Coca-Cola blush. In
fact there appears to be no marketing campaign whatsoever for the more effective drugs. To
figure out why that is, one simply must follow the money.
[E]ach of the
three drugs in the new combination is generic, or no longer under patent, which means that
no company stands to profit significantly from its use."
Must cut-throat late-stage capitalism always be so predictable?
Only the ridiculously profitable drugs are worth hyping. Only the money makers deserve
80,000 commercials telling every consumer to irrationally demand them. The cheap drugs that
simply – save lives – those are garbage. What's the point of saving a life if you
can't make a bundle from it? I've always said, "A life saved without extracting a shitload of
money from it, is a life lost."
I don't know that this last part needs saying, but I'm going to do it anyway. When a society
has a system built on profit, run by sociopaths, based on the manipulation of lizard-brain
impulses, then it will always end up in a race to the bottom. With unfettered capitalism we
inevitably find ourselves with the worst drugs, priced at the highest amounts, hoarded by those
who need them the least.
Unless we're talking about recreational illegal drugs. Those are cheaper than ever.
If you feel this column is important, please share it.
Feature photo | A lab technician works at the Eva Pharma facility in Cairo, Egypt, July 12,
2020, where Remdesivir is being produced. Nariman El-Mofty | AP
Lee Camp is the host of the hit comedy news show "Redacted Tonight." His new book "Bullet
Points and Punch Lines" is available at LeeCampBook.com and his standup comedy special can be streamed
for free at LeeCampAmerican.com
.
This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally
appeared at Consortium News .
Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our
readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News.
The views expressed in these articles are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
Vaccines Vaccines give broad parts of the population some level of immunity and are
considered crucial to ending the pandemic. They also take longer to develop, in part because
they must be proven to be extremely safe since they're given to healthy people. While
some researchers say a vaccine could be ready by the end of the year, others say it could
take far longer.
COMPANY Oxford University, AstraZeneca Plc NAME ChAdOx1 nCov-19 PROGRESS Phase 3
The vaccine is made from a harmless virus that's been altered to produce the surface spike
protein from SARS-CoV-2.
LATEST NEWS With human trials underway, the U.S. government has
pledged as much as $1.2 billion, and the company plans to produce as many as
30 million doses available in the U.K. by September. Other groups are moving to line up
access elsewhere. COMPANY Moderna Inc. NAME mRNA-1273 RECENTLY UPDATED Phase 2
Moderna's mRNA-1273 uses messenger RNA to prompt the body to make a key protein from the
virus, creating an immune response.
LATEST NEWS Moderna's vaccine produced antibodies to the
coronavirus in all patients tested in an initial safety trial. The company expects a phase 3
trial to begin July 27. COMPANY CanSino Biologics Inc. NAME Ad5-nCoV PROGRESS Phase 2
CanSino's vaccine was developed alongside China's military and is genetically engineered
with a replication-defective mutant virus.
LATEST NEWS CanSino's vaccine has received a
special authorization to be used by China's military after a study showed it generated an
immune response. President Xi Jinping says the country will make
any vaccine available as a global public good. COMPANY BioNTech SE, Pfizer Inc. NAME
multiple candidates PROGRESS Phase 2
BioNTech's BNT162 is another messenger RNA vaccine platform that the German company is
developing with Pfizer. In China, BioNTech is co-developing vaccines with Shanghai Fosun
Pharmaceutical Group.
LATEST NEWS One of the companies' vaccine candidates has shown
promising antibody responses. Further testing in up to 30,000 people may start as early as
July. COMPANY Sinovac Biotech Ltd NAME No name yet PROGRESS Phase 3
The vaccine uses inactivated virus, which can help the body develop antibodies to the
pathogen without risking infection.
LATEST NEWS Sinovac has begun human trials in China. The
company says its vaccine candidate can neutralize different strains of the virus. COMPANY China
National Biotec Group Co., Beijing Institute of Biological Products NAME No name yet PROGRESS
Phase 3
The vaccine uses inactivated virus, which can help the body develop antibodies to the
pathogen without risking infection.
LATEST NEWS With phase 2 trials complete, a vaccine
could be available as soon as the end of this year, according to an official report in May.
COMPANY Novavax Inc. NAME NVX-CoV2373 RECENTLY UPDATED Phase 2
Novavax's vaccine is meant to create antibodies that block a protein "spike" that the virus
uses to infect its host.
LATEST NEWS Novavax has received $1.6 billion from the U.S.
government as it prepares for a final-stage study as early as this fall. COMPANY Johnson &
Johnson NAME No name yet PROGRESS Preclinical
J&J is working on an unnamed adenovirus-based vaccine as well as two backups.
LATEST
NEWS J&J accelerated plans for human studies and aims to make up to
1 billion doses by the end of 2021 . J&J has said its vaccine could be ready for
emergency use by January, and it has received $456 million from the U.S. COMPANY Sanofi,
GlaxoSmithKline Plc NAME No name yet PROGRESS Preclinical
Sanofi is working on a vaccine using technology already employed in one of its flu vaccines,
which could speed development and production.
LATEST NEWS France's Sanofi has partnered with
the U.K.'s Glaxo on a project backed by U.S. funding. The companies plan to start human trials
in the second half of this year. Sanofi is also developing an mRNA vaccine with Translate Bio.
COMPANY Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. NAME INO-4800 RECENTLY UPDATED Phase 1
Inovio's experimental vaccine uses DNA to activate a patient's immune system.
LATEST NEWS
Inovio says an early trial showed
positive immune responses but investors complained about a lack of detail. COMPANY Merck
& Co. NAME No names yet PROGRESS Preclinical
Merck's two vaccine candidates employ exisiting technology behind its Ebola virus shot and a
measles virus vector platform discovered by the Pasteur Institute, respectively.
LATEST NEWS
Merck
has partnered with AIDS researchers to develop a vaccine using technology already employed
in its Ebola virus shot. The company has also agreed to buy biotech Themis, gaining a vaccine
candidate that uses an existing measles virus vector platform. COMPANY Imperial College London
NAME No name yet PROGRESS Phase 1
When injected, the RNA vaccine candidate delivers genetic instructions to muscle cells to
make the "spike" protein on the surface of the coronavirus.
LATEST NEWS Researchers have
received U.K. funding and have begun human trials.
I've been speaking with my friends who include medical doctors and other highly educated
people about the treatments that they would seek if they were diagnosed with Covid 19. Most of
them had no idea what course of treatment they or their families might seek. This conundrum is
in part due to the massive volume of information that is being thrown at us. Much of this
information is deliberately deceptive. I am writing this article to cut through the deception
so that you and your physician can make informed decisions if and when the time comes.
This article has two purposes. First, it's imperative that you understand the great deceit
that Big Pharma, their minions at the FDA, CDC, NIH, the WHO, the MSM, and officials in high
government positions are perpetrating on you, your family, and likely your doctor.
The second purpose is to assure that you are armed with the necessary information to insure
that you receive the best treatment options from your health care provider. Knowledge is
power.
Allow me to repeat, you need to know you are being duped and you need a plan for you and
your family if you become infected with Covid 19. So let's get to it. Let me begin by stating
that I'm not a medical doctor and I m not offering medical advice. I do have a bachelors of
science degree in health, nutrition, and counseling. I've written two NY Times bestselling
books on women's health and fitness and I have been awarded an honorary doctorate degree.
However, you will need to determine your treatment options with your personal physician.
The Great Deception
When it comes to safe, effective and affordable therapies for Covid 19, Big Pharma and its
agents, i.e. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx and many others, appear to have an agenda to lie to you and
your physician.
The most obvious example is their ongoing effort to ridicule the treatment option of
hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Zinc. We've all watched the harsh criticism that
President Trump received when he promoted this protocol for Covid 19.
So, hydroxychloroquine has been around for almost 70 years as a treatment for malaria,
lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. The WHO has designated it as a safe and effective medication
akin to taking an aspirin. A survey of 6,000 medical doctors affirmed it as their treatment of
choice for Covid 19.
The treatment works like this. hydroxychloroquine is an ionophore, which means it can
transport material through the cellular wall. Zinc is a mineral that stops the replication of
the Covid 19 virus within the cell. hydroxychloroquine transports Zinc into the cell so that it
can stop the replication of the virus. The Z-pak antibiotic is given to prevent opportunistic
bacterial infections like pneumonia that can occur while your immune system is engaged in
fighting your viral infection. The key to its effectiveness is to start this treatment at the
early onset of Covid 19 so that it has time to work.
How much effort has Big Pharma put into subverting this treatment regimen? In addition to
denouncing its effectiveness, from Dr. Fauci and company, constant MSM hit pieces, the
censoring of medical doctor's articles and videos from the internet, there has also been a
number of "studies" done that were literally sabotaged from the onset.
The VA hospital system reported in March that they had given hydroxychloroquine to a number
of patients. Following their release of information, the MSM ran the story with the headlines,
"VA hospital found that hydoxychloroquine doesn't work and increases the fatality rate of Covid
19." However, if you actually read the study (see
link ) you will find that only the sickest of the cohorts were given the drug. They got the
drug only after they were so far along that it would not have a chance to work and they were
not given zinc. None of these details made the MSM articles.
Another example of the Great Deception came from the British medical journal, The Lancet.
The Lancet reported that a meta study showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective. As a
result of this published study, France, Italy and other European countries immediately
prohibited the use of this treatment option. Within a few weeks,
it was found that the study was so badly designed and that the results were literally
fabricated . The Lancet was forced to make a retraction of the "study." Of course in the
meantime the MSM ran the original Lancet story and mislead millions of people and their
physicians.
So what could possibly be the motive behind Big Pharma's Great Deception. Well there's three
answers, money, money and money. That brings up the treatment option that Big Pharma is
promoting, Remdesivir. This lovely experimental drug, costs above $3,000 per regimen, must be
given intravenously in a hospital (five days stay around 15 grand) and
evidence shows it doesn't really work .
The other treatment option is the promised Covid 19 vaccine that they allege is forthcoming.
The NHS in Great Britain has committed to purchase a vaccine for the entire population of Great
Britain. That's a commitment of 80,000,000 doses at an agreed price of around $600 for each
vaccination. That's about $50,000,000,000. (50 Billion) That's a lot of incentive to mislead
people. This week, a US pharmaceutical company received $1.6 billion dollars towards their
efforts to make this vaccine which in the opinion of many experts, won't work on a coronavirus
and will be untested and experimental.
How does Big Pharma have
so much control over the dissemination of this information or should I say propaganda?
Well, the same answer pops up again, money. Big Pharma gave $2 billion dollars during the last
election cycle to US politicians. Big AG, the military/security complex and big oil each gave
only a paltry $1.0 billion dollars to buy the votes of our political leadership.
The MSM counts Big Pharma's advertising revenue at up to 80 percent of their income. The
internet's "masters of the universe" also kowtow to Big Pharma's influence and advertising
dollars by censoring anyone who tries to tell the American people the truth about Covid 19. It
certainly appears that anyone who is complicit in this Great Deception, a deception that is
designed to kill and terrify enough people to ultimately beg for an experimental vaccine, well,
these people would be accessories to murder.
What You Need to Know to Survive
Now, for some good news. There are several therapies that are being offered that appear to
be safe, effective and affordable. However, these therapies must be utilized early in the
disease progression.
Budesonide
Japan, Taiwan and other Asian countries have maintained a much lower fatality rate with
Covid 19 then we have here in America, in spite of the fact they live in densely populated
communities. Many people believe that it is due to their preferred method of treatment. They
use a steroid medication that is inhaled in a mist through a home use nebulizer. I'm familiar
with this since my 2 year old granddaughter needed this treatment with a similar drug for an
upper respiratory issue that she had recently. That speaks to the safety and the commonality of
this treatment. Watch the link of a
Texas doctor who shares his patient's experiences with this therapy method using the drug
Budesonide and a course of antibiotics.
Ivermectin
Another treatment option that appears to be safe
and effective is the use of the antiparasitic drug Ivermectin with the antibiotic
Doxycycline. Just one Ivermectin pill and then the course of antibiotics for ten days resulted
in a 100 percent cure rate for Covid 19 patients according to the attached study. Ivermectin
has been widely used on the continent of Africa for many years as an anti-parasitic and is
believed to be a primary reason that Covid 19 has not severely impacted the African
population.
The challenge with this therapeutic is both finding a doctor who will prescribe it and
finding a pharmacy that will sell it. This should be between you and your doctor. Not the
governors of certain states. Considering that 20 percent of all drugs are prescribed "off
label", meaning that they are prescribed for a use other than intended, you and your doctor
should have the liberty and the responsibility to make this health care decision.
There are several other therapies that appear to be safe, effective and affordable. You may
want to research Chlorine Dioxide, intravenous ozone, high dose intravenous vitamin C and
another, glutathione which are popular treatments in the homeopathic communities.
As for me and my family, we are going to make informed and responsible decisions regarding
our health care. I hope the information I've given to you today along with the links for
further information will help you, your family and your doctor make the best decisions as
well.
Gary Heavin and his wife Diane are the founders of Curves, the world's largest fitness
franchise. Gary is the author of two NY Times bestselling books, Curves and Curves on the go.
Gary co-wrote and starred in the movie Amerigeddon. Gary is a pro-life libertarian and serves
on the advisory board of Dr. Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Gary and his wife
are philanthropists who feed 10,000 children a day in Haiti and operate an orphanage outside
the slums of Mumbai. Most importantly, they are bible believing Christians.
Excellent article. Early treatment is definitely key. The French doctor who recommended
hydroxychloroquine way back in Feb. said that it needs to be given early, by the time they go
on ventilator it's no longer effective. I read in Zerohedge last week that in TX, doctors
said they simply give patients who come into the emergency room a steroid shot and send them
home with antibiotics. Usually they are already feeling much better after the steroid shot.
Even those who are hospitalized are now only staying 3-5 days.
I find it incredulous that on their website, CDC is still telling people to stay
home if they are sick, that "many people" get over it themselves without treatment, and
to *not* go to the doctor's until we are having difficulty breathing. By then it is too late!
Doctors have said that the main difference btwn Covid patients and flu patients is, with a
flu patient, when their lungs are 10% fluid, they are already having difficulty breathing,
but for some reason for Covid19, the patient does not have difficulty breathing until the
lungs are 50 to 60% fluid, which is why it's too late by the time they sought treatment.
This article discusses the low fatality rate in HK(0.4%) and Singapore(<0.1%), the
doctors there attributed it to early treatment using a different cocktail of drugs:
interferon beta-1b, which was developed to treat multiple sclerosis; ribavirin, which is used
in the treatment of hepatitis C; and lopinavir-ritonavir, also known by its brand name,
Kaletra. But again, early treatment is key.
https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/singapore/how-hong-kong-singapore-kept-coronavirus-death-rates-low/ar-BB14CLbM
CDC is an absolute fail. I'm beginning to believe they want more people to die so Trump
would lose the election. They need to change their advice on their website before more lives
are senselessly lost. Pence as the Covid Tzar is also totally failing on his job by not
calling him out.
I'm also beginning to believe those who claim hydroxychloroquine doesn't work simply want
to keep it for themselves and their cronies to take as preventive drug. Trump has been on it
and he hasn't gotten sick, even though he's been exposed to lots of people. Something tells
me many of our congress critters and the effing Jews are already loaded up on it.
I can't wait for November 4th when COVID-19 ends for good and all the masks and social
distancing bullshit ends. Thankfully this C-19 psyops will last just 8 months and not the 2+
years the Russian collusion BS was drawn out to. Though sadly with the former it has further
eviscerated working/middle-class America. I'm guessing that was part of the plan as well.
I believe Mr. Heavin more than I believe the government, and the CDC in particular.
But that could also apply to a Numerologist vs the gov't, so there's that.
I don't believe Jeffrey Epstein died a natural death any more than I believe the
mainstream media is the least bit impartial. They used to try. They tried to keep the news
and the Op-Ed pages separate. But that was then and this is now
This is getting fun!
So, I used to believe that cops were always the good guys, and that federal judges
were above politics. Oh, and they would never lie, or take a bribe. And I believed that
priests would never, ever molest a boy, or even girl (did I get that backward?), or even use
bad words around them. And I believed Scoutmasters took Boy Scouts up into the mountains for
the fresh air and Indian lore OK, this is starting to sound ridiculous.
Except, now I'm not sure what to believe any more.
No offense but do you know how many people claim to have had Covid before Covid was cool?
I don't know anyone who has tested positive but I know 25 people who claim they had or have
it. In the past three years there have been severe influenzas making the rounds, there is no
denying that. And why should routine flu and colds take a holiday just because our criminal
elites tell us there is a special disease we need to watch out for? My point is we are so
deceived that nobody knows up from down anymore. But at least we know one thing for sure --
hostile elites are working to deceive us.
My doctor suffers from a delusion common to her profession. She thinks she is a "Medical
Scientist". Actually she is a retailer for pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. She is a
sales person in a capitalist industry And should she have any questions about her real role
in a health care field which is really a substance and med tech pushing industry, her
colleagues – fellow sales people – will remind her of her professional
obligations by threatening her board certification to insure her near absolute conformity to
market standards.
But there is no getting her to understand her real role in the medical industry. She
believes her own hype or the hype created about her profession back in the 1950s when a few
genuinely useful drugs and technologies were discovered which then afforded the money making
corporate establishment the opportunity to take a humane craft and, thru the "science" of
Epidemiology -Medical speak for lying with statistics – turn professional Medicine into
probably the largest boondoggle in history. Consider the flag ship for usurious medicine
– cholesterol lowering statin drugs.
But why don't I get rid of my essentially brain dead doctor, go to to someone else?
Practically speaking, there is no one else. There are doctors who understand all this and
write books about it but they are so rare as to be useless when real sickness like bacterial
infections for which there are useful technologies like antibiotics actually occur. The most
useful thing these real scientific doctors have to say is "Don't see your doctor" unless you
have a real emergency – like an old fashion visceral type sickness – as opposed
to some epidemiologically hyped condition like, again, "high cholesterol" as the "cause" of
heart disease.
But now we have a genuine epidemic that is killing and injuring people and Medical Science
is lying to us about possible treatments. Even a Medical skeptic like myself could not have
predicted this level of base greed by our Medical pharmaceutical establishment This is
tantamount to MURDER. And we have no government -whether it be run by Democrats or
Republicans- who will take action. They are all on the Med Pharm tit and/or deluded by
"Medical Science" as well. Until we learn to help ourselves and overthrow this system, God
help us
I've been reading everything counter-&-alternative to the deception I could find since
it first appeared, but had never thought to investigate therapies until reading your article.
Fortuitously, for me (in Thailand), Hydroxychloroquine is being used therapeutically and may
even be available OTC.
However, Big Medicine & Big Pharma are already here and steadily making inroads into
health care and medicine.
Whatever happened to that vaccine that some Israeli Genius Doctors claimed would be ready
in a few weeks, which was months ago now? What a shock that that never materialized.
Click-baitish, much? Well, you got me in, but you seem to have a good 'treatment'
argument, and 'good luck,' both by avoiding Covid-19 in the 1st place and finding a
'collaborative+pursuasive' Dr in the 2nd = worst case, should you or one of yours gets 'hit.'
[Perish the thought.]
But IMHO, the Great est Covid-19 Deception is the negligent way most
'Western' governments have *not* taken Covid-19 properly seriously, starting of course with
US = Trump and UK = Johnson then perhaps SE 'led' by so-called expert Tegnell next in a
looong list of apparent delinquents.
Again IMHO, when Wuhan realised that they were under a bio-warfare-like attack [possibly
when they 1st saw the PRRA inclusion in the decoded genome], they reacted like cut snakes and
proceeded with the speed of fear-stricken Gazelles in a very largely successful attempt to
*suppress* the virus. But, of course, they are communists, eh? So-called 'democratic'
[in-name-only governments, many largely bolshie 'wo/men in the street'] think differently
[even to their own detriment; they just can't help themselves.]
With the possible exception of NZ = Ardern, most 'Western' governments went for
'mitigation' = 'flattening the curve,' if they took any action at all, see BR = Bolsonaro
"has accused the media of "fear-mongering"" and IIRC said something like "What can
I do?"
Here is an article, 1st found by me in March on MoA
:
MoA blurb: 'Here is his latest in which he argues not only to "flatten the curve" but to
eradicate the virus.'
For my last IMHO, all 'Western' leaders who have acted with less than full effort =
incompetently meaning ineffectively on behalf of their 'own people' should be prosecuted for
their negligence. rgds
A good article all around, except that the population of the UK is nowhere near eighty
million. The latest figure I can find gives 66 million. Also, your attempt to invoke the Bard
('As Shakespeare wrote, "Doth thou protest too much?"') is lamentably botched. Try 'Methinks
the lady doth protest too much'. (Hamlet's mother Gertrude says it of what she regards as
overacting in a play that Hamlet has arranged for his mother and her husband, the usurper
Claudius, to watch).
It is a great idea to have a candid discussion with your doctor/nurse on the issue of big
pharma's economic power and how it creates conflicts of interest in the medical
profession.
Many doctors/nurses already knew it and will quickly agree, many more "get it" after you
explain it to them.
If your doctor is so brainwashed by "experts" that they think you are an "anti-science
kook", time to get a new doctor!
Bingo – it's all a total bunch of malarkey. All the BS isn't aimed at people our age
(I'm 76), it's aimed at the milennials and younger. It is shaping them for the "Brave New
World" that they will live.
First let me say that the virus has never been satisfactorily isolated and does not meet
Koch's postulates, which leads some people to speculate that it does not exist at all. The
symptoms are so various as to be nonsensical; whatever the virus may be, last winter, that
led to all the hospitalizations is open to question. Certainly the fear-porn spewed out 24/7
by the corporate media led to high levels of anxiety among the credulous and many of these no
doubt presented as Covid-19 patients even though they were in fact suffering from the flu or
a bad cold. Once in the hands of the quacks, nosocomial infections and intubation really made
them sick – or dead.
As for protection against any respiratory illness, vitamin D is essential and I am
surprised the author fails to understand this. 4000 IU per day maximum.
All that aside, Covid-19 a gigantic psyop designed to usher in a world government. It was
even rehearsed in 2019 and all the wrinkles worked out beforehand.
If you can't get hydroxychloroquine there is some evidence that the natural substance
quercetin found in apples and onions can act as an ionophore that transports zinc into the
cell. Instead of the z-pak, a natural antibiotic like oregano or cinnamon oil might suffice.
These items quercetin, zinc and oregano and cinnamon oil are all available down at the local
health food store. There is more evidence for the hydroxychloroquine, zinc, z-pak combination
so those would be the preferred combination if you can get them but these natural substances
might help if you can't get them and might act as a preventative to keep from getting the
virus if you use them regularly.
I have found only a few studies that support the use of these natural substances but you
need to understand that since these aren't drugs they can't be patented so there isn't the
same financial incentive to prove their effectiveness as there would be with drugs that can
be patented and then sold exclusively by one company.
Whether hydoxy/chloroquine works or not is something that will be clear only after there
are studies that allow to take a final conclusion. The question has been discussed critically
by the press, by medical doctors, by people. Of course, everybody knows that it's possible
that no vaccination will function or be available (we can hear this everyday on television).
Contrary to what the author says, a phamaceutical firm was happy that the medicament could be
possibly used when the question came up and some people were optimistic about it. The web
site of a German television wrote in may that it was still conceivable that hydoxychloroquine
could work in the very early stages of the disease (after first negative results). This was
only speculation.
The author mentions a talk with some friends of him and some information that he has. But
there have been a few studies, good or bad, with chloroquine with negative results. The study
of the Lancet was taken back because the data that they used was apparently not trustworthy.
This shows how difficult it is to have good and conclusive results in a short time. We can
say the same about the evidence used by the author. It doesn't mean very much. We still have
to see what happens and until now we don't know. There are efforts to find ways to treat
better the disease. In German, I read yesterday:
The media never talks about those who recovered from Corona virus like BOJO, the prime
minister of UK or others. What treatment the recovered patients received, how it helped them
and other information. We hear only the scary stuff.
Dr. Fauci and associates could never develop his promised HIV vaccine. I read somewhere that
he had been on the same job for the last 37 years. Go figure.
"DR" Bill Gate of MS is an expert of globalized vaccination and his articles on the
subject have been published in several Medical Journals.
New Economy. Question More.
I was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection in April. Was given a Z-pack for 5
days, an inhaler, Albuterol Sulfate that I am going to refill and a pill for cough,
Benzonatate 200mg. They tested me for Flu, Pneumonia, Strep and Covid. All test came back
negative.
Now I have a sinus infection and was prescribed another Z-pack with Prednisone 250mg twice
a day for five days.
I've been feeling under the weather for months now.
Oh! Now I remember my question. How much zinc daily should we be taking?
So, now we know who the enemy is. When can we start arresting and executing them?
I've had a condition common to old men for a long time. I went to some MD from the Far
East who started immediately talking about cutting me up. I went to a second doctor, a young
American, and told him I guess I needed to be sliced and diced. He said, "Not so fast" and
recommended the regular use of two substances I could get at the vitamin store. I did so and
the matter improved to the point that I felt effectively cured.
Last week, I went back to him. He works at a large establishment that includes my regular
MD. I started telling him about how miraculous and enlightened his advice was. He quickly
shut me up and started talking about operations and antibiotics. He wouldn't even listen when
I told him that his earlier advice had worked. My presumption is that the financial people
got to him. I'd guess that they do a regular review of medical care by each physician to see
how they can better monetize their practice. Anyway, his changed tone was remarkable enough
that it had to be something like money that was involved.
Covid 19 is just another in a long line of fake or hyped up illnesses. Remember H1N1,
H5n1, SARS1, Swine flu, Bird flu, Zika and others. AIDS was another fake disease (read Dr.
Peter Duesberg on this). The same type of hoax is being perpetrated with the current Corona
"epidemic."
Notice it supposedly began in Wuhan China. This city of 11 million has the worlds worst
air pollution. 350,000 people per year die of pneumonia in China. There are lots of people
there that can be tagged as Covid 19 victims. Also quickly touted as a hot spot by our Jew
controlled MSM was deaths in Italy. Official autopsies revealed over 99% of victims had pre
existing illness, most of them had multiple ones at an avg. age go 69.5. Latter the age went
up but I can't remember the exact figure. Remember CDC criminal Debra Brix said "we have told
the hospitals to tag everything possible as Covid 19."
Remember the fake tents set up all over and the hospital ship that looked like a relic of
WW1. The MSM kept talking about overflowing hospitals. Several people took videos of near
vacant hospitals at this time including Brian Ruhe's exposure of Vancouver's practically
empty hospital. Whenever you see the media jump all over something with all the official
spokesmen and there is no alternative opinion allowed, you known it is a gov. false flag. All
of a sudden climate change is no longer the critical topic of the day. I guess Greta Thunberg
got the covid.
The covid 19 has never been identified by the standard scientific method of the Koch's
postulates because they can't. If you have a fake virus you must have a fake test. That is
the PCR test that gives ap. 200 false positives, does not determine one Corona (cold from
another) and is not quantitative is a fake test. The numbers given by the CDC (holds 50
vaccine related patents) that is really an adjunct of big Pharma are a crock of baloney. Most
of these figures are generated from old people in the nursing homes that are given a "visual"
conformation as having covid. Note that Fauci said in February that the masks did more harm
than good. Hospitals get paid big money for labeling patients as Covid victims and many times
doctors just write it on the report.
The Zionists have hit a home run with this medical hoax and they will never give it up
unless the cucks start using their brain a little bit and figure some things out. The next
move will be manditory dangerous vaccines for all the cattle. There is big money to be made
in the vaccine scam. To get the truth on vaccines read Dissolving Illusions by Dr. Suzanne
Humphries and books by Forrest Maready.
The Covid scam has been planned for many years, this was an opportune time to spring it as
a cover for the central banks theft of trillions more while bankrupting the workers and small
businesses. The Jews at Blak Rock are big investors in masks and will now be scooping up
failed businesses everywhere just like in 08.
Except, now I'm not sure what to believe any more.
Can anyone tell me ?
My uncle told me a story a long time ago about a man who had his young son climb a tree in
the back yard. He let him get pretty high and then said, "Jump Johnny, Jump!" Johnny said,
"If I jump, I'll get hurt." The Dad said, "No, I'll catch you." Johnny jumped and the Dad did
nothing. The boy hit the ground and was crying, though not permanently injured.
He said to his Dad, "Father, you promised to catch me."
"Let that be a lesson," the Dad said. "Don't trust NOBODY."
Well, seeing as libertarians are against government action to stop abortions, I suppose
all that a libertarian who opposes abortion is allowed to do is acting against it in their
private life; seeing as that is exactly what the pro-choice option means, you see that Gary's
position is rigorously meaningless: he is pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.
That is a really grand deception, regardless of any other claimed by this article, and all
I need to know about it.
I also prefer plain facts to eloquent fiction (MSM). Your article has obvious practical
value for the public. It's a keeper. I also hope it circulates widely as an effective
antidote to virulant MSM viruses.
BTW, my first act following retirement from four decades of professional news writing was
to cancel all newspaper and magazine subscriptions. There is no utility in paying to be
misinformed.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people who have never set foot in a news room now
regurgitate MSM propaganda as though it came down from Mt. Sinai. MSM journalism has now run
the gamut from the duty to reveal what is true, even if it hurts, to the need to say what
sounds nice, even if the reporter himself doesn't believe it. That's the definition of
PR.
When this wears thin they'll discover another killer virus and there'll be another
go-round. They started off saying the lockdowns were just for a brief time and then when they
got their foot in the door it was extended. Now government herding people around by diktat is
a permanent feature of American society. They'll never let it go. There's already been some
report of some other mysterious killer virus coming out of Kazakhstan so get ready. This is
the largest transfer of wealth scheme ever, the assets of the bankrupted scooped up by the
big companies.
'Most importantly, they are Bible believing Christians.'
That for me, as a Muslim, is the best guarantee that the person writing this article will
have written all in good faith because he or she is answerable to God.
Overall, the article was very informative and pertinent to the situation we face
today.
The article cites imperfect studies in which hydroxychloroquine was found to be an
ineffective therapeutic for COVID19 – imperfect because the treatment was generally
started too late in the progression of the disease. The author postulates that, if treatment
were begun earlier, mortality would be drastically reduced but, unfortunately, there is no
study to support this and the majority of people suffering the symptoms of early-onset
COVID19 will recover spontaneously anyway.
Singapore, with its superb bureaucratic infrastructure, has reported over 45,000
infections but only 26 deaths – that is 4 deaths per million population. South Korea
reports 13,000+ deaths and 287 deaths (6 per million population) and Japan 20,000 cases and
981 deaths (10 per million) compare this to the USA with 364 deaths per million or the UK
with 718.
I have yet to see a convincing explanation of these shocking differences and, when asked
recently, a British government spokesman said that it is "too early" to start drawing
international comparisons – "too early" for whom you might ask? Evidently not for those
who have succumbed – by now a huge effort should have been put forth to account for the
disparity – even if the explanation is demographic as is being largely claimed. I
assume that national pride has stood in the way of seeking answers by sending study teams to
these countries.
The article recounts a number of inexpensive treatments that might work and points
to "Big Pharma" as the major reason these are not being systematically studied – that
may well be an impediment in the USA particularly – so gathering of data from East
Asia, where that influence is far less and where dramatic positive results are seen, is all
the more urgent.
Meanwhile my family will wear masks and hunker down because we have no particular plan to
implement if one of us catches this bug.
Here is a clue, stop doing ALL the things they tell you to do because its all designed to
make you sicker. Eat real food, so many people just don't get it, its garbage in and garbage
out. Curves have always been flattened by the healthy freely moving about [oops, stay home],
health from being outside, in the sun, and amongst nature is vital [oops stay inside], eating
good REAL food is how you have a good immune system [oops, dont want that we need sick people
for the pharma devils, therefore we'll allow FAST [shit] FOOD to be readily available [no
contact of course [OMG can you actually believe this crap?] Wear a mask because the covid
devil lurks everywhere [oops, retard the flow of healthy oxygen into your body, breath back
in your own exhalations of CO2 and bacteria so you can increase your odds of getting sick,
you just cant make this twisted stuff up!!!] Social distance, thats the best one? We should
be wanting to be social for many many reasons, the least of which is because we ARE social
animals, but the best way to flatten any curve is, as previously stated, assimilate it [as
humans have with all viruses] to develop herd immunity [something that you CANNOT get with a
toxic vaccination], like Sweden and Japan. STOP watching MSM and social platforms removing
truth. Actually STOP watching TV, its all designed to make you think a certain way.
The biggest problem with this article is that it does not address the fundamental basis of
the fraud that is CV19.
The Chinese supposedly identified a new coronavirus and named it SARS-CoV-2.
Then, the WHO made a vague list of symptoms and created a syndrome called COVID19.
There is no proven connection whatsoever between the supposedly identified virus and the
syndrome.
Billing codes were created that allow the assumed or tested diagnosis of CV19.
To make matters worse, a test was created which only tests for "markers" of coronavirus
and has never been proven to connect to the above viruses or the above syndrome. Thus testing
positive or negative really has no meaning as proven by the disconnect between symptoms and
diagnosis.
Then, the government incentivized and instructed the use of the above billing codes and
created the commonly known situation of people dying "with" the syndrome even though they
died of other causes.
Add to that the manipulation of the case count, etc. Then, you have New York and New
Jersey basically murdering people with treatment. Loved ones banned from visiting homes
– for reasons they might bring the virus in – while "positive" sick patients are
brought in. Reconcile that.
I am not saying a few people aren't sick, but there is no way to deal with something while
these language tricks are going on.
The virus, the syndrome, and the tests, and the count of cases have no scientific
connection to each other. What is it you are talking about being treated for? The flu?
Yes, where IS that Wonder of Modern Medicine anyway? We were breathlessly told of its
soon-to-be release; I even thought that it was peculiar that the Israelis were so
serendipitously working on just the right strain of coronavirus as to be in the forefront of
vaccine development.
Miracles happen.
Except when they don't. And, to summarize here, there has NEVER been a stable/effective
vaccine for the coronavirus family of viruses. NEVER.
@skrik bio-warfare-like attack [possibly when they 1st saw the PRRA inclusion in the
decoded genome], they reacted like cut snakes and proceeded with the speed of fear-stricken
Gazelles in a very largely successful attempt to *suppress* the virus. But, of course,
they are communists, eh?"
Finally some sense in the sea of conspiratards. It is fascinating to observe the insanity
of White nations – they will cling to their clearly delusional beliefs to the end, even
when an alternative is presenting itself this whole time.
Wearing a mask apparently turns you into a slave. Believing in the existence of the virus
makes you a shill. Pure anarchism, just without the bombs.
The comment #19 by UncommonGround is decent as well.
@Mark G. As well (and mentioned in some of the above comments) there are many studies
indicating that adequate levels of Vitamin D may be protective. Best source: sunlight; then
fresh fish, then supplements.
The entire point of this article is "self-rescue." It is clear to me that the "official"
recommendation is to "stay home, don't come to your doctor's office/E.R. until you get
shortness of breath, etc." so as to not "overload the hospital system."
The latter advice will get you killed if you are elderly and/or have certain
co-morbidities. Treat yourself early on, be proactive towards you health; oh, also, maybe
stop shoving Cheetos down your neck, take a walk, lose some weight?
Moon of Alabama is a controlled website that censors dissenting commenters. The Covid-19
has completely blown the cover of that site and Mr. 'b'. Do not push that site. This
unz.com site does not censor comments. Get
back to us when Mr. 'b' (or is that German Intelligence?) decides to play his role properly
again.
Hi Herald,
The reason I didn't mention vitamin D3 is that I classify it under prevention rather than
therapeutics.
I take 2,000 iu daily, 2,000 mg of vitamin C, 30 mg of zinc and 200 mg of magnesium to help
prevent illness.
That's the main point of information needed if "need to know" is at the top of the list on
how to survive. A person "diagnosed with covid19" should know that the existence of this
"novel coronavirus" has not been established in any way that is based in actual science.
Such a diagnosis subjects the purportedly infected person to treatments that would be, at
best, useless. Diagnosis is the starting point for a political assault conducted by means of
"contact tracing" prescribed by an Israeli intelligence operation, and can't possibly include
any effective medical treatment.
No medical treatment exists that can cure infection with an imaginary virus.
Thank you for your corrections. When I found out that Ron was going to post my article on
this website I was very excited due to the quality of its readership. People like you.
A chinaman told me that lots of chopsuey with exotic wild animals worked for his country,
whereas a wetback told me lots of beans and rice with hot sauce was the key to their success.
Here in my neighboring neighborhood, the Borough Park, I hear that bubbies are offering up
matzo ball soup with a scrawny chicken thrown in and the Bensonhurst Fredos are insisting
that had the Italian government not abandoned the age old custom of over eating pasta
fagioli, none of those paisans needlessly would have died. So, who do you believe?
July 9, 2020 CDC May Officially Downgrade COVID From An 'Epidemic'
The coronavirus mortality rate in the United States has dropped so low that the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention may soon stop calling the virus an "epidemic."
I had symptomatic corona. It was a day and a half of mild fever and fatigue. Basically
like the flu but not nearly as bad. Everyone else I've known that had symptomatic corona
(already a small minority of those who actually got infected woth corona) experienced the
same or even less.
If you're just about to die from something else anyway, yeah maybe such a mild disease can
give you that last little push. At that point you need to be thinking about saying confession
and your relationship to eternity not some magic drug extending your life another few
months
Coronavirus is one of the biggest scams, frauds, psyops, mass hypnosis, in history, see
these sites for the truth about the coronavirus scam, henrymakow.com , thetruthseeker.co.uk, chuckbaldwinlive.com , thedollarvigilante.com .
@Gleimhart Mantooso aled that they had designed a vaccine and tested it on hamsters. They
wrote that a single dose "was able to protect hamsters against SARS-CoV-2."
The (((CoronaRona?))) Well, put it this way, the same people pushing the (((CoronaRona)))
story or the same people who told you that Germans gassed 6 gatrillion Jews in the
"holocaust." You might have a better chance at seeing Santa Claus than dying from the
(((CoronaRona.)))
During the riots, the weasel, Fauci and that female doctor whats her name, were nowhere to
be seen, and now they have returned and the (((CoronaRona))) is being looped 24/7. My guess
is that all these (((medical experts))) will recommend another lock-down until the election.
IF Biden wins, which given the corruption out there, is highly likely whether we are in
lock-down or not, the (((CoronaRona))) will fade away into the night. IF Trump is somehow is
reelected, well the (((Antifa-BLM))) types will be having another meltdown that the
(((media))) will cover 24/7, and the (((CoronaRona))) will be back page news again.
For Kirt, yes, I think I already had it too, seven or eight weeks from NYE last year to
mid-Feb. of this. As I have said several times, the area near my workplace was usually full
of Chinese tourists.
I had a cough, extreme lethargy on many days, a slight fever. Water frnm my nose, always
the case for me in winter, but no sneezing. I must raise the idea with my regular doc., since
I saw him at least three times over that time.
As for our author, Heavin's article, he is clearly offering better ideas for treatments
than big pharma, but who really needs treatment?
Those who have a persistent cold-like syndrome?
Anyome identified through the polymerase chain reaction tests, which prove nothing.
Just ignore it and it will go away seems by far the wisest course.
WARNING: FOR THOSE WHO USE NORD VPN for their VPN service
If you select NORDVPN's "CYBERSEC" option to "block ads and malicious websites" , you will
no longer be able to get on sites like unz.com
or many other right wing sites (like Mike Rivero's site: whatreallyhappened.com for instance).
NORDVPN's CYBERSEC will, however, allow you on all the left wing sites pushed by the ADL.
This means that NORDVPN'S CYBERSEC option is probably using the ADL's filtering criteria.
I questioned NORDVPN about this "selectivity" and never received a reply.
This also means that your NORDVPN software could well be spying on you and recording your
keystrokes if you try to access to certain unapproved sites EVEN IF if the CYBERSEC option
hasn't chosen.
NORDVPN is now, curiously enough, based in Panama, a country which the US government has
been shown in the past to have considerable influence over when the need arises. (Ask Manuel
Noriega for examples)
Spread the word.
It might be time choose a different VPN sofware if you are now using NORDVPN. Anybody have
any good suggestions?
I believe!
I believe in CNN.
I believe that half of population of USA will die of Corona virus.
The other half because Corona virus infecting toe nails will become zombies.
Also their brains are now eaten out by Corona virus.
All US population will be replaced by natives from Africa.
First herd of Negroes are already swimming halfway in Atlantic toward America.
Well?
Its not really funny.
But than CNN is never funny.
Cases now mean positive tests and of course, no really knows what that means, other than
that more useless tests have been carried out. As the graph clearly indicates these so called
"cases" have little to do with deaths. Nor do they have anything to do with
hospitalisations.
We are clearly in the midst of an almighty scam, which is much much bigger than simply
getting rid of Trump.
To Bras my pro-life libertarian position does not become "meaningless" as if my prolife
and libertarianism negate each other as you suggest. It's quite simple. Libertarianism
demands we not harm other persons. An unborn baby is a person.
To Che I certainly agree with you that Covid 19 has been hyped, politicized, misrepresented,
etc..
If I come down with a severe upper respiratory event that is heading toward pneumonia-like
symptoms, I've lost my sense of taste and smell I'm going to talk with my Doctor and try one
of the therapies I've written about. I hope you do the same.
@gotmituns e before the year is out. My bucolic life has been given a shake and I'm
scrambling to best position our family (we live on the same property) financially and
economically when BNW arrives with a vengeance. I wish to leave my grandchildren (my son, a
water well driller, is prospering, happily, but still ) wholly owned property and the houses
thereon plus one. I believe the BNW will have a distinctly local air to it in rural or
semi-rural communities: little travel, local employment save for telecommuters, detachment
from social media, different educational strategies and opportunities, etc. If you share this
belief, get cracking and pretend that the reset has already arrived and act accordingly.
I now wouldn't trust any VPN whatsoever service that wasn't entirely "open source".
Protonvpn claims to be "open source". (On the other hand, NORDVPN isn't open source).
Definition of very important term "open source" for those are unfamiliar with it: https://opensource.org/osd
If a software isn't "open source" it could potentially be spying on you. Choosing a VPN
service using "open source" software should be the PRIMARY and most critical consideration
when choosing a VPN service.
Non "open source" VPN software is open to outside manipulation and possible government
infiltration.
It suits her personality as she is a quite orderly and methodical person. However, it
means that she is incapable of critical thinking. All doctors in Australia are invited to
free seminars and meals at expensive restaurants – paid for by pharmaceutical
companies.
Sadly, she did not listen to my opinion about vaccines for our two girls. In the State of
Victoria, they give a mandatory HPV vaccine. However, HPV is only a problem for those who are
promiscuous. Furthermore, this vaccine is essentially an unknown. It is highly-expensive at
some US$300 – paid for by the tax-payers. I suspect the vaccine altered the personality
of one of our daughters. It is uncanny.
I neither wear a mask nor hunker down and I'm a "double-vulnerable" (nearly 74 and mildly
diabetic). A close lady friend is the village pharmacist and when on duty wears the mask
under mild duress; neither of us wears it when alone with each other. Unless you're in a
densely populated area, better to go out and get at least half an hour of sun daily, fortify
yourself and family, keep the faith and don't succumb to manufactured fear, sez I.
@macilrae ak links here in the USA, sad to say. During my most recent trip to the market,
I saw perhaps 7-10% of shoppers with their masks pulled down so it was covering the mouth,
but not the nose. For the most part, these non-complying shoppers were the fat, ugly,
slovenly, and stupid looking types one would try to avoid anyway, so the pulled-down mask is
a good signal to give these types a very wide berth.
Recall that the world's experience with COVID-19 amounts to just six or seven months.
Nobody knows what this virus may do in the future, but odds are it will mutate, like all
viruses.
Psst: If it's just the flu, bro, why is it still spreading in the summer?
I found your figures regarding the vaccine cost and quantity remarkable, to say the
least.
After some research, I could find no reference of a commitment by the UK government to
purchase 80 million doses at $600 each.
I did find, however, reference to the Oxford/AstraZeneca potential vaccine AZD1222 which
is estimated to cost around 2.5 euros or about $2.80 US. This appears to be the direction
that the EU is going, but it is unclear if the UK will be part of it.
Could you please forward a link or reference for the source of your figures?
Your family will wear masks, because you are slaves. Absolutely no one claims wearing a
mask will prevent you from catching a flu or cold (Corona virus).
Pavia, a cure that works, challenges media silence: "Plasma kills the virus"
"Plasma kills the coronavirus." The therapy developed by the Immuno-hematology Institute
of Saint Matthew in Pavia is encouraging. In this exclusive interview with The Daily Compass
given at the end of his experimentation, director Cesare Perotti reveals the positive
results: "The treatment works; at the moment no one has died; the USA has asked for the
protocols." But nobody is talking about it: "There are other interests opposing us, but we
will address these after the scientific publication." This is how the shared treatment works,
by "using" volunteers who have recovered to help heal those who are sick.
What Achilles Wannabe writes is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
If I have to, the ONLY way to purchase HDC is via my Canadian brothers. Naturally, I would
need an American doctor's prescription, but push comes to shove, I absolutely refuse going to
ANY American "medical doctor" to treat me.
Hopefully, the Canadian prescription stores would be able to fill that prescription. If
not, oh well.
Living in this dying nation is death-defying.
For commenters who've remarked on the incidences of (a) obesity, (b) diabetes and (c) high
blood pressure - other cardiovascular ailments (not sure anyone referred to [c] but it's on
most lists), these are all ultimately rooted in poverty / stress.
For commenters who remarked on the "Southern" diet and McDonald's food, many urban
neighborhoods and poor rural counties are food deserts, period. The urban elite in the South
(Black and white alike) have diets that resemble those of residents of Manhattan.
For the commenter who remarked on the absence of a national health care program in the
U.S. - yes, this is a major contributing factor but it's further complicated by other
intersecting forms of injustice which contribute to the heightened risk for Blacks who
contract the virus.
The premise of the OP is correct in my view, and the post correctly concludes the Identity
Politics is being used (by both sides) to mask the real disease.
I must applaud b for finally bringing in the Class War into his COVID-19 analysis. What
you are genetically isn't the main factor; rather, it's your socio-economic-- CLASS
--status that matters most regarding your potential exposure to the disease. Activists within
the Outlaw US Empire have pointed to that fact going back to March, and it's certainly a big
factor fueling the ongoing protests.
Australian Financial Review
John Davidson
July 6, 2020
Researchers at La Trobe University in Australia have developed an augmented reality (AR)
visualization of the effects of Covid-19 on the lungs, in an effort to aid diagnosis and
treatment. The researchers converted two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) scans of
Covid-damaged lungs into three-dimensional (3D) images. Microsoft's HoloLens 2 headset lets
researchers view those images, superimposed into the space in front of their eyes. Said La
Trobe's Henry Duh, "If you only see a 2D scan, without HoloLens, you need to do more mental
rotations and reconstructions in order to figure out what it looks like in the body." The
researchers hope to use machine learning to analyze original CT scans and identify areas of the
lungs damaged by the disease.
There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug
for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous
political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed "evaluation"
published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.
The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19
between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been
fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ) cure on behalf of Big
Pharma.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_1492485158
NOW PLAYING
Harvard And MIT Sue
Meatpacking Workers Are In Danger
Trump Not Happy With CDC School Guidelines
The Unreported Cases
The CDC Single Test
Censor In Chief? VP Pence To Control Coronavirus Info
The Yeezy Loan
Cruise Ships Might Be a Safer Way to Vacation During COVID-19, Health Expert Claims
While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed "a tiny US based company"
named Surgisphere whose employees included "a sci-fi writer and an adult content model" for
spreading "flawed data"
(Guardian) . This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and
national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took
place.
While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific
community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor
Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) which is a partner
of the Harvard Medical School.
When the scam was revealed , Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of
Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital apologized:
I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and
professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as
researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high
standards.
It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great
need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For
that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly
sorry. (emphasis added)
Studies on Gilead Science's Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted
Simultaneously by Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH)
While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended "to
kill" the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being
carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc.
Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard
Medical School was entrusted with coordination of
the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham's contract with
Gilead Sciences Inc :
Brigham and Women's Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead's
antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a
Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.
If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren't, it
gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other
therapies."
While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under
the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead
Sciences Inc: "He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part
of the Covid-19 debate" (France Soir, May 23, 2020)
What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of
Hydroxychloroquine?
According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:
The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra , professor at Harvard Medical
School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this
retrospective study and its results . (France Soir, June 5, 2020)
Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard
Medical School to decide upon).
Who are the Main Actors?
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as "America's top infectious disease
expert" has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by
the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead's Remdesivir.
Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci,
Remdesevir is the "corona wonder drug" developed by Gilead Science Inc. It's a $1.6 billion
dollar bonanza.
Gilead Sciences Inc: History
Gilead Sciences Inc is a
Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and
marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment
conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among
others. It has developed ties with the US Government.
In 1999 Gilead Sciences
Inc, developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the
time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the
George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for
coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of
Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005) :
"The prospect of a bird flu outbreak was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
[who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead
Sciences".
Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as "a go
between" the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense,
the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big
Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in
early 2002 would:
"accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used
in attacks, and the biology of the microbes' hosts -- human beings and their immune systems.
One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity." (WPo report)
In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George
W. Bush "for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier
lives."
The 2020 Gilead Sciences Inc Remdesivir Project
We will be focussing on key documents (and events)
Chronology
February 21: Initial Release pertaining to NIH-NIAID Remdesivir placebo test trial
Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as
co-authors.
The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir
on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline
information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) Of the 53
remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of
remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of
treatment.
The NEJM article states that "Gilead Sciences Inc began accepting requests from clinicians
for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020". From whom, From Where? According to
the WHO (January 30, 2020) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in
the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada.
Several prominent physicians and scientists
have cast doubt on the Compassionate Use of Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focussing
on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test is less that the
number of co-authors: "53 patients" versus "56 co-authors"
Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project (
Science Media Centre emphasis added) published immediately following the release of the
NEJM article:
" 'Compassionate use' is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a
patient because there are no other treatments available . Research based on this kind of use
should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation,
which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials. Prof Duncan Richard ,
Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford.
"It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to
know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received
remdesivir. Dr Stephen Griffin , Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of
Leeds.
"The research is interesting but doesn't prove anything at this point: the data are from a
small and uncontrolled study. Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and
Prescribing, University of Edinburgh.
"The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even
unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more
appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has
sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been
done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written. Prof Stephen Evans,
Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
"It's very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this
particularly with a new disease where we really don't know what to expect and with wide
variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of
failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a
missed opportunity." Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol.
An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April
27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their
review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective
of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery
in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal
activity level.
Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time
to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to
recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who
received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0%
for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059). (emphasis
added)
In the NIH's earlier February 21, 2020 report (released at the outset of the study), the
methodology was described as follows:
A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the
investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Numbers. Where? When?
The February 21 repor t confirmed that the first trial participant was "an American who was
repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship" that docked in
Yokohama (Japanese Territorial Waters). "Thirteen people repatriated by the U.S. State
Department from the Diamond Princess cruise ship" were selected as patients for the placebo
trial test. Ironically, at the outset of the study, 58.7% of the "confirmed cases" Worldwide
(542 cases out of 924) (outside China), were on the Diamond Cruise Princess from which the
initial trial placebo patients were selected.
Where and When: The trial test in the 68 selected sites? That came at a later date because
on February 19th (WHO data), the US had recorded only 15 positive cases (see Table Below).
"A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study -- 47 in the United States and 21 in
countries in Europe and Asia." (emphasis added)
There were 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States (45 sites), Denmark (8),
the United Kingdom (5), Greece (4), Germany (3), Korea (2), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Japan (1),
and Singapore (1). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either
remdesivir or placebo. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at
enrollment
"The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, fall short of
the magic bullet or cure But with no approved treatments for Covid-19, [Lie] Fauci said, it
will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients The data shows that remdisivir has
a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery," Fauci
said.
The government's first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a
coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday -- but
rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at
hand.
The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial
found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal
benefit in the rate of death.
Fauci's remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek
emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug.
In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients
under compassionate use. [also refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the
NEJM]
The study, involving [more than] 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and
around the world (??) , offers the first evidence (??) from a large (??), randomized (??)
clinical study of remdesivir's effectiveness against COVID-19.
The NIH placebo test study provided "preliminary results". While the placebo trial test was
"randomized", the overall selection of patients at the 68 sites was not fully randomized. See
the full report.
May 22: The Fake Lancet Report on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)
Immediately folllowing its publication, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ
cure, while applauding the NIH-NIASD report released on the same day.
Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat Covid-19, sped the recovery time of patients
with the disease, "It's a very safe and effective drug," said Eric Topol, founder and
director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. "We now have a definite first
efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with
other drugs, [and drug] combinations."
When the Lancet HCQ article by Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it
received minimal media coverage. Despite the Retraction, the HCQ cure "had been killed".
June 29: Fauci Greenlight. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc
Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the "Greenlight" to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29, 2020.
The Report was largely funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The earlier Gilead study based on scanty test results published in the NEJM (April 10), of
53 cases (and 56 co-authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been questioned
by several prominent physicians and scientists.
Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? 500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200
per patient, namely
$1.6 billion (see the s
tudy by Elizabeth Woodworth )
If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the
recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.
[error in above title according to HHS: $3200]
According to The Trump Administration's HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"To the extent possible, we want to ensure that a ny American patient who needs remdesivir
can get it . [at $3200] The Trump Administration is doing everything in our power to learn
more about life-saving therapeutics for COVID-19 and secure access to these options for the
American people."
The Lancet study (published on May 22) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of
Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19, with a view to sustaining the $1.6 billion
agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th. The legitmacy of this
agreement rested on the May 22 NIH-NIAID study in the NEJM which was considered
"preliminary".
What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been "studied" and tested
fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections. And that
Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several
countries.
According to the Virology Journal (2005) " Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS
coronavirus infection and spread". It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the
endorsement of the CDC.
HCQ is not only effective, it is "inexpensive" when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated
"$3120 for a US Patient with private insurance".
Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard's Professor Mehra (who undertook the May 22
Lancet study) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet
report (prior to its Retraction).
Dr. Mandeep Mehra: In our study, it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the
risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable. [referring to the May
22 Lancet study]
France Soir: Do you have the data for Remdesivir?
MM: Yes, we have the data, but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to
conclude in one way or another.
FS: As you know, in France, there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which
has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical
companies. Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end to all
speculation?
MM: In fact, there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine.
On the one hand, Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a
reduction in recovery time. On the other hand, for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite: it
has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition,
our study shows that there are harmful effects.
It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated
harmfulness to a drug with at least a glimmer of hope.
FS: You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with
hydroxychloroquine, do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine
is dangerous?
MM: Exactly.
All we are saying is that once you have been infected (5 to 7 days after) to the point of
having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load, the use of hydroxychloroquine and its
derivative is not effective.
The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair. With this
treatment [HCQ] it can generate more complications
FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and
that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor's chair.
He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the
Covid-19 debate.
- France Soir, translated by the author, emphasis added, May 23, 2020)
In Annex, see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the
data base of Dr. Mehra's Lancet report was revealed.
Concluding Remarks
Lies and Corruption to the nth Degree involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, "The Boston Connection"
and Gilead Sciences Inc.
The Gilead Sciences Inc. Remdesivir study (50+ authors) was published in the New England
Journal of Medicine (April 10, 2020).
It was followed by the NIH-NIAID Remdesivir
for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM. And on
that same day, May 22, the "fake report" on Hydroxychloroquine by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra was
published by The Lancet.
Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the
fake Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.
Is there conflict of interest? BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on Remdesivir in
contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc.
While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard's Dr. Mehra was retracted, it nonetheless
served the interests of Gilead Sciences Inc.
It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken,
respectively of the Gilead Sciences Inc New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) peer reviewed
study (April 10, 2020) as well as the NIH-NIAID study also published in the NEJM (May 22,
2020).
* * *
ANNEX
Retraction by France Soir
The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in early June.
France Soir in a subsequent article (June 5, 2020) points to the Boston Connection: La
connexion de Boston , namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and
Professor Mehra, Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals
involved.
The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in
cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence,
fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.
However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by
Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine
(HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation
It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and
Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston.
That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around
the world, also by Surgisphere.
Funding for the study was "Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular
Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The development and maintenance of the
collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere."
The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine
and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.
It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective
studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the
world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors
using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai's company.
These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity
associated with the gift of ubiquity.
The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the
publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ, another study was
published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial
of remdesivir.
In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, "remdesivir
was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with
Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection."
Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ in one journal while another
claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.
It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth "Libby"* Hohmann, represents
one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also
affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston,
where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.
Coincidence, probably.
Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on
Gilead's remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:
"While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail,
Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) are leading the
search for effective treatment.
"Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir."
MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the
first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19,
sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH . MGH is
currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list
of sites shared by the hospital.
" It's a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the
country, getting better .
"The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine
whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping
patients leave hospital earlier.**
As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.
Coincidence, probably.
" At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead , the drug developer, will
determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over
five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled,
and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty,
MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly
rapid clip."
As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose
results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston,
precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.
Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.
Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days,
several US media outlets have reported Gilead's announcements of positive results from the
remdesivir clinical trials in Boston.:
"Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment
of patients with COVID-19.**
Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that
there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day
regimen.
"Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate
COVID-19
– One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly
greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone
– The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating
the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19
"We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved
clinical outcomes by several different measures," Gilead plans to submit the complete data
for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks .
These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in
the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a
coincidence.
So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really ?
Three UK organizations have released new reports advising people to get enough vitamin D,
either through sunlight or supplements, as a precaution against the novel coronavirus.
Several previous studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to higher risk of severe
coronavirus infection.
However, there's not yet sufficient evidence to fully understand if the nutrient plays a
causal role in preventing the disease, although it has been shown to support a healthy immune
system.
While there's still no evidence that vitamin D can cure or prevent the coronavirus, three
major health organizations in the UK are advising people to ensure they get enough vitamin D,
from the sun or supplements, to be on the safe side.
In the meantime, however, these organizations advise a stronger emphasis on meeting the
current recommended vitamin D intake, not only as a precaution against coronavirus, but for
general health too.
Vitamin D is important for health, and might even stave off some
illnesses
Vitamin D is an essential nutrient for health, including the immune system.
Normally, humans can produce vitamin D naturally through direct exposure to sunlight -- we
also get vitamin D in certain foods, like eggs, fatty fish, and beef liver. In total, the UK
recommends people get 10 micrograms of vitamin D per day; the US recommendation is slightly
higher, 15 micrograms for most people, and 20 micrograms for those over 70.
Spending too much time indoors, whether in the colder winter months or in quarantine, can
potentially put you at risk of a vitamin D deficiency. Not enough of the nutrient is directly
linked to muscle, tooth, and bone health issues, according to the recent Royal Society
report.
That could be a problem when it comes to illness -- there's some evidence that a lack of
vitamin D is linked to infections, particularly in the respiratory tract, according to the
Scientific
Advisory Commission on Nutrition report.
But there's no evidence showing a direct
cause link between vitamin D and better coronavirus outcomes
However, while COVID-19 (the disease caused by the novel coronavirus) does attack the
respiratory system, there's no evidence vitamin D can cure or prevent the illness.
Several previous
studies have made a link between coronavirus outcomes and vitamin D deficiency -- however,
that research has included other variables that could explain the number and severity of
COVID-19 cases, and the research is far from showing a causal link.
Previous
research has cautioned consumers about exaggerated claims about vitamin D and the
coronavirus, particularly with regard to supplements or extremely high doses through an IV: too
much vitamin D can can cause a toxic buildup of calcium and lead to kidney issues,
according to the Mayo Clinic .
As such, there's still much more research to be done on the implications of vitamin D for
different coronavirus outcomes.
Charles Bangham, professor of immunology at Imperial College London and co-author of the
Royal Society paper, told the Financial Times that
Vitamin D deficiency could in part explain why people with darker skin tones have been
hardest-hit by the coronavirus. Black and brown people have more melanin that blocks UV rays
from the sun, so naturally-producing the nutrient from sunlight takes longer for people with
darker skin.
Copper metal has antimicrobial properties and can kill germs through direct contact.
The metal has been used to coat high-touch surfaces like door handles, surfaces in hospitals, and even personal items such as
masks.
However, copper isn't a cure-all, and it takes time and direct contact to destroy contaminants, so it might not always be the
best solution for preventing viral infection, according to research.
As the US begins to tentatively return to business, despite the novel coronavirus still lurking among the population, any
potential protection has become a hot commodity.
Copper metal,
used
in products
such as door handles and key rings, is being touted as one such solution, advertised as killing the virus on
contact.
But before you click "buy" on those Instagram ads for copper patches billed as "natural hygienic germ stoppers," it's important
to distinguish between what copper is and isn't capable of doing against the virus.
It may help against germs in some instances, but it's not a panacea for prevention, since the coronavirus can still live on
copper surfaces for hours. And it's certainly no substitute for other precautions, according to Dr. Miryam Wahrman, biology
professor at William Paterson University and author of "
The
Hand Book: Surviving in a Germ-Filled World
."
"From what we're dealing with now, I don't think there's a lot of evidence to support the usefulness of copper in terms of
reducing infections," Wahrman told Insider.
"Germ-killing" ads include everything from copper discs and stickers to cell phone cases, bracelets and socks
There is a huge variety of copper products sold as "prevention tools," but they fall into four general categories.
There are wearables, such as face masks, but also tee-shirts laced with copper, and jewelry, which vendors claim "self-sanitize"
if they come into contact with contagious particles.
Then there are "sanitizers," which are bars or discs made of or coated in copper. These are designed to be rubbed on your hands
or other objects in order to sanitize them.
Touch-tools, the third category, can vary widely, but picture something that looks like bottle opener or key. You might use these
to open doors, push buttons, or even tap on touchscreens instead of directly interesting with those potentially germy surfaces.
Finally, there are copper-coated versions of everyday items you touch frequently, such as cellphone cases and door handles. The
advantage of these over their ordinary counterparts is that germs (including coronavirus) can't survive as long on copper as on
surfaces like plastic and other types of metal.
Copper can kill bacteria, but it's less effective against viruses
"Copper is good as an antimicrobial against certain types of bacteria but when it comes to viruses, that's a whole different
ballgame because viruses are not living cells," she said.
An April 2020 study in the
New
England Journal of Medicine
found copper is inhospitable for the novel coronavirus as well, as the virus has a much shorter
lifespan on copper than on other surfaces such cloth, plastic, or even other metals.
That's important for environments where a lot of potential viral and bacterial particles are present, such as hospitals. A
2016
study
found that using copper components in hospitals could help prevent patients from contracting other infections while
hospitalized. According to the study, copper surfaces reduced the infection rate of patients by 58% (from 8.1% to 3.4%), and
reduced the viral load on surfaces by 83%.
The soap, not the metal on the sink, is what really helps prevent viral contamination.
Maryna
Andriichenko/Getty Images
Most copper products do nothing more than lull you into a false sense of security, experts say
Touch-tools, which you can use to open doors, push buttons or otherwise interact with high-touch surfaces, might help by creating
a barrier between contagions and your hand, but only if you keep the tool clean, too. If you're not careful to do that, this
protective touch tool could simply be lulling you into feeling you're protected, when you're not.
"The positive thing is, you're touching fewer surfaces," Wahrman said. "But then you're going to come into contact with the part
that's been touching surfaces when you put it back in your purse or your pocket. It's going to give you a false sense of
confidence and won't occur to you that you've actually transferred germs to yourself and your home."
As an antimicrobial surface, copper could potentially still slow the spread of infection. But experts say it's highly unlikely
that, even in that unlikely scenario, it wouldn't instantly kill coronavirus germs.
"The suggestion that you can rub these items on your hands and that's going to keep you healthy, that's not scientifically
supported, especially for viruses," Wahrman said.
And face masks containing copper might be even less helpful, since in order for it to be effective, the copper needs to come into
direct contact with the virus. Copper-infused cloth would only work if the virus penetrates the fabric, defeating the purpose of
the mask in the first place.
"The face mask is a great barrier. They have a tight fiber so that they do block a lot of the viral particles and blocking them
is key," Wahrman said. "If the viral passes through the mask, it's not going to interact with the metal anyway, so it's not going
to make a difference."
Copper might help on surfaces over time, but it can't prevent droplets direct from another person
None of these uses of copper address the most common form of contagious for the novel coronavirus, which is airborne infectious
directly from person to person.
"The big problem with the coronavirus is that it travels in droplets from one person to another who inhales it and that's how
most of the infections are happening. So there's no real way to get copper involved," Wahrman said.
So, while copper could have some promising applications, particularly in high-risk settings such as hospitals, it's not a
cure-all for the average person, and it can't replace traditional disinfectants, hand sanitizer, or good old fashioned soap and
water, according to Wahrman.
"The original advice that's tried and true is wash your hands with soap and water or use alcohol based hand sanitizer, and you've
really reduced the risk and reduced the germ load," she said.
Wearing a mask, washing your hands frequently, and maintaining social distancing are still your best bet against slowing the
spread of the virus, per the
CDC's
advice
.
Perhaps the scariest numbers in microbiology relate to pathogenic microorganisms.
Worldwide, 16 million people die from infectious disease every year, and many of these
deaths are preventable. Approximately one in every 12 individuals, or 500 million people
worldwide, is living with chronic viral hepatitis, and the estimated number of new
chlamydial infections per year is approximately 50 million, more than the population of
South Korea. The bacterium Clostridium botulinum produces a toxin so potent that 3 grams
would be enough to kill the population of the United Kingdom and 400 grams would kill
everyone on the planet.
In total, there are ∼1,400 known species of human pathogens (including viruses,
bacteria, fungi, protozoa and helminths), and although this may seem like a large number,
human pathogens account for much less than 1% of the total number of microbial species on
the planet. On this point, ignoring questions about what actually constitutes a species,
estimates for the total number of microbial species vary wildly, from as low as 120,000 to
tens of millions and higher. Part of the reason for this large range is that we have only
sequenced 1 × 10−22% of the total DNA on Earth (although the Earth Microbiome
Project should improve this dramatically to 1 × 10−20% in the next 3 years).
This means that the fraction of microbial diversity that we have sampled to date is
effectively zero, a nice abstract entity to end on.
Have you ever wondered how Sarv-Cov-2 made it to discovery? Or how humans have managed to
survive up to now?
Airborne ballpark math: we breathe about 500 l/h when sitting down and up to 10 times that
when exercising. When someone is ill and pushing 500 l/h of breath into a room with a
halftime of say 4 hours then after about that time this person maintains roughly 2 cubic
meters of breath in that room. For a room of 100 cubic meter that would be 2% of the air. So
during a workday you'd be breathing the breath of that other person at a dilution of the
order of 1%. Air conditioning recycles the air (maybe not completely I don't know the ratio)
so it is not ventilation where the air is replaced. Maybe airco can pick off a large part of
the particles. But that is the idea, assuming various losses and a large room you would still
breathing someone elses breath diluted by a factor thousand.
I haven't found data on it but I suspect half time in cool air is considerately longer.
What talking and shouting then does is increase the amount of virus material in the air but
there will be a huge increase at short distance and an unknown increase at large
distance.
With this reasoning the question is not whether the virus can travel through air but how easy
it is. Long halflife in air increases the chance.
High threshold of number of virus particles to have an effective transmission would decrease
the chance. So I would start by measuring the amount of material we can push into the air in
small droplets. How much variation is there.
So meat processing: cold air and to save energy ventilation is not good. Air is recycled a
lot. People doing physical labour a whole day, not sitting. Sounds tricky independently of
the hygiene question of dealing with industrially forcegrown animals
There is no exit strategy for this haphazard insanity. Once this over-reaction to a fairly
innocuous infectious agent was accepted as being necessary, there's no way to ever declare
reversion to normalcy.
In my opinion, rather than endlessly focussing on this not particularly interesting virus,
coming up with creative signboards and banners restricting movement, wrecking people's
livelihoods and painting crosses on the pavement where one must stand, we should have been onto
a more obvious problem by now. What if this HAD been a deadly pathogen? Why aren't we prepared
to quickly open special quarantine/treatment centers, disconnected from regular hospitals? And
what are we going to do about it?
This little rehearsal showed how unprepared we are should a real existential threat
arise.
But no, we must instead continue to waste our time, money and effort in playacting that this is
a real biological crisis, and creating an actual breakdown in our way of life. We must continue
to double down, because if we take ever more extreme action about corona, that will prove that
the idiocy we've demonstrated thus far was necessary ..right?
[Hide MORE]
Given the way corona virus is being handled, one would think we don't realize that people die
quite regularly, especially when they're in bad condition. Now, we're practically demanding
that nobody should die from catching a microbe – that we should stay home and hold our
breath until everyone is guaranteed to survive. Since when have we ever believed that? Is that
how we built civilization? The civilization that we're now destroying?
There's little reason for insulin-sensitive people – with healthy immune status and
without metabolic disease – to stay home, wear a mask or 'social distance' themselves.
Since they won't be getting seriously ill, their staying home wouldn't help 'flatten the curve'
of sick people overburdening the healthcare system (as usual, to the expense of all of us). On
the contrary, active healthy people can contribute something to the economy.
The main benefit of herd immunity is that it will allow the country to function again. And
that would be good for everyone, healthy and sickly alike. The metabolically/immunologically
compromised will be vulnerable to catching the corona virus from anyone who's contracted it and
is temporarily contagious, no matter whether the carrier's general health is good or poor. And
that's the same fix that people with poor immune function are in, always and everywhere. The
answer for protecting these most vulnerable people from COVID – which is only one of the
many dangers to their health that they face – can be one of two things; the best one
being that they start eating right. And/or, we can build as much equipment and medical
facilities, where they're most needed, as they may require. Either of these solutions is much
more viable, less disruptive and less expensive than what we're doing now. And with either
solution, healthier people would no longer be punished for possessing normal human
vitality.
While governments, health agencies and scientists take steps to upgrade the availability of
care facilities, equipment and treatments, individuals should follow this
CORONA VIRUS PROTOCOL
Part A (Everyone)
Begin a therapeutic diet to quickly upgrade and regulate the immune system. This consists of,
wholly or mostly:
Home cooked meat, oily fish, eggs (especially yolks), animal fat, bone broth, collagen or
gelatin, and liver, and the elimination of corn, soy, canola, safflower, sunflower, grapeseed
and rice bran oils as well as flours, sugar and prepared foods.
Part B (those most at risk for COVID complications- individuals with high BMI or chronic
health issues, or taking prescription medications, etc.)
While following the part A protocol, take reasonable precautions to limit your exposure to
possible infection from others, such as limiting time or wearing a mask when in close contact
with other people.
@john
cronk with this knowledge is talk about it. Lots of talk, little action. The only active
pieces on the board are hopping around and trying to do a cultural revolution and proceeding
with an absolute poverty of energy.
This might be the most sedentary collapse ever. The world is taking a hard turn towards a
prolonged dark age and for the lack of reaction it seems people are just going with the flow.
Welcome to the future. A little bit of 1984, a heavy dose of Idiocracy, and a whole bunch of
pudgy kids trying to live out their Harry Potter headcanon.
Nevermind all the attention given to "Black Lives" while Black voices (Lest we forget the
'Shaun King is transracial' scandal of not long ago) are shut out of the conversation
Nonsense reigns!
"... The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system's six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died. ..."
"... Among all patients in the study, there was an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 18%, and many who died had underlying conditions that put them at greater risk, according to Henry Ford Health System. Globally, the mortality rate for hospitalized patients is between 10% and 30%, and it's 58% among those in the intensive care unit or on a ventilator." Detroit News ..."
"... A long "take down" of Fauci: https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_ken-mccarthy-tony-fauci-is-corrupt-to-the-core/ ..."
"... This is not Fauci's first rodeo. He's been pumping hysteria for 36 years. He always gets it wrong. He was wrong about swine flu. He was wrong about bird flu. He was wrong about Zika. He was wrong about Ebola. He wildly exaggerated AIDS. And he always is wrong in the favor of pharmaceutical companies. And he's always wrong in favor of 'we've got to develop a vaccine now. We have to throw out all the rules. ..."
"... Observational studies are never the equivalent of double-blind randomized studies; but there can still provide important and fare more readily obtained early information about these connections and conditions. ..."
"... This stuff is hard. There are lots of variations in patient populations and treatment protocols. We have to consider doses, concomitant meds (such as azithromycin), patient status at time of treatment, age, and, comorbidities. ..."
"... the recently halted NIH trial was randomized, double-blinded; this was in a hospital setting. The prophylactic trial reported at the beginning of June in NEJM (author Boulware) was also randomized, double-blinded; this was in a prophylactic setting. ..."
"A Henry Ford Health System study shows the controversial anti-malaria drug
hydroxychloroquine helps lower the death rate of COVID-19 patients, the Detroit-based health
system said Thursday.
Officials with the Michigan health system said the study found the drug "significantly"
decreased the death rate of patients involved in the analysis.
The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system's six hospitals between
March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of
those who did not receive the drug died.
Among all patients in the study, there was an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 18%, and
many who died had underlying conditions that put them at greater risk, according to Henry Ford
Health System. Globally, the mortality rate for hospitalized patients is between 10% and 30%,
and it's 58% among those in the intensive care unit or on a ventilator." Detroit News
There will be no accountability: The b-stards have set the standards.
https://www.bcazlaw.com/surgical-mishaps/ Medical malpractice is a legal term used to describe a medical professional's failing to
uphold the acceptable standard of care in a situation. Doctors must adhere to accepted
medical community standards concerning treatment methods and technique, and failing to
do so can leave them liable for any resulting damages.
https://www.lynchlawyers.com/blog/hospital-medical-malpractice/ When a patient is under a hospitals care, the facility must operate at a level that meets the
medical community's standards for treating patients. This means the hospital or its
staff members cannot cause the patient harm as a result of negligence.
https://www.fortheinjured.com/blog/common-medical-errors/ When a doctor or medical facility's
failure to meet these standards results in a
patient's injury or death, the at-fault party can be held liable for medical malpractice
.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/TheCommunityStandard.html The community standard is the older standard and reflects the traditional deference of the
law toward physicians. It is based on what physicians as a group do in a given circumstance.
The community standard requires that the patient be told what other physicians in the same
community would tell a patient in the same or similar circumstances. "Community" refers both
to the geographic community and to the specialty (intellectual community) of the
physician.
It'll be 37 years this year he's had the same job in the federal bureaucracy.
There are two million people getting a paycheck from the federal government as
employees. Who do you think the third highest paid employee in the entire federal
bureaucracy is? It's Tony Fauci.
So just to sum all this up: This is not Fauci's first rodeo. He's been pumping hysteria
for 36 years. He always gets it wrong. He was wrong about swine flu. He was wrong about
bird flu. He was wrong about Zika. He was wrong about Ebola. He wildly exaggerated AIDS.
And he always is wrong in the favor of pharmaceutical companies. And he's always wrong in
favor of 'we've got to develop a vaccine now. We have to throw out all the rules.
And his wife is Christine Grady, chief of the Department of Bioethics of the National
Institute of Health and the head of the section on Human Subject Research. She is the
person that makes decisions on what's ethical to do with human subjects. That's his
wife.
Uncharted research: areas where anti-malarial drugs are sold widely over the counter - in
malaria prone parts of the world - eg: Central America, SEA and Pacific Islands. How do their
covid rates relate to these specific localities (not just generalized country numbers), where
ongoing prophylactic sales of OTC anti-malaria drugs are most prevalent?
Why does the CDC travel and tourism website info still recommend taking anti-malarial
drugs, when the other hand of our deep state bureaucrats are screaming these drugs will kill
you?
Observational studies are never the equivalent of double-blind randomized studies; but
there can still provide important and fare more readily obtained early information about
these connections and conditions.
No comment/s needed perhaps. But deliciously anticipated. Here, from the Committee, and
especially from the MSM. Even if only silence. Because "silence is really violence" in this
case.
https://www.yourdailyshakespeare.com/2020/06/08/the-world-upside-down/ And here is an example, a reported 'case-study'. A prince of Persia had melancholia and
suffered from the delusion of being a cow. He would moo like a cow, crying "Kill me so that a
good stew may be made of my flesh," and would never eat anything. Avicenna was persuaded to
treat the case and sent a message to the patient, asking him to be happy as the butcher was
coming to slaughter him. The sick man rejoiced. When Avicenna approached the prince with a
knife in his hand, he asked, "Where is the cow so I may kill it."
The patient then mooed like a cow to indicate where he was. He was then laid on the ground
for slaughter. When Avicenna approached the patient pretending to slaughter him, he said,
"The cow is too lean and not ready to be killed. He must be fed properly and I will kill it
when it becomes healthy and fat. The patient was then offered food, which he ate eagerly and
gradually gained strength, got rid of his delusion, and was completely cured.
How relevant may be the Avicennian case study to the current dynamics of the pandemic I will
leave it to my possible and patient readers to decide.
Dr. Marc Siegel a medical correspondent for Foxnews told T. Carlson weeks ago that an
emergency treatment of this drug saved the life of his 96 year old father who was at the
point of death, cured him overnight in fact.
It is a fact that cancer drugs are not uniformly effective in all patients.
The causes must be sought in the genotypes of the patients.
The differential response as well as effectiveness are not reasons to discard a
therapy.
In further news on COVID-19 Treatments I have 2 items to report:
First one:
The 3-drug mixture of Azittomycin, Naproxen, and prednisolone (oral or injectable) have
been used successfully for reduction of the inflammation of respiratory system.
3 systematic trials have been undertaken and results were conclusive in expediting faster
recovery.
Second one:
Clinical trials in Iran (in Masih Daneshvari hospital) – indicated 100% cure of
COVID-19 in 20 patients using a combination of ReciGen and Cultera (sic?) which is an AIDS
drug.
A second group of patients – 152 – had a reduction in mortality of 20% as
compared to those who were only receiving Cultera (sic.?)
This stuff is hard. There are lots of variations in patient populations and treatment
protocols. We have to consider doses, concomitant meds (such as azithromycin), patient status
at time of treatment, age, and, comorbidities.
A big difference: the Ford study was not randomized, not double-blinded. They used a
statistical technique to try to make the groups comparable on factors believed to be
relevant, but this is after fact. (It's a nice technique, I've used it myself, but it doesn't
magically solve all of the difficulties of retrospective analysis.)
In contrast, the recently halted NIH trial was randomized, double-blinded; this was in a
hospital setting. The prophylactic trial reported at the beginning of June in NEJM (author
Boulware) was also randomized, double-blinded; this was in a prophylactic setting.
Hydroxychloroquine is the active ingredient in the tonic portion of gin and tonics, which
I've been drinking for prophylactic purposes since the pandemic began.
"The current work suggests that while the G614 variant may be more infectious, it is not
more pathogenic. There is a hope that as SARS-CoV-2 infection spreads, the virus might become
less pathogenic,"
"... Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent . He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary . ..."
alifornia-based pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences has
announced that a five-day course of its antiviral drug Remdesivir -- shown in tests to
effectively fight COVID-19 -- will cost $3,120 to Americans with health insurance and $2,340 to
those on Medicaid. Yet
research published in April calculated that the drug could be produced at a profit for as
little as $0.93 per day.
The study, led by Dr. Andrew Hill from the Department of Translational Medicine, University
of Liverpool, U.K., and published in the
Journal of Virus Eradication , found that a five-day course of lifesaving Remdesivir
could be mass-produced for less than the cost of a Subway sandwich. So cheap is the drug that
the saline solution and the syringe needed to administer it would be more costly.
MintPress spoke with Dr. Hill, who was dismayed by the company's announcement.
We are in a health emergency. We can't have a situation right now where people are unable
to access medicine because the prices are too high. Remdesivir is a drug that has had its
development costs paid for, in large part, by independent donors like governments and
ministries of health in China, the WHO, and the U.S. government. So why should a company be
making money in the middle of a pandemic by selling a drug which has largely been developed
independently of them?" he said.
News of the decision led to an explosion of public anger. "As Gilead charges $3,120 for its
COVID drug, Remdesivir, remember that the drug was developed with a $70,000,000 grant from the
federal government paid for by American taxpayers. Once again, Big Pharma is set to profit on
the people's dime," wrote former Secretary of Labor
Robert Reich. "This isn't healthcare. It's extortion," appeared to be the overwhelming sentiment
on social media.
Gilead itself, however, seemed not to share this sentiment. Indeed, its
press release on the subject positioned its decision as a selfless and magnanimous gesture
of corporate philanthropy. "We approached this with the aim of helping as many patients as
possible, as quickly as possible and in the most responsible way," said its CEO, Daniel O'Day,
adding that, "under normal circumstances" the company would have charged the public $12,000 per
patient.
"A new low"
Remdesivir is an intravenous antiviral drug that has been used to fight other coronaviruses
like SARS and MERS and has shown some effectiveness against Ebola. Although far from a miracle
treatment, studies have concluded that it aids
recovery, reducing the average hospital visit for COVID-19 patients from 15 days to 11 days
when compared to a placebo. Like with everything coronavirus-related, there is no absolute
scientific consensus. In late April, the WHO accidentally leaked a
Chinese study that suggested Remdesivir may not be as effective as Gilead claims it to be.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has now bought
up the entire world's stock of the drug, effectively confiscating it and shutting out every
other country from the medicine.
"I've been working in medicine for 32 years and I have never seen anything like it. I've
never seen a country be that brazen. We have to work together. This could be a taste of the
future. They've tried to also do this with advanced orders of vaccines. Imagine if we had a 100
percent effective vaccine and it only went to Americans," Dr. Hill told MintPress
.
At the moment people don't quite understand the gravity of the decision that the American
government has made. This is a worldwide epidemic and we have got to remember that the
clinical trials of Remdesivir were not just conducted in the United States; they were
conducted around European and Chinese centers. Patients put themselves at risk to take part
in an experimental drug trial, and the gratitude we get as other countries after our people
were involved in these studies is to be shut out of the future supply of the drug?! It is
simply ethically unacceptable. I think there are serious questions to be answered. This is a
new low ground, unfortunately," he added.
Gilead has been under considerable public scrutiny of late. The company, which
announced profits of $5.4 billion last year, has increased its value by $15 billion since
the pandemic began. In December, MintPressreported
that it was being sued, accused of deliberately holding back a lifesaving HIV drug to extend
the profitability of their previous, inferior one. With shades of the Remdesivir announcement,
the drug is sold in Australia for $8 per month, but the company charges Americans around $2,000
for the same dosage. "Gilead has a long history of profiteering," said Dr. Hill. "Its CEO is a
billionaire and has been accused of tax avoidance; by keeping their intellectual property in
Ireland they avoided $10 billion in taxes in 2016 and they sell drugs for between 100 and 1,000
times the cost of production. And nobody is stopping them. I think this is a taste of things to
come if we don't have better controls on the pharmaceutical industry's excesses."
As of Wednesday morning, there have been 2.73 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the
United States, the six worst days for the virus in terms of infections all occurring in the
previous week.
Feature photo | A lab tech displays a package of the Remdesivir at the Eva Pharma Facility
in Cairo, Egypt June 29, 2020. Amr Abdallah | Reuters
On Monday, Gilead disclosed its pricing plan for Gilead as it prepares to begin charging for
the drug at the beginning of next month (several international governments have already placed
orders). Given the high demand, thanks in part due to the breathless media coverage despite the
drug's still-questionable study data, Gilead apparently feels justified in charging $3,120 for
a patient getting the shorter, more common, treatment course, and $5,720 for the longer course
for more seriously ill patients. These are the prices for patients with commercial insurance in
the US, according to Gilead's official pricing plan.
As per usual, the price charged to those on government plans will be lower, and hospitals
will also receive a slight discount. Additionally, the US is the only developed country where
Gilead will charge two prices, according to Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day. In much of Europe and
Canada, governments negotiate drug prices directly with drugmakers (in the US, laws dictate
that drug makers must "discount" their drugs for Medicare and Medicaid plans).
But according to O'Day, the drug is priced "far below the value it brings" to the
health-care system.
However, we'd argue that this actually isn't true. Remdesivir was developed by Gilead to
treat Ebola, but the drug was never approved by the FDA for this use, which caused Gilead to
shelve the drug until COVID-19 presented another opportunity. Even before the first study had
finished, the company was already pushing propaganda about the promising nature of the drug.
Meanwhile, the CDC, WHO and other organizations were raising doubts about the effectiveness of
steroid medications.
Months later, the only study on the steroid dexomethasone, a cheap steroid that costs less
than $50 for a 100-dose regimen, has shown that dexomethasone is the only drug so far that has
proven effective at lowering COVID-19 related mortality. Remdesivir, despite the fact that it
has been tested in several high quality trials, has not.
So, why is the American government in partnership with Gilead still pushing this
questionable, and staggeringly expensive, medication on the public?
"My hunch is that by now doctors have learned much more about the disease's progression
(cytokine storm, blood clotting) and how to manage it."
I believe the UK is where the dexamethasone Study was done. Possibly more doctors are
using it. The Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group have been pushing
corticosteroids as the main treatment in their MATH+ Protocol, and they believe the UK study
provides evidence that they are on the right track. Their Protocol specifically targets the
cytokine storm and they use heparin for the blood clots. Now if they can only get a
full-fledged trial going. Unfortunately their Web site doesn't provide much info about how
much traction they're getting promoting their Protocol.
The 1918 SF article proves that morons are morons no matter how many years have passed.
I'm sure there were such during the Black Plague. I sincerely hope the coronavirus mutates
before the second wave and starts killing all the younger people just to see their reaction
when they have to bear the brunt. Can't wait for all the "it's just the flu" BS from these
morons to dry up.
"... "Our genetic data confirm that blood group O is associated with a risk of acquiring Covid-19 that was lower than that in non-O blood groups, whereas blood group A was associated with a higher risk than non-A blood groups," the researchers wrote in their report. They found people with Type A blood had a 45% higher risk of becoming infected than people with other blood types, and people with Type O blood were just 65% as likely to become infected as people with other blood types. ..."
(CNN - June 18) A team of European scientists say they have found two genetic variations
that may show who is more likely to get very sick and die from coronavirus, and they say
they have also found a link to blood type.
Their findings, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, point to a
possible explanation for why some people get so seriously ill with the virus, while most
barely show any symptoms at all.
They found people with Type A blood have a higher risk of catching coronavirus and of
developing severe symptoms, while people with Type O blood have a lower risk.
"Our genetic data confirm that blood group O is associated with a risk of acquiring
Covid-19 that was lower than that in non-O blood groups, whereas blood group A was
associated with a higher risk than non-A blood groups," the researchers wrote in their
report. They found people with Type A blood had a 45% higher risk of becoming infected than
people with other blood types, and people with Type O blood were just 65% as likely to
become infected as people with other blood types. ...
Genomewide Association Study of Severe Covid-19 with Respiratory Failure
By David Ellinghaus, Ph.D., Frauke Degenhardt, M.Sc., Luis Bujanda, M.D., Ph.D., Maria
Buti, M.D., Ph.D., Agustín Albillos, M.D., Ph.D., Pietro Invernizzi, M.D., Ph.D.,
Javier Fernández, M.D., Ph.D., Daniele Prati, M.D., Guido Baselli, Ph.D., Rosanna
Asselta, Ph.D., Marit M. Grimsrud, M.D., Chiara Milani, Ph.D., et al. for The Severe
Covid-19 GWAS Group
Abstract
BACKGROUND
There is considerable variation in disease behavior among patients infected with severe
acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus
disease 2019 (Covid-19). Genomewide association analysis may allow for the identification
of potential genetic factors involved in the development of Covid-19....
Coronavirus Causes Weaponized 'Tentacles' To Sprout From Infected Cells, Directly Inject
Virus Into New Ones
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2020 - 19:25 The virus behind COVID-19 causes infected cells to sprout 'tentacles'
which allow the virus to attack several nearby cells at once - poking holes which allow the
disease to easily transfer inside.
This nightmare fuel was discovered by researchers led by the University of California, San
Francisco.
" There are long strings that poke holes in other cells and the virus passes through the
tube from cell to cell ," said UCSF's Director of the Quantitative Biosciences Institute,
Professor Nevan Krogan. " Our hypothesis is that these speed up infection. "
The images taken by scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratory in
the US and University of Freiburg in Germany will be published in the medical journal Cell on
Saturday.
Most viruses do not cause infected cells to grow these tentacles . Even those that do,
such as smallpox, do not have as many or the same type of branching as Sars-Cov-2, the virus
behind Covid-19. - FT
According to the report, the silver lining is that the tentacle discovery may pave the way
for a number of drugs to work against the disease - most of which were previously being used to
treat cancer.
"It totally makes sense there's an overlap in anticancer drugs and an antiviral effect,"
said Prof. Krogan, who added that cancers, HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are all searching for the
"Achilles heel of the cell."
Potential drugs include silmitasertib, made by Taiwan-based Senhwa Biosciences - which is
working with the NIH on trials in the US. The drug works by inhibiting the CK2 enzyme which is
used to build the tubes.
The drug is one of five which were found to be more effective against the virus than
Gilead's remdesivir , including FDA-approved Xospata (aka gilteritinib) made by Japan-based
Astellas Pharma, Eli Lily's FDA-approved abemaciclib (Verzenio) and ralimetinib, and dasatinib,
made by Bristol-Meyers Squibb.
Remember, the official narrative is that the virus - which specializes in infecting humans
and packs ultra-rare 'infection tentacles' - did not emerge from a Chinese biolab located at
'ground zero' for the pandemic, where scientists had previously come under international
scrutiny for conducting 'gain of function' experiments in which chimeric coronaviruses were genetically
engineered for the sole purpose of infecting humans.
Remember, the official narrative is that the virus - which specializes in infecting
humans and packs ultra-rare 'infection tentacles' - did not emerge from a Chinese biolab
located at 'ground zero' for the pandemic, where scientists had previously come under
international scrutiny for conducting 'gain of function' experiments in which chimeric
coronaviruses were genetically engineered for the sole purpose of infecting humans.
Well, the funny thing is that, despite all the hand-wringing histrionics of the Falun
Gong/Epoch Times cultists, the story of a "weaponized CCP virus" is still just a clickbait
fairy tale. The fact remains that there is zero evidence that the virus emerged from a
Chinese biolab. Zero. Nada. Null. The empty set.
But hey, US citizen society is articulated around monetization of conflicts (among other
things) and cannot do without it. This is how the US has killed the possibility of
debate.
Debate as a means of investigating truth requires to accept facts. In US citizenism,
admittance of facts is counter-balanced by denial of facts. Which one is better to
monetize?
When it comes to US citizens, it is always good to balance admittance with denial, trying
to figure out which one is the most profitable. US citizens always weigh whether it is more
profitable to deny or admit facts, and they usually choose profits over truth.
It is no critical thinking here, it is no education. It is US citizenism. If it is
profitable to deny facts, well, US citizens deny. And will keep denying until it is no longer
profitable.
You can apply this to all fields touched by US citizens. It never misses, because US
citizens nature is eternal.
Truth, justice, freedom: US motto.
JGResearch , 1 hour ago
It was made in Japan., and the U.K.
Japan's Demon Of BioWar Kawaoka Inserted HIV Force Multipliers Inside The Wuhan Virus - No
governments will ever state this truth. It would lead to war and even the Chinese do want
that. They want business back to normal. The Chinese are not so concern about some workers
and elders who are on the public welfare.
It is still a Bio-engineered virus, but it is from Veterinary labs that are not being
watched like Bio 4 labs, from second generation of Unit 731. Who knows bat and fish better
than anyone else, it is the Veterinary labs. Imperial Japanese have a long history with
China. For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For
the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable -- Japan had never been successfully invaded or lost
a war in its history, plus they were hit with two Atomic weapons. You think they forgot about
at that?
The dark side of microbiology finds its haven inside the dozens of veterinary schools
outside the authority of the WHO, CDC, NIH and equivalent professional supervisory bodies and
reporting-review systems.
Exhibit A: To summarize, a decade ago at his lab in Wisconsin with generous funding from
Japanese state institutions, Kawaoka was developing an "unstoppable flu", secretly derived
from an illegal exhumation of the Arctic frozen corpse of an Alaskan native who died in the
1918-19 influenza pandemic, which killed up to 80 million worldwide. We learned of Kawaoka's
reckless violations of science ethics from Robert Finnegan, former editor of the Jakarta
Post, who was tracking the theft of MERS and other virus samples from NAMRU-2 (U.S. Navy
Research Unit) by a senior local lab technician who personally smuggled the dangerous
materials to U Wisconsin.
Exhibit B is a 2011 research paper by Y. Kawaoka and two colleagues at his animal virology
lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, titled "HIV reverse-binding protein is essential
for influenza A virus replication and promotes genome-trafficking in late-stage infection".
Published in the Journal of Virology, September 2011, it's an admission of guilt for
preparing the emergence of the Wuhan contagion.
JGResearch , 1 hour ago
The original plan: The dilution of toxicity indicates the objective as being mild symptoms
diagnosed as a case of food poisoning. On a massive scale, a food poisoning scandal would
lead to the shut down of fisheries and aquaculture in a huge blow to national food
security.
However, what's so amazing about the Wuhan coronavirus was its regeneration after being
clipped of virulence-causing genes that intensify the pain of symptoms in its victims.
nCov2019 somehow reconstructed alternative sequences to replace the lopped-off gene sequence.
The Japanese ignore the morphogenetic fields of the virus.
Therein lies the rub. Prophetically, Kawaoka foresaw HIV acting in unexpected ways in
constructing new flu virions and their components, which likely explains how and why the
at-first relatively mild version bio-engineered Wuhan coronavirus was self-altered in its
third or fourth generation with highly lethal proteins, a spontaneous Gain of Function, which
transformed 2019-nCov into a raging killer.
This is exactly what occurred in early January when the Chinese government banned fishing
and consumption of fish along the entire 6,300 km (3,900 miles) length of the Yangtze
River.
I've read any number of articles from "experts" in the field who claim that this thing is
"engineered". The "experts" get very little play outside of a small echo chamber. I want to
know when anyone with any political clout will start shouting about it more broadly. Doesn't
seem likely.
I caught an episode of peak prosperity on youtube the other day and they were talking
about supercells and multiple nuclei. This makes sense. This virus behaves more like a
colonizing bacteria.
4Celts , 2 hours ago
What I was most disgusted by the " Task Force " presser today, was that the orchestrators
have noticed all of the pushback on the statistics showing the small demographic that was
most effected by this " virus . So , they put the maggot Fauci out there to say the " young "
who are asymptomatic were the cause of the " second wave " , and they should really curb
their youthful bravado and instead be very mindful that " they " could spread this to the
immunodeficient , both the elderly and the child with cancer. A totally spineless, and
despicable tact.
FrankDrakman , 2 hours ago
In Ontario, 1.3 million have been tested for the virus. Outside of nursing homes, only 960
have died.
Can you divide 960 by 1.3 million, "boob"? Let me help you.. 130,000 is 10%, 13,000 is 1%,
and 1,300 is 0.1%
960 is .078%. In other words, you have 99.92% chance of surviving this bug. Wow, 'far more
deadly than originally thought', indeed.
"11 May -- High risk of COVID-19 death for minority ethnic groups is a troubling
mystery:"
"People who are not white face a substantially higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than
do white people -- and pre-existing health conditions and socioeconomic factors explain
only a small part of the higher risk."
"In the most sweeping study of its kind, Ben Goldacre at the University of Oxford, UK,
and his colleagues examined the medical records of more than 17 million residents of
England (E. Williamson et al. Preprint at medRxiv http://doi.org/dt9z; 2020). The analysis,
which has not yet been peer reviewed, showed that medical conditions such as diabetes are
linked to a higher risk of death from the new coronavirus."
"But the prevalence of such conditions in people who belong to minority ethnic groups
plays only a small part in the heightened risk, as does the prevalence of social
disadvantages such as low income. The researchers say that there is an urgent need for
better measures to protect people in minority ethnic groups from the disease."
This is from Nature daily Covid 19 update. Which is good reading and covers vaccines,
and anti body treatments which may be used by Autumn. See ELI Lilly and Regenron
debvelopments.
Many Latinos Couldn't Stay Home. Now Virus Cases Are Soaring in the Community.
Rates of coronavirus infection among Latinos have risen rapidly across the United
States.
By Shawn Hubler, Thomas Fuller, Anjali Singhvi and Juliette Love
Thanks for your forbearances, misguided as you may be.
You do not answer questions, you do not like. Okay, with me. You could attempt to revise
my conclusions on your lack of openness to countering evidence.
For Fred, from my son's latest input. Fred is an RPI alum, within a years or two, with
me:
"Stockholm is the best population to test Covid theory whereby it was hit hard early and
did not have lockdowns.
Nobel Prize winner Dr Michael Levitt postulated that the virus burns out when it has
infected 15-20% of the population.
According to this, he's right...What does this mean for the US?
If you look at the rest of Sweden, you see a bumpier curve because different counties get
hit at later times
The same will probably happen in states which were not hit hard during the first
wave"
The tweet thread goes on to list the states that have not yet reached the 20% threshold,
which is many, though if these states only need to reach 15-20% to exit the first wave,
then most of them are at least halfway there."
Perhaps one of the well-read people here can help me find some sources. I've been puzzled
by something before and it got exacerbated by the news recently that the Polio vaccine may
be useful to prep the body, as it were, for COVID19.
What I'd be puzzled by is the following: we know there are four commonly circulating
human coronaviruses that register as "colds" in the population, sometimes nasty but
generally not dangerous, and that large %ages of us have gotten them over the years and
will continue to. While these four viruses are not identical to COVID19, they are quite
similar. And it seemed like there were some reports that people who had recently been sick
with these more common coronaviruses had some immunity to COVID19.
Has this been investigated further? Would it not make sense, if true, that the "quick
vaccine" we have been looking for could be purposeful infection by one of these common
human coronaviruses? Would this not be like using the cowpox as a way to make ourselves
more resistant to smallpox, which used to be done until the actual smallpox vaccine was
discovered?
Well Caliman, why do you bother thinking about Covid19? It's just the flu, on tap. When
they need, they open the tap. When it suits them, they close the tap. It's Covid19 on,
Covid19 off. Sometimes it trickles or drips. We all will die some day.
In other words: "behave, or else we bring back the restrictions", but if the flow of
money stops, we will lift them, just so that you work to produce something and keep us
happy.
My suggestion: live your life to the fullest, enjoy nature and family, as if there is no
covid19, no government, no bullshit. You won't regret it.
And don't forget to give feedback here, if you follow my advice.
Trial results announced on Tuesday showed dexamethasone, which is used to reduce
inflammation in other diseases such as arthritis, reduced death rates by around a third among
the most severely ill of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital.
"This is an extremely welcome result," said Peter Horby of Oxford, one of the study leaders. "The survival benefit is clear and
large in those patients who are sick enough to require oxygen treatment, so dexamethasone should now become standard of care in these
patients. Dexamethasone is inexpensive, on the shelf, and can be used immediately to save lives worldwide."
Lead researcher, Prof. Martin Landray, says that hospital patients should now be given the steroid without delay, but that people shouldn't
try to hoard it for private use. According to the study, Dexamethasone does not appear to help milder cases - those who don't need help
breathing.
The drug has been used to treat a wide range of conditions, including asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.
Notable quotes:
"... Chief investigator Prof Peter Horby said: "This is the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality - and it reduces it significantly. It's a major breakthrough." ..."
About 19 out of 20 patients with coronavirus recover without being admitted to hospital. Of those who are admitted to hospital,
most also recover, but some may need oxygen or mechanical ventilation. These are the high-risk patients whom dexamethasone appears
to help.
The drug is already used to reduce inflammation in a range of other conditions, and it appears that it helps stop some of the
damage that can happen when the body's immune system goes into overdrive as it tries to fight off coronavirus.
In the trial, led by a team from Oxford University, around 2,000 hospital patients were given dexamethasone and were compared
with more than 4,000 who did not receive the drug.
For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 40% to 28%. For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from
25% to 20%.
Chief investigator Prof Peter Horby said: "This is the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality - and it reduces
it significantly. It's a major breakthrough."
Lead researcher Prof Martin Landray says the findings suggest that for every eight patients treated on ventilators, you could
save one life.
For those patients treated with oxygen, you save one life for approximately every 20-25 treated with the drug.
"There is a clear, clear benefit. The treatment is up to 10 days of dexamethasone and it costs about £5 per patient. So essentially
it costs £35 to save a life. This is a drug that is globally available."
Prof Landray said, when appropriate, hospital patients should now be given it without delay, but people should not go out and
buy it to take at home.
Dexamethasone does not appear to help people with milder symptoms of coronavirus - those who don't need help with their breathing.
The Recovery Trial has been running since March. It included the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine which has subsequently been
ditched amid concerns that it increases fatalities
and heart problems.
5) And again, Dexamethasone is cheap, available from any pharmacy, and easily obtainable anywhere in the world. This is EXACTLY
what we need, instead of a $1000 drug like remdesivir that is just marginally effective for shortening illness but not yet fully
proven for mortality.
"I've worked in a lot of settings," said Dr. Michael Peters, a pulmonary critical care doctor,
was assigned to a hospital in Queens overwhelmed with Covid-19 cases. "These patients were very
sick, and they had a disease that we didn't know how to take care of yet."
All of the UCSF doctors said they saw patients in their forties and fifties, who didn't meet
the "typical" profile for Covid-19 because they were otherwise healthy. In the Queens hospital,
where Peters worked, many of the patients were Black or Hispanic. Data shows that the virus has
hit racial and ethnic minorities worse, and studies are underway to better understand why.
With the 24/7 media circus coverage of Covid-19 I find it particularly interesting that
there is an obvious glaring omission of some extremely important facts relative to dealing with
a virus, especially one that is allegedly so virulent like this one. Yes, I read all about the
critical need to shelter in place, stay inside away from other people, wash your hands
constantly, avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth, wear your face mask and by all means
observe social distancing if you MUST venture outside for food!
Then it's repeated ad infinitum that the ONLY hope we have of ever returning to a semblance
of normalcy is to have a vaccine to protect us! Then to add some drama to this narrative the
media highlights their death-o-meter scoreboard with the implied threat that you'll be next IF
you don't obey the rules as dictated by the "experts".
But what is assiduously avoided at all cost is any reference to our most potent defense
against any virus; our body's natural immune system. Try as I might I couldn't find anything
about this first line of defense on the World Health Organizations (WHO) website or Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) website. It's as if it doesn't exist and is completely irrelevant.
If these organizations were genuinely concerned about the health of citizens they would
obviously discuss the vital role a healthy immune system plays in protecting us from illnesses.
But since they don't its obvious some other motive is at work, at least to me, and I strongly
suspect to other critical thinkers as well.
We now know from the science and data that over 90% of the people exposed to Covid-19 have
no symptoms at all or at worst a mild cold. The flu vaccines we have are only effective 30% to
60% of the time and the bugs change regularly so a vaccine that worked OK last year may barely
work at all this year. Let's learn some more about our body's immune system.
Virus
protection without a vaccine
There is an enlightening article on Web MD titled: "How to use Your Immune System to Stay
Healthy". That's a pretty straight forward title now isn't it? Early on Bruce Polsky, MD,
interim chairman department of medicine and chief division of infectious disease at St.
Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City says:
"We are endowed with a great immune system that has been designed evolutionarily to keep
us healthy."
The article goes on. . .
"The immune system is your body's natural defense system. It's an intricate network of
cells, tissues and organs that band together to defend your body against invaders. Those
invaders can include bacteria, viruses, parasites, even fungus, all with the potential to
make us sick. They are everywhere-in our homes, offices and backyards. . . "
The truth is no amount of social distancing, hand washing or face mask wearing is going to
eliminate our exposure to these various bugs. That's why we were created with this amazing
first line of natural defense.
Here's more from Web MD . . .
"The immune system can recognize millions of different antigens. And it can produce what
it needs to eradicate nearly all of them. When it's working properly, this elaborate defense
system can keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay. . . "
Wow! That's pretty amazing stuff isn't it! According to Web MD a properly functioning immune
system can "keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay." So why isn't
this "science" being included in all the other health recommendations we're being bombarded
with daily? It seems to me that any "expert" worth their salt would be talking about the
importance of a healthy immune system to stay healthy.
But there's more . . .
The Web MD article noted that failure to eat a healthy diet, sitting around not exercising,
not getting enough sleep and chronic stress can all lead to a compromised immune system. To
quote Dr. Polsky again:
". . . Lifestyle aspects are very, very important."
So if our lifestyle is very, very important to staying healthy as the good doctor says ask
yourself this question? Based on the Web M.D. article virtually all the results of the lockdown
serve to weaken our immune systems. The stress of unemployment, constant harping about
infections and rising death rates, lack of exercise and now a crack in our food distribution
system all are known to weaken the human immune system.
I also find it quite interesting that large groups of people can shop at Walmart, Home Depot
or other big box stores but they can't attend their local church even if it's a "drive through"
service?
Web M.D. says:
"Research shows that people with close friendships and strong support systems tend to be
healthier than those who lack such supports."
During times of crisis people need encouragement and their faith built up more than ever
before. Mandating people huddle in fear in their homes with constant media reports of
infections and death bombarding them continually is there any wonder peoples immune systems are
under severe stress?
Russian developers have registered a new drug that may help alleviate the harshest
complications caused by Covid-19, including lung failure. It's hoped the treatment can buy time
before a vaccine is found. Levilimab is the second medication to receive state approval through
a fast-track mechanism, implemented to give doctors more options to tackle the virus, which has
already infected more than 459,000 and killed 5,725 in Russia, according to official
statistics.
"I think we'll be able to keep Covid-19 complications under control and minimize the
harshest problems it causes," Dmitry Morozov, general director of Biocad, the
biopharmaceutical company behind the drug, wrote on Facebook. By reducing the Covid-19
mortality rate, Levilimab will allow Russia to "buy time" before the vaccine against the
coronavirus is made, and "the vaccine is surely coming soon," he added.
The drug is aimed at curbing the so-called 'cytokine storm,' a common complication from
Covid-19 when the sick person's immune system overreacts to the virus and the excessive
inflammation leads to fatal outcome.
"The mechanism [used in Levilimab] is known to researchers around the globe. But all the
rest was done in Russia, by our company, from scratch. There's an original patented
molecule," Morozov told RT.
Levilimab's highlight is that it can be administered not only to patients already in a
serious condition, but used as a prophylactic to "prevent the 'cytokine storm' from
occurring and allowing the patient to avoid intensive care and lung ventilation," he
pointed out.
The drug, which will go into the market under the brand ILSIRA, is administered
hypodermically unlike its foreign counterparts, which get into the system through the
intravenous route. "One shot and you don't go into the emergency room. There are two
syringes in a package. Their injected simultaneously or with some interval. And in a week the
person is discharged from hospital," Morozov said.
Levilimab has proven itself as effective as its foreign counterparts and increased the speed
of recovery for patients, Ekaterina Trifonova, who heads the infectious ward at the Central
Clinical Hospital in Moscow, where the drug underwent clinical testing, told RT. During the
first two weeks of trials, out of 45 Covid-19 patients who got the drug, ten were discharged,
including a 92-year-old-man, while the rest remained in satisfactory condition, she added.
WHO now says asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare'
Jun. 09, 2020 - 4:06 - World Health Organization changes its tune on asymptomatic patients
spreading COVID-19; reaction from Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel.
Although numerous studies have suggested people can spread the virus before they show
symptoms, the WHO has largely dismissed those as anecdotal or pointed out that they were
based on modelling.
Babak Javid, an infectious diseases doctor at Cambridge University Hospital, says many
scientists are persuaded by the studies published so far and think WHO should publish the
data it is citing to explain why it believes transmission of the disease in people without
symptoms is "rare".
"If you're going to make a really important statement like that, it would be good to
back it up," Javid said. "I think WHO is an important organisation, but they've made a lot
of statements that have been misleading."
"The top teams rushing to develop coronavirus vaccines are alerting governments, health
officials and shareholders that they may have a big problem : The outbreaks in their countries
may be getting too small to quickly determine whether vaccines work
A leader of the Oxford University group, one of the furthest ahead with human trials, admits
the reality is paradoxical, even "bizarre," but said the declining numbers of new infections
this summer could be one of the big hurdles vaccine developers face in the global race to beat
down the virus.
Even as new cases are growing worldwide, transmission rates are falling in Britain, China
and many of the hardest-hit regions in the United States -- the three countries that have
experimental vaccines ready to move into large-scale human testing in June, July and August."
Washpost
---------------
Well, pilgrims it would seem that the Post staff does not see the irony in their own
writing, or perhaps they do. There have been scattered evidences of rationality there lately.
Even as Democrat governors and mayors across the country drag their feet on the re-opening of
the American economy, infection rates are falling. In the Faucibirxist view of things
everything depends on vaccine development (or herd immunity post holocaust). But, alas there
just aren't enough new, vibrant infections to make development of the vaccines convenient. What
will happen to the flow of government money to these projects if this phenomenon becomes
general knowledge. Someone at the Post should be disciplined for this indiscretion. pl
"What will happen to the flow of government money to these projects if this phenomenon
becomes general knowledge."
Well Fauci is almost 80 so I think he's set for life. I hear the left wants lots of
redevelopment funds and jobs programs, with the attendant opportunities for graft that comes
with them, for thier cities which we are all assured had neither rioting nor looting.
Thank you Col. Lang for all the posts on novel coronavirus.
For shining light on this, this utter failure by the medical community and their various
and sundry enablers in government and in business.
On these liars and charlatans and killers and criminals.
The video below is about an hour long. It is a nurse, who worked in NYC hospital, the
alleged epi center of epi centers.
She basically says, without saying directly, but points to the fact that doctors were
murdering patients there, it seems.
She paints a picture of doctors not as scientists but as zealots, as neo neanderthals, as
craven monsters, who care not about life, the elderly, the sick, the least among us.
As Nurse Ratchets
Towards the end of video, she recounts her last day at this hospital, discussing a patient
she had nursed for many days, and who was doing fine, making progress, . . . and how she was
removed from his bed on direct orders, sent to the ER where she was not assigned, and 20
minutes later, the man she was caring for is dead.
These sorts of stories abound; this rage is not going away anytime soon. This is the rage,
and what caused it, that our "lords and masters" who censor us and tell us black is white,
and want to destroy our country. . . this is the rage they don't want to see expressed and
exposed. Will they get their way?
Well...they can always test their vaccines in the USA. We seem not to be faring as well and
can help out. (I believe this is a glass half-full moment.)
Trump needs to stop the $600 a week federal bonus to the unemployed. My neighbor told me
about how his daughter-in-law worked one day a week as a barmaid before the virus shut the
bar down and made a little over a hundred a week. Oregon unemployment pays her 150 a week and
with the added 600 she now makes over 7 times what she did working. How many protesters and
rioters are just as flush getting paid to party in the street? Most i'd say. That makes these
government funded protests a powerful voice and recruitment tool for the Democratic Party.
Ending the federal subsidy to the unemployed would reduce, if not stop, the demonstrations
and mau-mauing of the country.
Absolutely. There were howls of protests before Minneapolis when Georgia, Florida and
Texas started tellling people that if they recieved a recall to work notice from an employer
and refused to go they would be considered a voluntary quit and no longer eligable for
unemployment insurance payments. They'll howl again when they figure out this is all taxable
income.
Take everything the WaPo claims with a grain of salt. There is no real worry over lower covid
infections. What made Covid decrease was the lockdowns. Remove the lockdowns and covid
infection rates will climb, as we are seeing in the already reopened states.
Then when fall rolls around, and people are stuck indoors again, rates will skyrocket.
There will be plenty of test subjects for a vaccine.
With the spread rate of the coronavirus, any outbreak of the infection will peter out once
the total immunity rate of the population approaches 65-70 percent.
In Bergamo (Italy), 57 percent a population sample have tested positive for coronavirus
antibodies, which means that they must have had the infection before and are now most likely
immune.
If you are a Karen, then don't listen to me, but take it from the German government's very
own propaganda outlet, Deutsche Welle:
"Out of nearly 10,000 Bergamo residents who had their blood tested between April 23 and
June 3, 57% had antibodies, indicating they had come into contact with the virus and
developed an immune response.
Health authorities said the sample size was 'sufficiently broad' to be a reliable
indicator of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 among Bergamo province's population."
COVID-19 is really two different diseases. In the first few days, it is like a very bad
cold. In some people, it then morphs into pneumonia which can be life-threatening. What I
found is that treatments for the cold don't work well for the pneumonia, and vice versa.
Most of the published studies have looked at treatments for the cold but used for the
pneumonia. I just looked at how well the treatments for the cold worked for the cold. There
are five studies done this way, four of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and one with
hydroxychloroquine plus doxycycline, and they all show that treating the cold part of
COVID-19 -- the early part -- works very well.
The article completely decimates the arguments against using HCQ + AZ or HCQ +
doxycycline, specifically in early outpatient use.
The article completely decimates the arguments against using HCQ + AZ or HCQ + doxycycline,
specifically in early outpatient use.
It is good to see real science being applied rather than voodoo shilling for big
pharma.
Still waiting for the editor resignations at Lancet and NEJM on their publication of the
hoax science article.
Let me be very clear about pharmaceuticles: the interaction of two dissimilar substances
can be extraordinary beneficial. My personal example is from a Specialist Pharmacologist that
treated a bone disease in my thumb arising from mechanical injury. He explained thus:
The bone problem has three quite separate stages of treatment.
At the first week common antibiotic remedies are vital and effective. I was too late for
that.
If that stage is missed then a common and potent antibiotic combined with a substance
commonly used to treat gout is vital. The combination of the two flattens the peak of the
antibiotic such that it is sustained in the bloodstream for 24 hours until the next dose of
the two. A fourteen day process as I recall. It was totally successful.
If that second stage is missed then late intervention is extensive use of antibiotics and
the gout remedy over months as the bone decomposition bacteria have spread throughout ones
metabolism and lodge randomly to wreak havoc. This treatment regime is punishing on the body
and digestive tract and many people cannot endure it.
This Specialist was a high street operator in nice office NOT a pharmacy.
So lets not be jumping to hasty dismissals of what may or may not 'work' and when. Humans
vary, diets vary and propensities are highly variable. It is the responsibility of scientists
to be honest and act in the best interests of humanity. Clearly the study published in the
Lancet and NEJM was fake science and those journals fell for it because of either inadequate
editorial investigation of the paper, confirmation bias, inadequate consideration of human
consequences.
The WHO stands condemned for being suckered by fake news, confirmation bias, malign
financial manipulation or perhaps inadequate investigation of the authors and claims of the
paper.
Try doing a search on Kary Mullis, creator of the PCR process. He died last year so we can
only go by past statements. He always stated that PCR was completely inappropriate and
meaningless for diagnostics or for any other clinical purpose.
CDC guidance on PCR until earlier this year was that doctors do diagnosis, not
laboratories. Doctors were allowed to consider PCR results as a factor, cautioned not to rely
on them. In current situation PCR results are the definition of COVID.
If the test is allowed to run too many cycles any sample will test positive.
And it is never entirely certain how many cycles have elapsed, clock does not tell exactly
what the RNA is up to.
The Science of
Superspreaders
A fraction of infected people trigger the bulk of new cases, one reason the pandemic is far
from over
Meanwhile, the protests happening in this convulsed nation, with people often shoulder to
shoulder, set the stage for new chains of infections. Any shouting, along with sneezing and
coughing (perhaps in reaction to pepper spray) will spread the virus especially easily.
"All things considered, there's little doubt that these protests will translate into
increased risk of transmission for Covid-19," Maimuna Majumder, an epidemiologist at Boston
Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, tells The Atlantic.
Putting an exact number on the impact of superspreaders is nearly impossible, since not all
cases are ever traced back to any original source. The going best estimate is that 20% of
infected people are responsible for 80% of onward infections, says William Hanage,
associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Some
evidence suggests as few as 10% of people trigger 80% of ongoing infections, Hanage told
reporters in a recent teleconference.
Three separate studies have suggested the 20/80 ratio. A study of Hong Kong cases
reached that conclusion and also found that 70% of people who contracted Covid-19 didn't
spread it at all.
The latest data this disprove its efficiency in treating COVID-19, as it turned out, came
from a tiny US healthcare analytics firm called Surgisphere, and calling it faulty would be
excessively charitable. This is clearly a hired guns hit.
Not only is Surgisphere a company lacking in medical expertise – its employees
included an "adult" entertainer and a science-fiction writer – but its CEO Sapan Desai
co-authored two of the damning studies that used the firm's data to smear hydroxychloroquine,
already thoroughly demonized in the media thanks to its promotion by US President Donald Trump,
as a killer. All data is sourced to a proprietary database supposedly containing a veritable
ocean of real-time, detailed patient information yet curiously absent from existing medical
literature.
The Surgisphere-tainted study appeared to show increased risk of in-hospital deaths and
heart problems with no disease-fighting benefits, confirming the suspicions of medical-industry
naysayers already inclined to hate the off-patent drug due to the lack of profit potential and
Trump's incessant boosterism. Italy, France, and Germany rushed to ban hydroxychloroquine,
citing "an increased risk for adverse reactions with little or no benefit."
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The Russian Health Ministry has approved the first domestic drug, called
Avifavir, for treating coronavirus patients, according to a new entry to the national drug
registry. The medicine was developed by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a sovereign
wealth fund, and ChemRar, a Russian pharmaceutical investment and R&D group.
"Avifavir is not only the first antiviral drug registered against coronavirus in Russia, but
it is also perhaps the most promising anti-COVID-19 drug in the world. It was developed and
tested in clinical trials in Russia in an unprecedentedly short period of time enabling
Avifavir to become the first registered drug based on Favipiravir in the world", CEO of the
RDIF Kirill Dmitriev said.
The final stage of Avifavir clinical trials involving 330 patients, approved by the national
Health Ministry earlier in the month, is ongoing.
Previously, the new drug underwent several clinical trials at I.M. Sechenov First Moscow
State Medical University, Lomonosov Moscow State University, and other medical and academic
institutions.
Avifavir, is the first Russian direct antiviral drug that has proven effective in clinical
trials. The drug has been used in Japan since 2014 against severe forms of influenza.
ChemRar Group includes R&D service and investment companies in the field of innovative
pharmaceuticals for the development and commercialization of innovative medicines, diagnostics,
preventive care, and new treatments of life-threatening diseases in Russia and abroad.
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought out many disturbing features of our society.
Misinformation, or perhaps more accurately, disinformation, abounds in the service of agendas
ranging from those who interpret the virus as a useful ploy for the construction of a police
state, to Big Pharma and its allies who are moving us toward mass vaccinations, to the
narcissistic views of those who would sacrifice the elderly and ill rather than to be
inconvenienced by being denied access to bars and beaches. Every aspect of the pandemic,
including Trump's own use of HCQ, is being used against the President of the United
States.
At a time when accurate information is essential, the waters are instead muddied by
disinformation in the service of political, ideological, and profit agendas. The
irresponsibility of those putting their self-interests first is extraordinary. It indicates
that the social bond between people that made America a country has been dissolved by greed,
multiculturalism, and Identity Politics. America has become a country without a common
interest. It is a narcissistic state.
This article is limited to the campaign against HCQ. HCQ -- hydroxychloroquine -- has been
in use for 65 years for the prevention or treatment of malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid
arthritis. It is officially labeled a safe drug. Many doctors treating Covid patients have
found and reported HCQ, when used early enough together with zinc and the antibiotic
azithromycin to be an effective and safe treatment.
I have reported and made available many of the reports of HCQ's efficacy and safety. See for
example:
Despite 65 years of safe use, HCQ is alleged to be dangerous and to cause heart attacks. Its
use is officially approved only for "adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19."
Generally, by the time a patient is hospitalized the virus has progressed to a later stage in
which treatment is less successful. Studies of HCQ's effectiveness, such as the VA one and
apparently the more recent one reported in The Lancet, are limited to later stage hospitalized
patients and seem to exclude the essential zinc component of the HCQ treatment. In other words,
the studies seem to be designed to exclude from official approval the treatment that doctors
have found most effective. It is not easy for a layperson to know what the studies actually say
as the media report the studies in an anti-Trump manner. For the media, what is most important
is criticism of Trump, not the effectiveness of a treatment.
In contrast, the untested investigational antiviral drug, Remdesivir, which has no record of
safe use and is extraordinarily expensive compared to HCQ, has been given the same clearence
for use. The media is not interested in the effectiveness and safety, or lack of, of this new
and untested drug. Trump isn't taking it, and it is a potential profit-maker for Big Pharma. If
Remdesivir fails, the failure will be used to dispose of the hope for cures and to focus on
vaccination.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that HCQ/zinc is being sidelined in order to clear
the way for a profitable vaccine and a vaccination mandate.
But the vaccines are not panning out.
The Moderna vax touted by Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci caused severe illnesses in one-fifth of
the test recipients.
The other fast-tracked vaccine developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group proved ineffective. The
vaccine produced insufficient antibodies to prevent Covid-19 infection.
...
A few years ago the British medical journal, The Lancet , published a paper touting the
safety of HCQ. But this was before HCQ with zinc was found effective if used earlier enough
against Covid-19. Covid-19 turned HCQ's effectiveness into a big problem for Big Pharma's big
profits.
The solution was another study by medical professionals some of whom have ties to Big Pharma
and none of whom, apparently, are involved in the treatment of Covid patients. The study lumps
together people in different stages of the disease and undergoing different treatments. It
touts its large sample, but many of the patients in the sample received treatment too late
after the virus had reached their heart and other vital organs. Most likely the people who died
from heart failure died as a result of the virus, not from HCQ.
To be effective treatment has to stop the virus early. Waiting until the patient must be
hospitalized has given the virus too much of a head start. Every doctor, and there are many,
who reports success with the HCQ treatment stresses early treatment. President Trump used a
two-week treatment with HCQ as a prophylactic as he was constantly coming into contact with
people who tested positive for the virus. Many medical professionals who are treating Covid
patients also use HCQ as a prophylactic.
The Lancet study was a rush job as it was essential for Big Pharma to prevent the spread of
the HCQ treatment and awareness of its safety and effectiveness. The study's authors completed
the data collection around the middle of April and the study was published on May 22. As soon
as it appeared, it was used to close down the World Health Organization's clinical trial of
hydoxychloroquine in coronavirus patients citing safety concerns. Most likely, the trial was
aborted in order to prevent an official agency from finding out that HCQ worked.
The media, of course, used the suspended trial to cast more doubt on Trump's judgment for
recommending and using the treatment, the implication being that Trump had put himself at more
risk from a heart attack than from the virus itself.
The Lancet study claims a high mortality from HCQ treatment, reporting a death rate ranging
from 5.1% to 13.8%. In response to a journalist when asked about this claim, Didier Raoult said
that he and has colleagues have followed 4,000 of their patients so far. They have had 36
deaths and none from heart problems for a death rate of 0.009%. According to The Lancet study,
he should have between 204 and 552 patients dead from heart problems. He has zero. Raoult had
more than 10,000 cardiograms analysed by rythmologists (a special kind of cardiologist)
searching for any sign of heart problems.
NIH's Dr. Fauci denies that Raoult's hard evidence is evidence. On May 27 Fauci said,
without showing shame of his ignorance or his lie, that there's no evidence that shows the
anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is effective at treating COVID-19.
When hard evidence such as Raoult's is suppressed and misreported while "studies" doctored
to produce a predetermined conclusion that serves Big Pharma profits are rushed into
publication, we know that money has pushed ethics out of medical research. A number of
concerned people have been telling us this for some time. We are past due to listen to
them.
Private medicine is profit driven, which makes it susceptible to fraud. In long ago days
fraud was restrained by the moral character of doctors and the respect for truth of
researchers. These restraints, never perfect, have eroded as greed turned everything, integrity
itself, into a commodity that is bought and sold.
The intent is to bury HCQ as a low cost effective treatment and to put in its place a high
cost alternative whether effective or not, and to supplement this enhancement of profits with
mass vaccination which might do us more harm than the virus itself. Big Pharma could care less.
The only value it knows is profit.
This intent has garnered the support of the French,
Belgium and Italian governments . Using The Lancet study and WHO's termination of its HCQ
trial as the excuse, the French government revoked its decree authorizing HCQ treatment.
Belgium's health ministry issued a warning against the use of HCQ except in registered clinical
trials. Italy's health agency wants HCQ's use banned outside of clinical trials and suspended
authorization to use HCQ as a Covid-19 treatment.
Does this mean that Raoult and his team who by treating Covid patients with HCQ have
achieved the remarkable low death rate of 0.009% are prohibited from using the proven cure to
save lives? Will Raoult and his team be imprisoned if they continue to save lives? What about
the people who will die from the three government's prevention of a safe and effective
treatment? Will France, Belgium, and Italy accept responsibility for these lost lives?
I can't avoid wondering if the revolving door between Big Pharma and the NIH and CDC which
corrupts US public health decisions also operates in France, Belgium and Italy. Are European
health officials elevating themselves by climbing over the dead bodies of their victims?
In this clip from the Downing Street Corona Briefing on May 11th, Chris Whitty - the UK's
Chief Medical Officer - says that, to most people, the coronavirus is entirely harmless.
Most people will never get it.
Most of the people who get it won't ever experience symptoms.
Most of the people who experience symptoms won't need medical care.
Most of the people who need medical care won't be need emergency or critical care.
And even the tiny percentage of people who need who DO need critical care will survive,
regardless of risk factors or medical history.
COVID-19 may be far less deadly than originally projected - and asymptomatic cases may be
even more common
than first suspected, but for those who have caught it and come down with symptoms, the disease
can result in lasting symptoms, including shortness of breath, lethargy, recurrent fevers,
headaches, itchiness and other mystery problems that
aren't going away .
To that end, a top pulmonologist in the Netherlands says that thousands of Dutch residents
who have recovered from COVID-19 may be left with permanent lung damage , resulting in
decreased lung capacity and difficulty absorbing oxygen.
According to Leon van den Toorn, Chairman of the Dutch Association of Physicians for
Pulmonary Disease and Tuberculosis NVALT, people are underestimating the consequences of the
coronavirus .
"In severe cases, a kind of scar formation occurs, we call this lung fibrosis. The lungs
shrink and the lung tissue becomes stiffer, making it harder to get enough oxygen," Van den
Toorn told Dutch newspaper AD (via the
NL Times ), adding that "there may be thousands of people in the Netherlands who suffered
permanent injury to the lungs from corona."
Of the 1,200 Covid-19 patients who so far recovered after admission to intensive care,
"almost 100 percent went home with residual damage", he said to AD. And about half of the 6
thousand people who were hospitalized, but did not need intensive care, will have symptoms
for years to come.
So far 45,500 people in the Netherlands tested positive for the coronavirus. Many did not
get sick enough to need hospital care. In this group, Van den Toorn expects that permanent
problems will be less serious, but still possible. -
NL Times
Van den Toorn says that patients experiencing lung issues should immediately see a
pulmonologist, as "there may be a low oxygen level in the blood, which is harmful to the
body."
"People with a history of corona infection should be monitored closely to see if recovery is
complete," he added.
Drilling down on lung issues, let's
flash back to March , when a New Orleans respiratory therapist dealing with coronavirus
patients told ProPublica that coronavirus patients suffering from acute respiratory distress
syndrome (ARDS) are extremely difficult to oxygenate .
"Normally, ARDS is something that happens over time as the lungs get more and more inflamed.
But with this virus, it seems like it happens overnight . When you're healthy, your lung is
made up of little balloons. Like a tree is made out of a bunch of little leaves, the lung is
made of little air sacs that are called the alveoli. When you breathe in, all of those little
air sacs inflate, and they have capillaries in the walls, little blood vessels. The oxygen gets
from the air in the lung into the blood so it can be carried around the body.
"Typically with ARDS, the lungs become inflamed. It's like inflammation anywhere: If you
have a burn on your arm, the skin around it turns red from additional blood flow. The body is
sending it additional nutrients to heal. The problem is, when that happens in your lungs, fluid
and extra blood starts going to the lungs. Viruses can injure cells in the walls of the
alveoli, so the fluid leaks into the alveoli. A telltale sign of ARDS in an X-ray is what's
called 'ground glass opacity,' like an old-fashioned ground glass privacy window in a shower.
And lungs look that way because fluid is white on an X-ray, so the lung looks like white ground
glass, or sometimes pure white, because the lung is filled with so much fluid, displacing where
the air would normally be. "
...
"It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad. I
was like, Holy shit, this is not the flu . Watching this relatively young guy, gasping for air,
pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube and out of his mouth . The ventilator should have
been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air, moving his mouth, moving his
body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the coronavirus patients, we've had to
restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really struggle to breathe . When you're in that
mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious with fever, you don't know when someone is
trying to help you, so you'll try to rip the breathing tube out because you feel it is choking
you, but you are drowning . ay_arrow 3 play_arrow
Bananamerican , 5 hours ago
Oxygen toxicity, caused by excessive or inappropriate supplemental oxygen, can cause
severe damage to the lungs and other organ systems. High concentrations of oxygen, over a
long period of time, can increase free radical formation, leading to damaged membranes,
proteins, and cell structures in the lungs. It can cause a spectrum of lung injuries ranging
from mild tracheobronchitis to diffuse alveolar damage.
smacker , 4 hours ago
I think you're right about ventilators being the wrong treatment. According to some
doctors the patients needed oxygen not ventilation.
I spotted here in Brazil, patients were being placed inside plastic oxygen tents neatly
fitted over the top half of their beds. So their breathing remained natural.
Did you know that the regular run-of-the-mill pneumonia causes lung damage and a host of
other problems.
You would know that if you read up on it at the CDC and NIH website.
But just keep being an ignorant brainwashed dumb-***.
Getitright2016 , 7 hours ago
As soon as symptoms appear, a person should be treated. Waiting for shortness of breath is
too late. Damage has been done. Early treatment, blood thinners, HCQ with zinc and
Antibiotics Zpac to prevent pneumonia.
INeverForget , 7 hours ago
**** THAT "Z-PACK".
Harnar , 7 hours ago
Z-pack gave my mother in law afib (Atrial fibrillation). Although the doctor said it was
just coincidence that 3 days after starting Z-pack she was in the hospital with chest pains
and needed to be on beta blockers for the rest of her life....
Unfortunately she isn't always good about remembering her pills and died a couple years
later due to a brain aneurysms (which can occur if you come off beta blockers too fast or
forget to take them for a few days after taking them regularly for a year)
OutaTime43 , 8 hours ago
Lung injuries happen with Pneumonia. When your cells are killed by the virus, then they
are replaced with fibroid tissue (scar tissue) just like any other injury. This is of course
a problem with Lungs as it reduces vital capacity. If you smoke or have other lung diseases,
then it affects you more. When you're young with healthy lungs, then the damage isn't enough
to affect you.
I've had CT scans of my lungs and they can still see the damage caused to my lungs from
pneumonia at age 5.
charlie_don't_surf , 8 hours ago
Details??? When they don't give details be suspicious. Were these very old patients with
already damaged lungs? Are these former ventilator patients and their lungs were damaged by
the ventilator? Were these patients with particular genetic weaknesses or predispositions
regarding lung tissue? Until there are exact details of patient demographic, pre existing
disease, and the nature of their treatment take with a grain of salt.
MX_DOGG , 8 hours ago
Approximately 22.4% of adults in the Netherlands smoked in 2018. This includes 16.0% daily
smokers and 6.4% occasional (non-daily) smokers . Of people in the Netherlands who reported
smoking , 71.6% smoked every day
charlie_don't_surf , 8 hours ago
the smart people tell you that extensive data collection shows that 50's and under have an
extremely low risk, the vast majority of deaths are extremely old, in nursing homes and the
smart also will tell that the death rate was jacked up by Cuomo and some other NE dem state
guvs ordering infected patients be put in the nursing homes to increase infections and deaths
and the smart people will also tell you that destroying the economy will definitely greatly
increase injuries, illnesses and premature death...brah...that's what smart people will tell
ignorant stiffs like you but it's like talking to a tree stump...brah.
charlie_don't_surf , 8 hours ago
that's probably damage from over expansion from ventilators or just inflammation can cause
capillary breakage...capillaries are weak and break easily when stressed and then of course
they clot...because they clotted is normal and not a "clotting disease"...I would bet similar
happens when people get a bad pneumonia...lungs bleed from tuberculosis too...probably any
significant infectious process in lungs will cause bleeding...I had bleeding from strep
throat when I was in college.
John C Durham , 9 hours ago
This happens where ever one doesn't get an anti-viral drug from his doctor at his office
in the first day or so. The Viral attack comes and goes in about 7 days.
An anti-viral drug does no good after that and giving anti-viral drugs to a hospital
patient when the viral attack is long past, just loads them up with more toxins. This has
been known since Hydroxychloroquine was given against SARS years ago. It worked great there
early on and many doctors starting using it again for the current big panic.
It does nothing later as demonstrated in a recent study that is being used as firepower
against that drug instead of against any doctor prescribing it for late treatment in the
hospital.
Hydroxychloroquine should be in everyone's medicine cabinet, available over the counter,
to be used against flu, colds and any virus starting on the first day. It's safer than an
aspirin and much safer than Tylenol and I bet you have had either or both in your cabinet
before without triggering WWIII.
She Love Me Long Time , 9 hours ago
Just like politics, the herd has separated into two sides.
Side A -- Shut it all down, nobody should ever work again, we're all going to die, give me
some money.
Side B -- There is no virus, it's all an elaborate NWO conspiracy. Open up everything.
Only pussies wear masks.
Is it really so difficult to see that both sides are wrong?
Yes, there is a virus. No, it won't kill us all. It's more deadly than the flu but it's
not the ******* plague. However, this could be the equivalent of an airborne HIV-type of
infection that results in chronic long-term health issues and a weakened immune system. If
that's true, wearing an N95 mask when you're at the grocery store, even if it makes you look
like a sissy, is the smart thing to do.
Just my 2 cents
Drachma , 9 hours ago
The important test would be to determine how many of the worst affected were regular
vaccine recipients, especially the flu vaccine, which has been linked to the phenomenon of
viral interference, There are at least two proposed related mechanisms of action contributing
to an enhancement of disease with subsequent respiratory viral infections, especially
coronavirus, after vaccination with influenza vaccine. On the one hand there is an
inflammation and scarring of the interstitial membrane of the lungs, subsequent to influenza
inoculation, which lessens oxygen transfer to the blood. On the other hand there is an
overreaction by the immune system at the time of the secondary infection with coronavirus, as
the cross-reactivity from influenza group antibodies, in this case, acts to over-stimulate
the immune system, leading to excessive tissue damage and compounding the disease
symptoms.
Vaccines, by their very nature, are contaminated with RNA and DNA from latent and dormant
viruses from different species cell lines. Since one of the most ubiquitous viruses in the
mammalian cell lines is coronavirus, and many different mammalian as well as avian cell lines
are used to produce vaccines, chances are that most people with a government-scheduled
vaccine history are already infected with coronavirus. Ponder that subject for a while.
Cardinal Fang , 9 hours ago
I'm no radiologist but those 3 CT scans are of different people so it is not a
progression.
It appears they are from Chinese study.
So you can throw that data out the window.
Fiscal Reality , 9 hours ago
Democrat Governors LOVE to kill geezers in nursing homes. Facts matter Cuomo,
Murphy,Waltz, Wolf and Witmer.
While Fauxi, Birx, the MSM, Soros, the WHO, the CDC and the DNC/CCP scream SOCIAL
DISTANCING AND WEAR YOUR MASK, Dem governors build a big body count by pushing COVID infected
patients back into nUrsing homes. MONEY MATTERS MORE THAN LIVES.
Aug 1, 2019 - In May 2016, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an article with
the headline: Medical error -- the third leading cause of death in the U.S. The article
estimated that as many as 250,000 deaths per year in the United States were caused by
medical error.
PrivetHedge , 9 hours ago
gasping for air, pink frothy secretions
That is a lung damaging cytokine storm that can be moderated with vitamin D and C,
vitamins our government is staying remarkably quiet about. In a politics free medical system
no patient would be allowed to get to that stage.
There are simple cures to these diseases:
Stop Fort Detrick etc. from making them
Use interferon 1, hydroxychloroquine, zinc and antibiotics to cure people before they
are permanently damaged.
Allow people to get sunshine and fresh air, and instead of banning useful medicines;
ban junk food, GMO and the various other harmful things our government permits in our air
and water.
Uncle Frank , 5 hours ago
Why? We didn't buy it the first time.
Don't lose sight of an important fact, one of the few verifiable ones in the piece -
His title - 'Chairman of the Dutch Association of Physicians for Pulmonary Disease and
Tuberculosis'.
Ya think he might be motivated to go for grants by hyperbolizing the situation? I do. I'm
not saying that some people aren't dying, just that pneumonia isn't ever a walk in the park,
and it kills 100's of thousands every year. Try some perspective, and grow a pair. You might
need to lose 100 lbs too, I can't tell from here.
JSG , 9 hours ago
Let's see the demographics of these folks. It's an incomplete story without that. My bet:
it's people over 70 with pre-existing conditions so this is not remotely surprising. Their
immune systems aren't as strong. Their pre-existing conditions likely already causes a lot of
this damage (e.g. COPD does exactly this!)
PrivetHedge , 9 hours ago
(as directed by CCP military to the lab people)
The evidence says the CCP were the targets, not the makers.
Those who claim that China knowingly released this virus in China and elsewhere in Asia to
attack America(!) conveniently ignore the vaping disease which was actually a severe
respiratory infection.
Then there were multiple deaths in nursing homes by similar infections. All this happened
months before CovID-19 came along.
Roacheforque , 10 hours ago
The question is ... is COVID 19 alone CAUSING this reaction, or is it TRIGGERING an immune
system response from "something else"?
"It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad.
I was like, Holy ****, this is not the flu . Watching this relatively young guy, gasping
for air, pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube and out of his mouth . The
ventilator should have been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air,
moving his mouth, moving his body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the
coronavirus patients, we've had to restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really
struggle to breathe . When you're in that mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious
with fever, you don't know when someone is trying to help you, so you'll try to rip the
breathing tube out because you feel it is choking you, but you are drowning .
France bans use of hydroxychloroquine as coronavirus treatment
The country's public health agency advised against use outside of clinical trials. https://tinyurl.com/ybm266qn
WHO pauses study of hydroxychloroquine in global trial
The study has enrolled 3,500 patients in at least 17 countries since March. https://tinyurl.com/ya8b4yuw
US coronavirus death toll tops 100K as Trump pushes to reopen
The tragic milestone revives debate over the handling of the pandemic. https://tinyurl.com/ybpzormy
A day before the U.S. reached the 100,000-death mark, Trump once again blamed China for not
stopping the virus before it spread across the globe, and touted his decision in January to
restrict travel from China to the U.S.
"For all of the political hacks out there, if I hadn't done my job well, & early, we
would have lost 1 1/2 to 2 Million People, as opposed to the 100,000 plus that looks like
will be the number," he tweeted on Tuesday.
Yes, folks, *Trump* is claiming *credit* for saving 1-2 million lives! You can't make this
shit up!
As for aerosols over droplets, I've been reading about that for the last month. I thought it
was common knowledge. It's the obvious explanation for why some people get it and others
don't. Fomites - the virus particles on surfaces - are supposedly responsible for only ten
percent of transmission. The question was always to what *degree* aerosols were the
transmission method over droplets. Quite a few articles I read debated that point, with
evidence mounting that aerosols might have equal or more effect than droplets, at least as
secondary transmission. Obviously if someone sneezes or coughs in your face at close range,
droplets are the primary transmission. But there are tons of reports - and even video
demonstrations on Youtube - of how far aerosols can be dispelled by breathing, talking,
yelling, singing and coughs and sneezes. Aerosols can be spread up to 25 feet or more and
hover in the air for up to 45 minutes, if not longer, depending on air temperature, humidity
and air movement. Droplets can turn into aerosols depending on the same factors.
I started early on washing my hands religiously because due to the fact that I do not
interact with hardly anyone in my building or elsewhere except during my supply runs, fomites
would be the most likely way I could catch the virus. I have to use a common toilet - so
touching the door and toilet lid would be my main risk. That's why I bought a thousand food
service plastic gloves which I wear when using the john or going outside the building. When I
return, I remove them by the recommended method, then wash my hands.
Initially I didn't have any masks because the depletion of the supply had already
occurred. Now I have nineteen masks, 14 of which I use and rotate whenever going to the john
or outside the building. I wear it when going to the john because I read recently that
flushing a toilet aerosolizes fecal matter - and any virus particles - present in the water.
In other words, you get a faceful of virus every time you flush a toilet. So close the lid
before flushing. When I return, I wash my hands, remove the mask, then apply hand sanitizer
or wash my hands again - which is the recommended procedure.
I now have an adequate supply of masks, hand sanitizer and disinfectant spray (with some
more of the latter coming), so I think I'm in a good position to reduce my risk. But of
course, as with the rest of life, it's still a crapshoot.
It will be a worse crapshoot as these idiots start crowding places I have to go to for
supplies. I use convenience stores a lot and they tend to be crowded because they are very
small. I also visit the Target store, but they initially had the crowding under control -
because you had to wait in line to get in, which took twenty minutes or more. Now with the
easing of restrictions, they have eliminated the door check, so the store is a bit more
crowded, but not too much. People might still be wary, as has been suggested by some articles
and polls. It's a big store, so ventilation and air movement might be better than a smaller
space.
The question was always to what *degree* aerosols were the transmission method over
droplets
They are not mutually excusive. Aerosol transmission can theoretically occur when a
droplet that contains virus particles dry out and they start chaotically move via Brownian
motion of air molecules.
Looks like the virus does not die instantly in this case. After all it looks like it
survives in dry state on surfaces for a day or two in the absence of sun radiation (depending
on the surface -- longest on steel surfaces, shortest on copper)
Recommends blood thinners in the same manner that the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care
Working Group does...
There is another treatment that hasn't received as much coverage possibly because it isn't
one individual drug. It's a broad category of blood thinners called anticoagulants. A recent
pre-proof study of over 2500 patients from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
showed that anticoagulation can decrease the mortality of critically ill patients with the
coronavirus from a frightening 63% to a somewhat less daunting 29%.
Medical providers, including myself, often use prophylactic doses of blood thinners such
as heparin or enoxaparin to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients particularly in
those with additional risk factors for blood clots, but now these medications are being
administered to hospitalized patients who have no risk factors for clots other than having
COVID-19.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | May 28 2020 10:22 utc |
70
v> Thus in this case the propaganda has been largely monolithic:
1. Stay indoors. Don't breathe the air.
2. If you must venture into the hostile outdoors*, wear a mask**. Especially now that the
air is the cleanest it's been our whole live s, do all you can to avoid breathing it.
"Covid-19 has forced modern medicine to broaden its outlook and look for new solutions,
even in the wisdom of the past."
Indeed, it's clear where the establishment's propaganda has found wisdom.
Thus in this case the propaganda has been largely monolithic:
1. Stay indoors. Don't breathe the air.
2. If you must venture into the hostile outdoors*, wear a mask**. Especially now that
the air is the cleanest it's been our whole live s, do all you can to avoid breathing
it.
"Covid-19 has forced modern medicine to broaden its outlook and look for new solutions,
even in the wisdom of the past."
Indeed, it's clear where the establishment's propaganda has found wisdom. /div
"... EU money intended for underfunded public-benefit research such as preparing for a pandemic has been diverted by the pharmaceutical industry into areas where it can make more money, according to a scathing new report. ..."
"... The target of the criticism is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), a public-private partnership that was equally funded, between 2008 and 2020, by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) lobbying group and the European Commission to the tune of 5.3 billion euros (US$5.8 billion). The money is supposed to go to areas of "unmet medical or social need," ..."
"... "We were outraged to find evidence that the pharmaceutical industry lobby EFPIA not only did not consider funding biopreparedness (ie, being ready for epidemics such as the one caused by the new coronavirus, COVID-19) but opposed it being included in IMI's work when the possibility was raised by the European Commission in 2017, ..."
"... "The research proposed by the EC in the biopreparedness topic was small in scope," ..."
"... "IMI's projects have contributed, directly or indirectly, to better prepare the research community for the current crisis, the Ebola+ programme or the ZAPI project." ..."
"... "belated interventions when an epidemic is already underway," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
EU money intended
for underfunded public-benefit research such as preparing for a pandemic has been diverted by
the pharmaceutical industry into areas where it can make more money, according to a scathing
new report. Officials in Brussels wanted to co-fund research that would have ensured the
European Union (EU) was better prepared for a pandemic akin to the one we are experiencing
today. But their partners, the big pharmaceutical companies, rejected the proposal, ensuring
that taxpayer money would go instead into studies with more potential for commercial
application. In short big-pharma lobbyists were allowed to steer billions of euros of public
funds as they saw fit, a damning new report claims.
The target of the criticism is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), a
public-private partnership that was equally funded, between 2008 and 2020, by the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) lobbying group and the
European Commission to the tune of 5.3 billion euros (US$5.8 billion). The money is supposed to
go to areas of "unmet medical or social need," but, in practice, corporate priorities
dominate the decision-making, according to the
non-governmental organization Corporate Observatory Europe (COE).
"We were outraged to find evidence that the pharmaceutical industry lobby EFPIA not only
did not consider funding biopreparedness (ie, being ready for epidemics such as the one caused
by the new coronavirus, COVID-19) but opposed it being included in IMI's work when the
possibility was raised by the European Commission in 2017, " a new COE report
said.
The rejected proposal would have directed money into refining computer simulations and the
analysis of animal testing models, potentially speeding up regulatory approval of vaccines,
according to the Guardian. But a spokeswoman for the IMI called the report
"misleading".
"The research proposed by the EC in the biopreparedness topic was small in scope,"
she said. "IMI's projects have contributed, directly or indirectly, to better prepare the
research community for the current crisis, the Ebola+ programme or the ZAPI project."
ZAPI, or the Zoonotic Anticipation and Preparedness Initiative, was launched in 2015 with a
budget of 20 million euros (US$21.8 million) after the Ebola epidemic a year prior. The COE
report said it exemplifies a pattern of "belated interventions when an epidemic is already
underway," much like this year's emergency funding of coronavirus research.
The think tank questioned whether EU public money was well applied through IMI. Much of it
went into research into cancer, Alzheimer's disease and diabetes – areas that are
potentially profitable and thus are given close attention by private business. But epidemic
preparedness, HIV/AIDS, and poverty-related and neglected tropical diseases have been
overlooked by the initiative, the report said.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... "According to CDC, the disease of obesity affects about 78 million Americans 1 and the ASMBS estimates about 24 million have severe or morbid obesity." ..."
And the government botching of this crisis continues...
'How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?' The government's disease-fighting agency is
conflating viral and antibody tests, compromising a few crucial metrics that governors depend
on to reopen their economies. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, and other states are doing the
same. https://tinyurl.com/y92ea59f
Nearly half of US states haven't contained their coronavirus outbreaks, a new study
finds https://tinyurl.com/yc72pd8t
And no, Sweden is not doing better...
Just 7.3% of Stockholm had Covid-19 antibodies by end of April, study shows
Official findings add to concerns about Sweden's laissez-faire strategy towards the
pandemic https://tinyurl.com/yahnmb3a
Finally, a large scale study on HCQ - 86,000 patients, with 15,000 receiving HCQ...
Blacks are *twice* as likely to get it as whites and Latinos. American Indians are *five
times* more likely to get it. They conclude the best indicator is poverty.
From The Lancet, a study of New York patients... Epidemiology, clinical course, and
outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study
https://tinyurl.com/yblmszsx
Between March 2 and April 1, 2020, 1150 adults were admitted to both hospitals with
laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, of which 257 (22%) were critically ill.
The median age of patients was 62 years (IQR 51–72), 171 (67%) were men. 212 (82%)
patients had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (162
[63%]) and diabetes (92 [36%]).
119 (46%) patients had obesity.
As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) patients had died and 94 (37%) remained
hospitalised.
203 (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 18 days (IQR
9–28), 170 (66%) of 257 patients received vasopressors and 79 (31%) received renal
replacement therapy.
The median time to in-hospital deterioration was 3 days (IQR 1–6).
In the multivariable Cox model, older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1·31
[1·09–1·57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR
1·76 [1·08–2·86]), chronic pulmonary disease (aHR 2·94
[1·48–5·84]), higher concentrations of interleukin-6 (aHR 1·11
[95%CI 1·02–1·20] per decile increase), and higher concentrations of
D-dimer (aHR 1·10 [1·01–1·19] per decile increase) were
independently associated with in-hospital mortality.
Note: 36% had diabetes; 46% were fat. Like I've said before, "diabetes" is a code word for
"fat." And how many people in the US are fat and thus at risk? "According to CDC, the
disease of obesity affects about 78 million Americans 1 and the ASMBS estimates about 24
million have severe or morbid obesity."
So much for "let's just isolate the elderly"...so we can attend our baseball games this
summer and stuff ourselves with crap food...
I think lung volume is indirect indicator of how well trained the person is. Coach
potatoes have low lung volume. Most sportsmen -- a high or even very high.
In the 1980s, researchers with the Framingham Study, a 70-year research program
focused on heart disease, gathered two decades of data from 5,200 subjects, crunched the
numbers and discovered that the greatest indicator of life span wasn't genetics, diet or
the amount of daily exercise, as many had suspected. It was lung capacity. Larger lungs
equaled longer lives. Because big lungs allow us to get more air in with fewer breaths.
They save the body from a lot of unnecessary wear and tear.
Also a sedentary way of life with not enough movement during the day, especially during
childhood and adolescence, along with poor sitting and standing postures can encourage
shallow breathing instead of breathing with the whole body.
Compounding the distrust is the polarizing figure of President Donald Trump himself, who proudly
announced the shortened timetable for vaccine development last week. Thirty-six percent of those
polled by Reuters said they would be less likely to take a potential Covid-19 vaccine if it came
recommended by Trump, while just 14 percent thought the president's seal of approval was a positive.
Trump's narrative flip-flops haven't helped his credibility on the vaccine front. From his early
reassurances that the virus would vanish in weeks, to his public conflicts with his own health
advisers over locking down and reopening the country, it's not hard to see why Americans are hesitant
to fall in line behind him on this. But the problem isn't necessarily political. Nearly half of those
uninterested in taking the vaccine said the speed of its development worried them, while over 40
percent said the vaccine would be riskier than actually contracting Covid-19 itself.
However, even 29 percent of those who said they were "
not very interested
" in the
vaccine allowed they'd be willing to change their mind if the shot was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration. The full approval process for vaccines usually takes over a decade, and even the most
optimistic experts – including Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has become the public face of the US' Covid-19
policy – believe a shot won't be ready for another year to 18 months. Rushing a vaccine to market in
the middle of a pandemic means sacrificing comprehensive safety checks for efficiency – a tradeoff
that can be disastrous, as in the case of the 2009 swine flu shot Pandemrix, which caused permanent
brain damage in over 1,000 British patients.
The parallels between Covid-19 and that epidemic are ominous – wildly inflated death predictions
had spooked the UK government into approving Pandemrix without sufficient safety data – and it surely
won't help Americans' trust in this vaccine that Trump's "
vaccine czar
" Moncef Slaoui ran
GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine division during the swine flu debacle. Nor has it been especially heartening
to discover Slaoui's extensive investments in not just Glaxo but many other drug companies working on
potential vaccines.
Slaoui earned $3 million on Monday alone from Moderna, which is still considered the leading
candidate in the vaccine race, even though the drug company has never brought a vaccine to market.
After hyping up what were essentially meaningless preliminary results, Moderna's stock shot up 25
percent, bringing his holdings to over $10 million. He pledged to donate those earnings to "
cancer
research
" after demands for him to divest reached a fever pitch. A vaccine produced at Oxford
University hasn't fared much better, with all six rhesus monkeys who received the shot becoming
infected anyway – despite a preliminary report that tried to spin the failure as representing "
some
"
success.
Threats of mandatory vaccination have unsurprisingly not helped to soothe Americans' worries over a
potentially unsafe vaccine. Fauci and other health officials have repeatedly warned the public that
there will be no return to "
normal
" without a vaccine, even as lockdown restrictions are
slowly lifted – a statement some have interpreted as a threat that the unvaccinated will be barred
from crowded public places or travel. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz went further, declaring
the government has "
police power
" to mandate Americans take a vaccine and claiming such power
is "
not debatable
" constitutionally. And other experts downplayed the very real concerns
voiced by poll respondents in favor of blaming the "
very aggressive anti-vaccine movement
."
All this is bad news for the health experts Reuters cites, who say 70 percent of Americans would
have to be immune in order to achieve "
herd immunity
" and stop the virus from spreading
through the US, where upwards of 90,000 people have died since the pandemic began.
Healthcare Hot Topics I was a vehement
advocate of prescribing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) off label while waiting for the results of
clinical trials. I wasn't all that much embarrassed to agree with Donald Trump for once. Now I
feel obliged to note that my guess was totally wrong. I thought that the (uncertain) expected
benefits were greater than the (relatively well known) costs.
The cost is that HCQ affects the heart beat prolonging the QT period (from when the atrium
begins to contract to when the ventrical repolarizes and is read to go again). This can cause
arrhythmia especially in people who already have heart problems. I understood that one might
argue that all people with Covid 19 have heart problems but didn't consider that argument
decisive (I probably should have).
Already in early May, there was evidence that any effect of HCQ on the rate of elimination
of the virus must be small. In this controlled trial conducted in China , the
null of no effect is not rejected. Much more importantly, the point estimates of the effects
over time are all almost exactly zero. I considered the matter settled (although the painfully
disappointed authors tried to argue for HCQ and that their study was not conclusive).
There are now four large retrospective studies all of which suggest no benefit from HCQ and
two of which suggest it causes increased risk of death. I am going to discuss the two studies
most recently reported.
One is a very
large study (fairly big data goes to the hospital) published yesterday in The Lancet. In
this study patients who received HCQ had a significantly higher death rate with a hazard of
dying 1.335 times as high. The estimate comes from a proportional hazard model with a non
parametric baseline probability and takes into account many risk factors including crucially
initial disease severity. It is also important that only patients who were treated within 48
hours of diagnosis were considered.
I think the practical lessons are that it seems unwise to give Covid 19 patients HCQ. Also
maybe Robert Waldmann should be more humble. After the jump, I will discuss the two studies in
some detail and propose an explanation of the difference in results.
A top US scientist has said that people should not count on a Covid-19 vaccine being
developed any time soon...
William Haseltine, the groundbreaking cancer, HIV/AIDS and human genome projects
researcher, has said the best approach to the pandemic is to manage the
disease through careful tracing of infections and strict isolation measures whenever it
starts spreading. He said that while a vaccine could be developed, "I wouldn't count on it",
and urged people to wear masks, wash hands, clean surfaces and keep a distance.
If Nigerian hackers can steal that much money, Israel, Chinese, and Russian, intel agencies
probably are in the most Fed information systems doing what they want ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... officials in Washington State may have lost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to fraudsters filing bogus unemployment claim ..."
officials
in Washington State may have lost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to fraudsters filing bogus
unemployment claim s – all the way from Nigeria.
Remember when the market soared on several days in April on the Facui-touted Remdesivir
study which, according to StatNews and various other unofficial sources of rumors, was a
smashing success only for the optimism to fizzle as
many questions emerged , and as the Gilead drug quietly faded from the public's
consciousness and was replaced by various coronavirus vaccine candidates such as those made by
the greatly hyped Moderna ( whose
insiders just can't
stop selling company stock ).
Meanwhile, those who were waiting for the official version of Remdesivir's effectiveness had
to do so until 6pm on a Friday before a long holiday, and for good reason...
... According to a pivotal study published in the New England Journal of
Medicine late on Friday, Remdesivir, which was authorized to treat Covid-19 in a group of
1063 adults and children (split into two groups, one receiving placebo instead of remdesivir)
who need i) supplemental oxygen, ii) a ventilator or iii) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
(ECMO), only significantly helped those on supplemental oxygen.
Meanwhile, and explaining the 6pm release on a Friday, the study also found no marked
benefit from remdesivir for those who were healthier and didn't need oxygen or those who were
sicker, requiring a ventilator or a heart-lung bypass machine.
The NEJM, almost apologetically, stated that "the lack of benefit seen in the other groups
might have stemmed from a smaller number of patients in each group."
Still, as a result of the partial benefit for patients in the supplemental oxygen group, the
study from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was evaluated early and
led to the authorization of remdesivir before the full trial was completed.
Our findings highlight the need to identify Covid-19 cases and start antiviral treatment
before the pulmonary disease progresses to require mechanical ventilation.
Some more details on the study, which was a "rank test of the time to recovery with
remdesivir as compared with placebo, with stratification by disease severity":
The primary outcome measure was the time to recovery, defined as the first day, during the
28 days after enrollment, on which a patient satisfied categories 1, 2, or 3 on the
eight-category ordinal scale. The categories are as follows:
not hospitalized, no limitations of activities;
not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both;
hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical
care (used if hospitalization was extended for infection-control reasons);
hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen but requiring ongoing medical care
(Covid-19–related or other medical conditions);
5, hospitalized, requiring any supplemental oxygen;
hospitalized, requiring noninvasive ventilation or use of high-flow oxygen devices;
hospitalized, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane
oxygenation (ECMO); and
death.
The results are summarized below, highlighting the only group that showed a statistically
significant improvement in outcomes as a result of taking the drug vs placebo.
A visual representation of the outcomes is below; it shows that whereas there was a modest
benefit only to patients who were receiving oxygen, the results were statistically
insignificant vs placebo for patients not receiving oxygen, while in a surprising twist
patients on high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilator/ECMO did modestly better in the placebo
group than those taking remdesivir. Also, the overall results showed a very modest, but not
statistically significant improvement in the remdesivir group vs placebo (box A).
Another disappointment: the study found that overall "mortality was numerically lower in the
remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant ", in other
words the alleged "miracle drug" has largely the same effect as a placebo in terms of overall
disease mortality.
The study authors also note that the "findings in our trial should be compared with those
observed in a randomized trial from China in which 237 patients were enrolled (158 assigned to
remdesivir and 79 to placebo).... That trial failed to complete full enrollment (owing to the
end of the outbreak), had lower power than the present trial (owing to the smaller sample size
and a 2:1 randomization), and was unable to demonstrate any statistically significant clinical
benefits of remdesivir. "
Finally, the study found that while mortality was modestly lower for the remdesivir arm, it
was not significantly so, at 7.1% at 14 days on drug versus 11.9% on placebo.
In conclusion, while the "preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients
who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy" the study goes on
to warn that " given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment
with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient."
The study's recommendation:
Future strategies should evaluate antiviral agents in combination with other therapeutic
approaches or combinations of antiviral agents to continue to improve patient outcomes in
Covid-19.
So a generally disappointing outcome, one which would lead to a drop in the market.
Nonsense: think of all the spin, and why this is in fact great news for stocks: Remdesivir may
be a dud as a "silver bullet" to curing covid, leading to statistically significant improvement
in only a very limited subset of infected patients and "high mortality" for those taking it,
but at least the algos will have a whole lot of other "miracle drugs" to levitate them as
optimism that the next remdesivir is just around the corner. In short: rinse, rumor, and
repeat... and then save the bad news for 6pm on a Friday.
Oh, and for those asking about the "official" reason why the NE Journal of Medicine waited
until just the right time to make sure nobody reads the results, here it is:
I asked NEJM spox to explain the Friday 6 pm release of the remdesivir study. Her response
is below. pic.twitter.com/WjNGyUv7sH
Prior infection with other coronavirus strains appears to confer an enhanced immune response
to covid19. Smokers are at a lower risk of contracting covid19 infections. Perhaps the two
observations are related? Smokers generally have poorer lung health and may be more likely to
acquire lung infections such as those caused by other varieties of coronavirus and to develop
antibody protection. So maybe their vulnerability to such infections has proved an advantage
in this case?
"Immune warriors known as T cells help us fight some viruses, but their importance for
battling SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been unclear. Now, two studies
reveal infected people harbor T cells that target the virus -- and may help them recover.
Both studies also found some people never infected with SARS-CoV-2 have these cellular
defenses, most likely because they were previously infected with other coronaviruses."
Thanks for drawing attention to this, b.
The T cell/Common Cold factor may help to explain why children are less likely to be
infected by COVID-19 than adults. I can recall that when each of my own offspring went
through that miserable, snotty-nosed toddler phase, there seemed to be no upside for them or
their parents. In retrospect, maybe it was producing a hidden benefit?
With respect to highly addictive nicotine, it is not hard to find any number of "healthful"
justifications for continuing with the (disgusting, imho) smoking habit.
Why, there is already an extensive body of scientific "evidence" one can latch onto that
nicotine is beneficial in Parkinson's disease:
But with regard to anecdotal/unverified [touch'e] claims of nicotine benefits in covid,
one should not reflexively ignore the evidence to the contrary that conflict with one's
pro-nicotine bias/belief system:}
"They looked at the expression of ACE2, the molecule in the respiratory tract that the
COVID-19 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. They also looked at the
expression of FURIN and TMPRSS2, human enzymes known to facilitate COVID-19 virus
infection.
The researchers report in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine a
25 percent increase in the expression of ACE2 in lung tissues from ever-smokers, people who
have smoked at least 100 cigarettes during their lives, when compared with nonsmokers.
Smoking also increased the presence of FURIN, but to a lower extent compared to ACE2 .
TMRPSS2 expression in lungs was not associated with smoking. They also found that smoking
remodeled the gene expression of cells in the lungs so that the ACE2 gene was more highly
expressed in goblet cells, cells that secrete mucus in order to protect the mucous membranes
in the lungs ."
But if you are totally bent on using a non-addictive feel-good drug that Israelis say may
prevent/fight against the Corona-chan, try CANNABIS:
An MD
wrote this op/ed dealing with the hypoxia caused by the coronavirus and provides evidence
in support of Dr. Bush's video interview that can be reached through the link @135 above.
Yes, the op/ed's a month old, but the dynamics of the virus haven't changed nor have the
frequency of deaths within the Outlaw US Empire.
Based on the doctor's first hand testimony and other studies, the initial treatment
approach advocated by Dr. Bush and its reasoning seem quite pragmatic and logical.
Comparison with Malaria yields almost no correlation aside from the malaria parasite's
use of red blood cells as nurseries and lairs, which may explain why anti-malaria drugs used
against COVID-19 in its initial stages have some positive results.
The Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (EVMS is part of that group) has this to
say about HCQ:
Some have asked why our initial protocol included hydroxychloroquine, the anti-viral drug
that was widely touted as a cure for the COVID-19 disease that is caused by the virus.
Almost all ER and ICU physicians tried it before a study published in the New England
Journal of Medicine showed it to have no effect on mortality in patients with severe cases
of the disease. Our FLCCC Working Group currently believes that, if hydroxychloroquine
proves to have any benefit, it will most likely be in the earliest stage of infection,
while the virus replicates and the patient is still at home, before breathing difficulties
or low oxygen levels necessitate a trip to the hospital.
Dr. Kory Senate Testimony before the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
Hearing (Vimeo video) https://vimeo.com/415698366
Dr. Kory is Pierre Kory, M.D., M.P.A., Medical Director, Trauma & Life Support Center,
Critical Care Service Chief, Associate Professor of Medicine Univ. of Wisconsin School of
Medicine & Public Health - one of eight medical professionals on the FLCCC team.
Note: I do *not* explicitly endorse any of this. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on
MoA. But I find their arguments reasonable to the degree I can comprehend them.
Just watched Dr. Kory's testimony before the Senate Committee I referenced above... Link
again: https://vimeo.com/415698366
I recommend it to everyone. Again, I can't speak to the medicine, but I think you'll find
him highly persuasive, if rather desperate to fit his arguments into the time allotted him
(which he overran.)
At least we got a number for the patients treated with their complete MATH+ Protocol -
merely 100 (at the time of his testimony.) That's not a high number that persuades me. But he
also cites a number of other doctors around the country and in Italy who have tried
corticosteroids and apparently they consider it a "game-changer" in treatment, in that it
massively reduces the number of people needing to be put on ventilators. He emphasizes that
the treatment is safe, physiologically sound, well-recognized as useful for the conditions
caused by the virus for years, and although "off-label" for this disease it is not unusual to
do "off-label" and that is supported by all the medical association ethical standards.
But he emphasizes that the treatment needs to be started as soon as respirator symptoms
develop and he is concerned that too many people are avoiding going to the hospital until
it's too late. This of course raises the question as to whether this is another treatment -
like HCQ - that "only" works at early stages and therefore is not necessarily proven by
trials, but is only supported by "observation" in the hospital.
Of course, the solution to that is run the bloody trial. Or at least use the treatment on
a greater number of treatments and see how it washes out. He's concerned that they can't get
the White House to listen - big surprise, there.
Don't forget 'Covidiots'. The frontline-worker-lovin', government-narrative-believin'
social-distance welcomin' simpletons are endlessly inventive when it comes to coining
contemptuous nicknames for those who don't buy into their embrace of madness. I am happy to
be able to say I thought the virus was bogus from the first, and said so to anyone who
would listen.
That's too simplistic. You should agree that religious nuts who attend the church in large
groups despite the risk can and should be called "Covidiots". Because they are. And the
people who are trying to preserve their meager income generally should not.
Why religious nuts can't move to outdoors for the same purpose like first Chirstians did,
is unclear to me ;-). Not sure about Orthodox Jews, which is pretty closed sect in any case
so if they want to infect each other, be my guest.
The virus causes specific for it virus pneumonia which is no joke. People who recovered
still have fibroses in this lungs of different degree. That's why people who were
hospitalized with COVID-19 are ineligible to serve in US army. So for those unlucky who get
virus pneumonia that's a crippling disease. You can't deny this.
For around 15-20% of people over 65 infected with COVID-19 it means the death sentence --
they will never recover and either die in hospital or soon after. Men over 65 are two third
of those so for old men the risk can't be discounted.
So the question is what forms and length of quarantine was optimal, not whether it should
or should not be enforced. I doubt that you want to argue that night clubs should remain
open. Or that wearing masks in closed spaces is redundant (in open spaces they generally are
redundant, unless you are standing in line, etc)
You also need some timeout to collect the vital information about the disease using first
cases, enhance the protection of medical personnel, and access the level of actual risk to
the population and the economy (the USA generally wasted it and Trump was inapt; so the
effect of quarantine is more questionable for this particular country).
It was not that clear in March that the risk is generally low, although we can't deny that
Fauci and Co were caught without pants (or, for some sinister reason were intended to be
caught this way as if they waited until epidemic got to a certain point that masks something
else )
That does not excuse incompetence of Trump administration and very strange behaviors of
Fauci, who spent two months and then woke up and suddenly start crying Wolf, Wolf, but the
USA is very mysterious country and in no way Canadians can understand it
There is a statistical possibility a vaccine comes out next year. But his possibility is
remote. The key here is that a vaccine must be tested to the exhaustion before being ok'd by
any government for mass use. Any mistake can result in a number of deaths that will make this
pandemic look like child's play. My opinion is that the NYT is feeding too much enthusiasm to
its readers.
The Moderna Vaccine the media is touting as a promising, miracle breakthrough that has only
been tested on a limited group of 45 people, aged 18 to 55 has Grade 3 adverse effects in 100
and 250 microgram dosage.
So they're going to lower dosage to 50 micrograms and test it on the 56 to 70 and over 70
age groups. What about the group most Americans are in: the KFC, McDonald's, IHOP group?
"... There are some who parrot Big Pharma vested interests in ridiculing and denigrating hydroxychloroquine, despite the very notable positive results several countries such as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey have had with it, while vainly spouting the benefits of smoking despite complete lack of quality research papers supporting it and abundant quality papers against. ..."
"... Research is not created equal. There is good research (some, not so much) and there is bad research (bundles of it), mostly funded by vested interests, who where necessary direct the desired results. In general, research from China and Russia arguably tends to be higher quality and more reliable because those countries place the emphasis on health for society, not on profits for the corporations. ..."
But with regard to anecdotal/unverified [touch'e] claims of nicotine benefits in covid,
one should not reflexively ignore the evidence to the contrary that conflict with one's
pro-nicotine bias/belief system:}
"Smokers more likely to express ACE2 protein that SARS-COV-2 uses to enter human cells"
"Tobacco smoking increases lung entry points for COVID-19 virus"
Posted by: gm | May 19 2020 16:13 utc | 129
Touché again gm!
It is indeed desperate grasping at straws to believe that smoking will protect against
Covid-19 when far higher quality research clearly indicates increased risk from smoking that
the disease will be more severe (the latter also being the more plausible result).
As I commented the last time B raised this issue, there is one genuine effect of a
past history of smoking that statistically reduces risk of death from Covid-19 -
namely smoking significantly reduces expected lifespan, and therefore reduces the risk of
living long enough to reach the highest risk age groups for severe Covid-19. Alternatively
expressed - smoking kills you off first before you get a chance to be killed by Covid, if
that is what you want. Post-hoc nicotine patches at a late stage deny you even that
advantage.
There are some who parrot Big Pharma vested interests in ridiculing and denigrating
hydroxychloroquine, despite the very notable positive results several countries such as
China, Russia, Iran and Turkey have had with it, while vainly spouting the benefits of
smoking despite complete lack of quality research papers supporting it and abundant quality
papers against.
At this point it is worth reminding of criticism of the untrustworthiness of modern
medical science from the editors of some of the top medical journals:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is
published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly
over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine"
Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books
magazine.
More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that "The case against science
is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and
flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of
dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness" Horton R.
Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? www.thelancet.com.
The first of these two commentaries on clinical research publications appeared in 2009, the
second in April of this year. These statements are being taken seriously, coming as they do
from the experiences of editors of two of the world's most prestigious medical journals.
The first article showed how the relationships between pharmaceutical companies and
academic physicians at prestigious universities impacted certain drug-related publications
and the marketing of prescription drugs. Potential conflicts of interest seemed to abound:
millions of dollars in consulting and speaking fees to physicians who promoted specific
drugs, public research dollars being used by a researcher to test a drug owned by a company
in which the researcher held millions of dollars in shares, failure of university
researchers to disclose income from drug companies, company subsidies to physician
continuing education, publishing practice guidelines involving drugs in which the authors
have a financial interest, using influential physicians to promote drugs for unapproved
uses, bias in favor of a product coming from failure to publish negative results and
repeated publication of positive results in different forms. The author, Marcia Angell,
cited the case of a drug giant that had to agree to settle charges that it deliberately
withheld evidence that its top-selling anti-depressant was ineffective and could be harmful
to certain age groups. ...
Richard Horton's statement was part of his comments on a recent symposium on reliability
and reproducibility of research in the biomedical sciences and addresses a broader area of
concern. Some of the problems he identified are seen in the veterinary literature. They
include inadequate number of subjects in the study, poor study design, and potential
conflicts of interest. He notes that the quest for journal impact factor is fuelling
competition for publication in a few high reputation journals. He warns that "our love of
'significance' pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale" ...
Research is not created equal. There is good research (some, not so much) and there is
bad research (bundles of it), mostly funded by vested interests, who where necessary direct
the desired results. In general, research from China and Russia arguably tends to be higher
quality and more reliable because those countries place the emphasis on health for society,
not on profits for the corporations.
@Flatulus @16 "sources"
Christian Drosten, chief virologist Charité Berlin in his podcast no 31. Available
with transcript here.
Posted by: b | May 18 2020 16:42 utc | 32
B, have you looked into the Big Pharma vested interests of Drosten yet? I suggest you do
so.
Few things can be more annoying than answering the phone while you're in the middle of
something -- and then being greeted by a recording. If you receive a robocall trying to sell you something
(and you haven't given the caller your written permission), it's an illegal call. You should hang
up. Then, file a complaint with the
FTC and the National Do Not Call
Registry.
From phony positive Covid-19 test results to deceptive offers of financial relief, robocalls
have proliferated amid the pandemic, separating Americans from millions of precious dollars at
a time when few can afford to lose money.
One particularly nasty scam sees the target receive a text or phone call warning them
they've been exposed to the virus, tricking them into providing personal information while in a
state of panic. Another cruel variant dangles the possibility of virus-related financial relief
if they just give up their bank account details or wire the scammer a small " fee "
– a tempting prospect at a time when half of American workers are unlikely to see a
paycheck this month and upwards of 36 million have filed for unemployment since the pandemic
began. Phony treatments – in which the target orders a miracle cure, only to never
receive it – comprise some 22 percent of coronavirus-related robocalls, making them the
most common pandemic scam.
Even those who haven't been personally scammed by a robocaller
have experienced stress because of them, Provision found; 70 percent of millennials are
concerned a parent or grandparent will be preyed upon by the automated scammers, who frequently
impersonate government authorities like the Social Security Administration or the Internal
Revenue Service in order to con their targets out of bank account information or other personal
data. In fact, nearly two in five robocalls (39 percent) claim to be the SSA, with 38 percent
impersonating the IRS and 33 percent pretending to be debt collectors.
The Covid-19 scams are apparently quite effective, robbing Americans of over $13.4 million
of their hard-earned cash in the first three months of 2020 alone, according to the Federal
Trade Commission. That number doesn't include scams that haven't been discovered by their
victims, or those that go unreported to the FTC – meaning the real figure is likely much
higher.
Beware of fake contact tracers, N.J. officials warn.
New Jersey officials warned residents on Wednesday to be wary of fraudsters identifying
themselves as contact tracers in order to obtain financial information.
In recent weeks, as health departments have hired
legitimate tracers to track the spread of the coronavirus, fake tracers have been sending
people text messages looking for insurance information and bank account and social security
numbers, said Judith Persichilli, the state health commissioner.
Real contact tracers do not ask for such things, the state said.
A legitimate tracer will call, identify themselves as part of a local health department, and
explain to the person on the phone that they may have come into contact with someone who tested
positive for the virus.
Scams around the virus, unemployment benefits and stimulus checks have proliferated
nationwide , the authorities say.
Gov. Philip D. Murphy said "there is a special place in hell" for people who would scam
others during the pandemic.
Mr. Murphy also reported the state's daily virus fatalities: 168, bringing the overall death
toll to 10,747.
In what appears to be yet another strike against public officials
like LA County's Barbara Ferrer - that is, Democrats and others who insist that lockdowns
should continue perhaps until a vaccine has been discovered and that police should punish
anyone who dares violate these orders - a study from the Korean Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has found that patients who test positive for COVID-19 after recovering from the
illness appear to be shedding dead copies of the virus. That would suggest that these patients
are not infectious, the scientists said, which helped dispel fears that some patients can
remain infectious for months after being infected. While the study doesn't answer every
question about the virus's longevity -
such as patients who almost appear to have developed a "chronic" form of the illness because
their symptoms have persisted for so long.
But still, the finding was greeted as a major relief, and, if anything, should encourage
economies to reopen more quickly, as a potential trigger for reinfection that had panicked some
experts appears to be a non-issue.
The research also undermines the reliability of 'antibody' tests like the ones NY Gov Andrew
Cuomo insisted would be 'critical' for NY's reopening.
The results mean health authorities in South Korea will no longer consider people
infectious after recovering from the illness. Research last month showed that so-called PCR
tests for the coronavirus's nucleic acid can't distinguish between dead and viable virus
particles, potentially giving the wrong impression that someone who tests positive for the
virus remains infectious.
The research may also aid in the debate over antibody tests, which look for markers in the
blood that indicate exposure to the novel coronavirus. Experts believe antibodies probably
convey some level of protection against the virus, but they don't have any solid proof yet.
Nor do they know how long any immunity may last.
A recent study in Singapore showed that recovered patients from severe acute respiratory
syndrome, or SARS, are found to have "significant levels of neutralizing antibodies" nine to
17 years after initial infection, according to researchers including Danielle E. Anderson of
Duke-NUS Medical School.
Other scientists have found higher levels of IgM, an antibody that appears in response to
exposure to an antigen, in children, according to an article published on medRxiv. That
suggests younger populations have the potential to produce a more potent defense against
Covid-19. The study has not been certified by peer review.
Bloomberg offers a succinct review of some of the research into the infectious qualities of
the virus, and the efficacy of antibodies in keeping patients safe from reinfection. As BBG
shows, studies of SARS, which is related to the virus that causes COVID-19, suggest that
antibodies keep patients safe for years, undermining warnings about a possible second wave, or
worries that the virus might become endemic, which were recently raised by the WHO.
The research may also aid in the debate over antibody tests, which look for markers in the
blood that indicate exposure to the novel coronavirus. Experts believe antibodies probably
convey some level of protection against the virus, but they don't have any solid proof
yet.
Nor do they know how long any immunity may last.
A recent study in Singapore showed that recovered patients from severe acute respiratory
syndrome, or SARS, are found to have "significant levels of neutralizing antibodies" nine to
17 years after initial infection, according to researchers including Danielle E. Anderson of
Duke-NUS Medical School.
Other scientists have found higher levels of IgM, an antibody that appears in response to
exposure to an antigen, in children, according to an article published on medRxiv. That
suggests younger populations have the potential to produce a more potent defense against
Covid-19. The study has not been certified by peer review.
The study's findings are apparently convincing enough for South Korean health authorities to
no longer require patients to be re-tested after they've recovered from COVID-19 and all
symptoms have subsided.
As a result of the findings in the South Korea study, authorities said that under revised
protocols, people should no longer be required to test negative for the virus before
returning to work or school after they have recovered from their illness and completed their
period of isolation.
"Under the new protocols, no additional tests are required for cases that have been
discharged from isolation," the Korean CDC said in a report. The agency said it will now
refer to "re-positive" cases as "PCR re-detected after discharge from isolation."
Some coronavirus patients have tested positive again for the virus up to 82 days after
becoming infected. Almost all of the cases for which blood tests were taken had antibodies
against the virus.
If nothing else, this study is just the latest reminder of how much we don't know about the
virus.
@Al t from wood like cherry and walnut Unlike the medical masks with the 3 flapping
edges, dust doesn't come in through the seal.
The medical masks are 6 inch long rectangles that are open at the bottom and 2 sides.
According to the 2 Drs I saw , they're useless for preventing germs and viruses coming
in.
The 3m 8210 PLUS n95 masks work to keep the finest softest dust out if you think you need
a mask. And you can use them for days if you're not sanding and using dangerous
materials.
The only reason I looked at was after I used a really strong toxic paint stripper all day
long. The stripper was orange. I saw that the outside of the mask was orange from the fumes.
But the inside was still white, no orange. So that mask prevented the fumes going through to
my nose and mouth.
"A new study published in the European Heart Journal on Monday has provided scientific
evidence that men have higher concentrations of ACE2 in their blood than women. ACE2, which
is found in organs such as the heart, kidney, intestines and others, is the receptor required
for cellular entry of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
While the ACE2 receptor is normally helpful to the human body, as it stabilizes one's
blood pressure and regulates blood vessel dilation, it is also the target of SARS-CoV-2's
spike protein. Once the spike protein has attached itself to the receptor, the novel
coronavirus is able to invade the human cell and infect an individual.
"When we found that one of the strongest biomarkers, ACE2, was much higher in men than in
women, I realised that this had the potential to explain why men were more likely to die from
COVID-19 than women," said Iziah Sama, a doctor at University Medical Center (UMC) Groningen
who co-led the study.
Findings from the recent study further advanced scientists' presumption that the ACE2 is a
key component to how COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus,
creeps to the lungs.
"ACE2 is a receptor on the surface of cells. It binds to the coronavirus and allows it to
enter and infect healthy cells after it has been modified by another protein on the surface
of the cell, called TMPRSS2," explained Dr. Adriaan Voors, a professor of cardiology at UMC
Groningen who led the study. "High levels of ACE2 are present in the lungs and, therefore, it
is thought to play a crucial role in the progression of lung disorders related to
COVID-19."
The study, which relied on blood samples from several thousand participants, also found
that heart failure patients prescribed drugs that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone
system, like angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers
(ARBs), did not have higher concentrations of ACE2 in their blood.
"ACE inhibitors and ARBs are widely prescribed to patients with congestive heart failure,
diabetes or kidney disease," Reuters noted.
"Our findings do not support the discontinuation of these drugs in COVID-19 patients as
has been suggested by earlier reports," explained Voors."
@KAFrom April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases
(range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469
deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the H1N1pdm09 virus
This is interesting.
The population of the USA in 2010 was 308 million. The number of infected was 60.8
million. That suggests that herd immunity was reached when 19.7% of the population was
infected.
That magical number of 20% has been repeated by me in a number of comments here. I don't
claim to have originated it.
@Anon Speaking of antibiotics, there are several papers on pubmed suggesting the use of
doxycycline to treat COVID-19 (and the ARB drug telmisartan is apparently another
off-the-shelf treatment possibility).
In silico modeling shows that doxycycline might inhibit SARS-CoV-2 PLpro and 3CLpro; plus
it has an anti-inflammatory effect. Doxy is highly bioavailable and crosses the blood brain
barrier.
What if the virus causing COVID-19 is first doing great injury to hemoglobin which then
allows bacteriological infections to do their work? People are showing hypoxia, not all, just
what become the worst cases. Those factors are part of an hypothesis developed by Dr. Zach
Bush, a physician specializing in internal medicine, endocrinology and hospice care, that
gets presented during this 1 hour 20 minute
interview that covers more than just the COVID-19 issue. When finished, you'll have a
completely different appreciation for the term Environmental Science.
Doxycycline is an
anti-malarial drug that was patented in 1957, became commercial in 1967 and is now a generic
drug. Ivermectin ,
used to treat parasitic infestations, is available in the US as a generic prescription drug.
Both drugs do have side effects. It will be interesting to see if either drug gets much
attention in the global press beyond the medical literature if the Bangladeshi doctors
continue to have success in treating their patients.
"... SCAN is backed by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the University of Washington Medicine. The testing program was sending free test kits to participants' homes in the Seattle Metropolitan Area, with the goal of testing people in the region to get a sense of how the virus was spreading through the community. ..."
About a month after Bill Gates
criticized President Trump's decision to suspend funding to the World Health Organization
(WHO), the federal government has just halted a Seattle-based COVID-19 testing program backed
by Gates.
What are the odds, right?
"Please discontinue patient testing and return of diagnostic results to patients until
proper authorization is obtained," the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) wrote in a memo,
addressed to the Seattle Coronavirus Assessment Network (SCAN), according to The
New York Times .
SCAN posted an update on its website on
Thursday (May 14) describing how the FDA had asked it to "pause" testing while it receives
further guidance on new procedures for its COVID-19 test kits that collect samples at home.
The FDA "recently clarified its guidance for home-based, self-collected samples to test for
COVID-19. We have been notified that a separate federal emergency use authorization (EUA) is
required to return results for self-collected tests," the post read.
"The FDA has not raised any concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of SCAN's test, but
we have been asked to pause testing until we receive that additional authorization."
An FDA spokesperson told The Times, the home collection test kits raised some concerns about
"safety and accuracy that required the agency's review."
The issue in the Seattle case appears to be that the test results are being used not only
by researchers for surveillance of the virus in the community but that the results are also
being returned to patients to inform them.
The two kinds of testing — surveillance and diagnostic — fall under different
F.D.A. standards. In a pure surveillance study, the researchers may keep the results just for
themselves. But coronavirus testing has largely revolved around getting results returned to
doctors who can share the results with patients.
"We had previously understood that SCAN was being conducted as a surveillance study," the
spokesperson said.
SCAN is backed by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the University of Washington
Medicine. The testing program was sending free test kits to participants' homes in the Seattle
Metropolitan Area, with the goal of testing people in the region to get a sense of how the
virus was spreading through the community.
As there have been some comments relating to the development of a vaccine against the virus,
I made a search this morning relating to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation's record in
funding such developments. I tried to stay away from the articles that seemed to be
inflammatory but did find this article dated today at indianexpress.com: "Can't penalise US
NGO for violating drug trial norms" related to a previous drug trial involvement of the
foundation. Here are the opening paragraphs:
The NDA government Friday told the Supreme Court that no specific penalties could be
imposed on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded Programme for Appropriate
Technology in Health (PATH) for violating norms in conducting the vaccination trials on
tribal girls in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat.
Pointing out that the current legal regime had no provision of penalties, the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare has expressed its inability to proceed against the NGO PATH
despite a parliamentary panel recommending strict actions.
The article would seem to advise caution in urging such trials on the part of the US
government with respect to a vaccine for the covid virus, as they also have taken place in
other countries, with unforseen complications for some of the participants. It is often the
case that strong medicinal remedies are available to poor people on a trial basis. These days
I'm remembering the John Le Carre novel, "The Constant Gardener". If my library were open I'd
be rereading it.
The old saying 'haste makes waste' needs to be kept in mind.
> I made a search this morning relating to the Bill and Melinda Gates
>Posted by: juliania | May 16 2020 13:41 utc | 88
Thank you for this. I've been wondering about the noise swirling around Gates and vaccine
shenanigans and how much of it is true. I would not be surprised to learn that he really did
harm many people with his PATH project.
It's well understood in the computer industry that Gates was an abusive bully to his
employees while wrecking every company he crossed paths with, whether they were the
competition or a partner. No reason to think it would be different with his new projects.
I'll take my chances with the evil virus before I'll take a dose of a Gates' vaccine.
Any drugs out of patent will be discredited by big pharma lobbyists. It seems a number of
drugs do have an impact on the covid-19 set of symptoms.
At one point in time, I was diagnosed with 'chronic fatigue syndrome'. It is a bullshit
diagnosis, basically the scrap heap for undiagnosed disease. I looked up research on the
subject at the the time. There was a couple of interesting contrasts.
One research project simply took in a mob that had been diagnosed with chronic fatigue
syndrome, and of course found nothing in various trials.
Another project took in a cohort with exactly the same symptoms, and found that a pathogen
was indeed causing their problems.
A number of drugs on anecdotal evidence (and perhaps the observations of Chinese doctors
unencombered by lobbyists are anecdotal) do help certain patients.
Each drug may not be a cure all for all people with COVID-19, but it seems these do help
various patients depending on their symptoms and the way the virus is attacking them.
With that in mind, I would be keeping an eye on China rather than US big pharma.
Big pharma may well come up with a you beaut cure all, but in the mean time I would be
looking at doctors unencombered by big pharma for something that will help.
WaPo: Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus 'game changer' increasingly linked to
deaths
Posted by: b | May 16 2020 9:39 utc | 61
b,
do you have any conception of the lobbying methods used by Big Pharma?
Do you have any conception of the financial clout they have available for protecting their
interests?
Do you have any conceptions of the influence they have, of the revolving doors between Big
Pharma, pharmaceutical regulatory bodies, medical schools and every single level of the
medical industry?
Do you have any conception of the way pharmaceutical registration works, and of the corrupt
and fraudulent practices used to obtain authorisation for drugs?
It is one gigantic spaghetti pot of corruption and deception. Boeing/FAA is miniscule and
almost angelic by comparison (and far less deadly also).
Coincidentally I have direct first-hand experience of both sides of the activities of
Big Pharma concerning one specific highly effective cancer drug that the world's
biggest Pharma corporations have tried for the last 40 years to eradicate (finally almost
successful by 2014, unfortunately). I have direct first-hand experience of the highest praise
they share amongst their own top elites of the efficacy of that competitor's medicine against
all known types of cancer. I also have close 2nd hand inside knowledge of their efforts to
purchase the patents for that same medicine for vast sums of money. I also personally know
the proprietor and developer of that same medicine, and have witnessed and experienced
first hand some of the fraudulent and criminal methods Big Pharma have used non-stop for 40
years to try to force my friend out of business, together with the lies and deception they
have used publicly falsely alleging its "danger" and "inefficacy", together even with using
police to illegally force parents to stop using it for their seriously ill children who had
already dramatically benefited from its use, and forcing doctors to stop using it for
treatment. I also have extensive 2nd hand knowledge of their activities to that effect, and
have good reason to believe they are true. I have also used that medicine myself, to great
effect, and closely know a medical practice which has used it with considerable medical
success, and of the coercion they also experienced not to use it.
The way the Western medical establishment has handled the question of the use of
chloroquine and closely related drugs for Covid-19 is in every single respect and at every
level 100% typical of Big Pharma disinformation projects .
The very fact that the US medical establishment approved use of hydroxychloroquine under
specific conditions that ensure it is used exclusively at a very late stage after the virus
has ceased to replicate guarantees that all or almost all major Western hydroxychloroquine
trials will be negative - because it is a specific and known requirement of
hydroxychloroquine therapy that the therapy is conducted early whilst the virus is stil
replicating - later it is known to be useless. The approval of its use under such
conditions is the specific result of Big Pharma influence . That is how they operate all
the time.
Big Pharma is no more honest about either the safety or the efficacity of its products
than are the White Helmets about their activities in Syria. Many of the most dangerous drugs
sold by the biggest companies are approved on the basis of very small, improperly balanced
trials, sometimes fraudulently conducted. Trials which give the wrong result are routinely
hidden. Research on toxicity and dangerous side-effects are routinely inadequate, frequently
fraudulent or knowingly misleading, and legal requirements for drug authorisations are
frequently waived on the basis of influence campaigns. This is especially so for new
chemotherapy drugs, which are intrinsically highly toxic and are normally used at very close
to the fatal dose. There is no level playing field at all, quite the contrary.
Big Pharma do not profit from cures - they profit from selling very expensive drugs, and
they are far more ruthless than the White Helmets in destroying any potential threat to their
profits. There is no more effective threat to the World-View of Big Pharma - as I know from
first hand experience - than effective cures, especially where they are cheap and
unpatentable, or the patents are owned outside the cabal. Any such cure must be destroyed at
all costs.
Several of the Big Pharma companies in recent years have been given multi-billion dollar
fines for the fraud and subversion they have utilised in obtaining authorisation for drugs
which are dangerous to the patient, and for their marketing of drugs known to be
dangerous.
The patent for chloroquine and its derivatives has expired. It has been widely used for
many years, its hazards and limitations are thoroughly documented, and it is in this respect
- under proper supervision with respect to its known hazards and limitations and qualified by
them - incomparably safer than any new and barely tested pharmaceutical drug or vaccine such
as Remdesivir. It is cheaply produced around the world. Therefore, no full-scale
well-controlled randomised clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid-19 will
ever be conducted in a major Western country. Big Pharma will ensure that.
One does have to wonder whether it is simply a matter that the difficulty in the US
concerning early diagnosis is the real problem that makes use of the drug impractical here.
Perhaps we just don't have the resources, teams of testers and physicians and nurses, for the
accuracy and careful monitoring of patients in early stage infection required when using this
drug.
Posted by: juliania | May 16 2020 15:17 utc | 103
I'm afraid it's not anything to do with early diagnosis, it is only about profit. As Blue
Dotterel said, it is about profit, not curing patients. For Big Pharma the very last thing
they want is for the patient to be cured - a dead patient is far more profitable. No wonder
Gilead holds the more promising GS-441524 off the market, because they can make more profit
from a more expensive useless drug that will be in patent for far longer.
Big Pharma expects to make many trillions of dollars profit per year on Covid-19, as they
do on cancer. The more Covid cases, the more profits. The less effective the efforts to
reduce infections, the more profits. The less availability of PPE, the more profits. The more
chaotic and irrational the government policies, the more profit. Big Pharma profits at every
step.
They will stop at nothing to block proper trials of hydroxychloroquine - including
bribery, coercion, and sabotage, not just massive disinformation. They will spend billions
just to block
proper trials, using myriad different methods of subterfuge and subversion. That is just
small change compared to the profits they want and expect.
The entire philosophy of Western medicine is a dying patient - it is corrupt, it is
dishonest, its entire foundations are fraudulent. There is an urgent need for a whole new
paradigm for medicine that is based on maximising the health of society, not on maximising
profit.
There is a story I heard on television several decades ago - I think it was true, but I am
not certain - about an old Chinese tradition. Villagers would pay a regular monthly fee to
the doctor, as long as they stay healthy. As soon as they fall sick they stop paying, and the
doctor has to cure them (without charge). Only when they get better will they resume the
normal regular payments. Think about it, what is the best interest of the doctor towards his
patient? He has an investment in their good health. Now compare the Western system. What
interest does the doctor have in the patient's health? If the patient is sick for 4 times as
long and then dies, is the doctor richer or poorer? If the doctor gives drugs with side
effects, which need more drugs against the side effects, will he be richer or poorer? If
there are two drugs available, one cheap, one expensive, which one does the doctor
prefer?
Think about it Juliana, the last time you went to a hospital, how much did it cost? How
many useless medicines did the doctor give you, versus how many basic essential
medicines?
Western medicine is a big scam. It is a business. The second biggest business in the world
after war.
That is why I reject Western medicine. For 20 years I have used only non-Western
medicine.
Clinical trials, academic research and scientific analysis indicate that the danger of the
Trump-backed drug is a significantly increased risk of death for certain patients. Evidence
showing the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating covid-19 has been scant. Those
two developments pushed the Food and Drug Administration to warn against the use of
hydroxychloroquine outside of a hospital setting last month, just weeks after it approved
an emergency use authorization for the drug.
Alarmed by a growing cache of data linking the anti-malaria drug to serious cardiac
problems, some drug safety experts are now calling for even more forceful action by the
government to discourage its use. Several have called for the FDA to revoke its emergency
use authorization, given hydroxychloroquine's documented risks.
"They should say, 'We know there are harms, and until we know the benefits, let's hold
off,' " said Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, who
added that the original authorization may have been warranted but new evidence has emerged
about the drug's risks.
"I'm surprised it hasn't been revoked yet," said Luciana Borio, who served as director
for medical and biodefense preparedness of the National Security Council and was acting
chief scientist at the FDA.
...
Yogen Kanthi, assistant professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at the
University of Michigan, said that it has been clear that the combination of
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin -- used to treat bacterial infections -- could lead to
cardiac arrhythmias, which cause the heart to beat irregularly or too fast or slow. Many
patients hospitalized for covid-19 had underlying cardiovascular disease that put them at
higher risk for arrhythmias, "so it shouldn't be surprising we saw an increase in death,"
he said.
AD
"The question has been answered that if you have the infection and it's significant
enough to be in the hospital, the drug doesn't seem to do anything for you," he said. "It
may be the horse is out of the barn."
Many hospitals have stopped using the drug outside of clinical trials.
"We no longer are keeping large quantities and have returned most of it," said Nishaminy
Kasbekar, director of pharmacy for the Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia. "I
think they should revoke the EUA because clearly based on the data it is no longer
considered a treatment for covid."
...
A study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the coronavirus found no benefit and
higher death rates among those taking hydroxychloroquine, researchers said last month.
More than 27 percent of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine died, and 22 percent of
those treated with the combination therapy died, compared with an 11.4 percent death rate
in those not treated with the drugs, the study said.
This is what I thought, you've been damaged by Trump Derangent Syndrome (TDS), so you
insult with a childish phrase like "Trump's wonder medicine." You actually erased a medical
doctor's respectful and evidence-laden disagreement with your 'line'. In any case, I'm not
participating in the childish Trump/antiTrump,
pro-hydroxychloroquine/anti-hydroxychloroquine, pro-lockdown/anti-lockdown discourse. The
evidence is split on all of these issues. You cite your evidence, those who disagree with you
cite theirs. Believe it or not, neither side in the disagreement are demons.
I don't have a strong opinion on Hydroxychloroquine, but it's just that it had been widely
and uncontroversially used in China from early on in the fight against Covid-19. Then, after
Trump mentioned it positively, it became controversial. A classic TDS timeline doesn't mean
anything factually, but it naturally raises a rational person's skepticism about the
extremely negative claims suddenly appearing in places like the Washington Post and other
classic TDS places. I'm not expert enough to weigh the evidence, and neither are you, b, but
even a brief internet search shows China-produced scientific studies of Hydroxychloroquine
showing positive results:
"But for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were
significantly shortened in the HCQ treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients
with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 31) compared with the
control group (54.8%, 17 of 31)."
"The mortality rate in the HCQ group stood at 18.8 percent against 43.5 percent in the
non-HCQ group, the study noted.
"'Hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with a decreased mortality in
critically-ill Covid-19 patients,' the researchers wrote. ...
"The Chinese researchers, however, also suggest that despite their findings, the
randomized double-blind-control study was needed to provide stronger evidence."
So there is evidence on both sides, as contributors more expert than you or me have told
you repeatedly. Non-experts don't know who's right, or if this disagreement will reach some
nuanced "you're both partly right" conclusion. I will humbly continue to be open to both
sides of the argument. Get well soon from TDS, b.
WaPo: Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus 'game changer' increasingly linked to
deaths
Posted by: b | May 16 2020 9:39 utc | 61
b,
do you have any conception of the lobbying methods used by Big Pharma?
Do you have any conception of the financial clout they have available for protecting their
interests?
Do you have any conceptions of the influence they have, of the revolving doors between Big
Pharma, pharmaceutical regulatory bodies, medical schools and every single level of the
medical industry?
Do you have any conception of the way pharmaceutical registration works, and of the corrupt
and fraudulent practices used to obtain authorisation for drugs?
It is one gigantic spaghetti pot of corruption and deception. Boeing/FAA is miniscule and
almost angelic by comparison (and far less deadly also).
Coincidentally I have direct first-hand experience of both sides of the activities of
Big Pharma concerning one specific highly effective cancer drug that the world's
biggest Pharma corporations have tried for the last 40 years to eradicate (finally almost
successful by 2014, unfortunately). I have direct first-hand experience of the highest praise
they share amongst their own top elites of the efficacy of that competitor's medicine against
all known types of cancer. I also have close 2nd hand inside knowledge of their efforts to
purchase the patents for that same medicine for vast sums of money. I also personally know
the proprietor and developer of that same medicine, and have witnessed and experienced
first hand some of the fraudulent and criminal methods Big Pharma have used non-stop for 40
years to try to force my friend out of business, together with the lies and deception they
have used publicly falsely alleging its "danger" and "inefficacy", together even with using
police to illegally force parents to stop using it for their seriously ill children who had
already dramatically benefited from its use, and forcing doctors to stop using it for
treatment. I also have extensive 2nd hand knowledge of their activities to that effect, and
have good reason to believe they are true. I have also used that medicine myself, to great
effect, and closely know a medical practice which has used it with considerable medical
success, and of the coercion they also experienced not to use it.
The way the Western medical establishment has handled the question of the use of
chloroquine and closely related drugs for Covid-19 is in every single respect and at every
level 100% typical of Big Pharma disinformation projects .
The very fact that the US medical establishment approved use of hydroxychloroquine under
specific conditions that ensure it is used exclusively at a very late stage after the virus
has ceased to replicate guarantees that all or almost all major Western hydroxychloroquine
trials will be negative - because it is a specific and known requirement of
hydroxychloroquine therapy that the therapy is conducted early whilst the virus is stil
replicating - later it is known to be useless. The approval of its use under such
conditions is the specific result of Big Pharma influence . That is how they operate all
the time.
Big Pharma is no more honest about either the safety or the efficacity of its products
than are the White Helmets about their activities in Syria. Many of the most dangerous drugs
sold by the biggest companies are approved on the basis of very small, improperly balanced
trials, sometimes fraudulently conducted. Trials which give the wrong result are routinely
hidden. Research on toxicity and dangerous side-effects are routinely inadequate, frequently
fraudulent or knowingly misleading, and legal requirements for drug authorisations are
frequently waived on the basis of influence campaigns. This is especially so for new
chemotherapy drugs, which are intrinsically highly toxic and are normally used at very close
to the fatal dose. There is no level playing field at all, quite the contrary.
Big Pharma do not profit from cures - they profit from selling very expensive drugs, and
they are far more ruthless than the White Helmets in destroying any potential threat to their
profits. There is no more effective threat to the World-View of Big Pharma - as I know from
first hand experience - than effective cures, especially where they are cheap and
unpatentable, or the patents are owned outside the cabal. Any such cure must be destroyed at
all costs.
Several of the Big Pharma companies in recent years have been given multi-billion dollar
fines for the fraud and subversion they have utilised in obtaining authorisation for drugs
which are dangerous to the patient, and for their marketing of drugs known to be
dangerous.
The patent for chloroquine and its derivatives has expired. It has been widely used for
many years, its hazards and limitations are thoroughly documented, and it is in this respect
- under proper supervision with respect to its known hazards and limitations and qualified by
them - incomparably safer than any new and barely tested pharmaceutical drug or vaccine such
as Remdesivir. It is cheaply produced around the world. Therefore, no full-scale
well-controlled randomised clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid-19 will
ever be conducted in a major Western country. Big Pharma will ensure that.
Turkey uses Chloroquine as well
"Koca explained that unlike the other countries, in Turkey doctors do not advise people with
symptoms such as fever, store throat and coughing to take antipyretics and stay at home, but
invite them to hospital and immediately start treatment by administering chloroquine to the
people in suspicious cases without waiting for the results from the test results.
Turkey uses Chloroquine as well
"Koca explained that unlike the other countries, in Turkey doctors do not advise people with
symptoms such as fever, store throat and coughing to take antipyretics and stay at home, but
invite them to hospital and immediately start treatment by administering chloroquine to the
people in suspicious cases without waiting for the results from the test results.
...
The very fact that the US medical establishment approved use of hydroxychloroquine under
specific conditions that ensure it is used exclusively at a very late stage after the virus
has ceased to replicate guarantees that all or almost all major Western hydroxychloroquine
trials will be negative-
...
Posted by: BM | May 16 2020 13:59 utc | 91
I'm calling bullshit on that claim.
Whoever made it is an ignoramus with no knowledge, or understanding, of what Clinical Trials
involve, how many variables have to be tested, nor why it takes so long for such trials to
reach a 'safe' set of recommendations. If ever...
Unfortunately the poster doesn't state what is wrong with the claim. Assertions that
another poster is ignorant are not relevant. Neither are appeals to authority.
One does have to wonder whether it is simply a matter that the difficulty in the US
concerning early diagnosis is the real problem that makes use of the drug impractical here.
Perhaps we just don't have the resources, teams of testers and physicians and nurses, for the
accuracy and careful monitoring of patients in early stage infection required when using this
drug.
Posted by: juliania | May 16 2020 15:17 utc | 103
I'm afraid it's not anything to do with early diagnosis, it is only about profit. As Blue
Dotterel said, it is about profit, not curing patients. For Big Pharma the very last thing
they want is for the patient to be cured - a dead patient is far more profitable. No wonder
Gilead holds the more promising GS-441524 off the market, because they can make more profit
from a more expensive useless drug that will be in patent for far longer.
Big Pharma expects to make many trillions of dollars profit per year on Covid-19, as they
do on cancer. The more Covid cases, the more profits. The less effective the efforts to
reduce infections, the more profits. The less availability of PPE, the more profits. The more
chaotic and irrational the government policies, the more profit. Big Pharma profits at every
step.
They will stop at nothing to block proper trials of hydroxychloroquine - including
bribery, coercion, and sabotage, not just massive disinformation. They will spend billions
just to block
proper trials, using myriad different methods of subterfuge and subversion. That is just
small change compared to the profits they want and expect.
The entire philosophy of Western medicine is a dying patient - it is corrupt, it is
dishonest, its entire foundations are fraudulent. There is an urgent need for a whole new
paradigm for medicine that is based on maximising the health of society, not on maximising
profit.
There is a story I heard on television several decades ago - I think it was true, but I am
not certain - about an old Chinese tradition. Villagers would pay a regular monthly fee to
the doctor, as long as they stay healthy. As soon as they fall sick they stop paying, and the
doctor has to cure them (without charge). Only when they get better will they resume the
normal regular payments. Think about it, what is the best interest of the doctor towards his
patient? He has an investment in their good health. Now compare the Western system. What
interest does the doctor have in the patient's health? If the patient is sick for 4 times as
long and then dies, is the doctor richer or poorer? If the doctor gives drugs with side
effects, which need more drugs against the side effects, will he be richer or poorer? If
there are two drugs available, one cheap, one expensive, which one does the doctor
prefer?
Think about it Juliana, the last time you went to a hospital, how much did it cost? How
many useless medicines did the doctor give you, versus how many basic essential
medicines?
Western medicine is a big scam. It is a business. The second biggest business in the world
after war.
That is why I reject Western medicine. For 20 years I have used only non-Western
medicine.
Deep thanks for the comment on Remdesivir. I've seen this appraisal in the medical community
but not in any public commentary. It was developed to address Ebola and failed miserably.
Tagged "a drug looking for a disease."
Cats can get infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and do replicate it strongly in their
respiratory system. But the cats do not get sick and show no symptoms. During the study
three infected cats were each put into the same cage as a not-infected cat. They transmitted
the disease to the previously non-infected ones. The researchers tested if the viruses the
cats produce are still able to grow on human tissues. Unfortunately they are.
This means that a cat which went out of the house and met a cat who's owner has Covid-19
might come back home and infect its own human servant. Household cats may also play a role in
the infection chain between household members. Any cat owner who goes into lockdown or is
quarantined at home must also quarantine the cat. So far COVID lives in cats, Siberian
tigers, bats, pangolins, raccoon dogs, ferrets. Only commonality here is they are all
mammals. There have been a couple reports that it lives in dogs as well. If conclusions can
be drawn from this it would seem to be a simple and indiscriminate virus. And we must mask
our dogs, mask our cats, make them wear diapers if they go outside.
The novel coronavirus can survive in high temperatures, researchers said, casting doubt on
suggestions that the threat will subside in the summer.
Researchers from the University of Aix-Marseille in France, led by Remi Charrel and Boris
Pastorino, found that the virus survived in 140-degree Fahrenheit temperatures typically used
to disinfect research labs,
The Jerusalem Post reported .
It took 15 minutes of exposure to 197.6-degree temperatures to kill the virus, the newspaper
noted, adding that the study had yet to be peer-reviewed.
Researchers did say the lower temperature should be sufficient to deactivate the virus in
samples with smaller loads but added that the higher temperature was necessary for larger loads
and concluded that disinfecting chemicals were a better option.
Earlier research has reached similar conclusions.
A National Academies of Sciences (NAS) panel
told the White House in early April that previous research suggesting a connection between
temperature and the virus's transmissibility was flawed. "There is some evidence to suggest
that [the coronavirus] may transmit less efficiently in environments with higher ambient
temperature and humidity; however, given the lack of host immunity globally, this reduction in
transmission efficiency may not lead to a significant reduction in disease spread" without
efforts such as social distancing, the NAS report stated, noting that SARS and MERS are not
seasonal.
SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 , is highly infectious. Curiously, in many
patients, it triggers poor immune responses, which prolongs illness. This helps the virus
spread widely, exacerbating the global pandemic. In a new study published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences , researchers at the University of Minnesota identified
the biochemical mechanism that may explain how the virus infects people efficiently while
evading their immune responses.
This study, led by Fang Li, a professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine, examined the
mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 enters cells. Specifically, the team of scientists investigated
how the virus "unlocks" human cells using a surface spike protein as the "key." They made three
important findings:
the tip of the viral key binds strongly to human cells;
the tip of the viral key is often hidden; and
when new virus particles are made, the viral key is already pre-activated by a human
enzyme.
"Typically when a virus develops mechanisms to evade immune responses, it loses its potency
to infect people," said Li. "However, SARS-CoV-2 maintains its infectivity using two
mechanisms. First, during its limited exposure time, the tip of the viral key grabs a receptor
protein on human cells quickly and firmly. Second, the pre-activation of the viral key allows
the virus to more effectively infect human cells."
Li says that recognizing the evasiveness of SARS-CoV-2 is important for designing antibody
drugs and vaccines. Antibody drugs would need to overpower the tip of the hidden viral key by
latching onto it very quickly and tightly during its limited exposure time. Alternatively,
drugs can target other parts of the viral key that are more exposed.
Li recommends that successful antiviral strategies will need to consider both the potency of
the virus and its evasiveness.
Reference: "Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2" by Jian Shang, Yushun Wan, Chuming Luo,
Gang Ye, Qibin Geng, Ashley Auerbach and Fang Li, 6 May 2020, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences . DOI:
10.1073/pnas.2003138117
The study is coauthored by postdoctoral researchers Jian Shang, Yushun Wan, and Chuming Luo,
graduate students Gang Ye and Qibin Geng, and junior scientist Ashley Auerbach. The National
Institutes of Health funded the study.
"... I've seen this appraisal in the medical community but not in any public commentary. It was developed to address Ebola and failed miserably. Tagged "a drug looking for a disease." ..."
The remdesivir drug by the company Gilead gets hyped as a potential useful drug against the
Covid-19 disease. This even after a serious study from China published in Lancet
found it useless:
In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was
not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits.
A not completed Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial
(ACTT) by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases also found that
remdesivir does not change the mortality of serious Covid-19 cases. But it found that the
drug may lead to a faster recovery. That has led to run on the hard to produce drug and
confusion about its distribution .
But the real scandal behind this is that Gilead has a second drug, GS-441524, that is more
promising and much easier to produce. STAT published a strong call on Gilead to
release it immediately:
The authors have the suspicion that Gilead has an ignoble motive for holding back the
better drug as its patent will run out sooner:
The attractive profile of GS-441524 from both manufacturing and clinical perspectives
raises this question: Why hasn't Gilead opted to advance this compound to the clinic? We
would be remiss for not mentioning patents, and thus profits. The first patent on GS-441524
was issued in 2009, while the first patent for remdesivir was issued in 2017.
...
Given GS-441524's optimal properties, we -- along with the millions of people awaiting an
effective treatment for Covid-19 -- are left to wonder why Gilead isn't giving it the same
attention it is giving remdesivir. The world can only hope it isn't for the sake of
protecting its intellectual property.
Surely it is profit that Gilead is after? I have heard quoted that one dose of
remdesivir is about $1'000 so a "full" cure (whatever that may be) is $30'000. The second
drug is almost certainly much cheaper.
They may think about reducing the cost if they find it is being given to the cat.
Deep thanks for the comment on Remdesivir. I've seen this appraisal in the medical
community but not in any public commentary. It was developed to address Ebola and failed
miserably. Tagged "a drug looking for a disease."
Interesting *opinion* piece supporting HCQ over remdesivir. I take no position on this
argument - unlike many here - except that as I've said before, we need a *good* set of
studies on both (and every other treatment, which includes the EVMS treatment I discuss
above) and then a decent review study to interpret the results for us laymen. Perhaps that's
another case of "good luck with that" any time before, say, five or ten years from now...
Ah, the same doctor referenced above as author of the "A Tale of Two Drugs" has another
*opinion* article on the same topic - HCQ. Again, I have no idea whether her statements are
factual, although presumably her quoting the CDC on HCQ is accurate, which in itself is
interesting if true.
On duration of use: "CDC has no limits on the use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention
of malaria. When hydroxychloroquine is used at higher doses for many years, a rare eye
condition called retinopathy has occurred. People who take hydroxychloroquine for more than
five years should get regular eye exams."
NOTE: CDC guidelines for use in malaria do not even mention the "fatal heart arrhythmia"
hyped in the fear-mongering articles in the media. Rheumatology guidelines for HCQ in lupus
and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not require a baseline EKG to check heart rhythm, although
doctors might order one before prescribing HCQ if needed for a patient with heart disease.
SARS-CoV-2 itself, which can damage to the heart, may be responsible for some heart
problems now blamed on HCQ.
In this observational study involving patients with Covid-19 who had been admitted to
the hospital, hydroxychloroquine administration was not associated with either a greatly
lowered or an increased risk of the composite end point of intubation or death. Randomized,
controlled trials of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19 are needed. (Funded by the
National Institutes of Health.)"
According to what we learnt in the meantime the use of HCQ at a quite late stadium of this
illness is as meaningless as most likely the use of Remdisivir (another kind of pure
antiviral medicament) would have been. The only thing what one can learn from this study
isthat HCQ apparently did not damage people. So your sentence „...to be as false as the
promotion of the useless but potentially dangerous Hydroxychloroquine as a therapy for
Covid-19." is just nonsense.
UCSF Health Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Prevention COVID-19 Global Clinical
Knowledge Base https://tinyurl.com/y9qu3qs6
The goal of this site is to compile a comprehensive but curated directory of
publicly-available practice guidelines, clinical protocols, and other resources related to
COVID-19. We hope this resource will encourage clinicians and medical organizations to
share knowledge and compare practices with peers.
Submitted resources are reviewed by a team of medical professionals for accuracy and
relevance. We do not specifically endorse any resource posted on this site.
How coronavirus attacks the human body - The Washington Post It mostly spares the young.
Until it doesn't: Last week, doctors warned of a rare
inflammatory reaction with cardiac complications among children that may be connected to
the virus. On Friday, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) announced 73 children had fallen
severely ill in the state and a 5-year-old boy in New York City had become the first child to
die of the syndrome. Two more children had succumbed as of Saturday.
That news has shaken many doctors, who felt they were finally grasping the full dimensions
of the disease in adults. "We were all thinking this is a disease that kills old people, not
kids," Reich said.
Mount Sinai has treated five children with the condition. Reich said each started with
gastrointestinal symptoms, which turned into inflammatory complications that caused very low
blood pressure and expanded their blood vessels. This led to heart failure in the case of the
first child who died.
"The pattern of disease was different than anything else with covid," he said.
"We were all thinking this is a disease that kills old people, not kids," said David Reich,
president of Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. (Jeenah Moon/Reuters)
Of the millions, perhaps billions, of coronaviruses, six were previously known to infect
humans.
Four cause colds that spread easily each winter, barely noticed. Another was responsible for
the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome that killed 774 people in 2003. Yet another
sparked the outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2012, which kills 34 percent of the
people who contract it. But few do.
It has infected 4 million people around the globe, killing more than 280,000, according to
the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center. In the United States, 1.3 million
have been infected and more than 78,000 have died.
Had SARS or MERS spread as widely as this virus, Rasmussen said, they might have shown the
same capacity to attack beyond the lungs. But they were snuffed out quickly, leaving only a
small sample of disease and death.
Paramedics bring home a woman with covid-19 who underwent an emergency C-section because she
was gravely ill. After extensive care, including time on a ventilator, she was released from a
hospital in Stamford, Conn., and she has a healthy newborn. (John Moore/Getty Images)
Trying to define a pathogen in the midst of an ever-spreading epidemic is fraught with
difficulties. Experts say it will be years until it is understood how the disease damages
organs and how medications, genetics, diets, lifestyles and distancing impact its course.
"This is a virus that literally did not exist in humans six months ago," said Geoffrey
Barnes, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan who works in cardiovascular
medicine. "We had to rapidly learn how this virus impacts the human body and identify ways to
treat it literally in a time-scale of weeks. With many other diseases, we have had
decades."
In the initial days of the outbreak, most efforts focused on the lungs. SARS-CoV-2 infects
both the upper and lower respiratory tracts, eventually working its way deep into the lungs,
filling tiny air sacs with cells and fluid that choke off the flow of oxygen.
But many scientists have come to believe that much of the disease's devastation comes from
two intertwined causes.
The first is the
harm the virus wreaks on blood vessels, leading to clots that can range from microscopic to
sizable. Patients have suffered strokes and pulmonary emboli as clots break loose and travel to
the brain and lungs. A study in the Lancet, a British medical journal, showed this may be
because the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels.
The second is an exaggerated response from the body's own immune system, a storm of killer
"cytokines" that attack the body's own cells along with the virus as it seeks to defend the
body from an invader.
"Things change in science all the time. Theories are made and thrown out. Hypotheses are
tweaked. It doesn't mean we don't know what we are doing. It means we are learning," said
Deepak Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital
in Boston.
Inflammation of those endothelial cells lining blood vessels may help explain why the virus
harms so many parts of the body, said Mandeep Mehra, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical
School and one of the authors of the Lancet study on how covid-19 attacks blood
vessels.
Subtitle Settings Font Font Size Font Edge Font Color Background The novel coronavirus is a master of disguise: Here's how it works Skip
That means defeating covid-19 will require more than antiviral therapy, he said.
"What this virus does is it starts as a viral infection and becomes a more global
disturbance to the immune system and blood vessels -- and what kills is exactly that," Mehra
said. "Our hypothesis is that covid-19 begins as a respiratory virus and kills as a
cardiovascular virus."
The thinking of kidney specialists has evolved along similar lines. Initially, they
attributed widespread and severe kidney disease to the damage caused by ventilators and certain
medications given to intensive-care patients, said Daniel Batlle, a professor of medicine at
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
Then they noticed damage to the waste-filtering kidney cells of patients even before they
needed intensive care. And studies out of Wuhan found the pathogen in the kidneys themselves,
leading to speculation the virus is harming the organ.
"There was nothing unique at first," Batlle said. But the new information "shows this is
beyond the regular bread-and-butter acute kidney injury that we normally see."
Like other coronaviruses, SARS-Cov-2 infiltrates the body by attaching to a receptor, ACE2,
found on some cells. But the makeup of the spikes that protrude from this virus is somewhat
different, allowing the virus to bind more tightly. As a result, fewer virus particles are
required to infect the host. This also may help explain why this virus is so much more
infectious than SARS, Rasmussen said.
Other factors can't be ruled out in transmission, she said, including the amount of virus
people shed and how strictly they observe social distancing rules.
Once inside a cell, the virus replicates, causing chaos. ACE2 receptors, which help regulate
blood pressure, are plentiful in the lungs, kidneys and intestines -- organs hit hard by the
pathogen in many patients. That also may be why high blood pressure has emerged as one of the
most common preexisting conditions in people who become severely ill with
covid-19.
A colorized scan of a cell (shown in red) infected with SARS-COV-2 virus particles (shown in
yellow), isolated from a patient sample. (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases)
The receptors differ from person to person, leading to speculation that genetics may explain
some of the variability in symptoms and how sick some people become.
Those cells "are almost everywhere, so it makes sense that the virus would cause damage
throughout the body," said Mitchell Elkind, a professor of neurology at Columbia University's
College of Physicians and Surgeons and president-elect of the American Heart Association.
Inflammation spurs clotting as white blood cells fight off infection. They interact with
platelets and activate them in a way that increases the likelihood of clotting, Elkind
said.
Such reactions have been seen in severe infections, such as sepsis. But for covid-19, he
said, "we are seeing this in a large number of people in a very short time, so it really stands
out."
"The virus can attack a lot of different parts of the body, and we don't understand why it
causes some problems for some people, different problems for others -- and no problems at all
for a large proportion," Elkind said.
Coughlin, in critical condition at a hospital in Connecticut, deteriorated quickly after she
reached the emergency room. Her fever shot up to 105 and pneumonia developed in her lungs.
On Wednesday, she called her six daughters on FaceTime, telling them doctors advised she go
on a ventilator.
"If something happens to me, and I don't make it, I'm at peace with it," she told them.
The conversation broke daughter Coleman's heart.
"I am deciding to help her go on a ventilator, and she may never come off," she said. "That
could have been my last phone conversation with her."
Illustrations from iStock. Edited byCarol Eisenberg. Photo
editing byNick Kirkpatrick.
Copy-edited by Jennifer Anderson and Thomas Floyd. Design and development byTyler
Remmel.
The small, handheld units, which normally attach to your finger or toe, monitor your
oxygen-saturation level -- which, if that level dips below 90%, can be an indicator that you have
COVID-19.
"Oximeters measure how efficient the lungs are at getting the blood filled with oxygen," Dr. Eric Cioe-Pena,
director of global health at
Northwell Health
,
tells The Post. "Most healthy people's reading of oxygen in the blood is 100%.
"We are seeing lower levels in coronavirus patients because the virus impedes their ability to
oxygenate the blood. There is fluid, instead of air, in their lungs, and so, when the blood passes
through those organs, it doesn't get oxygen."
The doctor, based in New Hyde Park, LI, adds that he has treated COVID-19 sufferers with blood-oxygen
levels as low as 55% and even 27%.
Speaking on his radio show, Cohen, 51, said, "You could scare yourself and think: 'Oh my God, my lungs
don't feel right,' but you could use this pulse oximeter and see, OK, actually, you're fine, you're
within the range." CNN host Chris Cuomo, 49, who currently
has the coronavirus
, has also been testing his oxygen levels daily using an oximeter, according to
his wife, Cristina, who
shared an extensive update
on Cuomo's health earlier this week.
No wonder people are scrambling to purchase their own oximeters, which can be found at pharmacies and
online for anywhere from $20 to $50.
But Cioe-Pena maintains that healthy people don't need them. Not only that, a rush on the devices
could cause problems at hospitals and other emergency facilities that require them, similar to the
situation that played out over N95 masks and
other gear for essential medical workers
.
"The issue is supply and demand," explains Cioe-Pena, adding that the information given by an oximeter
about oxygen is really "only good if you have the ability to supply supplementary oxygen, like you can in
a hospital." He notes as well that folks with "underlying conditions such as diabetes, hypertension or
chronic lung disease" might need to have access to oximeters more than the average healthy person with
fears of contracting the coronavirus.
"... According to the Mayo Clinic, a normal pulse oximeter oxygen level reading is between 95% and 100% , and anything less than 90% is considered dangerously low, or hypoxic. Some doctors have reported COVID-19 patients entering the hospital with oxygen levels at 50% or below . ..."
Some doctors are recommending these small, inexpensive devices to help monitor
symptoms.
A pulse oximeter attaches to a finger and uses light to detect the level of oxygen in your blood.
As
coronavirus
testing efforts
continue to ramp up and
face masks
are now a part of everyday life, a small diagnostic tool that clips to the tip of your
finger is fast becoming a must-have gadget in the
fight
against the coronavirus
. It's called a pulse oximeter, and it painlessly checks your blood oxygen
level, which can be affected by lung diseases such as COVID-19.
The device was already starting to surge in popularity as word got around
that people with the
coronavirus
frequently
arrive
at the hospital with abnormally low oxygen levels
. After an
op-ed
piece in The New York Times
recommended the use of pulse oximeters to detect a frightening
condition called "silent hypoxia," sales of the devices
skyrocketed
.
Many models are sold out or on lengthy backorder online. Same with brick-and-mortar drug stores,
supermarkets and box stores.
At least five US teams have cloned antibodies to Covid-19, paving the way for cutting-edge
treatments that could be what one researcher calls "an immunity bridge" before a vaccine comes
along. The treatment is monoclonal antibody therapy, and the antibodies come from people who
have recovered from the novel coronavirus. Researchers then take the blood, select the most
potent antibodies, and make them into a drug. One company, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, hopes to
have a treatment available to patients as early as the end of the summer. "I think monoclonal
antibody therapy has enormous promise as the next big thing for Covid-19," said Dr. Peter
Hotez, a vaccine specialist at Baylor University School of Medicine who is not involved in the
research. Monoclonal antibody therapy is a modern take on convalescent plasma, where someone
who has recovered from coronavirus donates blood to someone who is currently ill. Read More
Even if convalescent plasma is effective -- it's still being studied -- it has two
shortcomings. First, one person can only give so much blood. Second, the donor might not have
enough strong antibodies for the blood donation to be effective. To develop a monoclonal
antibody treatment, researchers cull through thousands of antibodies to find the best ones, and
then clone them potentially in unlimited amounts. Many other illnesses are treated with
monoclonal antibodies, such as various forms of cancer, HIV, asthma, lupus, multiple sclerosis
and various forms of cancer, but of course there's no guarantee it could work for Covid-19.
<img alt="What happens if a coronavirus vaccine is never developed? It has happened before"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200428210047-coronavirus-new-york-0320-large-169.jpg">What
happens if a coronavirus vaccine is never developed? It has happened before "One of the
things about the search is it's a little bit like finding a needle in a haystack. We're all
searching for the magical antibody that's a silver bullet," said Dr. James Crowe, who's leading
the Covid-19 monoclonal antibody effort at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Regeneron is
hoping to start clinical trials for an antibody treatment for coronavirus in humans as soon as
next month, and if everything goes right, perhaps have a treatment ready for widespread
distribution by the end of the summer. "We generated thousands of [antibodies] and then
selected the most powerful and potent ones to grow up into an antibody cocktail," said company
president Dr. George Yancopoulos. Like any treatment under development, it might not pan out.
But if it does, it could treat coronavirus and possibly also prevent infection for a period of
time. A vaccine would likely offer longer lasting immunity, but that would likely take longer
to develop, with the earliest estimates set at January. "I think antibodies will be finished
first, and will be the bridge toward longer immunity, which will be conferred by vaccines,"
said Crowe, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
'A guided nuclear warhead' In mid-January, researchers at the Rockefeller University in
New York City heard from the National Institutes of Health: Get to work because we hope to have
coronavirus antibodies cloned by the spring. About two months later, Rockefeller researcher
Jill Horowitz found herself handing out fliers outside a supermarket in New Rochelle, New York,
inviting people who'd recovered from coronavirus to learn more about the Rockefeller study.
<img alt="They won the fight against coronavirus. Here&#39;s what life looks like on
the other side"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200416042613-03-coronavirus-recovery-large-169.jpg">They won the
fight against coronavirus. Here's what life looks like on the other side The city -- and in
particular one synagogue -- had been hit hard by a coronavirus outbreak. "I'm Jewish, and I'm
Orthodox, and I know people at Young Israel. I have friends in New Rochelle. Our kids went to
school together, so I could go into the community and make my case," said Horowitz, executive
director of strategic operations in the immunology laboratory at Rockefeller. In all, more than
100 people donated blood for the study, many of them from the New Rochelle community. Some of
their stories will be told in an upcoming documentary, " Rebel Blood The Race to Cure Covid-19 ." The lead scientist in
Rockefeller's monoclonal antibody effort compares it to battle, noting that convalescent plasma
has been used for more than a century. "If you're thinking about a war, and you're fighting a
war with a drug that came out of the early part of the 20thcentury, the monoclonal antibody is
like a guided nuclear warhead in comparison," said Dr. Michel Nussenzweig, a professor at
Rockefeller. Research by several US teams Several other US teams also say they've cloned
antibodies, including Vanderbilt, Regeneron, Lilly Pharmaceuticals and Distributed Bio.
Regeneron anticipates starting clinical trials next month and hopes to provide "hundreds of
thousands of doses" to patients by the end of the summer, Yancopoulos said. The company already
makes monoclonal antibodies for several illnesses, including cancer, arthritis and asthma.
"We're using the same exact technology now to come up with a specific tailored approach against
Covid-19," Yancopoulos said. Get CNN Health's weekly newsletter Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay
Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team. Other companies gave a longer timeline. For
example, Crowe, the doctor at Vanderbilt, said he anticipates it will be around the first
quarter of next year before his team might have a Covid monoclonal antibody treatment ready to
distribute. He said it's a good sign that several teams are working on monoclonal antibodies.
"I think the more groups we have working on it, all the better, and the more shots on goal we
have for getting an effective prevention or treatment," he said.
CNN's Dr. Minali Nigam, Devon Sayers and Wes Bruer contributed to this report.
Does Dr Fauci enjoy indirect financial ties to Gilead? Does he own the stock?
Notable quotes:
"... Basically, this was a negative trial. Of the 255 patients screened, 237 met the eligibility criteria, and 158 were assigned to the remdesivir group, with 79 assigned to placebo control. Unfortunately, remdesivir treatment was not associated with a shorter time to clinical improvement, and mortality was not different between the two groups. ..."
"... It does look very fishy to me. Endpoint or outcome switching, particularly late in a clinical trial is a huge red flag. ..."
"... There are also other reasons to question this trial, including how no confidence intervals were reported, that not even an abstract was published, just a press release with, as Heathers put it, "two results in four lines": ..."
"... I remain very suspicious that the NIH study was announced the same day that a negative study out of China of remdesivir was published. It just seems too convenient. Maybe I'm being overly suspicious. Maybe I'm too suspicious. Maybe I'm falling prey to conspiracy mongering. However, in the Trump era, when the Trump administration has politicized previously (mostly) apolitical government agencies as never before, it's hard not to wonder. ..."
"... He was unimpressed by remdesivir's modest benefit. "It was expected to be a whopping effect," Topol added. "It clearly does not have that." ..."
"... Indeed, given that the pre-test probability of remdesivir having a significant effect was low, meaning that this trial is probably just noise: ..."
"... But Gilead will make billions and billions of dollars ..."
"... Could Anthony Fauci explain why the investigators of the NIAID remdesivir trial did change the primary outcome during the course of the project (16th April)? Removing "death" from primary outcome is a surprising decision. ..."
"... The most common adverse effects in studies of remdesivir for COVID-19 include respiratory failure and blood biomarkers of organ impairment, including low albumin, low potassium, low count of red blood cells, low count of platelets that help with clotting, and yellow discoloration of the skin. Other reported side effects include gastrointestinal distress, elevated transaminase levels in the blood (liver enzymes), and infusion site reactions. ..."
"... So, if it does shorten duration, is it worth potential liver damage, respiratory failure and organ impairment? In other words is the cure potentially as bad as the disease. ..."
"... For yet another drug that was supposed to be a game changer, I am unimpressed by its results. The whole mechanism is wrong. A drug with this mechanism would need to be almost a prophylactic for it to be hugely effective. ..."
"... Fauci didn't seem to have any problem cautioning against unwarranted optimism for CQ/HCQ even while DJT was championing the stuff. What is different about this? . ..."
"... So, what did Fauci say about chloroquine? ""We've got to be careful that we don't make that majestic leap to assume that this is a knockout drug. We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitely prove whether any intervention is truly safe and effective," Fauci, who is also a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said during an interview on "Fox & Friends. . . "We don't operate on how you feel, we operate on what evidence and data is," Fauci said, adding that it was "not a very robust study" or "overwhelmingly strong."" (Concha, 2020 Apr 3) ..."
"... Now, what did he say about Remdesivir: "Speaking to reporters from the White House, Fauci said he was told data from the trial showed a "clear-cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover." Fauci said the median time of recovery for patients taking the drug was 11 days, compared with 15 days in the placebo group. He said the mortality benefit of remdesivir "has not yet reached statistical significance." ..."
"... Disappointingly, the lock down seems to have made a number of people irrational. Just a quick post to expound on my Fauci post for those who see the world as binary – ie: black or white. These people think you either support Fauci 100% or 0% and a single criticism of any Fauci statement means 0% support of Fauci. I do not happen to worship at the altar of Fauci or any scientist and recognize all are subject to errors – including myself. I view the world in a more nuanced manner than those with the black/white delusion. I find I can disagree with some things a person says or stands for and agree with some other things they say or do. ..."
"... I am of the opinion that Fauci made a mistake here. The evidence for Remdesiver is nowhere near good enough for it to become the standard of care. ..."
"... On the other hand, watching the White House performance from afar, I can see the administration is dysfunctional and is run by a narcissistic bully, who will publicly turn on anyone who disagrees with them. ..."
"... I believe that is the main thrust of this Orac article – that the evidence for Remdesiver efficacy is sorely lacking. ..."
Remdesivir: Gilead wins with unimpressive results announced by press release On Wednesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced positive
results for the antiviral drug remdesivir treating COVID-19. They were unimpressive and, suspiciously, announced by press release
rather than scientific paper. It's all very fishy, but one thing's for sure. Gilead Sciences will make boatloads of money.
I've been writing a lot about the unjustified and
premature hype
over hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug with mild immunosuppressive activity that is also used to treat rheumatoid arthritis
and other autoimmune diseases and how the drug probably doesn't work against COVID-19, despite its being
hyped by President
Trump and his sycophants, toadies, and lackeys on Fox News,
Dr. Mehmet Oz ,
Dr. Phil , Dr. Didier Raoult
, and a
bevy of irresponsible fame seeking doctors who have no idea how to do a proper clinical study.
There are, however, other drugs
being hyped out there, drugs that might actually have a better chance of turning out to be effective treatments for COVID-19. Chief
among these is remdesivir, the experimental antiviral drug being tested by Gilead Sciences.
Remdesivir is an adenosine (a nucleotide) analog that inhibits
viral RNA polymerases. It is incorporated into RNA made by the virus, causing the premature termination of the RNA molecule, thus
interfering with viral replication. The drug was originally developed to treat Ebola and Marburg but was ultimately found to be
ineffective against these viruses . Because it inhibits the replication
of a number of RNA viruses, it was only natural that it would be considered as a possible treatment for COVID-19, and Gilead has
been relentlessly promoting it as such as the company has been working to carry out clinical trials.
White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday that data from a coronavirus drug trial testing Gilead Sciences'
antiviral drug remdesivir showed "quite good news" and sets a new standard of care for Covid-19 patients.
Speaking to reporters from the White House, Fauci said he was told data from the trial showed a "clear-cut positive effect
in diminishing time to recover."
Fauci said the median time of recovery for patients taking the drug was 11 days, compared with 15 days in the placebo group.
He said the mortality benefit of remdesivir "has not yet reached statistical significance."
The results suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the
placebo group, according to a statement from the National Institutes of Health released later Wednesday.
"This will be the standard of care," Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, added. "When
you know a drug works, you have to let people in the placebo group know so they can take it."
My skeptical antennae started twitching immediately, because on the same day a study from China was published in
The Lancet that
was far less impressive. In fact, it was a negative trial. What also got my skeptical antennae all aflutter twitching away was how
the results of the remdesivir trial were announced. Normally, when a study is announced to the press, it's upon publication of the
paper, and the press release is issued either the same day or the evening before publication. As of last night, as I wrote this,
however, the actual paper reporting the results of the clinical trial had not yet been published. As I perused Twitter on Wednesday,
I found even more reasons for skepticism.
So, before I get to the study touted by Dr. Fauci, let's review some history.
Remdesivir: The early days versus COVID-19 (like, you know, three weeks ago)
The first data published on remdesivir was a single-arm uncontrolled trial that somehow got published three weeks ago in
The New England Journal of Medicine . This was
peak COVID-19 publishing, when an uncontrolled case series of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir under compassionate
was published in a super high impact journal like NEJM and made headlines as a result. Be that as it may, the case series examined
61 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing room air or
who were receiving oxygen support. They received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg given intravenously on day 1,
followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. (Remdesivir is an intravenous drug.) The authors reported clinical
improvement in 68% of evaluable patients:
Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with
no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States,
22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support
class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were
discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of
19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.
The case series also did not collect viral load data to confirm potential antiviral activity in humans or any association between
declines in viral load and clinical improvement. Basically, when you get right down to it, this study was not really much better
than Didier Raoult's crappy
study of his hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combination, but that didn't stop the authors from concluding that comparisons with
contemporaneous cohorts "suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe Covid-19." In reality, like Raoult's
trials, this trial said nothing about the efficacy of remdesivir against COVID-19 other than that the drug could be given to COVID-19
patients with a reasonable safety profile.
Less than week later, as
related by Derek Lowe , came news that two clinical trials of remdesivir in China, one for
severe disease and one
for moderate disease
had been suspended. (They still are.) Lowe noted that both trials had the notice: "The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well
at present, no eligible patients can be recruited." The apparent explanation was "the stringent inclusion criteria for the trials
– apparently patients had to have no previous therapy with any other experimental agent to enroll, and that eliminates a lot
of people." Around the same time, Adam Feuerstein and Matthew Herper published a story in STAT,
Early peek at data on Gilead coronavirus drug suggests patients are responding to treatment :
The University of Chicago Medicine recruited 125 people with Covid-19 into Gilead's two Phase 3 clinical trials. Of those people,
113 had severe disease. All the patients have been treated with daily infusions of remdesivir.
"The best news is that most of our patients have already been discharged, which is great. We've only had two patients perish,"
said Kathleen Mullane, the University of Chicago infectious disease specialist overseeing the remdesivir studies for the hospital.
Her comments were made this week during a video discussion about the trial results with other University of Chicago faculty
members. The discussion was recorded and STAT obtained a copy of the video.
Derek Lowe
discussed this story in depth, and I largely agree with him that the leak of the video to STAT was a serious breach of clinical
trial ethics and protocol. (I'm not alone in suspecting that it was almost certainly intentional to jack up Gilead's stock price,
a result that was achieved.) Lowe also noted:
But now that it's out there, let's talk about what's in the leak. Gilead stock jumped like a spawning salmon in after-market
trading on this, and one of the reasons was that that 113 of the 125 patients were classed as having "severe disease". People
ran with the idea that these must have been people on ventilators who were walking out of the hospital, but that is not the case.
As AndyBiotech pointed out on Twitter,
all you had to do was read the trial's exclusion criteria
: patients were not even admitted into the trial if they were on mechanical ventilation. Some will have moved on to ventilation
during the trial, but we don't know how many (the trial protocol has these in a separate group).
Note also that this trial is open-label; both doctors and patients know who is getting what, and note the really key point:
there is no control arm. This is one of the trials mentioned in this post on small-molecule therapies as being the most likely
to read out first, but it's always been clear that the tradeoff for that speed is rigor. The observational paper that was published
on remdesivir in the NEJM had no controls either, of course, and that made it hard to interpret. Scratch that, it made it impossible
to interpret. It will likely be the same with this trial – the comparison is between a five-day course of remdesivir and a ten-day
course, and the primary endpoint is the odds ratio for improvement between the two groups.
Again, these data, such as they are, are no more useful than Didier Raoult's data on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat
COVID-19, but this brings us to the Chinese trial published in
The Lancet on Wednesday.
The Chinese randomized clinical trial
The Chinese trial
published two days ago is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19,
but it was also one of the studies halted. Eligible patients were adults admitted to the hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2
whose symptoms had lasted less than 12 days before enrollment and who had an oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less or a ratio
of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less (another measure of hypoxia), and radiologically
confirmed pneumonia.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir at the same dose as the NIH trial touted
by Dr. Fauci or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days and were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons,
and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined at the time from randomization to
the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged
alive from hospital, whichever came first. An intention-to-treat analysis was carried out.
Basically, this was a negative trial. Of the 255 patients screened, 237 met the eligibility criteria, and 158 were assigned to
the remdesivir group, with 79 assigned to placebo control. Unfortunately, remdesivir treatment was not associated with a shorter
time to clinical improvement, and mortality was not different between the two groups. Subgroup analysis looking for hypotheses found
that there was a trend towards a shorter duration of symptoms (not statistically significant) in patients treated with remdesivir
who had had symptoms for less than ten days. Most disappointingly, there was no detectable difference in viral load between the remdesivir
groups and the placebo controls. Again, basically this was a negative study with only the barest hint that remdesivir might -- I
repeat, might -- work if administered earlier in the course of COVID-19. That's some pretty thin gruel.
Which brings us to the NIH trial of remdesivir touted by Anthony Fauci.
The NIH press release for its remdesivir trial.
The results of the NIH remdesivir trial can, unfortunately, only be gleaned from the press release and
news stories so far:
For the first time, a major study suggests that an experimental drug works against the new coronavirus, and U.S. government
officials said Wednesday that they would work to make it available to appropriate patients as quickly as possible.
In a study of 1,063 patients sick enough to be hospitalized, Gilead Sciences's remdesivir shortened the time to recovery by
31% -- 11 days on average versus 15 days for those just given usual care, officials said. The drug also might be reducing deaths,
although that's not certain from the partial results revealed so far.
"What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus," the National Institutes of Health's Dr. Anthony Fauci said.
"This will be the standard of care," and any other potential treatments will now have to be tested against or in combination
with remdesivir, he said.
Here is the
press release , posted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases website:
Hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement who received remdesivir recovered faster than similar patients
who received placebo, according to a preliminary data analysis from a randomized, controlled trial involving 1063 patients, which
began on February 21. The trial (known as the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial, or ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, is the first clinical trial launched in
the United States to evaluate an experimental treatment for COVID-19.
An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their
interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo
from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study
was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.
Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received
placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15
days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving
remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).
More detailed information about the trial results, including more comprehensive data, will be available in a forthcoming report.
As part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's commitment to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19
treatments, the agency has been engaged in sustained and ongoing discussions with Gilead Sciences regarding making remdesivir
available to patients as quickly as possible, as appropriate. The trial closed to new enrollments on April 19. NIAID will also
provide an update on the plans for the ACTT trial moving forward. This trial was an adaptive trial designed to incorporate additional
investigative treatments.
As you can see, the difference in mortality was not statistically significantly different, although that could just be because
of inadequate numbers. It's also very important to note the part about the adaptive trial design of this trial, which puts Dr. Fauci's
comment about how remdesivir will become the "standard of care" going forward into the proper context. In this
particular trial , multiple different drugs can be
compared to placebo or standard of care. The idea is that, if a signal of efficacy is found with one drug, that drug becomes "standard
of care" and the trial is adapted to study how adding other experimental drugs compares to the "standard of care." So what Dr. Fauci
meant was that, based on the finding, going forward remdesivir will become the "standard of care" arm for the trial and the experimental
arm will become remdesivir plus another experimental therapeutic. However, given that the FDA is on the
verge
of issuing an emergency use authorization for remdesivir to treat COVID-19, it looks as though remdesivir will become standard-of-care
in general soon.
But back to the results. Derek Lowe observed:
it's worth noting that had there been "clear and substantial evidence of a treatment difference" during the trial that the
DSMB was to have halted the study at that point. We can infer that nothing rose to that level, then: we have a difference, but
not substantial enough to have ended the trial prematurely.
It's also worth noting some things posted on Twitter about the trial. For instance, Waller Gellad noted:
It's very odd that the primary endpoint was changed:
Thread that summarizes my concerns with Remdesivir press release (not science) as well.
Changing the endpoint midtrial this way is like hosting a race for one destination then declaring wherever you end up after
running for an hour is the finish line. https://t.co/XMUXYW3njp
I'll summarize, so that you don't have to scroll through a Twitter thread if you don't want to. As James Heathers and Waller Gellad
noted, the original primary outcome of the trial when it was registered on March 20. The original primary endpoint of the trial was
an 8-point severity scale (death, on ventilator, hospitalized with oxygen, all the way down to discharged with no limits on activity)
but was changed to time to recovery. There's still a similar scale for the secondary endpoints, but no numbers for that were reported.
(Any bets on whether the results are negative?) This change was apparently made on or around April 16.
Gellad also notes:
last thing:
Here is the results table for the negative lancet trial of remdesivir. The highlighted results are what the primary outcome for
the NIH trial was until 2 weeks ago. https://t.co/niQ65zgLF2
It does look very fishy to me. Endpoint or outcome switching, particularly late in a clinical trial is a huge red flag.
Don't get me wrong. There can be legitimate scientific reasons to switch primary endpoints of a trial. as James Heathers
puts it:
Sometimes it becomes clear after you start that the registration is incomplete or wrong. Sometimes you have a better idea after
you start. Sometimes your thinking changes.
Other times, you're trying to cherry-pick the results.
There are also other reasons to question this trial, including how no confidence intervals were reported, that not even an abstract
was published, just a press release with, as Heathers put it, "two results in four lines":
(2) the results in the press release. I call this 'two results, four sentences' – press releases describe the results in incredibly
brief terms, usually the two most positive outcomes w the briefest explanation possible. He's me bitching about it earlier.
https://t.co/FQlaAQaytG
Basically, if you have two "good" results and twenty "bad" or uninterpretable results, what do you do? What are you going to tell
people? The two "good" results, of course!
Gary Schwitzer has
a nice
summary of the negative reactions to the trial and how it was announced.
The bottom line
I remain very suspicious that the NIH study was announced the same day that a negative study out of China of remdesivir was published.
It just seems too convenient. Maybe I'm being overly suspicious. Maybe I'm too suspicious. Maybe I'm falling prey to conspiracy mongering.
However, in the Trump era, when the Trump administration has politicized previously (mostly) apolitical government agencies as never
before, it's hard not to wonder.
Adding to my suspicion is the fact that the study was reported in a press release, rather than being published, which makes me
wonder if the press release was written to counter the negative study from China that would certainly have tanked Gilead's stock
prices. Yes, I know that the press release reported that this decis, apparently the announcement was decided upon after April 27
meeting of the data and safety monitoring board overseeing this trial, but the outcome switching so late in the trial makes me very
suspicious. Yes, the explanation, which should have been in the press release, along with an acknowledgment that the primary outcome/endpoint
had been changed, but wasn't is not unreasonable:
Then there was
this news report in which Fauci claimed that concerns about leaks fueled the announcement:
He expressed concern that leaks of partial information would lead to confusion. Since the White House was not planning a daily
virus briefing, Fauci said he was invited to release the news at a news conference with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards(D). "It
was purely driven by ethical concerns," Fauci told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"I would love to wait to present it at a scientific meeting, but it's just not in the cards when you have a situation where
the ethical concern about getting the drug to people on placebo dominates the conversation."
An independent data safety and monitoring board, which had looked at the preliminary results of the NIAID trial, determined
it had met its primary goal of reducing hospital stays.
On Tuesday evening, that information was conveyed in a conference call to scientists studying the drug globally.
"There are literally dozens and dozens of investigators around the world," Fauci said. "People were starting to leak it." But
he did not give details of where the unreported data was being shared.
I smell bullshit here. What probably really happened is that he was under enormous pressure to release the results. It was also
unwise to discuss the results with so many scientists until the manuscript reporting the results of the trial had at least been submitted
for publication. I agree with the scientists who had "expected it [the trial data] to be presented simultaneously in a detailed news
release, a briefing at a medical meeting or in a scientific journal, allowing researchers to review the data." I also agree with
Dr. Eric Topol, referring to the Chinese RCT and this one:
"That's the only thing I'll hang my hat on, and that was negative," said Dr. Eric Topol, director and founder of the Scripps
Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California.
He was unimpressed by remdesivir's modest benefit. "It was expected to be a whopping effect," Topol added. "It clearly does not have that."
Indeed, given that the pre-test probability of remdesivir having a significant effect was low, meaning that this trial is probably
just noise:
Unfortunately, by the time you are symptomatic with a virus, you are usually already high/peak viral load. So, when you give
an antiviral to someone who is already ill, the damage from the virus is largely done. It's there in big numbers and in the cells.
Indeed, I'm not only unimpressed with the modest benefit reported, I question whether there really was any benefit at all, particularly
in light of the Chinese trial, which found zero difference in viral load in the remdesivir group.
The whole thing looks damned fishy, and we can't judge the study until it's actually published. Meanwhile, whatever the true reasons
for releasing the study results this way, mission accomplished. The negative effect of the Chinese study on Gilead's stock price
was successfully countered and remdesivir becomes a de facto standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Worse, no
further trials of remdesivir versus placebo will be possible, because it's been declared that remdesivir "works" against COVID-19
and is the new standard of care! As Mark Hoofnagle put it in a great Twitter thread, that echoes my thoughts:
By the end of the day, reports that FDA is going to emergently approve remdesivir for treatment of COVID.
Gilead gets what they want. No one will want to be in a control arm in further trials and they will argue all future trials
must be noninferiority.
Absolute genius. You have to salute them. On the day a negative trial of their drug is reported, based on a press release they
took over the news cycle, and with some midstream edits to their endpoints their now "positive" trial wins them FDA approval and
a halted trial.
It's worse than that. If remdesivir is now the "standard of care" for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, it now becomes unethical
to randomize them to a placebo group testing ANY new drug for COVID-19. Trials will now have to compare remdesivir alone to remdesivir
plus experimental drug. We'll probably never know now for sure if remdesivir is truly effective against COVID-19.
But Gilead will make billions and billions of dollars.
Drs. Vladimir Zelenko and Stephen Smith have been claiming that hydroxychloroquine is a miracle drug based on anecdotes. Their
shoddy, poorly reported case series are not evidence of efficacy.
President Trump's COVID-19 advisors include Dr. Oz, Rudy Giuliani, and Peter Navarro, the latter an economist who thinks he can
science better than Anthony Fauci. Can science- and evidence-based medicine prevail with respect to hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus?
By Orac Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone,
somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to
himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as
David Gorski
...
In long twitter exchange mainly led by James Heathers, has anyone noticed that there are a series of tweets by Didier Raoult ?
One tweet reads:
Could Anthony Fauci explain why the investigators of the NIAID remdesivir trial did change the primary outcome during the
course of the project (16th April)? Removing "death" from primary outcome is a surprising decision.
In a quick search of the web I found the following two:
WHAT ARE SIDE EFFECTS OF REMDESIVIR (RDV)?
In the Ebola trial, researchers noted side effects of remdesivir (RDV) that included:
Increased liver enzyme levels that may indicate possible liver damage
Researchers documented similar increases in liver enzymes in three U.S. COVID-19 patients
The most common adverse effects in studies of remdesivir for COVID-19 include respiratory failure and blood biomarkers of organ
impairment, including low albumin, low potassium, low count of red blood cells, low count of platelets that help with clotting,
and yellow discoloration of the skin. Other reported side effects include gastrointestinal distress, elevated transaminase levels
in the blood (liver enzymes), and infusion site reactions.
Other possible side effects of remdesivir include:
Infusion‐related reactions. Infusion‐related reactions have been seen during a remdesivir infusion or around the time remdesivir
was given.[8] Signs and symptoms of infusion‐related reactions may include: low blood pressure, nausea, vomiting, sweating, and
shivering.
Increases in levels of liver enzymes, seen in abnormal liver blood tests. Increases in levels of liver enzymes have been seen
in people who have received remdesivir, which may be a sign of inflammation or damage to cells in the liver.
So, if it does shorten duration, is it worth potential liver damage, respiratory failure and organ impairment? In other words
is the cure potentially as bad as the disease.
And, as Orac and many commenters have made more than clear, one more example of Trump's government, ignoring science, and jumping
to conclusions.
For yet another drug that was supposed to be a game changer, I am unimpressed by its results. The whole mechanism is wrong. A
drug with this mechanism would need to be almost a prophylactic for it to be hugely effective.
One thing they discovered is that the proteins involved have zinc atoms incorporated into their structure. This won't surprise
any biochemists, as zinc-containing proteins are common. But there's been a steady flow of fringe treatments for the disease --
including some involving chloroquine derivatives -- in which zinc was a key component. We'll have to see whether that changes
now that it's clear that zinc is needed to make copies of the virus (assuming that fact registers at all with the people
prone to promoting fringe therapies).
What is that saying about zinc? I've always heard that zinc was a good thing to have a high intracellular level of it to protect
against viruses besides also being needed to make NO.
So: "Fauci just dropped down a level or two in my estimation of his commitment to rationality."
Let's look at the "Reality": "America needs a federal government that assertively promotes and helps to coordinate that, not one
in which experts like Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx tiptoe around a president's tender ego."
I wouldn't want to be in Fauchi's shoes. If he openly criticizes Trump, he is out and staying in allows him to have some effect.
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. So, he has to balance his "committment to rationality" to trying to modify/reduce the
insanity of Trump. If he resigned or was fired, could he have more of an influence? Maybe, maybe not. I would not want to be in his
shoes! ! ! Personally, I would probably resign and try to get our media to listen to me. Just standing next to Trump would turn my
stomach.
So, maybe you should live up to your "name" and evaluate "reality" not an idealistic world.
So you wouldn't say what Fauci said and would quit, eh, Joel?
I wouldn't say what Fauci said about "standard of care" which is basically his endorsement of this.
I believe Orac wouldn't make that statement endorsing Remdesivir as the "standard of care".
I don't know of any self-respecting scientist who would make such a statement no matter what the pressure.
If I was pressured by DJT I would object but maybe agree to not make any statement pro or con about the subject – so as to keep my
position and influence but if someone asked me to say something I thought was not true I would not do it and refuse.
. Fauci didn't seem to have any problem cautioning against unwarranted optimism for CQ/HCQ even while DJT was championing the stuff.
What is different about this?
.
You write: "Fauci didn't seem to have any problem cautioning against unwarranted optimism for CQ/HCQ even while DJT was championing
the stuff. What is different about this?"
Yep; but the only studies promoting CQ/HCQ was a fraudulent one in France and an in vitro study.
What about Remdesivir? First it is a nucleic acid analogue designed to directly disrupt replication of the viral genome. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine
were not even remotely designed to target viruses, though they have a moderate dampening effect on immune reactions, so they work
for autoimmune diseases (e.g., lupus, rheumatoid arthritis); but, as I wrote in a previous exchange, the immune response in an autoimmune
disease compared to a cytokine storm is like comparing 20 mile per hour winds to a category 5 hurricane, 160 mph winds. In addition,
chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine have a large number of mild side-effects and some really serious major ones.
So, what did Fauci say about chloroquine? ""We've got to be careful that we don't make that majestic leap to assume that this
is a knockout drug. We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitely prove whether any intervention is truly safe and effective,"
Fauci, who is also a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said during an interview on "Fox & Friends. . . "We don't
operate on how you feel, we operate on what evidence and data is," Fauci said, adding that it was "not a very robust study" or "overwhelmingly
strong."" (Concha, 2020 Apr 3)
Now, what did he say about Remdesivir: "Speaking to reporters from the White House, Fauci said he was told data from the trial
showed a "clear-cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover." Fauci said the median time of recovery for patients taking the
drug was 11 days, compared with 15 days in the placebo group. He said the mortality benefit of remdesivir "has not yet reached statistical
significance."
The results suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the
placebo group, according to a statement from the National Institutes of Health released later Wednesday. "This will be the standard
of care," Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, added. "When you know a drug works, you have
to let people in the placebo group know so they can take it." "What it has proven is a drug can block this virus," he said. (Lovelace,
2020 Apr 29)
"The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery," Fauci said
at the White House on Wednesday. The data he referred to is from a large study of more than 1,000 patients from multiple sites around
the world. Patients either received the drug, called remdesivir, or a placebo.
Dr. Michael Saag, associate dean for global health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the results seemed promising.
Antiviral drugs such as remdesivir tend to work earlier in the course of an illness, so "the thing that I think is important in this
study is the patients had advanced disease," said Saag, who is not involved with any remdesivir trials. (NBC News (2020 Apr 29)
Hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement who received remdesivir recovered faster than similar patients
who received placebo, according to a preliminary data analysis from a randomized, controlled trial involving 1063 patients, which
began on February 21. The trial (known as the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial, or ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, is the first clinical trial launched in the United
States to evaluate an experimental treatment for COVID-19.
An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim
analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective
of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials [my emphasis]. Recovery in this study was defined
as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level. . .
Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the
placebo group (p=0.059). the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (2020 Apr 29).
So, first I'd bet you don't understand how nucleic acid analogues work?
Second, though I tend not to rely on one study, this one was fairly large and the shortening of time to recovery was clinically significant,
"defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level." And Dr. Michael Saag: "Antiviral drugs
such as remdesivir tend to work earlier in the course of an illness, so "the thing that I think is important in this study is the
patients had advanced disease,"
Standard of Care is more a legal definition than a clinical one. Basically it reduces risk of malpractice lawsuits.
While I probably would not have called it "standard of care", instead clearly stating that based on the recent trial, it is currently
the best we have to offer or something to that effect.
So, Fauci didn't call it a cure, didn't claim it reduced mortality, though indications it did, and based on over 1,000 patients,
found it reduced hospitalization and return to normal life by a clinically significant margin, the standard used for flu studies.
Again, I would have been more cautious in my working; but your rank attack on a man who knows more about infectious diseases that
you, I, and many others, a man who has dedicated his life to preventing and dealing with them is just plain sickening. Your black
and white view of Fauci is how antivaccinationists and other adherers to unscience see the world. And an MPH probably means a couple
of lower level epidemiology courses. So, the old saying: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, coupled with a personality that
prefers a dichotomous world is very very problematic.
Only time and further studies will tell if Remdesivir really does shorten recovery time and, perhaps, also lowers mortality. Right
now, we have nothing else and I wouldn't jump on something because of this; but the over 1,000 patient study isn't nothing.
Just to be clear, Orac's critique is valid; but, as he says, by this time one becomes perhaps overly skeptical given Trump's insanity.
How cautious should Fauci have been? People are becoming desperate. The risks from Remdesivir are extremely low, so currently, either
use it or continue as is.
If there were significant risks and the one study had been one a much smaller group, the scales would be
different. And, though Orac is right they changed the outcome points, as mentioned, shortening of recovery time is a criterion used
for treatment of flu, so, though not, perhaps, the best end-point, it is certainly not the same as some studies using endpoints such
as lowered cholesterol without looking at deaths. They did look at deaths and though not significant, in the right direction. By
the way, do you even understand significance levels? Though only one study, p=0.059 isn't far from p=0.05.
References:
Concha, Joe (2020 Apr 3). Fauci warns there's no 'strong' evidence anti-malaria drug works on coronavirus
Lovelace, Berkeley (2020 Apr 29). Remdesivir coronavirus drug trial: Dr. Fauci says it will set new standard of care. CNBC
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (2020 Apr 29). NIH Clinical Trial Shows Remdesivir Accelerates Recovery
from Advanced COVID-19
Disappointingly, the lock down seems to have made a number of people irrational. Just a quick post to expound on my Fauci post
for those who see the world as binary – ie: black or white. These people think you either support Fauci 100% or 0% and a single criticism
of any Fauci statement means 0% support of Fauci. I do not happen to worship at the altar of Fauci or any scientist and recognize
all are subject to errors – including myself. I view the world in a more nuanced manner than those with the black/white delusion.
I find I can disagree with some things a person says or stands for and agree with some other things they say or do.
My criticism of Fauci in regard to his remdesivir endorsement does not mean I have 0% support for Fauci it means that with that
statement and some others my positive view of him is now ~80% but not 100% and I will have to check up on what he is endorsing
to make sure that I agree with it just like I do with any other scientist/person.
BTW – If some were to check my Disqus account history (Reality022) you would find posts strongly defending Fauci against the Loony
Libertarians who seem to think he is the debil.
.
Now to a second point:
There appears to be a group of Fauci apologists who, to excuse Fauci's statement, say it is due to 'pressure from Trump/the administration'.
I do not subscribe to this excuse and think it is a horrible thing to say for 2 reasons:
1) There is absolutely no evidence that this statement was made under pressure. That idea is totally invented in the minds of
the Fauci apologists in their attempt to exonerate Fauci.
2) It is a horrible thing to say about Fauci. I take him at his word. If he said it he meant it. The excuse actually means that
Fauci's word is so untrustworthy that he can be pressured into being dishonest about his scientific opinions and only the apologists
can tell us when he is lying or actually relating his honest view. The apologists are basically saying Fauci is dishonest.
I have much more respect for the man and believe he is honest but in this case merely wrong.
.
That is all I'm going to say about this subject as some people are going off the rails with their binary view of the world. (snicker)
And you continue to miss the point that "Standard of Care" is mainly a legal term. Are you that dense? It is you who stated your
opinion of Fauci sank, so your binary view of the world. Try reading my other comments, closely, maybe you will learn something;
but I doubt it. "Reality", lacks reality testing.
Reply
I tend to agree. I am of the opinion that Fauci made a mistake here. The evidence for Remdesiver is nowhere near good enough
for it to become the standard of care. But then I am not the one having to make these decisions under difficult circumstances.
I don't pretend to understand why Fauci might have made the comment, so don't see a lot of point in speculating about it.
On the other hand, watching the White House performance from afar, I can see the administration is dysfunctional and is run by
a narcissistic bully, who will publicly turn on anyone who disagrees with them. I also see there are people within and around the
White House who are happy to tell whatever lies they think Trump wants to hear, either through fear or hope for advancement. I understand
why people would add 2 and 2 and come up with 5.
Chris Preston said, "I am of the opinion that Fauci made a mistake here. The evidence for Remdesiver is nowhere near good enough
for it to become the standard of care."
I believe that is the main thrust of this Orac article – that the evidence for Remdesiver efficacy is sorely lacking.
Quoting Orac's article above: "In reality, like Raoult's trials, this trial said nothing about the efficacy of remdesivir against
COVID-19 other than that the drug could be given to COVID-19 patients with a reasonable safety profile."
.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph and think that Fauci is not one of those administration toadies and is being honest and has merely
made a mistake perhaps brought about through grasping-at-straws desperation as described in a current SBM article.
I, as well, do not know why Fauci made the statement but to me it is very disrespectful of the man to use as an excuse that he
is dishonest enough to lie like a toady when pressured by Trump.
I think we are essentially in agreement about this matter.
Have fun.
re dysfunctional administration.. narcissistic bully et al
It seems that the aforementioned will now " wind down" the Covid task force ( The Hill reports) but Drs Fauci and Birx
will still be involved in some capacity.
AS though the battle is already won. Hah! CA and the NY area are reporting lower numbers of deaths and hospital admissions BUT
whilst
other areas are increasing theirs.
Maybe the Orange One imagines that if we discuss Covid less, people will think it's gone, go back to work, buy stuff and the economy
will flourish. Ignore it and it'll go away. Wishful thinking as usual.
Apparently you lack understanding of English. As I explained even grandfathered in medical treatments with no hard scientific
evidence are considered the standard of care, that is, if a doctor uses them he/she lessens risk of lawsuits. Standard of care doesn't
mean a high level of scientific validity.
I guess I am wasting my time. Think of it this way, if allowed for compassionate use advised by ones doctor, then doctor may not
be protected against lawsuits. Unfortunately, as something I read a long time ago, even in Colonial times Americans would rather
sue than eat breakfast. Just one more sickness of American exceptionalism, so maybe, just maybe, all Fauci was doing was trying to
reduce this risk.
Not to mention that CDC closed the lab. So CDC is not part of great vaccine conspiracy, after all. Huge news, I would say.
One could mention, too, that Johnson & Johnson get COVID vaccine contract. So Dorit Reiss' plots are not very effective, ater
all. Reply
You write: Hmm . Problems with the Wuhan Lab and those nasty bats back in 2018. Just another coincidence, I suppose.
Weird. So many coincidences."
From a recent article in the Atlantic:
scientists have also identified about 500 other coronaviruses among China's many bat species. "There will be many more
-- I think it's safe to say tens of thousands," says Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who has led that work. Laboratory
experiments show that some of these new viruses could potentially infect humans. SARS-CoV-2 likely came from a bat, too.
It seems unlikely that a random bat virus should somehow jump into a susceptible human. But when you consider millions
of people, in regular contact with millions of bats, which carry tens of thousands of new viruses, vanishingly improbable
events become probable ones. In 2015, Daszak's team found that 3 percent of people from four Chinese villages that are close
to bat caves had antibodies that indicated a previous encounter with SARS-like coronaviruses. "Bats fly out every night
over their houses.
Some of them shelter from rain in caves, or collect guano for fertilizer," Daszak says. "If you extrapolate up to the
rural population, across the region where the bats that carry these viruses live, you're talking 1 [million] to 7 million
people a year exposed." Most of these infections likely go nowhere. It takes just one to trigger an epidemic.
Note. he links to peer-reviewed journal articles. So, as the second paragraph makes clear, antibodies to bat coronaviruses
exist in the population, etc. Add this to the sequencing of the genome that shows just how close it is to the 2003 SARS
corona virus and to bat coronaviruses and, as usual, your moronic "coincidences" just lacks any validity.
Note also that his article links to many other good ones.
As I've written before, nature is quite capable of creating really nasty microbes.
Oh this guy needs a dishonorable mention, Harvard traitor, Charles Leiber. "has received more than $15,000,000 in grant
funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD)." Our tax dollars hard at work for
this POS.
This is our guy: Charles M. Lieber Semiconductor nanowires: A platform for nanoscience and nanotechnology MRS Bulletin
Volume 36, Issue 12 (Laser micro- and nanofabrication of biomaterials)December 2011 , pp. 1052-1063 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2011.26 So COVID 19 was not involved. One should indeed not serve two masters, DOD and a Chinese university
Reply
Note that he links to a number of excellent articles, including the two that the following is based on:
"scientists have also identified about 500 other coronaviruses among China's many bat species. "There will be
many more -- I think it's safe to say tens of thousands," says Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who has
led that work. Laboratory experiments show that some of these new viruses could potentially infect humans. SARS-CoV-2
likely came from a bat, too.
It seems unlikely that a random bat virus should somehow jump into a susceptible human. But when you consider
millions of people, in regular contact with millions of bats, which carry tens of thousands of new viruses, vanishingly
improbable events become probable ones. In 2015, Daszak's team found that 3 percent of people from four Chinese
villages that are close to bat caves had antibodies that indicated a previous encounter with SARS-like coronaviruses.
"Bats fly out every night over their houses. Some of them shelter from rain in caves, or collect guano for fertilizer,"
Daszak says. "If you extrapolate up to the rural population, across the region where the bats that carry these
viruses live, you're talking 1 [million] to 7 million people a year exposed." Most of these infections likely go
nowhere. It takes just one to trigger an epidemic."
So, 3 percent of people had antibodies to bat corona viruses. As the above explains, it is quite probable that
the current virus came from someone infected by a bat. Now, since sequencing of the current SARS-Cov-2 has found
its genome quite close to the 2003 SARS virus and to several bat coronavirus genomes, goes against your sick need
to blame the Chinese. A coincidence is not even close to any type of proof, except in the mind of a moron like
you looking to place blame. And there is a great book on "coincidences": David J. Hand (2014). "The Improbability
Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day." Basically, what someone might think is
a rare coincidence isn't.
And, the major blame for what is happening in the U.S. is a combination of Trump and overall American unappreciation
for Public Health and, thus, pandemic preparedness. When it comes to cutting funding, first to go.
I realize that real research, logic, etc. have NO effect on moron's like you; but, hopefully, others monitoring
this exchange are open-minded.
And as Aarno pointed out, you attacked someone who had nothing to do with COVID. He worked with the Wuhan Institute
of Technology; yep, in Wuhan and that's it. It's a large city dimwit. More importantly, he has been charged, not
found guilty. I realize that the old adage innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to anyone you chose to attack.
You just don't know when to stop. YOU ARE DESPICABLE!
Reply
A new study from Los
Alamos National Laboratory has revealed a new, now-dominant strain of the coronavirus which
appears to be more contagious , according to the authors. Meanwhile, doctors in the United
States are wondering if the harder-hit East Coast is being hit with a different version of the
virus than the West Coast.
Emerging in early February, the new strain migrated from Europe to the East Coast of the
United States, where it became the dominant strain across the world beginning in mid-March.
Wherever the new strain has appeared, it's quickly infected far more people than earlier
strains which emerged from Wuhan, China. Within weeks it became the most prevalent strain in
some nations.
... ... ...
Emerging in early February, the new strain migrated from Europe to the East
Coast of the United States, where it became the dominant strain across the world beginning in
mid-March. Wherever the new strain has appeared, it's quickly infected far more people than
earlier strains which emerged from Wuhan, China. Within weeks it became the most prevalent
strain in some nations.
In addition to spreading faster, it may make people vulnerable to a second infection after
a first bout with the disease , the report warned.
The 33-page report was posted
Thursday on BioRxiv, a website that researchers use to share their work before it is peer
reviewed, an effort to speed up collaborations with scientists working on COVID-19 vaccines
or treatments. That research has been largely based on the genetic sequence of earlier
strains and might not be effective against the new one . - LA Times
(via Yahoo)
According to the report, fourteen mutations have been identified in the spike proteins of
SARS-CoV-2 , the protrusions on the exterior of the virus which make up its namesake 'corona.'
The report was based on a computational analysis of more than 6,000 coronavirus samples from
around the world, collected by the Germany-based Global Initiative for Sharing All Influenza
Data.
Assisted by scientists at Duke University and the University of Sheffield in England, the
Los Alamos team focused on a mutation called D614G, which controls changes in spike
proteins.
"The story is worrying, as we see a mutated form of the virus very rapidly emerging, and
over the month of March becoming the dominant pandemic form," said lead author Bette Korber, a
Los Alamos computational biologist. "When viruses with this mutation enter a population, they
rapidly begin to take over the local epidemic, thus they are more transmissible." The new
strain first appeared in Italy, almost at the same time as the original Wuhan strain appeared,
according to the report. By March 15, the mutated strain was dominant. The same was seen in New
York, which was hit by the original virus around March 15, but was overwhelmed by the new
strain within days.
The authors also warn that if the pandemic doesn't wind down during the summer as most
viruses do, it could undergo further mutations right as the first medical treatments and
vaccines - should the adhere to ambitious timelines we've been promised - begin to roll
out.
" We cannot afford to be blindsided as we move vaccines and antibodies into clinical testing
," Korber added on Facebook. "Please be encouraged by knowing the global scientific community
is on this, and we are cooperating with each other in ways I have never seen in my 30 years as
a scientist."
David
Montefiori , a Duke University scientist who worked on the report said it is the first to
document a mutation in the coronavirus that appears to make it more infectious.
Although the researchers don't yet know the details about how the mutated spike behaves
inside the body , it's clearly doing something that gives it an evolutionary advantage over
its predecessor and is fueling its rapid spread. One scientist called it a "classic case of
Darwinian evolution."
" D614G is increasing in frequency at an alarming rate , indicating a fitness advantage
relative to the original Wuhan strain that enables more rapid spread," the study said.
Different strains, different effects?
As the Times notes, doctors in the United States have begun to question whether new strains
of the virus could account for differences in how it affects different people , according to UC
San Francisco professor Alan Wu, who runs the clinical chemistry and toxicology laboratories at
SF General Hospital.
According to Wu, medical experts have speculated in recent weeks that at least two strains
of coronavirus were circulating in the US - one prevalent on the East Coast and one on the West
Coast.
"We are looking to identify the mutation," said Wu, who highlighted that his hospital has
only had a few fatalities out of the hundreds of cases it's treated, which is "quite a
different story than we are hearing from New York."
The Los Alamos study does not indicate that the new version of the virus is more lethal
than the original. People infected with the mutated strain appear to have higher viral loads.
But the study's authors from the University of Sheffield found that among a local sample of
447 patients, hospitalization rates were about the same for people infected with either virus
version.
Even if the new strain is no more dangerous than the others, it could still complicate
efforts to bring the pandemic under control . That would be an issue if the mutation makes
the virus so different from earlier strains that people who have immunity to them would not
be immune to the new version.
And if the mutation makes it back to those who have already had COVID-19, it would make
"individuals susceptible to a second infection," according to the authors.
@Kratoklastes ory tract that there might even be a second receptor that the virus could
use to launch its attack.
Even more troubling is the fact that SARS-COV-2 seems to make use of the enzyme furin from
the host to cleave the viral spike protein. This is worrying, researchers say, because furin
is abundant in the respiratory tract and found throughout the body.
It is used by other formidable viruses, including HIV, influenza, dengue and Ebola to
enter cells. By contrast, the cleavage molecules used by SARS-CoV are much less common and
not as effective
I do not think that Covid-19 is 'just a flu' and I think that the panic in Wuhan started in
the next microsecond after they had decoded the [warlike!] spike. rgds
Fears that the coronavirus would mutate into a more dangerous strain appear to have been
borne out, as research has identified that a new, more contagious strain of SARS-CoV-2 has
become the dominant form worldwide. The new strain, which has been dubbed 'Spike D614G' has
been proliferating in Europe since at least mid-February, and spread to become the dominant
form during the month of March. It is far more contagious than the original strain which
emerged from Wuhan, for reasons as yet unknown.
Wherever it emerged it became dominant very quickly, and in some countries it became the
only common strain within weeks. The paper notes that the
rapid global spread of the coronavirus has provided it with "ample opportunity for natural
selection to act upon rare but favorable mutations.'' Furthermore, if the virus does not
wane away as the weather warms in summer there will be nothing to stop it mutating into more
and more strains.
Warning call
The research , which was
carried out by a joint American and British team led by Los Alamos National Laboratory, has
been released ahead of peer review as 'an early warning' to other researchers. As it
stands, scientists studying the coronavirus around the world may be analysing the genetic
sequence of the older strain, and therefore it is crucial that they collaborate with this team
to get the latest information. "We cannot afford to be blindsided as we move vaccines and
antibodies into clinical testing," the lead author Dr Bette Korber, known for her work on
HIV, said.
Because the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed, it has been published online on the server
BioRxiv. However, the reputations of the scientists involved suggest that the findings are
sound and must be taken with the utmost seriousness -- the report is 33 pages long, and short
on laughs. "This is hard news,'' said Korber of the findings.
The scientists' methodology involved running computer analysis of over 6,000 coronavirus DNA
sequences collected from around the world. Although they remark that "observed diversity
among pandemic SARS-CoV-2 sequences is low'' there were no fewer than 14 different
mutations in the Spike protein sequences, just one of which is the strain that has everybody
worried.
This is the strain with the D614G mutation, which is probably causing the increased
contagiousness. The mutation affects the 'Spike proteins' on the outside of the virus, which
allow the virus to invade human cells. For this reason, these spikes have until now been the
main target of those trying to design vaccines or antiviral drugs to combat the virus. There
are currently at least 62 vaccines in development, and most of these are focused on the Spike
proteins.
Wasted efforts
Although there is not really any good news here, this may not be as bad as it sounds. There
is at present no suggestion that Spike D614G is any more deadly than the original. The British
team calculated that people were no more likely to be hospitalized by it, although they did
seem to have higher viral loads (more of the virus in their body).
But even if Spike D614G is not meaningfully different from the old strain, it does not mean
that nothing has changed. The problems introduced by multiple forms of a virus have everything
to do with immunity and vaccination. If a person had contracted and been ill with one strain,
that would still be no guarantee of immunity to another. Epidemiologists could be left every
winter having to guess what the commonest strain of coronavirus will be, as they do with the
flu.
Furthermore, the development of a vaccine relies on designing the antibodies to match
perfectly to the specific 'Spikes' on the outside of the virus. If these are mutated, any
potential vaccine might not be specific enough to target that strain. Receiving the vaccine
would provide no guarantee of immunity. This possibility is especially worrying to the study's
authors.
The authors have also been led to speculate that the wildly different outbreaks experienced
in different regions could be down to different strains. Spike D614G hit Italy in early
February, probably around the same time as the older strain hit there. Italy has been one of
Europe's worst affected countries.
And in America, just a few days after the first cases were reported in New York, Spike D614G
was the dominant form there. Contrasting New York City with the relatively mild outbreak on
America's West Coast suggests that different strains could be at play. No matter what details
transpire, it's clear that in a world with multiple strains of coronavirus, developing vaccines
or treatments is only going to get harder.
"... Originally published at The Conversation ..."
"... Editor's Note: As researchers try to find treatments and create a vaccine for COVID-19, doctors and others on the front lines continue to find perplexing symptoms. And the disease itself has unpredictable effects on various people. Dr. William Petri, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia Medical School, answers questions about these confusing findings. ..."
"... Even before symptoms arise ..."
"... Differences in susceptibility to a virus is one of the main working hypotheses regarding the disease Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (a.k.a. myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), and systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID). ..."
"... It is possible that the virus is spreading within crowded and substandard apartment complexes. One possible mechanism? Toilets, as an outbreak of SARs in 2003 demonstrated: https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/world/asia/sars-amoy-gardens/index.html ..."
"... In addition in poorly maintained buildings just going out in the hallways to put out your garbage, for example, might well expose a home bound residents to viruses lingering on common surfaces. ..."
"... The city of Hong Kong is even more crowded than New York, but last I checked its virus deaths and hospitalizations were much lower. ..."
"... This link has the slides Cuomo used plus more details: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html ..."
"... some aspect of their domiciles, such as plumbing or ventilation; or are they permitting non-household individuals to visit them. ..."
"... It would be interesting to see if there is a connection between the virus and apartments/co-living. ..."
"... Indians and Pakistani's in particular seem to have been hit very hard in the UK, and yet the same can't be said in their home countries. ..."
"... The drug, made by the US company Gilead Sciences, is an antiviral that was trialled in Ebola, but which failed to show benefits in Africa. ..."
"... Here is a study on an early transmission site in China, where incidents of infection seem to correlate to ventilated air flow in a restaurant: COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with Air Conditioning in Restaurant, Guangzhou, China, 2020 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article ..."
"... Here is a not-yet-reviewed preprint of a study of two buses transporting attendees to and from an event in China. One bus (#2) had a suspected "index patient" (IP), the other didn't. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1255579524047220741 ..."
"... Interestingly, the conference itself produced few further cases, these were all traced to prolonged interactions with the IP. Generally with viruses, some critical mass of virions must accumulate in sufficient number to produce infection, and total net exposure may approximately correlate with severity. Untreated recirculated air bearing virus-laden droplets may lead to repeated exposure and increase concentration of virions in individuals. ..."
Yves here. While a list of
coronavirus "known unknowns" is useful, I imagine most readers would have focused on other
questions, like "When will we know how much if any immunity you get from contracting the
virus?" However, this article likely reflects issues that seem to be coming up in layperson
discussions .which in turn reflects the informational nuggets that attract media attention.
Editor's Note: As researchers try to find treatments and create a vaccine for COVID-19,
doctors and others on the front lines continue to find perplexing symptoms. And the disease
itself has unpredictable effects on various people. Dr. William Petri, a professor of medicine
at the University of Virginia Medical School, answers questions about these confusing
findings.
Some evidence suggests that patients experience low oxygen saturation days before they
appear in the ER. If so, is there a way to treat patients earlier?
Even before
symptoms arise, people infected with SARS-CoV-2 show damage to their lungs. This is
likely why low oxygen saturation – that is, below-normal oxygen levels in their blood
– occurs before the patient goes to the ER . Restoring those levels to normal is
presumed, though not proven, to be beneficial; giving patients supplemental oxygen via a nasal
cannula, a flexible tube that delivers oxygen, placed just inside the nostrils, will restore
oxygen to normal levels unless disease worsens to the extent that mechanical ventilation is
needed.
Young adults are having strokes with COVID-19. Does this suggest the illness is more of a
vascular disease than a lung disease in that age group ?
COVID-19 can be a devastating disease to multiple organs and systems in the body, including
the vascular and immune systems. A lung infection
is the primary cause of disease and death. There are examples of the clotting system being
activated and causing strokes, perhaps caused by an immune
system responding abnormally to COVID-19
.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated its official list of
symptoms. Does this suggest anything unusual about COVID-19?
This new information is due to a greater number of infected individuals being
studied . The update simply reflects a better understanding of the full spectrum of illness
due to COVID-19, from asymptomatic to presymptomatic to severe and fatal infections.
How can so many people experience such mild symptoms and others quickly die from it?
One of the most fascinating aspects of these diseases is the huge difference that
individuals experience with an infection. In our own research, we have found that many children
in the U.S. infected with cryptosporidia have no symptoms, yet this
parasite is a major killer of infants in the developing world. After an infection of
SARS-CoV-2, the severity of the illness is likely due in part to how the patient's immune
system responds; an overzealous immune response may cause death through what is called
colloquially a "
cytokine storm. ." We do not know yet if cytokine storms occur more in one group than
another – for example, older versus younger.
The disease appears now to affect various other organs – heart and kidney, for
example. What does this suggest?
What we know most clearly is that infection starts only in human cells with the ACE2
receptor – that is, in a cell that is capable of receiving the virus. That is present not
only in the lungs, but in other cells as well, including those in the intestine and in the
nasal mucosa, which lines the nasal cavity. When those cells are infected, the immune system is
activated. A consequence is that both the heart and kidney are affected.
Why are some countries not experiencing as much COVID-19 as the U.S., Europe and China?
I think it's too early in the pandemic to know if certain countries or populations are
relatively less susceptible. The younger overall age of a population could be a primary factor.
Or perhaps the virus, so far at least, has not had time to spread more widely in these
countries.
The thing about this virus is that it seems to be the Swiss Army knife of the virus world.
Instead of a simple virus, as time goes along you find out that it has all sorts of weird and
damaging effects in all sorts of places. And that just because you get it does not mean that
the won't get the next strain.
We aren't even sure how to treat it and financial interest are clouding the search for a
treatment. It is like we just can't get a handle on just what this virus really is or just
what it does to the human body.
Differences in susceptibility to a virus is one of the main working hypotheses regarding
the disease Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (a.k.a. myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), and systemic
exertion intolerance disease (SEID).
The assumption is that the symptoms represent a relatively rare immune system
over-reaction in a relatively small percentage of the population to a viruses that in the
vast majority of persons is part of their normal viral load producing no symptoms.
Yet another puzzling note on Coronavirus transmission. Sixty-six percent of coronavirus
hospital admissions in New York in a recent study cited by Gov. Cuomo, were people who had
been staying home. Most of the cases were elderly, and either retired or unemployed. The vast
majority had other conditions. And African-Americans and Hispanics were disproportionately
affected. My apologies for not linking to the original study–I'm still trying to track
it down.
In addition in poorly maintained buildings just going out in the hallways to put out
your garbage, for example, might well expose a home bound residents to viruses lingering on
common surfaces.
Hong Kong and New York are completely different on so many levels apart from population
density. The differences are more instructive than the similarities. Hong Kong had a
devastating experience with the SARs coronovirus epidemic in 2003 so they had a much clearer
idea what they were dealing with; much of the early response (masks, increased social
hygiene) was a bottom up response by people who had gone through it before.
'"Much of this comes down to what you do to protect yourself. Everything is closed down,
government has done everything it could, society has done everything it could. Now it's up to
you," Cuomo said.'
"How can so many people experience such mild symptoms and others quickly die from it?"
There seems to be another possibility, that SARS-CoV-2 can infect both the upper
respiratory tract (like the coronavirus responsible for the common cold) and the lower
respiratory tract, eventually causing pneumonia (like the SARS-CoV)
This is an alarming development, not least because anti lockdown GOP and Libertarian types
have jumped on it to argue that the lockdowns are misguided. The news item raises many
questions, such as, are the afflicted individuals getting the virus from groceries; some
aspect of their domiciles, such as plumbing or ventilation; or are they permitting
non-household individuals to visit them. Obviously, more detailed data are needed.
It would be interesting to see if there is a connection between the virus and
apartments/co-living.
The one thing for sure is that this virus is extremely contagious for those who are
vulnerable. A colleague of mine cocooned himself with his two elderly parents in their
detached suburban house at the very beginning of this, back in late February (he could see it
coming). I know he was very cautious in order to protect them. But both his parents died from
it over the last 2 weeks, and he is only just recovering from it. So far as I know, he has no
idea how the infection got into the house.
Is the address data for the death available? It would be interesting to look for correlation between Covid deaths and the ages of the
apartment complex.
We have been isolating since mid- March. All food delivered and disinfected, post
heat-treated. Never eaten a healthier diet or taken more vitamins. Been out (beach and moor)
just a handful of times, no contact, always hand sanitizer etc.
Nevertheless, still had three colds!
Viruses are damn infectious.
Also, pace the Kawasaki-like syndrome in children putatively linked to sars-cov-2, true
Kawasaki syndrome has no known causal agent but it is believed to be infectious in origin
because it is reliably linked to wind: when it blows from central Asia, cases spike in Japan
and Hawaii.
Could Sars-cov-2 be hitching a ride on the wind / pollen and infecting people long
distance?
"It is possible that the virus is spreading within crowded and substandard apartment
complexes. One possible mechanism? Toilets, as an outbreak of SARs in 2003 demonstrated"
brought to mind one of the possible causes among my community (field workers). porta
pottys are badly maintained as well as in short supply. among the many hazards, also particle
board living quarters where people sleep in shifts.
you're welcome Hana M.
also, along similar lines a group of us here in oakland (with some city council buy in) are
asking for a black new deal dealing with covid-19. demands are specific as well as linked to
available funding. i'll share them if ur interested.
We've been having groceries and other items delivered; one just arrived. This leads to a
big disinfecting operation, focused on containers, sacks, etc. I even wash all the veggies
before bringing them in. It's more trouble than doing the shopping was, but so far it's
worked. We're healthy so far, salt over shoulder.
Fortunately there's minimal infection here, but it is present.
I'm just thinking if you DON'T disinfect the packaging and then your hands, you might well
introduce the virus.
Indeed, two weeks after a lockdown most hospitalizations must be originated in contagions
inside houses or residential buildings where most direct or indirect contacts occur. This
suggests that fomites-led contagions are important in Covid-19 transmission. During a
lockdown, with very few getting in and out one should basically beware about touching things
like doors, elevator buttons, or light switches rather than breathing contaminated air. In
buildings with wealthy residents someone will be paid to keep all these surfaces clean once
or twice a day but in less wealthy sites it has to be done by oneself.
> . . . Sixty-six percent of coronavirus hospital admissions in New York in a recent
study cited by Gov. Cuomo, were people who had been staying home.
Anyone check if there is a stack of empty Amazon boxes in the corner? Every one of their
warehouses has infected workers, and we all know how much people like to push the buy button
and crack that whip.
I had a thought yesterday, and it probably has nothing to do with COVID19, but remember
the vaping injuries to young people last year? What if those were early infections
transmitted via infected vape devices or accessories?
Points against this being true: didn't appear to be any spread among medical personnel
treating the vape injury population.
Final verdict if I remember right was some form of vitamin e being in the vape liquid.
Points in favor: I thought certain quarters were not satisfied with the vit e
explanation. Just wild speculation on my part, but interesting idea, no?
It is actually now appearing to be the opposite- smoking (and/or nicotine) is something of
a prophylactic. There have been several links floating around here discussing this. Not sure
how definite the conclusions though.
Also, I am untrained in any of this stuff, though have been following, but it seems that
something that hits a small majority of people very hard, while so many seem to not even know
they have it, says to me it's some specific genetic issue.
Strangely enough, one possible explanation of why ethnic minorities are more susceptible
to Corona virus is the same reason that Northern Europeans seem to have greater resistance to
HIV. Corona virus and HIV both are single-stranded RNA viruses. (And why remdesivir,
effective against Ebola [a double-stranded RNA virus] is also showing effectiveness against
Corona virus).
If you are alive today and have Northern European ancestry, they were quite likely
survivors of the Black Death with a mutation that disables CCR-5 . It's Evolution 101.
Africa, Asia and the Americas were never exposed to the plague with the same virulence
that Northern Europe was, and thus populations there did not develop the same level of of
immunity that has lingered in people with Northern European ancestry.
As this is already a plausible theory for HIV, I have been unable to find the same
research on Coronavirus as to whether people who are immune to it somehow have similarly
disabled receptors on ACE-2.
There are many good books on the Black Plague of 1347 and how it originated and spread.
The most common theory is that it came with the Huns as they attacked shipping ports on the
Black Sea which were connected to the overland shipping routes to China. Yes, Europe had
trade with the Orient before the Portuguese rounded Africa. And then the ships in the Black
Sea started bringing it west to ports in Italy and beyond.
For a simple yet historically accepted theory of the Black Plague, there is a well done
course on Great Courses Plus, as well as a ton of written histories. Just search your
favorite bookstore.
By "Huns" do you mean Mongols? The disease is endemic to the grasslands of Mongolia and
also the Western United States. Supposedly Genoese traders brought it to Constantinople from
their ports in the Crimea, I thought.
Yes, it is probably more correct to call them Mongols because that is who they were
fighting under, although some of the midieval historians that I have been reading called them
Tartars and Huns, based on what tribes they belonged to. And Caffa, the city where the plague
probably got its foothold, was both in Crimea and a port on the Black Sea. And yes, it did
strike Constantinople first but since the topic was Europe proper, I just stated that ships
brought it to Italy.
I'm not really convinced – for one thing I'd always understood that the Black Death
did hit many other populations, they just weren't recorded so well (I can stand corrected by
this, I don't know the latest research). It also doesn't explain why so far the home
countries of those ethnicities that have been hit so hard in the west – East Asians,
Iranians, SE Asians, have so far not been hit so hard by Covid. Indians and Pakistani's in
particular seem to have been hit very hard in the UK, and yet the same can't be said in their
home countries. This is why I suspect that a mix of socio economic (there is evidence that
non-white healthcare workers are more likely to be put on the frontline), plus
dietary/vitamin D related explanations may be stronger.
East Asians, Iranians, SE Asians, have so far not been hit so hard by Covid. Indians and
Pakistani's in particular seem to have been hit very hard in the UK, and yet the same can't
be said in their home countries.
Ambient Temperatures are very different, and there are some reports of less virulence in
hotter climates.
Iran and a large chunk of Pakistan is actually quite cold in winter and early Spring.
Tehran temperatures only went above a max of 20C in the last 2 weeks or so. Much of the
temperature range of that region is not all that different from the inland cities of northern
Italy and Spain.
Indians and Pakistani's in particular seem to have been hit very hard in the UK, and
yet the same can't be said in their home countries.
I wonder, are there differenced betw first or second generation immigrants? Age groups?
Another factor that seems to correlate is vaccination for tuberculosis. The BCG vaccine
(which is the only tuberculosis vaccine, although there are several strains and manufacturers
of it) is mandatory in a number of countries, including India and Pakistan. Some countries
never did it, and others have ended or limited their TB vaccination programs as cases of TB
diminished.
Group 1: Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and the US never universally vaccinated
for TB.
Group 2: The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Equador, and most of Europe discontinued
universal vaccination of children in the late 20th C, reserving/requiring it only for 'at
risk' children.
Group 3: The BCG vaccine against tuberculosis is still mandatory in a number of countries,
including China, India, and Pakistan, and it is mostly children who are vaccinated, typically
in their first year. There may or may not be a booster, usu late pre-teen.
There are lots of variables to work out -- lockdown, distancing, age of population,
co-morbidities, yada yada. But just doing a deeper dive into Spain is interesting. Universal
vaccination program started in 1965 for all newborns, no booster, and stopped in 1981, except
for at-risk children. So that is a cohort of approx 49 to 55 year olds vaccinated. It would
be interesting to see if the mortality rate was different in that group. Bonus! Basque region
children are automatically considered 'at-risk' and have been vaccinated up to present! We
have a control group! Would love to see data on that.
Here are the charts, people, go crazy. 91-divoc , this
is deaths normalized for population, and the BCG World Atlas .
Reply to Hayek's Heelbiter
May 7, 2020 at 11:17 am
On remdesivir: The drug, made by the US company Gilead Sciences, is an antiviral that was trialled in
Ebola, but which failed to show benefits in Africa. -- The Guardian Thu 23 Apr 2020 15.35 EDT
[emphasis added]
As an adenosine nucleotide triphosphate analog, the active metabolite of remdesivir
interferes with the action of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and evades proofreading by
viral exoribonuclease its predominant effect (as in Ebola) is to induce an irreversible
chain termination. Unlike with many other chain terminators, this is not mediated by
preventing addition of the immediately subsequent nucleotide, but is instead delayed,
occurring after five additional bases have been added to the growing RNA chain.[56] Hence
remdesivir is classified as a delayed chain terminator.
[56] Tchesnokov EP, Feng JY, Porter DP, Götte M (April 2019). "Mechanism of
Inhibition of Ebola Virus RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase by Remdesivir". Viruses. 11 (4): 326.
doi:10.3390/v11040326. PMC 6520719. PMID 30987343.
A useful discussion of the models versus evidence schools of epidemiology. While the
evidence school sounds a lot more like science, the models school currently has the upper
hand given the emergency nature of the response. Are they "assuming a can opener?"
Your first two questions are unfortunately very difficult to address.
I think asymptomatic or nearly asymptomatic direct transmission is very important when
there is not awareness of disease in the community. Then, there is fomites-led transmission
which is even more elusive than asymptomatic direct transmission. So, when you detect someone
with symptoms in a community if then everyone is tested it is almost certain some more will
show positive. A couple of days later some many more will. So when first symptoms appear
everyone must be isolated from each other, clean all surfaces, masks mandatory, and if the
community includes some medical and other care full protection by and for the providers.
Suddenly the community transforms into something resembling a military camp in wartime.
What i find most difficult is to decide what discipline to keep BEFORE the first case
appears.
Everybody's different, flu only kills a very small fraction, granted elderly get shots.
Maybe some differences are nutritional.
My thought is that there is a wide variety of vitamin d and zinc levels in those that get the
virus, and that low levels worsen the outcome. And maybe nicotine also provides
protection.
Diets low in red meat and oysters typically mean low zinc, plus local soils may be low, too I
saw an indication North American soils are generally low. Poor people on cheap diets likely
get little red meat. Hiding inside means low vit d, plus many seniors like me anyway seek
shade to avoid harmful rays. And most living seniors stopped smoking, so no nicotine
input.
I take vit d, plus zinc in a multi, have zinc lozenges on hand if I get symptoms, and if they
worsen would add nicotine patch.
American soils remain the richest in the world. Zinc would be a mineral and mined. There's
no evidence based data to indicate for people in general zinc going to do anything. But if
makes you happy sure why not. I'd ask my doc for a blood test on minerals and a vitamin
panel. Then you'd know.
It is a function of regional geology. The northern US and Canada were largely glaciated
and the soils are very recent (<100,000 years old) and so have not leached their nutrients
and miinerals out. The rolling farmed plains of Western NY, OH, IL, KS, NE, etc. are glacial
till plains or old glacial lakebeds. The Russian steppes are similar. Much of the major
floodplains come from such soils and are rich as well (e.g. Mississippi).
Much of the South and California are old soils that are classified as "residual",
basically bedrock weathered in place with a lot of leaching over hundreds of thousands or
millions of years. These regions often have limited crops that can be grown or require a lot
of fertilizer and maintenance. The same issues hold true for much ot the tropics (the reason
why the Amazon rainforest has slash and burn agriculture to open up new areas that are
temporarily rich.
Regarding why are some countries not experiencing as much COVID-19 as the U.S., Europe and
China, my personal non-scientifcally vetted opinion is that this this virus spreads indoors.
Fresh air, ozone and UV radiation are all natural disinfectants. Outdoors, coughs and sneezes
are dispersed via the wind.
This could also explain why the disease is concentrated in urban settings like NYC,
present in warm weather locations like Singapore and implies it won't necessarily go away
come the summer. On the other hand, the poorest citizens in the poorest countries spend a lot
of time outdoors and don't seem to be as hard hit. Though this has been attributed to a lack
of testing, their homes aren't hermetically sealed and climate controlled like those in the
US, Europe or China which I believe leads to a lower infection rate. That being said, people
who live in urban slums are certainly vulnerable.
There is also the issue, recently somewhat in the news, of different genetic variants of
the virus. I've heard the claim that that explains why NY has been hit harder than the US
West Coast – that the variant in NY supposedly came from Italy, while the West Coast
got it from China. Of course they also spend more time outdoors on the West Coast than in NY,
especially in February.
Commercial real estate is probably going to have to increase their fresh air exchange and
potentially install electrostatic filters if they don't have them. Without that, offices are
likely to be unhealthy.
The term for the motile form of a virus is virion , one or more strands for RNA (of
DNA but SARS-CoV-19 is RNA) enclosed in a fatty lipid capsule ("capsid"), usually with
protruding receptors with which the virion can attach to and inject it RNA strand into a host
cell. Coronaviruses have characteristically prominent "spikes," receptors that extend beyond
the capsid surface.
Basically, virions are little blobs of fat. When exposed directly to air they quickly
rancidify and the exposed RNA strand disintegrates. Riding air pollution particles is
possible but unlikely, as many of these kinds of particles have surfaces antagonistic to the
fatty capsid. However, exhaled particulate droplets suspended in air can pass through coarse
filtration. HEPA filters are designed to trap such droplets, UV irradiation can "cook"
them.
Here is a study on an early transmission site in China, where incidents of infection
seem to correlate to ventilated air flow in a restaurant: COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with
Air Conditioning in Restaurant, Guangzhou, China, 2020 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article
Here is a not-yet-reviewed preprint of a study of two buses transporting attendees to
and from an event in China. One bus (#2) had a suspected "index patient" (IP), the other
didn't. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1255579524047220741
From the article: "In both buses and conference rooms, central air-conditioners were in
indoor re-circulation mode."
Interestingly, the conference itself produced few further cases, these were all traced
to prolonged interactions with the IP. Generally with viruses, some critical mass of virions
must accumulate in sufficient number to produce infection, and total net exposure may
approximately correlate with severity. Untreated recirculated air bearing virus-laden
droplets may lead to repeated exposure and increase concentration of virions in
individuals.
Eakens, thanks for the link to the Plandemic video! I was chatting with my sister today and
she recommended it as well.
BTW, my sister is a nurse in NJ in a hospital about 60 mi south of NYC near the shore.
Several wards in her hospital were converted to ICUs to handle the influx of covid patients,
so I have been asking her what meds they are given. As of a few weeks ago Plaquenil
(hydroxychloroquine) was the standard treatment, along with azithromycin and zinc which is
the most common protocol. Most patients are getting this and to quote her directly: "It's
standard treatment and saving lives daily." She is perplexed by the politicization. While she
is a conservative, the great majority of her coworkers are not.
The other two standard treatments added more recently to their covid protocols are
tocizulamab (IL-6) and plasma with antibodies.
Here is a recent article on the tocizulamb, which I had never heard of before my sister
mentioned it.
Teachers want their students back in the classroom before they start thinking for themselves.
(drum roll). The NYT published a letter from a middle school girl who says she learns better,
faster and deeper, distance learning than in class. Teachers have to spend too much time
dealing with disruptive knuckleheads. Teachers didn't put up with any crap when I went to
school.
Doctors that use hydroxychloroquine as a covid treatment report up to a 90% success rate,
and works best when given early. On the other hand, the ebola wonder drug shortens the
hospital stay from 15 to 11 days. I don't understand Ain't So Bright's, and many of the
"experts," dismissal of of what treating physicians report an effective treatment in favor of
one that less effictive. I trust the observations of the doctors on the ground more than some
office dweller reading numbers, the most important ones being those in his paycheck.
Do you believe the Pentagon? From their study published this year. From Children's
Health Defense entitled "Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other
Supporting Studies)."
In searching the literature, the only study we have been able to find assessing flu shots
and coronavirus is a 2020 US
Pentagon study that found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%.
"Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a
phenomenon known as "virus interference 'vaccine derived' virus interference was
significantly associated with coronavirus " Here are the findings:
2020 Pentagon study: Flu vaccines increase risk of coronavirus by 36%
Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of coronavirus in vaccinated
individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds
ratio (association between an exposure and an outcome) of 1.36. In other words, the
vaccinated were 36% more likely to get coronavirus.
A risk factor that we want to highlight, however, is the low vitamin D levels...
There is evidence that vitamin D is involved in our defense against respiratory tract
infections. According to a meta-analysis, vitamin D supplementation (daily-weekly dosage)
prevents acute respiratory tract infections, especially in those with 25(OH)-D below
25 nmol/l (NNT = 4).[7]
In a randomised trial on individuals with frequent respiratory tract infections,
treatment with cholecalciferol 4000 IE/day reduced the need for antibiotic treatment.[8]
The mechanism is debated; however, modulation of the renin-angiotensin system has been
implicated in animal studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome,[9] and
angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is a well-established receptor for the SARS-CoV
virus.[10]
In order to cope with the covid-19 epidemic, preventive measures could be administration
of vitamin D to high-risk populations... adults with low sun-exposure and/or individuals
with risk factors for respiratory tract infections. Although it may not always be helpful,
it is unlikely to be harmful.
24 March 2020
Susanne Bejerot
Professor, MD
Mats Humble, MD, PhD
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences
Campus USÖ, SE-70182 Örebro, Sweden
Scientists have detected an antibody that blocks the coronavirus from entering cells,
providing a much-needed shield for severely ill patients. While not a cure or vaccine, it
is still a significant development.
"This is clearly a breakthrough that shows that we are on the right track for the
development of a drug against Covid-19," said virologist Professor Luka Cicin-Sain.
"In repeated experiments, we were able to show that this result is sustainable." [.]
The antibodies are currently undergoing additional testing on cell cultures to whittle
their number down to find the most effective at blocking the infection. [.]
a drug for treatment, a vaccine unlikely.
Thank you Likklemore, that is promising news. Methinks chasing the holy grail (more likely
Golden Fleece) of vaccines has cost the world many lives and needless lockdown. You have to
wonder what all that research was doing by NOT coming up with a remedial medicine years
ago.
"... Health experts say people are significantly less likely to get the coronavirus while outside, a fact that could add momentum to calls to reopen beaches and parks closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. ..."
"... The virus is harder to transmit outdoors because the droplets that spread it are more easily disturbed or dispersed outside in the elements than in a closed, confined, indoor setting. ..."
"... As people go outside for their daily exercise and pass by one another, experts offered reassurance that simply passing someone for a split second outdoors presents a low risk. "The virus can't magically teleport," said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. "It needs a cough or sneeze or something, singing, talking, spitting. ... It's not magnetism or something like that." ..."
Health experts say people are significantly less likely to get the coronavirus while
outside, a fact that could add momentum to calls to reopen beaches and parks closed during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
... ... ...
Murray said that even outside on the beach, people who do not live together should stay six
feet apart and that activities such as beach volleyball should be avoided because multiple
people touching the same equipment can spread the virus.
That means playgrounds also are a danger, she said.
"While it's great to have parks and beaches, you probably don't want playground equipment
open," Murray said.
The virus is harder to transmit outdoors because the droplets that spread it are more
easily disturbed or dispersed outside in the elements than in a closed, confined, indoor
setting.
"It definitely spreads more indoors than outdoors," said Roger Shapiro, a professor at
Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "The virus droplets disperse so rapidly
in the wind that they become a nonfactor if you're not really very close to someone outdoors --
let's say within six feet."
As people go outside for their daily exercise and pass by one another, experts offered
reassurance that simply passing someone for a split second outdoors presents a low risk. "The
virus can't magically teleport," said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins
University Center for Health Security. "It needs a cough or sneeze or something, singing,
talking, spitting. ... It's not magnetism or something like that."
Adalja said some of the decisions around activities such as sitting closer than six feet
away from a friend outside on the grass have to do with how much risk someone is personally
willing to accept. "There's not some kind of black or white answer to all of this stuff," he
said. "People are going to have to make a lot of decisions about what risk tolerance they
have."
Indoor spaces such as barbershops are certainly higher risk, though. There are more shared
surfaces that could transmit the virus, such as the barber's chair. Another danger, especially
in the summer, is air conditioning, which can circulate the virus through the
air.
"If you're in an indoor space that has the air conditioning blasting ... that air
conditioning might be blowing the droplets straight at you," said Murray, the Boston University
professor. Even outdoors, Adalja said people should be mindful of keeping their distance and
washing their hands. "You can go to the beach, you can go to the park, and it can be safe," he
said. "It's just you have to be cognizant of the fact that the virus is there."
"... "Actually, wearing masks on the street is stupid. First, in the open air, it is absolutely useless, only makes it difficult for people with disabilities to breathe. But, of course, in public places, shops, probably, wearing a mask should be left. Secondly, if you do not provide the entire population with masks, it will end in the fact that a person will buy a single mask and wear it forever, which will cause much more harm to health," Zverev says. ..."
The virologist also spoke about the possible introduction of a mandatory "mask regime"
throughout Russia, which is written about by the media.
"Actually, wearing masks on the street is stupid. First, in the open air, it is
absolutely useless, only makes it difficult for people with disabilities to breathe. But, of
course, in public places, shops, probably, wearing a mask should be left. Secondly, if you do
not provide the entire population with masks, it will end in the fact that a person will buy
a single mask and wear it forever, which will cause much more harm to health," Zverev
says.
He explains that after two hours of continuous wearing of the mask, it becomes wet, which
turns it from a means of protection to a means of infection with viruses and bacteria. Zverev
reminds that in addition to the coronavirus in the world, there are still a huge number of
infections that can also cause severe harm to a person, so it is not necessary to resort to
such measures yet.
Earlier, a mandatory "mask regime" was introduced in the Moscow region in order to prevent a
new coronavirus. For going out on the street without this means of protection, citizens of the
region face a fine of 4 thousand rubles.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus
(SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of
primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug
either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic
advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of
endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular
receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor
binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular
pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible
concentrations. Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable
inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine
prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay
described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral
compounds.
"Every time the virus replicates, there is a danger of error in the copy, which renders it
less effective for the most part, much as in human cells."
The issue is that the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein that binds to ACE2 and CD147 receptors
is what allows the virus to replicate more efficiently. In a given population of viral
particles a less efficient particle would result in fewer replicates leading its mutation to
be less prevalent in a population of the coronavirus.
Thus, I would expect the virus to retain its virulence over time which leads us back to Dr
Talab's conclusion on how to stop the transmission of a virus that needs a host. A subset of
the availability of a host is what happens if the host can also be a non-human such as the
Chinese raccoon dog, ferrets or even pigs?
In discussing viral mutations it is important to also note that articles that claim to
calculate viral mutation rates fail to understand that statistics is about populations, and
not individuals. The mutation rates of a population are not well represented by the PCR test
if the mutation is not frequent enough to be seen in the amplification process (38-39
times).
I would not bet against the persistence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus S-protein and thus its
continued virulence given the probability of mutations and the loss of function by a less
virulent strain.
As for a vaccine, I would not hold my breath and if partially successful might result in
more deaths due the the vaccine of the cytokine storm that the virus itself.
What does an anti-body test do? I just had one last week and awaiting the results - was a
cruise passenger and international air passenger during the month of January in a later
suspected area. (not Asia).
Here is why I did the anti-body test: (Quest Labs - fee service, no RX- 99% accuracy -
drawn blood vial test)
1. Helps substantiate dates and areas of transmission that may not yet be in the data
pool.
2. Tracks the rates of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases occurring among the
"elderly", in order to see if there is an enhanced risk of not in this age group, if there
are no underlying co-morbidities.
3. Adds demographic data specific for the travel industry.
4. Allows possible donation of anti-body serum for research and perhaps mitigation of
those who are affected.
5. Personal peace of mind -been there and done that. Freedom to move about.
6. Provides baseline for duration of immunity; resilience of immunity or data showing
re-infection can be possible.
Primarily it is for data gathering to help stop the hysteria. That was worth the time,
money and blood donation for me. We will never know the true extent of this virus, its
impacts, its initial modeling accuracy until we start plugging facts into the "expert"
hypotheticals.
Taking one for the team is the way I see it. Will I now become a local Typhoid Mary and
our house burned down if this data becomes known? Or will people stop walking out into the
roadway in faux deference to my advanced age as I pass by, from our deliciously virtue
signaling "progressive" population in blue state California.
"Provides baseline for duration of immunity; resilience of immunity or data showing
re-infection can be possible. Primarily it is for data gathering to help stop the hysteria."
Yes
GSK partnered with Bill Gates to produce the Covid-19 Vaccine. GSK has been found guilty
for several criminal federal offenses, bribes and health violations, and paid Billions in
lawsuits including for birth defects & brain damage. https://www. drugwatch.com/manufacturers/ glaxosmithkline/ #BillGates#QAnon#q
Promising
his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate polio, Gates took control of
India's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI), which mandated up to
50
doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through
overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors
blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio
acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond
expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates'
vaccine regimen and
asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.
Yesterday a preprint of a collaborative study involving medical, genomic and virology
researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico-US, University Of Sheffield-UK,
Duke University in North Carolina-US, Sheffield Teaching Hospital-UK and the
NHS-Foundation-UK, was released. No quacks there.
It shows that the Spike elements of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is mutating
It uses real-time mutation tracking in the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, specifically on the
Spike (S) protein because it mediates infection of human cells and is the target of most
vaccine strategies and antibody-based therapeutics.
It monitored changes over the last two months from the early strains in Wuhan to the
specific strains across the globe in conjunction with the GISAID data.
They focused on 14 specific sites on the virus and 2 Spike mutations were of particular
interests: D614G and S943P.
It was found that D614G is increasing in frequency at an alarming rate, indicating a
fitness advantage relative and enables more rapid spread. S943P is located in the fusion core
region, and is of particular interest as it is concerned with spreading via
recombination.
D614 is located on the surface of the spike protein protomer, where it can form contacts
with the neighboring protomer. The mutation allows from a structurally perspective more easy
'binding' to human host cells through a variety of ways and from a immunological function, it
disrupts antibody functions trying to attack it.
Hence the D614G mutation not only increases transmissibility, but also impacts severity of
disease.
The S943P mutation however allows recombinant strategies for the virus to evolve.
The study of the other mutation sites L5F, L8V V367F, G476S, and V483A all indicate that
he virus can easily and evolve depending and conditions, displaying characteristics that it
is even far more potent than HIV. There were also many other sites of mutations that the
study covered.
So thats not very encouraging and doesn't bode well. Not conclusive but just means this
needs watching.
Well, walking your dog around the home for 5 minutes with no other people around, will not
spread anything and will keep a better mental health. Italians have gone from total ignorance
to total isolation - another extreme. Unfortunately, many people are undisciplined and
careless, so there's no other choice. By the way, stop running: you may already have the
virus, making any physical effort will only waste your body energy to fight the virus
Its not the people in the open countryside or walking in the streets or relaxing in the
park spreading the virus its when people travel together in buses, trains or any crowded
environment.
The Camorra are scared of the Black Axe , Maybe if the mayors stopped turning a blind eye
to the growing threat of criminal gangs on there streets instead of bullying there citizens
Italy would be a safer place to live .
They've censored all the funny bits. Like how the mayor with the glasses says the f word a
lot and the one talking about hairdressing says the casket is closed, noones going to see
your new haircut when yo dead' 😂
i love their dark humour. viva italia! what a tremendous loss of the country's elderly
population, I love italian elderly, they have so much wisdom and charisma. what a loss.
May be it is valuable as a placebo treatment... "Remdesivir (imho) has no effect whatsoever,
positive or negative, so it will work as a placebo and a show of 'good treatment'. On the whole
ppl are apt to judge that what is expensive (as opposed to dirt cheap and used by lesser folks)
and can be touted as 'innovative' (hmm..) is well -classier!- therefore more effective!" An
indirect result might be that less /very seriously affected/ patients are put on vents.
(Intubated with breathing done outside the body.)
I think this remdesivir authorization was a genius move by the Trump administration. So
genial even Dr. Fauci must have immediately understood the catch and endorsed it, as it is
probable the drug must not have any grave collateral effects on the patients (as is the case
with hydroxycloroquine).
First of all, remdesivir helps one of America's biggest pharmaceuticals (Gilead).
Therefore, it will also help American capitalist reproduction.
Second, it will trigger a nationwide placebo effect thanks to widespread optimism and
petit-bourgeois euphoria, thus lowering the death rates (though not the infection rates), and
giving Trump an election boost in crucial areas (by the astroturf protests pattern, important
swing states in the Midwest).
Third, by the time the efficacy of remdesivir is debunked, the Trump administration can
simply state they acted with good will, with the "evidence" available at the time, and gently
apologize. It is the perfect plausible deniability.
Maybe its working for him, but then again maybe not: As of last week He's been transferred
out of the New Jersey prison, but is now being held in the NYC "Jeffery Epstein Memorial
Euthanasia Facility" aka the Metropolitan Detention Center", (yikes!) awaiting relocation to a
minimum security (?) Allenwood Federal prison in PA.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-moved-from-prison-after-rule-breaking.html
M. Shkreli states: The industry response to COVID-19 is inadequate. All biopharmaceutical
companies should be responding with all resources to combat this health emergency. Donations
from these very valuable companies do not go far enough. The biopharmaceutical industry has a
large braintrust of talent that is not working on this problem as companies have deprioritized
or even abandoned infectious disease research. Medicinal chemists, structural biologists,
enzymologists and assay development and research biology departments at EVERY pharmaceutical
company should be put to work until COVID-19 is no more.
Recent developments and insights point out that SARS-COV-2 is not primarily a respiratory
virus, it is mostly an epithelial virus. The lung surface is composed of epithelial cells,
but so are many other organs in the body.
The virus binds to ACE2 receptors that are richly expressed in epithelial cells. ACE2
stands for the angiotensin II converting enzyme. By this binding action, it disables the
function of this enzyme and therein lies the mechanism of the problems it causes in the
body.
A cascade of reactions surrounding the angiotensin system results in the creation of, and
acerbation of pre-existing oxidative stress at the cellular level. This is why the actual
risk categories turn out not to be asthmatics and other pulmonary patients, but instead
diabetics, hypertensics and people with coronary disease.
Many COVID-19 victims die not from ARDS, but from sudden heart attacks, strokes and renal
failure, in many cases systemic blood clotting is found. The "ground glass" lung photos are
in fact showing pervasive alveolar bleeding.
Check out the latest of many highly informative MedCram videos on the topic:
While a study of the experimental drug remdesivir as a treatment for Covid-19 published
positive preliminary results on Wednesday, such treatment is likely to remain just as far out of
reach as existing coronavirus care for many patients. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, nevertheless cheered the results, declaring the
trial had " proven " that " a drug can block this virus ."
Remdesivir, made exclusively by Gilead, received FDA approval for emergency use on Friday
after appearing to show clinical benefit in a single trial conducted by the National Institute
for Allergy and Infections Disease (NIAID). Gilead has pledged to donate 1.5 million doses of
the drug, and the stockpile currently on hand will be distributed to hospitals starting on
Monday, according to Vice President Mike Pence.
FDA commissioner Steve Gottlieb called the
drug an " important clinical advance. " Dr. Deborah Birx, head of the White House's
coronavirus task force, gushed that it was " the first positive step forward " in
treating Covid-19.
Emergency drug approval differs from full FDA approval in that it is only valid while the
emergency declaration - in this case, the coronavirus pandemic - remains in effect. Remdesivir
is not the first drug to receive such approval for treating Covid-19 - the malaria drugs
chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were approved on an emergency basis in late March. While
their use remains controversial due to the vocal support of President Donald Trump, doctors in
other countries (and even in the US) have anecdotally reported success in treating patients
with the malaria pills in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, though clinical trials
have produced mixed results.
While the results of the NIAID's remdesivir trial reported on Wednesday were reportedly
positive, indicating a 31 percent faster recovery time, the full data has not been publicly
released, let alone peer-reviewed. Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the NIAID, nevertheless cheered
the drug as having a " clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to
recovery ." He insisted the drug " can block this virus " and suggested that no
further studies with placebos were needed, declaring that scientists had an " ethical
obligation " to let those receiving the sugar pills have access to the active drug - no
further comparison needed.
Could Anthony Fauci explain why the investigators of the NIAID remdesivir trial did change
the primary outcome during the course of the project (16th April)? Removing "death" from
primary outcome is a surprising decision. https://t.co/ZnK9LiUzaX pic.twitter.com/Rq47FHqGyO
Skeptics have pointed to the NIAID's decision to change its trial's " endpoint " from
mortality to duration of illness as proof remdesivir is not the miracle pill it is being
portrayed as. Tellingly, the drug had no clinically significant effect on mortality for
patients enrolled in the trial. Others have questioned whether a drug initially developed as a
(failed) treatment for Ebola would have any effect on a totally different virus. Fauci's own
comparison of the NIAID trial to the first trial of AZT for HIV treatment also raised a few
eyebrows, as early high-dose AZT treatment was extremely deadly.
Another remdesivir trial Gilead has touted as positive in fact showed no difference in
clinical improvement between five-day and 10-day treatment groups on the 14th day of
observation. While the company suggested this meant more patients could be treated with the
drug, the lack of a control group rendered the results all but meaningless. Nevertheless,
Gilead flooded the media with positive releases about its two trials, drowning out concern
about a Chinese trial whose results had already been published in the Lancet, showing no
clinical benefit for the drug.
From the article: Two potent antihistamines, clemastine and cloperastine , also displayed antiviral activity...
...Interestingly, a seventh compound – an ingredient commonly found in cough suppressants, called dextromethorphan
– does the opposite: Its presence helps the virus.
In theory, any intersection on the map between viral and human proteins is a place where drugs could fight the coronavirus .
But instead of trying to develop new drugs to work on these points of interaction, we turned to
the more than 2,000 unique drugs already approved by the FDA for human use. We believed that
somewhere on this long list would be a few drugs or compounds that interact with the very same
human proteins as the coronavirus.
Every good linked article - thanks. Important takeaway from very early research finings: OTC
cough suppressant
..... "Interestingly, a seventh compound – an ingredient commonly found in cough
suppressants, called dextromethorphan – does the opposite: Its presence helps the
virus. When our partners tested infected cells with this compound, the virus was able to
replicate more easily, and more cells died.
This is potentially a very important finding, but, and I cannot stress this enough, more
tests are needed to determine if cough syrup with this ingredient should be avoided by
someone who has COVID-19........"
Treatment for the
Coronavirus is evolving. The disease is complicated and is not acting like influenza. They are
finding that it also causes brain infections, heart infections, and neurological problems.
Ventilators are generally not working. So now they are avoiding ventilators for the most part.
Sixty to eighty percent of the people put on ventilators either die or end up with additional
serious complications.
Instead doctors are now turning people on their stomachs and improving their oxygenation.
Dr. Richard Levitan, an airway specialist who has practiced emergency medicine for over 30
years addresses these issues.
Now rogue academics, rogue journalists, rogue former officials – anyone, in fact
– can go online and discover a myriad of things that until recently no one outside a
small establishment circle was ever supposed to understand. If you know where to look, you can
even find some of this stuff on Wikipedia (see, for example, Operation Timber Sycamore ).
The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of us
who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make
sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information
– good and bad alike – to digest.
Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the
non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money – rather
than the public interest – sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our
elites may be little better equipped than us – aside from their expensive educations
– to run our societies.
Two decades of lies
There has been a handful of staging posts over the past two decades to our current era of
the Great Disillusionment. They include:
lack of transparency in the US government's
investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 (obscured by a parallel online controversy
about what took place that day); the
documented lies told about the reasons for launching a disastrous and illegal war of
aggression against Iraq in 2003 that unleashed regional chaos, waves of destabilising
migration into Europe and new, exceptionally brutal forms of political Islam; the
astronomical bailouts after the 2008 crash of bankers whose criminal activities nearly
bankrupted the global economy (but who were never held to account) and instituted more
than a decade of austerity measures that had to be paid for by the public; the refusal by
western governments and global institutions to take any
leadership on tackling climate change , as not only the science but the weather itself
has made the urgency of that emergency clear, because it would mean taking on their corporate
sponsors; and now the criminal failures of our governments to
prepare for, and respond properly to, the Covid-19 pandemic, despite many years of warnings.
Anyone who still takes what our governments say at face value well, I have several bridges
to sell you.
Experts failed us
But it is not just governments to blame. The failings of experts, administrators and the
professional class have been all too visible to the public as well. Those officials who have
enjoyed easy access to prominent platforms in the state-corporate media have obediently
repeated what state and corporate interests wanted us to hear, often only for that information
to be exposed later as incomplete, misleading or downright fabricated.
In the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, too many political scientists, journalists and
weapons experts kept their heads down, keen to preserve their careers and status, rather than
speak up in support of those rare experts like Scott Ritter and
the late David Kelly who
dared to sound the alarm that we were not being told the whole truth.
In 2008, only a handful of economists was prepared to break with corporate orthodoxy and
question whether throwing money at bankers exposed as financial criminals was wise, or to
demand that these bankers be prosecuted. The economists did not argue the case that there must
be a price for the banks to pay, such as a public stake in the banks that were bailed out, in
return for forcing taxpayers to massively invest in these discredited businesses. And the
economists did not propose overhauling our financial systems to make sure there was no
repetition of the economic crash. Instead, they kept their heads down as well, in the hope that
their large salaries continued and that they would not lose their esteemed positions in
think-tanks and universities.
... ... ...
And recently we have learnt, for example, that a series of Conservative governments in the
UK recklessly ran down the
supplies of hospital protective gear , even though they had more than a decade of warnings
of a coming pandemic. The question is why did no scientific advisers or health officials blow
the whistle earlier. Now it is too late to save the lives of many thousands, including dozens
of medical staff, who have fallen victim so far to the virus in the UK.
Lesser of two evils
Worse still, in the Anglosphere of the US and the UK, we have ended up with political
systems that offer a choice between one party that supports a brutal, unrestrained version of
neoliberalism and another party that supports a marginally less brutal, slightly mitigated
version of neoliberalism. (And we have recently discovered in the UK that, after the grassroots
membership of one of those twinned parties managed to choose a leader in Jeremy Corbyn who
rejected this orthodoxy, his own party machine conspired
to throw the election rather than let him near power.) As we are warned at each election, in
case we decide that elections are in fact futile, we enjoy a choice – between the lesser
of two evils.
Those who ignore or instinctively defend these glaring failings of the modern corporate
system are really in no position to sit smugly in judgment on those who wish to question the
safety of 5G, or vaccines, or the truth of 9/11, or the reality of a climate catastrophe, or
even of the presence of lizard overlords.
Because through their reflexive dismissal of doubt, of all critical thinking on anything
that has not been pre-approved by our governments and by the state-corporate media, they have
helped to disfigure the only yardsticks we have for measuring truth or falsehood. They have
forced on us a terrible choice: to blindly follow those who have repeatedly demonstrated they
are not worthy of being followed, or to trust nothing at all, to doubt everything. Neither
position is one a healthy, balanced individual would want to adopt. But that is where we are
today.
Big Brother regimes
It is therefore hardly surprising that those who have been so discredited by the current
explosion of information – the politicians, the corporations and the professional class
– are wondering how to fix things in the way most likely to maintain their power and
authority.
They face two, possibly complementary options.
ORDER IT NOW
One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an argument
to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless
we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority.
Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who
have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth
mavericks and rebels.
This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And
these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be
exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests – the military-industrial complex
– that really run the show.
The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news", will
be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand. The
technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last two
decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies.
They will cite "conspiracy theories" – even the true ones – as proof that it is
time to
impose new curbs on internet freedoms, on the right to speak and to think. They will argue
that the social media experiment has run its course and proved itself a menace – because
we, the public, are a menace. They are already flying trial balloons for this new Big Brother
world, under cover of tackling the health threats posed by the Covid-19 epidemic.
Surveillance a price worth paying to beat coronavirus, says Blair thinktank https://t.co/AAb1nnv4pG
We should not be surprised that the "thought-leaders" for shutting down the cacophony of the
internet are those whose failures have been most exposed by our new freedoms to explore the
dark recesses of the recent past. They have included Tony Blair, the British prime minister who
lied western publics into the disastrous and illegal war on Iraq in 2003, and Jack Goldsmith,
rewarded as a Harvard law professor for his role – since whitewashed – in helping
the Bush administration legalise torture and step up warrantless surveillance programmes.
Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman,
credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and
laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK
pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I
The only alternative to a future in which we are ruled by Big Brother technocrats like Tony
Blair, or by chummy authoritarians who brook no dissent, or a mix of the two, will require a
complete overhaul of our societies' approach to information. We will need fewer curbs on free
speech, not more.
The real test of our societies – and the only hope of surviving the coming
emergencies, economic and environmental – will be finding a way to hold our leaders truly
to account. Not based on whether they are secretly lizards, but on what they are doing to save
our planet from our all-too-human, self-destructive instinct for acquisition and our craving
for guarantees of security in an uncertain world.
That, in turn, will require a transformation of our relationship to information and debate.
We will need a new model of independent, pluralistic, responsive, questioning media that is
accountable to the public, not to billionaires and corporations. Precisely the kind of media we
do not have now. We will need media we can trust to represent the full range of credible,
intelligent, informed debate, not the narrow Overton window through which we get a highly
partisan, distorted view of the world that serves the 1 per cent – an elite so richly
rewarded by the current system that they are prepared to ignore the fact that they and we are
hurtling towards the abyss.
With that kind of media in place – one that truly holds politicians to account and
celebrates scientists for their contributions to collective knowledge, not their usefulness to
corporate enrichment – we would not need to worry about the safety of our communications
systems or medicines, we would not need to doubt the truth of events in the news or wonder
whether we have lizards for rulers, because in that kind of world no one would rule over us.
They would serve the public for the common good.
Sounds like a fantastical, improbable system of government? It has a name: democracy. Maybe
it is time for us finally to give it a go.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
"The real threat isn't the virus that has killed 59,000 Americans. It is a nonexistent
vaccine for it."
There are many valid comments in that post, but...call me crazy...I will not be taking any
vaccine that's been rushed in a few months. Vaccines take quite a while to develop and the
consequences of taking a poorly researched one are quite severe. However, I doubt it will
come to that, as even the most optimistic vaccine estimate seems to be 18 to 24 months. By
which time herd immunity will have happened whether anyone wants it to or not.
Clearly this is much worse than any flu in the past century. But I don't blame anyone for
being suspicious when so many contract the disease either have mild symptoms or none at
all.
I really can't see COVID-19 as a bio-weapon, it's far too non-specific for that, but what I
might think possible is that someone developed it plus corresponding vaccine and
anti-COVID-19 drug to make billions out of it. The longer the release of the vaccine and drug
are delayed, the more valuable they become. If someone had released the vaccine straight
after COVID-19, it might be worth a few million dollars and the authorities would be very
suspicious, but if release was delayed for a few months it would be worth billions and every
country is so desperate for a vaccine/treatment they most likely be too bothered. It'd need a
new definition for the term vulture capitalist.
Let's also remember that Gilead/Rumsfeld were the driving forces with the Avian Flu Hoax
(Tamiflu) that resulted in scandals and mass profiting- Rumsfeld himself who was once CEO of
Gilead sold his Gilead shares and netted a handsome return.
Don't forget Rumsfelds attraction to vast sums of money. After Tamiflu, Aspartame, and now
Gilead there are still the two trillion $ that disappeared from Pentagon's accounts just
before 9/11.(The records/archives were in Bat 7, and the thing that hit the Pentagon itself,
exploded in the Finance/accounts section).
So statistically, where there is Rumsfeld it is 100% certain there is something that will
be profitable. Or should that be, where there is some profit to be made from a disaster, it
ought to be statistically possible to calculate the part that goes to Rummy?
So statistically, where there is Rumsfeld it is 100% certain there is something that will
be profitable. Or should that be, where there is some profit to be made from a disaster, it
ought to be statistically possible to calculate the part that goes to Rummy?
Posted by: Stonebird | Apr 29 2020 19:48 utc | 33
And why is that this obviously crony dude is always absent from scrutiny by the media and
Congress?
Why always the same circus of Biden and Trump?
The latest round of 'surveillance' testing for coronavirus antibodies was
done on first responders, and found that the number who tested positive was once again
surprisingly high.
For the past few weeks, more than 50 scientists have been working diligently to do something
that the Food and Drug Administration mostly has not: Verifying that 14 coronavirus
antibody tests now on the market actually deliver accurate results.
These tests are crucial to reopening the economy, but public health experts have raised
urgent concerns about their quality. The new research, completed just days ago and posted
online Friday, confirmed some of those fears: Of the 14 tests, only three delivered consistently reliable results . Even the
best had some flaws.
The research has not been peer-reviewed and is subject to revision. But the results are
already raising difficult questions about the course of the epidemic.
Surveys of residents in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and New York this week found that
substantial percentages tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the official name of the
new coronavirus. In New York City, the figure was said to be as high as 21 percent. Elsewhere,
it was closer to 3 percent.
The idea that many residents in some parts of the country have already been exposed to the
virus has wide implications. At the least, the finding could greatly complicate plans to reopen
the economy.
Already Americans are scrambling to take antibody tests to see if they might escape
lockdowns. Public health experts are wondering if those with positive results might be allowed
to return to work.
But these tactics mean nothing if the test results can't be trusted.
In the new research, researchers found that only one of the tests never delivered a
so-called false positive -- that is, it never mistakenly signaled antibodies in people who did
not have them.
Two other tests did not deliver false-positive results 99 percent of the time. But the
converse was not true. Even these three tests detected antibodies in infected people only 90
percent of the time, at best.
The false-positive metric is particularly important. The result may lead people to
believe themselves immune to the virus when they are not, and to put themselves in danger by
abandoning social distancing and other protective measures.
It is also the result on which scientists are most divided.
"There are multiple tests that look reasonable and promising," said Dr. Alexander Marson, an
immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the project's leaders.
"That's some reason for optimism."
Dr. Marson is also an investigator in the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, which partly funded the
study.
Other scientists were less sanguine than Dr. Marson. Four of the tests produced
false-positive rates ranging from 11 percent to 16 percent; many of the rest hovered around 5
percent.
"... By JoNel Aleccia, Senior Correspondent at Kaiser Health News, who previously reported for The Seattle Times, NBCNews.com, TODAY.com and MSNBC.com. Originally published at Kaiser Health News ..."
By JoNel Aleccia, Senior Correspondent at Kaiser Health News, who previously reported
for The Seattle Times, NBCNews.com, TODAY.com and MSNBC.com. Originally published at
Kaiser Health News
After hearing for months about serious access issues involving tests that diagnose COVID-19
based on swabs from the nose or throat, Americans are being inundated with reports about
promising new tests that look for signs of infection in the blood.
There are high hopes for these antibody tests, which detect proteins that form in blood as
part of the body's immune response to an invading virus. Communities across the U.S. have been
rolling out the results of serological surveys that examine blood samples from people who
haven't been diagnosed with COVID-19 to see if they were, in fact, previously infected.
The thinking is, if there are blood markers that can detect when people have been infected,
such tests should be able to tell us how widely the novel coronavirus has spread. And equally
optimistic: those same antibodies could convey immunity to the disease, signaling someone is
safe from reinfection and able to get back to work.
Such high hopes, however, are running smack into the roadblocks of reality.
Infectious disease experts are raising pointed questions about the reliability of the early
tests and the studies that hinge on their results. And they warn that state and local
governments -- as well as individuals -- should be wary of shaping policy or changing behavior
based on any single report.
In the sharpest caution to date, officials with the World Health Organization on Saturday
warned against plans for proposed "immunity passports," which would allow people who have
recovered from the coronavirus to resume unrestricted travel and work.
"There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have
antibodies are protected from a second infection," the agency wrote in a scientific brief.
Even before the WHO weighed in, other experts were urging restraint in interpreting early
results of antibody screening.
"The science is catching up," said Dr. Liise-anne Pirofski, chief of the division of
infectious diseases at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System.
"Our ability to make a test at the moment is much greater than our understanding of what those
antibodies we are testing for mean."
In the past few weeks, more than 180 academic centers, hospitals and private manufacturers
have notified the federal Food and Drug Administration that they intend to create serology
tests for COVID-19, spokesperson Stephanie Caccomo said in an email. They've been able to jump
into the fray because the FDA in March
relaxed regulations for developing tests as part of its emergency response to the
pandemic.
But the FDA has not reviewed the vast majority of tests on the market, and their validity,
particularly point-of-care blood tests that promise rapid results within minutes, isn't clear,
said Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute and a professor of
laboratory medicine at the University of California-San Francisco.
"Some of them have sensitivities that are quite poor," he said. "You may even miss some
infected people completely."
Other tests may flag people as positive for COVID-19 when they're not infected. That's
especially true in regions of the country with little spread of the novel virus. If the
prevalence of a disease is low, less than 5%, even an accurate test would yield a high number
of false positive results because of the way such screening tools operate.
So when people see advertisements for finger-prick antibody tests becoming widely available
at urgent care centers and medispas, they should think twice.
For one, antibody tests can't be used to diagnose the disease. Antibodies may not be present
in high enough levels to be detected in the earliest days of an infection. And because there
are several other known coronaviruses -- including those that cause the common cold -- people
infected with those viruses could produce antibodies that cross-react with those produced in
response to the new virus.
Scientists still know too little about whether antibodies to COVID-19 convey immunity that
could allow people to put away masks and halt social distancing, said Dr. Mary Hayden, director
of the division of clinical microbiology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.
Immunity to a virus is a complicated process that takes place over one to two weeks, the WHO
noted. The immune system makes antibodies in response to an infection. But the body also makes
T-cells that recognize and eliminate other cells infected with the virus, creating what's known
as cellular immunity. Those two processes together may help a person recover and prevent
reinfection. But it is not yet clear whether cellular immunity is required to bolster recovery
and prevent subsequent infection with COVID-19.
"We do not know whether or not the antibodies detected are protective," Hayden told
reporters last week on a call organized by the
Infectious Diseases Society of America . "We recommend that people with antibodies not
change their behavior in any way."
Scientists are hoping, however, that future COVID-19 studies may demonstrate immunity that
could last for one or two years.
Concerns about the validity of the tests have cast a shadow on several recent reports aiming
to quantify the spread of the virus in specific regions. Last week, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
revealed the results of a serological survey that suggested that 1 in 5 New
York City residents had been infected with the coronavirus. Statewide, the figure was
13.9%, according to the study of 3,000 New Yorkers in 19 counties who were recruited at grocery
stores.
But the results quickly drew criticism. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who directs the city's
disease control, warned that the tests could produce
"false negative or false positive results. " Florian Krammer, a microbiology professor at
the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai who designs such tests, tweeted -- and later
deleted -- that the results were "BS."
"I think this is too high," he said in a later tweet. "It is
possible. But a 20% plus infection rate seems too high for NYC due to a number of reasons. I
would think 6-8%, maybe 10% are closer to the truth. It would be nice to know more about the
test, its sensitivity and specificity and the test population."
Similarly, two serology studies in California, one in Santa Clara County and one in Los
Angeles County, drew wide criticism about the recruitment of subjects and the analyses
used.
In the Santa Clara study ,
Stanford University researchers tested 3,330 volunteers for antibodies showing exposure to
COVID-19; about 1.5% were positive. They concluded that meant from 48,000 to 81,000 people were
infected with the virus in the county.
"It was completely inadequate to interpret the results that 50,000 to 80,000 people were
infected," Busch said.
The L.A. study, conducted by University of Southern California researchers, concluded that
2.8%
to 5.6% of the county's adult population had been exposed to the coronavirus. That
translates to 221,000 to 422,000 adult residents who have been infected. Critics, however,
argued that the study sample was too small and that details of the methodology weren't
immediately available.
Busch understands the drive to conduct such tests.
"People are asking the questions: What's the real denominator to judge the case counts and
the death counts against?" he said. "People are urgently trying to get data."
Unfortunately, that data simply is not available yet, other experts said. This coronavirus
has never been seen before, so the science that will inform efforts to help communities respond
and recover is playing out in real time.
"The problem is that the science has not kept up with the tests," Hayden said. "Now we need
to do the research to tell what the results mean."
On the positive side, most of the scientific community has pivoted to focus on finding
solutions, said Pirofski, who was also on the IDSA call. "We just have to slow our roll."
"This is our first dive in trying to understand what's going on," she said. "I would say
it's a start."
US attorney
Robert F Kennedy Jr says that top Trump advisor Anthony Fauci has made the reckless choice
to
fast track vaccines, partially
funded by Gates , without critical
animal studies . Gates is so worried about the danger of adverse events that he says
vaccines shouldn't be distributed until governments
agree to indemnity against lawsuits.
But this should come as little surprise. The Gates Foundation and its global vaccine agenda
already has much to answer for. Instead of prioritizing projects that are proven to curb
infectious diseases and improve health – clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic
development – Kennedy notes that the Gates Foundation spends
only about $650 million of its $5 billion budget on these areas.
It is fair to say that the Gates Foundation has an agenda: it believes that many of its aims
can be delivered via the barrel of a syringe. It has
been well documented in recent weeks about how the Gates Foundation has spread its
tentacles into every facet of global health policy.
For instance, it is a major funder of the World Health Organization and donates to other
pivotal players in the COVID-19 saga, not least Imperial College London whose Neil Ferguson
produced hugely flawed data upon which the UK government implemented a lockdown, which entailed
sanctioning draconian state
powers and stripping of people's basic rights via the Coronavirus Emergency Act.
Although often alluded to, Gates's push for cashless societies is given less attention in
the current climate but is just as important. It is not only the major pharmaceutical
corporations which the Gates Foundation is firmly in bed with (along with the big
agri-food players ), it is also embedded with Wall Street financial interests.
The global shift from cash towards digital transactions is being spearheaded by Bill Gates
and US financial corporations who will profit from digital payments. At the same time, by
controlling digital payments (and removing cash), you can control and monitor everything a
country and its citizens do and pay for.
As a research scientist in the life sciences at Imperial College, this interview is the
best source of information I have seen on the internet. Thank you so much.
This format where you ask a question and allow a detailed response was delightful!
Watching this conversation between two highly skilled and intelligent doctors who are full of
compassion has given me hope. Please do more video's like this ? Well done doctors well
done!
I am a retired Teamster in Syracuse, New York, who joined the civil rights, antiwar, and
environmental movements as a teenager in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s. In 1984, I
co-founded the Green Party. In 2010, I was the first U.S. candidate to campaign for a Green
New Deal in the first of three campaigns for New York governor that won Green Party ballot
lines.
To end the climate crisis, I have detailed an Ecosocialist Green New Deal to create 38
million new jobs, 100% clean energy, and zero carbon emissions by 2030.
To end poverty and economic insecurity, I propose an Economic Bill of Rights: job
guarantee, guaranteed minimum income, affordable housing, improved Medicare for all,
tuition-free public education pre–K to college, and secure retirement by doubling
Social Security.
To end endless wars, I support 75% military spending cuts, U.S. troops home, diplomacy,
international law, human rights, and a Global Green New Deal.
To end the new nuclear arms race, I favor no first use, minimum credible deterrent, and
ratification of the new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
I support unions, $20 minimum wage, worker co-ops, public banks, public energy, public
railroads, progressive taxation, net neutrality, internet privacy, ending mass surveillance,
no nukes, no fracking, abortion rights, student and medical debt relief, decriminalizing
drugs, ending mass incarceration, police under community control, immigrant amnesty,
African-American reparations, Indian and Mexican-American treaty rights, whistleblower and
political prisoner pardons, and presidential elections by National Popular Vote using
Ranked-Choice Voting. [Ranked Choice Voting is a huge fraud -- which many well-meaning people
fall for]
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had posted this comment at the 'coronavirus and smoking' thread, but it looks like it may
be a major advance on understanding COVID-19 and how it affects the body so will post it here
as well.
Varga has been able to use an electron microscope to verify for the first time that
SARS-CoV-2 is present and causes cell necrosis in endothelial tissue.
Endothelial tissue is a cell layer that acts as a protective shield in blood vessels and
regulates and balances out various processes in the microvessels. The disruption of this
regulatory process can, for example, cause circulatory disorders in organs and body tissue,
resulting in cellular necrosis and thus to the death of these organs or tissue...
... This means that the virus not only triggers the inflammation of the lungs, which
then causes further complications, but is also directly responsible for systemic
endotheliitis, an inflammation of all endothelial tissue in the body which affects all
vessel beds – in heart, brain, lung and renal vessels as well as vessels in the
intestinal tract....
...The endothelial tissue of younger patients is usually capable of coping well with the
attacks launched by the virus. The situation is different for patients suffering from
hypertension, diabetes, heart failure or coronary heart diseases, all of which have one
thing in common – their endothelial function is markedly impaired. If patients such
as these become infected with SARS-COV-2, they will be particularly at risk, as their
already weakened endothelial function will diminish even further, especially during the
phase in which the virus reproduces the most.
It was actually quite a thing in the 1940's and 1950's for diseases like septicemia,
pneumonia, tuberculosis, arthritis, asthma and even poliomyelitis.
Low and mild doses of UV kill microorganisms by damaging the DNA, while any DNA damage in
host cells can be rapidly repaired by DNA repair enzymes.
Having done a bit of reading on porphyrins of late and seeing a NY doctor mentioning that
covid-19 patients have hypoxia w/o pneumonia and good lung function got me thinking. This may
be due to the porphyrin heme is unable to transport oxygen , perhaps because the virus
somehow has displaced iron from the porphyrin (heme) , and makes me wonder if UV light can
help in this regard .
Porphyrins are highly pigmented (heme gives blood its red color) fluorescent molecules .
Strong pigments are always efficient energy absorbers, and if they are also fluorescent like
porphyrins, they are also good energy transmitters.
Porphyrins are more efficient energy transmitters than any other of life's components. In
technical terms, their ionization potential is low, and their electron affinity high. They
are therefore capable of transmitting large amounts of energy rapidly in small steps, one
low-energy electron at a time. They can even transmit energy electronically from oxygen to
other molecules, instead of dissipating that energy as heat and burning up. That's why
breathing is possible.
The word porphyrin is derived from the Greek porphura meaning purple. The pandemic
exercise last year was named Crimson Contagion. Crimson is a strong, red color, inclining to
purple like heme. Coincidence?
Could it be that whatever is causing COVID-19 , and we dont know for sure because kochs
postulate was not fulfilled on the virus China said they isolated, that it is infecting or
altering a porphyrin like heme?
Completely out of my depth here of course. Food for thought though.
Interesting comment about crimson contegion. The attack on hemogloblin was reported a few
weeks ago but has since disappeared. Do not know if it was true. Perhaps UVC in conjunction
with ECMO which involves shunting blood outside the body and then back again may be a means
to kill the virus, thus suppressing the disease progression.
The evidence we have is pretty clear that people who have been living in places that are
more polluted over time, that they are more likely to die from coronavirus – Aaron
Bernstein
The study, which looked across 3,080 counties in the United States, also found people who
have lived in counties with long-term pollution exposure for 15-20 years have significantly
higher mortality rates, says Wu.
While the study has yet to be peer-reviewed by independent experts, Wu says that the
association is likely down to the higher risk of existing respiratory and heart diseases in
areas of higher pollution. Air pollution is also known to weaken
the immune system , compromising people's ability to fight off infection, according to the
European Public Health Alliance.
"If Manhattan had lowered its average particulate matter level by just a single unit, or one
microgram per cubic meter, over the past 20 years, the borough would most likely have seen 248
fewer Covid-19 deaths by this point in the outbreak [4 April 2020]," the researchers
conclude.
A study of air quality in
Italy's northern provinces of Lombardy and Emilia Romagna also found a correlation between
Covid-19 mortality rates and high levels of pollution. Lombardy makes up the vast majority of
the country's deaths,
at 13,325 of Italy's 26,644 as of 26 April , while Emilia Romagna was the province with the
next greatest death toll, at 3,386. The researchers questioned the role of low air quality in
their becoming hotspots, concluding that: "the high level of pollution in northern Italy should
be considered an additional co-factor of the high level of lethality recorded in that
area".
You could pick any city in the world and expect to see an effect of air pollution on
people's risk of getting sicker from coronavirus – Aaron Bernstein
These are not the first studies to highlight a substantial link between air
pollution levels and deaths from viral diseases. A 2003 study found
that patients with Sars, a respiratory virus closely related to Covid-19, were 84% more likely
to die if they lived in areas with high levels of pollution.
When the idea 'lungs affected by' 'pneumonia' plus 'smoking' plus 'Chinese men bigly smokers
(women not)' came up, I posted, this is junk!
Smoking reduces ACE2 receptors, these being (reportedly ..) 'the' or 'one of the' entry
avenues for cov-19 virus.
That social media was, is, filled with such rubbish is understandable, as smoking has
become in many places a marker of low status, smokers are disgusting ppl, druggies,
polluters, child killers, gutter filth.
Note the difference with cocaine users who tend to be quite well off - at least in EU -
and get a pass, nobody is screaming your doc is mad high and will cut in the wrong place, or
X leader is coked up talking BS...(Macron?)
Yet, that supposedly serious authorative organisms like the CDC in the US (and all the MSM
following) blithely announce being a smoker as a condition that is co-morbid is worrisome. I
checked just now and today the CDC has removed 'smoking' as part of the list of conditions
that make ppl vulnerable.
What about the other conditions, characteristics? They are all correlated with older age,
being in a 'rich' country, aka more elderly living taking a pile of pills everyday.
So is having gray hair (correlates with age), is losing 2 cms in height (correlates with
age), taking X meds, eating junk food, or more, leading to cov-19 deaths? What really makes
older ppl more susceptible to death by nov-19?
None of this informs us about the cellular (or more general) mechanisms of the virus, its
attack, success in function of x y z factors or whatever. All very shoddy check boxes (with
no solid support) parading as 'Your Gvmt top info.'
Plus, the few stand out group-differences that could lead to some insight, such as death
of men, much higher vs. women, are not considered seriously (or only so in a few
publications, etc.)
@Mina #102
All true, but again, not clear where density ranks in the grand scheme of nCOV impact.
Just for grins - I did a quick experiment on US states. Specifically I compared the absolute
ranking of each state in terms of density vs. its ranking in nCOV mortality per unit
population: US state density vs. nCOV mortality
The top 12 states in terms of nCOV mortality - almost all of them are roughly also the
densest states.
DC is the densest and is #7 in nCOV mortality.
New Jersey is #2 in both.
New York is #1 in mortality and #10 in density.
The major outliers in the top 12 nCOV mortality is Louisiana (due to Mardi Gras) and
Michigan (?).
Other outliers: Washington state: +14 nCOV mortality vs. density - but of course
Washington state is where nCOV kicked off in the US.
The 3 island territories and Hawaii are all hugely below their density rankings - that's
clearly a case of isolation working.
Excluding those 4, the average state is +3 places in nCOV mortality vs. density.
The top 12 nCOV mortality average average +5 places in nCOV mortality vs. density.
This certainly doesn't prove anything, but is interesting.
Several serological studies for the presence of IgM-IgG antibodies have concluded that the
percentage of individuals infected with the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 is 50-80x higher than
the recorded cases, due to recovered asymptomatic cases that were not tested during the
infection using the RT-PCR test.
Unfortunately, this serological test yields very high false positives "due to past or
present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63,
OC43, or 229E." Yes, if a person has had a common cold they would likely test positive!!! https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covid-19-rt/
Other limitations mentioned by this manufacturer include:
(1) Lacks FDA review due to the urgency of testing;
(2) "Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in those who have
been in contact with the virus. Follow-up testing with a molecular diagnostic should be
considered to rule out infection in these individuals.";
(3) "Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or
exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection or to inform infection status." "The COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test
can be used to screen patients suspected of having been affected by the novel coronavirus.
However, results of test should not be the only basis for diagnosis.";
(4) Only used on fresh samples and tested immediately;
(5) "Results are valid 10 minutes after sample and buffer are combined in the cassette sample
well. ";
(6) This test has a low sensitivity, as it has been determined to detect only 88.66% of those
confirmed to be positive by the PCR test;
(7) This test have a low specificity of 90.63%, as 9.37% of those patients tested were not
SARS-CoV-2 infected;
Other issues with serological testing in the fore mentioned studies include":
(1) Lack of random sampling for age, sex, ethnic background, socio-economic status etc.
(2) Potential of super-recruiter bias from word of mouth of the drive by test site(s)
Given the measured sensitivity and selectivity from the above test one can calculate the
following for a 1% infection rate (10,000) among one million people:
Positive cases found =8,866 (0.8866%)
False positives found= 92,763 (9.2763%)
Ratio of false/real =92,763/92,763+8,866 = 91.28% of positive tests are false
Thus the herd immunity is greatly exaggerated in serological testing. For instance, if a
serological study claims that 20% of the population has been exposed to COVID-19, the actual
percentage of the population exposed to this virus is actually 1.74%.
All such studies using serological testing should contain a BIG disclaimer on the accuracy
of the results.
Chinese
scientists have found that Europe and America's East Coast have been infected by some of the
most aggressive Covid-19 strains, as they discovered dozens of virus mutations. These destroy a
host's cells faster than others. The ability of the novel coronavirus to mutate has been
previously vastly underestimated, a team from China's Zhejiang University, led by Professor Li
Lanjuan, says in a new study. The group found as many as 33 virus mutations in just 11
coronavirus patients they examined in the city of Hangzhou.
The researchers say that 60 percent of the strains they discovered turned out to be entirely
new. In a worrying development, they also discovered that the virus's mutations directly affect
its deadliness. Their research revealed that the most aggressive type of Covid-19 could create
a virus load 270 times greater than the least potent one.
"Despite only 11 patient-derived isolates being analyzed in this study, we observed
abundant mutational diversity, including several founding mutations for different major
clusters of viruses now circulating globally," the study said.
The virus load is the measure of its quantity in a certain volume of bodily fluid, usually
blood plasma. It particularly shows how quickly a pathogen could propagate through the organism
and destroy its cells. Unfortunately for Europeans, one of the most aggressive strains found by
the Chinese scientists appears to be similar to the one that has spread across the continent,
particularly Italy and Spain, the pre-print of the study published on
the website medRxiv.org revealed on Sunday.
The same strain came from Europe to New York, which has since become one of the worst
affected US states. America's West Coast, however, appears to be infected by another, less
deadly strain that arrived directly from China.
Nonetheless, that doesn't mean those on the West Coast have less cause for concern, as even
less powerful strains can cause a serious ailment, the Zhejiang University team warns. They
note that two of the observed patients, in their 30s and 50s, who contracted a weaker strain,
still suffered severe symptoms.
Most importantly, though, the scientists say their discoveries could affect the development
of the much-needed vaccine, because a one-size-fits-all solution might not work in case of
Covid-19.
"Drug and vaccine development, while urgent, needs to take the impact of these
accumulating mutations, especially the founding mutations, into account to avoid potential
pitfalls," the team says.
Globally, the novel coronavirus has thus far infected more than 2.3 million people and
claimed more than 170,000 lives.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
I have to say that the last few paragraphs of your post, in which you say that the most
effective way of limiting the spread of COVID-19 is to isolate the sick in special quarantine
conditions in clinics or hotels set aside for just that purpose, can be used to argue against
a general shutdown of society across entire nations or regions, or even cities or communities
where COVID-19 clusters exist.
The Chinese information suggesting that 99% of infections occur indoors should prompt
builders, architects, engineers and aircdonditioning manufacturers to consider ways in which
conventional airconditioning systems in enclosed environments might be adjusted or redesigned
to mis fresh air with recycled and recycling air, so as to reduce the possibility of
spreading COVID-19 and other contagions (like Legionnaire's) through internal systems.
There may be a case for reintroducing some sports events that are normally played
outdoors, and even bringing professional indoor sports out into the open again. Basketball,
netball and other sports using a ball and hoop could become completely outdoors in their
professional formats like many other team sports, and might attract more fans. Gymnastics
used to be an outdoor sport as well. No reason why major gymnastics events at regional,
national and international levels can't be brought outdoors: special mats for floor exercises
and for protection could be made and used for outdoor events.
Even back then during SARS 1 some infections occured via the ventilation system.
One chinese report recently claimed hydrogen peroxide vapor in the hospital ventilation
system helped decrease Covid 19 symptoms among the patients.
HPV is highly effective for sterilisation purposes, including of N95 masks and hospital
equipment.
On the outdoor issue it is known that sun and heat kill this and other viruses, so it is
better if indoor activity also coincides with warm and sunny weather.
On the point of family or shared domicile infections, this is a good article about the
working class, immigrant area of Boston called Chelsea. It's a major hot zone of covid
infections. The images coming out of Chelsea are heart breaking.
That aside, the article shows that a key source of community spread is working class
poverty and the types of cramped housing that result from it. Racism and immigration are
obviously also part of the story.
But the article also sites, positively, the Chinese method of extracting people from their
homes to protect everyone.
The article indirectly indicts American capitalism and political and civic institutions
for being unable to replicate those effective Chinese methods.
The obvious implications of the article are that the covid crisis in the US is a social
one, that poverty is death, and that the struggle against the virus is inextricable from the
urgent necessity of socialist transformation.
"A two week quarantine in a hotel or public facility during which one is well provided
for...It is hard to understand why some people continue to reject this."
Because no one has ever seen government behave this way. Because we live in terror of the
police. Because in USA there is no public health infrastructure at all and any such program
would be administered by police.
The only way to combat COVID-19 is good old fashion public health principles of testing,
tracing and isolating the ill. Western governments have failed at their most fundamental job
of saving the lives of their citizens. This is not a coincidence. It is the direct result of
the end of democracy and the rise of the multi-national plutocracy. This is shown by the
corporate media's ignoring of the western national governments' failures to institute public
health measures; instead, it harps on Donald Trump's letting the light shine inside the body
to kill the virus.
The bankers got 4.5 trillion dollars. If a fraction of this was spent to prevent and stop
the spread of the coronavirus, 50,000 Americans would not be dead today. But that would
require a functional government and taxing the rich, homeless living inside Hilton hotels,
the last thing oligarchs want. So, "it is just like the flu". "Freedom", scapegoating",
"racism", and "shaming" are all used to hide the truth.
Whatever it is 'a flu', the 'common cold', an invention by the heroes of the Protocols of
Zion or a pandemic of the sort most of us think that we see around us and some of us feel is
a pure invention... whatever.
It is a crisis of Capitalism, a major crisis which calls all the conventional wisdom of
the past seventy going on three hundred years into question.
How has the market been doing?
What do we think of the invisible hand now?
Commodity prices are crumbling, supply chains are drying up. And all that the capitalist can
do is to scream racist insults- hoping that the people will forgive the famine if they can be
fed hatred of foreigners instead.
There have probably been more strikes in the US in the past three months than there had
been in the last ten years. A Universal Basic Income-the revival of the idea that the people
have first call on all resources- the polar opposite to Capitalism's insistence that the only
thing that makes people work is the fear of starving, is coming. It has to come, and when it
does one of the foundation stones of the entire edifice of exploitation is removed.
Next week we will see what happens when the capitalists order workers to risk their lives by
going back to work in workplaces that are unsafe, without proper masks and protective
gear.
And we will see here whose side commenters are on and how many are ready to progress from
trivialising the pandemic into strike breaking. Strike breaking in the name of
anti-authoritarianism; strike breaking packaged as 'right to work' freedoms.
The "cardiologists" in this report are either irresponsible, paid by the pharma/vaccine
lobby and/or are not keeping up with the medical literature.
Hydroxychloroquine is only effective in the onset of symptom and only in conjunction with
organically bound available zinc. The doctors administered hydroxychloroquine in the ICU at a
late stage of the dis-ease progression which is too late. They also used very high doses of
hydroxychloroquine (without zinc), resulting in toxicity issues as with any chlorinated
organic.
Azithromycin should be incorporated as a precautionary as it prevents secondary lung
infections but can enhance heart rhythm disorders . https://www.drugs.com/azithromycin.html
Yes, COVID-19 is not only a sudden acute respiratory disease (SARS). However, it is not a
blood infection either! The SARS-CoV-2 virus following infection, replication and release
primarily from cell in the nasal passages, throat and trachea does infect lung cells causing
fluid buildup and cellular debris, which provide nutrients for secondary bacterial infections
as well as current infections with mycobacteria in TB.
Yes the virus does travel visa the blood and can bind to ACE2 receptors in many other
organs besides the nasal passages, throat and lungs. It also binds to CD-127 receptors. The
proposed blood infection (red blood cells) mode of action has not been proven.
Yes free radicals are increased in the blood in part to the mechanism you mention but also
by reducing the vitamin C level in the bloodstream. The antioxidant properties of vitamin C
is why a Seattle doctor was able to recover using IV vitamin C along with an anti-arthritis
drug.
The principal cause of death is the cytokine storm that several posters have already
described over a month ago. Associated with this inflammation of tissues, particularly the
lung, is the deposition of fibrin in the capillary bed resulting in blockages and a lack of
gas transfer. These blockages cause the blood pressure to rise and even the heart to
"explode" if the blood has no where to go. https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-complications#1
MedCram series
Mass sport events still should be closed. The same is true for concert, mass prayers and
such. It is generally desirable to move professional sport event outdoor now and enforce social
distancing. Mega Churches should be closed until the Second Coming and prayers allowed only on
open air with proper social distanceing.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp: "We will allow gyms, fitness centers, bowling alleys, body art
studios, barbers, cosmetologists, hair designers, nail care artists, aestheticians, their
respective schools, and massage therapists to reopen their doors this Friday, April the
24th."
#chloroquine
Pr Didier Raoult : "C'est quand les patients ont des formes modérées, moyennes, ou qui
commencent à s'aggraver, qu'il faut les traiter. A ce moment là on contrôle les virus qui se
multiplient. Quand ils sont rentrés en réanimation, le problème ce n'est plus le virus"
pic.twitter.com/WolGe2o05z
That did not stop Le Monde, France's biggest newspaper, of declaring his February 25 video as
"partially false
." Raoult's 'sin' was to argue that the common anti-malaria drug used widely for
decades resulted in
"dramatic improvements
" among those afflicted by the virus.
As a result of Le Monde's fact-check, anyone attempting to share Dr. Raoult's videos on Facebook
gets a banner saying the information therein was
"partially false"
as
"determined by
independent fact-checkers."
The main argument put forward by those critical of the drug is that more testing is required before
it can be officially approved as treatment for the coronavirus. As the US Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC)
puts it
,
"There are no currently available data from Randomized Clinical Trials to inform
clinical guidance on the use, dosing, or duration of hydroxychloroquine"
treatments for Covid-19.
Which is fair enough, but last time I checked, there was a
pandemic
going on, with
billions of people locked in their homes and all business grinding to a halt across the globe, over
apocalyptic predictions of hospitals brimming with corpses due to this coronavirus.
Should any kind of treatment – especially a drug that has been used safely for decades to treat
something else, with side effects meticulously documented – be so cavalierly rejected, under the
circumstances? Do
"experts
" really think the world has the luxury of waiting for months or
even years for their controlled lab studies?
As for the fact-checkers, shouldn't they have applied the same rigor to the models used to scare
everyone into hoarding toilet paper and setting off a depression orders of magnitude worse than
anything the world has ever seen?
To ask these questions is to answer them, yet no one seems to bother. Nor is this sort of selective
blindness endemic to France; across the Atlantic, the mainstream media raised their voices in unison
against chloroquine after US President Donald Trump brought it up as a possible treatment – apparently
referring to Dr. Raoult's work.
They went so far as to widely circulate a deliberately misleading story about an Arizona couple
that ate fish tank cleaner – chloroquine phosphate, clearly labeled not for human consumption – as
somehow Trump's fault. Some of them quietly amended it to specify the difference, but long after the
original story – implying they took the actual medication praised by the president – literally went
viral and poisoned the minds of millions.
Worse yet, as a result of this media blitz, the governor of Nevada actually banned using
chloroquine to treat Covid-19 patients this week, saying there was
"no consensus among experts or
Nevada doctors"
that the anti-malaria drug can treat coronavirus sufferers. There were no angry
editorials denouncing Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, for letting people die or the coronavirus rather than
have them treated with a drug endorsed by the Republican president and the media's favorite hate
object.
One would think the world paralyzed with fear of the invisible death would pounce on every possible
solution, no matter how unlikely it seems. That's what we're shown in Hollywood disaster movies, after
all. Yet when such a solution presents itself, it is dismissed and denounced as "
not proven"
!
We're supposed to blindly trust apocalyptic models produced by panic-mongering political hacks, but
ignore the man who says the drug brought him back from the brink of death, even though his story can
be easily verified and theirs cannot.
"Preferring opinions to facts is a disease
," Dr. Raoult told the French magazine Marianne
last week
. Just so.
I don't know if hydroxychloroquine works on Covid-19. Dr. Raoult seems to believe so, and he's not
alone. In the absence of better solutions – and locking billions of people in their homes indefinitely
is not one – don't we owe humanity to at least try? What do we have to lose?
In the three months or so since the coronavirus first appeared in China, there has been a lot of
conflicting, confusing and outright false information about it. One thing that has consistently proven
true, however, is that the biggest obstacle in effectively battling its spread and treating the
afflicted has been the obtuse insistence of the political and medical establishment on blindly
following their rules. If the virus is truly threatening to kill millions, as they say, they would not
value procedures over saving lives. Nevertheless, they persist. It makes one wonder why.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
As the world seeks a Covid-19 panacea, treating patients with plasma harvested from those who have
recovered from the virus is being touted as a possible cure – but big challenges still remain,
scientists say.
It's been months since the novel coronavirus started to rage across China, spilling over to other
countries and infecting more than a million people around the world, but there is still no clinically
tested vaccine or medication. However, one possible treatment that has been around for over a century
is attracting attention, with some scientists suggesting it could be a game-changer – provided that
certain flaws are removed.
What is this plasma treatment about?
The approach basically revolves around harvesting convalescent plasma, the yellowish liquid
component of human blood, from someone who recovered from a viral infection and transfusing it to a
newly infected patient.
Plasma is essential here because it is rich in antibodies – proteins that bind to parts of the
virus and neutralize it. Remarkably, antibodies are produced against specific types of viruses,
effectively becoming an
"anti-virus serum,"
Aleksey Kupryashov, head of blood transfusion at
Bakulev Center of Cardiovascular Surgery, explained to RT.
The idea behind the therapy is very straightforward – sharing antibodies taken from patients with a
robust immune system could help other, weaker ones to recover.
Conceptualized by German physiologist Emil von Behring – the first recipient of the Nobel Prize in
Medicine – the method has actually been around for over a century. Just recently, in mid-March, Arturo
Casadevall of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and Liise-anne Pirofski of the Albert
Einstein Medical College championed the treatment, claiming infusions of antibodies could potentially
protect people from the virus for several weeks.
Later in the same month, their Chinese colleagues suggested that convalescent plasma had helped
Covid-19 patients even on ventilation, but their study was based on only five cases.
Is it efficient or at least SAFE?
As health workers used to say in the Hippocratic Oath, doing no harm is key in medicine. Can we be
sure that treating Covid-19 patients with antibody-packed plasma will do no harm?
"We transfuse hundreds of thousands [or] millions of blood units in hospitals, and the severe
outcomes are really low,"
Professor Jeff Bailey of the US-based Brown University told RT. The
logic behind using plasma against Covid-19 is
"very strong"
because
"a person who has
recovered has good antibodies that will block and neutralize the virus,"
he explained. However,
one big issue is that
"it's a new disease, we haven't transfused a lot."
Another concern that may arise is that every 200 or 400 milliliters of transfused plasma expands
the patient's blood stream. This will present no problem if the patient's kidneys work well, but if
they don't, the volume could increase fluid in their lungs, worsening the condition.
But will the therapy work for everyone, given that there are no compelling statistics showing
whether the plasma transfusion is efficient against the Covid-19?
"You have to try it, only experimenting can tell us yes or no,"
argued Sergey Netesov, a
leading virologist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
At any rate, trying experimental therapy is better than
"dying on the spot without any
medication."
Physicians on the front line urgently need trials to study the benefits of plasma treatment as new
drugs are being developed, Bailey agreed.
What you want to know is if this helps survival [by] 50 percent and something else
helps survival [by] 25 percent, you probably want to go with the one that's 50 percent.
Dr Charles Rupprecht of the Department of Biomedical Sciences at Ross University said "
there is
no magic bullet"
in the absence of peer-reviewed, large-scale, long-term, double-blinded studies
proving the benefits of plasma in Covid-19 treatment.
The scientist, who leads the rabies section at his institution, referred to that disease as an
example. Rabies immune globulin (RIG) – which also contains large amounts of antibodies from donated
blood – is
"one critical part of prevention after humans have been exposed to a rabid animal,"
but it's
"short-acting"
and is usually used in a healthy patient before
"illness onset."
Still, no specific coronavirus treatment has been proven to be effective, so doctors and patients
need
"the tincture of time,"
as there are always safety issues to consider in the use of
human blood products, he cautioned.
Even IF it helps, finding donors will be a problem
However, the hardest part here is finding and vetting donors, the number of which is appallingly
small, especially compared to more than one million coronavirus cases globally. Also, plasma intended
for Covid-19 patients must be free from other diseases, such as hepatitis or HIV/AIDS.
"As a matter of fact, up to 50 percent of donor blood is being rejected in most countries,"
Netesov revealed, citing the example of China – a pioneer in plasma treatment – where almost one-in-10
potential donors had hepatitis. Russia, for instance, has only a tiny number of recovered Covid-19
patients, and maybe only half of them could donate blood, limiting the pool to mere dozens, the
scientist acknowledged.
"The number of patients is still larger than the number of the recovered. As long as this
situation persists, we have nobody to take that plasma from,"
Kupryashov of the Bakulev Center
agreed.
Finding the right dosage of plasma is equally crucial under the circumstances, because doctors have
to know what concentration of antibodies is enough to help cope with the virus. In the long run,
however, manufacturers will usually process plasma, increasing the amount of antibodies and allowing
doctors to use smaller doses, Bailey said.
Health authorities around the world have high hopes for plasma treatment, rapidly rolling out
trials and authorizing it for compassionate use – allowing unapproved treatments to be prescribed if a
dying patient has no other options, and if the potential benefits outweigh the risks.
In the US, where the number of coronavirus cases has now exceeded 312,000, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has spearheaded
"a new national effort"
to facilitate the use of plasma
treatment.
"There are some limited data to suggest that convalescent plasma and hyperimmune
globulin may have benefit in the Covid-19 illness,"
the agency states.
The Mayo Clinic will serve as the lead institution for the program, while the American Red Cross
will collect plasma and distribute it to hospitals throughout the country.
In the UK, coronavirus patients are about to receive the experimental treatment, with experts
calling on the NHS to urgently stockpile antibody-rich plasma for such needs. France is also set to
start trials for the promising therapy next Tuesday.
Russia, too, is catching up with the trend. The country's famed Sklifosovsky Institute of Emergency
Care will be the first to try infusing plasma in the coming days, local media have reported.
Additionally, the Vector Institute – a leading research center of virology and biotechnology – has
developed a test for measuring antibodies in those who have survived Covid-19. The institution has
already screened blood samples from 11 people who recovered from the virus, Deputy Prime Minister
Tatiana Golikova said.
Iran, recently a coronavirus hotspot, will also follow suit, as will Turkey, where the head of the
Red Crescent insists that it could become
"one of the world's most effective applications"
against the contagion.
For the time being, many other treatment options are being considered by the international
healthcare community, ranging from anti-malarial drugs to HIV medication. A range of Covid-19 vaccines
are also being developed, although they seem to be months – if not years – away from being
commissioned.
The most effective treatment recommended by the study, besides vaccines, are antivirals like
nucleoside analogs, which mirror the virus's genetic material in order to get incorporated into
it and stall its progress. Coronaviruses reportedly contain a "proofreading" enzyme that can
reject such antivirals, but there are exceptions to the rule.
Other strategies include blood plasma from patients who have recovered from the virus and
monoclonal antibodies, which are made through biotechnology to be clones of a parent cell.
However, the latter of those also presents the obstacle of being a long process.
In the study that two of us are reporting [ 1 ], the rates of current smoking remain below 5 %
even when main confounders for tobacco consumption, i.e. age and sex, in- or outpatient
status, were considered.
Compared to the French general population, the Covid-19 population exhibited a
significantly weaker current daily smoker rate by 80.3 % for outpatients and by 75.4 % for
inpatients.
Thus, current smoking status appears to be a protective factor against the infection by
SARS-CoV-2.
Nicotine is known to influence the process that regulates the number of ACE2 receptors on
the cell surface. Current smokers do have less ACE2 receptors than non smokers. SARS-CoV-2
bonds to that receptor to enter a cell.
The study was led by Professor Jean-Pierre Changeux who is quite
famous for his discovery of that general regulation process and other findings. He now plans
to use nicotine patches on Covid-19 patients to see if it can help in current cases.
Well
if nicotine is the magic protector against covid, then wearing a nicotine patch or chewing
nicorette gum will work too I guess. No need to inhale toxic fumes and tar our lungs.
The study was led by Professor Jean-Pierre Changeux who is quite famous for his discovery
of that general regulation process and other findings. He now plans to use nicotine patches
on Covid-19 patients to see if it can help in current cases.
Changeaux is indeed recognized as a pioneer in the field of receptor biochemistry. The
idea to use nicotine patches seems sensible in light of the fact that this drug produces
anti-inflammatory effects via alpha7-nicotinic receptors.
I think readers of MoA might be interested to know that the April 22 2020 edition of the NY
Post carried a story mirroring what B has n written in his April 25 2020 post on the use of
nicotine patches as a possible counter to the COVID-19 virus infection.
There is also an earlier story in the NY Post dated April 15 2020 about 82-year old
British artist David Hockney who had written a letter to the UK Daily Mail claiming that
smokers like himself, seemed to be less likely to get the COVID-19 infection. Hockney lives
in Normandy France.
The Post is also reporting that the French government is also limiting the sales of
nicotine gum and patches, to prevent runs on these items. I picked this up from the April 25
2020 Drudge Report. Make of it what you wish.
Just great, I quit smoking four weeks ago because of coronavirus, and because it has
become ridiculously expensive, now what do I do?
It's too early to know if nicotine will be a useful therapeutic to treat COVID-19
patients, and it seems unlikely that it would have a prophylactic effect against infection .
Not a good reason to resume smoking (sorry) but going to nicotine patches or vaping would be
relatively harmless.
The smoking numbers suffer from an age bias. Those most likely to be in icu and die are
elderly over 65 years of age. Over 65's have a lower smoking rate (9%) than average (15%).
Part of that is smokers die earlier and another part is probably financial/health related.
Cytokine storm is more common in elderly because they have more complement molecules due
to chronic inflammation from the aging process. Complement are molecules of the innate immune
system which when can activated produce cytokines activating more immune
molecules/cells.
The smoking numbers suffer from an age bias. Those most likely to be in icu and die are
elderly over 65 years of age. Over 65's have a lower smoking rate (9%) than average (15%).
Part of that is smokers die earlier and another part is probably financial/health related.
Cytokine storm is more common in elderly because they have more complement molecules due
to chronic inflammation from the aging process. Complement are molecules of the innate immune
system which when can activated produce cytokines activating more immune
molecules/cells.
Just great, I quit smoking four weeks ago because of coronavirus, and because it has
become ridiculously expensive, now what do I do?
Posted by: Gregory Purcell | Apr 25 2020 20:30 utc | 16
Stay off the smokes and flaunt some smug.
The chart b has reproduced above shows that healthy non-smokers with no pre-existing
health conditions handle a C-virus infection with far more aplomb than current and
ex-smokers.
Write a How To Become an Ex-smoker booklet and relate your own 'journey' chapter &
verse; then flog it on eBay for $x-00 per copy. There'll be a big market from desperate
unemployed smokers hoping to ease the pain of quitting...
Interesting result regarding smokers, though as yet there is no evidence that nicotine is the
causative agent in conferring resistance to Covid19.
as an ex-smoker turned vaper, I would be interested to know if vapers are equally
protected.
It should be noted that tobacco smoke contains other substances as well as nicotine and for
sure vaping is not the same physiologically as smoking and I'm not just talking about the
reduced risk of smoking related disease.
IIRC the changes in nerve receptors take several years to occur, both at the beginning of
nicotine addiction and also at the end (which is why ex-smokers have such a hard time after
stopping), so a simple application of a nicotine patch may not produce any useful effect in a
non-smoker.
as an ex-smoker turned vaper, I would be interested to know if vapers are equally
protected.
I would expect so. The benefit of nicotine presumably comes from its ability to reduce the
synthesis and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines which cause "cytokine storms" in the
lungs of severely infected individuals. Again, there is no reason to expect that nicotine
would prevent infections from occurring, rather it would mitigate some of the more deadly
symptoms.
Some caution is indicated re the perceived negative correlation with smoking: 1. This is not
an actual observational study but extrapolated from adjusted population rates -- the
proportion of active smokers in the patient population was not sufficient by itself to draw
conclusions with decent power. Then, there seems to be little difference between the ICU
needed for former smokers and the patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or CRF.
Finally, the in-vitro work quoted in the paper and shown here as "confirming" is certainly
not confirming (or invalidating) any clinical data (which is introduced there as a clinical
to the clinical paper.)
On the whole, interesting observation but would need a study with effective observation of
sufficient numbers of smokers.
I'd tend to see this as suggesting that there may be something in persons who continue to
smoke, not former smokers. And there lies the rub: practically all we know about smoking
continues, generally lifelong, after cessation, except this phenomenon if verified. It's true
that lung disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer (and cancer therapy), renal failure and the
myriad other chronic conditions of the ex-smokers would be very likely to cancel any of the
advantage seen in the active smokers. Essentially then, looks like continuing to smoke
cancels all such problems in the active smoking patients (if, that is, the observation is
credibly confirmed.)
If it's smoking who alters ACE2, then it's definitely not nicotine in the bloodstream that
will do the trick, it's smoking dirty nasty shit that fills your lungs that reduces ACE2
receptors. I expect nicotine patches to be fully useless - though I'll be glad to be provent
wrong.
As for household contamination, I had read a month ago that the Chinese themselves were
reporting that 3/4 of contaminations in Wuhan occurred at home between family members, so
this not a big surprise.
On the other hand, a very recent report seems to show that UV are very effective at
destroying the virus and indeed outdoor contamination is limited, because the virus won't
last long in a sunny place. In a cold grey winterscape, it might be a bit different
though.
Now, there are also more reports of non-pulmonary deaths, people having strokes, heart
attacks, brain damages and the like because the virus wrecks havoc in blood vessels and clogs
them. That's very worrying. The only thing I'm wondering, since these reports are mostly
American ones, is what's the real condition of those victims. To put it simply: it's known
that obesity is a massive pre-condition with the coronavirus and greatly increases the risk.
Are these cardio-vascular deaths also linked to people's obesity, or is any normal or fit
person at risk as well?
If 99% of cases of infection happen in closed spaces and/or in open spaces with very close
and long contact (stadiums, parties, festivals, concenrts, atc) is it really wise to limit
activities in which social distancing can be maintained, such as jogging, fishing, biking,
etc
Also the policy on mitigation (complete suppression is impossible now) should vary by
locality. What is good for NYC is idiotic for rural Pennsylvania.
As the jogger struggled with police, screaming for help, she was filmed by residents who had
absolutely zero sympathy for her plight. 'What's not fair is that you go out running, you
bloody idiot!', shouted the woman apparently filming the encounter."
This was based on the virus' affinity for the ACE2 receptor in the lungs. It is also
thought to have a higher prevalence in heavy smokers. Iran and Italy are countries where
people smoke heavily. In Iran smoking related disease accounts for about 20% of fatalities in
males.
I believe that it is lecithin (soy, fish) that East-Asians [eat] protect from hypertension.
As a heavy smoker I got a "smoker-leg" some years ago. I got successfully rid of it with
lecithin, because I read that lecithin dissolves 'bad fats'. These 'bad fats' can't be put
into the liver, because unlike 'good fats' they would destroy the liver. And thus our blood
puts the 'bad fats' into the walls of our arteries, which then swell like balloons. Lecithin
dissolves/cracks these 'bad fats' so that they now can be eliminated by the liver.
As not only smoking produces 'bad fats' (too long molecules?) lecithin in general will
make the blood vessels fit again and by this certainly lower blood-pressure.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, which operates 14 medical centers in Philadelphia and
NYU Langone in New York City, found that 12 of their patients treated for large blood blockages
in their brains during a three-week period had the virus. Forty percent were under 50, and had
few or no risk factors. Their paper is under review by a medical journal, said Pascal Jabbour,
a neurosurgeon at Thomas Jefferson.
Jabbour and his co-author Eytan Raz, an assistant professor of neuroradiology at NYU
Langone, said that strokes in covid-19 patients challenge conventionally thinking. "We are used
to thinking of 60 as a young patient when it comes to large vessel occlusions," Raz said of the
deadliest strokes. "We have never seen so many in their 50s, 40s and late 30s."
Raz wondered whether they are seeing more young patients because they are more resistant
than the elderly to the respiratory distress caused by covid-19: "So they survive the lung
side, and in time develop other issues."
Jabbour said many of the cases he's treated have unusual characteristics. Brain clots
usually appear in the arteries, which carry blood away from the heart, but in covid-19
patients, he's also seeing them in the veins, which carry blood in the opposite direction and
are trickier to treat. Some patients are also developing more than one large clot in their
heads, which is highly unusual.
"We'll be treating a blood vessel and it will go fine, but then the patient will have a
major stroke" due to a clot in another part of the brain, he said.
... ... ...
In a letter to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine next week, the Mount
Sinai team details five case studies of young patients who had strokes at home from March 23 to
Apr. 7. They make for difficult reading: The victims are age 33, 37, 39, 44, and 49, and were
all home when they began to experience sudden symptoms, including slurred speech, confusion,
drooping on one side of the face and feeling dead in one arm.
The
novel
coronavirus
mainly attacks the lungs. But doctors have been increasingly reporting cases of another battlefield raging
within the body: the heart.
More than 1 in 5 patients develop heart damage as a result of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, one small study published March 27 in
the journal
JAMA
Cardiology
suggested. While some of these patients have a history of heart conditions, others do not. So what's going
on?
Cardiologists say several scenarios could be unfolding: The heart may struggle to pump blood in the absence of enough oxygen;
the virus may directly invade heart cells; or the body, in its attempt to eradicate the virus, may mobilize a storm of
immune
cells
that attack the heart.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.382.1_en.html#goog_562409015
PLAY SOUND
"We know that this is not the only virus that affects the heart," said Dr. Mohammad Madjid, an assistant professor at McGovern
Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth). The risk of developing heart attacks,
for example, is thought to increase about sixfold when a person is infected with the flu virus, according to a study published
in 2018 in the
New
England Journal of Medicine
.
What's more, during most influenza epidemics, more patients die from heart complications than from
pneumonia
,
according to a review published March 27 in the journal
JAMA
Cardiology
. Viral infections can disrupt blood flow to the heart, cause irregular heartbeats and heart failure,
according to the review.
So while it doesn't "come as a surprise," that novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2 can lead to heart damage, it may be
occurring more frequently in these patients than it does in people infected with other viruses, Madjid, the lead author of the
review, told Live Science.
"We're seeing cases of people who don't have an underlying
heart
disease
," who are getting heart damage, said Dr. Erin Michos, the associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns
Hopkins School of Medicine. Heart damage isn't typical in mild cases of COVID-19, and tends to occur more often in patients
who have severe symptoms and are hospitalized, she said.
Though the virus predominantly affects the lungs, it is circulating in the bloodstream; that means the virus could directly
invade and attack other organs, including the heart, Michos told Live Science.
Both heart cells and lung cells are covered with surface proteins known as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) -- these
molecules serve as "doorways" for the virus to enter cells. But this enzyme is a "double-edged sword," she said. On one hand,
the
ACE2
molecule
acts as a gateway for the virus to enter the cell and replicate, but on the other hand, it normally serves a "protective"
function, Michos said.
When tissues in the body are damaged -- either by an invading virus such as SARS-CoV-2 or by other means, the body's natural
healing response involves releasing inflammatory molecules, such as small proteins called cytokines, into the bloodstream. But
paradoxically, too much inflammation can actually make things worse. The ACE2 enzyme acts as an anti-inflammatory, keeping
immune cells from inflicting more damage on the body's own cells.
But when the virus latches onto ACE2 proteins, these proteins get knocked out of commission, possibly reducing the
anti-inflammatory protection that they give. So the virus may be acting as a double-whammy by damaging cells directly and
preventing the body from protecting tissues from inflammatory damage.
"If the heart muscle is inflamed and damaged by the virus, the heart can't function," she said.
The novel coronavirus might also indirectly damage the heart. In this scenario, the patient's immune system winds up "going
haywire," Michos said. This scenario has played out in some really sick patients who have highly elevated inflammatory markers
-- or proteins that signal high levels of inflammation in the body.
This is called a "cytokine storm," Michos said. Cytokine storms damage organs throughout the body, including the heart and
liver, she added. It's not clear why some people have such an elevated response compared with others, but some people could be
genetically prone to it, she added.
And then you have patients who have underlying heart disease who are at higher risk of developing severe symptoms of COVID-19
-- and higher risk of mortality. "You can imagine, if their heart already has difficulty working they don't have the capacity
to meet this challenge" of not having enough oxygen because their lungs aren't working as well.
So COVID-19 can "exacerbate" underlying heart disease, Michos said. A new study, published April 3 in the journal
Circulation
,
described four cases of heart damage among COVID-19 patients in New York, some with underlying conditions. (Michos is on the
editorial board for the journal Circulation.)
Treatments and complications
Cardiologists identify heart damage using a blood test for a protein called troponin. When heart cells are injured, they leak
troponin into the bloodstream. But "it's sometimes not that easy," to figure out what kind of heart damage a patient is
having, Michos said.
"We are really seeing different cardiac involvement," Michos said. So it matters "what's causing the heart damage because you
would treat it differently."
For example, if the virus is directly invading the heart, the patient may need antiviral medications. If instead the immune
system is causing heart damage, the patient might need immunosuppressants. Right now, no direct treatments target COVID-19,
and most of the treatment being used currently involves supportive care such as providing more oxygen.
What's more, people who have
high
blood pressure
or other underlying heart conditions commonly take ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers
(ARBs) -- medications that widen blood vessels, therefore increasing the amount of blood the heart pumps and lowering blood
pressure.
Cardiologists are hotly debating whether people should stop or start taking those medications if they're at high risk for
COVID-19. (One paper suggested the drugs could be harmful, while some clinical trials are assessing the use of ARBs to reduce
the severity of COVID-19,
Live
Science previously reported
.)
It's really hard to tease out whether having more ACE2 is helpful or harmful, as these proteins are how the virus enters the
cells, but also known to protect the cells against injury, Michos said.
The current consensus is that if patients are already taking these medications, they should stay on them, she said. "Patients
taking ACE-[inhibitors] and ARBs who contract COVID-19 should continue treatment, unless otherwise advised by their
physician,"
according
to a statement
from the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America and the American College of
Cardiology.
Experts from Australia and New Zealand similarly said they strongly recommend patients with hypertension, heart failure and
cardiovascular disease who are already on these medications keep using them, according to a study preprint published on April
3 in
The
Medical Journal of Australia
.
Complicating matters, certain drugs that are currently under investigation for treating COVID-19, including
hydroxychloroquine -- the drug that President Trump has said is a game-changer -- could cause heart damage, those experts said.
Now, the goal is to figure out if there's a genetic or biochemical reason some people are more prone to heart damage from
COVID-19 -- and to figure out what drugs work best "to protect the heart from injury," Michos said.
"... A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers reported. ..."
"... The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it's the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday. The study was posted on an online site for researchers and has been submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine, but has not been reviewed by other scientists. Grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Virginia paid for the work. ..."
"... Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at Veterans Health Administration medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11. About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival. Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either. ..."
"... Researchers did not track side effects, but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death. ..."
"... Earlier this month, scientists in Brazil stopped part of a hydroxychloroquine study after heart rhythm problems developed in one-quarter of people given the higher of two doses being tested. ..."
"... The interesting news is that ventilators are not required in all cases and indeed my do more harm for some. BoJo was only on a cpap. The harm mechanism may be impaired hemoglobin ..."
A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus
showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more
deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers
reported.
The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it's the
largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for
COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday. The study was posted on an
online site for researchers and has been submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine, but
has not been reviewed by other scientists. Grants from the National Institutes of Health and
the University of Virginia paid for the work.
Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 male veterans hospitalized with confirmed
coronavirus infection at Veterans Health Administration medical centers who died or were
discharged by April 11. About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died,
versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus
azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered
large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival. Hydroxychloroquine
made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either.
Researchers did not track side effects, but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might
have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side
effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.
Earlier this month, scientists in Brazil stopped part of a hydroxychloroquine study after heart
rhythm problems developed in one-quarter of people given the higher of two doses being
tested. (AP News)
-- -- -- --
This was not a rigorously designed experiment and from what I've seen, VA patients almost
inevitably have multiple heath problems before they walk into the clinic or VA hospital. We're
a pretty banged up, broken down lot. However, the VA is skilled at doing this kind of
evaluation of their vast patient population. Through their Million Veteran Program, they are
conducting myriad studies involving genetic samples and health records. The results of this VA
study is sobering and seems to help answer Trump's question of what do you have to lose.
In response to this study and several prematurely ended studies, Fauci's "National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommends against doctors using a
combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients
because of potential toxicities.
Maybe those with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis will have an easier time getting their
medication. We have to do something with our stockpiled 29 million pills. Still, more studies
need to be done. Perhaps an effective treatment involving hydroxychloroquine will be developed
when we understand Covid-19 better. We're still learning of the full range of damage this virus
is capable of inflicting. Maybe it will be an effective prophylactic, not a magic shield or
miracle potion, but a helpful prophylactic. There's no reason to give up on this or any other
proposed treatment or cure.
More studies, for sure. I always find it interesting other your take on VA matters...thank
you for sharing your perspective to those of us without experience with the VA.
To be clear, the Institue guidance recommends agains the combination of HCQ and AZ. It makes
to recommendation for or against HCQ by itself. These recommendations are only fo
hospitalized pts. There are no recommendations for or against drugs for prophylaxis.
In our own internal studies we found higher rates of arrhythmias on HCQ and AZ, and found
more problems related to AZ. We have stopped that. HCQ is no longer part of our standard
protocol but docs may order it if they choose.
The brazil study was of the Chloroquine diphosphate which has greater side effects than of
the hydroxy form. The big trial is the one in NY state. Those results are not yet in.
The interesting news is that ventilators are not required in all cases and indeed my
do more harm for some. BoJo was only on a cpap. The harm mechanism may be impaired
hemoglobin . These medcram youtubes linked below are topnotch!
Thank you for your thoughtful post TTG. It may still be that the drug has a useful effect. I
know Fauci is infuriating a lot of people, but he is right: a double blind placebo controlled
trial is the only way to really know.
Off topic, but when my wife had breast cancer she took part in such a trial of a new drug.
That involved extra free visits to hospital for testing. We guessed she was given the drug
afterwards because her oncologist and surgeon surprisingly found that her lymph nodes had
been scoured clean of the cancer. It's now about four years of remission. The new drug is
apparently going to be the new standard for treatment of that type of cancer.
I am surprised that "cloroquine phosphate", the name under which I know the drug, is now
suddenly supposed to have serious side effects. When I was stationed in Egypt for one year
with my family back in 1978, we all took cloroquine, as I remember it, once a week.
In my country, Denmark, drug regulation is pretty strict, so we assumed cloroquine was safe.
Still, I went to ask my doctor when I had another one-year stationing to the Middle East
coming up five years later. After looking at the guidelines, my doctor told me that
cloroquine had been used for years without any side effects, and that the only side effects
found after long trials on rabbits were some sort of residue settling in their eyes, though
with no adverse effect on their eyesight.
Lars Moeller-Rasmussen
This is not a controlled study. It is an analysis of medical records. It stands to reason
that there were more fatalities amongst those who were given the drug, because it was
desperation hour, so they therefore got the drug. The French guy says you have to use the
drug early, not as a Hail Mary pass when the virus has done its work and left and all that
remains in the pneumonia.
Oh the end-zone celebration on Morning Joe about this study! I guess you don't need a
double blind six month controlled trial to have absolute metaphysical certainty after all.
People who were given hydroxycloriquine died, said Mika when she spiked the football.
From the CDC website right now: CDC information for travelers who want to avoid malaria:
CLOROQUINE
Drug Reasons that might make you consider using this drug Reasons that might make you avoid
using this drug
Chloroquine
Adults: 300 mg base (500 mg salt), once/week.
Children: 5 mg/kg base (8.3 mg/kg salt) (maximum is adult dose), once/week. Begin 1-2
weeks before travel, once/week during travel, and for 4 weeks after leaving.
Some people would rather take medicine weekly
Good choice for long trips because it is taken only weekly
Some people are already taking hydroxychloroquine chronically for rheumatologic
conditions. In those instances, they may not have to take an additional medicine
Can be used in all trimesters of pregnancy
Cannot be used in areas with chloroquine or mefloquine resistance
May exacerbate psoriasis
Some people would rather not take a weekly medication
For trips of short duration, some people would rather not take medication for 4 weeks after
travel
Not a good choice for last-minute travelers because drug needs to be started 1-2 weeks
prior to travel
The quote cirsium provided above from Didier Raoult is worth repeating with emphasis IMO:
"The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis , is a safe and
efficient treatment for COVID-19..". The price of treatment only beginning when sufferers are
bad enough to be hospitalized seems to be a one to two orders of magnitude increase in
mortality rate.
Test, trace contacts & quarantine like the South Koreans and prescribe Didier's magic
elixir to all positives right away. If this isn't accepted medical practice, then change the
accepted medical practice.
"Details of exactly how the tracking will work have not been released -- but, per the
BBC, the location data of people's mobile devices will be collected from telcos by Israel's
domestic security agency and shared with health officials."
Leads me to wonder whether the enthusiasm for smartphone tracking in the UK - HMG seems to
be betting the farm on it - derives from the fact that GCHQ is geared up for that anyway.
This seems to be a version of the American approach to containing local outbreaks after
lockdown has been lifted -
"When we have more tests, we can open the economy in an aggressive way without any
danger and without being surprised – and the moment there is an outbreak in a
residential building or a school, you can go there [and close it] and not the whole city,"
Bennett said.
Also containing a reference to the progress made in ensuring the various tests are more
accurate -
"There have been more than 20 rapid serological tests that have been developed
worldwide – mainly in China – many of which have been found to provide inaccurate
results.
"However, Roche and a handful of companies, such as US-based Abbott Laboratories and
Becton Dickinson and Co., have created more sophisticated serological tests, which are
expected to be validated.
"Ofer said that, "If we run these tests in conjunction with the molecular test, then we
will get a full picture" – and as Bennett explained, "the closures will end."
Those are the roughly the references I put together to submit to an English site. On
another English site I read a reference to how one Canadian area (unnamed) geared up for the
pandemic -
We live in an Ontario health district, about the size of Connecticut (with 200,000
population), in a small city with a medical school. Our public health officer in January
alerted nursing homes and hospitals to prepare, e.g. get supplies and train staff for higher
hygiene standards. Example, auditing handwashing practices in nursing homes. As a result, we
have 50 total positive cases, almost all cases traceable to travel. No nursing home
outbreaks. No deaths. No ICU care. Two people currently in hospital."
So they got going on this back in January. If only ...
Before the Covid-19 "outbreak" there was a pneumonia known as the HAP "hospital-acquired
pneumonia" and also the CAP "community-acquired pneumonia" in nursing homes.
Even the "ventilator-associated pneumonia" VAP, somehow disappeared in the phrase book
because now some "experts" and Vaccination Pope Bill gates love to declare martial law to
fight the "covid-19 associated pneumonia" COP.
If you have a little bit time to research where the "NEW" Pneumonia breaked out you find
mainly:
Even Donald Trump was forced to demand carmakers to produce respiratory Ventilators ..to
help in the war against Covid-19.
You would think after three and half years of "witch hunt" Donald Trump should be an expert
but still he has the poisonous dwarf Dr. Fauci as an adviser this is like fighting the devil
with satan.
@Hempus HAP, VAP, and your CAP do not and can not prevent emergence of another Pneumonia
of newer causative agents that can spread like fire
When did HAP VAP CAP overwhelm
911, and ICU and kill nurses doctor bus drivers police and fire officers and nursing home
elderly in the nursing homes?
When did CAP VAP HAP and regular flu shit ever
cause this exponential rise in infectivity across the globe from 0 to 800,000 in 45 days in
USA?
When did the illness cause from those agents liver failure , gi bleeding , kidney failure
and resistant hypoxemia? When did any of those patients stay on ventilator for 3 weeks?
When did those illness show such diverse symptoms as by Corona at the beginning phase of the
illness ? When did those illness cause such morbidity in the afflicted young ?
When did those surviving the ICU admission report ongoing morbidities of this extent?
Trump is a moron , a thug , a liar . He is full of crap who has taken the ' deplorable 'for a
ride by throwing some fiery rhetorics .
@Hempus Your statement is illogical!
Why should a pneumonia previously called HAP, CAP and VAP and causes hundred thousands death
each year prevent "Covid-19?"
Because this one is not one of them . . This virus is different genetically ,
morphologically and clinically . Theoretically they can coexist in same patients .
It is not the mortality but the morbidity and the sped of unravelling that are acute and
overwhelming .
I don't agree with lockdown but I dont agree with this who wants to observe it What is
irksome is the lying thug 's Trumps denial and then lying about the denial .
I also believe given the checkered history of US it is US who possibly released it in China
either directly or indirectly .
When 2 patients aged 80 with same clinical and metabolic profiles in a nursing home are
observed and are found out one of them has died from an acute infection in less than 30 days
after symptoms appeared and other has continued to stay stable with no worsening and no
infection – you blame the virus for the death .
Have you bothered to check how many countries you are referring to altogether, which
purportedly had been forewarned about a possibly emerging epidemic, ahead of even the local
Chinese government?
Take a look: NATO + Israel = 31
NATO is not a country but a military subsidiary of the USA.
So according to the unsourced report, which so many wishfully presume as a fact, with so
many countries allegedly in on the "secret" briefing, not a single country's representative
followed up to monitor developments or even corroborated the briefing, but most
importantly, not a single country took any defensive preparations whatsoever in
advance.
The USA informed NATO and Israel not those thirty European colonies.
This shows the level of credulity that people will descend down to when an obvious news
fabrication happens to support their desired narrative. China worshippers here have become
severely blinded in light of the epidemic. So many commentators are thus eagerly making
themselves irrelevant, including Escobar, which I think is a good thing.
Dude, Esper thought that the report was such an "obvious news fabrication" that he didn't
deny it but merely said: " Oh, I can't recall, George ," ( ) " But, we have many
people who watch this closely ." So Esper didn't recall seeing the report but decided to
" have many people who watch this closely " because it was such an "obvious news
fabrication".
Peculiarly, one of the European countries that has handled the pandemic the best,
according to the statistics, Austria, is not a NATO member and would not have been in on
the "secret".
The USA didn't want to do anything about it but " have many people who watch this
closely " as Esper puts it because it was just a " live exercise " as Pompeo puts
it.
Yeah, I get it: you're one of those die-hard chinadidit people.
We have had a constant continual stream of 'disinformation' about covid-19:
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear
evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in
#Wuhan, #China," the World Health Organization, January 14, 2020.
On February 29 on NBC's Today, for instance, Anthony Fauci said: "At this moment, there is
no need to change anything you're doing on a day-by-day basis, right now the risk is still
low, but this could change. When you start to see community spread, this could change, and
force you to become much more attentive to doing things that would protect you from
spread."
The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Fauci is the Head) gave a $3.7
million grant to the Wuhan Virology lab to study bat coronaviruses between 2010 and 2015. Was
this just science, or to develop trust for cover to introduce COVID-19 into the Wuhan area
and destroy the Chinese economy? (
https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/04/gordon-duff-documentary-proof-university-of-north-carolina-generated-covid-19/
)
Such conspiracy theories! If so, it boomeranged in a way only the CIA could produce.
... from NBC: "People with obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure are at greater risk for
complications from the coronavirus, according to a large study of patients hospitalized with
the illness it causes...
The study included data on 5,700 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City
area.
Underlying conditions were common. The researchers found that, among all patients, 57
percent had high blood pressure, 41 percent were obese and just over a third had
diabetes."
Ummm...about 70% of Americans over age 65 have high blood pressure. And they are by far
the most severely afflicted group...
I think 'B' is barking mad on this one. Australia and New Zealand are locked down but have
almost negligible deaths. Maybe Italy and New York and London have a different strain of
virus, but from here, the calamitous effects upon the lives of the people is 10,000 times
worse than the disease.
We could just keep the border lock downs, no physical contact with strangers, etc, and I
am sure all will be ok.
'B' also claims that only a small percentage of people have had contact with the virus,
when it may already be 40%.
Russia detected 5,236 new coronavirus carriers yesterday. That is substantially less than
yesterday. But this is not the story. It really should not matter that much how many new
cases the Russians are able to dig up, because the big story is that according to Russia's
own statistics upwards of 60% of those infected don't get sick and are asymptomatic:
Why do they not present daily deaths and infections from normal influenza/flu/pneumonia,
as well as Covid 19, or are they all lumped into one box now called Covid19.
I will run with the Guardian reaction, this smells like a giant '9-11' psych-ops, a seize
for power, and a chance for the usual banking suspects to buy the world for cents in the
dollar.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus endures for days on plastic or metal but disintegrates soon after landing on copper surfaces. Here's why
When researchers reported last month that the novel
coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic survives for days on glass and stainless steel but dies within hours after landing
on copper, the only thing that surprised Bill Keevil was that the pathogen lasted so long on copper.
Keevil, a
microbiology
researcher
at the University of Southampton (U.K.), has studied the antimicrobial effects of copper for more than two
decades. He has watched in his laboratory as the simple metal slew one bad bug after another. He began with the bacteria that
causes Legionnaire's Disease and then turned to drug-resistant killer infections like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA). He tested viruses that caused worldwide health scares such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the
Swine Flu (H1N1) pandemic of 2009. In each case, copper contact killed the pathogen within minutes. "It just blew it apart,"
he says.
In 2015, Keevil turned his attention to
Coronavirus
229E
, a relative of the COVID-19 virus that causes the common cold and pneumonia. Once again, copper zapped the virus
within minutes while it remained infectious for five days on surfaces such as stainless steel or glass.
"One of the ironies is, people [install] stainless steel
because it seems clean and in a way, it is," he says, noting the material's ubiquity in public places. "But then the argument
is how often do you clean? We don't clean often enough." Copper, by contrast, disinfects merely by being there.
Ancient Knowledge
Keevil's work is a modern confirmation of an ancient
remedy. For
thousands of years, long
before they knew about germs or viruses,
people
have known
of copper's disinfectant powers. "Copper is truly a gift from Mother Nature in that the human race has been
using it for over eight millennia," says Michael G. Schmidt, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Medical
University of South Carolina who researches copper in healthcare settings.
The
first
recorded use of copper
as an infection-killing agent comes from Smith's Papyrus, the oldest-known medical document in
history. The information therein has been ascribed to an Egyptian doctor circa 1700 B.C. but is based on information that
dates back as far as 3200 B.C. Egyptians designated the ankh symbol, representing eternal life, to denote copper in
hieroglyphs.
As far back as 1,600 B.C., the Chinese used copper coins
as medication to treat heart and stomach pain as well as bladder diseases. The sea-faring Phoenicians inserted shavings from
their bronze swords into battle wounds to prevent infection. For thousands of years, women have known that their children
didn't get diarrhea as frequently when they drank from copper vessels and passed on this knowledge to subsequent generations.
"You don't need a medical degree to diagnose diarrhea," Schmidt says.
And copper's power lasts. Keevil's team checked the old
railings at New York City's Grand Central Terminal a few years ago. "The copper is still working just like it did the day it
was put in over 100 years ago," he says. "This stuff is durable and the anti-microbial effect doesn't go away."
The
East Tower of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh. The contrast between the refurbished copper installed in 2010 and the green
color of the original 1894 copper is clearly seen.
(Wiki Commons)
Long-Lasting Power
What the ancients knew, modern scientists and
organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency have confirmed. The EPA has registered about 400 copper surfaces as
antimicrobial. But how exactly does it work?
Heavy metals including gold and silver are antibacterial,
but copper's specific atomic makeup gives it extra killing power, Keevil says. Copper has a free electron in its outer orbital
shell of electrons that easily takes part in oxidation-reduction reactions (which also makes the metal a good conductor). As a
result, Schmidt says, it becomes a "molecular oxygen grenade." Silver and gold don't have the free electron, so they are less
reactive.
Copper kills in other ways as well, according to Keevil,
who has published papers on the effect. When a microbe lands on copper, ions blast the pathogen like an onslaught of missiles,
preventing cell respiration and punching holes in the cell membrane or viral coating and creating free radicals that
accelerate the kill, especially on dry surfaces. Most importantly, the ions seek and destroy the DNA and RNA inside a bacteria
or virus, preventing the mutations that create drug-resistant superbugs. "The properties never wear off, even if it
tarnishes," Schmidt says.
Schmidt has focused his research on the question of
whether using copper alloys in often-touched surfaces reduces hospital infections. On any given day, about
one
in 31 hospital patients
has at least one healthcare-associated infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control,
costing as much as
$50,000
per patient
. Schmidt's
landmark study
, funded by the Department of Defense, looked
at copper alloys on surfaces including bedside rails, tray tables, intravenous poles, and chair armrests at three hospitals
around the country. That 43-month investigation revealed a 58 percent infection reduction compared to routine infection
protocols.
Further research stalled when the DOD focused on the Zika
epidemic, so Schmidt turned his attention to working with a manufacturer that created a
copper
hospital bed
. A
two-year
study
published earlier this year compared beds in an intensive care unit with plastic surfaces and those with copper. Bed
rails on the plastic surfaces exceeded the accepted risk standards in nearly 90 percent of the samples, while the rails on the
copper bed exceeded those standards on only 9 percent. "We again demonstrated in spades that copper can keep the built
environment clean from microorganisms," he says.
Schmidt is also a co-author of an 18-month study led by
Shannon Hinsa-Leasure, an environmental microbiologist at Grinnell College, that compared the bacterial abundance in occupied
and unoccupied rooms at Grinnell Regional Medical Center's 49-bed rural hospital. Again, copper reduced bacterial numbers. "If
you're using a copper alloy that's always working," Hinsa-Leasure says, "you still need to clean the environment, but you have
something in place that's working all the time (to disinfect) as well."
Harnessing Copper
Keevil and Schmidt have found that installing copper on
just 10 percent of surfaces would prevent infections and save $1,176 a day (comparing the reduced cost of treating infections
to the cost of installing copper). Yet hospitals have been slow to respond. "I've been surprised how slow it has been to be
taken up by hospitals," Hinsa-Leasure adds. "A lot of it has to do with our healthcare system and funding to hospitals, which
is very tight. When our hospital redid our emergency room, we installed copper alloys in key places. So it makes a lot of
sense when you're doing a renovation or building something that's new. It's more expensive if you're just changing something
that you already have."
The Sentara Hospital system in North Carolina and Virginia
made copper-impregnated surfaces the standard across 13 hospitals in 2017 for overbed tables and bed rails after a
2016
clinical tria
l at a Virginia Beach hospital reported a 78 percent reduction in drug-resistant organisms. Using technology
pioneered
in Israel
, the hospital has also moved to
copper-infused bedding
. Keevil says France
and Poland are beginning to put copper alloys in hospitals. In Peru and Chile, which produce copper, it's being used in
hospitals and the public transit systems. "So it's going around the world, but it still hasn't taken off," he says.
If copper kills COVID-19, should you periodically roll a
few pennies and nickels around in your hands? Stick with water, soap, and sanitizer. "You never know how many viruses are
affiliated with the hand, so it may not completely get them all," Schmidt says. "It will only be a guess if copper will
completely protect."
Thanks to the coronavirus pandemic , we are
woefully short of ventilators that can give the most gravely ill a chance for life. There
are many efforts afoot to
build more ventilators . Now, instead of building ventilators, a group of open-source
developers has a new idea: Create a firmware update, Airbreak , which can transform common Constant Positive Airway
Pressure (CPAP) machines into non-invasive ventilators. ebook
This TechRepublic Premium ebook compiles the latest on cancelled conferences, cybersecurity
attacks, remote work tips, and the impact this pandemic is having on the tech industry.
Their first effort -- a proof of concept -- converts the Airsense
10 CPAP machine , which is a common, inexpensive sleep apnea treatment device, into a
ventilator. It does so by simply replacing its existing firmware with updated firmware .
With this upgrade, the Airsense could be used as an emergency ventilator until a better,
purpose-built ventilator is available. It has the following ventilator features:
Adds a
Pressure Control Ventilator (PCV) mode that oscillates between high and low pressure at a
configurable breathing rate (stock firmware supports only a single pressure, with no breath
rate control). Allows maximum pressure to be increased to 30 cm H2O, as required by clinical
protocols (stock firmware is limited to 20cm H2O). Allows smooth rapid pressure change rates
for respiration rates up to 30 breaths per minute (stock firmware changes pressure at less than
1cm/sec). Unlocks all the vendor modes and tunable configuration parameters, including ST and
iVAPS modes present in the firmware. Provides access to all of the sensors (flow, pressure,
temperature, tidal volume, minute ventilation, etc). Displays real-time graphs on the screen to
show an immediate history of sensor data.
Now, CPAP devices with this firmware patch are not drop-in-replacements for ventilators. Far
from it. Additional equipment like viral filters and monitoring alarms are also required. As
its creators state:
We want to be very clear here: This modified firmware should not be flashed on CPAP
machines and used to treat COVID patients immediately. The firmware that we've developed is
an effective demonstration of the capability, and while it has been reviewed and validated by expert researchers, biomedical
engineers, and clinical pulmonologists , it has not yet been put through FDA [Food and
Drug Administration] approval. Additionally, the
Mt Sinai's protocols for off-label non-invasive ventilation require additional
modifications such as viral filter and remote control before the machines would be ready for
clinical use.
The programmers could send its firmware through the FDA approval process themselves, but its
developers think "the best route for rolling out these upgrades is to work with the
manufacturers to use their resources to validate and distribute these upgrades safely and at
scale."
The code has great potential. It would also be easy to deploy. The five million CPAP devices
shipped over the last three years have an always-on cellular connection. Thanks to that, these
devices can easily be upgraded over-the-air by device manufacturers. With this, hundreds of
thousands of CPAP machines could be upgraded overnight. This could easily bring millions of
unused or underutilized CPAP machines into hospitals just when we need them.
Further coding, testing, and evaluation need to be done with FDA approval received before
these patched CPAP machines can be deployed. But, the need is urgent, and it's a heck of a lot
easier to wirelessly update firmware than it is to build and deploy millions of new hardware
ventilators. This project isn't just a good idea -- it's one that deserves close attention from
CPAP manufacturers and medical professionals as soon as possible.
Sweden has roughly twice the obesity (21%] compared to 9.5% in Denmark and 44% of Swedes
are overweight. Studies of deceased in US determined obesity to be the largest factor
(outside of age) in covid mortality.
Two important results in Switzerland and Germany show that it is the elimination of large
gatherings together with mask wearing and social distancing that have had the main impact on
reducing the infectivity of covid-19, not the lockdowns (which appear to have had relatively
minor effects so far, according to these two results). Any measures have a built-in delay of
8 to 10 days before their effects, due to the incubation periods of successive infections.
I live in Taiwan and I know for a fact that this entire post is a flat-out lie.
Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly quarantined for the last three
weeks after traveling, as well as entire sections of cities, based solely on whether they had
traveled to districts in areas of Taiwan's largest cities or if there were confirmed cases in
their neighborhood.
The quarantines were enforced with cel-phone apps that used GPS to confirm if the person
in question was at home, doubled up with 4 phone calls a day to confirm of the person was
near their phone or not.
Pft clearly either doesn't live on Taiwan or cannot access the local news (I.e.:
doesn'tspeak or read Chinese), because this is pretty much all anyone has been talking about
for the last month.
In addition, social distancing is being enforced in all markets (and yes, we have the
"wet" ones here, too, except we call them "traditional," while the "dry" ones are called
either "grain" or "North-South Goods", so all you fools slandering "wet markets" should also
do us all a favor by cutting out your tongues), convenience stores, etc. All citizens were
asked by the government to stay at home, the last 2 weekends. Masks are mandatory on all
public transportation and anywhere food is purchased. Etc.
By this research, spread may be a lot faster and harder to control in populations or cultures
with many domestic cats.
"SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in bats; however, the intermediate animal
sources of the virus are completely unknown. Here, we investigated the susceptibility of
ferrets and animals in close contact with humans to SARS-CoV-2. We found that SARS-CoV-2
replicates poorly in dogs, pigs, chickens, and ducks, but efficiently in ferrets and cats. We
found that the virus transmits in cats via respiratory droplets.' https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.015347v1.full
At the grocery. Wearing my mask. Lady behind me, snarky & loud enough to make sure I
heard, "don't guess she realizes that stupid mask won't do any good." Me: "Honey, I'm an off
duty nurse, I'm wearing it to protect YOU. But, I can take it off if you'd like." She
practically ran.
The reality of the #COVID19 pandemic
is that my patients have lost all faith in our healthcare system so even when they are very
short of breath or have low oxygen levels they refuse to go to the ER bc they're afraid they
will die in a corner and they would rather die at home.
[ Labor
Notes ]. "More than 100 hospitals in the U.S. have laid off workers since the pandemic
began. Tens of thousands of medical workers are furloughed at the exact moment hospitals should
be staffing up and training everyone in intensive care. Expecting a tidal wave of very sick
patients, many of whom could be unemployed and uninsured, many hospitals have ended all
elective procedures, one of their most lucrative sources of revenue. Since insurance in the
United States is primarily tied to having a job, hospitals anticipate being left with egregious
costs they have no hope of ever being able to recoup."
This interview by WebMD with a doctor at Maimonides in New York is important and should be
viewed by everyone. What he is saying is that this virus causes a *new* disease that is *not*
conventional ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) and (probably) should not be treated
by the same protocols developed for treating ARDS.
The bottom line is that the doctors currently treating you for this virus (probably) *do
not know* how to treat this virus! They are feeling their way through this thing. As the
doctor in the video above suggests, the medical profession needs to examine the *possibility*
that COVID-19 is a *new* disease and that previous protocols may not apply.
For patients on ventilators, the bottom line is that upwards of 50 percent - to seventy
percent, according to this doctor - will not come out alive, based on current protocols.
This Webinar - which I believed was referenced here in an earlier thread by someone - is
along the same lines (Warning: More technical than the above because it is a Webinar for
doctors - but still valuable to watch):
This video explains much about the inter-action of SARS-Covid2 virus and... spike/ACEnzyme2
binding to AT2 lung cells, furin, membrane porosity via viroporons E and ORf3a, macrophages,
cell-free heme, porphyrins, sabotage of ferrous/hemoglobin oxygen transport, ferritin
hypoxia, ascorbate/DHA recycling, Nitric Oxide, Oxidative Bursts, etc.
I cannot judge its degree of truth and errors and omissions, but I could follow its
detailed view of how the disease can be understood and handled. For that it was very
helpful.
You might scan thru the introduction of the presenter and get right into her 1-hour , very
tight review .
Looking at that uche blackstock tweet about patients not wanting to come in, and
then seeing how much it was echoed (despite blackstock's dismay at people waiting) in the
responses, I was struck by how very much it reminded me of H.L. Mencken's description of
growing up in late 19th century Baltimore, and how terrified the poor were at the prospect of
"recieving treatment" in hospitals, from which few ever returned.
Take a second and let that sink in. Then think of how south korea is treating sick people,
where it actually appears to be 2020. Think about that too.
Then say your names like the 2nd daughter of Ned Stark, and knit yourself something.
Yep, this is America our motto you're on your own and we all know it. And here is
this PMC doctor shocked, shocked that the locals have figured out the American Public Health
Care scam.
So, Il Douche will declare this annoying emergency over in a week or two, and we can all
climb back on the monthly payment dreadmill. As a geezer, I will find that extremely
comforting inasmuch as there will no longer be any uncertainty about my near term health I
will be well and truly doomed. And will I be visiting Dr. Uche and his cohorts when I am
drowning? Nah, that's not the plan! Besides, when the post-pandemic CV tidal wave hits what's
left of the health care apparatus, who would want to be bothering the wretched, surviving
nurses, PAs and docs?
BTW Ralph Reed, barring a last trip on the on the LSD, 100 µg, intramuscular I.V.,
do you have any of those purple dots left?
Ron Paul, in a Monday interview with host Dan Dicks at Press for Truth, warns that people
"should be leery about" coronavirus vaccines that may come out. Further, says Paul, a doctor
and former United States House of Representatives member, "right now I wouldn't think there is
any indication for anybody to take them," noting that "scare tactics" are being used to
pressure people into thinking they should take such potential vaccines to protect against
coronavirus.
Paul supports this conclusion by stressing in the interview the potential danger of a
vaccine as well as the overstated threat from coronavirus.
Regarding the potential danger from a coronavirus vaccine, Paul discusses at the beginning
of the interview how, in 1976 in his first week as a House member, Paul was one of only two
members, both doctors, who voted against legislation that helped rush through a vaccine in
response to swine flu. Paul describes the results of the push for people to take the swine flu
vaccine as follows:
They rushed the vaccine through. The vaccine was not properly made. It had nothing to do with
the virus that was out there, so it saved nobody's life from it. It caused a lot of harm.
More people ended up dying from the inoculation than died from the flu that year. And that
sort of was a lesson, like that's a little bit too extreme. But, that's about what happens
when governments get involved and you do things for political reasons.
There was also, because a lot of people ended up getting the vaccine, I think there were
like 50 people or more who got Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is temporary total
paralysis and you can die from it but most of them did get better. But, it was a very, very
serious complication of a viral injection, you know, a vaccine.
Paul also discusses in the interview the overstated danger from coronavirus that
is being used to scare people to take actions including to potentially take a coronavirus
vaccine.
Paul notes that many of the people whose deaths have been blamed on coronavirus are elderly
people, including people living in nursing homes, who have multiple other diseases. Further,
explains Paul, doctors have "been instructed by [the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention] and other politicians that, when the doctors sign the death certificate, if
[patients] have four different things but they happen to have a positive test for the virus
that is to be put down as the major cause of death." "The numbers mean nothing," concludes Paul
regarding the daily tabulation of coronavirus deaths.
In addition, Paul explains that many more people than officially recorded have contracted
coronavirus. Some of these individuals never became sick. Others got better without any
treatment, says Paul, pointing to his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) as an example. While Rand Paul
was given a test that confirmed he had coronavirus, most people who have had coronavirus and
suffered no to minor medical problems have not been tested. With "probably millions of people"
having contracted coronavirus, Paul concludes that the percentage of people who have contracted
coronavirus and have died as a result "is probably very, very small."
While Paul says he would choose not to take a vaccine for the coronavirus should one appear
next week even if people claim it is 99 percent effective, he says that the decision to take or
not take a vaccine is one that should be made by each individual, who can discuss the vaccine
alternative with a doctor. Absolutely, Paul concludes, that decision should not be made by
government.
Watch here Paul's complete interview, in which he also discusses how government actions
taken in the name of fighting coronavirus are harming the economy and his support for people
speaking out for ending coronavirus-justified encroachments on freedom:
A German team under Prof Streeck argues that workplaces don't spread the coronavirus as much
as play spaces: singing in a choir produces an aerosol and spray cloud, dancing together in a
room or bar, or nightclub apres-ski, also creates infective clouds, as would any confined space
where lots of people are in close contact breathing heavily. Although public health guidance
has been coy on this matter, orgies are probably best avoided.
On that theme, there are settings in which you are likely to get a big dose, a large viral
load, and others where the globules will be few and far between. As one caustic virologist
observed, getting out into the open air is a good defense against respiratory transmitted
infections: avoiding infection is a walk in the park.
The researchers think there could be a difference between the actual and official numbers due
to a percentage of citizens who have been infected with the virus but do not show any symptoms.
At the same time, they can potentially transmit it to other people, and the overall tally
continues to grow. A group of scientists from California estimates that the actual number of
COVID-19 cases in one county
may be up to 85 times higher than the official data.
The Stanford University-led researchers took data from Santa Clara County as the basis for
their study, where 3,330 adults and minors have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
According to their findings, the COVID-19 prevalence in the area ranged from 2.49 percent to
4.16 percent, representing 50-85 times more cases than the number confirmed by the
authorities.
"Our data imply that, by 1 April (three days prior to the end of our survey) between 48,000
and 81,000 people had been infected in Santa Clara County. The reported number of confirmed
positive cases in the county on 1 April was 956, 50-85-fold lower than the number of
infections predicted by this study", the study says.
Apart from detecting asymptomatic carriers, recording previously unreported cases will also
help provide better estimates on the prevalence of COVID-19, the study suggests.
According to the researchers, their findings will help make more accurate projections on the
epidemic's spread and mortality rate in the future.
"While our study was limited to Santa Clara County, it demonstrates the feasibility of
seroprevalence surveys of population samples now, and in the future, to inform our
understanding of this pandemic's progression, project estimates of community vulnerability,
and monitor infection fatality
The most infectious period is thought to be 1 to 3 days before symptoms start, and in the
first 7
days after symptoms begin. But some people may remain infectious for longer.
Commonly reported symptoms for COVID-19 – such as fever, cough and fatigue –
usually last around
9 to 10 days but this can be longer.
Why are some people infectious for longer?
Typically with viruses, the higher the viral load (the more virus circulating in the body),
the higher the risk of transmission through known transmission pathways.
A study conducted in Hong Kong looking at viral load in 23 patients diagnosed with COVID-19
found higher viral loads in the first
week of illness .
Another study
from China looking at 76 hospitalised patients found that by 10 days after symptom onset,
mild cases had cleared the virus. That is, no virus was detectable through testing.
If someone has been symptom-free for
3 days and they developed their first symptoms more than
10 days prior, they are no longer considered to be infectious.
But we're not sure whether people are infectious when they have recovered but the virus can
still be detected in their bodies.
One study from Hong Kong found the virus could be detected for 20 days
or longer after the initial onset of symptoms in one-third of patients tested.
Another study from China found found the virus in a patients' faecal samples five
weeks after the first onset of symptoms.
But the detection of the virus doesn't necessarily mean the person is infectious. We need
more studies with larger sample sizes to get to the bottom of this question.
Should you get tested again before going back into the community?
Due to a global shortage of coronavirus tests, the
Commonwealth and state governments have strict criteria about who should be tested for
COVID-19 and when.
People who have been
self-quarantining , because they had contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 and have
completed their 14-day quarantine period without developing symptoms, can
return to the community . There is no requirement to be tested prior to returning to the
community. It is, however, recommended they continue to practise
social distancing and
good hygiene as a precaution.
The requirements are different for people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
At present, re-testing people who have experienced mild illness, and have recovered from
COVID-19 is not recommended. A person is considered safe to
return to the community and discontinue self-isolation if they are no longer infectious.
This means they developed their first symptoms more than
10 days prior and have not experienced any symptoms for at least 3 days (72 hours).
Covers all kinds of snowballing repercussions of the pandemic in US/world including:
-plummeting US economic activity indicators /bank reserves data
-food production/processing supply chain problems
-clinical observations from icu doctors world wide of new multi-organ (kidney heart GI
testes) involvements, olfactory/neurological/pinkeye, etc phenomena (from Washington Post of
all places).
The problem is that vaccines often aren't as effective against viruses that mutate, like the
flu does every season (that's why you need to keep getting that flu shot year after year). And
now, a new scientific
paper that - like most of the coronavirus research being cited in the press - has yet to be
peer reviewed claims to have identified a mutation in a sample of the virus collected in India
that could create serious problems for researchers working on a vaccine.
Monitoring the mutation dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the development of
effective approaches to contain the 21 pathogen. By analyzing 106 SARS-CoV-2 and 39 SARS
genome sequences, we provided direct genetic evidence that 22 SARS-CoV-2 has a much lower
mutation rate than SARS. Minimum Evolution phylogeny analysis revealed the putative original
status of SARS-CoV-2 and the early-stage spread history. The discrepant phylogenies for the
spike protein and it receptor binding domain proved a previously reported structural
rearrangement prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Despite that, we found the spike
glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly more conserved, we identified a mutation that
leads to weaker receptor binding capability, which concerns a SARS-CoV-2 sample collected on
27th January 2020 from India. This represents the first report of a significant SARS-CoV-2
mutant, and raises the alarm that the ongoing vaccine Development may become futile in future
epidemic if more mutations were identified.
Background: During respiratory viral infection, face masks are thought to prevent
transmission (1). Whether face masks worn by patients with coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) prevent contamination of the environment is uncertain (2, 3). A previous study
reported that surgical masks and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the
dissemination of influenza virus (4), so surgical masks might help prevent transmission of
severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV-2). However, the
SARS–CoV-2 pandemic has contributed to shortages of both N95 and surgical masks, and
cotton masks have gained interest as a substitute.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in filtering
SARS–CoV-2.
...
Discussion: Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during
coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered
influenza virus (1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected
COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission (2). However, the size and
concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown.
Oberg and Brousseau (3) demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter
performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter.
Lee and colleagues (4) showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical
masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was
estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm (5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical
masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.
Of note, we found greater contamination on the outer than the inner mask surfaces.
Although it is possible that virus particles may cross from the inner to the outer surface
because of the physical pressure of swabbing, we swabbed the outer surface before the inner
surface. The consistent finding of virus on the outer mask surface is unlikely to have been
caused by experimental error or artifact. The mask's aerodynamic features may explain this
finding. A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the
outer surface. Alternatively, the small aerosols of SARS–CoV-2 generated during a
high-velocity cough might penetrate the masks. However, this hypothesis may only be valid
if the coughing patients did not exhale any large-sized particles, which would be expected
to be deposited on the inner surface despite high velocity. These observations support
the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks.
This experiment did not include N95 masks and does not reflect the actual transmission
of infection from patients with COVID-19 wearing different types of masks. We do not know
whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is
needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic
individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing.
In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the
dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the
environment and external mask surface.
A powerful California union that claimed to have discovered 39 million masks for healthcare workers
fighting the novel coronavirus was duped in an elaborate scam uncovered by FBI investigators, the U.S.
attorney's office said Friday.
U.S. Atty. Scott Brady
of the Western District of Pennsylvania said FBI agents and prosecutors stumbled onto the arrangement
while looking into whether they could intercept the masks for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
under the Defense Production Act.
The federal government
has been
quietly
seizing supplies across the country, taking the orders placed by hospitals and clinics and not
publicly reporting where the products are being routed.
But in this case, there
was no warehouse, and there were no masks to seize.
"When cuttlefish is in danger, it spits its ink to blacken the water and took the
opportunity to take flight. It is a well known tactic of some political elites and western
cultural. "They wanted to simply be attributed to China the responsibility for their own
inability to cope with the epidemic and the multiple tragedies that followed, and so," to
whiten completely. "
By the time I finished my text, I discovered a report on the Net. On 8 April, the
academic journal world-renowned, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) has
published an article co-written by academics in British and German entitled network
Analysis the phylogenetic genomes of SARS-CoV-2.
The first author of the article is Dr. Peter Forster of the University of Cambridge.
According to the study, the researchers classified the new coronavirus in three types (A,
B, and C) according to their development.
The type A is the closest of the virus extracts of the bat and pangolin. It is the one
most frequently identified among hiv-infected patients in the United States and Australia.
That is, what researchers call " the root of the epidemic ".
The strains of type B are variants of the type A and are mainly present in China. Those
that are spreading on a large scale in Europe are those of the type C. Unfortunately, it
appears that the results of the research of Dr Peter Forster are not interested in the
western mainstream media.
The graphs show the normal mortality rates in the England and Wales and in New York City
and the current deviations from it. The flu does not create such graphs. Nor do the
lock-downs.
I've got a nice bridge for sale, B, 2000 miles long and entirely made of NYT articles and
twitter tweets.
The Twitter chart leaves the impression that the number of deaths suddenly soared up
almost vertically by around 5500 just in the last few days ...
Good panic porn stuff that. Also take note of what sort of people appear in that thread -
it is not a list of nobodies!
But wait - look more closely! That upturn is for week 14 - the week ending 3rd April,
already 12 days ago. You can see the release of the data by the Office for National
Statistics
here (there is no more recent data released by ONS)
As soon as you see the real data released by the ONS you will immediately see that the
cited twitter is blatant fake news!
That chart is specifically constructed to deceive. No actual cited figures, no actual
dates, no links to the real data - just pure panic porn. Why not cite the specific dates
covered? Because that would raise immediate suspicion with that sudden spurt, because it does
not correspond to previously available figures. Why not cite the specific figures in the
tweet? Because then it would be immediately obvious that this is fake news. Why not explain
the cause of the strange shape of the graph? Because that would give the whole game away.
So what do you see when you look at the real data released by ONS, instead of the
fake news in that twitter?
1) Total deaths registered in week 14 16387
2) Increase over week 13 5246
3) Increase over 5-year average for week 14 6082
*** BUT ***
4) Note that these figures are not the deaths which occurred in week 14, they are the deaths
which were registered in week 14, irrespective of when the deaths actually occurred
(registration is often delayed)
5) Note the warning given on that page: "Please note, where Easter falls in previous years
will have an impact on the five-year average used for comparison"
6) 3475 deaths in week 14 " mentioned novel coronavirus (COVID-19)" on the death
certificate - NOTE - this is not the cause of death specified on the death certificate!!!
7) 539 deaths in week 13 " mentioned novel coronavirus (COVID-19)" on the death
certificate
8) But wait - 3475 is only about half the alleged excess deaths, and these
are not even the deaths caused by covid-19 (see below) these are only the deaths where
covid-19 "happens" to have been tested positive (car accident, for example!)
Look further!
9) Look at the row "Deaths where the underlying cause was respiratory disease (ICD-10
J00-J99)" under official WHO standards, that is the broad category under which the covid-19
deaths are to be listed, if it is considered by the doctor to be the cause of death.
The row gives figures for each week of 2020 as follows (from weeks 1 to 14 in sequence):
2141 2477 2188 1893 1746 1572 1602 1619 1546 1581 1492 1515 1534 2106
VOILA!
This category - which is the actual recorded cause of death - includes covid-19
deaths, but it is a broad category of respiratory-related deaths which also includes many
deaths which have nothing whatsoever to do with covid-19. Those 2141, 2477 and 2188 deaths
registered in each of the first 3 weeks of 2020 were before there was even a single death
from covid-19 in the UK! The average of the first 13 weeks is 1762, and the value for week 14
(2106) is only 344 more than that!
Also note that the deaths which "mention" covid-19 are 1369 greater (including car
accidents, unrelated illness, etc) than the number of deaths caused by respiratory
illnesses (including Covid-19), which already includes another 1500 to 1700 deaths not
caused by covid-19!
This spurt of extra deaths registered in week 14 most certainly does not represent a
sudden spurt of genuine covid-19 deaths - that is conclusively proven by the row of figures
giving the underlying cause of death for each week's registrations.
If anything, the data may show a sudden spurt of deaths from other causes such as
stress caused by the lockdown, food shortages, money shortages, unexpected homelessness,
non-covid-19 illnesses not treated because the hospitals cancelled appointments and
operations, stress, fear etc.
Such causes probably underlie at least a few of the unaccounted for excess deaths
(conceaveably even most, perhaps), but it is also possible it is simply a statistical
aberration and/or related to delays in registering deaths, including the unspecified effect
of the Easter holidays on death registration. The aberration may also have been deliberate,
to cover up government mishandling of the crisis, or it may result from staff shortages, or
perhaps completely irrelevant reasons - we cannot know without detailed investigation of how
the data were prepared and the patterns of death registration.
What is absolutely certain is that that twitter chart is unmitigated fake news
deliberately designed to deceive .
The NYT is no better - completely non-sensical presentation of the data with no
explanation of the meaning of the non-sensical presentation, deliberately designed to
misrepresent.
Comments, B? Time to reconsider what you are doing?
I've been urging people to look more closely at what is happening, because the magicians
have been very successful with their acts, recently. Things are not as they seem on the
surface - you need to look more carefully at the small print.
That includes the details of lockdowns. Lockdowns kill, when they are done in the
irresponsible and brutal and dishonest way they have been done in the UK and the USA.
China did NOT rely on lockdowns - they relied on an integrated combination of
social distancing (including, where necessary, lockdowns, but mostly not , except in
Hubei Province), tracing, and isolation of those infected or at risk.
Lockdowns as imposed by the UK and the USA are just suicide pacts, as described by
Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, and are ineffective in dealing with covid-19.
"... But it's especially outdoor behavior which gives psychological insight on the pandemic of panic. Yesterday I saw people walking alone on the sidewalk, for example a woman alone walking her dog, wearing masks. Evidently such people have regressed from the germ theory of infection to the miasma theory. They think the very air itself is the source of the bug. ..."
Wearing masks indoors in close quarters seems prudent, even though there's so much
conflicting evidence and it's just as likely they're a stifling version of a rabbit's foot as
that they confer any real protection.
But it's especially outdoor behavior which gives psychological insight on the pandemic
of panic. Yesterday I saw people walking alone on the sidewalk, for example a woman alone
walking her dog, wearing masks. Evidently such people have regressed from the germ theory of
infection to the miasma theory. They think the very air itself is the source of the
bug.
But the guy who instantly became my favorite representative of the whole hysteria (I wish
I had a picture of him) was the idiot I saw perform an act of extremely dangerous jaywalking,
dashing across a busy road with fast oncoming traffic both ways - wearing a mask.
Everyone seems fixated on the virus and how to protect against it. I remind you all of the
famous proverb
"Le microbe c'est rien, le milieu c'est tout" = the microbe is nothing, the
environment is everything.
Environment means the local conditions in the affected body, a combination of immune
system and pre-existing illness.
We are facing a microbe that appears very dangerous in some places with case mortality
10..20% (heavily featured in the media and also in this blog), while in other places it does
no more than a seasonal flu with overall mortality < 0.5%. This leads to two equally
distorted biases: some people see the whole world as disaster area, some say there is no
problem at all. One could question whether it is really the exact same virus, but I'm not
going there.
Actually, with the proverb in mind we should be asking: what are the local conditions in
the hotspots, what has weakened people's immune system in these places, and what kind of
precondition exists there but does not exist in general. In simple words: why here and not
there?
Not asking this question and focusing only on an alleged "killer virus" means you see a
distorted picture and you would tend to roll out the same drastic protection lockdown
measures everywhere, which suffocates the economy and culture unnecessarily and creates
massive collateral. I'm in favor of a proportional response focusing on the hotspots, and
otherwise teach people how to strengthen their immune system and protect themselves
(voluntarily) if they see the need - of course they must have the means made available.
Known factors weakening the immune system and/or lungs:
1) Poor diet – the junk food (fast food, canned food, microwaved food) so typical of
US and GB city dwellers. Without the necessary high-quality nutrition the immune system can
only be weak. Natural vitamins and essential nutrients go very far in terms of virus
protection.
2) Air pollution – Lombardia (Bergamo in particular) and NYC for example both suffer
from high air pollution, and particularly in Manhattan the 9/11 event released a huge
cloud of finest
asbestos dust which caused a wave of lung cancer in the region and a lung precondition
for everyone who was exposed at the time.
3) Negative emotions – intense anger and fear can reduce immune activity by 50% for
several hours, as measured by IgA in the saliva. Likewise, positive emotions strengten it.
Media have been feeding us shock and awe and disaster 24/7 for weeks now, you think that has
no effect, think again. Check the amazing research done by HeartMath institute . Also, forced isolation and contact
deprevation is wreaking havoc with people who love company or have psychic preconditions.
4) Radiation – there are hundreds of scientific papers on the non-thermal effect of
low-energy microwave radiation on our physiology at cellular level, usually this medical
research is ignored. An extensive linked collection is available by
diagnose:funk (a German self-help society involving many M.D.s). Immune suppression is
one of the effects. Where the COVID19 death toll is very high you have a dense WiFi and 4G
coverage and yes, typically 5G pilot installations also exist. Most young people who died
from COVID19 were working in IT companies and thus had very high exposure.
5) Vaccination – a vaccine protects from one specific virus but is known to weaken
the immune system otherwise. North Italy is among the regions with the highest vaccination
rate on this globe.
Two coffee filters
Two to three feet of craft ribbon or string
Tape
Keep the coffee filters nested. Place them with the cup side down.
Fold the bottom edges of the mask up about an inch (approximately 2-3 cm). Fold the top edge
about a half inch (or about 1 cm).
Then fold the top over another half inch. This will make the top part of the mask slightly
stiffer so it will hold the bend over your nose better.
Place the ribbon in the top and bottom troughs formed by the folded edges of the coffee
filters. Tape the folded edges of the filters down to hold the ribbon in place.
Loop the ribbon over one ear and tie the free ends of the ribbon over the other ear to hold
the mask in place over your face. Use a vertical piece of tape on the mask over each cheek to
fit the mask to your face once you have put it on.
This mask will not stop lone viruses from getting through because the coffee filter is too
porous. It will tend to block large droplets from coughing or sneezing. Droplets can contain
huge numbers of viruses and be very infectious.
This mask is not nearly as good as a surgical mask, but better than nothing. It is much
easier to wear a mask like this than to walk around holding a tissue in front of your face.
I found that I am sensitive to the odor of cheap masking tape but the cellophane tape was OK
for me. Masks should be tested at home for comfort and allergens before trying to use them.
The coffee filters should be thrown away after the mask in used. Washing hands with soap and
warm water will destroy the virus, so it is important to wash your hands after handling used
masks. The roll of ribbon was 47 cents so this is not too expensive, but I plan on removing the
ribbons and washing them in hot, soapy water to use again.
These coffee filter masks are easy to make, fit fairly comfortably and do not require sewing
skills. Paper towels could probably be used to make masks but I do not use paper towels and am
not about to brave the stores to wrestle other customers for the last roll. This virus can be
destroyed by soap and water, acid and/or heat. It generally only survives a day or two on
paper. If you cannot get enough coffee filters, leaving the mask in a hot car for a day should
kill this virus. The hot-car treatment would not necessarily kill other germs that might be on
the mask though.
Covid-19 Research Updates: Chinese Study Reveals That Hypokalemia Present In Almost All
Covid-19 Patients Source: Covid-19 Research Mar 09, 2020 1 month ago Covid-19 Research : A new research study by researchers
from Wenzhou Medical University in Zhejiang province lead by Dr Don Chen revealed that almost
all Covid-19 patients exhibited hypokalemia and that supplementation with potassium ions was
one of the many factors that assisted in their recovery.
Hypokalemia is best described as low level of potassium (K+) ions in the blood serum. Mild
low potassium does not typically cause symptoms. Symptoms may include feeling tired, leg
cramps, weakness, and constipation. Low potassium also increases the risk of an abnormal heart
rhythm, which is often too slow and can cause cardiac arrest.
It was found that as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus attacks human cells via the ACE2
(Angiotensin- converting enzyme-2) receptors, it also attacks the renin–angiotensin
system (RAS), causing low electrolyte levels in particularly potassium ions.
The study involving 175 patients in collaboration with Wenzhou Hospital found that almost
all patients exhibited hypokalemia and for those who already had hypokalemia, the situation
even drastically worsened as the disease progressed.
However, it was found from the study that patients responded well to potassium ion
supplements and had a better chance of recovery.
The researchers noted that the end of urine K+ loss indicates a good prognosis and may be a
reliable as a sensitive biomarker directly reflecting the end of adverse effect on RAS
system.
However, doctors at various hospitals in Wuhan, Shanghai and Guangdong have witnessed
similar occurrences and also found that potassium ion supplementation helped patients towards
recovery.
For the latest on Covid-19 research developments, keep checking at: Thailand Medical
News
DIY Isopod with Negative Pressure and Air Scrubber
4,917 views
•
Mar
25, 2020
93
0
SHARE
SAVE
HNMC Media
803 subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
How to make rooms negative pressure by using construction scrubbers with HEPA filters, and a DIY isopod using
materials available in a local hardware store. If you would like to see a sample of these isopods - We will have one
on display at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck, NJ 07666. Please email Steve Mosser to review [email protected]
SHOW MORE
Maisonneuve says:
March 25, 2020 at 1:30 am Hello,
This analysis is well done, as it's a very poor paper with plenty of conflicts of
interests. The French context goes beyond the article. Too many non-scientists, mainly
politicians, give opinions on radios and televisions. A well-known politician from Nice
(Estrosi) took chloroquine for his coronavirus. He was cured in a few days without
hospitalization.
He gave interviews to explain that chloroquine was effective he is not the
only politician with a media opinion on this treatment. Politicians and pseudo-science
journalists comment on D Raoult's excellence, based only on the number of publications.
In
March 2020, D Raoult co-signed 5 papers in the International Journal of Antimicrobiol
Agents ..
There are too many fights in France about this publication, and the message that it is bad
is not heard by the media.
I suggest to read the 2012 D Raoult portrait in Science entitled 'Sound and fury in the
microbiology lab'
Beijing had shut down a branch of its closely watched global remdesivir that was studying
patients in 'severe' condition in Wuhan. After showing early promise, the study was allegedly
shuttered by the government because there weren't enough patients who qualified.
For the sickest patients,
infection with the new coronavirus
is proving to be a full-body assault, causing damage well
beyond the lungs. And
even after patients who become severely ill have recovered and
cleared the virus, physicians have begun seeing evidence of the infection's lingering effects
.
In a
study
posted this week, scientists in China examined the blood test results of 34 COVID-19
patients over the course of their hospitalization.
In those who survived mild and severe
disease alike, the researchers found that many of the biological measures had "failed to return
to normal."
-
Los
Angeles Times
One alarming observation have been test results indicating that
recovered patients
continue to have impaired liver function
after patients had been cleared for discharge.
Another concern from cardiologists
are the immediate effects of COVID-19 on the heart
,
raising questions over how long the damage may last. As the
Times
notes, "In an
early study
of COVID-19 patients in
China,
heart failure was seen in nearly 12% of those who survived, including in some who
had shown no signs of respiratory distress.
"
Heart damage can easily occur when the lungs cannot deliver sufficient oxygen to the body,
however
when this happens without respiratory distress, "doctors have to wonder whether
they have underestimated COVID-19's ability to wreak lasting havoc,"
according to the
report.
"COVID-19 is not just a respiratory disorder," according to Yale cardiologist Dr. Harlan
Krumholtz, who added "It can affect the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the brain, the endocrine
system and the blood system."
Of course,
there are no long-term survivors
of the disease - which was unknown
to mainstream science less than five months ago. Even its first victims in China are just over
three months removed from their ordeal, while physicians swamped with the ongoing pandemic have
been too busy treating critical patients to closely monitor the some 370,000 patients classified as
'recovered.'
Still,
doctors are worried that in its wake, some organs whose function has been
knocked off kilter will not recover quickly, or completely
. That could leave patients
more vulnerable for months or years to come.
"
I think there will be long-term
sequelae
," said Yale cardiologist
Dr.
Joseph Brennan
, using the medical term for a disease's downstream effects.
"I don't know that for real," he cautioned. "But
this disease is so overwhelming"
that some of the recovered are likely to face ongoing health concerns
, he said. -
Los
Angeles Times
Meanwhile,
questions have emerged over whether COVID-19 actually leaves the body
- possibly lying dormant for years only to re-emerge later in a different form.
Several viruses already do this such as chicken pox - which can come back as shingles, and
hepatitis B, which can cause liver cancer years after the primary infection clears up. Ebola is
another example - hiding in the vitreous fluid of victims' eyeballs in some cases, causing
blindness or impaired vision in 40% of survivors.
Of course, then there's
the lungs
- which the novel coronavirus tends to target
first. In another closely related coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS),
around 1/3 of recovered patients had impaired lung function after three years
- though
they largely resolved over the next 15 years. And, 1/3 of those who survived Middle East
Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) had permanent scarring of the lungs known as fibrosis.
According to a mid-March publication which tracked a dozen COVID-19 patients discharged from a
Hong Kong hospital, two or three reported having difficulties with activities they had no problem
performing in the past.
Dr. Owen Tsang Tak-yin, director of infectious diseases at Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong
Kong, told reporters that some patients
"might have around a drop of 20 to 30% in lung
function" after their recovery.
Citing the history of lasting lung damage in SARS and MERS patients, a team led by UCLA
radiologist Melina Hosseiny is recommending that
patients who have recovered from
COVID-19 get follow-up lung scans "to evaluate long-term or permanent lung damage including
fibrosis."
As doctors try to assess organ damage after COVID-19 recovery, there's a key complication:
Patients with disorders that affect the heart, liver, blood and lungs face a higher risk
of becoming very sick with COVID-19 in the first place
. That makes it difficult to
distinguish COVID-19 after-effects from the problems that made patients vulnerable to begin with
-- especially so early in the game. -
Los
Angeles Times
And while doctors and researchers are still discovering COVID-19's secrets, what they do know is
that when patients show signs of infection,
several organ systems are affected
-
and that when one begins to fail, others often follow. This is all wrapped in an inflammatory
response, which can pry "plaques and clots from the walls of blood vessels and causing strokes,
heart attacks and venous embolisms," according to the report.
Dr. Krumholtz, the cardiologist, says the infection can cause damage to the heart and the sac
which encases it, causing heart failure and arrhythmias in some patients during the acute phase.
This means that former COVID-19 patients can become
lifelong cardiology patients
after they 'recover' from the primary illness.
What's worse, blood abnormalities that can make clots more likely can persist as well.
In a
case report
published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine,
Chinese
doctors described a patient with severe COVID-19, clots evident in several parts of his body,
and immune proteins called
antiphospholipid antibodies
.
A hallmark of an autoimmune disease called
antiphospholipid syndrome
, these antibodies sometimes occur as a passing response to an
infection. But sometimes they linger, causing dangerous blood clots in the legs, kidneys, lungs
and brain. In pregnant women, antiphospholipid syndrome also can result in miscarriage and
stillbirth. -
Los
Angeles Times
Yale's Dr. Brennan says that at the end of the day, we just don't have enough data to make a
long term prognosis for coronavirus patients.
Complete disinfecting protocol includes four steps: Pre-cleaning, disinfecting (dwell time),
wiping clean and rinsing with water. "But we're lucky if we get two," meaning dwell time and
wipe-up, said Mark Warner, education manager at the Cleaning Management Institute, a provider
of training and certification for professional cleaning services. Pre-cleaning is most
important on heavily soiled surfaces, because dirt can shield pathogens underneath; it's fine
to use soap and water or a household cleaner. Disinfecting for the proper dwell time, of
course, is nonnegotiable. Wiping afterward is essential because disinfectants can leave a
sticky residue where pathogens can quickly resettle. And rinsing finishes the process.
.... ... ...
Multiple sources give different bleach-to-water ratios for use with regular bleach. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that "unexpired bleach will be effective
against coronaviruses" in a 1:48 solution (⅓ cup of bleach per gallon of water, or 4
teaspoons per quart).
Clorox recommends a slightly stronger 1:32 ratio (½ cup per gallon or 2 tablespoons
per quart). Mark Warner recommends a much stronger 1:10 ratio (about 1½ cups per gallon
of water, or about ⅓ cup per quart). Some medical disinfectants are basically the same
solution.
Whichever ratio you use, let it sit on the surface for 10 minutes: Warner told us that this
is the Environmental Protection Agency's guideline for any new or unknown pathogen, and it is
also the dwell time listed for the regular household bleaches on the E.P.A.'s
List N, which means it is approved to eliminate the coronavirus when properly used.
Don't mix up more than you will use within a day or two. Bleach degrades fairly rapidly once
taken from its original storage container, becoming less effective each day
via Gates Expert jacob levitch's twit account:
April 09, 2020 , Gates' Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory
Vaccination , RFK, Jr, Chairman, Children's Health Defense
[hope you won't mind if i paste it all in, CB.]
'Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many
vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft's ambition to control a global vaccination
ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.
Gates' obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with
technology.
Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took
control of India's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated
up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to
children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating
non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond
expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates'
vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates
dropped precipitously.
In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global
explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. [?] The most frightening epidemics in
Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70%
of global polio cases were vaccine strain.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by
Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces.
Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility
disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded
researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls
into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the
injured girls. The case is now in the country's Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK's experimental malaria
vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including
paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.
During Gates' 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates' operatives forcibly
vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500
children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, "We are
guinea pigs for the drug makers." Nelson Mandela's former Senior Economist, Professor
Patrick Bond, describes Gates' philanthropic practices as "ruthless and immoral."
... ... ...
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates
funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is
donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a
coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the
Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs
on American children.'
"If, then, I were asked for the most important advice I could give, that which I considered
to be the most useful to the men of our century, I should simply say: in the name of God,
stop a moment, cease your work, look around you." Leo Tolstoy
Question: Why the hell do all of you in the comments assume this guy is right, and
literally every SINGLE other doctor and physician is wrong? Just because he's contradicting
the consensus? He hasn't presented a shred of evidence apart from his "theories". How likely
is it that literally nobody else agrees with him? Essentially zero. Why are you all jumping
on this? Cause of some insane conspiracy that every physician in the world is part of some
conspiracy to lie to you?
="article"> RT here. I'd consider using an esophageal balloon catheter and adjusting
vent settings according to transpulmonary pressures. A lot of places are using ARDSnet
protocol and this is a great start, but transpulmonary pressure monitoring is really the next
step up to achieving optimal and safe ventilator settings. I have a high suspicion that if
you place a balloon in a patient on ARDSnet setting, their PEEP would be suboptimal and their
transpulmonary pressure will be negative, suggesting alveolar collapse with every breath,
leading to atelectrauma and lung injury. I've had patients in APRV, placed a balloon and
switched back to conventional ventilation with balloon guided settings, and have drastic
improvements in both oxygenation and ventilation. Increasing PEEP to achieve PtpExp 0-5 to
avoid alveolar collapse and adjusting tidal volumes/inspiratory pressures to maintain
PtpInsp(Driving Pressure) <15 to avoid overdistention.
div>I tentatively suggest it may be worth researching Viagra as a possible treatment -
Viagra causes the blood to flow more freely and more oxygen flow in the body - Viagra is
commonly used by high altitude climbers to help them combat the severe lack of oxygen at high
altitude - see my previous comments. Maybe Viagra could help get desperately needed oxygen in
to the blood of Covid 19 patients and help save lives. It's definitely worth considering - as
it is an existing approved drug that could easily be re-appropriated without lengthy clinical
trials. At this point we have nothing to loose - if Viagra could possibly help, then it is
tentatively worth looking in to. (Possibly Coca leaves too - as they are also used to help
the body uptake oxygen at high altitude where there is very little oxygen - but I suppose
Coca leaves would never get official approval) I would be very interested to hear peoples
thoughts. Please read my previous comment for more info. Thank you for taking the time to
read this.
iv>Looks like the Covid19 has at least 3 stages of progression: Stage 1: fever, cough,
diarrhea, headache, within 7-10 days of infection Stage 2: as disease gets deeper into the
lungs, shortness of breath, low levels of oxygen by approximately day 11-15 days. At this
point the Respirators helps patients Stage 3: at about 3 weeks. The patients are very sick,
acute respiratory distress, shock, cardiac failure and death. Most probable, they are
experiencing the effects of the 'Cytokine storm' due to the viral overload, and a massive
release of cytokines, causing serious damage to the lungs, loss of lung function and fatal
outcome.
renderer-text-content expanded">Thank you, doctor. I'm a recently retired PhD veteran
of respiratory research out of pharma & biotech. I'm so relieved someone with credibility
has finally called it correctly. I have friends in Italy I've known for decades through the
medical/ research community. They've told me EXACTLY what you've found. Further, in some
Italian case series, 97% died on ventilators. A similar case series given high oxygen CPAP
often survived. Now imagine hundreds of elderly people, ill & having a positive covid19
PCR test, being put on transport ventilators attended by physicians inexperienced in ITU. I
would not expect many to survive, but this is our "surge capacity" we've set up in UK.
omment-renderer-text-content expanded">This is exactly what I have been suspecting.
This was recently published in Nature. "The results showed the ORF8 and surface glycoprotein
could bind to the porphyrin, respectively. At the same time, orf1ab, ORF10, and ORF3a
proteins could coordinate attack the heme on the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin to dissociate the
iron to form the porphyrin. The attack will cause less and less hemoglobin that can carry
oxygen and carbon dioxide. The lung cells have extremely intense poisoning and inflammatory
due to the inability to exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen frequently, which eventually
results in ground-glass-like lung images." 1. The virus attaches to the hemoglobin via ORF8
(a protein) and glycoprotein. Hemoglobin is an iron rich protein that that allows red blood
cells to carry oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body. 2. This allows it to cut off
the iron 3. This reduces the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide available to the lung cells.
(it is well known that anemia causes shortness of breathe, for example, because your body
does not get enough oxygen rich blood). 4. This results in intense poisoning and
inflammation, which results in lung damage, the ground glass like lung images, and sometimes
death. Sickle cell disease is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin-Beta gene found on
chromosome 11. Hemoglobin transports oxygen from the lungs to other parts of the body. Red
blood cells with normal hemoglobin (hemoglobin-A) are smooth and round and glide through
blood vessels. This may be why an anti-malaria drug like Plaquenil might be effective against
this virus. Sickle cell anemia mutates the hemoglobin-Beta gene, which then provides
protection from malaria. COVID-19 attacks the beta-hemoglobin. Doctor, I came to the same
conclusion myself. Please pass this along to your colleagues.
https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173/5?fbclid=IwAR1K50u0wRWhOCv0_rxS2_bYk7p3mT-OWX08GXaa0Tm13bzT8Wl8MYfTAI8
There seems to be some evidence that hemoglobin is being disrupted and Iron ions are being
released and the Free iron ions are poisoning the lung cell. this needs to be researched.
Mitigated by providing O2 may be needed.
In Italy some (few) hospitals started using ozone therapy and the very first experiences
are rather promising. I really hope that they can find an effective treatment of
Covid-19.
iv> TY-I posted this on my FB and am sharing with all the pulmonologists I know. You
are spot on. Many of us nurses have had similar questions. Why is Vent to death rate nearly
2x faster with this than pneumonia? This is what I posted on my FB w your video. Please
please keep talking - everyone please keep talking and being public. Doctors and nurses are
the ones who will raise public awareness and create change and save lives. Nobody else.
Seriously we are on our own. Our union nurses have been making the news daily. We need to
continue to take over Social media and the news and use the public trust to advance care of
our patients and protection for us (need PPE) and our families. "This is NOT pneumonia. I
100% agree with him. There's no other answer to the poor response and rapid decline with
"traditional" treatment regimens. Please get this video out to all providers-especially
ICU-Critical Care Providers-Pulmonologists- Infection Disease doctors. There has to be a
different paradigm. Steroid use must be questioned. Suppression of febrile state must be
questioned? Why not allow the immune response to run its course up to 40C? Pay attention to
ACE2 receptor and microbiology of it's actions and role. Check out Med Cram or John Campbell
on Youtube as well. They speak to the same questions. We are all learning and this is
something totally new."
Malaria is also linked to hypoxia because the malaria parasite uses hemoglobin as a
nutrient source. HCQ is effective in protecting the hemoglobin in the blood which is why it
is showing success against COVID-19 as well.
" role="article"> There are four types of hypoxia: hypoxic, stagnant, anaemic and
cytotoxic - as I am sure you know. If your theory is correct this would equate to anaemic
hypoxia, but instead of lack of haemoglobin it would be dysfunctional. Similar, in a way, to
CO poisoning: HB doesn't unload oxygen, so there is a tissue hypoxia without cyanosis. What
you would see is normal or high pa02 (partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood) and
discordantly low arterial haemoglobin saturation. On the other hand, if pa02 is low it
indicates that the primary problem is pulmonary, that is oxygen does not diffuse across the
alveolar membrane. If haemoglobin is the primary problem then blood transfusion would indeed
improve the outcome. What is the typical blood gas like in these patients? I am in Australia,
and we don't have many severe cases, luckily. From what get to the Internet I gather these
patients are also hypercarbic. Which is the opposite of the altitude sickness, where a
patients hyperventilates, causing hypocarbia and respiratory alkalosis, with consequent
symptoms. Hence acetazolamide treatment. So, what's the typical arterial blood gas like in
COVID patients? High pa02 and low Sa02? Both low? What's paCO2 like?
Thank you for covering this doctor. I am sharing. I noticed that they have not rushed to
put Boris Johnson on a ventilator and Dr. Oz brought up the ventilator issues on a recent
broadcast. There are not enough qualified personnel running these machines throughout the
States and that is a cause for concern because as you have noted they need to be monitored
and adjusted accordingly. Stay safe. We have your back.
="article"> Video: Ari Whitten speaks with Scott Antoine, MD -- a board-certified
emergency physician and a functional and integrative medicine doctor about the latest
findings on COVID-19: A potential breakthrough on COVID-19 treatment." Show Notes: The
difference between ARDS and COVID-19 ( 0:59 ) The danger of the cytokine
storm ( 8:28 ) How COVID-19 may not be a
respiratory condition ( 16:20 ) The pros and cons of
ventilators ( 25:13 ) Why Methylene blue
shows promise for treating COVID-19 ( 31:00 ) Other potential factors
that could help COVID-19 treatment ( 47:33 ) How Vitamin C works in
COVID-19 treatment ( 55:09 )
https://www.theenergyblueprint.com/blue/?inf_contact_key=7c7cb8a0e1a3404449b49e79b5046d61d18a532c4142cb79caf2b269de1401fa
rticle"> Fantastic analysis, backed by a prospective explanation. I'm a physician in
upstate NY and confirm Dr. Kyle-Sidell's observations. HFNC (high-flow nasal cannula) appears
to be a good intermediary between typical face-mask O2 and traditional ventilators .. but
these machines are not in widespread use. Optiflow by Fisher & Paykal
https://www.fphcare.com/us/hospital/adult-respiratory/optiflow/ and Hi-VNI Precision Flow
by Vapotherm
https://vapotherm.com/hi-vni-technology/ are two companies that make these units. I have
no financial interests in either of these companies.
"article"> The symptoms of individuals presenting with suspected "CoVid 19" are similar
to individuals with radiation sickness. What is your experience with treating radiation
sickness? Have you attempted to utilize radiation sickness treatment protocol to address the
symptoms you are witnessing in individuals presenting with suspected "CoVid 19"? You feedback
is appreciated, thank you in advance.
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/radiation-sickness
lass="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> You are right. My hospital has a 0%
success rate using ventilators on covid patients. These patients can be sitting comfortably
talking to you on a non-rebreather with no use of accessory muscles and have a pulse ox of
75%. They appear to have no issue moving air into and out of the lungs like you would see if
it were ARDS. They all have horribly high ferritin levels and go into kidney failure long
before their respiratory system crashes.
This virus destroys the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood through the iron binding
sites of the red blood cells. So what then is the solution?
iv> This is from CDC web site (description of malaria): Severe malaria occurs when
infections are complicated by serious organ failures or abnormalities in the patient's blood
or metabolism. The manifestations of severe malaria include the following: Cerebral malaria,
with abnormal behavior, impairment of consciousness, seizures, coma, or other neurologic
abnormalities Severe anemia due to hemolysis (destruction of the red blood cells)
Hemoglobinuria (hemoglobin in the urine) due to hemolysis Acute respiratory distress syndrome
(ARDS), an inflammatory reaction in the lungs that inhibits oxygen exchange, which may occur
even after the parasite counts have decreased in response to treatment Abnormalities in blood
coagulation Low blood pressure caused by cardiovascular collapse Acute kidney injury
Hyperparasitemia, where more than 5% of the red blood cells are infected by malaria parasites
Metabolic acidosis (excessive acidity in the blood and tissue fluids), often in association
with hypoglycemia Hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). Hypoglycemia may also occur in pregnant
women with uncomplicated malaria, or after treatment with quinine. Severe malaria is a
medical emergency and should be treated urgently and aggressively. Now, what we have at hand
is viral malaria type disease. Same symptoms. Now, BIll Gates was working on the cure for
malaria, right? Maybe he found something else. Malaria and COVID 19 both respond well to HCQ.
You guys make your own conclusions.
Did you ever wonder if the disease itself gets a foothold because of the oxygen saturation
level of the patients involved? Could it be that the most severely compromised already have
lowered oxygen levels? Certainly exacerbated by COVID-19 but perhaps initiated by initial
lowered oxygen levels?
Dr Bill Deagle of Nutrimedical Report recently said in his broadcast that COVID-19 is like
a high altitude sickness - just as you've concluded Dr Kyle-Sidell. Dr. Bill Deagle (a bit
rough around the edges yet brilliant) claims to have treatment solutions that are effective.
Perhaps you should contact him immediately and have a conversation. It may steer the course
to brighter outcomes for us all. God speed! 🇺🇸
Good, but so few doctors have the nuts to speak out as this physician did. Treating Lungs,
when the lungs ARE WORKING FINE and only get damaged by the ventilator. It's blood disease,
where hemoglobin is destroyed and cannot deliver oxygen to the organs. We need
Hydroxychloroquine widely distributed as a preventative AND CURE, and open up our society
again!! FIRE FAUCI!
e"> You must clear out the phlegm in both lungs first. This virus consumes & breaks
down lung cells to replicate itself. As more cells are consumed more pinkish phlegm will
continue to form inside both lungs and blocking the air. Eventually the lungs will be
liquefied. Put down that American pride and start working with the Chinese experts to SAVE
LIVES. Enough time has been wasted on playing the blame game
https://covid-19.alibabacloud.com/
le"> ARDS, oxidative stress, PAP.( Pulmonary Alveolar Proteinosis), " It has been
proposed that lower iron saturation of Tf decreases iron-mediated oxidative stress and
rescues respiratory failure [89,90]. Secondary PAP can accompany infection, particle exposure
and malignancies [38], most of which are associated with altered iron homeostasis. Together,
a remarkable relationship between PAP and iron metabolism exists" " it has been proposed that
the presence of pro-oxidant iron in lung epithelial fluid may contribute to susceptibility to
oxidative damage [28]. Lavage fluid of ARDS patients has elevated levels of total and nonheme
iron as well as cellular content of Tf, ferritin and Lf [86]. This indicates impaired
pulmonary homeostasis of iron in ARDS, although it is unclear whether this is due to general
increase in membrane permeability or altered iron metabolism." ARDSAcute Respiratory Distress
SyndromeBALBronchoalveolar LavageDcytbDuodenal cytochrome bDMT1Divalent Metal Transporter
1FPNFerroportinLfLactoferrinLfRLactoferrin ReceptorNramp1Natural Resistance-associated
Macrophage Protein 1PAPPulmonary Alveolar ProteinosisRBCRed Blood
CellsTfTransferrinTfRTransferrin Receptor I copied and pasted exerpts from the study.
Interesting Read between correlation of Iron Homeostasis / Regulation and ARDS, Lung
Inflammation etc
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718378/
> Cameron - I'm a retired scientist and former climber who got this disease back in
January (classic symptoms, including shortness of breath - now permanent), and what you are
describing is EXACTLY what I thought. I have been telling people that "I'm permanently stuck
at 7000 feet in the Colorado Rockies". I sleep worse just like when I was in the mountains.
Very lucky I'm not at 11,000 feet - that would not have been long-term survivable for me. I
can likely live 10-20 more years with this, if it doesn't progress, but I have a feeling that
it DOES PROGRESS. I don't think the virus is gone. It seems like it's still there. Quinine
and zinc helped me AFTER recovery, but the side effects of quinine are nasty, so I'm taking a
break. I had to get MacGyver and self-treat because I'm supposedly cured and can't get
HCQ/AZM/Zn and my doc is not a specialist, etc. Nobody knows how to deal with this, so my
fellow online researchers are working constantly on understanding (wqth.wordpress.com). We
think a lot of us got it - two of us had intermediate cases like mine (no hospitals). Would
love to get into a study.
You are the first colleague that also seems to have discovered that COVID-19 is not an
ordinary viral pneumonia. I think I may know how to prevent respiatoy failure in an early
phase and therefore no need for mechanical ventilation.
"article"> Hi Doctor. My experience of COVID-19 over the last 4 weeks precisely as you
are describing. I instinctively felt when I got it that it was not what the experts
described. I could feel through my knowledge with my body that the problem with my system as
it started to breakdown was in the drop in the oxygen levels being the main source of my
distress. The way I got COVID-19 the symptoms of fever, dry cough, aches and pains were such
that they did not distract from the main problem itself which was my system not taking in
oxygen, I have been trying to puzzle this out during my recovery and I definitely think that
as your explain it here it is the case with how the COVID-19 virus takes down the individual.
You must forge ahead with this. Let me offer an example in my own treatment of this ... I
deliberately removed certain remedies I was using like Vit C for a period of time to see what
the effect would be then I returned to a regime of taking it and the oxygen in-take into my
system returned and my system improved with the simple increase of Vit C I felt my oxygen
intake improve and I felt immediately less stressed. Also, a constriction in the back of my
throat alongside my swallowing action indicated to me when my system was struggling with
oxygen intake levels moving up and down. I definitely do agree with your findings here from
my experience of being a victim of this Virus in a significant way.
cle"> Email from another doctor in New York City to a colleague: "We have zero success
story for patients who were intubated. Our thinking is changing to postpone intubation to as
long as possible, to prevent mechanical injury from the vent. "Those patients tolerate
arterial hypoxia surprisingly well. Natural course seems to be the best. Yesterday did not
intubate patient with 86% [blood oxygen saturation percentage] on non re breather ( gave the
best sat, desated on CPAP). Today he is sating 96%. If he would have been intubated, he will
be dead in three days."
le"> Doctor Ming Lin an emergency room doctor with 17 years of experience was fired for
going public about poor hospital room safety and shortage of medical supplies and PPE. He was
employed by a physician staffing firm at Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham,Washington. A
third of hospital emergency rooms are staffed by 2 physician staffing companies TeamHealth
and Envision Healthcare, owned by Wall Street investment firms. Patients and insurance
companies then can be overcharged for needed emergency care. Blackstone's owner of Teamhealth
CEO, Stephan Schwarzman a part of the president's circle would not want an employee to
express information contrary to the political rhetoric of the current administration. The
navy relieved Captain Brett Cozier for also sounding the alarm about lack of medical supplies
and supplies. Do not be naive enough to believe money and power trumps the wellbeing of the
citizens of this country.
Could it not be an IHA reaction, also associated with the vulnerabilities to Covid?
Suppress that response and allow more time to overcome viral replication.
Tracey Continelli1 day ago This is exactly what I have been suspecting. This was recently
published in Nature. "The results showed the ORF8 and surface glycoprotein could bind to the
porphyrin, respectively. At the same time, orf1ab, ORF10, and ORF3a proteins could coordinate
attack the heme on the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin to dissociate the iron to form the
porphyrin. The attack will cause less and less hemoglobin that can carry oxygen and carbon
dioxide. The lung cells have extremely intense poisoning and inflammatory due to the
inability to exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen frequently, which eventually results in
ground-glass-like lung images." 1. The virus attaches to the hemoglobin via ORF8 (a protein)
and glycoprotein. Hemoglobin is an iron rich protein that that allows red blood cells to
carry oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body. 2. This allows it to cut off the iron 3.
This reduces the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide available to the lung cells. (it is well
known that anemia causes shortness of breathe, for example, because your body does not get
enough oxygen rich blood). 4. This results in intense poisoning and inflammation, which
results in lung damage, the ground glass like lung images, and sometimes death. Sickle cell
disease is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin-Beta gene found on chromosome 11.
Hemoglobin transports oxygen from the lungs to other parts of the body. Red blood cells with
normal hemoglobin (hemoglobin-A) are smooth and round and glide through blood vessels. This
may be why an anti-malaria drug like Plaquenil might be effective against this virus. Sickle
cell anemia mutates the hemoglobin-Beta gene, which then provides protection from malaria.
COVID-19 attacks the beta-hemoglobin. Doctor, I came to the same conclusion myself. Please
pass this along to your colleagues.
https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173/5?fbclid=IwAR1K50u0wRWhOCv0_rxS2_bYk7p3mT-OWX08GXaa0Tm13bzT8Wl8MYfTAI8
Bob Sapp20 hours ago Tracey Continelli I'm trying to understand why the anti-malaria drug
would work. Are you saying the drug will mutate our hemoglobin and then the virus wouldn't be
able to attach itself to our red blood cell? Tracey Continelli11 hours ago (edited) @Bob Sapp
YES. Before the Nature article came out, multiple studies have been done showing that the
anti-malaria drug Plaquenil alters the intracellular structure. One article I found stated
that it had the ability to alter the protein structure. If this is true - and based on the
article in Nature, the virus attaches itself to the PROTEIN on the outside of the red blood
cells - then it is effectively PREVENTING the virus from attaching itself to the proteins and
glycoproteins on the red blood cells, where it then "kicks out" the iron ion, which then
prevents the lung cells from getting the necessary oxygen, which then causes the respiratory
distress and damaged lungs that clinicians are seeing. Tracey Continelli10 hours ago (edited)
I'm a health researcher and college professor. Hydroxychloroquine is hypothesized to be
exerting a multi-pronged effect on this virus. One, by altering the cellular structure, it
can make it difficult to replicate and reproduce itself. Two, it can make it difficult to
attach to the red blood cell wall and kicking out the iron ion, causing the deprivation of
oxygen to the lungs and patients becoming hypoxemic. Three, as someone noted, because it
dampens down the immune system (it is given to patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis,
both of whom have hyperactive immune system) it should lower the risk of a cytokine storm.
Sermo just conducted a study of over 6000 physicians around the world, asking them what
treatments for COVID-19 they had used, and which they considered to be the most promising.
Sermo regularly surveys physicians around the world, it is an established organization. As a
professor/researcher I was able to access the data myself and ran the numbers. Excluding
already approved treatments, such as Tylenol, antibiotics, etc, I isolated ONLY the four
experimental treatments and computed the percentages. Here they are: Hydroxychloroquine - 49%
Anti-HIV retrivirals - 30% Plasma - 8% Remdesivir - 13% Sermo computed the percentages
differently by including other drug treatments, but still found that hydroxychloroquine was
rated as most effective.
https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/largest-statistically-significant-study-by-6200-multi-country-physicians-on-covid-19-uncovers-treatment-patterns-and-puts-pandemic-in-context/?fbclid=IwAR36GA79oiUF5cuCjuweV2pqys0Eneu6AAbqoOfikK1PgYepVvLP1tKC5cc
e"> Thoughts on COVID-19 Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Intervention Posted on Quora
on 5/10 in response to the video. Quora: Does Covid-19 really cause ARDS? Dr. Cameron
Kyle-Sidell questions treating COVID-19 with the present medical paradigm of ARDS. ........
"We should consider that part of the pathophysiological mechanism of COVID-19 is resulting
from an acquired hemoglobinopathy or dyshemoglobinemia" .
I think this may answer some of your questions about oxygenation vs ventilation.
https://archive.is/ONUmi#selection-183.0-183.75 Says that CV causes the iron to
dissociate from the heme groups, causing dysfunctional hemoglobin. And the Fe+++ causes
massive oxidative damage. That is why intravenous Vitamin C has been so effective at avoiding
the cytokine storm. Even explains chloroquine effect. Highly recommended.
Ventilator-associated lung
injury - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Ventilator-associated_lung_injury Ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI) is an acute lung injury that develops
during mechanical ventilation and is termed ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) if it can be proven that the mechanical
ventilation caused the acute lung injury. In contrast, ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI) exists if the cause
cannot be proven.
In Italy, two similar regions, Lombardy and Veneto, took different approaches to the
community spread of the epidemic. Both mandated social distancing, but only Veneto
undertook massive contact tracing and testing early on. Despite starting from very similar
points, Lombardy is now tragically overrun with the disease, having experienced roughly
7,000 deaths and counting, while Veneto has managed to mostly contain the epidemic to a few
hundred fatalities.
"Wet markets really are just farmers' markets that also happen to sell fresh fish (thus
the "wet" part of their label) and poultry and sometimes beef and pork."
"Readers can display how susceptible they are to mass media driven hysteria and jingoism
and perhaps also reveal unacknowledged racism by insisting that there is something
fundamentally different about Asian farmers markets from the local ones they themselves shop
at for the freshest foods. "
I would respond that the fact that our local farmers markets don't generally sell the
"wet" stuff is in and of itself a "fundamental difference." If there are disease-vector
issues with wetmarkets, the issue will likely have originated in the "wet" part of the
market.
PS re the wet market bs. Let's all grow up. Nearly every coastal town I've ever visited on
four continents has a "wet market" i.e. tanks full of shell fish or crayfish or lobsters.
There are plenty of places you can buy a live chicken and have it cut up. In souther murka
they do love their trotters - i.e. pig's feet (gross in my opinion.) sea urchins any one? How
about sea slugs? There's a tasty meal. I know, let's just call it a "fresh food" market.
Hmmm?
With the deepest respect for your inner beauty. Cheers.
The U.S. surgeon general on Sunday trumpeted the administration's new recommendation that
all Americans wear cloth masks in public, a reversal of its previous advice as the country
braces for a dramatic surge in COVID-19 cases and potential fatalities this week.
"The next week is going to be our Pearl Harbor moment. It's going to be our 9/11 moment.
It's going to be the hardest moment for many Americans in their entire lives," Vice Admiral
Jerome Adams warned on NBC's "Meet the Press," as he made rounds of political talk shows.
The push to wear masks follows updated guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. It is not mandatory but masks offer added protection against spreading the
coronavirus, especially when people cannot practice 6-foot social distancing.
Re: Effective home-made mask insert/liner material: Two brands of cheap widely available blue
shop towels are found to work great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDE12HymYc
(starts at minute 31:20).
Re: bubonic plague in Mongolia. Sporadic human Yersinia pestis infections have been
endemic in American Southwest for many years.
Being "connected" is a huge part of the cause of this mess, before internet propaganda was
limited to newspapers and magazines, it was much slower and manageable.
I do find it funny how wealthy folks spread the "don't worry WE will all be fine" garbage.
WE....no, tell that to someone who has lost their business and has dependents.
I hate the "We're going to be ok. We're all in this together" ads. All of them
celebrities, pro athletes, and actors. Not one has to worry about whether they'll be able to
buy food next week. Elites telling the little people everything's ok.
It's really sad when Tucker Carlson is the only person who ever admitted he was wrong on
Fox News. Hannity still claims he never called the virus a hoax even though he did it on
TV.
Hydroxchloroquinine is toxic if combined with metformin. Diabetics who take it beware.
source
Note the link above also lists all of the known drug interactions of HCH with other drugs -
there are 332 total of which 59 are considered "major".
Fauci had previously supported the use of Hydroquinone for similar virus. What changed?
However, to the matter of Israel and the virus:
I thought they were having strangely little impact from virus.
Anyway, this is all very revealing.
You know how people always question:
Why did that woman remain in that abusive relationship?
@jared #26
I don't consider anything coming out of ZH to be credible until verified.
Fauci has been very consistent: he is cautious about whether hydroxychloroquinine is a
efficacious treatment for nCOV/COVID-19.
Note there are multiple levels of potential use:
1) The drug doesn't hurt/kill you. At normal levels, HCH passes this test but the levels it
has been used at to treat nCOV - they're much higher than existing anti-malaria/malaria
preventative/rheumatoid arthritis use.
At these higher levels, it isn't clear how safe HCH is - particularly for really old people
who are the primary nCOV at risk group.
2) Does the drug decrease negative outcomes? i.e. maybe it doesn't cure (which it shouldn't)
but it makes it less likely that nCOV infected get pneumonia or worse. This would be
fantastic but it is 100% unproven.
3) Does the drug cure? By itself or with other things like the antibiotic azithromycin? There
have been studies saying yes - but I look at a couple - and they're frankly poor studies. To
me, it is very unclear.
Hydroxychloroquinine/chloroquinine phosphate shows promise as a way to treat nCOV in its
early stages, but this is so far completely unverified. Nor do we know what the optimal
dosage might be to balance between known risks and side effects induced by HCH use vs.
optimal nCOV impact.
I've gotten a prescription sufficient for a couple of courses, but am not taking it as a
preventative (nor is there any proof it actually works this way).
Lots of people taking HCH as a preventative when it doesn't work or as treatment when
dosages/outcomes aren't known *will* increase the likelihood that nCOV will evolve resistance
against it, so it isn't like side effects are the only bad outcome to uninformed use.
The Trump regime's goal is only ever to enrich themselves through the Presidency. Reportedly,
Kushner's National Stockpile has been, uh, stockpiling Hydroxychloroquine as the President
has been snake-oiling it. As the USA is become completely privatized it is not hard to
arrange government contracts to middle-man the stockpile to its needy 'customers.'
And I can't believe all the raging antisemites here. Surely the Israelis have procured all
those masks to help out those poor Palestinians for whom they care so deeply.
Finally; can we see the endgame? Whip up a worse-case scenario of fear mongering that our
leaders miraculously save us from, yet institute a 'new normal' ripped from the pages of
Orwell to protect us from the 'next time' which they promise is a matter of when not if.
@38 - Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are not sufficient by themselves for treating
COVID-19. CQ and HCQ create a pathway for zinc ions to get inside the cells to disrupt the
coronavirus replication. It's the zinc that actually is the medicine. See this study for
details - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079686/
Even as hospitals and governors raise the alarm about a shortage of ventilators, some
critical care physicians are questioning the widespread use of the breathing machines for
Covid-19 patients, saying that large numbers of patients could instead be treated with less
intensive respiratory support.
If the iconoclasts are right, putting coronavirus patients on ventilators could be of
little benefit to many and even harmful to some.
What's driving this reassessment is a baffling observation about Covid-19: Many patients
have blood oxygen levels so low they should be dead. But they're not gasping for air, their
hearts aren't racing, and their brains show no signs of blinking off from lack of
oxygen.
The more I read about ventilators, the more sure I am that I do not want one if I get sick
from the evil virus.
My understanding is that currently the UK has a 50% mortality rate of Covid sufferers
who've been put on ventilators. They started using CPAP masks several weeks ago according to
Dr. John D. Campbell UK. Much less invasive.
Interesting link you share -- it mentions acute symptoms are more like altitude sickness,
with low 02 but CO2 still being cleared
My daughter who is a hospital worker showed me her mask, made by her sister. And b has posted
previously directions for making masks.
While homemade or even professional surgical mask do not protect the wearer from all
particles they do protect one much better from them than when one wears no mask at all.
A person rarely gets infected by just one virus particle. They come in millions attached
to tiny droplets. We do not know yet how the dose of the novel coronavirus that infects a
person affects the intensity of the disease. But we do know from other viruses that the
dose matters. People who catch a higher dose of viruses will usually have a more intense
disease. A mask can lower the virus load the wearer may receive.
One can
improvise a mask from simple household objects. One can sew a mask like a surgeon
does in this video .
This is my preferred model which is officially recommended by German fire departments.
(The pdf is in German but the pictures tell the story). This is the mask I made by
following those instructions.
It is made of a folded sheet cut from a triangular arm-sling out of an old first-aid
kit. A HEPA microfilter (as used in a vacuum cleaners) is in between the folded sheet. A
piece cut from a clean bag for vacuum cleaners will do as well. Do not use a sheet or
insert that is too tight to breathe through. If one does that the air will come in from the
sides of the mask and the total protection effect will be less. It can be arduous to
breathe through such a mask. If you have breathing problems leave the insert out. The
sheets alone are already good protection. There is a piece of wire from a big paper clip
fixed inside the middle of the upper seam to fit the mask tightly around the upper nose.
The lower part goes under the chin. I shaved my beard to make it a tighter fit. As I had no
sewing equipment I used a stapler to fix the seams and the ribbons.
The HEPA filter catches
particles down to 0.3 micrometer. Viruses are some 125 nanometer in diameter so they are
smaller and could slip through. But the viruses are attached to some droplet that are
bigger. HEPA filter are essentially labyrinths of small fiber and the viruses would have to
bounce multiple times to get through. Finally the dose also matters.
To clean the mask of potential viruses I put it into the oven for 30 minutes at 70C
(158F).
The science says that masks work. Everyone should use one. #MaskUp!
The advantage is you can throw them in the washing machine to clean, or even hand wash as
they are small items.
The masks in question here, surgical ones, being only meant to protect the patient from
the practitioner, seem somewhat flawed in any case.
Better to make better ones; let the Israelis have those not so good ones. A great gift
from a family member to their hardworking sibling.
There ought to be an industrial production plant producing the cloth masks with disposable
inserts - how about taking over a diaper factory - a lot of folk still use the cloth ones -
have such been totally outsourced? (I'd make 'em deluxe, organic cotton only! But for us home
bodies, an old sheet well washed, suitably patterned is better than nothing at all.)
Dr Beckmann spokeswoman Susan Fermor revealed a wash at 60C is enough.
She said: "There's a common misconception that people should wash clothes on the hottest
possible setting to kill bacteria, but it's unnecessary.
"Tests have proven that washing your clothes at 60C, with a good detergent, is perfectly
adequate to kill bacteria.
"Just make sure that you check all garments are suitable to be washed at this temperature
before putting them in the washing machine and take care not to ruin your clothes by boil
washing."
... ... ...
The NHS said people should keep these items separately from those bearing the
virus.
They released the following advice:
Keep and wash heavily soiled clothes separately from other items
"... Read more about what evidence exists for the idea that spices can affect your health , and how hot drinks will not protect you from Covid-19 ). ..."
"... Unfortunately, the idea that pills, trendy superfoods or wellness habits can provide a shortcut to a healthy immune system is a myth. In fact, the concept of "boosting" your immune system doesn't hold any scientific meaning whatsoever. ..."
"... In this case, the mucus helps to flush out the pathogen, the fever helps to make your body an uncomfortably hot environment in which it's harder for it to replicate, and the aches and general malaise are by-products of the inflammatory chemicals that course through your veins, telling immune cells what to do and where to go. (These symptoms also help signal to your brain that it's time to slow down and let your body recover). ..."
"... There is no evidence that vitamin supplements will protect you from infections, unless you are deficient (Credit: Reuters) Making the other aspect of immunity – the adaptive immune system – generally more active could also be extremely unpleasant. For example, allergies occur when overzealous immune cells learn to treat innocuous foreign bodies, such as pollen, as though they are harmful. Each time they find the offending substance, they switch on the innate immune response too – cue lots of sneezing, itchy eyes and general fatigue. Again, this is probably not what the people championing these remedies have in mind. ..."
"... If you're healthy, forget supplements – except vitamin D ..."
"... Many multivitamins claim to provide "immune support" or to help "maintain healthy immune function". But as BBC Future reported in 2016, vitamin supplements generally don't work in already healthy people – and some may even be harmful. ..."
"... there is little evidence to support vitamin C's mighty reputation for helping us to fight off colds and other respiratory infections. A 2013 review by Cochrane – an organisation renowned for its unbiased research – found that in adults "trials of high doses of vitamin C administered therapeutically, starting after the onset of symptoms, showed no consistent effect on the duration or severity of common cold symptoms". ..."
"... high doses of this vitamin can lead to kidney stones . ..."
"... Brightly coloured fruits and vegetables tend to contain the most antioxidants, because the compounds are often pigmented (Credit: Getty Images) In the developed world, most people get enough vitamins from their diets (unless they are restricted – vegans, for example, are more likely to have certain deficiencies ). However, there is one exception – vitamin D. Iwasaki explains that taking this supplement wouldn't be a bad idea. ..."
"... In fact, many immune cells can actively recognise vitamin D, and it's thought to play an important role in both the innate and acquired immune response – though exactly how remains a mystery. ..."
"... (Read more about who needs to take vitamin D and why ). ..."
"... And we get some of our reserves of these compounds from our diets. Brightly coloured fruits, vegetables and spices tend to contain the most, because antioxidants are often pigmented: they give carrots, blueberries, aubergines, red kale, turmeric, and strawberries their hues. ..."
"... Wellness products aside, there are some approaches you can ..."
Forget kombucha and trendy vitamin supplements – they are nothing more than magic
potions for the modern age. "Spanish Influenza – what it is and how it should be
treated," read the reassuringly factual headline to an advert for Vick's VapoRub
back in 1918 . The text beneath included nuggets of wisdom such as "stay quiet" and "take a
laxative". Oh, and to apply their ointment liberally, of course.
The 1918 flu pandemic was the
most lethal in recorded history , infecting up to 500 million people (a quarter of the
world's population at the time) and killing tens of millions worldwide.
But with crisis comes opportunity, and the – sometimes literal – snake oil
salesmen were out in force. Vick's VapoRub had stiff competition from a panoply of crackpot
remedies, including Miller's Antiseptic Snake Oil , Dr Bell's
Pine Tar Honey, Schenck's Mandrake Pills, Dr Jones's Liniment, Hill's Cascara Quinine
Bromide , and A. Wulfing & Co's famous mint lozenges. Their adverts made regular
appearances in the newspapers, where they starred alongside increasingly alarming
headlines.
Fast-forward to 2020, and not much has changed. Though the Covid-19 pandemic is separated
from the Spanish flu by over a century of scientific discoveries, there are still plenty of
questionable medicinal concoctions and folk remedies floating around. This time, the theme is
"boosting" the immune system.
Of the rumours currently circulating on social media, one of the more bizarre is the idea
that you can raise your white blood cell count by masturbating more. And as always, nutritional
advice abounds. This time, we're being encouraged to seek out foods rich in antioxidants and
vitamin C (back in 1918, the public were told to eat more onions), while pseudoscientists are
peddling trendy products such as
kombucha and probiotics
.
Unfortunately, the idea that pills, trendy superfoods or wellness habits can provide a
shortcut to a healthy immune system is a myth. In fact, the concept of "boosting" your immune
system doesn't hold any scientific meaning whatsoever.
"There are three different components to immunity," says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at
Yale University. "There's things like skin, the airways and the mucus membranes that are there
to begin with, and they provide a barrier to infection. But once the virus gets past these
defences, then you have to induce the 'innate' immune response." This consists of chemicals and
cells which can rapidly raise the alert and begin fighting off any intruder.
The 1918 flu pandemic was an opportunity for snake oil salesmen to market their useless -
and sometimes harmful - products (Credit: Getty Images)
"When that is not enough, then we kick
in the adaptive immune system," she says. This involves cells and proteins – antibodies
– which take a few days or weeks to emerge. Importantly, the adaptive immune system can
only target particular pathogens. "So, for example, a T-cell specific to Covid-19 will not
respond to influenza or bacterial pathogens."
Most infections will trigger adaptive immunity eventually. But there's another way to get it
going, and that's vaccination: exposing the body to live or dead microbes, or parts of them,
can help the body to identify the real deal when it comes along.
The concept of "boosting" a person's immune system would, presumably, involve making these
responses more active, or stronger.
In actuality, you wouldn't want to do this.
Take the symptoms of a cold – body aches, a fever, brain fog, copious amounts of snot
and phlegm. Most of these problems aren't actually caused by the virus itself. Instead, they're
triggered by your own body, on purpose: they're part of the innate immune response.
Many "immunity-boosting" products claim to reduce inflammation
In this case, the mucus helps to flush out the pathogen, the fever helps to make
your body an uncomfortably hot environment in which it's harder for it to replicate, and the
aches and general
malaise are by-products of the inflammatory chemicals that course through your veins,
telling immune cells what to do and where to go. (These symptoms also help signal to your brain
that it's time to slow down and let your body recover).
The mucus and chemical signals are part of inflammation, which is the bedrock of a healthy immune
response . But the process is exhausting, so you wouldn't want to have it turned up to 11
all the time. And most viruses, including Covid-19, will trigger it anyway. If kombucha, green
tea or any of the various "immune-boosting" concoctions on the market really had any impact,
they wouldn't give you a healthful glow: they'd give you a runny nose.
Ironically, many "immunity-boosting" products claim to reduce inflammation.
There is no evidence that vitamin supplements will protect you from infections, unless you
are deficient (Credit: Reuters) Making the other aspect of immunity – the adaptive immune
system – generally more active could also be extremely unpleasant. For example, allergies
occur when overzealous immune cells learn to treat innocuous foreign bodies, such as pollen, as
though they are harmful. Each time they find the offending substance, they switch on the innate
immune response too – cue lots of sneezing, itchy eyes and general fatigue. Again, this
is probably not what the people championing these remedies have in mind.
But let's give those saying you can "boost" your immune system the benefit of the doubt and
assume they mean that certain products can improve the immune response in a useful way –
rather than literally "boost" it.
"The problem is that many of these claims have no grounding in evidence," Iwasaki says. So
what are they based on – and is there anything that can help?
If you're healthy, forget supplements – except vitamin D
Many multivitamins claim to provide "immune support" or to help "maintain healthy immune
function". But as BBC Future reported in 2016, vitamin
supplements generally don't work in already healthy people – and some may even be
harmful.
Take vitamin C. The health effects of this antioxidant have been steeped in mythology ever
since the two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling became obsessed with its ability to fight
the common cold. After studying the vitamin for years, eventually he started taking 18,000 mg
per day – around 300 times the current recommended daily amount.
Vitamin supplements aren't beneficial to your immune system unless you are deficient
However, there is little evidence to support vitamin C's mighty reputation for
helping us to fight off colds and other respiratory infections. A 2013
review by Cochrane – an organisation renowned for its unbiased research – found
that in adults "trials of high doses of vitamin C administered therapeutically, starting after
the onset of symptoms, showed no consistent effect on the duration or severity of common cold
symptoms".
In fact, many experts consider the vitamin C market to be a bit of a racket , as
most people in the developed world get enough from their diets already. Though scurvy is
thought to have killed two million sailors and pirates between the 15th and 18th Centuries, the
numbers now are far lower. For example, just 128
people in England were hospitalised with the disease between 2016 and 2017. On the other
hand, high doses of this vitamin can lead to kidney
stones .
"Vitamin supplements aren't beneficial to your immune system unless you are deficient," says
Iwasaki.
Brightly coloured fruits and vegetables tend to contain the most antioxidants, because the
compounds are often pigmented (Credit: Getty Images) In the developed world, most people get
enough vitamins from their diets (unless they are restricted – vegans,
for example, are more likely to have certain deficiencies ). However, there is one
exception – vitamin D. Iwasaki explains that taking this supplement wouldn't be a bad
idea.
But crucially – and unusually – vitamin D deficiencies are endemic in many
countries, even wealthy ones. As of 2012, it was estimated that about a billion people worldwide weren't
getting enough. And with more and more people urged to stay indoors, it's easy to see how even
less sunlight exposure could lead to more deficiencies. (Read more about who needs to
take vitamin D and why ).
No, masturbation won't help either
Historically, this form of sexual activity was held in deep suspicion by Western medicine.
After an 18th Century doctor claimed that the loss of one ounce of semen (28 millilitres) had
the same effect on the body as losing 40 ounces (1.18 litres) of blood, masturbation was blamed
for all kinds of health problems for hundreds of years, from blindness to neurosis.
Now the tables have turned, and recent research has shown that it can come with some
surprising health benefits. In men, for example, it's thought to help keep sperm healthy and
may reduce a person's risk
of developing prostate cancer .
The question of whether antioxidants can help is slightly more complicated
Alas, any claims that masturbation can improve your immunity or protect you from
Covid-19 are overblown. It's true that one study found that men had higher white blood cell counts when
they were sexually aroused, and during orgasm. However, there is no evidence that this
translates into protection from infections.
There is one way that the practice might protect you – by keeping away from other
people. On Twitter, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently reminded
their followers that, in the age of Covid-19, "
you are your safest sex partner ".
There's no need to stock up on antioxidant pills
The question of whether antioxidants can help is slightly more complicated.
As part of the inflammatory response, white blood cells release toxic oxygen compounds.
These are something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they can kill bacteria and
viruses and stop them from being able to make more copies of themselves. On the other, they can
damage healthy cells, leading to cancer and ageing – and wearing out the immune
system.
To stop this from happening, the body relies on antioxidants. These help to control those
unruly oxygen compounds and keep our cells safe.
And we get some of our reserves of these compounds from our diets. Brightly coloured fruits,
vegetables and spices tend to contain the most, because antioxidants are often pigmented: they
give carrots, blueberries, aubergines, red kale, turmeric, and strawberries their hues.
Wellness experts like to promote kombucha as more than just a drink - but there's no
evidence that it can treat or prevent any illnesses, including Covid-19 (Credit: Getty Images)
There's currently a trial in the works to test if giving people with Covid-19 antioxidant
supplements might help their recovery.
However, the trial is just one of hundreds looking into potential treatments for Covid-19.
And despite decades of research, not a single placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed study on humans
has ever shown that high doses of antioxidants can "boost" the immune system, or treat or
prevent viral infections in humans.
Probiotics may help or they may not
If you believe the wellness experts and homeopaths, kombucha is much more than a sweet,
fizzy drink made from fermented tea. The internet is teeming with outrageous claims about the
product, including that it can
treat cancer and even Aids (it can't).
Like probiotics, kombucha contains live microorganisms. However, no studies have ever
confirmed whether the drink has these in high enough concentrations to be considered one
– and there is currently no evidence that kombucha specifically can treat or prevent any
illnesses whatsoever.
The picture is less clear for probiotics in general.
There is currently no evidence that any kind of probiotic can protect you from
Covid-19
One 2015 review found that probiotics – beneficial microorganisms which are
concentrated in foods, drinks, or pills – significantly reduced the
number of upper respiratory tract infections that people got and made them less severe.
They also slightly reduced the use of antibiotics and led to fewer school absences. The authors
concluded that they might be better than placebo treatments, but pointed out that the quality
of the available evidence was low.
(You can find out more about what we
do and don't know about gut health , as well as how to eat
your way to a healthy gut by checking out BBC Future's series on gut bacteria from last
year. We found that it's true that gut bacteria are important – but that taking
probiotics is unlikely to help you much, and that the best way forward is to simply eat a
varied diet.)
Importantly, there is currently no evidence that any kind of probiotic can protect you from
Covid-19.
So what has been proven to work?
Iwasaki says most of these myths are relatively innocuous – but the danger is that
falling for them will give you a false sense of security. "One thing I do warn against is when
people feel like they're protected. They shouldn't feel empowered to go out there and, you
know, start having parties," she says.
Wellness products aside, there are some approaches you can take to help support
your immune system. They aren't especially sexy, and you won't see many wellness influencers
selling them in a bottle. They are, however, proven to work – and they don't require
shelling out your hard-earned cash: get enough sleep, exercise, eat a balanced diet, and try
not to be stressed.
Failing that, there is one sure-fire way to improve your immunity to certain pathogens:
vaccination.
Growing numbers of fake medicines linked to coronavirus are on sale in developing countries,
the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned.
A BBC News investigation found fake drugs for sale in Africa, with counterfeiters exploiting
growing gaps in the market.
The WHO said taking these drugs could have "serious side effects".
One expert warned of "a parallel pandemic, of substandard and falsified products".
Around the world, people are stockpiling basic medicines. However, with the world's two
largest producers of medical supplies - China and India - in lockdown, demand now outstrips the
supply and the circulation of dangerous counterfeit drugs is soaring.
In the same week the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus a pandemic last
month, Operation Pangea, Interpol's global pharmaceutical crime fighting unit, made 121 arrests
across 90 countries in just seven days, resulting in the seizure of dangerous pharmaceuticals
worth over $14m (£11m).
From Malaysia to Mozambique, police officers confiscated tens of thousands of counterfeit
face masks and fake medicines, many of which claimed to be able to cure coronavirus. "The
illicit trade in such counterfeit medical items during a public health crisis, shows a total
disregard for people's lives," said Interpol's Secretary General Jurgen Stock.
According to the WHO, the broader falsified medicines trade, which includes medicines which
may be contaminated, contain the wrong or no active ingredient, or may be out-of-date, is worth
more than $30bn in low and middle-income countries.
"Best case scenario they [fake medicines] probably won't treat the disease for which they
were intended", said Pernette Bourdillion Esteve, from the WHO team dealing with falsified
medical products.
"But worst-case scenario they'll actively cause harm, because they might be contaminated
with something toxic."
The supply chain
The global pharmaceutical industry is worth more than $1 trillion. Vast supply chains
stretch all the way from key manufacturers in places such as China and India, to packaging
warehouses in Europe, South America or Asia, to distributors sending medicines to every country
in the world.
There is "probably nothing more globalised than medicine" said Esteve. However, as the world
goes into lockdown, the supply chain has already begun to uncouple.
Several pharmaceutical companies in India told the BBC they are now operating at 50-60% of
their normal capacity. As Indian companies supply 20% of all basic medicines to Africa, nations
there are being disproportionately affected. Fake medicine
Speaking to pharmacists and drug companies around the world, the global supply of
antimalarials is now under threat.
Ever since US President Donald Trump began referring to the potential of chloroquine and a
related derivative, hydroxychloroquine, in White House briefings, there has been a global surge
in the demand for these drugs, which are normally used to tackle malaria.
The WHO has repeatedly said there is no definitive evidence that chloroquine or
hydroxychloroquine can be used against the virus that causes Covid-19. However, at a recent
news conference, whilst referring to these antimalarials, President Trump said: "What do you
have to lose? Take it."
As the demand has soared, the BBC has discovered large quantities of fake chloroquine in
circulation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon. The WHO has also found the fake
medicines for sale in Niger.
The antimalarial chloroquine is normally sold for about $40 for a pot of 1,000 tablets. But
pharmacists in the DRC were found to be selling them for up to $250.
The medicine being sold was allegedly manufactured in Belgium, by "Brown and Burk
Pharmaceutical limited". However, Brown and Burk, a pharmaceutical company registered in the
UK, said they had "nothing to do with this medicine. We don't manufacture this drug, it's
fake." As the coronavirus pandemic continues, Professor Paul Newton, an expert in fake
medicines at the University of Oxford, warned the circulation of fake and dangerous medicines
would only increase unless governments around the world present a united front.
"We risk a parallel pandemic, of substandard and falsified products unless we all ensure
that there is a global co-ordinated plan for co-ordinated production, equitable distribution
and the surveillance of the quality of the tests, medicines and vaccines. Otherwise the
benefits of modern medicine... will be lost."
The requirement will commence midnight as Thursday turns to Friday. Starting then, all
customers entering the necessary businesses that have been allowed to stay open despite the
quarantine must be wearing some kind of cloth mask. These businesses include grocery stores,
pharmacies, hotels, and any kind of taxi or ride-sharing service. These locations are permitted
to refuse service to anyone not covering their mouth and nose.
All employees of these businesses must wear masks as well, and employers must reimburse the
cost of such items. Included in the new rule are regulations on essential businesses mandating
that they ensure every worker has access to a clean restroom and has an opportunity to wash
their hands at a minimum of thirty-minute intervals. While Los Angeles public health officials
have recommended implementing the use of plexiglass doors between employees and customers where
possible, this was not included in the order
"America's major medical society specializing in the treatment of respiratory diseases has
endorsed using hydroxychloroquine for seriously ill hospitalized coronavirus patients.
The American Thoracic Society issued guidelines Monday that suggest COVID-19 patients with
pneumonia get doses of the anti-malaria drug.
"To prescribe hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine) to hospitalized patients with COVID-19
pneumonia if all of the following apply: a) shared decision-making is possible, b) data can be
collected for interim comparisons of patients who received hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine)
versus those who did not, c) the illness is sufficiently severe to warrant investigational
therapy, and d) the drug is not in short supply," the Thoracic Society said." NY Post
--------------
So, the Thoracic Society says 1- Hydrochloroquin is only rarely dangerous 2. It is widely
available and 3 - Why not give it a shot if the patient is in bad shape.
I could have bought some of this an Z-pac before the madness started. Like a lot of old SF
men I had quite a lot of medical instruction in training and assisted my team medical sergeants
in the their work among the unfortunate. IOW I self treat a lot and have a stash of
antibiotics, etc.
Fauci says we should never shake hands again and should expect the economy to be shut down
for 18 months. IMO if we accept the 18 month thing that cat won't bounce. pl
In the previous post about the use of chloroquine for treating Covid-19 I posted a link to a
research paper which concluded that there was no clinical benefit to its use for those
severely ill. As far as i know this was the first actual research performed on this subset of
the issue.
Below is another one I found this morning from the Pasteur Hospital in Nice. In this
instance they are using the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin drug suggestion on more mildy ill
patients. This is the drug combination which so many have placed their hopes in a miracle on.
The result is that it has turned out to be so toxic that it had to be discontinued. This is
not the final answer as there are more variations to check out - but don't get your hopes too
high.
Thus we have no seen so far that this drug idea has either no effect or is too toxic.
Anecdotally, I and the teams I worked with when I was younger had to take choloroquine for
long periods of time. The frequency and unpleasantness of side effects were such that many
eventually refused to take the drug and took their chances with getting malaria - and we were
seeing malaria all the time so this was not an uniformed choice. I have questioned this idea
from the get go - but that is, of course, just a gut reaction and not valid or
scientific.
I think it fair to say the stress of the situation is driving us to grasp at straws and
hope for miracles. No one wants to wait the time it normally takes to work our way to a
scientific solution. But that is almost certainly what we are going to end up doing anyway as
the alternative has only worked on the rarest of occasions. A very interesting discussion can
also take place regarding the likelihood of developing a successful vaccine as after near 20
years of working on SARS and MERS there are still no vaccines for them approved.
New new study found the reason for the effectiveness of chloroquine:
https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173
In short, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has three protein configurations on its outside which attack
hemoglobine, dissolving the iron ion from the molecule. The hemoglobin looses the ability to
bind oxygen and CO2 without the iron, thus cannot transport it anymore (the effect of
hydocyanic acid or carbonmonoxide, but both block the binding location, they do not destroy
it).
As a consequence, the O2 load in the blood decreases dangerously even if the lungs still
are working. Chloroquine seems to cover the hemoglobine binding location, so the virus cannot
attack it anymore. Against the malaria parasite, the coverage by chloroquine seems to block
the parasite from consuming proteins from the blood cells which it needs for
reproduction.
Strange collection of features: The unique furine cleavage site (known from other,
completely different highly contagious flu viruses), the CD147 docking site (known only from
the dangerous Coxsakie virus and expressed strongly by cancer cells), the GRP78 docking site
(expressed by cells under stress) and the attack on hemoglobine, five distinctive pathways to
attack cells and cause damage. All not found in any other corona virus genome...
I note that the link posted by CK is not actual results of research into whether chloroquine
is effective regarding its use against covid-19 but rather an analysis of physical functions
which 'suggests' that it might be. Actual research is required to prove the point.
Conversely there is a new research report on the effectiveness of chloroquine on treating
those with severe symptoms from covid-19 just published and the conclusion for that set of
patients is that it has 'No Evidence of Rapid Antiviral Clearance or Clinical Benefit
..."
I have read articles from Dr's and PhD experts who postulate both ways on this issue.
Actual testing will be required to answer this and this first result is not optimistic at
least in the case of severe symptoms.
Turkey has ordered all citizens to wear masks when shopping or visiting crowded public
places and announced it will start to deliver masks to every family, free of charge, as
infections sharply increase in the country of 80 million.
Turkey has over 30,000 confirmed cases of the virus and has registered 649 deaths. More than
1,300 patients are in intensive care units and at least 600 medical workers have been infected,
according to figures released by the Health Ministry.
The number of cases places Turkey among the top 10 worst
affected countries , a sharp rise since its first confirmed death from the disease on March
17.
Health Minister Fahrettin Koca, however, said on Monday that the increase in confirmed cases
was low when compared with the increase in testing, which has been ramped up to more than
20,000 per day.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has introduced measures to contain the spread of the virus,
asking people to stay at home and imposing a curfew on those over 65 and under 20, but
resisting a nationwide lockdown.
But now, after evidence that asymptomatic people can spread the disease, the CDC is
recommending that all Americans wear masks when out in public to help prevent the spread of the
coronavirus. And while the CDC now recommends Americans wear masks, they recommend only cloth
coverings, or homemade masks, and ask that medical-grade masks still be reserved for health
care professionals.
The move is a win for those who have been publicly questioning the government's guidance and
edges the U.S. closer to the practices of East Asian countries where masks are commonplace.
But the U.S. is not alone in its reluctance to recommend the widespread use of masks. The
WHO is standing its ground in saying that masks won't help prevent the spread of disease.
Though, notably, it said that countries where cleaning and physical distancing are difficult
could consider widespread mask wearing.
The science of infection hasn't changed, but experts point to a better understanding of how
the coronavirus spreads as the reason for the shift. Since some people are asymptomatic and
could still be infecting others without knowing they have the disease, experts say it is
prudent for everyone to wear a mask.
@Dreadilk By
wearing a mask you reduce the probability of getting infected by x while a mask on an
infected person reduces the probability of infecting another person by y and
y>x (I can't formally prove this inequality at this point but it is intuitively
obvious to me.). Since you do not know whether you are infected or not by wearing a mask you
are protecting other more than yourself on average. This is a rare case when a selfish motive
to save your own life produce a greater good. Not wearing a mask would be an inverse-altruism
where you are willing to sacrifice yourself for an idea of killing others , i.e., doing what
a suicide bombers do who are aware of y>x calculus.
White House economic adviser got into a massive argument with the
coronavirus task force's Anthony Fauci over the doctor's ongoing resistance to the use of
hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, despite reports of the drug's widespread efficacy.
Numerous government officials were at the table, including Fauci, coronavirus response
coordinator Deborah Birx, Jared Kushner, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, and
Commissioner of Food and Drugs Stephen Hahn.
Behind them sat staff, including Peter Navarro, tapped by Trump to compel private
companies to meet the government's coronavirus needs under the Defense Production Act.
According to the report, towards the end of the meeting Hahn began a discussion of the
commonly used malaria drug hydroxychloroquine - which was recently rated the '
most effective therapy ' for coronavirus according to a global survey of more than 6,000
doctors .
After Hahn gave an update on various trials and real-world use of the drug, Navarro got up
and dropped a stack of folders on the table to pass around .
According to Axios 's source, " the first words out of his [Navarro's] mouth are
that the studies that he's seen, I believe they're mostly overseas, show 'clear therapeutic
efficacy,' " adding "Those are the exact words out of his mouth.
Fauci - who's not got his own Twitter hashtag, #FireFauci - began pushing back against
Navarro, repeating his oft-repeated contention that 'there's only anecdotal evidence' that the
drug works against COVID-19.
Navarro exploded - after Fauci's mention of anecdotal evidence "just set Peter off." The
economic adviser shot back "That's the science, not anecdote," while pointing to the stack of
folders on the desk, which included the results of studies from around the world showing its
efficacy.
Here's what unfolded next, via Axios :
Navarro started raising his voice, and at one point accused Fauci of objecting to Trump's
travel restrictions, saying, "You were the one who early on objected to the travel
restrictions with China," saying that travel restrictions don't work. (Navarro was one of the
earliest to push the China travel ban.)
Fauci looked confused, according to a source in the room. After Trump imposed the
travel restrictions, Fauci has publicly praised the president's restriction on travel from
China.
Pence was trying to moderate the heated discussion. "It was pretty clear that everyone
was just trying to get Peter to sit down and stop being so confrontational," said one of
the sources.
Eventually, Kushner turned to Navarro and said, "Peter, take yes for an answer,"
because most everyone agreed, by that time, it was important to surge the supply of the
drug to hot zones.
The principals agreed that the administration's public stance should be that the
decision to use the drug is between doctors and patients.
Trump ended up announcing at his press conference that he had 29 million doses of
hydroxychloroquine in the Strategic National Stockpile.
According to a source familiar with the coronavirus task force, "There has never been a
confrontation in the task force meetings like the one yesterday," adding "People speak up and
there's robust debate, but there's never been a confrontation. Yesterday was the first
confrontation."
Meanwhile, 37% of 6,227 doctors across 30 countries felt the drug was the "most effective
therapy" out of 15 options in treating coronavirus,
according to a poll reported by the Washington Times .
The drug has been prescribed in 72% of cases in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in
Mexico, 28% in France, and 23% in the USA . Overall, 19% of physicians have prescribed the drug
for high-risk patients, and 8% for low-risk patients.
More from the Sermo poll (via the Washington Times )
***
Sermo CEO Peter Kirk called the polling results a "treasure trove of global insights for
policy makers."
"Physicians should have more of a voice in how we deal with this pandemic and be able to
quickly share information with one another and the world," he said. "With censorship of the
media and the medical community in some countries, along with biased and poorly designed
studies, solutions to the pandemic are being delayed."
The survey also found that 63% of U.S. physicians believe restrictions should be lifted in
six weeks or more, and that the epidemic's peak is at least 3-4 weeks away.
The survey also found that 83% of global physicians anticipate a second global outbreak,
including 90% of U.S. doctors but only 50% of physicians in China.
On average, U.S. coronavirus testing takes 4-5 days, while 10% of cases take longer than
seven days. In China, 73% of doctors reported getting rest results back in 24 hours.
In cases of ventilator shortages, all countries but China said the top criteria should be
patients with the best chance of recovery (47%), followed by patients with the highest risk of
death (21%), and then first responders (15%) .
@Philip Owen
The most important thing is to have a cheap way to lower the R0.
Herd immunity is one, but it is expensive to get there.
Masks, widespread use of masks, is another, and it is relatively cheap. The virus lives
mainly in lungs, after all. Accidental touching of mask's dirty side etc. can be a problem,
but the virus would have to cross one mask to reach out, then go into air to touch another
surface, then wait for some accidents to happen to go through your mask to reach your
lungs.
Social distancing, widespread use of masks, and contact tracing, and 14 days wait period
for people suspected of infection. The pandemic can be controlled, and normal life can
largely resume when we wait for vaccine and cure.
It says there, black on white – " Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the
presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical
symptoms. "
It make sense to wear mask only for a limited time (no more then 2 hours for a single mask)
and only in public places. Should always be combined with strict hand hygiene. Without hand
hygiene wearing of masks can be counterproductive.
Notable quotes:
"... Given the potential loss of effectiveness with incorrect usage, general advice should be to only use masks/ respirators under very particular, specified circumstances, and in combination with other personal protective practices. ..."
Conclusions: Despite a further review of all the available evidence up to 30 November
2012 there is still limited evidence to suggest that use of face masks and/or respirators in
health care setting can provide significant protection against infection with influenza when in
close contact with infected patients. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken
as part of a package or 'bundle' of personal protection especially including hand hygiene, the
new evidence provides some support to this argument particularly within the community or
household setting. Early initiation and regular wearing of masks/respirators may improve their
effectiveness in healthcare and household settings, again an argument marginally strengthened
by the updated evidence.
The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely to be linked to consistent, correct
usage and compliance; this remains a major challenge – both in the context of a formal
study and in everyday practice.
Given the potential loss of effectiveness with incorrect usage, general advice should be
to only use masks/ respirators under very particular, specified circumstances, and in
combination with other personal protective practices.
... ... ...
None of the trials found, in the main analyses, a significant difference between
non-intervention and mask-only arms (surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators) in either clinically
diagnosed (influenza-like-illness/ILI) or laboratory-confirmed influenza. However in four of
the household trials, sub-analyses of the datasets revealed some evidence of protection.
One trial observed that household contacts who wore a P2 respirator 'all/most' of the time
were less likely to develop an influenza-like illness compared to less frequent users.
A second trial found a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza among
household contacts that began hand hygiene or hand hygiene plus a face mask within 36 hours of
the index case's illness.
... ... ...
One of these studies found that there was a significantly lower frequency of H1N1 pdm09
infection in healthcare workers wearing a mask when compared to those not wearing a mask.
Furthermore, a sub-analysis of nurses and nurse assistants in a seroprevalence study identified
an increased risk of acquiring H1N1 pdm09 infection when not wearing a mask, however while the
authors described this result as significant (p-value significant), the confidence interval was
not significant
... ... ...
There is some weak evidence to suggest that facemasks may be protective when they are used
early (after recognition of an index case in a household setting); if better compliance (using
the masks for longer periods of time) is achieved, and when combined with hand-washing
practicing.
Background
Minimising transmission of influenza requires a range of personal and public health measures
taken by individuals and communities such as respiratory etiquette and hand hygiene and
possibly proactive school closures (and other measures sometimes called social distancing). Use
of personal protective equipment is generally advised according to the risk of exposure to the
influenza virus and the degree of infectivity and human pathogenicity of the virus. A
particularly vexing issue for policy makers has been the paucity of scientific evidence upon
which to base guidance for use of masks and respirators in healthcare and community settings to
prevent transmission of seasonal, pandemic and animal influenzas.
... ... ...
Participants were allocated to wear either a fit-tested N95 or a surgical face mask when
providing care (including aerosol generating procedures) to patients with a febrile respiratory
illness during the influenza season. No difference in influenza infection was detected in the
two groups. The final hospital based study stratified 1441 health care workers across 15
Beijing hospitals to analyse the effectiveness of surgical masks compared to both fit-tested
and non-fit tested N95 respirators (6). The wearers of N95 respirators had lower, but
non-significant attack rates, compared to those wearing surgical masks. However the intention
to treat analysis (when adjusting for clustering of hospitals) identified that non-fit-tested
N95s had a statistically significant protective effect against clinical respiratory illness
when compared to surgical masks in healthcare workers. Additionally a multivariate analysis (
post hoc ) found that wearing any N95 mask type protected against clinical respiratory
illness
... ... ...
A cluster randomized controlled trial in Australia compared household contacts of paediatric
index cases (0-15 years) with a febrile respiratory illness that were randomised to control,
surgical mask or non-fit-tested P2 respirator intervention groups (9). No differences in rates
of influenza-like infection or rates of respiratory virus isolation were observed in an
intention-to-treat analysis. In a survival analysis that evaluated risk factors for
influenza-like illness, use of P2 respirators or surgical masks grouped together was found to
significantly reduce the risk for illness in those household contacts who reported wearing the
device 'all' or 'most' of the time for the first five days; however, the study was underpowered
to detect a difference in efficacy between P2 and surgical masks.
... ... ...
A study in Berlin, conducted across two influenza seasons (2009/10 and 2010/11), randomised
households to three groups; control, face mask or face mask and hand-hygiene with the analyses
stratified by influenza type (seasonal or pandemic cases), season, and early implementation of
interventions (12). This was the only example of a trail that analyzed specific H1N1 pdm09
secondary household attack rates. In the intention-to-treat multivariable analysis, pooling of
both intervention groups resulted in a significant reduction in lab-confirmed influenza when
stratified for either early intervention or pandemic-only cases; however there was no
statistically significant effect of intervention groups on secondary household attack rates.
When a per-protocol analysis was applied the odds ratios in both the mask-only and
mask/hand-hygiene 24 groups were between 0.2 and 0.3 suggesting a strong protective effect.
Although a statistically significant reduction was found in the mask-only groups.
... ... ...
Larson and colleagues examined hand-sanitiser and hand-sanitiser/mask use (both with
education) effectiveness amongst crowded households in upper Manhattan (15). In this study,
both household caretakers and symptomatic individuals were asked to wear masks. The study found
that mask wearing coupled with hand-sanitiser use significantly reduced secondary transmission
of aggregated upper respiratory infection/ ILI and lab-confirmed influenza outcome compared
with control households (education but no intervention) in the final logistic regression model.
Unfortunately there was not a mask-only group, but the observation that hand sanitizer alone
resulted in no reduction in the aggregated outcome suggests that mask use, in combination with
hand-sanitiser had an impact on transmission. There was also limited power to detect
differences amongst the three groups and there was also observed cross-contamination with use
of hand-sanitizer in the control group
... ... ...
It was observed that there was a statistically significant difference in H1N1 pdm09
infection between individuals wearing masks at any point and those not wearing masks (0%
seropositive individuals when using either surgical masks or N95 respirators in comparison to
14% individuals in the no mask/respirator group). The study however lacked power to detect
significant differences between those wearing N95 respirators against those wearing surgical
masks. In addition to this the study suffered for a large number of other limitations such as
potential measurement and recall bias.
most people who dies form Spanish flue also have lungs full of liquid
BM @ 10
Interesting, I had a Chinese coworker show me some videos of autopsies from China on Covid
patients. The lungs were full of mucus. He translated for me and they were saying that
drinking very hot liquids helps to keep things in check if you are sick. Coffee, tea and the
like.
What we would call anecdotal reports from experts.
...37% of 6,227 doctors across 30 countries felt the drug was the "most effective therapy"
out of 15 options in treating coronavirus,
according to a poll reported by the
Washington Times .
The drug has been prescribed in 72% of cases in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in
Mexico, 28% in France, and 23% in the USA. Overall, 19% of physicians have prescribed the drug
for high-risk patients, and 8% for low-risk patients.
Overall
(2171)
US (580)
NY (112)
Europe (827)
Italy & Spain
(671)
China (109)
Rest of world
(543)
Hydroxychloroquine or
Chloroquine
37%
23%
25%
37%
62%
44%
55%
Azithromycin or similar
antibiotics
32%
18%
25%
32%
45%
33%
48%
Nothing
32%
51%
42%
29%
16%
4%
18%
Analgesics (e.g.,
Paracetamol/Acetaminophen)
31%
21%
29%
34%
37%
20%
39%
Anti-HIV drugs (e.g.
Lopinavir plus Ritonavir)
16%
5%
6%
15%
28%
42%
25%
Cough medications
13%
13%
15%
12%
8%
22%
11%
Compassionate use of
experimental drugs
13%
10%
8%
12%
20%
35%
14%
(e.g. Remdisivir)
Drugs used to treat flu (e.g.,
Oseltamivir)
12%
4%
11%
9%
10%
39%
19%
Expectorants (e.g.,
Mucinex
10%
10%
9%
8%
8%
28%
10%
Interferon-beta
7%
1%
3%
3%
11%
41%
15%
Antihistamines/Decongestants
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
17%
8%
Plasma from patients who have
recovered from COVID-19
Enough OK. How healthy and strong your respiratory system has a lot to do with fending off
the scourge of viruses. Governments generally do very poor record in tackling Pollution(s).
There is a ' Great ' gift from the US to countries around the world: Please welcome
Petroleum Coke, or ' petcoke '. This is the bottom-of-the-barrel leftover from refining .. tar
sands crude and other heavy oils, is cheaper and burns hotter than coal. But it also contains
.. far more heart- and lung-damaging sulfur."
American companies don't like to use it, and "are sending it around the world. Laboratory tests
on imported petcoke used near New Delhi found it contained 17 times more sulfur than the limit
set for coal, and a staggering 1,380 times more than for diesel."
Big Corporations are literally pooping all over the planet, and virtually pooping inside
our lungs , with impunity; we have to live in such conditions. Can this situation be
stopped and reveresed?
Science has tried to interview George Gao, director-general of the Chinese
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for 2 months. Last week he responded.
Q : What mistakes are other countries making?
A: The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren't wearing
masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important
role -- you've got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out
of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing
face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others. Q:
People who tested positive in Wuhan but only had mild disease were sent into isolation in large
facilities and were not allowed to have visits from family. Is this something other countries
should consider?
A: Infected people must be isolated. That should happen everywhere. You can only control
COVID-19 if you can remove the source of the infection. This is why we built module hospitals
and transformed stadiums into hospitals.
You wrote, " The difference between this virus and most previous viruses is that they
required one to have a fever, i.e., symptoms, before being contagious. This one does not for
at least one to two days before symptoms appear. So we know it's possible to be asymptomatic
for at least one to two days and still be contagious."
Asymptomatic means no symptoms i.e., no sneezing, coughing or postnasal drip.
As far as transmission by sputum (spitting) or other secretions, I think that is a such a
rare occurrence that it is too infinitesimal to statistically count. I mean come on, how many
times have you touched someone's spit? Kissing is not known to spread the disease from an
asymptomatic carrier either.
The other observations that suggest presymptomatic transmission of infection (meaning no
symptoms) cannot be confirmed because it is unknown if the disease was present and active on
surfaces before the subjects came in contact with it and with each other.
The disease is spread by sending a plume into the air as a result of a cough, sneeze or
postnasal drip. A person comes in contact with the virus by being in the vicinity of the
plume or when the virus falls on a surface and a person touches it and then somewhere on
their body that allows entry (eyes, nasal passages or mouth.)
Please provide a reference that says an asymptomatic person is contagious. If you are
referring to the article published in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine), that
turned out to be flawed as the women did display symptoms when she returned to Germany.
There is still confusion between what is a mask & what is a respirator -basically a mask
will protect others from your sputum & a respirator protects yourself from others.
I discovered a site N95 vs
FFP3 & FFP2 masks – what's the difference? which explains the different masks
& respirators and most importantly what the standards are. eg n95 amerika = KN95 China.
As well as explaining the problems of valved devices versus unvalved etc.
It is clear layman style stuff free of dense bullshit, read it if you want to understand this
stuff.
I haven't seen this specifically mentioned so I'll offer it. My local newspaper of all
things, published an editorial today calling for more people in our community to "mask up".
It included this wonderful phrase that captures the true social dynamic and the logic of the
situation:
"I'll wear a mask to protect you, and you wear a mask to protect me."
What's nice about this social compact is that it costs almost nothing, is in plentiful,
makeshift supply (we're including bandanas and scarves - anything), and surely must do more
good than harm, no matter how real or unreal the danger is, nor how prone to mishap or not
the wearing of a mask is.
Such a compact surely must be a social good. If only there had been masks in the US - or
leadership willing to plunge humble and naked into the realities of the situation and learn
from Asia so we could all start making our own masks - then perhaps the US would not have had
to do the most stupid thing possible to its lean productive economy, namely, shutting down
the entire entrepreneur class of the country and throwing their employees into hazard and
poverty.
Given that there was no safety net, and never was going to be despite the talk of the
first few days, it could have saved countless deaths from poverty if the people if the US had
learned the new social rules, including mask and physical distance etiquette immediately, and
kept many of the businesses open instead of driving them to bankruptcy.
So the US is very late to the party, and will pay the price, but now the people who
survive must learn how to live in the new normal. Masking-up in public seems the least
impactful of all responses.
re b's comment : "The HEPA filter catches particles down to 0.3 micrometer. Viruses are
some 125 nanometer in diameter so they are smaller and could slip through. " .
That isn't strictly correct, there is a solid reason for the 0.3 micrometer limit related to
Brownian motion,as I learned after reading a piece from the link I posted above - to wit:
The reason for the focus on 0.3 microns is because it is the "most penetrating particle
size" (MPPS). Particles above this size move in ways we might anticipate, and will get
trapped in a filter with gaps smaller than the particle size. Particles smaller than 0.3
microns exhibit what's called brownian motion – which makes them easier to filter.
Brownian motion refers to a phenomenon whereby the particle's mass is small enough that it
no longer travels unimpeded through the air. Instead it interacts with the molecules in the
air (nitrogen, oxygen, etc), causing it to pinball between them, moving in an erratic
pattern.
According to researchers this point between "normal" motion and brownian motion is the
hardest particle size for filters to capture.
What we can take away from this, is that high filter efficiency at 0.3 micron size will
generally translate to high filter efficiency below this size also.
Immunity can also be obtained naturally rather than by "vaccine".
You can ask your doctor for a strong Vitamin D supplement and probably buy them elswhere. The
simplest is to go out in the same beautiful sunshine as we are now having in Europe.
vitamin D deficiency is common in the winter, and activated vitamin D, a steroid
hormone, has profound effects on human immunity. D acts as an immune system modulator,
preventing excessive expression of inflammatory cytokines and increasing the
'oxidative burst' potential of macrophages. Perhaps most importantly, it dramatically
stimulates the expression of potent anti-microbial peptides, which exist in neutrophils,
monocytes, natural killer cells, and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract where
they play a major role in protecting the lung from infection.
For information; one group that suffered from Vitamin D deficiency was Saudi Arabian
women. Their Abbayas (full head covering with no eyes visible, right down to the toes. Maybe
not the correct spelling of abbaya) did not let in the sun. So .....
Even face "masks" were not very efficient at "letting the sun shine in". However, the abbayas
had one advantage; that was women suffered less from trachoma, an illness that is provoked by
rubbing the eyes regularly (irritated because of the sand). The eye flips inward permanently,
leaving only the white of the eye showing. ie. Blindness.
Personally my doctor prescribes a 200'000 UI D dose (drinkable) to be taken twice a year
in November/December and February. Which I naturally took just before the Coronavirus hit
around here.
Surgical masks are pretty good at stopping bacteria and larger droplets, but not aerosols
(small particles). They also have lower quality fit, just like ordinary masks too.
Surgical masks are very good for blocking you own droplet emissions.
Simply use N99 respitator or FFP 3 respirator (EU standard).
Blocks 99 % of small particles, including virus transporting ones. It is used by medical
personnel who handle corona and other viruses.
Use 30 minutes at 70 C in oven with the respirator put in a paper bag over put over
something wooden in the oven. This method can be used for up to 20 times with minimal damage
to the respirator filtration capacity, according to several studies. Another good method is
putting it in commercial steam bag used for sterilisation of baby items for 3 minutes in a
microwave oven, metal presence should not be a problem according to the study because the
metal gets coated by the steam. This method can be used up to 10 times with minimal loss to
the quality of the respirator. It is good for surgical masks too. Also use eye protection and
gloves. These simple methods are good and some hospitals started using them.
Another way is 7 to 10 days keeping the mask in dry bag with acces to air, that
significantly decreases viral load for most viruses. During this time use another
respirator.
For homemade masks these methods should be good too.
Methods that decrease respirator quality are spirt based solutions, bleach based
solutions, and longer exposure to steam. UVGI light and Hydrogen peroxide bath are also are
relatively good methods for disinfection of masks.
Importantly do not touch the respirator's main surface with your fingers, secure a good
fit, and always clean hands before and after handling the respirator.
Combine respirator mask with eye protection, raincoat and gloves. Put the raincoat and any
new item you bring into the home for 3 days quarantine in some special room.
Stay away from people at minimum 7 meters, especially from those who don't have masks.
Use ethanol to clean your gloves before and after you visited a store.
For disinfection purposes ethanol is good, it kills 100 % of viruses and bacteria. Ethanol
is used by russian Covid 19 disinfection teams in Italy for surface disinfection.
Simply use N99 respitator or FFP 3 respirator (EU standard).
Blocks 99 % of small particles, including virus transporting ones. It is used by medical
personnel who handle corona and other viruses.
1. None of such mask are currently available.
2. Even for hospital staff N95 aka FFP2 is sufficient to protect against SARS-CoV-19.
3. It is already very hard to wear and breathe through a N95 mask for a longer time. N99
masks are even worse!
4. The N99 masks have exhalatation valves which let the air from the person who wears it flow
out freely. That defeats the current purpose of #MaskUp which is to protect from unknown
spreaders.
I have trained for chemical warfare in the military. Wearing a tight mask with a filter
(FFP3) system while moving around is physically very tiring after even an hour or so. You
don't select a mask that is more difficult to breathe with than actually required.
"... Infections from asymptomatic cases have an R 0 of 0.1 or 4% of all new infections. ..."
"... More new infections are created during the three pre-symptomatic days the virus carrier runs around then during the symptomatic one. ..."
"... Washing ones hands helps but environmental infections happen only in 10% of all new infections. The pre-symptomatic carriers are, without knowing it, the biggest spreader of the disease. Millions of the many billions of viruses that get created in their throat can attach to tiny water droplets or aerosols while a person breathes, speaks or coughs. ..."
The virus starts to
replicate in significant numbers (billions per mililiter) on day 2 after the infection. The
virus first replicates in the upper throat and the infected person starts to spread it to
others simply by breathing, talking or coughing. Only on day 5 the infected person starts to
develop first symptoms. The virus migrates into the lower lung and replicates there. The
virus load in the upper throat will then start to decline. The immune system intervenes and
defeats the virus but also causes additional lung damage which can kill people who have
already other preexisting conditions .
(Interestingly smokers seem not to develop a cytokine storms during a Covid
infection and are thereby less prone to end up in the ICU.) On day 10 only few viruses will
be found in the upper throat and the person will generally no longer be infectious.
The typical hospitalization point in China was only on day 9 to 12 after the onset of
symptoms. At that point a test by swabs is nearly useless as the infected person will
normally no longer have significant numbers of the virus in the upper throat. Reports of
"defective tests from China" were likely caused by a lack of knowledge about this phenomenon.
The diagnose in these later cases should be done by a CT scan which will show the lung
damage.
We do know
since late January that people can transmit the virus even when they have not yet
developed symptoms. An open question was how many of new infections happen during this
phase.
The new Science study investigated how many infections were created by each of four
infection phases or types:
pre-symptomatic - new infections come from an infected person who has not yet developed
symptoms but will do so later
symptomatic - new infections come from an infected person who has already developed
symptoms
environmental - new infections comes from some environmental contact with the
virus
asymptomatic - new infections come from a person that will never develop any
symptoms.
The study says that R 0 for pre-symptomatic infections is 0.9 or 46% of all new
infections. Infections from a symptomatic persons happen with an R 0 of 0.8 which
is equal to 40% of all new infections. Environmental infections have an R 0 of 0.2
or 10% of all new infections. Infections from asymptomatic cases have an R 0
of 0.1 or 4% of all new infections.
More new infections are created during the three pre-symptomatic days the virus
carrier runs around then during the symptomatic one.
Washing ones hands helps but environmental infections happen only in 10% of all new
infections. The pre-symptomatic carriers are, without knowing it, the biggest spreader of the
disease. Millions of the many billions of viruses that get created in their throat can attach
to tiny water droplets or aerosols while a person breathes, speaks or coughs.
Such spreading can be prevented when everyone wears a mask. A different new study shows
that masks are very effective. Published in Nature the study is titled:
If the carrier of a virus wears a mask the spreading of viruses due to speaking, coughing
or even breathing goes basically down to zero.
But a mask does not only protect the carrier of the viruses. While homemade or even
professional surgical mask do not protect the wearer from all particles they do protect one
much better from them than when one wears no mask at all.
A person rarely gets infected by just one virus particle. They come in millions attached
to tiny droplets. We do not know yet how the dose of the novel coronavirus that infects a
person affects the intensity of the disease. But we do know from other viruses that the dose
matters. People who catch a higher dose of viruses will usually have a more intense disease.
A mask can lower the virus load the wearer may receive.
One can
improvise a mask from simple household objects. One can sew a mask like a surgeon
does in this video .
This is my preferred model which is officially recommended by German fire departments.
(The pdf is in German but the pictures tell the story). This is the mask I made by following
those instructions.
It is made of a folded sheet cut from a triangular arm-sling out of an old first-aid kit.
A HEPA microfilter (as used in a vacuum cleaners) is in between the folded sheet. A piece cut
from a clean bag for vacuum cleaners will do as well. Do not use a sheet or insert that is
too tight to breathe through. If one does that the air will come in from the sides of the
mask and the total protection effect will be less. It can be arduous to breathe through such
a mask. If you have breathing problems leave the insert out. The sheets alone are already
good protection. There is a piece of wire from a big paper clip fixed inside the middle of
the upper seam to fit the mask tightly around the upper nose. The lower part goes under the
chin. I shaved my beard to make it a tighter fit. As I had no sewing equipment I used a
stapler to fix the seams and the ribbons.
The HEPA filter catches
particles down to 0.3 micrometer. Viruses are some 125 nanometer in diameter so they are
smaller and could slip through. But the viruses are attached to some droplet that are bigger.
HEPA filter are essentially labyrinths of small fiber and the viruses would have to bounce
multiple times to get through. Finally the dose also matters.
To clean the mask of potential viruses I put it into the oven for 30 minutes at 70C
(158F).
The science says that masks work. Everyone should use one. #MaskUp!
---
Here some additional links which might be of interest.
So far, to the frustration of both the White House and the intelligence community, the
agencies have been unable to glean more accurate numbers through their collection efforts.
Since none of us is an expert or eminently knowledgeable on
this topic, for the sake of sharing information to develop our views here is data that
suggests otherwise...
Emerging Infectious Diseases journal, Volume 26, Number 6—June 2020
Research Letter : Serial Interval of COVID-19 among Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases
Abstract. We estimate the distribution of serial intervals for 468 confirmed cases of 2019
novel coronavirus disease reported in China as of February 8, 2020. The mean interval was
3.96 days (95% CI 3.53–4.39 days), SD 4.75 days (95% CI 4.46–5.07 days);
12.6% of case reports indicated presymptomatic transmission .
There was another study suggesting that many infection do not go beyond mild common cold,
with a conjecture that with small initial number of viruses the organism, T-cells in the mouth
and throat etc. learn to eliminate viruses in time to prevent severe lung infection. Thus gives
value to masks that are not 100% effective.
You can will mark my mask for each day of the week and rely on the fact that after paper or
fabric is completely dry ythe virus fdies in 72 hours.
The World Health Organization released a study on how China responded to COVID-19. Currently,
this study is one of the most exhaustive pieces published on how the virus spreads.
The results of their research show that COVID-19 doesn't spread as easily as first
thought.
The majority of viral infections come from prolonged exposures in confined spaces with
other infected individuals. Person-to-person and surface contact is by far the most common
cause. From the WHO report, "When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it
was most often (78-85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other
carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person.
Routes of transmission
COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets and fomites during close unprotected contact
between an infector and infectee. Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it
is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence; however, it
can be envisaged if certain aerosol-generating procedures are conducted in health care
facilities.
Household transmission
In China, human-to-human transmission of the COVID-19 virus is largely occurring in
families. The Joint Mission received detailed information from the investigation of clusters
and some household transmission studies, which are ongoing in a number of Provinces. Among
344 clusters involving 1308 cases (out of a total 1836 cases reported) in Guangdong Province
and Sichuan Province, most clusters (78%-85%) have occurred in families. Household
transmission studies are currently underway, but preliminary studies ongoing in Guangdong
estimate the secondary attack rate in households ranges from 3-10%.
The coefficient from the simulation are selected to match observed infections and they are
not "facts" but useful guidelines. The bottom line is that the infection happen in some
proportion, a large part from asymptomatic people. There was another study suggesting that
many infection do not go beyond mild common cold, with a conjecture that with small initial
number of viruses the organism, T-cells in the mouth and throat etc. learn to eliminate
viruses in time to prevent severe lung infection. Thus gives value to masks that are not 100%
effective.
Surely, the actual infection rate depends on the customs in a particular area. Oriental
people are not in habit of kissing, embracing, clasping hands etc., plus they are quick to
wear masks. Mediterranean people, which may include Iran, embrace, clasp hands and even kiss
(I assume that Muslim would greet only people of the same gender in that way). Masks are not
a habit. Crowded subway, buses etc. involve a lot of very close contacts, which may be OK if
EVERYONE has a decent mask.
I guess I will mark my mask for each day of the week and rely on the fact that after paper
or fabric is completely dry, viruses die (cease to become viable) within hours, so one does
not have to rush the drying process by special heating. On the other hand, one could try to
gently dry in the cloth drier in a bag for female underwear. We do not damage viruses by heat
but by the lack of moisture. Masks seems to be limited.
These are the reuse recommendations I'll be following, from Dr. Peter Tsai, the inventor
of the filtration fabric in the N95 mask:
N95 Re-Use Instructions (Updated as of April 3, 2020) https://www.sages.org/n-95-re-use-instructions/
I intend to follow the advice of rotating masks - once I have masks. It's likely that four
days would be sufficient to dry out any droplets or aerosols and inactivate any virus.
However, longer obviously would be better.
I'm going to order some masks from China today, if I can. Also perhaps some impermeable
food surface plastic gloves to deal with contact infections.
As the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases continues to skyrocket, healthcare researchers
around the world are working tirelessly to discover new life-saving medical innovations.
Diagnostics: Quickly and effectively detecting the disease in the first place
Treatments: Alleviating symptoms so people who have disease experience milder symptoms,
and lowering the overall mortality rate
Vaccines: Preventing transmission by making the population immune to COVID-19
Today's graphics provide an in-depth look at who's in the innovation race to defeat the
virus, and they come to us courtesy of Artis
Ventures , a venture capital firm focused on life sciences and tech investments.
Editor's note: R&D is moving fast on COVID-19, and the situation is quite fluid. While
today's post is believed to be an accurate snapshot of all innovations and developments listed
by WHO and FDA as of March 30, 2020, it is possible that more data will become
available.
Knowledge is Power
Testing rates during this pandemic have been a point of contention. Without widespread
testing, it has been tough to accurately track the spread of the virus, as well as pin down
important metrics such as infectiousness and mortality
rates . Inexpensive test kits that offer quick results will be key to curbing the
outbreak.
Here are the companies and institutions developing new tests for COVID-19:
The ultimate aim of companies like Abbott and BioFire Defense is to create a test that can
produce accurate results in as little as a few minutes.
In the Trenches With
Coronavirus
While the majority of people infected with COVID-19 only experience minor symptoms, the
disease can cause severe issues in some cases – even resulting in death. Most of the
forms of treatment being pursued fall into one of two categories:
Treating respiratory symptoms – especially the inflammation that occurs in severe
cases
Antiviral growth – essentially stopping viruses from multiplying inside the human
body
Here are the companies and institutions developing new treatment options for COVID-19:
A wide range of players are in the race to develop treatments related to COVID-19. Pharma
and healthcare companies are in the mix, as well as universities and institutes.
One surprising name on the list is Fujifilm . The Japanese company's stock recently shot up
on the news that Avigan, a decades-old flu drug developed through Fujifilm's healthcare
subsidiary, might be effective at helping coronavirus patients recover. The Japanese
government's stockpile of the drug is
reportedly enough to treat two million people.
Vaccine
The progress that is perhaps being watched the closest by the general public is the
development of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Creating a safe vaccine for a new illness is no easy feat. Thankfully, rapid progress is
being made for a variety of reasons, including China's efforts to sequence the genetic material
of Sars-CoV-2 and to share that information with research groups around the world.
Another factor contributing to the unprecedented speed of development is the fact that
coronaviruses were already on the radar of health science researchers. Both SARS and MERS were
caused by coronaviruses, and even though vaccines were shelved once those outbreaks were
contained, learnings can still be applied to defeating COVID-19.
One of the most promising leads on a COVID-19 vaccine is mRNA-1273. This vaccine, developed
by Moderna Therapeutics , is being developed with extreme urgency, skipping straight into human
trials before it was even tested in animals. If all goes well with the trials currently
underway in Washington State, the company hopes to have an early version of the vaccine ready
by fall 2020. The earliest versions of the vaccine would be made available to at-risk groups
such as healthcare workers.
Further down the pipeline are 15 types of subunit vaccines. This method of vaccination uses
a fragment of a pathogen, typically a surface protein, to trigger an immune response, teaching
the body's immune system how to fight off the disease without actually introducing live
pathogens.
No Clear Finish Line
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet for solving this pandemic.
A likely scenario is that teams of researchers around the world will come up with solutions
that will incrementally help stop the spread of the virus, mitigate symptoms for those
infected, and help lower the overall death toll. As well, early solutions rushed to market will
need to be refined over the coming months.
We can only hope that the hard lessons learned from fighting COVID-19 will help stop a
future outbreak in its tracks before it becomes a pandemic. For now, those of us on the
sideline can only do our best to flatten
the curve .
1. does it stop you from catching the bug 100%? No, including N95, P100, whatever. there's
leakage and also many other infection vectors.
2. do most people know how to don, adjust and handle used masks properly? No
3. does it help? yes, every little bit is better than nothing
4. dirty little secret - for most of Asia with exception of probably Japan, people wear
mask not because they are trying to protect others if they are asymptomatic carriers. They do
it out of good old self preservation. it DOES, however, have the useful side effect that the
end result is the same - asymptomatic carriers are also covered.
Did Johns Hopkins issue the following guidelines (I don't think they did)?
1. The virus is not a living organism, but a protein molecule (DNA) covered by a
protective layer of lipid (fat), which, when absorbed by the cells of the ocular, nasal or
buccal mucosa, changes their genetic code. (mutation) and convert them into aggressor and
multiplier cells.
2. Since the virus is not a living organism but a protein molecule, it is not killed, but
decays on its own. The disintegration time depends on the temperature, humidity and type of
material where it lies.
3. The virus is very fragile; the only thing that protects it is a thin outer layer of
fat. That is why any soap or detergent is the best remedy, because the foam CUTS the FAT
(that is why you have to rub so much: for 20 seconds or more, to make a lot of foam). By
dissolving the fat layer, the protein molecule disperses and breaks down on its own.
4. HEAT melts fat; this is why it is so good to use water above 25 degrees Celsius for
washing hands, clothes and everything. In addition, hot water makes more foam and that makes
it even more useful.
5. Alcohol or any mixture with alcohol over 65% DISSOLVES ANY FAT, especially the external
lipid layer of the virus.
6. Any mix with 1 part bleach and 5 parts water directly dissolves the protein, breaks it
down from the inside.
7. Oxygenated water helps long after soap, alcohol and chlorine, because peroxide
dissolves the virus protein, but you have to use it pure and it hurts your skin.
8. NO BACTERICIDE SERVES. The virus is not a living organism like bacteria; they cannot
kill what is not alive with anthobiotics, but quickly disintegrate its structure with
everything said.
9. NEVER shake used or unused clothing, sheets or cloth. While it is glued to a porous
surface, it is very inert and disintegrates only between 3 hours (fabric and porous), 4 hours
(copper, because it is naturally antiseptic; and wood, because it removes all the moisture
and does not let it peel off and disintegrates). ), 24 hours (cardboard), 42 hours (metal)
and 72 hours (plastic). But if you shake it or use a feather duster, the virus molecules
float in the air for up to 3 hours, and can lodge in your nose.
10. The virus molecules remain very stable in external cold, or artificial as air
conditioners in houses and cars. They also need moisture to stay stable, and especially
darkness. Therefore, dehumidified, dry, warm and bright environments will degrade it
faster.
11. UV LIGHT on any object that may contain it breaks down the virus protein. For example,
to disinfect and reuse a mask is perfect. Be careful, it also breaks down collagen (which is
protein) in the skin, eventually causing wrinkles and skin cancer.
12. The virus CANNOT go through healthy skin.
13. Vinegar is NOT useful because it does not break down the protective layer of fat.
14. NO SPIRITS, NOR VODKA, serve. The strongest vodka is 40% alcohol, and you need
65%.
15. LISTERINE IF IT SERVES! It is 65% alcohol.
16. The more confined the space, the more concentration of the virus there can be. The
more open or naturally ventilated, the less.
17. This is super said, but you have to wash your hands before and after touching mucosa,
food, locks, knobs, switches, remote control, cell phone, watches, computers, desks, TV, etc.
And when using the bathroom.
18. You have to HUMIDIFY HANDS DRY from so much washing them, because the molecules can
hide in the micro cracks. The thicker the moisturizer, the better.
19. Also keep your NAILS SHORT so that the virus does not hide there.
IMHO only 20% of the note shows some imprecise or wrongly interpreted examples (like f i
Listerine) , but when 80% looks correct, we ABSOLUTELY need to find the source and
disseminate it in order to help people understand and , why not, start thinking on why and
how apply the recommendations AFTER having understood the logic behind the detailed and
practical recommendations which do make sense but which we need to justify and assess before
we carry them further as full "truth"
On March 14, French health minister Olivier Véran made a blunt statement on Twitter
– warning that people should stay away from using ibuprofen to treat coronavirus
symptoms. Some patients in France had experienced adverse affects using non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs to treat the disease. The tweet has sparked rampant disinformation on
WhatsApp and social media, but there is currently no strong evidence that ibuprofen can make
coronavirus worse. Even so, the NHS is still advising that – until we have further
evidence – people should avoid using ibuprofen to treat coronavirus symptoms and take
paracetamol instead. If you can't take paracetamol, or are taking ibuprofen on the advice of a
doctor, make sure you check with a doctor before you make any changes to your medication.
Updated 04.03.20, 11:05 GMT: The article has been updated to clarify that some alcohol
gels are effective against norovirus.
Matt Reynolds is WIRED's science editor. He tweets from
We need to look into why the most active countries that do not practice self isolation,
while wearing face masks, have very lowest death rates compared to case numbers. I.e.,
Singapore, South Korea, Russia, Japan, etc...
There is difference among people born and raised in different countries with different
vaccinations given at birth and afterwards. There is also difference of many local diseases
very common; like malaria and others in Asian courtiers, which are almost non-existent here
in USA. It gives us some directions to fight Covid-19 employing mass spectrometry and many
other tools.
I am over 70 and last year in the UK I had a vaccine for pneumonia, which I understand is
of one of the stages in the desease's cycle. Might it be possible that a pneumonia vaccine
would provide some kind of immunity for Covid-19?
The vaccine for pneumonia may have a limited scope compared to Covid-19 attack on immune
system, but studies of the blood samples looking for anti-bodies after vaccine for pneumonia
may provide us further insight. The best practice would be to try staying away from Covid-19
exposure and try to boost our immune system.
I would like to share some information I happen to find coming out from Chinese Social
Media South China Morning Post: "People with blood type A may be more vulnerable to
coronavirus, China study finds".
A claim from scientists from Chinese study at Zhognan University Hospital in Wuhan and
Shenzhen city. They screen 2000 medical record of patients infected with the SARS CAVID19 to
find a higher proportion of patients belonging to the Blood group A, as well as greater
proportion of them suffering from more severe disease. As we know most scientific papers from
China are written in Chinese language and their scientific perspective may not be as ours, we
cannot confirm that is a reflecting a true fact. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be so difficult
nor expensive to have a look into the matter. If it turns out to reflect a confirmed fact, it
will change our perception about the susceptibility to this germ. We already know that there
is a very wide spectrum of severity of symptoms in our population and in part that might be
due to factors as those mentioned above. My only recommendation is please take it easy we do
not want another problem as we did with toilet paper or Chloroquine.
Be safe, keep yourself at home.
Per the CDC, hand sanitizer needs to contain at least 60% alcohol. Tito's Handmade Vodka is
40% alcohol, and therefore does not meet the current recommendation of the CDC. Please see attached for more
information.
pic.twitter.com/plYf54HPLn
You can certainly bet on that the virus can spread in hot seasons. In these days, in
Argentina, we have temperatures about 35 Celsius (almost 100 Fahrenheit), and the virus still
gained momentum in such environments. The strict social isolation has been proven to be our
best option so far. In economics terms, and even in social mood, it seems to be a very high
price to pay. But relaxing or terminating this forced quarantine may led us to the worst case
scenario.
Here in Brazil we have high temperatures right now. And the daily contagion rate is much
lower than in countries or places where the climate is much colder. I believe that the virus
will not spread as well in hot climates.
I'm currently in mid-Florida there it has been in the upper 80's to mid 90's every day for
the last several weeks. The infection is increasing here as far as in Michigan. Also, it's
hotter down towards Miami and the infection levels are even higher down there. I wouldn't put
any faith and hot days killing it
"those countries are poor and have no testing" - but what about their death rate then? As
of right now, the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Africa has just a few dozen deaths TOTAL..
Extreme heat/cold are known to be formidable environments to most viruses. Odds are that
this one is too, but only time will tell I guess.
Australia is not poor and absolutely does have testing!!! We have over 3000 infected (that
has been identified) and 13 deaths. Do not count on weather conditions offering some form of
protection.
Temperature isn't the only parameter, air-conditioning and the related irritation of
mucous membranes are favouring coughs and sneezing and by consequence the spread of
viruses.
You misunderstood something about Chinese measures to fight this virus.
We did not just simply lock down cities and everybody stay home to wait for the good
ending.
It's far from enough.
We check check and check.
Find out those infected, took them into hospitals. Find them as much as we can. DO NOT leave
them goof around/stay home to infect the whole family.
Find out those who are close to the infected, took them into isolation to observe if they
will catch the virus. Find them as much as we can.
Track those who were close to the infected, check out the asymptomatic one who is out of the
radar and secretly give the virus to the infected. Isolate this asymptomatic person who may
continue to spread the virus to others. Yes, you need to find out who infected whom, and how.
You need to build the detective teams on infection. You find them out, learn from it, publish
it, avoid it.
It's a mission impossible, but still, you do it, with enough endeavor, it's mission
possible.
check, check, check track, track, track isolate, isolate, isolate
In the same time, you do all you capacity to guarantee the medic, the logistic, the supply,
it's a whole system. Not simply lock down, not just stay at home.
China has more than 70% family cases because social cases are effectively avoided by lock
down and stay at home, while those family cases at early stage in Wuhan especially can not be
avoided since we don't have this system at the time. Things happened in Wuhan too fast!
You need to react fast! You need to do lot of things at the same time. You need to find them,
all of them, really fast. Take them into hospital, into isolation, into observation, under
your radar.
Lock down and stay at home works! But that's not all about it. That's just a start of
it.
There are cases that people go out for grocery, without masks, get infected by another buyer,
within seconds!
If you guys don't wear mask, don't follow stay at home and social distance strictly,
whatever your government doing is in waste.
But if your government don't respond fast and find out all of them for treatment and
isolations, still the same: this virus thing will just goes on and on and on and on and
on
At the end of the day, you may reach herd immunity (if this virus is that friendly: once
cured, never infected again, we are not sure about that since somebody already has two
strains of this virus in the body at the same time, which suggest something quite
different)
In that case, there will be herd immunity gap between you strong survival guys who passed the
virus test and we the untested weaker ones who avoided the test by all means.
Who knows, you might win by lost the burden of the old the sick the weak the poor the
idiot.
We may also win by guard our value and our people as an unity.
Win-Win
As for fundamental changes of life style and governing method. We didn't think much about
it before as we sincerely believed this would be a short term thing. We believed in ourselves
and expected everything back to normal in Apr. until you guys join this virus thing.
Now everything changed. Things become really complicated.
Furthermore, I tried to communicate the importance of recycling FFP2 masks, without any
success. It is a matter of life and death. These masks are considered for single use and staffs
throw them away too quickly. This is not the place to be technical, but I have proposed four
methods to recycle them and they must be implemented according to the sterilization equipment
available in hospitals, information that I have still not been able to obtain. We must educate
medical staff on how to extend the life of these masks and recycle them, today, the urgency is
immense.
The army, firefighters and probably the police have gas masks, which should not be left in
the barracks, they are even more effective than the FFP2. We do not care if it looks crazy to
see doctors with gas masks, I prefer to see them stay alive and able to care for patients, and
also it would prevent them from becoming vectors of spread themselves. How many gas masks,
which are cleanable and reusable, are available?
FFP2 masks for the population, a simple solution for returning to work.
To finish with the masks, let us understand that what will get us out of confinement,
lockdown, and will allow the population to resume almost normal work, is the massive production
of FFP2 masks for the entire population, small (children) and adults (adults). The faster the
necessary production tools are put in place, the faster Belgium can get back to work, it's
really that simple.
During the minimum 4 weeks of lockdown, massive screening is needed, and the establishment
of the task force is a step in the right direction. We cannot lift the lockdown until our
ability to track down infected individuals has been greatly increased.
At Vo'Euganeo in Italy, all the confined residents (3,300) were tested a month ago. Result:
out of 89 positive cases, there are only handful contaminations, reports La Voix du Nord. The
approach I propose works when you can combine lockdown and massive screening.
It was true yesterday, it is true today, it is enough to see how Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
Singapore handled the crisis from the start, and how China and South Korea recovered.
CountLess life could have been saved if white people just didn't have an illogical
aversion to masks.
Everyone wear masks in asia. Ironically, It is not the Chinese who is spreading it In
Asia. The people who are spreading the disease where I live are the white people returning
from overseas and refuse to wear masks. They should go back to wherever they come from.
these people should be physically assaulted for NOT wearing a mask in Asia like Asians are
assaulted in the West for wearing one.
In this sense, COVID-19 behaves a lot like seasonal flu. Common rooms often mean common
pathogens and higher dose of virus then from strangers. There are some indications that the
doze of virus that you get affects the severity of the disease.
Families are great places for socialization and provide a means to stay active and engaged,
but can serve as pathogenic petri dishes
Based on current research, it takes about 2 weeks between the onset of symptoms to the
clinical recovery of patients with a mild form of the disease
Austria says anyone shopping will
have to wear face masks, bringing it in line with the neighbouring Czech Republic which, on March
18, ordered face masks be worn in public.
Masks will be supplied to supermarket retail chains
which will distribute them to shoppers as they enter stores.
The government cautioned that the masks do not protect wearers but are meant to prevent them
from spreading infectious cough droplets.
Yesterday I ventured into Wal-Mart to shop with the other local deplorable people that the elite child molesters, sexual perverts,
and sociopaths out in Hollyweird, NYC and Washington like to look down on.
Wasn't that crowded and I probably noticed about 10 customers "suited and booted" wearing various masks of different shapes
and styles and latex gloves.
Speaking of "suited and booted", shouldn't these people be wearing one of those full body suits and booties over their
shoes as well?
To clarify: chloroquine and like agents are antimalarials which also have immunosuppressive
properties. They are used in COVID19 to dampen the acute respiratory distress syndrome
[ARDS], the pathologic exaggerated immune response which is the cause of most COVID19
fatalities.
It is not without significant side effects (eg retinopathy).
Nevertheless, any suspicions about big pharma's motives in this context are warranted.
It has been suggested that a profitable class of antihypertensives (ACE inhibitors) is linked
with worse COVID19 outcomes.
Hydroxyxhloroquine is antimalarial,works on the DNA , and accumulates in white blood cells .
Corona virus is RNA. Possible other mechanism includes suppression of T lymphocytes ,
decreased white blood cell migration to the injured area ,stabilization of lysosomal enzymes
which means the enzymes that can attack pathogen and also human normal cells are being
prevented from release from inside the immune cells and suppression of DNA and RNA synthesis.
I am not aware that has ever been to be effective against any virus in the past. It
doesn't work on the Angiotensin receptor or signal transduction down stream .
Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquione are used for Rheumatoid arthritis but they don't alter
the bone damages They are not very effective DMARDs ( disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs
) .It is also used against Graft versus Host rejection . Not effective enough.
Any antiviral medicine has to work on one of these sites or on combination of these
sites- attachment of virus to cells, f penetration ( nucleus) , uncoating, protien synthesis
, nucleic acid synthesis, packaging , and assembly of new virus , then the last part -viral
release from cell to attack new cells. Hydroxychloroquine is not known to attack any of these
processes .
Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine are known to work differently in rheumatoid and graft
vs host disease or in some patients with SLE.
I am not sure if these 2 can be considered as an orphan drug and approved by FDA
I am not sure how French jumped to the idea that this medication would work ( usually a
possible mechanism of action or anecdotal data have to be furnished before trying or have two
have animal data )
So let's not celebrate French microbiologist or IHU and jump to some theories on the
behaviors of French ministers or pharmaceuticals.
Since March 17th the pin on my twitter profile promotes the preventive use of chloroquine to
treat the Novel Coronovirus. I've been following the debate about this anti-malarial (polio
and yellow fever) drug closely. I like Escobar's article, but there are several problems with
it, that even I, as a proponent of chloroquine cannot ignore.
First, the claim that Agnes Buzyn (mispelled twice in the article as "Buzy"), classified
the drug as a poison, thus requiring prescription.
this is false. Chloroquine, in its market French form known as Nivaquine, was never over
the counter. Never. In fact very few Western countries ever sold it over the counter. In most
US states, it was prescription based. It is lethal when used inappropriately.
Second, with all due respect to Dr. Raoult, he is absolutely wrong about viral load in
terminal stages of Covid-19. Corona virus is anything but low or nearly absent. In fact, its
viral load is extremely high and a good measure of patient outcome at admission, and no
amount of antiviral treatment can reduce it on its own at this point. Raoult was either
trying to say that corona is not the cause of mortality, which is technically true, or like
99% of doctors fighting Corona, has no grasp of what the virus actually does.
The gist of the Escobar article is problematic. Nothing concrete about how Sanofi or Big
Pharma is planning on cashing in by delaying chloroquine production. Last week Sanofi donated
300,000 "dosses" of chloroquine to the United States. The drug has been around for 60 years
and is listed by the WHO as a required drug in all medical systems with required
possibilities of local production. The criteria of which are known only to experts.
As for the theory that chloroquine supplies have been pilfered my French sources told me
supplies had been seized. Macron may be pursuing a policy of herd immunity, but
doesn't have the political luxury of being public about it, and a little less literalism is a
helpful corrective for wild speculation. Herd immunity strategies cannot be pursued openly,
being political (reelection) liabilities.
Far far more important to the coronovirus debate is how one is supposed to cure with
vaccines, if the jury is still out on acquired immunity. One cannot work without the other,
suggesting that the MSM acceptance of possible vaccine treatment ipso facto means
acquired immunity is a given, but that's not the way the MSM and governments are presenting
this, suggesting that either vaccines cannot possibly work, or that immunity is being aquired
as we speak, while the facade of a fight is kept up.
Since this decree, the hydroxychloroquine molecule marketed under the name of Plaquenil
is therefore no longer available over the counter. A prescription from a doctor is now
mandatory. But this new classification, which came into effect in January, contrary to what
some conspiratorial publications suggest, predates the appearance of the new coronavirus.
Its cousin, chloroquine, appears on this list "in injectable and oral form", since a decree
taken in 1999.
As LCI explains, the National Health Security Agency (ANSES) had been asked for an
opinion on a proposal for an order to include hydroxychloroquine in List II of poisonous
substances in October 2019, "in order to ensure appropriate patient care ". Two months
before the appearance of the new coronavirus in China.
ANSES had given the green light on November 12, 2019. It is therefore false and dishonest
to claim that the former Minister of Health, Ms. Buzyn, would have made this decision
herself during the Covid-19 epidemic.
@onebornfree The Quinism Foundation is a nonprofit charitable organization established to
support education and research on chronic quinoline encephalopathy and other medical
conditions caused by poisoning, or intoxication, by mefloquine, tafenoquine, chloroquine, and
related quinoline drugs.
Executive Director Dr. Remington Dr. Nevin noted his concern that members of the public
may even attempt to obtain therapeutic quantities of quinine through questionable channels.
"Tonic water, whose bitter taste is produced by the addition of quinine or related
naturally-occurring quinolines, is limited by U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations
to 83 mg per liter of quinine and related cinchona alkaloids," said Dr. Nevin. "However,
drinking several bottles of tonic water will result in consuming pharmaceutical quantities,
and therefore potentially harmful, amounts of these drugs", said Dr. Nevin. "Tonic water is a
prescription medication masquerading as a cocktail mixer."
A single, non-randomized observational trial is close to the bottom of the list in terms of
meaningful medical research, down there with anecdotal reports, particularly in a novel viral
disease with highly variable clinical manifestations and outcomes.
There are also significant potential cardiac risks caused by the Q-T lengthening on one's
EKG caused by both azithromycin and chloroquine. Don't grasp at straws.
@KA You seem quite a knowledge so I hope to obtain your insights, I am not medical.
I heard that the likelihood of ARDS (cytokine storm?) can be detected by a Serum Ferritin
test. If it levels are high, the patient should be given Anakinra, the rheumatoid arthritis
medication, which will prevent ARDS. Neither the test, nor the treatment are being given
because the average Doc who does not specialize in this field, does not know to test for
this.
I understand that Hydroxychloroquin will reduce virulent symptoms in high risk patients
but should be given cautiously.
KA,
I am commenting here first time but have been reading the site for years.
I have two decades of biotech research experience.
I just finished a literature survey about effects of these active pharmaceutical ingredients
or APIs (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine phosphate).
The APIs have been in human application for very long time and their side effect profile
might be broad but it is not widespread. The most serious problems arise from eventual eye
degenerative effects but those are very-very rare.
These APIs do act on several steps of what you mentioned, starting with receptor binding
interference (ACE2 glycosylation changes), viral entry (impairment of endosome formation),
then viral DNA offloading (interference with virus-containing endosomes fusing with
lysosomes), through viral "work" (impairment of protein synthesis and virion assembly through
stopping of Golgi- and endoplasmatic reticular budding and traffic).
The most interesting part of their actions might however be the inhibition of the viral
RNA-dependent RNA polymerase enzyme. This is done through increasing Zn++ concentration in
the cytoplasm because all of these APIs are ionophores and bring Zn++ ions into the cytosol
through the lipid membrane. High Zn++ "levels" inside the cell block the "xerox machine"of
the viral RNA. So indeed these have at least theoretical effects and in vitro proof is
abundant.
On the contrary, if one looks at the now not too worthwile treatment compilation from
Alipay and Zhezhiang University the use of different antiviral drugs is quite dangerous to
the liver. Many patients on anti-retrovirals developed liver problems. I think the Shanghai
Protocol is much more adequate but to each his own.
With regards to the origins of the virus someone earlier wrote about haplotypes. There are
58 haplotypes (called as such in peer-reviewed publications) and 5 haplogroups of the virus
in two clades (L and S). According to a non peer-reviewed publication at ChinaXiv, 5
haplogroups have only been reported from the US so far. Mainland Chinese enjoyed the society
of only 4 haplogroups while the fifth could be found in Taiwan.
Here is one published Abstract, specific to COVID-19 warns of the toxicity.
Department of Forensic Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Huanzhong University of Science
and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China. LINK
The Trial of Chloroquine in the Treatment of Corona Virus Disease 2019
（COVID-19） and Its Research Progress in Forensic Toxicology.
[.]Since December 2019, COVID-19 （corona virus disease 2019） outbreaks caused
by SARS-CoV-2 （severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2） has occurred
in China and many countries around the world. Due to the lack of drugs against COVID-19,
the disease spreads rapidly and the mortality rate is relatively high. Therefore, specific
drugs against SARS-CoV-2 need to be quickly screened. The antimalarial drug Chloroquine
phosphate which has already been approved is confirmed to have an anti-SARS-CoV-2 effect
and has been included in diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. However, awareness of the
risk of chloroquine phosphate causing acute poisoning or even death should be strengthened.
The dosage used according to current clinical recommended dosage and course of treatment
are larger than that of previous treatment of malaria. Many provinces have required
close clinical monitoring of adverse reactions. This paper reviews the pharmacological
effects, poisoning;[.]
This is the antiviral treatment recommended in the hand I linked above.
Antiviral Treatment
At FAHZU, lopinavir/ritonavir (2 capsules, po q12h) combined with arbidol (200 mg po q12h)
were applied as the basic regimen. From the treatment experience of 49 patients in our
hospital, the average time to achieve negative viral nucleic acid test for the first time
was 12 days (95% CI: 8-15 days). The duration of negative nucleic acid test result
(negative for more than 2 times consecutively with interval ≥ 24h) was 13.5 days (95%
CI: 9.5 - 17.5 days).If the basic regimen is not effective, chloroquine phosphate can be
used on adults between 18-65 years old (weight ≥ 50 kg: 500 mg bid; weight ≤50 kg:
500 mg bid for first two days, 500 mg qd for following five days).Interferon nebulization
is recommended in Protocols for Diagnosis and Treatment of COVID-19. We recommend that it
should be performed in negative-pressure wards rather than general wards due to the
possibility of aerosol transmission.Darunavir/cobicistat has some degree of antiviral
activity in viral suppression test in vitro, based on the treatment experience of AIDS
patients, and the adverse events are relatively mild. For patients who are intolerant to
lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/ cobici-stat (1 tablet qd) or favipiravir (starting dose of
1600 mg followed by 600 mg tid) is an alternative option after the ethical review.
Simultaneous use of three or more antiviral drugs is not recommended.
Course of Treatment
The treatment course of chloroquine phosphate should be no more than 7 days. The treatment
course of other regimens has not been determined and are usually around 2 weeks. Antiviral
drugs should be stopped if nucleic acid test results from sputum specimens remain negative
for more than 3 times
The masks are useful even if they aren't 100% useful in blocking water droplets, insofar as
wearing a mask makes it much less likely that you will touch your mouth with your hands or
stick your finger in your nose.
If you also get into the habit of vigorously washing your hands before and after eating,
well, you have done most of the hard yards in avoiding infection.
Some important details on the France ibuprofen yes or no debate: Source
The trouble over ibuprofen began March 11, when researchers at University Hospital Basel,
in Switzerland, and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in Greece, published a letter in
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The letter reviewed three early sets of case reports from
China, covering almost 1,300 patients gravely ill with Covid-19. The letter's authors
observed that significant numbers of those patients had high blood pressure and diabetes,
from 12 percent to 30 percent depending on the study, and theorized that higher rates of
expression of a particular enzyme, known for short as ACE2, might be raising the risk of
coronavirus infection.
ACE2 provides a place on cell surfaces for the coronavirus to attach and enter in order
to replicate. High blood pressure and diabetes are treated with drugs that suppress
inflammation, called ACE inhibitors; the inhibitors, paradoxically, cause ACE2 to rise.
That interaction is where the authors spotted a possible connection between patients
experiencing chronic diseases and then becoming infected with Covid-19.
And that's where ibuprofen entered the unfolding story, too. The over-the-counter drug
doesn't only knock down fever. It also reduces inflammation (the class of drugs it belongs
to are known as NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). That effect, as with the
anti-inflammatory drugs given to chronic disease patients, can cause ACE2 to rise.
So any anti-inflammatory - whether ibuprofen or actual anti-inflammatory drugs - *can*
(not will) cause ACE2 to rise. And ACE2 is what nCOV latches on to.
So the acetominophen/paracetamol vs. ibuprofen has nothing to do with the fever reduction
side but the potential increase of ACE2, which *might* increase susceptibility to
nCOV.
On the protection issue, use FFP 3 respirator masks (EU), or N99 (US) or KN 99 (China) and
scarf over it. These masks filter 98 % of micro particles, including viruses. In case of mask
shortages steam can be used to decontaminate masks. Also use gloves, eye protection and
raincoat when in risky areas. Everything new taken in your home must be under 3 - 4 days
quarantine in separate room. The raincoat too. After this quarantine items can be further
cleaned with steam, ethanol, bleach + water, and groceries via soap and water.
Virus can stay for 3 hours in mid air (room) and 3 days on some surfaces. And it is
possible that can even survive for up to 17 days on some surfaces, which would be pretty bad
news. At least 5 meters distance between people outside is needed.
1. do not steam your masks. they are made of polyester and will shrink into a blob. people
have tried and failed. you can wash with soap and dry or low temp bake as B suggested. they
will eventually fail from delaminating or the elastic band snapping.
2. stop behaving like you don't want to catch it, behave like you have it and you don't
want others to catch it. we'll all be better off.
3. going on 2 - wearing masks with exhaust valves will just spray virus straight out of
you're infected. if you're not sure you're infected (and you don't) wearing a valves N95 is
just a dick act.
4. when PPE were in short supply in China, what they did was to wear N95 with surgical
mask over the top. it's definitely off-label use but at least you can then reuse your
precious N95 as it's shielded from external pathogens, at the same time your own exhaust
valve (see 3) is also shielded from others.
Malaria is a single cell bug called a protozoa. My understanding that is a class of bugs like
bacteria and viruses are classes of bugs.
Mosquitoes carry or host the bug and pass it onto people. The quinine type drugs block the
bug and prevent it from attaching or entering cells. That is how the drug also works against
the corona viruses. Various strains of the malaria bug have developed resistance to various
drugs.
Because SARS-CoV-2 is a new bug, it should not have developed a resistance to any
drug.
Human immunity is directed at pathogens and seems very specific even to strains as can be
seen with influenza vaccines, and the malaria protozoa is a very different animal to the
SARS-CoV-2 virus.
That's the basics as I know it. Others here may be able to explain it a little
better.
This is an hour with experts who ran the Singapore response. It answers many of our questions
and also those which cannot yet be answered. I resisted listening because it's an hour, but
it was worthwhile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3w8gu9S3lo
Tests and care for Covid-19 must be for free. We need hospitals to care for only the
critical cases. We need quarantine centers to isolate the milder cases from the wider
population. Many hotels, sport arenas and exhibition halls are currently empty. They can be
converted into quarantine stations within a day or two. People will have to stay for only two
weeks. They would be fed and would have medical attention. That is a small restriction of the
freedom of a few for a large benefit for our societies.
A number of studies have reported that a significant portion of people are even spreading the
virus while presymptomatic -- in the day or two before they start to feel ill. Presymptomatic
spreaders are, well, gonna spread. It's not their fault.
How much this type of transmission is driving the pandemic is unclear but it could be
significant. Gabriel Leung, dean of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, has estimated
about 40% of cases transmit before symptoms develop. A recent preprint -- a study that has
not yet been peer-reviewed -- from China pooled data from seven countries and estimated a
very similar 43%.
The novel coronavirus is spread to a large part by people who stay asymptomatic and by
people who do not yet feel sick but will later show symptoms. When they talk, sneeze or cough
they release small droplets that carry viruses. The droplets can stay in the air for some time.
If a person coming along inhales those droplets the viruses will likely infect that person.
Those who have have the virus or might spread it should wear a mask because it prevents
their droplets from flying out. Those who do not have the virus should wear a mask to prevent
droplets from entering their body.
We were told that 'masks don't work' because they are not a 100% protection. The very tiny
viruses can pass behind the mask at its sides or they can slip through its webbing. But the
virus is not traveling alone but as part of a droplet. Even a relatively wide webbing may hold
it up. If it is doubled with a sheet of cosmetic paper towel in between the protection will be
even better. Microfilter bags for vacuum cleaners and so called HEPA filters are also effective materials that are
readily available and easy to turn into masks.
The development of the epidemic will depend on how many people will start to regularly wear
masks when they are not at home. Even if the protection masks prevent only 50% of new
infections the speed with which the epidemic will unfold will be significantly lower.
Consider that the societies in the blue circle are all ones where people regularly wear
masks while the other countries (except China which was surprised by the outbreak) are
societies were wearing a mask is seen as unusual. These 'blue' countries, which also gained
experience during the SARS and MERS epidemics, show significant flatter trajectories.
Graphs similar to the above for all U.S. states and territories can be found here .
Meanwhile U.S. media continue to spread anti-China propaganda:
Medical personnel in Spain and the Czech Republic have reported that the coronavirus rapid
tests their respective countries have received from China are faulty and have a high error
rate.
Several labs in Spanish hospitals have reported that the test kits they purchased,
manufactured by Chinese company Bioeasy and based in Shenzhen, have a sensitivity of 30% when
the sensitivity should be above 80%, Spanish newspaper El País reported Thursday. Due
to the test's lack of reliability, medical personnel in Spain have switched back to the PCR
test, which takes up to four hours for a diagnosis, while rapid tests take between 10 to 15
minutes
The Spanish government purchased 340,000 tests from the Chinese company, a similar
quantity to the tests ordered by the Czech Republic, where medical personnel also report an
80% failure rate.
When one checks the original reports
from Spain and from the
Czech Republic one learns that these countries bought anti-body tests which only react when
a person has had the virus for some time and developed anti-bodies against it. These tests can
obviously not be used to find persons who are infected but have not yet developed
anti-bodies.
China's ambassador in Spain also pointed out that these tests
have yet to be verified by the regulator and were imported without the help or knowledge of the
Chinese government.
The anti-body tests are valuable to identify people who have developed current immunity
against the virus. These people can then care for those who are most endangered by the disease.
Anti-body tests are quick. They can be used anywhere.
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests which are currently necessary to find if someone
has the virus take at least four hours and specialized laboratories to process them. We will
need a much quicker reliable test if we want to put our economies back to work. Luckily several
companies and academic groups are already working on these and a 45 minute test is now
ready to be marketed .
When we have a quick test for the virus and a quick test for anti-bodies available in mass
we can restart the economy by 'filtering' through the population on a large scale. Movement
restrictions would then only be needed for those who show virus-positive and anti-body negative
results. All others could go back to work.
There would certainly still be outbreaks from people who escaped the 'filtering' process but
with easy testing and care in place those clusters can be locally contained.
It may take another two month or so to get to that point. Until then there is little we can
do but to stay apart as much as possible and to wear our masks.
Have seen no data on how many viral particles it takes to cause a serious effect. Likely,
such data would be in terms of probability at X [number of viral particles]. Such is known
for many infective agents in surface and aerosol form, but CV19 may be very different.
Can CV19 vapor aerosol from mouth/breath in still air, exclusive of explosive discharge
via cough/sneeze, cause full-blown case beyond 6 feet? I'd like to know.
Also, have not seen any data re time duration of infective after it enters throat passage
on journey to lungs. I posit that there are anti-viral liquids that might be effective if
small amount were trickled down throat 2x per day; surely just before bedtime to discourage
the next 7-hs of undisturbed incubation. I do take something that I am guessing may be
effective. [E.g., I also
"heard" OliveOilExtract as anti-viral but I have no experience with it.]
Another thought: Re different strains of CV19 having very different outcomes...Anyone
suggestion that US forms collectively having, say, milder outcomes relative to
China/Iran/LombardyItaly, etc? Seems to be an aversion to testing the general population, or
even publishing all results of the small amount of tests with time+place data. Where are the
lists of 1st observations of "unusual flu" in US? that would NORMALLY, provoke tracking +
names/places of sequential contacts?
Routine discovery and mapping of communication lines is very likely to uncover a lot of
truth. That is what rational folks desire.
I will keep this comment as brief as possible.
I welcome refutation of these theses, which I believe are crucial to any analysis of the
response to the pandemic:
1. Current screening tests for COVID19 (a PCR test, not an antibody test) have a high rate of
false positives (see excellent contributions on this topic from Kratoklastes).
2. Draconian public health responses are allegedly aimed at minimizing serious COVID19
disease (severe respiratory distress, up to and including ARDS). "Positive" testing
individuals overwhelming do not fall into this category.
3. At this juncture, our best single metric is death from COVID19. Unfortunately the
definition of a COVID19 fatality varies between jurisdictions. To be counted as such a
fatality, the current best definition would be: novel coronovirus IgM (+/- IgG) positive
(proof of recent infection) plus ARDS (radiologically, if not pathologically, confirmed).
4. Alleged COVID19 fatalities are overwhelming patients >70 having 3 or more serious
comorbidities.
5. There is an association between ACE-inhibitor or AT-receptor antagonist use and likelihood
of death from infection by novel coronavirus.
To the last point: nearly 40% of the Italian fatalities were using ACE inhibitors (and
this may be an underestimate as pre-admission medication charts were lacking). The virus
binds to the pulmonary ACE2 receptor.
Conceivably the use of ACE-inhibitors (or the related AT-receptor antagonists) induces
upregulation of this receptor, but this is purely conjecture on my part.
Anecdotally, use of this medication class is lower in Germany, which has been proffered among
reasons for its lower fatality rates.
@Realist I have two family members in UK who have already recovered after testing
positive and I, myself, suffered ten days with an unpleasant dry cough, malaise and low grade
fever late in February – which has since cleared uneventfully. I was never tested and,
following my GP, discounted being infected with COVID-19 at that time.
An antibody test for COVID-19 virus exposure is near to becoming commercially available
and this is likely to be widely used in order to identify people who can safely volunteer to
help with the pandemic – it may provide some interesting statistics and a different
management perspective.
" The second thing that's good about it is the sun. Ultraviolet light kills viruses."
The disease is spreading in the southern hemisphere which is in summer with much higher UV
just as rapidly as the northern hemisphere which is in winter with much less UV. So the data
at least in this case says no. BTW she retired in 2008, and she seems to have done some
impressive work in the past, though as they say in the small print of adverts for
investments, past performance is no predictor of future performance.
'' want it or not the rest of the population is gonna get the Coronavirus''...wow !!! you
are are sooo sure about it ...i bet you know thinks that we don't , probably you knew this
since last year
Very informative .. Thank you and I agree almost totally.. only thing that I find is an
error is immunity to virus. Immunity will be there with young and active people. The virus
can still be transmitted. Older generation will continue to be susceptible to the virus
unless we have a medicine for corona virus.
"... Instead the French authorities are now trying to prepare people for work by saying that people should not go out at all because when they do they touch the left button, the doors etc. ..."
"... They can just wear gloves and clean up whatever they touch with alcohol, no? Why aren't such cheap things not distributed widely, household by household? ..."
Another interesting feature of the shock strategy currently applied is that until planes and
trains and stadiums were not plugged off, one can imagine that the virus was spreading on a
much bigger scale than without these going on as usual.
So why should people who already see a max of 5 persons a week (close enough) be under
house arrest? masks are evidently a solution.
Instead the French authorities are now trying to prepare people for work by saying that
people should not go out at all because when they do they touch the left button, the doors
etc.
But what of asking people for responsibility?
They can just wear gloves and clean up
whatever they touch with alcohol, no? Why aren't such cheap things not distributed widely,
household by household?
The French are doing worse because they have no community planning, unlike Belgium, the
Netherlands, the UK and other northern countries. I haven't heard anyone on French media say
that the municipalities or district social centres could play a role in better mapping the
needs.
It seems to be entirely on the shoulders of our super-centralized gov and the
hospitals! With the results we see (and we are actually doing not so bad: 5 % of the positive
seem to die, vs 10% in Spain and Italy -using the figures given here
There's growing concern among health officials about so called silent spreaders, people who
are infected with the coronavirus, but aren't sick. Now some UK doctors say there may be a clue
to who's carrying it and they want the loss of smell and taste added to the list of
symptoms.
A mother who was infected with the coronavirus couldn't smell her baby's full diaper.
Cooks who can usually name every spice in a restaurant dish can't smell curry or garlic, and
food tastes bland. Others say they can't pick up the sweet scent of shampoo or the foul odor
of kitty litter.
Anosmia, the loss of sense of smell, and ageusia, an accompanying diminished sense of
taste, have emerged as peculiar telltale signs of Covid-19, the disease caused by the
coronavirus, and possible markers of infection.
On Friday, British ear, nose and throat doctors, citing reports from colleagues around the
world, called on adults who lose their senses of smell to isolate themselves for seven days,
even if they have no other symptoms, to slow the disease's spread. The published data is
limited, but doctors are concerned enough to raise warnings.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
US authorities are working to combat the spread of misinformation that has blossomed since the start of the coronavirus
pandemic
The US
Department of Justice announced Sunday it had shut down a website claiming to sell a
coronavirus vaccine, in its first act of federal enforcement against fraud in connection with
the pandemic.
Lawsuits had been filed against the site coronavirusmedicalkit.com, which claimed to sell
vaccines for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, when in fact there is no
such vaccine, the Justice Department said in a statement.
A Texas federal judge on Saturday ordered the site to shut down, according to the statement.
Its homepage, however, was still accessible as of Sunday evening.
"Due to the recent outbreak for the Coronavirus (COVID-19) the World Health Organization is
giving away vaccine kits. Just pay $4.95 for shipping," read a statement on the homepage.
It was followed by a place to leave bank account information to pay shipping fees.
The Justice Department did not specify how many people fell victim to the scam, but the
investigation is ongoing to identify who is behind the fraud and how much money was stolen.
The intervention by the federal judiciary system is part of ongoing efforts by US
authorities to combat the spread of misinformation that has blossomed since the start of the
pandemic.
Attorney General Bill Barr last week urged federal prosecutors to make stopping
misinformation a priority and called US civilians to report all such abuses to the National
Center for Disaster Fraud.
He also warned citizens against a variety of scams including selling fake treatments online,
imitating emails from the WHO or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) intended
to collect personal data, and asking for donations for imaginary organizations.
Simultaneously, the US judicial system is on the warpath to combat price gouging of products
such as hand sanitizer or hygienic masks.
More than 33,000 people have been infected by the coronavirus in the US, and 416 have died,
according to a tracker managed by Johns Hopkins University.
Unfortunately, we in the US are way behind the curve in finding and locking down clusters.
In fact super-spreaders - mostly young fools ignoring social distancing on beaches, in parks,
restaurants etc - are now popping up, most recently returning from Florida spring break to
Utah. Testing rates remain abysmal.
Idaho cases just went exponential, doubling about every 3 days. Republic Governor there is
pretty much a copy of Trump, as in a dangerous idiot, giving press conferences with multiple
staff hovering around, downplaying the risks, lying about test availability, talking about
protecting businesses, etc.
Microware can be used for cleaning if you make the mask slightly wet. In this case they will
heat to over 60 0 C. Other then using alcohol this is probably the fastest method of
disinfection
Dr. Dan Lee Dinke: All Corona-viruses have a common weakness:heat kills them. Specifically
relative short exposure to 56°C. Breathing hot air in a sauna for 20 minutes will mostly
clean the upper respiratory tract of corona-viruses, but a hair dryer can also help if no
sauna available.
The video is worth to watch and could save lives through such a simple method.
@LP #52
Wrong. The lower respiratory tract - the temperature is stable via mixing outside air with
inside. Otherwise people could not survive in extreme cold or extreme heat situations.
The hot air might kill the virus outside; it won't kill the virus in the lower respiratory
tract.
I read of the new tool scanning online messages. Checking in: late afternoon my two comments,
in reply, failed to appear in the "Western Governments failures" thread.
[.] Gates Foundation monies via CEPI are financing development of a radical new vaccine
method known as messengerRNA or mRNA.
They are co-funding the Cambridge, Massachusetts biotech company, Moderna Inc., to
develop a vaccine against the Wuhan novel coronavirus, now called SARS-CoV-2. Moderna's
other partner is the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a
part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Head of NIAID is Dr Anthony Fauci, the
person at the center of the Trump Administration virus emergency response. Notable about
the Fauci-Gates Moderna coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, is that it has been rolled out in a
matter of weeks, not years, and on February 24 went directly to Fauci's NIH for tests on
human guinea pigs, not on mice as normal. Moderna's chief medical adviser, Tal Zaks,
argued, "I don't think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting
this to a clinical trial."
Another notable admission by Moderna on its website is the legal disclaimer, "Special
Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements: These risks, uncertainties, and other factors
include, among others: the fact that there has never been a commercial product utilizing
mRNA technology approved for use." In other words, completely unproven for human health and
safety.
Another biotech company working with unproven mRNA technology to develop a vaccine for
the COVID-19 is a German company, CureVac. Since 2015 CureVac has received money from the
Gates Foundation to develop its own mRNA technology. In January the Gates-backed CEPI
granted more than $8 million to develop a mRNA vaccine for the novel coronavirus.[.]
======
early fall the CDC planning and forgot to order test kits and ventilators:---{hapstance}
---the recruitment of
Public Health Advisors (Quarantine Program) country wide major cities, every state
Open Period:2019-11-15 to 2020-05-15 Salary $511440. to $93077.
Job summary: - responsible for preventing the importation and spread of communicable diseases
from abroad and spread of these diseases domestically.[.]
Duties:
[Provide technical assistance, consultation and guidance to national, state and / or local
agencies; health organizations; federal, state and local law enforcement agencies [.] and
quarantine activities [.] ]
Surgical masks are currently in short supply in China and elsewhere. They were worn 100
years ago, during the great pandemic, to try and stop the influenza virus spreading. While
surgical masks may offer some protection from infection they do not seal around the face. So
they don't filter out small airborne particles. In 1918, anyone at the emergency hospital in
Boston who had contact with patients had to wear an improvised face mask. This comprised five
layers of gauze fitted to a wire frame which covered the nose and mouth. The frame was shaped
to fit the face of the wearer and prevent the gauze filter touching the mouth and nostrils. The
masks were replaced every two hours; properly sterilized and with fresh gauze put on. They were
a forerunner of the N95 respirators in use in hospitals today to protect medical staff against
airborne infection.
... ... ...
Putting infected patients out in the sun may have helped because it inactivates the
influenza virus.[7] It also kills bacteria that cause lung and other infections in
hospitals.[8] During the First World War, military surgeons routinely used sunlight to heal
infected wounds.[9] They knew it was a disinfectant. What they didn't know is that one
advantage of placing patients outside in the sun is they can synthesise vitamin D in their skin
if sunlight is strong enough. This was not discovered until the 1920s. Low vitamin D levels are
now linked to respiratory infections and may increase susceptibility to influenza.[10] Also,
our body's biological rhythms appear to influence how we resist infections.[11] New research
suggests they can alter our inflammatory response to the flu virus.[12] As with vitamin D, at
the time of the 1918 pandemic, the important part played by sunlight in synchronizing these
rhythms was not known.
"... The masks were replaced every two hours; properly sterilized and with fresh gauze put on. They were a forerunner of the N95 respirators in use in hospitals today to protect medical staff against airborne infection. ..."
Fresh air, sunlight and improvised face
masks seemed to work a century ago; and they might help us now.
by
Richard Hobday
When new, virulent diseases emerge, such
SARS and Covid-19, the race begins to find new vaccines and treatments for those affected. As the current crisis
unfolds, governments are enforcing quarantine and isolation, and public gatherings are being discouraged. Health
officials took the same approach 100 years ago, when influenza was spreading around the world. The results were
mixed. But records from the 1918 pandemic suggest one technique for dealing with influenza -- little-known today --
was effective. Some hard-won experience from the greatest pandemic in recorded history could help us in the weeks
and months ahead.
<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*7pNa3EQCs1VsWXRWL8_Uig.jpeg" width="1200" height="892" role="presentation"/>
Influenza patients getting sunlight at the Camp Brooks
emergency open-air hospital in Boston. Medical staff were not supposed to remove their masks. (National Archives)
Put simply, medics found that severely ill flu patients nursed outdoors recovered better than those treated
indoors. A combination of fresh air and sunlight seems to have prevented deaths among patients; and infections
among medical staff.[1] There is scientific support for this. Research shows that outdoor air is a natural
disinfectant. Fresh air can kill the flu virus and other harmful germs. Equally, sunlight is germicidal and there
is now evidence it can kill the flu virus.
`Open-Air'
Treatment in 1918
During the great pandemic, two of the
worst places to be were military barracks and troop-ships. Overcrowding and bad ventilation put soldiers and
sailors at high risk of catching influenza and the other infections that often followed it.[2,3] As with the
current Covid-19 outbreak, most of the victims of so-called `Spanish flu' did not die from influenza: they died of
pneumonia and other complications.
When the influenza pandemic reached the
East coast of the United States in 1918, the city of Boston was particularly badly hit. So the State Guard set up
an emergency hospital. They took in the worst cases among sailors on ships in Boston harbour. The hospital's
medical officer had noticed the most seriously ill sailors had been in badly-ventilated spaces. So he gave them as
much fresh air as possible by putting them in tents. And in good weather they were taken out of their tents and
put in the sun. At this time, it was common practice to put sick soldiers outdoors. Open-air therapy, as it was
known, was widely used on casualties from the Western Front. And it became the treatment of choice for another
common and often deadly respiratory infection of the time; tuberculosis. Patients were put outside in their beds
to breathe fresh outdoor air. Or they were nursed in cross-ventilated wards with the windows open day and night.
The open-air regimen remained popular until antibiotics replaced it in the 1950s.
Doctors who had first-hand experience of
open-air therapy at the hospital in Boston were convinced the regimen was effective. It was adopted elsewhere. If
one report is correct, it reduced deaths among hospital patients from 40 per cent to about 13 per cent.[4]
According to the Surgeon General of the Massachusetts State Guard:
`The efficacy of open air
treatment has been absolutely proven, and one has only to try it to discover its value.'
Fresh Air is a
Disinfectant
Patients treated outdoors were less
likely to be exposed to the infectious germs that are often present in conventional hospital wards. They were
breathing clean air in what must have been a largely sterile environment. We know this because, in the 1960s,
Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant.[5] Something in it, which they
called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria -- and the influenza virus -- than indoor air.
They couldn't identify exactly what the Open Air Factor is. But they found it was effective both at night and
during the daytime.
Their research also revealed that the
Open Air Factor's disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures -- if ventilation rates are kept high enough.
Significantly, the rates they identified are the same ones that cross-ventilated hospital wards, with high
ceilings and big windows, were designed for.[6] But by the time the scientists made their discoveries, antibiotic
therapy had replaced open-air treatment. Since then the germicidal effects of fresh air have not featured in
infection control, or hospital design. Yet harmful bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics.
Sunlight and
Influenza Infection
Putting infected patients out in the sun
may have helped because it inactivates the influenza virus.[7] It also kills bacteria that cause lung and other
infections in hospitals.[8] During the First World War, military surgeons routinely used sunlight to heal infected
wounds.[9] They knew it was a disinfectant. What they didn't know is that one advantage of placing patients
outside in the sun is they can synthesise vitamin D in their skin if sunlight is strong enough. This was not
discovered until the 1920s. Low vitamin D levels are now linked to respiratory infections and may increase
susceptibility to influenza.[10] Also, our body's biological rhythms appear to influence how we resist
infections.[11] New research suggests they can alter our inflammatory response to the flu virus.[12] As with
vitamin D, at the time of the 1918 pandemic, the important part played by sunlight in synchronizing these rhythms
was not known.
Face Masks
Coronavirus and Flu
Surgical masks are currently in short
supply in China and elsewhere. They were worn 100 years ago, during the great pandemic, to try and stop the
influenza virus spreading.
While surgical masks may offer some protection from
infection they do not seal around the face. So they don't filter out small airborne particles.
In 1918, anyone at
the emergency hospital in Boston who had contact with patients had to wear an improvised face mask. This comprised
five layers of gauze fitted to a wire frame which covered the nose and mouth. The frame was shaped to fit the face
of the wearer and prevent the gauze filter touching the mouth and nostrils.
The masks were replaced every two
hours; properly sterilized and with fresh gauze put on. They were a forerunner of the N95 respirators in use in
hospitals today to protect medical staff against airborne infection.
Temporary
Hospitals
Staff at the hospital kept up high
standards of personal and environmental hygiene. No doubt this played a big part in the relatively low rates of
infection and deaths reported there. The speed with which their hospital and other temporary open-air facilities
were erected to cope with the surge in pneumonia patients was another factor. Today, many countries are not
prepared for a severe influenza pandemic.[13] Their health services will be overwhelmed if there is one. Vaccines
and antiviral drugs might help. Antibiotics may be effective for pneumonia and other complications. But much of
the world's population will not have access to them. If another 1918 comes, or the Covid-19 crisis gets worse,
history suggests it might be prudent to have tents and pre-fabricated wards ready to deal with large numbers of
seriously ill cases. Plenty of fresh air and a little sunlight might help too.
Dr. Richard Hobday is an independent
researcher working in the fields of infection control, public health and building design. He is the author of `The
Healing Sun'.
References
Hobday RA and Cason JW. The
open-air treatment of pandemic influenza. Am J Public Health 2009;99 Suppl 2:S236–42.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.134627.
Aligne CA. Overcrowding and
mortality during the influenza pandemic of 1918. Am J Public Health 2016 Apr;106(4):642–4.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.303018.
Summers JA, Wilson N, Baker
MG, Shanks GD. Mortality risk factors for pandemic influenza on New Zealand troop ship, 1918. Emerg Infect Dis
2010 Dec;16(12):1931–7. doi:10.3201/eid1612.100429.
Anon. Weapons against
influenza. Am J Public Health 1918 Oct;8(10):787–8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.8.10.787.
May KP, Druett HA. A
micro-thread technique for studying the viability of microbes in a simulated airborne state. J Gen Micro-biol
1968;51:353e66. Doi: 10.1099/00221287–51–3–353.
Hobday RA. The open-air factor
and infection control. J Hosp Infect 2019;103:e23-e24 doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.04.003.
Schuit M, Gardner S, Wood S et
al. The influence of simulated sunlight on the inactivation of influenza virus in aerosols. J Infect Dis 2020
Jan 14;221(3):372–378. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz582.
Hobday RA, Dancer SJ. Roles of
sunlight and natural ventilation for controlling infection: historical and current perspectives. J Hosp Infect
2013;84:271–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.04.011.
Hobday RA. Sunlight therapy
and solar architecture. Med Hist 1997 Oct;41(4):455–72. doi:10.1017/s0025727300063043.
Gruber-Bzura BM. Vitamin D and
influenza-prevention or therapy? Int J Mol Sci 2018 Aug 16;19(8). pii: E2419. doi: 10.3390/ijms19082419.
Costantini C, Renga G,
Sellitto F, et al. Microbes in the era of circadian medicine. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 Feb 5;10:30.
doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00030.
Sengupta S, Tang SY, Devine JC
et al. Circadian control of lung inflammation in influenza infection. Nat Commun 2019 Sep 11;10(1):4107. doi:
10.1038/s41467–019–11400–9.
Jester BJ, Uyeki TM, Patel A,
Koonin L, Jernigan DB. 100 Years of medical countermeasures and pandemic influenza preparedness. Am J Public
Health. 2018 Nov;108(11):1469–1472. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304586.
7.9K
7.9K
claps
Dr. Richard Hobday is an internationally recognized authority on health
in the built environment.
I see nothing wrong with testing Hyrodroxychloroquine together with azithromycin as long as
its done safely and ethically to gain additional data. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
A lot of people are going to reject it just because it came from Trump's mouth. Drug
companies will fight against it because they'd rather sell more expensive drugs.
Anti malaria drugs are part of the primary or secondary treatment recommendations in China
and Korea. I'm pretty sure they were used in Japan as well so the first half of it
(hydroxychloroquine) seems pretty legit though maybe not effective enough. Lets see what
happens. I'd agree we lack sufficient data to make an adequate evaluation. Hydroxychloroquine
is also being used with other things in trials. We'll see what happens there too.
** A dutch professor has announced an aerosol version of i believe hydroxycholoquine but
it might just be chloroquine that is able to penetrate the lungs they claim. They also claim
it can be manufactured immediately.
We should all certainly be skeptical of such a small study (HCQ and azithromycin) but do keep
in mind that you really can't trust industry and their legion of paid doctors and experts
either.
For example:
The CEO of Ericsson once said "CDMA will never work." Maybe that was because Ericsson
didn't have it working for cellular systems at the time. I worked in the cell phone industry
as an analyst for some time. People say anything to sell their stuff. I'm sure pharma is
equally bad.
ted01 "No money for big pharma therefore no interest. They would rather let people die."
That is about it. A dirt cheap generic drug can't possibly be any good. A pity so many
here prefer to believe big pharma rather than the frontline doctors using it.
Chinese doctors Chloroquine or Chloroquine Phosphate - Formula C18H26ClN3
Trump Hydroxychloroquine - Formula C18H26ClN3O
Two different chemicals but I take it their mode of action is similar.
Hydroxychloroquine
"The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$4.65 per month as of 2015, when
used for rheumatoid arthritis or lupus.[7] In the United States the wholesale cost of a month
of treatment is about US$25 as of 2020" (wikipedia)
Chloroquine Phosphate
"The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.04.[9] In the United States, it
costs about US$5.30 per dose." (wikipedia)
Easy to see why Trump and big phama don't like Chloroquine.
This from link @ Richard Steven Hack | Mar 22 2020 8:55 utc | 114
"chloroquine was highly effective in reducing viral replication, with an Effective
Concentration (EC)90 of 6.90 μM that can be easily achievable with standard dosing,
due to its favourable penetration in tissues, including in the lung"
>>>
Brasco_Aad
@Brasco_Aad
Israeli Pharmaceutical Company Teva to send 10 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the
United states, free of charge. | The Times of Israel
Quote Tweet
Brasco_Aad
@Brasco_Aad
· Mar 20
-significant-
Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis to donate 130 million doses of hydroxychloroquine
to the United States.
50 million doses now and another 80 million doses by the end of may.
Chloroquine I have noticed is also called chloroquine phosphate. Phosphate I believe is the
binder that holds the chloroquine powder in tablet form. According to the paper linked by RSH
@114 there is 300mg of chloroquine in a 500mg chloroquine phosphate tablet.
Here's a pretty good overview on the major avenues to attack nCOV/COVID-19 from a treatment
perspective: Ars
Technica overview
In particular, this article talks about targeting different aspects of the nCOV life cycle
and how these are targeted by treatments to attack nCOV:
1) Reproduction: remdesivir and others
2) [viral] protein processing: protease inhibitors such as HIV drugs
3) [viral] packaging: attack the final protein packaging of the virus such as a Hep B
treatment - but very few such examples exist, of any kind
4) viral shell: plasma distilled from existing recovered victims used to prime immune system
of ongoing infected. Vaccines will eventually enable this via manufacturing processes.
5) new infection capability: chloroquines. In particular
One of these targets is the drop in pH. This is the step that's targeted by chloroquine,
the antimalarial drug. Chloroquine can cross membranes and so can enter the sac containing
the virus. Once there, it can neutralize the pH.
That's significant, because many proteases are only active at lower pH. If the pH inside
the sac doesn't change, it's possible that the coronavirus spike protein won't be cut and
thus won't be activated. This appears to be the case in cultured cells infected by the
virus, and there are anecdotal case reports of chloroquine helping COVID-19 patients.
It is also clear - from this description - why evolutionary pressures could create defenses
against this type of attack (chloroquine pH change)
Again, a theoretical operation, even the clinical test tube trials, doesn't equate to
effective therapy.
However, IMO, the cost and risk factor for chloroquines makes for a far better gambit than
anything else at this moment in time. And note that because of the way chloroquines are
supposed to affect nCOV - if chloroquines work, they have to be taken when symptoms
first appear or potentially even as a preventative.
I would discourage the preventative use though - that will likely accelerate the nCOV
evolution around the chloroquine pH attack.
Another reason: it appears the US only has 160,000 ventilators available
Johns Hopkins estimate
of which a bit under 30K are being used for neonatal/pediatric care.
Yow.
hydroxycloroquine overdose, the boffins say, can destroy the retina of the eyes.
Not a trivial side effect. Nothing to play with. Fer what it worth, better read up on the
drug and pay attention. Eyes are nice to have.
Overdose of Q is Bad.
Wally read 60 years ago in Rome newspaper story that British air-line pilots, who drank
their Gin an' Tonics, had been discovered to have very poor glare recovery. That, they said,
was from the quinine in the tonic water. Henceforth, they were forbidden the tonic water,
alas!
But Wally never drives at night and his airplane days ended back in the mists...
Equivalent respirator standards by country
. N95 (United States NIOSH-42CFR84)
• FFP2 (Europe EN 149-2001)
• KN95 (China GB2626-2006)
• P2 (Australia/New Zealand AS/NZA 1716:2012)
• Korea 1st class (Korea KMOEL - 2017-64)
• DS (Japan JMHLW-Notification 214, 2018)
I just received an email from a contact in China offering to help get FFP2 respirators if
I needed or wanted any. She said KN95 were virtually non existent in China but there are
limited supplies of the FFP2 respirators.
If you or anyone else is interested in masks / respirators I would recommend watching the
videos by weaponsandstuff93 on YouTube. I am no expert on the subject but on his
recommendation I got myself a mask that takes 40mm NATO filters ( the mask is a Belgium BEM4
) and some P3 level filters ( mine are Scott Pros ) this is different to 40MM GOST filters
which were the Soviet standard.
Make your own face masks? Pfff...it appears the Japanese found a better idea from the
Philippines government...
panties . OR, you could order a custom one from Pantsu Mask . ROFL
Returning to the Covid-19 epidemic and the way governments are reacting to it, Thierry
Meyssan stresses that the authoritarian decisions of Italy and France have no medical
justification. They contradict the observations of the best infectiologists and the instructions
of the World Health Organization.
In all of its messages, the WHO stressed : the low demographic impact of the epidemic; the
futility of border closures; the ineffectiveness of wearing gloves, masks (except for health
care workers) and certain "barrier measures" (for example, the distance of one metre only makes
sense with infected people, but not with healthy people); the need to raise the level of
hygiene, including hand washing, water disinfection and increased ventilation of confined
spaces. Finally, use disposable tissues or, failing that, sneeze into your elbow.
However, the WHO is not a medical organization, but a United Nations agency dealing with
health issues. Its officials, even if they are doctors, are also and above all politicians. It
cannot therefore denounce the abuses of certain states. Furthermore, since the controversy over
the H1N1 epidemic, the WHO must publicly justify all its recommendations. In 2009, it was
accused of having let itself be swayed by the interests of big pharmaceutical companies and of
having hastily sounded the alarm in a disproportionate manner [ 4 ]. This time it used the word
"pandemic" only as a last resort, on March 12th, four months later.
I urge everyone to read the first article that is linked. What is happening this year is
decidedly NOT a unique phenomenon for Italy or elsewhere that has been cited below. You might
call it an acceleration or culmination or "perfect storm" but this is not a unique situation.
I wish to stress the following:
Estimated excess deaths of 7,027, 20,259, 15,801 and 24,981 attributable to influenza
epidemics in the 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 seasons in Italy.
Anyone remember a global outcry about these excess deaths during any of these years?
Pollution; The Po river contains some of the worst waste from industrial pig farms
upriver. The air quality in the Po River Valley is some of the worst only behind an area in
Poland where they still use coal fired power plants in overall poor quality.
The people in N Italy have been subjected to constant bombardment of this pollution which
destroys their respiratory functions and weakens their immune systems- a perfect milieu for
viruses to proliferate. The same is true for those in N China and Tehran. Tehran's air
quality has deteriorated dramatically since the US sanctions as they have gone to using a
cheaper gas, laced with sulfur, to provide fuel for their people.
Northern Italy has one of the oldest populations and the worst air quality in Europe,
which has already led to an increased number of respiratory diseases and deaths in the past
and is likely an additional risk factor in the current epidemic.
According to the latest data of the Italian National Health Institute ISS, the average age
of the positively-tested deceased in Italy is currently about 81 years. 10% of the deceased
are over 90 years old. 90% of the deceased are over 70 years old.
The Italian Institute of Health moreover distinguishes between those who died from the
coronavirus and those who died with the coronavirus. In many cases it is not yet clear
whether the persons died from the virus or from their pre-existing chronic diseases or from a
combination of both.
This is not a coincidence that these environmental factors have created a milieu in which
all sorts of diseases can proliferate. Now capitalism will come up with the magic bullet like
a vaccine or a pill to "fix" the problem- rinse and repeat if the current social order/forms
of production aren't radically changed.
A virus which impacts upper respiratory functions attacking those who are vulnerable due
to years of having their upper respiratory systems assaulted non-stop by heavy doses of
pollutants of all varieties- that's what we are seeing. None of this is new except to the
degree. In all the areas listed below, N Italy, N China, Madrid, Tehran they have been
experiencing a dramatic increase in upper respiratory disease for years now.
And please don't tell me the solution is some vaccination or some great new cure that will
be discovered (and profited from) by the miraculous men of modern medicine. The solution is
to clean up the environment so that we are not vulnerable in the first place. Without that
prepare for COVID-20 the sequel or whatever name the thoroughly bought off WHO and CDC
and...wish to place upon this next "pandemic."
Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during
recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons)
In recent years, Italy has been registering peaks in death rates, particularly among the
elderly during the winter season. Influenza epidemics have been indicated as one of the
potential determinants of such an excess.
We estimated excess deaths of 7,027, 20,259, 15,801 and 24,981 attributable to influenza
epidemics in the 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17, respectively, using the Goldstein
index. The average annual mortality excess rate per 100,000 ranged from 11.6 to 41.2 with
most of the influenza-associated deaths per year registered among the elderly.
The new study argues that smogs in China contain more ingredients than those found either
in the legendary "pea-soupers" of 19th- and 20th-century Europe and North America or in
modern rich-world, vehicle-generated smogs. Something new is happening: The unprecedented
speed of industrialization and urbanization has combined two eras of pollution.
Investigating air quality status and air pollutant trends over the Metropolitan Area of
Tehran, Iran over the past decade between 2005 and 2014
Overall, trends have been progressed to worsening, the number of healthy days has been
declined and the number of unhealthy days has been increased in recent years.
Tehran is rated as one of the world's most polluted cities. Parts of the city are often
covered by smog, making breathing difficult and causing widespread pulmonary illnesses. ...
According to local officials, 3,600 people died in a single month due to the hazardous air
quality.
Air Pollution, a Silent Form of Death for Tehran Citizens
You don't have to step into the street for Madrid's roads to pose a hazard to your health:
air pollution from cars in the city might just knock you over. Scientists are finding links
between the gases and disease.
......
According to studies by Julio Diaz, a researcher at the Carlos III Health Institute in
Madrid, even small increases in air pollution can cause the number of people admitted to
hospitals with circulatory and respiratory illnesses to rise.
There's much attention being given to how China and South Korea have reacted to the virus,
but amazingly little to the response in Vietnam. The first cases in Vietnam arrived with the
new lunar year, via Wuhan; quite quickly the number of cases rose to sixteen, and for several
weeks stayed at that number. The Vietnamese government acted quickly, strongly and
effectively, until all sixteen recovered (and the district near Hanoi which had been
placed under lockdown had completed their isolation.
On March 2nd a flight from London, carrying a woman who was returning from the Milan fashion
week:
"The country's 17th case, imported on a flight from London, kicked off a new wave of cases,
[now nearing 100].
Even with a new wave of cases, the numbers are far from those witnessed in the western
world. The issue has been taken seriously, with all suffering symptoms put in quarantine and
tested, while their places of residence are locked down and sanitised. Việt Nam was one
of the first nations to declare an epidemic and has been quick in its response, both in
handling current cases and ensuring the spread of the virus is as limited as possible. "
- taken from
https://vietnamnews.vn/life-style/expat-corner/653815/keeping-calm-and-carrying-on-viet-nam-sets-a-coronavirus-example.html
It is notable that almost all cases of infection have been brought into the country, or at
one-person distance from the person bringing it into the country.
Today there has been the announcement of the seventeenth reported recovery in Vietnam. So
far there has been not one death.
Points in the reaction:
Public gatherings were stopped right away - even local community Women's Day lunches.
All citizens and all foreigners are now required to report on health, on recent travel,
etc.
Everyone is now required to wear masks in public places.
FWIW, Dr. Fauci pretty much threw cold water on the Chloroquine option at today's Trump press
conference, saying that no clinical trials have been conducted and leaving the impression
that he was highly dubious. Again, FWIW.
P.S. I wonder how long Fauci will be welcomed onto that podium.
"The East Asian populations have much higher AFs in the eQTL variants associated with
higher ACE2 expression in tissues (Fig. 1c), which may suggest different susceptibility or
response to 2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2 from different populations under the similar
conditions."
This is a "we do not know yet", not a "we can exclude".
No lab-generated strain?
The Furin docking cleavage site has not been found yet in any other beta-CoV strain, it is
only known from other completely different viruses and seem to be related there with being
highly contagious. In adition, a recent study found a third docking option via GRP78
expressions on the cell surface (usually by cells experiencing stress), https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-15157/v1
. This is already two strange features more compared to SARS and MERS.
There is only a "there is no proof, neither a direct hint found yet", not a "we can
exclude", but a mere belief.
Most irritating is that there is are not intermediate or other similar strains found yet,
and that there is a strange pattern of first occurences in the early phase in Wuhan (and
probably also in the US). We still have no sound explanation how it came into existence, not
even some plausible facts suggesting a pathway. Given the technical capabilities since 15
years, the multitude of stakeholders working on gene editing, for vaccine research also on
dangerous stains, and some irritating cui bono issues, it is too early to discard some
suspicions already. The scope of potential perpetrators (by accident or intentionally with a
not expected outcome) is broad and - given the very intransparent transnational companies -
quite opaque. In issues of global security and extreme relevance for humanity, transparency
should be enforced and secrecy for corporate interests should not be tolerated in such
cases.
Anyway, most important now is to mitigate the ongoing desaster, we should only not forget
some issues for later investigation.
The argument that cov19 isn't engineered because biowar researchers & the empire that
incubates them are 1. Sane and 2. Indequately funded
Nope, not buying it on either count.
The hegemony has military labs all around the globe (though the Fort Detrick closure is
suspicious).
Even if it weren't engineered, a virus doesn't need to be vat-grown to be politically
useful - anthrax, smallpox and bubonic plague - all natural & deadly pathogens - exist
within bioweapon labs, for research purposes of course.
I am a little doubtful about the wuhan games being the vector - think of the timing, right
before CNY.
Surely a "Diplomat" with a diplomatic bag could have a far wider range of opportunities (via
proxies) for more precise delivery.
An interesting story at Common Dreams
"A look at financial records reveal that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard
Burr last month -- just as he was big-dollar donors, but not the general public about the
looming threat of the coronavirus -- personal stock holdings worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars, many of them in industries now seriously impacted by the outbreak..."
".....In an audio recording obtained by NPR, the North Carolina Republican was heard
telling donors at a luncheon on Feb. 27 that the coronavirus, officially called COVID-19,
would likely spread through the population aggressively -- and suggested it could kill
hundreds of thousands of people.
"It is much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent
history," Burr said.
"It is probably more akin to the 1918 pandemic," he added, referring to the flu pandemic
which killed more than 600,000 Americans...."
There is audio here
Really, it is hard stop thinking this was a preplanned event...
Wall Street is pressuring key healthcare firms to hike prices over the coronavirus crisis.
Audio here of bankers asking drug companies, firms supplying N95 masks & ventilators, to
figure out how to profit from the Covid-19 emergency.
Today's Keiser Report declares petrodollar and fiat dollar dead and announces the
world will need to have a confab to arrange a new commercial currency or currency basket.
Other interesting food for thought's discussed. The 2nd half interview is with a metals
broker who says we must demand physical delivery instead of paper because the derivatives
aren't properly reflecting physical price. An item from Shadowstats's Daily Update, "the
February 2020 Cass Freight Index® Continued in Annual Decline for the 15th Straight
Month, Down by 7.5% (-7.5%)," further ongoing confirmation that we've actually been in a
recession for at least that long.
In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, investors who bought "pandemic bonds" from the World
Bank in 2017 are set to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
It seems people here don't understand the concept of "burden of proof".
Burden of proof arives from a logical necessity. If you treat every hypothesis existent in
the universe for which there are no scientific evidence as a priori true, the it would mean
they are all true at the same time. The same if you treat them as all false.
That, of course, would be a logical fallacy, since contradictory hypotheses would be true
or false at the same time.
That's why the absence of evidence the SARS CoV-2 isn't a bioweapon doesn't make it a
bioweapon. Since we don't know that, that would make, by the same logic, it a bioweapon and a
not-bioweapon at the same time. It is the same fallacy of religion: you can't prove God
doesn't exist (and you really can't, since God is a metaphysical concept, not a physical
one), therefore it must exist in the eyes of the religious.
Except that, in the case here, there is strong evidence the SARS CoV-2 is fruit of
evolution, so I don't even know why people are bringing the opposite hypothesis here without
even a hint of evidence.
"Some Indian researchers found four genome sequences in the novel coronavirus that can also
be found in the HIV virus. They self published their findings in a paper that was not peer
reviewed. We discussed that paper in detail on February 1 in our second post on the virus and
we strongly expressed our doubt about its veracity. A few days later the paper was retracted
by its authors after other scientists had pointed out that the lengths of each of the four
sequences they had compared were way too small to be of statistical significance."
The authors retracted the study temporarily to allow it to be peer reviewed. They did not
concede their results were insignificant. The stated reason for retracting the study from one
of the authors is because the study was being used to promote conspiracy theories that the
virus was intentionally released as weapon since they made no such contention
"Asian people are not more genetically receptive for the novel coronavirus."
Yet the study you linked to states "The East Asian populations have much higher AFs in the
eQTL variants associated with higher ACE2 expression in tissues (Fig. 1c), which may suggest
different susceptibility or response to 2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2 from different populations under
the similar conditions."
There is zero evidence that the virus is from a Chinese or U.S. or other (weapon) laboratory
and the claim actually makes no sense. The genome of the virus consists of more then 23,000
'letters'. It is significantly different than the genome of other known viruses."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Actually, its pretty similar to the bat
virus found in 2013 as reported by Shi Zheng Li in January , 2020. And the key word is
"known". How stupid would you have you have to be to publish the sequence data in public
papers of the exact virus that will be used as a weapon before unleashing the virus. Shi
Zhengli was involved in gain of function research for over a decade working with Ralph Baric
at UNC on some research.
If you look at the research thats been done on corona viruses gain of function and corona
virus/ebola/zika virus vaccines you run into the same names a lot, Chinese scientists like
Shi Zhengli, American scientists like Ralph Baric of UNC, Wuhan institute of Virology/BSL-4
lab, ,Duke University and USAMRIID, both of which has ties with Wuhan University-Institute of
Medical Virology all funded by USAMRIID, DARPA, NIAD, BARDA, NIH , chinese military, chinese
CDC, Bill Gates (WHO, Event 201, AMC, CEPI) , and various vaccine makers such as Innovio,
Moderna, NanoViricides, etc, often in collaboration with each other. George Gao of China CDC
attended Event 201.
Look close at Project Bioshield-The Department of Homeland Security uses intelligence
reports to decide which diseases and biological threats are considered "material," or
realistic threats to US security. It then refers these findings to Health and Human Services
(HHS), which determines whether it's necessary for the government to order new drugs from
pharmaceutical companies to combat the threats.
A funding agency within HHS called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority (BARDA) hands out lucrative contracts for research, parts of which can be paid up
front.
The parent agency (HHS) in charge of funding drugs and vaccines for the national
stockpile, is also the one that is separately funding research into new diseases that could
result in a bioterror or accidental infection, which would in turn demand a response from the
national stockpile. Sounds like a racket
More on Ralph Baric- also known as the Godfather of Corona Virus due in part to a corona
virus vaccine patent in 2002 as well as his subsequent research. But Dr. Ralph Baric's
lab
is designed to develop drugs against new emerging pathogens focuses on coronaviruses. Baric
and his 30-person team partnered with Gilead Sciences, Inc. six years ago to test antiviral
drugs such as Remdesivir to curb emerging viral diseases that were then largely overlooked by
big pharmaceutical companies.
Gilead Science as you recall struck gold with Tamiflu thanks to Bird Flu scares that
followed after SARS. Also known for its association with Donald Rumsfeld.
Also there is no proof that COVID-19 is "more contagious" either by laboratory analysis or
in fielded studies than influenza. If you know of such a paper, I would appreciate a link
so that I can examine it for myself.
There have been articles posted online about high levels of air pollution in Italy's Po
River valley region, where Lombardia province is located. Do a search on Google or DuckDuckGo
and they appear.
Much of that pollution probably occurs at particular times of the year. Milan is said to
be notorious for temperature inversions, as is Tehran in Iran. These occur in winter-time in
Tehran nearly every year. Cold air sinks under warm air in river valleys or inter-mountain
valleys and plateaux so air is trapped and cannot circulate, trapping pollutants. Milan,
Tehran and probably Wuhan beside the Jiangzi River sit in these kinds of physical
environments.
Italy does seem to have a history of industrial accidents. I have a double CD set of urban
folk by Alessandro Monti, "Unfolk + Live Book", which is partly inspired by an industrial
poisoning incident that occurred somewhere in northern Italy in the 1970s. Can't remember any
details and can't look up now, being on smartphone, but it was a major incident, large
numbers in the vicinity were poisoned, many died and others still struggling with long-term
effects. May have been some form of dioxide poisoning.
Propublica has published a model showing hospital bed availability vs. nCOV infection rates,
nationwide: bed vs. infection rate
It actually isn't bad: there are spots where 20% infection in 12 months is bad, but overall
the US seems in decent shape. 20% in 6 months - significant red coverage.
But interestingly - my Eyeball Mark I shows the negative effects mostly in the liberal
zones = cities.
Chloroquine/hydrochloroquinine was determined to be effective for the treatment of the
coronavirus by Chinese clinicians early in February, and the Chinese government announced
this on February 17 this year. Today (March 19) Trump and his staff amazingly announced that
medical personnel in American health agencies have discovered, developed and were testing
these drugs without any mention of the considerable Chinese, as well as Korean, published
experience and success using these closely-related and relatively safe malarial drugs.
Shameful and highly deceitful, to say the least. This deceit should be revealed again and
again without letup.
Chloroquine was proposed as an efficient anti-viral for Cov-19 (short for the virus and
disease) by Dr. Raoult in France, right from the start. He is supposedly the no.1 expert
*World* on Communicable diseases. See list of names in the > right column.
This type of grading - ranking - endorsing, certifying, etc. some 'experts', does NOT per
se correlate with their knowledge, honesty, ingenuity, insight (which may be random), etc. It
is very much a social acceptance by the PTB scene based on no. of publications,
contacts, financial awards, contacts with pols, getting more funding, being able to run a
team, etc.
Yet, Dr. Raoult (Marseilles) is not in F considered a great expert at all, as he is not
part of the Paris-Nexus.
This short clip 4 mins on Jan. 21, he is questioned about the coronaviruses (well before
huge alarm in F) shows the personage. In F no subs, but have a look-see for 30 secs.
@ Posted by: donkeytale | Mar 18 2020 18:49 utc | 61
Did you see my link? Japan has a daily test capacity of only some 7,000 (South Korea, for
example, is testing 20,000 per day). To make things worse, it is using just one sixth of this
capacity. My source is the Japan Times, so you cannot invoke propaganda.
The Chinese doctors are using at least 22 different broad-spectrum antivirals to try to
treat the infected. Not surprised one of them is Japanese, but that's irrelevant information
(one of them, for example, is Cuban).
As I've posted in the previous thread, in moments of pandemic crisis against a disease
without cure, doctors on the field have the poetic license to try whatever they want to. So
they threw practically everything in Wuhan (shots in the dark after shots in the dark). It's
acceptable medical practice in these extraordinary cases.
But none of the 22 antivirals are cures. Not even close. Best case scenario, they gain
some time for some patients. Do not fall for the barrage of fake news in the Western MSM
about "promising cures, treatments and vaccines" coming from some alleged geniuses at some
unicorn in some First World country:
Zhong made the remarks at a press conference in Guangzhou on Wednesday, stressing that so
far there is no targeted therapeutic COVID-19 drug and international cooperation is still
needed for new experiments.
The fight against the COVID-19 should not be reliant on "herd immunity," Zhong added,
saying that the production of an effective COVID-19 vaccine is at present the top priority,
and the development requires international cooperation.
Zhong also made very clear the laissez-faire tactic won't work:
"There is no evidence of immunity for life after one infection of the virus," Zhong added.
Iran (especially Tehran), northern Italy (Po River valley region) and Wuhan are also areas
of high levels of air pollution. Populations in these regions are located in river valleys or
plateaux in mountainous areas where temperature inversions leading to thick smog are common.
I've read that Tehran experiences annual temperature inversions once a year, in the past
occurring in December but in recent times starting earlier in November. Qom, where Iran's
COVID-19 outbreak started, is not far from Tehran and itself is becoming more
industrialised.
Northern Italy is reputed to have the worst air quality of any region in Europe.
Interesting that there was a flood of comments yesterday - here, at Off Guardian, and other
similar sites - all pushing the concept that the virus is a mild flu and that best practices,
particularly social distancing, were in fact a scam designed to initiate the new world
order/global police state, or something. Rational responses were met with all-caps freak outs
and down-voting.
In my area, vehicle traffic has been down by at least 50%. The skies are noticeably
clearer. A colleague pointed out that satellite imagery over northern Italy has shown that
the air quality there has visibly improved.
People should take a closer look at the stats coming out of Germany and S. Korea, both
countries known for extensive testing. There are over 8,100 cases in Germany, yet death
remains at 12, which makes the death rate <0.15%, almost on par with the flu. SK's death
rate is around 0.65%.
SK doctors have been using the malaria/arthritis drug hydrochloroquine to treat patients
with much success, now a doctor in France has found that a combination of that drug and a
common antibiotic azithromycin has cured up to 70% of patients after 3 to 6 days: https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-covid19-cure-study/
Hopefully this is the cure we've been waiting for.
...Express.co.uk has compiled advice to show which objects to sanitise to avoid
spreading the deadly disease. Trending
Mobile phones
Research has found mobile phones can be 10 times dirtier than toilet seats.
Your own hands can be the biggest culprit when it comes to adding germs and bacteria onto your phone.
Assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Emily Martin, said mobile
telephones are particularly dirty because people do not necessarily wash their hands before touching them.
She told Time.com: "Because people are always carrying their cell phones even in situations where they would normally
wash their hands before doing anything, cell phones do tend to get pretty gross."
ATMs or ticket machines
Ticket machines and ATMs will be touched by many people which means it poses a risk to spreading coronavirus.
Coronavirus warning: Coronavirus has killed more than 94,000 people around the world
(Image: GETTY)
Telephones
Your mobile phone can pose a risk, but additionally so can shared office telephones.
Office kitchens
Coffee machines or kettles will be handled by multiple people, so it's a good idea to use hand sanitiser after doing the
tea round.
Lift buttons
Lift buttons can be touched by potentially hundreds or thousands of people depending on how many people use the lift
regularly.
This means it can pose a threat to spreading coronavirus.
Handrails
Escalators, tube handrails, bannisters will all be touched constantly, potentially by thousands of people a day.
Dr Tait-Burkard told the Guardian: "If you're on public transport, there's no way not to touch the handrails.
"So when you get off, disinfect your hands."
Coronavirus warning: More than 75 countries have reported cases of coronavirus
(Image: GETTY)
Communal bathrooms
Communal bathrooms can pose a threat as they are enclosed spaces which will be accessed by several people.
The door handles, soap dispensers, hand dryers, bins and other objects could be touched by many people.
Additionally, people often blow their noses in the bathroom which can help spread the virus.
Hospitals
Hospitals can be hotbeds for disease, so it is advisable to wash your hands thoroughly before and after visiting a
hospital.
Professor Haas told the Guardian: "Shaking hands is a frequent transmission route for disease in hospitals.
"It's why health personnel are supposed to regularly disinfect their hands."
There is only limited evidence to suggest it actually helps. However, saltwater rinses have not been shown to prevent
respiratory infections in the past. The NHS said: “There is no evidence that regularly rinsing the nose with salt water protects
you from coronavirus”. The real question is how long it take the virus to get inside the cell: is this hours or
minutes?
BTW Research has found mobile phones can be 10 times dirtier than toilet seats.
The use of saline (salt water) irrigations for the nose and sinuses has been shown to be highly effective in improving allergy
symptoms and shortening the duration of a sinus infection. Typically, for
allergy
sufferers, doctors recommend irrigating the sinuses once every day to every other day with 8 ounces of salt water.
Make your own saline rinse Combat sinus infections
As an Asthmatic I found this information interesting. You might need to scroll down - as
simple solutions (mainly before you really get it !) are near the end.
Quotes; A: Are you asking for some simple recommendations? First of all, take a good
care for the nasal mucosa and oropharyngeal area.
Q: To wash it with saltwater?
A: Yes, wash it thoroughly. But "lors" – non-prescription medications and sinus
cleaners to stop running nose and for an effective lavage. That is, the feeling of free
unobstructed breath should come after all. The second thing is the oropharyngeal area behind
the uvula. And there, too, you need to make a good lavage of the oropharyngeal
region.
Q: So you don't just have to squirt it up your nose, you have to gargle it deep down
your throat?
A: Yes, and rinse it out. And don't be lazy. Do do it until you get a feeling of clean, good
airways. Of all the ways, this is the most effective. I would advise those people who can
afford to buy a nebulizer or
Q: Do you mean, it's aerosol, right? With ultrasound?
A: Yes. And it allows the hygiene of the upper respiratory tract to be brought to a good
state. When a cough starts, it is desirable to still apply the medications that we prescribe
for patients with bronchial asthma. This is either Berodual, or Ventolin, or Salbutamol.
Because these drugs improve mucociliary clearance, relieve spasm.
Q: You mean expectorant?" Mucolytic ACC?
A: Yes, ACC and Fluimucil. And what you can't do is use glucocorticosteroids. This
virus replication is rapidly increasing by them.
Q: What does that mean?
A: Corticosteroids is prednisone, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, betamethasone.
Q: So you don't need to inject hormones, relatively speaking, if you have a viral
infection?
A: There are inhaled steroids. But there are patients with asthma who are ill and are on this
therapy. But this has to be a tailor-made solutions.
------------
b's and most western Government's change of heart, makes sense if the re-infection rate is
much higher and more lethal than the first onset of the virus. I don't know the truth
about this but there was a small, quickly suppressed, report from *researchers* in
Hubei that this is the case. The second time round we are talking about an attack on the
"vital" organs (heart etc) in a relatively short period of days.
What will happen is a societal collapse, or a total financial scam where the billionaires
come out of hiding and take everything for a few shekels. Remember that debts can be
"claimed" decades after they are made. So ordinary people will have to pay back all these
massive "aids" later, through taxes.
I keep seeing people recommending this salt water lavage. So I looked it up on the
Internet. No, it does *not* kill the virus. It might ease the symptoms, but does nothing to
eliminate the virus.
As far as I know from reading so far, there are *no* "home remedies" that can deal with
this virus.
I have seen suggestions to boost your vitamin intake in hopes of boosting your immune
system. I've upped my C to 3 grams a day instead of my usual 1 and my D-3 to 6,000 units
instead of my usual 4,000.
As an Asthmatic I found this information interesting. You might need to scroll down - as
simple solutions (mainly before you really get it !) are near the end.
Quotes; A: Are you asking for some simple recommendations? First of all, take a good
care for the nasal mucosa and oropharyngeal area.
Q: To wash it with saltwater?
A: Yes, wash it thoroughly. But "lors" – non-prescription medications and sinus
cleaners to stop running nose and for an effective lavage. That is, the feeling of free
unobstructed breath should come after all. The second thing is the oropharyngeal area behind
the uvula. And there, too, you need to make a good lavage of the oropharyngeal
region.
Q: So you don't just have to squirt it up your nose, you have to gargle it deep down
your throat?
A: Yes, and rinse it out. And don't be lazy. Do do it until you get a feeling of clean, good
airways. Of all the ways, this is the most effective. I would advise those people who can
afford to buy a nebulizer or
Q: Do you mean, it's aerosol, right? With ultrasound?
A: Yes. And it allows the hygiene of the upper respiratory tract to be brought to a good
state. When a cough starts, it is desirable to still apply the medications that we prescribe
for patients with bronchial asthma. This is either Berodual, or Ventolin, or Salbutamol.
Because these drugs improve mucociliary clearance, relieve spasm.
Q: You mean expectorant?" Mucolytic ACC?
A: Yes, ACC and Fluimucil. And what you can't do is use glucocorticosteroids. This
virus replication is rapidly increasing by them.
Q: What does that mean?
A: Corticosteroids is prednisone, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, betamethasone.
Q: So you don't need to inject hormones, relatively speaking, if you have a viral
infection?
A: There are inhaled steroids. But there are patients with asthma who are ill and are on this
therapy. But this has to be a tailor-made solutions.
------------
b's and most western Government's change of heart, makes sense if the re-infection rate is
much higher and more lethal than the first onset of the virus. I don't know the truth
about this but there was a small, quickly suppressed, report from *researchers* in
Hubei that this is the case. The second time round we are talking about an attack on the
"vital" organs (heart etc) in a relatively short period of days.
What will happen is a societal collapse, or a total financial scam where the billionaires
come out of hiding and take everything for a few shekels. Remember that debts can be
"claimed" decades after they are made. So ordinary people will have to pay back all these
massive "aids" later, through taxes.
I keep seeing people recommending this salt water lavage. So I looked it up on the
Internet. No, it does *not* kill the virus. It might ease the symptoms, but does nothing to
eliminate the virus.
As far as I know from reading so far, there are *no* "home remedies" that can deal with
this virus.
I have seen suggestions to boost your vitamin intake in hopes of boosting your immune
system. I've upped my C to 3 grams a day instead of my usual 1 and my D-3 to 6,000 units
instead of my usual 4,000.
There are three most helpful and competent sources "How to treat Coronavirus infection
COVID-19"
1. An advice from a pathologist who's been tracking the virus since 1970: United Nursing
Services "Good luck for all of us"
2. The RT-Interview with the member of the Russian Academy of Science Alexander Chuchalin
Translated by Scott Humor
3. Das Coronavirus-Update mit Christian Drosten | NDR.de ...
 https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast4684.html
The German Virologie-Professor gives a lot of informations in a podcast everyday for half an
hour, today was the 14th. If anybody knews the German language, it is a must to hear. He does
not speak only about the medical but all the sociological problems, the media and the
scientistic "fakes".
The Saker has a good article - How to treat Coronavirus infection COVID-19 - by an
international recognized virologist, Dr Chuchalain.
Contrary to what I have read in other articles, he says the virus does cause runny nose
and sore throat along with mild fever.
The best way to deal with this is salt water gargling and nasal rinses with the same.
A method to reduce getting infected is to wear gloves when out. Handwashing is more
effective than masks.
If you are infected masks do help you not infecting others. It is when the virus bypasses
your immune system and infects the lower lungs that danger appears.
Then other opportunist pathogens -- pneumonia causing bacteria and fungi take up residence
in the lower lungs often leading to death or lasting damage by fibrosis. Obviously it is much
better to stop it before this with then no lasting effects.
If dry cough and shortness of breath appear seek medical help immediately.
Analyzing the swab in a lab is simple and cheap, but getting the swab to the lab is
expensive. Normal testing procedures assume that the tested person is already infected.
Therefore the health worker doing the swabbing will have to wear full protective clothing.
Moreover, before testing the next patient he will have to disinfect and change protective
clothing. One estimate put the price of a COVID-19 test in the US at $1200. Of the sum $1000
was charged for the biohazard.
In most countries testing is done only where there is a strong suspicion the person is
infected with the new coronavirus. Therefore the measures against biohazards may be called
for.
Testing for coronavirus must be separated from health care. People who have symptoms but
do not need medical care should stay as far away from hospitals as possible. The safest and
most effective way to do high-throughput testing is drive-up or drive-in testing. The patient
or suspect stays inside the car and only opens a window. This way he or she does not infect
others. The testing team wears full protective clothing, including a gas mask.
This video by NBC News shows how it is done. A tent is set up on a huge parking
lot. Hundreds of cars wait in line. The testers wear disposable aprons which they change
after each suspect.
I watched VP Pence's press conference yesterday. I was actually impressed! The US will be
offering free drive-up testing to practically everyone. I now believe the United States now
has a better change at containing the pandemic than Europe.
The problem here and especially in countries other that the USA is that the patient needs
a car. Walk-in testing is more difficult to organize as the patients need to be isolated from
each other. The simplest test would be one were the test subject swabs his own mouth, puts
the swab in a plastic tube and seals it in an envelope.
In the mean time Sweden has stopped testing all together, except for hospital patients.
Britain and Finland have followed suit. People with symptoms are simple told to lock
themselves up in their homes and not come out for two weeks. The Chinese edition of the
Global Times has called the Swedes out for the
surrender monkeys they are.
Containing an epidemic and avoiding a pandemic requires testing large parts of the
population to locate any unknown cluster of infections. Once a case is found, the anti-corona
task force must locate all contacts, test them and place them under quarantine even if they
do not show symptoms.
Fresh air, sunlight and improvised face masks seemed to work a century ago; and they might
help us now.
When new, virulent diseases emerge, such SARS and Covid-19, the race begins to find new
vaccines and treatments for those affected. As the current crisis unfolds, governments are
enforcing quarantine and isolation, and public gatherings are being discouraged. Health
officials took the same approach 100 years ago, when influenza was spreading around the world.
The results were mixed. But records from the 1918 pandemic suggest one technique for dealing
with influenza -- little-known today -- was effective. Some hard-won experience from the
greatest pandemic in recorded history could help us in the weeks and months ahead.
Influenza patients getting sunlight at the Camp Brooks emergency open-air hospital in
Boston. Medical staff were not supposed to remove their masks. (National Archives)
Put simply, medics found that severely ill flu patients nursed outdoors recovered better
than those treated indoors. A combination of fresh air and sunlight seems to have prevented
deaths among patients; and infections among medical staff. There is scientific support for
this. Research shows that outdoor air is a natural disinfectant. Fresh air can kill the flu
virus and other harmful germs. Equally, sunlight is germicidal and there is now evidence it can
kill the flu virus .
`Open-Air' Treatment in 1918
During the great pandemic, two of the worst places to be were military barracks and
troop-ships. Overcrowding and bad ventilation put soldiers and sailors at high risk of catching
influenza and the other infections that often followed it. As with the current Covid-19
outbreak, most of the victims of so-called `Spanish flu' did not die from influenza: they died
of pneumonia and other complications.
When the influenza pandemic reached the East coast of the United States in 1918, the city of
Boston was particularly badly hit. So the State Guard set up an emergency hospital. They took
in the worst cases among sailors on ships in Boston harbour. The hospital's medical officer had
noticed the most seriously ill sailors had been in badly-ventilated spaces. So he gave them as
much fresh air as possible by putting them in tents. And in good weather they were taken out of
their tents and put in the sun. At this time, it was common practice to put sick soldiers
outdoors. Open-air therapy, as it was known, was widely used on casualties from the Western
Front. And it became the treatment of choice for another common and often deadly respiratory
infection of the time; tuberculosis. Patients were put outside in their beds to breathe fresh
outdoor air. Or they were nursed in cross-ventilated wards with the windows open day and night.
The open-air regimen remained popular until antibiotics replaced it in the 1950s.
Doctors who had first-hand experience of open-air therapy at the hospital in Boston were
convinced the regimen was effective. It was adopted elsewhere. If one report is correct, it
reduced deaths among hospital patients from 40 per cent to about 13 per cent. According to the
Surgeon General of the Massachusetts State Guard:
`The efficacy of open air treatment has been absolutely proven, and one has only to try it
to discover its value.'
Fresh Air is a Disinfectant
Patients treated outdoors were less likely to be exposed to the infectious germs that are
often present in conventional hospital wards. They were breathing clean air in what must have
been a largely sterile environment. We know this because, in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence
scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called
the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria -- and the influenza virus --
than indoor air. They couldn't identify exactly what the Open Air Factor is. But they found it
was effective both at night and during the daytime.
Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor's disinfecting powers can be preserved
in enclosures -- if ventilation rates are kept high enough. Significantly, the rates they
identified are the same ones that cross-ventilated hospital wards, with high ceilings and big
windows, were designed for. But by the time the scientists made their discoveries, antibiotic
therapy had replaced open-air treatment. Since then the germicidal effects of fresh air have
not featured in infection control, or hospital design. Yet harmful bacteria have become
increasingly resistant to antibiotics.
Sunlight and Influenza Infection
Putting infected patients out in the sun may have helped because it inactivates the
influenza virus. It also kills bacteria that cause lung and other infections in hospitals.
During the First World War, military surgeons routinely used sunlight to heal infected wounds.
They knew it was a disinfectant. What they didn't know is that one advantage of placing
patients outside in the sun is they can synthesise vitamin D in their skin if sunlight is
strong enough. This was not discovered until the 1920s. Low vitamin D levels are now linked to
respiratory infections and may increase susceptibility to influenza . Also, our body's
biological rhythms appear to influence how we resist infections. New research suggests they can
alter our inflammatory response to the flu virus. As with vitamin D, at the time of the 1918
pandemic, the important part played by sunlight in synchronizing these rhythms was not
known.
Face Masks Coronavirus and Flu
Surgical masks are currently in short supply in China and elsewhere. They were worn 100
years ago, during the great pandemic, to try and stop the influenza virus spreading. While
surgical masks may offer some protection from infection they do not seal around the face. So
they don't filter out small airborne particles. In 1918, anyone at the emergency hospital in
Boston who had contact with patients had to wear an improvised face mask. This comprised five
layers of gauze fitted to a wire frame which covered the nose and mouth. The frame was shaped
to fit the face of the wearer and prevent the gauze filter touching the mouth and nostrils. The
masks were replaced every two hours; properly sterilized and with fresh gauze put on. They were
a forerunner of the N95 respirators in use in hospitals today to protect medical staff against
airborne infection.
Temporary Hospitals
Staff at the hospital kept up high standards of personal and environmental hygiene. No doubt
this played a big part in the relatively low rates of infection and deaths reported there. The
speed with which their hospital and other temporary open-air facilities were erected to cope
with the surge in pneumonia patients was another factor. Today, many countries are not prepared
for a severe influenza pandemic. Their health services will be overwhelmed if there is one.
Vaccines and antiviral drugs might help. Antibiotics may be effective for pneumonia and other
complications. But much of the world's population will not have access to them. If another 1918
comes, or the Covid-19 crisis gets worse, history suggests it might be prudent to have tents
and pre-fabricated wards ready to deal with large numbers of seriously ill cases. Plenty of
fresh air and a little sunlight might help too.
Not a very pretty read. Those who get the virus bad, and survive the pneumonia, are likely
to have pretty scarred up lungs once they recover, if we can call it that. Let's hope not.
But with the Han Chinese supposedly having a vastly larger ACE-2 presence in their lungs than
other races, it would seem this virus is uniquely able (designed?) to cripple the Chinese
long-term, via creating a vast population of people with significant pulmonary problems
(pulmonary fibrosis) for the remainder of their lives, and perhaps more likely to have
terrible problems requiring extensive medical care should they ever become re-infected in the
future. All of which would be significant burdens on the PRC's future.
Hopefully, the Chinese government's overwhelming response to the virus will minimize this
possibility.
Let's also hope this nasty bug doesn't decimate the seniors in the USA. If it does, one
can already hear the MSM whipping the proles into an anti-China frenzy with, "Them damn
Chinese killed your grandma and grandpa!"
And if the virus was engineered, maybe that was some pre-planned fortuitous blow-back that
cuts down on the aging boomer "useless eaters" (as the supreme useless eater Dick Cheney
called them), and which thereby offers enormous opportunities for world-wide anti-China
propagandizing (and perhaps even a possible casus belli for the next president to mull over
after the 2020 election .. )
If a situation with the CAVID-19 coronavirus infection follows the same scenario as the SARS
epidemic, then by April- May the problem will be less acute. In his interview to the RT the academic Alexander
Chuchalin, the Head of Department of Hospital therapy of the Russian National Research Medical Pirogov University. In
his opinion, the Russian healthcare system has done its best to protect the country from coronavirus. The doctor also
says that, contrary to popular belief, infection with CAVID-19 can be accompanied by a runny nose.
Q: Not only are you one of the best pulmonologists in Europe, you are also in the main risk
group now for coronavirus. Could you, please, give some recommendations for people of your generation and those who
are younger, those who, as we see, are really susceptible to high mortality -- especially in China, Italy, and Iran.
A: In order to understand the risk groups for this disease: first of all, these are people who
come into contact with animals that represent a biological reservoir. For example, in 2002 it was African cats, in
2012 it was camels, and now the science is a little confused, it has not been fully established. There is more
evidence that this is a certain kind of bat -- the one that the Chinese eat.
This bat spreads the coronavirus through its bowel movements. After that a seeding process
takes place. Let's say, it's a seafood market or some other products, and so on. But, right now we're talking about
an epidemic, we are talking about people infecting people. Therefore, this phase has already arrived. The infection
spreads person to person.
Coronaviruses are a very, very common viral infections, and people encounter them many, many
times in their lives. Within a year a child carries diseases that we call acute colds up to ten times. And behind
this acute cold are certain viruses.
And the second place in its prevalence is occupied by the coronavirus. The problem is that
these seemingly harmless pathogens were dismissed, and they could never understand the cause-and-effect relationship
between a common cold and a virus. If, say, a child has a cold, he has a runny nose, what will follow? And so on. For
about two weeks, a child or an adult gets sick -- and all this disappears without a trace.
But in 2002, 2012, and now in 2020, the situation has changed qualitatively. Because the
serotypes that have started to circulate they affect the epithelial cells.
Epithelial cells are cells that line the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and urinary
system. Therefore, a person infected has pulmonary symptoms and intestinal symptoms. And in the study of urine tests,
too, allocate with such a viral load.
But these new strains, which we are now talking about, they have these properties -- to come
into contact with the second type of receptor, the angiotensin-converting enzyme. And this receptor is associated
with such a serious manifestation as cough.
Therefore, a patient who has symptoms of damage to the lower respiratory tract, a
characteristic sign is a cough. This affects the epithelial cells of the most distal parts of the respiratory tract.
These breathing tubes are very small.
Q: Distal, is it distant?
A: It's far and small in diameter.
Q: So this is what we have next to the bronchi?
A: This is bronchi, then we have bronchioles, respiratory bronchioles. And when the air, the
diffusion of gases goes on the surface of the alveoli, they pass just this section of the respiratory tract.
Q: That is, the primary symptom is a cough
A: No, the first is a runny nose, and a sore throat.
Q: They say that there is no runny nose.
A: No, these are big data issues. 74 thousand medical records were processed, and all of them
have rhinorrhea (runny nose. – RT). When you are told this -- there are really some nuances. Biology is like this. The
biological target of the virus is epithelial cells. The nose, oropharyngeal region, trachea, and then small
bronchioles, targeting these regions are especially dangerous to humans. And it turned out that, having this
mechanism, the virus leads to a sharp breakdown of the immune system.
Q:Why?
A: An explanation that science gives today is that a protein called interferoninduced
protein-10 is involved in the process. It is with this protein that the regulation of innate immunity and acquired
immunity is associated. How should we see this? As a very deep damage to lymphocytes.
Q: So you can see lymphocytes falling immediately on the general test?
A: Yes. And if there are white blood cells increase, platelets will increase, and it is more
stable lymphopenia, that is, the lymphotoxic effect of the viruses themselves. Therefore,
the disease itself has at least four outlined stages.
The first stage is virusemia. A harmless cold,
nothing special. Seven days, nine-approximately in this interval.
But starting from the ninth day to the 14th,
the
situation changes qualitatively, because
it is during this period that viral and bacterial
pneumonia is formed.
After damage to epithelial cells in the anatomical space of the respiratory
tract, colonization of microorganisms occurs, primarily those that inhabit the human oropharyngeal region.
Q: Do you mean bacteria that is already there?
A: Bacteria, Yes. Therefore, these pneumonias are always viral and bacterial.
Q: So the virus, so to speak, fills the alveoli, where some bacteria live all the time? And
they live somewhere by themselves, in some quantity?
A: In general, we believe that the lower respiratory tract is sterile. This is how the defense
mechanism works for the lower respiratory tract.
Q: There's nothing there?
A: It's not inhabited. When the virus has entered and it has broken this barrier, where there
was a sterile environment in the lungs, microorganisms begin to colonize and multiply.
Q: So it's not a virus that causes pneumonia? Still, pneumonia is caused by bacteria, of
course.
A: It's the association of virus-bacteria.
This is the window where the doctor must show his skill. Because often the virusemic period is
like a mild disease, like a slight cold, malaise, runny nose, a slight temperature is small, subfebrile. But the
period when the cough increased and when there is a shortness of breath -- these are two signs that say: stop, this is
a qualitatively different patient.
If this situation is not controlled and the disease progresses, then more serious complications
occur. We call it respiratory distress syndrome, shock. A person cannot breathe on their own.
Q: Pulmonary edema?
A: You see, there are a lot of different edemas of a lung. In fact, it depends on how it
happens. To be precise, we call this non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema. If, say, cardiogenic pulmonary edema can be
treated with certain medications, then this pulmonary edema can only be treated with a mechanical ventilation machine
or advanced methods such as extracorporeal hemoxygenation.
If a person transfers to this phase, the immunosuppression caused by the defeat of the acquired
and innate immunity becomes fatal and the patient is joined by such aggressive pathogens as Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
fungi. And the cases of death that occurred -- 50% of those who were on artificial ventilation for a long time, the
alveoli are all filled with fungi.
Fungi appear during the stage of deep immunosuppression. What is the fate of the man who
endured all this? That is, he suffered virusemic period, he suffered viral-bacterial pneumonia, he suffered
respiratory distress syndrome, non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and he suffered septic pneumonia. Will he be healthy
or not? And, in fact, today the world is concerned about this: what is the fate of those 90 thousand Chinese who have
suffered a coronavirus infection?
Q: But those 90 thousand -- they recovered by themselves, they weren't kept on on a ventilator,
they did not get fungi. ARI or acute respiratory infection, that's it?
A: But the problem itself is very important. Because practical medicine is faced with the fact
of a sharp increase in the so-called pulmonary fibrosis. And this group of people who have had a corona virus
infection develops fibrosis of the lung within a year.
Q: That is, when the lung tissue thickens?
A: Yes. A lung becomes like burnt rubber, if the analogy is to be made.
Q: Say, you get an elderly person who has been accurately diagnosed with a coronavirus. And he
is not yet on the ninth day, that is, he does not need to be put on a ventilator yet. How will you treat him?
A: You know what the problem is: we do not treat such patients yet, because there are no
medications, medicines that should be used in this phase. There is no panacea. Because a drug that would act on
virusemia, on the viral-bacterial phase, on non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema, on sepsis -- is a panacea, this drug
doesn't exist.
Because if we go back to the experience of 2002, when we saw the vulnerability of medical
personnel, doctors and nurses were recommended to use Tamiflu and oseltamivir -- an anti-influenza drug. And with
certain serotypes of the coronavirus, indeed, the mechanism of introduction into the cell is the same as with
influenza viruses. Therefore, it has been shown that these drugs can protect individuals who are at high risk of
developing this disease.
Or, he is identified as a carrier of the virus, he is given these drugs and so on. But this, I
want to say again, has no serious evidence base. The situation that is most threatening, because it determines the
fate of a person. A cold is one thing. And another thing a viral-bacterial pneumonia, it is a fundamentally different
thing.
And here it is very important to emphasize that it is problematic to help such a patient only
with antibiotics. There must be a combination therapy, which includes means that stimulate the immune system. This is
a very important point.
Q: What do you mean? So, relatively speaking, you will prescribe him Amoxiclav with some kind
of immunomodulator?
A: Yes, we would usually prescribe fourth-generation cephalosporins, not Amoxiclav, in
combination with vancomycin. This combination is broad, because very quickly there is a process of a change of
gram-positive and gram-negative flora. But what immunomodulatory drug to prescribe is a question for scientific
research.
So, we understand that the immune system will suffer dramatically. We understand the high
vulnerability of a person to the infection that begins to colonize the respiratory tract. So, unfortunately, we don't
have a clear line. But what really can help such patients in this situation is immunoglobulins. Because this is
substitution therapy.
And therefore, such patients are prescribed high immunoglobulins so that they do not develop
sepsis, at least they do not enter the sepsis phase. American doctors used this drug in their Ebola patient. This is
a group drug, an analog of nucleosides. This is a group of drugs that are used for herpes, cytomegalovirus, and so
on.
Q: So this is antiviral or antiviral-supporting therapy, right?
A: No, this is a drug that still acts on the mechanisms in the cell that resist virus
replication. Here in my hands (photo of US President Donald trump. – RT). He gathered all the top people who could
speak out on promising drugs. Two questions that he raised, he was preparing for this conference. The first question
is: how ready are scientists in the United States of America to introduce the vaccine?
Q: Eighteen months.
A: Yes, absolutely. That's two years. He asked what in this case? Does the country have drugs
that could protect? And, as a matter of fact, they said: Yes, there is such a drug.
Q: What?
A:What kind of drug is this? It's called Remdesivir
Q: Let's look at it.
A: That's what scientists said, given the experience that we have, and discussions and so on.
Although, of course, there are other drugs that are being actively studied. In general, this direction is very
interesting: in fact, it is considered promising. The use of mesenchymal stem cells is considered promising. But at
what stage?
Q: As a person who has been doing this for many years, treating everything from asthma to
pneumonia, can you somehow try to predict the development of this epidemic, for example, in Russia?
A: I want to say that if we compare Russia with the surrounding world in case of the
coronavirus of 2002. We didn't have a single patient here.
Q: Maybe we just didn't diagnose them?
A: As you know, there are strong aspects of Russian healthcare in this situation, and I would
like to stress this. This is the work of our sanitary and epidemiologic services. They really did their best to
protect our country. This is on one side, as if punitive measures. And on the second side is the work of the Vector
Research Institute, which made diagnostics for the coronavirus in a very short time, and they did everything
absolutely. And it was tested at the CDC, and they got a certificate indicating high specificity and sensitivity.
Q: The Vector diagnostic kit is the only certified
A: Yes.
Q: The virus is already in Russia, no matter how much the sanitary service tries. How do you
think it will develop? Will it end in the spring, for example, with the arrival of summer?
A: You know, I think the picture repeats what it was then with the SARS. If you remember
Q: Then? Do you mean in 2002? When it was SARS?
A: Yes, that's the one. If we follow this scenario, we should say that somewhere in April or
May this problem will become less acute.
Q: Just because of the seasonal cessation of respiratory infections?
A: Yeah. The climate factor and a number of other factors. Now, the trouble, of course, comes
to us not from China, but from Europe. Those who return from these countries, primarily from Italy, today, remember:
Carlo Urbani
. He accomplished a lot of things. I think this is just a hero of a doctor who
has done so much. He was a virologist from Milan.
Q: Back in 2002?
A: He was a WHO expert. I met with him through the World Health Organization. He was on the
list as an expert on coronaviruses. And then he was sent to Hanoi. They were dispatching doctors, and he got to go to
Vietnam. And in Vietnam, when he arrived, there was a panic. Their doctors stopped coming to work. Their medical
staff, also. There had patients, but there wasn't any medical personnel and no doctors.
He assessed the situation. With difficulty, he managed to break it, to remove this panic
situation that was then in the hospital. But most importantly, he began to communicate with the government and said:
close the country to quarantine. That's where it all came from. It came from Urbani. They started to fight back.
Q: The Vietnamese?
A: Yes, the government of Vietnam. That this would affect the economy, tourism, and so on. But,
he found these words, he convinced them. And Vietnam was the first country to come out of this. And he thought his
work was done. He collected material for a virological examination and boarded a plane to Bangkok.
He was supposed to meet with the American virologists there. During the flight, he realized
that he got ill. He got sick, just like those poor Vietnamese in that hospital. And he began to write everything down
and describing it. This is this exact time, and this is how I feel.
Q: The flight was about three hours?
A: Yes, about three hours. And during these three hours, he became an invalid who couldn't get
up and move on his own. Here we see how the window itself works, and we understand when pneumonia joins -- this window
can be extremely, extremely short in duration. And when he was barely able to get down the aircraft ladder, he left
the last entry: "I'm waving to them so they don't come near me."
That is, American virologists wanted to meet Urbani, but he said: let's not contact. He died in
an intensive care unit. And there was an autopsy. And from his lung tissue was isolated a strain that was named after
him – "Urban I-2". Here is a very story that I am telling you. A tragedy, of course.
Q: What would you recommend to a person who finds himself Well, we have already agreed that
the virus is in the general population. We can't really control it anymore.
A: Are you asking for some simple recommendations? First of all, take a good care for the nasal
mucosa and oropharyngeal area.
Q: To wash it with saltwater?
A: Yes, wash it thoroughly. But "lors" – non-prescription medications and sinus cleaners to
stop running nose and for an effective lavage. That is, the feeling of free unobstructed breath should come after
all. The second thing is the oropharyngeal area behind the uvula. And there, too, you need to make a good lavage of
the oropharyngeal region.
Q: So you don't just have to squirt it up your nose, you have to gargle it deep down your
throat?
A: Yes, and rinse it out. And don't be lazy. Do do it until you get a feeling of clean, good
airways. Of all the ways, this is the most effective. I would advise those people who can afford to buy a nebulizer
or
Q: Do you mean, it's aerosol, right? With ultrasound?
A: Yes. And it allows the hygiene of the upper respiratory tract to be brought to a good state.
When a cough starts, it is desirable to still apply the medications that we prescribe for patients with bronchial
asthma. This is either Berodual, or Ventolin, or Salbutamol. Because these drugs improve mucociliary clearance,
relieve spasm.
Q: You mean expectorant?" Mucolytic ACC?
A: Yes, ACC and Fluimucil. And what you can't do is use glucocorticosteroids. This virus
replication is rapidly increasing by them.
Q: What does that mean?
A: Corticosteroids is prednisone, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, betamethasone.
Q: So you don't need to inject hormones, relatively speaking, if you have a viral infection?
A: There are inhaled steroids. But there are patients with asthma who are ill and are on this
therapy. But this has to be a tailor-made solutions. Of course, 2020 will go down in medical history as a year of a
new disease. We must admit that we have understood this new disease. Two new pneumonias have arrived. First is
pneumonia, which is caused by e-cigarettes, vapes, and now in the United States, people have died from this
Q: several thousand teenagers. Yes, this is a well-known fact, and how to treat it is unclear.
You put them on a ventilator -- they die immediately.
A: Yes. Do you understand what the problem is? Here they develop those changes in the lungs
that occur during this process. They seem to be similar (to the changes from the coronavirus). This is respiratory
distress syndrome, which we are talking about. The literature raises very serious questions: the role of
coronaviruses in transplantation. One of the problems is obliterating bronchiolitis, which occurs especially during
transplantation.
Q: A lung transplant?
A: Yes, lungs and bone marrow. Stem cell. As a matter of fact, everything is well done,
everything is normal, the person has responded to this therapy, and the problem of respiratory failure is beginning
to grow. And the cause of these bronchiolitis was caught -- it is a coronavirus That is, new knowledge has come.
How to treat Coronavirus
infection COVID-19 in
Russian
(1)
Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's
preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either.
The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We
check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be
patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2)
10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3)
Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in
bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in
italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get
bold-italic
text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in
emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in
strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in
a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities
appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can
assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)
No
need to use this special character in between paragraphs:
You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs
will be separated.
The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below
the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.
(5)
If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code
above and write as you like.
I had SARS back then. My regular dentist called sick, and his partner just came from Vietnam.
I was ill bedridden for 6 weeks with a viral pneumonia. Refused to be hospitalized, though.
Socializing was the last thing on my mind.
I can attest from experience that a mixture of salt and warm water is the number one remedie in the arsenal
against these types of infections.
Use it aggressively !
Two to three teaspoons of salt in a glass mixed with warm water. Try to gargle it in small to medium sips
for about 5 minutes. You might not finish the entire glass in 1 sitting. Save the glass.
Repeat this process every 2 to 3 hours. It is one of God's miracles ;-) .
Besides viral infections, you can even cleanse your teeth and gums regularly with salt water.
Another important remedie for soar throats is squeezing half a lemon and mixing it with the highest
quality honey available to you, without diluting the mix in water. Let it burn your throat, if it does, it
will eventually have a soothing feeling after repeated sips and repeating sittings.
I CAN TESTIFY TO THE GREAT EFFECTIVENESS OF NASAL RINSES
If I start nasal rinses as soon as I feel the
throat tickle of a cold coming on, I don't get the cold.
I haven't had one in years.
This year, though, I mustn't had started the rinses soon enough as I did get the cold.
BUT, instead of stopping the rinses, I upped them to every 2hrs & I never had to blow my nose ONCE all
through the two week cold!
AND it wasn't miserable, like usual, at all.
I gradually decreased the frequency of the rinses as the cold got better.
I was continuing the rinses, preventatively, every day, but now with the added risk of COVID-19, I will
increase that to AM & PM, as recommended &, of course, will increase that if I become symptomatic.
As a former yoga teacher I can also recommend Alternate Nostril breathing.
To clean the sinus, clear
the head and calm the mind and spirit. Super essential now to supercharge our bodies with positive energy
and clear the lungs.
I have the advantage of living near a beach and this is part of my daily walk and deep breathing
ritual. I have not had a cold or sniffle for a many years, nor do I ever have the flu injection.
I recently learned of this too Babushka. It's helpful for learning how blocked – often from internal
swelling due to inflammation – they can be. Breathing with both, we learn to interpret the
compensation, so we can easily think "Oh I dont have a problem. This can be wrong, as I discovered I
was.. When I tried to alternate nasal breathe, I was shocked at how I almost couldnt. Breathe, that
is. It was an eye opener for me.
I had been suffering from internal nasal swelling due to my reaction to Salicylates – which I'm
among those people intolerant of. I've had it since childhood but just let it go, eating the fruits I
love so much. But on realising how bad the nasal results were, I got checked for polyps and then just
cut the food out.
I also learned the saline nasal washes from the Indian nurses and Doctors I made friends with years
ago in UK. You dont need a machine – as I'm sure you know. They just pour normal saline** into a
cupped palm of hand, close off the opposite side nasal with opposite hand, and slowly inhale it to
reach the back of the nasal passage, then repeat changing sides.
** N/Saline is roughly 1 tsp salt in 1L water!!
Glad to see you are staying well. Are you as glad as I you dont live in UK, now that we'd be
condemned to isolation for
4 months
And then some wonder why I keep saying – the reaction is out of all proportion to the infection!!
Yes, keeping as well as possible as the insanity descends on this great land.
My husband is a great believer in cold water swimming to keep the immune system in good tune –
does it all year round – every day ritual. Not my thing, but turning the shower to cold for the
last few bursts will also close the pores and boost immunity.
Btw – I am a different person to Babuška, who also lives in Aussie and shares her wonderful
wisdom in the cafe.
"A: Are you asking for some simple recommendations? First of
all, take a good care for the nasal mucosa and oropharyngeal area.
Q: To wash it with saltwater?
A: Yes, wash it thoroughly. But "lors" – non-prescription medications and sinus cleaners to stop running nose
and for an effective lavage. That is, the feeling of free unobstructed breath should come after all. The second
thing is the oropharyngeal area behind the uvula. And there, too, you need to make a good lavage of the
oropharyngeal region.
Q: So you don't just have to squirt it up your nose, you have to gargle it deep down your throat?
A: Yes, and rinse it out. And don't be lazy. Do do it until you get a feeling of clean, good airways. Of all
the ways, this is the most effective. I would advise those people who can afford to buy a nebulizer or
Q: Do you mean, it's aerosol, right? With ultrasound?
A: Yes. And it allows the hygiene of the upper respiratory tract to be brought to a good state. When a cough
starts, it is desirable to still apply the medications that we prescribe for patients with bronchial asthma.
This is either Berodual, or Ventolin, or Salbutamol. Because these drugs improve mucociliary clearance, relieve
spasm."
1. Okay, the "washing with sea water" I associate with the sea water nasal sprays -- is this roughly correct?
2. But what is meant with "lavage"? Gurgling with salt water, say?
3. And then the aerosol thing, what is that? Is this related to the good old method of putting hot water with
something into a bowl, your head over it, and cover with a towel?
WASHING WITH SEA WATER – he is talking about what is called "nasal rinses" also called "nasal washes" or
"nasal lavages" look online for videos how to do it.
LAVAGE – is French for "wash", here he means "nasal
washes" not gurgling.
BOTH nasal washes & gurgling (back of throat) should be done for regular/usual nose & mouth hygiene, to
prevent colds/flu & to relieve cold/flu symptoms.
AEROSOL – no, not putting head over hot water, that's "steam inhalation" aerosol is a fine mist, either
sprayed or inhaled from a device, like for asthma.
Thanks.
I understand now the "nasal washes" part: found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_irrigation
Wikipedia Nasal irrigation
and also found (simple) devices which one can purchase. That solves that.
But the "gurgling" is still
unclear to me. The text sound as if it weren't just ordinary gurgling, but part of the nasal irrigation,
somehow.
Concerning the mist to be inhaled: in recent weeks I was searching for information and devices about
that, but couldn't find much solid information for the simple uses related to colds. So I opted for
buying a simple small device which boils water, and one puts some essential oils in it. This steam
inhalation is traditional, easy to understand, and one feels the effect.
Found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebulizer
Wikipedia Nebulizer
but that also doesn't speak about the non-medical use. One can buy devices, but information is always
about the medical cases. So for now I stay away from that.
Indeed, I meant "gargling".
For some time I used in the UK the word "gurgling" when I mean "gargling" -- people would then
always "gurgle", but never say something (I guess they thought I wanted to be funny ;-)).
Hi, you can also use a "nebulizer" to nebulize essential oils without water as a carrier: the essential
oils will have an easy way to go deep into the respiratory system. (I would use all kind of soft
essential oils and in some case add a little bit of strong oils).
I made some French and Dutch pages about this, here is a link to an avi, showing the working of such a
nebulizer. Not to confound with the fancy products that use water as a carrier!
No spam intended as I have not enough to sell here anyway I'm in France and we are almost in complete
lockdown anyway now: to moderators)
You also have ventillators that "diffuse" essential oils through a pad, less effective than the "real
nebulizers", but still effectif in hospitals:
Voir aussi :
Voici deux liens (anciens), de l'utilisation de diffuseurs dans l'hôpital de Manchester au Royaume-Uni:
The Russian Academic is a smart fellow, but I think following the money can yield results quicker
and easier. Covid-19 may be a new virus, but the script is old and worn out from overuse. I personally got
acquainted with this bloody script during the aids pandemic. The script albeit macabre, is simple and makes
good business sense. Recurring expenditure by patients makes for guaranteed income for big "Pharma". Hence the
cure for almost all diseases is permanent medication for the patient. This is called "Corporate Interests" and
Doctors, Academics, politicians, me and you are under its complete domination. Summer is coming to the Northern
hemisphere and with it come the reprieve from the pandemic, but please keep your focus on the money for that's
were they will reveal themselves.
I was a bit confused by the Russian academician's assertion that
the lower respiratory tract (lungs etc.) are not inhabited by bacteria. This is not true
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6297685/
Therefore, some of the assertions by the good
physician might be incorrect to some degree.
What is known for sure is that a huge scare campaign is going on among the world's media, and governments
are forced to do things that may not be in the states' best interests. Accompanying this is a distinct lack
of objective information related to the disease and the virus responsible for it.
I hope the discourse turns sane soon; in a large sense, the impact of the virus has been negligible
considering that it has been out there at least for 3 months at the end of the winter season.
I too look forward to understand who will profit from this scare.
Yes Daniel, yes Saji, I happily agree with you. Let's not succumb to fear. Thanks Harry for the salt water
reminder. Thanks translators for this informative Interview.
I must say that I am quite disappointed with both Russia and China in that they are more or less following or
copying the Western model of conventional medicine and it seems either the medical professional there are
either just looking at how to make as much money as possible from human suffering or it's just more "modern" to
adopt the Western way of doing things. The Chinese themselves are abandoning 5000 years of proven traditional
medicine that has shown effectiveness in dealing with almost all disease as well as successfully fighting
various plagues that have attacked their country over the centuries. As is the case, Chinese now want to look
modern and use Western pharmaceuticals. It's a massive shame that Russia and China don't get together and
create a new model of medicine incorporating both traditional and modern scientific means. They both have the
resources, knowledge and ability to do so. People don't even realize the miraculous innovations that Soviet
doctors accomplished but have been lost along with other feats of that era. Western medicine or Big Pharma
preys on people's suffering for the sake of profit. Even Goldman Sachs admitted there is no profit in the cure
of cancer.
Anyway, in regard to the current situation, what I do is follow Dr Andrew Saul's protocol to fight the virus.
It involves cheap and effective vitamins including vitamins C and D3, selenium, zinc and magnesium. Vitamin C
is so so important. Even Chinese doctors are now using it in their fight against the virus. Also I take
elderberry, medicinal mushrooms, olive leaf and other antiviral supplements. I urge you to do an internet
search on these and in particular Andrew Saul's protocol. Additionally, I do a lot of things to strengthen my
immune system like taking infra-red saunas. And if I needed treatment I would consider ozone therapy and
hyperthermia to kill the virus. Listen to podcasts by Gary Null, Mike Adams of Natural News, Dr Ronald Hoffman
of Intelligent Medicine, and a great interviewer on
http://www.extremehealthradio.com
. These guys are a treasure trove of information and who I consider the
real American heroes.
I write this because it's not intended to replace professional medical advice but is only what I do and what I
would do regarding both the coronavirus and good health in general.
But in the end, the current medical system based on greed and profit must be replaced or we will forever see
loved ones needlessly suffer and die.
The conclusion is one that I would advocate based on my life experience:
"We also need to be looking for new approaches for fighting COVID-19. One approach that is not being used
significantly to date is trying to strengthen people's own immune systems. Such an approach might help people's
own immune system to fight off the disease, thereby lowering death rates. Nutrition experts recommend
supplementing diets with Vitamins A, C, E, antioxidants and selenium. Other experts say zinc, Vitamin D and
elderberry may be helpful. Staying away from cold temperatures also seems to be important. Drinking plenty of
water after coming down with the disease may be beneficial as well. If we can help people's own bodies fight
the disease, the burden on the medical system will be lower."
I have rarely suffered from the "flu", maybe 3 or 4 times in my 60+ years, and rarely suffer from colds
(usually ending within 3-4 days). When I do suffer from the latter, it is usually as a result of improper dress
for inclement weather, or a week of inadequate eating; that is, not usually eating a well balanced diet, as I
usually strive to do.
So instead of accentuating the negative, maybe, we should consider strengthening the positive things we can
do. Of course, the aged and infirm need to be dealt with otherwise. But the key for the rest of us is
strengthening our immune systems.
In my experience, the best preventative is an alkaline diet as viruses need a human blood environment that is
slightly more acidic than the normal 7.35 to 7.45 range in order to propagate. I have been 5 years cold/flu
free.
If you start to experience symptoms, one trick to quickly elevate blood pH is to sleep with a piece of
sliced onion (yellow are best) in your socks. The sulfides in the onions will elevate blood pH and by morning
the symptoms are gone.
Following the Scientific way to understand an economic stunt like Covid-19 is time wasting. Big "Pharma" will
come with a solution and it is called lifetime medication (jokingly called 'three times a day). During the Aids
epidemic, I did a lot of research on Virology and Toxicology in order to understand certain logic defying
things regarding the epidemic progression. All I could come up with is that medicine has long parted ways with
objective scientific practice under immense pressure from Big Pharma. People it doesn't pay to cure a disease
but it is highly profitable to come with a so called "life prolonging substance" (aka Patenting)..
Unfortunately during this phase of instilling mortal terror in the masses, a lot of innocent lives will be lost
during the winter season. Things will clear up in summer and by then more information will be available and
patterns would be clearly discernible.
I wonder if the Covid-19 pandemic will subside when the MSM ratings begin to decline because people will be
getting tired of the regurgitated news, and a new news story will come up?
By the way, Russian Doctor
gives very sensible advice. This is the kind of information we should be getting on the MSM, but are not.
I'm not a doctor, but I thought this information was so important, I immediately alerted my doctor. I encourage
everyone else to do so, also. Most of it, we can't actualize, directly. However, the information about lavage
could be life saving, and I haven't heard that ANYWHERE else, certainly not in official pronouncements or
mainstream media. (With one exception, viz. Dr. Oz, I haven't even heard about people boosting their Vitamin D
levels. This, in spite of research showing that going from Vitamin D deficiency to sufficient supplementation
can cut your risk of upper respiratory infection in half.)
I am wondering why this doctor did not mention
Vitamin D, either. Yes, it's of limited usefulness after an infection already sets in, but, at least in the US,
we are looking at the medical system getting overwhelmed. Some people put Vitamin D deficiency levels in the US
at 40%. If we can cut the risk of needing a ventilator in half, for 40% of the population, that might flatten
the curve enough to avoid forcing doctors to cut off treatment to people over a certain age. (I have read that
this is being done in Italy, though I don't know, for sure.)
Note to commentator: moderation policy is no use of caps .. caps have been
removed mod
put in an essential oil diffuser or a deep lung nebulizer
3% hydrogen peroxide ( phew! is really strong, go easy)
2 drops of iodine
colloidal silver ( my little generator makes 12ppm)
Probably the total liquid amount will be 50cc or 1/8 cup? depending on the capacity of your device. Usually
respiratory treatments are from 10-15 minutes. My guess would be to mix the colloidal silver 2:1 as a liquid
base. Colloidal silver is touted to interfere with viral wall and its replication abilities.
Thank you so much Scott for translating this important information – I am going to email to family and friends.
Also going to stock up on more salt. Already do the Vit D.
Funnily enough my mother said to me back in early
February that gargling and cleansing with salt water was the best thing to use to avoid the Covid 19
virus she was so right!
Why aren't our governments, health services and media telling us to do this? Such a simple thing that
everyone can afford to do ..I think we all know .
Well, this is not 'just a cold'. It is much worse. This finally would explain the extraordinary measures taken
worldwide to try and contain it.
And I'm 66.
Birdseed. The Russians seem to have left a clue. One should ask what the number is of this useful protein. If
it is Nsp15 it is in my exotic birds' mix. I ordered 8 pounds of the specific seed which were delivered last
Thursday and will order another batch when possible. If the virus doesn't get me, my husband will. I am no
scientist but there are some coincidences here.
I knew researchers were homing in on Nsp15 and this is what gets interesting. Virology gives the role of
Nsp15 in coronavirus replication as enigmatic. When I read virology I thought-weird- Nsp15 is acting like two
different proteins. Then I saw Favorov's explanation, the real protein and an imposter protein.
"EndoU-deficient coronaviruses were viable and replicated to near wild-type virus levels in fibroblast cells."
This would explain why the elderly are hit hardest.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:19PM
RIVERSIDE (KABC) -- A team that includes UC Riverside researchers has identified a protein in a virus from the
previous decade that might prove beneficial in developing a vaccine to combat novel coronavirus, according to
the university.
Researchers isolated a protein designated, designated as "Nsp15," from the severe acute respiratory syndrome
– SARS – outbreak of 2003 that could be useful in testing for vaccines intended to prevent or reduce the threat
of coronavirus, also known as COVID-19. The protein found in coronavirus is 89% identical to a protein
discovered in SARS, suggesting that drugs developed to treat that disease could work for the current outbreak
plaguing countries around the world.
Virology. 2018 Apr;517:157-163. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2017.12.024.
EpuCoronavirus EndoU is encoded within the sequence of nonstructural
protein (nsp) 15, which was initially identified as a component of the
viral replication complex. Biochemical and structural studies revealed
the enzymatic nature of nsp15/EndoU, which was postulated to be
essential for the unique replication cycle of viruses in the order
Nidovirales. However, the role of nsp15 in coronavirus replication was
enigmatic as EndoU-deficient coronaviruses were viable and replicated
to near wild-type virus levels in fibroblast cells. A breakthrough in
our understanding of the role of EndoU was revealed in recent studies,
which showed that EndoU mediates the evasion of viral double-stranded
RNA recognition by host sensors in macrophages. This new discovery of
nsp15/EndoU function leads to new opportunities for investigating how
a viral EndoU contributes to pathogenesis and exploiting this enzyme
for therapeutics and vaccine design against pathogenic coronaviruses.
PLANdemic is a new word that is becoming very popular. Here is a nice overview of the medical marshal law, and
how it all came about. Very detailed and superbly researched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2oHhN3heo
Saw lots of military today in my area, and yet I feel like
there is something isn't working for the insects who self-elected themselves to rule over humanity. The theater
curtains are full of holes, and too many people can see the genocidal actors and their pathetic scripts.
Assuming that I French kiss a person who has covid, how much time from the moment that kiss is ended, if any,
do I have to wash away "all traces" of that kiss from my mouth in order to prevent being infected with covid?
A. Impossible to prevent infection. B. Mere seconds. C. A few minutes. D. An hour. E. 24 hours.
Assuming that I "catch" covid from an infected person TODAY, in exactly how much time will the most
sensitive test available report/confirm that I am indeed infected with covid? A. An hour. B. 24 hours. C. 48
hours. D. 72 hours. E. 7 days. F. 14 days. G. 30 days? What is the market name for the most sensitive test
available for earliest possible detection? How do the 15-minute, Chinese-developed blood tests stack up against
the most sensitive?
Assuming that I "catch" the covid infection today, in exactly how much time will/can the covid in ME be
transmitted to others? For example, if I sneeze into the air
tomorrow
and someone inhales some of those
droplets, will those droplets "infect" that person with covid? If not tomorrow, how many days down the road?
Money, Money, Money Trump language yet another example of obscene unveiled greed it will not go down well with
the Germans.
A quote from the below link
"According to an anonymous source quoted in the newspaper, Trump was doing
everything to secure a vaccine against the coronavirus for the US, "but for the US only".
The German government was reportedly offering its own financial incentives for the vaccine to stay in the
country.
The German health minister Jens Spahn said that a takeover of the CureVac company by the Trump
administration was "off the table". CureVac would only develop vaccine "for the whole world", Spahn said, "not
for individual countries".
Excellent article, thank you Saker and Scott for the translation. I have five questions.
1. Can a person be
infected with influenza and coronavirus at the same time? I ask because there is an epidemic of influenza in
the U.S. with 29,000,000 (29 million) so far and the symptoms are nearly the same between them (e.g., coughing,
sneezing, body chill, muscle ache, intestinal disorder, fever.)
2. We read of the horrific numbers coming out of Italy. Are there different strains of coronavirus active,
some being more virulent than others? Can those different strains be identified by microscopic examination?
3. Did Dr. Chuchalin have an opinion as to whether this epidemic of coronavirus was developed in a
laboratory as oppose to in nature?
4. Did Dr. Chuchalin have an opinion about more than one "patient zero" originating from geographic
locations other than from Wuhan, China?
5. Vaccines such as for influenza introduce antigens to stimulate the immune system and create antibodies to
neutralize that particular strain of the virus. Every year a vaccine is created to address new strains of the
flu. However if a person does not receive the yearly vaccine (like me), the body will fight off the infection
and once an antibody has been produced, a copy remains in the body so that if the same antigen appears again,
it can be dealt with more quickly.
My question: If a person contracts cononavirus and successfully recovers through normal palliative care,
does he/she now have immunity to that strain of coronavirus like what happens with influenza?
Warning here about nasal rinses. My Doctor was adamant never ever use regular water it is extremely dangerous.
The water has to be sterile which means buy distilled water otherwise you are playing a very dangerous game one
that will kill you.
The question was posed can one have two viral infections at the same time? Since in the USA the medical
incompetents did not test, no one knows what they have when they exhibit symptoms unless the person becomes
critical.
The first testing in the USA took 24-72 hours because the Feds forbade the state labs from testing
so samples had to be sent to the CDC in Atlanta. Lab testing takes awhile.
Now in the above article Mr.Chuchalin mentions Vector diagnostic kits–with this one can get a result in 10
minutes and the amount of training necessary to administer and read it is minimal. 10 freaking minutes!!!!
So all I can tell you is my experience here at ground zero in Roseville, CA which hosted the first fatality
( at least the first diagnosed one). I had the usual flu which I contained after 10 days. Then I had to have
some very needed dental surgery ( two hours worth) after which strangely enough I contracted an unusual
rhinitis–watery flow from my nose and into the back of my throat. I never get this. Then there came a dry cough
and an ache in my upper chest. ( no temperature and no shortness of breath). I am on antibiotics for the dental
surgery so that actually is good. ( old school ampicillin). So now I have a stint of staying in, gargling to
prevent migration deep into the lungs. , giving myself breathing treatments with colloidal silver, taking all
sorts of anti viral herbal medicines to cut viral reproduction etc. Thanks to the above article I was able to
focus in on what was possibly going on and rather than continue to be puzzled by it or ignore it, I am on it!!!
So, in my opinion,,,yes, one can have two viral infections at once or one after another.
Scary stuff yet surely a vital statistic is missing. These people must have a clear understanding of the
mortality rate associated with this infection. They are locking down the entire world so it seems likely they
would have looked into this a little bit.
The number of celebrities contracting the disease seems to be flatlining possibly because this phenomenon
strongly advertisers a widespread contamination. If such large scale contamination exists in the populace it
follows that the mortality rate is far lower than stated.
Anyway stock markets have crashed but only so far. They are predicting the end of the economic system as we
know it. Someone somewhere does not believe them.
Life saver: Stabilized allicin extracted from garlic (Allimax/AllicinMax). This is such strong medicin to all
kinds of infections that first time users should be aware of the possibility of herxheimer reactions if more
than the recommended amount of capsules are taken.
My brother-in-law suffered from Lyme disease in the brain where it is very hard to get rid of because of the
blood-brain barrier. No medication did him any good until he started taking AllicinMax capsules that cured him
completely.
In case of infection of the lungs allicin in a sterile solution can be inhaled with the help of a nebulizer.
No kidding, 100% corona proof!
French Health Minister Olivier Veran, a qualified doctor and neurologist, on Saturday warned
of certain types of anti-inflammatory drugs that may
worsen the infection and the spread of the coronavirus.
"The taking of anti-inflammatories (ibuprofen, cortisone ) could be a factor in aggravating
the infection. In case of fever, take paracetamol. If you are already taking
anti-inflammatory drugs, ask your doctor's advice," Veran tweeted.
⚠️ #COVIDー19
| La prise d'anti-inflammatoires (ibuprofène, cortisone, ...) pourrait être un
facteur d'aggravation de l'infection. En cas de fièvre, prenez du
paracétamol.
Si vous êtes déjà sous anti-inflammatoires ou en cas de doute, demandez
conseil à votre médecin.
French heath officials also warned of
using anti-inflammatories as they are known to pose a risk to people with infectious
diseases because they tend to reduce the body's immune system response, according to
The Guardian .
They rather recommend taking paracetamol because "it will reduce the fever without
counterattacking the inflammation".
"Anti-inflammatory
drugs increase the risk of complications when there is a fever or infection," warned
Jean-Louis Montastruc, the head of pharmacology at Toulouse Hospital, according to The
Guardian.
The French Health Ministry has reportedly been advising patients since mid-January to
consult pharmacies when purchasing common pain relievers such as ibuprofen, paracetamol and
aspirin, to be reminded of the risks.
France is one of the worst-affected countries in Europe, which has been declared a new virus
hotspot after infections on the continent rose dramatically this month, while those in China
have been reported to be leveling off.
On Saturday, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe
announced that the number of infection cases in France jumped 4,499, among which 154 are in
critical condition, whereas the death toll had risen to 91 people.
Philippe has also announced that the country would shut most shops, restaurants and
entertainment facilities beginning midnight on Saturday and people should stay home as long as
possible as the spread of coronavirus accelerates.
As part of the country's response to the pandemic, a number of iconic monuments in Paris
have been closed, including the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre Museum, the Versailles Palace, Louvre,
Orsay Museum and Centre Pompidou.
That same year, another scientists named Dana Willner led a virus-hunting expedition of her
own. Instead of a cave, she dove into the human body. Willner had people cough up sputum into a
cup, and out of that fluid she and her colleagues fished out frag- ments of DNA. They compared
the DNA fragments to millions of sequences stored in online databases. Much of the DNA was hu-
man, but many fragments came from viruses. Before Willner's ex- pedition, scientists had
assumed the lungs of healthy people were sterile. Yet Willner discovered that, on average,
people have 174 species of viruses in the lungs. Only 10 percent of the species Will- ner found
bore any close kinship to any virus ever found before.
Siotu
Testing for coronavirus in an autopsy or living person is as easy as looking through a
microscope and positively identifying the virus. Just a bit slow or labour-electron
microscope intensive for wholesale testing of populations.
I'd rather take my chances with the virus than consume an Israeli vaccine
Don't blame you at all, but you don't have to make that choice!
A Canadian company says that it has produced a COVID-19 vaccine just 20 days after
receiving the coronavirus's genetic sequence, using a unique technology that they soon hope
to submit for FDA approval.
Medicago CEO Bruce Clark said his company could produce as many as 10 million doses a
month. If regulatory hurdles can be cleared, he said in a Thursday interview, the vaccine
could start to become available in November 2021.
An Israeli research lab has also claimed to have created a vaccine. But Clark says his
company's technique, which has already been proven effective in producing vaccines for
seasonal flu, is more reliable and easier to scale.
"There are a couple of others who are claiming that they have -- well, we will call them
vaccine[s]" for COVID-19, he said. "But they're different technologies. Some are RNA- or
DNA-based vaccines that have not yet been proven in any indication yet, let alone this one.
Hopefully, they'll be successful."
In 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, put together a $100
million program dubbed Blue Angel to look into new forms of vaccine discovery and
production. A big chunk of that money went to Medicago to build a facility in North
Carolina, where they showed that they could find a vaccine in just 20 days, then rapidly
scale up production.
But it won't be ready for actual people for 18 months.
Healthcare Hot Topics This is coming from
MEDPAGE TODAY , "Track the U.S. COVID-19 Outbreak in Real Time," Comments Section (3
comments), March 11, 2020 with regard to COVID-19
"The mechanism of seasonal effect for seasonal respiratory virus spread is believed to be
humidity, not temperature. In New York state which has 220 cases, fomites lose moisture where
indoor humidity is low, allowing the lighter particles to stay longer in the aerosol. In
Florida and Arizona, with 38 cases, fomites gain moisture and weight from the humid air and
fall to the floor faster. Northern Italy, where people wear winter coats in the media reports
has dry, heated indoor air, while Southern Italy has humid indoor air.
Humidifying indoor air in schools, stores, churches, etc. may reduce seasonal influenza,
respiratory syncytial virus, coronoviruses which produce the common cold, rhinoviruses and
Covid-19, Airports, airliners, airport shuttles should be the highest priority. The goal should
be humidifying to the level seen in summer without transmitting Legionella."
"The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, Hong Kong have warmer, more humid air and
much less Covid-19. Southern Italy has warmer, more humid indoor air than Northern Italy where
indoor air is dry. The photographs in the media from places with the highest rate of Covid-19
spread show people wearing winter jackets."
"In warm humid climates, fomites absorb water from indoor air and sink to the floor. There
is a fine layer of dust everywhere indoors and viral particles attach to charged dust
particles.
The mechanism for seasonal respiratory virus transmission is: fomite size in dry heated
indoor air promotes viral spread. Larger fomites in humid air fall to the floor and react with
charged dust particles."
fomite definition: objects or materials which are likely to carry infection, such as
clothes, utensils, and furniture.
microbiology definition: A fomes (pronounced /ˈfoʊmiːz/) or fomite
(/ˈfoʊmaɪt/) is any inanimate object that, when contaminated with or exposed to
infectious agents (such as pathogenic bacteria, viruses or fungi), can transfer disease to a
new host.
This would include counter tops, etc.
likbez , March 12, 2020 4:10 pm
I think incompetent politicians who want to be seen to be acting but do not implement the
necessary for containing the epidemics steps or take them too late are more important danger
in this coronavirus outbreak then the disease itself.
Humidity about 50% is a double edge sword: it greatly stimulates growth of various
bacteria and fungus. And Legionnaires disease is more dangerous type of virus pneumonia than
COVID-19.
Legionnaires' disease is the cause of an estimated 2–9% of pneumonia cases that
are acquired outside of a hospital.[1] An estimated 8,000–18,000 cases a year in the
United States require hospitalization
Respiratory-care devices such as humidifiers and nebulizers used with contaminated tap
water may contain Legionella species, so using sterile water is very important.[29]
It is also not clear if 50% humidity is enough to adversely affect the coronavirus
virus.
•Excess moisture promotes the growth and spread of mold, mildew, fungi, bacteria,
and viruses. These contaminants diminish indoor air quality, causing illness, and can also
cause damage to your home.
•When indoor humidity levels are too high, asthma and allergy sufferers may
experience worse or more frequent symptoms.
•High humidity indoors causes the home to feel muggy. You may notice visible
condensation on windows and walls.
At 80% or higher humility your sheets feel wet. This for example is the case in Dominican
republic.
In general, this temperature guide will show you where to keep your indoor relative
humidity levels to ensure comfort.
•Outdoor temperature over 50˚F, indoor humidity levels shouldn't exceed
50%
•Outdoor temperature over 20˚F, indoor humidity levels shouldn't exceed
40%
Over 50% humility can probably be maintained for prolong time only along with ultraviolet
lamp disinfection of the room and daily change of bed sheets and weekly washing of
pillows.
It is also not clear if the coronavirus can survive after drying of aerosol saliva
particles that carry them. Probably not.
At the same time places with a very high humidity such as Hong Kong and Taiwan were less
affected by the coronavirus.
The NYT now has a section of free coronavirus coverage, including our live briefing, maps of
confirmed cases and advice on how to prepare for the outbreak
Quote: "If you begin to have a high fever, shortness of breath or any other more serious
symptom, the best thing to do is to call your doctor to let them know and inquire about next
steps. (Testing for coronavirus is inconsistent right now -- there are not enough testing kits,
and it's dangerous for people with coronavirus to go into a doctor's office and risk infecting
others. So please follow your doctor's instructions.) Check the C.D.C. website and
your local health department for advice about how and where to be tested"
Sorry to say but... social distancing is one thing but how do you get some food? are you
ready to wash up everything you bought at supermarket and change your clothes each time you
go out and your bedsheets every morning?
Korean model is that grocery are ordered (online or phone?) and delivered to the door,
increasingly, people pick the grocery without physical contact with delivery people. Korean
cities are quite dense from what I understand. Initially, shoppers abandoned big
supermarket for neighborhood stores, neighborhood stores usually belong to big chains, like
in Germany, so there are website for ordering groceries, but they are delivered over short
distances.
Because having food delivered was already popular, a massive increase could be easy to
handle. E.g. with more orders to the same address (high rise living is the norm), it takes
less time for an individual delivery.
I was thinking that "no contact shopping" in USA could be more practical with people
arriving at their big supermarket (or local store in a rural area) and picking up pre-paid
boxes (could be just open boxes that could be left empty).
I just got a call yesterday from close friends who must still think this is a joke and
they wanted me to come out to a restaurant with them in about a weeks time. Six weeks ago, I
would have gone.
I just told them the truth, thanking them very much for being so thoughtful,
and also suggesting that this was more serious than people might realize, but I didn't go
into too much detail as I've learned it's counter productive. I did, however, point out that
due to our for profit health care system, we will get a much greater and faster spread of
covid-19 due to prohibitive costs of any health care visit.
Couldn't resist that one; talk about res ipsa loquitur.
For a couple of weeks now, I have been quite up front with close friends, slightly less so
with others, but refuse to go out unless I have to and can somewhat control how many people
will be around (as in going to the super market very early am during the week).
I have no illusion this behavior will guarantee anything, but que faire?
Registered nurses are outraged to learn that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on
Tuesday further weakened its guidance on measures to contain COVID-19. These changes include,
among other things, rolling back personal protective equipment (PPE) standards from N-95
respirators to allow simple surgical masks; not requiring suspected or confirmed COVID-19
patients to be placed in negative pressure isolation rooms at all times; and weakening
protections for health care workers collecting diagnostic respiratory specimens. These are
moves that National Nurses United nurses say will gravely endanger nurses, health care workers,
patients, and our communities
"If nurses and health care workers aren't protected, that means patients and the public are
not protected," said Bonnie Castillo, RN and CNA/NNOC and NNU executive director. "This is a
major public health crisis of unknown proportions. Now is not the time to be weakening our
standards and protections, or cutting corners. Now is the time we should be stepping up our
efforts."..
In addition to lobbying almost every federal health agency, the presidential administration,
and members of Congress, and California health agencies to step up protections, NNU recently
surveyed RNs nationwide, finding that the vast majority of the nation's health care facilities
are unprepared for COVID-19, with only 29 percent of nurses reporting that their hospitals have
a plan in place to isolate a coronavirus patient, and only 30 percent saying their employer has
enough personal protective equipment if there is a rapid surge in patients with possible
COVID-19 infections.
Many hospitals and healthcare facilities have failed to provide adequate personal protective
equipment to nurses working with COVID-19 patients. Some facilities are telling nurses to
continue to work while asymptomatic, even though they've been exposed to the virus and might be
contagious. Testing at hospitals has been sporadic.
I found this very interesting personal report on flutrackers:
Something else to share, here (reproduced exactly as I received it):
3/8/2020
Notes from the front lines:
I attended the Infectious Disease Association of California (IDAC) Northern California
Winter Symposium on Saturday 3/7. In attendance were physicians from Santa Clara, San
Francisco and Orange Counties who had all seen and cared for COVID-19 patients, both
returning travelers and community-acquired cases. Also present was the Chief of ID for
Providence hospitals, who has 2 affected Seattle hospitals under his jurisdiction. Erin
Epson, CDPH director of Hospital Acquired Infections, was also there to give updates on how
CDPH and CDC are handling exposed health care workers, among other things. Below are some
of the key take-aways from their experiences.
1. The most common presentation was one week prodrome of myaglias, malaise, cough, low
grade fevers gradually leading to more severe trouble breathing in the second week of
illness. It is an average of 8 days to development of dyspnea and average 9 days to onset
of pneumonia/pneumonitis. It is not like Influenza, which has a classically sudden onset.
Fever was not very prominent in several cases. The most consistently present lab finding
was lymphopenia (with either leukocytosis or leukopenia). The most consistent radiographic
finding was bilateral interstitial/ground glass infiltrates. Aside from that, the other
markers (CRP, PCT) were not as consistent.
2. Co-infection rate with other respiratory viruses like Influenza or RSV is 24 hours
apart.
... ... ...
10. All suggested ramping up alternatives to face-to-face visits, tetemedicine, "car
visits", telephone consultation hotlines.
11. Sutter and other larger hospital systems are using a variety of alternative
respiratory triage at the Emergency Departments.
12. Health Departments (CDPH and OCHD) state the Airborne Infection Isolation Room
(AIIR) is the least important of all the suggested measures to reduce exposure. Contact and
droplet isolation in a regular room is likely to be just as effective. One heavily affected
hospital in San Jose area is placing all "undifferentiated pneumonia" patients not meeting
criteria for COVID testing in contact+droplet isolation for 2-3 days while seeing how they
respond to empiric treatment and awaiting additional results.
Feel free to share. All PUIs in Monterey Country so far have been negative.
Consequences of widespread denialism. At home, the virologist was not taken seriously until
last Monday. I advised my wife last week not to assist to some meeting in closed doors, my son
not to go to a concert, a friend of mine not to travel to Switzerland. They finally conceded I
was right this week. The runners chat was complaining about cancellation of events until
yesterday and I have received in chats lots of hyperventilating noises. Not helpful. We are now
in Madrid replicating quite exactly events occurring in Italy 7-10 days before. Expect the same
elsewhere.
I’m thinking of making up some lame excuse to not go skiing next week, a phantom
injury or some other malady of my imagination.
Why not just admit to my friends that i’m afraid of mixing with a large group of
people, especially so @ lunch, where we are in close proximity to a lot of other folks all
milling around?
We are still in heavy denial-myself included, in that I feel my friends will think less of
me if I was to give them the real reason, in that I don’t want to die, just yet.
An e-mail to my family regarding how bad the crisis is and will be here soon, was similar to
my frantic e-mails & calls in the summer of 2008 regarding how shaky things are financially
on Wall*Street, please be ready! They did nothing.
When I related that ‘Dr Drew’ (a sister sent me a video of his-after I sent out
the Bergamo doctor’s account) who claimed Covid-19 was a press engineered fantasy, was
just an addiction specialist and judging from where he hangs his hat (Breitbart, Washington
Examiner, erc) everything he does is politically motivated hard right, one of my sisters asked
me not to politicize the matter.
We took our daughter from school even before they closed them, because we suspected
(rightly, as it turned out), that some parents coming from midterm sky trips to Italy will
ignore the quarantine.
A friend of mine sent half of his staff WFH, and some of his business contacts see him as
mad now.
That said, majority of people here support the drastic reaction, and would be happy to
support even more dramatic ones. For example, a CEO of a major movie theater chain got quite a
bit of kudos today when he said that while they could keep smaller theatres open, he
doesn’t see how it’s better to keep 50 people bunched together than 100, so they
close it all until further notice.
You might have fears today: What if I overreact? Will people laugh at me? Will they be
angry at me? Will I look stupid? Won’t it be better to wait for others to take steps
first? Will I hurt the economy too much?
But in 2–4 weeks, when the entire world is in lockdown, when the few precious days
of social distancing you will have enabled will have saved lives, people won’t
criticize you anymore: They will thank you for making the right decision.
Your browser indicates if
you've visited this link https://vuuzletvph.com
/favilavir-first-covid-19-drug-approved/ The government of Taizhou in Zhejiang province
declared Sunday that Favilavir, formerly known as Fapilavir, an antiviral that has shown
efficacy in the treatment of the novel coronavirus (), has been approved to be sold in the
market.It is the first antiviral drug approved by the National Medical Products Administration
for marketing since the outbreak happened.
Can the virus freeze to death at low temperatures? Will it disappear as the temperature
rises? With the outbreak of a new coronavirus in Wuhan and across China, there have been more
and more recent statements about the virus and temperature.
These judgments lead to different conclusions no matter true or false, but they are widely
circulating.
<img alt="Does the sun kill the new coronavirus? Expert
explains-cnTechPost" src="https://img.cntechpost.com/images/2020/01/28/071.jpg" />
How resistant is the new coronavirus to temperature? Is it suitable for outdoor activities
after fine weather? Ma Ke, deputy chief physician of the Department of Infectious Diseases of
Tongji Hospital, answers these questions.
1. Is the new coronavirus more afraid of heat or cold?
Coronavirus is more sensitive to heat.
The virus is moderately stable in a suitable maintenance solution at 4 °C and can be
stored for several years at -60 ° C.
However, as the temperature increases, the virus's resistance decreases, but it must reach a
certain temperature for a certain time to inactivate the virus.
2. Does the ambient temperature affect the infectivity of the virus? Is there a
difference in transmission in different regions (such as Northeast and Hainan)? Will the
infectivity of the virus decrease as the temperature rises?
It can survive in different body fluids and even the surface of the object at room
temperature for 2-10 days. Temperature mainly affects the survival time of the virus and does
not affect its infectious capacity.
Because coronaviruses can be transmitted through respiratory aerosols, inactivating the
virus in various ways and adopting multifaceted protective measures can minimize the
possibility of infection.
3. How much and how long does the high temperature have a killing effect on the virus?
High-temperature environment disinfection? Does turning on air conditioning and heating
work?
The virus is sensitive to heat and can effectively inactivate the virus when it reaches a
temperature of 56 ° C for 30 minutes. However, it is impossible to achieve the effect of
inactivating the virus by raising the ambient temperature by heating with an air conditioner,
and the effect of the virus cannot be achieved by heating the temperature.
4. In addition to fear of heat, what is the virus afraid of? (Disinfectant, ethanol,
chlorine-containing disinfectant, etc., correct use)
In addition to killing the virus at high temperatures, lipid solvents such as ether, 75%
ethanol, chlorine-containing disinfectants, peracetic acid, and chloroform can effectively
inactivate the virus.
Air disinfection method:
1. Some people open the window twice a day for 30 minutes each time.
2. When there is an ultraviolet lamp, irradiate the ultraviolet lamp once a day in an
unmanned room for more than 1 hour each time.
3. Disinfection method for the surface and ground of environmental objects: use 1000mg / L
chlorine-containing disinfectant or peroxyacetic acid and hydrogen peroxide paper towels to
wipe and disinfect thoroughly, twice a day.
Experts remind:
First, the sun's irradiation temperature cannot reach 56 degrees, and the intensity of
ultraviolet rays in sunlight can not reach the intensity of ultraviolet lamps.
Second, it needs a duration of 56 degrees and 30 minutes, and the ultraviolet lamp is
irradiated for 60 minutes. The conditions must be met at the same time, which is difficult to
achieve in the ordinary outside environment.
Older doctor's assessment of the new Coronavirus. His many years of experience and his
opinion of this new "chest flu". They talk about the terrible flu of 1918 when 50 million
died.
We have had just as bad "pandemics" since then but we now have antibiotics for the bacterial
pneumonia and better hospital care. Few people went into hospitals back then.
The first president to be born in a hospital was Jimmy Carter. Many people still die from
world wide infections (called pandemics). HIV and HPV are pandemics also.
The new coronavirus is estimated to spread at a similar rate to the flu. It is important to
take steps to prevent getting sick, like frequent hand-washing and avoiding people who are
sick.
In the U.S., flu activity is still high. According to CDC estimates, the flu may have
infected as many as 49 million people this season, and as many as 52,000 may have died. If you
get sick, it is more likely it is the flu unless you live in an coronavirus outbreak area.
Note: Because this is a constantly changing situation, this data may not represent the
most up-to-date numbers as state health departments and the CDC independently confirm
infections and deaths. We will update this blog when possible.
The 2019 new coronavirus (also known as COVID-19 or 2019-nCoV) is a hot topic in the news. Now
that it has spread to the U.S., you may wonder if you should be concerned. It is a
respiratory virus , meaning it affects the lungs, so what do people with asthma need to
know?
COVID-19 Cases in the U.S. (according to the CDC as of 3/10/2020)
Travel-related (confirmed)
83
Person-to-person spread (confirmed)
36
Being investigated
528
Total cases
647
What Is Coronavirus (COVID-19)?
A coronavirus is a type of virus that often occurs in animals. Sometimes, it can spread to
humans. This is rare.
In December 2019, a new coronavirus started spreading.
Experts think people first caught the virus at a fish and live animal market. Now it is
spreading from person to person.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), coronavirus symptoms can
include:
Fever
Cough
Shortness of breath
The CDC believes symptoms may appear two to 14 days after coming in contact with the
virus.
The virus is spread through coughing and sneezing. The virus will be in droplets that are
coughed or sneezed out into the air. These are heavy droplets and they quickly fall to the
ground/surface below.
People who are within 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) of someone who is ill with coronavirus may
be within the zone that droplets can reach. If someone who is sick coughs or sneezes on your
face, you may get infected. This is why it is recommended that people who are sick should
cough/sneeze into their elbows or a tissue and throw it away and wash their hands. People who
are sick should also wear a mask to help stop the spread of illness.
The coronavirus may also live on surfaces that people have coughed and sneezed on. If you
touch a surface with the virus on it and then touch your mouth, nose or eyes, you may get
sick.
Who Is at Risk From the Coronavirus?
Most Americans are still at a low risk of getting coronavirus, says the CDC.
At this time, little is known about how the coronavirus affects people with asthma . One
study of 140 cases showed no link to asthma. 1 According to the WHO and the CDC, the
highest risk groups include:
People caring for someone who is ill with coronavirus
People over age 60
People with chronic medical conditions such as:
High blood pressure
Heart disease
Diabetes
Asthma
People with asthma should take precautions when any type of respiratory illness is
spreading in their community.
The main achievement of neoliberal and imperial (warmongering) propaganda in the USA is that it achieved the complete,
undisputed dominance in MSM
Pot Calling the Kettle Black: "The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and
internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions
about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield
may be the fight of the 21st century."
Notable quotes:
"... Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to "court the compatible left." ..."
"... The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites. ..."
"... Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire – “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media (The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world. ..."
Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to "court the compatible left."
Right-wing and left-wing collaborators were needed to create a powerful propaganda apparatus that would be capable of hypnotizing
audiences into believing the myth of American exceptionalism and its divine right to rule the world.
The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites.
Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively covers this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts
And Letters, and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers,
with particular emphasis on the complicity between the CIA and the famous literary journal, The Paris Review.
By the mid-1970s, as a result of the Church Committee hearings, it seemed as if the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. had been caught in flagrante
delicto and disgraced, confessed their sins, and resolved to go and sin no more.
Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire – “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media
(The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world.
It seemed as if all would be hunky-dory now with the bad boys purged from the American “free” press. Seemed to the most naïve,
that is, by which I mean the vast numbers of people who wanted to re-stick their heads in the sand and believe, as Ronald Reagan’s
team of truthtellers would announce, that it was “Morning in America” again with the free press reigning and the neo-conservatives,
many of whom had been “converted” from their leftist views, running things in Washington.
USAGM provides consistently accurate and compelling journalism that reflects the values of our society: freedom, openness,
democracy, and hope. Our guiding principles—enshrined in law—are to provide a reliable, authoritative, and independent source
of news that adheres to the strictest standards of journalism…
Russian Disinformation. And make no mistake, we are living through a global explosion of disinformation, state propaganda,
and lies generated by multiple authoritarian regimes around the world. The weaponization of information we are seeing today is
real. The Russian government and other authoritarian regimes engage in far-reaching malign influence campaigns across national
boundaries and language barriers.
The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and
internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions
about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield
may be the fight of the 21st century.
Then research the history of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, Radio and Television Marti, etc. You will
be reassured that Lansing’s July testimony was his job interview to head National Propaganda Radio.
Edward Curtin writes, and his writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public
intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an
impossibility and therefore sees all his work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is
edwardcurtin.com
"... Imagine you are a horny 15 year old boy and you have been promised sex with an incredible Hollywood talent. Driven by surging hormones your anticipation and excitement are off the scale. You are taken to the place where the tryst will happen. And you open the door. Waiting of you is Barney Fife. ..."
Imagine you are a horny 15 year old boy and you have been promised sex with an incredible Hollywood talent. Driven by surging
hormones your anticipation and excitement are off the scale. You are taken to the place where the tryst will happen. And you open
the door. Waiting of you is Barney Fife.
That sort of sums up what is likely to happen tomorrow when Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary and the House
Intelligence committees. I have shut off almost all cable news. I cannot stomach the relentless hype about tomorrow's supposed "big
day."
Hmmm, given how the legacy media has managed to completely misinterpret what Mueller's Report actually says, imagine what a field
day they will have interpreting "nothing" to mean something. Now, I wonder what that something might be...?
I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set
You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Something went wrong.
Don't freak out if you get these side effects from a Covid-19 vaccine. They can actually be a good sign Officials didn't elaborate on the two hospital patients' conditions. "The state has no reason to believe that people who were vaccinated today at Dick's Sporting Goods Park should be concerned," state health officials said. The site closed early on Wednesday afternoon, before another 640 people were scheduled to receive their vaccine. Their appointments have been rescheduled to Sunday, Centura Health said. Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Five Things Newsletter. "close Email Capture Inline Zone"
Do you want the news summarized each morning? We've got you. Sign Me Up By subscribing you agree to our privacy policy. Despite the hospital transport, the side effects the 11 patients reported were "consistent with what can be expected" from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Covid-19 Incident Commander Scott Bookman said in a statement. "We know it can be alarming to hear about people getting transported to the hospital, and we want to assure Coloradoans that the CDC and public health are closely monitoring all the authorized vaccines continually," Bookman said. "Based on everything we know, it remains true that the best vaccine to get is the one you can get the soonest." Severe side effects from Covid-19 vaccines are rare It's relatively common to experience side effects from any of the three vaccines available in the US -- about 10% to 15% of volunteers in vaccine trials developed "quite noticeable side effects," former Operation Warp Speed Chief Scientific Adviser Moncef Slaoui said late last year. The most common side effects are arm soreness, fatigue, body aches and, in some cases, a low-grade fever. Nausea, like the 11 patients in Colorado experienced, headaches and swelling at the injection site may occur, too, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Severe side effects, like an allergic reaction, are far less common, occurring around every two to five per million people, Baylor College of Medicine dean Dr. Peter Hotez told CNN earlier this month . Johnson & Johnson vaccine is effective Health officials continue to combat the stigma that Johnson & Johnson is a lesser vaccine than the Moderna and Pfizer two-shot offerings, which a recent CDC study found are 90% effective at preventing Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was found to be 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe illness. It's difficult to draw comparisons between Johnson & Johnson and the two-shot alternatives, though, because the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was studied after highly contagious variants of coronavirus were discovered, said Dr. Leana Wen , a CNN medical analyst. The vaccine was found to be effective in preventing severe disease in South Africa, where a contagious variant became dominant, and no patients who received the vaccine were hospitalized or died. "Having a vaccine that is clearly effective against this type of mutation is a distinct advantage," she told CNN in March.
Anthony Fauci, DDS 2 hours ago
Chris Moyler 5 hours ago
Nancy Woolf 6 hours ago
LM BENZ 8 hours ago
Phil 9 hours ago
Jack Heginbotham 10 hours ago
Jill 10 hours ago
Sharles 12 hours ago
Anna 12 hours ago
Tara Fairweather 15 hours ago
Tom Camilleri 15 hours ago
Shelley 15 hours ago
Procopio 19 hours ago
Gavin Wyatt 22 hours ago
June B 1 day ago
Hsaive 1 day ago
rod densmore 1 day ago
FILE PHOTO. © Reuters / Wolfgang Rattay 362 Follow RT on 
Immunity for YEARS or DECADES: Covid resistance may last much longer than previously thought,
says new research
I'm an epidemiology professor and I have some genuine concerns about the AstraZeneca Covid
vaccine. Here's why Sshhh – don't tell anyone
FILE PHOTO © Global Look Press / Frank Hoermann / SVEN SIMON 66 Follow RT on ![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB16rmax.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Opinion: There is more to picking a place to retire than low taxes -- avoid these 5
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17bxwx.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Reserving a 2021 Ford Bronco? Get Ready To Wait 18 Months to Take Delivery 
![a close up of a cell phone screen with text: Selling Vaxart stock made more than $197 million in profit for Armistice Capital, a hedge fund that owned two-thirds of the company's shares.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpp.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=808&y=530"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpp.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=808&y=530"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpp.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=808&y=530"}})
© Rafael Henrique/Getty Images Selling Vaxart stock made more than $197 million in profit
for Armistice Capital, a hedge fund that owned two-thirds of the company's shares.
![A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpj.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1045&y=466"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpj.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1045&y=466"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpj.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1045&y=466"}})
© Ted S. Warren/Associated Press A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by
Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million.
![a man smiling for the camera: Andrei Floroiu, the chief executive of Vaxart, received stock options worth about $4.3 million in June. A month later, they were worth more than $28 million.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aOkc.img?h=449&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=824&y=414"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aOkc.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=824&y=414"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aOkc.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=824&y=414"}})
© Will Ragozzino/Patrick McMullan Andrei Floroiu, the chief executive of Vaxart, received
stock options worth about $4.3 million in June. A month later, they were worth more than $28
million.
97,209
Fred C. Dobbs
said...
© Global Look Press / Fotostand / K. Schmitt
Follow RT on
Trump's WARP SPEED vaccine czar oversaw an infamously
BOTCHED vaccination. Wonder why a THIRD of Americans want to dodge this one?
"We were all thinking this is a disease that kills old people, not kids," said David Reich,
president of Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. (Jeenah Moon/Reuters)
Paramedics bring home a woman with covid-19 who underwent an emergency C-section because she
was gravely ill. After extensive care, including time on a ventilator, she was released from a
hospital in Stamford, Conn., and she has a healthy newborn. (John Moore/Getty Images)
A colorized scan of a cell (shown in red) infected with SARS-COV-2 virus particles (shown in
yellow), isolated from a patient sample. (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases)
<img alt="What happens if a coronavirus vaccine is never developed? It has happened before"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200428210047-coronavirus-new-york-0320-large-169.jpg">
<img alt="They won the fight against coronavirus. Here&#39;s what life looks like on
the other side"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200416042613-03-coronavirus-recovery-large-169.jpg">
French professor Didier Raoult, director of IHU Mediterranee Infection
Institute in Marseille, pictured on February 26, 2020
©
AFP / GERARD JULIEN
Follow RT on
Devil in the details: Media jumps to blame Trump for
death of man who self-medicated with FISH TANK CLEANER containing chloroquine
READ MORE:
In search of a coronavirus
killer: Can existing drugs really turn the tide in the Covid-19 pandemic?
READ MORE:
Blood donation breakthrough sees
scientists convert all types to O using gut bacteria
<img alt="Does the sun kill the new coronavirus? Expert
explains-cnTechPost" src="https://img.cntechpost.com/images/2020/01/28/071.jpg" />