CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Masks Still Required For Air Travel Despite CDC's New Guidance
by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Feb 26, 2022 - 05:30 PM

Despite Friday's announcement from the CDC that federal masking guidance was finally being eliminated for the majority of the US (there are still some areas that qualify as "high risk" for COVID, but 35 states have already abandoned their own masking guidance), air travelers will still need to don masks for the duration of their flights - at least for the next three weeks.
A TSA order enforcing mask mandates on commercial airplanes doesn't expire until March 18, and there's even a possibility that it could be extended.

Rules imposed in the early days of the Biden Administration require mask-wearing across all forms of public transportation, including trains, buses and airplanes. But the TSA order applies only to air travel.

"The mask requirement remains in place and we will continue to assess the duration of the requirement in consultation with CDC," said TSA spokeswoman Alexa Lopez on Friday.

In fact, pretty soon, public transportation could be one of the few remaining settings where people are required to mask up. Thanks to the CDC's decision yesterday, masking mandates will even be dropped in schools.

Flight attendants and pilots alike will likely be relieved to see the masking mandates dropped, as enforcing them has led to an unprecedented rash of conflict on commercial airplanes as (often intoxicated) passengers pick fights with other passengers, and staff. Incidents where passengers have been restrained in-flight, and even incidents where planes have been rerouted, have skyrocketed.

The FAA has said the vast majority of these complaints have been mask-related. More than $1 million in fines have been issued by the FAA, and another $400K have been issued by the TSA.

The guidance the CDC issued Friday is based around a new approach to measuring viral risk, this one based more on hospitalization numbers than overall case numbers, which are becoming increasingly harder to measure as more Americans rely on at-home testing to confirm COVID infection.



Under these new guidelines, only about 28% of the population lives in areas where the agency currently recommends universal masking.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Study: COVID vaccine effectiveness declines after 6 months without boosters
by Providence Health & Services
February 26, 2022

A study released in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine by Providence, one of the largest health systems in the United States, confirms the overall effectiveness of vaccines in preventing severe infection resulting in hospitalization from COVID-19, but also shows a substantial decline in protection after six months. Completed by a team of clinicians and scientists in the Providence Research Network, the study examined data from nearly 50,000 hospital admissions between April and November of 2021, finding that vaccines were 94% effective at preventing hospitalization 50-100 days after receiving the shot but fell to 80.4% 200-250 days later, with even more rapid declines after 250 days.

In addition to examining the effectiveness of vaccines over time, the Providence study was also able to identify factors associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness. Key risk factors for a severe "breakthrough" infection included advanced age (80+), comorbidities such as cancer, transplants, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, or heart failure, the amount of time that had elapsed since being vaccinated, and the type of vaccine one received. For the latter factor, the study found that the Moderna vaccine offered the best overall protection over time, while the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine offered initial protection equivalent to Moderna's but declined more rapidly over time. Persons receiving the Janssen vaccine also had higher odds of experiencing a severe breakthrough infection compared to Moderna.

"This data helps us understand differences in waning protection by vaccine type and identify the key risk factors for severe breakthrough infections to help inform the targeting of potential vaccine booster programs," said Amy Compton-Phillips, M.D., Providence chief clinical officer. "Unlike most other studies, our data stretched beyond six months, where we found evidence of rapidly waning protection, especially for patients 80 or older. We were also able to identify important differences by vaccine type and patient characteristics that should help inform potential booster programs."

The Providence study, one of the largest of its type, showcases the value of connecting a network of researchers with large scale health care data to help health systems, public health agencies, policymakers, and patients and community members learn and react more quickly to emergent or endemic health challenges. Overall, the data supports the importance of vaccinations for protection against hospitalization, and also clearly evidences the need to boost that protection after 200 days, particularly for patients age 80 and up or with specific medical conditions that increase their risk of severe infection.

"Additional protection may be warranted for everyone, but especially for these populations," said Ari Robiscek, M.D., Providence chief medical analytics officer. "In addition to promoting general vaccine uptake, clinicians and policy makers should consider prioritizing booster shots toward those most at risk for severe COVID-19."

Explore further Study confirms effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccinations
More information: Bill J Wright et al, Comparative vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 over time in US hospital administrative data: a case-control study, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2022). DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00042-X
Journal information: Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Provided by Providence Health & Services
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

How the World Health Organization might face future pandemics

Negotiations on new rules for dealing with pandemics will begin at the World Health Organization on Thursday, with a target date of May 2024 for a treaty to be adopted by the U.N. health agency's 194 member countries.

A new pact is among more than 200 recommendations for shoring up the world's defences against new pathogens made by various reviewers following the COVID-19 pandemic that has killed more than 6.2 million people in two years.

The WHO itself is facing calls for reform after an independent panel described it as "underpowered" when COVID-19 struck, with limited powers to investigate outbreaks and coordinate containment measures.

A Washington-led effort to build a global pandemic prevention fund hosted by the World Bank is among initiatives that could determine the future of the 74-year old body.

WHAT IS THE PANDEMIC TREATY?
The WHO already has binding rules known as the International Health Regulations (2005) which set out countries' obligations where public health events have the potential to cross borders.

These include advising the WHO immediately of a health emergency and measures on trade and travel.

Adopted after the 2002/3 SARS outbreak, these regulations are still seen as functional for regional epidemics like Ebola but inadequate for a global pandemic.

Suggested proposals for the pact include the sharing of data and genome sequences of emerging viruses and rules on equitable vaccine distribution.

The European Union is pushing for a ban on wildlife markets and incentives for reporting of new viruses or variants, an EU official told Reuters.

Member states have an August deadline to decide on an initial version of the pact, which is backed by WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. He is likely to be elected unopposed for a second term in May.

It would be only the second such health accord after the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a legally-binding treaty which aims to reduce smoking via taxation and rules on labelling and advertising.

HOW DO COUNTRIES VIEW THE PACT?
The EU proposed the treaty and is its biggest backer, with support from Britain, Indonesia, Kenya and others.

The United States will take part in the talks but has opposed a binding treaty. India and Brazil have also voiced reservations.

With so many member countries involved, securing agreement is likely to be tricky.

HOW WOULD IT WORK?
Because its legal nature remains to be defined, in WHO jargon the pact is an "instrument", of which there are three types -- recommendations, regulations and conventions. Of those, regulations are automatically legally binding for members unless they explicitly object.

It is not yet clear how the 2005 regulations and the new pandemic treaty might fit together.

One suggestion is that they should be complementary, so that existing rules apply to local outbreaks with the treaty response only kicking in if the WHO declares a pandemic -- something it does not currently have a mandate to do.

It remains to be determined whether negotiators will include compliance measures such as sanctions.

WHAT OTHER REFORMS ARE IN THE WORKS?
Separate talks on a U.S. initiative to overhaul the 2005 rules are taking place this week.

Washington's proposals aim to boost transparency and grant the WHO quicker access to outbreak sites. Several diplomats said they are likely to prove too ambitious, with opposition from China and others expected on national sovereignty grounds.

China did allow WHO-led expert teams to visit the COVID-19 epicentre in Wuhan, but the WHO says it is still withholding clinical data from early cases that may hold clues about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Reforms to the WHO funding structure to make it more sustainable and flexible in the event of a pandemic are being discussed by WHO member states in another working group.

So far the United States, which until the pandemic was the WHO's top donor, has opposed plans to increase member countries' annual contributions.

(Reporting by Emma Farge; Editing by Stephanie Nebehay and Catherine Evans)
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Hong Kong's success in fending off COVID comes back to haunt
by Alice Fung and Aniruddha Ghosal
February 27, 2022

For two years, Hong Kong successfully insulated most of its residents from COVID-19 and often went months without a single locally spread case. Then the omicron variant showed up.

The fast-spreading mutation breached Hong Kong's defenses and has been spreading rapidly through one of the world's most densely populated places, overflowing hospitals and isolation wards and prompting measures to test the entire 7.4 million population and hastily build six isolation and treatment centers.

The surge shows what happens when COVID-19 strikes a population unprotected by immunity from previous infections, and has exposed a low vaccination rate among elderly citizens who are bearing the brunt of the crisis.

Only about 30% of Hong Kong residents over the age of 80 and around 58% of those in their 70s are fully vaccinated, lagging younger populations by a large margin. This is despite the fact that vaccines have been widely available in Hong Kong since early 2021.

The city has reported about 150 deaths in the past three days, many among the unvaccinated elderly.

Health authorities said that the vaccine reluctance among the elderly is an unfortunate side-effect of Hong Kong's success in warding off the virus for months.

Many people thought that the risk of getting COVID-19 was virtually nil since there were no cases, and senior citizens were led to believe that the risk of vaccination was greater than not getting vaccinated, said Karen Grépin, a public health expert at the University of Hong Kong.

Hundreds of millions of jabs have been given to people around the world and few serious risks have been identified after intense safety monitoring. But early reports of a few adverse reactions to the vaccine in Hong Kong created a false perception that people needed to be perfectly healthy to get vaccinated.

"Hong Kong is the world's guinea pig, when it comes to omicron," said Grépin.

The Hong Kong experience may also hold lessons for mainland China and its decision on when to re-open its borders and eliminate a two- to three-week quarantine requirement for anybody entering the country. Only a small proportion of the population has been infected, thanks to the Communist Party's strict zero-COVID approach of mass testing and lockdowns.

The Hong Kong government's response has been to ramp up a zero-COVID approach similar to the mainland. Chinese officials have urged Hong Kong to stick to the approach, despite grumbling from residents, with even leader Xi Jinping weighing in to make sure the message got through.

Under the zero COVID-19 policy, everyone who tests positive in Hong Kong needs to be isolated. While this worked in the past, Hong Kong, unlike the mainland, does not have the beds to isolate so many people in a large outbreak.

Construction teams from the mainland are rushing to build two permanent and four temporary isolation and treatment centers to handle more than 20,000 patients in an effort reminiscent of the early days of the virus when China threw up two temporary hospitals in the city of Wuhan in a matter of days.

Authorities also launched a vaccine pass on Thursday, requiring vaccination to enter shopping malls and other premises, and it is driving some to get the shot.

"If I don't get vaccinated, I can't even go to restaurants," said 73-year-old Yu Mui as she lined up for her first dose Friday. "So I have to come here today even though I am worried about the side effects."

Scientists believe that the omicron variant is milder than the delta version of the virus. But Hong Kong's situation is nearly unique. In other nations where the omicron variant spread, people had immunity from vaccines or previous infections, and this blunted the severity of the disease.

With many people unvaccinated and vulnerable, Michal Head, a global health expert at University of Southampton, fears that it may have a "worryingly high burden of severe COVID-19 in coming weeks".

"Omicron has been described by some as 'mild'. But it's certainly still severe enough to have a high mortality rate, far higher than flu or other similar respiratory infections," he warned.

Irene Leung, who is 70, said she didn't feel the need to be vaccinated earlier because the pandemic was under control in Hong Kong. On Friday, she lined up for her first dose.

"But now it gets worse and so I decided to come and get vaccinated," she said. "It protects not only myself but also my family members."

And Hong Kong has announced it will test everyone in the city next month, taking another page from the mainland playbook. China has sent in experts and others to put up temporary labs to handle the volume of tests.

But Benjamin Cowling, who studies epidemics at Hong Kong University, advised against mass testing in March since it would be hard to deal with the sheer number of confirmed cases that the approach would throw up. Instead, he suggested using the nimbler, rapid tests to alert people to isolate at home if they were infected and had mild symptoms.

The ultra-contagious nature of the omicron variant means that unless you have incredibly stringent lockdown measures, mask-wearing and social distancing norms, you're not going to stem the spread, said Dr. Jimmy Whitworth, an infectious diseases expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Even China is battling multiple outbreaks, though they are much smaller than Hong Kong's. China on Sunday reported 239 new cases in the mainland, of which 127 were among people who had arrived from overseas.

Hong Kong, by comparison, on Saturday reported more than 17,000 new cases in the latest 24-hour period and 66 deaths.

Whitworth said that Hong Kong's priority right now should be to encourage vaccination. "That is by far and away, the most important message. And particularly targeting the elderly."

Explore further
Hong Kong's new COVID cases top 10,000 in spiraling outbreak
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Draconian COVID Restrictions Spark Exodus From Hong Kong
by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Feb 27, 2022 - 08:00 PM

As the omicron wave of the COVID pandemic continues to wane in the US (recently convincing the CDC to finally drop its federal masking guidance), the situation in Hong Kong couldn't be more different. As case numbers continue to soar despite the government's suddenly draconian measures to suppress spread, thousands of Hong Kongers have decided to flee, escaping both the crushing COVID restrictions, and the city-state's increasingly authoritarian tendencies now that Beijing has reasserted political control.

Hong Kong's response to the virus has gotten increasingly heavy-handed as authorities demand that it fall in line with Beijing's "COVID zero" policy, which requires mass testing and liberal use of mass quarantines to isolate areas experiencing outbreaks. For much of the pandemic, Hong Kong's decision to close itself off from international travelers appeared to be enough to keep COVID at bay.

But omicron punctured its defenses, and now thousands of sick individuals are being shipped off to quarantine "camps".
These and other strict measures risk transforming Hong Kong's trickle of emigres into a flood.

WSJ caught up with one individual, a western expat living in Hong Kong named Charles Murton. Murton first arrived in the city during his teenage years, but is now preparing to flee with his family, perhaps to Singapore, a destination that beckons for many Hong Kongers since the government there has continued to encoourage migration from Hong Kong, despite harboring increasing levels of COVID infection itself.

Murton said the city's decision to shutter schools next month as it seeks to test all 7.4M of its reisdents for COVID was the last straw.

"The virus is something that you’ve got to live with, but that doesn’t seem to be the thought process here," the 41-year-old logistics executive told WSJ.

Making matters worse, the latest clampdown in Hong Kong contrasts sharply with decisions to deescalate restrictions by the US and Europe, making the city's stringent restrictions seem increasingly painful by comparison.

The latest data confirm the exodus. Immigration data cited by WSJ shows nearly 69K more Hong Kong residents have left the city than arrived so far since the start of 2022. Almost 80% of those departing have left since the start of February, a massive increase by all accounts. The data on population outflows from Hong Kong dates back to January 2020.

But other economic factors attest to the sudden will to flee: there have been hastily canceled doctors appointments, children taking online classes while on the airport shuttle and a rush to find tenants to take over apartment leases.

As a reminder, Hong Kong's restrictions include the following: practically all nonresidents are barred from entering the city, and returning travelers must pay out of pocket for weekslong hotel quarantines no matter their test results or vaccination status. Hong Kong has also banned gatherings of more than two people and halted all indoor dining after 1800 local time. Gyms have been shut, bars, hair salons and even campsites have been forced to close. Beginning on Thursday, the unvaccinated can no longer shop in supermarkets and malls, essentially making a vaccine a prerequisite for continuing to survive in the city.

Despite all of this, cases in Hong Kong have continued to climb at a shocking rate: the city has recorded more than 126K confirmed cases between Dec. 31 and Saturday, about 10x the number of infections seen in 2020 and 2021 combined.

On Sunday, the city reported a record 26.026K new COVID infections and 83 deaths, a new daily record for cases.
With the National Party Congress in Beijing set for later in the year, President Xi has proclaimed that the defeat of the coronavirus is now Hong Kong's "overriding mission".

But at the end of the day, it's regular Hong Kongers, not CCP bureaucrats in Beijing, who will shoulder the burden of the crackdown.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0sA3CAPcl8

Natural immunity strategy needed
15min 28sec
Feb 27, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

Natural immunity in Israel Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11... Early vaccinees were demonstrated to be significantly more at risk than late vaccinees Maccabi Healthcare Services N = 2.5 million 26% of the population Provides a representative sample of the Israeli population Study comparing three groups SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals with 2 doses of Pfizer (n = 673,676) Previously infected, not been vaccinated (n = 62,883) Previously infected with one dose of Pfizer (n = 42,099) We evaluated four outcomes June 1st to August 14th 2021 (Delta times) SARS-CoV-2 infection Symptomatic disease COVID-19-related hospitalization Deaths Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals with 2 doses of Pfizer (no infection, doubly vaccinated) (Only with vaccine protection) If first exposure every (infection or vaccination) was in Jan or Feb 2021 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection compared to those previously infected Comparing infections in vacationed with previously infected 238 infections in the vaccinated group 19 infections in the previously infected (not vaccinated) group Increased risk of symptomatic disease fever, cough, breathing difficulties, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, myalgia, weakness, headache and sore throat 191 cases in the vaccinated group 8 in the previously infected group Significant (P less than 0.001) Increased risk of hospital admission 8 admissions in the vaccinated group 1 in the previously infected group Deaths No deaths in either group March 2020 to February 2021 Evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated But SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees (i.e. vaccinated but no natural infection) 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease Previously infected vs. vaccinated and previously infected individuals Previously infected individuals to those who were both previously infected and received a single dose of the vaccine 20 infections in the infected plus one vaccine dose 37 infections in the infected but no vaccine group No deaths in either group Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection, against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant Question 2: Are the data on natural immunity also valid for the Omicron variant? Answer: Yes, (Letter to NEJM) Protection against the Omicron Variant from Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection Qatar https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056... In addition, we performed sensitivity analyses that included adjustment for vaccination status and that excluded vaccinated persons from the analysis. Protection against reinfections is moderately lower for the Omicron variant The effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection was estimated to be 90.2% against the alpha variant 85.7% against the beta variant, 92.0% against the delta variant, and 56.0%magainst the omicron variant Protection against severe, critical or fatal COVID-19 is similar as for other variants The effectiveness with respect to severe, critical, or fatal Covid-19 69.4% against the alpha variant, 88.0% against the beta variant 95% to 100% against the delta variant 87.8% against the omicron variant The median interval between previous infection and PCR testing 254 days to 376 days
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Illinois Governor to End Mask Mandate for Schools Next Week
By The Associated Press
February 28, 2022

SPRINGFIELD, Ill.—Illinois will end its mask mandate for schools starting next week, Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced Friday night.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is no longer urging people to wear masks in most indoor settings, including schools, where COVID-19 poses a “low” or “medium” risk to the general public and the local health care system. That covers more than three-quarters of Illinois counties currently.

Pritzker announced on Twitter that he would lift the state mandate effective Monday.

An Illinois Supreme Court order issued late Friday found that a Springfield judge’s Feb. 4 order preventing statewide enforcement of the mask mandate should be vacated because a lower appellate court recently found the case to be moot.

Pritzker had appealed a temporary restraining order issued by Sangamon County Circuit judge Raylene Grischow against scores of Illinois school districts, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The court found that because rules from the Illinois Department of Health requiring masking and other COVID-19 protocols had been allowed to expire, the appeal was moot. The governor then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

It wasn’t clear whether schools could still impose their own mask mandates, but Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudeyyah said last week at the time of the appeal that Pritzker “is encouraged that the court made it clear that school districts can continue to keep their own mitigations in place.”

The legal drama over masks in public schools has unfolded even as COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations have plunged after the omicron variant’s peak last month. Last week, Pritzker announced he would lift the statewide indoor mask mandate on Feb. 28—but not for schools.

The appellate court weighed in about two weeks after Sangamon County Circuit Judge Raylene Grischow issued a temporary restraining order invalidating the school mask mandate, as well as several other emergency orders, including vaccine requirements for school employees. Pritzker implemented the vaccine mandate at the beginning of the school year.

Grischow agreed with teachers and students who had sued, arguing that schools couldn’t be ordered to require masking without a public health quarantine order. She also said people can’t be excluded from school who have had contact with the virus without a hearing.

Before the appellate court could review Grischow’s opinion, the emergency rules expired. The Illinois Department of Public Health sought to extend them last week, but the bicameral, bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules declined.

The unanimous vote indicated a spreading desire among lawmakers for more involvement in managing the pandemic.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

New York Governor Drops Mask Mandate for Schools
By Jack Phillips
February 27, 2022

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced that the state will drop its statewide school mask mandate, becoming the latest Democrat to ease COVID-19-related rules.

Hochul, who unveiled the development during a Feb. 27 press conference, cited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) having eased its masking recommendations in most public settings for the rule change, which goes into effect on March 2. Child care centers also don’t have to impose masking rules.

However, she said individual counties and municipalities can keep their own mandates intact.

“Given the decline in our rates, our hospitalizations, strong vaccination rates, and the CDC guidance, my friends, the day has come,” Hochul said. “Today, we are going to be announcing that [we will] be lifting the statewide mask requirement in schools, and that’ll be effective this Wednesday, March 2.”

Hochul also said New York is at its “lowest point of pediatric cases since July 2021.

“We are in a much, much better place,” she said.

The statewide mask mandate still applies to nursing homes, correctional facilities, health care facilities, and homeless or domestic violence shelters, according to Hochul. Masks will also continue to be required at airports based in New York under federal guidelines.

Two days before Hochul’s announcement, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said during a briefing with reporters that nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t need to wear masks because they live in areas with low or medium risk from COVID-19, the illness caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

“This updated approach focuses on directing our prevention efforts toward protecting people at high risk for severe ailments and preventing hospitals and health care systems from being overwhelmed,” Walensky said.

New York state Senate Republican Leader Rob Ortt issued a statement that he agreed with Hochul’s decision, saying that additional steps should be taken.

“The unmasking of our school children is a long-overdue victory for kids and parents, educators, and common sense,” Ortt said. “It is time to put my resolution up for a vote, end the unnecessary statewide emergency, and end all Albany mandates.”

Critics of mask mandates, including some House Republicans, said forcing children to wear masks for hours at a time in class would ruin their development.

“There is no question, as we enter the third year of this pandemic, CDC’s guidelines and policies have failed to factor in—let alone prioritize—children’s social, emotional, and educational development,” Republican lawmakers wrote in a letter to the CDC in late January.

With mask mandates teenagers and younger children “are experiencing a mental health crisis of historic proportions,” the letter states, citing a recent U.S. Surgeon General warning that “suicide attempts have risen sharply for adolescents.”
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

FEMA: In Case Of Nuclear Explosion, Maintain Social Distancing And Wear A Mask
by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Feb 27, 2022 - 09:00 PM

The US government has a long history of fun and interesting advice when it comes to imminent death...

Now, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, has issued updated guidance to its "Nuclear Explosion" readiness public awareness website, which includes tips to avoid Covid!

"A nuclear explosion may occur with or without a few minutes warning," reads the page, which was updated on Friday.

"Fallout is most dangerous in the first few hours after the detonation when it is giving off the highest levels of radiation. It takes time for fallout to arrive back to ground level, often more than 15 minutes for areas outside of the immediate blast damage zones.

FEMA recommends the following steps to prevent 'significant radiation exposure,' which include "Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household," and "If possible, wear a mask if you're sheltering with people who are not part of your household."

In case of a nuclear explosion, FEMA warns to try to keep 6 ft social distance and wear a mask for covid. You can’t make this up pic.twitter.com/LfxFX1dZoS
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) February 27, 2022

What's more, "If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 9-1-1 and let the operator know if you have, or think you might have, Covid-19. If you can, put on a mask before help arrives."
"Many people already feel fear and anxiety about the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). The threat of nuclear explosion can add additional stress."

There’s more pic.twitter.com/V6opwX07g0
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) February 28, 2022

Hazards related to nuclear explosions include:
  • Bright FLASH can cause temporary blindness for less than a minute.
  • BLAST WAVE can cause death, injury, and damage to structures several miles out from the blast.
  • RADIATION can damage cells of the body. Large exposures can cause radiation sickness.
  • FIRE AND HEAT can cause death, burn injuries, and damage to structures several miles out.
  • ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) can damage electrical power equipment and electronics several miles out from the detonation and cause temporary disruptions further out.
  • FALLOUT is radioactive, visible dirt and debris raining down from several miles up that can cause sickness to those who are outside.
FEMA also says you have 10 minutes after the shock wave passes to find the "nearest, best shelter location" if you're outdoors when a nuke goes off, as radiation levels are the highest immediately after the fallout arrives.
But whatever you do, remember to wear your mask and practice social distancing while you hopefully avoid a painful cancerous death.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Incorporates into Human DNA In as Little as Six Hours, A New Study Finds
By Rhoda Wilson on February 27, 2022

A Swedish study published on Friday demonstrated and confirmed that the mRNA in the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid injections infiltrate cells and transcribes its message onto human DNA within 6 hours, altering our own DNA. The study was conducted in vitro, in other words outside the living body and in an artificial environment.

A previous study published in October 2021 from Sweden found the spike protein enters into our cells’ nuclei and impairs the mechanism our cells have to repair damaged DNA. We’ve included this study here as The Highwire made an easy-to-understand video explaining it, including graphics, and so it is a good starting point to help understand the significance of the latest study from Sweden.

Click on the image below to watch the video on Bitchute.
8 min 53 sec

The Highwire: Is Spike Protein Causing Catastrophic Damage to DNA? 15 November 2021 (9 mins)

Earlier Studies

Preclinical animal studies of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid mRNA injection (BNT162b2) showed reversible effects on the livers of rats including: enlarged liver, vacuolation and increased enzyme levels (γGT, AST, ALP). In the assessment report on BNT162b2 provided to EMA by Pfizer, studies in rats demonstrated that the contents do not stay at the injection site and a relatively large proportion (up to 18%) of the total “vaccine” dose ends up in the liver.

Another study in May 2021 by MIT scientists showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells and expressed as chimeric transcripts. Although no-one from corporate media or corporate science seemed to ask at the time, the findings of this study give rise to the question of whether this same reverse transcription may also occur with RNA in Covid injections.

ABC 10 News reported on the MIT study shortly after it was published.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjZMgtzG6dE
3min 9sec
ABC 10 News: Study suggests Covid-19 can alter DNA, 13 May 2021 (3 mins)


What is Reverse Transcription?

Pictures speak a thousand words and so rather than try to write an explanation we found a video which introduces the mechanism of reverse transcription of HIV, a retrovirus. It may be a little dated and overly simplistic but it illustrates how HIV infects a cell and replicates itself using reverse transcriptase and the host’s cellular machinery.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlSvywlLuNw
4min 56sec
HHMI BioInteractive: HIV Life Cycle, 5 October 2016 (5 mins)

The First Study of Reverse Transcription of Injection Spike Proteins

Because of the findings of the animal studies and the MIT study, a group of Swedish scientists from Lund University conducted a study to investigate the effect the Pfizer/BioNTech injection (BNT162b2) had on human liver cells and if Pfizer’s encoded spike protein RNA can be reverse transcribed into DNA. The study, ‘Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line’, was published on 25 February 2022.

“In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the study authors wrote.

The study found that the mRNA injection is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 and that the injections’ mRNA is reverse transcribed into DNA as fast as six hours after the cells were exposed to it.

“A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous [intracellular] reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2,” the study authors wrote.

“Huh cells are ‘immortal’ liver tumour cells and grow ad-infinitum if you give them love,” Jessica Rose explained, “LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that we carry and comprises ~17% of our genome!”

“Our study shows that [Pfizer’s mRNA injection] … can be reverse transcribed to DNA … and this may give rise to the concern if [injection]-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects.”

Feb-27aa.png

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, Discussion section, Alden et al, Lund University, Sweden, 25 February 2022

In the video below, Dr. Mobeen Syed, host of Dr. Been, explains this study in layman’s terms. We have embedded the video to begin at timestamp 8:17 where he begins to explain, over the next 9 mins, reverse transcription, Huh7 cells, LINE-1 gene expression, LINE-1 protein and what this all means.**

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxlvduyJyc
25min 42sec
DrBeen Medical Lectures: Pfizer Vaccine Becomes DNA in Liver Cells. (In-vitro Swedish Study), 26 February 2022 (26 mins)

The paper concludes: “Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of Covid-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line. We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA.”

Referring to the study Dr. Peter McCullough tweeted: “Alden et al, Lund University, Sweden, confirms one of our worst fears. The exogenous [extracellular] genetic material coding for the dangerous Spike Protein is reverse transcribed into the human genome; possible long-term constitutive expression / synthesis of disease promoting / lethal Spike.”

Was This the Plan All Along?

To answer the question whether this has been planned, below is a selection of excerpts from infamous individuals regarding gene editing, in their own words. No further comment is required, these excerpts speak for themselves, you decide.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Klaus Schwab said: “You see the difference of this fourth industrial revolution is it doesn’t change what you are doing, it changes you. If you take genetic editing, just as an example, it’s you who are changing. And of course, this has a big impact on your identity.”

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWURQXVidcY
2min 2sec
Klaus Schwab on the Charlie Rose Show, 2015 (2 mins)

View more: The Charlie Rose Show, Klaus Schwab

Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, stated, “In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So, we think about it as an operating system. …. So, if you could actually change that, … if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer.”

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHB2bLILAvM
10min 15sec
TEDxBeaconStreet: Rewriting the Genetic Code: A Cancer Cure in the Making, Tal Zaks, 8 December 2017 (10 mins)

Read more: Bombshell: Moderna Chief Medical Officer Admits MRNA Alters DNA, 12 March 2021

During an interview with Anthony Fauci on 30 April 2020, Bill Gates said he was particularly excited about pursuing a new approach called ‘RNA vaccine’. Gates explained, “Unlike a flu shot, which contains fragments of the influenza virus so your immune system can learn to attack them, an RNA vaccine gives your body the genetic code needed to produce viral fragments on its own.”

Around this time Gates made a promotional video for his “RNA vaccines.”

2min 22sec
Welt: Bill Gates explains Covid-19 and the race for a vaccine, 4 May 2020 (2 mins)

Forbes published an article on 29 November 2021 from Steven Salzberg titled, “Yes, The Vaccine Changes Your DNA. A Tiny Bit. That’s A Good Thing.” And later retitled the article to “Covid Vaccines Don’t Alter Your DNA – They Help Choose Cells to Strengthen Your Immune Response”.

The author changed the headline to emphasise that the vaccines “don’t alter your DNA” without changing any of the article’s content.

Read more: Forbes Admits mRNA Vaccines Alter DNA Then Changes the Headline, 2 December 2021

**Article edited since first published – Added DrBeen’s video to give additional context / explanation of the study ‘Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line’, Alden et al, Lund University, Sweden, 25 February 2022.

Featured-56.png
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE:

In the video below, Dr. Mobeen Syed, host of Dr. Been, explains this study in layman’s terms. We have embedded the video to begin at timestamp 8:17 where he begins to explain, over the next 9 mins, reverse transcription, Huh7 cells, LINE-1 gene expression, LINE-1 protein and what this all means.**

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxlvduyJyc
25min 42sec



If you don't have time to watch the whole video, Rumble has two short clips.


Dr. Mobeen Syed on the Pfizer vaccine in human liver cells (Part 1)
4min 20 sec

Dr. Mobeen Syed on the Pfizer vaccine in human liver cells (Part 2)
4min 45sec
 
  • Like
Reactions: bev

marsh

On TB every waking moment
1646100553759.png

Dr. McCullough: "One is Far More Likely to Die from the Vaccine Than With the Respiratory Illness" 1:42 min
Dr. McCullough: "One is Far More Likely to Die from the Vaccine Than With the Respiratory Illness"
Red Voice Media Published February 28, 2022

^^^^
Dr. Chetty - The Vaccine Has a Detrimental Effect on Your Immunity 1:26 min
Dr. Chetty - The Vaccine Has a Detrimental Effect on Your Immunity
Red Voice Media Published February 28, 2022

^^^^
"We Have Some Very, Very Tough Times Ahead" - The Spike Protein Is Inhibiting Cell Repair 1:26 min
"We Have Some Very, Very Tough Times Ahead" - The Spike Protein Is Inhibiting Cell Repair
Red Voice Media Published February 28, 2022

^^^^
Biden’s Science Advisor Dr Lander Owned Significant Stock in BioNTech During Vaccine Mandate Rollout 1:48 min
Biden’s Science Advisor Dr Lander Owned Significant Stock in BioNTech During Vaccine Mandate Rollout
Red Voice Media Published February 28, 2022

^^^^
Watch Moderna's CEO Squirm As He Tries To Explain Company's Patented Gene Sequence Inside COVID 9:01 min
Watch Moderna's CEO Squirm As He Tries To Explain Company's Patented Gene Sequence Inside COVID
Red Voice Media Published February 28, 2022

^^^
CPAC Doctors' Roundtable Full Discussion With Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Oz 22:02 min
CPAC Doctors' Roundtable Full Discussion With Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Oz
Red Voice Media Published February 27, 2022
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
The "TERRIBLE NEWS" of the Russian- UKRAINE WAR is that nothing but the fear of nuclear war could have wiped the headlines of the poisioning of the entire population of the world with a bioweapon from Pfizer and other big Pharma, just when the TRUTH OF THEIR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY WAS ABOUT TO COME OUT!

The timing of this is extremely convenient for BIG PHARMA, AND A LOT OF VERY RICH PEOPLE who would not like to see themselves tried for crimes agaInst humanity, which, before this war suddenly appeared, was the biggest story going.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
The "TERRIBLE NEWS" of the Russian- UKRAINE WAR is that nothing but the fear of nuclear war could have wiped the headlines of the poisioning of the entire population of the world with a bioweapon from Pfizer and other big Pharma, just when the TRUTH OF THEIR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY WAS ABOUT TO COME OUT!

The timing of this is extremely convenient for BIG PHARMA, AND A LOT OF VERY RICH PEOPLE who would not like to see themselves tried for crimes agaInst humanity, which, before this war suddenly appeared, was the biggest story going.

I don't think any news against the Covid narrative will ever come out.The news has something new to focus everyone's attention on but they would've kept on keeping on with their narrative if that didn't happen. imho.

HD
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Chemical common in at-home COVID-19 test kits can cause sickness, poison control centers warn
Hospitals are reporting a surge in calls pertaining to the chemical.
By Sophie Mann
February 28, 2022 - 1:21pm


Health officials say some at-home, rapid COVID-19 tests contain a toxic chemical potentially harmful to adults and children.

A chemical called sodium azide is found in a number of test kits and had led to an increase in calls to poison control centers across the U.S. The preservative chemical is deadly in large amounts, but when ingested in small quantities can cause low blood pressure, heart palpitations, headaches, and dizziness, or burning and irritation if the skin is exposed to it.

Sodium azide exists inside the small units of liquid in test kits that are used to create the chemical reaction that yields either a positive or negative result.

Some hospitals and poison control centers have reported surges in phone calls about exposures to the chemical since the at-home tests became widely available.

Warning about the chemical, the National Capital Poison Center said, "Sodium azide is a very potent poison, and ingestion of relatively low doses can cause significant toxicity. Fortunately, the amount of sodium azide in most rapid antigen kits is much lower than the amount expected to cause poisoning if swallowed by an adult."

According to reports, some users have mistaken the small bottle containing sodium azide for eye-drops, leading to painful consequences. Other have mistakenly dipped their nasal swabs in the liquid before swabbing their nostrils, creating an intense irritation.

Medical professionals say there is no reason to dispose of the kits, just be sure to sue them properly. If you or someone you know does ingest the chemical, call poison control at at 1-800-222-1222.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Mayor Adams Announces End Of NYC's Controversial Vaccine Passport Rule
by Tyler Durden
Monday, Feb 28, 2022 - 06:00 PM

At long last, New Yorkers and tourists visiting the Big Apple will soon be able to enter stores, restaurants, bars and other venues without needing to show proof of vaccination status.

That's right: Mayor Eric Adams is finally lifting his city's requirement for patrons to be vaccinated, one of the most restrictive such laws in the country. It was first implemented by his predecessor, Bill de Blasio, last year. However, he clarified Monday that there are no plans to remove requirements that workers be vaccinated.

Mayor Adams clarified that the requirement would be lifted on March 7 so long as COVID cases continue to trend downward.

NYC's indoor mask requirement for all public schools will be lifted on the same day (again, provided no unexpected spikes in infections arise).

Adams noted that more than a million students would return to public schools Monday after their February break. According to the mayor, if students can intermix this week without creating any "unforeseen spikes" in infections, then that would essentially confirm that the mask mandates are no longer necessary.

"New York City’s numbers continue to go down day after day, so, as long as COVID indicators show a low level of risk and we see no surprises this week, on Monday, March 7 we will also lift Key2NYC requirements," Adams announced. "This will give business owners the time to adapt and will allow us to ensure we are making the best public health decisions for the people of New York."

Circling back the vaccine passport rule, which was first adopted in the late summer of 2021, it's worth noting that it hasn't always been enforced. But it does still technically apply to restaurants, bars, nightclubs, coffee shops, fast food eateries, indoor fitness locations, movie theaters, music and concert venues, museums, sports arenas and stadiums, theaters and billiard halls, among other places.

Adams, who is seen as far more business-friendly than his predecessor, Mayor de Blasio, had hinted that he was eagerly awaiting the end of the vaccine passport rule during an economic development press briefing on Wednesday. Adams said at the time that he meets daily with health experts, who have provided structure and benchmarks the city should meet before it returns to pre-pandemic normalcy.

"We can't close down again, and I'm not going to do something at my anticipation to get back that's going to jeopardize closing down the city again," Adams said. "Our economy can't handle it. We don't have another $11 billion to put back in the economy. We must do it the smart way."

Adams decision follows a move by Gov. Kathy Hochul to ditch the Empire State's mask mandate (for everywhere but schools), although Hochul said over the weekend that the statewide mandate for schools would be ending on Wednesday.

The city fired more than 1,400 municipal workers over their refusal to abide by the vaccine mandate, which was extremely controversial in parts of the city like South Brooklyn and Staten Island.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Public Health Erred on the Side of Catastrophe
In a coercive mass experiment, governments opened a Pandora’s box of harms
Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, proponents of lockdowns, shelter-in-place orders, mask mandates and other coercive government interventions have characterized these measures as benevolently “erring on the side of caution.”

Now, as the grim toll of those public health measures comes into ever-sharper focus, it’s increasingly clear those characterizations were terribly wrong.

What’s less readily apparent, however, is how the very use of the “erring on the side of caution” framing was injurious in itself—by thwarting reasoned debate of public health policies, diverting attention from unintended consequences, and buffering the Covid regime’s architects from accountability.

To understand how the misuse of “erring on the side of caution” performed a sort of mass hypnosis that coaxed populations into two years of submission to disastrous, overreaching policies, consider how the expression is typically used.

In everyday life, one might err on the side of caution by:
  • Leaving for the airport an extra 30 minutes early
  • Carrying an umbrella when there’s a 25% chance of rain
  • Opting for a less-challenging ski slope
  • Going back into the house to make sure the iron is unplugged
  • Getting a second medical opinion
Generally speaking, “erring on the side of caution” in everyday life means lowering risk with a precaution that has a negligible cost.

When mandate proponents portrayed their edicts as “erring on the side of caution,” it had the effect of tacitly assuring the public—and themselves—that there’d be little or no harm associated with extreme measures like:
  • Shutting down businesses for months at a time
  • Knowingly forcing millions of people into unemployment
  • Halting in-person attendance at schools and colleges
  • Ordering people of all ages and risk profiles to wear masks
  • Denying people opportunities to socialize, recreate and enjoy living
That implicit low-downside assurance not only fostered unthinking support for draconian measures among citizens and experts alike, it also cultivated an atmosphere of intolerance toward those who questioned the wisdom of these interventions and predicted the great many harms that have resulted.

“Overconfident, unnuanced messaging conditioned us to assume that all dissenting opinions are misinformation rather than reflections of good faith disagreement or differing priorities,” write Rutgers professors Jacob Hale Russell and Dennis Patterson in their essay, The Mask Debacle. “In doing so, elites drove out scientific research that might have separated valuable interventions from the less valuable.”

Of course, in addition to its implicit assurance that a risk-reduction measure comes at little cost, “erring on the side of caution” conveys an assumption that the precaution will actually be effective.

That hasn’t been the case with Covid mandates. Though many continue embracing the illusion of government control over Covid, the contrary studies and real-world observations are stacking far too high to be denied any longer by the intellectually honest among us.



Charts via Ian Miller at Unmasked

Public Health Threw Out the Playbook and Threw Pandora’s Box Wide Open

The masses who’ve chanted “I trust science,” as they praise each government intervention and idolize those who impose them, are likely unaware that, before Covid-19, the well-considered scientific consensus was against lockdowns, broad quarantines and masking outside of hospital settings—particular for a virus like Covid-19 that has a 99% survival rate for most age groups.

For example, a 2006 paper published by the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center—focusing on mitigation measures against another contagious respiratory illness, pandemic influenza—reads like a warning label against many of the policies inflicted on humanity in the face of Covid-19:
  • “There is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences…are likely to be considerable.”
  • “Widespread closures [of schools, restaurants, churches, recreations centers, etc] would almost certainly have serious adverse social and economic effects.”
  • “The ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus…There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious.”
The point of that and other pre-2020 research into pandemic mitigation was to be prepared, in times of crisis, with policies that reflected a well-reasoned and dispassionate weighing of costs and benefits.
However, when the pandemic arrived, panicking public health officials and academics threw out the playbook and took their policy inspiration from the government that was first to confront the virus. Sadly for the world, that was communist China.


The breadth of the resulting harms from the ensuing plunge into public health authoritarianism is staggering. Far from erring on the side of caution…

Public health erred on the side of a mental health crisis. Anxiety and depression have surged, particularly among adolescents and young adults, where symptoms have doubled during the pandemic.

“I have never been as busy in my life and I’ve never seen my colleagues as busy,” New York psychiatrist Valentine Raiteri told CNBC. “I can’t refer people to other people because everybody is full.”

Public health erred on the side of juvenile suicide attempts. In the summer of 2020, emergency room visits for potential suicides by children leapt over 22% compared to the summer of 2019.

Public health erred on the side of drug overdoses. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, overdose deaths surged 30% in 2020 to a record-high of more than 93,000. Among the factors cited: social isolation, people using drugs alone, and decreased access to treatment.

Public health erred on the side of auto fatalities. Traffic deaths had been on a general downtrend since the 60s, reaching a near-record low in 2019. However, even with shutdown-lightened traffic, deaths jumped 17.5% in the summer of 2020 compared to 2019, and kept rising into 2021.

Blame increased drug and alcohol use, along with psychological fallout from people being denied life’s fundamental pleasures. University of Texas cognitive scientist Art Markman told The New York Times that anger and aggression behind the wheel in part reflects “two years of having to stop ourselves from doing things that we’d like to do.”



[CONTINUED BELOW]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
CONTINUED


Public health erred on the side of domestic violence.
A review of 32 studies found an increase in domestic violence around the world, with the increases most intense during the first week of lockdowns. “The home confinement led to constant contact between perpetrators and victims, resulting in increased violence and decreased reports,” the researchers found.

Public health erred on the side of riots, arson and looting. It’s my own conviction that 2020’s eruption of summer violence following a Minneapolis police officer’s callous homicide of George Floyd was greatly magnified by the period of forced mass confinement that preceded it.

Floyd’s death was a match dropped into a tinderbox of humanity confined to veritable house arrest. People blocked from restaurants and bars were suddenly granted a societal waiver to venture out into enormous crowds, where they found excitement, socialization and, far too often, a senselessly destructive means of venting months of pent-up energy, anxiety and frustration. It stands as the costliest civil unrest episode in American history.

Public health erred on the side of confining people where the virus is transmitted most. Lockdowns ordered people away from workplaces, schools, restaurants and bars and into their homes, where New York contract tracers found 74% of Covid spread was happening, compared to just 1.4% in bars and restaurants and even less in schools and workplaces.

Public health erred on the side of obesity. According to the CDC, the risk of severe COVID-19 illness increases sharply with higher BMI [Body Mass Index].” So what happens when public health “experts” shut down schools, workplaces and recreation options and told people to stay home to stay “safe”?

The CDC found that, in 2020, the rate by which BMI increased among 2- to 19-year olds doubled. Another study found that 48% of adults gained weight during the pandemic, with those who were already overweight most likely to add even more. Among other factors, the study pointed to psychological distress and having schoolchildren at home.

Public health erred against fresh air, exercise and Vitamin D. Governments raced to shut down playgrounds, basketball courts and other outdoor recreation facilities. In a move that’s profoundly emblematic of heavy-handed, counterproductive authoritarianism in the age of Covid, the city of San Clemente, California filled a skate park with 37 tons of sand.

Public health erred on the side of impaired child development. “We find that children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic,” say the authors of a study from Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI).

“Results highlight that even in the absence of direct SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness, the environmental changes associated [with the] COVID-19 pandemic [are] significantly and negatively affecting infant and child development.”

Public health erred on the side of learning loss. Children are less vulnerable to Covid-19 than they are to the flu, and rarely transmit it to teachers. Unfortunately, American public health officials and teacher unions prevailed in halting in-person instruction (and socialization) in favor of “remote learning.”

It was a poor substitute that fell hardest on the youngest learners. For example, according to curriculum and assessment provider Amplify, the percentage of first-graders scoring at or above the goals for their grade in mid-school-year dropped from 58% before the pandemic to just 44% this year.

Public health erred on the side of pointlessly masking schoolchildren. When schools did open, mask mandates abounded—despite children’s relative invulnerability to the virus and the documented rarity of in-school transmission. A Spanish study showed no discernible difference in transmission among 5-year-olds—who aren’t required to mask—and 6 year olds, who are.

“Masking is a psychological stressor for children and disrupts learning. Covering the lower half of the face of both teacher and pupil reduces the ability to communicate,” wrote Neeraj Sood, director of the Covid Initiative at USC, and Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford. “Positive emotions such as laughing and smiling become less recognizable, and negative emotions get amplified. Bonding between teachers and students takes a hit.”

“Most of the masks worn by most kids for most of the pandemic have likely done nothing to change the velocity or trajectory of the virus,” writes University of California associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics Vinay Prasad. “The loss to children remains difficult to capture in hard data, but will likely become clear in the years to come.”

Public health erred on the side of giving masked people a false sense of security. As I wrote in August, “Covid-19 particles are astoundingly small. Hard as it is to imagine, the imperceptible gaps in surgical masks can be 1,000 times the size of a viral particle. Gaps in cloth masks are well larger.” That’s to say nothing of the respirated air that simply goes around the mask’s edges.

Earlier in the pandemic, questioning cloth masks triggered outrage and swift social media censorship. Now, even mandate-happy CNN medical analyst Leanna Wen has declared they’re “little more than facial decorations.” Mask skepticism is sprouting elsewhere in mainstream media; the Washington Post and Bloomberg even published an essay titled “Mask Mandates Didn’t Make Much of a Difference Anyway.”


Chart via Ian Miller at Unmasked

When public health officials exaggerated the power of masks, they did more than promote pointless discomfort and a dystopian way of life. “Naively fooled to think that masks would protect them, some older high-risk people did not socially distance properly, and some died from Covid-19 because of it,” said epidemiologist, biostatistician and former Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff.

Public health erred on the side of killing small businesses. Thanks in large part to government’s targeting of so-called “non-essential businesses,” the first year of the pandemic brought an additional 200,000 business closures over prior levels.

Public health erred on the side of harming women’s careers. Women comprise a greater proportion of the sectors hid hardest by lockdowns, and the closing of schools and child care centers prompted many more women than men to put their careers on hold.

Public health erred on the side of inflation. To offset the massive economic destruction inflicted by public health shutdowns, the federal government plunged into an astounding spending spree, handing out cash to individuals, businesses and city and state governments.

It was money the government didn’t have, so the Federal Reserve essentially created it out of thin air. Pushing all that new fiat money into circulation debases the currency, fueling today’s surging price inflation—which is a stealth tax with no maximum rate, which hits poor people hardest.

Note: Lockdowns and other mandates weren’t the exclusive driver of many of the various harms I’ve described; general fear of the virus also contributed to some of them. However, it should also be noted that public health officials—and media that overwhelmingly emphasized negative stories—whipped up a level of fear that led people to overstate the level of danger actually posed by the virus.
There’s one more way in which characterizing lockdowns and other mandates as “erring on the side of caution” plays a psychological trick: Since the phrase is embedded with the notion of good intentions, it conditions citizens to be forgiving of the bureaucrats and politicians who imposed them.

Note, however, that in most everyday usage of “erring on the side of caution,” the choice to “err” is made voluntarily by individuals who bear the consequences of their own decisions—or by others, like an airplane pilot or a surgeon, to whom we’ve voluntarily and unmistakably granted control of our well-being.

The grim impacts of lockdowns and other mandates, however, were coercively imposed on society, to say nothing of the fact that so many of the edicts represented gross usurpations of power and violations of human rights.
On top of all that, the edicts were reinforced by Orwellian censorship and ostracism leveled at those who dared raise questions that have now proven valid.

So make no mistake: Overreaching public health officials and politicians—and the journalists-in-name-only who served as their mindless, unquestioning megaphones—have fully earned our withering condemnation. Indeed, holding them accountable is essential to sparing ourselves and future generations from repeating this dystopian chapter of human history.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

More effective COVID-19 treatment with immune modulatory drugs
by Chelsea Donohoe, CU Anschutz Medical Campus
February 28, 2022

1646123772622.jpeg
Fig. 1. IFN signaling at the whole-blood transcriptome level correlates with a subset of IFNs. (A) Volcano plot for differential mRNA expression analysis by COVID-19 status, adjusted for age and sex. Horizontal dashed line indicates a false-discovery rate (FDR) 10% for negative binomial Wald test; numbers above plot indicate significant genes. ISGs are highlighted in green. (B) Bar plot of top 10 Hallmark gene sets as ranked by absolute normalized enrichment score (NES) from GSEA. Bar color represents NES; bar length represents -log10(q-value). (C) RNA-based IFN-α scores by COVID-19 status. Data are presented as a modified sina plot with box indicating median and interquartile range; number above bracket is the q-value for Mann–Whitney U test. (D) Ranked heatmap representing correlations between RNA-based IFN-α scores and plasma levels of IFNs. Values are Spearman correlation coefficients (rho); asterisks indicate significant correlations (10% FDR). (E) Sina plots comparing abundance for the indicated IFNs by COVID-19 status. Data are presented as modified sina plots with boxes indicating median and interquartile range. Numbers above brackets are q-values for Mann–Whitney U tests. (F) Scatter plots showing the relationship between RNA-based IFN-α score and plasma abundance of IFNs in COVID-19 patients. Points are colored by density; blue lines represent linear model fit with 95% confidence intervals in gray. (G) Scatter plots showing the relationship between ISG mRNA levels and plasma abundance of IFNs in COVID-19 patients. (H) Heatmap representing enrichment of Hallmark gene sets among Spearman correlations between mRNA levels and plasma levels of IFNs. Values displayed are NES from GSEA; asterisks indicate significant enrichment (10% FDR); columns and rows are grouped by hierarchical clustering. See also SI Appendix, Figs. S1 and S2. n.s., not significant. Credit: DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2116730119


A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus significantly advances the understanding of a key aspect of the immune system during COVID-19: the interferon response.

Interferons (IFNs) are signaling proteins produced by a host cell to activate the antiviral defenses within the body. If the immune response, including the production of IFNs, is unable to clear the virus, the immune system continues to fight. However, a prolonged and exacerbated immune response can cause organ damage and even death.

The collaborative team led by Joaquin Espinosa, Ph.D., executive director of the Linda Crnic Institute for Down Syndrome and professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine used blood samples and data from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through a partnership with UCHealth and Children's Hospital Colorado. The samples were provided through the CU COVID Biobank led by Thomas Flaig, MD, vice chancellor of research at the CU Anschutz Medical Campus, and subjected to a deep analysis using the latest 'omics technologies as part of a multidisciplinary effort led by Espinosa and Flaig known as the COVIDome Project. Omics technologies analyze the genome, transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome of biological samples. Importantly, this large dataset is made openly available through the COVIDome Explorer portal, a user-friendly online tool that has been employed by 1500+ users across 60+ countries since its launch in November 2020.

The development of the COVIDome dataset was modeled after the Crnic Institute Human Trisome Project (HTP) which was launched in 2016. The HTP is co-organized and funded by the Global Down Syndrome Foundation and is one of the world's largest studies aimed at understanding co-occurring conditions of Down syndrome. Notably, individuals with Down syndrome are at very high risk of developing severe COVID-19.

This research is the first of its kind in using a deep multi-omics approach to investigate the action of 12 different IFNs in COVID-19 patients. These latest findings built on the team's previous published work and provide a new model for staging the course of COVID-19 pathology

"We were able to measure 12 different IFNs and track their action throughout the course of COVID-19 by defining associations with thousands of RNAs, proteins, antibodies, metabolites, and immune cells measured in the same blood samples. There are no other datasets that have compared that many different measurements to 12 different IFNs in this way," explains the lead author of the paper, Matthew Galbraith, Ph.D., associate research professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and head of the Data Sciences Program at the Crnic Institute,

According to co-author Kelly Sullivan, Ph.D., assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, there are clear implications in the results that resolve ongoing controversies in the field of COVID-19 research. "There is a big debate about the protective versus harmful effects of IFNs during the immune response in COVID-19. Part of the controversy is driven by the assumption that all IFNs work fairly similarly, but we found massive specialization in IFN action, with different IFNs being associated with different pathological processes in COVID-19 disease."

"These findings have important therapeutic implications, because both pro and anti-IFN therapies have been tested in COVID-19, with mixed results. The key message from this work is that it is more complicated, as not all IFNs are created equal, and that different IFNs likely modulate diverse aspects of the immune response at distinct stages of COVID-19. Therefore, immune modulatory strategies must consider the stage of disease and the IFN subtypes being produced by the patient," explains Tell Bennett, MD, coauthor of the study and director of the Informatics Core of the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute involved in data generation and analysis.

The FDA has approved the emergency use authorization for the drug baricitinib for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Baricitinib is a janus kinase inhibitor (JAK inhibitor) that suppresses the action of IFNs and other inflammatory processes. However, it is not clear which patients would benefit the most from this therapy and why suppressing the immune response in this way is often beneficial. Dr. Espinosa believes the results from this study are a significant step toward better understanding how to treat severe COVID-19 with JAK inhibitors and other immune modulatory medicines

Co-author Elena Hsieh, MD, who specializes in pediatric allergy and immunology at Children's Hospital Colorado and is also a member of the international COVID Human Genetic Effort, sees potential benefits of these findings even beyond therapeutic interventions. "I think this research brings us closer to the identification of a predictive marker about who is more at risk for severe COVID-19 and who isn't. If physicians could do a 'multi-IFN test' to measure the specific IFN signatures along the course of COVID-19, and determine which patients at what stage of their disease would benefit from pro or anti-IFN therapy, it will support a precision medicine approach to COVID-19 management."

While follow up mechanistic studies will be needed to fully define the impacts of specialized IFN action during COVID-19, this work provides a solid foundation for future research toward better prevention and treatment of infectious diseases overall.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Posting this for Profit of Doom who can't post from his phone; there's a lot of formatting involved!


(fair use applies)

Allegations of Genetic Harm to Newborn Females are Easy to Verify
All it Takes is Swabbing a Few Dozen Select Newborns for DNA


I wrote a couple of articles recently, about a study that found reverse transcription of mRNA into DNA in human cells.



Why is this important? When mRNA vaccination campaign started, we were promised that mRNA enclosed in Lipid NanoParticles (LNP) is very short lived, generates “harmless spike protein”, and goes away in a few days, priming our immune system for success. The virus, we were told, “stops with every vaccinated person”.

[go to link to see video of Rachel Maddow saying vaccine works to stop transmission]
The virus stops with every vaccinated person!!

Well, we know now that none of what we were promised was true: spike protein is not harmless, mRNA from the vaccine is unnaturally stabilized and stays active for months, and of course we know how well the vaccine works. And the worst of it, we learned that mRNA vaccine converts to DNA in human cells.

However, since I posted these articles, much more worrying information came to light. It concerns “germ line modifications”, that is, modifications of female eggs and male sperm, that might cause female infertility in the next generation.

Disturbing Allegations

An astute reader pointed out an archived copy of an anonymous post from 2020, before any problems with vaccines became known. This anonymous, unsigned post on 4chan purports to be written by a Moderna process engineer and a Moderna industrial engineer.



Ordinarily, such anonymous allegations would not deserve any attention, except

  • This was actually well written using proper trade jargon
  • This was written in 2020 BEFORE anything became known about dangers of mRNA vaccines and the terms used were not on the radar
  • Many allegations of this post actually check out. Specifically, LINE-1 reverse transcriptase interacts with vaccines, and DNA reverse transcription does convert mRNA into DNA in human cells.
  • This stuff is very hard to make up without knowing
The biggest allegation is that a purposely mutated version of gene CDKN1B ends up in gonads (ovaries and testes). Furthermore, the anonymous post alleges, the mRNA payload would modify human DNA of the eggs as well as sperm producing cells, introducing a CDKN1B mutation. According to this unverified and unsourced post, this mutation is recessive, meaning that it would only show up if BOTH parents germ cells — the egg and the specific sperm cell that fertilizes it — carry CDKN1B.

The possible result of this alleged mutation is that female offspring of vaccinated people, would be prone to “Premature Ovarian Failure” and thus would not be able to reproduce.

This type of anonymous stuff should typically be dismissed as wild fantasy, EXCEPT THAT WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR, CONFIRMS WHAT IT SAID, and it was written before the general public could know any of those facts or issues, so it makes sense that it was written by insiders, and is not an outsider’s speculation.

Thus, in my opinion, this post deserves further skeptical, but close, attention.

How to Verify or (Hopefully) Dismiss It

It is very difficult to check, in a lab, what exactly processes go on “in vivo”, inside ovaries and testes. Measuring such processes in reproductive organs is prone to mistakes, molecular complexity, complex ethical issues, and is likely to be very time consuming and expensive to properly study.

However, it is very easy to test the outcome of all this: all it takes is locate a few dozen newborn females, born to parents double-vaccinated at least a month before conception. Then scientists could swab their cheeks for DNA and check whether these females carry the alleged CDKN1B mutation.

Such a study would not be invasive, would (hopefully) bring comforting news to parents, and would be inexpensive.

Looking at the timeline, a baby born in March of 2022, would be conceived around last June, so any couple where both spouses were vaccinated before last May would qualify. Such infants are not hard to find at all and this should be very easy to conduct. There are no invasive procedures and no danger to the newborns.

I hope and pray that the answer would be negative and the the little baby girls do not carry the CDKN1B Mutation. But some assurance would certainly be welcomed.

Sperm

Another very easy experiment is to test the sperm of vaccinated males to see if it shows an increased level of any specific mutations, compared to the past.

 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
1:17:06 min
Dr. Peter McCullough - The Truth About Vaccine Injury And Death
Sunfellow on COVID-19 Published March 1, 2022

^^^^
4:29 min
Dr. Robert Malone: Covid Vaccines for Kids? Unlikely.
Bannons War Room Published March 1, 2022

^^^
Dr. Naomi Wolf: “It’s Politics not Science.” 6:20 min
Dr. Naomi Wolf: “It’s Politics not Science.”
Bannons War Room Published March 1, 2022
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
8:05 min
CDC admits to withholding vaccine data over fears
One America News Network Published March 1, 2022

^^^^
Dr. Mobeen Syed On The Pfizer Jab In Human Liver Cells (Part 1) 4:20 min
Dr. Mobeen Syed On The Pfizer Jab In Human Liver Cells (Part 1)
Red Voice Media Published March 1, 2022

^^^^
Dr. Mobeen Syed On The Pfizer Jab In Human Liver Cells (Part 2) 4:45 min
Dr. Mobeen Syed On The Pfizer Jab In Human Liver Cells (Part 2)
Red Voice Media Published March 1, 2022
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
1:01 min
Dr. Peter McCullough: "187,000 May Have Died After the Vaccine"
Red Voice Media Published March 1, 2022

^^^
Dr. Paul Alexander: The Vaccine Has Failed—Negative Efficacy—Mandates Must Come to a Close .46 min
Dr. Paul Alexander: The Vaccine Has Failed—Negative Efficacy—Mandates Must Come to a Close
Red Voice Media Published February 28, 2022
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Broad New York Real-World Results: Pfizer 5-11 Vax has NEGATIVE Effectiveness After Just Over a Month
By Jim Hoft
Published March 1, 2022 at 6:48pm


Guest post Tom Blumer

CNBC only owned up to vax effectiveness dropping to 12 percent after 34 days:

Pfizer Covid vaccine was just 12% effective against omicron in kids 5 to 11, study finds

Pfizer Covid vaccine was just 12% effective against omicron in kids 5 to 11, study finds

New York state officials found the effectiveness of Pfizer’s vaccine against Covid infection plummeted from 68% to 12% for children aged 5 to 11 during the omicron surge.

That should be damning enough (since when is anything but the high-90s acceptable??), but the whole truth is far worse. Alex Berenson noted that the same New York report showed that effectiveness goes negative after just over a month:

Resending URGENT: mRNA shots raise the risk of Covid infection in children under 12
Resending URGENT: mRNA shots raise the risk of Covid infection in children under 12

covid-kids-test-.jpg


In layman’s terms, vaccinated 5-11 year-olds have a greater chance of getting infected with COVID than the unvaxxed after just over a month, and it only gets worse from there.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Pfizer's COVID vaccine efficacy goes negative for younger kids, government study finds
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office tells Just the News the findings won't change his vaccine mandate plan for schools.
Greg Piper
Updated: March 1, 2022 - 11:36pm

The efficacy of Pfizer's mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for the youngest population authorized to receive it turns negative by the sixth week after full vaccination takes effect, according to buried findings in a study of more than 1.2 million New York children since the Omicron variant's emergence.

The preprint, which has not been peer-reviewed, was written by New York Department of Health and University of Albany researchers, including Eli Rosenberg, deputy director for science in the Office of Public Health and UA epidemiologist.

A graph appears at the bottom of the final page comparing COVID cases among unvaccinated children Jan. 3-30 to their "newly fully-vaccinated" peers Dec. 13-Jan. 2. They are split into two age groups, 5-11 and 12-17, and measured for seven weeks. (About 70% of the population was 12-17.)

Starting at day 35, vaccine efficacy (VE) goes negative for 5-11 year-olds and gets worse over time, meaning they are progressively more likely to be infected than unvaccinated peers.

"Negative VE values observed in later timepoints likely reflect estimator instability and/or residual confounding, as opposed to true relatively-increased risk for those vaccinated," a footnote reads.

Pfizer COVID vaccine study in kids

Pfizer COVID vaccine study in kids
New York Department of Health


This finding is left out of the abstract and main body of the study. They note that VE plunges to 12% by the 28-34 day mark for 5-11 year-olds, down from 65% immediately after the 14-day window in which two-dose vaccines allegedly take full effect. (The measured periods: 0-13 days, 14-20, 21-27, 28-34, 35-41, 42-48.)

By contrast, 12-17 year olds saw VE plunge from 76% to 46% by the final measured week. Researchers believe this is because 5-11 only gets a third of the dose size as 12-17, which would explain why, "despite overlapping physiology," 11-year-olds had "markedly-lower VE" than 12- and 13-year-olds.

And they still recommend vaccination for the youngest authorized group, because they were protected "against severe disease" even with that lower dose. VE against hospitalization fell from 85% to 73% for the older group, and from 100% to 48% for the younger.

"These results highlight the potential need to study alternative vaccine dosing for children and the continued importance [of] layered protections, including mask wearing, to prevent infection and transmission," according to the conclusion. (CDC Director Rochelle Walensky often promotes "layered protection" or similar wording.)

The negative VE finding, emphasized by former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson, went overlooked by both mainstream media and specialized journals. Stat News, for example, stopped at the 12% VE observed in the fourth of seven weeks.

But negative VE was also observed in a peer-reviewed CDC study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January. It found that unboosted adults were more likely to have symptomatic Omicron infections 7-10 months after vaccination than peers who were unvaccinated, with Pfizer's vaccine performing worse than Moderna's.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has also said Omicron rendered its vaccine nearly impotent against infection and only "reasonable" against hospitalization.

Regardless of the explanation, the New York paper could throw a wrench in COVID vaccine mandate plans in schools.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has mandated COVID vaccination for all schoolchildren, with medical, religious and "personal" exemptions, when the FDA fully approves them for each age group.

A bill (SB-871) offered by California Sen. Richard Pan, a pediatrician, would go further by requiring full immunization under emergency use authorization while banning personal and religious exemptions.

Asked whether the research gave the governor pause, Newsom's press office told Just the News: "Vaccinations work by saving lives, reducing pediatric hospitalizations, and are key to keeping schools open."

The New York study drew scrutiny for how it was designed, presented and reported.

It's telling that the researchers don't mention deaths, "which is not surprising, since Covid childhood mortality is minscule," former Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, a pioneer in vaccine safety, told Just the News.

"To prevent infection is not an important outcome that we should vaccinate for," and waning efficacy might not be specific to Omicron, he wrote in an email. One explanation for the negative VE might be that "kids will get infected sooner or later, so the vaccine just postpones it a little."

The hospitalization figures were "the only interesting" part of the paper, he said: "not statistically significant for the 5-11 year olds despite a huge sample size" and still low in the older group. The results suggest the younger population should not be vaccinated, while the older group would get "no major benefit."

The study makes clear there's no "scientific case" for children to be subject to vaccine requirements, which are "borderline delusional" in schools, University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad said in a YouTube video.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWfHIKbIgw

15min 58sec

He questioned how news coverage portrayed the study's findings on VE and hospitalizations, particularly for 5-11 year-olds. The confidence interval for that group not only "spans the null," meaning vaccines might have no effect, but it's huge: -12% to 75%. That could actually be good news because "there are very few cases in that cohort."

Prasad isn't sold that the dosing difference fully explains the VE difference between the younger and older groups: "I'm not sure they have enough [statistical] power to really see that difference" and may instead be "anchoring" to statistical noise.

Robert Malone, the mRNA vaccine pioneer-turned-critic, claimed in his newsletter Tuesday the paper would never pass peer review and should actually be taken down. It's especially problematic that it has no "conflict of interest" statement, he said.

The researchers "are basically PhD and MD public health bureaucrat/officers of the State of New York," and one has published often in recent months in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Malone noted. MMWR is not peer-reviewed and has faced increasing challenges to the quality of COVID research it publishes.

The report's conclusions aren't supported by its data, he claimed, citing an endorsement of mask wearing without any basis in the study's results.

Corresponding author Vajeera Dorabawila, co-director of the Department of Health's Bureau of Surveillance and Data Systems, didn't immediately answer a request to respond to appraisals of the study.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Pfizer Vaccine Far Less Effective In 5-11 Year-Olds, Latest Data Show
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Mar 01, 2022 - 09:01 AM

As it turns out, the Pfizer vaccine is almost entirely ineffective in children ages 5-11, according to the latest batch of trial data released by the vaccine giant.

Here's more from the NYT:

The coronavirus vaccine made by Pfizer-BioNTech is much less effective in preventing infection in children ages 5 to 11 years than in older adolescents or adults, according to a large new set of data collected by health officials in New York State — a finding that has deep ramifications for these children and their parents.
The Pfizer vaccine is the only Covid shot authorized for that age group in the United States.
It still prevents severe illness in the children, but offers virtually no protection against infection, even within a month after full immunization, the data, which were collected during the Omicron surge, suggest.
The scientists who led the study noted that the jab was far less effective and that the data weaken the argument for mandating the jabs in children.
"It certainly weakens the argument for mandating that people get that lower dose," said Dr. Philip Krause, who recently left the FDA.
While states across the US - including California, Oregon and Washington, which announced today they would lift masking guidance starting March 11 - and the CDC have lifted requirements for people to mask up (it's worth noting that more than a dozen conservative-leaning states barred masking requirements). But vaccination requirements will likely remain a part of our society in some form from here on out. While a federal judge struck down the Biden Administration's attempts to pass a federal vaccine mandaate, the firing of workers for being unvaccinated remains commonplace. Many others are forced to be tested for COVID at least once a week, at their own expense.

But as schools across the country move to require all students to be vaccinated - with rare exceptions - even the MSM is acknowledging that jabs in elementry school-aged children are ineffective.

While the jabs supposedly prevent "severe illness" in children, it's worth noting that children who lack co-morbidities rarely display even moderate symptoms, and severe cases are almost unheard of.

Even Dr. Fauci has acknowledged that "many" children hospitalized with COVID are there for some other reason. However, every patient brought into a hospital is tested for COVID, and those who test positive are automatically counted as hospitalized with COVID.

Fauci: "If you look at the children that are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with Covid, as opposed to because of Covid." pic.twitter.com/57Rdx8gPg3
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) December 31, 2021
Amusingly, the NYT suggested that one reason for the drop in performance might be the fact that children receive "one third the dose" of adults.

The sharp drop in the vaccine’s performance in young children may stem from the fact that they receive one-third the dose given to older children and adults, researchers and federal officials who have reviewed the data said.
The vaccine also performed poorly on children ages 2-4, the next-youngest age group.

Charts from the study show the slim gap between unvaccinated and vaccinated children in terms of hospitalizations.



It also shows how effectiveness wanes as the age of the recipient falls.



Readers can find the full study below:
2022.02.25.22271454v1.fullon Scribd
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)



Pfizer Vaccine Only 12% Effective in Kids 5 to 11, Study Says
A study released Monday showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in 5- to 11-year-olds was only 12% after a seven-week period of observation. According to The New York Times, federal health officials knew about the findings since early February.
By Madhava Setty, M.D.
03/01/22

The effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine against Omicron “declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years,” according to a study released February 28.

The authors of the study still recommended the vaccine for that age group, stating it was protective against severe disease. They also proposed the recommended dose for 5- to 11-year-olds was too small, suggesting a higher dose might solve the problem.

According to The New York Times, the study’s lead author, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, briefed Dr. Rochelle Walensky and other officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the New York data in early February.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials learned of the data around the same time.

Some scientists at those agencies then pushed for the data to be made public before an FDA meeting, scheduled for Feb. 15, to review Pfizer’s application for Emergency Use Authorization of a three-dose regimen of its vaccine for infants and children 6 months to 5 years old.

But the study’s findings were only made public on Monday.

The FDA on Feb. 11 abruptly postponed the meeting to review Pfizer’s application for infants and children, stating Pfizer didn’t have enough data on the efficiency of a third dose for that age group.

In this article, I examine the data in the study. I also outline what I believe are the flaws in the authors’ conclusions that the vaccines prevent severe disease in this age group and that increasing the dose might be appropriate.

Researchers at the New York State Department of Health and the University at Albany School of Public Health examined the effectiveness of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine in children 5 to 11 years old and adolescents 12 to 17 from Dec. 13, 2021 to Jan. 30, 2022. The study was made available on preprint on Feb. 28.

The study examined the incidence of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization rates in 365,502 children ages 5 to 11 and 852,384 adolescents ages 12-17 in both fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

This study is important because there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old since the emergence of Omicron.

The authors summarized their findings:

“In the Omicron era, the effectiveness against cases of BNT162b2 declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years. However, vaccination of children 5-11 years was protective against severe disease and is recommended.”

Let’s look at the data in the chart below.

Hospitalizations by vaccination status


Highlighted in red is the astoundingly low Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID infection in the younger age group during the final week of observation. During the time period indicated in the chart, the VE was a mere 12%.

The rate of new COVID cases in the unvaccinated group was 70 per 100,000 children per week compared to 62 per 100,000 per week.

This means that 12,500 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent a single, non-severe COVID-19 infection.

The same column of data also demonstrates a steep downward trend throughout the time window considered. Vaccine effectiveness is not only unimpressive, it’s getting worse.

This is in contrast to the older cohort, ages 12-17, that enjoyed a VE of 51% during the same week.

Vaccine effectiveness in preventing hospitalization is also marginal at best

Although the authors of the paper conclude that “vaccination of children 5-11 years was protective against severe disease and is recommended,” the VE was still only 48% in preventing hospitalization from COVID.

This corresponds to an Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) of 1.9. An IRR of 1.9 indicates that an unvaccinated person has 1.9x the risk of being hospitalized compared to a fully vaccinated person.

Note that a VE of 48% in preventing hospitalization and an abysmal 12% in preventing infection falls short of the stipulation for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which requires the authorized intervention to have a 50% effectiveness.

On the other hand, an unvaccinated adolescent in the 12-17 age group has 3.7x the risk of being hospitalized. These numbers are consistent with data reported by the CDC for this age group.

Why is vaccine effectiveness so poor in children?

Why is the vaccine doing so poorly in children in New York?

The median time since vaccination in the 5-11 group was only 51 days compared to 211 days in the older group, so this difference cannot be due to waning efficacy.

Both groups were exposed to Omicron, which is widely acknowledged to evade vaccine-mediated immunity at greater rates than previous strains.

Boosters are available to the adolescents, but no boosted 12- to 17-year-olds were included in the study.

The authors propose that the dose of the mRNA in vaccines formulated for the younger group may be too small:

“The finding of markedly-lower VE against infection for children 11 years compared to those 12 and 13 years, despite overlapping physiology, suggests lower vaccine dose may explain lower 5-11 years’ VE.”

John Moore, Ph.D., a virologist at Weill Cornell Medical College, echoed the authors’ hypothesis:

“The striking difference between 11- and 12-year-olds can only be explained by the three-fold dosing reduction in the younger children. The one-year age difference is highly unlikely to make any other factor relevant.”

Moore and the authors of the paper are implying that a larger dose of mRNA in the 5- to 11-year-old formulation would solve the problem.

These opinions are based on VE that was calculated by specific age group here:

Vaccine effectiveness


The greatest VE is seen in 12-year-old adolescents, ostensibly the smallest (by body weight) in the 12-17 cohort but receiving the full adult mRNA dose. The 11-year-olds are the largest in their cohort but receive the pediatric dose.

If we examine the plot closely, the 11-year-olds (dotted dark blue) do not have the lowest VE in the 5-11 group.

VE in 11-year-olds exceeds that in 6-, 7-, 8- and 10-year-olds by the end of the observation period.

This strategy of increasing the dose is ill-founded. The 11-year-olds do not have the lowest VE in their age group. This suggests a larger dose will not necessarily be of help to them.

It also would likely result in more frequent adverse events in the smallest children in that category if vaccine dose was increased in all children in that age group.

Using a weight-dependent dosing regimen to increase VE in larger kids while mitigating the risk in smaller ones would be more prudent.

However, this would not be pragmatic. Children would have to be accurately weighed and an appropriate vaccine dose would have to be calculated based on their weight. These added complexities will unavoidably lead to dosing errors.

Vaccine effectiveness is lower in children because they are already protected

VE is calculated by comparing the risk of disease in the unvaccinated to that in the vaccinated.

A closer examination of rates of infection in the unvaccinated demonstrates a clear difference between the two age groups. Unvaccinated children in the 5-11 age group have substantially less risk of being infected than unvaccinated adolescents in each week of observation.

In other words, one reason why VE is so low in children is that they are more resistant to infection to begin with.

Chart: Unvaccinated


There are multiple reasons for this, including natural immunity.

This finding in the New York data reflects the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s most recent position:

“It is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022 with roughly half of these infections due to the Omicron variant. Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.”

In the U.S., according to a report today by The Washington Post, “the majority” of children have already been infected with COVID.

Another recent study of children 3 to 11 years old measured spike-specific T cell responses and found that they were twice as high as adults. The authors suggested this is in part due to pre-existing cross-reactive responses to seasonal coronaviruses.

Beyond the inherent level of protection unvaccinated children already possess, the data clearly demonstrate the rate of infection in vaccinated children is already less than in vaccinated adolescents for most weeks.

Chart: infections vaccinated


With infection rates in vaccinated children already lower than in vaccinated adolescents, increasing the mRNA dose in the youngest is unnecessary and will most certainly increase the risk of adverse events.

Summary

Data from this large group of children in New York demonstrate the COVID vaccine provides little, if any, protection from SARS-COV2 infection.

This is not surprising given the rapid emergence of the Omicron variant.

This same data indicate unvaccinated children are already protected from infection, obviating the need for any form of prophylaxis in this age group. Hence, any proposal to increase dosing is not only unnecessary, it invites greater risk of harm.

At this time only one quarter of children 5 to 11 years old have been fully vaccinated in New York State.

With such marginal and diminishing benefits, continuing to vaccinate cannot be justified.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
WITH ALL THAT NEGATIVE NEWS, ANOTHER SITE POSTED THIS, WHICH IS LIKELY A CDC RESPONSE. :shr:

(fair use applies)

Pfizer shots protect kids from severe COVID even in omicron
by Lauran Neergaard
March 1, 2022

Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine gave children 5 and older strong protection against hospitalization and death even during the omicron surge that hit youngsters especially hard, U.S. health officials reported Tuesday.

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention come a day after a study of New York children suggested the vaccine may not be as effective in 5- to 11-year-olds as in older kids—especially at blocking milder infections. That data raised the question of whether kid-sized doses given to those under 12 might be too low.

But the CDC said data from multiple other states suggests the issue isn't children's ages or dose size—it's omicron. Vaccination generally is less effective against the hugely contagious omicron variant than earlier versions of the coronavirus—and vaccinations for 5- to 11-year-olds began just weeks before omicron began circulating.

"As a parent of a very young child, I think I would do everything to keep them out of the emergency department in the middle of the night," said CDC epidemiologist Ruth Link-Gelles. "What we see from the data that we have is that the vaccine continues to provide good protection against more severe outcomes."

Pediatricians say the back-and-forth results may seem confusing but that parents need to understand the shots are still the best way to prevent serious illness.

"If you're vaccinated, you may get a mild infection and we're just going to have to learn to live with that," said Dr. Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

He said the New York study was too small to draw conclusions and also can't account for variables such as infections going uncounted in kids tested at home instead of a clinic. He said youngsters admitted to his hospital with severe COVID-19 are the unvaccinated "and it's hard to watch."

The CDC reported Tuesday that between April and early January there were nine deaths related to COVID-19 among vaccinated children ages 5 to 17—compared to 121 deaths among unvaccinated children that age.

Also, the CDC examined pediatric hospitalizations in 10 states from last April to the end of January. The vaccine proved 74% effective against hospitalization in 5- to 11-year-olds. Only two vaccinated children were hospitalized compared to 59 unvaccinated children.

In comparison, the vaccine was 92% to 94% effective against hospitalization in 12- to 15-year-olds and 16- to 17-year-olds. Most of the hospitalizations in the adolescents occurred when the earlier delta variant was dominant, while most of the hospitalizations of those younger than 12 occurred during the omicron wave, which started in early December.

Tuesday's study also found that during the time when omicron was predominant, the vaccine was 51% effective in preventing emergency room or urgent-care visits by 5- to 11-year-olds. That was fairly similar to the 45% effectiveness for 12- to 15-year-olds who'd gotten their second dose months earlier.

What about less serious outcomes?

A report released Monday from researchers with New York's state health department analyzed health records week-by-week from early December through the end of January. Vaccine effectiveness against any COVID-19 infection dropped from 68% to just 12% by the height of omicron's wave. But among kids 12 and older, that effectiveness dropped to just 51%.

Remarkably, the data suggested 12-year-olds appeared to have the most protection of any age—prompting the researchers to ask if maybe the dose should be reexamined.

The Pfizer shots are the only vaccine available to U.S. children, and those ages 5 to 11 receive one-third of the dose given to everyone 12 and older. Also, everyone 12 and older is urged to get a booster dose to rev up protection against omicron.

The CDC's latest study didn't track infections the same way, but Link-Gelles said surveillance data from 29 other states doesn't suggest a difference between the younger and older kids.

Unvaccinated 5- to 11-year-olds were 1.3 times more likely to get COVID-19 in January—at the height of the omicron surge—than vaccinated youngsters, according to new CDC data. For 12- to 17-year-olds, the unvaccinated were 1.5 times more likely to get COVID-19 than their vaccinated peers that month.

It's disappointing that protection against infection isn't higher, and it may take more research to tell if younger children might fare better with a different dose, said Dr. Richard Besser, a pediatrician and president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who wasn't involved with the new studies.

Pfizer currently is testing a booster dose for 5- to 11-year-olds.

But meanwhile, "we do know that these vaccines are safe, we do know they reduce the risk of hospitalization," Besser stressed.


Explore further
Pfizer vaccine much less potent in kids aged 5-11
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
This is one from Profit of Doom that he asked me to post for him.

(fair use applies)

Andreas Schöfbeck, German insurance executive who warned of the high vaccine side-effect rate revealed by billing data, has been fired
His termination appears timed to prevent his participation in a meeting today with German vaccine regulators

Two weeks ago, BKK ProVita chairman Andreas Schöfbeck caused a small uproar by writing to Germany’s vaccine regulator, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, to inquire about the high rate of vaccine side-effects evident from BKK billing data.

Schöfbeck has now been fired following an hours-long company meeting this morning, at which he was called upon to defend his letter.

Representatives from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, including its president, Klaus Cichutek, had agreed to meet with Schöfbeck and other BKK officials about their concerns this afternoon. Schöfbeck’s termination was obviously timed to prevent his participation at that meeting, which will now go forward without him.

This is the behaviour of people who have deep confidence in the safety and effectiveness of our Corona vaccines.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Microfluidic Device for Quick and Accurate SARS-CoV-2 Testing
March 1st, 2022
38462dafad501a860be3955a2334d3ae
Conn Hastings


prepping-the-device-1.png


Researchers at the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Barcelona, Spain, have created a microfluidic chip that can detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in less than 30 minutes, and with a similar level of accuracy as the current gold-standard test, PCR. The technology combines the speed of antigen tests with the accuracy of PCR and may be useful for point-of-care testing. The technique involves combining a few drops of saliva with fluorescent antibodies against the virus. Then, the saliva sample is passed through a microfluidic channel, where a laser illuminates bound fluorescent antibodies and an optical detector rapidly assesses if the virus is present.

While the current global wave of the omicron COVID-19 variant is relatively mild in terms of severe disease and death, another more serious variant may be around the corner, and researchers are reluctant to assume that new technologies to identify and fight the virus are not required. Moreover, another viral pandemic is sure to happen sooner or later, and developing platform diagnostic and therapeutic technologies will mean we are better prepared for the next one.

In this light, these researchers have unveiled a new COVID-19 test that combines the speed of antigen tests with the accuracy of PCR. The test, which the researchers have described as a flow virometer, does not require an uncomfortable nasal swab, and will work with just two drops of saliva.


covid-spit-test.png


“The device uses a couple of drops of saliva and fluorescent light markers. When saliva is collected from the saliva of a patient’s mouth, we introduce it in a solution that contains fluorescent antibodies. If the saliva contains any presence of viral particles, the fluorescent antibodies will attach to the virus,” said Rubaiya Hussain, a researcher involved in the study.

“The reader collects the sample and sends it into a microfluidic channel that will pass through a laser illumination detection set-up. The laser illuminates the sample and if there is presence of viral particles, they will emit a unique enhancement of the fluorescence signal. In less than 1 minute, the reading translates into peaks in our graph and alerts the system that the sample is a positive.”

So far, the researchers have tested the technology with 50 patients, and have shown that it has a specificity of 90% and a sensitivity of 91.2%, which is similar to PCR. However, the test is faster and easier to perform than PCR.

Finally, the technology may be useful for other pathogens. “Our device is very versatile,” said Ewelina Wajs, another researcher involved in the study. “By selecting proper antibodies, this technology could also be adapted for the detection of other viruses, such as seasonal coronavirus or influenza virus, or even microorganisms in water, such as Legionella and E-coli, with a very fast response time, with respect to gold standards relying on culture.”

See a video about the device below.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lhksKJRwL0
4min 50sec

Study in Biomedical Optics Express: Small form factor flow virometer for SARS-CoV-2

Via: Institute of Photonic Sciences
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The Rise of the Resistance: Jeffrey Tucker Interviews Dr. Roger Hodkinson
By Brownstone Institute March 1, 2022

Dr. Roger Hodkinson is a medical specialist in pathology, a graduate of Cambridge University, and a Fellow the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (FRCPC). During his long career he has had a number of leadership roles in Canadian medicine both provincially and nationally, including being a university teacher, national pathology board examiner, and laboratory accreditation inspector. He was previously the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta, and CEO of a large community based medical laboratory with a full menu of testing for infectious disease and virology.

He is currently the Chairman of an American biotechnology company active in DNA sequencing. But he is most proud of his role for many years in public health advocacy as Honorary Chairman of ASH, Action on Smoking and Health, which is the leading non-profit organization in Canada tackling the predatory marketing strategies of Big Tobacco, and for which he was made Citizen of the Year in Edmonton, Alberta.

Dr. Hodkinson has been speaking and writing on pandemic policy since early on, and found himself embedded with the trucker convoy as they made their way to Ottawa. He is interviewed here by Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute.

53min 5sec
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

History Won’t Be Kind to Operation Warp Speed
By John Tamny March 1, 2022 Policy, Vaccines 5 minute read

Back in the 1980s when an AIDS diagnosis was most terrifying, Cato Institute co-founder Ed Crane warned against a federal solution to the virus. He made the point that particularly with killer viruses, you don’t want to limit pursuit of a cure to traditional players. Paraphrasing Crane, you want all manner of innovative, and frequently “crazy” minds crafting all sorts of alternative approaches. He nailed it. Of that, business history is clear.

“I can’t think of a single, major innovation coming from experts in the last thirty, forty years. Think about it, isn’t that stunning?”Vinod Khosla

Disruption born of innovation invariably comes from outside the industry that’s about to be disrupted. Following up on the Vinod Khosla quote, the venture capitalist stressed to author Sebastian Mallaby in Mallaby’s brilliant new book The Power Law that “If I’m building a health-care company, I don’t want a health-care CEO. If I’m building a manufacturing company, I don’t want a manufacturing CEO. I want somebody really smart to rethink assumptions from the ground up.”

With drugs, why would it be any different?

All of this and more has frequently come to mind with Operation Warp Speed. The latter was launched in 2020 to great fanfare, including cheering from conservatives. Though they’ve historically disdained industrial policy, cronyism and tight relationships of any kind between business and government, somehow pharmaceutical companies were immune to the dangers of the oxymoron that is “government investment.”

The stance taken by conservatives was a mistake, and not because we’re routinely hearing about triple-vaccinated individuals catching and transmitting the virus. To focus on how leaky the vaccinations have seemingly been is to presume expertise where there isn’t, and it’s also shooting fish in a crowded barrel. This write-up will leave the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the virus to the experts….

Operation Warp Speed insulted basic reason simply because government can’t play investor, and it particularly can’t (or shouldn’t) when something dangerous is in our midst. While experts can agree or disagree about how threatening the coronavirus is to our health, if it’s true that Americans faced great danger in a world without vaccines then that’s all the information we would need to dismiss an “Operation” that funneled taxpayer funds to the usual players. Much like with AIDS, if the virus embodied a lethal threat to our health then logic dictates not just a “Right to Try” in response to it, but also a “Right to Innovate.” Except that’s not what happened. Specific companies were handed billions by the federal government, after which alternative ways of medicating or dealing with the virus were roundly ridiculed. In other words, the federal government embraced an “expert standard.”

Yet as the observation from Khosla makes rather plain, a truly enlightened government would have gotten out of the way. The bigger the problem, the greater the need for outliers trying new things. This didn’t happen. Instead, a government spending the money of others centrally planned the pursuit of a vaccine, along with distribution of same.
Unfortunately, the story gets worse from there. Since our federal minders were actively spending billions to protect us, the effort shamefully delayed our getting back to normal; as in going back to school, work, and life in general. If our self-proclaimed protectors were going to come up with a vaccine, why not take a longer break from reality? Leaving aside the schooling that didn’t happen thanks to this, along with the work that didn’t take place, can we ignore the lethal health problems not diagnosed, the jump in suicides, and a general decline in mental health that seemingly occurred in concert with forced separation of rather social creatures?

Worse, what does government as quarterback of medical solutions mean the next time a virus rears its meek or ugly head? It’s no insight to say that there will be a next time, and since even conservatives now think Operation Warp Speed was brilliant, will we lock down during the next time(s) while the feds dole out cash to favored pharmaceutical firms?
Speaking of, what of the pharmaceutical firms? In the real world, every action is a tradeoff. Since it is, will a historically innovative sector find itself discovering less as it operates more with government directives in mind? Government can’t be an effective investor given the basic truth that investment is all about winning AND losing, which means government arguably won’t improve pharmaceutical firms with its gold-plated directives as much as it will deform them. Without once again commenting on the effective or ineffective nature of the vaccines, is it impolitic to ask if perhaps the answer to the virus isn’t a vaccine?

Along these lines, the sick sidling up to the sick is as old as humanity is. Yet this time we were told to avoid other people. Supposedly they might kill us! Or at least give us the virus. Don’t do that, we were told. Stay at home. A vaccine is on the way. Ok, but it’s not a medical comment to say that the people are the marketplace, and historically the marketplace has medicated itself with individual health top of mind.

Not this time. You see, government once again threw billions at pharmaceutical firms. In doing so, it made it possible for them to produce a vaccine in gargantuan fashion, and without regard to inventory and other limits that pharmaceutical firms normally face when government isn’t the buyer. Which meant that as opposed to vaccinating a smaller number of individuals found to be most vulnerable, most flush with cash, or both, government gave us a one-size-fits-all central plan.
And was cheered for doing so, because central plans have historically worked well?

Oh well, the marketplace that is the people will ultimately decide the good or bad of Operation Warp Speed. The bet here is that when reasonable people write histories of the coronavirus and the political response it engendered, the picture drawn of the modernly-cheered Operation will grow more and more critical with each analysis.

Reposted from RealClearMarkets
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Notice how the science journals are now changing their tune. To fit the politics? :shr:

(fair use applies)

Cloth COVID Masks Filter Less Than 10% of Particles – Inferior for Protection Against Airborne Viral Spread
American Institute of Physics
March 1, 2022

Simulations reveal low filtration efficiency in woven fabric.

Like many other viruses, COVID-19 is transmitted primarily via particles carried in the air. An infected person breathes out particles containing the virus into the air, which can then be inhaled by another person, who then becomes infected.

Masks are widely considered an important first-line defense against airborne transmission of the disease, as is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Fueled by the omicron variant, the latest wave of the pandemic prompted public health officials to recommend more protective face coverings because not all masks are created equal.

In Physics of Fluids, by AIP Publishing, researchers from England, Germany, and France focus their expertise — and their microscopes — on examining the efficacy of particle filtration by woven fabric, which, unlike material used in standard air filters and masks, consists of fibers twisted together into yarns. There are, therefore, two lengthscales: the diameters of the fiber and the yarn.

Using 3D imagery produced by confocal microscopy to see the air flow channels, the scientists simulate the airflow through these channels and calculate filtration efficiency for particles a micrometer and larger in diameter. The study concludes for particles in this size range, the filtration efficiency is low.

Fabric Is Porous

Fabric is a porous material with structure on multiple lengthscales. The top three images, from left to right, depict successively smaller lengthscales. At the largest lengthscale, fabric is a lattice woven from perpendicular yarns that go over and under other yarns at right angles to them. Credit: Richard P. Sear

“Masks are air filters, and woven fabrics, such as cotton, make for good jeans, shirts, and other apparel, but they are lousy air filters,” said co-author Richard Sear, from the University of Surrey. “So, use woven fabric for clothing, and N95s or FFP2s or KF94s for masks.”

Indeed, the flow simulations suggest when a person breathes through cloth, most of the air flows through the gaps between the yarns in the woven fabric, bringing with it more than 90% of the particles.

“In other words, these relatively large gaps are responsible for cloth being a bad material to make air filters from,” said Sear. “In contrast, the filtering layer of an N95 mask is made from much smaller, 5-micrometer fibers with gaps that are 10 times smaller, making it much better for filtering nasty particles from the air, such as those containing virus.”

While earlier research revealed similar findings, this study represents the first to simulate particles going directly through the gaps in woven fabric.

Sear added good masks should feature the “two Fs: good filtration and good fit.”

“Surgical masks fit badly, so a lot of air goes unfiltered past the edges of the mask by the cheeks and nose,” said Sear.

Reference: “Modelling the filtration efficiency of a woven fabric: The role of multiple lengthscales” by Ioatzin Rios de Anda, Jake W. Wilkins, Joshua F. Robinson, C. Patrick Royall and Richard P. Sear, 1 March 2022, Physics of Fluids.
DOI: 10.1063/5.0074229
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Common Medications Are Affecting Our Immune Response to Infections Like COVID-19
By University of Sydney March 1, 2022

Some common drugs can help and others hinder immune responses.

The largest clinical review of immune responses to paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioid analgesics, with a focus on infectious diseases, has provided insights into unintended impacts of these commonly used medicines. The findings highlight the potential for some of these medicines to join the fight against old and new infectious diseases.

Although research into these drugs has focused on their effects on pain and fever management, until now, their impact on the treatment of infectious diseases specifically was unclear. The findings highlight the need for more studies in this under-recognized area of research, with wide-reaching implications.

Key findings of the clinical review

  • For pain: Morphine suppresses key cells of the immune system and increases the risk of infection, particularly after cancer surgery.
  • For fever: Antipyretics – e.g. Paracetamol, Ibuprofen, Aspirin – can reduce the desirable immune response when taken for vaccination.
  • Aspirin could be an affordable and accessible therapeutic option for tuberculosis – which mainly afflicts poor countries, with beneficial results shown in animals and humans.
  • Anti-inflammatory medicine indomethacin may reduce viral replication in Covid-19 but large-scale human trials are needed.
Researchers led by the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine and Health opted for a ‘clinical’ review in order to have a broader scope to synthesize the available evidence, noting the importance of further research and trials regarding infectious disease responses.

The research was unplanned and the findings unexpected, with lead author Christina Abdel-Shaheed saying they initially were interested in studying possible impacts of paracetamol (acetaminophen) during the pandemic, when people hoarded the drug in the first months of COVID-19.

“We decided to study painkillers and fever medications generally and were amazed by what we found,” she said.

“In 14 years of studying pain, this is the most important research I have been involved in.”

The findings are published today in a leading journal, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

Caution urged during the pandemic

Pain researcher Dr. Christina Abdel-Shaheed, from Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, said the relationships uncovered with infectious diseases highlighted the need for rigorous clinical trials.

“Our review shows some of the common pain and fever medications may work with the immune system to fight infection, whereas others work against it and increase the risk of contracting or responding badly to infectious diseases,” Dr. Abdel-Shaheed said.

“Taking paracetamol or ibuprofen before or immediately after vaccination – for example for COVID-19 – to try to prevent mild fever or headache is not recommended, because this could reduce the body’s desirable immune response to the vaccine.

“For chickenpox, use of ibuprofen is not recommended as it might increase the risk of secondary bacterial skin infections.”

Dr. Justin Beardsley, infectious disease specialist at Westmead Hospital and researcher with Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, said an important finding of this review during the pandemic was that: “morphine – one of the most commonly used opioid analgesics in post-surgical and critical care – suppresses key innate immunity cells, thereby increasing the risk of infection”.

He highlighted: “This is particularly the case with cancer patients, who are already vulnerable to COVID-19.

“Efforts are needed to achieve adequate analgesia whilst avoiding immune-suppression in the immediate postoperative period caused by opioids such as morphine — both for people undergoing cancer surgery as well as for the immunocompromised generally,” said Dr. Beardsley, who also works with the Westmead Institute for Medical Research.

Positive impacts on our immunity

Professor Andrew McLachlan said on the positive side, the findings provide new insights for further research to evaluate these commonly used medicines, which could be repurposed to improve outcomes for people undergoing treatment for infectious diseases.

“With the urgent need for new treatments for COVID-19 and the declining efficacy of some antimicrobial agents due to resistance, now more than ever we need medicines which can maintain or enhance the efficacy of anti-infective drug treatments, said Professor McLachlan, the Head of School and Dean of Pharmacy at the University of Sydney.

“The results of this review suggest that commonly used medicines for pain and fever should be further explored as inexpensive and effective adjunctive treatments which influence immune and inflammation pathways for people undergoing treatment for infection.”

Under-researched area

Co-author Professor Ric Day from UNSW and St Vincent’s Hospital said research was still catching up in this new area of study.

“One of the problems is that widely used medicines –such as paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, and corticosteroids such as prednisone – have been around for decades and in the past we didn’t tend to consider their impacts on the immune system because it has been an under-recognised area.

“From community use to hospital and acute care, these classes of pain and fever medications are among the most popular drugs worldwide but we need to consider the significant impact these can have on our immune system and our response to infectious diseases, including COVID-19.”

Reference: “Immunomodulatory effects of pharmaceutical opioids and antipyretic analgesics: Mechanisms and relevance to infection” by Christina Abdel Shaheed, Justin Beardsley, Richard O. Day and Andrew J. McLachlan, 1 March 2022, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15281
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)



The secret's in the spikes: Exploring omicron's ability to escape antibodies
by Delthia Ricks
March 1, 2022

1646217076111.jpeg

FIG. 1. Plasma neutralizing titers against variants of concern wane over time in samples from an outpatient COVID-19 infection cohort.(A) Study participants were enrolled (day 0) within three days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (+PCR). Longitudinal plasma samples from day 28 (n=23), day 210 (n=23) and day 300 (n=8) were assessed against D614, Delta, Beta and Omicron. (B) The kinetics of half-maximal SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralizing titers (pNT50) over time are shown. Dotted lines indicate baseline mean pNT50 obtained from seronegative subjects. Solid lines connect samples from the same participant. (C) Mean pNT50 values are shown across study time-points of all 4 pseudovirus variants. Values that were significantly different from D614 at each time point are marked with a star. (D) Ratios of pNT50 values of the indicated variants of concern over D614 pNT50 at each study time point are shown. Horizontal bars indicate median values. p values in (B to D) were calculated using mixed effects analysis with Geisser-Greenhouse correction and Tukey's multiple comparisons test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Credit: DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abn7842


Virologists thought they had seen the worst of SARS-CoV-2's variants when delta emerged in the spring of 2021, but by fall a new one was in circulation with a slew of spike protein mutations that took the scientific community off guard.

"The omicron variant harbors a striking 59 amino acid substitutions throughout its genome relative to the ancestral Wuhan-hu-1 SARS-CoV-2 virus," said Dr. Gene S. Tan, assistant professor at the J. Craig Venter Institute, reporting in Science Translational Medicine.

Working with a team of Venter Institute scientists in La Jolla, California and Rockville, Maryland, Tan and colleagues conducted a series of elegant laboratory experiments to better understand how omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants—especially the one known as beta—elude neutralizing antibodies.

They found that the secret to antibody evasion is tucked away in the multiple mutations that pervade each of the viruses. Unlike its cousin variants, omicron is chock-full of mutations, more than any other SARS-CoV-2 variant that has so far caused waves of infection in the pandemic. Among the 59 mutations that characterize omicron, the majority are concentrated in the business end of the virus—the spike, the protein that unlocks human cells to initiate infection.

"Thirty-seven of these mutations are within the spike protein'", said Tan, referring to omicron. And the spikes are the targets of neutralizing antibodies. If the antibodies can't bind to the spikes, they are unable to easily neutralize the virus. "This degree of mutational change raises questions about the effectiveness of neutralizing antibodies that were elicited by infection with SARS-CoV-2 or by current mRNA vaccines," Tan and his colleagues concluded.

The Venter Institute research arrives as scientists worldwide attempt to peel away much of the mystery surrounding SARS-C-oV-2 variants—especially omicron.

Also known as BA.1, omicron is a variant that emerged in the southern region of Africa in late 2021, and it has rocked the world with renewed waves of infection. Even though its surges have already peaked in many parts of the globe, it is still wreaking havoc, forcing healthcare systems to the brink of collapse.

In Hong Kong, so many people have been infected in recent weeks, doctors and nurses are treating patients in parking lots, driveways and sidewalks because they've run out of space in hospitals.

In addition to its multiple mutations, omicron also has sub-variant siblings, such as BA.1.1 and BA.2 that are subjects of new rounds of scientific investigation. As with any infectious virus, omicron has a multitude of tricks: shape-shifting is one, a maneuver that makes it difficult for antibodies to bind to a spike protein's altered conformation. A lavish swathing in glycans (sugar-based polymers) is another. The glycans act as an invisibility coat, obscuring spike proteins from antibodies on the hunt for viruses.

The Venter team, which included lead author Benjamin L. Sievers, collaborated with researchers at Stanford University and the University of Maryland to better understand which SARS-CoV-2 variants were most adept at escaping antibodies. They found that omicron and another variant of concern, beta, were most adept at dodging antibodies.

The findings coincide with discoveries from other researchers globally who've found that escaping antibodies is an evolutionary goal of SARS-CoV-2, and that omicron has proved to be most masterful at antibody escape. Its high degree of contagion, scientists say, has been based largely on its ability to evade the immune system.

To define how efficiently omicron and other variants escape neutralizing antibodies, Tan and colleagues used serum and plasma samples from patients to simulate in the laboratory some of the types of human populations that encounter the virus: people who are vaccinated, those who are vaccinated and boosted, and people who have had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. They also took samples from pregnant women because that population is one of the most vulnerable when it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pregnant women included in the research had previously received two mRNA shots.

Samples for this part of the study were drawn from individuals participating in a longitudinal cohort project and were diagnosed as having had mild SARS-CoV-2 infections. All patients were enrolled in an outpatient study at Stanford Hospital Center. This study was a trial evaluating the efficacy of interferon lambda in mild COVID-19, but only participants from the placebo arm were studied in the Venter Institute investigation.

Omicron wasn't examined in isolation but in comparison to a range of other SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the original Wuhan-hu1-virus, the strain that initiated the worldwide pandemic. Tan and colleagues refer to the Wuhan variant in their paper as D614.

"We evaluated the magnitude and breadth of the antibody response against the D614 virus along with three variants of concern: beta, delta and omicron," Tan wrote. "Understanding these neutralizing antibody responses will enable us to assess the state of pre-existing immunity elicited by the [Wuhan] virus and can inform the design of the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines."

To compare the antibody response—and escape capacity—among SARS-CoV-2 variants, the scientists used a pseudovirus that was coaxed to express the spike proteins and mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Pseudoviruses were likewise coaxed to express the spike proteins of other SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the original wildtype—or Wuhan-hu1 variant—and the beta and delta variants. These viruses were tested in serum or plasma samples from the groups of individuals to evaluate antibody responses.

"Using vesicular stomatitis virus, VSV, pseudoparticles expressing the spike protein of several SARS-CoV-2 variants, we evaluated the magnitude and breadth of the neutralizing antibody response over time in individuals after infection and in mRNA-vaccinated individuals," Tan wrote in Science Translational Medicine, noting that booster doses increased the magnitude of the antibody response to the Wuhan, beta, delta and omicron variants. However, neutralizing antibody activity remained lowest against omicron, even involving samples from people who were boosted.

"We observed that boosting increases the magnitude of the antibody response to wildtype, beta, delta, and omicron variants. However, the omicron variant was the most resistant to [antibody] neutralization," Tan concluded, based on the research results.

The antibody response was low when beta and omicron variants were tested against samples from people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially when compared with the delta and Wuhan variants.

The findings arrive as the World Health Organization considered—but declined—giving omicron's sub-variant, BA.2, its own Greek letter. There is no need to parse omicron into different viruses with their own names, WHO's experts in pandemic viruses concluded.

"Omicron is a variant of concern that is dominant worldwide, and we know this from sequencing around the world," said Dr. Maria Van Kerhove, who leads the agency's emerging and zoonotic diseases unit.

"Omicron is less severe than delta, but it is not a mild virus. This is a dangerous virus and there are still some countries that are seeing an overwhelmed hospital system," Van Kerkhove said.

The Venter Institute team, meanwhile, noted findings from their study raised special concerns about pregnant women. There was a lower antibody response in samples obtained during pregnancy, even though the women had received two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

Pregnancy, they underscored, is a risk factor for severe COVID-19. Results from their newly completed research suggest that ways should be sought to increase vaccination among pregnant women, an understudied and vulnerable population.

Explore further
Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against omicron studied
 
Top