CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Maternal mortality jumped during COVID-19 pandemic
by University of Maryland
JUne 28, 2022

1656490960744.jpeg
The analysis of maternal mortality after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic showed a 40% jump among already high rates for non-Hispanic Black women and a 74% jump among formerly lower rates in Hispanic women. Credit: Marie E. Thoma, PhD; Eugene R. Declercq, PhD in JAMA Network Open

The COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts have taken a disproportionate toll on American mothers who were pregnant or just gave birth. Maternal mortality (i.e., deaths during pregnancy or in the early postpartum period) increased by 18% in 2020, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, exceeding the ~16% increase in overall US mortality in 2020. Yet according to a new analysis from the University of Maryland and Boston University, the maternal death rate after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was even higher, and disproportionately impacted Black and non-white Hispanic mothers.

A research letter published in JAMA Network Open by Marie Thoma in the UMD School of Public Health and Eugene Declercq in the BU School of Public Health compared maternal mortality data from 2018-March 2020, when the pandemic began, to April-December 2020. Overall, they found large increases in maternal death (33%) and late maternal deaths (41%) after March 2020 compared with before the pandemic, and conspicuous increases among Black and Hispanic mothers.

"The increase was really driven by deaths after the start of the pandemic, which are higher than what we see for overall excess mortality in 2020," said Dr. Thoma, assistant professor of family science in the UMD SPH. The study also showed that existing and new disparities emerged after the pandemic with a 40% jump among already high rates for non-Hispanic Black women and a 74% jump among formerly lower rates in Hispanic women.

Strikingly, said Dr. Declercq, professor of community health sciences at BUSPH, "for the first time in more than a decade, the maternal mortality rate for Hispanic women during the pandemic was higher than that for non-Hispanic white women, a shift that may be related to COVID and deserves greater attention moving forward."

COVID-19 was listed as a secondary cause of death in 14.9% of maternal deaths in the last nine months of 2020, with it being a contributing factor for 32% of Hispanic, 12.9% of Black and 7% of non-Hispanic white women giving birth.

In their analysis of causes of maternal death, they found the largest increases were due to conditions directly related to COVID-19 (respiratory or viral infection) and conditions made worse by COVID-19 infection, such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. However, interruptions to the health care system could have led to delayed prenatal care that could have meant that risk factors for pregnancy complications went undetected.

"We need more detailed data on the specific causes of maternal deaths overall and those associated with COVID-19," Dr. Thoma said. "Potentially we could see improvements in 2021 due to the rollout of vaccines, as well as the extension of postpartum care provided for Medicaid recipients as part of the American Rescue Act of 2021 in some states. We're going to continue to examine this."
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

How the pandemic and social distancing have changed our perception of time
by Karina Toledo,FAPESP
June 28, 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way people perceive the passage of time, according to an article published in the journal Science Advances.

At the end of the first month of social distancing, in May 2020, most participants in the study (65%) reported feeling time was passing more slowly. The researchers classified this perception as "time expansion" and found it to be associated with feelings of loneliness and a lack of positive experiences in the period.

An even larger proportion (75%) reported feeling less "time pressure," when the clock appears to go faster, allowing less time for day-to-day tasks and leisure. The vast majority of interviewees (90%) said they were sheltering at home during the period.

"We followed the volunteers for five months to see if this 'snapshot' of the start of the pandemic would change over time. We found that the feeling of time expansion diminished as the weeks went by, but we didn't detect significant differences with regard to time pressure," André Cravo, first author of the article, told Agência FAPESP. Cravo is a professor at the Federal University of ABC in São Paulo state, Brazil.

The study began on May 6, when 3,855 volunteers recruited via social media answered a ten-item online questionnaire and completed a simple task designed to gauge their ability to estimate short intervals (pressing start and stop buttons in 1, 3 and 12 seconds). They were then asked about their routine in the previous week (whether they had completed all the requisite tasks and how much time they had devoted to leisure), and how they were feeling now (happy, sad, lonely etc).

"They were invited to return every week for further sessions, but not everyone did," Cravo said. "In the final analysis, we considered data for 900 participants who answered the questionnaire for at least four weeks, albeit not all consecutively."

Using time awareness scales from 0 to 100 that are standard for this type of survey, the researchers analyzed the answers and calculated the two parameters—time expansion and time pressure—to see whether they increased or decreased week by week.

"Besides a rise or fall on the scales, we also analyzed the factors that accompanied the changes. During the five-month period, we observed a similar pattern: In weeks when participants reported feeling lonely and experiencing less positive affect, they also felt time pass more slowly. In highly stressful situations, they felt time pass more quickly," Cravo said.

When the first set of answers to the question on the passage of time was compared with the second, provided at the end of the first month of confinement, perceptions of time expansion had risen 20 points while time pressure had fallen 30 points, according to Raymundo Machado, a researcher at the Brain Institute of the Albert Einstein Jewish Hospital (HIAE) in São Paulo, and last author of the article. "These results are evidently affected by memory bias, however, because no measurements were made before the pandemic," he said.

Time slowed most for younger participants early in the pandemic, when compliance with social distancing rules was strictest. Except for age, demographic factors such as household size, occupation and gender, had no influence on the results.

For the authors, this may be an effect of the sample profile. Most of the volunteers (80.5%) lived in the Southeast region. A large majority were women (74.32%). Most had completed secondary school, and a great many even had a university degree (71.78%). In terms of income, roughly a third were upper middle class (33.08%). Sizable minorities worked in education (19.43%) and healthcare (15.36%).

"This is typical of online surveys, where a majority are women living in the Southeast with high levels of formal education. The influence of demographics might have been more evident if the sample had represented the Brazilian population better," Machado said.

Internal clock

Although the pandemic changed participants' perceptions of the passage of time, it apparently did not affect their ability to sense duration, measured by the button-pressing task. "All of us are able to estimate short intervals. When the results of this time estimation test [including overestimation and underestimation of the intervals] were compared with the time awareness scores, there was no correlation," Machado said.

According to Cravo, evidence from the scientific literature suggests the feeling that time is passing more slowly or more quickly is influenced mainly by two factors: the relevance of time in a particular context, and unpredictability. "For example, if you're late for work [so that time is relevant in the context] and have to wait for a bus [unpredictable timing], you have an extreme perception that the minutes aren't passing. When you're on vacation and having fun, time isn't relevant and appears to fly," he said.

The perception often changes when we recall past situations. "When you remember what you did during a vacation, time seems to have lasted longer. On the contrary, when you're standing in line, time goes all too slowly but when you recall the situation some time later, it feels as if it was over quickly," Cravo said.

In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, how people will remember the passage of time during the period of social distancing is unknown. "Several temporal milestones, such as Carnival, the June festivals and birthdays, had to be skipped in the last two years, so the question remains open," he concluded.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVj5UXbUBU
Antibodies in 99.3% of youth
17 min 54 sec
Jun 28, 2022
Dr. John Campbell


Nearly all youth in England had COVID-19 antibodies by March 2022. Implications for vaccine policies? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... 27 June 2022 Results from Round 3 (3rd March to 25th March 2022) Schools Infection Survey Antibodies in secondary school pupils N = 884 99.3% of had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, comprised of 64.9% who were vaccinated, and 34.4% who were unvaccinated. Antibodies in primary school pupils N = 884 82.0% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, comprised of 0.4% who were vaccinated, and 81.6% who were unvaccinated. Schools Infection Survey https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/covid... https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... The pupil antibody test used in Oral fluid collection Lower sensitivity than blood antibody tests, (estimated at 80.0%) for unvaccinated pupils. Immunoglobulins in oral fluids are at least 1 per 1,000th of blood Pupils were tested for Anti-N (antibodies from natural infection), and anti-S (antibodies from natural infection or vaccination) Comparisons between Round 1, Round 2 and Round 3 Round 1 (10th November to 10th December) Primary, 40.1% Secondary, 82.4% Round 2 (10th January to 3rd February) Primary, 62.4% Secondary, 96.6% Round 3, (3rd March to 25th March 2022) Primary, 82% Secondary, 99.3% Antibody testing in Round 3 Coronavirus cases in England were increasing Omicron BA.1 variant times UK infections https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... Week ending 18 June 2022 Likely caused by Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5. 1,360,600 (1 in 40 people) in England 68,500 (1 in 45 people) in Wales 59,900 (1 in 30 people) in Northern Ireland 250,700 (1 in 20 people) in Scotland Deaths Coronavirus, 6th sixth leading cause of death in England and Wales 3.3% of deaths in both countries In April 2022, COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death. Causes of death, UK https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati... Dementia and Alzheimer’s Ischaemic heart disease Cerebrovascular disease Chronic lower respiratory disease Cancer, trachea, bronchus, lung Influenza and pneumonia Ill-defined conditions Cancer, colorectal Cancer, lymphoid, haemopoietic Deaths in the US https://www.healthline.com/health/lea... Heart disease, 23.1% Cancer, 21.7% Accidents, (unintentional) 5.9% Chronic lower respiratory diseases, 5.6% Stroke, 5.18% Alzheimer’s 4.23% Diabetes, 2.9% Influenza and pneumonia, 1.88% Kidney disease, 1.8% Suicide, 1.64% Septicemia, 1.42% Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, 1.39%
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsmgN73oy4Y
June 28 2022 - FDA Vaccine Committee Meeting for Modification
2 hr 28 min 29 sec
Streamed live 13 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

June 28 2022 - FDA Vaccine Committee Meeting for Modification Join the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an upcoming meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to discuss whether the SARS-CoV-2 strain composition of COVID-19 vaccines should be modified, and if so, which strain(s) should be selected for Fall 2022. This meeting is a follow-up to the April 6 VRBPAC meeting that discussed general considerations for future COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and the strain composition of COVID-19 vaccines to further meet public health needs.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCDjPo6sfco
My Analysis of FDA Committee Omicron Booster Decision
59 min 30 sec
Streamed live 7 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

June 28 2022 - FDA Committee Omicron Booster Decision My Analysis
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
This is the substack by Dr. Topol referred to in the article above.
~~~~~~~~~~~

(fair use applies)

The BA.5 story
The takeover by this Omicron sub-variant is not pretty
Eric Topol
Jun 27

The Omicron sub-variant BA.5 is the worst version of the virus that we’ve seen. It takes immune escape, already extensive, to the next level, and, as a function of that, enhanced transmissibility, well beyond Omicron (BA.1) and other Omicron family variants that we’ve seen (including BA.1.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.4). You could say it’s not so bad because there hasn’t been a marked rise in hospitalizations and deaths as we saw with Omicron, but that’s only because we had such a striking adverse impact from Omicron, for which there is at least some cross-immunity (BA.1 to BA.5). Here I will review (1) what we know about its biology; (2) its current status around the world; and (3) the ways we can defend against it.

The biology of BA.5

There are many ways to get a sense of how distinct BA.5 is compared with prior strains and the Omicron family. There’s its genetic distance—how its sequence morphed over time, indicative that BA.4 and BA.5 are derivatives of BA.2, in different limbs from BA.1


c
Then there’s the antigenic map, that tells us about the virus’s spike protein and how our immune system “sees” it. BA.4, which has a very similar spike protein sequence to BA.5 (vida infra), have not been mapped by this report, but theoretically they’d be off the chart as I’ve shown here. You can see that the antigenic distance from BA.1 to BA.2 is far greater than the ancestral strain to Delta or Beta or Gamma. This is the basis for the immune escape of BA.5—our relatively poor recognition of and response to the spike protein.



These investigators did antigenically map BA.4/5 and here are multiple views to show how far away they are from prior variants.



An important feature of the variant is its fitness, which is the composite of lineage growth, basic reproduction number, extent of immune-evasion and generation time. From an analysis of 6.4 million SARS-CoV-2 sequences, here is the fitness plot, and note that BA.2 is at the upper right, whereas BA.5 would be well off the chart for maximal fitness.



On the topic of fitness, it is noteworthy to look a the growth advantage of BA.5 relative to BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, as recently analyzed by the UKHSA



To recap, BA.5 is quite distinct and very fit, representing marked difference from all prior variants, but how was this achieved? There are major differences in the spike sequence, but BA.5 mutations extend beyond that to other parts of the virus as shown below, in comparison with the main Omicron variants, including how it differs from BA.4, mainly outside of the spike (S) protein.



Since we’re basically spike-centric, which discounts the potential of non-spike mutations (which are likely important for understanding BA.4 vs BA.5), here are the key sequence differences compared with BA.2 and the other Omicron variants



With that background, we turn to the immune response and consistently note from patient sera that BA.4 and BA.5 are the most immune-evasive variants with low levels of neutralizing antibody responses seen in multiple studies to date



The question of course comes up as to whether BA.5 is more virulent or pathogenic, capable of inducing worse disease. We only have one experimental study on that so far and it was shown that BA.4 and BA.5 induced worse disease in the Syrian hamster model and more efficiently spread in lung cell cultures.

Do the current vaccines work against BA.5? The new UKHSA report started to address this question, looking at symptomatic infections and severe disease, but it’s unclear. With the extent of BA.5’s immune evasion and the recent trends of lowered vaccine effectiveness vs severe disease (from 95% vs Delta with a booster to ~80% vs Omicron BA.1 or BA.2 with a booster) it would not be at all surprising to me to see further decline of protection against hospitalizations and deaths.



Current status around the world

While initially seen in South Africa soon thereafter in Portugal, BA.5 has been detected throughout the world. It led to a marked rise in hospitalizations in Portugal where it rapidly became dominant, and is now having such an effect, to a variable extent, in many European countries and Israel. It is frequently masked since the rise of BA.5 is occurring at the same time as the decline in BA.2 in several countries, and the magnitude of the BA.2 wave was different between countries.



But it’s not just these countries that are seeing the rise of BA.4 and BA.5—it’s around the world and it has happened very quickly.



And the toll it is taking on case rise is seen in both hemispheres.



It will very soon be the dominant (>50%) variant in the United States. BA.5 was ~37% as of June 25th. The risk of reinfection with BA.5 has substantially increased because prior infections are far away (antigenically) from an aligned immune response.



The ways we can defend against it

Obviously, the non-pharmacologic mitigating measures that include high-quality make (N95/KN95), physical distancing, ventilation and air filtration would help, but pandemic fatigue has led to very low level of adoption. Boosters would help, and it is noteworthy that for people age 50+ there is a substantial (14-fold) reduction for mortality as recently documented by the CDC for a 4th shot (previously published by the Israel investigators in multiple observational studies).
That is 99% reduction in mortality for 4-shots vs 86% for 3 shots. But only 1 in 4 Americans age 50+ have had a fourth shot!



The big question now is whether an Omicron booster, directed to BA.1, will help when that variant is no longer with us, and we will be close to 100% BA.5 within a matter of weeks. And no doubt there will be further troublesome variants that lie ahead, be they more in the Omicron family or in a whole new lineage.

This topic is the thrust of an FDA Advisory Committee meeting this week. Both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have submitted data to the FDA for a bivalent (ancestral + Omicron BA.1) or monovalent (BA.1 only, Pfizer) booster. Moderna also published a preprint on their Omicron booster (data below). While the neutralizing antibody levels were higher for these boosters vs BA.1 (vs the original vaccine), both vaccine programs showed they were 1/3 as high vs BA.4/5.



The issues that are being confronted at the FDA Advisory Committee center around whether an emergency authorization for a BA.1 booster is worthwhile now that the virus has moved onto a substantially different variant. The sad truth is that we can’t even get 75% of high-risk people to get a 4th shot (original vaccine) with a proven survival advantage. (Side note: million of these shots will soon expire, a profound waste, which should be made available to all people, age <50, who seek added protection). While BA.1 is much closer to BA.5 that the ancestral Wuhan strain, it still has substantial dissimilarities.
Given the hyper-mutated Omicron as compared with Wuhan, a booster that has much of its 37 spike protein mutations incorporated would likely help to some degree for broadening immunity and providing some degree of enhanced protection vs symptomatic infections and severe disease. The unknown is to what extent? We have no clinical data, only immunologic and safety profile results.

Should we wait for a BA.5 booster? That will take months, and it should be noted it took more than 7 months for the Omicron BA.1 booster to be tested, a delay that is exceedingly long and unacceptable relative to the timing of validation and production of the original vaccines in 10 months during 2020.

There is no right answer but variant chasing is a flawed approach. By the time a BA.5 vaccine booster is potentially available, who knows what will be the predominant strain? All of this gets back to the vital need for new generation of vaccines that are universal, that is variant-proof—either against all sarbecoviruses or against all β-coronaviruses. And the pivotal importance of nasal vaccines to promote mucosal immunity and help block the transmission chain. These goals are paramount, along with more and better antiviral drugs, but they are not getting adequate traction or priority.

My recent posts about our Covid capitulation and the risk of reinfection have tried to hammer home the imperative of next-generation vaccines (pan-coronaviruses, as described above, and nasal) but the frustration keeps mounting as we now confront unsatisfactory deliberations on variant chasing. Meanwhile, new versions of the virus (think: the time it took from Omicron BA.1 to get to BA.5) are accelerating and we’re not done yet, by any stretch. It’s frankly sickening to watch this virus continue to outrun us, knowing we are so damn capable of getting ahead of it.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The FDA's theater of the absurd on the mRNA shots continues
Alex Berenson
16 hr ago

I am sorting through the Food and Drug Administration’s briefing books for its meeting today to discuss whether future versions of the mRNA Covid shots will be waved through without proper clinical trials (spoiler alert: yes, the fix is in).

I want to write in detail about the meeting and what the FDA is doing, because it’s incredibly important - it means that we will NEVER have decent randomized controlled data on the jabs going forward. For vaccine advocates, this omission is clearly a feature and not a bug.

Yet I am having a hard time motivating to write about the meeting because although it’s incredibly important, it’s also meaningless. Demand for the mRNA Covid shots has collapsed completely and is unlikely ever to return.

Put aside the side effects, which are now increasingly visible at the national level; the failure of the shots to work as promised is just too obvious. If governments want to mandate these for kids, they’re going to have to put tanks in the streets, and even Pfizer doesn’t have enough lobbyists to pull that off.

Still, this is just the latest regulatory embarrassment on the mRNAs, on the heels of the pathetic authorization of the shots for kids under 5. The United States is going to be an outlier here, in the worst way. Last week, the director general of the Danish Health Authority (Søren Brostrøm, could it sound any more Danish?) admitted that giving Covid vaccines to older kids and teenagers had been a useless mistake that the country would not repeat:

He was asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children.

- With what we know today: yes. With what we knew then: no, was the answer



SOURCE

The effort from the Centers for Disease Control and vaccine fanatics to try to scare parents into getting these useless shots by overstating Covid’s risk to kids is particularly awful. For healthy children, the risk from Covid was negligible even before Omicron.

The latest data come from a study in Britain released last week. Researchers reviewed every one of the 185 deaths that followed a positive Sars-Cov-2 test in English kids and teenagers in 2020 and 2021 - the equivalent of about 1,100 deaths in the United States. They found that 104, almost 60 percent, were not linked to Covid.

Only 81 children and teenagers actually died of Covid over the two-year period, about 1 percent of all deaths in people under 20. But even that figure sharply overstates the risk to healthy children. Of the 81 kids and teens who died, 61 had an underlying condition. The most common was severe neurodisability, in 27 cases.

In other words, 20 healthy English children and teenagers died of Covid during the first two years of the epidemic - fewer than one a month. England has more than 13 million people under 20.

SOURCE

“Overall, our study confirms the very low risk of death due to SARS-CoV-2 in CYP [children and young people], irrespective of variant,” the researchers wrote - words that should be tattooed on the foreheads of all the supposedly serious health professionals who have for reasons known only to themselves decided to encourage parents to get these shots.

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The Lies & Hypocrisy Are Getting Worse
"Experts" and politicians can't help themselves
Ian Miller
15 hr ago

One of the most disappointing aspects of the COVID pandemic has been the willingness of adults to impose untested restrictions and policies on young children, while ignoring any potential negative impacts to their mandates.

Without pushback from the media, supposed “experts” have recommended school closures, remote learning, forced masking and now, universal vaccination for children ages 6 months-<5 years.

The lack of data or evidence suggesting a benefit to these policies has seemingly never been a hindrance to their recommendations. In fact, it often feels as if they dare others to point out that their policy mandates are not based on any high quality research.

Instead of engaging with the mountains of substantive criticism of their methodology or the discrediting flaws of the “studies” they reference, they simply revert back to appeals to authority.

They’re right, because they say so.

This phenomenon has often been applied to “interventions” forced on children, but it’s also easily applicable to the debate over the origins of COVID.

For much of the first year of the pandemic, “experts” and the “fact checking” media colluded to ensure that discussion of the lab leak theory would be censored and users banned for suggesting it as a possibility.

Only after the approved political sources deemed it acceptable to discuss did social media companies relent.

Except one of the world’s supposed leading “experts,” the head of the World Health Organization, has apparently been telling people privately that he believes the lab leak is the most likely explanation for the origin of the virus.

Of course, none involved in the expert approved censorship will apologize or demand changes as a result.

Because whatever they say is right. No matter how many times they’re wrong first.

You’d think that being caught lying, misrepresenting evidence or flouting their own rules would be enough to instill a level of shame in politicians and their ideological allies, but the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade shows there truly is no limit to the hypocrisy they’re capable of.

It’s important to shine a light on these three issues — the lying, the hypocrisy and the purposeful misrepresentations.
Holding the “experts” and politicians accountable is the only chance to stop the madness of COVID policy from becoming permanent.

More Embarrassments for the FDA & CDC

Possibly the most important thing to know about the FDA authorizing vaccinations for young children is that there is virtually no evidence to support their decision.

When you review the FDA documents, it’s shocking to see how little data they used to make their decision and how ineffective the trials proved to be:


Unsurprisingly, the CDC joined in by misrepresenting the risks of COVID to children:

The CDC has deservedly been at the forefront of the erosion of “expertise,” beginning with their early flip flop on masks. In spring 2020, the CDC recommended against mask wearing by the general public, in line with pre-COVID evidence. By summer 2020, the director of the organization was claiming that masks would provide better protection than vaccines.

They continued to mislead the public on the effectiveness of masks, collaborated with teacher’s unions to keep schools closed and claimed that vaccinated peopledid not “carry the virus.” Repeatedly, the CDC has shown that they are willing to mislead in order to achieve their policy goals.

But this latest misstep might be their worst yet.

Seemingly out of a desire to justify authorizing vaccinations for young children, the CDC presented misleading data on the risks of COVID.

At a recent meeting of the Advisory on Immunization Practices group, as chronicled in a post by writer Kelley K, the CDC presented a graphic claiming that COVID was a leading cause of death among kids 0-4.


CDC slide describing COIVD rankings among leading causes of death for children 0-4

Except this graphic is completely false.

It came from a preprint posted by researchers in the UK, who reviewed mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. That dataset includes deaths where COVID was the main contributor as well as those where it was present, but not the underlying cause.

This discrepancy creates a significant issue with accuracy, since the preprint claimed to “only consider Covid-19 as an underlying (and not contributing) cause of death”.

As Kelley points out, there is a noticeable difference between the NCHS statistics and the CDC’s own “WONDER” database, which delineates between contributing and underlying causes.

NCHS, which includes incidental COVID deaths, shows that 1,433 children died with COVID, but the WONDER database shows 1,088 deaths from COVID. That’s a 24% difference and would dramatically alter the graphic.

They used COVID data that included deaths with COVID and compared it to data that includes deaths from an illness.
It’s completely discrediting.

Even worse, the misleading graphic represents COVID deaths cumulatively and compares it to annualized data. Simply, they took two years of COVID related mortality and compared it to one year of data for all other causes.

Kelley re-ran the data using the correct comparisons, which significantly altered the outcome.

While the CDC rankings claimed that COVID was the 4th leading cause of death for children under the age of 1, the corrected annualized ranking was 9th, after using exclusively underlying cause data.

Similarly, the NCHS data used in the preprint and by the CDC claimed 124 deaths in that age group, but COVID was the underlying cause in only 79 deaths.

Rankings for childhood mortality are also overly simplistic, since even the “leading” causes of death pale in comparison to accidents, which caused ~25x more annualized deaths than COVID.

But the worst part about this is that the CDC likely knew that the data they were presenting was wrong and dangerously misleading. And they used it anyway.

They were so desperate to justify their desire to vaccinate young children that they were willing to use inaccurate information and comparisons to do so.

They knew that the media and influential “experts” around the internet would pick up on the graphic, creating unnecessary fear amongst parents and higher demand for the vaccines. And of course, they were right; CNN’s Leana Wen immediately shared the slides:


Image
Image

Instead of accurately informing the public and allowing parents to make a risk-benefit calculation, the CDC is essentially trying to coerce behavior through fear.

Even better, the lead researcher posted on Twitter that they were aware of the issues and would be making corrections.


But of course, it’s too late. The data has now been spread far and wide; the CDC and their allies did their damage. The vaccines were authorized regardless and many parents will make the decision to vaccinate their children based on misrepresented information.

It’s yet another episode in the depressing saga of experts disgracing themselves to achieve their goals and undercutting the public’s trust in the process.

The Lab Leak

A new story from the Daily Mail reports that World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus privately admits that he believes that the COVID-19 pandemic originated in a Wuhan laboratory.

Tedros apparently made the remarks to a prominent European politician that a “catastrophic accident” was the “most likely explanation” for the beginning of the pandemic.

The WHO in early 2021 started an investigation into the origins of the pandemic, which concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was “extremely unlikely.” However, the researcher who led that investigation claimed that China “pressured” the team to “dismiss” the lab leak theory.

Scientific journal The Lancet attempted an investigation, which was disbanded over conflicts of interest. Eco Health Alliance head Peter Daszak failed to disclose his close ties to the Wuhan lab, resulting in criticism of the committee’s objectivity.

While privately Tedros is now seemingly admitting that the lab leak is the most likely origin, the official position of the WHO is that “all hypothesis” are still possible.

It’s extremely unlikely that they will ever change their official, public statements given China’s importance to the organization.

In early 2020, for example, China contributed an additional $30 million to the WHOin what was described as a “political power move” to “boost its superficial credentials.”

The true origins of the pandemic are obviously an extremely important issue not just for China and the WHO, but the global political landscape. Beyond officially determining where the virus came from, if it is conclusively determined to have resulted from a lab leak, it would be a crushing blow to “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci who tried repeatedly to shut down the theory.

“The science” has been repeatedly referenced by media outlets, public health authorities and politicians as an immutable set of beliefs that are unassailable and infallible.

If a deadly global pandemic that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people, destroyed economies, increased poverty and furthered educational deterioration started in a research lab, it could mark a devastating shift in the public’s view of “science.”

What’s most infuriating about Tedros finally (and privately) giving credence to the lab leak is that for much of 2020, proponents of the hypothesis were decried as “conspiracy theorists.”

The Washington Post famously published an article calling it a “debunked” conspiracy theory and were forced to issue a humiliating correction afterwards.

Media outlets like the Post never had any justification to call the lab leak a “debunked” conspiracy, but it’s obvious they felt safe in describing at as such because it was promoted by the wrong people. Tom Cotton, a Republican Senator, had advanced the hypothesis, therefore it must be “debunked” because Cotton belongs to the wrong ideology.

That myopic, politically motivated thinking has been a common function of most major media outlets who are often desperate to declare their allegiance to the correct set of approved liberal opinions.

Social media companies like Facebook used the media and WHO as authoritative sources of information and as a result, banned users from even discussing the lab leak.

Only in mid-2021 did Facebook reverse course after admitting it was not “debunked.”

This story contains all the infuriating elements of COVID discussion – “experts” lying to the public and bowing to political pressure from China, a fake consensus of opinion created by the media, and social media outlets protecting “science” by censoring opposing viewpoints.

While China’s opposition to an actual investigation will likely prevent any conclusive findings, it’s notable that the head of the WHO admits privately that the “conspiracy theorists” were probably right all along.

[continued next post]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued from above]

Vaccine Mandate Hypocrisy

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade has dominated the news cycle since the opinion was released Friday.

Reactions from the pro-abortion side have been ranged from deliberately misleading to woefully inaccurate to offensive, with one comedian labeling half the country as “terrorists.”

But yet another type of hypocrisy has emerged from supposed public health “experts” and politicians.

Best exemplified by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, it’s yet another indicator of how the response to Roe v. Wade is about nothing more than maintaining allegiance to the correct political ideology, intellectual consistency be damned.

In 2021, President Joe Biden attempted to mandate COVID vaccination for millions of workers throughout the United States by appealing to OSHA authority. Any employee who worked for a company with more than 100 employees would have had their freedom of choice removed by being forced to take a vaccine that does nothing to protect the safety of others.

The mandate was ultimately deemed to be illegal, but the attempt was celebrated by public health “experts” and many politicians as the correct decision, regardless of its impact on bodily autonomy.

Back in November of 2021, Murthy defended the government mandating a private health decision by saying: “It’s a necessary step to accelerate our pathway out of the pandemic.” He also referred to it as entirely “appropriate:”

“The president and the administration wouldn’t have put these requirements in place if they didn’t think they were appropriate and necessary,” Murthy told host Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week.” “And the administration is certainly prepared to defend them.”

Murthy believes that when it comes to COVID vaccination, the “essential principle of maintaining an individual’s autonomy and control over their health decisions” is null and void.

Unsurprisingly, he had the exact opposite reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision:


It’s amazing how flexible the “essential principle” of “individual autonomy and control over their health decisions” apparently is.

When it suits Murthy’s political needs, he’s a staunch defender of individual choice. When he wants to mandate control over other’s bodies and personal health decisions, choice is a meaningless, easily dismissed concept.

Justin Trudeau exemplifies the same remarkable lack of shame.



Less than a year ago, Trudeau mandated vaccines for anyone attempting to travel by plane or train across Canada, as well as for all “federally-regulated” workers.

This decision, of course, removed bodily autonomy and choice for millions who need to travel or didn’t want to lose their government jobs.

Undeterred by the abject hypocrisy, Trudeau on Friday declared that “no government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.”

It’s hard to imagine a more blatant example of political posturing and virtue signaling.

Trudeau, who is a man, politician, and a representative of the government, told many women in Canada exactly what they had to do with their body.

Get vaccinated or lose your job and stay home.

He had no problem removing the “right to choose” when it suited his needs. Only now when he has an opportunity to signal his ideological virtue is he a champion of individual liberty.

It’s nothing new for politicians and public health authorities to be hypocritical. But their ability to blatantly disregard the principles of bodily autonomy and personal control over health decisions just a few months ago means it’s impossible to take them seriously now.

It’s almost assuredly too much to ask “experts” and politicians to be intellectually consistent, but it’s yet another example of why trust in institutions and those that run them continues to deteriorate.

It’s all part of the same depressing pattern. Experts and politicians are willing to lie or purposefully withhold information to achieve their goals.

They mislead and contradict their previous statements, knowing that the media will protect the hypocrisy and misrepresentations.

The FDA buries the data behind the authorization in documents they know no one will read.

The head of the most powerful international health body hides his true feelings to protect China and his financial partners.
It’s hard to see how this gets fixed without these individuals and the organizations they lead coming to terms with their mistakes, apologizing and changing course.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

After all, Joe Biden already wants to give them more money for the next pandemic.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

How the Sausage Gets Made
How false scientific claims are transformed into Covid “Science”
Michael P Senger
18 hr ago

In his 1905 classic The Jungle, Upton Sinclair documents the process by which sausage is made at a meatpacking plant in turn-of-the-century Chicago.
There would be meat stored in great piles in rooms; and the water from leaky roofs would drip over it, and thousands of rats would race about on it. It was too dark in these storage places to see well, but a man could run his hand over these piles of meat and sweep off handfuls of the dried dung of rats. These rats were nuisances, and the packers would put poisoned bread out for them; they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together.

Fast forward to 2022, and instead of rusty nails, poisoned bread and rat dung, we have the work of Imperial College, the Lancet and Eric Feigl-Ding.

The process by which these delectable ingredients are transformed into Covid “science” for public consumption was illustrated most recently by the widespread dissemination of two atrocious scientific preprints. The first was a preprint in the Lancet pretending to show that Covid vaccines saved over 20 million lives, and the second a preprint falsely claiming that Covid was one of the leading causes of death in children.

First, the Lancet: The once-esteemed journal now famous for such Lysenkoist gems as “China’s Successful Control of Covid-19” and “Shanghai’s life-saving efforts against the current omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Last week, the Lancet published a new preprint on a “mathematical modelling study” by Imperial College—funded by GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organization—claiming to show that Covid vaccines saved 20 million lives.

Never mind that the study was only a preprint. Never mind that it was based on mathematical models which were little more than opinions. Never mind that the models somehow ignored natural immunity, deaths prior to the vaccine rollout, Covid’s highly-stratified risk by age, and the reduction in Covid’s severity over time. Within three days, the study’s farcical conclusion had been scooped up and dumped across the front pages of the world’s most influential media outlets.





Second, another recent preprint claimed to show that Covid was one of the five leading causes of death in children. But this claim was based on two egregious and obvious errors. Whereas the study counted the total number of Covid deaths in children on a cumulative basis since early 2020, this total number was compared to numbers of deaths from other causes during only one year. And whereas any death in which the child died “with Covid” was counted as a Covid death, the other causes were counted only if they were the underlying cause of death. Yet these glaring errors did not stop three different US CDC officials and countless other public health professionals from citing the false claim.


This is how the sausage gets made.

This is no fairy story and no joke; the meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one—there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit.

This process is, of course, nothing new as far as the response to Covid. From the very beginning, virtually every Covid policy has come about as a result of elite institutions and regulatory bodies throwing their reputation behind studies of questionable origin and scientific merit, for reasons that remain largely a mystery.

Policymakers justified the strict lockdowns of 2020—which ultimately led to the deaths of tens of thousands of young Americans and pushed over 75 million people globally into extreme poverty—with little more than the infamous Imperial College model wrongly predicting millions of Covid deaths, Italy’s curious adoption of China’s lockdowns for no real reason at all, the WHO’s rubber stamping of China’s logically-impossible Covid narrative, and a bewilderingly viral blog post by thinkfluencer Tomas Pueyo.

To this day, the CDC continues to justify mask mandates that have violated the fundamental autonomy of millions of Americans based on one study claiming that two hairdressers wearing cloth masks did not spread Covid to their clients. And virtually every official in charge of the response to Covid repeated the absurd claim that Covid vaccines prevent infection and transmission, a claim that we now know was based on little more than “hope.”


Perhaps no phenomenon better illustrates the preeminence of pseudoscience in Covid policy than the spectacular rise of Twitter celebrities like Eric Feigl-Ding. Much has been written about Ding’s legendary disreputability and lack of qualifications. While preaching incessantly about Covid’s danger to children on Twitter, Ding avoided school closures by moving his own children to Austria. It’s hard to think of any person—aside from, you know, the dictator of China—who you’d want further away from pandemic policy.

Image

Some may be puzzled by this. Does Eric Feigl-Ding matter? Who listens to him? But in fact, Ding’s original viral Twitter thread was one of the most important forces behind early Covid alarmism in January 2020, and he’s been cited as a leading Covid expert many times by both the New York Times and CNN. Unlike renowned Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya, Ding has been given a verified Twitter account and is listed by Twitter as a “Covid-19 expert.” The sad truth is that few people in the world have had more influence on the response to Covid-19 than Eric Feigl-Ding.

In several articles and my book, I’ve gone to great lengths to try to explain the psychological resistance that the vast majority of the public seem to feel to momentarily looking behind the curtain of government propaganda and mainstream headlines about Covid. If they did, they would soon see the pseudoscientific rubbish that actually goes into the mandates which have been so catastrophic for the free world over the past two years. The truth is that most people don’t particularly want to know what’s gone into these policies that they supported at least at some point, and for which they feel a little bit responsible. In some sense, the CDC and media outlets are simply telling the public what they want to hear, in turn perpetuating the same policies. The result is that this is Ding’s world; we’re just living in it.

Every spring they did it; and in the barrels would be dirt and rust and old nails and stale water—and cartload after cartload of it would be taken up and dumped into the hoppers with fresh meat, and sent out to the public’s breakfast.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

can covid vaccines cause more covid deaths while looking like they prevent them?
yes, they can. running through some math that people are not going to like.
el gato malo
13 hr ago

this is a thought experiment. we’d struggle a bit to fully verify these numbers and viral attenuation is clearly playing a big role so it’s difficult to be overly precise, but i’ll try to keep the key figures within the realm of sanity based on observed outcomes. the point is not to be precise so much as to lay out the manner in which some of the math here can get a little perverse and wind up making an intervention that caused a massive rise in covid deaths look like vaccine efficacy.

let’s lay out a couple of assumptions for our experiment:
  1. each person has a 20% chance of getting covid (made up)
  2. CFR is 10% (massively too high, but makes the math easier to see and does not affect conclusions)
  3. covid vaccines reduce the risk of death from covid (CFR) by 50% if you contract the disease (made up for convenience, but in line with what used to seem to be the case)
  4. covid vaccines increase the risk ratio of contracting covid by 4X. (in line with UK data)
  5. we have a homogeneous population all with equal covid risk and CFR
imagine case 1: no vaccination

we have 100 people.

20 get covid.

CFR = 10%

2 die.

case 2: 50% vaccination

we have 50 unvaxxed

10 get covid

CFR = 10%

1 dies

we have 50 vaxxed

40 get covid

CFR = 5%

2 die.

we can now compare the two cases:



as can be readily seen, the vaxxed case is worse in total cases and in total deaths. the entire pandemic has been elevated into a much higher valance and the lower overall CFR is swamped by higher case counts.

so you get more deaths overall while making it look like the vaccines are reducing deaths because relative VE is 50%. but absolute VE on societal scale is deeply negative. and the more you vaxx, the worse it will get.

at 100% vaxxed you get 80 cases and 4 deaths, 4X the case counts and double the deadliness of doing nothing.

assessing VE on a post infection basis without accounting for possible effects on likelihood of contracting disease is a common practice, but that’s because we’ve never had a vaccine that makes you more likely to get sick before. and now we do. so incidence adjustment becomes critical.

this gets compounded in complex ways because the higher prevalence in the vaxxed likely leads to higher prevalence in the unvaxxed as they have more opportunities for exposure. (but i am leaving this out as it would require more complicated math where variables are functions of one another and this is not needed to make the point.)

this is why looking ONLY at relative severity effects is a very dangerous and potentially misleading idea.

and this gets MUCH harder to see if we add another parameter.

let’s call case 1 case 1 again.

but now let’s say case 2 is a year later. it’s exactly the same as before with one new twist:

covid has attenuated. its infectiousness is still the same, but it is only 30% as deadly. CFR drops to 3% unvaxxed and 1.5% vaxxed. (so VE is still 50%) (CFR is still 10% in case 1)

so case 1 retains 20 cases, 2 deaths

but now case 2 gets 50 cases as before but 0.5 deaths in the unvaxxed and 0.6 deaths in the vaxxed.

covid cases are well up, but this is easy to blame on a virus despite it having nothing to do with the virus and everything to do with OAS.

but, on deaths and CFR, now it looks like everyone won big.

deaths are down 45%. CFR drops 80%. VE looks strong. vaccines look like they saved the day, like they protected you.



but they didn’t. this is entirely an artifact of comparing a more virulent strain to a less virulent one.

if instead of vaccinating, the society in question had done nothing we would have a “case 1” of no vaxxed, 3% CFR, but only 20 cases.

so we get this:



what makes this one hard is that the data in yellow is a counter-factual. it’s what might have been but never was. we cannot see it, prove it, or provide data.

what people see is the comparison above that looks like a 45% reduction in overall deaths. but that reduction could have been far greater. that 1.1 is 83% higher than what could have been. 55% of those deaths were directly caused by the vaxx driving prevalence higher (but looking like it worked) but they remain unseen, an unrealized potential.

we reside in a higher valance that we would have but do not realize it. an overly simplistic look at the data seems to suggest the opposite.

it takes some sleuthing to see this.

and THAT is a serious problem. the potential to misread overall absolute harm as relative safety and presume that that means that the more people who jab, the lower death goes is significant even with the best of intentions. it’s not easy to separate out all these cross currents at societal scale. with the sorts of silly buggers being played in the US around undercounting the unvaxxed, misattributing cases and deaths, and rigging definitions to hide outcomes, it’s essentially impossible.

to be clear, this has all been a thought experiment. it cannot prove anything about what actually happened. but it CAN prove the potential for some things to have happened and lay out why realizing that they did could be hard to see.

they key parameters here that really make this model move are:
  1. assumptions about VE
  2. assumptions about greater contagion
  3. assumptions about viral attenuation
i think the first one is the most made up. it’s a real jump ball right now (especially post omicron) and while i suspect that figures like 40-50% may have pertained a ways back, the current figures are almost certainly lower and whether they are even still positive before adding in the incidence adjustment is anyone’s guess. the UK data that seemed like the best insight here has been discontinued, as has the israeli. the US data is a mess.

the second one is likely not terribly far off and the third one was likely conservative.



my goal here is not to prove this case but to raise its possibility.

there are some lines here that look fertile for exploration and i want to run down a few in the next week or so and hope others may be inspired to do likewise.

the mathematics here may be trying to tell us something.

and those who fail to learn from math are doomed to repeat this public health morass.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

did BA.4-5 interacting with vaccines cause the death spike in portugal?
circling back to assess the outcomes of our natural experiment
el gato malo
16 hr ago

about 3 weeks ago, there was an interesting hypothesis going around that the rapid rise in BA.4-5 in portugal was interacting with high rates of vaccination and boosters to create a sort of vaccine optimized predation as the virus shifted further to use hoskin’s effect/OAS/antigenic fixation to preferentially attack the those most heavily affected by these inoculation regimes. this was posited to explain the sudden rise in deaths.

in some ways, this idea was highly plausible because that’s how virus mutates when selective pressure from leaky vaccines is applied. in others, it was more doubtful as becoming more lethal is evolutionarily maladaptive for a virus. more contagious is strongly selected for, but more deadly tends to result in less spread. killing the host is like burning down your house with your car in the garage.

there was some provocative data with high vaxx portugal and low vaxx south africa both getting BA.4-5 but only portugal getting a deaths spike.



but you have to be VERY careful with data like this. 1,000 things could be driving the difference and presuming that it must be one’s hobbyhorse is a great way to get things wrong.

and this is where the notion of falsifiable/testable hypotheses comes in.

i made some efforts in this direction about 19 days ago:

spain has vaxx rates very similar to portugal. it occupies the same geography. and BA.4-5 were becoming dominant there about a month after portugal.

this looked to provide a good natural experiment:



you can read the whole setup here.


well, it’s been ~3 weeks and the timing looks correct to see how this turned out. i will add the UK as a third check.

all have similar enough vaxx and boost rates (especially among the old though that is not shown here) that a vaxx signal in one should show up in all.



and spain and UK are in near perfect variant lockstep, one month after portugal.

(the drop in UK is a data artifact, not a real trend)



portugal saw covid deaths start to spike 4 weeks after BA.4-5 hit 10% of cases.

this happened the week of 5/16 in spain and UK, so if this signal is variant interacting with with vaccine, we should be expecting to see it by now.

but we aren’t.



as can be seen, both spain and UK are pancake flat on deaths and basically right on the lows. whatever drove portugal from 2 to 5 deaths per mm per day did not occur in the rest of the iberian peninsula or across the channel.

lest i be accused of cherry picking, here is the rest of the neighborhood:



as can be readily seen, portugal looks like an outlier. whatever is going on there seems unlike anything going on anywhere else around them.

this seems to pose some near fatal problems for the “BA.4-5 driving deaths in high vaxx” hypothesis. i suspect we should wait another couple weeks to be sure it’s not just time lag, but at the moment, the odds on assumption seems to be that this hypothesis has been falsified. (hey, that’s science for you and if you’re not trying to actively disprove your theories, you’re doing it wrong)

there was, however, some interesting looking subset data:



all passed through 10% the week of 5/23 and look to be in tight lockstep.

and all are seeing spikes in cases well in excess of anything this time last year despite testing less than this time last year (showing that this is not a sample rate issue but rather an understatement of the rise in prevalence)

this rise coincides tightly with the rise of BA variant prevalence.



this would seem to confirm that the BA variants are, in fact, spreading more despite high levels of vaccination.



the UK data had been showing us that the vaxxed and boosted were getting covid at 3-4X the rate of the unvaxxed even when we stratify by age, so more vaxx more covid is in no way surprising.


it’s a shame they stopped publishing this report so we cannot see how BA is affecting this result, but i suspect this data was simply getting too awkward to share. once omi hit, cases blew out in in the boosted.



so it looks to me like we’re seeing a classic, expected OAS curve.

genes are selfish. all a virus “wants” is to replicate. covid is adapting to herd antigenic fixation by selecting for variants that spread most readily in the vaccinated. they have become the primary infected and the primary spread vector.

and they seem to be getting covid again and again and failing to generate long term immunity.

spread is rife and waves are tightening and moving increasingly out of season as variants sweep.

this is being counterbalanced by a large drop in severity esp as new variants seem to lack affinity for deep lung infection.

this sets up a tricky equation. a 50% drop in CFR can be canceled out in overall death generation if you have 2X the cases and at 4X, you get twice the deaths.

this seems like the area we need to work on, but the case that this is now predominantly a disease carried and spread by the vaccinated looks strong and that means that it is they and their leaky vaccines that are driving covid evolution.

what would be REALLY interesting to get at would be a sense of just how much more contagious BA really is vs how much of the additional spread is coming from vaccines. has anyone seen any good work or methodological ideas on how to isolate R in the unvaxxed vs the vaxxed?
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Dr Fauci's Paxlovid Rebound!
It was Expected to Happen
Igor Chudov
7 hr ago

I am not the first on Substack to write about this, but I want to discuss it since I wrote a few articles on Paxlovid.

Dr. Fauci is double boosted. The four doses of safe and effective vaccines, of course, did not prevent him from catching Covid. Facing a Covid infection, he took Paxlovid and sincerely believed that he would be alright.

Watch him brag about the success of his vaccine and Paxlovid:


Guess what? Paxlovid did not work for Dr. Fauci. After feeling fine for a few days, he is now having a rebound of his Covid infection.



He is feeling “much worse” during the rebound than he felt in the beginning. So much for saying that Paxlovid makes Covid milder!



And what is he doing now? Taking MORE Paxlovid — a second course, to be exact. This is despite the agency of his own government, FDA, gaslighting Paxlovid rebounders and not recommending a second course. Never mind, Dr. Fauci is obviously above FDA’s recommendations.

If we believe any of this news, and I would understand if some of my subscribers did not, Fauci’s Paxlovid rebound makes it very likely that

1. Fauci is actually vaccinated​
2. Fauci is not taking Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which do not give rebounds​

History of Some Paxlovid Articles

My first article started quite a bit of noise:


Brian Mowrey explained how Paxlovid is a biomolecular PAUSE button, not a STOP button:

I alleged that Pfizer knew that Paxlovid did not work in vaccinated people, because Pfizer KICKED OUT vaccinated people out of its EPIC-SR trial midstream.

FDA dismissed the suffering of Paxlovid victims like Dr. Fauci and gaslit the rebounders, saying they are only 1-2% of cases (yeah right):


I exposed Paxlovid as a new dishonest business model for Pfizer (selling more and more of it as it fails to work and makes people COVID spreaders thinking they are fine) and explained that FDA and Pfizer were lying about the rebound rate, which was more like 12% even for unvaccinated people:

Finally, a scientific study from Israel illustrated that Paxlovid totally does NOT work in vaccinated people, making it obvious why Pfizer did not want them included in clinical trials.


Pfizer finally admitted defeat and acknowledged that Paxlovid does not work in standard-risk patients.


But, with characteristic chutzpah, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla declared that half of all people are “high risk”, so Pfizer will still push this snake oil medication onto unsuspecting trusting vaccinated patients.

Second Course of Paxlovid?

Dr. Fauci is doing something that the FDA never recommended — he is taking another course of Paxlovid. Will it work? To answer this question, remember that Paxlovid is a PAUSE button. It simply stops a certain “protease” enzyme from cleaving viral RNA strands for 5 days, thus suspending infection.

Paxlovid worked in most unvaccinated people whose immune systems still functioned and could mount a proper response to Sars-Cov-2 in five days, thus quashing the rebound in 88% of cases.

However, vaccinated people had many more rebounds, because they did not have a biological response quick enough to respond after the five-day PAUSE from Paxlovid ended.

So, Dr. Fauci’s solution is to press the Paxlovid PAUSE button again, giving Pfizer another $530. If his immune system, damaged by quadruple vaccination, is unable to form a response in yet five more days, he may end up having a SECOND REBOUND. Fauci is in uncharted territory, because to my knowledge, two Paxlovid courses with a rebound in between, were never tried on anybody.

Be aware that Paxlovir is made of two somewhat toxic components — ritonavir and nirmatrelvir — and by taking a double course, Fauci risks liver toxicity and other toxicity. Being 81 years old, two courses of Paxlovid may be too much for him.
In any case, Anthony Fauci already managed to turn his one-week infection into a three-week infection, thanks to Paxlovid.

I hope that Pfizer at least gives Dr. Fauci a discount. They owe him one.

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

A 3.7% rate of myocarditis in our latest survey of vaccinated Americans
This is a health disaster. This rate is over 500 times higher than what the CDC claims. Doctors will remain silent on this as they are not permitted to challenge the "safe and effective" narrative.
Steve Kirsch
15 hr ago




Executive summary

The CDC has always told us that there is only a slightly elevated risk of myocarditis from getting the vaccine. They cite data from the VAERS system showing low report rates. However, they always conveniently “forget” to mention that VAERS is under-reported and fail to estimate the VAERS under-reporting factor. This means their estimates are likely off by a factor of 100 or more.

Now we have confirmation from multiple sources that the CDC is misleading people and that their numbers are, in fact, at least 100X too low:
  1. A direct user survey of a cross-section of America done by a professional polling firm (with a 4% nominal margin of error) shows a 3.7% rate of myocarditis among those Americans who took the vaccine who responded to the survey. This number is consistent with earlier runs of the survey with different respondents. It is 500X higher than the CDC numbers.
  2. A paper published in Nature shows rates of myocarditis post vaccine that can be up to 140 times normal. That’s not a “slightly elevated risk.”
  3. An estimate from a US Army Flight Surgeon of a 4% myocarditis rate among military pilots who were vaccinated, very consistent with our survey.
  4. A myocarditis rate of at least 1% in a local school near me where a parent revealed the number of myocarditis rates in the school.
Also, this latest survey confirmed the death estimate in the earlier survey (which was 600,000 minimum). In this case 8.12/12.79 which is Q19/Q23 which is the ratio of deaths from the vaccine/deaths from COVID. So if 1M people died from COVID, then over 600,000 people died from the vaccine.

Introduction

The CDC says the highest rates of myocarditis are among 12-17 year old males with up to 69 cases per million second doses.

But we just got back a survey that clearly shows that the rates of myocarditis are much higher than that: 3.7 cases per 100 people vaccinated. That’s a statistic over all Americans who have been vaccinated, not just young boys. It’s Question 5. 14.03 said yes out of 371 who were vaccinated. 14.03/371= 3.7%.

That’s a rate that is 536 times higher than the highest value the CDC told us. They assured us that there was just a “slightly elevated risk” of myocarditis from the vaccine.

They never told us that we’re seriously injuring 3.7% of the people being vaccinated. This new number explains why hospitals are seeing so many cases of myocarditis.

An Army flight surgeon estimated a 4% rate of myocarditis among military pilots based upon personal professional observation. It appears that that estimate was not far off.

Also, at Monte Vista Christian School in Watsonville, CA there are now 5 known cases of myocarditis but only 400 boys, not all have been vaccinated. So this again supports the survey. Note that the head of school isn’t talking. Apparently Christian values compel the administration to keep silent about injuries to the kids so that other parents are not alerted to the risks and will thus be more likely to vaccinate their kids. So the rates could be much higher than 1% at the school since the 5 cases are just the ones we know about from one of the parents at the school.

About the latest survey

See this article analyzing a recent survey. It has three runs of the survey and has the source data. The article also has a methodology section describing how the survey was done (and referring to an earlier article for details).

Basically, 500 people are selected at random from across the US. Once they answer the first question, they are counted in the 500. The first question cannot be used to tell the nature of the survey so there is no selection bias. The numbers are adjusted based on the demographics of the people who responded to match the overall US demographics.

You can use the raw numbers or the adjusted numbers in the computations. It doesn’t matter: the results either way are devastating for the US government.

This is why the CDC and mainstream media never run these surveys: they don’t want to know the truth and, more importantly, they do not want you to know the truth.

Confirmation from peer-reviewed scientific literature

Here’s exactly what the paper published in Nature says (Age and sex-specific risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following Covid-19 messenger RNA vaccines). Note that on Dose 2 for males (lower left graph), all error bars for males are above the dotted “normal” line:



So even if you don’t believe our survey, this paper says that the risks can be as much as 88 times higher than normal rate in males and up to 140 times higher than normal in females.

Summary

The CDC tells us that there is just a “slightly elevated risk” of myocarditis from the vaccine and there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Our latest survey and this new article in Nature just don’t match up with what the CDC says.

Our surveys suggest you should avoid the vaccines entirely as the risk profile doesn’t justify the benefits, especially for a virus that if treated early is a minor annoyance. This matches the recommendations of a recent paper by Peter Doshi and others.

Your doctor will not be able to mention any of this to you without fear of losing her license to practice medicine. So the medical community will ignore this result even though they can easily replicate the study.

That’s just how medicine works nowadays.

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Omicron BA.5 Prefers Hypervaccinated Masking West Germans, Avoids the Former DDR
Vaccine failure in one map
eugyppius
17 hr ago


Behold the latest map of 7-day Corona incidence across the Federal Republic of Germany:



This is the Omicron BA.5 wave in central Europe, and it is attended by a curious phenomenon: Every day, you can see more clearly the borders of the old DDR in the district-level data. I’ve traced these in green just to make the phenomenon clearer.

Yes yes, there are systematic demographic differences between East and West Germans, and there are probably some differences in testing rates, but above all, there is an important difference in vaccine uptake. In this map of triple vaccination rates across my country, the old DDR borders are also evident:



East Germans have direct experience with government propaganda, and have proven more resistent to the vaccination campaign than Westerners. Their reward, after being much maligned by state media, is now higher levels of natural immunity and lower rates of BA.5 infection, which appears to prefer vaccinated populations.

As the effects of vaccine failure grow clearer, you have to wonder how long the pandemicists will be able to publish even simple infection statistics, without raising extremely awkward questions.

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The magic of one GERMAN map & thanks to my friend eugyppius; this map was shared of Germany & the BA.5 & COVID injection uptake;
it shows systematic demographic differences between East & West Germans as to COVID injection uptake and now the threatening roar of infectious BA.5 Omicron clade; the map is of triple vaccination rates across GERMANY, the old DDR borders are also evident
Dr. Paul Alexander
17 hr ago




Eugyppius as a German, is very pained by all of this and shared this and I wanted to share with you.

Eugyppius explains and we know this, that East Germans lived so much oppression and silencing and government propaganda and the map shows how they have resisted the government COVID injection bull shit. They resist everything I think. Good for them, IMO. Resisted more than the Western Germans. I know it is one nation today but there are structural differences that still remain and the past still lurks emotionally and mentally and it played out well here and clearly, in East versus West German uptake of the vaccine and now we see in terms of infection post vaccination. Maybe the East Germans are and were stronger emotionally and physiologically all along given their past and the stresses and horrors of life under East bloc communist rule where they had less access to most normal day to dat items.

What was the benefit? Well as I and Geert and Yeadon and McCullough have been arguing, you remained unvaccinated, you allowed your natural innate immunity to be trained, and especially for infants, young children, teens, young persons. Their originally broad, poly-specific, low-affinity naïve innate antibodies (and NK cells) get trained. They get exposed, they develop natural exposure acquired-adaptive immunity which then can withstand BA. 4 and BA.5 clades/variants.

The UK and Scottish and Danish and all the globe’s data show us that the vaccinated are infected (and potentially hospitalized and even are at risk of death) at greater levels than the unvaccinated and we know from work by Yahi et. al (Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?) that it is due to the binding of the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies to the spike antigen but the inability to sterilize and eliminate the virus. That sub-optimal immune pressure and binding by the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies etc. allows for increased infectiousness of the virus to the vaccinated person or population.

It remains the mass vaccination during a pandemic with non-sterilizing COVID injections with sub-optimal immune pressure (vaccinal antibodies from the initial Wuhan legacy strain that cannot neutralize the present omicron spike), that leaves us in this mess, even so much as being vulnerable now to coming monkeypox and avian influenza and TB and EBV and CMV and common colds etc. due to the COVID vaccinated having compromised immune systems and the CDC and WHO and Fauci et al. playing political correctness and woke games with the at-risk gay community.

Eugyppius states “BA.5 infection, which appears to infect vaccinated populations preferentially…As the effects of vaccine failure grow clearer, you have to wonder how long the pandemicists will be able to publish even simple infection statistics, without raising extremely awkward questions.”

SOURCE (support Eugyppius, seminal work)




.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Antibiotic drug resistance; you know that arises when the wrong antibiotic, wrong dose, not completing the dose ensues; you know this; outcome can derive drug-resistant bacteria, complex to treat...
expensive to treat, often leads to multi-drug resistant bacteria that is deadly; well, this is what Geert and I and others are telling you; this COVID mRNA shot is similar, cannot neutralize the spike
Dr. Paul Alexander
5 hr ago

So stronger, fitter, hardier bacteria that are not killed by the wrong antibiotic and dose and duration, then emerge…this is drug-resistance…same here, the COVID variants/clades that could overcome the sub-optimal mRNA vaccine induced antibodies, also known as sub-optimal host immune pressure (rising from the population that is mass vaccinated), well, those viral variants that overcome (resist) this sub-optimal vaccinal immune pressure, those ‘immature’ and ‘undeveloped’ and ‘mounting’ and ‘imperfect’ vaccinal antibodies that are non-neutralizing (we are no longer referring to neutralizing antibodies as the omicron virus (sub-variants) has become resistant largely to the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies and so non-neutralizing antibodies then dominate). Omicron sub-variants are resistant also to the non-neutralizing antibodies.

Drug-resistant bacteria and COVID variants are kind of the same thing, in a simple explanation. You are injecting people with the Wuhan legacy strain of the virus of MARCH 2020, the spike is Wuhan spike, that is long gone. Near one year. What exists is Omicron spike and multiple sub-variants/clades, and thus how could the vaccinal antibodies ‘hit’ the omicron spike? It cannot. This is one principle reason why it fails and will never work and you are not being told the truth.

The so called ‘resistant’ variant (s) e.g. omicron BA.4 and BA.5 are much more infectious and hardier and ‘Darwinian’ fittest, and now become the new dominant variant (s) as we saw in Delta and now omicron and emerging clades such as BA.4 and BA.5 etc.

It is the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that:

1) binds to the spike (epitopes/binding domains e.g. receptor binding domain or the N-terminal domain) yet while it binds, does not eliminate the virus (sterilize/neutralize it) but what it does do is
a) block innate antibodies from exercising their functional capacity to bind to the spike and eliminate the virus​
b) causes the enhanced infectiousness of the virus to infect the vaccinated host; this is why the vaccinated person is becoming infected readily and at such elevated levels​

2) the sub-optimal non-neutralizing antibodies place the infectiousness of the virus (spike) under tremendous selection pressure and this drives emergence of infectious variants, including elevated risk of virulent variant (s) to also emerge. If we continue with these ineffective non-neutralizing vaccines, we could drive emergence of a highly infectious yet at the same time virulent, lethal variant that could threaten humanity.

.
 

psychgirl

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

Antibiotic drug resistance; you know that arises when the wrong antibiotic, wrong dose, not completing the dose ensues; you know this; outcome can derive drug-resistant bacteria, complex to treat...
expensive to treat, often leads to multi-drug resistant bacteria that is deadly; well, this is what Geert and I and others are telling you; this COVID mRNA shot is similar, cannot neutralize the spike
Dr. Paul Alexander
5 hr ago

So stronger, fitter, hardier bacteria that are not killed by the wrong antibiotic and dose and duration, then emerge…this is drug-resistance…same here, the COVID variants/clades that could overcome the sub-optimal mRNA vaccine induced antibodies, also known as sub-optimal host immune pressure (rising from the population that is mass vaccinated), well, those viral variants that overcome (resist) this sub-optimal vaccinal immune pressure, those ‘immature’ and ‘undeveloped’ and ‘mounting’ and ‘imperfect’ vaccinal antibodies that are non-neutralizing (we are no longer referring to neutralizing antibodies as the omicron virus (sub-variants) has become resistant largely to the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies and so non-neutralizing antibodies then dominate). Omicron sub-variants are resistant also to the non-neutralizing antibodies.

Drug-resistant bacteria and COVID variants are kind of the same thing, in a simple explanation. You are injecting people with the Wuhan legacy strain of the virus of MARCH 2020, the spike is Wuhan spike, that is long gone. Near one year. What exists is Omicron spike and multiple sub-variants/clades, and thus how could the vaccinal antibodies ‘hit’ the omicron spike? It cannot. This is one principle reason why it fails and will never work and you are not being told the truth.

The so called ‘resistant’ variant (s) e.g. omicron BA.4 and BA.5 are much more infectious and hardier and ‘Darwinian’ fittest, and now become the new dominant variant (s) as we saw in Delta and now omicron and emerging clades such as BA.4 and BA.5 etc.

It is the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that:

1) binds to the spike (epitopes/binding domains e.g. receptor binding domain or the N-terminal domain) yet while it binds, does not eliminate the virus (sterilize/neutralize it) but what it does do is
a) block innate antibodies from exercising their functional capacity to bind to the spike and eliminate the virus​
b) causes the enhanced infectiousness of the virus to infect the vaccinated host; this is why the vaccinated person is becoming infected readily and at such elevated levels​

2) the sub-optimal non-neutralizing antibodies place the infectiousness of the virus (spike) under tremendous selection pressure and this drives emergence of infectious variants, including elevated risk of virulent variant (s) to also emerge. If we continue with these ineffective non-neutralizing vaccines, we could drive emergence of a highly infectious yet at the same time virulent, lethal variant that could threaten humanity.

.
That’s EXACTLY how I was trying to describe this when information first came out.
I was struggling to put what I had read into words with the disclaimer “this isn’t exactly correct but is the closest way I know how to say it”…
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I found out the molnupiravir made my Merck is called an antiviral but it doesn’t kill the virus at all. It is also a rebound drug meaning some people get the Covid back after finishing it. All it does is mask the symptoms until your body fights it off. If you still have it after taking the medicine, it goes full scale back to like you were at the beginning of the virus, How can they call this an antiviral drug? They even said don’t tell this to people as they don’t really want people to know! So isolate 5 days and 5 days after that wear a mask.

Just an FYI, if you scroll up, Fauci used Paxlovid and had a rebound case that was worse than the first one. He took a second dose (even though he recommends people only take one dose). The news made me think of you and your rebound case ... Scroll up a few posts, you'll see it (post 63,612) I hope you are feeling well now and all of that mess is behind you.

HD
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Here's the video of Fauci describing his Paxlovid rebound.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JdBjqZlZgI
Anthony Fauci Covid Rebound
2 min 32 sec

When discussing this he said he turned positive with minimal symptoms, when they increased he went on Paxlovid, felt better. After that , he tested negative 3 days in a row. On 4th day, got a positive test. Over the next day, he felt 'really poorly', much worse than the first go round. In this video he says he's on day 4 of a 5 day course, and feels reasonably good, not without symptoms, but not acutely ill. She then asks him if he's worried about Long Covid, but the video cuts off before he really gets into the answer.
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
I really appreciate this article you pulled out HD. I think we are seeing evidence of the BA5 strain becoming dominant. I think so many just scroll thru the articles, so I reduced it to what I quoted below... for those wanting a quick summary. Dr. Geert believes this strain will be dominant within four weeks. We'll have to see how hard it hits.

The BA.5 story The takeover by this Omicron sub-variant is not pretty
Eric Topol Jun 27

The Omicron sub-variant BA.5 is the worst version of the virus that we’ve seen.
You could say it’s not so bad because there hasn’t been a marked rise in hospitalizations and deaths as we saw with Omicron, but that’s only because we had such a striking adverse impact from Omicron, for which there is at least some cross-immunity (BA.1 to BA.5).

The question of course comes up as to whether BA.5 is more virulent or pathogenic, capable of inducing worse disease. We only have one experimental study on that so far and it was shown that BA.4 and BA.5 induced worse disease in the Syrian hamster model and more efficiently spread in lung cell cultures.

Do the current vaccines work against BA.5? ... It would not be at all surprising to me to see further decline of protection against hospitalizations and deaths.

Current status around the world

While initially seen in South Africa soon thereafter in Portugal, BA.5 has been detected throughout the world. It led to a marked rise in hospitalizations in Portugal where it rapidly became dominant, and is now having such an effect, to a variable extent, in many European countries and Israel.



But it’s not just these countries that are seeing the rise of BA.4 and BA.5—it’s around the world and it has happened very quickly.



And the toll it is taking on case rise is seen in both hemispheres.



It will very soon be the dominant (>50%) variant in the United States. The risk of reinfection with BA.5 has substantially increased.
We will be close to 100% BA.5 within a matter of weeks. And no doubt there will be further troublesome variants that lie ahead, be they more in the Omicron family or in a whole new lineage.


Should we wait for a BA.5 booster? That will take months, and it should be noted it took more than 7 months for the Omicron BA.1 booster to be tested, a delay that is exceedingly long and unacceptable relative to the timing of validation and production of the original vaccines in 10 months during 2020.

There is no right answer but variant chasing is a flawed approach. By the time a BA.5 vaccine booster is potentially available, who knows what will be the predominant strain?
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
When the Wicked Try to Flee


So, they press on now with shots for little children that are certain to harm the kids’ immune systems and produce an array of consequent serious disorders ranging from hepatitis to myocarditis to sterility to brain damage….

You may be wondering these days if our country can get any crazier. The FDA and the CDC seem bent on killing and maiming as many Americans as possible.

Proof (not just evidence, you understand) abounds that Pfizer and Moderna mRNA “vaccines” don’t work and are grossly unsafe. If the people who run these agencies don’t know that, then there has never been a lazier, less competent, worse-informed executive crew running anything in the history of Western Civ.

So, they press on now with shots for little children that are certain to harm the kids’ immune systems and produce an array of consequent serious disorders ranging from hepatitis to myocarditis to sterility to brain damage. You’d think that if mere rumors of these things reached their ears and eyeballs, these executives would at least pause their injection program to investigate. There is really no analog in history for authorities who act this blindly homicidal.

The Nazis murdered targeted groups for deliberate eugenic purposes, vicious as they were, and made it clear why they were doing it — at least among themselves — while they did it. Stalin killed his perceived political enemies and then killed masses randomly to hold the soviet populace in thrall to his rule. There’s a name for that: despotic cruelty. Mao Zedong revved up his murder campaigns and cultural revolutions to desperately hold on to his slip-sliding autocratic power. Pol Pot killed people who wore eyeglasses and read books because they were capable of figuring shit out — like, what Pol Pot was up to.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (White House Medical Advisor), Dr. Rochelle Walensky (CDC), and Dr. Robert M. Califf (FDA) are killing and harming Americans because… apparently, they don’t know why. As the old saw goes: they know not what they do. Or is that so? Is it even possible anymore? One must suppose it is possible if they are insane, which, you also understand, does not preclude them from being evil, too.

Ms. Walensky says repeatedly that they are looking at or waiting on “the data.” No, she’s not. She’s just saying that, as if reciting a magic incantation that can deflect culpability. The data are in plain sight, not even hiding. The data are all over the world: this country, the UK, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Portugal, Israel, Cuba, South Africa, Australia, name a country. The data are turning up now in respected medical journals, many news websites, substacks, and blogs, as well, even, here and there, in what we call mainstream media. A lot of the data until very recently were getting published in the agencies own collection organs, but they deliberately stopped it.

The data tell us that people who got “vaccinated” and “boosted” are turning up with broken immune systems that leave them extra-specially open to repeated Covid-19 re-infection, and that each reiteration of the illness breaks down their immune systems even more — which suggests that over time (think: the months ahead) more and more of them are going to die from all kinds of opportunistic viral and bacterial diseases, not to mention cancers, structural damage due to blood clots, heart tissue injury directly from spike proteins, and brain-and-neuro illness, ditto.

Do you believe that the authorities somehow missed all this?
Are they trying to pretend that they didn’t (take your pick):
1) fecklessly promote the biggest compound medical blunder in history?
2) conspire with pharma companies in a dastardly racketeering scheme?
3) carry out the orders of some shady, malevolent elite to cull the human population under a depraved, messianic, crypto-eco ideology? or
4) just…reasons….

Before too much longer they’ll have to tell us. At this point, resigning in order to just slink away from the scene of the crime is probably not possible. Francis Collins tried to step down from the National Institutes for Health (NIH) late last year, but we’ll know how to find him, and we certainly know what he did in enabling the creation of the Covid-19 pandemic and then its supposed savior “vaccines.” This is true, by the way, across the entire medical profession, including doctors, hospital directors, and, of course, the pharma executives. They’ll have to answer for why they continued vaxxing the public when caution was indicated (primum non nocere — first do no harm), and how come they stupidly and / or maliciously suppressed cheap and effective early treatment drugs.

The absurd grifting machine of American medicine is collapsing anyway, along with just about every other system we depend on. So maybe the doctors and the public health officials think that if they can delay acknowledging the obvious a few months longer, there will be no institutions left standing in the USA to adjudicate their crimes. Possible but not likely.

There’s already plenty of data showing an abnormal rise of all-causes deaths in many countries. The life-insurance companies have been reporting it for months. But the acquired immunodeficiency of the “vaccinated” will become too tangible and visible as the network effect takes hold and evermore Americans realize that people are dying all around them, loved ones, friends, friends of friends, celebrities in the news. Inevitably that would produce some kind of social panic — and at exactly the same time that gasoline and diesel fuel grow unaffordable or scarce, every conceivable product vanishes from the store shelves, the financial markets crater, and the Party of Chaos sends its shock troops into the streets to riot, loot, and burn.

Even under those dire circumstances realize this: there will still be a lot of people left in this country who are not vaccinated, not sick, and not insane — millions — and they are the ones who are going to keep the project of civilization alive here, including bringing judgment upon those who set into motion all the aforementioned calamities and wickedness.
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
38,983 Deaths and 3,530,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database as Mass Funeral for Children Who Died After Pfizer Vaccine Held in Switzerland
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I really appreciate this article you pulled out HD. I think we are seeing evidence of the BA5 strain becoming dominant. I think so many just scroll thru the articles, so I reduced it to what I quoted below... for those wanting a quick summary. Dr. Geert believes this strain will be dominant within four weeks. We'll have to see how hard it hits.

I posted this before - I think the really virulent strain will be an offshoot of BA5. I think BA5 is close, but not 'it'. It's not virulent the way Geert is expecting it to be. It's more virulent than the other Omicrons, but not quite as virulent as Delta or Wuhan were. My fear is that what we're going to see is going to be more virulent than both of those and more contagious than Omega.

HD
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
38,983 Deaths and 3,530,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database as Mass Funeral for Children Who Died After Pfizer Vaccine Held in Switzerland

Here's the article:

(fair use applies)

38,983 Deaths and 3,530,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database as Mass Funeral for Children Who Died After Pfizer Vaccine Held in Switzerland
By Brian Shilhavy
Global Research, June 29, 2022

First published on February 17, 2022


***


The European (EEA and non-EEA countries) database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and they are now reporting 38,983 fatalities, and 3,530,362 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,672,872 ) are serious injuries.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”


A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*

Here is the summary data through January 29, 2022.

Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 17,578 deaths and 1,704,757 injuries to 29/01/2022

  • 48,240 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 242 deaths
  • 57,541 Cardiac disorders incl. 2,554 deaths
  • 522 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 51 deaths
  • 22,590 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 1,911 Endocrine disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 25,814 Eye disorders incl. 38 deaths
  • 133,365 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 681 deaths
  • 422,360 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 5,024 deaths
  • 1,931 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 90 deaths
  • 18,455 Immune system disorders incl. 95 deaths
  • 76,443 Infections and infestations incl. 1,878 deaths
  • 33,972 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 331 deaths
  • 42,585 Investigations incl. 502 deaths
  • 11,344 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 273 deaths
  • 201,643 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 212 deaths
  • 1,629 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 153 deaths
  • 278,744 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,859 deaths
  • 2,513 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 74 deaths
  • 251 Product issues incl. 3 deaths
  • 30,622 Psychiatric disorders incl. 207 deaths
  • 6,150 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 266 deaths
  • 68,129 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 72,531 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,884 deaths
  • 78,059 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 146 deaths
  • 3,871 Social circumstances incl. 22 deaths
  • 21,010 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 204 deaths
  • 42,532 Vascular disorders incl. 766 deaths

Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 11,008 deaths and 543,543 injuries to 29/01/2022

  • 12,365 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 120 deaths
  • 18,287 Cardiac disorders incl. 1,142 deaths
  • 190 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 6,310 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 502 Endocrine disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 7,475 Eye disorders incl. 36 deaths
  • 44,340 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 413 deaths
  • 145,153 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 3,630 deaths
  • 793 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 54 deaths
  • 5,370 Immune system disorders incl. 22 deaths
  • 23,070 Infections and infestations incl. 1042 deaths
  • 10,286 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 208 deaths
  • 12,129 Investigations incl. 393 deaths
  • 4,847 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 263 deaths
  • 66,358 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 223 deaths
  • 682 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 85 deaths
  • 91,230 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,029 deaths
  • 907 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 10 deaths
  • 98 Product issues incl. 4 deaths
  • 9,441 Psychiatric disorders incl. 181 deaths
  • 3,030 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 214 deaths
  • 12,547 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 23,251 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,162 deaths
  • 27,540 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 96 deaths
  • 2,239 Social circumstances incl. 45 deaths
  • 3,028 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 203 deaths
  • 12,075 Vascular disorders incl. 399 deaths

Total reactions for the vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca: 7,977 deaths and 1,154,757 injuries to 29/01/2022
  • 13,912 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 278 deaths
  • 20,984 Cardiac disorders incl. 830 deaths
  • 235 Congenital familial and genetic disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 13,406 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 7 deaths
  • 692 Endocrine disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 20,086 Eye disorders incl. 32 deaths
  • 107,453 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 434 deaths
  • 304,993 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,855 deaths
  • 1,039 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 69 deaths
  • 5,409 Immune system disorders incl. 40 deaths
  • 42,266 Infections and infestations incl. 620 deaths
  • 13,630 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 198 deaths
  • 25,681 Investigations incl. 205 deaths
  • 13,023 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 126 deaths
  • 168,174 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 165 deaths
  • 743 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 40 deaths
  • 234,117 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,178 deaths
  • 635 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 20 deaths
  • 199 Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 21,051 Psychiatric disorders incl. 69 deaths
  • 4,338 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 78 deaths
  • 16,849 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 41,401 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,082 deaths
  • 52,064 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 65 deaths
  • 1,617 Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 1,973 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 30 deaths
  • 28,787 Vascular disorders incl. 529 deaths

Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 2,420 deaths and 127,305 injuries to 29/01/2022
  • 1,229 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 51 deaths
  • 2,552 Cardiac disorders incl. 204 deaths
  • 40 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 1 death
  • 1,319 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 105 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 1,656 Eye disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 9,588 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 88 deaths
  • 34,487 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 685 deaths
  • 153 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 13 deaths
  • 544 Immune system disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 8,521 Infections and infestations incl. 207 deaths
  • 1,147 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 25 deaths
  • 6,086 Investigations incl. 131 deaths
  • 756 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 60 deaths
  • 17,116 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 55 deaths
  • 86 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 8 deaths
  • 23,413 Nervous system disorders incl. 245 deaths
  • 55 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
  • 30 Product issues
  • 1,766 Psychiatric disorders incl. 22 deaths
  • 535 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 31 deaths
  • 2,941 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 4,468 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 304 deaths
  • 3,760 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 409 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
  • 867 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 74 deaths
  • 3,676 Vascular disorders incl. 171 deaths
Adrs-Jan29.jpg


*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.

switzerland-coffins-pfizer-children-2.jpg


On January 29, 2021 a mass funeral protest for children who have died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine was held in Geneva, Switzerland.

Someone recorded the event and made a short video. This is on our Bitchute Channel, and also on our Telegram channel.



Watch the video here.
1 min 32 sec

In Canada today, it was reported that a judge ruled that a mother could give COVID-19 vaccines to her children over the objections of the children’s father, and suspended the father’s right to spend time with his children.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic


Here's the article:

(fair use applies)

Major Medical Mystery: Why Some People Despite Exposure Don’t Get COVID
By globestoriestoday
June 28, 2022

A global medical mystery is being aggressively pursued by medical researchers. The core issue is that a relatively small fraction of people, despite high exposure to COVID, have not gotten ill with COVID infection. Think of health workers in hospitals in contact with many seriously ill COVID patients. Also, members of households stood out because, unlike others in the home who got ill with COVID, they did not get infected. The mystery is what explains how highly exposed individuals did not get ill with COVID infection.

There are two main ways of explaining resistance to COVID. One is that some people have strengthened their immune systems by any of a number of actions taken before or during the pandemic. For example, some may have elevated levels of vitamin D in their blood by taking high doses of supplements. The other explanation that appeals to medical researchers is that some people have a genetic makeup that gives them total defense against COVID infection.

It is necessary to eliminate people who got infected but were asymptomatic and also those who practiced many safe behaviors to avoid COVID exposure. The group that merits investigation are people who were definitely highly exposed to COVID but escaped infection.

A small fraction of Americans have escaped COVID infection. CDC uses a figure of 60% for those infected, while the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington says that 76% have been infected. The remainder may have escaped exposure or been exposed but escaped infection. The latter people are the subject of the medical mystery.

A very good April 2022 article titled “Can people be naturally immune or resistant to COVID-19?”

Here are some excerpts.

“More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic…there have been some rare cases in which certain unvaccinated people seem to have been able to dodge the virus despite being repeatedly exposed to it. This has raised the question of whether it is possible that some people are simply immune or resistant to COVID-19 without having had the virus or a vaccine.”

“It’s been a hard thing to talk about publicly because you say things and then people go, ‘Oh, that must be me, because I haven’t been infected yet,’ when in fact, you know, you may not have been infected because you just got lucky so far,” Shane Crotty, a virologist and professor at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said.

“A simple potential explanation is that some of those who have not gotten COVID have just been lucky, Crotty said. It could also be that their behaviors, like wearing a mask properly or avoiding certain situations that would put them at risk of contracting the disease, may have kept them protected.”

“But scientifically speaking, Crotty said, there are two potential explanations that may explain why some people could have a much greater resistance to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, than others. One idea is that some people may clear the virus rapidly, before it reaches detectable levels, due to existing immunity to other coronaviruses like those that cause the common cold.”

“The main idea there would be that there are T-cell responses that certain people happen to make in response to certain coronaviruses they’ve had before, that may provide a degree of protection that other people just don’t happen to have,” Crotty said.

“Another study of health care workers in England published in November …evaluated a group of U.K. health care workers during the first wave of the pandemic who were exposed to the virus but didn’t develop COVID-19. Researchers found that the presence of cross-reactive memory T cells among some of the participants contributed to “the rapid clearance of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronavirus infections.”

“But, Crotty said, this is something that scientists need to continue to study. “There’s no study that just nails it because it’s a very hard study to do,” the professor said. He and his team are determined to find some answers; they have enrolled people who have never been infected and have never been vaccinated, and they plan on monitoring them over time.”

“Another potential explanation for COVID-19 resistance is that some people may have innate immunity, meaning that there are genetic factors that protect them from a SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

“Neville Sanjana, an assistant professor of biology at New York University and a core faculty member at New York Genome Center, has been studying potential genetic factors underlying COVID-19 resistance. He says one place of interest that may provide some answers is the virus’s entry mechanism, which in the case of SARS-CoV-2 is a specific protein that allows the virus to infect human cells called the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, or ACE2 receptor.”

“Mutations in the ACE2 receptor, Sanjana says, will make it harder for the virus to get in. Viral resistance due to these types of mutations has already been demonstrated against other viruses such as HIV. “We know that there’s an entry receptor similar to the one that we’ve identified for SARS-CoV-2, but it’s a different gene,” he said. “With HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, the entry receptor is CCR5, and we know that there are some people who naturally have a mutation that gets rid of CCR5 … and this leaves them virtually immune,” he added.”

“Besides studying possible mutations in the entry receptor, Sanjana said, scientists have been looking at other genetic variations across the human genome. “The human genome has about 20,000 genes in it, and we really don’t know which of those genes might influence key cells like the cells in our airway epithelium or in our lungs, which we think is the route of entry for SARS-CoV-2,” he said, adding that some of those genes might make people more or less vulnerable to COVID-19.”

“A collaborative project called the COVID Human Genetic Effort has been studying thousands of people across different countries, looking for genetic variations that might reveal why some people never get COVID-19, as well as why certain people get so sick while others don’t.”

[continued next post]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued from post above]

Another recent article is titled: “Why are some people naturally immune to COVID?”

Here are some key excerpts.

“Recent scientific evidence has shown that some people are naturally immune to COVID and all its mutations. …Recent scientific evidence indicates that some people are naturally immune to COVID and all its mutations. The story of entire families except one person being infected with an illness is not new, and there are also people who continue to become infected even after they have been fully vaccinated and have recovered from the virus. According to the UK Office for National Statistics, one out of every 25 people in the United Kingdom is infected with coronavirus; however, a large number of people are not infected. Scientists have clearly stated that some people have natural defences against coronavirus, and it is not exactly clear why, especially since they continue to be immune even in the face of new mutations.”

“Researchers in countries such as the United States and Brazil are analysing the genetic variations found in such [virus resistant] people. At University College London, the scientific community is investigating the group of health workers who, despite being on the front line of the pandemic, have turned out to be immune. One such worker is 34-year-old emergency nurse Lisa Stockwell, who has always had negative tests since 2020.”

“The UCL researchers examined the health workers’ blood before the vaccines were launched, confirming that they did not have antibodies and had therefore never been infected. However, they did have T cells, which are found in people who have recovered from coronavirus. This type of cell is created by the immune system to defend the body and has the function of attacking and destroying viral cells.”

Another October 2021 article is titled “Some people might be genetically resistant to COVID-1.”

“Can you be genetically resistant to the novel coronavirus? A new paper suggests it is possible people might have the power to fight off COVID-19 because of their genetics. Researchers said in the paper — published in the medical journal Nature Immunology — there might be people who are resistant to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19.”

“Scientists said the virus has been known to invade households but leave one or two people without an infection, per Science Alert.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” researchers wrote in the paper.”

“Our understanding of the pathophysiology of life-threatening COVID-19 has progressed considerably since the disease was first described in December 2019, but we still know very little about the human genetic and immunological basis of inborn resistance to SARS-CoV-2,” they wrote.”

“Virologists Theodora Hatziioannou and Paul Bieniasz, who both work at the Rockefeller University in New York City, are trying to figure out how people can be super immune to the coronavirus. Those who are super immune can block mutant coronavirus strains in many cases.”

Another article is titled “A lucky few seem ‘resistant’ to Covid-19. Scientists want to know why.”

The article begins with a story of a husband in Brazil who got deathly ill with COVID. But the wife sharing the same close quarters with her husband while he was infected and able to transmit the virus and who never wore a mask in the home with him, and who shared the same bed and was physically intimate never got infected. She was tested for an active or past infection — twice — and her bloodwork came up negative.

Moreover, the woman went to a meeting at the University of São Paulo where an infected attendee set off a chain reaction of positivity – but the woman did not get infected as shown by negative tests.

This case defines the medical mystery baffling scientists.

This article noted: “Some people become infected but their immune systems spontaneously clear the virus, keeping them from developing the actual disease. These individuals may be asymptomatic, but this is not the same as resistance; an antibody test would generally detect evidence of a prior infection. Instead, resistance is broadly understood as having cleared a virus before it enters cells and gets a foothold – preventing infection, in other words, not just disease.”

“A team of scientists at New York University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai were the first to report finding genes possibly tied to resistance to Covid-19. In early 2020, … [a set of researchers] set out to sort through the potential genetic factors underlying Covid resistance. To do this, they used CRISPR genome editing technology to disable each of the 20,000 human genes in lung cells and then exposed them to SARS-CoV-2. Most of the cells died within a few days. ‘Anything that lives is clearly missing something essential for a virus, and so potentially has a significant gene mutation, [said one of the researchers].’”

“In January 2021, the group published a paper in Cell, reporting that RAB7A, a gene important for the movement of cargo from inside the cell to the cell surface, topped their quantitative ranking of genes the coronavirus can’t do without. Inhibiting RAB7A reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection by ensuring ACE2 receptors are retained inside the cell, making them unavailable as the required point of attachment for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (which attaches and then enters the cell).”

“In a paper accepted for publication in Nature Immunology, [several scientists] with the COVID Human Genetic Effort propose several potential sites in the genome that could govern resistance to SARS-CoV-2, and suggested undertaking large genome-wide association studies that screen large populations for gene variants associated with resistance to SARS-CoV-2.”

Another recent 2022 article is titled: “Are some people naturally Covid-proof? Scientists around the world are studying the phenomenon of health workers and others who are regularly exposed to the disease but have yet to become infected.”

“Mounting evidence that people are naturally resistant to Covid and its mutations. One theory is that they have previously recovered from different coronaviruses.”

“It’s a common yet curious tale: a household hit by Covid, but one family member never tests positive or gets so much as a sniffle. Now scientists may have an answer: there is mounting evidence that some people are naturally Covid-resistant. For reasons not fully understood, it’s thought that these people were already immune to the Covid virus, and they remain so even as it mutates. The phenomenon is now the subject of intense research across the world.”

“In America and Brazil, researchers are looking at potential genetic variations that might make certain people impervious to the infection. And at University College London (UCL), scientists are studying blood samples from hundreds of healthcare staff who – seemingly against all odds – avoided catching the virus.”

“One such frontline worker is Lisa Stockwell, a 34-year-old nurse from Somerset who worked in A&E and, for most of 2020, in a ‘hot’ admissions unit where Covid-infected patients were first assessed. Towards the end of last year she signed on with a nursing agency, which assigned her daily shifts almost exclusively on Covid wards. Colleagues working by her side have, at various points throughout the pandemic, ‘dropped like flies’. But she says: ‘I didn’t get poorly at all, and my antibody test, which I took at the end of 2020, before I was vaccinated, was negative.’”

“’I expected to have a positive test at some stage, but it never came. I don’t know whether I have a very robust immune system, but I’m just grateful not to have fallen sick.”

“Early on in the pandemic, Lisa’s loved ones were also succumbing to the virus. She adds: ‘My husband was sick for two weeks with a raging temperature that left him delirious.’”

‘Despite sharing a bed with him, I never caught it.

“I even shared a car to work every day for two weeks with a nurse friend who, days later, was laid low with Covid.”

“She says: ‘I was working every day on Covid wards, wearing PPE that was far from the best quality, and was initially terrified of catching the virus.’”

“But I never did and now I’m beginning to think maybe I never will.”

Nasim Forooghi, 46, a cardiac research nurse at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in Central London, has a similar tale.

“The mother-of-two, whose husband is an NHS doctor, has been heavily involved in research tracking Covid among frontline staff – a role that has potentially exposed her to hundreds of infected people since the pandemic began in early 2020.”

“Like Lisa, she too has had a succession of antibody tests which found no trace of the virus ever being in her system. ‘Obviously I was using protective clothing but, even so, I was exposed to a lot of infected people,’ says Nasim.”

“I was having blood tests every week but they found nothing, even though I was exposed to it regularly.” She adds: ‘Every day for weeks on end I was dealing with doctors and nurses who were on the front line and face-to-face with patients on Covid wards.’”

“When the UCL researchers examined the blood of seemingly Covid-proof healthcare workers that had been taken before the vaccine rollout, it confirmed they had no Covid antibodies – meaning it was unlikely they had ever been infected.”

“However, they discovered other immune system cells, called T cells, similar to those found in the immune systems of people who have recovered from Covid. Like antibodies, T cells are created by the immune system to fend off invaders.
But while antibodies stop viral cells from entering the body, T cells attack and destroy them.”

“T cells remain in the system for longer and will have snuffed out the virus before it had a chance to infect healthy cells or do any damage, experts suggested. But why were they there in the first place? One theory is that the protection came from regular exposure in the past. This could have been through their jobs dealing with sick patients or facing other, less destructive types of coronavirus.”

“The UCL team carried out further tests on hundreds more blood samples collected as far back as 2011, long before the pandemic struck, and discovered that about one in 20 also had antibodies that could destroy Covid. Samples taken from children had the highest levels. Scientists said this was possibly because they were regularly exposed to cold-causing coronaviruses through mixing with large numbers of other youngsters at nursery and school, which could explain why, now, Covid rarely causes severe illness in this age group.”

“It appears the most likely explanation for a Covid-proof immune system is that, after it has been repeatedly exposed to another coronavirus, it is then able to detect and defeat any mutated relatives because it is recognising proteins found inside the virus rather than on its surface. These vary little between coronaviruses. ‘Internal proteins don’t mutate at anything like the same rate as external ones,’ says Professor Andrew Easton, a virologist at Warwick University.”

Another 2022 article is titled: “Irish study seeks people who have avoided Covid-19 to determine natural immunity.”

“Irish researchers are seeking people who have avoided Covid-19 to take part in an international study. Researchers at Trinity College Dublin are trying to establish if some people are “naturally resistant” to the virus, with those who have shared a bed with someone with Covid-19 without becoming infected themselves of particular interest to the study.”

“Professor Cliona O’Farrelly, the principal investigator of the study, says that researchers are seeking people who resisted Covid-19 before receiving a vaccine and after the outbreak of the Omicron variant. She says that some people have an immune system that is able to “keep the virus away without becoming infected at all.”

“The study will examine healthcare workers at St. James’s Hospital in addition to members of the general public who have not contracted the virus despite sharing the same household as someone with Covid. Researchers are seeking adults who shared a bed with a confirmed case of Covid-19 over the first three symptomatic days of the person becoming infected or those who were exposed to a confirmed case for at least an hour a day over the first five symptomatic days.”

“O’Farrelly said that researchers expect to find some mutations in people’s innate immune genes that provide natural resistance. This consortium is looking for genetic markers of resistance to infection. So it means having to sequence the whole genome of the people who are resistant – it is like looking for a needle in a haystack because the human genome is so hugely variable, O’Farrelly said.”

“We’re anticipating that we will see some mutations in some of the innate immune genes that give people resistance.”

“A study in Nature Communications published earlier this year found that people who had previous exposure to other coronavirus strains may have built up a resistance through a pre-existing memory T-cell phenotype.”

Conclusion

The widespread and intense push for COVID vaccination and booster shots has ignored the reality that a certain fraction of people has effective resistance or immunity to COVID infection. Ongoing research is documenting this, and precise explanations are evolving and worth more attention. Eventually, better vaccines and therapeutics may be developed based on the answers discovered for effective COVID infection resistance.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I wanted to go back to Fauci's case of 'paxlovid rebound'.

In light of the interview Geert just did, where the interviewer was relating to him how factory worker women in Taiwan that live in dorms on top of each other, every one of whom is multli-vaxxed/boostered, are getting COVID serially. Getting it, getting better, getting sick again, over and over.

I wonder if Fauci had paxlovid rebound or if in fact he just caught it again a few days later?

If indeed it's rebound - the idea that he doesn't know that paxlovid only suspends infection and that taking it again because of rebound is stupid and dangerous is a frightening prospect. [Which would reveal that he's just a figurehead and really doesn't know as much as a substack writer like Igor Chudov, who is not a doctor but isn't afraid of losing a medical license if he speaks out and has better info than you'll get from most establishment doctors.] This is super frightening; that the man making policy for the USA and possibly the world doesn't have as much knowledge as a non-doctor substack researcher.

The other alternative is he knows it's not rebound and that he caught it again 4 days later. The prospect of which he thinks will freak out the masses if the truth is disclosed (that you can get sick again so quickly and have zero immunity from just being sick) and he'd rather present it to the world that it's a rebound of the first case. If it's a new infection and not a rebound of the first infection, I can see why he'd think taking paxlovid again may help with the symptoms (although still stupid to do to his liver - see Igor's substack above on the topic).

HD

ETA: in case you missed it, here's the conclusion made by Igor in the substack about Fauci further up this page at post 63,613. BOLDING MINE:

Second Course of Paxlovid?

Dr. Fauci is doing something that the FDA never recommended he is taking another course of Paxlovid. Will it work? To answer this question, remember that Paxlovid is a PAUSE button. It simply stops a certain “protease” enzyme from cleaving viral RNA strands for 5 days, thus suspending infection.

Paxlovid worked in most unvaccinated people whose immune systems still functioned and could mount a proper response to Sars-Cov-2 in five days, thus quashing the rebound in 88% of cases.

However, vaccinated people had many more rebounds, because they did not have a biological response quick enough to respond after the five-day PAUSE from Paxlovid ended.

So, Dr. Fauci’s solution is to press the Paxlovid PAUSE button again, giving Pfizer another $530. If his immune system, damaged by quadruple vaccination, is unable to form a response in yet five more days, he may end up having a SECOND REBOUND. Fauci is in uncharted territory, because to my knowledge, two Paxlovid courses with a rebound in between, were never tried on anybody.

Be aware that Paxlovid is made of two somewhat toxic components — ritonavir and nirmatrelvir — and by taking a double course, Fauci risks liver toxicity and other toxicity. Being 81 years old, two courses of Paxlovid may be too much for him.

In any case, Anthony Fauci already managed to turn his one-week infection into a three-week infection, thanks to Paxlovid.

I hope that Pfizer at least gives Dr. Fauci a discount. They owe him one.
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Googled BA5 to see how prevalent it is and found this from yesterday:

(fair use applies)

New Omicron Subvariants Are Now Officially Dominant Covid Strains In U.S.
June 28, 2022 12:17pm

A little over a month after the more transmissible BA.2.12.1 Omicron subvariant became officially dominant in the U.S. on May 24, two sister subvariants of Omicron have quickly eclipsed BA.2.12.1 across the country.

BA.5 and BA.4 are, like BA.2.12.1, more transmissible, but have the added advantage of reportedly being more able to reinfect those who’ve already had Covid.

“We now report findings from a systematic antigenic analysis of these surging Omicron subvariants,” says a paper published last month to the BioRxiv preprint server. “BA.2.12.1 is only modestly (1.8-fold) more resistant to sera from vaccinated and boosted individuals than BA.2. On the other hand, BA.4/5 is substantially (4.2-fold) more resistant and thus more likely to lead to vaccine breakthrough infections.”

ba5 ba4 covid omicron

Variant proportions in the U.S. by week CDC
While BA.2.12.1 accounts for 42% of new cases this week, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that’s down from about 53% the week before. BA.5 and BA.4 by contrast have grown their shares from 25% and 12%, respectively, last week to about 37% and 16% this week. That means together the two variants which first emerged in South Africa earlier this year have jumped to a 55% share of all new cases in the last week.

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Here's an article from the beginning of June for comparison:

(fair use applies)

BA.5 Omicron Is Winning The Covid Variant Battle In The U.S., Especially In The Southwest
June 7, 2022 12:46pm

The BA.5 Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa on February 26, now seems to have an edge in the competition for dominance across the United States.

Three Covid variants are currently on the rise as the country experiences a summer surge in cases. All are members of the Omicron family. While BA.5 still only accounts for 7.6% of cases in the country, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today it is clearly making bigger week-by-week gains than any other variant. Similar trends have repeatedly led to other Omicron strains becoming dominant in the U.S.

The current dominant variant BA.2.12.1, which only achieved that status two weeks ago, currently accounts for 62.2% of new positive cases in the U.S. where a variant was identified.

Last week, BA.2.12.1 accounted for 59% of variants identified. That’s a 5.4% rise in the past week. The week before BA.2.12.1 saw a roughly 7% increase overall.

But BA.5 rose from 4.2% to 7.6% in the past week, an 85% rise in the past week. That’s even more than the 74% increase the South African variant saw the week before, an acceleration.

Sister lineage BA.4, first identified in South Africa in January, rose from 3.3% to 5.4% of all variants sequenced in the past week. That’s a considerable 64% increase, but not on par with BA.5. See chart below.

Screen-Shot-2022-06-07-at-11.11.16-AM.png

CDC

The South African variants have increased their shares even more rapidly in the Southwest, specifically in Texas and New Mexico, where together the already account for close of one-quarter of all new cases, at 22.2%. See map below.

In those two states, BA.5 was identified in 13.2% of new cases analyzed for variants this week. That’s at 71% rise from the 7.7% share BA.5 held just last week. Compare that to BA.2.12.1, which rose from 52% of all new cases to 53% this week netting only about a 2% rise and its clear which variant has the advantage going forward.

Screen-Shot-2022-06-07-at-11.12.17-AM.png

CDC

So what gives BA.5 and BA.4 an advantage? While BA.2.12.1 gained the upper hand by being more transmissible than BA.2 before it, the two newer variants are said to be making inroads at least in part because of their abilities to reinfect.

“We now report findings from a systematic antigenic analysis of these surging Omicron subvariants,” says a recent analysis published to the BioRxiv preprint server. “BA.2.12.1 is only modestly (1.8-fold) more resistant to sera from vaccinated and boosted individuals than BA.2. On the other hand, BA.4/5 is substantially (4.2-fold) more resistant and thus more likely to lead to vaccine breakthrough infections.”

If true, that means the new variants have a much larger population that they can potentially access, given that previous variants like BA.2.12.1 are producing far fewer breakthrough infections.

.
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
I posted this before - I think the really virulent strain will be an offshoot of BA5. I think BA5 is close, but not 'it'. It's not virulent the way Geert is expecting it to be. It's more virulent than the other Omicrons, but not quite as virulent as Delta or Wuhan were. My fear is that what we're going to see is going to be more virulent than both of those and more contagious than Omega.

HD
I was thinking the same thing.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
52? Did O-bam write the article???

LOL, I almost posted the same thing ;). The CDC also counts Puerto Rico and DC when they do their counts of what's going on in the USA. So 50 states plus Puerto Rico and DC = 52. I was confused too when I first saw it. Then again, the CDC thinks men can give birth so why not have 52 states .... Apparently old definitions don't matter anymore...
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I posted:

"Geert was asked about that [comment that science teaches that the virus gets weaker in order to spread and stay alive] in a past interviewer. He says that notion the virus gets weaker is incorrect, what happens is that herd immunity gets stronger. In other words, the people were stronger against any exposure - their innate immune system was stronger and their acquired immune system was stronger, so they were able to quickly knock out any exposure. The more and more people who have that immunity - it becomes "herd immunity" - and that protects the more vulnerable because so few get seriously ill, there's no one spreading the disease around for the more vulnerable to catch it from, (plus there is in general a lower viral load if exposed at all, in my understanding of it all). "

I remember Geert addressing this point but was stopped short of fully explaining it if I remember correctly. So I like what you have written here. So the virus is going to do what the virus does. It depends on the immune system of the person the virus infects that determines how bad it will be. Since the vaxxed have a neutralized immune system they will experience the virus much harder than the unvaxxed. And from what that last interview revealed is that a vaxxed person can get it again and again and again. We have entered the twilight zone.

I wanted to get back to you on this when I had the time to hunt it down. I hate the possibility that I might misrepresent what he says. He may have been asked about this on more than one interview but on this one he addresses the notion of 'viruses getting weaker as time goes on' after being asked about it and says that is not true. The rest of my explanation must have come from other interviews, he doesn't specifically address all the points as I described them in my initial comment in this video but I do remember him talking about the mechanism of how the vulnerable are protected in herd immunity situations (described in my comment). I feel better knowing he did specifically address that first point and debunked it.

I have the link set to start at the discussion so just click on the link or the video and it should start with the discussion. This video has been posted before on this thread a few weeks back.

If the link doesn't take you directly there, you want to be at 31 minutes 22 seconds:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SQrg8bY9g&t=1882s

Geert Vanden Bossche Warns the Vaccinated of Immune Escape Variants
Full video is 1 hr 20 min 14 sec
Interview with Dr. Sayed Haider. scroll up thread for full discussion.
 
Last edited:
Top