CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Canada

Feds Signal ArriveCan May Be Used Beyond Pandemic
By Andrew Chen
July 8, 2022

The federal government has hinted that ArriveCAN, originally intended to provide travel and public health information during the COVID-19 pandemic, may be kept beyond the pandemic.

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino recently signalled the Liberal government’s plan to use the app to “modernize our border” and allow travellers to complete their customs declaration forms in place of the traditional paper forms and digital kiosks installed in Canadian airports.

“ArriveCAN was originally created for COVID-19, but it has technological capacity beyond that,” Mendicino said during a press conference on June 28.

The app, launched in April 2020, was initially a short-term policy to ensure travellers entering Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic would comply with the government’s 14-day quarantine rules. In November that year, it was made mandatory for all travellers, which Ottawa said would help contain the spread of COVID-19 and reduce imported cases.

On June 30, the federal government announced that existing COVID-19 restrictions will be extended for travellers entering Canada until Sept. 30, including the use of the ArriveCAN app.

A recent update to the app added the “optional” function to allow passengers arriving at Toronto Pearson and Vancouver International airports to submit their customs and immigration declaration prior to landing, reported Global News, which first reported on the issue. This feature will be expanded to Montreal’s Trudeau International Airport later this summer and to other airports in the future.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said this feature was part of the government’s border modernization strategy that was already underway before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it was added to ArriveCan because people are already familiar with this app.

“Due to Canadians’ familiarity with the ArriveCAN app and its widespread association with border processing, the CBSA opted to incorporate the advance declaration components being developed into that platform rather than the distinct application envisioned,” a CBSA spokesperson told Global News.

“Once travel and public health measures are no longer needed, ArriveCAN will continue to be available for those who choose digital interaction at the border.”

Opposition

During a June 15 press conference, a group of mayors and business representatives from communities near the Canada–U.S. land border said the federal app discourages cross-border travel.

“Here in Niagara, 40,000 people count on tourism to feed their families. We’ve always said ‘follow the science.’ Well, the scientists are telling us now there’s no reason to have the ArriveCan app,” Niagara Falls Mayor Jim Diodati said.

Mark Weber, president of the Customs and Immigration Union, which represents CBSA employees, also said the app has contributed to delays at the border.

“The last few months have shown that ArriveCan neither facilitates cross-border travel nor does it improve operational efficiency. In fact, it does exactly the opposite,” he said during a House of Commons committee hearing on June 15.

What in the heck is this response?
End all remaining mandates.
Cancel the failed #ArriveCan app.
pic.twitter.com/srFHE3Tcfu
— Sen. Denise Batters (@denisebatters) July 7, 2022

When asked about the reasons behind the prolonged existence of the app, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said as the epidemiological situation changes in Canada, her government constantly looks at “which measures are appropriate and which are not, and constantly make modifications and adapt.”

ArriveCan, Freeland said, is one of the measures that were part of her government’s “highly-effective COVID response.”
“I do want to say one thing that Canadians should be quietly proud of—collectively, all of us together—and that is how we have gotten through COVID so far,” she said during a press conference on July 6.

“I think overall, yes, the measures that we all endured during COVID were unpleasant and were difficult, and … maybe you want to call it the ‘COVID recession hangover’ that we’re getting through right now is not pleasant. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that, by and large, these measures worked.”

Isaac Teo and Noé Chartier contributed to this article.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Experts Recommend Healthy Foods to Help Reduce 'Brain Fog' Symptoms (fair use applies)

Experts Recommend Healthy Foods to Help Reduce ‘Brain Fog’ Symptoms
By Weber Lee and Ellen Wan
July 8, 2022

Many people who have recovered from COVID-19 still have varying degrees of symptoms, including “brain fog,” forgetfulness, trouble focusing, and slow reaction time. Huang Shumin, a Taiwanese dietitian at Nantou Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, recommends eating more of the following foods to help restore brain health.

1. Fish

Fish such as mackerel, salmon, and saury are rich in fatty acids, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid). These elements are very important for the functioning of the brain. The human body cannot synthesize DHA and EPA on its own. These fatty acids have the effect of activating the brain, enhancing memory and concentration, and preventing dementia.

2. Nuts

Walnuts, almonds, cashews, etc. are also rich in linolenic acid to help produce EPA and DHA. In addition, nuts are rich in a variety of vitamins, such as vitamin E, B1, B2, and B6, which have antioxidant properties. They prevent brain aging, as well as help digestion, improve skin, alleviate insomnia, lower blood pressure, protect blood vessels, and other health benefits.

3. Berries

Berries contain a lot of vitamin C, which brain cells need to synthesize acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter responsible for memory. Cranberries are rich in antioxidants, which can reduce free radical damage and delay aging.

4. Mushrooms

Mushrooms have a unique antioxidant that can protect the brain. Studies have found that the more mushrooms you eat, the better your performance on a critical thinking test, and a reduction in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment.
In addition, mushrooms are rich in dietary fiber, B group vitamins, and minerals, which enhance immunity, prevent cancer, lower cholesterol, and delay brain degeneration.

5. Shellfish

Shellfish are rich in zinc, which is found in the highest concentration in the brain compared to other organs in the human body. It is essential for nerve function, assisting nerve growth, promoting wound healing, and enhancing memory. It has also been proven to stimulate protein production and brain cell growth.

6. Soybean

Soybean is rich in protein and also contains more than a dozen amino acids, including 9 essential amino acids that the human body cannot produce. Soybeans are also rich in lecithin. Lecithin is converted in the body to acetylcholine, one of the essential neurotransmitters in the brain required for the successful functioning of memory and cognitive abilities. The proteins in soy can increase the excitation and inhibition functions of the cerebral cortex and help relieve frustration and depression. Therefore, eating more soy foods, such as soy milk, tofu, yuba, fresh soybeans and dried soybeans, can help restore and enhance brain function.

7. Vegetables

Green leafy vegetables are rich in vitamin E and folic acid. Vitamin E can delay brain aging, and folic acid has a role in improving memory. Tomatoes, squash, and carrots are rich in antioxidants that can help maintain your brain vitality.
Cauliflower and broccoli contain choline, a precursor to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine that is responsible for the excitability of brain cells and improvement of cognitive function and memory.

8. Brown rice

The nutritional value of brown rice is much greater than that of white rice. Brown rice contains a variety of vitamins, such as vitamin B2, B3, and B6, which are essential for improving the cognitive ability of the brain. The protein and calcium in brown rice can enhance memory and restore brain function.

In addition, the inositol in brown rice can balance mental conditions and the neurotransmitter aminobutyric acid contained in sprouted brown rice has a calming effect on anxiety, stress, and fear.

Yang Guiyuan, a former Medical Ph.D. from Guangzhou First Military Medical University, who now lives in Japan, believes that in addition to eating some foods that help the brain, we must maintain an optimistic mood and good daily routines so that the body and the brain can function in balance and dissipate brain fog sooner.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Study shows that 8% of athletes have persistent symptoms after contracting COVID-19
by Karina Toledo, FAPESP
July 8, 2022

Researchers at the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil analyzed data from 43 scientific articles describing the effects of COVID-19 on athletes and concluded that while the disease was asymptomatic or mild in the vast majority of cases (94%), about 8% of the subjects concerned had persistent symptoms affecting their performance and potentially preventing a return to training and competing.

The data they analyzed referred to some 11,500 athletes, including amateurs and high-performance professionals. The results are reported in an article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

"We analyzed data from acute cases to appraise manifestations and severity, as well as persistent symptoms reported after the virus had been eliminated from the organism. This scope is more comprehensive than what has become generally known as long COVID," said Bruno Gualano, a professor at the University of São Paulo's Medical School (FM-USP) and principal investigator for the study. "The article offers a real compendium on the topic and can be used as a guide by professionals who provide healthcare for athletes."

According to the article, 74% of the athletes had symptoms during the acute stage. The most common were loss of smell and/or taste (46.8%), fever or chills (38.6%), headache (38.3%), fatigue (37.5%), and cough (28%).

Only 1.3% progressed to the severe form of the disease. This is a similar proportion to the average for the total population, Gualano noted, adding that it is harder to compare the percentage of asymptomatic cases. "Many ordinary people are infected but have such mild symptoms that they simply aren't reported as confirmed cases. Athletes have to be examined and assessed all the time, so mild cases are diagnosed more frequently," he said.

The most innovative findings in the study, in his view, related to what happens after the acute stage: between 3.8% and 17% of the athletes concerned (8.3% for a 95% confidence interval) had persistent symptoms, including loss of taste and/or smell (30%), cough (16%), fatigue (9%), and chest pain (8%).

"We found that 3% developed exercise intolerance," Gualano said. "This isn't a serious or life-threatening disorder, but in the world of sport it can be a problem. For elite athletes, any difference in preparation can determine who wins medals because competition is fierce."

Personalized protocols

The protocols currently adopted by sports confederations typically authorize a return to activity only five or six days after the symptoms of COVID-19 disappear. In Gualano's opinion, however, the study shows that not all athletes are fit to resume training after such a short period.

"Ideally, athletes should be carefully assessed, and if there are persistent symptoms, it may be necessary to ensure that training is light for a time, or even delay a resumption until all symptoms are resolved," he said.

Although previous studies suggested COVID-19 heightens the risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle due to infection) for athletes, this was not confirmed by the review. "In the studies that included a control group, we were unable to find a causal relationship between the infection and heart problems. Possibly the athletes already had myocarditis, and it was only discovered because imaging tests were performed when they were diagnosed with COVID-19," Gualano said. "However, the lack of evidence doesn't mean no such relationship exists. More research needs to be done on this matter."

Other gaps in this knowledge area should be filled by future research, Gualano added. One is the impact of omicron and its sub-variants on athletes and sports players, given that most of the articles analyzed were produced before their emergence.

"A smaller number of athletes who come to us appear to have persistent symptoms, but we don't know if this is due to the variant, to vaccination or to prior immunity. Nor do we know how well the vaccines in use protect people against the omicron sub-variants. We need to go on studying athletes in this new phase of the pandemic," he said.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

One in 13 US adults report long COVID symptoms
July 8, 2022

One in five U.S. adults (19 percent) who report having had COVID-19 say they have long COVID symptoms, according to a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics.

Beginning June 1, the Household Pulse Survey, administered in partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics, began asking questions to assess the prevalence of post-COVID-19 conditions. Data were collected from June 1 to June 13, 2022.

The newly collected data show that one in 13 U.S. adults overall (7.5 percent) have long COVID symptoms, defined as symptoms not present prior to COVID-19 infection and lasting three or more months after first contracting the virus. Long COVID is less likely among older adults than younger adults, with nearly three times as many adults ages 50 to 59 years reporting long COVID than those aged 80 years or older. Long COVID is more likely among women than men (9.4 versus 5.5 percent), and it is highest among Hispanic adults (9 percent) versus non-Hispanic White (7.5 percent) or Black (6.8 percent) adults.

There is geographic variance in the prevalence of long COVID symptoms. Prevalence is highest in Kentucky (12.7 percent), Alabama (12.1 percent), and Tennessee and South Dakota (11.6 percent) and lowest in Hawaii (4.5 percent), Maryland (4.7 percent), and Virginia (5.1 percent).
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Immunocompromised hospitalized with COVID-19 have poor outcomes
July 8, 2022

Immunocompromised adults with COVID-19 hospitalization have increased odds of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital death, regardless of vaccination status, according to research published in the July 8 issue of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Jason Robert C. Singson, M.P.H., from the California Emerging Infections Program in Oakland, and colleagues examined the association between immunocompromise and ICU admission and in-hospital death during March 1, 2021, to Feb. 28, 2022. The association between COVID-19 vaccination status and ICU admission and in-hospital death was also investigated.

The researchers found that during the study period, 12.2 percent of the 22,345 adults hospitalized for COVID-19 were immunocompromised. Among unvaccinated patients, the odds of ICU admission and in-hospital death were higher for those who were immunocompromised versus nonimmunocompromised (adjusted odds ratios, 1.26 and 1.34, respectively). Among vaccinated patients, the odds were also increased for ICU admission and in-hospital death for immunocompromised versus nonimmunocompromised patients (adjusted odds ratios, 1.40 and 1.87, respectively). Among nonimmunocompromised patients, the odds of death were lower for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.58); among immunocompromised patients, the odds of death did not differ for vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

"Given the increased odds of severe COVID-19 outcomes among immunocompromised hospitalized patients, multilayered prevention strategies for immunocompromised persons are critical to preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 and subsequent severe outcomes, especially when community levels indicate increased transmission and disease severity," the authors write.

One author disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGG7AsAhhnQ
Protection from Reinfection in Unvaccinated Qatari Cohort (New Study)
39 min 03 sec
Streamed live 6 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

Protection from Reinfection in Unvaccinated Qatari Cohort (New Study) This study from Qatar is conducted to compare the protection afforded by a unvaccinated individuals with primary infection compared to unvaccinated infection naïve individuals. Let's review. URL list from Friday, Jul. 8 2022 Home | DrBeen https://www.drbeen.com/homepage/ Duration of immune protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection in Qatar | medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11... Duration of immune protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection in Qatar https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11... Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection | Research Square https://www.researchsquare.com/articl...
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaJN0aTZTog
TWiV 916: COVID-19 clinical update #122 with Dr. Daniel Griffin
49 min 13 sec
Jul 9, 2022
Vincent Racaniello


In COVID-19 clinical update #122, Dr. Griffin discusses vaccine availability and coverage among children, post-infection health impairments in children and adolescents, infection detection using salvia and nasopharyngeal samples, effectiveness of vaccines during delta dominance, durability of vaccine against severe outcomes, concern in the postvaccination era, infection rebound after Paxlovid & Molnupiravir, lack of improvement after adding ivermectin to standard care, duration of shedding of virus, how thromboprophylaxis reduces thromboembolism but increases major bleeding, multi-lineage neural and myelin dysregulation caused by infection, and the association between vaccination and post-acute infection.

– Who Am I? – I’m Vincent Racaniello, Earth’s Virology Professor. I’m also a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York. I’ve been doing research on viruses since 1976, and teaching virology in classrooms and online since 1999. On this YouTube channel I share videos of my lectures, podcasts, and more. New videos are uploaded several times each week. I do not run ads on our work as it is disruptive to learning. We depend on your support. If you would like to support our work, go over to https://www.microbe.tv/contribute/
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Episode 275: THE FORBIDDEN DEBATE
The HighWire with Del Bigtree
1 hr 35 min 42 sec
Published July 7, 2022

At the ‘Better Way Conference’ in May, Del asked the forbidden question: “Do Vaccines Have a Role In the Better Way Forward?” Watch the full debate everyone has been asking for, then don’t miss Del’s candid follow-up interview with Geert.
Guest: Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM

The first part is the debate from back in May, at 1 hr 7 min 52 sec is the new conversation with Geert about vaccines in general (not Covid).
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

VSS Scientific Updates During Pandemic Times #28
By Geert Vanden Bossche
July 9, 2022

1. Immuno-Epidemiologic Ramifications of the C-19 Mass Vaccination Experiment: Individual and Global Health Consequences

“The mass vaccination program has driven natural selection and adaptation of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) variants that have now evolved to causing enhanced susceptibility of vaccinees to infection (due to antibody-dependent enhancement of infection; ADEI). The resulting recurrence of infectious episodes leads to hyperactivation of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that are directed at a universal (i.e., MHC-unrestricted) T cell epitope comprised within the SC-2 spike (S) protein. As these cytotoxic CD8+ T cells enable prompt abrogation of productive infection and as this epitope is shared amongst some other glycosylated viruses causing acute self-limiting infection or disease, more and more cases of asymptomatic infections are to be expected in vaccinees, especially in those endowed with a mature and fully functional innate immune system.”

Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences.

2. Dr. Eric Topol, et al, Continue to Push for Omicron Vaccine

“But combined with waning vaccine protection and disappointing booster uptake among the elderly, the virus’s accelerating evolution and aggressive new trajectory — toward greater transmissibility, evasiveness and possibly pathogenicity — could cause significant reinfections and disruptions if not addressed.”

'The worst version' of COVID is spreading. Can we update our vaccines in time?

3. New Ultra-Contagious Omicron Subvariants BA.4, BA.5 Worsening California Coronavirus Wave

"There also have been some concerning findings in laboratory studies, which found that BA.4 and BA.5 were better able to infect lung cells than the earlier BA.2 subvariant of Omicron," she said.

New ultra-contagious Omicron subvariants BA.4, BA.5 worsening California coronavirus wave

4. Increasing SARS-CoV2 Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths Among the Vaccinated Elderly Populations during the Omicron Variant Surge in UK

“The increased cases with significantly increased hospitalizations and deaths among the elderly population during the Omicron variant surge underscores the need to prevent infections in the elderly irrespective of vaccination status with uniform screening protocols and protective measures.”

Increasing SARS-CoV2 cases, hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly populations during the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant surge in UK

5. Advocates Warn US at Risk of Losing Control on Monkeypox

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are 460 cases in 30 states, Puerto Rico and D.C., though experts say that number is almost certainly an undercount, as many people who may be infected don’t yet have access to widespread testing.”

Advocates warn US at risk of losing control on monkeypox

6. Avian Influenza Strikes Foxes in Four States

Comments from Geert: "Not surprising! Highly vaccinated populations are now serving as an asymptomatic reservoir for both SC-2 and avian Flu; from these reservoirs these viruses can easily spread to cattle (Kansas case?) and (wild) birds, respectively. Birds which become ill because of avian Flu are an easy prey for foxes....

This story will go on for a while. It’s just a matter of time till other livestock (poultry, pigs) will be affected That's why we may soon be obliged to shift from meat to veggies in our diet! I am not kidding!"

Avian influenza strikes foxes in four states

7. The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated with Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand

“In light of an unsatisfactory risk-evidence situation, aggregate weekly data on excess mortality in New Zealand are used here to study the impacts of rolling out booster doses. Instrumental variables estimates using a plausible source of exogenous variation in the rate of booster dose rollout indicate 16 excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses, totaling over 400 excess deaths from New Zealand's booster rollout to date.”

EconPapers: The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated With Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand

8. Bird Flu Eases in Commercial Poultry, but APHIS Fears it Could Return in Fall

“While the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service remains “very concerned” about the virus remaining in wild bird flyways during the summer with the risk of migrating birds bringing it back into the country this fall, it does see a break in the hectic action.”

Bird flu eases in commercial poultry, but APHIS fears it could return in fall
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

having had covid not associated with higher rates of myo/pericarditis
another covid talking point bites the dust?

el gato malo
20 hr ago

it has been a “talking point of faith” for many american pundits and pharma peddlers that:

“sure, vaccines may cause increased risk of myo and pericarditis, but it’s lower than the increased risk of same from having gotten covid.”

this has always looked implausible for 2 simple reasons:
  1. the society scale spike in these outcomes was not present in 2020 when covid was rampant and vaccines non-extant.
  2. vaccines are associated with higher risk of covid infection anyhow and so, if covid causes heart problems, then getting vaxxed would appear the wrong way to go.
but, like so many other claims like “vaccines will stop spread” and “your mask protects me,” as the data really comes in, this tale of covid induced heart inflammation has failed to validate.

here’s a good sized israeli study. (published back in april)

The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study

the abstract lays it out:



and note that they disincluded the vaccinated. this is vital to do this properly. “vaxxed then got covid” is an entirely different signal.



the cohorts looked well balanced for age and risk factors. overall N was a good sized 788k, sufficiently powered for such signal rates.

there was so close to zero difference on myocarditis as an outcome as to be all but indistinguishable.



on pericarditis, having had covid was actually associated with lower risk (though this was not stat sig and is likely just noise based on low incidence rates. 0.01% = 1 in 10,000 so even in N’s of ~200k and 600k we’re talking about 20-60 cases. easy to have small variances skew outcome there)



but there is just no evidence here or in society scale data that covid was driving these forms of heart risk.
the timing issue has been clear in the hospital data for a year.



covid showed no meaningful effect thru 2020. they they started vaxxing young people and acute coinciditis broke out all over.

and they have been trying to blame the virus and 300 other made up factors ever since.


this appears to be one big shell game to divert attention and ascribe this spike in heart damage and death to anything but the experimental pharma rushed into billions of people without adequate safety testing.

these increases in incidence are not covid nor sunspots nor sudden adult death syndrome that has always been with us and yet that we somehow never quite noticed before.

this is gaslighting and “it’s worse if you get covid” was a key plank in that edifice.

it seemed so plausible.

but it’s not in the data and apparently never was.

and those making such claims either knew or should have known this.

it’s just another made up claim.

one day i will grow tired of posting this graphic.

but today is not that day.


.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Ontario hospitalization data by 'vaccination' status
If you are INJECTED (that's a verb) then you are INJECTED.
Jessica Rose
20 hr ago

With data like these tracking hospitalizations per group (‘vaccinated’ vs ‘unvaccinated’), it is vital TO PROPERLY CLASSIFY THE GROUPS so that they are distinct are true representations of each group. We are not measuring antibody or T cell responses here: we are counting the number of hospitalizations post INJECTION. Post means after. So bloody count them right, will ya? They aren’t. They classify ‘unvaccinated’ people as being injected (1-13 days out). Sorry, I blew the punchline. Keep reading.

Please head to the Province of Ontario’s (my homeland :)) website where you will be able to see and even download COVID-19 Vaccine Data. It’s quite illuminating. The file that I chose to download, since the ‘case’ data is crap in my opinion (and always will be), was the second one down entitled “Hospitalizations by vaccination status” which can be found here. I thought that it was pretty strange that they wrote the following. Why won’t they be publishing hospitalization by injection status data as of June 23, 2022? Not looking good for your products, eh?


Figure 1: Hospitalizations by injection status according to Ontario Data Catalogue. COVID-19 Vaccine Data in Ontario - Hospitalizations by vaccination status - Ontario Data Catalogue

They correctly point out that:

Comparing groups using count data (such as the number of patients) is appropriate when the groups being compared are about the same size (i.e. around mid-2021). However, now that approximately 87% of eligible Ontarians are fully vaccinated (compared to 3% partially vaccinated and 10% unvaccinated) this comparison is no longer appropriate and may be misleading.

so let’s make sure we show both charts. The population of Ontario was approximately 14,826,276 as of 2021 Q3. I calculated the percentages of injected (and uninjected) rates for the normalization using their numbers for ‘total_individual_fully_vaccinated’ people as per respective date. I subtracted the number of fully injected people from the total population to get the number of uninjected people. It’s not a perfect way to do it since there is this subpopulation of ‘partially injected’ people, but I am sure it’s more than an adequate estimate. At the end of the day, on June 30, 2022, by my calculations using their numbers, 82.5% were fully injected and 17.5% were not. This calculation of 17.5% certainly includes people with 1 injection. So in order to be as similar to their estimates as possible, I made sure the percentage uninjected by June 30, 2022 was indeed their estimated 10% (10.7% to be nit-picky.) The remainder are the quasi-injected. Oy.

First, let’s plot the absolute counts. I always like to do this.1


Figure 2: Data from the province of Ontario’s Data Catalogue showing hospitalizations for individuals who are uninjected and fully injected (at least 2 doses).

The absolute counts paint a picture of failed injectable products with regard to reducing hospitalizations which - would clearly be the case if the injected and uninjected populations were about the same size - which they unfortunately are not. Unfortunately because so many people ‘chose’ to inject themselves. It would also be clear that individuals who chose the natural immunity course would win. But the populations are not the same size. So let’s normalize and see what we get.


Figure 3: Data from the province of Ontario’s Data Catalogue showing hospitalizations for individuals who are uninjected and fully injected (at least 2 doses) normalized to uninjected and injected counts, respectively.

The weird black-fancy lines are the percentages of injected (top) and uninjected (bottom) individuals in the context of the normalized counts per hundred thousand injected or uninjected individuals, respectively. Before I tell of my observations take note that the data owners define ‘unvaccinated’ people as not having been injected at all OR injected and in the bloody 0-13 day window! Oy oy! They actually wrote it down! So potentially, ALL of the hospitalization data from the ‘unvaccinated’ group actually represent INJECTED individuals!


Figure 4: A Percentage (perhaps 100%!) of ‘Unvaccinated’ people are actually injected. COVID-19 Vaccine Data in Ontario - Ontario Data Catalogue

Now, to me, if I take this data at face value, I see 4 things:
  1. The patterns of hospitalizations are the same, meaning, the cause is likely the same. SARS? Omicron? We know one thing that is not the shared root cause, right? It’s not due to the injections. Right? Unless, they misclassified what an uninjected person is in the hospital, or as per their stupid definition. If you have one dose up until 13 days (inclusive), then you are counted as UNINJECTED and put into the ‘unvaccinated’ group! I have written about this many times.)2
  2. The counts are low for both groups (about 1/2,857 for the uninjected at peak values), but, these odds are still favorable when considering the rate of severe adverse event (SAE) reports per 100,000 in VAERS ((1/1,826 - only double-dosed Domestic data) in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products.3 This is without considering the Under Reporting Factor (URF). If we consider an URF of 31 (how beautiful is it that I calculated this from Pfizer’s SAE rate from their clinical trial?4), then this likelihood becomes 1/59. A 1/59 chance of succumbing to death, a life threatening event, disability, birth defect, an ER/ICU visit or… hospitalization. That’s a lot worse than the 1/2,857 chance of being hospitalized (presumably) with COVID-19 going the natural immunity route. Let’s play Devil’s Advocate, if the injection injury rates are so high, then wouldn’t this translate into more hospitalizations for the injected in the data, he would ask? Good question! Answer: The injected (and their doctors) are NOT encouraged (in fact it is discouraged) to associate the ‘vaccine’ injuries with ‘vaccines’ and thus, they are not reported as such. I would say the reporting rate is almost 0 for acknowledged injuries.
  3. The peak rates are very similar between the groups, especially in the second peak. I imagine the 2 peaks are Omicron and Omicron the sequel. Not sure.
  4. By June, the rates are approximately the same which begs the question, what will the trend be in the future? Will the uninjected win the race?
According to this data source, they won’t be publishing anymore case or hospitalization (by injection status) data so, we won’t be allowed to know. I can’t stress how VERY dangerous ignoring this data is.

What do you see?

I see ‘unvaccinated’ data that is impostering ‘vaccinated’ data. Which makes this stupid. Just for fun, I swapped 80% of ‘unvaccinated’ data to the ‘vaccinated’ data group and replotted it. I believe firmly that this is how the data looks in reality and that the injected are hospitalized far more than the truly uninjected.


Figure 5: Figure 4 and Figure data with the uninjected group represented by an 80% reduction in absolute count to attribute for the individuals who were, in fact, INJECTED.

How many more times do we have to show the same thing with entirely different international government databases?


1 I do find it odd that there is data post June 23rd published here. But it’s not like the people putting out data don’t contradict themselves all the time.
2 Pierre Kory has a lot to tell the world about this.
3 US Coronavirus vaccine tracker
4 Rose, J. 2021, Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is
the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System? Science, Public Health Policy & the Law
Volume 3:100–129.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

In Regards to Omicron
A few comments and open discussion.
Modern Discontent
17 hr ago

Minor correction: On my post about Ba.4/Ba.5 I made a comment that we should look into older monoclonals for current utilize with this new subvariant. However, after thinking about it further I believe that remark was too premature based on the tiny data provided. In order to make such an argument there would need to be further analysis of the epitopes being targeted by the monoclonals (Eli Lily’s and Regeneron). I think I jumped the shark based on the comment made in the Forbes article. So as of now consider this hypothesis shelved until further evidence can be found to substantiate it.

Going into my post on Ba.4/Ba.5 I wanted to make some remarks about the complexities of immunity and how simple analyses or assumptions may not tell us much about anything.

But I also want to use this post to discuss a few things in regards to Omicron and generally the atmosphere surrounding COVID as it exists currently. This post will feel a little bit scrambled since it will likely come together as I form my thoughts, so please bear with me and let’s venture forward.

Because the immunity section was going to end up becoming super long, I decided to split this article up and save the immunity section for the future. Apologies for those looking forward to it! It should be out within a day or two.

The Omicron Enigma

Just like many people out there I was infected with Omicron, and at the time was the only SARS-COV2 infection that I received (at least as far as I am aware of). Nearly everyone from both naturally immune and vaccinated was able to get COVID, and because of that it caught people off guard.

Because of this, it’s rather strange how much of Omicron has been memory-holed.

At the time I wrote a few pieces on Omicron and its emergence, with the general hypothesis in the scientific community being that it was some offshoot of Alpha from long ago, or it may have come from animal reservoirs. In general, we didn’t know where it came from at the time, nor do we know about its origins now.

Considering how the emergence of SARS-COV2 called into question gain-of-function research and possible lab leaks, it only seemed plausible that people consider Omicron itself to be of lab origin.

Brian Mowrey of Unglossed has raised this hypothesis based on the mutation rate, as well as both Ba.1 and Ba.2 emerging at the same time (Ba.1 was able to outcompete Ba.2 until later on).

The Ba.1 and Ba.2 being different variants that emerged separate is very interesting. It alludes to the fact that there may have been a lot of noise that came about during the emergence of Omicron- sounds a bit too familiar to the initial coverage of COVID, right?

In one study by Mykytyn, et. al.1 researchers conducted antigenic cartography through utilizing pseudovirus particles expressing different spike proteins and infecting in vitro cells. Antigenic cartography maps the different responses of cells to the virus and generally provides some insight into the relationship between different variants. The results suggest that, not only are Omicron Ba.1 and Ba.2 very antigenically different than prior variants, but that they are themselves distinct from one another, suggesting either a divergence from a common ancestor or two independent emergences of each variant.


From Mykytyn, et. al. An antigenic map is shown above based on responses to various spike proteins. Note that many prior variants clump nearby one of the original variants (D614G). However, both Ba.1 and Ba.2 are fairly separate from the other strains. More importantly, Ba.1 and Ba.2 are distinct from one another as well.

And the researchers provide this comment in regards to results of their neutralization results. Keep in mind that these neutralization assays come with many caveats, but on the basis of being consistent they at least follow the similar design of other studies:

Similar to pseudovirus data, we observed a reduction in neutralization titers of Omicron BA.1 sera against all other variants (2.4 to 9 fold compared to homologous) and poor neutralization of Omicron BA.1 by all non-homologous sera (8 to 112 fold reduction). In addition, Omicron BA.2 was also poorly neutralized by all sera (7 to 114 fold reduction), including Omicron BA.1 (8 fold reduction). Although Omicron BA.1 and Omicron BA.2 possess many overlapping mutations in S, the differences between the variants were sufficient to prevent efficient cross-neutralization. In agreement, our study shows that antibodies elicited against the original SARS-CoV-2 cluster do not neutralize Omicron BA.1 well, and vice-versa.

All this to say, Omicron essentially threw a wrench into everyone’s working model of COVID. No longer could we make the case that natural immunity was better than vaccinated immunity- everyone was getting sick regardless because the virus had mutated so extensively that it evaded nearly all prior immunity.

As another example, take this excerpt from Willet, et. al.2 for another idea of how evasive Ba.1 was be relating the mutations to immune invasion:

Within the spike protein, BA.1 and BA.2 sub-lineages share 21 amino acid mutations with 12 distinct mutations in BA1 and 6 in BA.2. BA.2 lacks the 69,70 deletion present in BA.1. The G339D, N440K, S477N, T478K, Q498R and N501Y mutations (present in BA.1 and BA.2) enhance binding of spike to the human ACE2 receptor, while combinations such as Q498R and N501Y may enhance ACE2 binding additively19. Deep mutational scanning (DMS) estimates at mutated sites are predictive of substantially reduced monoclonal and polyclonal antibody binding and altered binding to human ACE2 (Fig. 1b)20. Fourteen mutations in Omicron (K417N, G446S (BA.1), E484A, Q493R, G496S (BA.1), Q498R and to a lesser extent, G339D, S371L/F (BA.1/BA.2), S373P, N440K, S477N, T478K, N501Y and Y505H) may affect antibody binding on the basis of a calculated escape fraction (a quantitative measure of the extent to which a mutation reduces polyclonal antibody binding by DMS). Seven Omicron RBD mutations (K417N, G446S(BA.1), E484A, Q493R, G496S(BA.1), Q498R and N501Y) have been previously shown to be associated with decreased antibody binding, importantly falling in epitopes corresponding to three major classes of RBD-specific neutralizing antibodies (nAbs).

So there was a general expectation that nearly no one would be “fully” protected from Omicron, and as I recall the general sentiment at the time was to say that Omicron almost created an even playing field for the world. We were starting at square one, and fortunately for most us Omicron was mild so there was a general sentiment that this would be the beginning of the end for COVID.

But how many people reading this actually remember that this was a thing; that we (rightfully) took Omicron as some measure of immunity reset for the world? Why was it that there was no reworking of our understanding of COVID in the wake of Omicron?

Instead, it appeared that many eventually settled into Omicron and viewed it as a continuation of Delta, even thought it contained several dozen new mutations that absolutely does not follow the typical mutation rate one would expect for a naturally occurring virus (as natural as a virology lab in Wuhan can be considered natural).

Again, compare the mutations found in the spike protein of Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron using the chart below from Lippi, et. al.3 Then compare the chart from Wednesday showing the mutations between Ba.1/Ba.2 and other subvariants of Omicron4.


From Lippi, et. al. Compare all of the spike mutations that came about in prior variants and compare them to Ba.1 (B.1.1.529). Note that the 15 mutations within the RBD alone for Ba.1 (in red) are far greater than the number of mutations in the entire spike protein of other variants. The number of mutations should raise questions as to how these mutations arose.

Such a high degree of mutations (Note: there are more mutations in Ba.1’s receptor binding domain than there are mutations in the spike protein of other variants) requires some degree of contextualization, and one that takes into account how to go about parsing this high degree of mutations.

Do we try to find reasons to suggest why these mutations came about? Some suggest zoonotic jump from mice and rats as an explanation as to why these mutations in particular came about, yet there hasn’t been any evidence of mouse zero running about in South Africa. It may be from an immunocompromised individual, but that doesn’t explain why mutations that confer greater transmissibility yet lower virulence would be favored unless the net fitness favored these mutations, as well as why surveillance somehow did not see the emergence of some ancestral lineage (if the patient received longterm treatment). Both hypotheses don’t also take into account how both Ba.1 and Ba.2 emerged around the same time yet are so distinct from one another. That would generally leave us with a lab-based theory, whether released intentionally or a possible leak. In all cases though, it doesn’t follow the typical route through human serial passage, and so does it seem appropriate to include Omicron into the human evolutionary model?

This creates a host of problems, mostly because Omicron means that we can’t draw a line from Delta to Omicron- we can’t connect the dots and follow an evolutionary progression from one variant to another. In fact, this may be considered the improper inclusion of Omicron, and yet it appears to be happening everywhere.

Many models on COVID now just include Omicron rather than treating it as a separate entity to which we don’t know the origins of. Hypotheses now work around Omicron’s more transmissible yet reduced virulent nature to extrapolate assumptions. Now that Ba.4 and Ba.5 are appearing with greater virulence, it’s suddenly as if the Delta→ Ba.1/Ba.2 → Ba.4/Ba.5 line of viral progression is somehow something that was predicted for by several, as if they somehow knew that a variant like Omicron would arise when many have raised concerns about possible lab origins for this variant.

It’s even strange seeing many people remark that Ba.4 and Ba.5 are now the time where immune escape is happening, especially since immune escape was happening as soon as Omicron emerged and is not exclusive to this current subvariant. Again, more memory-holing appears to be at play here. Granted, there is an argument to be made that the combination of mutations found within Ba.4/Ba.5 are what makes the immune escape, but since this appears to be the general progression of viruses that find niches within humans (i.e. mutate to evade immunity), this may not be a surprise more than something that should be expected.

Even with this steelman, there are a few questions (as raised by Brian Mowrey) as to whether Ba.4/Ba.5 are actually distinct from Ba.2 as well5.

Omicron has become a conundrum for the scientific community and many others, yet it’s treated as if it’s not the anomaly that it should be designated.

It’s as if Omicron is being treated as the estranged child that has been welcomed into the COVID family, not some random stranger that appeared at the family picnic and eats all of the coleslaw and macaroni salad while Auntie Alpha looks on wondering who’s kid this is that just appeared out of nowhere.

In that regard, it doesn’t quite make sense how Omicron has inserted itself so seamlessly into the COVID discourse. Instead, it may be more viable to consider Omicron and Wuhan as completely separate viruses (to a degree), if not for the difficulty of figuring out exactly what to do with Omicron. This does raise problems of its own, but it should at least emphasize the fact that Omicron’s analysis may be biased by our analyses of prior variants.

There’s likely more I intend to say here that I can’t think of at the moment, but keep in mind that when parsing the information we should remember the strange emergence of Omicron and factor that into our working model, rather than disregard it’s sudden appearance and act as if it was just the normal state of affairs.

With that, I would like to know what you all think about Omicron given everything that has been going on.

Do you think Omicron emerged from animal reservoirs, or emerged from an immunocompromised individual? Or is there a possibility that Omicron, similar to the original Wuhan, may have emerged from a lab?

How do we contextualize the enigma that is Omicron? How do we relate it to prior variants, or should we consider it completely separate? If we do include Omicron with respect to variants such as Delta, how do we rationalize the high number of mutations that have still not been fully answered?

Consider these questions, and any other questions and think about opening up some discussion about what’s going on. I’ll try to release my immunity post either tomorrow or Sunday, so please be on the lookout for that!
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

BA.5 COVID clade subvariant rising, BA4/BA5 & BA.2.12.1; BA.5 has multiple mutations on spike, sufficiently 'different', re-infections; AGAIN; it is the vaccine, stupid, causing variants, STOP vaccine
Vanden Bossche, Yeadon, myself etc. have warned, it is the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies in the failed COVID injection driving selection pressure for more infectious (potential lethal) variant
Dr. Paul Alexander
19 hr ago

It is ludicrous that authorities would continue a vaccine that is driving infectious variant after infectious variant and we argue soon there will be a lethal variant due to sub-optimal immune pressure (vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies) on viral virulence. This COVID injection has to be stopped! Under no condition should your healthy child be given these injections given their near zero risk and no benefit from these injections. Given the harms and given the subversion of the potent developing innate immune system is children. If the innate immune system is subverted, children will be susceptible to a range of pathogen, viruses, as well as COVID. There is no sound justification for this. Stop this ineffective, failed COVID injection.


Walgreens

In the pre-Omicron era, we saw more infectious variants becoming dominant; however, thanks to the neutralizing antibodies, vaccinees were still protected against disease. However, with the advent of Omicron and its growing resistance to neutralizing antibodies, vaccinees became more susceptible to infection; what we are now seeing is more virulent variants becoming dominant (Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5[1]). however, thanks to the virulence-neutralizing antibodies (which are the same as those enhancing infection at the upper respiratory tract!), vaccinees were still protected against severe disease (e.g., in case of BA.1 and BA.2). I’ve no doubt, however, that with the growing resistance of BA.4 and BA.5 to the virulence-neutralizing Abs, vaccinees will now rapidly become more susceptible to virulence.

If you’re C-19 vaccinated: Make sure you’ve access to antivirals and antibiotics and that you’ve established a contact with an MD you can trust.

  • If you’re not C-19 vaccinated: You should under no condition get the seasonal Flu shot as vaccination with inactivated Flu vaccines will dramatically increase the risk of catching ADEI in the event you get exposed to avian flu. Under no condition should you get a non-replicating smallpox vaccine. Since surface proteins of smallpox (using cowpox as live attenuated immunogen) are different from those decorating monkeypox, and as the non-replicating vaccine primarily induces antibodies (Abs), you could expose yourself to a real risk of ADEI. However, C-19 unvaccinated people don’t need a smallpox jab at all (and they don’t need an avian Flu vaccine either – in case the industry comes up with a pandemic flu vaccine!) regardless of whether they got the smallpox vaccine in the past. Training of our innate immune system against Coronavirus (i.e., SC-2) during the C-19 pandemic will not only provide strong innate immune protection against influenza virus and poxviruses but also against other glycosylated viruses causing acute, self-limiting infection (e.g., RSV, other common cold CoV).
    GVB

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s interview with me on damage to children’s innate immune system with the COVID injection.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

URGENT: BA.5 subvariant/clade that has emerged we warned was going to be due to the COVID mRNA injection; it has come to pass; it is more infectious and now more serious symptoms in vulnerables
What is needed is early treatment, if hospital CEOs and doctors and government officials did not steal the PEP COVID money, then hospitals are already geared, won't be overwhelmed; GRAPHS
Dr. Paul Alexander
16 hr ago

I am trying to explain it simply:

It is the COVID injection itself, the mRNA injections that are non-neutralizing now and are placing sub-optimal immune pressure on the virus’s spike and driving infectious variants one after the other, and we fear soon (now), emerging are variants that would cause severe symptoms in the lower lungs (lower respiratory tract). It is not the virus, it is the injection, the vaccine itself that is making the virus more infectious to the vaccinated population. It is the injection and it is illogical and reckless and dangerous to respond with more vaccine and booster. It is going to be lethal.

The COVID injection has long moved from being neutralizing to the target antigen, which is the one target, the spike protein spicule that sits on the ball of the virus (you know what I am referring to). It is a non-neutralizing injection today, has been for a while now, does not sterilize the virus and that means it does not stop infection, replication, transmission, confer immunity.

The reality is that within a highly vaccinated, in a well-mixed population, vaccinated persons should be regarded as asymptomatic reservoirs for transmission of new, and highly infectious COVID immune escape variants and also other highly infectious diseases to the balance of the population. We were warning of this disaster yet the CDC and NIH and FDA and Bourla (Pfizer) and Bancel (Moderna) are not listening. They are now coming for the children. You as parents better be prepared to lay your life down in protection of your kids. In this. Healthy kids will die due to these injections, will be severely harmed. Their innate immune systems are at risk of subversion.

We are warning that the consequential enhanced viral transmission rate has the potential to initiate new pandemics and these are not only of new, highly infectious, and antigenically shifted COVID variants (presenting of sufficiently different variants) but there is also the risk we argue of avian influenza virus and monkeypox virus expanding to the general population. We are very concerned at the terrible public health response to monkeypox and the allowed expansion into the general low risk population of this pathogen.

Vanden Bossche, Yeadon, myself, etc. have warned that if you keep vaccinating with a non-sterilizing injection, you are placing population immune pressure on the infectiousness of the virus, which is the spike. This while there is tremendous infectious pressure from the virus down onto the population, trying to infect. What happened? Well, infectious variant after variant is emerging and will never stop emerging as long as these ineffective, non-sterilizing, non-neutralizing vaccines continue that induce immature sub-optimal immunity. The sub-optimal immune pressure onto the spike drives selection pressure to ‘select’ the most infectious variant from among circulating variants that becomes enriched in the environment and becomes the new dominant.

We also know that the vaccinal antibodies (Abs) that are non-neutralizing (due to the vaccine) can still bind to the virus, such that binding is still taking place, but in binding, the virus’s infectiousness is increased for the vaccinee. The vaccinated person via antibody dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI) is getting infected. We have seen this many months now and we begged them to stop the vaccine. They did not. This is due to the non-neutralizing Abs from the vaccine pressuring the spike and driving the variants. Now we know the vaccinated person is massively at risk of infection.

We also warned that the increased infectiousness we were seeing (upper respiratory tract/URT) yet no severity (in LRT/lung) was not a good thing. Meant that the same way the variants overcame the neutralizing Abs on infectiousness (initially neutralizing Abs blocked infectiousness then the virus became largely resistant to the Abs and non-neutralizing Abs dominated) and non-neutralizing Abs were induced, then the same way initially there is blocking of severe illness in the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and lungs, the non-neutralizing Abs that would be induced would be overcome and surmounted by the virus variants (due to the sub-optimal immune pressure) and variants would emerge that would then cause severe disease.

We believe we are seeing it now in omicron BA.5 and more to come.

Again, it is not the virus that is getting serious, it is the COVID injection/vaccine that with the induced non-neutralizing Abs, places pressure in the spike (receptor binding domain and N-terminal domain) and is now potentially driving both infectiousness and severity/virulence.

The COVID injection must be stopped and must not be given to our healthy children as will damage their potent developing innate immune system that would be prevented from being optimally trained in childhood.

All we needed then and now, is to strongly protect the vulnerable population use vit D, use early treatment and nasal oral washes such as povidone iodine (Betadine) or hydrogen peroxide (swish and spit, no swallow, clean out nostrils), use chemoprophylaxis (prevention antivirals etc.) and allow the rest of society to live normal lives.

There is talk by Pfizer and Moderna of a reworked injection that is bivalent (OMICRON and Wuhan). This is very devastating for these inept clueless public health and vaccine maker people who did this will once again:

1) not recognize the potent interplay of the virus-host immune system ecosystem as it strives to regain/attain balance

2) you will be vaccinating a second time into a pandemic

3) by the time such a new vaccine and spike is produced, there will be new variants and as such as is now, we will have mass vaccination into a pandemic using a vaccine that induces vaccinal antibodies that are a mismatch for the target spike antigen.

Hospitals are geared up unless the PPE COVID prep money was stolen by those in charge of it.

See graphs, we are not getting back to baseline on downward slope so massive virus hanging around and so we can never get to herd immunity and now the vaccine is driving massive infection in vaccinated persons globally, it has failed! South Africa fared well with Omicron BA 4 and 5 and why? Was it the low vaccination rate? I think so, certainly. There is a little blip but lets see. But what say you? Note, by delaying vaccine, the African nations also allowed training of the innate immune system in children and young persons who are now clearing out the virus. Children and young people are critical to any getting to herd immunity.









 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The next phase of the COVID-19 pandemic could be a tsunami!
Dr Philip McMillan
Jul 7




The next COVID-19 pandemic clinical presentations will appear confusing without an understanding of the autoimmune nature of the disease.

While scientific opinions may be silenced, predicted outcomes will still occur. Science does not care about politics.

My research has always focused on severe COVID-19 being a viral mediated autoimmune disease. This means the SARS-COV2 viral infection in some persons causes the immune system to recognise specific proteins (serum ACE-2) as being a part of the virus, therefore attacking normal cells with ACE-2, lining blood vessels in the lungs.


McMillan, Philip, et al. "COVID-19—A theory of autoimmunity against ACE-2 explained." Frontiers in Immunology 12 (2021): 582166.

In this review, I aim to delineate some of the patterns that could occur over the next few months.

My great fear is that doing nothing could lead to devastating mortality rates across highly vaccinated regions.

Acute Respiratory COVID-19

This was the typical presentation in the early phase of the pandemic with relatively quick deterioration in respiratory function. Often patients were admitted to hospital requiring oxygen and dependent on the severity could end up in ICU.
Respiratory compromise highlighted by excessive microclots in lung blood vessels was the primary cause of COVID-19 deaths.

These presentations will be reduced as the majority of the population has been exposed to COVID-19 (mucosal immunity) or vaccinated.

Subacute Autoimmune COVID-19

This presentation will be primarily in the vaccinated cohort of the population who do not have adequate mucosal immunity. If the virus causes a systemic response, this could activate an associated autoimmune priming in a small percentage of people.

It is subtle in the symptoms and can mimic many other diseases:
  • thromboembolic disease through macrophage activation (heart attacks, stroke, peripheral vascular disease)
  • immune exhaustion in the elderly with secondary bacterial infections
  • unusual neurologic presentations
  • progressive frailty and delirium in the elderly
  • rapid lung deterioration after COVID-19 infection

Post Covid organ dysfunction

Many patients who survived severe COVID-19 will be left with long term organ damage primarily to lungs, heart and kidneys.

The autoimmune priming of their system through infection can be reactivated on subsequent infections. It can only occur if the virus is able to penetrate mucosal defence.

Unless there are associated interferon autoantibodies, the mucosal immunity should remain intact even with further exposure to virus.

It is possible that some of this cohort after vaccination, they can have a spike protein specific immune response instead of the broad mucosal immunity after infection. In this case, they could have an autoimmune reactivation on further exposure to virus.

Prepare for the worst, Hope for the best!

Without an understanding of these patterns, our population will be hit with a tsunami of autoimmune disease over the next few months as variants evade vaccine immunity.

There are options available, but requires current scientific leadership to step back and allow others to lead. Not sure this will happen, and the outcomes could be disastrous.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

NSW Health manipulated their vaccine data, and we caught them
Dr Ah Kahn Syed
20 hr ago

NSW is the most populated state in Australia comprising some 8m inhabitants, about a third of the population. It is now world famous for its vaccine mandates that were imposed by Brad Hazzard, their health minister who does not have a medical degree yet prescribed (arguably illegally via mandate) a provisionally approved (restricted use) genomic therapy on the population. So, how did that go?

Well, roll on a few months and pretty much the whole adult population of NSW is “vaccinated”. The official stats are that as of today, according to their own data, 95% of NSW people aged over 15 have received 2 doses of a “covid vaccine” - mostly mRNA therapies.

So, one would like to think that, because NSW health persists in making the claim that “COVID-19 vaccines are very effective in preventing people from the severe impacts of infections with the virus” (which was updated from the original “The COVID-19 vaccines available in Australia are very effective with evidence showing that people who are fully vaccinated are 70–95% less likely to get sick with COVID-19 compared with those who are not vaccinated”.



There was just one problem. The hospitalisation data are confounded by a diagnostic bias. The same bias was seen in the UKHSA data which preceded NSW health’s data by a few months because Australia was relatively late to the vaccine party. The bias means that, when somebody arrives in hospital (with any condition) who is unvaccinated they are more likely to be tested for COVID-19 than if they were vaccinated. This arose out of a false belief (later ditched) that the vaccine prevented infection, so obviously the higher quality “clean” patients didn’t need testing (for the reference to clean vs unclean please see my friend Filipe Rafaeli’s excellent article on the Warsaw Ghetto). There was another bias in that data which also related to the fraudulent miscategorisation of recently vaccinated people as “partially vaccinated” or “unvaccinated” for weeks after their vaccine and so the hospitalisation figures for this category took a while to catch up - but catch up they did. In fact, it got so bad that by November the vaccine surveillance reports had to push the figures by vaccination status all the way to the end of the report (just like the UKHSA did), and despite it being a relatively quiet time for COVID-19 infections, the proportion of cases who had received any vaccination had jumped to 63% of the total cases (of those whose status was known).



This was an embarrassment for the NSW goverment who had just been taken to the NSW Supreme Court on the basis of their vaccine mandates (because obviously you have to mandate things that are so good there can be no question of their effectiveness and safety). And worse, Christmas was coming and despite the mandates and Brad Hazzard’s regular rants on TV not everybody was getting all their vaccines, presumably because they could see that they were not exactly doing what the government promised they would do.

So now comes the biggest bait and switch in COVID-19 reporting data ever. Check these tables from the 18th December 2021 to 4th January 2022 reports. Bear in mind that this is the time that cases really started ramping up in NSW, just as the “booster” rollout was gaining steam. Yes, another coincidence.







If you look carefully you will see that in the report up to 25th December (the middle graphic) pretty much all the “Under investigation” cases were shifted to the “No effective dose” group and this occurred after our friendly mice army on twitter had pointed out that by 18th Dec the unvaccinated were now accounting for only 6.7% (612/9144) of the total of known status cases. At the same time the case rate in the fully vaccinated had exploded jumping from 1428 to 8452 to 25114 week on week and the government’s bait and switch turned to “protecting you from going to ICU” . The more eagle eyed of you will note that the 7th January report (with the 25th December figures) was then quietly corrected by shifting the “unknown” cases back where they belonged, in the 13th January report (final graphic) by which time the switch away from “stopping infection” to “reducing the chance of severe COVID” was complete. Good play, NSW health.

But they didn’t stop there. Now we come to the best bit. You see they had been caught out and therefore needed to change the format of the reports, which has happened a few times - presumably to stop those pesky murine twitterers from pointing out that the vaccine wasn’t doing what they said it would. In fact by the 12th February it became obvious that most of the cases (83% of known), ICU admissions (86%) and deaths (77%) were in the vaccinated and the biases and data manipulations weren’t appeasing the masses.



So a quick switch to a new format was required and another version of an old trick - combining the “unknown” and “no dose” was put in place. Oh, and of course now we also need the UKHSA trick of qualifying the data with a long monologue of why it isn’t quite as bad as it looks (because obviously, you prole reader, you don’t know nuffin and we need to edoocate you).



I know, it’s embarrassing. But it gets better. Eventually someone realised that combining the no dose and unknown groups was a fix and demanded - by FOI (please let me know if you have the link to this) - that NSW health provide the data by the actual number of doses received. And this is where the cover-up could be covered-up no more. This is what happened….



So the hospitalisations and ICU admissions in the unvaccinated dropped to zero (and stayed there all through June, effectively). But wait, there are still a bunch of deaths in the unvaccinated group - how can this be?

We can answer this question by looking at the categorised data over time. So I pulled out every week’s data from these reports manually from the 5th March 2022 to the 25th June 20221. The separation of “no dose/not known” into “no dose” and “not known” took place on the 28th May. All of a sudden, nearly all the deaths that had been categorised in the joint category appeared in the “no dose” group. You can see it happening here2.



So, we are expected to believe that even though the death rate of every single vaccination category (as a proportion of those hospitalised, irrespective of dose number or unknown status) was below 0.25% - all of a sudden after 28th May the “no dose” category had a death to hospitalisation ratio of 1 (note it was actually more than 1 because there were no hospitalisations in this category for most of June - see note3). Here is another way to look at this amazingly coincidental data:



You don’t need error bars or a degree in medical statistics to see that the “no dose after 28th May” is impossible. So what happened? The logical (and only) explanation is that the death data was manipulated. Either the deaths in the “no dose” category are totally fabricated, the last remaining unvaccinated old people are being killed off in nursing homes and not entering hospital, or more likely that the “no dose” and “unknown” numbers have been swapped. There is no other explanation for this incredible result.



Either way, it’s a misrepresentation of the real data. So I have a question for NSW health’s surveillance data curators (which include the infamous NCIRS)… If this vaccine is so great, why do you need to “fix” the data?

Don’t worry. I don’t expect an answer. The eight million people living in NSW might, though. Given that their taxes and sacrifices have paid your wages, I think they deserve one.

Oh, and while you’re at it, perhaps you could answer this really important question posed to Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant (click the image then the link):



UPDATE 1: It is worth noting that, not only did the mandatory medical interventions (MMIs) fail to stop the spread of the virus, they resulted in the largest spike in overall mortality in Australia’s peacetime history. Well done, public health.



And yes, I have excluded the “COVID-19 infections” from this graph because using “oh but we got another wave of the infection we told you our measures would stop and therefore it’s not our fault that 14,000 people died of things that were a direct consequence of our measures ” doesn’t cut it.

UPDATE 2: If you want to verify this data further the whole repository of the NSW surveillance reports for 2021-2022 is archived here Arkmedic's feed



1 https://files.catbox.moe/no1puz.csv
2 The mean and control limits depicted are calculated using arithmetic values, which is an approximation required due to the presence of zeros in the ratios.
3 In order to represent this data without a divide-by-zero mathematical error the simplest and most consistent method was to represent the ratio as:
[deaths] / [(deaths)+(non-ICU hospitalisations)+(ICU hospitalisations)]
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Reports From the Front Lines of the Vaccine Catastrophe - Part 2
Increasingly shocking evidence of the impacts of what Ed Dowd suggests we should start calling a "mass democide" (death by government) continues to emerge.
Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
15 hr ago




In Part I of my “Reports from the Front Lines of the Vaccine Catastrophe,” I relayed first hand information from senior nurses who work in emergency rooms, hospital wards and intensive care units regarding unprecedented amounts of young people presenting with cancers, strokes, and heart attacks. For a brilliant, succinct layperson’s explanation as to the pathophysiology of how and why these medical events are occurring, please read this substack post by my friend and colleague Dr. Kevin Stillwagon (he is also an airline pilot).

My main source for the more detailed reports is a senior ER/ICU nurse who has been carefully observing and documenting the presentations and problems occurring in the care of vaccinated patients presenting to a major academic medical center. She has continued to discreetly and prudently extract information from a huge network of colleagues she has built over her career. She responded to my last post, adding new, even more alarming information. Here goes:
(*I have spelled out all abbreviations and inserted explanation of some terms)

6/15/22: Thanks for getting my input out there. More cognitive dissonance showing, though. I'll have more very soon - picked up a bunch of weekend night shifts on cardiac units - 2 separate ones. I just found out they added multiple crash carts to every unit in entire hospital. That costs a bundle. And is another red flag.

One more thing....that VAXXED label is showing up for research participants, as I wondered if that were the case. Can't say that is the only use of the very prominent positioning of it on patient chart, as those were indeed "challenging cases" not otherwise explained. And nursing notes are still being used to note patient’s request to enter their vax lot numbers and which vax they received, and where if they obtained outside of our system - boosters as well. Pt just wants it noted in the chart - little do they know it doesn't count. The commenter who said there are no billing codes for "vax injury" discussions is absolutely correct. The elephant in the room is simply not billable!

6/24/22: So crash carts first: One way to find out (whether they had indeed added more cardiac arrest carts) proved to be walking specific units. Yes, many were added, especially those whose unit design is one long, long hallway with no way to see who is close by when you hit the code (cardiac arrest alert) button or yell out for help - they had to populate with more carts. Poor planning and design when built just a few years ago. (But that doesn't surprise, Pierre. For our massive cancer hospital, they never put oxygen access in the walls, NOR was the wall suction installed for nasogastric tubes, etc. The valves in rooms were never hooked to anything until ...oops, last minute shut down of sections of each floor to fix that massive mistake .Delayed opening of cancer hospital and neuro floors - Disaster.). So for the carts, they have added more mostly on poorly designed units, but those within the existing hospital structures they couldn't change . We have off-shoot ICU sections that were late converts to ICU capability and they had to have cart augmentation for sure. Carts are often parked outside the rooms of those we expect a crash (cardiac arrest) at any time, or have arrested earlier in the shift. Change out and restocked and sits there just in case. So that cart is effectively dedicated to that patient for the shift at least.
The supply coordinators:
Second was going to the supply coordinators who have to physically come up and change out each crash cart. Each time. Each unit, sometimes multiple times a night. For YEARS at night, there was only ONE person per whole section of hospital, often running them thru our underground tunnels to far flung sections. We have ATS (automated transport system) but crash carts are forbidden to be sent this way. They must be physically delivered and taken back the same way to be cleaned and restocked using a check off list, patient labels for charge items, etc. You know the process.

Since this increase in codes, even if cart was not cut open, they've had to hire dedicated supply coordinators at NIGHT and more pharmacy staff dedicated only to restock and verification/cross check status each cart - the integrity of each. Some drugs are no longer sent by pneumatic tubes and are being sent on cart, if not already in Pyxis (unit located pharmacy dispensing system for nurses). Someone must physically be with cart at all times in that case. I saw security with pharma staff and cart, just this weekend. Our old SICU area has its own separate way of handling carts and codes internally, so I do not count them. Transplant floor lung/heart - ECMO, etc - already had multiples.

We have implemented universal beds (a standard hospital room that can be converted to ICU capability to take care of sicker patients) in almost every new part or renovated part since 2009. Flip the wall behind the patient and it's fully converted.. But waiting for a new cart to come up when you only had two per unit and now multiple events - that was a liability they did not want to absorb. It's not the expected-to-arrest and still full-code status patients that are circling (the drain), it's the never expected to code patients - younger ones especially - that drove this decision.
Med Surg floors also got more carts, b/c they are getting more complex patients sent to them. I call it level-of-care-creep.. Greater complexity, but never have they altered the RN:Patient ratios to accommodate the higher level of care. Many RNs there are new, untrained to carry out orders now being placed for these patients whose illness or disease process they never would usually see on a Med Surg floor. They are pushing limits on allowable infusions, titration to higher doses, etc and it was a point of discussion that some nurses just are not comfortable. But, you fired a chunk of your staff who refused vax - they were the more experienced providers of all levels and you now have newbies who can't manage the care levels especially when their patient ratios are not altered, no training. It's a problem. Add in a few codes.... a mess. We have a very strong nurses union and this will be changed. Asking newbie nurses to work out of their scope of training or needed certification puts patients in danger, especially when they have "weird issues" - Charge Nurse I've known for years on one of these units said they just have not seen the clotting issues they have now before, with difficulty doing peripheral blood draws on patients who she thought were just Covid recovered. Turns out, looking at charts, they are reporting vax/boosters but IT'S IN THE NURSING NOTES WHERE PTS ARE REPORTING IT, and must be documented as a patient communication to Nursing. If they got vax/boost at our facilities, it's already clear in the chart that it is so. She ( a senior head nurse did not even notice this fine little detail. It's buried several layers down in the EMR (the hospitals electronic medical record system). So I believe many (nurses and doctors) are seeing them as unvaxxed, instead they are led to think it is just Covid-related issues post-recovery, as they are not seeing the patients real vax status. Supports that narrative of unvaxxed being cause of oh, EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD.

This last issue above (deeply explored in Part I) describes the inability of nurses to accurately document a patient as being vaccinated upon admission to the hospital.

This fraud has been crying out for an investigative reporter (out of the 10 left in the world) to look into who and how the Federal Health Agencies influenced the process for documenting vaccination status newly admitted hospital patients across the country. Electronic health record systems in major hospitals across the country followed the same (ridiculous) process: if you were vaccinated in a physicians office that was employed by that hospital, and the physician was connected to the same electronic health record, and the physician or nurse documented it in the electronic health record, you got recorded as “vaccinated”. However, if you had your vaccination anywhere else (most people), even if you had your vaccination card on you or could remember the date and location where you got the jab, you got documented as “unknown” on the main screen of the health record.

In those cases, the patient’s vaccination status gets placed in the “nursing notes” section where no-one looks for it. All of these patients documented as “unknown” were interpreted by all the health care providers as “unvaccinated.” In this way, the majority of doctors and nurses were led to believe that everyone in the hospital was unvaccinated. It also allowed our federal health agencies to create and disseminate charts and graphs showing the hospitals purportedly filling with unvaccinated people (I actually believe that even these data were further manipulated). The impact of this widespread fraud fueled the vast majority of doctors to hector anyone and everything to get vaccinated. Unclear how much blame to assign them on this as it took me a while to figure out why no patient in my ICU ever had a “vaccinated” status on the front screen of their record. Anyway, moving on:

The unit I worked on had float staff I never met, but mostly long-term coworkers and we are all of the same mindset. I kept quiet around the float pool folks until later in night when they had their own stories to share about pts. All of them confirmed what we've all seen - none of it makes sense unless you go to the 800 lb elephant in the room. The vax cheerleaders on staff - never hear a peep from their end. I know some have buyer's remorse for pushing family to get vaxxed, and no need to dig into that wound. Long Covid is only term allowed, no vax injury.

This last comment really got me. The standard practice is to describe all the strange illnesses as “Long haul COVID” rather than mRNA “vaccination injury syndrome.” Of course that is what happens. Entirely predictable and so so sad.

There is a Long Covid study many employees as well as patients are participating in - I know two employees in it. Don't know that it is providing them any answers to their disabling issues, especially at their young age, but they're hopeful. They are true believers - got fully vaxxed and boosted and will continue to do so. And they continue to contract Covid variants. Pass it along to the rest of the same vaxxed-up cohort. Rinse and repeat. To bring up data that points to the exponential and cumulative harm is just pointless. They want to die on the hill of believing they did the right thing, no matter what their bodies are telling them. Until they can no longer do so.

ED doc - got him pulled aside but we had to go outside to talk. And yes, phone off. In ED, pt issues are discussed in a kind of code where it concerns vax injury as probable cause. Administrators wander through at all hourr so open discussions are just not happening. Residents are getting more frustrated - I guess its showing in staff meetings b/c they are seeing data and pts are bringing in data. Shift hand-off report can get tense, I was told. (Many suffering from the cognitive dissonance "I have hundreds of thousands in med school loans out. I cannot deviate or I lose everything and still owe all that loan money back. Must stick to what I am told") They become check-box doctors at that point. You either sell your soul, or seek your own data and research and then join the "French Medical Resistance" - not an easy call for a 20-something to make.
Not every patient is willing to walk in the dark about the very severe issues they are having, with PCPs telling them it's nothing to worry about. The push back is real from patients that chose to be informed and the ED docs have to find a way to address this at their level before they admit a pt or discharge with some vague diagnosis. I see future liability coming as the data keeps pushing out. More patients are asking for their FULL medical record. They know. They know. All the other stuff is still happening. Still have no space in cancer hospital side for the explosion of pts needing treatment - it is NOT b/c they delayed treatment due to the pandemic. It's because they just received a diagnosis that requires immediate intervention. Not from delayed screening or treatment initiation. According to the same case manager I spoke with weeks ago that is carrying a pt load of almost 1000 pts now, she is trying to get creative and find space at outpatient facilities closed on weekends and schedule her teams and patients to go to those sites with full equipment when it's appropriate to get infusion at least. This is crazy. She called asking if we could open up space in a specific area - and yes, we are doing it.

Now let’s switch to some snapshots of reports I found from one of my favorite substacks called Clown World by Etana Hecht. These are absolutely chilling:





Also from Etana Hecht:



Blaring red signal… among many blaring red signals. Pilot death data is blaring too. Apparently, there is a reporter from Canada who is actively seeking reports from emergency medical technicians, funeral home directors, embalmers, and nurses on Twitter and other social media. He appears outraged that the “main stream media” has been ignoring these data. What is this, the first mainstream journalist to wake up and have courage to address the global democide? Here is one of the direct messages to him from a very concerned paramedic:



The above is supported by new, massive demands for ambulances across the world, evidenced by this compilation of TV news and print reports of shortages, compiled in another favorite substack of mine by Marc Crispin Miller. Note that although some reports blame the issue on shortages of staff and ambulance parts, the vast majority also mention… increases in the number of calls for ambulances. Hmm.

Back to a text exchange with my “source” during one of her shifts referring to the ambulance/emergency services issue:



[continued next post]
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued from post above]

Now let’s switch to more positive stuff (sort of?). This bombshell news article from a major newspaper was posted by Robert Malone. I find this headline unprecedented and evidences a clear “crack" in the dam of propaganda and censorship… A trickle.. will hopefully become a river:



That trickle may be starting to flow.. now two more major UK newspapers addressing all the “unexplained” dying:





A more positive note comes from a Whatsapp exchange I recently had with a former awesome trainee of mine (one of the few who still reaches out to me). Fun fact: he was my intern when I was a senior resident. He was training in psychiatry at the time (as part of psychiatric residency training, they have to do several months of clinical rotations on general medical wards and even ICU’s). After working with me for a month.. he decided to drop out of his psychiatry program to train in Internal Medicine! He then ended up becoming a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine specialist like me. Love that guy.
Anyway, see below, he suggests that an “awakening” to the false medical media and medical journal propaganda that health care providers have been subjected to may be beginning to occur “on the inside.”

[11:39 AM, 5/1/2022] Ravi: All I've ever read on EBM is sadly, User's guide to the Medical Literature (JAMA). I think I have the old edition, not even the updated one. In the current crazy era, what would you recommend for a re-read ?

[12:48 PM, 5/1/2022] Pierre Kory: Ravi, EBM is a fraud. The high-impact journals have been captured now for a couple of decades. What shows up in those journals is what they (Pharma) “allow” to show up. What they want you to use gets proven, what they don’t want to use gets “disproven.” I’ve reached this conclusion sadly over the last couple of years. I don’t believe in the high-impact journals any longer. But those are the ones that guide the societies and the agencies and the general population and especially the media. But they are totally captured by Pharma. And what they allow, about half is false due to manipulations of pharmaceutical company sponsored trials. I’m pretty much out of medicine at this point.

[4:16 PM, 5/2/2022] Ravi: Wow, that is terribly sad to hear on multiple levels Pierre. We need you in the fight . I hope by being out of medicine you mean being out of mainstream medicine. But in terms of running a health website, channel, medical podcast, etc. I think your voice is sorely needed.

[4:20 PM, 5/2/2022] Ravi: you'll be the Joe Rogan for health care professionals. (your channel will probably have to be on Rumble though lol- youtube is ... let's say less than open to alternative thought)

[12:21 PM, 6/28/2022] Ravi: The medical Joe Rogan? . .. I know you have it in you bro

[12:43 PM, 6/28/2022] Pierre Kory: hah!!! just don’t believe the lies Ravi, you are one of the few people from my entire career and network of colleagues and trainees that even reach out anymore. They think I’ve lost my mind, none of them know the things that I know. It’s a really sad state of affairs in the world right now. Immense amount of corruption, censorship and propaganda, The medical journals are the tip of the spear.

[12:56 PM, 6/28/2022] Ravi: exactly Pierre... why do you think I've been as successful as I am ?
Not because of any personal brilliance.
I have no shame in admitting that I spot vision (even if I personally lack it) then follow that.
That's why I followed you.
You're not crazy - I see it every day in how this has all played out.
That's why the time is now for a medical Joe Rogan.
And that's you.
I have no talent.. but you can bet your ass I can spot it.
Has been true in hoops (I used to play pickup with a guy I encouraged .. now he's semi pro in Turkey) , in medicine, and in life
We need..
The Pierre Kory experience
The medical journals are dead.

[1:14 PM, 6/28/2022] Pierre Kory: you rock. It’s amazing how few people and colleagues understand what is going on. My guess is that quite a few of them are figuring it out and realize I was right but are reluctant to admit it. loved your text above, I might be putting that into a Substack.

[2:04 PM, 6/28/2022] Ravi: for sure Pierre. Would not say it if I didn't believe it.
Many are in a transition phase right now. Give them time. They are questioning everything they ever believed in.

[2:21 PM, 6/28/2022] Pierre Kory: Are you serious? I’ve been waiting for the turn forever. Is that what you’re seeing on the inside? I am not on the inside anymore, I have a telehealth practice it is growing, it is very challenging but very interesting, I am seeing a lot of vaccine injured And they are complex as hell

[7:49 PM, 6/28/2022] Ravi: I am for sure seeing that on the inside. The truth always comes out. Many have become jaded with mainstream medicine. They are looking for alternatives to big pharma.
Not against meds per se when needed, but the tide seems to be shifting against the idea of a pill for everything.
And there is for sure a space for MDs to explain the nuances of EBM (“evidence based medicine”), or lack thereof.


And… last one here, not totally related to this post but it made me feel good and not a lot of stuff does that lately. I just tweeted my recent substack post reply to the American Board of Internal Medicine this morning as they are threatening to strip me and Paul Marik and Peter McCullough of our Board certifications The comments supporting me were awesome to read:



Now before my head could start to swell, I received links to two media hit jobs on me and the FLCCC… which brought me down to Earth.





The last one was simply a re-posting by The Daily Beast of a shortened version of the first VICE article. Maybe all the rocks I have been throwing lately prompted a retaliation. Two of them. Ouch (not really).
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

This New ‘Ninja’ COVID Variant Is the Most Dangerous One Yet
David Axe
Fri, July 8, 2022, 4:48 AM

The latest subvariant of the novel coronavirus to become dominant in Europe, the United States, and other places is also, in many ways, the worst so far.

The BA.5 subvariant of the basic Omicron variant appears to be more contagious than any previous form of the virus. It’s apparently better at dodging our antibodies, too—meaning it might be more likely to cause breakthrough and repeat infections.

Vaccines and boosters are still the best defense. There are even Omicron-specific booster jabs in development that, in coming months, could make the best vaccines more effective against BA.5 and its genetic cousins.

Still, BA.5’s ongoing romp across half the planet is a strong reminder that the COVID pandemic isn’t over. “We’re not done yet, by any stretch,” Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, wrote on his Substack.

High levels of at least partial immunity from vaccines and past infection continue to prevent the worst outcomes—mass hospitalization and death. But globally, raw case numbers are surging, with serious implications for potentially millions of people who face a growing risk of long-term illness.

Equally worrying, the latest wave of infections is giving the coronavirus the time and space it needs to mutate into even more dangerous variants and subvariants. “The development of variants now is a freight train,” Irwin Redlener, the founding director of Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness, told The Daily Beast.
In other words, unstoppable.

BA.5 first turned up in viral samples in South Africa in February. By May it was dominant in Europe and Israel, displacing earlier forms of the basic Omicron variant while also driving an increase in global daily COVID cases from around 477,000 a day in early June to 820,000 a day this week.

In late June, BA.5 became dominant in the United States. Cases haven’t increased yet—the daily average has hovered around 100,000 since May. But that could change in coming weeks as BA.5 continues to outcompete less transmissible subvariants.

Topol offered a concise explanation for BA.5’s ascendancy. Where the mutations that produced many earlier variants mostly affected the spike protein—the part of the virus that helps it to grab onto and infect our cells—BA.5 has mutations across its structure. “BA.5 is quite distinct and very fit, representing marked difference from all prior variants,” Topol wrote.

BA.5’s widespread mutations made the subvariant less recognizable to all those antibodies we’ve built up from vaccines, boosters and past infection. BA.5 has been able to slip past our immune systems, ninja-style, contributing to the rising rate of breakthrough cases and reinfections.

This comes as no surprise to epidemiologists who’ve warned for many months now that persistently high case-rates—which they largely attribute in part to a stubborn anti-vax minority in many countries—would facilitate ever more infectious and evasive variants and subvariant. The more infections, the more chances for significant mutations.

In that sense, BA5 might be a preview of the months and years to come. A year ago, we had a chance to block SARS-CoV-2’s main transmission vectors through vaccines and social distancing.

But we didn’t. Restrictions on businesses, schools and crowds have become politically toxic all over the world. Vaccination rates remained stubbornly low, even in many countries with easy access to jabs. In the U.S., for example, the percentage of fully vaccinated has stalled at around 67 percent.

So COVID lingers, 31 months after the first case was diagnosed in Wuhan, China. The longer the virus circulates, the more variants it produces. BA.5 is the all but inevitable result of that tragic dynamic.

The situation isn’t entirely hopeless. Yes, BA.5 seems to reduce the effectiveness of the best messenger-RNA vaccines. Vaccine-maker Moderna published data indicating that a booster shot it’s developing specifically for Omicron and its offspring works only a third as well against BA.5 compared to earlier subvariants.

But vaccines, boosters and past infection still offer meaningful, if reduced, protection against BA.5. “Even a boost of the original genome, or a recent infection, will [produce] some cross-protective antibodies to lessen the severity of a new Omicron subvariant infection,” Eric Bortz, a University of Alaska-Anchorage virologist and public-health expert, told The Daily Beast.

The more additional jabs you get on top of your prime course, the better protected you are. Arguably the best protection results from two prime jabs of the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer or Moderna plus a couple boosters. “Get your damn fourth shot!” Redlener said.

The problem, in the United States, is that only people 50 years old or older or with certain immune disorders qualify for a second booster. And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration won’t say whether, or when, it might authorize second boosters for younger people. “I have nothing to share at this time,” an FDA spokesperson told The Daily Beast when asked about boosters for under-50s.

It’s an obvious bureaucratic screw-up. As many as a million booster doses are about to expire in the U.S., all for a want of takers. “A profound waste, which should be made available to all people, age under-50 who seek added protection,” Topol wrote.

To be fair, Pfizer and Moderna are both working on new boosters that they’ve tailored specifically for Omicron subvariants. On June 30, an FDA advisory board endorsed these variant-specific boosters. The FDA announced it might approve them for emergency use for some Americans as early as this fall.

But there’s a risk these jabs will show up too late, especially if they’re highly optimized for just one recent subvariant and thus ineffective against future subvariants. “Variant-chasing is a flawed approach,” Topol wrote. “By the time a BA.5 vaccine booster is potentially available, who knows what will be the predominant strain?”

Fortunately, there are fallbacks. Masks and voluntary social-distancing, of course. Post-infection therapies including the antiviral drug paxlovid also help. “This is not a time to abandon non-pharmaceutical intervention,” Redlener stressed.

But voluntary mask-wearing and paxlovid are bandaids on a festering global wound. The surge in BA.5 infections creates the conditions for the next major subvariant—BA.6, if you will. It might be even worse.

It’s looking more and more likely that COVID will be with us, well, forever. “COVID is becoming like the flu,” Ali Mokdad, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington Institute for Health, told The Daily Beast.

That is, endemic. An ever-present threat to public health. The big difference, of course, is that COVID is much more dangerous than today’s flu. And it keeps mutating in ways that make it even worse.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

How COVID Could Screw You Worse With Each Reinfection
A new study offers clues about the worsening damage COVID could inflict on your body with each round of infection.
David Axe
Published Jul. 05, 2022 4:43AM ET

The more times you catch COVID, the sicker you’re likely to get with each reinfection. That’s the worrying conclusion of a new study drawing on data from the U.S. Veterans Administration.

Scientists stressed they need more data before they can say for sure whether, and why, COVID might get worse the second, third, or fourth time around. But with more and more people getting reinfected as the pandemic lurches toward its fourth year, the study hints at some of the possible long-term risks.

To get a handle on the health impact of reinfection, re-reinfection and even re-re-reinfection, three researchers—Ziyad Al-Aly from the Washington University School of Medicine plus Benjamin Bowe and Yan Xie, both from the V.A. St. Louis Health Care System—scrutinized the health records of 5.7 million American veterans.
Some 260,000 had caught COVID just once, and 40,000 had been reinfected at least one more time. The control group included 5.4 million people who never got COVID at all. Al-Aly, Bowe and Xie tracked health outcomes over a six-month period and came to a startling conclusion. “We show that, compared to people with first infection, reinfection contributes additional risks,” they wrote in their study, which hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet but is under consideration for publication in Nature.

Every time you catch COVID, your chance of getting really sick with something—likely COVID-related—seems to go up, Al-Aly, Bowe and Xie found. The risk of cardiovascular disorders, problems with blood-clotting, diabetes, fatigue, gastrointestinal and kidney disorders, mental health problems, musculoskeletal disorders and neurologic damage all increase with reinfection—this despite the antibodies that should result from repeat infections.

All of the conditions are directly associated with COVID or have been shown to get worse with COVID. “The constellation of findings show that reinfection adds non-trivial risks,” the researchers warned.

This risk could become a bigger deal as more people get reinfected. Globally, the death rate from COVID is going down, thanks in large part to growing population-wide immunity from past infection and vaccines.

But at the same time, non-fatal reinfections are piling up. Around half a billion people all over the world have caught COVID more than once, according to Al-Aly, Bowe and Xie’s study, citing data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Many more reinfections, including “breakthrough” infections in the fully vaccinated, are likely as new variants and subvariants of COVID evolve to partially evade our antibodies.

The exact increase in risk from reinfection depends on the particular disorder in question—and whether you’ve been vaccinated and boosted. Broadly speaking, however, the likelihood of heart and clotting problems, fatigue and lung damage roughly doubles each time you catch COVID, Al-Aly, Bowe and Xie found.

Ali Mokdad, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington Institute for Health, offered one important caveat: time. “In general, one would expect that COVID will do more damage with a longer infection,” he told The Daily Beast. A short-lasting COVID infection followed by another short case of COVID should be less damaging than, say, back-to-back long illnesses.

The longer your infections drag on, the greater the stress on your organs. “These are two blows instead of one,” Mokdad said.

But it’s possible the worsening outcomes resulting from reinfection have little or nothing to do with the cumulative stress of successive long illnesses. According to Peter Hotez, an expert in vaccine development at Baylor College, the escalating risk could result from a poorly-understood phenomenon called “immune enhancement.”

A virus undergoes immune enhancement when a person’s immune system, after initial exposure to the pathogen, backfires during reinfection. Someone suffering immune enhancement with regards to a particular disease is likely to get sicker and sicker each time they’re exposed.

Immune enhancement could explain Al-Aly, Bow and Xie’s observation of escalating risk from COVID reinfection. “If the observation is true,” Hotez stressed. But it’s possible the observation is inaccurate. Hotez said he’s “not convinced that reinfection is actually more severe.”

Anthony Alberg, a University of South Carolina epidemiologist, told The Daily Beast he, too, is somewhat skeptical. Just how much more risk you might accumulate with each case of COVID is really hard to predict. And Al-Aly, Bow and Xie’s study is too cursory to totally settle the uncertainty all on its own.

The main problem, Alberg explained, is tied to a classic logical dilemma: causation versus correlation. Just because veterans got sicker with each COVID infection doesn’t necessarily mean COVID is definitely to blame, he pointed out. The vets in the study who came down with COVID more than once maybe tended to belong to groups with overall worse health outcomes whether or not they caught COVID twice, thrice or never.

“Compared with veterans who were infected once with SARS-CoV-2, those who were infected two times or more were more likely to be older [or] Black people, reside in long-term care, be immunocompromised, have anxiety, depression and dementia and to have had cerebrovascular disease, cardiovascular disease diabetes and lung disease,” Alberg said.

COVID, in other words, might be beside the point. It’s possible the worsening outcomes in Al-Aly, Bow and Xie’s study are due to the fact that the reinfected patients “were on average older and with much poorer health status than those with one infection,” Alberg said, “not because of having been infected more than once.”

Untangling causation and correlation in a study of this scale could be tricky. “More evidence [is] needed on this topic before definitive conclusions can be reached,” Alberg said.

In the meantime, it should be easy for us to mitigate the potential risk. Anyone who comes down with COVID a second time shouldn’t hesitate to take a course of paxlovid or some other antiviral drug that’s approved for the disease. “We should continue to focus on making sure people are aware of the benefits of early treatment,” Jeffrey Klausner, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, told The Daily Beast.

Better yet, we could focus on developing “strategies for reinfection prevention,” Al-Aly, Bow and Xie wrote.

The top priority, of course, should be vaccinating the unvaccinated. Even the best COVID vaccines aren’t 100-percent effective at preventing infection or reinfection—and they’re getting somewhat worse as SARS-CoV-2 evolves for greater immune-escape.

But even with cleverer viral mutations, the jabs are still pretty effective. You can’t get sicker and sicker with reinfection… if you never get infected in the first place.
 

Cacheman

Ultra MAGA!
Employers wonder where all the workers are? Disability claims soar since mid 2021 and increasing in pace every month but not being reported in MSM of course...


Edward Dowd


@EdwardDowd
·
15h

Alert While the White House touts June’s 372k jobs added today are there any MSM correspondents going to ask about the 290k disabled folks added in the month of June? We are hitting new all time highs in disability survey done by same folks who do the job number. The sharp rise you see started with vaccine introduction. 10% increase in one year with new ATHs. Wonder why there is a labor shortage? Obvious to me.

1.jpg

Edward Dowd


@EdwardDowd
·
14h

To put things in perspective the 290k added to the disability survey in June is the equivalent of the cities like St Louis & Pittsburgh becoming disabled…each having roughly same population or closer to home 2 Maui’s disabled. The below chart is quarterly. This is a freaking disaster…I am incensed.

2.jpg
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Employers wonder where all the workers are? Disability claims soar since mid 2021 and increasing in pace every month but not being reported in MSM of course...


Edward Dowd


@EdwardDowd
·
15h

Alert While the White House touts June’s 372k jobs added today are there any MSM correspondents going to ask about the 290k disabled folks added in the month of June? We are hitting new all time highs in disability survey done by same folks who do the job number. The sharp rise you see started with vaccine introduction. 10% increase in one year with new ATHs. Wonder why there is a labor shortage? Obvious to me.

View attachment 349309

Edward Dowd


@EdwardDowd
·
14h

To put things in perspective the 290k added to the disability survey in June is the equivalent of the cities like St Louis & Pittsburgh becoming disabled…each having roughly same population or closer to home 2 Maui’s disabled. The below chart is quarterly. This is a freaking disaster…I am incensed.

View attachment 349310

thank you for posting this. those numbers are irrefutable. I wonder how many are the vaxxed and how many are suffering from long-covid?

HD
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
This is a pre-print study but it is recommending another off-use prescription drug for serious covid and I thought I'd get it on the thread in case down the road anyone (hopefully no one here) needs something so they can show it to their doctor.

(fair use applies)

GO TO LINK AND CLICK FULL TEXT TO GET THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, THIS IS JUST THE ABSTRACT.

Integrative analysis of viral entry networks and clinical outcomes identifies a protective role for spironolactone in severe COVID-19
Henry Cousins, Adrienne Sarah Kline, Chengkun Wang, Yuanhao Qu, Mengdi Wang, Russ Altman, Yuan Luo, Le Cong

doi: Integrative analysis of viral entry networks and clinical outcomes identifies a protective role for spironolactone in severe COVID-19

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.


ABSTRACT
Treatment strategies that target host entry factors have proven an effective means of impeding viral entry in HIV and may be more robust to viral evolution than drugs targeting viral proteins directly. High-throughput functional screens provide an unbiased means of identifying genes that influence the infection of host cells, while retrospective cohort analysis can measure the real-world, clinical potential of repurposing existing therapeutics as antiviral treatments. Here, we combine these two powerful methods to identify drugs that alter the clinical course of COVID-19 by targeting host entry factors. We demonstrate that integrative analysis of genome-wide CRISPR screening datasets enables network-based prioritization of drugs modulating viral entry, and we identify three common medications (spironolactone, quetiapine, and carvedilol) based on their network proximity to putative host factors. To understand the drugs’ real-world impact, we perform a propensity-score-matched, retrospective cohort study of 64,349 COVID-19 patients and show that spironolactone use is associated with improved clinical prognosis, measured by both ICU admission and mechanical ventilation rates. Finally, we show that spironolactone exerts a dose-dependent inhibitory effect on viral entry in a human lung epithelial cell line. Our results suggest that spironolactone may improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 through tissue-dependent inhibition of viral entry. Our work further provides a potential approach to integrate functional genomics with real-world evidence for drug repurposing.

Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [GM007365 to H.C., GM102365 to R.A., LM013337 to Y.L., and HG011316 to L.C.], by the Donald and Delia Baxter Foundation [to L.C.], by the National Science Foundation [1953686 to M.W. and 1953415 to L.C.], and by the Knight-Hennessy Scholarships [to H.C.]. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Trump-era federal Covid contract recipient has yet to meet major deadlines
Katherine Ellen Foley - Politico
Sat, July 9, 2022, 7:00 AM·10 min read


A pharmaceutical startup that received one of the largest-ever federal pandemic preparedness contracts championed by senior-level Trump White House officials has yet to fulfill its promise to bring cheap, generic drug manufacturing to the U.S.

In May 2020, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority issued a $354 million contract with the option to extend up to $812 million over 10 years to Phlow Corp., a Richmond, Va.-based company that had been created just a few months prior. It awarded Phlow an additional contract for $87 million in December 2021.

Phlow said it would be the first pharmaceutical manufacturer to use a novel production process to make generic drugs from start to finish more efficiently and cheaper, according to the agreement. The contract gave Phlow two years to begin making the active ingredients of drugs frequently in shortage or used to treat Covid-19 on U.S. soil. Two years later, Phlow was supposed to be making these drugs from start to finish.

But Phlow acknowledges that it has failed to deliver by the two-year deadline, casting doubt on its four-year targets. The company’s slow progress underscores how many new and sometimes untested companies won contracts during the chaotic first days of Covid — and the degree to which, two years later the federal government, now under the Biden administration — is still paying for products and services that have yet come to fruition. It also highlights how the allure of a more secure and less expensive supply chain can be an almost irresistible prize for U.S. health officials, eager to partner with enterprising CEOs who say they can make it happen.

Phlow has fulfilled some parts of its contract. BARDA tasked the company and its partners with immediately identifying a list of essential medicines at risk of going into shortage, and developing a surge capacity and domestic ramp-up of those drugs’ active ingredients. The company and its partners confirm that they have provided more than 2 million doses of essential medicines used to treat Covid-19 patients to the U.S Strategic Stockpile although Phlow declined to comment on which drugs these were, citing the terms of its contract.

But the company has provided very limited details on its main goal of developing continuously manufactured pharmaceuticals. “I’m just kind of scratching my head. What are you doing? Like seriously, what are you doing?” said Tony Quinones, the chief executive officer of Bright Path Laboratories Inc., a tech-bio company that uses artificial intelligence with continuous manufacturing to make pharmaceuticals.

Phlow and BARDA both said they are satisfied with the pace of the contract’s achievements to date. “We are very pleased with the execution and the great progress today on multiple [active pharmaceutical ingredient] programs through the development on to the manufacturing phase,” Dan Hackman, Phlow’s chief business officer, told POLITICO, though he declined to comment on when specific milestones will be reached.

He added that the company expected to open two U.S.-based drug ingredient manufacturing facilities in the next six to 18 months — well beyond the contract’s initial deadlines. When asked about the delays, Hackman cited supply-chain difficulties exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic.

From the get-go, industry experts were skeptical that Phlow would be able to accomplish the contract’s lofty goals. No commercial company within the U.S. makes drugs using end-to-end advanced manufacturing.

“They weren’t even a company and they were given the money,” said Carol Nacy, the co-founder and chief executive officer of Sequella, a Maryland-based company focused on developing antibiotics using continuous manufacturing.

Questions around the circumstances of several of the companies that received BARDA contracts in the pandemic's early days, including Phlow, and their lack of experience caught lawmakers’ attention, sparking an ongoing Congressional investigation.

With all eyes on Phlow, a well-connected startup with no manufacturing experience, experts fear the U.S. government may have missed an opportunity to fund more established companies that could bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. soil sooner.

“This one [company] sucks up a lot of oxygen in the room. You hope that they're successful, because it's important, what they're supposed to do,” said Quinones. But, he added, with its lack of experience so far, he’s skeptical that Phlow will be able to fulfill its promises.

A broad search led to a specific company

Phlow procured its federal contract by responding to a broad agency announcement (BAA) regarding ways to optimize the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain. “Phlow was selected due to a number of considerations, including the expert team they assembled and the fact that they were the only entity, out of more than 300 companies BARDA met with, that could provide this core service,” a BARDA spokesperson said.

As their name suggests, BAAs are intentionally vague, which allows the federal government to receive and evaluate proposals that solve problems in a variety of ways, said Steven Schooner, a law professor at George Washington University Law School. BAAs, unlike requests for proposals, can often lead to unsolicited proposals to the agency that are not made public nor do they allow for competition among companies, he added.

Phlow’s executives met with members of the Trump administration in the fall of 2019, facilitated by Rosemary Gibson, a senior adviser on health care issues at the Hastings Center, a nonprofit, bioethics think tank. Gibson now sits on Phlow’s board of directors. Additionally, Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser under former President Donald Trump who was keen to replace Chinese generics makers with American companies, helped push the contract through, POLITICO reported previously. Neither Navarro nor Gibson responded to additional questions.

The company’s connections to the Trump administration are the subject of an ongoing investigation by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. “We are concerned that … White House officials may have placed inappropriate pressure on federal agencies to award contracts to particular companies,” Democratic members of the subcommittee wrote in a March 2021 letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra.

“Evidence uncovered by the Select Subcommittee raises questions about whether White House officials, including Mr. Navarro, exercised inappropriate influence over contract awards for [personal protective equipment] and medical supplies that should have been handled by career procurement staff,” the letter continued.

Bringing back domestic drug production

The problem federal officials hired Phlow to solve is a tangible threat to health: Covid-19 underscored the fragility of the generic drug supply chain. Factories across the world producing the ingredients or finished drugs temporarily closed their doors as the virus raged, leading to shortages, including in the U.S. These shortages caught the eyes of public health and White House officials, who sought to find ways to quickly manufacture drugs domestically to avoid future shortages.

Currently, most generic drugs or their ingredients are made overseas, where labor costs are lower and environmental regulations are more lenient. Manufacturers mix together the ingredients for drugs in large vats called batches, like making a soup. It’s difficult for manufacturers to control the quality of drugs made this way; if internal testing finds that some of the finished product is off, the entire batch must be discarded. It’s less reliable and can lead to large amounts of waste.

Continuous manufacturing for pharmaceuticals is a form of advanced manufacturing — a buzzy phrase that has gotten copious amounts of White House attention in recent years. Unlike batch manufacturing, continuous manufacturing involves making drugs on an assembly line at a smaller scale.

This means that manufacturers can control the quality of the product in real-time, leading to increased efficiency, less waste and fewer mistakes, said Fernando Muzzio, a chemical and biochemical engineer at Rutgers University who specializes in continuous manufacturing for pharmaceuticals. Taken together, these improvements in manufacturing techniques lower production costs substantially — enough to potentially produce these drugs domestically once more.

The challenge with continuous manufacturing, however, is that it is essentially a new way to make existing drugs — which translates into millions of dollars in research, development, construction of facilities and the regulatory adjustments required by the Food and Drug Administration. While academic labs have achieved end-to-end continuous drug manufacturing, no companies produce drugs from start to finish using continuous manufacturing in the U.S.

What has Phlow done so far?

Hackman noted that outside of its government contract, Phlow has taken other steps to alleviate drug shortages in the U.S. The company has set up a contract manufacturing branch to advise other pharmaceutical companies on various best practices.

In 2021, under the Biden administration, BARDA approved Phlow to join a group of companies working with the U.S. government as a contract development and manufacturing organization. HHS also recognized the company with its Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year Award.

Phlow founded the Children’s Hospital Coalition, a group of 20 facilities across the U.S. Members of the coalition and representatives from Phlow meet multiple times a month to discuss the hospitals’ drug needs. Marshall Summar, a pediatrician who specializes in rare diseases at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. — a member of the coalition — sits on Phlow’s board of directors.

This year, the company reached a private label agreement with Fresenius Kabi, a drug company headquartered in Germany that specializes in making injectable medications. Fresenius Kabi has U.S.-based facilities that assemble four drugs frequently in shortage in children’s hospitals, and add Phlow’s label to these products. Phlow then sells these drugs to members of the Children’s Hospital Coalition at a cost “competitive in the broader market,” according to Hackman, and meets hospitals’ demand for these products.

Hackman wouldn’t comment on where Fresenius Kabi obtains the active ingredients for these drugs. In previous conversations with POLITICO, Eric Edwards, Phlow’s co-founder and CEO, confirmed that these active ingredients were “mostly” coming from overseas. Fresenius Kabi declined to comment.

In the meantime, Phlow has shed some light on the subcontracts it issued from its initial BARDA agreement. Phlow provided Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic drug manufacturer, $100 million to help build a manufacturing facility in Petersburg, Va., where it will manufacture the final form of drugs. A Civica spokesperson said the manufacturing plant is on track to open in 2024.

Phlow also announced agreements with Medicines for All, a nonprofit research group headquartered at the Virginia Commonwealth University, and with AMPAC Fine Chemicals, a contract development manufacturing organization that makes active drug ingredients for a number of companies. Hackman said that these companies would be responsible for research and development for continuous manufacturing and the scaling-up process, respectively.

Both Medicines for All and AMPAC were listed as subcontractors in Phlow’s initial BARDA contract. A spokesperson from AMPAC would not comment on the dollar amount it received from Phlow for its contract, but Medicines for All received a contract for nearly $13 million.

Martin VanTrieste, an adviser to Civica Rx and member of its board, and Frank Gupton, the chief executive of Medicines for All and co-founder of Phlow, both sit on the Phlows’ board of directors.

Still, some experts are frustrated that they don’t know more about Phlow’s plans to meet its contract obligations.

Schooner noted there’s no reason for parties to be secretive about it. “Why shouldn’t this information be public?” he said.
Those focused on continuous manufacturing are frustrated that the money BARDA awarded Phlow has not yet produced results, meaning the country remains vulnerable to pharmaceutical supply-chain shocks.

“Science is a group process,” said Nacy. “Had BARDA banded [existing continuous manufacturing companies] together into a unit … I think they would have made substantial progress.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Macau shuts casinos and other businesses to contain COVID outbreak
by Julie Zhu
Sat, July 9, 2022, 9:15 AM·1 min read

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Macau will shut almost all commercial and industrial businesses including its casinos for one week from Monday, as authorities race to curb a surge of COVID-19 infections in the world's biggest gambling hub.

Essential services including hotels, supermarkets and pharmacies will however remain open, city officials said as they announced the measures at a press conference on Saturday.

The announcement came as Macau reported 71 new COVID cases on Saturday, taking the total to 1,374 since mid-June. More than 17,000 people are in quarantine, authorities have said.

Local authorities have added two hotels in popular casino resorts to be used as COVID medical facilities from Friday as they try to increase capacity to handle the surge of infections.

More than 90% of Macau's residents are fully vaccinated against COVID but this is the first time the city has had to grapple with the fast-spreading Omicron variant.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

All Macau Casinos Will Shut Down Monday As COVID Outbreak Worsens
by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Jul 09, 2022 - 09:00 PM

The world's largest gambling hub, Macau, will shutter almost all casinos and non-essential businesses for a week from Monday as an outbreak of COVID-19 spreads across the autonomous region on the south coast of China.

AFP quotes Macau's top city official Andre Cheong in a press conference Saturday who said the gambling hub would enter "static management" between July 11-18, during which casinos will be closed. Only essential businesses like supermarkets, gas stations, and pharmacies will remain open.

The measure comes as Macau on Saturday reported 71 new COVID infections. A total of 1,374 infections have been recorded since June 18, a low number though high enough for the city to implement mainland China's strict zero-COVID policy.

Last week, authorities closed Macau's most popular casino, the Grand Lisboa, after 13 infections were reported at the casino/resort complex.

Macau is the largest casino hub in the world and trumps Las Vegas. More than half the city's GDP is derived from the gambling industry, and casinos employ 20% of the population. The curb will deal a hard blow to the town because of the economic impact of enforcing harsh lockdowns and mass testing.

The zero-COVID policies (especially locking down Shanghai for two months) have triggered an economic slowdown in the world's second-largest economy after President Xi Jinping made clear weeks ago that "COVID zero" isn't going anywhere. Probabilities are waning that Beijing's 2022 growth target of 5.5% can be achieved because of the lingering threat of new lockdowns.

Last week, Bloomberg reported Beijing has opted to unleash a massive 1.5 trillion yuan ($220 billion) of "special" local bonds in the second half of the year for infrastructure spending to offset the downturn.

And how will Macau gaming stocks react to the news this weekend -- well -- we suspect very negatively following an index of casino stocks in the town has failed to find support around a 2015/16 low which points to more downside.



US casino companies operating in Macau are Wynn Macau Ltd, Sands China Ltd, and MGM China Holdings Ltd, which will likely see lower shares on the news come Monday.

"Beyond the virus, the casino industry's facing other challenges, including a new law that significantly increases government control over operations and Beijing's crackdown on high-rolling gamblers to curb capital outflow," Bloomberg adds.

The lockdown policy of #CCP has devastated Macau's economy, no tourist visit and all shops have to be closed.The channel for Chinese to launder money through casinos in Macau has also been completely closed. #Macau has no future under rule of CCP. #TakeDownTheCCP pic.twitter.com/YFjKs7mOuY
— Meeno (澳喜特战旅) (@Meeno17043089) July 9, 2022

Is the lockdown more about COVID or ratcheting down on capital outflows?
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Natural Immunity 97 Percent Effective Against Severe COVID-19 After 14 Months: Study
By Zachary Stieber
July 9, 2022

The protection against severe illness from so-called natural immunity remains superior to the protection bestowed by COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study.

People who survived COVID-19 infection and were not vaccinated had sky-high protection against severe or fatal COVID-19, researchers in Qatar found.

“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3 percent … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age,” Dr. Laith Abu-Raddad, with Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, and colleagues said after studying long-term natural immunity in unvaccinated people.

That percentage is higher than the protection from COVID-19 vaccines, according to other studies and real-world data.
Swedish researchers, for instance, found in May that two doses of a vaccine were just 54 percent effective against the Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.

South African scientists, meanwhile, found the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines peaked at 88 percent, and quickly dropped to 70 percent or lower.

The Qatar group found natural immunity for over 14 months after a person’s first infection “remains very strong, with no evidence for waning, irrespective of variant.”

The study was published ahead of peer review on the website medRxiv.

Few researchers have studied natural immunity long-term among unvaccinated persons, in part because many of the people have eventually received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vaccines, meanwhile, have waned against both infection and severe illness over time, triggering recommendations for booster doses, with some Americans even getting five doses within 10 months.

Natural Immunity Performs Poorly Against Reinfection

The vaccines were once said to provide close to 100 percent protection against symptomatic infection. They now provide under 50 percent protection against infection after a short period of time, even after booster doses, following the emergence of Omicron.

That strain and its subvariants are dominant in countries around the world, including the United States and Qatar.
Natural immunity was thought to provide strong protection against reinfection. But the Qatari researchers found it also provides poor protection against reinfection from Omicron.

Pre-Omicron infection against pre-Omicron reinfection was as high as 90.5 percent, and remained around 70 percent by the 16th month, according to the study. But pre-Omicron infection against Omicron reinfection was just 38 percent effective, although it was higher among people infected with the original Wuhan strain or with the Delta variant, and lower among those who got sick from the Alpha or Beta strains.

Modeling signaled a drop to zero percent protection by 18 months, but the shielding still appears to last longer than that of vaccines, researchers said.

“Vaccine immunity against Omicron subvariants lasts for <6 months but pre-Omicron natural immunity, assuming Gompertz decay, may last for just over a year,” they wrote.

Limitations of the study included differences in testing frequency among the cohorts studied, and depletion of groups who had a COVID-19 infection due to deaths.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Few Young Children Are Getting COVID-19 Vaccines: Data
By Zachary Stieber and Marina Zhang
July 9, 2022

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has been low so far in young children, with a small fraction of those newly eligible for a vaccine receiving one, according to new data.

In a pair of moves in June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines available to children from 6 months to 5 years of age, and recommended virtually every child in the age group get vaccinated.

But parents have been hesitant to get their child a vaccine, according to the newly released data.

Just 1.3 percent of eligible children under 5 have received one or two doses of a vaccine, data from the CDC show.

In many states, meanwhile, the percentage of young children getting a shot is under 1 percent, according to an Epoch Times analysis.

Taken together, the statistics underline the difficulty health authorities will have in getting babies and toddlers vaccinated with shots that have proven much worse than originally promoted.

Contested Authorization, Recommendation

The FDA and CDC’s independent expert panels unanimously recommended the agencies authorize and advise parents to get their children vaccinated, despite less than ideal clinical data, and the agencies accepted the recommendations.

Other outside experts, though, have been divided on the moves, particularly in light of the data.

While the Moderna and Pfizer trials triggered similar antibody counts as those triggered in the original adult trials, the efficacy against infection was substandard (Moderna) and unreliable (Pfizer). Moreover, neither trial could prove any ability to protect against severe illness.

In addition, approximately 70 percent of kids under 5 have recovered from COVID-19, giving them strong immunity against severe disease even if they contract the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus again. Also known as SARS-CoV-2, the virus causes COVID-19.

Those key points are driving the hesitancy from parents to get their young children vaccinated, according to Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center.

“A lot of parents know most young children already have been infected and there were few or no symptoms, so they are not convinced there is a benefit to subjecting their child to the unpredictable risk of suffering a COVID vaccine reaction, especially when you can get vaccinated and still get infected and transmit the virus,” Fisher told The Epoch Times in an email.

Side effects from the vaccines include fever and heart inflammation, though the CDC and FDA say the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.

Thirty-eight percent of parent respondents told the Kaiser Family Foundation in April that they would definitely not get their child vaccinated, or would only do so if it were required, with some citing concerns about safety. But 18 percent said they’d get their children vaccinated right away. The rest said they’d “wait and see.”

Some other experts say the slow uptake is to be expected.

“Parents need some time to get used to giving this vaccine to young children,” Dr. Paul Offit, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who sits on the FDA’s advisory panel, told The Epoch Times via email.

“We are pleased that over 267,000 children under the age of 5 years have obtained their first vaccination and hope to see continued uptake of this vaccine now that is available to children under five,” a spokesperson for the CDC, which has promoted vaccination for young children, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, declined to comment.

State Data

The Epoch Times canvassed all 50 states for data on COVID-19 vaccination for young children since the June 17 emergency authorization of the shots.

Thirty states responded or post the data on their website.

A number of states have had extremely low uptake so far for the youngest age group.

South Dakota has recorded 0 percent of children getting a vaccine, while just 0.1 percent of the population in Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas have received a vaccine.

Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Idaho, and Montana are at or under 1 percent.

The states with the highest coverage are in the northeast. Vermont has vaccinated nearly 7 percent of its youngest children and Massachusetts has vaccinated 5 percent of the age group.

But altogether, the rate is much lower than for the last age group to receive emergency clearance, 5- to 11-year-olds.

Nearly 17 percent of the 5 to 11 group received at least one dose of a vaccine in the month following the authorization in the fall of 2021. And nearly 20 percent of children aged 12 to 15 received at least one dose in the three weeks following authorization.

If the current rate for those 6 months to 5 years of age continues, it will reach just under 2 percent for the same length of time.

The current rate for the babies and toddlers is well under the 18 percent of parents who said they wanted to get their young children vaccinated. Further, about 50 percent of parents of young children told The University of Iowa and RAND in an unpublished February survey that they would definitely or probably get their child vaccinated.

“It is too early for us to determine how vaccine uptake compares between children under the age of five years and other age groups. When the Vaccination Demographic Trends page is updated in coming weeks with vaccine dose trend data for children under the age of five years, website visitors will be able to compare uptake over time between various age groups,” the CDC spokesperson said.

As of July 6, approximately 6.3 million doses for young children have been ordered from the federal government, which pays for the shots and distributes them for free, a spokesperson for HHS told The Epoch Times in an email. The administration made 10 million doses available.

White House officials signaled prior to the authorization that the vaccines might not be accepted quickly.

“We have been guided in our approach by very clear data that says that most parents want to vaccinate their littlest ones in familiar settings. We also know that many parents have questions. And we want to encourage every parent to talk to their physician, to talk to the pediatrician, to talk to the family physician,” Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, told a recent briefing.

“We also know that confidence in vaccines builds over time. And I remind people that at the start of the adult vaccination program back in December of 2020, only one in three adults said they were eager to get the shot. Today, nearly 90 percent of adults have gotten at least one shot.”

Hesitancy for Other Children

Pfizer’s vaccine was authorized for Americans 16 and older in December 2020. Regulators cleared the shot for 12- to 15-year-olds in May 2021; in November 2021, they authorized it for 5- to 11-year-olds.

While authorities recommend vaccination for virtually all children, except for those with contraindictions, rates have lagged for the groups who weren’t able to get a vaccine at first.

Only 36 percent of children aged 5 to 11 have received at least one dose, and just 30 percent have received two doses, according to data reported by the CDC.

Both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines come in two-dose primary series, though the former was authorized as a three-dose primary series for infants and toddlers due to poor effectiveness after two doses.

While 70 percent of children aged 12 to 17 have received at least one dose, and 60 percent have received at least two doses, few adolescents of any age have gotten a booster shot, the data show.

Only 27 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds and 7.6 percent of 5- to 11-year-olds have received a booster dose through July 6.

“Vaccination has become the number one topic of conversation all over the world during the past two years and young parents are much more educated about vaccine risk issues than previous generations. There are still huge gaps in scientific knowledge about vaccine side effects and who is at higher risk for suffering a vaccine reaction,” Fisher, the nonprofit president, said. “Until the good science is done to fill in those knowledge gaps, vaccine hesitancy is here to stay.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Seeking COVID’s Kryptonite: Best UV Light for COVID-19 Virus Disinfection
By Jennifer Lauren Lee, NIST
July 9, 2022

NIST and DHS research collaboration reveals which wavelengths of UV light work best for COVID-19 virus disinfection.

To disinfect a surface, you can illuminate it with a blast of ultraviolet (UV) light, which is at a bluer wavelength than the human eye can see. But to specifically inactivate SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, which wavelengths are best? And how much radiation is sufficient?

Two main obstacles must be overcome for scientists to answer those questions. First, they need to completely separate the virus from extraneous substances in the environment. Second, they must illuminate the virus with a single wavelength of UV light at a time, with minimal changes to the experimental setup between tests.

A recent study overcame both these obstacles and completed what may be the most thorough test ever conducted of how several different UV and visible wavelengths affect SARS-CoV-2. The research was a collaboration between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC), a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate laboratory,

In a new paper recently published in the journal Applied Optics, the collaborators describe their novel system for projecting a single wavelength of light at a time onto a sample of COVID-19 virus in a secure laboratory. Classified as Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3), the lab is designed for studying microbes that are potentially lethal when inhaled. Their experiment tested more wavelengths of UV and visible light than any other study with the virus that causes COVID-19 to date.

COVID Kryptonite UV Test Setup
Photos of the setup. Left: A closeup of the interior of the box containing the laser-to-fiber-optic coupling system. Center: The laser system in the hallway outside the door to BSL-3. Right: A closeup of the experimental setup inside BSL-3, including the chamber the housed the samples of SARS-CoV-2. Credit: NIST

So, what is COVID’s kryptonite? As it turns out, nothing special: The SARS-CoV-2 virus is susceptible to the same wavelengths of UV light as other viruses such as those that cause the flu. The most effective wavelengths were ones in the “UVC” range between 222 and 280 nanometers (nm). UVC light (full range from 200 to 280 nm) is shorter than the UVB wavelengths (280 to 315 nm) that cause sunburn.

Scientists also showed that the virus’s surroundings can have a protective effect on the virus. In the experiments, it took a smaller UV dose to inactivate viruses when they were placed in pure water than when they were placed in simulated saliva, which contains salts, proteins, and other substances found in actual human saliva. Suspending the virus in simulated saliva creates a situation similar to real-world scenarios involving sneezes and coughs. This detail may make the findings more directly informative than those of previous studies.

“I think one of the big contributions of this study is that we were able to show that the kind of idealized results we see in most studies don’t always predict what happens when there’s a more realistic scenario at play,” said Michael Schuit of NBACC. “When you have material like the simulated saliva around the virus, that can reduce the efficacy of UV decontamination approaches.”

Manufacturers of UV disinfection devices and regulators can use these results to help inform how long surfaces in medical settings, airplanes, or even liquids should be irradiated to achieve the inactivation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“Right now, there’s a big push to get UVC disinfection into the commercial atmosphere,” said NIST researcher Cameron Miller. “Long-term, hopefully this study will lead to standards and other methodologies for measuring UV dose required to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and other harmful viruses.”

This project built upon earlier work the NIST team did with another collaborator on inactivating microorganisms in water.

Shed a Little Light

Depending on the wavelength, UV light damages pathogens in different ways. Some wavelengths can damage microbes’ RNA or DNA, causing them to lose the ability to replicate. Other wavelengths can break down proteins, destroying the virus itself.

Even though people have known about UV light’s disinfection abilities for more than a hundred years, there’s been an explosion in UV disinfection research in the past decade. One reason is that traditional sources of UV light sometimes contain toxic materials such as mercury. Recently, use of nontoxic LED lamps as a UV light source has mitigated some of these concerns.

For this study, the NIST collaborators worked with biologists at NBACC, whose research informs biodefense planning on biological threats such as anthrax and Ebola virus.

“What NBACC was able to do was grow the virus, concentrate it, and remove everything else,” Miller said. “We were trying to get a clear message of how much light we need to inactivate just the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

In the study, the team tested the virus in different suspensions. In addition to using the saliva mimic, scientists also put the virus in water to see what happened in a “pure” environment, without components that could shield it. They tested their virus suspensions both as liquids and as dried droplets on steel surfaces, which represented something that an infected person might sneeze or cough out.

NIST’s job was to direct the UV light from a laser onto the samples. They were looking for the dose required to kill 90% of the virus.

With this setup, the collaboration was able to measure how the virus responded to 16 different wavelengths spanning from the very low end of the UVC, 222 nm, all the way up into the middle part of the visible wavelength range, at 488 nm. Researchers included the longer wavelengths because some blue light has been shown to have disinfecting properties.

No Piece of Cake

Getting the laser light onto the samples in a secure lab was not trivial. Researchers in a BSL-3 lab wear scrubs and hoods with respirators. Leaving the lab requires a long shower before changing back into civilian clothes.

Equipment such as the team’s expensive laser would have had to undergo a considerably more severe sterilization procedure.

“It’s sort of a one-way door,” Miller said. “Anything coming out of that lab has to be either incinerated, autoclaved [heat-sterilized], or chemically disinfected with hydrogen peroxide vapor. So, taking our $120,000 laser in was not the option we wanted to use.”

Instead, the NIST researchers designed a system where the laser and some of the optics stood in a hallway outside the lab. They piped the light through a 4-meter-long fiber optic cable that passed through a seal under a lab door. Negative pressure kept air flowing from the hallway into the lab and prevented anything from leaking back out.

COVID Kryptonite UV Test Setup Schematic
An overview of the researchers’ setup. The laser was positioned in a hallway outside the laboratory. An optical fiber carried the laser light through the opening beneath a door and into the chamber that housed the samples of SARS-CoV-2. Credit: K. Dill/NIST

The laser produced a single wavelength at a time and was fully tunable so that researchers could produce any wavelength they liked. But because light bends at different angles depending on its wavelength, they had to create a prism system that changed the angle at which the light entered the fiber so that it lined up properly. Changing the exit angle involved manually turning a knob they created to adjust the position of a prism. They tried to make it all as simple as possible, with a minimal number of moving parts.

“The device that the NIST team came up with allowed us to rapidly test a very wide range of different wavelengths, all at very controlled and precise wavebands,” Schuit said. “If we were trying to do the same number of wavelengths without that system, we would have had to juggle a bunch of different types of devices, each of which would have produced wavebands of different widths. They would have required different configurations, and there would have been a lot of additional variables in the mix.”

Manipulating the light required mirrors and lenses, but the researchers designed it to use as few as possible, because each one leads to a loss in intensity for UV light.

For the materials that had to enter the lab to project the light from the fiber onto the samples of COVID virus, the team tried to use inexpensive parts. “We 3D-printed a lot of things,” said NIST physicist Steve Grantham, a key member of the team along with NIST’s Thomas Larason. “So, nothing was really expensive and if we don’t ever use it again, it’s not a big deal.”

Even communicating between the laser area and the inside of the lab was difficult because people could not go in and out as they pleased, so they employed a wired intercom system.

Despite the challenges, the system worked surprisingly well, Miller said, especially given that they only had months to put it together. “There’s a couple areas we probably could improve on, but I think our gains would be minimal,” Miller said.

The NIST team plans to use this system for future studies of other viruses and microorganisms that biologists at high-security labs might want to conduct.

“When the next virus comes along, or whatever pathogen they’re interested in, all we have to do is roll the laser system up there, push a fiber under there, and they’ll connect it to their projector system,” Miller said. “So now we’re ready for the next time.”

This work was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Taiwan: Birth Rate CRATERED -27.66% in June 2022!!!
Invasion? We do not need no stinking invasion
Igor Chudov
8 hr ago


A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article based on the shocking news that Taiwan's birth rate in May 2022 fell by 23.34% compared to May 2021.


I explained that in terms of statistics, the change in Taiwan is an unthinkable 26-sigma event of enormous magnitude.
Like most people would, I was hoping, despite evidence from other countries, that this is a data fluke.

Well, it is not, and the data for June was just released in Taiwan. I am very upset.

June Birth Rate Cratered by 27.66%!

Compared to June 2021, birth rate in Jun 2022 is down by -27.66%. This is far worse than the previous month (May) drop of -23.34% and indicates a worsening birth rate trend.



.Here’s the updated chart:



Mind you, last Sep of 2021, when Jun 2022 babies were conceived in Taiwan, the people of Taiwan were mostly unaware of what was going to happen, and kept their family making plans intact. They probably did not notice a 27.66% decrease in pregnancies, or an increase in stillbirths. If someone told them, the young people of Taiwan probably thought that it was antivax propaganda that they should dutifully ignore, like their government and TV told them.

Young people were being happily vaccinated.



The result? An “impossible” birth rate drop of -27.66% is basically a slow death sentence for the population of Taiwan, if it continues, especially combined with a 26% increase in deaths.

Media Coverage

The mainstream media is beginning to cover drops in birth rates:



Further Reading
Concerned?

Check out my “depopulation series”:



And finally, Bill Gates-sponsored scientist Kari Nadeau has an answer for us. Kari explains that the fertility and stillbirth problems are due to… Global warming!


Would you give an unproven, experimental, novel technology treatment to your son or daughter?
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


sweden birthrate update: may data
updating the data and generating some testable hypotheses
el gato malo
17 hr ago

last week i wrote about the sudden, sharp declines in swedish natality. and posited some possible causes.

2 leading theories seem to have emerged:
  1. this is the result of covid vaccine induced sterility/reduced fertility/sperm counts (as has been biologically documented in a number of places)
  2. this is the result of a “summer shift” where the birth rates in 2021 deriving from a sort of “blackout baby” trend due to less travel and more staying home due to 2020 covid fears, lockdowns, and travel restrictions gave way to a “summer of re-opening” and everyone went on vacation instead of trying to get pregnant.
there are issues that favor each and i’m not sure the may data can really resolve it for us as babies born in may 2022 were conceived around august 2021, the peak of euro (and swedish) vacation, but we can start to frame the issue.
birth patterns are remarkably consistent.

may is typically a higher month for births than feb or march or april. births tend to be lowest in december then rise until they peak in july.

the sinusoidal pattern is clear here.

(again, all data from THIS SERIES)



but it can be difficult to see if current readings are normal or show variance using this series.

if we stack the years however, it becomes clear that 2022 remains very low vs recent years (all of which were remarkably similar).

the seasonal pattern is very much the same, but overall levels are lower.



actual numbers (in births per million population) can be seen here:



and from this we can look at % drops from year ago.

the results are somewhat equivocal.



on the one hand, the % rate of decline was not as high as april.

on the other hand, april was a harder comp and may 2021 was quite low relative to other months that year as can be seen in % and in the absolute figures in the bar chart.

that makes this a difficult signal to read. is may recovering or was it just an easier comparison in a noisy series? either way, despite recovering to -7.9%, such a level is still an extreme outlier.

to gain broader historical context, i again extrapolated full year 2022 from existing data.

the first 5 months of 2019, 2020, and 2021 were 42.6%, 42.9%, and 42.3% of full year births respectively. this seems remarkably consistent and thus to allow for some reasonably high confidence projection from 2022. i averaged them to 42.6% for this purpose.

(extrapolation shown in red to indicate that it is projected, not actual)

sweden has been in a ~12 year downtrend in natality and i have sought to account for that by adding an (admittedly arbitrary) green trend line to establish baseline trend.

2022 continues to look like a major divergence from it.



this becomes more obvious when viewed in % terms:



there is nothing in the past 25 years that appears anything like this sudden to the upside or the downside. this is twice the size of the next biggest moves.

and the alignment with covid vaccine rollout is quite precise for commencement. and based on the biological studies (info HERE and HERE) the expectation that this result (if it is occurring) would remain pronounced for at least 6 months appears sound.



as discussed in the second link above, the variance in mean and median behavior on total motile count suggests that some affected had a transitory effect and reverted to normal levels but that a sub 50% subset continued to experience quite strong suppression.



this sort of pattern would be consistent with some of the vaxxed generating a durable adverse event (such as the auto-immune elicitation issues associated with mRNA products)

from this, we can start to generate testable hypotheses.

if the issue affecting swedish birth rates is “summer walkabout as the world opens again” then we should start to see this attenuate significantly in june-aug 2022 births. may 2022 ought to have been the peak of that trend and births in summer 2022 would stem from conception in sept-nov of 2021 once everyone was home again. one would expect rates to return to something more normal.

but, if rates do not revert to normal and remain highly suppressed and/or get worse, then we are likely favoring a different explanation and vaccines would appear to be the prime culprit.

i sincerely hope this is not true. that’s the sort of outcome that could topple world orders. (or course, one might argue that the sort of would order that pushed such a think might well deserve a bit of toppling as well)

but the human costs to that would be outlandish and we flat out do not even know from the israeli studies etc if sperms counts in the minority that appear to have durable suppression ever recover. if it’s auto-immune causing it, it could well be permanent. (please note this total speculation on my part and requires multiple jumps of nested assumption, so let’s not run off half cocked on that one. durable auto immune driven sperm suppression and/or ovum damage an idea, not a proven issue.) i would not even be bringing this up at this point save for the fact that it’s clear that american health agencies have no intention of doing their jobs on assessing safety here.


it’s frustrating to be trying to back into this using such incomplete data and second order logic, especially when so many health agencies absolutely have the data needed to assess this with great precision.

if we could simply see the relative changes in natality by vaxx status, we could get to the bottom of this in a hurry.

i fear that at a certain point, agencies’ stunning lack of interest in doing so begins to provide a strong indictment of their actual aims.

and so, we do the best we can with what we have.

and perhaps we lay the foundational stones for a new era of open access to data and widespread citizen science and true society-scale peer review instead of the clubby cloisters that seem determined to let us down or lead us astray in service of self interest.

in that simple demand, we could change so many things.

it should be one of the issues of our time.

it’s time public health was opened to the public.
.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Ninja (Omicron BA.5) COVID Fearporn
Now be a good highly vaccinated citizen and get in line for the "latest and greatest" booster, Comrade!
Robert W Malone MD, MS
16 hr ago

What is Fearporn? Is it really a thing?

When I first started discussing “Mass Formation Psychosis” (and specifically on Joe Rogan #1757), the entire Silicon Valley and Corporate Media seemed to simultaneously loose bladder control, claiming that there was no such thing, that this was not in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, had no basis in the literature, and was a fabricated concept. “Factcheckers” had a field day. The Guardian and Forbes almost stroked out in outrage. In a fit of self righteous indignation, aging 60s rocker Neil Young, whose Spotfy hit rate was anemic at best, left Spotify together with Crosby, Stills and Nash, only to return later with their tails between their legs. Prompting many sagebrush sages to quote Lynard Skynard "I hope Neil Young will remember, a Southern man don't need him around anyhow." Turn it up.

By the way, I recently asked David Crosby if he would like to do a podcast together to just discuss the issues- and got back a “ticket closed” statement from his handlers. So much for constructive dialog and engagement.

As the topic started trending, Google immediately started editing search results in real time to elevate unqualified opinions that cast shade on the theory and teachings. Then world-renowned Professor of Clinical Psychology Mattias Desmet, PhD published “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” which documented both the process and the rich academic literature supporting it. Nothing but crickets chirping have been heard since. As far as I am concerned, that feels like yet more vindication (not that I care anymore), and a clear indication that Google and corporate media knew all along that they were guilty of intentionally driving COVID “Mass Formation Psychosis” in the general population. Personally, I think that empathy is the best response for the many who have fallen victim to this form of propaganda. Pity the poor hyper-vaccinated West Coast, aging Laurel Canyon crowd, and urban upper Eastern Seaboard, for they know not what they do.

So what about “Fearporn”? Just more Dr. Robert Malone MD, MS crazy talk? Well, thanks to Ilisa Kaufman Psy.D. and Psychology Today, there is independent validation of the term, and some recommendations for each and every one of us. They sound a whole lot like the advice provided by the late great John Prine, who got his Ph.D. from the school of hard knocks - “Blow up your TV, go to the country, plant a lot of peaches.”

Has Fear Porn Inserted Its Way Into Your Mind?” (Psychology Today)

“Is all the media getting to you? A few changes can go a long way.”


“If you have not heard of the term "fear porn", it refers to mainstream media content that deliberately and enticingly plays on people's fears about disaster, disease, and death. Yes, there are media outlets that go beyond informing and alerting the public. Media is necessary and important to inform the public and to educate. However, at what point does informing turn into aggressively alarming people? Certain media is “intentionally” trying to panic the public. In a way, they are violating your minds.”

Dr. Kaufman proceeds with this indictment of the media and “fearporn industry”, and concludes with some practical advice.

‘What is the psychological effect that this can have on you and your loved ones? I have noticed the impact that the over-use of media has on my clients, especially for the anxiety and OCD communities. For example, I still have clients that "compulsively" check the coronavirus numbers and are still not leaving their house. For some, even if the policies and rules in their state have changed, they are unable to move forward. They are psychologically "stuck" in their Coronavirus protective behaviors.
If the media had a "hand" in alarming people to the point that they are now stuck. Does the media have an obligation to try and help people to become unstuck? Sadly, the answer appears to be no. Even more upsetting, the media is actually still doing plenty to keep people in a state of panic. In my clinical opinion, this is extremely damaging and unhealthy for the mental health of my clients and the public.
Here are some ways to help correct or prevent mental health consequences from the “fear porn” industry:
-Limit or get rid of your media intake. This includes social media, which is filled with plenty of strangers and “friends” trying to persuade and terrorize you.
-Once you have limited media, use that time to go outside in the sun and walk or run. Exercise can help reduce your stress levels. Also, responsible sun exposure has been proven to help with some psychological conditions.
-Refuse to get into conversations with anyone regarding what they saw or heard that was terrifying on the news. Simply explain to everyone that you will be using your own judgment to “protect” yourself as opposed to all the unknown reporters in the world.
-Definitely get help immediately if you are unable to function socially or occupationally. Programs are available and are useful when trying to desensitize yourself, to have a quality of life."

“Factchecker” vampires begone. Now, where DID I leave those wooden stakes?

Here is another related gem from Dr. Kaufman (title and link below). And for the attention impaired, her answer to her own question is basically “yes”.

Can Coronavirus Health Behaviors Trigger OCD?

The connection between coronavirus and compulsive behaviors.


Important to keep in mind, Fearporn is a business model, which as Dr. Kaufman correctly notes drives profit for a “Fearporn Industry” of corporate media and bloggers (including Substack’s anointed unctuous COVID-19 expert Cardiologist Eric Topol, who recently put out a breathless Fearporn classic which of course neglects to even mention the highly vaccinated/immune escape problem. Disinformation at its best. Appears to meet DHS criteria for Domestic Terrorism. Scientific objectivity? Not so much.) I pointed this out in prior substacks concerning the fearporn surrounding the Monkey Pox outbreak in Men who have sex with Men, which is (alarmingly? not so much) apparently up to about 5,000 cases worldwide. Let’s see, 5000 cases divided by about 8 Billion people in the world equals an attack rate of… 0.0000625%. Sorry Bill and Tony (not). You can find those prior Monkeypox substacks here and here. I flatter myself to think that these substack articles, which were picked up and widely distributed among the “free resistance” alternative media, helped to quench this attempt to manipulate all of us into irrational panic and vaccination with a live attenuated Smallpox vaccine that also happens to have the major “side effect of special interest” of myocarditis. Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English). You have been warned. Risks are higher in young men.

So here comes the Fearporn, right on schedule.

First the FDA has finally decided that the Wuhan-1 based mRNA spike vaccines are not working, and that we need to migrate to mRNA-based multivalent vaccine. In so doing, they have completely ignored the huge number of peer reviewed manuscripts documenting “immune imprinting”, which is the reason why so many highly vaccinated individuals are developing Omicron infections now, including repeated or chronic infections. For references and detailed analysis of “immune imprinting” or “Original antigenic sin”, please see part 1 and part 2 of my prior analysis on this topic. Front line physicians are reporting to me that they are seeing an uptick in pneumonia, but not people that they need to send to the hospital for pneumonia.

On Thursday June 30, Cheyenne Haslett/ABC news reported:

“The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday said it had advised COVID-19 vaccine companies to produce an updated vaccine for this fall, an aim to give people broader and stronger immunity in an upcoming booster campaign ahead of the winter. It’s the latest step in the FDA’s strategy to better keep up with the virus, moving quicker to address variants and working to make booster doses more effective. The announcement comes after the FDA's advisers met earlier this week to discuss the various options for updated vaccine designs. In keeping with the advisers’ recommendations, the FDA selected a vaccine that will include two strains of COVID, the original Wuhan strain and the most recent omicron sub variants, BA.4 and BA.5, which is currently making up the majority of cases.”

This is then apparently to be what is called a trivalent vaccine, which will most likely greatly increase the total dose of the mRNA/delivery formulation complexes injected into the arms of the naive and those suffering from COVIDcrisis mass formation. Which, if this is the case, will definitely increase the adverse events. Suffer little children (Matthew 19:14). Based on the FDA’s “Future Framework”, it seems likely this will be Emergency Use Authorized (despite the lack of any true medical emergency) based only on immunogenicity data (despite the inconvenient fact that there are no validated immunologic correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2). No wonder why so many speculate that the hidden agenda here is depopulation and reduction of the useless class as the WEF and Biden administration anticipate the Brave New World emerging during maturation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (according to Klaus Schwab). Welcome to hell. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, as the amazingly prolific and brave Zachary Stieber reports in the Epoch Times, “Natural Immunity 97 Percent Effective Against Severe COVID-19 After 14 Months”.

The protection against severe illness from so-called natural immunity remains superior to the protection bestowed by COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study. People who survived COVID-19 infection and were not vaccinated had sky-high protection against severe or fatal COVID-19, researchers in Qatar found.

“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3 percent … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age,” Dr. Laith Abu-Raddad, with Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, and colleagues said after studying long-term natural immunity in unvaccinated people. That percentage is higher than the protection from COVID-19 vaccines, according to other studies and real-world data.

The actual real world data are showing that it is the highly vaccinated who are getting infected and reinfected by Omicron and its recent variants. So the response of Pfizer, Moderna, and the US HHS is more jabs which could not have been more carefully designed to further exacerbate immune imprinting in the highly vaccinated if they had tried. Or maybe they are trying. Who knows. Everything about the COVIDcrisis and these vaccines is upside down, smothered in propaganda, and dished up on a plate of Fearporn.

The US Government has now executed a $3.2B contract to Pfizer (using borrowed fiat currency, of course) for purchase of mRNA vaccines designed to address the new Omicron subvariants (BA.4 and BA.5) which will apparently include mRNA coding for Spike proteins from Wuhan-1, Omicron BA.4, and Omicron BA.5. This must be a serious threat, this BA.4 and BA.5 right? Citing Eric Topol’s recent Fearporn substack, the Daily Beast hyperventilates with this piece entitled “This New ‘Ninja’ COVID Variant Is the Most Dangerous One Yet. Are you sufficiently scared yet? Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Yipes. These symptoms must be wicked bad. According to Business Insider, “Symptoms of the Omicron BA.5 variant include runny nose, sneezing, and sore throat”. OMG! Katy, Bar the Door! Business Insider proceeds with this alarming summary of the situation:

The Omicron BA.5 variant is the dominant coronavirus strain in the US, according to the CDC.
Its symptoms are similar to past Omicron subvariants: a sore throat, sneezing, and a runny nose.
Experts say BA.5 infections may lead to less severe cases of COVID-19 than early ones.
Here is what the actual most recent CDC data look like at this point. Good to know.



Here is the short version of Topol’s fearporn piece, courtesy of the far left social media outlet Twitter. I ask you, is this disinformation? Who is paying Topol for putting out this sort of junk?



Big badda boom, for sure. 15% over two weeks ago? And falling according to the CDC data?

I will close my commentary on this sordid specific Fearporn example by presenting you with the smug genius at Daily Beast who is responsible for pushing this tripe, and invite you to let him know about how much you personally appreciate his contribution to raising the fear level in the general population. How do these people even live with themselves? I hope he is single. I would hate to be his significant other (speaking in a gender neutral fashion). If I was, I would certainly want to wear a mask in public.

 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

I am pleading, Geert is begging, Yeadon is begging, that under no condition, NONE, zero, do you vaccinate your child with the COVID injection, ever, you will kill them! Tell FDA and CDC to phuck off!
These injections will subvert and damage the innate immune system in your child as their innate antibodies need training, are not developed yet, and this injection will subvert the training!
Dr. Paul Alexander
5 hr ago

Vaccinating children during childhood will damage the naïve innate antibody training and these, the innate antibodies, have a short window for training and instructions to recognize the virus it is confronted with but many other viruses. Remember, the maternal immunity lasts only a short period so child must train their own innate immune system. Only live attenuated replication-competent vaccine (with live viruses) are used in childhood for an important reason and it is linked to the innate antibodies. The innate antibodies last a short period in childhood and disappear.

Vaccinating with live attenuated vaccines help train the innate immune system, specifically trains innate antibodies.

Remember, the innate antibodies will disappear so it needs training to recognize the viruses it is confronted with and viruses in the future. The low-affinity poly-specific innate antibodies can neutralize (broadly) the viruses. It can neutralize broad pathogen around it. In binding to live viruses, the innate antibodies (innate immune system) can be educated to then recognize the confronted virus but many other pathogen.

By preventing the innate antibodies from being educated and trained, it will not be able to recognize a range of glycosylated viruses (viruses with sugars, patterns of glycans etc.) e.g. will not recognize RSV, measles, varicella, mumps, flu etc. If vaccinated for these prior, then there will likely be no issue. But the vaccination must happen before the COVID injection happens for if the child is not vaccinated for these illnesses before COVID injection, then they could die due to these glycosylated viruses.

The high-affinity vaccinal antibodies will bind to the virus and prevent and blocks (outcompetes) the innate antibodies from binding (and by this we also mean binding to live virus that is all around, not only vaccine virus). The innate antibodies will not be able to bind as biding domain (epitopes etc.) are blocked by the vaccinal antibodies. So worthless non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that do not sterilize/neutralize the circulating variants, bind to the virus. And in so doing, block innate antibodies that have the functional capacity to sterilize the virus. So then the child will be at risk of infection from COVID but also a range of virus.

Also, in binding, the vaccinal antibodies enhance infectiousness of the virus to the vaccinated child via antibody-dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI). In addition, by innate antibodies binding to live viruses (live vaccine virus or virus that is around the child), the innate antibodies prevents the child’s innate immune system (trains it) from recognizing self components, components of the child’s own body from being recognized (self vs non-self). You do not want the innate immune system recognizing self components. Only happens when innate antibodies bind to live virus (from vaccine or virus that is around the child).

This is critical. The immune system then can attack (auto-immune disease) itself if this is breached.

Importantly, if you vaccinate the child, the induced vaccinal antibodies will be boosted constantly (with high antibody titers) due to high infectious pressure, circulating pandemic omicron etc. This means the innate immune system antibodies will be constantly suppressed and outcompeted (to the target antigen spike) by the boosted vaccinal antibodies.

So in conclusion, the innate immune antibodies must be trained and educated in the young child and as part of this training, must bind to live viruses so that it can educate the innate antibodies. When the vaccinal antibodies bind to the virus as it outcompetes the innate antibodies, it prevents the innate antibodies from binding and being educated to recognize those viruses. Vaccinating your child will suppress their innate immune system long-term, and leave them vulnerable to re-infection and infection from a range of other pathogen.

Do not ever, ever vaccinate your healthy child with these COVID injections. You can kill them!
.
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

MUST WATCH: Dr. Peter McCullough Discusses New Study That Shows Pfizer’s Covid mRNA Vaccines Can MODIFY DNA in the Human Genome (VIDEO)
By Julian Conradson
Published July 9, 2022 at 8:12pm

Researchers in Sweden recently published a new alarming study showing that Pfizer’s experimental mRNA Covid vaccine can modify DNA within the human genome.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine (MDPI), found that the SARS-CoV-2 RNA within the Pfizer vaccine can reverse-transcribe itself and install itself within the DNA of the human genome within a matter of just six hours following exposure to the vaccine.

Aside from the self-explanatory issues of modifying DNA in humans without their knowledge, the changes can cause “genotoxic side effects,” according to the study.

From the study, titled “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line:”
Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects.”

Researchers determined that the mRNA concoction is able to enter the human cell lining at “high efficiency” after observing the phenomenon happen within human liver cells in vitro (a lab setting). They detected “high levels” of the foreign DNA within the liver cell after just a few hours. There were also rapid changes in gene expression within the affected cells.

This foreign DNA mirrored the BNT162b2 mRNA contained in the experimental vaccine.

From the study:

“In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells.
We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase.
PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2.Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution.
We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure…
BNT162b2 Enters Human Liver Cell Line Huh7 Cells at High Efficiency.”

The shocking results of this study completely contradict what the so-called public health ‘experts’ have been claiming for months – that the experimental mRNA vaccines can not, and will not, modify people’s DNA. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even says as much, very explicitly, on their website, but, just like with all of the other baseless claims about the safety and efficacy of this gene therapy being billed as a vaccine, this too is proving to be false.

And, it’s not as if there were no warning signs about this before the Swedish paper was published. Multiple other studies have shown similar results, especially when conducting clinical trials on animals. One of which was cited by the Swedish paper and showed “reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection.”

What’s even more worrisome, though, is that preclinical data for the vaccine has demonstrated the messenger RNA can travel to several other organs in addition to the liver, including the spleen, heart, kidney, lung, and brain. And it doesn’t take much to begin seeing the effects as Researchers found that the mRNA entered the liver cell line with high efficiency despite “the concentration [of mRNA] in the liver [being] roughly 100 times lower than that of the intramuscular injection site.”

Pfizer’s own cooked clinical data even showed the mRNA was traveling to – and could be found in, several critical organs after injection – including the reproductive organs, according to researchers.

The study continues:

“The Pfizer EMA assessment report also showed that BNT162b2 distributes in the spleen (<1.1%), adrenal glands (<0.1%), as well as low and measurable radioactivity in the ovaries and testes (<0.1%) [26].”

In other words, this reverse-transcribed foreign DNA is likely being installed across the body. This is beyond criminal.

Following the release of the bombshell Swedish study, some of the most outspoken critics of the experimental vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Bartlett, and Dr. Simone Gould, joined a panel discussion about the alarming findings that have left the medical and scientific community “buzzing.”

According to Dr. McCullough, who is the most published cardiologist in history, this is the first hard evidence that shows the experimental vaccines do, in fact, change the DNA of the person who is injected.

From Dr. McCullough:

“The news is buzzing – out of Lund University in Malmo Sweeden… [this is] the first demonstration in a human hepatic (liver) cell line that the Pfizer vaccine in fact reverse transcribes and installs DNA into the human genome.

Following up on Dr. McCullough at the request of the host, Dr. Bartlett broke the findings down in more simple terms. And, as he correctly points out, we were told this would never happen.

From Dr. Bartlett:

“So, basically, there’s an enzyme that can take that messenger RNA vaccine information and put it into the DNA of the person – into their DNA. And we were told that could not happen… the vaccine is messenger RNA. And we were told that messenger RNA could not go into your DNA, but this is showing that – in a lab – it can.”

Noticeably uncomfortable – and rightfully so, one of the panel hosts nervously asks: “If you’re pregnant and you have this done [take the vaccine] can that then affect your baby?”

Unfortunately, she got the answer she was dreading. Quite simply, yes it will.

Dr. McCullough continued:

Yes. This is an alarming finding.
CDC says on its website – very explicitly – this [vaccine] will not change your DNA. The paper that came out of Sweden – there will be many more to confirm it – and the steps are to: a) confirm it – to confirm that the entire code is installed. And then, to actually confirm that it [the foreign vaccine DNA] is expressed – meaning that the spike protein is now being continually expressed from human cells because the lipid nanoparticle has taken up everywherethat means somatic cells in your organs, but also gametocytes, which are the cells that actually are the sperm and the egg.
If they [gametocytes] are carrying it, that indeed means it can be passed to the daughter’s [or son’s] cells in the embryo.

Watch:

2 min 18 sec
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tests positive for COVID-19
Hannah Getahun - Business Insider
Sun, July 10, 2022, 9:50 PM
  • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tested positive for COVID-19, a spokesperson announced Sunday.
  • Schumer is double boosted and his symptoms are mild.
  • He will quarantine and work remotely this week, his spokesperson said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tested positive for COVID-19 as a part of his regular testing regimen and is reporting mild symptoms, a spokesperson announced Sunday.

"The Leader is fully vaccinated and double boosted, and has very mild symptoms," Justin Goodman, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, said in a statement.

The 71-year-old senator encouraged people to get their vaccines and announced that he will quarantine this week and work remotely, per CDC guidance.

"Anyone who knows Leader Schumer knows that even if he's not physically in the Capitol, through virtual meetings and his trademark flip phone he will continue with his robust schedule and remain in near constant contact with his colleagues," Goodman said.

Read the original article on Business Insider
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Could a universal coronavirus vaccine be the silver bullet that ends this pandemic—and the next?
Erin Prater
Sun, July 10, 2022, 2:18 PM

First-generation vaccines were not the panacea hoped for in COVID-19’s early days. Nor did herd immunity swoop in and save the day.

Could a so-called “pan-coronavirus” vaccine be the long-awaited silver bullet that ends the COVID pandemic—and the next one, too?

Answer: It’s complicated.

“The term pan-coronavirus vaccine needs an asterisk next to it,” Dr. Stuart Ray, vice chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics at Johns Hopkins’ Department of Medicine, told Fortune.

Such a vaccine could tackle all coronaviruses, named for their crown-like appearance under a microscope. Or it could focus on COVID-19 and its myriad variants. Or it could tackle the four longstanding coronaviruses that circulate as common colds—or any combination thereof.

It could also protect against SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), a coronavirus that emerged in 2002 and killed hundreds, and MERS (Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome), another coronavirus that emerged in 2012 and killed hundreds.

Aside from the possibility of concluding the current coronavirus pandemic, it might even be able to squash the next as soon as it starts.

“Coronaviruses jump over to the human population,” said Dr. Duane Wesemann, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the Division of Rheumatology, Immunology, and Allergy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
He’s leading a team of researchers working on a pan-coronavirus vaccine with funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

“I don’t know when [the next will]. Maybe not in our lifetime. But it will probably happen sometime. Is there a way to develop a vaccine that will be available for us in the setting of SARS-CoV-3?”

Whatever form such a vaccine might take, it’s a worthy goal, Dr. Bruce Walker—director of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard, a medical institute focused on eradicating disease, and co-leader of the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness—told Fortune.

But it may forever remain just that: a goal.

“I think we have to be aspirational in terms of aiming to make a pan-coronavirus vaccine, but it will not be an easy task,” Walker cautioned. “There’s not an obvious path forward.”

Work underway—and potentially years of work ahead

However pie-in-the-sky the goal may be, there’s no shortage of work being done to accomplish it. A universal coronavirus vaccine is a top research priority for nonprofits, government agencies, and vaccine-makers, according to an April article in Nature.

Among entities with a version in development: Moderna, Duke University, and myriad biotech companies.

Clinical trials are underway for attempts by the U.S. Army and CalTech, Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Fortune.

Such a vaccine could indeed serve as a “silver bullet,” he said: “That would be the way you take this threat off the table—not just SARS-CoV-2, but all coronaviruses. And to knock off 30% of common colds would be a really good thing.”
But these things take time, he said. An apt illustration: the flu vaccine.

“We don’t yet have a universal flu vaccine though people have been working on that for some time,” he said. “There are some versions of a universal flu vaccine in clinical testing, but it’s not something that’s been deemed to have efficacy and hold up over multiple influenza seasons with multiple strains.”

Yet another: HIV.

“We’ve been working on vaccines for some pathogens like HIV for decades,” Wesemann said. “Some scientists several decades ago were thinking, ‘Gosh, it’s only going to be a few years until we have an HIV vaccination,’ but many decades later, we’re still figuring out we have more to learn about how to do this.”

Wesemann said he’s more optimistic about the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine, “but we learned a lot of humility from other pathogens.”

“We don’t understand our immune system as much as we need to, to sit down and design the best vaccine,” he said.

Making a universal coronavirus vaccine available to the general public will require additional research, animal studies, and early-phase human studies, all of which can take years, Dr. Dan Barouch—a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research—told Fortune.

And the process is not occurring on the accelerated Operation Warp Speed timeline the original COVID vaccines were on, Adalja noted.

“It will likely still be a while before a pan-coronavirus vaccine will be available to the general public,” Barouch said. “I don’t think anyone will be going this fall to get this at CVS.”

Promising, but not impervious

Even when—or if—a universal coronavirus vaccine is available, it likely won’t be bulletproof, experts caution.

While a pan-coronavirus vaccine has the potential to “help end the pandemic”—at least in the way of halting severe disease and death—its success would hinge on enough individuals around the world to get the jab, said Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brighman and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Otherwise, the virus could learn to evade even a universal COVID vaccine.

“That’s certainly a possibility,” Kuritzkes said.

“So long as the virus continues to circulate in a significant number of people, there’s an opportunity for continued adaptations of the virus,” he added. “Were there to be a variant that emerged that had acquired mutations that were able to evade immune response from the supposed pan-coronavirus vaccine, the virus could leap into the vaccinated population and emerge again.”

There are two goals vaccines can aspire to, Ray said: to prevent infection altogether, or to merely prevent severe disease and disruption, as current COVID vaccines do.

A pan-coronavirus vaccine might prevent severe disease and disruption from all variants and subvariants of COVID-19, theoretically eliminating the need for boosters.

But such a vaccine may still allow the spread of infection, as current vaccines do, experts warn.

“My guess is if we design a vaccine that’s meant to be as broad as possible, we’re going to have to give up some potency,” Wesemann said.

The pan-coronavirus vaccine concept may simply be too good to ever become reality, Ray cautioned—but he holds out hope that such a development could “hit that sweet spot of really being protective and durable.”

“One of the things that keeps us awake at night is if we do things that don’t control the spread, that it will continue to evolve and find a gap in our armor,” he said.

One possible gap: long COVID, a potentially disabling condition federal officials say could affect up to 23 million Americans who’ve survived infection.

Research shows that “even mild to moderate COVID can have long-term consequences for cardiovascular and mental health outcomes,” Ray said. “We might find we prevent the severe first couple of weeks of disease but see an accumulation of damage from relatively mild infections.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
https://twitter. com/timspector/status/1545823000699838472

Tim Spector MD (Prof) @timspector

Nearly 340,000 estimated daily cases today as all areas of the U.K. still rising except Scotland which may have peaked. By early next week we will be in new record territory. This doesn’t bode well for the expected bigger autumn wave. Thx for your support and logging ⁦w Zoe!

tweet.jpg
 
Top