CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

[Heliobas Disciple]

Pfizer's COVID-19 mRNA Product is 13-Times Less Effective at Preventing Infection With SARS-CoV-2 than Naturally Acquired Immunity!

More People Must Start Listening to Scientists Who Are Actually Following the Science

viralimmunologist.substack.com

(fair use applies)

Pfizer's COVID-19 mRNA Product is 13-Times Less Effective at Preventing Infection With SARS-CoV-2 than Naturally Acquired Immunity!
More People Must Start Listening to Scientists Who Are Actually Following the Science
Dr. Byram W. Bridle
12 hr ago

A high-impact peer-reviewed scientific paper was just brought to my attention. It has been accepted for publication but has not made it into the print version of the journal yet. It was posted ‘online ahead of print’ back on April 5th, but I had not seen it until today. The paper is entitled “SARS-CoV-2 Naturally Acquired Immunity vs. Vaccine-induced Immunity, Reinfections versus Breakthrough Infections: a Retrospective Cohort Study”. It is being published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which has an impressive impact factor of 20.999. For a layperson, this means it is one of the top medical journals in the world.

Here is the take-home message as concluded by the authors in the discussion section of the paper:

“Our analysis demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant for a symptomatic disease as well.”​

This study represents a critical head-to-head comparison of naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 versus the SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response conferred by the two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA product that was required to obtain the so-called ‘fully vaccinated’ status. This largely occurred in the context of the wave of cases that was dominated by the Delta variant. People whose first exposure was to natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 were compared to those whose first exposure was via receipt of Pfizer’s mRNA product. In other words, which source of ‘immunity’ could confer the best long-term protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19 in some people.
As demonstrated in this paper, people whose immune response was induced by Pfizer’s mRNA product were at 13-times greater risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as compared to people with naturally acquired immunity!

For those who had received Pfizer’s mRNA product, this increase in risk of infection also translated into a greater risk of the infection progressing to the disease that we call COVID-19. This news will be shocking for many. However, for many of us who have actually been following the science, this is not at all surprising. We have seen this unfolding for quite some time in public health data around the world. For example, see figure 1 below, which showed the trend in cases of COVID-19 by vaccination status in Ontario, Canada (where I live).



…I had been forewarning people since early 2022 about the the increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 if they were formally ‘vaccinated’ against COVID-19 as compared to those with broadly reactive naturally acquired immunity. This was based on a plethora of public health data. I used this particular figure to highlight the additional risk posed by third or more doses.

Some of this risk is likely accounted for by an increase in ‘risky behaviours’ by inoculated individuals who have become over-confident about the misleading information that overestimates the effectiveness of the shots. But a bigger concern is the potential for vaccine-enhanced infection or similar harmful mechanisms.

Here is an interesting side-note. As has been happening at high frequency throughout the declared pandemic, readily accessible and easy to digest data like those shown in Figure 1 above are no longer provided to the public. Check for yourself. Go to the same link from which I acquired the graph on April 14th. The link is here. The best that you can do is get tabulated raw data that you would need to graph yourself. Public health agencies should be held accountable for failing to consistently provide fully transparent and highly informative data in easy-to-interpret formats. They should also be questioned as to why they have constantly changed the way data are provided and shown; apparently correlating with when the data start to consistently contradict the so-called ‘acceptable narrative’.

Human Immune Systems Can Still Function Naturally in the Year 2022

What the scientific article by Gazit, et al. tells us is that naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is superior to the limited protection conferred by Pfizer’s mRNA product. This is just one of >150 peer-reviewed scientific publications that now confirm that natural immunity against this particular virus is better in every way to what can be conferred by the Pfizer shots. For me, as a vaccinologist, this is not at all surprising. Those of us developing vaccines always hold natural immunity as the gold standard. We endeavour to better understand natural immunity so we can try to come close to recapitulating it with a new vaccine against an infectious agent. It isn’t unusual for vaccines to induce sub-par responses compared natural immunity because we still have an imperfect understanding of the inner workings of the immune system. However, when it comes to responses induced by Pfizer’s mRNA product, they have obviously fallen far below the gold standard of natural immunity.

Another Call for Critical Thinking and Promoting Scientific Debate

I understand that many people are completely sold-out on the single public health narrative that has been deemed acceptable by power brokers. However, for the sake of their safety, that of their loved ones, and to avoid unnecessary mandate-induced segregation of the well-informed again, they really need to start critically assessing the science and asking tough questions of their physicians, public health officials and others who are promoting these inoculations.

Following are a few examples of questions for which answers should be demanded. Importantly, demand that a person’s answers be backed up by original science. Have them show you their reference(es). Hearsay evidence based on things like ‘because so-and-so said it is true and they seem to have a good reputation’ carries no weight. I am an expert in vaccinology and this has been officially confirmed in many court cases. This does not preclude me from having to provide references to justify all of my major assertions, nor should it. A fact is not defined by a person’s reputation. Scientific principles are defined by the weight of the scientific evidence.

Key Questions

1. Why would I want to get a ‘vaccine’ targeting an outdated version of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that leaves me at a 13-fold greater long-term risk, compared to natural immunity, of getting infected with the virus and acquiring the disease that it is supposed to protect me against?
2. I keep hearing that the ‘vaccine’ will dampen the severity of disease. Isn’t the best way to dampen severity by not acquiring the infection and the disease in the first place? As such, why is the importance of natural immunity being downplayed?
3. If naturally acquired immunity is superior to immune responses conferred by Pfizer’s inoculations, why hasn’t testing for acquisition of natural immunity been made a priority? In Canada, we shut-down our task force assigned to monitor acquisition of naturally acquired immunity early in the declared pandemic.
4. Why would anybody want to push a ‘vaccine’ on me without first knowing my natural immunity status, especially since the latter has proven to be superior to the former?
5. Why would anyone push Pfizer’s mRNA product on children who are at almost no risk of experiencing severe COVID-19 when their immune systems are naïve to SARS-CoV-2; and worse, when the vast majority already have superior naturally acquired immunity?
6. When most people have likely been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, especially following the highly infectious Omicron wave, why are outdated booster doses being promo

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

The German government admits hundreds of thousands of people have had severe side effects following mRNA shots

The risk-benefit of the Covid vaccines is getting worse and worse and worse

alexberenson.substack.com

(fair use applies)

The German government admits hundreds of thousands of people have had severe side effects following mRNA shots
The risk-benefit of the Covid vaccines is getting worse and worse and worse
Alex Berenson
12 hr ago

This morning, the German Federal Ministry of Health posted a stunning tweet, admitting that 1 out of every 5,000 Covid jabs cause “serious side effects.”

This figure is likely a sharp underestimate, given the fact that side effect reporting systems for drugs and vaccines are largely voluntary.

Nonetheless, it implies that almost 300,000 Americans and Europeans have suffered severe side effects after receiving mRNA shots from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. (It is unclear whether the German side effect estimate applied to Covid vaccines from India and China, which use older technologies and are largely unused in wealthier countries, aside from China.)

—

(If you can’t trust the Bundesgesundheitsministerium, who can you trust?)



Health authorities now acknowledge that the mRNA vaccines do not stop Covid infection or transmission and likely have no preventative value against the Omicron variant within months. Thus their risk-benefit profile appears increasingly absurd, especially because Omicron is notably less dangerous than earlier Covid variants to everyone, vaccinated or not.
These Covid jabs are not cancer drugs, where patients and physicians will tolerate severe side effects. They are not even influenza jabs - at this point they are even less effective and far more dangerous.
—
(Join Team Reality. There’s always room.)

The fact that the effectiveness of the mRNA shots is measured in weeks against Omicron is merely the last straw against them. Even if they worked worked long-term, regulators would likely have already pulled from the market any other product that caused this much damage for an illness that is little more than a cold for most healthy people.

At the least, regulators should have severely limited use of the Covid shots by adding a “black-box warning” of their risks and restricting use to elderly people and those with severe comorbidities.

Finally, because these “vaccines” do not have any chance of producing population-level immunity, their risk and benefit should be evaluated individually rather than for large groups of people. In other words, they should only be available by physician prescription, not offered to anyone who wants them.

Taking any of these steps would mean admitting that the great mRNA experiment has failed completely, so don’t expect to see them anytime soon. Still, the German admisssion today marks at least a small - and long overdue - step toward honesty from public health authorities on the Covid jabs.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Exceedingly Effective At Unsafe: 1 In 5,000 DEATHVAX™ Servings As Per German Government Result In Serious Side Effects

Another day, another story on the true nature of the DEATHVAX™ and the toll that this eugenics slow kill bioweapon is wreaking on humanity. Those are the “serious” side effects that to date have been correlated to the DEATHVAX™. But if one were to factor in the Underreporting Factor (URF), there...

2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com

(fair use applies)

Exceedingly Effective At Unsafe: 1 In 5,000 DEATHVAX™ Servings As Per German Government Result In Serious Side Effects

2nd Smartest Guy in the World
12 hr ago

Another day, another story on the true nature of the DEATHVAX™ and the toll that this eugenics slow kill bioweapon is wreaking on humanity.

Bev Turner @beverleyturner​

This is bad. That's 1 SERIOUS event in every 5000 DOSES!! From the German Ministry of Health. And as​

@ClareCraigPath​

says, this is the tip of the iceberg... Every mp popping up on every channel needs to asked about these figures.​

Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators)@ClareCraigPath​

· 21h​

BREAKING The dam is starting to crack. German Ministry of Health admits that vaccines cause serious side effects in 1 in 5,000. twitter.com/BMG_Bund/statu…​

Show this thread​

12:28 PM · Jul 20, 2022​

Those are the “serious” side effects that to date have been correlated to the DEATHVAX™. But if one were to factor in the Underreporting Factor (URF), there are far greater serious and milder adverse events unreported, not to mention soaring all-cause mortality as per life insurance companies’ reporting that for now are officially uncorrelated to these deadly injections, more at covered up by BigPharma, WHO, and the governments aiding and abetting these One World Government agencies.

 

[psychgirl]

Q&A #18 : What would be your prediction for those who are both unvaccinated against COVID-19 and never previously infected? | Voice for Science and Solidarity

What would be your prediction for those who are both unvaccinated against COVID-19 and never previously infected?

www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org

(fair use applies)

Q&A #18 : What would be your prediction for those who are both unvaccinated against COVID-19 and never previously infected?
By Geert Vanden Bossche
July 19, 2022

Extended question:
What would be your prediction for those who are both unvaccinated against COVID-19 and never previously infected? Let's say those of working age(20 - 55) in fairly good health.

Should they be worried about Avian Flu and Monkeypox, since they have not experienced an infection by SARS-CoV-2?
Are they at risk for serious illness from these more infectious (and future more virulent) SARS-CoV-2 mutants?

Answer:
It would be quite unbelievable that they didn’t get exposed to SC-2 given the high infectiousness of previously and currently circulating variants. Ideally, they should have their Abs tested (anti-S would be sufficient since they’re not vaccinated). They can also have their Abs tested against Flu. If all this is negative (which would point to poor activation of natural immunity), they can just take one shot of a live attenuated measles or mumps or rubella or varicella vaccine (or all together in one shot) to boost their innate immune response. (However, they should only do so if they got MMR(V)-vaccinated in the past. The better their innate immune status, the lower the likelihood they are going to catch severe disease from these viruses. But anyhow, for a person in good health, it is highly unlikely to develop severe disease from Monkeypox (as it is - for now(!) - not highly infectious) or from Avian Flu as they must at least have had contact with Flu viruses in the past and hence, have some ‘Flu-trained’ innate immunity.)

Unvaccinated can now largely forget about contracting severe C-19 disease as the next big mutation will most likely make the unvaccinated resistant to the virus. However, if they have not yet been infected at all by any of these highly infectious variants, they could still contract C-19 disease (before that new variant emerges) and become seriously ill (but not ‘severely ill’ as longas they are in good health with no comorbidities and predisposing factors). To avoid this, they should either prevent risky contacts (difficult) till the next variant appears (in my opinion, just a matter of weeks) or take Ivermectin orHCQ as soon as symptoms manifest (but not prophylactically).
‍

Important advice and information!

Every single specialist I saw this last winter was mystified by my “personal situation” and one even went so far as to say “hey, they’re wanting to study people like you, ya know”

….he actually had an excited gleam on his eye, I could just swear to you he did!

I “sense” ….that I’ve had mild touches of Covid more than once.

My story is way too long to type here, and I would hate derailing the thread.
It’s so weird though!

 

[psychgirl]

REPORT: France Urges Women To Report Menstrual Changes After Covid Jabs..

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549972924488114176

View: https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1549972924488114176?s=20&t=5DIsoXd5rdrkyweJJmnyJg

Drip…drip…drip…little bit here, little bit there.
It’s coming out.

 

[psychgirl]

New fast test discriminates between cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination or infection

A MedUni Vienna research team has developed a new blood test that indicates a person's status of cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 within just 48 hours. This test is particularly relevant for vulnerable patient groups, whose own antibody response is not meaningful. The test can even indicate...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

New fast test discriminates between cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination or infection
by Johannes Angerer, Medical University of Vienna
July 20, 2022


View attachment 351821
Results of cellular proliferation assays performed with gradient-isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) stimulated with the indicated antigen-specific and polyclonal stimuli in classical plate assays for 7 days. Shown is the summary of stimulation indices (SI, y-axis) of PBMC which were incubated with the indicated stimuli (x-axis). The bars represent the median, whiskers the Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence intervals, dark blue circles show proliferation of PBMC of COVID-19 convalescent patients, red circles those of non-exposed healthy controls and light blue squares those of vaccinees. M-mix, SARS-CoV-2 matrix protein peptide mix; N-mix, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein peptide mix; PHA, phytohemagglutinin; S-mix, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein peptide mix; SEB, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B; TBE, tick borne encephalitis antigen; TT, tetanus toxoid. Data show the summary of 35 COVID-19 convalescent patients, except 31 for SEB, 36 healthy controls, except 32 for SEB, and 40 vaccinees. p values were calculated by Tuckey's test. Only significant differences are shown. ***p < .001. Credit: Allergy (2022). DOI: 10.1111/all.15406

A MedUni Vienna research team has developed a new blood test that indicates a person's status of cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 within just 48 hours. This test is particularly relevant for vulnerable patient groups, whose own antibody response is not meaningful. The test can even indicate whether immunity is the result of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or of survived infection. The study data were recently published in Allergy.

The new test, developed by Bernhard Kratzer in a study conducted at MedUni Vienna's Center for Pathophysiology, Infectiology and Immunology under the leadership of Winfried Pickl and Rudolf Valenta, is based on the memory response of T cells to three different SARS-CoV-2 peptide mixtures. T cells are an important part of the specific cellular immune defense: they eliminate cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 and support antibody production by B cells. "Currently, it takes at least a week to perform and evaluate such T-cell tests, and the tests can only be performed in specialized laboratories. In contrast, our newly developed test is performed directly with a whole blood sample and can be evaluated after only 48 hours," explains study leader Winfried Pickl.

From September, the new test will be available at the Institute of Immunology at MedUni Vienna's Center for Pathophysiology, Infectiology and Immunology and is particularly useful for those who are unable to produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Discriminating between vaccinated and recovered

Analyses of blood samples from COVID-19-recovered patients, based on peptide mixtures of S-, M- and NC-proteins, enabled the research team to not only detect the two antiviral cytokines interleukin (IL)-2 and interferon-gamma in large quantities but also to identify the cytokine IL-13 as a marker for the highly specific T-cell immune response against SARS-CoV-2. IL-13 was previously known as a marker for allergic immune responses, but it apparently also plays a key role in establishing a long-lasting antibody response.

By using the three different peptide mixtures, it is also possible to discriminate between those who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and those who have had COVID-19. Samples from recovered volunteers responded with significant cytokine production to all three peptide mixtures, whereas samples from vaccinated volunteers only responded to the specific peptide mixture in which the protein was induced by vaccination (S protein), and to which the vaccinated subjects then went on to build up cellular immunity. The novel test therefore allows a specific cellular immune response to SARS-CoV-2 to be identified even in individuals who, for various reasons, are unable to develop meaningful antibody responses.

T-cell immunity post infection is detectable longer than antibody responses

In the study, the T-cell response was also analyzed ten months after infection. It was found that the T-cell response was still as strong as that measured ten weeks after an infection. This is remarkable in that antibody levels in the blood have already dropped significantly ten months after infection. This long-lasting T-cell response may protect against severe disease in the event of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2.

The results of this study make a significant contribution to our understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and will enable us to quickly establish whether specific individuals have built up cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

Now this is super interesting! I wish it was available right now, because I’d ask to be tested!

 

[dstraito]

It is day four. I know this is not fascinating but I thought it be relevant to someone going through the same thing. I did not feel it deserved a thread about me so this was next best place.

Day four:

Continuing protocol medicine and vitamins. Had a really good nights sleep until about six an. It is asif my body woke up and said "oh yeah, I am supposed to be sick"

The Tylenol that has been keeping the eye pain and headache away is not working as well.

I have no appetite but I am making myself drink a lot of fluids.

For some reason I am having trouble getting into the normal shows I watch so I opted to listen to music.

poor dogs are once again out of luck.

If Monday, the first day was the baseline at 10, today would be a 4.

 

[psychgirl]

Your input is appreciated!
I hope you’ll feel better soon. That loss of interest is normal as well as the headache.
Keeping hydrated is huge!

 

[Ractivist]

Drip…drip…drip…little bit here, little bit there.
It’s coming out.

That's a bit graphic isn't it......

 

[psychgirl]

That's a bit graphic isn't it......

Ew

 

[Ractivist]

Ew

Exactly....ew, no Ew. Accept my apology.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

‘Stunning’: 1 in 5,000 COVID Shots Caused ‘Serious Side Effects,’ German Health Officials Admit

The German Federal Ministry of Health on Wednesday posted a “stunning tweet” admitting 1 of every 5,000 COVID-19 vaccinations caused “serious side effects.” The data included 5,862 reports of suspected adverse reactions in children and adolescents.

childrenshealthdefense.org

(fair use applies)


‘Stunning’: 1 in 5,000 COVID Shots Caused ‘Serious Side Effects,’ German Health Officials Admit
The German Federal Ministry of Health on Wednesday posted a “stunning tweet” admitting 1 of every 5,000 COVID-19 vaccinations caused “serious side effects.” The data included 5,862 reports of suspected adverse reactions in children and adolescents.
By Megan Redshaw
07/21/22

The German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) on Wednesday posted a “stunning tweet” admitting 1 of every 5,000 COVID-19 vaccinations cause “serious side effects.”

Although likely an “underestimation” due to voluntary reporting, according to Alex Berenson, the admission implies almost 300,000 Americans and Europeans have experienced a severe adverse event after receiving a Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine.

Translated, the tweet says, “One in 5000 people is affected by a serious side effect after a COVID19 vaccination. If you suspect an adverse reaction, get medical attention and report your symptoms to @PEI_Germany.”

The Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), which uses the handle “@PEI-Germany” is Germany’s federal institute for vaccines and biomedical drugs.

The figure came from a PEI safety report summarizing suspected cases of side effects and vaccination complications that were reported to PEI between Dec. 27, 2020, when Germany launched its vaccination campaign, and March 31, 2022.

During that time, 172,062,925 vaccinations were administered in Germany — of those, 17.1% were Spikevax, 7.4% were AstraZeneca, 2.1% were Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) and 0.1% were Novavax.

During the same time period, PEI received 296,233 reports of suspected side effects. The reporting rate was 1.7 per 1,000 vaccine doses for all vaccines combined and 0.2 serious reaction reports per 1,000 doses.

So, the 1 in 5,000 people experiencing a serious reaction is actually 1 in 5,000 doses.

PEI on Thursday corrected its tweet to reflect accurate numbers. According to @PEI_Germany, “the reporting rate for serious reactions is 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses,” the Tweet read.

Korrektur: Die Melderate für schwerwiegende Reaktionen beträgt laut @PEI_Germany 0,2 Meldungen pro 1.000 Impfdosen.​

— Bundesgesundheitsministerium (@BMG_Bund) July 20, 2022​

“The German admission today marks at least a small — and long overdue — step toward honesty from public health authorities on the COVID jabs,” said Berenson, a New York Times bestselling author who writes regularly on Substack.
Reacting to the updated tweet from Germany’s Health Ministry, one person said, “It’s even worse, it’s 1 DOSE, not one in 5,000 people …”

è ancora peggio, è 1 DOSE non una persona su 5.000… https://t.co/JMVIDfC86F​

— Bonifacio Castellane (@boni_castellane) July 20, 2022​

Another person tweeted, “Not severe in 1 person in 5000. 1 in 5000 doses was a heavy effect. So: If you have 2 doses, your risk is even higher.”

Agir etki: hastanelik olmak ve ölümu ifade eder.​

Bu kadar yakin zarar istatistigiyle bilim olsa asilama dururdu; bu, ilaç sirketleri para kazansin diye insanı harcamaktir​

Ayrica profilime sabitledigim araştırma, sıvının ağır etki oranını daha yüksek yüksek bulmuş​

— Uzm.Esra Güneş Kaya (@UzmEsraGunes) July 20, 2022​

“It comes down to the same thing! 1 report per 5,000 doses = 0.2 report per 1,000 doses! Makes at least 38,000 severe cases! Dark figure unknown! Incomprehensible!” another tweeted.

Korrektur: Die Melderate für schwerwiegende Reaktionen beträgt laut @PEI_Germany 0,2 Meldungen pro 1.000 Impfdosen.​

— Bundesgesundheitsministerium (@BMG_Bund) July 20, 2022​

“Can you explain then why the benefits in children and young adults should outweigh the costs?” another asked.

Können Sie erklären warum dann der Nutzen bei Kindern und jungen Erwachsenen, die „Kosten“ überwiegen sollen?​

— Liberal Mut (@LiberalMut) July 20, 2022​

Germany seeks to identify previously unknown risks of COVID vaccines

According to Euro Weekly News, Germany’s Health Ministry announced the numbers because it’s forming a new COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction registry seeking to identify previously unknown risks after vaccination.

According to data from PEI, more side effects were reported following Novavax, with AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna and Pfizer’s Comirnaty following respectively.

The reporting rate for adverse events was lower after booster shots when compared with primary vaccination.

According to PEI, the reported rate of frequent adverse reactions include myocarditis (1.3 cases per 100,000 people), tachycardia (8.19 cases) and lymphadenopathy (11.52 cases).

Approximately 1% (2,810) of cases resulted in death, 4% of cases reported permanent damage, 33% had not recovered during the reporting window and 14% were unknown.

By the end of the reporting period, 31% had recovered and 17% were improving.

A total of 5,862 suspected adverse reactions were reported in children and adolescents.

Of the 5,862 reports, 186 suspected adverse reactions occurred in children under 5, and 124 occurred in children between ages 15 months and 4 years old.

Sixty-one suspected adverse reactions were reported in infants whose mothers were vaccinated while breastfeeding. There was one report of a newborn dying on the day of birth but it was determined to be unrelated to the shot.

Source for the four charts: The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter substack.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

WHO Issues ‘Urgent’ Call to Develop Vaccines for Antibiotic Resistance, as CDC Blames Problem on Pandemic

U.S. deaths from antimicrobial resistance rose 15% in 2020, as drugs were used to treat COVID-19, according to a report released July 12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Also on July 12, the World Health Organization issued an “urgent” call to develop more than 150 vaccines to...

childrenshealthdefense.org

(fair use applies)

WHO Issues ‘Urgent’ Call to Develop Vaccines for Antibiotic Resistance, as CDC Blames Problem on Pandemic
U.S. deaths from antimicrobial resistance rose 15% in 2020, as drugs were used to treat COVID-19, according to a report released July 12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Also on July 12, the World Health Organization issued an “urgent” call to develop more than 150 vaccines to address the global health threat.
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
07/21/22

In a report issued July 12, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said U.S. deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria — commonly called “superbugs” — rose 15% in 2020.

The 44-page report examined the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in 2020, when — according to the CDC — drugs were widely dispensed to treat COVID-19 and address bacterial infections during hospitalizations.

On the same day — July 12 — the CDC published its report, the World Health Organization (WHO) also issued a report on AMR — which focused on developing vaccines to address the issue.

In a press release about the report, the director of the WHO’s Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals Department called for the agency “to leverage the lessons of COVID vaccine development and speed up our search for vaccines to address AMR.”

The WHO’s 94-page report identified 155 vaccine candidates — 61 in “various stages of clinical development” and 94 in “preclinical development” — the agency said should be “urgently” developed to combat AMR.

Absent from the CDC and WHO reports was any discussion of what most scientists agree is a leading cause of antibiotic resistance: the overuse of antibiotics on industrial factory farms.

Ranked among the top 10 global public health threats to humanity by the WHO, AMR occurs “when germs like bacteria and fungi defeat the drugs designed to kill them,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said.

A study published in January by The Lancet estimated 4.95 million deaths worldwide were associated with bacterial AMR, with 1.27 million attributed to bacterial AMR.

80% of COVID patients given antibiotics in 2020, CDC says

According to the CDC, “During the first year of the pandemic, more than 29,400 people died from antimicrobial-resistant infections commonly associated with healthcare. Of these, nearly 40% got the infection while they were in the hospital.”

Almost 80% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were given an antibiotic — even though antibiotics aren’t useful for viral infections — due to the difficulty in distinguishing COVID-19 from pneumonia when patients first arrived at the hospital, the CDC said.

“Historic gains made on antibiotic stewardship were reversed as antibiotics were often the first option,” Walensky said in the report.

The CDC report noted a rise in the following six “superbug” bacterial infections and two fungal infections, with an overall increase of 15%:

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter: 78% increase in infections.
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: 35% increase in infections.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: 32% increase in infections.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE): 14% increase in infections.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): 13% increase in infections.
• ESBL-producing Enterobacterales: 32% increase in infections.
• Antifungal-resistant Candida auris: 60% increase in infections.
• Antifungal-resistant Candida (excluding Candida auris): 26% increase in infections.

The CDC emphasized it “remains committed” to the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and will move forward in addressing gaps in the public health system by “exploring investments” in U.S. healthcare infrastructure in the following areas:

• Enhanced data systems and sharing.
• Antibiotic/Antifungal use and access.
• Environment and sanitation.
• Vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.

WHO pushes vaccines to prevent AMR, identifies 155 vaccine candidates

The WHO called its 94-page report the “first-ever … on the pipeline of the vaccines currently in development to prevent infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacterial pathogens.”

Vaccines can be “highly effective tools” in addressing AMR by preventing infections which, in turn, decreases antibiotic consumption, the WHO said.

“Yet of the top six bacterial pathogens responsible for deaths due to AMR, only one, Pneumococcal disease (streptococcus pneumoniae) has a vaccine,” said Dr. Hanan Balkhy, WHO’s assistant director-general of antimicrobial resistance.

The WHO report identified four groups of pathogens with vaccine “candidates” in various stages of clinical development for each.

The report focused exclusively only vaccines — not new antibiotics — as tools for mitigating the AMR problem. But this is not surprising, Kaiser Health News (KHN) reported.

“Big Pharma has mostly abandoned antibiotics development, and seven of the 12 companies that successfully brought a drug to market in the past decade went bankrupt or left the antibiotics business because of poor sales,” KHN said.

This is because the more an antibiotic is administered, the faster bacteria evolve to overcome it. So health practitioners are curbing the use of such drugs, with 90% of hospitals setting up stewardship programs that limit the usage of antibiotics, including new ones.

This suggests potential investors could lose interest in the antibiotic industry. However, the global antibiotics market is projected to grow from $38.08 billion in 2021 to $45.30 billion in 2028, according to Fortune Business Insights.

CDC, WHO ignore major cause of AMR: antibiotic use in industrial meat production

Public concern about AMR is nothing new. According to the WHO, AMR has been a world health priority since 2015.

Similarly, the CDC said it has been “sounding the alarm on this potential pandemic” since 2013.

While the over-administration of antibiotics in humans is a key driver of AMR, the main culprit — previously identified by the CDC and the WHO — was the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals.

In May 2015, the WHO’s 68th World Health Assembly adopted a “global action plan” that proposed interventions to curb AMR. The plan focused on reducing the unnecessary use of antimicrobials in humans and animals.

Working from that plan, the WHO developed a set of guidelines and best practices, which it released in 2017, on the use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals.

“Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals can lead to selection and dissemination of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in food-producing animals, which can then be transmitted to humans via food and other transmission routes,” WHO said.

“The development of these guidelines was driven by the need to mitigate the adverse human health consequences of use of medically important antimicrobials (i.e. antimicrobials used in humans) in food-producing animals.”

At the time, the WHO recommended:

• An overall reduction in the use of all classes of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals.
• A complete restriction of the use of all classes of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals for growth promotion.
• A complete restriction of the use of all classes of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals for the prevention of infectious diseases that have not yet been clinically diagnosed.
• That antimicrobials classified as “critically important” for human medicine should not be used to control the dissemination of a clinically diagnosed infectious disease identified within a group of food-producing animals.
• That antimicrobials classified as “highest priority critically important” for human medicine should not be used for the treatment of food-producing animals with a clinically diagnosed infectious disease.

The WHO also established two “best practices”:

• Any new class of antimicrobials or new antimicrobial combination developed for use in humans will be considered critically important for human medicine unless categorized otherwise by WHO.
• Medically important antimicrobials that are not currently used in food production should not be used in the future in food production including in food-producing animals or plants.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and restricted over-the-counter use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals.

However, the new FDA rules were “complex and don’t ban all antibiotic use,” Newsweek reported in January 2017.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

(fair use applies)

Dr. Birx Admits She And Fauci Made Up 'The Science' On Lockdowns, Social Distancing
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Jul 21, 2022 - 05:40 PM

President Trump's former Covid-19 adviser Dr. Deborah Birx has made several stunning admissions of late - first telling the Daily Mail that Covid-19 "came out of the box ready to infect" when it hit Wuhan, China in 2019 - and that it may have been created by Chinese scientists who were "working on coronavirus vaccines."

But it goes further than that.

As Fox News' Jesse Waters lays out, Birx admitted in her new book that she and Dr. Anthony Fauci were essentially shooting from the hip when it came to national directives such as "two weeks to stop the spread," and social distancing requirements.

According to Waters, Birx "admitted to making things up," adding that she and Fauci "were lying to the president and to the American people about their COVID protocols."

With the first lie; '15 days to stop the spread' - Birx writes "No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of the two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it."

"So that 15 days to slow the spread was just a sneaky way to get their hooks into us, so they could lock us down for longer," Waters opines. "And if you dared to leave your house, Birx told us, the only way to stay safe was to social distance."

To that end, Birx writes that she "I had settled on 10 (feet) knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans - high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events..."

Watch:

"Scarf Lady" committed scientific fraud and misled the president and the nation into unnecessary lock-downs and restrictions based on the false presumption that the virus spread among health people (asymptomatic spread) that was disproved by Cao et al Madewell et al. pic.twitter.com/Doeion4tu7​

— Peter McCullough, MD MPH (@P_McCulloughMD) July 20, 2022​

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Florida inpatients with COVID-19 near 4,500 as state cases rise

Hospitalizations and case counts have grown so much that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends indoor masking in almost every part of Florida to prevent strain on local medical facilities.

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)

Florida inpatients with COVID-19 near 4,500 as state cases rise
William Clayton
Wed, July 20, 2022, 7:00 PM

With subvariants of the coronavirus spreading, the number of Florida hospital inpatients with COVID-19 continues to increase.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released data Wednesday showing that 4,481 Florida inpatients had COVID-19, up from 4,322 a week earlier.

The data also showed that 460 Florida patients with COVID-19 were in intensive-care units, up from 437 a week earlier.

Health officials across the country have pointed to subvariants known as BA.4 and BA.5 for increasing the number of people infected with the coronavirus, which has now become the dominant strain among new U.S cases.

The Florida Department of Health released numbers Friday that showed the state had a reported 78,245 new cases of COVID-19 from July 8 through July 14.

Nearly every county in Florida is under the “high” community level of COVID-19 case transmission as of July July 13.

That’s according to the COVID-19 Community Level metrics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which are updated each Thursday.

Hospitalizations and case counts have grown so much that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends indoor masking in almost every part of Florida to prevent strain on local medical facilities.

There are a few big exceptions, such as Collier County — home to Naples — along with Glades and Flagler counties, and parts of the western Panhandle.

Florida had topped 60,000 new cases in nine straight weeks and had topped 70,000 cases in six of the weeks, according to the Department of Health numbers.

According to usafact.org, Duval County has the highest 7-day average for new cases with 861.

The nation’s leading infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said Tuesday that the increased hospitalizations — including an uptick in the number of COVID-19 patients who wind up in intensive care units — likely reflected a big rise in the number of unreported infections.

Information to the percent of hospital beds occupied and hospital capacity per county can be found HERE.

These are the recommendations from the CDC when your county has a high level of transmission:

• Wear a mask indoors in public and on public transportation.
• Stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines. Get tested if you have symptoms.
• If you are at high risk for severe illness, consider taking additional precautions.

Here are the CDC’s recommended actions if your county has a medium level of transmission:

• Stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines. Get tested if you have symptoms.
• Wear a mask if you have symptoms, a positive test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19. Wear a mask on public transportation. You may choose to wear a mask at any time as an additional precaution to protect yourself and others.
• If you are at high risk for severe illness, consider wearing a mask indoors in public and taking additional precautions.

Cities, counties and schools in Florida cannot enforce indoor mask requirements because of executive orders and laws Gov. Ron DeSantis signed last year.

The DeSantis administration used to regularly send coronavirus variant reports to a consortium of news outlets showing the share of cases and deaths in each county, along with infected people’s age, gender, race, ethnicity, and their recent travel history.

More than two months have passed since the state’s last report.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Biden tests positive for COVID-19, has 'very mild symptoms'

President Joe Biden says he's “doing great” after testing positive for COVID-19. The White House said Thursday the 79-year-old Biden is experiencing “very mild symptoms,” including a stuffy nose, fatigue and cough.

apnews.com

(fair use applies)

Biden tests positive for COVID-19, has ‘very mild symptoms’
By ZEKE MILLER, CHRIS MEGERIAN and JOSH BOAK
yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 on Thursday and went into isolation with mild symptoms. White House officials went all-out to show that the 79-year-old U.S. leader could power through the virus and keep working because he was vaccinated and boosted.

In a navy blazer and Oxford shirt, Biden recorded a video on a White House balcony to send the message that he would be fine and the country should stay calm and carry on. He recognizes the pandemic as a national trauma that has killed more than one million Americans and alarmed millions more, and his words in the video posted to Twitter were meant to be reassuring.

“I’m doing well, getting a lot of work done,” Biden said, the faint sound of an ice cream truck jingling in the distance. “And in the meantime, thanks for your concern. And keep the faith. It’s going to be OK.”

Thursday demonstrated one of the inevitable risks awaiting a president who has insisted on trying to reconnect with the world and everyday Americans after a prolonged lockdown. It was a reminder that COVID-19, with its mutations and sub-strains, continues to be a threat; the White House also saw it as a chance to demonstrate progress in combating the disease.

Administration officials reminded people that Biden’s prognosis is strong because he’s received every vaccine dose for which he’s eligible, including two original shots and two boosters. He’s also being treated with Paxlovid, an antiviral drug used to prevent more severe symptoms.

White House COVID-19 coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha told reporters at a briefing that he spoke with Biden over the phone and the president “sounded great.”

“He had been working all morning,” Jha said. “He hadn’t even been able to finish his breakfast because he had just been busy. I encouraged him to finish his breakfast.”

Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, said in a letter that Biden had a runny nose and “fatigue, with an occasional dry cough, which started yesterday evening.” The president will isolate for five days and can return to his usual activities after a negative test, Jha said.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described the president’s symptoms as “very mild” and said Biden had been in contact with staff members by phone and was participating in his planned meetings via phone and Zoom from the White House residence.

Asked where Biden might have contracted the virus, Jean-Pierre said, ”I don’t think that matters.” She added that the White House was more focused on how Biden was feeling and would engage in contact tracing.

The White House took steps to show that the president was busy working despite his diagnosis, with Biden tweeting out a picture of himself making calls from the Treaty Room of the White House.

The president spoke by phone to lawmakers in Pennsylvania to apologize for having to cancel his planned trip Thursday to the city of Wilkes-Barre to promote his crime prevention plans. He also called South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn to wish him a happy birthday and congratulate him on receiving an award from the NAACP. A planned fundraiser in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Committee on Thursday was postponed, according to a party official.

Dr. O’Connor wrote in his letter about the president’s treatment plan: “I anticipate that he will respond favorably” to Paxlovid “as most maximally protected patients do.”

White House chief of staff Ron Klain said in a letter to White House staff obtained by The Associated Press that “all close contacts of the president” will be informed of the positive test in keeping with standard protocol.

First lady Jill Biden, speaking to reporters as she arrived for a school visit in Detroit, said she’d just gotten off the phone with her husband.

“He’s doing fine,” she said. “He’s feeling good.”

The first lady, who was wearing a mask, said she had tested negative earlier in the day. She planned to keep her full schedule in Michigan and Georgia on Thursday, while following masking and distancing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Michael LaRosa, her spokesperson.

The president returned from a trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia overnight Saturday. White House officials had told reporters that Biden planned to minimize contact during the trip, yet as soon as he exited Air Force One on July 13, he was fist-bumping, handshaking and even was seen in an occasional hug. The CDC says symptoms can appear two to 14 days after exposure to the virus.

Biden lad a light schedule after returning from Saudi Arabia, attending church on Sunday and helping to welcome Ukraine’s first lady Olena Zelenska to the White House on Tuesday. The president traveled to Massachusetts on Wednesday to promote efforts to combat climate change.

Up to this point, Biden’s ability to avoid the virus seemed to defy the odds, even with the testing procedures in place for those expected to be in close contact with him. Prior waves of the virus swept through Washington’s political class, infecting Vice President Kamala Harris, Cabinet members, White House staffers and lawmakers. Biden has increasingly stepped up his travel schedule and resumed holding large indoor events where not everyone is tested.

A White House official said Harris tested negative for COVID-19. She was last with the president on Tuesday and spoke with him on the phone Thursday morning. Harris planned to remain masked on the guidance of the White House medical team. The vice president, the first lady and Klain, the chief of staff, were all deemed close contacts of Biden.

Leana Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University, said “we’re in a very different place” than before vaccines and therapeutics were widespread.

“The coronavirus is everywhere, and your chance of getting it, even if you’re vaccinated and boosted, and even if you’ve already had it, are very high,” she said. “At the same time, it’s also true that for nearly everyone, the coronavirus has evolved from being a potential death sentence to something that we can live with.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hoped that Biden’s positive test for the virus would cause more Americans to get vaccinated and boosted because “none of us is immune from it, including the president of the United States, and we really have to be careful.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Twitter wished the president “a speedy recovery.”

Top White House officials in recent months have been matter-of-fact about the likelihood of the president getting COVID, a measure of how ingrained the virus has become in society — and of its diminished threat for those who are up to date on their vaccinations and with access to treatments.

When administered within five days of symptoms appearing, Paxlovid, produced by drugmaker Pfizer, has been proven to bring about a 90% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths among patients most likely to get severe disease.

Biden is far from the first world leader — and not the first U.S. president — to get the coronavirus, which has infected British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and more than a dozen other leaders and high-ranking officials globally.

When Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, contracted the disease in October 2020, vaccines were not available and treatment options were limited and less advanced. After being diagnosed at the White House, Trump was given an experimental antibody treatment and steroids after his blood oxygen levels fell dangerously low. He was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for three days.

After more than two years and over a million deaths in the U.S., the virus is still killing an average of 353 people a day here, according to the CDC. The unvaccinated are at far greater risk, more than twice as likely to test positive and nine times as likely to die from the virus as those who have received at least a primary dose of the vaccines, according to the health agency.

The highly transmissible omicron variant is the dominant strain in the U.S., but scientists say it poses a lower risk for severe illness to those who are up to date on their vaccinations. Omicron’s BA.5 sub-strain, believed to be even more contagious, now makes up more than 65% of U.S. cases.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

(fair use applies)

Biden Tests Positive: Is It Still A Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated?
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Jul 21, 2022 - 06:33 PM

Update (1400ET): President Biden has tweeted a short clip to remind everyone he is "double vaccinated and double boosted" and to tell Americans to "keep the faith"?

An update from me: pic.twitter.com/L2oCR0uUTu​

​

— President Biden (@POTUS) July 21, 2022​

As Techno Fog notes via The Reactionary, the whole thing has reached the point of absurdity. As we noted below, Biden said in July 2021 that if you're vaccinated, "You're not going to get Covid."

July 2021: Joe Biden: “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.”​

​

July 2022: Joe Biden tests positive for Covid.pic.twitter.com/y4UjRcyGd0​

​

— James Melville (@JamesMelville) July 21, 2022​

That guarantee from Biden was significant. After that statement, there was a multi-pronged effort to scapegoat the continuation of the “pandemic” on the unvaccinated. Dr. Fauci blamed the unvaccinated for “propagating” the latest outbreak, saying we need to “do something to get them to be vaccinated.”

That term do something suggested action. State governments and cities began issuing their own vaccination requirements. New York City led the way, requiring “proof of at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine for a variety of activities for workers and customers — indoor dining, gyms and performances — to put pressure on people to get vaccinated.”

The media called for more extreme measures, demanding Biden institute a “no-fly list for unvaccinated adults.”
They called for mandates. They begged for the federal government to raise “the costs of remaining unvaccinated.”
Thankfully, they didn’t get much of what they asked for. COVID-19 cases are rising in many of the most vaccinated states, including California. The mandates and the vaccines haven’t stopped the spread.

As to Biden’s current COVID-19 diagnosis?

At least it isn’t cancer. The remarkable thing about Biden’s purported cancer “gaffe” - apart from (incorrectly?) saying he has cancer - is that he didn’t notice he said he has cancer. A normal mind might correct itself after making such a seismic error. Biden didn’t comprehend the significance of his statement. He just continued mumbling along, reading words off a screen as fast as he could before getting out of that riverfront hellscape.

President Biden just said he has cancer.​

​

Is it true?​

​

Or is the Commander in Chief confused?​

​

Who knows!! pic.twitter.com/OyrPXCYrd2​

​

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 20, 2022​

​

* * *

Despite being double-vaccinated and double-boosted (and despite having promised Americans exactly a year ago that if you take the vaccines you won't get COVID), The White House is reporting that 79-year-old President Biden has tested positive for COVID-19 this morning.

Statement from Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre (emphasis ... ours)

This morning, President Biden tested positive for COVID-19. He is fully vaccinated and twice boosted and experiencing very mild symptoms.​

​

He has begun taking Paxlovid.​

​

Consistent with CDC guidelines, he will isolate at the White House and will continue to carry out all of his duties fully during that time. He has been in contact with members of the White House staff by phone this morning, and will participate in his planned meetings at the White House this morning via phone and Zoom from the residence.​

​

Consistent with White House protocol for positive COVID cases, which goes above and beyond CDC guidance, he will continue to work in isolation until he tests negative. Once he tests negative, he will return to in-person work.​

Out of an abundance of transparency, the White House will provide a daily update on the Presidents status as he continues to carry out the full duties of the office while in isolation.​

​

Per standard protocol for any positive case at the White House, the White House Medical Unit will inform all close contacts of the President during the day today, including any Members of Congress and any members of the press who interacted with the President during yesterday’s travel.​

​

The President’s last previous test for COVID was Tuesday, when he had a negative test result.​

​

The President's Doctor sent a clarifying note to The White House Press Secretary.



We are sure he will 'say the line'...



We wonder what she's thinking...



It's been quite a month for the president: falls off bike, fist-bumps MbS, lies about cancer, gets COVID, and hits new record low approval rating.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

The US President Finally Gets Covid ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Despite every mandate, closure, and imposition – despite the destruction of rights, liberties, and law – the virus would have its way.

brownstone.org

(fair use applies)

The US President Finally Gets Covid
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
July 21, 2022

The political hierarchy of infectious disease has finally come full circle. Biden got Covid.

Covid pandemic policies have always been driven by class bias. Right from the outset, governments divided people by essential and nonessential, and medical services by elective and nonelective. How all this came to be, and so suddenly, cries out for explanation. But the effect was undeniable.

By design, the working classes faced the pathogen first while the professional classes had the technological wherewithal and income stream to enable them to hide in their houses. They congratulated themselves for staying safe, daring to open their doors only to grab boxes of groceries dropped off by their lessers.

We don’t have to believe it was a plot. It’s just a class bias. Some people imagine themselves to be more valuable than others, more worthy of remaining clean. Under some epidemiological conditions, this strategy can work for the ruling classes. Let the workers and peasants bear the burden. Their immunity can drive endemicity while keeping their betters safe.

It’s a massive and egregious violation of the social contract, a habit decried in literature from the Bible to Edgar Allan Poe. But it happened nonetheless. It so happened, however, that this particular pathogen made up in prevalence what it lacked in severity. As the lockdowns prolonged the pandemic, the mutations began and the threshold for herd immunity rose ever higher.

At some point, it became obvious: everyone would get it. The stay-home-stay-safe crowd failed in their mission to foist the virus on everyone but themselves.

It took two years but it finally caught up to them. Even the masked. Even the vaccinated. Even the professional classes. Even the ruling classes. Even the president. And with the one little news release that he finally caught Covid, despite every precaution and being quadruple-jabbed, the hope that some could impose the bug on others completely collapsed.

But with that announcement, other myths came crumbling down. No, the vaccine would not protect against infection. No, the masks will not stop the germ. No, this is not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” as the egregious slogan of last year would have it. None of it was true.

Despite trillions of spending, massive economic destruction, two years of lost education, the demolition of arts, the censorship of media, and the demonization of non-compliers, in the end, even the world’s most powerful man would get hit with Covid. The caste system failed.

Biden will also earn immunity, same as hundreds of millions of others. It’s the way pandemics like this end, not with tricks and lockdowns and jabs and closures but rather the same way it has always been: through exposure, recovery, and the remarkable capacity of the immune system to scale.

There is a proviso here, however: so long as the functioning of Biden’s immune system has not been degraded and disabled by four successive and identical shots.

The mistakes, the lies, the outrages of the policy response to this pandemic will go down in history as perhaps the greatest and largest public-health disaster in history. It’s somehow fitting that hardly anyone responsible has yet to admit it. On the contrary, people like Deborah Birx brag about what she did.

Whatever happened to the track-and-trace efforts of the CDC and every state government? Remember those days? They actually believed that you could hire tens of thousands of people to make phone calls to those who tested positive, find out the people with whom they interacted, and make a determination about the trajectory of the nasty thing. It was always delusional, truly.

It was all part of the fantasy that power was capable of mastering this bug. It never was and yet they kept trying. That was the whole point of the CDC’s rule that one should isolate until one tests negative. It’s preposterous. And yet that is the first point that the White House made when announcing that Biden finally got it. He is isolating. Why precisely? To keep from spreading the bug. We are still flattening the curve, one supposes, even after two and a half years.

But there’s more. A reporter asked the often-incoherent presidential spokesperson how the president picked up Covid. Karine Jean-Pierre said: “I don’t think that that matters.”


Oh really? It just doesn’t matter. That surely comes as news to many who were forced into isolation on mere exposure for the last two years. How many classroom hours have been missed? How much worker productivity lost? How much has privacy been compromised in the enforcement of this bogus “track-and-trace” system that we are now told doesn’t matter?

Oddly, on this point, she is right. It was all a delusion. And so much for the countless “studies” out there that pretended to trace Covid spread to “super-spreader” events, school, bars and restaurants, and motorcycle clubs. It was as preposterous as it was destructive.

Now we are told by the spokesperson that none of it matters.

And what about all the “precautions” he took?

“The fact that he contracted the virus despite all these precautions speaks to how contagious emerging variants are,” writes the Washington Post’s Leana Wen, “and how difficult, if not impossible, avoiding covid-19 has become.”

That has been true from day one.

Despite every mandate, closure, and imposition – despite the destruction of rights, liberties, and law – the virus would have its way. No class would be protected. No profession was immune. No amount of power or pomp would make a difference. Covid would come for everyone.

One might think this would be a moment for some humility on the part of people who destroyed all principles of public health – shattering the lives of billions – to conduct a global experiment in despotism. Sadly, no. It’s the opposite. Instead of humble pie, they are eating paxlovid.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIFSvnB1WlQ
Adverse events in 5 to 11 year olds
13 min 42 sec
Jul 21, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

More children suffered a severe reaction to vaccine than required oxygen therapy https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...BNT162b2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) 20th July 2022 Data on the real-world effectiveness of vaccines against omicron in children METHODS January 21, 2022, through April 8, 2022 Singapore, 5 to 11 years N= 255,936 children Fully vaccinated, 67.7% (173, 268) Partially vaccinated, 12% (30,712) Unvaccinated, 20.3% (51,995) 16.4 to 17.9 million person-days at risk 53,429 infections 5,342 PCR-confirmed 288 hospitalizations Among hospitalized children Five received supplemental oxygen four of whom, admitted ITU Of these five children One was unvaccinated Two were partially vaccinated Two were fully vaccinated No deaths attributable to Covid-19 Among the children in the unvaccinated group (per 1 million person-days) All reported infections, 3,303 PCR-confirmed infections, 479 Hospitalizations, 30 Among the children in the fully vaccinated group All reported infections, 2,770 PCR-confirmed infections, 112 Hospitalizations, 6.6 Vaccine efficacy against hospitalization Partially vaccinated v unvaccinated children All reported infections, 13.6% PCR-confirmed infections, 24.3% Hospitalizations, 42.3% In fully vaccinated children All reported infections, 36.8% PCR-confirmed infections, 65.3% Hospitalizations, 82.7% Vaccine effectiveness against all confirmed infections Fully vaccinated v unvaccinated group At times after 2nd dose of vaccine 7 to 14 days, 48.9 % 15 to 29 days, 37.6% 30 to 59 days, 28.5% 60 days or more, 25.6% CONCLUSIONS During a period when the omicron variant was predominant, BNT162b2 vaccination reduced the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19–related hospitalization among children 5 to 11 years of age. these findings suggest greater vaccine effectiveness against higher levels of disease severity, The results of this study may provide insights to enable decision makers to weigh the benefits against the potential risks of vaccination of children. In Singapore, 22 serious adverse events after vaccination (0.005% of all doses administered) 0.05 in 1,000 0.5 in 10,000 5 in 100,000 among children 5 to 11

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qz898lm4g0
4 Main Predictors of Long COVID (Study)
31 min 50 sec
Streamed live 4 hours ago
Drbeen Medical Lectures

Researchers Find The Predictors of Long COVID
Researchers from the University of Southern California have reported the predictors of the long COVID. Let's review. Heads-up the data is for the pre-omicron time.
URL list from Thursday, Jul. 21 2022
Long COVID and symptom trajectory in a representative sample of Americans in the first year of the pandemic | Scientific Reports

https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159

...
Long COVID and symptom trajectory in a representative sample of Americans in the first year of the pandemic

https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159

...
Jul 21, 2022 at 4:57 PM
Study Finds That 1 in 5 Adults Who Have Had COVID-19 Develop Long COVID

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/st

...

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WJQbAW7WD8
Novavax Explained Clearly
35 min 01 sec
Jul 21, 2022
MedCram - Medical Lectures Explained CLEARLY

Roger Seheult, MD of MedCram explains the Novavax vaccine manufacturing process, and examines the efficacy. See all Dr. Seheult's videos at: MedCram - Medical Lectures Explained Clearly
(This video was recorded on July 21, 2022)

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

New clinical symptoms identified in largest international case series of confirmed monkeypox cases

A case series which is the result of an international collaboration across 16 countries is published today (21 July 2022) in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The study identifies new clinical symptoms of monkeypox infection, which will aid future diagnosis and help to slow the spread...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

New clinical symptoms identified in largest international case series of confirmed monkeypox cases
by Sophia Prout, Queen Mary, University of London
July 21, 2022

A case series which is the result of an international collaboration across 16 countries is published today (21 July 2022) in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The study identifies new clinical symptoms of monkeypox infection, which will aid future diagnosis and help to slow the spread of infection. It was carried out in response to the emerging global health threat and is the largest case series to date, reporting on 528 confirmed infections at 43 sites between 27 April and 24 June 2022.

The current spread of the virus disproportionately affects gay and bisexual men, with 98% of infected persons from this group. Although sexual closeness is the most likely route of transmission in most of these cases, researchers stress that the virus can be transmitted by any close physical contact through large respiratory droplets and potentially through clothing and other surfaces.

There is a global shortage of both vaccines and treatments for human monkeypox infection. The findings of this study, including the identification of those most at risk of infection, will help to aid the global response to the virus. Public health interventions aimed at the high-risk group could help to detect and slow the spread of the virus. Recognizing the disease, contact tracing and advising people to isolate will be key components of the public health response.

Many of the infected individuals reviewed in the study presented with symptoms not recognized in current medical definitions of monkeypox. These symptoms include single genital lesions and sores on the mouth or anus. The clinical symptoms are similar to those of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and can easily lead to misdiagnosis. In some people, anal and oral symptoms have led to people being admitted to hospital for management of pain and difficulties swallowing. This is why it's so important that these new clinical symptoms be recognized and healthcare professionals be educated on how to identify and manage the disease—misdiagnosis can slow detection and thus hinder efforts to control the spread of the virus. The study will therefore lead to increased rates of diagnosis when persons from at-risk groups present with traditional STI symptoms.

Public health measures—such as enhanced testing and education—should be developed and implemented working with at-risk groups to ensure that they are appropriate, non-stigmatizing, and to avoid messaging that could drive the outbreak underground.

Chloe Orkin, Professor of HIV Medicine at Queen Mary University of London and Director of the SHARE collaborative, said, "Viruses know no borders and monkey pox infections have now been described in 70 countries and in more than 13,000 people. This truly global case series has enabled doctors from 16 countries to share their extensive clinical experience and many clinical photographs to help other doctors in places with fewer cases. We have shown that the current international case definitions need to be expanded to add symptoms that are not currently included, such as sores in the mouth, on the anal mucosa and single ulcers. These particular symptoms can be severe and have led to hospital admissions so it is important to make a diagnosis. Expanding the case definition will help doctors more easily recognize the infection and so prevent people from passing it on. Given the global constraints on vaccine and anti-viral supply for this chronically underfunded, neglected tropical infection, prevention remains a key tool in limiting the global spread of human monkeypox infection."

Dr. John Thornhill, Consultant Physician in Sexual Health and HIV and Clinical Senior Lecturer at Barts NHS Health Trust and Queen Mary University of London, said, "It is important to stress that monkeypox is not a sexually transmitted infection in the traditional sense; it can be acquired through any kind of close physical contact. However, our work suggests that most transmissions so far have been related to sexual activity—mainly, but not exclusively, amongst men who have sex with men. This research study increases our understanding of the ways it is spread and the groups in which it is spreading which will aid rapid identification of new cases and allow us to offer prevention strategies, such as vaccines, to those individuals at higher risk.

"In addition, we identified new clinical presentations in people with monkeypox. While we expected various skin problems and rashes, we also found that one in ten people had only a single skin lesion in the genital area, and 15% had anal and/or rectal pain. These different presentations highlight that monkeypox infections could be missed or easily confused with common sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or herpes. We therefore suggest broadening the current case definitions.

"We have also found monkeypox virus in a large proportion of the semen samples tested from people with monkeypox. However, this may be incidental as we do not know that it is present at a high enough levels to facilitate sexual transmission. More work is needed to understand this better."

Keletso Makofane, MPH, Ph.D., Health and Human Rights Fellow at Harvard University, said, "Wherever the monkeypox virus has shown up, it has tested the ability of our public health systems to respond decisively and urgently during an emergency. It is gratifying to be part of a collective which has worked furiously to gather and share information with each other and with the global public health community."

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Demonstration of a potent, universal coronavirus monoclonal antibody therapy for all COVID-19 variants

The SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 has killed 6.3 million people worldwide since 2019, painfully highlighting the vulnerability of humanity to novel coronaviruses.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Demonstration of a potent, universal coronavirus monoclonal antibody therapy for all COVID-19 variants
by Jeff Hansen, University of Alabama at Birmingham
July 21, 2022



Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 S2-specific human monoclonal antibodies (hmAbs). (A) Schematic representation of the S2-STBL and S1/S2 chimera proteins used as baits for ELISA and flow cytometry. (B) Human plasma from either convalescent or healthy subjects was diluted 1:1000 in PBS and tested in duplicate in an ELISA against indicated proteins; Absorbance at 450 nM is shown. Each row is an individual subject. (C) Representative gating strategy for S2+ B cell isolation. Initial plots are gated on live CD3−CD4−CD14-annexinV-CD19+CD27+ B cells. (D) hmAbs were tested at 10 and 1 μg/ml in duplicate by ELISA for binding to indicated protein; area under the curve (AUC) is indicated. Credit: PLOS Pathogens (2022). DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010691

The SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 has killed 6.3 million people worldwide since 2019, painfully highlighting the vulnerability of humanity to novel coronaviruses.

Researchers discovered a neutralizing monoclonal antibody that potentially acts as a potent universal coronavirus therapy against SARS-CoV-2 and all its variants of concern, including beta, gamma, delta, epsilon and omicron. It also shows effectiveness against the deadly previous coronaviruses SARS-CoV, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome that emerged in China in 2002, and MERS-CoV, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome that appeared in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It even shows effectiveness against several common cold coronaviruses.

This universal activity against all beta-coronaviruses results from a monoclonal antibody targeting the S2 stalk region of the viral spike (S) protein that is highly conserved among beta-coronaviruses, yet is also essential for the virus to attach and enter cells, leading to infection.

In animal experiments, the monoclonal antibody protected against infections when given as an intraperitoneal injection or a nasal dose. The study is published in the journal PLOS Pathogens by co-senior authors James J. Kobie, Ph.D., and Mark R. Walter, Ph.D., of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Luis Martinez-Sobrido, Ph.D., of the Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas.

The monoclonal antibody, and another monoclonal antibody discovered earlier by the researchers, are being developed as a therapeutic cocktail for COVID-19 under license to Aridis Pharmaceuticals, a California biopharmaceutical company.

The overall goal of researchers at UAB, Texas Biomedical Research Institute and Aridis is to find antibodies that do not permit immune escape by mutated variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This includes omicron and any future variants of concern. It is hoped that identifying and studying such antibodies can lead to the development of vaccines that protect from all coronaviruses.

"SARS-CoV-2 marks the third time in the last two decades a beta-coronavirus has caused significant mortality in humans," Kobie said. "SARS-CoV-2 has caused the most infections and deaths worldwide. New variants pose the risk of evading the immune system—even in vaccinated and previously infected individuals—and there remains the potential for other genetically distinct coronaviruses to emerge as new pandemic strains in the future."

"For these reasons, finding new therapeutic and prophylactic drugs and vaccine strategies that have universal activity against the coronavirus is essential for protecting humanity against the current and future beta-coronavirus outbreaks or pandemics."

Vaccines and other monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 have largely focused on the receptor-binding domain, or the RBD, located at the heads of the S viral protein spike that projects from the surface of the virus. Each virus has 24 to 40 spikes. The RBD is very good at eliciting an immune response, but that portion of the S permits many mutations that can let the virus escape antibodies.

One key in the present research was finding an antibody target on a part of the spike called the S2, or the stalk region. This region is highly conserved and only rarely mutates because that would disrupt its essential function. After the RBD at the head of the S attaches the coronavirus to a receptor molecule on the surface of a target cell, the S2 stalk acts to bring the virus inside the target cell. There the virus replicates, killing the cell and releasing a hoard of new, infectious virions.

The hunt for useful antibodies began with screening blood samples from adult convalescent patients at UAB Hospital through the UAB COVID Enterprise Biorepository led by Paul Goepfert, M.D., and Nathaniel Erdmann, M.D., Ph.D., UAB Division of Infectious Diseases. Memory B cells in the blood that bound to custom S2 protein baits, developed by Walter to mimic the natural state of the S2 domain of spike, were used to create a panel of unique cells able to produce human monoclonal antibodies, or hmAbs, which then could be screened for effectiveness against the virus. Memory cells targeting S2 are scarce because the RBD is immunodominant; its several antigenic sites account for 90 percent of the neutralizing activity of convalescent plasma.

Seventeen hmAbs showed binding to the S2 protein. Only four of these were able to neutralize a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus and a live SARS-CoV-2, including the beta and omicron variants.

The top performer, the 1249A8 hmAb, had the broadest and most potent neutralizing activity, against strains that included the original Wuhan, China, SARS-CoV-2; the beta, gamma, delta, epsilon and omicron variants; the SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV; and two common cold viruses.

The hmAb protected mice from SARS-CoV-2 illness, as measured by maintenance of body weight and clearance of virus from mouse lungs four days after infection. Furthermore, the 1249A8 hmAb showed synergism when used in combination with 1213H7, another hmAb discovered by the researchers. 1213H7 is active against the RBD of the viral S glycoprotein.

In collaboration with Aridis, which specializes in the respiratory delivery of monoclonal antibodies to treat infections, the researchers had previously demonstrated that direct respiratory delivery of a SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific 1213H7 hmAb enables substantial dose-sparing therapeutic activity in hamsters. The researchers thus evaluated this delivery mechanism for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV with the S2-specific 1249A8 hmAb and the 1213H7 hmAb.

The 1249A8, 1213H7 cocktail—given as a nasal dose, 12 hours after infections with SARS-CoV-2 delta or the first SARS-CoV isolated in 2002—had broad therapeutic activity in hamsters.

"These results indicate in vivo cooperativity between S1- and S2-specific neutralizing hmAbs and that potent universal coronavirus neutralizing mAbs with therapeutic potential can be induced in humans and can guide universal coronavirus vaccine development," Kobie said.

"Numerous SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific hmAbs have been approved for clinical use. Unfortunately, several have become irrelevant with their inability to neutralize variants of concern, including the most recent omicron, highlighting the perilous future of RBD-only based mAb therapeutics against coronaviruses."

Aridis is using the two hmAbs in its AR-701 cocktail designed for inhaled delivery. AR-701 is engineered for long-acting effectiveness, potentially lasting a year or more when used in humans.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Study suggests SARS-CoV-2 virus enters the brain by using cells in the nose to make nanotube tunnels

A team of researchers at Institut Pasteur reports evidence that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus is able to enter the brain by using nose cells to make nanotube tunnels. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, the group describes their study of the virus behavior when infecting...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Study suggests SARS-CoV-2 virus enters the brain by using cells in the nose to make nanotube tunnels
by Bob Yirka, Medical Xpress
July 21, 2022

A team of researchers at Institut Pasteur reports evidence that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus is able to enter the brain by using nose cells to make nanotube tunnels. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, the group describes their study of the virus behavior when infecting certain types of cells and using high-powered microscopes to study its movement.

Throughout the course of the pandemic, doctors and patients have been reporting symptoms of confusion and brain fog, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is able to enter and infect the brain. But until now, there was little evidence of how it was doing so. Prior research showed that in nerve cells, the virus was not able to use the ACE2 receptor that underlies nose, mouth and other cell infections, making it difficult to understand how it could reach the brain. In this new effort, the researchers believe they may have found the answer—the virus builds nanotube tunnels from cells that do have the ACE2 receptors to use as a conduit to the brain.

In their work, the researchers studied the behavior of two kinds of cells in a dish in their lab—SH-SY5Y, which are similar to cells in the brain, and Vero E6, which are similar to cells that line the nose and other surfaces that are easily infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They found that the virus had a difficult time infecting the SH-SY5Y cells, but were able to make their way to the brain cells nonetheless. That led the researchers to take a closer look using an electron microscope. They found that the virus was using the Vero E6 cells to create nanotubes. And because they were made from Vero E6 cells, the virus was able to infect its way through the nanotube tunnels all the way to the brain cells due to the presence of the ACE2 receptors.

Scientists have known about biological nanotubes for some time—they have been seen transporting structures between cells under some conditions and sometimes viral particles. Much more work is required to confirm the findings, starting with testing cells in a more true-to-life scenario. If the findings are confirmed, the researchers suggest that therapies can be developed that prevent formation of the nanotubes, stopping the virus from infecting the brain.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

New clues help explain why the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant is so transmissible

A team of researchers with members from the Gladstone Institute and Curative Inc. has uncovered new attributes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant that could explain why it is so much more transmissible than other variants of the virus. In their study, published in Proceedings of the National...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

New clues help explain why the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant is so transmissible
by Bob Yirka, Medical Xpress
July 21, 2022



Antiserum neutralization of VLPs generated with different S genes. (A–D) Fifty percent neutralization titers of sera isolated from individuals vaccinated using Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines or from convalescent COVID-19 patients. Neutralization curves were determined using VLPs with either S-B.1, S-Delta, or S-Omicron. (E–H) Neutralization titers of sera collected before and after third dose vaccination from individuals receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001 evaluated using Friedman’s exact test for repeated measures. ns, not statistically significant. Credit: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2200592119

A team of researchers with members from the Gladstone Institute and Curative Inc. has uncovered new attributes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant that could explain why it is so much more transmissible than other variants of the virus. In their study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group used virus-like particles (VLPs) to study the assembly and neutralization capabilities of the omicron variant.

As the pandemic has worn on, scientists discovered that, as expected, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has mutated into several variants. Prior research has suggested that some of the variants make people sicker than others and also that some of the variants are more transmissible—they infect people more easily, allowing more people to become infected in a shorter amount of time. One such variant, omicron, was found to be particularly transmissible, and in this new effort the researchers aim to know why.

To learn more about the unique transmissibility features of the omicron variant, the researchers studied VLPs instead of the virus itself due to safety concerns. In their study, they analyzed attributes of four VLP models of four notable SARS-CoV-2 variants: omicron, delta, B.1.1 and B.1. All were tested against antisera samples obtained from infected patients. They found that antisera from patients was approximately 15 times less effective against omicron as B.1, the original strain, even though the neutralizing effect of two vaccines increased. And in taking a closer look at the N mutation that makes omicron different from other strains, the researchers found it allowed the virus to enter host cells more easily and also gave it a four-and-a-half-fold higher assembly. They suggest that omicron is more transmissible due to several factors—its efficient assembly, its cell entry efficiency and its antibody-neutralizing abilities.

The researchers also assessed the efficacy of the four main types of monoclonal antibody therapies used to treat infected patients, and found that only one worked well against omicron—bebtelovimab.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

A novel COVID-19 vaccine using modified bacterial DNA

Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, with colleagues elsewhere, describe a different way to build a COVID-19 vaccine, one that would, in theory, remain effective against new and emerging variants and could be taken as a pill, by inhalation or other delivery methods.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

A novel COVID-19 vaccine using modified bacterial DNA
by University of California - San Diego
July 21, 2022



A visualization of the immune engineering process, from structure selection to authentic virus neutralization. Upper left: Analysis of interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and the ACE2 receptor revealed numerous contact residues along the receptor binding motif (RBM) ridgeline. Upper right: Focus was placed on residues comprising the FNCY patch, a conserved site on the RBM that is key to virus binding. Structure-selected residues (epitopes) are cloned and plasmid DNA encoded, with the result injected into the spleens of mice Lower left: The result was synthesis of the introduced molecules and activation of B cell immunity. Lower right: With booster, primary and memory immune response generated neutralizing antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and three variants: Beta, Delta and Omicron. Credit: UC San Diego Health Sciences

Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, with colleagues elsewhere, describe a different way to build a COVID-19 vaccine, one that would, in theory, remain effective against new and emerging variants and could be taken as a pill, by inhalation or other delivery methods.

Their findings publish in the July 21, 2022 online issue of PLOS Pathogens.

The research involved building plasmids genetically altered to contain bits of genetic material specifically intended to target a vulnerability in the SARS-CoV-2 virus's spike protein, a portion of the virus critical to binding and infecting cells. Plasmids are small, circular DNA molecules from bacteria that are physically separate from chromosomal DNA and can replicate independently. They can be used by scientists to transfer genetic material from one cell to another, after which the introduced genetic material can replicate in the receiving cell.

The approach, said senior author Maurizio Zanetti, MD, professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine and head of the Laboratory of Immunology at UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, points to the possibility of a more durable, and more broadly effective, COVID-19 vaccine.

"The details are complicated, but the fundamentals are simple," said Zanetti. "They are based on well-known and proven principles and methods."

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, such as those by Pfizer and Moderna, are the result of decades of previous research and development. The pandemic added new urgency, focus and resources. These vaccines promised a faster way to people, though not without significant challenges, such as the need of an ultralow temperature cold chain.

The resulting mRNA vaccines have fundamentally altered the course of the pandemic, dramatically mitigating the severity of disease, hospitalizations and deaths. But notably, said Zanetti, they do little at blocking transmission of the virus. Case rates still rise and fall with the emergence of viral variants.

"The goal at the beginning wasn't to stop the disease," said Zanetti. "It was to mitigate the consequences, to reduce COVID's severity and outcomes. The vaccines have done that. Vaccinated persons tend not to get as sick. They don't require hospitalization as often. Death rates are down. All of this has greatly reduced pressures on health systems and society, which is a good thing."

But the ever-evolving nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has revealed that the vaccines' efficacy varies, depending upon variant, often diminishing. The alpha variant, for example, proved more contagious than the "wild-type" strain that originated in Wuhan, China. The delta variant was more transmissible than alpha and omicron more than delta. Though the vaccines continue to provide substantial protection against severe disease, the antibodies they induce are consistently less powerful at neutralizing the virus, thus the increased transmission. SARS-CoV-2 continues to be an unrelenting global public health threat.

Zanetti said the newest work emphasizes "quality over quantity," seeking the induction of antibodies preferentially blocking virus binding to its cell receptor and transmission. This results in a more focused antibody response with the vaccine.

"In the early days of COVID vaccine development, it was about generating a broad, robust immune response," Zanetti said. "But it was a scattered approach. The vaccines response targeted many epitopes (parts of the virus that the host's immune system recognizes) and it resulted in an immune response that was largely noise. Most of the resulting antibodies produced didn't affect the virus's ability to infect."

"The new research narrows the focus to a part of the viral spike specifically involved in the virus's ability to infect that appears to be evolutionarily conserved," said co-senior author Aaron F. Carlin, MD, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health at UC San Diego Health. In other words, the site doesn't change with new variants, and represents a persisting site of vulnerability and a reliable vaccine target.

How it works

Zanetti and colleagues built plasmids containing immunogens—molecules that cause B lymphocytes to create antibodies—that were specifically designed to display a knob of the spike protein that is part of the receptor binding motif or RBM. Specifically, these were amino acid residues that act like keys to unlock the cell door. The keys and lock don't change.

B lymphocytes are part of the immune system. They are prodigious producers of antibodies created to respond and protect against specific antigens or unwanted substances in the body, such as viruses. The average B lymphocyte can spit out 1,000 antibody molecules per second, an incredibly robust production if it is the right antibody for the job.

Zanetti and colleagues cloned the selected spike protein amino acids into a plasmid DNA so that, when injected into the spleen of mice, the introduced immunogen molecules would provoke the production of neutralizing antibodies specifically tuned to the targeted nob on the RBM of the virus protein spike. The researchers then tested their approach on mice with variants of the original SARS-CoV-2 strain (beta, delta and omicron) and found that the immune response was similar across all variants.

"We were a bit lucky in picking our target on the spike," said Zanetti, "though it was also the result of experience and intuition. I've been doing this for 30 years. Earlier experiments by others had suggested this might be a 'supersite.' I followed my instincts."

Zanetti said translating these findings into a vaccine suitable for clinical trials will be "an uphill battle." There is much invested in current approaches, and it's a considerable leap from mouse studies to human clinical trials.

But the promise of a consistently effective and easy to administer vaccine is irresistible.

"DNA is very stable. The new ideas for delivery include a pill that survives the digestive system and releases the plasmid DNA to be picked up by B lymphocytes that seem to possess an ancestral property for taking up plasmid DNA. Alternatively, the DNA can be formulated for delivery to the upper airways by suitable formulation for inhalation. Many other researchers and I have investigated and pursued this basic idea before in other ways. It's time to try it with COVID."

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Researchers develop antiviral face mask that can capture, deactivate SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on contact

A team of University of Kentucky researchers led by College of Engineering Professor Dibakar Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., and his Ph.D. student, Rollie Mills, have developed a medical face mask membrane that can capture and deactivate the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on contact.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Researchers develop antiviral face mask that can capture, deactivate SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on contact
by University of Kentucky
July 21, 2022



(a) full thickness cross-section of PVDF400 and (b) PVDF-only layer cross-section. Surface of (c) PVDF layer and (d) polyester support layer. SEM images of N95 layers (e) 1, (f) 2, (g) 3, and (h) 4. In mask orientation, layer 1 is exposed to the open environment and layer 4 is exposed to the inside of the mask. Layer 3 is referred to as the “separating” layer, as it had the highest flow resistance. Credit: University of Kentucky

A team of University of Kentucky researchers led by College of Engineering Professor Dibakar Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., and his Ph.D. student, Rollie Mills, have developed a medical face mask membrane that can capture and deactivate the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on contact.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Bhattacharyya, known to friends and colleagues as "DB," along with collaborators across disciplines at UK set out to create the material. Their work was published in Communications Materials on May 24.

SARS-CoV-2 is covered in spike proteins, which allow the virus to enter host cells once in the body. The team developed a membrane that includes proteolytic enzymes that attach to the protein spikes and deactivates them.

"This new material can filter out the virus like the N95 mask does, but also includes antiviral enzymes that completely deactivate it. This innovation is another layer of protection against SARS-CoV-2 that can help prevent the virus from spreading," said DB, the director of UK's Center of Membrane Sciences. "It's promising to the development new products that can protect against SARS-CoV-2 and a number of other human pathogenic viruses."

DB's team included J. Todd Hastings, Ph.D., Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D., and Kevin Baldridge, Ph.D. from the College of Engineering; Yinan Wei, Ph.D., a former professor in the College of Arts and Sciences' Department of Chemistry; and Lou Hersh, Ph.D., in the College of Medicine's Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. College of Engineering doctoral student Rollie Mills (NSF Graduate Fellow and first author of the article), and undergraduate students Ronald Vogler, Matthew Bernard and Jacob Concolino contributed extensively to the project.

The team developed the membrane, which was fabricated through an existing collaboration with a large-scale membrane manufacturer. It was then tested using SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins that were immobilized on synthetic particles. Not only could the material filter out coronavirus-sized aerosols, but it was also able to destroy the spike proteins within 30 seconds of contact.

The study reports that the membrane provided a protection factor above the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's standard for N95 masks, meaning that it could filter at least 95% of airborne particles.

"These membranes have been proven to be a promising system of advancement toward the new generation of respiratory face masks and enclosed-environment filters that can significantly reduce coronavirus transmission by virus protein deactivation and enhanced aerosol particle capture," the study reports.

The new membrane builds upon the center's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and NSF-funded activities, which have developed various functionalized membranes for environmental remediation. In contrast to passive membranes, functionalized membranes provide additional benefits by interacting with undesired particles like viruses through selective binding or deactivation.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Protective T cells remain 20 months after COVID

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop protective immune responses, mediated by virus-specific T cells and antibodies, shortly after the infection. There is concern, however, that immunity does not persist over time, which may translate into severe COVID-19 upon re-infection.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Protective T cells remain 20 months after COVID
by University of Gothenburg
July 21, 2022



Th1 cells remain active against SARS-CoV-2 for at least 20 months after infection. Credit: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2203659119

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop protective immune responses, mediated by virus-specific T cells and antibodies, shortly after the infection. There is concern, however, that immunity does not persist over time, which may translate into severe COVID-19 upon re-infection.

In the July 12 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Anna Martner and co-authors at University of Gothenburg report two main findings. First, several variants of virus-specific T cells became detectable in blood shortly after COVID-19, but strikingly disappeared after 10 to 12 weeks.

However, a group of highly specialized T cells, designed to facilitate elimination of infected cells, remained active in the blood of all previously SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. These T cells did not disappear or wane even at long follow-up.

The findings may explain the reduced risk of severe disease and mortality among patients who have become re-infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists at the University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital collected 81 blood samples from hospital staff members who had contracted mild COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic and uninfected controls. The researchers studied T cell reactivity to an inner part of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus nucleocapsid) thus capturing T cell responses that only occur after a natural infection.

The blood samples were exposed to more than 100 peptides from the nucleocapsid portion of SARS-CoV-2 virus. The researchers then analyzed which T cell mediators (cytokines) were produced by blood cells to determine the longevity of T cell reactivity after the infection.

It was observed that a subgroup of specialized T cells (Th1 cells) that promote destruction of virus-infected cells were active for at least 20 months after natural COVID-19. The infected patients also harbored several other types of T cells that reacted with SARS-CoV-2. These latter T cells disappeared from blood approximately two months after recovery from infection.

"While certain subsets of T cells disappear shortly after infection, highly specialized T cells (T helper 1 cells) remain stably present in blood to suggest that a vital aspect of protective immunity is functional years after COVID-19," says Anna Martner, Associate Professor of immunology at the Sahlgrenska Academy. These results may explain why re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 only rarely translates into severe COVID-19.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

COVID shield: First-of-its-kind sprayable coating to protect surfaces from viruses, bacteria

A first-of-its-kind sprayable coating that can prevent the surface spread of infection from bacteria and viruses, including COVID-19, over a sustained period has been developed by a team of Australian researchers.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

COVID shield: First-of-its-kind sprayable coating to protect surfaces from viruses, bacteria
by University of Melbourne
July 21, 2022

A first-of-its-kind sprayable coating that can prevent the surface spread of infection from bacteria and viruses, including COVID-19, over a sustained period has been developed by a team of Australian researchers.

Described in the journal Advanced Science, the spray works two ways: repelling viruses and bacteria through an air-filled barrier, and killing pathogens through microscopic materials if the layer becomes damaged or submerged for extended periods.

The spray uses a combination of plastics strong enough to be considered an alternative to bullet-proof glass.

The coating provides a reliable alternative to standard disinfectants, which are becoming less effective and require regular reapplication, and is the only permanent surface layer proven to protect surfaces from contamination by viruses.

It is safer than existing alternatives to disinfectant, with no harmful side effects and more stable potency—unlike the next most promising non-disinfectant agent that kills bacteria, silver nanoparticles.

The authors said the coating could be applied to surfaces in public settings such as lift buttons, stair rails, surfaces in hospitals, nursing homes, schools and restaurants, to prevent the spread of common viruses and bacteria.

Co-lead author University of Sydney's School of Biomedical Engineering, Professor Antonio Tricoli said the spread of viral and bacterial pathogens through contact with surfaces is a leading cause of infection worldwide.

Surface contamination also plays a major role in the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.

"Without a barrier, viruses such as coronaviruses can stay on surfaces and remain infectious for up to a week," Professor Tricoli said. "Other viruses such as reoviruses, which can cause colds or diarrhea, for instance, can remain on surfaces for several weeks, causing large outbreaks in health and aged care facilities

"Like a lotus leaf, the surface spray creates a coating that repels water. Because the pathogens like to be in water, they remain trapped in the droplets and the surface is protected from contamination.

"If this mechanism fails, a secondary burst of ions is triggered by carefully designed nanomaterials dispersed in the coating."


How the spray works. Credit: University of Sydney, University of Melbourne

The spray was developed over a five-year collaboration by the multi-university research team and was funded in part by Australian Research Council and NHMRC grants.

The team tested the mechanical stability and surface energy of the coating. They also tested its ability to resist contamination from bacteria and viruses by subjecting it to high concentrations of both.

The samples were submerged for extended periods of time and the sprayed surfaces were deliberately damaged to test the spray's resilience against their contamination.

"We have identified the mechanical processes underpinning how the spray works and quantified its effectiveness in different environments," Professor Nisbet said.

"For this study, we tested metal surfaces. However, in the past we have shown the spray can be applied to any surface, for example, blotting paper, plastic, bricks, tiles, glass and metal.

"Our coating successfully prevented up to 99.85% and 99.94% of the bacteria strain growth. We also saw an 11-fold reduction in virus contamination."

The spray is applied in the same manner as spray paint, although smaller quantities are needed.

"The coating has been engineered through a simple and scalable technique with a careful choice of materials to provide ultra-durability," Professor Nisbet said.

"We also believe our explanation of the mechanism behind the antimicrobial and antiviral effects could significantly advance research in antipathogen technologies that could see affordable manufacture of an effective surface spray to protect people from viruses and bacteria."

The researchers have established a start-up company to progress the technology and make the spray available commercially, potentially within three years.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Maintenance of immunity to COVID after infection or vaccination

A new study has examined the maintenance of memory B cell responses to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, after recovery from natural infection or post-vaccination. The study is published in Viral Immunology.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Maintenance of immunity to COVID after infection or vaccination
by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc
July 21, 2022

A new study has examined the maintenance of memory B cell responses to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, after recovery from natural infection or post-vaccination. The study is published in Viral Immunology.

The study, co-authored by David Fear, from King's College London, and colleagues, showed that among those recovered from natural infection, COVID-19 serologically-positive donors had strong antigen-specific memory B cell-associated responses. Post-vaccination, donors showed robust serological antigen-specific antibody responses against spike protein that waned over time. Memory B cell-associated responses against spike protein were also observed but showed less waning over time.

"This study is of particular relevance at the moment, because with millions vaccinated, previously infected, or both, studies such as this one may tell us how long we might expect the immunity to last," says Rodney S. Russell, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief of Viral Immunology, from Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines offer high protection against severe COVID-19, 6 months after second doses

Protection against severe COVID-19 by two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines remained high up to six months after second doses, finds new research which analysed NHS health record data on over seven million adults. Reassuringly, the University of Bristol-led study...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines offer high protection against severe COVID-19, 6 months after second doses
by University of Bristol
July 21, 2022

Protection against severe COVID-19 by two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines remained high up to six months after second doses, finds new research which analysed NHS health record data on over seven million adults. Reassuringly, the University of Bristol-led study published in The BMJ today, found protection in older adults aged over 65 years, and in clinically vulnerable adults.

Researchers from Bristol Medical School sought to investigate how quickly vaccine effectiveness waned over time in adults without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and who received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccine compared with unvaccinated individuals.

Using linked GP, hospital, and COVID-19 records on 1,951,866 and 3,219,349 adults who had received two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, respectively and 2,422,980 unvaccinated adults, researchers were able to provide a clearer picture of vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission, COVID-19 death, and positiveSARS-CoV-2 test.

Rates of COVID-19 hospital admission and COVID-19 death were substantially lower among vaccinated than unvaccinated adults up to six months after their second dose. Vaccine effectiveness against these events was found to be at least 80 per cent for BNT162b2, and at least 75 per cent for ChAdOx1. However, waning vaccine effectiveness against infection with SARS-CoV-2 meant that rates in vaccinated individuals were similar to or higher than in unvaccinated individuals by six months after the second dose.

Dr. Elsie Horne, Senior Research Associate in Medical Statistics and Health Data Science in Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences (PHS) and the study's lead author, said: "Until now there has been limited and conflicting evidence relating to the rate of waning following second dose of COVID-19 vaccines, whether it extends to severeCOVID-19, and whether the rate differs according to age and clinical vulnerability.

"Although we found that protection against severe COVID-19 provided by two doses of vaccine wanes over time, the very high initial protection means that, despite waning, protection remains high six months after the second dose. This finding was consistent across all adults, including older adults and those who are at risk of severe COVID-19."

Jonathan Sterne, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology in Bristol Medical School: PHS, Director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Bristol BRC), Director of Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) South-West and co-author, added: "We found that the rate at which vaccine effectiveness waned was consistent across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. Studying how long COVID-19 vaccines remain effective continues to be important to scheduling and targeting of booster vaccinations."

The researchers now plan to lead a follow-up study looking at vaccine effectiveness to one year post-second dose and into the era of the Omicron variant. They are also investigating the rate of waning in vulnerable clinical subgroups, such as those with chronic kidney disease and with cancer.

The study was supported by two COVID-19 National Core Studies (NCS) programmes: COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing and COVID-19 Data and Connectivity; Asthma UK; NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) and Wellcome. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure pro bono in the context of a national emergency.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Institute working to accelerate COVID-19 drug development

As part of ongoing efforts to make a live attenuated vaccine for COVID-19, Texas Biomedical Research Institute Professor Luis Martinez-Sobrido and his team developed a weakened, or attenuated, version of SARS-CoV-2 that does not cause illness nor death. Texas Biomed has now received approval...

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Institute working to accelerate COVID-19 drug development
by Texas Biomedical Research Institute
July 21, 2022

As part of ongoing efforts to make a live attenuated vaccine for COVID-19, Texas Biomedical Research Institute Professor Luis Martinez-Sobrido and his team developed a weakened, or attenuated, version of SARS-CoV-2 that does not cause illness nor death. Texas Biomed has now received approval from the National Institutes of Health Office of Science Policy (NIH-OSP) to work with the attenuated virus in its biosafety level (BSL-2) laboratories. Previously, SARS-CoV-2 could only be safely studied in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory, which is much more restrictive, requires more personal protective equipment, and extensive training.

Biosafety levels are ranked 1 to 4, with one being the lowest and 4 being the highest. The levels define the required safety equipment and protocols based on how pathogens are spread and what treatments are available.

"As far as we are aware, we are the first in the nation to receive approval to work with this weakened version of the virus in BSL-2," says Dr. Martinez-Sobrido. "This makes it safer for our researchers to work with the virus and will help us work faster to find antivirals and other treatments for COVID-19, as well as continue working to use this weakened virus as a live attenuated vaccine candidate."

A live attenuated vaccine relies on a weakened version of the virus to stimulate the body's immune system and create antibodies and cell responses against the virus. Live attenuated vaccines are used for influenza, smallpox, chickenpox, yellow fever, and measles, mumps and rubella.

Dr. Martinez-Sobrido and his team made an attenuated SARS-CoV-2 strain that is missing two chunks of its genetic code that would normally make two proteins, using reverse genetics approaches they developed. The virus is still able to survive, but has a very hard time replicating and does not cause serious illness. In two rodent models, golden Syrian hamsters and transgenic mice, the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 would have caused deadly weight loss, but this weakened version does not cause severe weight loss nor death. The attenuated virus was carefully designed and extensively tested, showing it is nearly impossible to evolve and revert back to its original form.

"Our studies show that cutting out these two proteins have essentially crippled the virus so it is still alive, but no longer a threat," says Texas Biomed Staff Scientist and paper first author Chengjin Ye, Ph.D. "This is why we can now safely work with it in the BSL-2 laboratories."

The team plans to use the attenuated virus for further studying the pathogen, developing vaccines and for screening antiviral drugs as part of its collaboration with multiple NIH Antiviral Drug Discovery (AViDD) Centers for Pathogens of Pandemic Concern. For this, the researchers are currently developing fluorescent forms of the attenuated virus to use in the BSL-2 to investigate large, complex libraries of compounds to identify those that affect the virus.

"We and our collaborators can now safely and easily do high-throughput screening of thousands of compounds in the BSL-2, and when we narrow down to a handful of the most promising candidates, then we can test those against the real virus in the BSL-3," Dr. Martinez-Sobrido says. "This will help accelerate the drug discovery process."

Texas Biomed underwent review both internally and externally, before receiving approval to work on the attenuated SARS-CoV-2 in the BSL-2.

"After several rounds of intense Institutional Biosafety Committee reviews, we are convinced that research with attenuated SARS-CoV-2 generated by Dr. Martinez-Sobrido's lab can be safely conducted in BSL-2," says Anthony Wang, Ph.D., director of environmental health and safety at Texas Biomed.

"To ensure everyone's safety, NIH-OSP carefully scrutinizes all requests for Biosafety Level reduction. The rapid turnaround from NIH-OSP in granting the request is a demonstration of the close collaboration between researchers, safety professionals and regulatory entities at Texas Biomed."

The research was published on bioRxiv.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Simultaneous flu vaccine, COVID-19 booster safe

Simultaneous administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster and influenza vaccines may increase the likelihood of systemic reactions, according to a study published online July 15 in JAMA Network Open.

medicalxpress.com

(fair use applies)

Simultaneous flu vaccine, COVID-19 booster safe
July 21, 2022

Simultaneous administration of COVID-19 mRNA booster and influenza vaccines may increase the likelihood of systemic reactions, according to a study published online July 15 in JAMA Network Open.

Anne M. Hause, Ph.D., from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and colleagues evaluated adverse events and health impacts associated with simultaneously administering COVID-19 mRNA booster and seasonal influenza vaccines in the U.S. population. Self-reported vaccine data from 92,023 individuals aged 12 years and older were collected on days 0 to 7 after vaccination between Sept. 22, 2021, and May 1, 2022, through v-safe, a voluntary smartphone-based monitoring system.

The researchers found that in the week following vaccination, any systemic reactions were reported by 58.9 percent of 61,390 respondents who simultaneously received the Pfizer-BioNTech booster and influenza vaccines and 68.6 percent of 30,633 respondents who simultaneously received the Moderna booster and influenza vaccines. Compared with respondents who received only a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster, those who simultaneously received influenza and Pfizer-BioNTech booster vaccines or influenza and Moderna booster vaccines were slightly more likely to report any systemic reaction in the week following simultaneous vaccination, although most reactions were mild.

"These results may help better characterize the outcomes associated with simultaneously administered COVID-19 booster and influenza vaccines in the U.S. population," the authors write.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Vaccination in 5-11 Year Old Children During Omicron

A quick look at the risk/benefits of vaccinations in Singaporean children, and the incessant need to vaccinate in general.

moderndiscontent.substack.com

(fair use applies)

Vaccination in 5-11 Year Old Children During Omicron
A quick look at the risk/benefits of vaccinations in Singaporean children, and the incessant need to vaccinate in general.
Modern Discontent
14 hr ago

Note: I forget to do this often, but please remember that this information is intended to be informative, not prescriptive, so do not use this information as a validation for your medical options. Please consult doctors and medical professionals for information and suggestions.

With concerns over children and COVID vaccination, we must always look at the balance between safety and efficacy to see whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

Yesterday, a paper was published within the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which measured positive rates, hospitalizations, and adverse reactions in children who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Dr. John Campbell covered this study in his YouTube video published today:

[SCROLL UP FOR VIDEO, POSTED EARLIER TONIGHT]


The paper in question is the following one from Tan, et. al.1


Click on the image for a link to the article.

This study doesn’t differ from ones seen in prior clinical studies, and so we won’t look too deeply into the data aside from the concerning points, including whether the vaccines were effective during the Omicron wave and the level of adverse reactions that took place.

Study Introduction

Singapore began allowing children under the age of 12 to be vaccinated at the end of December 2021, yet vaccines were considered voluntary:

Schools were open with the use of masks mandated, but children younger than 12 years of age were not subject to measures that restricted adults who were not fully vaccinated from entering selected venues. In Singapore, the vaccination of children 5 to 11 years of age with two 10-μg doses of BNT162b2 administered at least 21 days apart commenced on December 27, 2021, starting first with older children (9 to 11 years of age) and then with children 5 to 8 years of age 2 weeks later. Vaccination is voluntary in Singapore, and parental consent is required.​

The study took place from January 21, 2022 until April 8, 2022. The study excluded anyone who was previously infected with COVID or were vaccinated before the starting point. The study population can be seen in the chart below.


Figure 1. Study population. By the end of the study over 255,000 children were included in the study.

Rates of positivity were measured with both antigen and PCR tests, with PCR tests being used to validate more severe symptoms. What’s important for this section is how hospitalization was measured (emphasis mine):

We analyzed the incidences of all reported SARS-CoV-2 infections (positive on PCR, rapid antigen testing, or both) and PCR-confirmed infections, which serve as a proxy for increased severity of illness. To examine the effect of vaccines on more severe illness, we analyzed the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19. During the omicron outbreak, admission to hospitals was based on clinical indications of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinically unwell children, including but not limited to severe pneumonia and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). The onset of severe illness for which hospitalization was warranted was defined as the date of confirmed infection. Because of the time lag between SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization and the potential risk of excluding patients in whom infection developed during the study period but who were hospitalized after the study period, we restricted the hospitalization analysis to patients who were notified of confirmed infection up to and including April 1, 2022 (i.e., 7 days before the end of the study period).​

So severe pneumonia and MIS-C were some of the symptoms used as indicators of severe illness and hospitalization. This will be important when we compare measures.

Results

So we won’t dive too deeply into this portion. It’s the same information we tend to get with these types of studies which generally provide relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction.

And, as is typical of Omicron infections, there generally doesn’t appear to be robust protection from infection, but “protects” against severe infection. However, protection from infection is something that is well-known by now.



So just on these metrics alone, we can find the typical messaging that vaccination may not protect against infection, but it may reduce severe illness. We’ll discuss the latter argument a bit further on later.

But just to have a little fun with the data, I decided to do some ARR calculations. This won’t be comparable to the values above because their vaccine effectiveness calculations were based on Poisson regressions, which take into account several variables such as age, sex, and socio-economic status.

Instead, we can calculate a separate RRR value based on the population data and the hospitalization information above (you can refer to my prior post on RRR vs ARR for help). We know that 52,043 children were unvaccinated at the end of the study and 173,237 children were fully vaccinated.

Using the corresponding hospitalization rates of 42 and 146, respectively, we can get an RRR value around 91.36% vaccine efficacy against hospitalization.

Again, remember that we are taking several liberties with this information (including when children were considered fully vaccinated, as well as all of the demographic variables that were controlled for), so our percentage is skewed higher.
However, in such a case it’s important that when the information isn’t exactly accurate, it at least remains consistent.

Using the same data, we can calculate the ARR, which comes out to about 0.2562% efficacy against hospitalization.

Remember that RRR is a measure at the point of exposure- if a child becomes exposed, how protected would they be from infection and hospitalization. ARR takes into account the odds a child would become exposed in the first place. Thus, ARR tells us how likely a child may be exposed, infected, and if they may require hospitalization, all of which appear to be low numbers already.

These numbers are important because the current messaging argues that hospitalization and severity of illness are reasons to vaccinate2. Therefore, we should expect the data to substantiate such a position, and in such a case it’s hard to argue that to be the case given these numbers.

But if these numbers don’t provide much convincing, there appeared to be 5 children requiring supplemental oxygen during the time of this study. What’s even more egregious is that only 1 child was unvaccinated while 2 were partially vaccinated and the other 2 were fully vaccinated:

Among hospitalized children, only five received supplemental oxygen, four of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit. Of these five children, one was unvaccinated, two were partially vaccinated, and two were fully vaccinated. No deaths attributable to Covid-19 (as determined by the cause of death reported to the Ministry of Health) were observed during the study period.​

So 4 of the 5 children were vaccinated, yet still required supplemental oxygen. There could be many reasons why these children required it in particular. It could be that these vaccinated children were already severely immunocompromised, and thus vaccination was considered an option for more “protection” even though they were likely to suffer severe illness regardless.

However, this does raise questions as to how “protective” these vaccines are from severe infection given the lack of information and evidence.

Adverse reactions

So with questionable effectiveness out of the way, we should look into the safety profile of these vaccines for these children.

Unfortunately, there only appears to be this little comment in the discussion section:

In Singapore, 22 serious adverse events after vaccination (0.005% of all doses administered) among children 5 to 11 years of age were reported to the Health Sciences Authority as of February 28, 2022.20​

Now, we don’t know how many of these children were included in the above study, but based on the percentage of total doses administered that appears to be 22 adverse events out of 440,000 vaccine doses within the given age group. It’s difficult to compare this data to the above study anyways since vaccinations for those age 8-11 started at the end of December, while this study wasn’t conducted until the Omicron era.

However, all adverse reactions should be considered very concerning. The study didn’t explain what “serious” entailed, but the study links to this government document which provides the following footnote:

​

An adverse event is classified as serious when the event resulted in hospitalisation/extended stay in hospital, resulted in a significant reduction in functioning level/disability, resulted in a life-threatening illness (e.g. anaphylaxis) or death, resulted in birth defects or is a medically important event.​

So we can assume that a serious adverse event would possibly require hospitalization, and considering that this data is a few months behind from the above study there are likely to be several more unreported adverse events at the time the Tan, et. al. study was completed.

Remember, this data isn’t quite comparable to the data within this study due to the difference in timeframes. The researchers also did not mention the level of adverse events in their own study, so there’s nothing to use as a reference.

Regardless, this once again raises questions as to the actual safety profile of these vaccines, and the actual risk of continuously enforcing vaccination on the young.

The Incessant need to Vaccinate

With Ba.4/Ba.5 on the rise there continues to be a greater push for vaccination. With school returning in a month we may see more messaging that enforces children be vaccinated.

The need to vaccinate must always operate under the factors of safety/efficacy, as well as the risk/benefit paradigm. Here, there just doesn’t appear to be strong evidence to support the need to vaccinate (at least in my opinion).

In general, children are considered to be the least likely to need hospitalization- the data within this study points towards that argument as well. And yet there continues to be this large need to vaccinate children.

Just as an example for how well children do with COVID, I tried looking up how many children have died from Omicron in Singapore. There appears to be this article released just today in Singapore’s todayonline.com, which raises questions as to the timing of this article in particular- but that’s a different concern for now.


From todayonline.com. Click on the image for a link to the article.

Singapore probably has one of the lowest deaths in the world, with only about 1,400 recorded deaths so far, including none in children- until a few weeks ago (allegedly, but not substantiated):

On June 27, an 18-month-old boy became the first patient below the age of 12 to die from Covid-19. The cause of death was encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) due to Covid-19, as well as viral infections caused by the respiratory syncytial virus and enterovirus.​

​

Then last Sunday, a four-year-old girl who contracted Covid-19 died from pneumonia. Like the boy, she was previously well and had no past medical history, the Ministry of Health (MOH) said.​

The wording here is pretty misleading. The “cause of death” being due to COVID-19 means that, well, COVID would be the cause.

However, one of the doctors interviewed in this article actually rebukes COVID as the cause in both instances:

In the case of the boy, the infection by the respiratory syncytial virus and the Covid-19 virus may have been incidental.​

​

As for the four-year-old girl, he [Professor Paul Tambyah, president of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection- taken from the article] said that he did not have the full details of her case and symptoms, but noted that there were reports in the media about her vomiting and frothing at the mouth when she collapsed.​

​

This suggests that she might also have had a brain inflammation, which has been reported in children with viral infections in the past.​

​

Prof Tambyah added that deaths from pneumonia due to Covid-19 is extremely rare, especially among children. ​

And so these two cases may be tied to other viral infections (the infant appeared to have a coinfection with RSV).

All throughout the article there were mentions that other factors are likely to blame for the deaths, and considering that no deaths in children have occurred so far it doesn’t seem to be likely starting now with Omicron (although more evidence would be needed to substantiate the claim).

So Singapore, with no recorded deaths in children from COVID, appear to be vaccinating their children with vaccines of unknown safety.

So it makes this point rather moot in the Tan, et. al. discussion, given that the risks have always been low to begin with:

Our findings indicate the protective effect of vaccination against infection and severe illness. We found that the vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was higher with full vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 (82.7%) than with partial vaccination with one dose (42.3%).​

And there’s also this little bit of information about infectivity:

Beyond the short-term and long-term health risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children (including MIS-C21 and “long Covid”22), high infection rates among children may lead to transmission to older adults23 and may increase the risk of overwhelming existing health care capabilities during the omicron wave. It appears that these risks can be mitigated by the vaccination of children.​

So there’s an argument here that children should be vaccinated in order to reduce spreading the infection to others (similar messaging we’ve seen before).

Except there’s plenty of evidence now that proves the contrary, including Dr. Fauci himself admitting that the vaccines don’t reduce infection.


From Fox. Click on the image above for a link to the article and video.

And this is even substantiated by the researchers own data, which shows a huge drop in protection against infection the further out from the second dose one goes:


From the Supplementary Appendix Table S1.

In short:

• the vaccines don’t stop infection
• the risk of severe illness is very low in children to begin with, and
• there are concerns about the risks of adverse events, especially in children

And yet vaccinations of children continues on, regardless of the issues raised in the above bullet points.

[GO TO LINK FOR FOOTNOTES]

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

NEVER was it a pandemic of the UNVACCINATED; it was always a pandemic of the VACCINATED; CDC & NIH & WHO LIED by placing infections, hospitalizations, deaths up to 14-15 days post jab, into unvaxx bin

Now we have clear indications that it is pandemic of the vaccinated & specifically the BOOSTED; we have always saw in the data, that 3rd & 4th shot (1 st & 2nd booster) for 50 years and above harmful

palexander.substack.com

(fair use applies)

NEVER was it a pandemic of the UNVACCINATED; it was always a pandemic of the VACCINATED; CDC & NIH & WHO LIED by placing infections, hospitalizations, deaths up to 14-15 days post jab, into unvaxx bin
Now we have clear indications that it is pandemic of the vaccinated & specifically the BOOSTED; we have always saw in the data, that 3rd & 4th shot (1 st & 2nd booster) for 50 years and above harmful
Dr. Paul Alexander
4 hr ago

This UK and New South Wales Australia data is alarming as to the risks faced by the boosted population for hospitalization and death (post shot).

The fraud started when the CDC and NIH and WHO and public health leaders like Fauci and Francis Collins and Rochelle Walensky came up with the master deceit, whereby they redefined what it meant to be ‘vaccinated’. You had to be 14-15 days post shot, dose 1, 2, 3 etc. In other words, all those infections, hospitalizations, and deaths that occurred from day 1 all the way to day 15 post shot, it was counted as being ‘unvaccinated’. And these beasts were then able to go on the media and say ‘this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated’. To drive fear and for you to rush to be vaccinated knowing full well that they were shilling for a fake, failed, ineffective dangerous injection.

‘Check out the official data for England from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) — and you’ll see clear evidence for why you need to get your jabs up-to-date.

You’ll be over 13 times less likely to die from a death involving COVID-19. Your all-cause mortality risks, even, will be around two and a half times lower if you’re fully jabbed — isn’t that something of a bonus?

Office for manipulated statistics

For the data-hungry among you, it’s all there in Table 3 from the latest edition of the “Deaths by vaccination status, England” dataset courtesy of the ONS’s National Immunisation Management Service.

Look beneath the surface of these data and you’ll find a problem, however. A fatal problem.

The same dataset also tells you that you’ll be 65% more likely to die from non-COVID-19 deaths if your jabs are fully up-to-date, compared with being unvaccinated.

That simply can’t be!

You can’t be that much more likely to die from non-COVID-19 causes unless you make it appear that way because your numbers got jumbled deliberately or accidentally along the way.

This one faulty statistic stands as a stark reminder that all the ONS data for England — that are relied on well beyond the territorial boundaries of England and even the UK — are flawed.

That in turn means that data that might have convinced you or your loved ones to roll up their sleeves is WRONG. Plain and simple.

This latter point on non-COVID-19 deaths has been drawn to our attention by none other than Norman Fenton and Martin Neil, professors from Queen Mary University of London.

We’ve gone back to the original data that includes the latest edition of the dataset that takes in the entire period of UK vaccination from January 2021 through May 2022, in Table 3 of the ONS dataset, and we’ve summarized it in Table 1 (see below).

The non-COVID-19 mortality data is indicated in bold to remind you of its impossibility and that makes the rest of the data flawed too because COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 mortality data are not independent of each other.


Table 1. Summary mortality data from the ONS for the period January 2021 to May 2022. Credit: ONS

Professors Fenton and Neil have previously explained, here and here, how these data were corrupted. They now also show that the figure of 1474 deaths per 100,000 person-years has been massively bumped up from those in recent history, looking more or less on par with those of the fully vaccinated (see the second table in Fenton and Neil’s latest article).

One wonders how the public would have responded had the misallocations occurred in the opposite direction? In fact, we know how they’d respond — and so do those responsible for implementing or ignoring the data manipulation.

Down under

Now let’s leapfrog across our beautiful, yet humanity-stressed, blue planet, from England to New South Wales (NSW), Australia, a part of the world that I was fortunate to be able to call home for over a decade.

With over 95% of the NSW population having received at least one jab, Brad Hazzard, NSW health minister, has slammed the over 30% of the 8 million people of NSW saying they need to “wake up,” “switch off…social media and switch on reality” and stop being so selfish.

The number of people in NSW hospitals with COVID-19 is clearly on the rise, moving toward the second highest peak since the start of the year (see figure below). Is it those infernal unvaccinated causing the problem again?


Figure 1. Number of people in New South Wales hospitals with COVID-19 by day, January 1 to July 9, 2022. Credit: NSW
COVID-19 Weekly Data Overview

Well, yes, it would seem this is the official line. The latest surveillance report suggests the new waves of BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants are responsible, highlighting the recent upward trend that includes a 17% increase in hospitalizations (1,658 to 1,946) just in the last week.

The big message is the same as in England. Go get jabbed.

Take this statement from the surveillance report, for example:

“Of the 95 people who were reported to have died with COVID-19, all were eligible for a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine but only 62 (65% of those eligible) had received a third dose.”

You can find contrary messages in the same report if you look for them.

Take this sentence that reminds us that none of the six people under 65 who died from COVID-19 were either healthy or unvaccinated:

“Six people aged under 65 years died with COVID-19. All six cases had record of significant underlying health conditions that increase the risk of severe disease from COVID-19.

“– Four of these cases had received 3 doses of a vaccine.

“– Two of these cases had received 2 doses of a vaccine.”

Digging beneath the surface reveals more problems with the official rhetoric.

The official NSW data from the last seven weeks — when NSW is meant to be grappling with the ‘super-contagious’ BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants — shows that people who had been vaccinated one (minimum) to four (maximum) times against COVID-19, were 45 times more likely to be hospitalized than if they were unvaccinated.

This was brought to our attention by Joel Smalley, analyst, in a July 19 Substack post. Joel links to a powerful interactive app that allows anyone to play with the official NSW data on hospitalizations and deaths.

So this (Figure 2 below) is what the last seven weeks of data look like, in terms of hospitalizations (both ICU and non-ICU). The tall green bars show us hospitalization from four or more doses of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, while the first bar in each time series (mid-blue) shows us the hospitalizations among the unvaccinated.

The data are standardized per 1 million population so we remove bias given that so many are vaccinated with one or more doses, and so few are not. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the mid-blue ‘no dose’ bars are relatively unchanged over the last six weeks and the green bars are going skyward.

It’s some of the most interesting data we’ve seen so far points to a dose-response issue — the more doses the more vulnerable you are to hospitalization. Not what the NSW government is telling the public, despite this being their data.


Figure 2. Rate of hospitalization (ICU and non-ICU) depending on vaccination status from May 28 through to July 9, 2022. Multiplier between unvaccinated and vaccinated highlighted in red rectangle.

Of course, we’re dealing with a moving target. So the same official NSW government data source during the earlier Delta phase of 2021 showed a different picture, captured by Reuters last November. Back then, the NSW data suggested the unvaccinated were 16 times more likely to end up in intensive care units or die.

The official NSW data over the last seven weeks, in which Omicron has been displacing Delta, show a different picture as revealed by the data we show in Figure 2.

When we select just ICU hospitalizations and deaths — to allow comparison with the 16-fold statistic cited by Reuters last November — we now find you’re 31% more likely to go into intensive care or die if you’re unvaccinated, as you can see in Figure 3 (red rectangle).

But Hazzard and co are silent on this. One wonders (or knows) why.


Figure 3. Rate of hospitalization in ICU and deaths depending on vaccination status from 28 May through to 9 July 2022. Multiplier between unvaccinated and vaccinated highlighted in red rectangle.

It gets worse when you compare the extreme ends of the official NSW dose-response data: the unvaccinated versus those vaccinated with four or more doses.

We’ve done this in Table 2:


Table 2. Hospitalizations and deaths in NSW among those who have received no COVID-19 vaccinations, and those who have received one or 4 or more doses. Credit: Official NSW data

Take-homes

The take-homes are staring us in the face. Whether you look at hospitalizations or deaths, those who’re vaccinated with four or more doses are the worst off.

People who’ve received four doses plus are around 100 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who’re unvaccinated.

This difference is a massive two orders of magnitude that is likely to include a hefty (read: real) signal regardless of how dirty the underlying data are. We also see what appears to be a clear dose-response — the more doses, the more likely you are to be hospitalized.

The mortality data aren’t as clear, because the one-dose recipients appear the best off. This may be real, or it may be anomalous, bearing in mind the difference is less than one order of magnitude.

But should we ignore the difference between deaths among the unvaccinated and the ones injected four or more times? There are 1.75-fold more deaths among those with four plus COVID-19 injections compared with those unvaccinated.

However you choose to interpret these data, it’s impossible to use them to suggest that people who’ve had four jabs are better off than those who are unvaccinated.

Nor are there ANY reliable data to suggest this is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

A pandemic of the heavily boosted

It seems the official NSW data already tell us the opposite: this is rapidly becoming a “pandemic of the vaccinated.” The risks to this group of course go well beyond just COVID-19.

The public is just not being informed of the reality — and public health authorities continue to beat the same drum using a defective narrative. The English data appear different at the surface, but there is clear evidence of data manipulation.

Even the emerging science is beginning to explain why an ever greater number of COVID-19 jabs is likely to contribute to greater risks for recipients. Possible mechanisms include innate immune erosion, original antigenic sin and T-cell dysregulation.

Many of us are coming to the conclusion that we’re living through the greatest ever manipulation of science, given the sheer number of people involved.

Anyone who still buys into the idea we can still vaccinate ourselves out of this surreal construct we have learned to call a ‘pandemic’ is likely to benefit from taking a close look at the English and NSW data discussed here, data that have been held in great esteem by authorities around the world.

Time to take a reality check. Or can you turn a blind eye and accept the same reality Brad Hazzard talks of, in the belief that more and more COVID-19 vaccination will be the solution to COVID-19 and regaining normality?’

SOURCE:
‘Pandemic of the Boosted’: UK Data Reveal ‘Fatal Problem’ With COVID Shots

According to an analysis by Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., of official data from the UK and Australia, people who get four or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine are about 100 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who are unvaccinated.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Orr et al.: "Natural Killer (NK) Cell Education & Tolerance"; it is innate antibodies (Abs) of the innate immune system that educates & trains the NK cells in recognizing 'self' patterns emergent...

on virus-infected host cells; high-affinity & specificity, non-neutralizing COVID vaccine induced antibodies 'outcompete' innate Abs for binding to the virus; so cannot train NK cells; autoimmunity

palexander.substack.com

(fair use applies)

Orr et al.: "Natural Killer (NK) Cell Education & Tolerance"; it is innate antibodies (Abs) of the innate immune system that educates & trains the NK cells in recognizing 'self' patterns emergent...
on virus-infected host cells; high-affinity & specificity, non-neutralizing COVID vaccine induced antibodies 'outcompete' innate Abs for binding to the virus; so cannot train NK cells; autoimmunity
Dr. Paul Alexander
5 hr ago


SOURCE:
Natural Killer Cell Education and Tolerance

It is crucially important that the child have the chance to educate their innate immune systems, and as soon as maternal antibodies end; the child must become actively immune via innate immunity.

We need help from pediatricians all over the globe to help put a stop to this, so we must educate them. We need POTUS Trump to join us to stop these injections in our healthy children. It is not needed. FDA and CDC and NIH and Moderna and Pfizer have taken IMO criminal steps here in this push to vaccinate our children when they have statistical zero risk of severe outcome from COVID infection.

Innate antibodies in children (that they come with which is pre-primed and pre-activated) have a narrow window of opportunity for training and practice of the innate immune system to sterilize (eliminate) the virus the child is confronted with at present, to train the innate immune system to recognize other viruses in the future when the innate antibodies are no longer there, and importantly, to recognize ‘self’ from ‘non-self’ components of the child. The innate immune system of the child in early childhood must be trained to optimally recognize self from ‘self-mimicking’ patterns of self. A nuance but a key one. It has to be trained, and the natural killer (NK) cells (of the innate immune system) are key, to differentiate this. This training must begin as soon as the maternal antibodies wane.

This involves the training of NK cells of the innate immune system and if this ‘training’ window is passed, it is irreversible, and the child will be vulnerable to auto-immune reactivity and pathology. The child, if the NK cells are not trained by the innate immune system, will be at risk for a range of infections (from other glycosylated viruses) and even cancers. The NK cells are cytolytic or cytotoxic and kill virus infected cells or any aberrant altered cell.

We would be placing the child on a death path if we vaccinated them with these COVID vaccines that will subvert the binding of the innate antibodies to the binding sites on live viruses. I do not how else to say this. It is important too that parents ensure their child is vaccinated with live attenuated replication competent vaccines e.g. measles, mumps etc. before any COVID vaccine, if your decision is to vaccinate the child for COVID. You would at least be giving their innate immune system a chance at ‘training’ and education, against these other glycosylated viruses that share similar surface patterns on the host cell if infected. However, we plead do not vaccinate your child, your healthy child, with any of these COVID vaccines.

‘Natural killer (NK) cells play a key role in the immune response to certain infections and malignancies by direct cytolysis of infected or transformed cells and by secretion of potent immune mediators. NK cells express an array of activating receptors that recognize self-molecules. If not restrained by inhibitory receptors recognizing major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I proteins on the surface of self cells, NK cells are able to kill normal, healthy cells. Not all NK cells express inhibitory receptors for self-MHC class I; thus, other tolerance mechanisms are necessary to prevent NK cell-mediated autoimmunity.’

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Barouch et al.: "Neutralization Escape by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4, & BA.5"; shows that the BA.2.12.1, BA.4, & BA.5 variants escape neutralizing antibodies VAX & natural exposure

Yet the key message here is natural infection, natural immunity shows much greater neutralizing antibody response than in those vaccinated with Pfizer jab, even to legacy WA1/2020 isolate

palexander.substack.com

(fair use applies)

Barouch et al.: "Neutralization Escape by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4, & BA.5"; shows that the BA.2.12.1, BA.4, & BA.5 variants escape neutralizing antibodies VAX & natural exposure
Yet the key message here is natural infection, natural immunity shows much greater neutralizing antibody response than in those vaccinated with Pfizer jab, even to legacy WA1/2020 isolate
Dr. Paul Alexander
16 hr ago

The key is that the neutralizing antibody response in persons with natural infection was far greater than in the vaccinated (vaccinal response). I would say crudely, two times greater. Again, natural exposure immunity is superior. See chart below of neutralizing antibody titers based on vaccination (before boost vs after boost) versus prior infection (B and C). See even after boosting, antibody levels still lower and the fact is that based on original antigenic sin, the imprinting and initial priming to the initial exposure e.g. Wuhan legacy strain, makes subsequent immune responding weaker with emerging more infectious subvariants. Remember, natural exposure immunity is to the full entire viral ball and all proteins etc. on the viral surface and internal nucleocapsid conserved proteins etc. Not just the spike antigen target as with vaccinal immunity.

“Six months after the initial two BNT162b2 immunizations, the median neutralizing antibody pseudovirus titer was 124 against WA1/2020 but less than 20 against all the tested omicron subvariants (Figure 1B). Two weeks after administration of the booster dose, the median neutralizing antibody titer increased substantially, to 5783 against the WA1/2020 isolate, 900 against the BA.1 subvariant, 829 against the BA.2 subvariant, 410 against the BA.2.12.1 subvariant, and 275 against the BA.4 or BA.5 subvariant.

Among the participants with a history of Covid-19, the median neutralizing antibody titer was 11,050 against the WA1/2020 isolate, 1740 against the BA.1 subvariant, 1910 against the BA.2 subvariant, 1150 against the BA.2.12.1 subvariant, and 590 against the BA.4 or BA.5 subvariant.”



“These data show that the BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 subvariants substantially escape neutralizing antibodies induced by both vaccination and infection. Moreover, neutralizing antibody titers against the BA.4 or BA.5 subvariant and (to a lesser extent) against the BA.2.12.1 subvariant were lower than titers against the BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant has continued to evolve with increasing neutralization escape. These findings provide immunologic context for the current surges caused by the BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 subvariants in populations with high frequencies of vaccination and BA.1 or BA.2 infection.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

South Africa vs Australia (July 21st, 2022), COVID cases, deaths, excess mortality, vaccination rate); why is epidemiology so different as to waves? Graphs: India, Austria, Germany, Japan, New Zealand

Dr. Alexander shares updated graphs showing devastating impact of using a non-neutralizing vaccine & induced antibodies that drive selection pressure, immune imprinting/fixation, infectious variants

palexander.substack.com

(fair use applies)

South Africa vs Australia (July 21st, 2022), COVID cases, deaths, excess mortality, vaccination rate); why is epidemiology so different as to waves? Graphs: India, Austria, Germany, Japan, New Zealand
Dr. Alexander shares updated graphs showing devastating impact of using a non-neutralizing vaccine & induced antibodies that drive selection pressure, immune imprinting/fixation, infectious variants

Dr. Paul Alexander
12 hr ago

These graphs are telling; it tells us that the vaccinated nations with heavy vaccine, leads to increased infections, then cases, then hospitalizations, and deaths. The data is clear. And South Africa stands out as an African nation for it delayed vaccine, still has low vaccine rates for COVID, and has thus benefitted from natural exposure immunity and the training of the innate immune system by it’s children and young persons. It is clear that the innate immune system in South Africa in it’s population was key to clearing out omicron and sub-variants, plunging down to population-level herd immunity. Their 5th wave was quickly tamped down. Importantly, the downward slope in the 5th wave in South Africa was back to baseline. Other nations that are highly vaccinated do not show back to baseline, meaning, high infectious pressure remains.
We have been arguing (Geert Vanden Bossche, Mike Yeadon, myself etc.) that we could drive (with these sub-optimal non-neutralizing vaccines) the emergence of not only an infectious variant, but a lethal one. That the current blocking of severe disease in the lower lung will soon be overcome.

Look at what is happening with New Zealand as to deaths. The problem is nations like Australia, New Zealand, China etc. with ZERO-COVID lockdown lunacy insanity including Canada, locked down too long and too hard and denied their populations proper levels of background natural immunity (so as to inch closer to population-level herd immunity) so when a highly infectious sub-variant like BA.5 omicron comes along, it can cope. They can’t cope as you see. They are simply defenseless and will have to lock back down, wrongfully. They still do not grasp that all that is needed is strong protections of the vulnerable, use vitamin D3, use early treatment, and allow the rest of society to live normal lives.
India, wrongfully, for it was doing so well with early and chemo-prophylaxis drug treatment, went and took the vaccine. Now look at their graph. They made a mistake. IMO.

Australia July 21st 2022:







See this graph on the number of people in hospital with COVID by day, New South Wales, Australia, January 1, 2022 to July 2022





SOURCE



South Africa July 21st 2022:









India:







Austria:





Germany:





Japan:





[continued next post]

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

[continued from above]

New Zealand:







List of selected African nations and vaccination rates:

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

No, mRNA Covid vaccines do not offer long-term protection from serious illness

Data from the Dutch government show the opposite - after seven months they substantially RAISE the risk of hospitalization and intensive care

alexberenson.substack.com

(fair use applies)

No, mRNA Covid vaccines do not offer long-term protection from serious illness
Data from the Dutch government show the opposite - after seven months they substantially RAISE the risk of hospitalization and intensive care
Alex Berenson
13 hr ago

mRNA vaccine advocates have one final defense against the failure of their billion-person experiment.

Okay, the shots won’t stop you from getting Covid. Or spreading it. Or having symptoms.

But they will stop you from getting very sick, and that protection lasts long after they stop working against infection.

Only it doesn’t.

Not against Omicron, anyway. And Omicron is only variant that matters now, since it’s the only variant that exists now.
An official government report from the Netherlands earlier this month has the truth.

On July 5, the RIVM - a research institute that is part of the Dutch Ministry of Health - reported a basic two-dose Covid vaccination offered no protection against Covid hospitalization. Worse, vaccinated people were 20 percent more likely to need intensive care than the unvaccinated.

“There was hardly any visible protective effect of the COVID-19 basic vaccination series against hospital and ICU - intensive care- intake,” the researchers wrote (understating the case).

SOURCE

—

The topline figures are bad enough.

The report is based on hospitalizations across the Netherlands from March 15 through June 28, not a small sample. And like the United States, the Dutch relied overwhelmingly on mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna - the supposed gold standard for Covid shots.

But the details in the report are even more disturbing.

The researchers stratified the risks of hospitalization and intensive care by time from vaccination and the age of the infected person - and those show that the risks increase over time.

After seven months, vaccinated people in their fifties and sixties had a 68 percent higher risk of being hospitalized for Covid compared to the unvaccinated. They had a 41 percent higher risk of needing intensive care.

The trends were similar for people 70 and over, though most of them had been boosted or received a fourth shot, so comparisons were harder to make.

(Negative vaccine effectiveness, it’s a thing. A very bad thing.)



Again, this negative effectiveness is against severe disease - hospitalizations and intensive care.

Not infection, severe disease.

—

The report also showed that boosters and fourth shots did reverse the negative efficacy against hospitalization and intensive care and provide some protection. That fact led the researchers to call for vaccinated people to receive boosters.
But the effectiveness of boosters and fourth shots against severe disease also sharply and quickly declined.

In people 70 and over, the effectiveness of a booster against hospitalization fell from 85 percent in the first month to under 50 percent by five months out. The trends for the fourth shot were similar, but worse. Though the researchers did not have five months of data for the fourth shot, by roughly three months, protection had fallen to 60 percent.
—
The results could not be clearer, or grimmer.

The mRNA vaccines fail within a few months and then begin to raise the risk of serious outcomes.

Why?

The promise that the mRNA shots will produce durable T-cell protection against severe disease appears faulty. Any protection the shots offer against hospitalization or death probably results from their antibody-driven protection against infection, which lasts only a few months.

Repeated shots can reverse the trend, but they too fail, and each additional shot appears to do less and fail more quickly. Worst of all, because the shots cause recipients to produce antibodies to the original coronavirus rather than Omicron’s mutated spike, vaccinated people now have a higher risk of Omicron infection - which means they have a higher risk of hospitalization or death.

Worst of all, the Dutch collected this data during the spring, when the existing Omicron subvariant was relatively mild.
Now Omicron has mutated again, and we do not at this point know if the new variant is more or less dangerous.

But the trends from countries like New Zealand - which are test cases for Omicron’s potential virulence because they are highly mRNA vaccinated and have little preexisting natural immunity - are not promising.



Buckle up.
.