CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

China reports 990 new COVID cases for Sept 18 vs 1,189 a day earlier
by Bernard Orr
Sun, September 18, 2022, 9:17 PM

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China reported 990 new COVID-19 infections for Sept. 18, of which 147 were symptomatic and 843 were asymptomatic, the National Health Commission said on Monday.

That compares with 1,189 new cases a day earlier – 154 symptomatic and 1,035 asymptomatic infections - which China counts separately.

There were no new deaths, same as a day earlier, keeping the nation's fatalities at 5,226.

As of Sept. 18, mainland China had confirmed 248,326 cases with symptoms.

China's capital Beijing reported no local symptomatic cases and asymptomatic cases, the same as a day before, according to local government data.

Financial hub Shanghai reported zero local symptomatic and three asymptomatic cases, compared with no symptomatic and asymptomatic cases the day before, local government data showed.

China's southern technology hub of Shenzhen, which had eased anti-virus restriction measures after a strict lockdown for most residents, reported no new locally transmitted COVID-19 infections, compared with two a day earlier.

The southwestern metropolis Chengdu reported two new locally transmitted COVID-19 infections, compared with five a day earlier, data from the local government showed. The city is returning to normal after recent strict lockdowns.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Bus for COVID-19 quarantine in China crashes, killing 27

BEIJING (AP) — A bus reportedly taking 47 people to COVID-19 quarantine in southwest China crashed before dawn Sunday morning, killing 27 and injuring 20 others, media said.

The bus overturned on an expressway in Guizhou province, a brief statement from the Sandu county police said, without mentioning any connection to quarantine. The injured were being treated, it said.

Chinese business news outlet Caixin said Sandu officials confirmed the passengers were “epidemic-related people” being taken from Guiyang, the provincial capital, to Lido county, which is about 200 kilometers (125 miles) southeast.

Guiyang reported about 180 new cases on Friday. China has maintained a strict “zero-COVID” policy that isolates infected people and close contacts to try to contain the spread of the disease.

The bus overturned about 2:40 a.m., according to an online report by an arm of the Guizhou Daily media group. Following the accident, it said that provincial leaders called for an examination into the pandemic transfer and isolation procedures.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
From my email inbox

(fair use applies)

US Marine Corps Quietly Drops Punishments For Refusing Covid-19 Vaccine
by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Sep 18, 2022 - 08:45 AM

Amid a two-month court battle which saw a federal judge side with a group of US Marines over the right to refuse the Covid-19 vaccine based on religious objections, the US Marine Corps has quietly dropped strict punishments for service members who are seeking exemptions.

A Sept. 14 notice reads that the "Marine Corps will not enforce any order to accept COVID-19 vaccination, administratively separate, or retaliate against Marines in the class for asserting statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

The guidance references the temporary order blocking the Marines from taking action against individuals seeking a religious exemption.

"Involuntary administrative separation processing of class members for refusing COVID-19 vaccination is suspended," reads the memo, which directs commanders to "pause all administrative actions related to the involuntary separation of a class member, regardless of the current status of the separation process."

As The Epoch Times Jack Phillips further notes:

Listing several examples, the Marine guidance added that “no orders will be given to receive the vaccine, no counselings will be issued for refusing the vaccine, no administrative separation boards will be conducted,” and no discharges will be issued.

If the Florida judge’s order is vacated or expires, the Marines may still enforce punishment against those who don’t meet the COVID-19 vaccine requirement, a spokesperson told Fox News. Last year, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin issued an order that mandated vaccinations for all members of the armed service.

“The Marine Corps is aware of the class-wide preliminary injunction issued by a District Court judge for the Middle District of Florida preventing the Marine Corps from enforcing any order to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or administratively separating Marines who refused to receive the COVID vaccine after their religious accommodation appeal was denied,” Marine Corps spokesperson Maj. Jay Hernandez told the outlet.

Recruitment Down

In recent months, reports have indicated that every branch of the U.S. military is struggling to find new recruits, triggering warnings from some members of Congress.

Some have flagged the Pentagon’s strict vaccine requirement while others have said it is because of the slow creep of “woke” diversity trainings and mandates into the military. And others say that high U.S. obesity rates may be a contributing factor, and others note that the pay is not adequate.

“We are on the cusp of a military recruiting crisis,” Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) told Politico in July. “When Republicans take control of Congress in a few months,” he added, “averting the recruiting crisis will be a top priority of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.”

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army ranger, told the outlet that the Pentagon should promise more money in the form of “enlistment incentives and bonuses.”

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Unvaccinated Air Force Officers Grounded Despite Court Order: Former Space Force Lt. Colonel

By Steve Lance and Naveen Athrappully
September 18, 2022

Members of the Air Force have been grounded for refusing to take a COVID-19 shot even after a court order ruling against such actions said a former space force commander on Sept. 15, adding that it is “not the time to be tampering with our readiness.”

Roughly two months back, a federal court in Ohio stated that the Air Force is not legally justified in taking punitive action against service members who do not take the COVID-19 vaccine, Matt Lohmeier, former Space Force Lieutenant Colonel, said in an interview with “Capitol Report” on NTD News.

A preliminary injunction was also issued. Lohmeier gave an example of a Squadron Leader in a fighter squadron at the Air Force who had been grounded and removed from his post following his decision not to take a COVID-19 shot.

Neither the squadron leader nor other members who he is aware of have been allowed to return back to flying status Lohmeier said.

“Our senior defense officials seem uninterested in abiding by law,” he said. “We’ve got over 700 pilots potentially on the chopping block right now for their refusal to take the shot.”

The mandatory vaccination rule itself is illegal since the COVID-19 vaccine available in many instances has only been approved under emergency use authorization (EUA), Lohmeier said.

Many service members “across all branches of the military” have objected to these vaccines, amounting to thousands of personnel.

Back in 2019, the Chief Staff of the Air Force had publicly admitted that the United States was facing a pilot crisis due to a shortage of 1,650 pilots, he said.

“That problem hasn’t been fixed or gotten any better since 2019.”

“At a time of great power competition, potentially with China and Russia,” Lohmeier said, it is “not the time to be tampering with our readiness.”

GOP Unwillingness, Court Cases

Lohmeier also criticized the Republican Party for not standing with unvaccinated military personnel.

One pilot who is grounded and has not been returned back to flying status has tried to engage with the Republican congressman in his home state as well as local state legislators where he is stationed.

“None of the Republicans even are willing to engage issues related to COVID,” he said. “Because even the Republican Party is divided over that, despite it being an illegal mandate.”

Danielle Runyan, an attorney with First Liberty Institute whose legal team has been taking up cases to defend unvaccinated military members, said to “Capitol Report” on NTD News on Sept. 16, that they are handling an Air Force case and a Navy Seal’s case—both of which challenge constitutional violations related to the COVID-19 mandate as well as violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

According to a recent Fox News report, the Navy quietly rolled back its decision to punish SEAL members who remain unvaccinated due to religious beliefs in May.

When questioned about the matter, Runyan replied that the Navy has not changed its stance. Not only is the vaccination mandate still in effect and service members are required to comply with it, but the Navy continues “processing denials.”

Runyan believes that this is going to be a “court battle to the end.”

The attorney said that many service members who filed for religious accommodation requests have been pulled from their duties despite being perfectly capable of carrying them out.

In contrast, those who filed for medical exemptions are still performing their tasks.

“They are ultimately going to lose their careers if they can’t perform their duties,” she said.

“These vaccines are not preventing the spread of the virus,” Runyan said. “Military officials are aware of this fact. And, you know, the military is choosing to ignore these facts. … This is just a clear violation of the law.”

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Undertakers are run off their feet with abnormally high numbers of Australians dying - and it's not just because of Covid
By David Southwell For Daily Mail Australia
Published: 02:06 EDT, 18 September 2022 | Updated: 08:04 EDT, 18 September 2022
  • Undertakers being kept busy with more Australians dying than normal this year
  • Melbourne undertaker Martin Masson sees an increase in 40-60 aged deaths
  • Doctors not sure why more are dying but are concerned it mirrors the UK
  • Possible factor is that people have avoided going to the doctor for check-ups

Undertakers are experiencing a rush of business with Australians dying in abnormally high numbers in a 'worrying' trend doctors can't explain.

Martin Masson, who is managing director of Tribute Funeral Services in the western Melbourne suburb of Ravenhall, said there is no shortage of work for him and others in the industry as official figures confirm Aussies are dying at a higher rate in 2022.

'We’ve been consistently busy now since the first of this year,' Mr Masson told Daily Mail Australia.

'We have certainly seen an increase in the need for our services as have done a lot of other directors.'

Mr Masson believed more working age Australians are dying but doesn't have specific statistics to back this.

'We certainly have seen a distinct shift back to people in their 60s, 50s and even late or mid 40s and even younger,' he said.

Mr Masson revealed he had been asked a number of times about increased death rates but had no particular explanation other than Covid being 'let rip'.

However, he noted there had also been more deaths from cancer, heart attacks and other diseases, which he put down to the way Australians live.

'Processed food, our lifestyle, staying up late, drinking, stress and that's been very evident through the past couple of years,' Mr Masson said

'These all go into causing deaths, whether that's premature or at their time I don’t know.'

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) confirms Australians have been dying at rate higher than normal this year.

When mortality rates climb above historical averages, without being explicable by having an ageing population, they are termed 'excess deaths'.

'There has been excess mortality recorded in 2022 across all months, with both the number of deaths and the rate of death generally higher than historical averages,' an ABS spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia.

'In May, there were 16,124 deaths, which is 13.5 per cent higher than the average of deaths we would normally see occurring in May (14,202).'

Covid was a substantial proportion of those deaths with 862 deaths 'directly attributable to the virus in May'.

However, there were also more than the expected number of deaths from dementia, diabetes and ischaemic heart diseases.

Cancer deaths had also increased but in line with an ageing population.

The ABS said those dying were still largely over 75.

Peak doctors' body the Australian Medical Association (AMA) told Daily Mail Australia it was 'worrying' that deaths are climbing and it reflected what is being seen overseas.

'We have seen the ABS statistics that mirror a worrying trend in other countries like the UK,' AMA President Professor Steve Robson said.

Britain has seen a 10 per cent increase above what would be the expected number of deaths since April.

The main causes have been cited as circulatory diseases and diabetes.

Prof Robson said it was unclear what was driving the excess deaths in Australia.

'There needs to be some research into why this is happening,' he said.

However, he pointed to some 'likely factors' that could be a hangover from the Covid period of isolation and restrictions.

A major likely cause was that people either couldn't or were scared of seeing a doctor because of infection risk.

'People have avoided going to see the doctor for regular checks or to talk about a problem with their health or delayed a trip to the doctor and consequently seen their condition become more serious,' Prof Robson said.

'We need to do more to prepare the health system, both to address the impact of COVID on things like waiting lists but also to deal with those patients who have delayed accessing care and now require more serious intervention.'

In Victoria more than 6,000 cancer cases were estimated to have been missed during the lockdown periods between April 2020 and April 2022.

Even after lockdowns finished cancers diagnoses continued to be lower than expected, which could show people have lost the habit of regular check-ups.

Mr Masson said in the years leading up to Covid and during the pandemic period of lockdowns and restrictions deaths had been below trend.

'Prior to Covid we found there was about a 4 per cent drop in death rates,' Mr Masson said.

'In 2017 to 2019 we didn’t have a large flu epidemic.

'Everybody was fighting for funeral services nationally.

'The big guys were pulling their guns out and advertising on billboards, TV, radio, you name it.

'It was tough times. We said "we need an epidemic and pandemic" and unfortunately we got our wish.'

Mr Masson said there was also a pronounced drop in deaths during the Covid period, especially in Victoria where people were forced to stay largely at home.

'Worksites were effectively shut down, car crashes stopped, we did see a bump in suicides even though we did see a bump in cancer for people not seeking medical services because they were in lockdown,' he said

'But we saw a distinct drop in colds, flus and everything else. There were only about 20 people who died of cold and flu.

'We’re now back to working and killing ourselves on the roads.

'We're still committing suicides and going on shooting each other and doing all the normal things we were prior to Covid.'

Mr Masson said Covid was still a deadly threat that most people were now ignoring.

'People are passing from Covid, even though it is not front page news, it’s still in the statistics, you can have a look,' he said.

'Since the politicians have become more active in managing health protocol rather than the chief medical officers around the country.

'In a five-month period from the end of 2021 through the first five months of 22 over 9,000 people have died nationally from Covid on top of everything else that is killing them.

'Now everybody thinks "we've all got the jab so were all immune it's fine and we can let it rip". We know people are going to die... but we don't care, we're just going to have to get used to it.'

Mr Masson said he expects there to be regular surges in Covid deaths with Australians unlikely to embrace restrictions again.

'We are seeing waves every six months because every six months we seem to get a new variation that hits us,' he said.

'The medical authorities are saying we need to do this and this and this.

'But the pollies are saying "it's fine".'

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Record excess deaths in Europe
14 min 18 sec

Sep 18, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

European Union, Excess mortality hits +16%, highest 2022 value so far UK latest excess death data, updated 16th September WE 2nd September 350 deaths involving COVID-19 (505 deaths registered, previous week) Total number of deaths registered in the UK 10,198, which was 7.4% above the five-year average 706 excess deaths in the week (Deaths involving COVID-19 accounted for 3.4% of all deaths) Excess mortality hits +16%, highest 2022 value so far Update, 16th September Data for July Climbed to +16% in July 2022 Highest so far in 2022 June, +7% May. +7% July, additional deaths The increase of 16% = 53, 000 additional deaths in July (Compared with monthly averages, 2016-2019) Factors Post covid infection Covid sequala Post lockdown effects, social, psychological, psychiatric Reluctance to access health care during covid Delayed diagnosis Heat waves July 2022 Iceland, + 55.8% Spain +37% Cyprus +33% Greece +31% Portugal, +28.8% Switzerland, +25.9% Italy, + 24.9 Austria, + 17.5% Slovenia, + 16.5% Ireland, + 16.3% Germany, +15.2 Norway + 14.8% Netherlands, + 14.7% Croatia, + 14.6% France, + 14.1% Estonia + 12.3% Luxemburg + 11.%% Denmark +10.3% Latvia -0.5% Microsoft Power BI... UK, 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 85 + Causes of non-covid excess deaths, UK Microsoft Power BI... Proximal causes Distal causes more difficult to identify Ischaemic heart disease Cerebrovascular disease Other circulatory disease Heart failure (marked increase) Cancer Acute respiratory Chronic respiratory Urinary Cirrhosis Diabetes Parkinson’s

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

WEF Piece Lauds How “Billions” Across the World Complied With Lockdown Restrictions
And how they’d do the same to comply with a social credit-style carbon rationing scheme.

Paul Joseph Watson
Published 16 September, 2022

An opinion piece published by the World Economic Forum lauds how “billions” of people complied with “restrictions” imposed as a result of lockdown, suggesting they would do the same under the guise of reducing carbon emissions.

The article is titled ‘My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities’ and was written by Mridul Kaushik, Mission Director, Smart Cities Mission, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs of India.

The subject of the piece is how to convince people to adopt “personal carbon allowance programs” given that such schemes have so far been largely unsuccessful.

However, Kaushik notes that improvements in tracking and surveillance technology are helping to overcome “political resistance” against such programs.

Writing that “COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility,” Kaushik commends how, “A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world.”

“There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility,” he adds.
WEF roadmap. They justify surveillance state, relay covid with blame on people and pseudo deductions like climate to produce political economical turmoil and take over ‘My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive & sustainable cities
— Fomocap (@fomocapdao) September 15, 2022
In citing how so many people complied with lockdown mandates, despite overwhelming evidence of the harmful consequences such restrictions had on society, Kaushik implies that they’d behave in a similarly obsequious manner in other areas of life.

Such conformity would be encouraged via technology, including artificial intelligence, digitization and “smart home” devices, argues Kaushik.

The article goes on to call for a social-credit style carbon emissions rationing scheme that would provide “individual advisories on lower carbon and ethical choices for consumption of product and services.”

New social norms would also be created to define what “a fair share” of personal emissions represents, and determine “acceptable levels” of personal emissions.

We previously documented how technocrats are preparing “mandatory” personal carbon allowances that would introduce rationing into every area of your life via an app that would record your travel, heating expenses and even the food you eat.

As we highlight in the video below, climate change groups are also working with television producers to insert messages about global warming and carbon emissions into shows.

11 min 13 sec

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

To boost or not to boost
Should that be the question?

Eric Topol
11 hr ago

The reluctance for Americans to get a booster shot has been striking. The United States currently ranks 73rd among countries for its uptake of boosters at 33% of its population. All peer, rich countries around the world are at least double that rate. Countries ranking above the US now include Rwanda, Uzbekistan, Iran, Honduras, and Azerbaijan. Seemingly, you’d have to work very hard to show up this poorly as the country that first validated the vaccines, manufactures them, and has had such a surfeit supply that it has >50 million shots it can’t get anyone to take. Nonetheless, it has maintained optimism and purchased 171 million new Omicron BA.5 variant bivalent shots.

There are many reasons for this abject failure—a veritable booster botch—stemming back to the beginning of the US booster campaign plan in August 2021, with mass public confusion induced by a different plan announced every few days and infighting between the different governmental agencies (CDC, FDA, NIH, WH) as to the appropriate strategy. This was compounded by the very late endorsement that boosters are necessary for all adults that did not come until the end of November, even though the data from Israel and other countries were clearcut many months prior to that juncture. Delays, confusion, and poor messaging got boosters off on the wrong footing. All the anti-science, anti-vax, mis- and disinformation hasn’t helped at all, and has never been effectively countered.

Incontrovertible Evidence for Booster Benefit

Very strong evidence supporting boosters dates back to October 2021, when the results of the only large (~10,000 participant) (1st) booster randomized trial were released and later published, with a 95% reduction of symptomatic infections across all age groups, through the Delta wave, durable at that level for at least 4 months. There were no safety concerns or myocarditis. The efficacy level was fully restored to the original randomized trial (95%) reports in November 2020.

Building upon the evidence for a 3rd dose were many vaccine effectiveness studies, and subsequently there have been 5 reports showing the benefit for the 4th dose vs those who had received a 3rd dose for reducing deaths, summarized in this table, for age 50+.

That’s a big relative reduction of death that has similarly been shown for hospitalizations. There’s also some evidence for reduction of Long Covid with a booster with another new report that reinforced the ~50% protection from Long Covid via vaccination. However, since the Omicron wave (BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4/5) there has generally been less protection against infection and transmission from boosters and vaccines, down to levels of 30 to 40% in the first 2 months, and less durable. That’s been a disappointment that has further detracted from enthusiasm for boosters. There’s also the reactogenicity, which I’ve experienced with 2nd, 3rd and 4th shots and which I would not want to keep having for 1-2 days of being knocked out, with profound fatigue, headaches, chills, etc. Who would want to sign up for that without assurance of important enhanced protection?

With this background, it is understandable that even the new BA.5 bivalent boosters, which nicely match up with the current circulating variants (BA.5 88%, BA.4.6 10%) would not be highly alluring, as reflected in recent headlines

The US rollout of the BA.5 bivalent boosters started on Friday September 2nd, and was predicated on 3 sets of data: the BA.1 bivalent vaccine, the Beta variant bivalent vaccine, and mice data. I’ve previously written about my reservations of going forward without human BA.5 bivalent vaccine data (and not using a monovalent BA.5), particularly in light of poor uptake of boosters in this country and the public optics of not having data to nail down the immunologic response. We’ll have those data soon, in the weeks ahead, but had the companies been given an ultimatum in June to have such data by September we’d already have had that in hand.

The Moderna BA.1 bivalent vaccine booster data were just published and showed about a doubling of neutralizing antibodies vs BA.1 (and BA.5) for this vaccine as compared with the original vaccine booster. That’s good but leaves the question as to whether the BA.5 bivalent will do any better. From both the human data from this report and the data from mice the same vaccine, there is a disturbing trend of much lower antibody induction vs Omicron compared to that mounted against the ancestral (original) strain. Here are the highlighted participant data from the report

And also the data from mice with the same vaccine booster, which are consistently showing a reduced level of antibody induction.

Why is this happening?

There are 2 possible explanations: that the Omicron variants are less immunogenic or there is imprinting, with a reduced capability of mounting a response to a new antigen because of being primed by the first exposure (be it infection or by the vaccine). This is, of course, a simplistic explanation because we’re just talking about levels of antibodies and not subtypes by epitopes, no less memory B and T cells. Nonetheless, the Figure from Ulrich Elling is apropos, capturing the issue of imprinting. Perhaps what we’re seeing here is a combination of the immune escape (less immunogenic) and imprinting. But it’s certainly a concern that there are not much higher levels of neutralizing antibodies, with this metric considered as a surrogate marker for protection vs severe Covid.

The concerns about the imprinting were an outgrowth and reinforced by a new report from Yunlong Cao and colleagues. There was a significant reduction of neutralizing antibody epitope (antigen) diversity, and more non-neutralizing antibodies seen with BA.5 breakthrough infections. And likewise, that would be anticipated with BA.5-specific vaccine boosters. We await the upcoming Pfizer and Moderna new booster data to see if this report has predicted the immunologic response to the BA.5 bivalent vaccine.

The right question

Boosters provide substantive and unequivocal benefit for protection from severe Covid and help reduce Long Covid (magnitude uncertain), and still, despite the challenges of Omicron, have some early (~2 months) effect for reducing infection and transmission. We don’t know yet if the BA.5 bivalent booster is any better than the BA.1 or the original booster. Based on the evolution of the virus through Omicron and its subvariants, it appears unlikely the new vaccine will have a major or important impact on reducing infection or transmission (we got a hint of that from the new BA.1 NEJM study above). There’s ample evidence from multiple studies that mucosal IgA antibodies are what will be needed to help block infections and transmission, such as this NEJM new report with 60-80% reduction of breakthrough infections (and reduced viral load, higher Ct, Tables below) as a function of mucosal IgA antibodies, not related to IgG antibodies. While they were formed in some health care workers as a response to vaccination and or infection, there is a way to induce them via nasal or oral vaccines. The durability of this effect isn’t yet known, but it would be far easier to take a nasal spray repetitively, with expectation of much less side effects, than shots. Certainly encouraging data from CanSino’s newly approved inhaled vaccine vs Omicron is a solid precursor for the many programs that are in advanced clinical trials.

The right question is about the future. We can’t go on getting boosters every 4 to 6 months and the premise of an “annual” shot is that the virus exhibits seasonality like flu, which certainly isn’t the case.

We have a new variant to be concerned about: BA.2.75.2, a daughter of BA.2.75 ,with three new spike mutations that are troubling. You can see its immune escape from the new preprint from Ben Murrell and colleagues. This variant has the most immune escape these investigators at the Karolinska Institute have yet seen, and that has been replicated by Yunlong Cao’s group in Peking. Given these observations, our current variant-chasing strategy to catch up to BA.5 will not likely help us counter BA.2.75.2. That underscores the need for variant-proof efforts.

In summary, there’s ample evidence that a 3rd shot or 4th shot (1st or 2nd booster) will help provide important protection, and that is especially vital for people age 50+, with ample support for the recommendation for all age 12 and older to get boosters. The right question is about the 5th booster, for which there are no clinical data yet, but will likely extend a high level of protection against severe Covid. But 4 or 6 months isn’t going to cut it as a public health protection policy, as there will be further attrition of interest and uptake for boosters as we go forward. Fortunately, we’re declining in cases and will likely experience a fairly quiescent phase (further descent, no surge) with respect to infections and hospitalizations for the next couple of months until BA.2.75.2 gets legs (or an alternative BA.2 derivative).

Now is the time to stop chasing SARS-CoV-2 and start mounting an aggressive get- ahead strategy. There’s the intertwined triad to contend with: more immune escape, more evidence of imprinting, and the inevitability of new variants that are already laying a foundation for spread. Enough of the booster after booster, shot-centric approach; it has been formidable, lifesaving, sickness-avoiding, and essential as a bootstrap, temporizing measure. Now we need to press on with innovation for more durable, palatable, and effective solutions. They are in our reach.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Moderna's CMO Believes Spikes from the mRNA Vaccine Get to the Heart
Are People Going to Accuse the Manufacturer of Spreading Misinformation?

Dr. Byram W. Bridle
2 hr ago

In May 2020 I was interviewed on a radio show.

I was asked if I thought that cases of myocarditis being diagnosed in young men shortly after receipt of Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ could be linked to the jab. I stated that I did and then began talking about the scientific basis for my concerns.

In the time allotted for this interview, I could only describe one of several potential mechanisms of action that could explain harms caused to the body by mRNA vaccines. Also, I could only present a tiny fraction of the scientific basis for my concerns. As such, I published all of these details in a Parent Guide to COVID-19 Vaccination.

I am unaware of any critics having read the guide that I wrote for parents. Everyone seems to have made assumptions based on my truncated message to a lay audience.

My life exploded into a storm of harassment, accusations, and censorship.

One of many examples of fact checkers claiming that I did not know what I was talking about, is this one from Reuters: Fact Check-No evidence spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccines are toxic.

An open letter was written by a large number of my colleagues at the University of Guelph, none of whom are vaccinologists. All of them accused me of spreading misinformation.

The censorship that I and many other professionals experienced was almost overwhelming and I felt compelled to let the public know how dangerous it is for honest experts to be silenced when they have genuine concerns. My comments start at about 9:15 of this video.

My career has suffered what will likely be irreparable damage. I am still not allowed to access my office or laboratory but am expected to carry on as a research-intensive faculty member from the basement of my house.

So, I experienced mixed emotions when a friend recently sent me a text message pointing me to an eye-popping interview…

A senior reporter for Yahoo Finance published an article on June 7, 2022. Here is a very notable quote taken directly from the article...
Moderna's chief medical officer Dr. Paul Burton, in a separate interview Tuesday with Yahoo Finance, said the risk of myocarditis could have to do with an interaction with the spike protein — which plays a role in the basis of all Covid vaccines — and heart muscle cells.
"We know so much more about myocarditis today than we did a year ago. I do believe that it is the spike protein....that either causes a little bit of direct damage to the heart, or antibodies that are produced that react with the heart cells," Burton said.
Moderna knows so much more about the myocarditis caused by their COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ by virtue of having experimented with it for a year in the context of a global rollout.

As a viral immunologist with deep expertise in vaccinology, I was able to predict these mechanisms based on a limited array of pre-clinical data that were available almost one-and-a-half years ago. It is possible to follow the science and see where it will lead.

Every health regulatory agency should have immunologists with expertise in vaccinology and pre-clinical research methodologies. If they did, they would have been able to predict this problem well before the public rollout. They had the requisite data in hand. In contrast, I had to dig deep to obtain it.

The peer-reviewed scientific literature is also starting to confirm that the spike protein encoded by mRNA vaccines gets to unexpected and unwanted sites in the body, like the heart, where it causes myocarditis that is more severe and long-lasting than what the so-called narrative purports.

In short, likely mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis include:
  1. The mRNA vaccines get distributed to the heart where they program cells to manufacture and express the spike protein, thereby making the cells targets for spike-specific antibody-mediated autoimmunity.
  2. Some spike proteins may get into circulation and cause direct damage to cells in the heart when they bind to the ACE-2 receptor.
I found that speaking the truth about a connection between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis and opining on the possible mechanisms of action was generally not received well 1.5 years ago.

I wonder if the naysayers will listen to the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ manufacturers as they now confirm this 1.5-year-old message.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

The Bangladesh Mask Trial is re-analyzed and it falls apart
And, we are still missing an endpoint

Vinay Prasad
15 hr ago

Recently Marina Chikina, Wes Pegden, and Ben Recht published their re-analysis of the Bangladesh mask RCT, and the trial appears to fall apart. I will do my best to summarize the key issue in the study, and why this re-analysis is provocative.

Wes Pegden @WesPegden
Our statistical re-analysis of the Bangladesh mask trial data with @ChikinaLab and @beenwrekt has been published in Trials (@MedicalEvidence)

September 15th 2022
121 Retweets434 Likes

First, let’s start with basics. There is a reason that the CDC, WHO and Fauci himself advised against community masking in early March 2020— and it was not to protect the supply for health care workers. The true reason is simple: the pre-existing evidence was poor. That’s the opinion of the Cochrane collaboration, and a systematic review that I participated in on the topic. These agencies truly did not believe it would help because that’s just what the evidence said.

How did COVID19 studies change the evidence? Well, there was a sea of low quality observational studies. They are not worth considering, as noise is 2 orders of magnitude larger than signal. I have debunked dozens in these pages and on YouTube.

There was one individual level randomized trial (DANMASK) that failed to find a benefit, but was limited by low power to exclude a small benefit. There were just 2 cluster RCTs run globally— and none pertaining to children.

One cluster RCT has not been published, and the other is the Bangladesh study. Bangladesh is a cluster RCT that randomized adults in villages to free masks (surgical or cloth) and encouragement to wear them or not, and followed people for COVID19 outcomes. The study found surgical masks lowered rates of COVID19 —though the effect is very small and applies only to adults pre-vaccine and pre-natural immunity and not cloth masks.

Enter the re-analysis. The authors noticed that there was a difference in the number of people enrolled in the study. It looked like ~9% more people enrolled in the free mask arm. This 9% is highly significant, i.e. a real difference.

Of course, the purpose of a randomized trial is to minimize confounding and balance outcome distributions in the absence of treatment effect, but imbalance in the size of groups suggests that something might have happened that jeopardizes this fact.

What would cause more people to sign up for the treatment arm (free mask) than control arm? One possibility is that concealment was violated, and people knew that they might get something for free in 1 arm, but did not feel they would get anything in the other arm.

If participants could see a big truck or boxes in intervention villages, but not see that in control villages, they may be more likely to enroll. In fact, 9% more likely!

This has huge implications. Is the extra 11th person in the mask arm the same as the 10 people in control arm? Or is this the type of person that only enrolls on the margin? Only enrolls if they are getting something for free, but not otherwise, and thus slightly less likely to properly report COVID symptoms (perhaps they report less or differently) and less likely to follow through with testing?

The authors argue this is possible, and this threatens the entire trial. Assuming these people are just a little different, can cause the entire trial results to tip. Their paper nicely probes this statistically and is worth your time.

I have one separate question about this study. The strongest secondary endpoint— the only one truly bias resistant— is random seroprevalance (which does not rely at all on reporting). This endpoint remains listed on, but unreported. It must be completed and reported.

Finally, it is worth restating: Bangladesh has no relevance to children, or post-vaccine. It also doesn’t not apply after sero-prevalance rises. In other words, it is not relevant for 2022 America, but would be good to pin down for historical reasons.

Here is my thread on the topic

Vinay Prasad, MD MPH ️ @VPrasadMDMPH
This is a devastating re-analysis of the Bangladesh study. I'm going to try my best to explain it. I Will tag the authors to see if they think I do it justice. @beenwrekt @WesPegden Thread
September 16th 2022
281 Retweets1,039 Likes

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Bombshell Study Finds *505* Genes with Altered Expression in 4 Autopsied Presumed Vaccine Deaths
"Our results suggest that immune dysregulation occurred following vaccination"

12 hr ago

While muddling through the unending swamp of pandemic literature searching for case reports, I came across one that struck me as a bombshell study suggesting the clear possibility that in some people the vaccine causes significant changes in the gene expression of a massive number of genes, including some that are critical to immune system regulation.

Four cases of cytokine storm after COVID-19 vaccination: Case report

Four cases of cytokine storm after COVID-19 vaccination: Case report - PubMed

Selected excerpts followed by a “translation”:
The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the rapid development of vaccines against this disease. Despite the success of the international vaccination program, adverse events following vaccination, and the mechanisms behind them, remain poorly understood. Here we present four cases of death following receipt of a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine, with no obvious cause identified at autopsy. Using RNA sequencing, we identified genes that were differentially expressed between our post-vaccination cases and a control group that died of blood loss and strangulation. Three hundred and ninety genes were found to be upregulated and 115 genes were downregulated in post-vaccination cases compared with controls. Importantly, genes involved in neutrophil degranulation and cytokine signaling were upregulated. Our results suggest that immune dysregulation occurred following vaccination. Careful observation and care may be necessary if an abnormally high fever exceeding 40°C occurs after vaccination, even with antipyretic drugs.​
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly worldwide, with the number of infected cases exceeding approximately 550 million as of July 2022, defining it as a significant global health concern [WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. Geneva: World Health Organization,]. While there is growing interest in the use of vaccination for reducing disease severity, there are some reports of vaccination-related side effects, such as immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, and death (13). Meanwhile several studies have reported systemic immune response syndrome (SIRS) after vaccination (4, 5). We experienced four cases who died 1–10 days after receiving their second COVID-19 vaccination. Their body temperatures were estimated to be abnormally high at the time of death. Autopsies were performed on these patients but revealed no information about the cause of death, with evidence that pathologic analysis showed no changes to the primary organs. Here, we report the cause of death estimated by sequencing RNA.​
Case profiles
The profiles of four cases who died at home after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine are summarized in Table 1. Three cases received two doses of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, tozinameran, and one case received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, elasomeran. The time from receipt of the second dose to death was 1–10 days. In case 3, side effects following vaccination, such as fever and headache, were not observed on the day before death, whereas in the other cases, they were observed on the day before death. Autopsies revealed no information about the cause of death for any patient, and pathologic analysis showed findings of sudden death, such as congestion of primary organs, and no information about the cause of death, including myocarditis. The postmortem interval inferred from postmortem phenomena and coroner’s rectal temperature measurements estimated high body temperatures for all cases at the time of death (6). Two female cases who experienced sudden death by blood loss (54 years old) and strangulation (86 years old) and had also received two doses of tozinameran [Pfizer] were used as controls for RNA sequencing analysis.​
While the causes of death of the cases reviewed in this study could not be identified by autopsy, RNA sequencing of blood samples obtained and properly stored shortly after death provided valuable information. RNA sequencing analysis using postmortem specimens has rarely been performed because of the degradation of RNA due to postmortem changes. However, in the present case group, it was possible to collect blood samples within 24 hours after death, which was relatively early, and RNA sequencing analysis may have been successful (13).​
We present four cases of death following receipt of a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine, with no obvious cause identified at autopsy. RNA sequencing revealed that genes involved in neutrophil degranulation and cytokine signaling were upregulated in these cases, suggesting that immune dysregulation occurred following vaccination. Careful observation and care may be necessary if an abnormally high fever exceeding 40°C occurs after vaccination, even with antipyretic drugs.​


The authors are reporting their experience autopsying 4 vaccine deaths.

Basically, there wasn’t an obvious cause of death for these patients immediately visible.

However, luckily for these clinicians, they received the bodies within 24 hours of death, which meant that they could perform tests that were not usually a viable option because the body had degraded or decomposed too much by the time a coroner had the opportunity to perform an autopsy. Specifically, they were able to do RNA sequencing1 of RNA isolated from the deceased patients’ blood.

They also included two sudden deaths in vaccinated people that were not because of the vaccine2.

Back to the RNA, the authors employed what seems to be a rather unorthodox - or at least creative - method to try and ascertain a cause of death. They sequenced the RNA to see if they could observe any differences in the RNA’s between the vaccine deaths and the non-vaccine deaths, hoping to find something that could indicate what pathology ‘happened’ that killed these 4 patients.

Let’s explain how this works (it’s not that hard, just intimidating):

life - DNA, RNA, and protein | Britannica

When we refer to a gene as a technical concept, it means a piece of the DNA that is the code for a protein that is made by the organism, in our case humans.

When a cell ‘wants’ to make a protein, the DNA inside the nucleus that holds the code for that specific protein - its gene - has to make a strand of mRNA into a mirror of that gene. When a gene is copied onto an RNA strand to be translated into a protein, that gene is being “expressed” - it’s “on” in the sense that it is activated to create RNA copies of itself to make the protein that it codes for.

The mRNA then exits the nucleus where a ribosome comes along and attaches to the RNA. The ribosome reads the RNA and creates the corresponding protein encoded by that strand of RNA. This is how the mRNA vaccines ‘work’ - the vaccine inserts RNA that encodes the spike protein into cells so that the cells read the RNA blueprint and spit out a bunch of spike proteins.

Since different RNA’s encode for different proteins, the authors could sequence the RNA’s in the dead patients to see what proteins were being created by cells when the patients died. Or in technical sciency jargon, they could determine the pattern of which genes were expressed and how much they were being expressed. (In overly simplistic terms, think “how often did gene ‘X’ make an RNA” / “how many RNA’s of gene ‘X’ did they find”.)

What did they find?​

We’ll break this down into a few steps for clarity:

Step #1: They found a total of 505 (yeah, that’s a lot) genes that were “differentially expressed [] between individuals with unknown cause of death (unknown group) and the control group”. 390 genes were ‘higher’/more expressed in the vaccine death patients, and 115 genes were ‘lower’/less expressed in the vaccine death patients, compared to the 2 control patients that died of other causes.

Step #2: They then had to identify these 505 RNA’s/genes - ie, what proteins were these coding for or relevant to.

Step #3: They then had to try and figure out what this combination of genes would do/cause. This is not the most exact science as there is a lot we still don’t understand about the human genome & proteins. They “estimated” that some of the genes expressed more in the vaccine death patients were involved in increasing immune cells and activity, such as cytokines (think of the dreaded covid “cytokine storm”, which is what they titled their study)3.

Step #3b: They extrapolated from the increased expression of these immune-system genes that there was aggressive immunological activity run amok - “these results provide evidence of a hyperactive immune response in the group with unknown cause of death” - that killed these patients - “the RNA sequencing results suggested that an abnormal secretion of cytokines, possibly a cytokine storm, may have occurred after vaccination, resulting in SIRS and death.”

(SIRS = Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome)


This is not necessarily an open-and-shut case. The authors stipulate that “However, in the present case group, it was possible to collect blood samples within 24 hours after death, which was relatively early, and RNA sequencing analysis may have been successful (13). Although we have no way of knowing whether the cases we reported met these criteria, the RNA sequencing results suggested that an abnormal secretion of cytokines, possibly a cytokine storm, may have occurred after vaccination, resulting in SIRS and death.”

This study furthermore is on a grand total of 6 subjects, of which only 4 were detectably vaccine injured, which is way too small to definitively extrapolate from here that this effect is occurring in vaccine injured patients on a grand scale, is caused by the vaccine on a grand scale, or that their interpretation of the RNA sequencing is correct.

However, in the broader context of everything else we know about these covid vaccines, this study is decidedly ominous and in a sane world would by itself be sufficient to halt the use of these vaccines at least until this epic danger signal was properly investigated and adjudicated.


The most immediate takeaway here is that the vaccines seem to have caused runaway immune activation that killed the 4 vaccinated patients where there was no other observable cause of death.

However, there is a broader and far more ominous implication of this study. The discovery of 505 genes with significantly altered gene expression suggests that the vaccines fundamentally screw up - “dysregulate” - the normal pathways and chemistry that controls or regulates the immune system. It also shows that the vaccines do something very “not good” to something/s in the nucleus of cells. In other words, the vaccines precipitate “unanticipated” irregular cellular “stuff” that alters the state of the DNA and the proteins/enzymes that control the DNA (“epigenetic factors”).

DNA stuff going wrong is the paradigmatic precipitating cause for the creation of cancerous cells.

Immune dysregulation is one of the standard causes for cancerous cells to evade immune detection and be able to metastasize instead of being snuffed out right away by roving Killer T-Cells.

Ideally, someone will follow up and sequence RNA from blood samples of live vaccinated people with vaccine injuries and without vaccine injuries, and from unvaccinated people, and compare them.

In other news, we’re past 2,400 case reports of vaccine associated SAE’s (I have to update the grand master list).


1 Side note: Here we have an example of appropriate PCR use. The authors used PCR to amplify the genetic material - RNA - so they would have enough to be able to sequence the RNA properly and compare the amount of RNA between the vaccine death patients and the control patients.

2 “Two female cases who experienced sudden death by blood loss (54 years old) and strangulation (86 years old) and had also received two doses of tozinameran were used as controls for RNA sequencing analysis”)

3 "Gene ontology (GO) biological processes terms and Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis estimated that genes associated with neutrophil degranulation were markedly higher in the unknown group than in the control group (Figure 1C). Particular factors associated with neutrophil degranulation were increased, including PLAU (18.85-fold), CEACAM3 (6.58-fold), and FCGR3B (6.26-fold), and several genes involved in cytokine production and signaling were also elevated in the unknown group (Figure 1D).”

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

COVID-19 'is not over': Democrats buck Biden in case for pandemic aid

Mon, September 19, 2022, 8:44 PM

President Joe Biden's contention in a recent interview that the "pandemic is over" is complicating Senate Democrats' efforts to secure needed Republican support for COVID-19 relief funding that had been requested by Biden's administration.

"COVID is not over," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Monday when asked about Biden's remarks, made during a "60 Minutes" appearance that aired the previous day. "I don't know what he meant -- some people use 'pandemic' or 'epidemic' or other phrases. And he said that COVID isn't over, the pandemic is over. But the way I look at it, COVID isn't over."

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin agreed.

"The variants are still out there. We are all hoping that it's over [but] nobody is going to predict with certainty that it is. I'm not," Durbin, D-Ill., told ABC News on Monday.

When pressed on the fact that the president twice resolutely stated that he believed the pandemic had ended, Durbin shrugged: "Maybe he knows something I don't."

"The president has asked in the past not just for pandemic funds for COVID-19 but to prepare for what might be next. And I think that's always obvious and fair to do that," Durbin said. "Maybe that's his approach to it, I'd have to ask him."

Biden on Sunday told CBS' "60 Minutes" that "the pandemic is over," adding that "we still have a problem with COVID. We're still doing a lot of work on it. But the pandemic is over."

His comments soon became fodder for Republicans who already opposed the additional $22 billion COVID funding for testing and vaccine development that the White House sought.

The administration's efforts to get lawmakers on Capitol Hill to approve more money have been repeatedly blocked by Republicans. Currently, the White House hopes to have the $22 billion included in a must-pass government funding bill.

But at least 10 Republicans would need to support that move.

"It makes it eminently harder for sure," Republican Minority Whip John Thune said Monday.

The top Republican on the Senate's health committee, North Carolina's Richard Burr, wrote in a Monday letter to the president that he "watched with great interest" Biden's "60 Minutes" interview.

In the letter, Burr asked for more information about how Biden's view that the "pandemic is over" might influence some of the administration's policies, including its request for more COVID-19 funding.

"Despite Americans having largely returned to normal life, which you acknowledged when you noted that attendees at the Detroit Auto Show were not wearing masks, your Administration continues to request un-offset emergency funding from Congress, enforce vaccine mandates, and maintain federal emergency declarations that cost taxpayers billions of dollars," Burr wrote in the letter.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., called Biden's request for additional money "crazy" since he has now said the pandemic is ended.

"The president saying the pandemic is over is ... just kind of mind-boggling," said Cassidy, who previously worked as a doctor. "He wants tens of billions for COVID and he says the pandemic is over?"

When asked if Biden's comments meant there was no need for further funding, Cassidy was brief: "Sounds like it to me," he said.

But some Democrats defended the president. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Monday that Biden's comments were consistent with the changing needs of addressing COVID-19.

"What he's saying reflects reality. People are not acting like we are in the same kind of crisis we were two years ago," Murphy said. "It would not be consistent with reality if President Biden was out there suggesting what we're living through today is the same thing as what we're living through two years ago."

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Biden draws heat for saying pandemic is over
Nathaniel Weixel - The Hill
Mon, September 19, 2022, 5:45 PM

President Biden is drawing criticism from lawmakers and public health experts who warn his assertion that the COVID-19 pandemic is over could undermine the administration’s rollout of new booster shots, as well as efforts to secure more funding from Congress.

“The pandemic is over,” Biden told “60 Minutes” in an interview that ran Sunday.

“We still have a problem with COVID. We’re still doing a lotta work on it. It’s — but the pandemic is over. If you notice, no one’s wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing. And I think this [the Detroit Auto Show resuming] is a perfect example of it,” Biden said during a trip to Detroit last week in an interview with Scott Pelley.

Biden’s comments reflect the administration’s efforts to signal a return to normalcy and show progress in efforts to control the pandemic. The administration has focused its recent messaging on the importance of getting vaccinated and receiving booster shots to increase immunity, as well as the wide availability of antiviral pills and other forms of treatment for those who contract the virus.

But the remarks also contradict some of the White House’s top advisers.

“The pandemic isn’t over. And we will remain vigilant, and of course, we continue to look for and prepare for unforeseen twists and turns,” Ashish Jha, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, told reporters on Sept. 6.

The virus is still killing about 400 people per day, a number that is “far too high for a vaccine-preventable disease,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky said recently.

The White House declined to comment.

Biden’s remarks are also likely to complicate efforts to convince lawmakers to include in a must-pass government spending bill a $22.4 billion request for additional vaccines and treatments.

“One can imagine that by saying the pandemic is over now, you know, the small window of opportunity or the possibility that there might be additional COVID funding becomes almost impossible at this point,” said Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Federal health officials said the funding is crucial to help meet immediate short-term domestic needs, like testing and research and development of next-generation vaccines and therapeutics. It also would help to prepare for future variants.

Republicans have been unwilling to provide the administration with billions of dollars in new money, and some immediately seized on Biden’s remarks.

“Now that the President has finally acknowledged the pandemic is over, he should immediately begin to unwind the public health emergency (PHE) so our country can get back to normal,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said in a statement Monday.

“Instead of clinging to his emergency powers and asking for $22 billion in more COVID-19 spending, President Biden should get to work and take seriously the need to rebuild trust and confidence in America’s public health agencies,” she added.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the public health emergency is not being lifted.

“The COVID Public Health Emergency remains in effect & HHS will provide a 60-day notice to states before any possible termination or expiration. As we’ve done previously, we’ll continue to lean on the science to determine the length of the PHE,” tweeted Sarah Lovenheim, spokeswoman for HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Health experts warn prematurely declaring the pandemic over could also undermine the administration’s rollout of an updated booster shot.

Administration officials say the new vaccines will be key to controlling a potential fall surge, and 100 million Americans could be infected without additional funding. “The overall framing of the pandemic being over doesn’t add to the urgent messaging coming from other parts of the administration saying that it’s absolutely critical for people to get their booster shot,” Michaud said.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Biden declared the pandemic 'over.' His Covid team says it's more complicated.
Adam Cancryn and Krista Mahr - Politico
Mon, September 19, 2022, 8:12 PM

White House officials spent the better part of this year plotting a delicate, step-by-step process they hoped would guide the U.S. out of its pandemic era.

One element that was not part of that plan: President Joe Biden just coming out and saying it.

“The pandemic is over,” Biden said in a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday night. “We still have a problem with Covid. We’re still doing a lot of work on it. But the pandemic is over.”

The declaration surprised the president’s own senior health officials, many of whom only learned about Biden’s remarks from tweets and news headlines. The president had not originally planned to make major news on Covid, nor had he discussed with his health advisers announcing an end to the pandemic soon, two senior officials said.

When the White House reviewed a transcript of his comments after the interview, which was taped earlier in the week, it did not alert its Covid team — leaving the administration without a coordinated response for the immediate aftermath.

In the hours since, health officials have privately and sarcastically applauded themselves for a job well done: After 20 months of round-the-clock work, they joked, all it took to end a once-in-a-century crisis was for Biden to declare it finished. Others argued that the time had actually come for such a declaration; that the virus is in a manageable state and Biden was simply putting in blunt terms where his administration has long been headed.

Substantively, however, there was lingering concern that Biden’s off-the-cuff comments could undercut the White House’s effort to actually bring the public health emergency that is the Covid crisis to a formally declared close — and turn into a political headache should the virus come roaring back.

“We are not where we need to be if we are going to quote ‘live with the virus’,” Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on Monday. “We still must be aware of how unusual this virus is and continues to be in its ability to evolve into new variants which defy the standard public health mechanisms of addressing an outbreak.”

Biden’s pronouncement is likely to give Republicans more ammo to oppose the White House’s funding request to keep the federal Covid response afloat. The White House is seeking more than $22 billion, though Democrats' faith they could secure that amount in an upcoming budget bill was waning even before the airing of “60 Minutes.”

It could also complicate the administration’s campaign for people to seek updated vaccines ahead of a potential winter surge — an uphill battle that health officials say will be the true determinant for whether the U.S. can emerge from the pandemic.

“Covid is probably not the biggest issue at this moment,” a senior Biden official said. “It’s just that Covid is still a real challenge. And if things go bad, it could go from being a problem to being the biggest issue again.”

Administration officials involved with the Covid response stressed that Biden’s remarks would not impact their policy planning, nor that they represented a turning point in the response. The administration is still expected to renew its Covid public health declaration in October, and is pushing ahead to stockpile testing supplies.

The White House also downplayed the rhetorical significance of Biden’s comments, dismissing it as the president’s attempt to highlight the administration's success in beating back the virus. Widely available vaccines and treatments are capable of blunting the worst of Covid's effects, businesses and schools are open, and emergency health measures have largely evaporated. Even if the U.S. is technically still in a pandemic, aides argue, Biden was trying to express that most people’s lives are no longer being controlled by it.

A White House spokesperson on Monday pointed to the administration's previously released fall Covid plan,which encouraged the use of vaccination and treatments to "manage fluctuations in COVID-19 and move forward safely."

"When properly used, the tools we now have can prevent nearly all COVID-19 deaths," the plan said.

Still, the episode underscores the difficulty facing the White House in claiming political credit for its progress on the pandemic even as it tries to rally a weary public against the threat of a resurgence.

More than 300 people a day are still dying from Covid-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and tens of thousands more are hospitalized. Biden officials and public health experts worry that a wave of cases during the colder months could once again disrupt Americans’ lives, and believe the emergence of another variant down the road is inevitable.

At the same time, the administration has increasingly struggled to get people vaccinated, stymied by difficulties breaking through the public’s pandemic fatigue.

“Public health has really lost the trust of many, because we seem to be whipsawing back and forth between different positions,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “Here's an example of one right now. If you say the pandemic is over with, why would people need to get these boosters? We’re already hearing that from the public.”

The chorus of disapproval from the public health community with Biden's comments drew eyrolls among White House aides on Monday, who pointed to their efforts to promote booster shots and secure more funding as evidence that they are not treating Covid as a problem of the past.

Rather, White House officials insisted they can still run the kind of aggressive vaccination campaign that’s needed to protect people against a resurgence, while simultaneously acknowledging that much of the country has moved on.

The administration earlier this month opted to roll out new, updated vaccines to ensure vulnerable populations could get their shots well before the winter. It has also sought to rebrand the Covid vaccine as a once-a-year shot; an acknowledgment, aides said, that most healthy people won’t need more protection than that to stave off severe illness and likely wouldn’t be willing to get it anyway.

The new messaging approach developed by Biden’s top health officials is aimed at reviving interest in the vaccines and normalizing them as part of people’s broader health routines, rather than the latest in an endless series of booster shots.

In a recent press briefing, White House Covid-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha touted the shift to an annual vaccination cadence as an "important milestone." Biden is also expected to deliver a speech promoting the annual approach in the near future, aides said, in what would be his first Covid-specific public address since July.

Those tactics are only likely to get the administration so far, though. Community groups doing outreach for the shots have reported tepid demand in the first weeks of the rollout, a lack of urgency that those on the ground said has been reinforced by the rush at state and local levels to eliminate the last of the pandemic precautions, like masking and vaccine requirements.

“This is very difficult,” Reed Tuckson, co-founder of the Black Coalition Against Covid, said of the state of the local outreach effort even before Biden’s “60 Minutes” comments. “The sentiment out there is that this disease, as far as they’re concerned, is over.”

Biden officials privately allowed that takeup of the updated vaccine is likely to remain low, even as they plan to use the government’s limited remaining Covid funds to push the shots as critical to keeping people safe. It was another factor contributing to the difficulty in discerning what stage of the pandemic fight the country is in.

“Where are we at in the pandemic?” Osterholm said. “We have to just acknowledge: We don’t know.”

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Trump claimed he did a 'great job' with COVID and said the only thing Dr. Deborah Birx did well was scarves, book says
Lloyd Lee,Nicole Gaudiano - Business Insider
Mon, September 19, 2022, 6:45 PM

  • Dr. Deborah Birx previously said thousands of deaths from COVID-19 could have been mitigated.
  • Trump responded, saying he "did a great job with the pandemic," a new book says.
  • The former president criticized Birx and said, "The only thing she did well was scarves."

Donald Trump didn't take too kindly to criticisms from his former White House COVID response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx and instead took a jab at the doctor, according to a new book.

After Birx said in TV interviews and to congressional investigators last year that thousands of deaths during the pandemic "could have been mitigated or decreased substantially" once the US surpassed the first 100,000 deaths in May 2020, Trump rejected the statement and suggested his response was infallible, journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser reported in their new book, "The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021."

"I did a great job with the pandemic," the former president said in an interview with the authors.

Trump also stated he never respected Birx, the authors wrote, and said, "The only thing she did well was scarves," referencing Birx's go-to fashion piece in press briefings and other public appearances.

The scarves were so ubiquitous that an Instagram page, called "deborahbirxscarves," was dedicated to the doctor's fashion accessory and amassed over 33,000 followers.

Birx wasn't the only person in Trump's orbit who was ignored when it came to the former president's response to the pandemic.

Melania Trump also urged her husband to take the pandemic seriously, the book says.

"'You're blowing this,' she recalled telling her husband," according to the book. "'This is serious. It's going to be really bad, and you need to take it more seriously than you're taking it.' He had just dismissed her. 'You worry too much,' she remembered him saying. 'Forget it.'"

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Is the Covid-19 pandemic over? The answer is more art than science

By Helen Branswell
Sept. 19, 2022

Is the Covid-19 pandemic over?

President Biden told Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” it was. The Sunday night interview aired just days after the director-general of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the end may be in sight — though Tedros clearly didn’t mean it was days away when he predicted it.

But how confident can we be that the pandemic is or will soon be over? How can we know we’ve reached “over” when the disease we’ve been fighting isn’t going away?

Reaching the end of a pandemic is not like driving out of one county into the next. There is no fixed demarcation between a pandemic and post-pandemic period, especially for the first recorded pandemic caused by a coronavirus. It’s not like we know it’s over if cases drop to a certain level for a prescribed length of time.

Experts say there are no accepted metrics or defined international rules that tell us when we can call the code on this horrible event. In reality, things are much more ephemeral when it comes to knowing when a pandemic is over.

“It’s over when people decide that it’s over. … And most people seem to have decided it’s over,” said John Barry, author of “The Great Influenza,” a history of the 1918 Spanish flu.

Most of the experts who spoke with STAT echoed a version of Barry’s remarks: In some respects, the pandemic is over when people stop taking measures to protect themselves, when they stop following advice about how to lower their risk, when they resume pre-pandemic behavior.

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, said there are actually a couple of ways to think about when a pandemic ends: by looking at what the disease is doing to humans physically and psychologically.

By the latter yardstick, the pandemic is done like dinner.

“Everyone right now is fairly focused on the psyche. They want to move on. They’re done with the pandemic. And I think that [Biden’s] comment reflects that,” Osterholm said.

Using the former yardstick, however, Osterholm would disagree — noting pandemic deaths have risen in recent weeks and the disease is still the fourth-leading cause of death in the country.

“We’ve been in this high-plains plateau for 12 weeks. I don’t know how anyone can say the pandemic is over for that reason,” he said. “In addition, we don’t yet know what the next shoe to drop is.”

Osterholm suggested there was no science bolstering the president’s statement, calling it “an unfortunate unforced error” coming as it did while the administration is trying to drive up acceptance of the new updated Covid vaccines.

“The last thing you want to do is discourage people from getting their boosters. If I hear the president of the United States say the pandemic is over, why in hell would you want to get a booster?” he asked.

Some people might assume the WHO will issue a decree of sorts, an all-clear declaration. But in reality that’s not something the global health agency does, said Alexandra Phelan, an assistant professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security. The WHO didn’t declare the start of the pandemic and it won’t declare an end to it, she said.

At some point, however, the WHO will announce the lifting of the state of emergency it declared in late January of 2020 when Tedros declared the new disease constituted a public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC, as the instrument is known in public health circles. The director-general seeks advice from a committee of outside experts on issues related to the PHEIC; that committee must meet at least every three months, though it could meet sooner if Tedros asked it to.

The Covid emergency committee last met on July 8, which means an early October meeting must be held. Phelan doesn’t think the committee will advise calling off the PHEIC at that point, though she thinks conditions may allow for it toward the end of the year.

The U.S. government also has an emergency declaration in effect, a tool that gives it powers that have eased its ability to enact policies, allocate funding, and fast-track the authorization of Covid vaccines, drugs, and tests. At some point it will be declared at an end, but that is not what Biden was signaling in the “60 Minutes” interview.

The Department of Health and Human Services has said it will give a 60-day notice to states before it terminates the public health emergency, or allows it to expire. The next date for extending the emergency declaration is in October.

J. Alexander Navarro, assistant director of the University of Michigan’s Center for the History of Medicine, said many of the terms the public has gotten accustomed to hearing over the past couple of years — outbreak, epidemic, pandemic, endemic — are not well-defined.

The reality is pandemics are rare events, and each is distinct. The 1918 pandemic was characterized by three waves — though Barry now believes there was actually a fourth in the United States, in 1920, with some cities experiencing more deaths than during the fall wave of 1918. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which was mild by pandemic standards, had a single wave.

Typically it has taken the passage of time to see that another wave didn’t crest, that disease activity had returned to a normal pattern. That’s easier to see in retrospect than in real time.

It’s especially hard this time, Navarro said, because of our lack of recorded experience with pandemics caused by coronaviruses. There are four coronaviruses that cause common colds; they too at one point made their way from an animal source into people. But it’s not known when that happened. And if they triggered what we would consider a pandemic when they did so, the events were likely mistaken for influenza.

With flu pandemics, the transition into the post-pandemic period is deemed to have occurred when flu activity resumes its normal cadence. Summer waves disappear; activity — at least in temperate zones — peaks during the winter months. Deaths decline. Unusual behavior gives way to usual behavior.

There’s a problem here: We don’t yet know what endemic Covid-19 is going to look like.

“What is normal going to look like with Covid? How many cases are we going to expect daily, seasonally, yearly?” Navarro asked.

Osterholm said there should be some ground rules established for when and how to declare the pandemic over, noting that if things take a turn for the worse, public trust will take another beating.

“You can’t make a pandemic go away by a policy decision,” said Osterholm. “It doesn’t work.”

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Second looks: Peer-reviewed research questions mask study, finds hydroxychloroquine benefit
"Staff behavior" in Bangladesh mask study "caused large and statistically significant imbalances in population sizes," peer-reviewed study says. Hydroxychloroquine "blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry" into the pathway favored by Omicron, another finds.

By Greg Piper
September 19, 2022 - 11:26pm

When President Biden told "60 Minutes" in an interview from the Detroit Auto Show that "the pandemic is over," he pointed to the bare faces of attendees. "If you notice, no one's wearing masks," he said. "And I think this is a perfect example of it."

The remark contradicted Biden's COVID adviser Ashish Jha, who recently told Americans "the pandemic isn't over," and may cause headaches for Justice Department lawyers who continue to defend the administration's COVID-19 mandates in court.

But Biden's statement also makes it easier for his administration to quietly distance itself from mask mandates, whose scientific basis continues to fall under methodological scrutiny.

The so-called Bangladesh mask study, widely touted in the media as the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to show small but meaningful protection at least from surgical masks, is the subject of a new peer-reviewed "re-analysis" in the Springer Nature journal Trials.

Lead author Ben Recht, a University of California Berkeley machine-learning professor, expanded on his methodological criticisms of the study last year with Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pedgen, who has also scrutinized mask research, and University of Pittsburgh computational biologist Maria Chikina.

"Since high impact publications often lead to changes in social behaviors and government policies, they need to be carefully vetted," they wrote, referring to the December paper in Science led by Yale economist Jason Abaluck, based on a cluster RCT of 600 Bangladeshi villages.

Social media giants and the federal public health establishment were already protecting mask mandates from scientific challenge when Abaluck's preprint came out in September 2021.

At the same time it was coordinating with the feds to remove purported misinformation, Twitter locked then-Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff out of his account for a month for saying elderly people had died because of false claims by public health officials that masks would protect them. Then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins put Kulldorff on a quasi-blacklist of "fringe epidemiologists" the prior autumn.

"We find that staff behavior in both unblinded and supposedly blinded steps caused large and statistically significant imbalances in population sizes," the Trials paper said of Abaluck's team.

Neither the preprint nor the peer-reviewed paper from the Bangladesh study included the "raw numbers" from the trial, though Abaluck posted them after initial media coverage, showing "the primary outcome [symptomatic seropositives] differed by a total of just 20 cases between the treatment and control arms" in a study population of 300,000, Recht and the others wrote.

"In particular, the difference in rates is constituted by denominator differences, and thus is similar in magnitude (10% vs 9%) to the population imbalance which arose through the interaction of staff bias and random chance (156,938 and 170,497 individuals enrolled in control and treatment respectively)," the paper says.

It notes that Abaluck's team already conceded the study had "substantial post-randomization ascertainment bias" due to staff who were "tasked with both enrolling households and providing masks in the treatment villages and hence were aware whether they were surveying a treatment or control village." But this bias could only "account for 25% of the difference in size between treatment and control," suggesting "some unintentional unblinding" as well.

"The purpose of randomized control trials is to establish a causal link between interventions and outcomes," notes the Trials paper. "However, causal implications are diminished in the presence of unblinding, ascertainment bias, and bias-susceptible endpoints. Unfortunately, in the Bangladesh mask trial we [find] evidence of all of the above."

University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad, who previously wrote his own review of mask-research literature, called the reanalysis "provocative" in his newsletter. The Bangladesh study "falls apart," he concluded.

"If participants could see a big truck or boxes in intervention villages, but not see that in control villages, they may be more likely to enroll," he wrote. "In fact, 9% more likely!"

A person who enrolls in the trial because "they are getting something for free" may be "slightly less likely to properly report COVID symptoms (perhaps they report less or differently) and less likely to follow through with testing," Prasad said. "Assuming these people are just a little different, can cause the entire trial results to tip."

Abaluck didn't answer queries but responded to Prasad's tweet thread, attaching an email he wrote to the Trials authors.

"[E]very Covid RCT of which I am aware" relies in part on self-reported symptoms, which inevitably means "differential reporting is a concern," he tweeted. "In our study, we could not blind people to whether they received masks. This is also true in vax trials, where people cannot be truly blinded because the real vax has symptoms."

The alternative to self-reporting would be testing everyone, he explained, which was "cost prohibitive in the original study," and his team "couldn't get all the tests imported in time" for an intended followup study.

Though the arm imbalance "is not news," Abaluck's team showed that "treatment and control households are balanced at baseline in terms of both symptoms and symptomatic seropositivity" and "a few more households" in the treatment group "suggests little one way or the other," he said.

Another frequent target of social media censorship, alternative COVID treatments, is also getting a new look.

The peer-reviewed Nature journal Communications Biology published a study last week that found hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) "blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry into the endocytic pathway" — the primary method of entry for the Omicron variant — "in mammalian cell culture," specifically "lung samples from adult humans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."

Scripps Research Institute researchers across several departments used "super-resolution imaging" to determine the antimalarial drug "directly perturbs clustering of ACE2 receptor," which facilitates COVID infection, "through two distinct mechanisms in high and low tissue cholesterol," which is "critical to both viral entry and immune responses."

HCQ does this "prior to inhibiting cathepsin-L," they said. Prior research has found that this enzyme is "probably involved in processing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein," and its "inhibition is detrimental to SARS-CoV-2 infection." The Scripps researchers found "slightly" reduced efficacy of HCQ in "cholesterol loaded cells compared to non-cholesterol loaded cells."

Promoting the antimalarial drug to treat COVID was an early target of Facebook censorship. The company's independent Oversight Board reversed the platform's decision to remove a post touting HCQ, saying the post criticized a government policy, didn't recommend taking the drug without a prescription and didn't meet Facebook's standard for "imminent harm" that justifies removal.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Biden Declares The COVID Pandemic "Is Over" Despite Continued Use In Policies & Programs
by Tyler Durden
Monday, Sep 19, 2022 - 11:32 PM

About a year and a half too late to the game, Joe Biden finally admitted in a Sunday broadcast interview with 60 Minutes that the covid pandemic is over, stating:

“We still have a problem with COVID. We’re still doing a lotta work on it. It’s — but the pandemic is over. if you notice, no one’s wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing. And I think this is a perfect example of it.”

Apparently, in the ever teetering mind of Joe Biden the prevalence of masks was a measure of the prevalence of covid. Of course, this all depends on where in the US or the world you have been living. In red states, masks have been gone for around two years with the majority of people not wearing them. And despite the predictions (and fantasies) of many on the political left, conservatives were not dropping dead in the streets; far from it.

In fact, red states that ended shutdowns and mandates well ahead of blue states enjoyed far superior economic recovery including superior job and business recovery numbers, and virtually no difference in terms of death and infection rates occurred. In fact, studies now show that there was little to no positive effect made by the covid lockdowns and the usefulness of mask mandates is also in question.

Furthermore, infection and fatality rates for covid began to drop long before the covid mRNA vaccines were introduced widely to the public. The facts and the science show that covid stopped being a major threat not long after it spread to the US. The official median IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) according to dozens of peer reviewed studies stands at mere 0.23%. Meaning, over 99.7% of the population is not under threat from covid.

The lockdowns didn't work, but they weren't needed. The mask mandates didn't work, but they weren't needed. And, the rates started dropping dramatically for the original covid strains before even 5% of the US population was vaccinated. All in all, every single government policy that interfered in the lives and freedoms of millions of people ended up being pointless.

Biden's recent declaration means nothing, because he is in no position to determine the current state of the pandemic. The American people already did that, and we declared the thing over a long time ago.

Immediately after Biden’s remarks, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie insisted that the administration should now relinquish all the emergency powers it has grabbed by hyping the threat of the virus.

“If ‘the pandemic is over’ as Biden says, then all of the President’s emergency powers predicated on a pandemic, all COVID vax mandates, the emergency powers of every governor, Emergency Use Authorizations, and the PREP act should all be voided tomorrow,” said Massie.
With the pandemic officially over, now it’s time to end all vaccine mandates.
— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) September 19, 2022

Additionally, as Jonathan Turley so coherently explains, the President's sudden announcement that the pandemic “is over” may have taken some people by surprise, including Administration lawyers still using the pandemic as a basis for policies and programs. This includes a major appellate case this week.

The Administration relied on the pandemic to justify the massive loan forgiveness program at a cost of as much as $1 trillion. The move will be the subject of challenges and defended under the HEROES Act of 2003 as tied to a national emergency, ”when significant actions with potentially far-reaching consequences are often required.”
The pandemic is also being used by states continued crackdowns on those who refuse to get vaccines. New York is moving to fire hundreds of teachers and school administrators.
Private companies like T-Mobile are also moving this month to fire unvaccinated workers.
The President also heralded the removal of masks recently despite the continues requirement for some schools and other locations under pandemic rules (including at my own George Washington University). While at the Detroit Auto Show, Biden declared “If you notice, no one’s wearing a mask, everybody seems to be in pretty good shape.”
Biden’s statement on the end of the pandemic is likely to be cited in a variety of briefs in cases challenging emergency powers and policies used by the Administration. It was just a year ago, in September 2021, that the President imposes such rules to “ensur[e] the health and safety of the Federal workforce and the efficiency of the civil service.” President Biden announced a similar requirement for federal civilian employees. Exec. Order No. 14,043, 86 Fed. Reg. 50,989 (Sept. 14, 2021).
One such example could be the appeal now being considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The issue of the sweeping pandemic authority being claimed by the Biden Administration is now going before the full court in an en banc rehearing.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown previously issued a nationwide injunction against the vaccination mandate in January. That was stayed and has resulted in a series of conflicted moves on appeal.
Yet, the Justice Department is still citing the pandemic authority and insisting that “if an employee chooses not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (and is ineligible for an exception), he simply may no longer be permitted to continue in federal employment, just as an employee would be subject to termination if she chose to stop performing her job or chose to violate workplace policies.”
Here is one such recent brief: DOJ Fifth Circuit brief
Now the President is declaring that the pandemic is over as the Justice Department is defending pandemic policies in various courts. Even if one were to argue that the policy should be reviewed as supported at the time, the continued viability of the policy can now be questioned in light of the President’s own statements. The President’s comments also highlight the fluidity of pandemic policies. While we often look to the CDC on such status statements, it is the President who ultimately decides federal policies on pandemic measures.
If the pandemic “is over,” some may question the continued uncertain status of military personnel and federal employees on vaccine status as well as lingering mask mandates being used in some states and by certain businesses.

What we must never forget, however, is how close we came to full-on medical authoritarianism under the supervision of the Biden Administration and men like Anthony Fauci. Numerous agenda driven institutions also pushed hard for the erasure of our freedoms, declaring that we would “never go back to normal again” and that personal liberties had to be sacrificed under the new pandemic construct.

If Biden's vaccine passport executive orders had been enforced instead of blocked, rest assured the US would be like China is today – Still dragging out the lockdowns and pretending covid is an ongoing threat. Anyone refusing to vaccinate would have been denied employment and participation in the general economy, essentially starved into compliance or compelled to join black market systems and become criminals. Millions of citizens stood against these orders and won the day, but now we have to reverse course and ensure such an attempt to dismantle our rights never happens again.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Head Start Mask Mandate Will Be Removed: Biden Administration
By Zachary Stieber
September 19, 2022

The federal Head Start program, which provides preschool and child care services to low-income families, will soon stop requiring masks.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, which runs the program, said on Sept. 16 that it plans to publish a rule that will rescind its mask mandate.

“This will align Head Start program masking requirements more closely with the updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance,” the administration said.

The change will happen “in the near future,” according to the administration. Officials declined to give an exact date.

The National Head Start Association (NHSA), which has been calling on the government for months to roll back the mask requirement, said the announcement “finally gives us the clarity we have been seeking.”

“It will go a long way to allow programs to do what they do best in a safe, healthy, and community-driven manner,” the group said.


Based on instructions from President Joe Biden, Head Start in 2021 imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on all staff members and many contractors and volunteers. It also implemented a mask mandate for all staff and children, with exemptions for children under 2 years old.

The NHSA told Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Biden appointee, in July that the policy “has been and continues to be extremely disruptive to the Head Start community,” including leading to many employees leaving and parents removing children.

Local officials were best equipped to make decisions on mandates, the group said.

Some lawmakers had also spoken out against the mandates.

“Mandating masking of children is not in line with public health principles and risks significant emotional and physical harm,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said in a letter to Becerra earlier this month.

Federal officials told administrators in February that the mask requirement wouldn’t be enforced and reiterated as much in August, a Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email before the announcement.

The administration acknowledged that CDC recommendations “have evolved” since the interim final rule was issued and officials “will take into consideration the over 2,700 public comments it received, the updated CDC recommendations, the recent approval of vaccinations for young children, and the health and safety of Head Start children and families in the ongoing development of program guidance and regulation,” the spokesperson added.

The CDC changed its masking guidance in February and recently published another update to COVID-19 recommendations.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Updated Moderna COVID-19 Booster Didn’t Improve Clinical Efficacy: Study
By Zachary Stieber
September 19, 2022

Moderna’s updated COVID-19 vaccine was not more effective at preventing COVID-19 infection, according to a new study.

Researchers funded by Moderna analyzed the updated shot, which contains elements of the Wuhan virus strain and the BA.1 strain, in comparison to the old booster, which was only targeted at the Wuhan variant. They recorded more participants contracting COVID-19 in the group who received the updated booster.

Among those who received the updated shot, 11, or 2.5 percent, contracted COVID-19. Among those who received the old booster, 9, or 2.4 percent, tested positive for COVID-19.

In a breakdown of those without prior COVID-19 infection, more participants in the updated booster group got COVID-19—11, or 3.2 percent—than those who received the old booster—5, or 1.9 percent). None of the volunteers who received the updated booster and had prior infection were re-infected. Three participants with natural immunity were re-infected after receiving the old booster, but none displayed symptoms.

“The incidence of infections was numerically higher in the mRNA-1273.214 group than in the mRNA-1273 group among participants with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and balanced between the two groups among all participants owing to reinfections in the mRNA-1273 group,” researchers said. “However, the study was not designed to evaluate vaccine effectiveness, and the follow-up time of infection after the booster is limited, which precludes conclusions about protection.”

mRNA-1273.214 is the updated booster; mRNA-1273 is the old booster.

The study was published by the New England Journal of Medicine after reaching interim endpoints of measurements of antibodies, which are believed to protect against COVID-19. Many of the researchers work for Moderna.

Moderna did not respond to a request for comment.

Researchers said the measurements showed a better immune response after the updated booster, which “indicate that bivalent vaccines may be a new tool in the response to emerging variants.”

Regulators in a number of countries have cleared the Wuhan-BA.1 booster. In the United States, regulators chose to have Moderna and Pfizer reformulate the shots, replacing BA.1’s spike protein with a BA.4/BA.5 one.

BA.1, BA.4, and BA.5 are all subvariants of the Omicron virus variant. BA.5 is the dominant strain in America at present.

The updated boosters from the companies were granted emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration earlier in September, even though no human data was available. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention then recommended an updated booster for all Americans 12 and older.

The old boosters are no longer available.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

BioNTech and Sinovac Vaccines Less Effective Against Omicron: Study
BY Lisa Lin
September 19, 2022

The BioNTech and Sinovac vaccines are significantly less effective against Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 compared to the original virus strain, according to a new study.

The study, jointly conducted by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, found that the levels of antibodies produced against BA.4 and BA.5 after receiving three doses of BioNTech or Sinovac vaccines were lower than those produced against the original virus strains by more than 10 times.

BA.5 is currently the predominant COVID-19 variant worldwide, although BA.2 and BA.4 are also circulating globally. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Virology.

The research team analyzed the serum antibodies of 104 patients. Of the 104 samples, 60 had not been infected with COVID-19. Among them, 20 people had received three doses of BioNTech vaccine, 20 had received three doses of Sinovac vaccine, and 20 had received two doses of Sinovac vaccine and one booster dose of BioNTech vaccine.

Another 44 had been infected with COVID-19, 20 of whom had been infected with the original virus strain and the remaining 24 had been infected with BA.2, including 17 people who had received different doses of vaccine and seven who had not received any injection.

The team cited previous research showing that an antibody level of 25.6 is required to prevent symptomatic infection.

The results showed that after receiving three doses of the BioNTech vaccine, the subjects’ antibody levels against the original virus strain was 320, and the antibody levels against BA.4 and BA.5 decreased to 28.3 and 20.7, respectively. After receiving three doses of Sinovac vaccine, the antibody level against the original virus strain was only 65, and the antibody level against both BA.4 and BA.5 fell to 5.4.

The antibody levels against BA.4 and BA.5 were 6.8 and 5.9, respectively, in those who had been infected with the original strain. The antibody level against both BA.4 and BA.5 was 36.9 in people infected with BA.2 after injection, which was higher than that in other groups.

For BA.5, only 20 percent of those who received three injections of BioNTech vaccine met the standard of preventing infection, while none of those who received three injections of Sinovac vaccine met the standard for BA.2 or BA.5.

“Either BioNTech or Sinovac was found with antibody levels falling against the BA.4 and BA.5 virus variant of COVID,” said Leo Poon, a professor and head of the Division of Public Health Laboratory Science at HKU.

According to Poon, the data reflect BA.4 and BA.5 having stronger immune escape ability. People who have taken three shots of vaccine or have been infected with COVID-19 are both likely to be infected.

However, the mixed immunity brought by the vaccine and the infected virus produced higher levels of antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 than other groups, which had a certain effect on preventing the infection of variant virus strains.

“Both types of vaccines can contribute to reducing the risk of death and appearing serious symptoms when people were infected with COVID if they were triple-vaccinated,” Poon said.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Spike Protein From Infection and Vaccines Contributing to Autoimmune Diseases, Studies Suggest

BY Marina Zhang
September 19, 2022

On the morning of Jan. 15, 2022, Debbie Botzum-Pearman, who had been a strong healthy woman for 66 years, woke up paralyzed from the chest down.

On Sept. 13, 2022, nearly nine months later, she managed to stand up without assistance for 10 seconds. Since then, she has made a steady recovery. She has regained sensation in her thighs and taken her first steps with a walker. But, a long journey remains ahead of her.

Debbie’s symptoms appeared less than a month after her first Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot. She had taken the shot in mid-December and felt fine, the same as with her previous COVID-19 shots.

Looking back now, Debbie realized that leading up to her sudden paralysis, she had been feeling that her bra was getting too tight. This sensation is also called MS (multiple sclerosis) hug, and some people can experience these symptoms even without MS.

The first dominoes toppled on Jan. 14. She was finishing her painting work at her friend’s house when she realized that she could not pee despite having the urge to urinate.

“I was drinking water … could not pee, just could not pee,” she told The Epoch Times.

She got home that day and as she was walking up the stairs, her left leg gave out and she peed over herself.

She went to bed and on the following morning, Debbie was paralyzed from the chest down and rushed to urgent care.

“I probably had 15 MRIs and a spinal tap [at the hospital] … they came back [a few days later] with neuromyelitis [optica],” Debbie said.

“[Neuromyelitis] ate away, I don’t know, four or five inches [of my spinal cord on the MRI], which is repairing itself now.”

Neuromyelitis, scientifically known as neuromyelitis optica (NMO), is a rare condition affecting around 1 to 2 people out of 100,000 every year. The condition destroys the nerves in the central nervous system and the eyes, and can cause paralysis, weakness, and even blindness if not treated.

Onset of NMO is usually precipitated by a viral or bacterial infection such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) or bacterial meningitis. It primarily appears during childhood as well as in women in their 30s and 40s. Risk factors include smoking and having a family history of autoimmune disease.

However, apart from her sex, Debbie did not have any of these risk factors.

Neuromyelitis is mostly unheard of, often overshadowed by and misdiagnosed as the more well known MS, which is another, distinct disease.

Fortunately for Debbie, her doctor was competent and had excellent clinical judgment. Even before the tests and diagnosis returned, he ruled that Debbie was experiencing NMO. Her doctor also allegedly concluded that the booster shot from a month ago was the cause.

The Epoch Times could not verify the identity of the doctor nor his statement, but Debbie and her stepson, Jared Pearman, expressed that the anonymous doctor’s statements were what drove their suspicions that her illness was vaccine induced.

Debbie recalled it was probably the day she was admitted, “[the doctor] came in, shut the door and asked if I had the booster. I didn’t mention [that I had the booster] and he’s the one who declared that it was from the vaccine,” she said.

Debbie was put on a blood purifying machine (plasmapheresis) which cycled out the plasma from her blood to remove autoantibodies that were attacking her own nerves.

Debbie was in the hospital for a week, and she recalled that pretty much every day she was having blood treatments.

Both Debbie and Jared have nothing but gratitude for the doctor; they are convinced that if it was not for the doctor’s quick judgment, Debbie would have fared a lot worse. However, the doctor allegedly told Debbie that he could not make his diagnosis known in the hospital, lest he get fired.

“One of the things that really strikes us is how disincentivized everyone in the medical community is of discussing and analyzing adverse effects to the vaccine … [the doctor] had to secretly acknowledge that [the vaccine] was what caused her symptoms in order to save her life,” said Jared.

“I understand that there [may be] 1 in a million [chance of getting certain adverse effects], that 1 in a million is a real person who has a real life that gets ruined, and sometimes that’s your card.”

Spike Protein and Autoimmunity

Debbie is in no way an isolated case. Since the rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA and DNA injections, reports of neuromyelitis, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, shingles, lupus, diabetes, and many other autoimmune conditions have either suddenly appeared, or relapsed, often with worsened symptoms.

Autoimmunity is a health condition where the body’s immune system becomes confused and unable to differentiate between self and non-self and attacks its own tissues.

The development of autoimmunity is believed to be a result of the interactions of both genetic and environmental factors. Certain autoimmune diseases tend to cluster in families, such as rheumatoid arthritis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, and lupus.

Although genetics plays a role, the development of autoimmunity also depends on environmental exposures to infections and toxins as well as lifestyle, nutritional health, and various metabolic and detoxification processes.

In the case of COVID-19 and its vaccines, many studies since the start of the pandemic have shown that the spike protein shares similarities with human proteins both in its structure and in its basic chemical sequence.

This means the spike protein can increase the risk of developing autoimmunity and implies that the mRNA and DNA vaccines, which cause the body to make large amounts of spike protein, would do the same.

“If the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 contribute to autoimmunity, then why not spike protein from the vaccine? It seems that somehow when we get to that point, the scientists and many people try to keep their distance,” said Dr. Aristo Vojdani, head of Immunosciences Lab and a pioneer in the field of clinical immunology.

Cross Reactivity Hypothesis

A recent study published by Florida International University concluded that this is possible after comparing COVID-19 spike protein sequences to structures of both human and animal proteins.

The authors found that human proteins had the most sequence sets that were the same as spike proteins with 627 regions in common.

A spike protein is made up of 1,273 amino acids. Therefore, the data showing that the protein shares around 600 regions composed of sequences made up of sets of at least five amino acids, indicates that the spike protein shares many similarities, with areas of overlapping hot spots.

There are also 20 regions where the spike protein shares not only the same sequences of amino acids, it also shares the same shape.

Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and co-author of Courage to Face the Virus, told The Epoch Times that the study explains the phenomena being seen in vaccinated and infected individuals.

“One is the actin-binding protein IPP that would influence heart muscle. So the auto-attack against this actin binding muscle could be part of the pathogenesis of myocarditis. The same is true for the tropomyosin alpha 3 chain [found in smooth muscles]. So some of these 3d targets are explaining some of these post respiratory illnesses in post vaccine syndromes that we’re seeing.”

The authors of the study specifically focused on two sequences with high similarity. One is the TQLPP sequence which is found on the human protein thrombopoietin, a protein in charge of recruiting platelets to stop bleeding. Another is the ELDKY sequence which is shared across the PRKG1 protein which is involved in platelet activation and calcium regulation, both of which are critical for blood clots.

Another protein is the aforementioned tropomyosin. The authors also speculated that antibody cross reacting to tropomyosin may be linked to cardiac diseases. “Antibodies cross-reacting with PRKG1 and tropomyosin may cause known COVID-19 complications such as blood-clotting disorders and cardiac disease, respectively,” they wrote.

However, Dr. Aristo Vojdani, an expert in autoimmunity, owner of 17 U.S. patents, co-author to 200 studies and two books on immunity told The Epoch Times that the regions identified by the recent study are not all of the regions that share similarities with human proteins.

He cited a study led by Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld that found the spike protein shares similarities with 34 different human proteins in amino acid sequences in sets of sixes.

These include proteins found in the thyroid, brain, nose, ear, skin, muscles, heart, blood, nerves, joints, intestines, and many more.

Shoenfeld and his colleagues speculated that the spike protein may trigger Guillain-Barre syndrome, viral arthritis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura (bleeding), antiphospholipid syndrome, Kawasaki disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, and many others.

“The goal of the vaccine is to produce exactly the same spike protein that is in the virus … Because after vaccination, individuals will produce neutralizing antibodies. So in reality when the real virus will get into the human body those antibodies made against spike protein through mRNA injection or vaccination notifies [the body there’s] the virus,” said Vojdani.

Therefore, if the spike protein in the virus increases the risk of autoimmunity, there is reason to believe the spike proteins produced from the injections should do the same.

Studies Show Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Antibodies Attacking Human Tissue

In rebuttal, some studies have stated that similarities between human tissues and the spike protein are not enough for autoimmunity to occur.

Therefore, Vojdani and his colleagues have done further studies to test if spike proteins actually do pose a significant risk.

In one study, Vojdani took laboratory-made antibodies that attack human tissues, such as thyroid proteins, mitochondria, smooth muscle, and other proteins, and mixed them with spike proteins.

“[The antibodies] reacted strongly [with the spike proteins],” Vojdani said.

Because antibodies that attack human proteins also attack spike proteins, this implies that antibodies made against spike proteins may also attack human proteins.

His second evidence came from another study where he took monoclonal antibodies made in the laboratories against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and added them to human tissue.

“They reacted from moderately to strongly with various tissue antigens including the muscles, joints, thyroid, brain, skin, gastrointestinal tract, almost any antigen taken from different parts of the body.”

The study found the anti-spike protein-antibodies reacted particularly strongly against proteins in the motor neurons, followed by strong reactions against mitochondrial proteins and against DNA. Having anti-DNA antibodies (ANA) are a hallmark sign of autoimmunity.

“That [is] additional evidence to support that spike protein not only shares homology with human tissue, when we will make antibodies … those antibodies may turn against our body and induce autoimmunity.”

“The third evidence came in our research where we obtained sera [the liquid in the blood, excluding red and white blood cells] … from many individuals with COVID versus healthy subjects.”

Vojdani and his colleagues found serum isolated from people who were infected with COVID-19 had more antibodies against human tissues than people who were not infected.

These studies all indicated that the spike protein is capable of inducing autoantibodies, possibly leading to autoimmune disease.

Vojdani said that he is waiting for more research to implicate the mRNA and DNA vaccine induced spike proteins’ roles in autoimmunity, because it normally can take several months to decades for autoimmunity to develop.

“It’s really too early to come to any conclusion, whether the vaccine contributes to autoimmunity.”

Though, he suggested researchers can test for vaccine-induced autoimmunity by harvesting antibodies from the vaccinated and comparing them to human proteins, possibly even testing to see if they react with human tissue.

Why Are Experts Concerned More About Vaccines Than Virus?

Dr. McCullough said that in infection, most people are able to clear the virus within days or weeks with early treatment, and most of the virus are also confined to the lungs, while the vaccines are directly shot into the muscles.

“Many [COVID-19] patients with respiratory illness, when they get early treatment, they just have a few days of symptoms, and that’s it—there’s little chance of systemic invasion. Whereas with the vaccine, everybody has systemic invasion of spike protein because it’s bypassing the sinuses.”

McCullough cited a paper led by Dr. Alana Ogata that detected S1 proteins (a portion of the spike protein) over 40 days and spike proteins around 30 days post-vaccination respectively. This is longer than the average period of infectiousness.

However, McCullough’s bigger concern is that with vaccine rollouts and people unaware of the risks, they would be taking boosters every six months, with the spike protein produced systematically, and persisting in the body for months.

“The opportunity for autoimmunity with injections every six months and boosters is tremendous,” he said. “The vaccines, because of the fact that they’re given by an injection in the arm—[it] is called parenteral [injections] … We are really, really running risks of autoimmunity in patients.”

Additionally, with a global rollout of the vaccines, and knowing that there may still be regions on the spike proteins that align with human sequences that we do not know about, McCullough speculates that it puts people at risk of developing autoimmune diseases that are less studied, more obscure, including possibly whole new types of autoimmune conditions.

“Autoimmunity is already a human problem … now we’re introducing a possibility for a massive number of new autoimmune syndromes, and it’s just because of the indiscriminate use of [COVID-19] vaccines.”

“[If] they were using [vaccines in] a small limited, high risk group, we wouldn’t be facing some of these very large possibilities of bad things happening in the human population, to two thirds of the world taking a vaccine. Even if a tiny percent develop autoimmunity, it’s going to be a massive number of people with autoimmune syndromes … it is really going to be a problem because of indiscriminate vaccination.”

Treatment Options

Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea, who is an internal medical doctor and practices integrative and chelating medicine, said that she has had successes in treating patients who developed autoimmunity following vaccination.

“This is tested with a blood test looking for anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), in essence they are showing an attack of the immune system against their own DNA,” she wrote in an email.

Mihalcea said that many people have treated autoimmunity associated with possible vaccine adverse effects with high doses of vitamin C and D daily (anti-inflammatory), as well as multiple vitamins, N-Acetyl cysteine (antioxidant and anti-inflammatory), and blood thinners.

Daily intake of quercetin (anti-inflammatory and ameliorates autoimmunity in animal studies), zinc (deficiencies associated with autoimmunity), dimethyl glycine (improves immune function), and methylene blue (antimicrobial, antitoxin, anti-inflammatory), as well as ivermectin (anti-inflammatory, improves cell healing) twice a week and hydroxychloroquine (anti-inflammatory, common autoimmune drug) three times a week are also recommended.

“In addition, I have done Vitamin C infusions and used the anti-aging peptides Epithalon which lengthens telomeres, repairs DNA, and age-reverses cells, and GHK Copper.”

Studies have shown that GHK copper can reset the human DNA, possibly resetting cellular action including autoimmune activity.

Debbie’s Journey Now

Jared expressed that what he found the most difficult to accept was the severe censorship and neglect Debbie faced during her recovery.

“When Debbie stands there and says, ‘I got the 1 in a million card’ [and got an adverse effect from the vaccine], everyone says ‘no, you didn’t, and don’t even talk about it and be quiet, otherwise you’re gonna get me fired,’ that’s a really crazy thing to have to deal with when she’s also trying to just deal with making her body work again.”

After a week of hospital treatment, Debbie entered remission and was put into rehabilitation to return mobility to her core and legs. She was left mostly unattended in the two months of rehabilitation and developed bed sores and deep venous blood clots from sitting and lying immobile for hours on end.

Since beginning rehabilitation at home in April, she has slowly gained mobility and sensation in her lower limbs. Yet, preceding regaining sensations, she experienced two months of excruciating pain.

“My feet felt like they were on fire and I would have shooting pain all the way up to my thighs, very, very, very painful. More painful than having a baby.”

However, her clinicians gave her the paradoxical answer that pain was a good sign, it showed the nerves going back online. Debbie toughed it out but sensation in her legs is still mostly abnormal.

“My legs, if I move them and I don’t have socks on, … feel like [they are being rubbed by] sandpaper. If I have a glass with condensation and it drips on my thigh, it hurts.”

Debbie stood up unassisted for the first time on Sept. 13, 2022.

Her doctors have told Debbie that she can make a full recovery. Debbie believes she is around 50 to 60 percent through her journey.

Pfizer did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Horowitz: New study shows rejection of cornea transplants following COVID vaccination
Daniel Horowitz
September 16, 2022

It was one of the worst human rights violations of the COVID regime, and it’s still going on in most hospitals. Hospitals were de-listing people from organ transplant lists who would not get the COVID shots, no matter how much information came out on how the shots were unsafe and ineffective, particularly among the immunocompromised. From day one, the policy should have been the other way around – kidneys shouldn’t have been wasted on those who got the shots – and now we have the proof.

According to a study published by Japanese researchers last month in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, a number of patients receiving cornea transplants experienced rejections of the cornea tissue following the COVID vaccines. Cornea grafts are considered a much lower-risk transplant procedure than solid organ transplants and tend to have a much lower rejection rate. Which is why the researchers were surprised to find a total of 23 eyes from 21 patients who had undergone corneal graft procedures who experienced rejection anywhere from one day to six weeks following COVID vaccination. In some cases, the rejection occurred suddenly after being jabbed despite the cornea graft having held steady for many years.

Like so many other studies indicating concerning safety signals about the shot, don’t expect any follow-up to this analysis. If our government really cared about safety and science, it would immediately identify these cases of rejected corneal tissue and study them for spike protein and other tissue protein expression markers.

What this study demonstrates is that rather than accusing the unvaccinated recipients of potentially wasting a transplant, we should be studying whether vaccinated recipients might be at higher risk of wasting transplants and whether vaccinated donors run the risk of transferring to the recipients the spike protein through the grafted tissue or in solid organs.

Although the paper has not yet identified a likely mechanism of action causing rejections in eye tissue, Dr. Richard Urso, an ocular specialist, told me he is not surprised that the mRNA expressing the spike would be able to find and inflame tissue that is typically protected from the immune system. “We’re seeing inflammatory markers in tissues that usually don’t receive this protein because the lipid nanoparticles can spread it anywhere in the body. These particles are particularly adept at crossing tight junctions and can deliver the mRNA to parts of the body like the brain and eye. One thing about blood vessels around the eye is that they are covered by pericytes that are full of ACE2 receptors, which makes sense that it would trigger all the pathways for inflammation including natural killer cells.”

ACE2 is the primary receptor the spike protein uses to enter the cells. However, those infected with COVID naturally, although still at risk for ACE2 binding in many parts of the body, are still protected, for the most part, in places like the heart and brain that are hard to penetrate. “The eye and brain are typically protected from immune system overactions because of the tight junctions,” observes Urso, who worked with these tissues in scientific labs for years.

According to Urso, this is also why he suspects one is much more likely to suffer myocarditis from the spike protein expressed through the shots than through natural infection. It’s all about the lipid nanoparticles serving as lifeboats for the spike to interject itself into every tight junction of the body. “The critical piece of evidence in why myocarditis is so much worse among the vaccinated than those with infections is because the heart has tight junctions and they are loosened during exercise, which is why the LNPs can then pass through and attach to the lining of the heart. The LNPs allow the spike to get to places where the virus cannot go. That’s why you see such difference between the level of troponin between those affected by the wild-type disease and those who get the vaccine.”

Perhaps this is why elite athletes who engage in vigorous exercise are constantly on the hook for sudden heart problems, given that the loosening of the junctions allows the LNPs to pass with a greater load of mRNA-coded spike.

Now imagine tainting the entire pool of organ and tissue donors with this spike protein. And yet, the unvaccinated are the ones vilified and excluded from donations? A U.K. study found 13 solid organ donors who likely died from vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia stemming from the AstraZeneca shots just during two of the early months of vaccination in 2021. So what happened when 10 of their organs were given to recipients? "There were seven major thrombotic or hemorrhagic postoperative complications in six recipients resulting in the loss of three transplants.” One of the patients died within a day of cardiac arrest.

When this is all over and the dust settles, it will become clear that treating the unvaccinated as spreaders of disease was the greatest blood libel of all time in order to cover up the true threats of the vaccine itself.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Government figures confirm male Teen Deaths increased by 53% in 2021 following COVID Vaccination & the Death spikes correlate with the uptake of each dose
By The Exposé
September 19, 2022

An investigation of UK Government data has revealed that there was a 53% increase in deaths deaths due to all causes among male teens aged 15-19 in the UK during 2021 after they were offered the Covid-19 injection.

Each spike in deaths correlates perfectly with a spike in the administration of the first, second, and third doses of the Covid-19 injection to this age group.

Further investigation has also found that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low among this age group following Covid-19 vaccination, they were still considerably higher than the negligible amount of deaths that had occurred before the Covid-19 vaccination was introduced.

Suggesting Covid-19 vaccination may have in fact had a negative effect on the immune systems of the teenage boys, or deaths may have been misattributed as Covid-19 deaths, as has been so easily done since March 2020, to cover up the fact that the Covid-19 injections may have played a roll in the deaths.

The above graph has been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.

The graph shows the number of deaths registered each week throughout 2020 and 2021 among teenage boys aged 15-19, and we can clearly see that from week 18 onwards in 2021 there was a noticeable rise in deaths due to all causes among teenage boys compared to 2020, with things taking a turn for the worse from week 23.

For instance in week 26, despite the Covid-19 virus allegedly wreaking havoc throughout the UK, there were just 2 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales. But fast forward one year and we can see that there were 19 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales during week 26. That represents an 850% increase.

The reason the increase in deaths among male teens occurring from week 18 onwards is concerning is that according to the following chart provided by the UK Health Security Agency in the Vaccine Surveillance reports, this is the point where a spike in vaccinations of 18 and 19 year-olds began, and around the same time some 16 and 17-year-olds began to be given the Covid-19 injection.


Overall, according to the ONS reports there were a total of 434 deaths due to all causes among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 1 and week 52 in 2020. However, between week 1 and week 52 in 2021 there were a total of 577 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales.

But what’s concerning here is that the number of deaths between weeks 1 and 17 in both years is almost identical, with 170 deaths occurring in 2020, and 172 deaths occurring in 2021.

The concerning difference in deaths only occurred after the Covid-19 vaccine was introduced to this age group. 264 deaths occurred among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2020, but 405 deaths occurred among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.

This means deaths among males aged 15-19 increased by 53% following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age group compared to the same period in 2020.

Many people may try to shoot this statistic down by claiming Covid-19 was actually to blame, so we also analysed the number of Covid-19 deaths registered weekly among Males aged 15-19 in England and Wales throughout the whole of 2020 and 2021.

The following graph has again been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.

Click to enlarge

As we can see the number of Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales has been pretty scarce over a period of two years. No more than 3 deaths have been registered in a single week. So therefore we can clearly see that Covid-19 does not play a major part in the 53% increase in deaths between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.

But this data does show something rather concerning, in that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low they did actually increase significantly following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this population.


Between week 12 (start of Lockdown 1 in 2020) and week 17 in 2020 there were a grand total of 4 Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales. During the same period in 2021, there was only a single death registered.

However, look at the difference between weeks 18-52 in 2020 and in 2021.

There were 2 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 in 2020, but there were 11 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2021, despite the Covid-19 vaccination being introduced to this age group.

Therefore, following Covid-19 vaccination, Covid-19 deaths increased by 450% compared to the number of Covid-19 deaths during the same time frame in 2020 when there was no Covid-19 vaccine available.

This data, therefore, suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines have either had a negative effect on the immune systems of 15-19-year-old males, or deaths among this age group have wrongly been misattributed as Covid-19 to cover up the fact the Covid-19 vaccine may have had a roll in the deaths.

And we can safely conclude that the Covid-19 vaccine is to blame for those deaths because of the following correlation we have unearthed.

The following three charts are taken from the UK Health Security Agency’s Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022, and they show the cumulative weekly vaccine uptake by age for dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 of the Covid-19 vaccine.

What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 18 and 19-year-olds between week 22 and week 27, and a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 16 and 17-year-olds between week 31 and week 36.

What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 2nd doses administered to 18 and 19-year-olds between week 31 and week 37, as well as the start of 2nd doses being administered to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds from week 18 onwards.

We can also see a clear spike in 2nd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds between weeks 39 and 46, and between weeks 46 and 51.

What we can see here is a clear spike in 3rd doses being administered to 18 and 19-year-olds, between weeks 49 and 51, as well as the start of 3rd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds from week 49.

This is concerning because of the fact there were clear spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between weeks 23-30, weeks 33-36, weeks 39-46, and weeks 48-51.

Therefore, the spikes in doses of Covid-19 vaccine being administered correlate perfectly with the spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 during 2021, as we have shown in the following chart –

We’re sure there will be those who argue that correlation does not equal causation, but if you are going to argue that then please explain in as much depth as we have why deaths among teenage boys were virtually the same between week 1 and 17 in 2020 and 2021 but then increased by 53% between week 18 and 52 following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age group.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Pandemic good news
9 min 40 sec

Sep 19, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

CDC variant report Some increase in BA.4.6 and BA.2.75 BA.4.6 Progressive US increase, starting to slowly displace BA.5 US of America (9,526) Canada (1,007) Denmark (500) France (400) Australia (288) Germany (248) Chile (242) Dominican Republic (173), Peru (149), Luxembourg (123), Belgium (102), Israel (101), Italy (94), Ireland (93), Sweden (92), Spain (85), Netherlands (84), Brazil (76), Argentina (68), Japan (67), New Zealand (60), Switzerland (54), Puerto Rico (53), South Africa (53), Ecuador (49), Mexico (35), Colombia (34), Trinidad and Tobago (30), Czech Republic (27), Costa Rica (23), Jamaica (21), Portugal (20), South Korea (19), Austria (17), Botswana (17), Indonesia (13), Sint Maarten (12), Senegal (11) BA.2.75 Some US increase Growth rate is currently 61% per week relative to co-circulating lineages Current US nowcast BA.5 84.8% (UK, 87.2%) BA.4.6 10.3% (UK, 3.3) BA.4 1.8% BF.7 1.7% BA.2.75 1.3% (UK, 1.6%) BA.2 0% (UK, 0.5%) BA.1s 0% Delta 0% Others 0% (UK, 2.4%) XE 0% UK, technical briefing 45 (September 2022) Contains early data and analysis on emerging variants Findings have a high level of uncertainty Data cut-off of 5 September 2022 BA.5 BA.5 is the predominant circulating variant in the United Kingdom Newly designated variant – V-22SEP-01 (BA.4.6) Omicron sub-lineage BA.4.6 An apparent small growth advantage relative to BA.5. BA.4.6 represented 3.31% of UK samples Preliminary neutralisation data from BA.4.6 Expect some immune escape from BA.4 or BA.5 antibodies There is NO increased risk of hospital admission after BA.4 or BA.5 infection compared to BA.2 infection. Expect some immune escape triple dosed recipients of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine. V-22JUL-01 (BA.2.75) As of 6 September 2022 BA.2.75 in the UK, 1.6% Does seem to have growth advantage over co-circulating lineages of, 61% per week Two sub-lineages of BA.2.75 (BA.2.75.1 and BA.2.75.2) are currently being assessed BA.4/BA.5 Severity A case-control study Risk of being admitted to hospital as an inpatient Among people presenting to emergency care within 14 days of positive test. Comparison, risk of admission with BA.4 or BA.5 versus BA.2 Between 16 March 2022 and 23 August 2022 BA.4 n = 2,530 BA.5 n = 12,026 BA.2 n = 17,022 Adjusted for age, sex, vaccination status, week of test, 2 days of extreme heat There was no difference in the risk of admission between people infected with BA.4 compared to BA.2 There was no difference in the risk of admission between people infected with BA.5 compared to BA.2

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Biden says "The Pandemic is Over" | HHS tries to walk it back | Who is right? | A Doctor Explains
13 min 33 sec

Sep 19, 2022
Vinay Prasad MD MPH

Is the COVID-19 pandemic actually over???
9 min 18 sec

Streamed live Sept 19 2022
Vejon Health

Keep up to date with the science around the COVID-19 pandemic. Are we really going out of the pandemic?What is the current situation across the world? Look at the John Hopkins Coronavirus Resource here:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Should I Take the Bivalent COVID-19 Booster?
41 min 26 sec

Sep 19, 2022
MedCram - Medical Lectures Explained CLEARLY

Roger Seheult, MD of MedCram explains the data behind the bivalent boosters.


COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status Dashboard (Texas HHS) | Page Not Found...
Fact check: New COVID-19 boosters were tested in just 8 mice? Should it matter? (CBS17) | Health agencies’ credibility at risk after week of blunders...
Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Omicron-Modified Bivalent Vaccine (CDC) |
Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Omicron-Adapted COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Demonstrate High Immune Response Against Omicron (BusinessWire) |
A Bivalent Omicron-containing Booster Vaccine Against Covid-19 (medRxiv) |
Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant mRNA vaccine boosters in healthy adults: an interim analysis (Nature) |
Bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines increase breadth of neutralization and protect against the BA.5 Omicron variant (bioRxiv) |
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant (NEJM) |

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Hydroxychloroquine Blocks SARS-COV-2 Entry (New in-vitro study)
38 min 58 sec

Streamed live Sep 19, 2022
Drbeen Medical Lectures

Hydroxychloroquine Blocks SARS-COV-2 Entry (New in-vitro study)
Supported by NIH and The US Department of Defense, this new study reveals an unknown mechanism of hydroxychloroquine to block the endocytic entry of SARS-COV-2. Let's review.Keep in mind that this is an in-vitro, peer-reviewed, accepted, and published study.

URL list from Monday, Sep. 19 2022

Hydroxychloroquine blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry into the endocytic pathway in mammalian cell culture | Communications Biology
Cathepsins: Proteases that are vital for survival but can also be fatal - PMC
The ganglioside GM1 interacts with the serotonin1A receptor via the sphingolipid binding domain - ScienceDirect
Phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate - Wikipedia
Review of PIP2 in Cellular Signaling, Functions and Diseases - PMC

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Even mild COVID raises the chance of heart attack and stroke
by Clare Arnott, Bruce Neal and Jamie Cham, The Conversation
September 19, 2022

A concerning report recently published in Nature Medicine suggests even a mild case of COVID can increase the long-term risks of serious cardiovascular diseases such as stroke, heart attack and heart failure. The study highlights our limited understanding of the full consequences of COVID infection and the long-term impact of the COVID pandemic.

Australia has now reported more than 10 million cases of acute COVID infection and more than 14,000 deaths, with at least 600 million more people infected worldwide.

The immediate effects of COVID infection on the heart have been well documented, with myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) an infrequent but potentially lethal complication. But myocarditis only occurs in about 40 people per million infected.

The big concern raised by this fresh study is that medium- to long-term harms on the body's blood vessel network (the vascular system) may be much more common than that. And it could drive a new pandemic of cardiovascular disease over the coming years.

What they found

The study, led by researchers at Washington University, showed a heightened risk of future cardiovascular events among people who have recovered from COVID.

The authors analyzed the health records of around 150,000 U.S. veterans, who are often studied because they are a well-documented group within a discrete health-care system. They compared the rates of cardiovascular disease in veterans who'd experienced a COVID infection against uninfected control groups that included some 10 million people.

Between 30 days and a year after recovery from COVID, survivors were 52% more likely to have a stroke, 63% more likely to have a heart attack, and 72% more likely to develop heart failure. This means that over one year, for every 1,000 people who had COVID, there would be five extra strokes, three extra heart attacks and 12 extra cases of heart failure. There was also evidence of an increased risk of serious blood clots on the lungs.

While these numbers might sound small to some, when scaled to 600 million COVID infections worldwide, the implications are enormous.

One particularly concerning finding was that while those with more severe acute COVID infections had the highest risk of a cardiovascular events over the following year, even those with a mild infection were at increased risk. And that risk was not restricted to those who'd had heart health problems before—it could affect anyone.

Necessary cautions

The study was large and had many strengths. But the findings must be reviewed with a degree of caution. It was an observational study (in which researchers draw inferences from what they see in a population, rather than control variables for an experimental study). So, we can't be certain the increased risk of heart disease or stroke was definitely caused by the COVID infection. The people infected with COVID were not identical to the people who were uninfected.

That said, the researchers made statistical adjustments and could not identify another explanation for the large increases in risks seen.

It is also likely some people with asymptomatic COVID infection were accidentally included in the control groups. However, the effect of this would have been to underestimate the risks of COVID infection on cardiovascular risk.

And of course, U.S. veterans are a very particular set of individuals (mostly older, male and white). Even if the effects of COVID on cardiovascular risk are real for them, there must be some uncertainty about whether the same effects would be seen in other populations.

COVID and hearts

The clear, but low, risk of heart disease at the time of COVID infection also provides support for a connection between COVID infection and medium- to long-term heart disease.

Even before the COVID pandemic there was a well-established link between the inflammation caused by infection and the risk of heart attack.

A heart attack occurs when an artery supplying blood to the heart is blocked and the heart muscle is starved of oxygen. This usually happens when rupture of a fatty plaque in the artery causes a blood clot to form. This process is driven by inflammation in the tissues and thickening of the blood, both of which can occur with COVID, and both of which can persist long after the initial infection has resolved.

These data remind us once again of the importance of limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The best way to reduce COVID-related risks is to prevent COVID infection and reduce the severity of infection. We must maintain high vaccination rates and support infection control measures such as mask wearing in high-risk situations. Ever stronger evidence of the long-term effects of COVID redoubles the importance of these efforts.
Heart-disease risk soars after COVID—even with a mild case Heart-disease risk soars after COVID — even with a mild case
— Dr. Greg Kelly (@drgregkelly) September 9, 2022

Future problems

We rightly feared the respiratory complications of COVID throughout 2020 and 2021 but only now are we appreciating the full impact of the pandemic across other body systems.

Doctors will need to view COVID infection as a new long-term risk factor for cardiovascular disease in much the same way that many other chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis are viewed now. We should advocate for fair access to heart disease prevention and treatment in all Australians, particularly those at highest risk such as First Nations people. And most importantly, as patients, we must prioritize our own heart health.

And we'll need to remain vigilant for the effects of new strains. Over the decades to come we'll need to plan for the enduring effects of COVID.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

COVID-19 damages placenta's immune response, study finds
by University of Washington School of Medicine
September 19, 2022

If a woman contracts COVID-19 during her pregnancy, the infection, even if it's mild, damages the placenta's immune response to further infections, a UW Medicine-led study has found.

The study was published Sept. 17 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

"This is the largest study to date of placentas from women who had COVID-19 during their pregnancies," said Dr. Kristina Adams Waldorf, senior author and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. "We were surprised to find that women who had COVID-19 during their pregnancies had placentas with an impaired immune response to new infection."

This finding, Adams Waldorf added, "was the tip of the iceberg" in how COVID-19 might affect fetal or placental development.

Early in the pandemic, many thought that COVID-19 did not appear to harm the developing fetus because there were so few babies born with COVID-19 infection, she noted.

"But what we're seeing now is that the placenta is vulnerable to COVID-19, and the infection changes the way the placenta works, and that in turn is likely to impact the development of the fetus," Adams Waldorf said.

"To date, the studies about how COVID-19 might affect fetal or child development are very limited as the children are still very young," noted co-author Dr. Helen Feltovich, professor and associate medical director for maternal fetal medicine imaging at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah.

"Our study suggests that babies born to mothers infected with COVID-19 at any point during their pregnancy will need to be monitored as they grow up," she said.

Credit: University of Washington School of Medicine
1 min 11 sec

The placenta provides nourishment, oxygen, and immune protection for the fetus until the time of birth. Studies led by Adams Waldorf have shown that women who contract COVID-19 have a significantly higher mortality rate than do women who do not contract COVID-19. Other studies have found that pregnant women are more likely to risk hospitalizations or preterm birth, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

It's unknown how different COVID-19 variants may affect the mother or fetus, Adams Waldorf and Feltovich agree.

"Studying each of the variants in real time is really challenging," Adams Waldorf said, "because they just keep coming so fast, we can't keep up. We do know that the COVID-19 Delta variant was worse for pregnant individuals, because there was a spike in stillbirths, maternal deaths and hospitalizations at that time."

Regardless of the variant, Adams Waldorf stressed it's important that women not catch COVID-19.

Women who are pregnant should first get vaccinated and boosted, and continue to mask and stay within a strict bubble of individuals who are also vaccinated and boosted. She acknowledges that may mean isolating for the duration of the pregnancy.

"The disease may be mild, or it may be severe, but we're still seeing these abnormal effects on the placenta," she said. "It seems that after contracting COVID-19 in pregnancy, the placenta is exhausted by the infection, and can't recover its immune function."

In this study, a total of 164 pregnant individuals were studied, consisting of 24 uninfected healthy patients as a control group and 140 individuals who contracted COVID-19. Both groups delivered at about the same time, 37 to 38 weeks. Preterm birth occurred at almost 3 times the rate with the patients with COVID-19 when compared with those without. About 75% of the patients with COVID-19 were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms, according to the study.

Placental tissues were obtained with patient approval through either the Intermountain Healthcare Research Institutional Review Board, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or the University of Washington Human Subjects Division. Placental tissues were collected by medical providers at the time of delivery.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Facemask can detect viral exposure from a 10-minute conversation with an infected person
by Cell Press
September 19, 2022

Scientists have created a face mask that can detect common respiratory viruses, including influenza and the coronavirus, in the air in droplets or aerosols. The highly sensitive mask, presented September 19 in the journal Matter, can alert the wearers via their mobile devices within 10 minutes if targeted pathogens are present in the surrounding air.

"Previous research has shown face mask wearing can reduce the risk of spreading and contracting the disease. So, we wanted to create a mask that can detect the presence of virus in the air and alert the wearer," says Yin Fang, the study's corresponding author and a material scientist at Shanghai Tongji University.

Respiratory pathogens that cause COVID-19 and H1N1 influenza spread through small droplets and aerosols released by infected people when they talk, cough, and sneeze. These virus-containing molecules, especially tiny aerosols, can remain suspended in the air for a long time.

Fang and his colleagues tested the mask in an enclosed chamber by spraying the viral surface protein containing trace-level liquid and aerosols on the mask. The sensor responded to as little as 0.3 microliters of liquid containing viral proteins, about 70 to 560 times less than the volume of liquid produced in one sneeze and much less than the volume produced by coughing or talking, Fang says.

A video demonstration of the wireless bioelectronic mask for a real-time test.
Credit: Matter/Wang et al.
27 sec

The team designed a small sensor with aptamers, which are a type of synthetic molecule that can identify unique proteins of pathogens like antibodies. In their proof-of-concept design, the team modified the multi-channel sensor with three types of aptamers, which can simultaneously recognize surface proteins on SARS-CoV-2, H5N1, and H1N1.

Once the aptamers bind to the target proteins in the air, the ion-gated transistor connected will amplify the signal and alert the wearers via their phones. An ion-gated transistor is a novel type of device that is highly sensitive, and thus the mask can detect even trace levels of pathogens in the air within 10 minutes.

"Our mask would work really well in spaces with poor ventilation, such as elevators or enclosed rooms, where the risk of getting infected is high," Fang says. In the future, if a new respiratory virus emerges, they can easily update the sensor's design for detecting the novel pathogens, he adds.

Next, the team hopes to shorten the detection time and further increase the sensitivity of the sensor by optimizing the design of the polymers and transistors. They are also working on wearable devices for a variety of health conditions including cancers and cardiovascular diseases.

"Currently, doctors have been relying heavily on their experiences in diagnosing and treating diseases. But with richer data collected by wearable devices, disease diagnosis and treatment can become more precise," Fang says.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

biden declares covid pandemic "over"
but it's still an emergency, right?

el gato malo
20 hr ago

call me mr cynical paws, but has anyone else noticed a decided trend toward covid policy loosening being highly correlated to election proximity?

Kyle Becker @kylenabecker
BREAKING. President Joe Biden just declared the Covid-19 pandemic “over" on 60 Minutes
September 19th 2022
626 Retweets2,000 Likes

why, if i didn’t know better, i’d swear this was really all about politics and not public health…

oddly, this does not seem to be cause to end the emergency measures which appear poised to be renewed (for the 11th time)

because, mustn’t derail the gravy train.

(or give back any powers)

The renewal would occur as HHS plans to shift costs of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments to the commercial market, a process beginning this fall that is expected to take months.
Hospitals have advocated for the PHE's extension.
In July, the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents investor-owned or managed hospitals, urged HHS "in the strongest terms possible" to renew PHE through 2023.
well, of course they would do that, wouldn’t they? covid has been a bonanza for them with outlandish and unaudited billing codes for useless procedures and snipe hunting for trace covid to blow revenues into the stratosphere.
for hospitals, high Ct PCR tests have been the next best thing to owning your own money printer.

here’s a tour of the unprecedentedly lavish goody room that goes away for health care providers when the emergency declaration ends.

and this will make hospitals angry.

but november cometh…

it’s quite the quandary.

you can all but smell the wires burning:

but one thing is certain: there is not a hospital admin alive that wants to hear the phrase:

so don’t worry, i’m sure they will find a way to press both buttons. it’s not as though “narrative consistency” has been a priority of late…

brace for some truly interesting pretzel twists of logic and messaging as the powers that be try to sell “the emergency of a pandemic that’s over” to keep the slush funds slushy and the graft and grift grooving.

the tale they tell will wind up with the topology of a klein bottle.

but shape of the truth is rather more plane. (sorry)

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

SHARYL ATTKISSON reminded us now that HHS (Health & Human Services) will renew the 'Covid-19 pubic health emergency for 11th time'; how? why a renewal if Biden says pandemic is over?
I ask you to comment, could this really be, is this really all about politics, elections, as under Trump, now under Biden, that there was NEVER ever an emergency, & this is about POWER, 'keeping it'?

Dr. Paul Alexander
11 hr ago

Title: If POTUS Biden said the pandemic is over, then why would HHS move to renew the public health emergency declarations an 11th time? Is it not time to remove the emergency declarations?

An 11th renewal is ludicrous and nonsensical, absurd and has no basis. Is this about mid-term elections? Is this about Presidential elections in 2024? Is this purely politics now and the drive to hold onto accrued power amassed with the lockdown lunacy?

Omicron as the current dominant variant and it’s sub-variants (clades) is very mild such that for most people, even many high-risk people, they can adequately handle the infection and cope with it. The reality is that while omicron can still present a challenge (as does seasonal influenza and common cold and a range of respiratory illnesses) to elderly persons and especially those with co-morbidities (as well as obese persons, immune-compromised persons), it is revealing itself to be no more severe than seasonal flu, and generally less so.

Moreover, we have used repurposed therapeutics (as prophylactics and treatment) effectively and we have availability. We also know who is the at-risk group and how to effectively manage and hospitals were given hundreds of billions of dollars $ in PPE, PPP, and COVID relief money to prepare. They are prepared. They, hospitals, are limited in terms of laying off many nurses who chose to not be COVID vaccinated and they must apologize given the clear evidence that the mandate policy had no scientific basis. The data clearly showed very early on after COVID vaccine rollout that there was no difference in terms of viral load between a vaccinated and an unvaccinated person. Thus the policy was punitive and nonsensical, and not just for nurses, but for all employees subjected to it without any scientific basis. Hospitals and workplaces should take these employees back and pay them all lost wages. Do all they could to make them ‘whole’.

Moreover, a large portion of the vulnerable population in the developed world is already vaccinated and protected against severe disease. Importantly, we have learned much about the utility of inexpensive supplements like Vitamin D to reduce disease risk, and as mentioned, there is a host of good therapeutics available to prevent hospitalization and death should a vulnerable patient e.g. elderly in a nursing home or similar congregated setting or private residence, become infected. And for younger people, the risk of severe disease – already low before omicron – is minuscule. This is the data. This is the evidence across global nations.

Even in places with strict lockdown measures, there are hundreds of thousands of newly registered omicron cases daily and countless unregistered positives from home testing. Measures like mandatory masking and distancing have had negligible or at most small effects on transmission. Large-scale population quarantines only delay the inevitable. Vaccination and boosters have not halted omicron disease spread; heavily vaccinated nations like Israel and Australia have more daily cases per capita than any place on earth at the moment. This wave will run its course despite all of the emergency measures.

This given that omicron, with its mild infection, is running its course to the end, there is simply no justification for maintaining emergency status. So why would HHS move to renew it an 11th time? The lockdowns, the school closures, the shielding-in-place, the business closures, the personnel firings and shortages and school university disruptions have done at least as much damage (and certainly more) to the population’s health and welfare as the virus. The American population and most global nations that engaged in lockdown lunacy etc. have been crushed, devastated, economies and their peoples. We harmed and caused deaths of our populations by the lockdown lunatic policies and especially our poorer minority populations and women, who could not afford to shield. We catastrophically shifted the burden of infection and illness from the café latte, laptop, ‘zoom class’ to the poorer in society who could not shield as had to maintain front-facing employment to survive. They could not ‘remote work’. Many business owners, laid off employees, and children in America committed suicide due to the lockdown restrictive lunacy.

The state of emergency is clearly not justified now, and it cannot be justified by fears of a hypothetical recurrence of some more severe infection at some unknown hypothetical point in the future. We just cannot operate public health policy this way. If a novel severe strain or variant were to occur and it seems unlikely from omicron (though we are placing the spike antigen under relentless selection pressure with sub-optimal vaccinal antibodies, mounting sub-optimal immune pressure, and in the midst of massive infectious pressure) then that would be the time we discuss a declaration of emergency. Not now. It is done, it is over and it is time we let Americans go back to normal life. All restrictions, all mandates, vaccine and otherwise, must be ended now!

Americans have sacrificed enough of their human rights, dignity, liberties, and of their livelihoods for over two years in the service of protecting the general public health. Americans lost people to the virus, vulnerable people and no one can deny that. But America lost most due to the lockdown lunacy and we lost above all, our freedoms. It is time to allow America to be unshackled from these COVID lockdown lunatic policies. Completely. Living life freely once again, taking reasonable precautions, unfettered by government’s failed COVID lockdown polices whereby not one worked!

Omicron is circulating but it is not an emergency. The emergency is over. It is done! The current emergency declaration must be canceled. It is time. It is time to bring this COVID pandemic to a full closure and to move on to proper public legal inquiries as to the decision-making that went into the COVID response, particularly the roll-out of the ineffective and safety untested COVID gene injections.

HHS expected to renew Covid-19 public health emergency for 11th time | Sharyl Attkisson

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

mRNA causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)
New Japanese Study

NE -
19 hr ago

Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) was an early concern for many scientists who weren’t fixated on giving Covid vaccines to everyone. However, anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines weren’t a gift from God was dismissed. Worse than that, it wasn’t even studied or looked at.
ADE occurs when suboptimal antibodies, acting almost like a Trojan Horse, bind a virus and enhance its entry into cells. This can happen in both natural infection and vaccination and can result in more severe disease.

Now, a new Japanese re-evaluation of ADE of infection in Nature Scientific Reports confirms that ADE could be causing adverse effects.

These novel mRNA vaccines have been developed to target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-protein). The authors say that whilst the preventative and therapeutic effects of vaccine antibodies are obvious, little attention has been paid to the influence of the remaining and dwindling anti-S-protein antibodies. They found that, whilst mRNA (Moderna) antibodies initially exhibited neutralising activity, a dominance of ADE activity was observed over time.

When examining how long neutralising or ADE activities lasted, they found that no neutralising activity was detected 27 days after first vaccination. The highest concentration of neutralising activity was detected on days 20 - 52 after the second vaccination.

ADE activity was also detected at diluted concentrations. After day 98 of the second vaccination, no neutralising activity was detected, however clear ADE activity was maintained.

Taken together, these results demonstrate that after vaccinations, neutralizing antibodies are induced and persist for a long time in some individuals, but ADE-causing antibodies also exist from the early stage and persist for a longer period than do neutralizing antibodies in some individuals. It is noteworthy that ADE observed at a higher concentration of serum, that is at low dilution (1/100), might mean a more vulnerable stage in terms of susceptibility to infection, because no neutralizing activity was detected.
Next, the authors of the paper examined the effect of vaccination against Omicron. They found that whilst some samples maintained neutralising activity against the original strain on day 175 after vaccination, there was no neutralising activity against Omicron. One sample still exhibited ADE activity.

It is suggested that the rapid spread of Omicron around the world may be in part due to the lack of cross-neutralisation against Omicron and some ADE activity after vaccination.

They conclude by saying that their study shows that mRNA vaccination targeting the S-protein has potential to cause ADE. Their experiments show that the opposing activities of neutralisation and ADE are exhibited by the same antibodies.

Interestingly, the amount of virus seemed to be unrelated to the development of ADE. Infection was enhanced even with an extremely low dose of virus. They also suggest that ADE-causable antibodies are not the only critical factor that results in the development of ADE.

Whilst it is plausible that unfavourable ADE causing antibody concentrations may not be reached until the virus has been cleared from the body, the authors say it is still important to pay attention to the possible adverse effects caused by remaining or diminishing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Furthermore, due to the protective effects of T-cell immunity it might make it more difficult to recognise ADE in reinfections.

Antibodies raised by double vaccination (at least on day 175 after the second vaccination) are less effective against Omicron as reported, and suggest that the Omicron strain has acquired the ability to escape attack by pre-existing anti-SARS-CoV-2 Abs and in part can utilize infection-enhancing mechanisms, possibly including ADE, as a means of survival.

It leads one to wonder how many people experienced ADE after vaccination from small amounts of virus, which would not have caused a problem if they had remained unvaccinated. How many people may have died as a result of ADE?

All speculation but speculation which is supported by this Japanese study. Speculation, which if left uninvestigated, may cause similar or worse problems in future vaccination campaigns.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

Adding some context to the new Japanese ADE study
Taking a nuanced perspective and showing that there's a lot here to address and uncover.

Modern Discontent
11 hr ago

Edit: The caption for Supplementary Figure 4A incorrectly stated that the K-ML2 line was the cell line with higher expression of ACEII and TMPRSS2 when it should have stated that the Clone 35 cell line shows higher expression. The caption has ben edited with corrections in italics to reflect this error correction.

This morning a few different Substacks have reported on a new Japanese study examining antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in vaccinated individuals as well as from previously deployed monoclonal antibody therapeutics.

Some noteworthy Substacks include Naked Emperor’s as well as Eugyppius (Naked Emperor appeared to have been ahead in the reporting). Take a look at the provided links for their perspective.

In any case, the search for concerning features of these vaccines has brought up ADE as one of the most probable aspects. It’s interesting that Fauci himself, in March of 2020, even commented that ADE is a viable concern for vaccines and something that needed to be addressed (timestamped below):

4 min 58 sec

So what exactly did this Japanese study find and of what use are these findings for those who are vaccinated as well as those who many have received monoclonal antibody treatments?

What is Antibody-Dependent Enhancement?​

In discussing ADE it’s worth explaining what ADE actually is.

One critical feature of antibodies that have been overlooked is the actual purpose of antibodies. Usually we have taken antibodies for granted as little Velcro-like units that float in our bodies until they adhere to a pathogen.

Depending on how the antibody binds that may stop the pathogen from entering into cells by acting as a barrier between the cell and the pathogen.

However, the antibody does not work alone but in facts work in signaling to other parts of the immune system in what’s called an effector function.

This is carried out by the end stalk of the antibody known as the crystallizable fragment (Fc region) portion. This region comes at the tail-end of the antibody, opposite that of the paratopic region (Fab region) which binds to the antigen of a foreign molecule or pathogen.

Now, when an antibody binds to a pathogen one of our immune cells, such as macrophages, monocytes, or other cytotoxic immune cells may bind to the Fc region and signal these immune cells to remove the attached pathogen. This binding occurs due to the presence of Fc receptors on the surface of these immune cells.

Such a response is considered to be an Fc-dependent or Fc-mediated immune response. It should be noted that other responses to antibodies may occur without binding to the Fc region (Fc-independent).

In most cases this response is well and good and leads to the removal of these pathogens.

However, in some cases it is the Fc-region which itself is culpable of increasing viral entry in a rather paradoxical sense.

Rather than hinder viral entry, the Fc-region of some antibodies, when bound to Fc receptors (FcR) on the surface of FcR-expressing cells may actually signal the cell to take in the virus rather than to eliminate it (Xu, et. al.1):

Fc receptor (FcR)-mediated ADE is the most common form of ADE, which was first discovered by Halstead (1977). At first, it was thought that the antigen antibody immune complex formed by virus and specific antibody combined with the host cell with the help of FcR on the cell surface, which was more conducive to the entry of virus, and increased the infection amount and infection rate of virus, finally led to the increase of infection and replication of virus. By phagocytosing immune complexes, the cells expressing FcR on the surface, such as monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, and certain granulocytes, can produce ADE. This kind of ADE is mainly mediated by IgG antibody, but IgM, IgE and IgA antibody have also shown the ability of ADE (Janoff, Wahl, Kelly, & Smith, 1995; Shi et al., 2018; Takada, Ebihara, Feldmann, Geisbert, & Kawaoka, 2007).

Below is a schematic diagram (Arvin, et. al.2) of some of these effector functions of antibodies, with ADE being boxed:

From Arvin, et. al. In many cases antibodies may bind to a virus and lead to a cascade of effector functions, usually signaling other immune cells to properly deal with the antibody/antigen complex. However, sometimes the complex, through the Fc region of the antibody, may signal to cells expressing Fc-receptors to uptake the virus rather than eliminate it (boxed image above). This leads to ADE and enhanced infection of host cells.

In many cases why this mechanism occurs has not be fully understood and tends to be muddied by the paradoxical immune response. On one hand, the antibodies that bind and eliminate a pathogen may effectively do so, but on the other hand at some point this may reverse and become detrimental. The exact reason why something that would be protective may be harmful makes research into ADE very nuanced and complex.

Things to Consider​

Remember that in many cases the argument over ADE tends to be very, very broad. Here we’ve commented that an antibody needs to bind to the virus/pathogen first in order for the proceeding events of ADE to occur. That tells us that the antibody is critical in examining whether ADE is occurring, such that one antibody binds differently than another and affects which antibody may cause ADE in the first place.

At the same time, many different antibodies are all attempting to cling to an antigen/pathogen, so to the extent that ADE is occurring requires an examination of all the antibodies available and how they all may bind in concert to the antigen.

Keep this in mind as we look at the Japanese study.

The ADE Study​

With this information in mind let’s examine the Japanese study circulating around.

The study in question is the very recently published article from Shimizu, et. al. 20223:

This study looked at ADE occurrence in two different experiments; one looked at monoclonal antibodies previously used for COVID and one looked at the sera of a very small pool of Moderna-vaccinated individuals.

What cell lines are used?

The cell lines used were myeloid cell lines, which are cells that differentiate into other immune cells such as macrophages and monocytes. However, here these cell lines were modified to express ACEII and TMPRSS2 (the serine protease that cleaves the spike into the S1 and S2 subunits) and labeled Clone 35 throughout the study:

Briefly, immortalized myeloid cell lines were established by the lentivirus-mediated transduction of cMYC, BMI-1, GM-CSF, and M-CSF into human iPS cell-derived myeloid cells. These cell lines were further induced to express ACE2 and TMPRSS2 using lentiviral vectors.
This is rather interesting. Remember that the remarks about ADE refer to Fc-expressed cells which usually focus on immune cells. To the extent that the virus alone can infect myeloid cells would depend on the expression of both ACEII as well as TMPRSS2 on the surface of these cells (note: myeloid cells do express ACEII receptors). By modifying these cells to express these receptors and enzymes this itself may induce greater infectivity of these cell lines.

Now, this is balanced by the use of these myeloid cells among control cell lines which would take into account this greater rate of infectivity, but it’s something worth remembering when examining this study and wondering how comparable this is to our own cells.

How was infectivity measured?

This study measured infectivity in a quantitative manner via the use of qRT-PCR.

Viral infection of SARS-COV2 into these Clone 35 cell lines should, in theory, lead to greater replication. Higher replication would infer greater viral load, and greater viral load would be measured by PCR:

Mylc cell lines (2 × 104/well) were cultured with SARS-CoV-2 virus in 96-well flat-bottomed plates. Viral concentrations in culture SNs after three days of culture were determined by qRT-PCR. Total RNA was extracted from culture SNs using the QIAamp viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN) following the manufacturer’s instructions. […] The fold increases in viral quantity were calculated as follows: the fold increase = (virus concentration (copies/μL) of the experimental group with Ab)/(virus concentration (copies/μL) of the background control culture without Ab).

Which vaccinees sera was used?

This study focused solely on those who were vaccinated with Moderna’s vaccine. However, the pool was very small (6) but more importantly no patient information is provided on these individuals. No age, sex, prior infection history, or comorbidities were included either in the study or in the Supplementary Material, leaving us in the dark to possible reasons for variability.

This is a pretty big issue, because any variability in the data can’t be concluded to be of the vaccine alone, but without those other variables this makes it hard to fully extrapolate from this study.

*As a note, I will not go into too much detail in regards to the actual vaccinated individuals since other people have covered this section already.

Experiments on monoclonal antibody therapeutics​

In this study researchers looked at the effects of monoclonal antibodies and their ability to induce ADE first. Two different monoclonals were observed; one combination therapy from Regeneron (REGN-COV) containing the antibodies Casirivimab and Imdevimab and GSK’s Sotrovimab (S230).

When examining ADE it’s important to note whether monoclonals have FcR binding capabilities (remember that it’s the antibody/antigen complex that interacts with the FcR on cell surfaces that’s important for ADE to occur). Some monoclonals may alter the Fc Region and prevent binding to receptors such as Evusheld’s prophylactic therapy that I discussed previously.

In this case the researchers found that all 3 antibodies were able to bind to the FcR of the Clone 35 cell lines as measured via immunostaining and flow cytometry, so we won’t discuss this part in particular.

Given that binding to FcR receptors by these monoclonals is possible, the researchers wanted to see if these monoclonals themselves would be capable of producing ADE.

When examined at a high viral load both Casirivimab and Imdevimab didn’t appear to show ADE when cultured with Clone 35 cells at higher concentrations. However, at diluted levels there did appear to be an indication of ADE occurring:

Clone 35 cells were cultured with a constant dose of authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus (original strain: 4,000 copies/μL) in the presence or absence of a titrated amount of Cas or Imd Abs (Fig. 1A). Three days later, the amounts of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the culture supernatants (SNs) were examined by quantitative PCR (qPCR). At high doses of mAbs, significant neutralizing activities were observed (for example, more than 90% neutralization at 100 ng/mL [1E-1], Fig. 1A). These neutralization efficiencies were consistent with those previously reported22, indicating that these mAbs in these experiments maintained their activities. However, at diluted concentrations (1 ng/mL final), both mAbs exhibited obvious ADE activity (Fig. 1A,B).

So remember that ADE is a measure of higher viral load measured 3 days after incubation as noted by qRT-PCR. Also, note that the metrics used in this study changes between the actual figure as well as the information in the text. For instance, above it mentions neutralization at 100ng/mL, yet the figure measures in micrograms (ug)/mL.

Remember that micrograms are a measure of 10^-6 while nanograms are a measure of 10^-9. The difference between nano and micro is a difference of 1,000 fold, and so 100 ng/mL is the same as .1 ug/mL which is the same as 1E^-1 on Figure 1A. Yes, very confusing!

And as stated above at a measure of 1 ng/mL (1E^-3) there appeared to be evidence of ADE occurring:

Figure 1A. The x-axis follows a logarithmic scale changing by a factor of 10 (1E+00 infers 1 ug/mL). The fold increase is a measure of the ratio between quantified viral RNA from qRT-PCR compared to the control (Clone 35 cells infected with SARS-COV2 and no antibodies used).

I’ll focus on this figure because I can’t quite make heads or tails as to what Fig 1C-E are intending to show aside from taking the fold measures from different studies and collecting them together so I’ll focus on 1A.

Now, this would appear rather concerning and show some sort of dose-dependent action. What action exactly is not described.

However, as a therapeutic one would wonder if this dose would be one achievable with the use of Regeneron. This would raise questions as to the practical findings of this in vitro study.

[continued next post]
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
[continued from post above]

What’s strange is that the researchers note that this window of ADE appears to be very narrow and provides this graph within the Supplemental Material for Casirivimab specifically:

From Supplementary Figure 3. Around 1 ng/mL give or take appears to be where ADE is the strongest. However, this is in concert with the viral load used and thus these results would greatly change based on the viral load.

But what’s interesting is this comment made by the researchers:

The ADE observed for clone 35 cells was not observed for the parental cells, K-ML2 cells lacking the expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 (Supplemental Fig. 4A), and was blocked in the presence of an FcR-bindable and competitive Ab (4G2 mAb) (Supplemental Fig. 4B,C).

Above I mentioned that these Clone 35 cell lines were modified to overexpress ACEII and TMPRSS2 and that may significantly change the interpretation of results.

K-ML2 cells are the parent cells, meaning that they are the unmodified myeloid cells although they show rapid division. That means reduced expression of both ACEII and TMPRSS2 compared to the Clone 35 cell line.

Given this information, the researchers apparently didn’t find any evidence of ADE at various concentrations using the K-ML2 cell line:

From Supplementary Figure 4A. When the parent K-ML2 cell line was used no ADE was observed. Since the Clone 35 cell lines show greater expression of ACEII and TMPRSS2 relative to the K-ML2 line this was inferred by the researchers to indicate an ACEII and FcR dependent mechanism of ADE.

And this makes sense, as another previous study by the same researchers looked at K-ML2 cell lines leading them to be surprised at the low level of viral infection when they used serial dilutions of SARS-COV2 (Shimizu, et. al. 20214):

In the present study, we used the Mylc line K-ML2 (Supplemental Fig. S1), because this line grows fast and it is easy to prepare a large number of cells. First, we examined whether K-ML2 cells can be infected with live SARS-CoV-2 (Fig. 1). K-ML2 cells were inoculated with serially-diluted SARS-CoV-2 and cultured for three days. Contrary to our expectation, no increment of SARS-CoV-2 in the culture supernatants (SNs) was detected by quantitative PCR (qPCR).

The researchers noted that, when ACEII expression of K-ML2 cell lines was examined expression was at a basal level (i.e. very low). This led researchers to try and upregulate the expression of ACEII using lentiviral vectors leading to the creation of the Clone 25 cell lines with an ACEII and TMPRSS2 expression level almost 100 times higher than the parent K-ML2 cell line:

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the binding receptor of SARS-CoV-2, and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) processes the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 for membrane fusion between the virus envelope and cellular membrane of target cells24. We next investigated whether K-ML2 cells express these molecules. qPCR experiments revealed that they express these molecules at almost basal levels (Supplemental Fig. S4). We therefore prepared ACE2- and TMPRSS2-expressing K-ML2 cells (K-ML2 (AT) cells, Supplemental Fig. S1) using a lentivirus expression system. The levels of expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in K-ML2 (AT) cells were augmented more than 100 times (Supplemental Fig. S4) after lentivirus transduction.

So in some regard this sort of manipulation would actually not clue us in on ADE. If cells must be made to overexpress surface proteins can we really say that ADE is occurring?

On the contrary. Rather than argue that this low dose of monoclonals would lead to ADE the researchers, when comparing the K-ML2 cell line results with the Clone 35 results, actually suggest that these results are indicative of an ACEII-dependent method of ADE similar to their 2021 finding:

Taken together, these results demonstrate that Cas and Imd mAbs have the potential to cause ADE of infection at a particular Ab concentration, and that the ADE observed is dependent on ACE2 and FcR.

So what exactly does this mean?

It means that, on some molecular level, the interaction between the antibodies, the spike, and the ACEII receptor all need to act together in some unique way to increase the infective nature of the virus.

And that mechanism may actually be elucidated by the researchers looking at Sotrovimab.

The unique MOA of Sotrovimab​

The researchers next looked at Sotrovimab and wanted to see if this monoclonal would show signs of ADE when used with the Clone 35 cell lines.

Interestingly, although Sotrovimab showed FcR binding it did not show any signs of ADE:

Sot mAb was able to bind to FcR as well as Cas mAb (Supplemental Fig. 5). However, in contrast to Cas mAb (Fig. 2A,C), Sot mAb exhibited no ADE activity at any Ab concentration examined and had neutralizing activity at a higher Ab concentration against both the original and Omicron strains (Fig. 2B,D).

Figures 2B and D, respectively. Note that I am unsure as to the actual difference between the two graphs. D appears to be more indicative of continuous antibody binding activity while B does not appear to show much. Note that in both graphs Wuhan strain is colored blue while Omicron is colored orange.

So if Regeneron’s combination therapy of Casirivimab and Imdevimab may show ADE yet Sotrovimab doesn’t, what exactly is occurring here?

This would require us to understand exactly where these antibodies bind and how this feature is actually critical in examining ADE.

For both Cas and Imd both monoclonals bind to the RBD of the spike protein in nonoverlapping regions5:

From Hansen, et. al. The 3D modeling of both Casirivimab (cyan/light green) and Imdevimab (red/yellow) when binding to the RBD of the spike protein (dark blue).

This mechanism of action for Cas and Imd is not out of the ordinary- usually one would want antibodies to target the RBD of the spike in order to neutralize the virus.

However, at low doses this appears to have some effect on ADE and is related to ACEII in some fashion. It could be that the binding of these antibodies somehow, at very low doses, may infer a preferential conformational change in the spike that allows it to better bind to the ACEII receptor.

One hypothesis could be that both antibodies could bind to the FcR of a cell, and such binding may place the spike in the right position to then bind to the ACEII receptor and lead to viral entry, almost as if the cell is aiding in its own demise. A low concentration of the antibodies may indicate that several antibodies are needed to bind to the spike as one or two may actually provide enough space for the spike to bind to the receptor.

As of now there’s no information that I’m aware of in regards to this ADE mechanism of Cas/Imd, but with Sotrovimab it’s mechanism is one that likely explains the lack of ADE.

Sotrovimab is an interesting monoclonal. Unlike the others which were isolated from the convalescent plasma of previously infected individuals, or isolated from vaccinated then infected ACEII transgenic mice Sotrovimab actually came from an individual infected during the original 2003 SARS-COV outbreak.

The use of an antibody from SARS-COV rather than SARS-COV2 speaks of the conserved epitope on the spike protein such that Sotrovimab can work across these two viruses.

But what’s more interesting is that Sotrovimab doesn’t target the RBD, but a nearby loop. The targeting of this loop, strangely, causes a conformational change in the spike protein.

The spike exists in a prefusion/postfusion conformation. When the prefusion form attaches to ACEII it latches on and enters its postfusion conformation.

What Sotrovimab appears to do, by targeting this loop on the spike, is to induce the spike to take on a postfusion conformation.

One study by Walls, et. al. looked at the binding of S230 (Sotrovimab) to the spike of SARS-COV and compared this binding to SARS-COV and ACEII.

A few of the findings included:

  • Sotrovimab only bound to the spike in the open (prefusion) and intermediate conformations and not the closed (postfusion) conformation:

In contrast to LCA60 [another antibody the researchers were investigating], which could recognize all possible arrangements of the B domain, S230 only interacts with intermediate and open states, but not with the closed conformation. Since the interaction sites of both S230 and ACE2 are only accessible in the partially or fully open B domain conformations, binding of either of these two proteins to SARS-CoV S would sterically prevent sampling of the closed state (Figures 4A–4D).

The rest of the study is rather complex, but the findings were unprecedented given the fact that Sotrovimab’s binding almost mimicked the same effects as ACEII binding in that it caused the spike to enter into a closed, postfusion state:

Moreover, S230 (or ACE2) binding triggered the SARS-CoV S transition to the postfusion conformation. This finding is an unprecedented example of functional mimicry, whereby an antibody activates membrane fusion by recapitulating the action of the receptor. It remains to be investigated whether binding of S230 triggers virus-cell fusion when particles are bound to the surface of cells.

An antibody that mimics the effects of the receptor is striking since most antibodies are examined from the perspective of binding and blocking interactions. Yet here, Sotrovimab changes the conformation of the spike and renders it unusable.

And it’s likely this mechanism that differs between Cas/Imd. Even if Sotrovimab as FcR binding capabilities, it would essentially be presenting an inactive, closed off virus to the cell that isn’t capable of binding to the ACEII receptor. It may be this reason that Sotrovimab doesn’t appear to show any ADE as compared to the other antibodies that bind to the RBD.

I suppose Shimizu, et. al. 2022’s use of their Clone 35 cell lines would actually counter the comment raised by Walls, et. al. such that virus-cell fusion doesn’t appear to be triggered by additional ACEII and TMPRSS2 proteins. However, more research should help elucidate more evidence.

The sera of vaccinated individuals​

The last thing worth examining is the vaccinated individuals. As this has been the focus of other Substacks I won’t dive too deep into this section.

What’s interesting is that the researchers, as noted by Eugyppius, appear to focus on one individual (HC2) and noticed a high level of ADE occurring within this individual. However, the data was highly varied among the other vaccinated individuals which doesn’t tell us much information.

More importantly, no comparison to naturally infected individuals was done which just adds more ambiguity.

Because of this it’s hard to argue whether ADE is indicative of vaccines or may be a consequence of just any immunological response to the spike.

One thing that many people seem to forget is that, for the most part, we are born with all of the antibodies that we will ever produce. That is, an infection does not lead us to create antibodies de novo, but rather that an infection causes our immune system to dive into our germinal centers and activate B-cells with the necessary antibodies.

So in some sense we can’t discount the fact that all of us have constructed our own unique array of antibodies, and this unique array may either help or harm us. It could be a fact that HC2 may have just been unluckily and produced those antibodies that cause ADE.

And that’s probably one of the most crucial takeaways from this study. Again, we must be careful in immediately making proclamations of vaccination and that natural infection would not lead to ADE.

Remember that all of the monoclonals in use, including the 3 from this study came from people who were previously infected (well, some may have come from mice I’ll concede that point). That means that all of us, even if naturally infected, may carry Casirivimab-like or Imdevimab-like antibodies, and that would mean that ADE may be a possibility for all of us.

Okay, that’s if we don’t take into account a dose, ACEII, FcR-dependent mechanism of ADE, or that these are just 3 of the many many different antibodies that our bodies are likely to produce, or that the actual expression of both ACEII and TMSPSSR2 may actually be low for myeloid cells.

As one antibody may infer ADE such as Casirivimab or Imdevimab, another may actually stop the virus from binding by changing the conformation a la Sotrovimab.

Remember to look at this information not within the context of how to target the vaccinated or the vaccine, but what this may mean for the own antibodies you produce. Remember to draw those relationships between monoclonal antibodies and our own.

Also, if anyone is curious some research has looked into mice who overexpress ACEII and found higher immune function with possible protective effects against cancer, Alzheimer's, and atherosclerosis6. This mice model may not be translatable to humans (especially in regards to inducing overexpression aside from genetic variances). Nonetheless, this may suggest that people with higher ACEII expression of myeloid cells may be protected from other diseases but may be more at risk of developing ADE.

It’s just another example of how the body and all of its processes are far more complex than we make them out to be, and something we should always keep in mind.
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

According to CDC's figures, no Americans have received a bivalent booster
Not sure their stats are trustworthy of course

Meryl Nass
16 hr ago

According to CDC staff at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on September first, 49% of the eligible US population had already received at least one COVID vaccine booster. “Eligible” meant only those Americans who had completed the initial series, which was 67% of the US population.

Immediately after the meeting the new, bivalent boosters were rolled out. They were already being shipped to clinics, having been authorized by FDA the day before. Rochelle Walensky blessed them after the ACIP gave its approval on September 1, the same day that bivalent boosters were rolled out in Canada, Switzerland, the European Union and the US.

I am not sure what the rush was.

With data updated through September 14, how many Americans have received one of these shiny new boosters? How many ran out to get the latest and greatest omicron-containing shots?

According to CDC, the total number of eligible Americans who took any type of first booster is 48.6%. Wait, what? Isn’t that less (or the same) as the 49% claimed by CDC on September 1 to have gotten one of the old boosters?

Americans have smartened up. And didn’t Biden say the pandemic was over?

Nobody wants these killer vaccines any more.

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

COVID: "It's A U.S. Government Operation"
Why is America's intelligence community so involved in the global COVID vaccine campaign?

Emerald Robinson
19 hr ago

A week ago, I discussed how the Department of Homeland Security filed for a patent regarding “fusion proteins containing luciferase” in 2017, and was granted the patent in 2019. Luciferase has only one purpose in medicine: tracking things. That’s all the proof you need to understand that the U.S. government is building a global surveillance state where people are tracked biometrically in real time.

How does the Biden regime get you tagged with Luciferase? Through the new vaccines of course.

PatrioticMamaaa @patrioticmamaaa
Turns out that @EmeraldRobinson was right and is owed an apology from @newsmax ! The covid vaccines DO contain Luciferase! It’s literally in the patents on their own website… #VaccineMandate #Moderna #Pfizer #CovidVaccine #DoNotComply
November 7th 2021
4 Retweets7 Likes

I talked about how Tony Fauci and Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak were involved in the funding and creation of weaponized bat coronaviruses in China — and how Peter Daszak was one of the people who organized corporate media around the world to deny the link between the virus and the Wuhan Lab. In other words, there was a global disinformation campaign to hide the origins of COVID-19 that was led by the exact same people who had created it.

Emerald Robinson’s The Right Way
Did The U.S. Government Kick Me Off Twitter?
As most of you know, I was the first reporter to ask President Trump why the NIH had been funding the Wuhan Lab of Virology to “research bat coronaviruses” several years before the COVID pandemic. That was April 2020. In the following months, various media outlets reported that…
Read more
7 days ago · 374 likes · 36 comments · Emerald Robinson

Now we have Dr. Robert Malone explaining how vaccine manufacturing facilities in Canada are being funded by “an investment arm of the CIA.” Just as some of the vaccine companies themselves — like Moderna — are funded by DARPA which is (according to Dr. Malone) “basically an arm of the CIA.”

Watch this three-minute video.

This new information leads to a number of troubling questions.

Why have our national security agencies — which supposedly protect our liberties — been so silent while Americans have been subjected to a forced vaccination campaign along with a medical apartheid plan?

Perhaps our spy agencies can’t be bothered to discover the origins of COVID because such an investigation would ultimately implicate our spy agencies?

And which government agencies made the “the strange decision” to drop all regulatory norms of medical research regarding the COVID vaccines in order to coerce every American into getting injected as fast as possible?

Now listen to Dr. Peter McCullough on the origins of the COVID virus.

Do you see the terrible outline? Do you see where this is all going? We are just starting to see why the Department of Homeland Security filed for a bio-surveillance protein patent two years before the official outbreak of COVID. And why Obama’s deputy director of the CIA showed up at a coronavirus simulation exercise called Event 201 in November 2019.

We are just starting to see why DARPA — which is the R&D wing of the CIA according to Dr. Malone — is “heavily invested” in vaccine development.

The U.S. government created the COVID virus. The U.S. government created the COVID vaccines. The U.S. government got a patent for Luciferase tracking proteins to be used in the vaccines. The U.S. government allowed dangerous DNA vaccines to be produced without proper safety trials. The U.S. government illegally forced our military to get injected with an “emergency use authorization” drug never approved by the FDA. The U.S. government worked with Big Tech companies to censor Americans who told the truth about the COVID vaccines. The U.S government forced ordinary Americans into getting injected with these experimental vaccines too. The U.S. government then fired any employee or contractor who refused to take their non-FDA approved drugs — and coerced private companies into doing the same thing.

All the conspiracy theories are coming true.