Doc Robinson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
• Third of England Still Without Any Covid Immunity, Scientist Warns (G.)
The most recent GOV.UK data actually estimates that 90% of the adult population in England have already been infected or vaccinated.
1.Main points
In England, it is estimated that around 9 in 10 adults, or 89.8% of the adult population (95% credible interval: 88.2% to 91.3%) would have tested positive for antibodies against coronavirus (COVID-19) – SARS-CoV-2 – on a blood test in the week beginning 14 June 2021, suggesting they had the infection in the past or have been vaccinated.
• Third of England Still Without Any Covid Immunity, Scientist Warns (G.)
What that Guardian article doesn’t mention is that the 33% figure reportedly includes the number of vaccinated people who are still susceptible to the Delta variant due to ineffective vaccines. Time will tell whether this is significantly overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines.
Third of population in England ‘still susceptible to Delta variant’
When taking account of vaccines, which do not work perfectly, modellers at Warwick University calculated that 33% of the population could catch Covid.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/delta-england-warwick-university-warwick-english-b945525.htmlThird of people in England still susceptible to Covid, expert warns
…27.4% of the English population will have been infected and therefore have natural immunity, leaving the rest either vaccinated or unvaccinated. When taking account of vaccines, which do not work perfectly, the modellers at Warwick calculated that 33% of the population remains susceptible to the Delta variant, first identified in India.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/covid-england-population-susceptible/@ Bill7
Imposed lunacy sounds about right.
I might be mistaken, but I think the “WTF” and “FFS” responses (to the exposed lunacy) have more impact when they come naturally from the reader, instead of being pushed by the writer.
New evidence that the lockdown “cure’ may be worse than the disease.
A study of excess mortality in Greece during the first 9 months of the epidemic shows that the deaths from Covid-19 were less than the number of non-Covid excess deaths. This is “most probably related” to the underutilization of healthcare services due to suspension of outpatient care, cancelation of elective surgeries, etc.
3,778 excess non-Covid-19 deaths
vs.
2,406 deaths from Covid-19 (per Worldometer)Results
Utilization rates of all public healthcare services during the first nine months of the epidemic dropped significantly compared to the average utilization rates of the 2017-19 control period… This underutilization of essential public services – mainly due to supply restrictions such as suspension of outpatient care and cancelation of elective surgeries – is most probably related to the 3,778 excess non-COVID-19 deaths (representing 62% of all-cause excess deaths) that have been reported during the first 9 months of the epidemic in the country.
Conclusions
Greece’s healthcare system, deeply wounded by the 2008-18 recession and austerity, was ill resourced to cope with the challenge of the COVID-19 epidemic. Early and prolonged lockdowns have kept COVID-19 infections and deaths at relative low levels. However, this “success” seems to have been accomplished at the expense of non-COVID-19 patients.
Essential Public Healthcare Services Utilization and Excess non-COVID-19 Mortality in Greece
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350621002596Study results published last week:
”
COVID-19 vaccines don’t infiltrate breast milk, study shows”https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2021/07/07/coronavirus-vaccine-breastmilk-study/2431625608286/
However, the study only looked at 7 “breastfeeding individuals” and only until 48 hours after vaccination, and only looked for vaccination-related mRNA.
An earlier study on breastfeeding woman in Israel found that some babies developed fever, coughs, and other symptoms of respiratory infection after the mothers got the Pfizer shots. There was no explanation for how this could have happened.
Four infants developed fever during the study period 7, 12, 15, and 20 days after maternal vaccination. All had symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection including cough and congestion
SARS-CoV-2–Specific Antibodies in Breast Milk After COVID-19 Vaccination of Breastfeeding Women
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778766Some recent peer-reviewed research about the Sputnik V vaccine shows that “there is no evident benefit of using a second dose in previously infected individuals.”
Highlights
First dose of Sputnik V results in 94% seroconversion rate in naïve individuals
A second dose greatly increases antibody titers and neutralizing capacity
One dose in seropositive individuals elicits higher titers than two doses in naïve
There is no evident benefit of using a second dose in previously infected individuals
Sputnik V Vaccine Elicits Seroconversion and Neutralizing Capacity to SARS CoV-2 after a Single Dose
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666379121002081This article from Swiss Policy Research says “So far, no variant has achieved escape from all three major antibody classes.” If/ when that happens, look out for more breakthrough cases and ADE.
Image: https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/coronavirus-escape-mutations.pngSome of the existing variants – notably the South African, Brazilian (P1), Nepalese and Peruvian variants – have managed to escape two out of three major antibody classes, reducing vaccine effectiveness; but so far, no variant has managed to escape all three antibody classes (see above).
Such a triple-escape variant may arrive next autumn or winter and could potentially lead to increased rates of vaccine breakthroughs and re-infections, especially in regions that have not yet faced the Brazilian or South African ‘class 2’ escape variants. The actual impact will also depend on the effectiveness of cellular immunity (T cells), which may be somewhat broader.
Furthermore, a triple-escape variant will, for the first time, raise the question of a potential antibody-dependent disease enhancement (ADE), as vaccinated people, in particular, will have very high levels of non-neutralizing antibodies, whose behavior remains somewhat uncertain. ADE has been observed with SARS-1 vaccine candidates, but not yet with SARS-2 vaccines.
In terms of escape mutations, the coronavirus has already played many of its best ‘cards’, including the powerful 484 escape mutation found in the South African, Brazilian and New York variants and the 490 mutation in the Peruvian variant. In terms of receptor binding affinity – which may or may not increase infectiousness and virulence – there are a few more options left (see charts below).
Existing and future coronavirus variants once again highlight the importance of effective and affordable early treatment options for high-risk people and low-income nations, as monoclonal antibody therapies are losing effectiveness and vaccines will require updated boosters.
Raúl Ilargi: “A study from Argentina that finds ivermectin mostly useless. I haven’t read it, so dive in.”
I commented here about that study on July 5. My comment is reposted below.
—————————————————————-
The results of an ivermectin trial in Argentina were published on July 2. It seems like the trial was designed to show “Ivermectin had no significant effect.”
ConclusionIvermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. [The ivermectin group had 14 hospitalizations, compared to 21 hospitalizations in the placebo group.] Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
BMC Infectious Diseases
Published: 02 July 2021
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5#Sec2I’m neither a medical professional nor a paid researcher, but even I see some significant problems with this study.
Despite it being a “a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” with 250 patients receiving ivermectin, the authors admit that the trial was “underpowered because the hospitalization rate was lower than expected when performed in the sample size calculation.”
The doses of ivermectin were insufficient, compared to the FLCCC’s I-MASK+ Early Patient Protocol which calls for 0.20-0.40 mg/kg given daily for 5 days or until recovered. This trial gave an average dose of 0.19 mg/kg, and only for two days! In the report, the authors admit that their dosage was “below the doses proposed as probably effective.”
The ivermectin was not given particularly early to many of the patients. About half of the ivermectin group didn’t get the first dose until at least 4 days after symptom onset. Breaking this down further, approximately 25% of the ivermectin group didn’t get the first dose until somewhere in the range of 4-6 days after symptoms started, and another 25% of the group didn’t get the first dose until at least 6 days after symptom onset.
[“In the group of symptomatic patients, the median time from symptom onset to inclusion [and dose 1] in the study was 4 days (IQR 3–6).” 481 of the 501 participants were symptomatic. Presumably about half of the symptomatic (240) were in the ivermectin group. If the median was 4 days, then about half of the ivermectin group got the first dose 4 days or more after symptom onset. Interquartile Range (IQR) of 3-6 days means that a quarter of the patients were above the range, and a quarter were below.]Potential participants were excluded if they had taken any ivermectin in the past 7 days (before the trial). However, this would still allow participants who were taking ivermectin prophylactically at least 8 days prior, which means that a significant number of people in the placebo group could already have been getting benefits from ivermectin (invalidating the comparisons between the two groups).
Incredibly it was extremely hard to find patients for the trial. Why? Too many Argentinians it seems were already taking ivermectin.
Of 15 968 people who tested positive for Covid and were excluded from taking part in the trial, 12 356 could not participate because they were already taking ivermectin.
The above quote is from a slanted news article about the study, with a misleading headline:
Ivermectin: Balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19
https://www.news24.com/health24/medical/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/ivermectin-balance-of-evidence-shows-no-benefit-against-covid-19-20210705The expert already knows about the upcoming surprise. And he’s appropriated a slogan from Chris Martenson.
‘Surprising amount of death’ will soon occur in these US regions from increased Covid-19 cases, expert says (CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html“The vaccines we have work really well against this variant. It doesn’t need to be this way“
It’s true, it doesn’t have to be this way, if there’s prophylaxis and early treatment using Vitamin D, Ivermectin, etc.
phoenixvoice: “Those pushing the vaccine have no narrative that acknowledges the grim facts of those injured…”
And there is a noticeable lack of explanation for why the Covid vaccines are causing such injuries. The mechanisms and effects on the various parts of the body are not really understood. Lots of ignorance and uncertainty.
It’s a crapshoot. If we dig, we can find some estimated odds (so many injuries and deaths per million), worked out in hindsight, and subject to worsen as more data comes in.
It’s quite a “Covid Rattle” today (plus Haiti). I’m frankly wanting to move on with post-pandemic life, but there’s too much authoritarian bullsh## that’s still being foisted upon us in the name of anti-Covid (which is arguably deadlier than Covid for most people.)
More upside-down narrative, blaming the unvaccinated for any immune escape and variants resistant to the leaky vaccines:
Shweta Bansal is an associate professor of biology at Georgetown and heads the university’s U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Tracking Project…“The more geographically clustered unvaccinated individuals are, the higher the chance an unvaccinated person will interact with an unvaccinated person, which creates an event with a high chance of transmission,” Bansal said… “With every transmission event, we increase our chance of a new, yet unknown SARS-CoV-2 variant developing,” Bansal said. “And that new one could be one against which our current vaccines aren’t effective.”
The link to this GOV.UK study about the Delta variant was provided by Germ in an earlier comment.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001009/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_18.pdfThe numbers for vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths, for example, cannot give very meaningful comparisons without some additional information and analysis about the differences in age, comorbidities, risk factors, etc., between the two groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated). But using the existing data, here’s a rough indication of how the Delta variant’s case fatality rate (CFR) compares for vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (all ages combined):
The Case Fatality Rate for the vaccinated was about 3 times higher than the unvaccinated CFR.
(That being said, both group, vaccinated and unvaccinated, had a survival rate greater than 99.5%)
Vaccinated
CFR = 163/37,329 = 0.44% [Survival rate = 99.56%]Unvaccinated
CFR = 92/71,932= 0.13% [Survival rate = 99.87%]Notes:
Delta variant only, confirmed cases from Feb 1 to June 21
The numbers for “Vaccination status unknown” were left out.
“Vaccinated” means the patient had received at least one dose.Covid cases in the UK may be going up, but what about deaths? The latest weekly report from the UK government says “Deaths involving COVID-19 increased slightly in the UK in Week 25.” “Slightly” means two more deaths than the prior week (118 deaths vs. 116). These Covid death numbers are so small that they haven’t even been visible on this graph for the past 6 weeks.
Figure 8: Deaths involving COVID-19 increased slightly in the UK in Week 25
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latestAccording to OurWorldInData, for the most recent 2-week period, the delta variant accounted for 93% of all sequenced cases in the US. This is a big jump above the 48% for the previous 2 weeks.
However, the daily new confirmed cases in the US are similar to what they were in early June.
The VAERS database of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines includes reports of vision problems and blindness. A recent article in a medical journal confirms such a case:
Panuveitis following Vaccination for COVID-19Background:
COVID-19 vaccination has been accompanied by reports of inflammatory events. This report details a case of panuveitis following vaccination for COVID-19Case.Description:
A 43 year old female developed panuveitis with decreased vision three days after her second dose of Pfizer-Biontech mRNA vaccine. The choroid was significantly thickened and there was anterior chamber and vitreous inflammation…Conclusion: This report demonstrates a likely occurrence of vaccine-related panuveitis secondary to the Pfizer-Biotech mRNA vaccine for COVID-19.
Ocular Immunology and Inflammation
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09273948.2021.1949478What is panuveitus?
“Panuveitis is inflammation of all layers of the uvea of the eye, which includes the iris, ciliary body, and choroid. These make up the middle layer of the eye. The condition can also affect the lens, retina, optic nerve, and vitreous, causing reduced vision or blindness. (NIH.gov)”On the topic of ill-fated desperate measures to somehow increase the vaccination rates:
Some research results were published recently in the JAMA, showing that Ohio’s lottery (which gave $5 million to vaccinated people) was a failure.
The study did not find evidence that a lottery-based incentive in Ohio was associated with increased rates of adult COVID-19 vaccinations. In contrast, the analyses suggest that the rate of decline in vaccinations slowed to a greater extent in the US than in Ohio after the May 12 lottery announcement.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2781792
The vaccination rate has been declining in Ohio and the rest of the US, and the announcement of Ohio’s lottery coincided with the FDA’s authorization for kids 12-15 to get the injections. Despite the broadened authorization, the vaccination rates continued to decline, but at a slower rate of decline.
The CDC’s data (updated daily) says that still less than half of the US population is fully vaccinated. Only 47.6% fully, and 55.1% if those with only one dose are included. The narrative breaks down if there are large unvaccinated segments of the population that are doing fine. Door-to-door scolding is a sign of desperation.
The upcoming booster shots will be an opportunity for the already-vaccinated to cut their losses and not submit to more unnecessary risks.
“…laying out arguments isn’t going to change a thing.”
It might help change some minds. There’s not much else some of us can do at this point.
It strikes me that the covid vaccine decisions (the emergency use authorizations, and the subsequent recommendations and pushes to get people vaccinated) are still based on beliefs. The EUAs were granted only after a panel of experts weighed in on the question of whether the benefits of the vaccines outweighed the risks. The experts were not unanimous. With incomplete data and some uncertainty, the decisions depend on personal judgements and beliefs.
Imposing the covid vaccines is similar to imposing one’s religious beliefs on others. Unlike religious beliefs, however, the vaccine proselytizing is supposedly based on data supporting the belief that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.
As far as the data goes, as time goes by, the trends are clear: The touted benefits are decreasing (less effectiveness), while the risks are increasing (as more harmful side effects are recognized). For the people who believe the benefits outweigh the risks, the shaky ground they stand on is continually being eroded away.
Will they respond rationally? Or will they continue to cling to their prior beliefs, making the vaccination push become similar to state-sponsored religion?
Some more context about Peru:
The number of Peru’s Covid-19 deaths includes “people who died within 60 days of a positive test, as well as suspected cases without a positive test. This includes people whose clinical assessment or medical examinations suggest Covid, as well as those who’ve been in contact with a confirmed case.”
Peru’s Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 people is rather high, about three times the number for the US and UK.
However, according to the WHO, prior to Covid-19 the number one cause of death in Peru was “Influenza and Pneumonia.” The related death rate for Peru was the highest in the Americas, about 7 times higher than in the US.
So, I don’t know what it is about Peru that makes the people there more susceptible to dying from respiratory illnesses in general.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-53150808
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza-pneumonia/by-country/
Germ: “the rate of incidence of miscarriage is 82%”
The 82% number results from a misreading of the data. The study doesn’t really show that. As somebody at the Peak Prosperity forum explained,
“The sample of 827 women includes only those whose pregnancies were completed. For women in the first 24 weeks this is only those who miscarried or aborted. The women who were still pregnant were not included.
The 82% number is simply the percentage of ended pregnancies that were miscarriages as opposed to abortions.“@ oxymoron and upstateNYer:
Thanks for the positive comments. I’m trying to do what the reporters should be doing: fill in the big gaps of information and context being left out of the mainstream news articles.Links to Peru data:
Case Fatility Rate
https://tinyurl.com/9kf3bzm7Testing
https://tinyurl.com/y73498uf• Lambda Covid-19 Variant From Peru May Be Resistant To Vaccines (NYP)
“The Lambda mutation, or C.37, appears to have emerged in Peru last August — and is now being blamed for the country having the highest pandemic death rate in the world.”What the articles about the scary Lambda variant don’t mention is that Peru’s case fatality rate (CFR) peaked before the Lambda variant emerged in Peru last August, and with the arrival of the Lambda variant came a steep decline in the CFR during August and September, with more decline in October and November, leveling off in December to around 9% where it has remained since then.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-15..latest&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Metric=Case+fatality+rate&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ISR~SWE~USA~GBR~PER
One major reason why the case fatality rate in Peru is relatively high could be the fact that the testing rate in Peru is a small fraction of the testing rate in other countries, resulting in less confirmed cases and thus a higher deaths/cases ratio.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-15..latest&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Metric=Tests&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ISR~SWE~USA~GBR~PER
I did find a clue about why the CFR dropped so much in Peru starting in August 2020:
that’s around when the ivermectin interventions began in Peru.For the 25% of participants getting ivermectin at least 6 days after symptom onset, the FLCCC’s I-MASK+ Early Patient Protocol recommends 0.4 mg/kg of ivermectin per day for 5 days (or until recovered), but the trial participants were given an average of less than 0.2 mg/kg for only 2 days. The upper dose range is also recommended for patients with multiple comorbidities/risk factors.
The results of an ivermectin trial in Argentina were published on July 2. It seems like the trial was designed to show “Ivermectin had no significant effect.”
ConclusionIvermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. [The ivermectin group had 14 hospitalizations, compared to 21 hospitalizations in the placebo group.] Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
BMC Infectious Diseases
Published: 02 July 2021
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5#Sec2I’m neither a medical professional nor a paid researcher, but even I see some significant problems with this study.
Despite it being a “a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” with 250 patients receiving ivermectin, the authors admit that the trial was “underpowered because the hospitalization rate was lower than expected when performed in the sample size calculation.”
The doses of ivermectin were insufficient, compared to the FLCCC’s I-MASK+ Early Patient Protocol which calls for 0.20-0.40 mg/kg given daily for 5 days or until recovered. This trial gave an average dose of 0.19 mg/kg, and only for two days! In the report, the authors admit that their dosage was “below the doses proposed as probably effective.”
The ivermectin was not given particularly early to many of the patients. About half of the ivermectin group didn’t get the first dose until at least 4 days after symptom onset. Breaking this down further, approximately 25% of the ivermectin group didn’t get the first dose until somewhere in the range of 4-6 days after symptoms started, and another 25% of the group didn’t get the first dose until at least 6 days after symptom onset.
[“In the group of symptomatic patients, the median time from symptom onset to inclusion [and dose 1] in the study was 4 days (IQR 3–6).” 481 of the 501 participants were symptomatic. Presumably about half of the symptomatic (240) were in the ivermectin group. If the median was 4 days, then about half of the ivermectin group got the first dose 4 days or more after symptom onset. Interquartile Range (IQR) of 3-6 days means that a quarter of the patients were above the range, and a quarter were below.]Potential participants were excluded if they had taken any ivermectin in the past 7 days (before the trial). However, this would still allow participants who were taking ivermectin prophylactically at least 8 days prior, which could mean that a number of people in the placebo group were already getting benefits from ivermectin (invalidating the comparisons between the two groups).
Incredibly it was extremely hard to find patients for the trial. Why? Too many Argentinians it seems were already taking ivermectin.Of 15 968 people who tested positive for Covid and were excluded from taking part in the trial, 12 356 could not participate because they were already taking ivermectin.
The above quote is from a slanted news article about the study, with a misleading headline:
Ivermectin: Balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19
https://www.news24.com/health24/medical/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/ivermectin-balance-of-evidence-shows-no-benefit-against-covid-19-20210705phoenixvoice: “in some people T-cells that are a part of the innate immune system attack and clear Covid so quickly from the body that Covid-specific antibodies are never produced… Would the T-detect test come up as positive (immune to Covid from past infection) in someone who never developed antibodies because their innate immune system dispatched Covid quickly? I’m unsure because I don’t understand the exact mechanisms of the T-detect test. Does it detect *any* T-cell that attacks Covid? Or does it only detect T-cells that have been specifically primed to attack Covid?”
First, some terminology clarifications. T-cells are part of the adaptive immune system, not the innate immune system.
The immune system is divided into two arms, the adaptive immune system with T and B lymphocytes and the innate immune system with all other immune cell types of which granulocytes, monocytes, macrophages, and NK cells are the more common cells, but many other innate immune cells also exist including different dendritic cells, innate lymphoid cells, or mast cells.
COVID-19 and the human innate immune system
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885626/The article from yesterday was this:
Pre-existing polymerase-specific T cells expand in abortive seronegative SARS-CoV-2 infection
Abstract
Individuals with likely exposure to the highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 do not necessarily develop PCR or antibody positivity, suggesting some may clear sub-clinical infection before seroconversion. T cells can contribute to the rapid clearance of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronavirus infections. We hypothesised that pre-existing memory T cell responses, with cross-protective potential against SARS-CoV-2, would expand in vivo to mediate rapid viral control, potentially aborting infection.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.26.21259239v1.full.pdf
So, if your kids had “pre-existing memory T cell responses with cross protective potential” against Covid-19, perhaps acquired during a common cold coronavirus infection, then those pre-existing T-cell responses could “expand in vivo.” By “expanding” I assume this means that the responses adapt to the Covid-19 virus, generating T-cells specifically for Covid-19 (which are detectable by the T-detect test).
This [T-detect] test detects human SARS-CoV-2 rearranged T-cell receptor beta (TCR β) gene sequences from human genomic DNA (gDNA) generated as part of the human adaptive immune response to the COVID-19 virus…
FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation
T-Detect COVID Test
https://cms.t-detect.com/wp-content/uploads/T-Detect-COVID-Healthcare-Provider-Fact-Sheet.pdfHowever, the following statement was included in the above Fact Sheet, perhaps as a CYA move for the T-Detect company (or perhaps required by the FDA (for pro-vaccine reasons?)
“You should not interpret the results of this test as an indication of immunity or protection from COVID-19.”More details about the T-Detect test can be found in the EUA document:
https://www.fda.gov/media/146481/downloadThere are increasing reports, in medical journals, of unexpected problems caused by the mRNA vaccines, including a variety of kidney diseases (described below). They of course can’t just be coincidences. The effects of the mRNA vaccines are still not well understood, and I’m certainly wary of using mRNA to tinker with the immune system.
“Safe and effective” is somewhere between misleading advertising and Orwellian doublespeak.
“Mostly safe, we hope (but we don’t really know) and sometimes effective” is closer to the truth.
Gastroparesis After Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 VaccinationA previously healthy 57-year-old man received dose one of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in December, 2020. Five days after vaccination, he developed the onset of intractable nausea, vomiting, and hiccups. Over the following week, he required 3 emergency department visits… His symptoms nearly resolved on the second week…
Twenty-three days after receiving dose one, the patient received the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Within hours of receiving dose 2, he developed recurrent nausea, vomiting, and hiccups…
Our patient responded to steroids, we therefore hypothesize that the mechanism of action of messenger RNA vaccines may precipitate immune-mediated gastroparesis.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
https://journals.lww.com/ajg/Citation/9900/Gastroparesis_After_Pfizer_BioNTech_COVID_19.28.aspx
De Novo and Relapsing Glomerular Diseases After COVID-19 Vaccination: What Do We Know So Far?Our group recently published a case of minimal change disease (MCD) presenting with abrupt onset of nephrotic syndrome one week after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, as well as two cases of IgA nephropathy presenting as gross hematuria within two days of the second dose of the Moderna vaccine. At the time of this writing, these cases join at least sixteen other reports of kidney diseases arising within three weeks of COVID-19 vaccination, with most cases arising within the first week (Table 1). These reports include 26 patients with a variety of lesions – MCD (n=10), IgA nephropathy (n=10), anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (n=2), anti-glomerular basement membrane (anti-GBM) disease (n=2), membranous glomerulopathy (n=1), and IgG4-related disease (n=1). Most reported cases have been associated with mRNA vaccines (either Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna) with the onset of glomerular disease occurring after the first or second dose.
American Journal of Kidney Diseases
https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(21)00697-1/fulltext“So an antibody test will raise an alarm: there are none! A PCR test will likely show the virus though, even though it’s dead. You can’t win. Both test results will lead to a call for a vaccine.”
There’s another test, for the T-cells, which would indicate an immune response to earlier Covid infection.
In the US, there’s a company that got an EUA for their T-cell test, and they currently charge $159 (not covered by insurance) for the test, plus the cost of a blood draw ($60 at one of the local labs they work with, or $140 for an in-home blood draw).
• Bali Swept Up In Indonesia’s Harsh Lockdown Despite 71% Vaccination Rate (RT)
“…police officers and soldiers… will also administer random coronavirus tests at checkpoints.”Indonesia is ahead of the totalitarian curve.
Covid vaccinations are already mandatory, in a population almost as large as the US.From February:
Indonesia to Punish Those Who Refuse to Take Covid-19 Vaccine
Government can impose fines, stop services to those who refuse
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-18/indonesia-to-punish-those-who-refuse-to-take-covid-19-vaccineJohn Day: “I have never seen hypercalcemia from normal blood levels of vitamin-D.”
I believe you. Daily intakes of up to 10,000 IU “have not been linked to hypercalcemia or acute toxicity,” according to a big study done by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine.) They set their recommended upper limit at 4,000 IU per day, instead of 10,000 IU, to be extra safe (for ages 9 and older).
The starting point for the current UL for vitamin D was 10,000 IU/d, because lower intakes have not been linked to hypercalcemia or acute toxicity.
Is the deadly pandemic over in Europe? Or is it still an “emergency”?
Looking at the latest numbers for excess mortality in Europe (Week 25), the combined data (all reporting countries, all ages) shows that the “excess deaths” have been below zero for the most recent 3 weeks of data. This means less deaths than would normally be expected (without a pandemic).
For the most at-risk age group (85+), the “excess deaths” have been below zero for the most recent 18 weeks of data (since the end of February.)
@ Bill7
That non-denial from the NSA is cleverly crafted.
Beyond what was already mentioned in the article, this sentence from the NSA is quite weaselly:
“With limited exceptions (e.g., an emergency), NSA may not target a US citizen without a court order…”
It’s meant to sound reassuring, but it actually admits that the NSA may target US citizens without a court order, in certain cases. “An emergency” was listed as one example of the exceptions. What are all of the other exceptions?
https://technofog.substack.com/p/that-strange-nsa-non-denial
• Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines May Stand Guard Against COVID for Years (HDN)
The study report was unedited and “accelerated” by the journal Nature, published two months quicker than they published a study about the long-lasting immunity resulting from a Covid infection (without the vaccines). In a comment yesterday, I mentioned that it wasn’t peer-reviewed, but I was evidently wrong, as today I noticed a mention that it was indeed peer-reviewed.
The article got this apt comment at Nature.com:
“14 people, some of which were infected with COVID. Pretty weak study for something that’s being used by all the major news outlets to promote vaccination.“The co-authors of the study do have some significant conflicts of interest, I mean, “competing interests”:
Competing interests
The Ellebedy laboratory received funding under sponsored research agreements that are unrelated to the data presented in the current study from Emergent BioSolutions and from AbbVie. A.H.E. is a consultant for Mubadala Investment Company and the founder of ImmuneBio Consulting. J.S.T., A.J.S., M.S.D., and A.H.E. are recipients of a licensing agreement with Abbvie that is unrelated to the data presented in the current study. M.S.D. is a consultant for Inbios, Vir Biotechnology, Fortress Biotech, and Carnival Corporation, and on the Scientific Advisory Boards of Moderna and Immunome. The Diamond laboratory has received unrelated funding support in sponsored research agreements from Moderna, Vir Biotechnology, and Emergent BioSolutions. A patent application related to this work has been filed by Washington University School of Medicine. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai has filed patent applications relating to SARS-CoV-2 serological assays and NDV-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines which list Florian Krammer as co-inventor. Mount Sinai has spun out a company, Kantaro, to market serological tests for SARS-CoV-2. Florian Krammer has consulted for Merck and Pfizer (before 2020), and is currently consulting for Pfizer, Seqirus and Avimex. The Krammer laboratory is also collaborating with Pfizer on animal models of SARS-CoV-2. The Shi laboratory has received sponsored research agreements from Pfizer, Gilead, Merck and IGM Sciences Inc.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03738-2_reference.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03738-2@ V. Arnold
That article is similar to other warnings about the potential (still unknown at this point) for widespread disastrous long-term effects of the mRNA vaccines. Her message was published elsewhere back in January.
Professor Dolores Cahill: People Will Start Dying After COVID Vaccine
FBI Fabrication Against Assange Falls Apart
From Craig Murray, one of the few members of the public allowed in the courtroom during Julian Assange’s extradition hearing:
What had happened was this. The hearings on the Assange extradition in January 2020 did not seem to be going well for the US government. The arguments that political extradition is specifically banned by the UK/US extradition treaty, and that the publisher was not responsible for Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing on war crimes, appeared to be strong. The US Justice Department had decided that it therefore needed a new tack and to discover some “crimes” by Assange that seemed less noble than the Manning revelations.
To achieve this, the FBI turned to an informant in Iceland, Sigi Thordarson, who was willing to testify that Assange had been involved with him in, inter alia, hacking private banking information and tracking Icelandic police vehicles. This was of course much easier to portray as crime, as opposed to journalism, so the second superseding indictment was produced based on Thordarson’s story, which was elaborated with Thordarson by an FBI team.
The difficulty was that Thordarson was hardly a reliable witness. He had already been convicted in Iceland for stealing approximately $50,000 from Wikileaks and with impersonating Julian Assange online, not to mention the inconvenient fact he is a registered sex offender for online activities with under-age boys. The FBI team was in fact expelled from Iceland by the Icelandic government, who viewed what the FBI was doing with Thordarson as wholly illegitimate.
Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines May Stand Guard Against COVID for Years (USNews)
This article, linked above by Raúl, is yet another example of the slanted media coverage with an obvious agenda. According to the article, the positive effects of the vaccines could last “for years to come.” But for the unvaccinated who had a Covid infection, there was only “at least eight months” of immunity. And for those who had a Covid infection and later got vaccinated, “immunity might last years, possibly a lifetime.”
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines trigger an immune system response that could fend off the coronavirus for years to come, new research reveals… “It’s a good sign for how durable our immunity is from this vaccine,” Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, who led the study, told The New York Times… Last month, Ellebedy and his colleagues reported that immune cells that recognize the virus lingered in bone marrow for at least eight months after COVID-19 infection. Another team found that memory B-cells continue to mature and strengthen for at least a year after infection, the Times reported. Those findings suggested that immunity might last years, possibly a lifetime, in people who were infected and later vaccinated.
However, the earlier study mentioned in the article, published last month in Nature (and peer-reviewed, unlike this new study about vaccines which was rushed to publication as an “Accelerated Article Preview”), showed that “People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades,” as described in a Nature article titled “Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9So I wonder, why is the immunity resulting from a Covid infection being downplayed, and the lesser protection resulting from the vaccines being hyped up? And why was this new study rushed to publication after last month’s article about long-lasting post-infection immunity (obtained without vaccines)?
I looked at the study report for funding sources and conflicts of interests, and the “Competing Interests” section includes these tidbits:
One of the co-authors is on an advisory board for Moderna, another co-author’s lab gets funding from Moderna, and yet another co-author is currently consulting for Pfizer, and this co-author’s lab is “also collaborating with Pfizer on animal models of SARS-CoV-2.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03738-2_reference.pdf
Some warnings, from the New England Journal of Medicine, which parents should consider before having their children get injected with a Covid vaccine:
The United States has developed a robust system for vaccine-injury compensation to alleviate the burdens of adverse medical consequences of vaccines. But this system will be unavailable to people who receive Covid-19 vaccines during the declared public health emergency. All potential vaccine recipients, and especially people in high-risk communities, therefore face a dilemma: should they risk becoming infected or risk having a vaccine injury without sufficient access to compensation?
Normally, once the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a vaccine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends it for children or pregnant women, injury compensation is available for any recipient through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP covers the majority of vaccines administered in the United States. This no-fault program was created to provide an alternative legal avenue to ensure quick and fair compensation for vaccine injuries and to insulate manufacturers from liability to encourage them to pursue vaccine development. In many cases, claimants who develop recognized symptoms within a certain time frame after vaccination don’t need to prove that the injuries were caused by the vaccine, which leaves in question only the extent of damages. Successful claims and attorneys’ fees are paid out of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, and they have exceeded $4 billion to date.1 Since 2015, the fund has paid out an average total of $216 million to an average of 615 claimants each year.
The declaration of a public health emergency by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2020, however, resulted in exclusion of Covid-19 vaccine injuries from the VICP. This declaration triggered the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, a federal law that requires that all people injured by vaccines given as countermeasures during a declared emergency bring claims under only the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). The CICP is far less generous and less accessible than the VICP. It compensates people for only the most serious injuries, has a higher burden of proof than the VICP, has a 1-year statute of limitations after the date of vaccination, and limits awards for damages. For example, the CICP limits lost-income recovery to $50,000 for each year out of work and doesn’t include compensation for pain, suffering, or emotional distress.
As a result, people who are vaccinated during the declared public health emergency will be less likely to obtain compensation for injuries associated with Covid-19 vaccines than they would be for injuries from vaccines included in the VICP. Furthermore, the process for pursuing compensation will be lengthier, more difficult, and more expensive because reimbursement for attorneys’ fees is unavailable. People vaccinated during a declared public health emergency can never pursue injury claims under the VICP, even if their symptoms manifest or are linked to the vaccine after the declaration is lifted.
Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries — Preventing Inequities in Compensation
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2034438Some late editing to my Contra Costa County Comment:
I wrote that the Absolute Risk Reduction is “is very low (about 1% on average, and much less for younger people)” but I was jumbling several concepts I wanted to include in that paragraph.
I should have written that the ARR “is very low (about 1% on average), and the ostensible benefits of the vaccines are much less for younger people.”
I forgot to include this link which is a reference for one of the quotes I used.
https://evolvetreatment.com/blog/suicide-attempts-contra-costa/
