Fully-vaccinated people who catch Delta Covid variant really may be JUST as infectious as the un-jabbed, Government figures suggest

Fully-vaccinated people who catch Covid really may be just as infectious as the un-jabbed, official data suggested today.

Public Health England say viral loads appear similar among people infected with the Delta variant in both groups, meaning, theoretically, they are equally contagious.

But health chiefs insisted the current crop of vaccines still cut the risk of catching the virus in the first place.

And the jabs – repeatedly proven to be life-savers – have kept tens of thousands out of hospital since they were first rolled out last December, Government statistics also show.

The PHE viral load data follows a huge row in the US, which saw health chiefs make a similar claim.

It prompted fury because the data – which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to justify recommending vaccinated Americans wear masks again – wasn't published until days later.

.....

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has finally released the data that was behind its recent backtrack on mask recommendations for vaccinated Americans to wear masks in indoor places in COVID-19 hot spots.

In a report published on Friday, the federal health agency detailed a COVID-19 outbreak earlier this month in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, linked to the spread of the Indian 'Delta' variant.

Researchers found nearly three-quarters of the infections occurred in people who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with either of three shots approved in the U.S. for emergency use.

What's more, tests showed that immunized people carried about the same viral levels in their noses and throats as unvaccinated people did.

However, there were just four hospitalizations and no fatalities among the fully vaccinated group, showing that the vaccines are very effective against severe disease and death.

'The findings are troublesome,' Dr William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist and a professor of preventative medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told DailyMail.com.

'Frankly it's not what I would have expected. I would have frankly expected vaccinated people to have lower viral loads...That makes me uneasy and explains it's much more contagious than the original Covid virus.'

But experts today warned the PHE figures are not proof that double-jabbed people are just as infectious.

The claim was solely based on cycle threshold (Ct) scores, which attempt to quantify viral load – the amount of virus someone is infected with.

Infected people with lower viral loads are less likely to become ill and spread the virus, multiple studies have shown.

The Ct value represents the number of times a Covid sample has to be amplified before it is spotted by laboratory PCR tests.

A low score represents a high viral load because it was spotted easily.

But Ct values can vary over the course of infection and a single figure may not provide the most accurate picture.

And not every score can be compared accurately, especially if they are examined by different machines in different labs.

NHS Test and Trace data – published in the PHE report – showed daily average Ct values for unvaccinated people who caught the Delta strain was 17.8.

......

Meanwhile, it was only slightly higher for fully-vaccinated Brits (18).

Scores were also similar between the two groups for the Alpha variant, which triggered the second wave.

It is not clear how many people were involved in the study, nor how often they were tested. It also did not show rates for different age groups, which PHE admitted can skew average Ct values.

PHE said the findings show that while vaccines 'may reduce an individual's overall risk of becoming infected, once they are infected there is limited difference in viral load (and Ct values) between those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated.

'Given they have similar Ct values, this suggests limited difference in infectiousness.'

It continued: 'This may have implications for people's infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not.

'However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case.'

.......

The report follows similar findings by the CDC, which last week released figures showing unvaccinated and double-jabbed Americans had very similar viral loads.

The research led them to U-turn on mask advice and recommend fully- vaccinated Americans wear coverings indoors again.

Some scientists said the data was 'scary' and not what they 'would have expected'.

But Professor Stephen Evans, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, warned it is 'difficult to be sure of how Ct values translate into clinical infectiousness'.

He told MailOnline: 'The key problem is that a single Ct value may be taken at an unknown stage of infection.

'So we need to be sure that those vaccinated with two doses and those unvaccinated are at the same stage of infection.

'If we assume that, then yes, it would make it likely that both are equally infectious.

'Of course, remember that infection is notably less likely if you are vaccinated, especially two doses, than if you are unvaccinated. So, you are not comparing like with like.

'You are comparing people who are infected and the vaccinated group are much less likely to be infected.

'However, once they are infected, then they may be as likely to transmit infection based on the Ct values, but this depends on their having the PCR test at a similar stage of infection.'

Dr Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St Andrews, said: 'Even if viral load may be the same, vaccinated people who become infected are less likely to be infectious than unvaccinated.'

She said this was because jabs reduce 'virus shedding time' – how long someone is infected for – and symptomatic infection.

Meanwhile, the same PHE report showed twice as many doubled-jabbed people went to hospital with the virus (1,098) compared to people who hadn't had a single jab (491).

But this doesn't mean the vaccines don't work.

Instead, the figures are naturally skewed by the country's hugely successful roll-out, experts say.

More than 85 per cent of all over-50s in the country have had an injection, so were expected to make up a higher proportion.

Professor Evans said: 'If 100 per cent of people were vaccinated, and the virus was still circulating there would still be a relatively small number of infections, hospitalisations and deaths because no vaccine is 100 per cent effective.

'All the cases, hospitalisations and deaths would then obviously be in vaccinated people.

'It does not mean that the vaccines are ineffective, just that they are not 100 per cent effective.

Dr Jenny Harries, chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, said the figures 'show once again how important it is that we all come forward to receive both doses of the vaccine as soon as we are able to do so'.

She said: 'Vaccination is the best tool we have in keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe from the serious disease risk Covid can pose.

'However, we must also remember that the vaccines do not eliminate all risk: it is still possible to become unwell with Covid and infect others.

'It is still vital that we exercise caution, particularly while cases are high.

'Remember that meeting outdoors is safer than indoors, isolate if you are told to by NHS Test and Trace, and if you show symptoms stay home and get a PCR test as soon as possible. 'It is so important that we all continue to play our part.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9868573/Fully-vaccinated-people-catch-Covid-really-JUST-infectious-unjabbed.html

**************************************

Why 'herd' immunity against Covid is looking close to impossible

Herd immunity against Covid is looking ever-increasingly impossible, scientists say.

Neither vaccines nor getting infected create a 'perfect' immune response, meaning carriers can still transmit the virus.

When enough people in a population are immune to a pathogen — meaning they are unable to catch and pass it on — herd immunity is achieved.

Countries are desperate to reach the elusive target because it would inevitably bring down infection levels, helping life return to normal. But various factors stand in the way of the target, researchers warn.

The main problem centres around immunity against the virus — either induced by previous infection or vaccines — being imperfect.

While rigorous analysis has proven vaccines slash the risk of infected people dying or being hospitalised, fully-jabbed people can still catch it and pass it on. And top experts say natural immunity may offer even less protection.

But scientists say this makes it even more important to get a vaccine because higher levels of immunity in the population still slow the spread — and jabs will protect tens of thousands of vulnerable people from dying in future waves.

The concept of herd immunity was first floated last March, when SARS-CoV-2 and its clever transmission tactics were shrouded in mystery.

No10's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance claimed the threshold could be hit if approximately 60 per cent of the country — or 40million people — had some level of protection.

His comments sparked huge controversy, with the Government — which had no life-saving vaccines at the time — accused of planning to let hundreds of thousands die to achieve the goal.

Ministers later back-tracked on any claims of purposely seeking immunity by letting people get naturally infected.

As the virus mutated to become more contagious, mathematicians recalculated the threshold for herd immunity and sprouted figures of up to 90 per cent.

This compares to the 95 per cent figure needed to combat the spread of measles and the 80 per cent for polio.

But Covid's true marker remains a wild guessing game, and some top experts now believe it is nigh-on impossible that it will ever be reached.

Professor Paul Hunter, an infectious diseases expert at the University of East Anglia, said immunity against SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid — is likely to be short-lived.

Academics remain clueless over just how long either natural, or vaccine-induced, protection lasts because it's only been circulating in humans for 18 months.

HIV is still engulfed in mystery, 40 years after the Aids pandemic.

Scientists believe immunity will be short-lived because protection from other seasonal coronaviruses only lasts for around two years.

For this reason, even if the UK was to break past the barrier and reach herd immunity, it would likely only last a short period of time.

Instead, it will keep it at an endemic level — where a disease is regularly found among the population but is not harmful enough to impact on society.

Professor Hunter said the virus will circulate for centuries, based on the last two similar pandemics.

Natural immunity is also not 'solid', meaning even if it lasts a long time, some who have previously had it are still susceptible to catching it again.

And the fact vaccines are not as effective at blocking transmission, especially in the face of the extra-contagious Delta variant, make herd immunity an even harder challenge.

SAGE — the expert panel which has guided No10 through the pandemic — estimates two doses of either AstraZeneca, Pfizer or Moderna's vaccine cut the risk of transmission by up to 45 per cent.

This means of 100 unvaccinated people who would theoretically pass on the virus, 55 of them would pass it on if they were double-jabbed.

Dr Adam Kucharski, an infectious disease expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and member of SAGE sub-committee Spi-M, said immunity will gradually build-up over time through a mix of natural infection and vaccines.

He told MailOnline: 'To reach herd immunity, there needs to be enough immunity to reduce R below one, even when everyone is back to normal social interactions.

'So the more transmissible the virus, or the less effective the vaccine in reducing transmission, the higher this threshold.

'Vaccines against measles are very effective, with long-lasting immunity. In contrast, flu vaccines don't reduce transmission as much, and the virus gradually evolves to reduce this effectiveness further.'

Dr Kucharski said it meant large flu outbreaks are still expected every winter, but that they eventually fizzle out as a result of natural immunity.

'Covid vaccines worked very well against the Alpha variant (which triggered Britain's devastating second wave in January),' he told MailOnline.

'It meant transmission of the Alpha variant declined dramatically as a result, but the characteristics of Delta have put us in a scenario closer to what we see with flu.'

But that doesn't mean getting vaccinated is pointless, the country's top researchers insist. Dr Alexander Corbishley, a population health researcher at Edinburgh University, told MailOnline: 'The vaccines are highly effective at reducing the risk of suffering severe Covid, meaning they save lives.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9867909/Why-herd-immunity-against-Covid-looking-close-impossible.html

******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

*************************************

Vaccines cut chance of being infected with delta variant by only half, UK study finds

People who are fully vaccinated with a two-dose coronavirus vaccine have a 50% to 60% reduced risk of being infected with the delta variant, even asymptomatically, compared with unvaccinated people, according to a new study conducted in England. 

The study examined nearly 100,000 people who took COVID-19 swab tests at home between June 24 and July 12. In that sample group, 527 people tested positive for the coronavirus and 254 of the samples were genetically analyzed; all of the sequenced samples turned out to be the highly transmissible delta variant.

Once the researchers adjusted for factors such as age, they found that people who received two vaccine doses were 49% as likely to test positive for the coronavirus, even without symptoms, compared with people who were unvaccinated and that vaccinated people were 59% less likely to test positive with symptoms.

The findings, which were posted as a preprint and haven't been peer-reviewed yet, are the newest results from Imperial College London's "Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission," or REACT-1, an ongoing coronavirus monitoring study. 

"These findings confirm our previous data showing that both doses of a vaccine offer good protection against getting infected," Paul Elliott, director of the REACT program from Imperial's School of Public Health, said in a statement. The researchers didn't untangle the effectiveness of specific vaccines. 

Their findings conflict with previous studies. For example, a study conducted by Public Health England found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88% effective against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant (people vaccinated were 88% less likely to develop symptomatic infection compared to people who were unvaccinated), compared with about 93% effective against the alpha variant, the previous dominant variant. That study found that the two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine was 60% effective against the delta variant, compared with 66% against the alpha variant, Live Science previously reported. 

Meanwhile, early data from Israel suggested that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 64% effective against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant, and data from Canada found it was 87% effective against symptomatic disease, according to an internal presentation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But newer data from Israel found that the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against Delta slipped to 39% (but is still 88% effective against hospitalization and 91% protective against severe illness), according to CNBC.

The new study also found that vaccinated people had a smaller viral load on average, meaning they likely shed less virus and are less contagious than unvaccinated people. That result differs from other data that suggested the delta variant caused similar viral loads in the unvaccinated and in vaccinated people who test positive (so-called breakthrough cases), Live Science previously reported. 

"The delta variant is known to be highly infectious, and as a result, we can see from our data and others' that breakthrough infections are happening in fully vaccinated people," Steven Riley, a professor of infectious disease dynamics at Imperial College London, said in the statement. "We need to better understand how infectious fully vaccinated people who become infected are, as this will help to better predict the situation in the coming months, and our findings are contributing to a more comprehensive picture of this."

The researchers also found that the trends between infections and hospitalizations, which had weakened in the spring, were converging again, according to the statement. That could be due to the dominant variant switching from alpha to delta and more younger people, who may be less likely to be vaccinated, becoming hospitalized than before.

Young people ages 13 to 24 had the highest infection rate, and people 75 and older had the lowest infection rate. Roughly 50% of the infections occurred in people ages 5 to 24, even though they make up only a quarter of the population, Riley told Reuters. 

"Today's report shows the importance of taking personal responsibility by self-isolating if you are contact traced, getting tested if you have symptoms and wearing face coverings where appropriate," U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Sajid Javid said in the statement. "I urge anyone who has yet to receive a vaccine to get jabbed and take up both doses — the vaccines are safe, and they are working."

https://www.livescience.com/uk-coronavirus-imperial-college-vaccine-effectiveness-study.html

******************************************

Disease Expert Tells CNN: Most Masks Don't Really Work Against Coronavirus

Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new Wuhan coronavirus guidance urging Americans to wear masks indoors regardless of their vaccination status.

"To maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others, wear a mask indoors in public if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission," the CDC released on their website Tuesday. "Wearing a mask is most important if you have a weakened immune system or if, because of your age or an underlying medical condition, you are at increased risk for severe disease, or if someone in your household has a weakened immune system, is at increased risk for severe disease, or is unvaccinated. If this applies to you or your household, you might choose to wear a mask regardless of the level of transmission in your area."

The guidance was a reversal from May when the CDC said vaccinated individuals no longer needed to wear a mask.

During a segment on CNN Monday afternoon, University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Director Michael Osterholm said cloth or paper masks don't work to stop the spread of the disease.

This, of course, has been well known for over a year. Dr. Anthony Fauci told former Obama Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell that store-purchased masks do little to stop the spread of the disease.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend you wear a mask," Fauci wrote in an email on February 5, 2020.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/08/02/cnn-guest-actually-cloth-masks-dont-really-work-against-wuhan-coronavirus-n2593473

****************************************

Vaccine Mandates Are ‘What a Tyranny Would Do,’ Arizona Lawmaker Says

When it was announced that Laurel Hubbard, a male athlete who identifies as female, was selected to represent New Zealand on the women’s weightlifting team in the Olympic Games in Tokyo, it was considered by some to be a victory for the transgender movement and “the power of inclusion.” Others consider it unfair to both the sport and the athletes.

Anna Vanbellinghen, a female weightlifter from Belgium who hoped to qualify in the same event as Hubbard, made it clear that she “fully supports the transgender community.” However, she correctly pointed out that steroids—which give athletes unfair advantages—can have retained benefits even years after their use.

“So why is it still a question whether two decades, from puberty to the age of 35, with the hormonal system of a man also would give an advantage [in competing against women]?” she asked in a recent interview.

The International Olympic Committee ruled in 2015 that transgender athletes “who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category” so long as their testosterone level has been below a certain threshold for at least 12 months.

At least two recent peer-reviewed studies challenge this rule. One published in the journal Sports Medicine found “the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women [men on estrogen] is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed” for 12 months. A second review article found the male strength advantage to remain even after three years of testosterone suppression.

Even if the strength advantage could be eliminated, however, to reduce the definition of female human being to having a certain level of testosterone in your body for a certain amount of time completely ignores the scientific reality that genetics—not testosterone—is at the root of all that makes the two sexes different.

When males are allowed to compete in athletic leagues designed for females, they deprive female athletes of the opportunity to safe and fair participation in sports. As Vanbellinghen said, “Life-changing opportunities are missed for some athletes—medals and Olympic qualifications—and we are powerless.”

She is not alone. Female sports at all levels have been infiltrated by the transgender ideology. Here are just a few examples of how females have been harmed when forced to compete against males:

In track and field, male high school runner CeCe Telfer won three titles in the Northeast-10 Championships for women’s track, and received the “most outstanding track athlete” award.
In softball, male player Pat (Patrick) Cordova-Goff took one of 15 spots on his California high school women’s varsity softball team.

In basketball, a 50-year-old, 6-foot-8-inch, 230-pound man, Gabrielle (Robert) Ludwig, led the Mission College women’s basketball team to a national championship with the most rebounds.

In mixed martial arts, male fighter Fallon Fox shattered female fighter Tamikka Brents’ eye socket and gave her a concussion. Brents said she “never felt so overpowered in her life.”

In Connecticut’s state track and field championships, two male high school runners, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, took first and second place in multiple events, beating out top high school girls from across the state. Yearwood was named Connecticut’s “athlete of the year.”

The simple truth is that males outperform females in regard to speed and strength due to inborn genetics and sex hormones. This has consistently been proven by long-term research on elite athletes when matched for training.

The sex hormone testosterone plays an important role in regulating bone mass, fat distribution, muscle mass, strength, and the production of red blood cells leading to higher circulating hemoglobin. This is particularly true during puberty.

After puberty, male circulating testosterone concentrations are 15 times greater than those of females at any age. The result is a clear male advantage in regard to muscle mass, strength and circulating hemoglobin levels even after adjusting for sex differences in height and weight.

Athletic differences are also due to genetics. Studies have identified more than 3,000 genes that are differentially expressed in male and female skeletal muscle. Obvious bone differences due to a combination of genetics and hormones even exist at birth; the average male is heavier and taller than the average female and this advantage continues, when controlled for stage of puberty, throughout life.

Genetics is why a male who self-identifies as female remains male, and giving estrogen to a male does not transform him into a female.

While it is true that a male using estrogen will lose muscle strength and impair other aspects of his physiology, he does not alter his genetics; he remains male at the cellular level in all body systems.

Similarly, a female who self-identifies as male remains female, and giving her testosterone does not transform her into a male. In terms of genetics, she remains female at the cellular level.

These inherent sex-based differences also mean that females are at higher risk of athletic injuries. For instance, stress fractures involving the long bones of the legs in runners are more frequent in females. Male athletes are far less susceptible due to their larger and denser bones.

Taken together, these discrepancies render females, on average, unable to compete effectively against males in power-based or endurance-based sports.

Science and common sense agree. When males are allowed to compete in athletic leagues designed for females, they deprive girls and women of the opportunity to safe and fair participation in sports.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/22/we-are-doctors-heres-the-truth-about-transgender-females-bodies-and-athleticism

******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

*************************************

Most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after coronavirus infection

Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2, wrote researchers who published a new study in the journal Cell on July 14, 2021.

‘To end the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to know how long immunity against SARS-CoV-2 will persist after infection and whether it will be sufficient to prevent new infections and severe disease in years to come, continued this study,’ which is excerpted below.

‘Identifying, in-depth, the adaptive immune components leading to recovery and modeling the trends of each response was enabled by the longitudinal sampling of a large number of COVID-19 patients.'

This new study shows that most convalescent COVID-19 patients mount durable antibodies, B cells, and T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 up to 250 days. The kinetics of these responses provide an early indication for a favorable course ahead to achieve long-lived immunity. 

Because the cohort will be followed for 2–3 more years, they can build on these results to define the progression to long-lived immunity against this novel human coronavirus, which can guide rational responses when future virus outbreaks occur.

The hallmark of the initial immune defense against SARS-CoV-2 is the emergence of antibodies recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, including the RBD and NTD components of the S1 subunit, during the early phase of viral replication. 

These antibodies are likely secreted from plasmablasts rapidly generated from B cells activated upon their first encounter with the pathogen spike antigen. 

The swift rise over the first month of infection, followed by a fast decline of the circulating spike IgG and IgA antibodies, is a consistent finding and likely explained by the disappearance of the short-lived plasmablasts. 

These events occur even sooner for the spike IgM and nucleocapsid antibodies.

Some antibodies that bind to specific epitopes on the spike RBD and NTD can block SARS-CoV-2 infection of respiratory epithelial cells by inhibiting the interactions of the viral spike with the ACE2 receptor.

Thus, as expected, the early rise and decline of antibodies neutralizing live SARS-CoV-2 were similar to the kinetics of antibodies binding the spike and RBD protein. 

The striking finding is the bi-phasic curve of the spike-specific binding and neutralizing antibody responses when analyzed with the power-law model, which provides a better fit for the antibody kinetics after the peak response.

This bi-phasic decline accords with other recently published observations on SARS-CoV-2 serological kinetics. 

With sampling data extended to 250 days, these researchers detected a slowing of the decay of these functional antibodies toward a plateau level, suggestive of the generation of longer-lived plasma cells and durable antibody responses. 

The importance of these observations is that following recovery, neutralizing antibodies may persist, albeit at low levels, and may act as the first line of defense against future encounters of SARS-CoV-2 and possibly related human coronaviruses.

Another interesting finding of this investigation is the remarkably stable antibody responses among the pre-pandemic and COVID-19 patients to the common human coronaviruses acquired in children and adults. 

These data are most consistent with the generation of long-lived plasma cells and refute the current notion that these antibody responses to human coronaviruses are short-lived. 

Moreover, the COVID-19 patients mounted increased IgG antibody responses to SARS-CoV-1, a related pathogen that none likely had experienced previous exposure to. 

This finding is consistent with the booster response of SARS-CoV-1 neutralizing antibodies that we recently observed following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.

Taken together, these results may have implications for a broader strategy for vaccines targeting multiple beta coronaviruses.  

The durable antibody responses in the COVID-19 recovery period are further substantiated by the ongoing rise in both the spike and RBD memory B cell responses after over 3–5 months before entering a plateau phase over 6–8 months. 

The persistence of RBD memory B cells has been noted.

These researchers presume this may be explained by sustained production of memory B cells in germinal centers of lymph nodes draining the respiratory tract in the early months, followed by the memory B cell redistribution into the circulation as the germinal centers begin to recede. 

Thus, the induction and maintenance of memory B cells and, over time, long-lived plasma cells will continue to furnish higher affinity antibodies if re-exposures occur.

In contrast to spike memory B cell kinetics, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+, and CD8+ memory T cells each peak early, within the first month, but then slowly decline over the next 6–7 months. 

Central memory Th1-type CD4+ T cells dominate throughout the early infection and recovery period. 

However, the CD8+ T cells exhibit a predominant effector memory phenotype early that transitions to those effector memory cells re-expressing CD45RA, maintaining expression of antiviral cytokines and effector functions that have been shown to provide protective immunity against other viral pathogens. 

These researchers also provide clear evidence that the CD4+ T cells mount a broader antigen-specific response across the structural and accessory gene products. In contrast, the CD8+ T cells are predominantly nucleocapsid-specific, and spike-specific responses are substantially lower in frequency.

In summary, they wrote ‘Our study demonstrates the considerable immune heterogeneity in the generation of a potentially protective response against SARS-CoV-2, and by focusing on the dynamics and maintenance of B and T cell memory responses, we were able to identify features of these early cellular responses that can forecast the durability of a potentially effective antibody response.’

‘The ability to mount higher frequencies of RBD-specific memory IgG+ B cells early in infection was the best indicator for a durable RBD-specific IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody response.’

‘In addition, higher frequency CD4+ T cells were associated with stronger spike IgG and neutralizing antibody responses.’

‘However, the induction and peak response of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells occurs independently to these antibody responses.’

‘Interestingly, while it has been widely reported that age correlates with COVID-19 disease severity, we found that age and disease severity were independent co-variates associated with the magnitude of both SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell and humoral SARS-CoV-2 immunity, but not with the magnitude of CD8+ T cell responses.’ 

‘In the case of T cells, whether the T cell differences are related to the frequencies or specificities of pre-existing coronavirus CD4+ and CD8+ T cell immunity will require additional future analysis.’

‘Overcoming the challenges to end the pandemic is accentuated by the recognition that SARS-CoV-2 can undergo rapid antigenic variation that may lower vaccine effectiveness in preventing new cases and progression to severe disease.’

‘Our findings show that most COVID-19 patients induce a wide-ranging immune defense against SARS-CoV-2 infection, encompassing antibodies and memory B cells recognizing both the RBD and other regions of the spike, broadly-specific and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells, and polyfunctional CD8+ T cells.’

‘The immune response to natural infection is likely to provide some degree of protective immunity even against SARS-CoV-2 variants because the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell epitopes will likely be conserved.’

‘Thus, vaccine induction of CD8+ T cells to more conserved antigens such as the nucleocapsid, rather than just to SARS-CoV-2 spike antigens, may add benefit to more rapid containment of infection as SARS-CoV-2 variants overtake the prevailing strains.’

Limitations of this study: This study evaluates COVID-19 patients only up to 8 months and requires models to estimate immune response half-lives after that. However, because this longitudinal study will extend beyond two years, these researchers can corroborate models with subsequent experimental data on the persistence of immune memory.

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/natural-immunity-after-covid-19-found-durable-and-robust

A dose of COVID reality: Only 6,587 out of 164M fully-vaxxed Americans are hospitalized or die from 'breakthrough' cases

Only a tiny percentage of fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, according to new data released on Friday - leading to accusations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is scaremongering by issuing dire warnings about the Delta variant.

The Delta variant is sweeping the United States and causing a significant surge in cases. Mask mandates have been reintroduced in areas such as Los Angeles County, and the CDC on Tuesday recommended that all people resume wear masks indoors.

Yet on Friday it emerged that the risk for fully vaccinated people was incredibly small - leading a former White House coronavirus advisor to label the CDC's communication strategy a 'disaster.'

Only 6,587 - or 0.004 per cent - of the 163 million Americans who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 had suffered serious 'breakthrough' infections as of Monday.

Of that total, 6,239 people were hospitalized and 1,263 died, according to the data.

Those numbers amount to 0.0038 percent and less than 0.0008 percent, respectively.

Admiral Brett Giroir, who served on Donald Trump's COVID taskforce, told Fox News on Friday that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky made a mistake in failing to disclose the full data until Friday.

'One thing that I think was a disaster is to come out with recommendations when you had the data but didn't disclose the data,' he said.

The CDC was criticized this week by politicians and scientists alike for updating the mask guidance without detailing the science behind it.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Washington Post that the move violated scientific norms.

'You don't, when you're a public health official, want to be saying, 'Trust us, we know, we can't tell you how,' Jamieson said.

'The scientific norm suggests that when you make a statement based on science, you show the science.

'And the second mistake is they do not appear to be candid about the extent to which breakthroughs are yielding hospitalizations.'

Kevin McCarthy, the most senior Republican in the House, was vocal in his condemnation of the CDC and the Biden administration, pouring scorn over their research and describing the mask u-turn as 'total hypocrisy'.

The CDC itself, in an internal document obtained by The Washington Post, admitted that there were 'communication challenges' fueled by cases in vaccinated people, including concerns from local health departments about whether coronavirus vaccines remain effective and a 'public convinced vaccines no longer work/booster doses needed.'

Giroir reiterated that the Delta variant will mainly affect unvaccinated Americans.

'Vaccinations are highly effective against death and hospitalizations. It's less effective about preventing infections - it doesn't create a force field around you.

'That's why you need to get the vaccine,' he said.

​​'Their messaging needs a lot of help. That's why I want to help transmit that message.'

On Thursday, Giroir warned Fox News viewers that if they were not vaccinated, they were very likely to get COVID because the Delta variant was so contagious.

He reminded viewers that it was as infectious as chickenpox and Ebola.

On Friday, he said: 'If vaccines stay where they are right now, from a public-health standpoint masking indoors is gonna have to be added to control this.

​'​And if people don't mask and they don't get vaccinated, then, unfortunately, governments are going to be put into the situation of considering lockdowns, which I think would be a disaster​.​

'Until everybody can get vaccinated, if you're in a high-risk circumstance, like being in an indoor party, it's a good idea to wear a mask.

'It will protect you and it will protect others from being infected by you.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9846225/A-dose-COVID-reality-126K-164M-fully-vaxxed-Americans-breakthrough-cases.html

*****************************************

The vindication of AstraZeneca: A vaccine trashed by Macron, politicised by Europe but quietly saving lives across the world

Last week research scotched claims the Oxford vaccine posed a blood clot risk. But the mixed messaging has caused lasting distrust

A new study of more than one million Covid-19 vaccine recipients has concluded a rare blood clotting side effect is as likely to occur from a Pfizer jab as the much-maligned AstraZeneca vaccine.

In a paper pre-released in The Lancet, researchers from the UK, Spain and the Netherlands said both jabs have a "similar" incident rate of thrombosis.

"In this study we have found the safety profiles of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer), an mRNA-based vaccine, to be broadly similar," the paper explained.

The study of Spanish patients also found blood clots are more common in people who test positive for Covid-19 than those who have received either jab.

While the paper is not yet peer reviewed, it is an alarming development that will put into question the narrative around the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia, where confidence in the jab plummeted earlier in the year following the reporting of fatal cases of blood clotting.

While Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has repeatedly stressed the benefits of the AstraZeneca jab outweigh the risks, there has been conflicting advice from other health authorities, notably Queensland's Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young.

When Prime Minister Scott Morrison urged under 40s to seek advice on the AstraZeneca jab last month, Dr Young said she "genuinely did not understand" why Mr Morrison would make such an announcement.

"I do not want under-40s to get AstraZeneca," she stressed, saying there was minimal death in young Australians from Covid.

As cases of blood clotting arose earlier in the year, believed to be thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advised against under 60s receiving the AstraZeneca jab.

Weighing up the heightened risk with Delta outbreaks, ATAGI has since changed its advice, telling over 18s they can seek GP advice on the AstraZeneca.

Dame Sarah Gilbert, the vaccinologist who co-developed the AstraZeneca jab, told the publication she feared people are "too worried" after receiving mixed messages.

"I think the problem is the messaging around the vaccination, because if you’re telling people at some stage, ‘oh you shouldn’t have this vaccine, it’s probably not the best thing for you’ and then you want to change that message and say ‘oh, no we’ve changed our mind, it is good’, I think that makes it difficult for people who are considering whether to get vaccinated and when to get vaccinated," she said.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/shock-finding-covid-vaccine-study-pfizer-astrazeneca-004137574.html

******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

*************************************

For What Will We Go to War With China?

Pat Buchanan gives us a dose of realism

In his final state of the nation speech Monday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte defended his refusal to confront China over Beijing's seizure and fortification of his country's islets in the South China Sea.

"It will be a massacre if I go and fight a war now," said Duterte. "We are not yet a competent and able enemy of the other side."

Duterte is a realist. He will not challenge China to retrieve his lost territories, as his country would be crushed. But Duterte has a hole card: a U.S. guarantee to fight China, should he stumble into war with China.

Consider. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured Manila we would invoke the U.S.-Philippines mutual security pact in the event of Chinese military action against Philippine assets.

"We also reaffirm," said Blinken, "that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty."

Is this an American war guarantee to fight the People's Republic of China, if the Philippines engage a Chinese warship over one of a disputed half-dozen rocks and reefs in the South China Sea? So it would appear.

Why are we threatening this?

Is who controls Mischief Reef or Scarborough Shoal a matter of such vital U.S. interest as to justify war between us and China?

Tuesday, in Singapore, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reaffirmed the American commitment to go to war on behalf of the Philippines, should Manila attempt, militarily, to retrieve its stolen property.

Said Austin: "Beijing's claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea has no basis in international law. ... We remain committed to the treaty obligations that we have to Japan in the Senkaku Islands and to the Philippines in the South China Sea."

Austin went on: "Beijing's unwillingness to ... respect the rule of law isn't just occurring on the water. We have also seen aggression against India ... destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan ... and genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang."

The Defense secretary is publicly accusing China of crimes against its Uyghur population in Xinjiang comparable to those for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg.

Austin has also informed Beijing, yet again, that the U.S. is obligated by a 70-year-old treaty to go to war to defend Japan's claims to the Senkakus, half a dozen rocks Tokyo now occupies and Beijing claims historically belong to China.

The secretary also introduced the matter of Taiwan, with which President Jimmy Carter broke relations and let lapse our mutual security treaty in 1979.

There remains, however, ambiguity on what the U.S. is prepared to do if China moves on Taiwan. Would we fight China for Taiwan's independence, an island President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger said in 1972 was "part of China"?

And if China ignores our protests of its "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs, and of its human rights violations in Tibet, and of its crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, what are we prepared to do?

Sanctions? A decoupling of our economies? Confrontation? War?

This is not an argument for threatening war, but for an avoidance of war by providing greater clarity and certitude as to what the U.S. response will be if China ignores our protests and remains on its present course.

Some of us can still recall how President Dwight Eisenhower refused to intervene when Nikita Khrushchev ordered Russian tanks into Budapest to drown the 1956 Hungarian revolution in blood. Instead, we welcomed Hungarian refugees.

When the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called up the reserves and went to Berlin to make a famous speech, but did nothing.

"Less profile, more courage!" was the response of Cold War hawks.

But Kennedy was saying, as Eisenhower had said by his inaction in Hungary, that America does not go to war with a great nuclear power such as the Soviet Union over the right of East Germans to flee to West Berlin.

Which brings us back to Taiwan.

In the Shanghai Communique signed by Nixon, Taiwan was conceded to be a "part of China." Are we now going to fight a war to prevent Beijing from bringing the island home to the "embrace of the motherland"?

And if we are prepared to fight, Beijing should not be left in the dark. China ought to know the risks it would be taking.

Cuba is an island, across the Florida Strait, with historic ties to the United States. Taiwan is an island 7,000 miles away, on the other side of the Pacific.

This month, Cubans rose up against the 62-year-old Communist regime fastened upon them by Fidel and Raul Castro.

By what yardstick would we threaten war for the independence of Taiwan but continue to tolerate 60 years of totalitarian repression in Cuba, 90 miles away?

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2021/07/30/for-what-will-we-go-to-war-with-china-n2593333

***************************************

Third dose of Pfizer vaccine boosts antibodies up to 11-fold against the Indian 'Delta' variant

A third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine could offer strong protection against the Indian 'Delta' variant, data reveals, as a separate study finds protection provided by the vaccine could wane after six months.

New data released by the company on Wednesday showed antibody levels increased five-fold among people ages 18 to 55 who were given the booster shot.

The third dose was especially effecting for the elderly, with antibody levels spiking 11-fold among people aged 65 to 85 who had already received the standard two doses.

In the slides published online, the researchers wrote there there is 'estimated potential for up to 100-fold increase in Delta neutralization post-dose three compared to pre-dose three.'

The new data come at a welcome time with separate pre-print research finding that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine falls from 96 percent to only 84 percent after six months.

The Delta variant continues to spread across the country, making up at least 83 percent of all new infections.

Pfizer produces the most commonly used vaccine in the U.S., having been administered over 190 million times, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Early adopters of the vaccine may soon has their immunity to the virus slightly diminished.

Research, which has not been peer-reviewed, led by Pfizer and Syracuse University in New York finds that the vaccine was 91 percent effective in preventing the virus for six months.

After the time-span, the efficacy slightly falls to only 84 percent.

If it continues to drop at that rate, researchers say, the vaccine could drop below 50 percent efficacy 18 months after administration.

Those who are fully vaccinated and contract COVID are still less likely to experience serious symptoms or hospitalization, though.

Pfizer's vaccine was first given emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December, and was first distributed to priority populations like the elderly and health care workers that month.

Those who received the vaccine first may have already had its efficacy drop, meaning a third dose could be required soon.

The company plans to submit its application for emergency use authorization for the third dose to the FDA as early as August, according to slides distributed before an earnings call.

Clinical studies on a Delta variant-specific vaccine may begin soon as well.

Pending regulatory approval, the company plans to kick off trials in August, and has even already produced the first batch of the vaccine to be used.

Rumbles about the potential for a third dose in the near future have been happening for months.

Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said in the past that he expects a third dose to be needed in the coming months.

Though, he said earlier this month that he does not expect booster shots to be needed for the fully vaccinated at this time.

Fauci said earlier this week, though, that those who are vulnerable to the virus even after vaccination still may require a third dose.

Some elderly people, and people with conditions like cancer or who have received an organ transplant, are found to have not developed the sane antibody levels as others post vaccine.

The Delta variant has also shown a rare ability to cause breakthrough cases among fully vaccinated people.

The ability to cause breakthrough cases was cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the reason for the reintroduction of masks for fully vaccinated people in some parts of the country.

If Pfizer's findings - which are not peer-reviewed - are correct, then the third dose could be a valuable tool in combatting the variant.

The company's findings also found that a third dose could be particularly effective in combating the South African Beta variant.

The variant accounts for less than 10 percent of active cases in the United States.

Pfizer also revealed on the earnings call that they are working on a flu vaccine that uses the same mRNA technology used to develop its COVID vaccine.

Moderna, who also developed an mRNA COVID vaccine, began trials of an mRNA flu vaccine at the start of the month.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9835793/Pfizer-reports-dose-vaccine-boost-protection-against-Indian-Delta-variant.html

***********************************

Dan Crenshaw Tweets Stunning Revelation on New CDC Mask Guidelines

On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced a new mask guideline for students, teachers, and staff in K-12 to wear masks regardless of vaccination status, as well as in certain indoor settings, again, also regardless of vaccination status. The move was met with swift criticism, especially and including from former President Donald Trump. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), though, takes issue with the data used to justify the new guidelines.

The “game changer” data the CDC used for the mask mandate is from a single study from India.

The study that influenced this decision? It followed healthcare workers who were vaccinated with a vaccine NOT EVEN APPROVED IN THE U.S.

That’s right. So they’re not even using a comparable case study that can be applied to vaccinated Americans.

The study was rejected in peer review. But CDC used it anyway. Remember what I said about public health officials losing our trust?

The excerpt Rep. Crenshaw references comes from Andrew Joseph's article published by STAT, "CDC Again Recommends Indoor Masking, Even for Some Vaccinated People."

The excerpt in question reads:

An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told STAT that health experts do not have studies proving that fully vaccinated people are transmitting the virus. Rather, the official said, the updated guidance is based on studies showing that vaccinated people who contract the Delta variant have similarly high levels of virus in their airways, which suggested that they may be infectious to others. With other variants, vaccinated people had substantially lower levels of virus in their noses and throats compared to unvaccinated people.

Joseph also wrote:

The CDC says breakthrough cases still appear to be rare given how many people have been vaccinated, and the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic or mild. It’s also thought that because so many of those cases are so tame, many go undetected. However, many experts argue that breakthrough infections that cause no symptoms shouldn’t really be considered as cases. Mild or asymptomatic breakthrough infections are signs that the vaccines — whose top aim is to stave off death and severe illness — are doing their job, experts stress.

Guidelines on masks have been met with particular drama in the U.S. House of Representatives, after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reimposed a mask mandate on the House floor.

As Carson covered, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) gave a particularly impassioned floor speech about the absurdity of the mask mandate, especially while illegal immigrants testing positive continue to come to this country via the southern border.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/07/28/dan-crenshaw-tweets-stunning-revelation-on-new-cdc-mask-guidelines-n2593271

******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

*************************************

Most Sailors Perceive ‘Crisis of Leadership and Culture’ in Navy, Congressional Report Says

A new congressional report on the U.S. Navy “found that a staggering 94% of sailors interviewed believe that the surface Navy suffers from a crisis of leadership and culture.”

Increased administrative burdens (750 annual reports per ship, most of them useless) and training not related to combat have eaten into the time American sailors are able to devote to honing mission-critical skills.

“The noncombat curricula consume Navy resources, clog inboxes, create administrative quagmires, and monopolize precious training time,” the report warns. The report highlights America’s glaring unpreparedness at a time when America’s primary strategic competitor, China, is beefing up its navy, threatening U.S. allies and interests around the world.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., one of the legislators who commissioned the report, said the results were “disappointing because it confirmed what I suspected.” He moved to commission a report after a string of incidents have destroyed U.S. Navy ships even under peacetime conditions.

The USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain ran into other ships, the USS Bonhomme Richard caught fire in a U.S. port, and American officers in the Persian Gulf surrendered their patrol crafts to what were little more than Iranian fishing boats.

The Navy has “lost a capital ship worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars on average every six months over the last several years,” said Cotton. “Those are not isolated incidents.”

According to the report, many sailors agree. “Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,” said one active-duty lieutenant. “They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same color.”

Cotton said the “failures go back over multiple administrations,” but “it’s gotten worse with things like critical race theory.” Like the report, which was directed by two retired flag officers, the Navy’s problem transcends partisan politics.

The surface Navy—that is, ships on the water—is what would fight a major war. “We need a warfighting culture in our surface Navy,” Cotton said. Due to America’s long coastlines and few neighbors, a strong Navy has been our most critical security component since the founding era.

Cotton said, “A conflict with China would probably start and primarily remain a naval and aerial battle” because they lie across the vast Pacific Ocean. Yet “the surface Navy has lost its warfighting edge,” he lamented.

The bulk of a sailor’s training should be on “basic seafaring skills,” said Cotton, which is clearly lacking when our naval vessels are running into other ships. Even human trafficking training, which can be good, said Cotton, can be a distraction if it turns into half a day or more of training.

During the 1980s, marines and naval personnel practiced memorizing the Russian navy and army so that they could identify ships and tanks by their silhouette and know exactly what weapons their opponents had and how much time they had to get out of the way. Today, it’s safe to say America’s sailors spend too much time filling out paperwork and reading Ibram X. Kendi to do anything of the sort.

Cotton said Congress can take some action to solve the Navy’s unreadiness. For instance, careful oversight of naval maintenance schedules can help to reduce time spent on repairs, which is time sailors aren’t practicing maneuvers. But many of the Navy’s problems come down to leadership, said Cotton, especially after the Obama administration pushed out military leaders who refused to participate in social experimentation.

American security needs a sane administration that will promote solid officers. Leadership is sorely lacking now.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/22/majority-of-navy-sailors-perceive-a-crisis-of-leadership-and-culture-says-new-congressional-report

*******************************************

Will The Police Officer Who Flipped Woman’s SUV Face Charges?

On the evening of July 9, 2020, Janice Nicole Harper was traveling in her car on Highway 67 in Arkansas when police lights suddenly appeared in her rearview mirror.

Dashcam footage from the incident shows Harper, who was pregnant at the time, slowing her vehicle, switching on her hazard lights, and steering to the side of the road. Before she could stop or find an exit to pull over at, however, Arkansas State Trooper Rodney Dunn rammed her SUV, causing the vehicle to flip over.

Footage then shows Dunn approach the upside-down SUV and tell Harper to climb out of her passenger-side window.

“Why didn’t you stop?” he is heard asking.

“Because I didn’t feel like it was safe!” Harper cries out in obvious distress.

“Well, this is where you end up,” Dunn responds as Harper, then pregnant, struggles to exit the vehicle. “I thought it would be safe to wait until the exit.”

“No ma’am, you pull over when law enforcement stops you.”

If any ordinary citizen had intentionally rammed a pregnant woman’s vehicle, flipping it over in an attempt to stop her from speeding, they would be facing several criminal charges and a large payout to the victim. However, because Rodney Dunn is an Arkansas State Trooper, he is unlikely to do either.

Indeed, since this dangerous incident occurred, Dunn has remained on active patrol duty. No criminal charges were brought against him, despite performing an action—a maneuver known as a Pursuit Intervention Technique—that easily could have killed Harper and her unborn child. He is, however, facing civil charges.

Harper is suing Dunn and his two supervisors, Sgt. Alan Johnson, and Arkansas State Police Director Col. Bill Bryant for negligence for using the PIT maneuver on her. According to the lawsuit, Harper was driving 84 miles per hour in a 70-mile-per-hour zone. Dunn turned on his lights to signal for Harper to pull over, which she responded to by slowing her speed to 60 miles per hour, turning on her hazard lights, and moving into the right travel lane to pull off of the highway in a safe manner. Because of the pitch black darkness and the reduced shoulder on the side of the highway, Harper wanted to find a safer place to pull off. Less than three minutes had transpired from the beginning of the pursuit when Dunn performed the maneuver, ramming Harper’s vehicle and causing it to crash into the concrete median and flip over.

Although Dunn recklessly endangered Harper’s life (and her unborn child’s) with an excessive use of force, it’s unlikely he will be forced to pay restitution because of privileges afforded to law enforcement that the rest of us don’t get.

Qualified Immunity Protects Police From Consequences
In the state of Arkansas, a driver is well within their rights to use hazard lights to signal to an officer that they are going to pull off the road when they find a safe place. In fact, that’s exactly what the State Police’s “Driver License Study Guide” says drivers should do.

Under “What to do When You Are Stopped,” it says to use “emergency flashers to indicate to the officer that you are seeking a safe place to stop.” So, even if Harper was being pursued for a more serious traffic offense, she should have still been allowed to follow these rules. The fact that she was only being pulled over for speeding just adds to the absurdity of the officer’s actions. As a pregnant woman driving on the highway alone and at night, it is only common sense for Harper to have pulled into a well-lit area with a wider shoulder. (This action protects police officers as well as citizens, it should be noted.)

This case demonstrates the urgency of abolishing qualified immunity, which is a legal principle that gives government officials, like law enforcement, immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff’s rights were violated by the official in a “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

If a non-officer had flipped someone’s car for simply speeding, there is little doubt they would face civil and criminal charges. But qualified immunity will most likely protect Dunn (once again) from facing the consequences of his actions. Even if Harper were to win this lawsuit, the payout would come from taxpayer money, not Dunn’s pockets.

How did we get here? The genesis of qualified immunity is nearly as suspect as the law itself. The doctrine was essentially created out of thin air by the Supreme Court in 1960, with no legal basis or mass public support. The statute includes something called the “Clearly Established Law Requirement.”

Because of the nature of this requirement, police officers are protected from consequences even if they violated someone’s civil rights if a court hasn’t previously ruled the exact actions to be unconstitutional in a prior case. Because of the fact that specifics in different cases can differ greatly, this allows for a lot of room for officers who acted unconstitutionally to get off scot-free.

Government Employees Should Not Have the Privilege to Violate Your Rights

Abolishing qualified immunity would hold officers liable for infringing on citizens’ rights, and act as an effective deterrent from these incidents occurring in the first place. If law enforcement understands that they (and not the local government) will have to pay for violations of civil rights, they would be less likely to violate those rights in the first place.

According to Clark Neilly of the Cato Institute, “Qualified immunity is a judge‐​made defense,” referencing the fact that it was made up in the Supreme Court rather than by the legislative process.

“[Qualified immunity] enables police and other government officials to escape liability for violating people’s rights…” wrote Neilly. “This has enabled cops to escape liability for everything from stealing property while executing a search warrant to savaging an unresisting suspect with a police dog.”

Because there aren’t many cases of state troopers recklessly using the PIT maneuver to flip a driver for speeding, there is a good chance that qualified immunity would apply in this case, and protect Dunn.

Qualified immunity is un-American. It flouts the philosophy on which our constitutional republic was founded, as was clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

Right in the introduction of the document, our founding fathers made sure to emphasize that the sole purpose of government is to protect our rights. As agents of the government inaugurated by the Declaration of Independence, that is what cops are supposed to do. “Protect and serve,” like it sometimes says on their squad cars. Not lord it over us like we’re mere peons—like Trooper Dunn did when he damn near killed a pregnant lady and then lectured her for not respecting his badge. That’s the kind of government we fought a Revolution to get free of.

When government officers violate the rights of citizens, as Trooper Dunn did when he flipped Janice Harper’s car, they are flipping upside-down the very purpose of their job and of the American government. Then we have the tyrannical state of affairs described by Frederic Bastiat in his classic work, The Law:

“The law perverted! The law—and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation—the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law becomes the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law is guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish!”

And qualified immunity makes such perversions of the law more frequent and more entrenched, because it systematically shelters officers of the law who commit them.

Abolishing qualified immunity is key to preventing police abuse. It’s also the American thing to do.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/07/13/cop-flipped-suv-charges/?omhide=true

******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

*************************************

Doctors Raise Awareness on Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19

In an effort to help end the pandemic, an international coalition of medical experts is holding worldwide events Saturday to raise awareness about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Organizers of the World Ivermectin Day say doctors and supporters of the inexpensive FDA-approved drug will host free online and public events in over a dozen countries.

Two nonprofits—Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) group—who have been campaigning for the off-label use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19 say the event’s focus is to let more people know that the antiparasitic drug can treat COVID-19, possibly end the pandemic, and help eliminate fear of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

“We have an incredibly positive and uplifting message to share: ivermectin treats and prevents COVID and it is the key to unlocking the never-ending cycle of pandemic peaks and personal restrictions and will help restart economies,” Dr. Tess Lawrie, cofounder of the BIRD group said in a press release.

Lawrie is also a co-author of a peer-reviewed meta-analysis study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin to be effective against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP virus. Lawrie and her team concluded with a moderate level of confidence that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.73, especially when prescribed early.

FLCCC Alliance also conducted their own review of 18 randomized controlled trials on COVID-19 treatment with ivermectin. They found “large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.” The authors also said that studies on the prevention of COVID-19 reported significantly reduced risks of the disease with regular use of the drug.

Members of the FLCCC Alliance have developed various protocols for the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19, instead of having patients wait until they develop a severe illness to receive treatment at the hospital. These treatment protocols including one for the management of long COVID are being used globally.

The current standard protocol for COVID-19 positive patients is to isolate at home, avoid dehydration, rest, and take over-the-counter medications for fever, headache, cough, and body pain.

According to updated guidance from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who are at high risk of disease progression, are recommended to take a monoclonal antibody if hospitalization or supplemental oxygen is not required.

Despite evidence showing ivermectin may treat all stages of COVID-19 and reduce death and hospitalization as a result of its anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, the FDA has not approved its use, saying that the drug isn’t an anti-viral. The federal regulator issued a warning that people should not take ivermectin intended for horses as the larger doses may be harmful to humans.

The NIH has not changed its neutral stance on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, while the World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend the use of the drug except in a clinical study. Both organizations cite insufficient data for not making a recommendation.

Unprecedented Censorship

Online discussions of ivermectin have faced an unprecedented level of suppression with doctors claiming that their videos are being taken down or their LinkedIn accounts closed.

Lawrie said she has experienced censorship with her work on ivermectin, claiming that her videos about the drug have been removed and posts censored on social media.

“I have experienced a lot of censorship ever since I started doing work on ivermectin (never before),” Lawrie told The Epoch Times via email. “I have had my post of my published peer-reviewed scientific manuscript removed from LinkedIn.”

She also said that many people have informed her that their accounts would be restricted or censored “if they post the work my company has produced on ivermectin or interviews that I have done.”

LinkedIn did not reply to a request for comment.

Dr. Mobeen Syed, chief executive officer of Drbeen Corp, an online medical education, said YouTube took down three of his videos on ivermectin within 24 hours.

“[Third] book burnt in 24 hours. @Youtube @TeamYouTube continue to burn books,” Syed said on Twitter on July 11. “This video was important to keep people safe who are using ivermectin regardless of what YouTube thinks.”

YouTube did not reply to The Epoch Times inquiry on clarification of which terms or conditions Syed’s videos had violated.

Ivermectin is not the only topic being suppressed or blocked by Big Tech firms. Social media posts about the lab leak theory that the CCP virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and information that goes against the narrative about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine has also been censored.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki suggested at a White House briefing that people should be banned from all social media platforms if they post misinformation online about COVID-19 vaccines, alleging that this type of information was “leading to people not taking the vaccine.” Psaki’s suggestion has drawn widespread condemnation.

Regardless of the suppression of ivermectin around the world, people have found unique ways to get the information out. Social media posts of lawn signs have appeared in Manitoba, Canada with a simple message that reads, “Ivermectin treats COVID-19” along with the FLCCC website listed

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/doctors-raise-awareness-on-ivermectin-as-treatment-for-covid-19-to-help-end-the-pandemic_3916366.html

**************************************

The Pope is a Catholic after all

He has been so liberal in many ways that his new Canons are a most refreshing reaffirmation of traditional Catholic morality

Pope Francis has made the most extensive revisions to Catholic Church law in four decades, insisting that bishops take action against clerics who sexually abuse minors and vulnerable adults, commit economic fraud or ordain women.

In many ways, the changes published on Tuesday integrate piecemeal reforms that have been made over the years to address clergy sexual abuse and financial scandals that have compromised the credibility of the hierarchy in the eyes of rank-and-file faithful.

The new provisions, released on Tuesday after 14 years of study, were contained in the revised criminal law section of the Vatican's Code of Canon Law, the in-house legal system that covers the 1.3 billion-member Catholic Church and operates independently from civil laws.

What are the new provisions?

The most significant changes are contained in two articles, 1395 and 1398, which aim to address shortcomings in the church's handling of sexual abuse.

The law recognises that adults, not only children, can be victimised by priests who abuse their authority.

The revisions also say that laypeople holding church positions, such as school principals or parish economists, can be punished for abusing minors as well as adults.

The Vatican also criminalised priests "grooming" minors or vulnerable adults to compel them to engage in pornography – the update is the first time church law has officially recognised as criminal the method used by sexual predators to build relationships with victims they have targeted for sexual exploitation.

The new law, which is set to take effect on December 8, also removes much of the discretion that long allowed bishops and religious superiors to ignore or cover up abuse, making clear that those in positions of authority will be held responsible if they fail to properly investigate or sanction predator priests.

A bishop can be removed from office for "culpable negligence" or if he does not report sex crimes to church authorities, although the canon law foresees no punishment for failing to report suspected crimes to police.

While the church has historically prohibited the ordination of women and the ban has been reaffirmed by popes, the 1983 code says only in another section that priestly ordination was reserved for "a baptised male".

The revised code specifically warns that both the person who attempts to confer ordination on a woman and the woman herself incur automatic excommunication and that the cleric risks being defrocked.

Kate McElwee, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference, said in a statement that while the position was not surprising, spelling it out in the new code was "a painful reminder of the Vatican's patriarchal machinery and its far-reaching attempts to subordinate women".

Reflecting the series of financial scandals that have hit the Church in recent decades, other new entries in the code include several on economic crimes, such as embezzlement of church funds or property or grave negligence in their administration.

What prompted the changes?

Ever since the 1983 code first was issued, lawyers and bishops have complained it was inadequate for dealing with the sexual abuse of minors since it required time-consuming trials.

Victims and their advocates, meanwhile, argued the code left too much discretion in the hands of bishops who had an interest in covering up for their priests.

The Vatican issued piecemeal changes over the years to address problems and loopholes, most significantly requiring all cases to be sent to the Holy See for review and allowing for a more streamlined administrative process to defrock a priest if the evidence against him was overwhelming.

The Vatican has long considered any sexual relations between a priest and an adult as sinful but consensual, believing that adults are able to offer or refuse consent purely by the nature of their age.

But amid the #MeToo movement and scandals of seminarians and nuns being sexually abused by their superiors, the Vatican has come to realise that adults can be victimised if there is a power imbalance in the relationship.

Monsignor Juan Ignacio Arrieta, secretary of the Vatican's legal office, said the new version would cover any rank-and-file member of the church who is a victim of a priest who abused his authority.

Pitfalls in the new code

The law does not explicitly define which adults are covered, saying only an adult who "habitually has an imperfect use of reason" or for "whom the law recognises equal protection".

Arrieta said the Vatican chose not to define precisely who is covered but noted that the Vatican previously defined vulnerable adults as those who even occasionally are unable to understand or consent because of a physical or mental deficiency or are deprived of their personal liberty.

The Reverend Davide Cito, a canon lawyer at the Pontifical Holy Cross University, said the broadness of the law "allows it to protect many people" who might not necessarily fall under the strict definition of "vulnerable" but are nevertheless deserving of protection.

In a novelty aimed at addressing sex crimes committed by laypeople who hold church offices, such as the founders of lay religious movements or even parish accountants and administrators, the new law says laypeople can be punished if they abuse their authority to engage in sexual or financial crimes.

Since these laypeople cannot be defrocked, penalties include losing their jobs, paying fines or being removed from their communities.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/pope-francis-church-law-priests-sexual-abuse-adults/100183472

******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

*************************************

Israeli company is set to become first in the world to launch clinical trials of an ORAL COVID-19 vaccine

Oravax Medical, a subsidiary of Jerusalem-based Oramed Pharmaceuticals, has received a green light to begin the study from the Institutional Review Board at Sourasky Medical Center in Tel Aviv.

The team is now waiting for approval from the Health Ministry, which is expected within a few weeks.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron told The Jerusalem Post that an oral vaccine would be faster, cheaper and easier to manufacture than vaccines that are injected.

What's more, it could be easily distributed to low-and middle-income countries. 'An oral COVID-19 vaccine would eliminate several barriers to rapid, wide-scale distribution, potentially enabling people to take the vaccine themselves at home,' he said. 

'While ease of administration is critical today to accelerate inoculation rates, an oral vaccine could become even more valuable in the case that a COVID-19 vaccine may be recommended annually like the standard flu shot.' 

The technology is the same that the company is using to develop insulin capsules for type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients Nadav Kidron told The Jerusalem Post.  Kidron explained the trials are initially being conducted as a 'proof of concept' rather than testing efficacy. 

Researchers are recruiting 24 unvaccinated volunteers  with half receiving one pill and the other half two pills.

The team will analyze safety and then take participants' blood samples to measure antibody levels.

If results prove successful, the trial will move into Phase III when the capsules will be tested against a placebo.  

'The idea here is that we want to show proof of concept: that it works for people,' Kidron told The Jerusalem Post.

'I pray and hope that we will. Imagine that we could give someone an oral vaccine and they are vaccinated. This would be a revolution for the entire world.' 

The Oravax vaccine targets three proteins on the virus rather then the single spike protein that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines target. 

Kidron says this should help the pill be much more effective against variant, which often have mutations on the spike protein.

'This vaccine should be much more resistant to COVID-19 variants,' he told The Jerusalem Post. 

'Even if the virus gets through one line, there is a second line, and if through the second line, there is a third.' 

The pill can be shipped in refrigeration cooler and even be stored at room temperature, unlike other COVID-19. 

What's more, it would not need to be administered by a health professional, making it easy to distribute in schools, offices  and other businesses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9815309/Israeli-company-set-launch-clinical-trials-ORAL-Covid-vaccine.html

Brigham Young University Hawaii Contradicts Student’s Doctor, Says She Must Receive Vaccine or Find Another School, Despite Her Serious Medical Condition

An incoming freshman with a neurological disorder has been told she will need to receive a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine to pursue her studies, despite her doctor warning the school of the risks due to her condition.

BY EVELYN RAE

Olivia Sandor, who suffers from Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), an auto-immune disease that paralyzed her from the waist down, was set to start at the this fall, when an announcement was made June 16 that all students would be required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

When the school announced its new policy, BYUH’s assistant to the president said that students with religious or medical reasons can apply for an immunization exemption and that each case and circumstance would be reviewed to see if the student qualified.

Due to her unique and life-threatening circumstances, Olivia provided the university with a medical exemption in which her doctor notified the school of the risks she faced if she were to take the vaccine.

The letter read:

Olivia has been a patient of mine for many years. In January of 2019, she received an influenza vaccine and within a couple of years developed Guillain Barre Syndrome and was very ill for a couple of months.

Because of her history I believe a COVID vaccine or another influenza vaccine will endanger her health and possibly her life. I believe she should avoid those vaccines indefinitely.

After waiting three weeks, Olivia received a letter from the university informing her that her exemption had been denied.

The university’s response read:

After careful consideration of your request for a medical exemption, we reget that we cannot accommodate your request. Due to our unique location, diverse student population, and daily interaction with international tourists at the Polynesian Cultural Center, we must take extra precautions to protect our campus and community.

We recommend that you come when you can be fully vaccinated or consider attendance at one of our other church universities.

With the help of her parents, Olivia appealed again to the university, pleading with them to understand her medical circumstances.

The university responded again to Olivia, denying her request a second time, and providing two references from university doctors who had never treated her, assuring her the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would be safe for her to take.

“She should not get the J&J vaccine, but the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would be OK,” the email from the university said in contradiction to the advice of the doctor treating Olivia’s condition.

“It states that the mRNA vaccines (i.e. Moderna) haven’t shown any association with triggering GBS. She should be fine to get the Moderna vaccine.”

Olivia told Caldron Pool that attending BYUH had been her dream and that she had turned down a $200,000 scholarship to enrol at the university.

In a post on social media, Olivia detailed her experience, saying, “I’m sharing this today to shed light on how the COVID-19 vaccine is affecting me and my life and to help others not feel so alone… I may not know why this is all happening now, but I have faith that there is a reason.”

Olivia is one of a number of students who have expressed concerns about the mandatory vaccine policy adopted by BYUH.

https://caldronpool.com/university-contradicts-students-doctor-says-she-must-receive-vaccine-or-find-another-school-despite-her-serious-medical-condition/

FDA to Add Warning About Neurological Disorder Linked to Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 12 said it will add a warning label to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine that it is linked to a rare neurological disorder known as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), while J&J confirmed it is “in discussions” with federal agencies.

“The FDA is announcing revisions to the vaccine recipient and vaccination provider fact sheets for the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 Vaccine to include information pertaining to an observed increased risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination,” an FDA spokesperson told The Epoch Times on July 12.

The benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, the agency said.

That determination was made “based on an analysis of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS) data” which found “there have been 100 preliminary reports following vaccination with the Janssen vaccine after approximately 12.5 million doses administered,” the spokesperson said. “Of these reports, 95 of them were serious and required hospitalization.”

As of now, the FDA noted, although available data suggest there is an association between the J&J vaccine and an increased risk of GBS, this is “insufficient to establish a causal relationship.”

The spokesperson added that the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines don’t present a similar risk.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the CDC told The Epoch Times that the federal health agency is monitoring reports of GBS.

“Every year in the United States, an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop GBS,” said a CDC spokesperson, adding that “it is typically triggered by a respiratory or gastrointestinal infection. <font style="background-color:yellow; font-weight:bold;">Most people fully recover from GBS.”</font>

According to the CDC, GBS is a neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system damages nerve cells and causes muscle weakness. In some cases, the disorder can cause paralysis, says the Mayo Clinic, which noted that most people with the condition must be hospitalized.

J&J, in a statement on Monday, confirmed it has “been in discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators about rare cases of the neurological disorder, Guillain-Barré syndrome, that have been reported following vaccination with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.”

“The chance of having this occur is very low,” the statement added, “and the rate of reported cases exceeds the background rate by a small degree.”

GBS has been linked as a rare side effect to various vaccines, including one that was developed to combat the swine flu in 1976, according to the UK National Health Services website.

Earlier this year, the CDC and FDA recommended halting usage of the J&J vaccine after reports of blood clots emerged among some individuals who had received it. Weeks later, the two agencies said that the vaccine could again be used, but with an FDA warning.

“This pause was essential to our ability to inform the public, inform physicians, and acquire more data for presentation and for analysis,” Dr. José Romero, chairman of the CDC’s Committee of Immunizations, said in April. The vote was 10–4 in favor of recommending the vaccine to adults who are 18 or older. There was one abstention.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/cdc-investigating-cases-of-neurological-disorder-after-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine_3898348.html

****************************************