Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Pfizer to launch trial of Omicron-targeted COVID vaccine
Pfizer and BioNTech say they have started a clinical trial to test a new version of their vaccine specifically designed to target the COVID-19 Omicron variant, which has eluded some of the protection provided by the original two-dose vaccine regimen.
Banking on volunteers in the United States, the companies plan to test the immune response generated by the Omicron-based vaccine both as a three-shot regimen in unvaccinated people and as a booster shot for people who already received two doses of their original vaccine.
They are also testing a fourth dose of the current vaccine against a fourth dose of the Omicron-based vaccine in people who received a third dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine three to six months earlier.
The companies plan to study the safety and tolerability of the shots in the more than 1400 people who will be enrolled in the trial.
“While current research and real-world data show that boosters continue to provide a high level of protection against severe disease and hospitalisation with Omicron, we recognise the need to be prepared in the event this protection wanes over time and to potentially help address Omicron and new variants in the future,” Pfizer’s head of vaccine research and development, Kathrin Jansen, said in a statement on Wednesday AEDT.
Depending on the amount of clinical trial data required by regulators, it may not be possible to realise a current plan to launch an Omicron-targeting vaccine by the end of March, BioNTech said.
Pfizer has said that two doses of the original vaccine may not be sufficient to protect against infection from Omicron, and that protection against hospitalisations and deaths may be waning.
Still, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says a third dose of an mRNA vaccine like the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has provided 90 per cent protection against hospitalisation due to COVID-19.
Some countries have already started offering additional booster doses, but a recent study from Israel showed that while a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine boosted antibodies, the level was not high enough to prevent Omicron infection.
DATA The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said on Friday that international regulators want data from clinical studies like the one being done by Pfizer and BioNTech before approval of a new vaccine.
EMA said these studies should show that the new vaccines elicit more neutralising antibodies in the blood than current vaccines and might also protect against new variants of concern.
BioNTech declined to comment on what type of data it was asked to file with regulators.
It said an analysis of antibodies elicited by its Omicron-targeted booster should help answer whether shots will be needed that address more than one variant at a time. It hopes to show the antibodies neutralise a spectrum of variants.
Still, some scientists question whether any change is currently needed.
“The goal of this vaccine is to protect against serious illness,” said Dr Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania. “To date, these vaccines do that, including protection against Omicron.”
**************************************************
Growing up poor affects your BRAIN: Children in low-income households show slower activity in key neural regions linked to thinking and learning, study reveals
This study of cognitive development in neonates is interesting but its generalizability is low. We know that IQ measured in young children shows negligible correlation with IQ in adulthood, for instance. And the lesson from HeadStart is that early improvements fade over time
Children who grow up in poorer households show slower activity in key brain regions linked to both thinking and learning, a study has warned.
Experts from Columbia University found that the brain development of infants in low-income families varied with the amount of financial support they were given.
Scans at age one showed faster brain activity in kids whose families were given $333 (£250) of support monthly compared to those given only $20 (£15) per month.
It is unclear if the differences in brain activity will persist as the children age, or how they might influence cognitive and behavioural growth.
However, in older children, activity in the regions in question has previously been linked to the development of learning skills.
The researchers are now investigating how the payments benefited the children, with possibilities including facilitating better nutrition, or relieving parental stress.
Either way, they said, the results suggest that interventions designed to reduce poverty could benefit infant brain development and improve later outcomes.
The investigation was undertaken by neuroscientist Kimberly Noble of New York's Columbia University and her colleagues.
'The brain changes speak to the remarkable malleability of the brain, especially early in childhood,' said Professor Noble.
'We have known for many years that growing up in poverty puts children at risk for lower school achievement, reduced earnings, and poorer health.
'However, until now, we haven't been able to say whether poverty itself causes differences in child development, or whether growing up in poverty is simply associated with other factors that cause those differences.'
In the study, the researchers measured brain activity levels among a subset of 435 one-year-old children who were participating in the so-called 'Baby's First Years' trial.
This randomised controlled trial into the benefits of poverty reduction has seen 1,000 low-income mothers recruited from postpartum wards in four US metropolitan areas — New Orleans, New York City, Omaha, and Minneapolis–Saint Paul.
The mothers, who were primarily Black or Latina and not college educated, were then given a cash gift of either $333 (£250) or $20 (£15) per month to spend it whatever way they chose.
While these results come from one year into the interventions, the trial is still ongoing, and the mothers will continue to receive the monthly cash gifts until their children are four years and four months old.
Each child's brain activity was measured using an electroencephalography, or 'EEG', machine via an electrode-bearing cap that was placed on the child's head.
The researchers found that children whose mothers were given $333 per month had around 20 per cent more high-frequency brain activity than those whose parents were only given $20 of support monthly.
High-frequency brain activity in the frontal region has previously been linked to both the development of learning and thinking skills.
Professor Noble explained that children’s brains naturally adapt to their experiences. 'All healthy brains are shaped by their environments and experiences, and we are not saying that one group has "better" brains,' she said.
'But — because of the randomized design — we know that the $333 per month must have changed children's experiences or environments, and that their brains adapted to those changed circumstances.'
'Families are all different, and the potential promise of money as a way of directly supporting families is that it allows parents to make choices about what their children most need,' said paper author Katherine Magnuson. 'Thus, there may not be just one way in which money positively affects families; —money may matter in a lot of small ways.
'We hear from the mothers in our study how challenging it is to raise children without enough money. 'A few hundred dollars a month has the potential to do a lot of good for these families, and we are grateful that we will continue to learn from them about how the money has helped them meet their goals.'
'Global evidence is thin on how children are affected by cash transfers, especially with respect to very young children,' said fellow paper author and applied economist Lisa Gennetian of North Carolina's Duke University.
'This is mostly because it is so hard and expensive to objectively capture children's development. This study's findings on infant brain activity are unprecedented.'
The outcomes seen, she added, 'really speak to how anti-poverty policies — including the types of expanded child tax credits being debated in the US — can and should be viewed as investments in children.'
***********************************************
Biden Forced To Bend The Knee To Trump, Admit He Was Right
Joe Biden (well, the people calling the shots for Joe Biden) have made such a mess out of the Southern border that it’s not even funny.
The media fell over itself to label Trump’s border policy a failure, yet have nothing to say when Biden fills cages with kids, to 1700% of capacity … during what we are told is a pandemic.
It really is not even funny. The number of rapes and abuse of children that this administration is responsible for are mind boggling. This administration has committed crimes against humanity not seen since the Obama/Biden admin ran guns to drug cartels.
Things have gotten so bad that Biden has been forced to concede that Trump was right … but you won’t hear this on the TV ‘news’
Conservative Treehouse reported:
‘The JoeBama administration are pathetic in their manipulation of policy.
After taking apart the Trump agreement with central American nations (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador) to secure their own northern border the mass migration toward the United States began…. a crisis created. However, once the crisis turns public opinion against them, the JoeBama administration then proposes to return to the exact same policy President Trump initiated and Biden destroyed.
The White House and the media then herald the return of the Trump agreement as a groundbreaking new policy initiative instituted by JoeBama. It would be funny, if it were not so ridiculous to watch it in real time.’
CNN repoerted – The Biden administration has secured agreements for Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration, Special Assistant to the President for Immigration for the Domestic Policy Council Tyler Moran told MSNBC Monday.
“We’ve secured agreements for them to put more troops on their own border. Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala have all agreed to do this. That not only is going to prevent the traffickers, and the smugglers, and cartels that take advantage of the kids on their way here, but also to protect those children,” Moran said.
The Biden administration has struggled to keep up with the influx of migrants coming to the border and as there has been a major spike in the number of migrant children in US custody. (read more)’
They did not ‘struggle’ they created this situation on purpose. They don’t care about all the lives that were and are yet to be ruin from their policies. The left wants everyone equally poor, so poor that they can not revolt.
Unfortunately, they are well on their way to making that a reality.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Omicron vaccine on the way
The emphasis on vaccines is wrong headed. Medicines to cure it are the way of the future. Several are now available
The race is on to find a variant-proof vaccine
Since the emergence of Omicron, both Pfizer and Moderna have announced they're working on vaccines to specifically target the variant, with production promised as early as March of this year.
So, are variant-specific vaccines the way we regain control of COVID?
A vaccine targeting Omicron will increase immunity to the variant on both an individual and population level.
However, variant-specific vaccines are ultimately a reactive measure that could always leave us behind the eight ball. By the time we roll out any variant-specific vaccine, a wave of infections driven by that variant may already have peaked, and a new variant will likely be on the way.
The solution to this problem may be "variant-proof" vaccines, also known as "universal" COVID vaccines. These are vaccines that work across different variants, rather than being targeted to a specific variant. These are in development and could be a proactive way to prevent new variants from taking hold.
Variant-specific vaccines could take too long to roll out
Scientists have little doubt vaccination with an Omicron-specific vaccine will provide enhanced immunity to Omicron.
Approvals of these new vaccines should be comparatively rapid because they're similar to previously approved vaccines, though some additional data on safety and efficacy will be required.
Reactively relying on developing variant-specific vaccines, even under idealised production and distribution systems, would always leave us vulnerable to disruptive waves of infection and pose ongoing challenges to health strategies.
Waves of new variants would engulf the population faster than variant-specific vaccines could ever be deployed.
Mass infection isn't likely to protect against future variants
Health officials predict almost all Australians will soon be exposed to Omicron.
This has left many wondering if mass exposure could finally provide us with the antibody protection required for the fabled "herd immunity", making the need for future variant-specific vaccines unnecessary.
A small-scale pre-print study, yet to be reviewed by other scientists, suggests infection with Omicron did produce some antibodies that could neutralise Delta, but only around a quarter the magnitude of those produced against the infecting variant.
Whether these antibodies would be sufficient to protect against the infection from the Delta or other variants, remains to be established.
Most antibodies induced by vaccination and natural infection predominantly target regions of the virus that can easily mutate.
It's plausible the next variants that emerge could be even more different in this region than Delta or Omicron. This means it could evade current antibody responses induced by infection, or by vaccines specific for either the original virus or the Omicron variant.
So it's likely mass infection with Omicron won't protect us from catching future variants.
Here's where a variant-proof vaccine comes in
These are vaccines which generate antibodies to regions of the virus that cannot be easily mutated.
The goal of using such vaccines across the population is to protect us not just against current variants of the virus, but also against future variants.
Unlike the current reactive strategy of generating variant-specific vaccines following the emergence of a new invasive threat, a universal vaccine could be used to prevent a new variant from ever taking hold.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-25/will-an-omicron-specific-vaccine-control-covid/100778152
***********************************************Dissecting the supreme court's split decision on vaccine mandates
Major issues remain to be resolved with respect to the Chevron doctrine and agency power and the question of what police power, if any, the federal government has.
The Supreme Court has issued its opinions in the two vaccine mandate cases. In the case involving the mandate that all employers with 100 or more employees require their staff to be vaccinated (with very limited exceptions), the Court, by a 6-3 vote, reinstated an injunction against the regulation adopted by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) being enforced. The Justices in the majority were Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. The dissenters were Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
In the case involving the mandate that all healthcare workers at facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds be vaccinated (with the exception of employees who telecommute entirely) or that the medical facility with unvaccinated healthcare workers would be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, lifted the injunction against the applicable regulation. The Justices in the majority were Justices Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh. The dissenters were Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett.
Note that the switch by Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh from blocking a vaccine mandate in the one case to allowing a vaccine mandate in the other case created the mess and confusion about the power of the Federal government to mandate that Americans be jabbed with a vaccine or lose their jobs. This reinforces the “enigma of Justice Roberts” and perhaps the alliance in that “enigma” of Justice Kavanaugh.
Before we object that it is unfair to call these votes a reinforcement of such an “enigma” since Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh are part of a conservative majority committed to enforcing and interpreting the Constitution as written and generally join the Court’s conservatives in opinions of the Court and in dissents, let me say that I am not suggesting that Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh have followed in the footsteps of Justices like Justice Souter, who once appointed and seated, became a reliable liberal vote.
The reason I say “enigma” is that in major cases where the weight of the major liberal institutions in the media and the universities and the leaders of the Democrats express outrage at the possibility of striking at one of their sacred cows and they scream about a partisan Court, Roberts has generally sided with the Court liberals and increasingly so has Kavanaugh. We saw how Justice Roberts stretched and twisted to find a way to uphold the Affordable Care Act and avoid the questions of whether the Federal government could mandate that every person have health insurance and whether the statute violated the Commerce Clause. The question is why.
I wish I could say it was simply an honest disagreement based on the legal reasoning of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, but it appears that they are bending to the demands that the Court not be or appear to be partisan. It may also be, in the case of Justice Kavanaugh, that the vicious attacks on him during his confirmation hearing, have made him gun shy. As I discuss the healthcare worker mandate below, I will return to this very important question.
The opinion in the healthcare worker mandate case was an unsigned per curium opinion, meaning that no author was identified and that all 5 of the Justices in the majority agreed, with none issuing a concurring opinion. For those readers who don’t know the purpose of a concurring opinion, it allows a Justices to vote with the majority but explain where he or she has different reasons or doesn’t agree with statements in the majority opinion while still voting for the result. The Court’s opinion relied on numerous statutes (a “hodgepodge” in the words of the dissenters and many commentators) to conclude the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the authority to issue the regulation creating the mandate.
The Court said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “has general statutory authority to promulgate regulations ‘as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which [he] is charged’…” -- 42USC Section1302(a) -- and that “one such function, perhaps the most basic, given the Department’s core mission is to ensure that the healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patient protect those patients’ health and safety.” The Court further said that Congress authorized the Secretary “to promulgate, as a condition to a facility’s participating in the programs, such requirements as [he] finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the institutions.” (42USC Section 1395(c)(9). The Court noted that, in adopting the healthcare worker mandate and relying on these statutes, the Secretary “further noted that staffing shortages caused by COVID-19 related exposure and illness has disrupted patientcare.” That is a rather ironic justification since the regulation will result in many healthcare workers losing their jobs.
Now it should be noted that Congress adopts laws and under the Court’s delegation doctrine, Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to regulatory agencies. There are two important ancillaries that have followed in Supreme Court opinions.
One is what is known as the Chevron doctrine. That comes from a 1984 Supreme Court opinion in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in which the Court said that whenever a regulatory agency makes a rule or regulation which deals with a statute adopted by Congress -- and there is ambiguity in the statutory language or the intent of Congress is not clear, and there is any reasonable way to argue that such rule or regulation is consistent with the statute under which it is acting -- the Court will defer to the regulatory agency. The Court said that determining the intent of Congress often requires the opinions of experts and that judges should not interpose their own preferences.
The many subsequent cases applying this doctrine are beyond the scope of this article, but the core concept has been extremely consequential. It is at the heart of the growth of the regulatory state in which Congress adopts ambiguous or broad law and lets the agencies fill in the blanks. That absolves Congress from having to take actions that may be unpopular or consequential and it takes the general public out of the equation since regulators are not elected. The enormous power given to the regulatory agencies by the Chevron doctrine has been a prime factor in the enormous growth of the Federal government. The possibility that the Court would reverse or weaken Chevron terrifies fans of big government because without the ability to freeze out Congress and thus the public through their ability to vote for their elected members of Congress, many radical or so called “progressive” policies would have no chance of adoption.
The second ancillary is known as the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine holds that courts should not defer to regulatory agency interpretations in matters that have “vast economic significance.” The Court has said repeatedly in subsequent cases that Congress must speak clearly if it intends to give a regulatory agency the authority to act in a particular way. Justice Kavanaugh addressed this doctrine in response to questions during his confirmation hearing when he said: “I’m not a skeptic of regulation at all. I am a skeptic of unauthorized regulation, of illegal regulation, or regulation that’s outside the bounds of what the laws passed by Congress have said. And that is what is at the root of our administrative law jurisprudence.” As we discuss the dissents, consider if Justice Kavanaugh’s interpretation of the “major questions doctrine” has been applied by Justice Kavanaugh.
As stated above, there were 4 dissenters. Three were 2 written dissenting opinions—by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined in both of these dissents.
Justice Thomas described the “major questions doctrine,” and he said there is no question the healthcare worker mandate falls within its scope. He noted that 10 million workers across the entire country are affected by either getting vaccinated or losing their jobs. He noted that nothing in the statutes on which the agency relied had clear language that could possibly empower the agency to make this mandate. Then he noted that: “Vaccines mandates fall squarely within a state police power”, citing Zuch v King 260 US 174 (1920). This case is a bedrock of federalism. Justice Thomas further said: “We expect Congress to use exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between state and federal power.” Allowing the healthcare worker mandate to go into effect as the Court has done will allow the federal government to intrude on the police power of the states.
Justice Alito said: “Under the constitution, laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose members are elected by the people… Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators, except in rare cases.” This was a direct attack on the administrative state.
Major issues remain to be resolved with respect to the Chevron doctrine and agency power and the question of what police power, if any, the federal government has. We will watch keenly in future case and with particular interest in the cases of Justice Roberts and Kavanaugh.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Monday, January 24, 2022
Vaccine-induced heart damage is a real risk for young males
As has been long established, myocarditis is the most documented adverse reaction from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. A number of studies have established the risk of myocarditis as highly stratified by age and gender. A study from Israel found that males aged 16 to 29 faced the greatest risk, with around 11 in 100,000 males developing post-vaccination myocarditis. A pre-print study last year comparing risks of infection versus vaccination found that boys aged 12 to 15 were four to six times more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than become hospitalized with any Covid-related condition (in the broadest possible sense, including incidental cases—meaning the relative myocarditis risk is likely understated).
The specific point of causality has not been identified by scientists yet, as the vaccines are experimental by nature and their long-term implications are not fully understood. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal compiles the leading hypotheses for what is causing this adverse event. One newly emerging theory relates to the way the vaccine is injected into the body:
“The shots are supposed to be injected into the shoulder muscle, also known as the deltoid muscle. If the injection accidentally reaches a vein, it could lead to delivery of some of the vaccine to the heart through blood vessels.”
As for the gender-specific risk, some scientists speculate it is due to higher testosterone levels in men:
“That myocarditis appears to happen more among younger males after vaccination than in other age and sex groups suggests a link to the hormone testosterone, which is usually at high levels in younger males, according to researchers. Testosterone may heighten an inflammatory immune response, Dr. Bozkurt said, leading to myocarditis in some male adolescents and young men.”
The consistently identified risk in young males across different countries, medical journals, and research institutes warrant serious caution and re-evaluation of fully vaccinating healthy young males—given their extremely low risk of serious illness or death from Covid. Public health officials in Norway, the UK, and Hong Kong have acted with commendable prudence, offering only one dose of the vaccine to young people since myocarditis cases are clustered after the second dose. Other countries such as Finland, France, and Germany have advised against administration of the Moderna vaccine in males under the age of 30 because of higher rates of myocarditis compared to the Pfizer vaccine.
However, both Canada and the United States have adopted a one-size-fits-all policy, making no medically tailored recommendations for teenagers and young adults.
As a 20-year-old healthy male myself, who has suffered from minor heart complications in early adolescence (irregular heart palpitations), I have decided not to take the vaccine. As a result of my personal health decision informed by my physician, my social and physical well-being has been significantly compromised. The Canadian government (both provincial and federal) has implemented coercive and draconian vaccination policies, limiting the freedoms of the unvaccinated across various parts of society.
Much of my social life in Vancouver has been restricted and my ability to maintain physical fitness—a preventative measure that reduces risk of serious Covid illness—has been radically hampered. With the rest of unvaccinated Canadians over 12 years of age, I am barred from exercising at a gym, going to nightclubs, bars, large gatherings, and weddings. Worst, I am now landlocked in Canada and unable to leave the country to do media appearances in the United States and visit my family in India. I was recently planning to go to Florida to do Ben Shapiro’s show, but the government won’t even let me board a domestic flight.
In what world is this fair?
Under governmental pressure, public organizations have also stepped up their efforts in mandating vaccination for the young. In Ontario, Canada the biggest youth hockey league (OMHA) recently mandated all players 12 and over to be vaccinated. OMHA President Bob Hill gave a statement on the league’s decision:
“We know that the environment around return to play is a real concern for a large proportion of hockey families …. Our game is played in an indoor environment where there can be close contact, and we must do everything possible to reduce the risk of any transmission around the rink. It is the duty for our players, our officials and our communities.”
Unless one is willing to give their child an insufficiently tested booster shot on a likely 6-month basis, such a rationale being used to push child vaccine mandates falls apart under closer scrutiny. Vaccine efficacy against infection significantly drops over time (an idea which up until last summer was considered right-wing conspiracy). A study published in The Lancet showed a 55 percent reduction in vaccine effectiveness against infection five months post-vaccination, a trend which spirals downward over time. Any public benefit that child vaccination would bring is temporary and short-lived.
I asked Dr. Mike Hart (known for his appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast), one of my consulting physicians who runs a top medical clinic in Ontario, what he thought about such a mandate:
“I don’t think this is a good policy. For vulnerable populations, vaccines make sense; but for young healthy people, the risks of the vaccine may outweigh the benefits.
“The risk of myocarditis from COVID is much higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine in the general population, but in younger cohorts, the best available evidence suggests that’s not true.”
Unfortunately, medical experts such as Dr. Hart who consider both the costs and benefits of the vaccine have been marginalized by spokespeople of the medical establishment who are bizarrely devoted to vaccinating everyone regardless of their individual risk-benefit proposition.
When CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and was repeatedly asked about myocarditis risk in young males, he responded with the claim that most myocarditis patients experience mild symptoms and recover quickly. When celebrity physician Dr. Oz was asked the same question by FOX 29 Philadelphia earlier this year, he replied in nearly identical fashion: myocarditis is a mild, easily curable medical condition and shouldn’t discourage healthy male teenagers from receiving the vaccine.
However, myocarditis has long been documented as a cause of chronic fatigue, shortness of breath and chest pain, leading to disruptions in physical activity. A number of top cardiologists across the country—such as Dr. John Mandrola, Dr. Amy Kontorovich, and Dr. Venk Murthy—have publicly spoken out against minimization of vaccine-induced myocarditis.
According to Dr. Kontorovich, professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,
“[M]any of those affected are young people who were previously healthy and are now on three or more heart medications and potentially out of work due to symptoms, even if their heart function is ‘back to normal.’”
University of Michigan cardiologist Dr. Venk Murthy has also noted,
“People with myocarditis are usually counseled to limit activity, placed on 1 or more meds and are at lifetime increased risk of cardiac complications. This can have profound consequences. … [They] are typically told to limit activity for several months, sometimes longer. This means no sports. Some kids are told not to carry books to school.”
In attempts to downplay these real, quantifiable risks, those with the most powerful voices in the medical community perform glaringly disprovable sleight-of-hand distortions of the scientific research on mainstream networks. When discussing his viral JRE appearance on Erin Burnett’s CNN program, Dr. Sanjay Gupta addressed the public concern of myocarditis for vaccinating teenagers by presenting a study finding infection-induced myocarditis poses a greater risk compared to the vaccine.
A cursory reading of the study reveals it is irrelevant to the cost-benefit analysis of vaccinating healthy young males. The post-vaccination myocarditis rate of 2.7 per 100,000 people is derived from a highly diverse population (in age and gender) with a median age of 38 years in the study. Moreover, the specific age group among the highest at risk of myocarditis—12 to 15 year olds—was not included in the studied population. The alarming concern is with young males specifically, not the general population. And yet, the CNN segment closed with Erin Burnett summarizing this total falsehood based on Dr. Gupta’s stunningly dishonest analysis of the issue:
“The number one [vaccine] risk you do hear about for young boys is myocarditis. You’re saying you have about five times greater risk of getting that from Covid than the vaccine. I think that’s an incredibly powerful, just basic statistic for people to know.”
Another viral clip of Joe Rogan talking about myocarditis has been exploited by the media to promote their universal vaccination agenda:
The study in the article Rogan looks at finding a higher risk of infection-induced myocarditis than from the vaccine is severely flawed. As practicing physician and epidemiologist Tracy Høeg has pointed out, the authors of the study vastly underestimate both the incidence of Covid infections (thereby exaggerating the infection risk) and post-vaccine myocarditis. The latter is underestimated by a factor of three or four at least.
As a result, the authors fallaciously conclude post-infection myocarditis poses a higher risk than post-vaccine myocarditis in young males.
The aforementioned pre-print by Oxford researchers published last month is the most comprehensive, robust, and rigorous analysis of relative myocarditis risk.
Neither the risk of Covid or vaccine side effects is equally distributed across the population. While the general risk is minuscule, the individual risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young males between the ages of 18 and 24 is roughly 1 in 2,000 according to a recent study by top infectious disease physician Dr. Katie A. Sharff. According to this calculation, one million administrations of the vaccine in this age group would yield 500 cases of heart inflammation in kids who were otherwise at near-zero risk of Covid.
Supporting the vaccine means honestly discussing the real risks of vaccination in specific demographics—without either agenda-driven minimization or exaggeration. Obfuscating, downplaying, and misleading the public, on the other hand, undermines trust in the vaccine—a miraculous scientific innovation that has transformed the course of the pandemic by preventing millions of deaths and cases of severe disease.
Honesty, nuance, and compassion are especially needed when it comes to personal health choices. We are only born with one body and we must make medically informed decisions at our own volition without governmental coercion or political pressure.
More here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/the-truth-about-vaccine-induced-myocarditis_4220643.html
************************************************
Surgical face masks make people look more attractive, new study finds
Striding up to greet someone for the first time with half your face obscured, doesn't exactly fill you with meet-cute confidence.
But a new study by British academics suggests that protective face masks can make you more attractive — particularly the blue surgical kind.
Seven months after masks became mandatary in the United Kingdom, researchers at Cardiff University were curious to know whether the pandemic had altered perceptions of attractiveness.
Cardiff University school of psychology's Michael Lewis, the study's co-author and an expert in the psychology of faces, spoke about the findings after the pandemic began.
"Research carried out before the pandemic found medical face masks reduce attractiveness," Dr Lewis said.
"So, we wanted to test whether this had changed since face coverings became ubiquitous and [to] understand whether the type of mask had any effect."
The study — published in the peer-reviewed journal Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications — asked 43 women to rate the attractiveness of 40 male faces, with and without different types of masks and coverings.
Dr Lewis said they were surprised by the results, which indicated an overall sentiment of mask positivity.
"Our study suggests faces are considered most attractive when covered by medical face masks," he said.
"This may be because we're used to healthcare workers wearing blue masks and now we associate these with people in caring or medical professions."
In their pre-pandemic research, participants had said they associated masks with disease and would avoid people who wore them.
But the research conducted in February 2021 — which will be continued to see if the results are true for both genders — also found that faces were considered significantly more attractive when covered by cloth masks than when not covered at all.
"The current research shows the pandemic has changed our psychology in how we perceive the wearers of masks," Dr Lewis said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-18/covid-mask-attractive-study-pandemic-dating/100763642
*********************************************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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Sunday, January 23, 2022
Dr. Peter McCullough: Vaccines Failed in Stopping COVID-19 and Mandates Have to Be Dropped
“The vaccines themselves have basically now become obsolete as the virus has continued to mutate,” McCullough told NTD’s “Capitol Report” in an interview broadcast on Wednesday. “So at this point of time, the vaccine mandates have to be dropped across the board.”
McCullough said some recent studies have shown the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines dropped significantly with the new variants.
“There’s a paper by Young-Xu in JAMA, the prior Delta strain that was only about 20 percent covered by the vaccines. Vaccines were very ineffective against Delta,” McCullough said.
The study, which is peer-reviewed and published on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) last month, found that during the high-Delta period, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was 62.0 percent in the first month and decreased to 57.8 percent by month three. The decrease in vaccine effectiveness accelerated after month four, reaching a low of approximately 20 percent in months five through seven.
“And now a paper from Hansen from Denmark, and from the UK public health security report indicated, against Omicron the vaccines are basically ineffective,” McCullough continued.
The Danish study, a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, found that vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was initially 55.2 percent and 36.7 percent for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively, but waned rapidly over time. By comparison, vaccine effectiveness against Delta was significantly higher and better preserved over the same period.
The UK Health Security Agency report released on Dec. 31 also found that vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant is significantly lower than compared to the Delta variant and wanes rapidly.
“Among those who had received 2 doses of AstraZeneca, there was no effect against Omicron from 20 weeks after the second dose. Among those who had received 2 doses of Pfizer or Moderna, effectiveness dropped from around 65 to 70 percent down to around 10 percent by 20 weeks after the second dose,” the report (pdf) states.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been saying the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” and serious adverse events are rare.
“The only thing the vaccines could have done is reduce the chances of getting COVID-19. … So many millions of Americans who have taken the vaccines have been disappointed to find out they contracted COVID-19 anyway,” McCullough continued.
On Wednesday, the CDC published a study showing protection from prior infection, or so-called natural immunity, was better than the protection from COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant.
McCullough also said the vaccine mandates lack the ethical or legal standing in the first place because the COVID-19 vaccines are “investigational.”
“All the vaccines are still investigational and in research. Mandates had no ethical or moral or legal standing from that perspective. No one can be forced into research against their will or be coerced into it.”
A spokesperson from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), didn’t answer directly whether COVID-19 vaccines are investigational, but told The Epoch Times that “all of the vaccines are under an EUA except for Comirnaty, which is fully approved.”
In a guidance (pdf) issued last year, FDA said emergency use authorizations (EUAs) are issued for investigational vaccines to prevent COVID-19 during the pandemic.
“We can’t have Americans have fear about losing their job or school or travel related to a failed vaccine,” McCullough said. “But even more so we need to re-examine what we’ve done with respect to our public health priorities and COVID-19.”
McCullough said that in March and April 2020 America should have had large randomized trials and moved very quickly into studying multi-drug treatment. However, the federal authorities refused to do so and made a big push for vaccines.
McCullough also shared the treatment for COVID-19 patients with the Omicron variant.
“Fortunately with the Omicron variants very mild, the main treatment is oral nasal virucidal washes with dilute povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide 12. Clinical trials show the biggest benefit of that is more than any other form of treatment,” McCullough said.
Occasionally patients may need additional oral drugs and Pfizer and Merck pills could be featured, the renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist added.
“And for severe cases we can use Sotrovimab, which is the GSK monoclonal antibody, may be in a high-risk senior or special case,” McCullough said.
“The vaccines aren’t treatment, they offered no hope of treating a patient once they contracted COVID-19. And we knew with respiratory virus they were very unlikely to be effective,” said the doctor.
The CDC has been saying that the COVID-19 vaccines could reduce severe illness and death, and vaccinated people should get a booster to keep up the protection.
***********************************************
Olympic Athlete Reveals Chilling Side Effect of COVID Booster
That’s the unfortunate position Swiss sprinter and Olympian Sarah Atcho found herself in after having a severe reaction to a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
The 26-year-old who competed in the 2016 and 2020 Olympic Games took to social media on Monday to share her experience with the world, giving a matter-of-fact account of a possibly life-changing event.
“Obviously as you know, I’m trying to be as transparent as I can and now is more important than ever,” she began her lengthy post.
“On December 22 I got my booster vaccination because I didn’t want to struggle with this when the season started. I was told that it was safer to get Pfizer (even though I had Moderna the first time) to avoid cardiac side effects,” she wrote.
A recent study found that Moderna’s vaccine is four times more likely to cause heart inflammation than Pfizer’s. Sweden and Finland have both halted its use.
“On December 27 I felt a tightness in the chest and started feeling dizzy while walking up the stairs,” the young athlete continued.
“This happened a few more times until I decided to check with a cardiologist who diagnosed me with pericarditis (inflammation of the thin membrane surrounding the heart).”
Atcho went on to say she would have to take time off from activities that increased her heart rate.
“I have to admit that I am upset at the situation because we don’t talk enough about the side effects. I feel helpless since this is completely out of my control,” Atcho disclosed.
“I am glad the vaccine helped avoid many deaths and reduce the pressure on the hospitals and hospital staff however I am frustrated that myself as well as other young and healthy people are suffering from these heavy side effects,” she added.
There have been other anecdotal accounts of young athletes experiencing serious side effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, but officials still insist this occurrence is rare.
Of course, it’s hard to tell, since even talking about vaccine side effects or expressing skepticism about the jab is enough to get a person de-platformed.
Dr. Robert Malone, who was instrumental in inventing the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines, was thrown off Twitter for expressing his concerns that the vaccines may be doing more harm than good.
Regardless of whether Malone is correct or not, any treatment or procedure should be able to withstand the scrutiny that comes with speaking about its potential side effects.
Perhaps Atcho is a one-in-a-million case — who knows? But the fact that vaccine injury is a subject too taboo to discuss in public raises major red flags.
https://flagandcross.com/olympic-athlete-reveals-chilling-side-effect-of-covid-booster-shot/
************************************New sub-variant of Omicron under investigation as it sweeps Europe
A new sister subtype of the Covid Omicron variant, which may be more transmissible and harder to track, has begun rearing its head overseas in recent days.
The subtype is being referred to as BA. 2, while the original Omicron, currently sweeping through Australia, is known by scientists as BA. 1.
While cases of the BA. 2 type of Omicron remain low across various European countries, it could be just a matter of time before it arrives in Australia.
Scientists are still however working to determine whether the subtype, which had infected 53 people in the UK up to January 10, is more severe than the original BA. 1 type.
While the Health Security Agency has designated BA. 2 as a variant under investigation, its UK incident director Dr Meera Chand said such subtypes were to be expected.
“It is the nature of viruses to evolve and mutate, so it’s to be expected that we will continue to see new variants emerge,” she said, according to Metro.
There had been early indications the BA. 2 type may be more transmissible than BA. 1, however in Denmark, where it accounts for about half of Omicron cases, no stark differences in hospitalisations had yet been noted.
Denmark’s Statens Serum Institute this week said it was likely vaccines had an effect against severe BA. 2 infections, which had several differences to BA.1.
One difference was that BA. 2 had shown positive for the S-gene, while BA. 1 did not.
The lack of S-gene in BA. 1 was a key component in tracking Omicron’s early spread, as it was a feature that distinguished it from Delta.
The same feature however may be what makes BA. 2 infections harder to track.
Scientists are still confident it will be picked up in certain tests though.
Virologist from the Imperial College of London, Tom Peacock, said while early trends suggested BA. 2 was more transmissible, more research was required.
“BA. 2 appears to be the major Omicron lineage in (part of) India and the Philippines and there is evidence it is growing compared to BA. 1 in Denmark, the UK and Germany,” one recent tweet read.
“Consistent growth across multiple countries is evidence BA. 2 may be some degree more transmissible than BA.1. This is the main reason BA. 2 is currently in the news.
“Unfortunately this is really where the evidence mostly ends – we do not currently have a strong handle on antigenicity, severity or a much evidence for how much more transmissibility BA. 2 might have over BA. 1 – however we can make some guesses/early observations.”
He added how “very early observations” from India and Denmark suggested there was no dramatic difference in severity when compared to BA.1.
“This data should become more solid (one way or another) in the coming weeks,” he said.
Mr Peacock also predicted BA. 2 would not have a “substantial” impact on the Omicron wave, which he expected was past its peak already in many countries.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Saturday, January 22, 2022
CDC Study: Natural Immunity Provides Significantly More Protection Against COVID Than Vaccination Only
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Wednesday shows that those who have recovered from COVID-19 have more protection against infection than those who have only been vaccinated.
Researchers reviewed data from California and New York from May to November, when the delta variant was dominant in the U.S.
The study looked at four groups of people: unvaccinated with no prior COVID-19 infection, vaccinated with no prior infection, unvaccinated who recovered from COVID-19, and vaccinated who recovered.
By the first week of October, COVID-19 rates among the vaccinated with no previous infection were 6.2 times lower in California and 4.5 times lower in New York than among the unvaccinated with no previous infection.
However, among the unvaccinated with a previous infection, the COVID-19 rate was 29 times lower in California and 14.7 times lower in New York.
The individuals most protected against infection were those who had previously had COVID-19 and were also vaccinated. Their infection rate was 32.5 times lower in California and 19.8 times lower in New York.
“These results demonstrate that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection and related hospitalization,” the CDC determined.
The agency noted that natural immunity proved more efficacious as the delta variant became predominant and vaccine-induced immunity for many began to wane.
The CDC also highlighted that the study took place before omicron became the dominant variant in the U.S. and before the impact of booster shots could be adequately measured.
Dr. Benjamin Silk of the CDC told the media on Wednesday, “Before the delta variant, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection,” CNN reported.
“When looking at the summer and the fall of 2021, when delta became the dominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection against subsequent infection than vaccination,” he added.
Dr. Eli Rosenberg, New York state deputy director for science said the safest course of action for those who have never had COVID-19 is to get vaccinated.
“Having COVID the first time carries with it significant risks, and becoming vaccinated and staying up-to-date with boosters really is the only safe choice for preventing COVID infection and severe disease,” he said.
Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has faulted policymakers for being too slow to acknowledge natural immunity.
“The pandemic of the unvaccinated is a misnomer. It’s a pandemic of the non-immune,” he tweeted in July.
“More precisely, it’s a series of regional outbreaks in select pockets of the country with low population immunity,” Makary said. “Same take-home message though: If you’re not immune, get immune by getting vaxed.”
********************************************
The very concerning data from Scotland
“The vaccines are incredibly safe. They protect us against Omicron; they protect us against Delta; they protect us against COVID." Those were the words of fully vaccinated CDC Director Rochelle Walensky while testifying before the Senate Health Committee with two masks on her face on Jan. 11.
Scottish data shows that the COVID-19 age-standardized case rate is highest among the two-dose vaccinated and lowest among unvaccinated! It further shows this trend of negative efficacy for the double-vaccinated persisting for hospitalizations and deaths. Something is very wrong here, and together with other data points, it raises concerning questions about the negative effect of waning antibodies, constant boosting, and the consequences of a leaky vaccine with narrow-spectrum suboptimal antibodies against an ever-evolving virus.
Every Wednesday, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been publishing a weekly report on COVID data juxtaposed to vaccination rates. Table 14 of this week’s “Public Health Scotland COVID-19 & Winter Statistical Report” lays bare in plain English (and math) a rate of negative efficacy for the vaccine:
As you can see, while the overall Omicron wave seems to be receding in Scotland, age-standardized case rates per 100,000 people were the lowest in the unvaccinated cohort every week for the past four weeks. Thus, it’s not just the fact that the unvaccinated accounted for only 11.5% of cases the past two weeks, but even adjusted for age-stratified vaccination rates (PHS already does the math for you) the unvaccinated had the lowest infection rate out of the four cohorts – especially during the peak of Omicron. Furthermore, we see that even the triple-vaccinated clearly have no efficacy against infection, although they have some degree less negative efficacy than the double-vaccinated.
Here is a linear presentation of the depth of the Omicron wave by vaccination status, where you can see that the unvaccinated had the shallowest wave:
This also coincides with the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency of the entire United Kingdom. This data now shows higher rates of infection among the triple-vaccinated in all but the youngest people.
Full stop right here. Any public policy measure – from vaccine passports to discrimination – cannot be justified under the science, even if one’s conscience is OK with apartheid. In fact, clearly this shows that, especially with Omicron, the vaccinated are the super-spreaders. Before we get to hospitalizations and deaths, the notion that the unvaccinated are somehow responsible for the continued spread of this virus is completely contradicted by the data. Some might suggest without evidence that the unvaccinated possibly have a higher rate of prior infection; however, Omicron seems to attack even those who already had previous versions of SARS-CoV-2.
Now onto hospitalizations and deaths. While the vaccines clearly provided some degree of protection for some people for several months against severe illness (while possibly causing even more spread), the Scottish data paints a concerning picture of the long-term consequences of the mass vaccination. People like Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche have been warning that if you mass-vaccinate with a leaky, narrow-spectrum (only recognizes spike protein) vaccine in middle of a raging pandemic, the virus would get more virulent over time.
This concern manifests itself at two time periods when the antibodies are “sub-optimal.” There is a period of a few weeks after the jab when the antibodies are strong enough to bind but not strong enough to neutralize, and then at the back end (estimated at four to six months for the original shot, but likely much shorter for the booster), a period when they wane. The media and public health tyrants like to focus your attention on a snapshot of time, but ignore the totality of circumstances that the shots are creating negative efficacy before and after, while using accounting gimmicks to mask the problem.
Remember how the lockdowns were hailed as a success for a number of countries that initially did well, while Sweden now has the lowest rate of excess mortality in Europe in 2021?
More here:
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-very-concerning-data-from-scotland
**********************************************A Deceptive Covid Study, Unmasked
Duke researchers look at transmission in schools and end up reinforcing their prior assumptions.
“Follow the science,” we keep hearing, but sometimes scientists and the media present findings in a misleading way. Consider a new study by Duke University’s ABC Science Collaborative, conducted in partnership with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Researchers examined the effect of a “test to stay” approach to schoolchildren identified as “close contacts” of Covid-positive people. Test to stay excuses these children from quarantining if they test negative for the virus. The study’s primary conclusion was that test to stay is a good way to move away from lengthy quarantine.
That’s reasonable and useful. But the researchers peppered their report with rhetorical sleights of hand aimed at misleading readers into other, less well-founded conclusions that were mostly inevitable products of their own study design. One of their primary conclusions is that “in schools with universal masking, test-to-stay is an effective strategy.” That invites readers to assume that test-to-stay doesn’t work without forced masking. But since they studied no unmasked schools, this conclusion is baseless. An honest report would either have said so or not mentioned masking at all.
Duke’s Press office amplified the unfounded conclusion in its Jan. 4 summary of the study: “Children and staff who repeatedly test negative for COVID-19 after contact with someone who has the illness can safely remain in school if universal masking programs are in place.” The media took this press release and added a further layer of falsehood. Raleigh’s WRAL characterized the study as a defense of forced masking while pitching the study as documenting the danger of youth sports: “Athletics were the source of 50% of all COVID-19 school transmission found in the study.”
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13958&omhide=true&trk=rm
******************************************England Ends All COVID Passports, Mask Mandates, Work Restrictions
Restrictions including COVID-19 passes, mask mandates, and work-from-home guidance will be removed in England, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced on Wednesday.
Johnson also suggested that self-isolation rules may also be thrown out at the end of March as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic becomes endemic.
Effective immediately, the UK government is no longer asking people to work from home.
The COVID pass mandate for nightclubs and large events won’t be renewed when it expires on Jan. 26.
Also from Jan. 27, indoor mask-wearing will no longer be compulsory anywhere in England.
The requirement for secondary school pupils to wear masks during class and in communal areas will be lifted on Jan. 20. The Department for Education is expected to update its national guidance soon.
Health Secretary Sajid Jajid will also announce plans to ease restrictions on care home visits in the coming days.
Roaring cheers from lawmakers could be heard in the House of Commons following Johnson’s announcements on masks.
People who test positive for COVID-19 and their unvaccinated contacts are still required to self-isolate, but Johnson said he “very much expect[s] not to renew” the rule when the relevant regulations expire on March 24.
“As COVID becomes endemic, we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance, urging people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others,” the prime minister said.
Asked to remove testing rules for vaccinated UK-bound travellers, Johnson said the government is reviewing the testing arrangements on travel and that an announcement can be expected in the coming days.
But he refused to reconsider the vaccination mandate for frontline health care workers, insisting “the evidence is clear that health care professionals should get vaccinated.”
Johnson told MPs that the Cabinet decided to remove its so-called “Plan B” measures on Wednesday morning as data suggest the Omicron wave has peaked nationally, and he attributed stabilising hospital admission numbers to “the extraordinary booster campaign” and the public’s compliance to the restriction measures.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Friday, January 21, 2022
Researcher Calls Out Censorship After Journal Pulls COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Analysis
Jessica Rose didn’t ask for any of this. She started to analyze data on adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccines simply as an exercise to master a new piece of software. But she couldn’t ignore what she saw and decided to publish the results of her analysis. The next thing she knew, she was in a “bizzarro world,” she told The Epoch Times.
A paper she co-authored based on her analysis was withdrawn by the academic journal Elsevier under circumstances that raised eyebrows among her colleagues. The journal declined to comment on the matter.
Rose received her PhD in computational biology from the Bar-Ilan University in Israel. After finishing her post-doctoral studies on molecular dynamics of certain proteins, she was looking for a new challenge. Switching to a new statistical computing software, she was looking for an interesting data set to sharpen her skills on. She picked the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database of reports of health problems that have occurred after a vaccination and may or may not have been caused by it.
She said she wasn’t looking for anything in particular in the data. “I don’t go in with questions,” she said.
What she found, however, was disturbing to her.
VAERS has been in place since 1990 to provide an early warning signal that there might be a problem with a vaccine. Anybody can submit the reports, which are then checked for duplicates. They are largely filed by health care personnel, based on previous research. Usually, there would be around 40,000 reports a year, including several hundred deaths.
But with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, VAERS reports went through the roof. By Jan. 7, there were over a million reports, including more than 21,000 deaths. Other notable issues include over 11,000 heart attacks, nearly 13,000 cases of Bell’s palsy, and over 25,000 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis.
Rose found the data alarming, only to realize authorities and even some experts were generally dismissing it.
“Clearly, there’s no concern [among these authorities and experts] for people who are suffering adverse events,” she said.
The usual arguments against the VAERS data have been that it’s unverified and unreliable.
Rose, however, sees such arguments as irrelevant—VAERS was never meant to provide definitive answers, it’s meant to give early warning and, as she sees it, it’s doing just that.
“It’s emitting so many safety signals and they’re being ignored,” she said.
She teamed up with Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, to write a paper on VAERS reports of myocarditis in youth—an issue already acknowledged as a side effect of the vaccination, though usually described as rare.
As of July 9, they found 559 VAERS reports of myocarditis, 97 among children ages 12–15. Some of them may have been related to COVID itself, which can also cause heart problems, but there were too many cases to dismiss the likelihood the vaccines were involved, according to the authors.
“Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12–15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group,” the paper said.
After two weeks, on Oct. 15, the paper disappeared from the Elsevier website, replaced by a notice of “Temporary Removal.” Not only weren’t the authors told why, they weren’t informed at all, according to Rose.
“It’s unprecedented in the eyes of all of my colleagues,” she said.
When they brought up the issue with the journal, they were first told the paper was pulled because it wasn’t “invited,” Rose said. That was shot down as irrelevant by McCullough, who threatened to sue for breach of contract. The journal then turned to its terms of use, saying it has the right to refuse any paper for any reason.
It’s still not clear why the paper was pulled. “I do apologise, but Elsevier cannot comment on this enquiry,” said Jonathan Davis, the journal’s communications officer, in an email to The Epoch Times.
In late November, the paper was replaced by a notice that the “article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor.”
“It just feels like weird censorship that isn’t really justified,” Rose said.
The paper’s conclusions are not necessarily controversial. A recent Danish study concluded, for example, an elevated risk of myocarditis for young people following the Moderna COVID vaccine.
It’s common, however, even for papers that examine potential issues with the vaccines to frame their results in a way that still endorses vaccination. “That’s what you have to say to get your work published these days,” Rose said.
Her paper did no such thing.
“As part of any risk/benefit analysis which must be completed in the context of experimental products, the points herein must be considered before a decision can be made pertaining to agreeing to 2-dose injections of these experimental COVID-19 products, especially into children and by no means, should parental consent be waived under any circumstances to avoid children volunteering for injections with products that do not have proven safety or efficacy,” the paper said.
The paper also called the vaccines “injectable biological products”—a reference to the fact that they are distinct from all other traditional vaccines.
A traditional vaccine uses “whole live or attenuated pathogens” while the COVID vaccines use “mRNA in lipid nanoparticles,” Rose explained via email. She said the lipid nanoparticles include “cationic lipids which are highly toxic.” Pfizer, the manufacturer of the most popular COVID-19 vaccine in many countries, addressed the issue by saying the dose is sufficiently low to ensure “an acceptable safety margin,” according to the European drug authority, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (pdf).
Rose also noted that the COVID-19 vaccines haven’t gone “through the 10-15 years of safety testing that vaccines have always had to go through … for obvious reasons.”
By this point, Rose is no longer a dispassionate observer. Reading through countless VAERS reports gave her a window into the hardships of those who believe they’ve been harmed by the vaccines. “I speak for all of those people,” she said.
In the past, 50 reports of deaths in VAERS would prompt authorities to hit the brakes and investigate, Rose said. In her view, that should have happened with the COVID-19 vaccines a year ago.
Not only has that not happened, but it isn’t even clear what would be enough to convince the authorities to do so.
“What’s the cut-off number for the number of deaths?” Rose asked.
The counterargument is that the vaccines save more lives than they cost. But in Rose’s view, this logic is flawed since the vaccines haven’t been around long enough and studied thoroughly enough to tell how many lives they may cost.
It is known, however, that VAERS understates adverse events following vaccination—by a factor of anywhere between 5 and as much as 100, based on some estimates.
Submitting a VAERS report takes about 30 minutes and many medical practitioners simply don’t have the time, Rose said. Some may feel that filing the report may get them labeled as “anti-vaxxers.” Some may simply not associate whatever health issue they’re facing with the vaccination. Some may not even be aware VAERS exists.
It’s unlikely that any significant number of the reports would be fraudulent, she suggested, noting it’s a federal offense to submit a false report.
Rose has now joined the ranks of dissident doctors and researchers skeptical of the official line on the vaccines and the pandemic in general. She described it as something she’s compelled to do despite the disincentives involved.
“We don’t want to be doing this. But it is our duty. Doctors swore an oath to do no harm. And researchers with integrity cannot look away from this,” she said via email.
********************************************
The most vaccinated country in the world is being hit heavily by Omicron
Israel experienced its highest daily number of new Covid cases this week – 71,000 out of a population of 9 million – but the head of country’s health department, Nahman Ash, concedes the number may be up to three times higher. Whichever figure is correct, the trend is certain: case numbers have been rising every day for the past two weeks, as the Omicron wave surges.
“Ninety-eight per cent of our patients are now infected with Omicron,” says Dror Mevorach, who heads the Covid ward at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem.
As the number of seriously ill patients rises, hospitals are reopening Covid wards and postponing elective surgery. Health bureaucrats and politicians hope this wave will peak before the hospital system overloads.
As a result, Israel is also adopting self-administered rapid antigen tests as its alternative testing method, and a lack of supply has led to queues and rising prices too. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett admitted this was a problem, but said it could be solved.
“We will purchase 50 million more RATs,” he said last week. The finance minister said 20 million would be enough. They appear to have sorted out that issue, as on Tuesday Mr Bennett said the first delivery was due next week. And the main policy change: 25-30 million kits will be distributed for free to certain sectors of the population.
From the start, Israel has been proactive, pioneering mass vaccinations and the third booster shot. Once it became clear that the largest numbers of vaccinated people contracting the Omicron variant were older, Israel last month initiated a fourth vaccine booster for those over 60, as well as frontline medical workers and the immuno-compromised.
As a fourth shot had not been approved by US regulatory authorities, the Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv began a trial, testing its effect on its staff, who have been monitored since December 2020, when they received the first dose of the vaccine. Preliminary results released this week have found only middling results.
“The vaccine, which was very effective against the previous strains, is less effective against Omicron,” said Gili Regev-Yochay, who is leading the trial.
“We see many who receive the fourth dose and are infected with Omicron. Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but there are still a lot of infections. The bottom line is that the vaccine was excellent against the Alpha and Delta variants, but for Omicron it’s not good enough.”
The trial, which follows 150 medical staff, is much smaller than most drug trials, where thousands of participants are tracked for months. But Dr Regev-Yochay says she released the preliminary findings because it’s the only known study of the fourth dose. She added it was still probably beneficial to give a fourth jab to people in higher risk groups including the very elderly, but hinted that perhaps it need not be given to everyone over 60.
More than 500,000 Israelis have received a fourth dose, and Dr Alroy-Preis says with hindsight it was still the right decision. “A five to six fold increase in antibodies is better than nothing and this is the most vulnerable section of the community,” she said.
Israel has also been prescribing the new Pfizer drug Paxlovid. Ruth Ralbag, head of private health fund Clalit, said the new drug was only appropriate for people in the first stages of the disease and could be taken at home. “Covid is teaching us that care at home is the future,” she said.
It seems even a proactive government finds it hard to remain popular during a pandemic. According to the latest polls, 48 per cent of Israelis, frustrated at the high infection rate and repeated quarantines, don’t think the government is doing a good job.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Expert skeptical about vaccines
Dr. Peter McCullough – a renowned cardiologist and highly published medical scientist whose confrontation of the government's COVID-19 policies has drawn more than 40 million views on Joe Rogan's podcast – told WND in a video interview Thursday night the official pandemic narrative that has been fiercely guarded by establishment media and social-media censors is "completely crumbling."
That narrative, he said, included "false statements regarding asymptomatic spread, reliance on lockdown and masks – which obviously didn't work – the suppression of early treatment, the mass promotion of vaccines that failed."
"And now here we are, almost in complete free fall," McCullough said, referring to the record number of COVID-19 cases as officials acknowledge the vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.
McCullough noted that in California, with the more contagious but much milder omicron variant now dominant, health care workers who tested positive for COVID-19 and had symptoms were told to go back to work.
"With that, I think that's it. I think that's the end. The narrative has crumbled. People don't want these vaccines," McCullough said. "The vaccines should be pulled off the market. They clearly are not solving the problem."
The focus, he said, should be on "treating high-risk patients who develop symptoms" with some of the early treatments that he and other physicians around the world have found to be effective, including ivermectin and a new drug granted emergency use authorization by the FDA, Paxlovid.
McCullough cited a study from Denmark and data from the U.K.'s health agency showing that the vaccines have zero effectiveness against omicron.
Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
"That's not misinformation," he said. "I'm just quoting the data. All of this can be looked up. Fact-checkers can look at it. I know I'll never have any problems with allegations of misinformation, because I just quote the data."
President Biden clearly had McCullough in mind when on Thursday he urged social media companies and media outlets to "please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that's on your shows. It has to stop."
McCullough pointed out his work has been relied upon by courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has testified to the U.S. Senate and will be back there later this month.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/dr-peter-mccullough-official-covid-narrative-has-crumbled
**********************************************Fourth shot of Covid vaccine is NOT enough against Omicron
Even a fourth dose of current Covid vaccines is not enough to prevent Omicron infection, according to preliminary results from a trial in Israel.
The study of more than 270 medical staff found that the fourth shot only raised antibodies 'a little' compared to those who were triple-jabbed.
And those in the four jabs group were only 'a bit less' likely to test positive for the mutant strain than the control group.
The findings were true for a fourth dose of both Pfizer and Moderna, and will reignite the debate about whether constant boosting is necessary.
Researchers from the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv, who ran the trial, said those infected in the study had very mild symptoms or none at all.
Dr. Gili Regev-Yochay, the lead researcher of the trial, told a press conference: 'These are very preliminary results. This is before any publication.
'But we're giving it out since we understand the urgency of the public to get any information possible about the fourth dose.'
The findings will likely reignite the debate around how often Covid vaccine boosters are needed.
A UK Government adviser today became the latest senior figure to warn against repeated mass vaccinations, recommending a targeted approach like for flu.
And last week, European Union regulators claimed that boosting too frequently could actually weaken the immune system.
The World Health Organization has called on vaccine makers to make variant-proof jabs to avoid countries having to revaccinate every few months.
Israel was the first country in the world to roll out boosters last year and became the only nation to start dishing out fourth shots last month to combat Omicron.
Studies have since shown that three jabs are holding up well against serious illness, offering about 88 per cent protection from hospitalisation, even if Omicron can slip past the immune system and cause an infection more easily.
More than half a million people in those two risk groups have been quadruple-jabbed so far. But she admitted the small extra benefit was not enough to justify a wider rollout to the whole adult population.
************************************************
Blood thinner could be used to treat and stop transmission of COVID-19
Patients at four hospitals in NSW and Victoria are set to undergo treatment with a cheap, readily available drug that scientists believe can dramatically improve outcomes for those infected with COVID-19.
Heparin is a common blood thinner that has been in use for decades. Australian National University researchers are coordinating multiple studies aiming to prove it is effective in preventing severe disease among coronavirus patients when inhaled directly into the lungs.
ANU study lead Professor Frank van Haren said initial results indicate the drug could be “a promising treatment” and also “a possible preventative against the virus” with breathing and oxygen levels improving in 70 per cent of patients after they inhaled a course of heparin.
“If it is as effective as our early results suggest, it could have a major impact in our fight against COVID,” Professor van Haren said.
Researchers around the world are tracking hospital patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 13 countries who were given doses of inhaled heparin, which is administered through an inhaler similar to the ones used to treat asthma.
When the study began, Australia did not have enough people infected with COVID-19 to test the drug on patients here, but now trials are beginning at St George Hospital in Kogarah, the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle, Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital and St Vincent’s Melbourne.
A randomised, peer reviewed study of 98 patients, to be published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology on Thursday, found heparin was safe, with no concerning side effects among patients who inhaled a therapeutic dose of the drug.
While the larger, ongoing international study would provide a “definitive” answer about the treatment’s efficacy, Professor van Haren said the new safety findings were crucial.
“It’s super important to know that the new treatment and new way of giving something is actually safe, that it doesn’t do any harm,” he said. “There is still an urgent need for an effective treatment of COVID-19.”
Co-author Professor Clive Page, from King’s College London, who is co-leading the global studies, said inhaled heparin had antiviral properties “which work by binding to the spike proteins the coronavirus uses to enter the cells of the body.”
“Inhaled heparin effectively stops the virus infecting cells in the lungs and could also stop people from getting the virus from others,” Professor Page said.
“It also works as an anti-inflammatory drug; the medicine has the ability to calm everything down when the body is mounting an exaggerated response to the virus.”
Professor van Haren said he hoped the drug’s efficacy could be proven quickly, saying it could be used widely within months if early results held up – easing the strain on hospitals by reducing the number of patients needing to be admitted to intensive care units.
“Most COVID experts agree that vaccination alone is not going to stop the pandemic. This could really assist in poorer countries where vaccination is challenging and we think it could help frontline workers who could use it as a preventative measure,” he said.
Professor van Haren said the team was now collecting more evidence that inhaled heparin worked and that “once we have this evidence, heparin via inhalation, could be an option to treat COVID-19 patients, everywhere, within months”.
Heparin, which is normally administered via injection, is a blood thinner used to treat and prevent blood clots across the world and is widely available.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Fauci warns that Omicron may NOT be the 'end' of the pandemic and there is a 'high probability' another variant could emerge' that would evade immunity
Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, told the Davos Agenda virtual event Monday that 'natural vaccination' - or immunity via previous infection - might not be as effective as some believe.
Like the emergence of Omicron, there is potential for a new variant to emerge in the future that can bypass the natural immunity provided by infection from the new strain.
He says that even if Omicron - which has caused a massive surge in new cases worldwide but is not as severe or deadly as its predecessors - is the final strain of Covid, it will likely become endemic.
His warning runs counter to the positive predictions coming from some officials in the UK who believe that the virus could have a 'flu-type' relationship with people by the end of the year based on its current spread.
'I would hope that that's the case. But that would only be the case if we don't get another variant that eludes the immune response of the prior variant,' Fauci said.
Fauci has previously made grim projections about new Covid variants, and was even correct about a variant like Omicron emerging.
In August, when the Delta variant was first rising in the U.S., Fauci warned that with transmission of Covid so rampant it was likely that a vaccine resistant variant would eventually emerge.
Months later, than variant did come about, when South African health officials discovered the highly infectious Omicron variant in late November.
He fears that there is a chance another variant emerges that has mutated in a way that allows it to get around protection provided by recovering from Omicron.
Covid becoming endemic as a result of Omicron has become a common theory among health experts and officials, and has served as a beacon of hope for the population suffering through the recent surge.
Omicron is burning through people so quickly, causing daily Covid cases to hit records almost everywhere in the world, that it could soon run out of people to infect.
The U.S.'s daily case average eclipsed 800,000 for the first time over the weekend, with the height of the Omicron surge now reaching four times as many cases as the peak of the Delta wave. Disparities in case figures have not translated into more deaths, though, with the 1,839 deaths being recorded every day in America - the most since early October - is still far below the 3,200 deaths per day being averaged at the peak of the Delta surge in late September.
Cases also seem to be reaching a peak. Week-to-week case growth nationwide is slowing. New daily cases are only up seven percent over the past week, compared to a 75 percent increase the week before. New York and New Jersey were struck hard and fast by the variant last month, but cases in the neighboring states are now decreasing over the past two weeks - down 14 percent and 20 percent respectively.
Dr Vivek Murthy, America's surgeon general, warns that the peak may not be as near as some believe. He told CNN on Sunday that not every state will experience was is currently going on along the east coast.
'There are parts of the country -- New York, in particular, and other parts of the Northeast -- where we are starting to see a plateau, and in some cases, an early decline in cases,' Murthy said.
'The challenge is that the entire country is not moving at the same pace,'
'The Omicron wave started later in other parts of the country, so we shouldn't expect a national peak in the next coming days. The next few weeks will be tough.'
New Jersey, once among the leader in infection rate, is now seeing cases decline - signaling this surge is coming to an end.
Its neighbor, New York, and Maryland - which is experiencing a seven percent decline in daily cases - are also among the only three states in America where cases are going down.
The rate of case growth in state where cases are increasing is starting to slow, though. Last week, almost every state in America was recording a two-week doubling of cases. As of Monday morning, only 35 states have logged an increase of more than 100 percent in the past 14 days.
Some states that were once hotspots look like they could soon join the ranks of states posting decreasing cases. Georgia was once one of the hardest hit states in America by the recent Omicron surge, mainly fueled by an outbreak in the Atlanta area. The Peach state has seen a rapid decline in growth, though, with cases only up 34 percent over the past two weeks.
Neighboring Florida has quickly dropped off the leaderboard of states with the highest case growth, with the Sunshine state logging a 35 percent increase in cases over the past two weeks. Florida numbers can sometimes be misleading, though, due to the inconsistent nature of case reporting in the state.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10411817/Fauci-warns-Omicron-not-end-Covid.html
************************************************French parliament approves law that will exclude unvaccinated people from all restaurants, sports areas, tourist sites and even trains
The French parliament has approved a law that will exclude unvaccinated people from all restaurants, sports areas, tourist sites and even trains.
President Emmanuel Macron has faced criticism that the new vaccine pass is overkill and will do little to slow hospitalisations because 91 per cent of the population are already jabbed against Covid-19.
Up until now, a Covid-19 pass has been required in France to go to most public sites throughout the country, but unvaccinated people have been allowed in if they show a recent negative test or proof of recent recovery.
But the new law, which applies to everyone aged 16 and over, requires full vaccination and removes the test option, effectively barring unvaccinated people from such venues.
Some exceptions could be made for those who have recently recovered from Covid-19 but the law, set to come into force by the end of the week, also imposes tougher fines for fake passes and allows ID checks to avoid fraud.
It is the central measure of government efforts to protect hospitals amid record numbers of Covid infections driven by the highly contagious Omicron variant.
The plans have faced fierce resistance from anti-vaccination campaigners and far-right and far-left groups, but was backed by the government which has a majority in parliament.
Macron's government is hoping the new pass will be enough to limit the number of patients filling up strained hospitals nationwide without resorting to a new lockdown.
New confinement measures would strike another blow to the economy, and could also cloud Macron's chances of re-election in the April 10 presidential vote.
More than 76 per cent of French ICU beds are occupied by coronavirus patients, most of them unvaccinated, and some 200 people with the virus are dying every day.
Like many countries, France is in the grip of an Omicron wave, recording more than 2,800 positive cases per 100,000 people over the past week.
The National Assembly adopted the law by a vote of 215-58. Macron, 44, had hoped to push the Bill through faster, but it was slightly delayed due to resistance from politicians both on the right and left and hundreds of proposed amendments.
Far-right leader Marine le Pen wrote on Twitter yesterday that, if elected, she would 'remove this useful and draconian measure', in reference to the new legislation.
Left wing politician François Ruffin said the vaccine pass made unvaccinated people 'second class citizens' and asked 'what have you done with our souls?'
Christophe Castaner, a member of Macron's La Republic en Marche party, rebutted Ruffin, saying 'the fight you are leading is already lost', citing a recent increase in vaccine uptake.
The new law comes after Macron said earlier this month he wanted to 'p*** off' unvaccinated people by making their lives so complicated they would end up getting jabbed.
He made the cutting remark while responding to a nurse during a question and answer session with readers of Le Parisien on how the government will handle non-vaccinated people.
'By – and I’m sorry for putting it this way – by p***ing them off even more,' Macron said.
'I’m generally opposed to the French being p****d off. I complain all the time about administrative blockages. But when it comes to the non-vaccinated, I’m very keen to pi** them off. So we’re going to do it, the end. That’s our strategy.'
The phrase prompted howls of condemnation from rivals and forced parliament to suspend a debate on a Covid bill on January 5 as opposition lawmakers demanded explanations from Macron.
But the government backed Macron. 'Who is pissing off who today?', government spokesperson Gabrial Attal said, quoting health workers struggling to cope or businesses hurt by the pandemic. 'It's those who refuse the vaccine.'
'A president cannot say such things,' Christian Jacob, chair of the conservative Les Republicans party, told parliament on January 5 as it discussed the new legislation.
'I'm in favour of the vaccine pass but I cannot back a text whose objective is to 'p*** off' the French,' Jacob said. 'Is that your objective, yes or no? We cannot keep debating without having a clear answer on that.'
'A president shouldn't say that,' Le Pen responded on Twitter. 'Emmanuel Macron is unworthy of his office.'
In the Le Parisien interview, Macron, who has consistently called on everyone in France to get vaccinated, also called unvaccinated people irresponsible and - in another remark criticised by some voters and the opposition, that 'irresponsible people are no longer citizens'.
He said he aims to irritate the unvaccinated into submission, rather than round them up and prosecute them.
*********************************************
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)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
