The Playground

    UK has a law that severely punishes the publication of false medical facts.

    So in UK we can exactly see the relation of vaxx/unvaxx in ICU and death. This is base data not rate data. < age 50 is below 80% vaccinated. <age 40 is below 70% vaccinated. SO if e.g. NL or GE say most (>90%) in ICU are unvaxx then this is a 1000% lie.

    We also can see that vaccines have no effect in the younger (age < 40) population as these are at least 70% recovered and thus the not recovered vaccinated die at the same rate as unvaxx. Even worse vaccines bring them into ICU much more frequent than unvaxx.


    Omicron like sliced bread?

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    US Senator Ron Johnson’s Hearing Features Leading Vaccine Mandate Critics


    Portrait of a Pandemic: Panel Lambasts U.S. Failures of Covid Care
    By Mary Beth Pfeiffer Corruption and malfeasance by public health agencies charged with controlling Covid has allowed adoption of an ineffective, poorly
    trialsitenews.com


    By Mary Beth Pfeiffer


    Corruption and malfeasance by public health agencies charged with controlling Covid has allowed adoption of an ineffective, poorly tested vaccine; kept treatments beyond reach of skilled doctors and their desperately ill patients; and, moreover, led to thousands upon thousands of needless deaths.


    Those were just some of the explosive revelations by a panel of national experts on the monumental missteps made by the United States government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. The public hearing took place this monday.



    Senator Ron Johnson (center) with four of the top doctors he assembled at his Covid-19: A Second Opinion round table on January 24. (Photo by Teresa Banik Capuzzo)

    The event, in a room ringed by soaring marble columns at the Russell Senate Building, was organized by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Congress’s leading critic of the government’s failure to treat covid outside of hospitals.



    Indeed, Johnson, a Republican is among the few U.S. legislators to question America’s response to an issue with immense consequences for the nation’s health and future. He billed the event as a “long-overdue second opinion.”


    “Two years into the pandemic, the compassionless guidelines from the NIH–if you test positive–is to essentially do nothing,” Johnson said. “Go home. Isolate yourself in fear. And pray you don’t require hospitalization.”


    Amid ever-shifting government advisories–on lockdowns, masks, treatments and vaccines—what quickly became clear was that dissent would not be tolerated, Johnson and many speakers said.


    “As the goalposts were moving, different viewpoints were being crushed,” he said. “The Internet was used to censor discussion and vilify anyone with a different opinion.”


    The speakers, assembled in a horseshoe of tables with Johnson at the head, were asked, as were attendees, if any had been censored or limited by the government’s firmly controlled covid narrative. About four-fifths raised their hands.


    Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed

    The five-hour hearing painted a harsh portrait of government disregard for scientific and regulatory norms.


    Covid vaccines have failed to prevent infection and transmission of illness, while possibly–but not certainly–avoiding serious illness, speakers said. The inoculations’ failures were cast against the vaxxed-versus-unvaxxed debate that has poisoned patient care and divided the nation.


    Further, data is emerging to show that vaccinated people are at least as likely as unvaccinated people to be infected with new variants. Additionally, hospitalization and mortality are higher in people who are vaccinated and boosted, speakers said.


    Most significantly, the vaccines have been used indiscriminately and without assurance of safety, especially for children, pregnant women and those with compromised immunity. There is vast and growing evidence that they are harming many people, speakers said. Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology on which the vaccines are based, called the government’s review “grossly inadequate.”


    Evidence abounds that the vaccines have led to myocarditis in young men and can alter women’s menstrual cycles, suggesting, Malone said, potential reproductive issues. For children, said Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, “the risk of the vaccines is far greater than the risk of COVID. “Under no circumstances, any under circumstance, should a youngster ever receive any of these vaccines.”


    Pharma Rules

    Clearly, the government’s emphasis on vaccines came at the expense of treatments, including ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine and budesonide, which could have kept people out of hospitals, speakers said.


    Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and treatment advocate, had one word for this policy decision, which he repeated several times: Corruption.


    “United States health agency structures and policies created over the last 50 years have tightly intertwined the pharmaceutical industry with public health institutions,” he said. The result: “relentless and repeated policies by those agencies that led to the repeated placing of pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of the welfare of U.S citizens.”


    Symbolic of a government beholden to pharmaceutical interests are the drugs approved so far. They are high priced patented pharma darlings, while inexpensive generics have been soundly rejected, Sen. Johnson noted.


    “This is a mass casualty event and we cannot wait for a randomized controlled trials that are not forthcoming,” Dr. McCullough said.


    Early treatment doctors recounted, one after another, their experiences caring for thousands of patients, very few of whom were hospitalized or died.


    Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch called hydroxychloroquine a game changer that was cast aside—eagerly by the National Institutes of Health–by virtue of studies that used the drug too late in the infection. Risch said 10 properly conducted early treatment trials show the drug reduced hospitalizations by 50 percent and mortality by 75 percent.


    “The media has not reported any of these studies,” he told the panel. “What I see here is essentially scientific proof.”


    “I’ve kept 2,000 people out of the hospital,” said Dr. Mary Bowden, a Houston ear, nose and throat specialist who stepped into a huge treatment void. Typical of the problem at large, one sick patient told her: “My [personal care physician] won’t see me.”


    Despite her success, including on people who were obese or had diabetes, Bowden lost her privileges at Methodist Hospital for supporting use of ivermectin.


    Hospitals Diminished

    Speakers described hospitals as wastelands of care for COVID-infected patients who are separated from their families and given drugs that are minimally effective, like under-dosed courses of dexamethasone, or toxic, like remdesivir.


    Dr. Paul Marik lost his 35-year job as an ICU physician because he refused to comply with protocols that had saved many of his patients’ lives. Ironically, the hospital forbade ivermectin, which has among the safest profile of any drug, but allowed remdesivir, a drug rejected from an Ebola trial after people died due from its toxic side effects.


    In the U.S, “850,000 poor souls have died,” Marik said. “These have been unnecessary, needless deaths.” Marik helped found Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which is devoted to educating and promoting early treatment.


    As it stands, pharmacists are routinely refusing to fill early treatment prescriptions like ivermectin due to intimidation by media and government authorities. “It’s an absurdity, and obscenity and it has to stop,” Kory said


    COVID-19: A Second Opinion
    Discussion begins around 40 minute mark. Sen. Ron Johnson moderates a panel discussion, COVID-19: A Second Opinion. A group of world renowned doctors and…
    rumble.com

    Omicron Covid strain evolved in mice – Chinese study

    25 Jan, 2022 10:11


    Omicron Covid strain evolved in mice – Chinese study


    The study into Omicron, published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, found that “coronavirus slowly accumulated mutations over time in mice” before the virus was then “transmitted back to humans by reverse zoonotic.”


    The research, led by Dr. Xu Jianguo, who works for the National Institute for Communicable Diseases Control and Prevention of China, has identified mice as the “most likely intermediate host.” Researchers established that the “mutations profile” of the strain “shows that the virus has adapted to infect the cells of mice.”


    While scientists have established Omicron developed from a strain that circulated in mid-2020, they have been seeking an explanation for the lack of an intermediate version of Omicron within humans, raising the potential that it evolved within an animal.



    New Covid variants ‘not far away’ – WHO envoy

    The discovery could “pose new challenges in the prevention and control of the epidemic,” as the risk of new Covid strains circulating within the animal kingdom creates added uncertainty in the fight against the virus.


    Proposing possible solutions to the issue of Covid strains circulating within non-human species, researchers called for greater “surveillance of animals, especially rodents,” due to their close proximity with humans.


    Origin and evolutionary analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant
    The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved rapidly into new variants throughout the pandemic. The Omicron variant ha…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Abstract

    The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved rapidly into new variants throughout the pandemic. The Omicron variant has more than 50 mutations when compared with the original wild-type strain and has been identified globally in numerous countries. In this report, we analyzed the mutational profiles of several variants, including the per-site mutation rate, to determine evolutionary relationships. The Omicron variant was found to have a unique mutation profile when compared with that of other SARS-CoV-2 variants, containing mutations that are rare in clinical samples. Moreover, the presence of five mouse-adapted mutation sites suggests that Omicron may have evolved in a mouse host. Mutations in the Omicron receptor-binding domain (RBD) region, in particular, have potential implications for the ongoing pandemic.


    The emergence of the Omicron variant indicates that surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants should be conducted in economically underdeveloped countries and in the environment to avoid the continuous emergence of new variants of unknown origin. Understanding the threat posed by the Omicron variant will require researchers to gather and analyze a great deal more data in a brief period. Determining the origin of Omicron requires surveillance of animals, especially rodents, because they may have come into contact with humans carrying a strain of the virus with adaptive mutations. Future work should focus on SARS-CoV-2 variants isolated from other wild animals to investigate the evolutionary trajectories and biological properties of these variants both in vitro and in vivo. If Omicron is determined to have been derived from animals, the implications of it circulating among non-human hosts will pose new challenges in the prevention and control of the epidemic.

    Looks like Japan is going to wing it and let it rip.


    Japan gov't to allow COVID diagnoses without testing as omicron cases surge


    Japan gov't to allow COVID diagnoses without testing as omicron cases surge - The Mainichi
    TOKYO -- Doctors in areas of Japan with long wait times for coronavirus testing and checks will be able to diagnose symptomatic people in close contac
    mainichi.jp


    TOKYO -- Doctors in areas of Japan with long wait times for coronavirus testing and checks will be able to diagnose symptomatic people in close contact with COVID-19 patients as infected without a test, under plans revealed by health minister Shigeyuki Goto on Jan. 24.


    The move is intended to alleviate the strain on outpatient care as the coronavirus's omicron variant sweeps through the country. Implementation of the measure will be left to the discretion of local governments. Furthermore, people with symptoms of the virus such as fever but at low risk of developing severe COVID-19 will be asked to take an antigen test before going to the doctor.


    The health ministry is defining "low-risk individuals" as "people under 40 years of age with no underlying health conditions and who have received two vaccination shots." However, even those considered at low risk will be able to see a doctor before getting a coronavirus test if they so desire. The ministry is also encouraging vigorous implementation of online or phone-based diagnosis and treatment.


    Furthermore, if outpatient services look likely to come under severe strain, the ministry plan calls for low-risk people with light symptoms to contact their local "health follow-up centers," which have doctors on staff, after getting tested for the virus on their own. The centers will then provide health monitoring services.


    Previously, in principle people with COVID-19 symptoms had to consult with a physician, but the new plan removes that requirement.


    "It (the plan) will make it possible for patients to get tested and treated quickly and properly," Goto told reporters. "People at high risk of severe symptoms should go to a medical facility offering diagnosis and treatment, just as before. We will ensure proper medical care is available."


    Some members of the health ministry's pandemic policy advisory board on Jan. 21 recommended that young people at low risk of severe COVID-19 should be allowed to recuperate at home without visiting medical institutions when infections are rapidly surging.


    (Japanese original by Shunsuke Kamiashi and Takashi Kokaji, Lifestyle and Medical News Department)

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    UK has a law that severely punishes the publication of false medical facts.

    So in UK we can exactly see the relation of vaxx/unvaxx in ICU and death. This is base data not rate data. < age 50 is below 80% vaccinated. <age 40 is below 70% vaccinated. SO if e.g. NL or GE say most (>90%) in ICU are unvaxx then this is a 1000% lie.

    We also can see that vaccines have no effect in the younger (age < 40) population as these are at least 70% recovered and thus the not recovered vaccinated die at the same rate as unvaxx. Even worse vaccines bring them into ICU much more frequent than unvaxx.


    Does any one here - I mean anyone - understand why W posts this stuff.


    Let us look at 30-39 range. Those are most of the under 40 deaths.


    99 (linked total)

    53

    6

    34

    6


    So vaccinated (any dose) 46/99. unvaccinated 53/99


    How many people in this age group were vaccinated first dose or more? (see below - est 75% vs 65%) and are more likely to die. All of that makes the figures look worse than they really are for vaccinated the vulnerable gets vaccinated effect.


    So: vaccinated: relative rate 46/70

    unvaccinated: relative rate 53/30


    Overall, unvaccinated are 2.3X more likely to die of COVID in this group.


    W mentions the recovered. Yes, many will be recovered from COVID. But that is true of BOTH vaccinated and unvaccinated. This is a distraction, especially because we do not have figures for it.


    There are additional factors: those with risk factors in this age group will be vaccinated. Those at close to end of age group will be more likely vaccinated than close to the bottom (maybe not be a lot, see graph)


    So this 2.3X factor is an underestimate because of vulnerable get vaccinated.


    If anyone thinks these figures are wrong please correct them - saying precisely which bit of what I say is wrong?


    The actual effect may be a little bit higher than this due to deaths counted for people incidentally positive with COVID. That will affect both equally.


    So on this data if I had to guess I'd say 3X more likely to die if unvaccinated vs vaccinated. It looks even better if you compare unvaccianted with 3 dose vaccinated of course.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You will never get it: 70% of the vaccinated are protected from recovering CoV-19...

    I'll try once more.


    That may be (though clearly not always) but the same is true of the unvaccinated. In fact if 70% of the population are protected anyway it makes the relative advantage of vaccination over non-vaccination for those who are not survivors (and hence perhaps protected) even larger.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'll try once more.


    That may be (though clearly not always) but the same is true of the unvaccinated. In fact if 70% of the population are protected anyway it makes the relative advantage of vaccination over non-vaccination for those who are not survivors (and hence perhaps protected) even larger.

    I could be wrong about Ws statement and will not go further into this other than this....

    I think you misunderstand him... He is stating that 70% of the population if protected by previous infection that is being attributed to the vaccine.... I.E.. they had Covid and natural immunity is protecting them, not the vaccine but the information being presented is that it is the vaccine that is protecting them. I think he is stating that those that perish are only vaccinated and not previously infected. So if the total number is reduced by 70% but the deaths stay the same, then the rate of death for vaccinated is much higher.


    W does NOT remove the previous infected from the unvaccinated because he should not. He is stating that people who do not get vaccinated, die less as they were not vaccinated, not that they did not previously have Covid.


    If data says 100 people were vaccinated and 10 died that would be 10%.

    But if 70% of the 100 were protected by previous Covid infection and not really by the vaccines, then it would leave 30 people vaccinated (not previously infected) with 10 deaths and that is 30% death rate.

    If this is what he is stating, I do not know how all 10 "deaths" can be attributed to no previous infection however.


    I do not know if his numbers are accurate, nor am I convinced that yours are either based upon understanding. I am just attempting to see if my interpretation of what he is saying is correct. Again, there is much muddying of the waters in the data.


    I am convinced that most reported data is somewhat manipulated... I have two sisters who are nurses and they assure me that the reporting is HEAVILY influenced by money. I have even read several reports lately where this is being admitted that large percentages of deaths WITH Covid were being reports as FROM Covid.


    And as ususal... I am not anti-vax, I am not saying that Covid is not a real concern. I DO state that the mRNA vaccines most likely should not be given to the young (under 18 or possibly higher) due to lack of long term safety knowledge, more and more adverse effects showing up and very, very low risk of Covid to this age group.


    I also am 100% against vaccine passports as they are totally unscientific. Vaccinated pass the virus....especially Omicron.

    Study: mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Pose ‘Rare but Serious’ Threat


    Study: mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Pose ‘Rare but Serious’ Threat
    A prominent group of researchers published a study in JAMA Tuesday that evaluated the risk of a cardiovascular incident such as myocarditis for people who
    trialsitenews.com


    A prominent group of researchers published a study in JAMA Tuesday that evaluated the risk of a cardiovascular incident such as myocarditis for people who take mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Researchers analyzed the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive adverse event tracking database, and identified myocarditis events that occurred between December 2020 and August 2021 in 192,405,448 people 12 years of age or older whose cases were uploaded as of September 30, 2021. The study team validated earlier research in reporting that Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s mRNA-1273 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines heighten the risk of myocarditis across age and sex cohorts. The study suggests that adolescent males and young men who take mRNA COVID vaccines are exposed to the highest risk of myocarditis.


    The study was led by Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH, and a group of peers from preeminent academic medical centers and government agencies across the United States. The team was comprised of investigators from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Emory University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston Medical Center, Duke University, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


    Data were analyzed according to key attributes including age, sex, and geography. The team calculated expected rates of myocarditis by various attributes using 2017-2019 claims data. A deeper dive into the data associated with the age 30 and under cohort was then performed with reviews of medical records and clinician interviews to better describe the clinical presentation, test results, treatment regimen, and early outcomes.


    COVID-19 has been harder on high-risk groups, including the elderly and people with co-morbidities like a compromised immune system, obesity, and cancer. Children were far less impacted by all known strains of SARS-CoV-2, yet the Delta and Omicron variants increased hospitalizations of young people.


    The study results suggest that a risk-benefit analysis should be conducted to determine if young people take mRNA COVID vaccines.


    The study evaluated 192,405,448 individuals older than 12 years of age who received 354,100,845 doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines.


    The study team discovered 1,991 reports of myocarditis, 391 of which included pericarditis after receiving an initial mRNA-based vaccine dose. The study found 684 reports of pericarditis without the presence of myocarditis.


    Category #s

    Total # subjects 12 & up 192,405,448

    Total doses 354,100,845

    Total # myocarditis reports 1,991*

    Total # pericarditis reports 685

    *Include 391 cases of pericarditis


    Breakdown of myocarditis reports.

    Category #s

    Met CDC ca definition 1,626

    Failed to meet CDC criteria 208

    Requires more adjudication 157

    Total # pericarditis reports 685

    Younger than 30 years 1,196 (73%)

    Younger than 18 543 (33%)

    Median age 21

    mRNA Dose Breakdown/Myocarditis

    Category #s

    Myocarditis with dose info 82% (1265/1538) post second dose

    Median time from vaccination to symptom onset 1st dose 3 days (IQ, 1-8days); 74% (187/254) within 7 days

    Median time from vaccination to symptom onset 2nd dose 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) and 90% (1081/1199) of myocarditis events within 7 days

    What about demographics?

    Males comprised 82 percent (1334/1625) of myocarditis cases where sex was reported. The largest proportions of cases of myocarditis were among white people (non-Hispanic or ethnicity not reported; 69 percent [914/1330]) and Hispanic persons (of all races; 17 percent [228/1330]).


    The study team reported that among those who died post mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, there were no confirmed cases of myocarditis “without another identifiable cause and there was one probable case of myocarditis.” However, the study team shared there was “insufficient information available for a thorough investigation.” The authors reported two deaths of individuals 30 years of age or under associated with myocarditis. These were precluded from case counts and remain under investigation.


    What was the finding?

    The study team acknowledged that during the study period they observe incidence of serious adverse events, in this case, myocarditis is “rare” but can occur and remains a serious consideration. They found the risks higher in adolescents and young males.


    What are the implications for vaccination?

    The study authors remind that there are benefits to vaccination and they imply that a proper risk-benefit analysis should be conducted.


    Are reports of myocarditis for vaccinated and non-vaccinated similar in rates for the younger demographic cohorts?

    Yes. However, there were differences in their acute clinical course.


    How are cohorts facing more risk with mRNA-based vaccines?

    Young people were experiencing onset of myocarditis symptoms.


    What were some study limitations?

    Some limitations are associated with this study including:


    VAERS is a passive reporting system, and overall reports of myocarditis may be incomplete, with subpar quality, missing data, and the like. Some argue that cases are grossly undercounted

    Investigators could not always access medical records of the underlying subjects or secure interviews with attending clinicians

    Vaccination data limited to what was reported by CDC and could be incomplete

    The authors didn’t clinically review underlying data sources (for example, IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database) for expected rates. Medicare data is limited.

    Summary question: does the risk of myocarditis grow with COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines across age and sex strata? And is that risk highest after the second vaccine dose in adolescence to young males?

    Yes.

    Lead Research/Investigator

    Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH, Pediatric

    Monetization vs. Public Health? Pfizer Announces Study of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron


    Monetization vs. Public Health? Pfizer Announces Study of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron
    Pfizer announced on Tuesday that they and partner BioNTech are starting trials of an Omicron-based booster. This is long overdue. A variant-based booster
    trialsitenews.com


    Pfizer announced on Tuesday that they and partner BioNTech are starting trials of an Omicron-based booster. This is long overdue. A variant-based booster should have been tested and distributed long ago. At the least a Delta-based booster should have been pursued. Why didn’t Pfizer base its original vaccine on D614G? The Wuhan variant never spread outside of China. The earliest days of the pandemic in Italy, Spain and New York was dominated by the D614G variant and this was known well before vaccine trials were underway. Throughout this pandemic regulators and other governing bodies neglected their duty to hold companies accountable for ensuring public health and capitalizing on the mRNA platform’s central feature: Flexibility. Despite their negligence in leveraging mRNA technologies for a speedy response to attack potential variants, governments around the world are establishing one greatest (and most dangerous) economic monopolies in the history of the pharmaceutical industry.


    Pfizer Failed to Effectively Embrace the true benefits of the mRNA Platform

    Pfizer should have used the easily adaptable mRNA platform and substituted the D614G sequence when it became clear that variant was driving the global pandemic. The Alpha variant’s global dominance may have also justified a variant booster update. Instead, Pfizer relied on a mismatched antigen and tried to reach similar efficacy by repeatedly boosting against new variants. Immunologists know that waning antibodies is the expected response to any antigen. As data soon confirmed, the boosters’ protection was short-lived and titers typically dropped off again within three to five months. And as new variants exhibited more antigenic drift the vaccines’ efficacy precipitously declined. It became more difficult to mask the drop in efficacy by a short-term increase in AB titers.


    Omicron’s appearance resulted in an even more dramatic acceleration in mutations and vaccine efficacy. This forced vaccine manufacturers to shift their failed strategy of boosting with a mismatched antigen because it had become so obviously indefensible (although they still attempted to push additional boosters in the face of the Omicron onslaught). Had mRNA-based vaccines been updated with Delta the drop in efficacy from Omicron would not have been as severe.


    Pfizer Pics Monetization over Public Health

    Now that it’s abundantly clear to everyone that the two-year-old vaccine – initially billed as a new technology to iterate ahead of mutant strains – must be updated, Pfizer/BioNTech finally announced they will begin trials with a newly formulated Omicron booster. Pfizer’s announcement, however, reveals its main priority is monetization and not public health or safety. This is evident as they refer to the Omicron-based booster as a “vaccine.”


    This multibillion multinational government contractor is choosing its words carefully. The reason the word booster is dropped is clear from the details.


    The study will evaluate up to 1,420 participants across the three cohorts:


    Cohort #1 (n = 615): Received two doses of the current Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 90-180 days prior to enrollment; in the study, participants will receive one or two doses of the Omicron-based vaccine.


    Cohort #2 (n = 600): Received three doses of the current Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 90-180 days prior to enrollment; in the study, participants will receive one dose of the current Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Omicron-based vaccine.


    Cohort #3 (n=205): Vaccine-naïve participants will receive three doses of the Omicron-based vaccine.


    While two Omicron booster doses will raise AB titers higher than a single booster dose that doesn’t mean it’s the safest or more efficacious approach. Nevertheless, if they show data that it boosts titers higher and submit for an emergency use authorization, they will make money per dose and two doses will double their revenue.


    In their third cohort three doses of their Omicron based vaccine will be given to previously unvaccinated subjects.


    Pfizer is swinging for the fences. Although why stop at three doses? Why not four or five? Pfizer is following a simple algorithm: more doses equals more revenue.


    As Charlie Munger – who knew something about monopolies – famously said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome


    Pfizer and BioNTech Initiate Study to Evaluate Omicron-Based COVID-19 Vaccine in Adults 18 to 55 Years of Age | Pfizer

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.