The Playground

    Autocrine vitamin D signaling switches off pro-inflammatory programs of TH1 cells


    Autocrine vitamin D signaling switches off pro-inflammatory programs of TH1 cells - Nature Immunology
    During homeostasis TH1 cells activate a cell-intrinsic inflammatory shutdown program and shift to IL-10 production. Chauss et al. find that this TH1…
    www.nature.com


    Abstract

    The molecular mechanisms governing orderly shutdown and retraction of CD4+ type 1 helper T (TH1) cell responses remain poorly understood. Here we show that complement triggers contraction of TH1 responses by inducing intrinsic expression of the vitamin D (VitD) receptor and the VitD-activating enzyme CYP27B1, permitting T cells to both activate and respond to VitD. VitD then initiated the transition from pro-inflammatory interferon-γ+ TH1 cells to suppressive interleukin-10+ cells. This process was primed by dynamic changes in the epigenetic landscape of CD4+ T cells, generating super-enhancers and recruiting several transcription factors, notably c-JUN, STAT3 and BACH2, which together with VitD receptor shaped the transcriptional response to VitD. Accordingly, VitD did not induce interleukin-10 expression in cells with dysfunctional BACH2 or STAT3. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid CD4+ T cells of patients with COVID-19 were TH1-skewed and showed de-repression of genes downregulated by VitD, from either lack of substrate (VitD deficiency) and/or abnormal regulation of this system.


    Discussion

    We showed that cell-intrinsic complement orchestrates an autocrine/paracrine autoregulatory VitD loop to initiate TH1 shutdown. VitD causes genome-wide epigenetic remodeling, induces and recruits TFs, including STAT3, c-JUN and BACH2, which collectively repress TH1 and TH17 programs and induce IL-10 via IL-6–STAT3 signaling. This program is abnormal in lung helper T cells of patients with severe COVID-19, which show preferential TH1 skewing and could be potentially exploited therapeutically by using VitD as an adjunct treatment.


    IFN-γ-producing airway helper T cells are key components of immunity to coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV1 and MERS-CoV20. TH1-polarized responses are also a feature of SARS-CoV2 in humans24 and severe COVID-19 is accompanied by prolonged, exacerbated, circulating TH1 responses21. Complement receptor signaling is a driver of TH1 differentiation and required for effective antiviral responses12,42. C3 cleavage generates C3b, which binds CD46 on T cells. We have previously shown that the lungs in COVID-19 are a complement-rich microenvironment, that local CD4+ T lymphocytes have a CD46-activated signature13 and show here that these T cells are TH1-polarized. Pro-inflammatory function is important for pathogen clearance, but a switch into IL-10 production is a natural component during successful transition into the TH1 shutdown program and reduces collateral damage16. Inability to produce IL-10 results in more efficient clearance of infections but severe tissue damage from uncontrolled TH1 responses results in death2. The benefits of remediating inflammatory pathways in severe COVID-19 is demonstrated by successful trials of dexamethasone, an immunosuppressive drug that reduces mortality1.


    VitD has pleiotropic functions in the immune system, including antimicrobial as well as regulatory properties, which are cell- and context-dependent43,44. VitD deficiency is associated with higher prevalence and worse outcomes from infections, including influenza, tuberculosis and viral upper respiratory tract illnesses17, as well as autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease18. Helper T cells play key roles in all these diseases. Thus, understanding VitD biology in helper T cells has potential translational impact.


    Our data indicate the complexities of TFs working within networks to regulate sets of genes. After VitD ligates VDR, c-JUN, STAT3 and BACH2 are recruited to acetylated loci, shaping the transcriptional response to VitD. c-JUN is a member of the AP-1 basic leucine zipper family, primarily involved in DNA transcription45. This TF was bound adjacent to 40% of VitD-regulated coding loci. BACH2 is a critical immunoregulatory TF38,39 downregulated in lesional versus non-lesional psoriatic skin46. Active VitD concentrations inversely correlate with severity of psoriasis40. We found that VitD treatment of psoriatic lesional skin upregulated BACH2 expression. Both haploinsufficiency and single nucleotide variants of BACH2 associate with monogenic and polygenic autoimmunity, respectively, in humans36,47. No BACH2 knockout humans have yet been identified, suggesting incompatibility of complete BACH2 deficiency with life. Indeed, Bach2–/– mice succumb to fatal autoimmunity. We found that loss of even 50% of the normal cellular concentration of BACH2 in the haploinsufficient state substantially altered (~70% of) the VitD-regulated transcriptome. As only a proportion of these genes were directly BACH2-bound, it is probable that BACH2 is a requisite for normal recruitment and function of the other transcriptional regulators.


    Both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 are epidemiologically associated with VitD deficiency/insufficiency19, but the molecular mechanisms remain unknown. We found a link between the inflammatory TH1 program and a VitD-repressed gene set. Attempts to study CD4+ T cells from the site of inflammation were unsuccessful due to the rapid apoptosis of patient cells, but our in silico analyses suggest either dysregulation of the VitD program in COVID-19 or that simple deficiency/insufficiency of substrate (VitD) might explain the epidemiological association.


    IL-6 is a pleiotropic, often pro-inflammatory, cytokine. IL-6 is implicated in the COVID-19 ‘cytokine storm’ and targeting of this cytokine specifically has proved beneficial to patients32. Our data suggest that pro-inflammatory IL-6 functions may be redirected to production of anti-inflammatory IL-10 by VitD in activated human helper T cells. VitD supplementation in children significantly increases serum IL-6 (and nonsignificantly increases IL-10)48 indicating that these observations may also occur in vivo. In the skin, where VitD concentrations are high, IL-6 overexpression protects from injurious stimuli or infection49 and IL-6-deficiency impairs wound healing50. Moreover, an adverse effect of anti-IL-6R for treating inflammatory arthritis is idiosyncratic development of psoriasis51, indicating a tolerogenic role for IL-6 at this site. Thus, adjunct VitD therapy in severe COVID-19 could potentially divert pro-inflammatory and induce anti-inflammatory effects of IL-6, which may be an alternative to blocking IL-6R signaling.


    These data identified the VitD pathway as a potential mechanism to accelerate shutdown of TH1 cells in severe COVID-19. From experience in other diseases, it is likely that VitD will be ineffective as monotherapy. Combination therapy could potentially ameliorate significant adverse effects of other drugs, for example high-dose corticosteroids, including over-immunosuppression or metabolic side-effects. An important consideration of VitD therapy in COVID-19 is stimulation of IL-6 production from CD4+ T cells. Although autocrine/paracrine IL-6 induces IL-10 in these cells, IL-6 could potentially have pro-inflammatory properties on other cells. These possibilities may be mitigated by adding VitD as an adjunct to other immunomodulators, such as corticosteroids or JAK inhibitors13. Of note, two randomized clinical trials with calcifediol, a VitD analog with high bioavailability not requiring hepatic 25-hydroxylation, comprising >1,000 patients together, reported reductions in risk of intensive-care unit admission or death when used in addition to standard care (odds ratio of 0.13 and 0.22, respectively52,53). These findings are not necessarily specific to COVID-19, as VitD can protect against acute respiratory tract infections in general17.


    In conclusion, we identified an autocrine/paracrine VitD loop permitting TH1 cells to both activate and respond to VitD as part of a shutdown program repressing IFN-γ and enhancing IL-10. These events involved significant epigenetic reshaping and recruitment of a network of key TFs. These pathways could potentially be exploited therapeutically to accelerate the shutdown program of hyper-inflammatory cells in patients with severe COVID-19.

    Pfizer, US gov sign $5 billion deal for possible COVID-19 treatment


    Pfizer, US gov sign $5 billion deal for possible COVID-19 treatment
    Pfizer asked the FDA on Tuesday to authorize emergency use of the experimental pill, which has been shown to significantly cut the rate of hospitalizations and…
    nypost.com


    The US government will pay drugmaker Pfizer $5.29 billion for 10 million treatment courses of its potential COVID-19 treatment if regulators authorize it, the nation’s largest purchase agreement yet for a coronavirus therapy.


    Pfizer asked the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday to authorize emergency use of the experimental pill, which has been shown to significantly cut the rate of hospitalizations and deaths among people with coronavirus infections.


    The FDA is already reviewing a competing pill from Merck and will hold a public meeting on it later this month.


    The price for Pfizer’s potential treatment amounts to about $529 per course. The US has already agreed to pay roughly $700 per course of Merck’s drug for about 3.1 million treatments.


    Pfizer said Thursday the price being paid by the US government reflects the high number of treatment courses purchased through 2022.

    Quote from Fm1

    The US government will pay drugmaker Pfizer $5.29 billion for 10 million treatment courses of its potential COVID-19 treatment if regulators authorize it, the nation’s largest purchase agreement yet for a coronavirus therapy.

    This is raping the taxpayers! For 5 billions you can buy 50 Billion dose of Ivermectin or 5 billion Ziverdo treatment kits what would allow to clear the whole world from CoV-19 !


    This pandemic is about stealing taxpayers money in yet unseen dimensions. At the end we will have 100000x more deaths than needed and 10'000 x more payed than needed. Not to talk about 100 million new poor people that will emerge.


    This world wide FM/R/B mafia charade is already worse than WW II!


    Austria to go into full lockdown and enforce vaccination.


    "Days after Austria imposed a lockdown on the unvaccinated, it has announced a full national Covid-19 lockdown starting on Monday.

    Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg said it would last at least 10 days and there would be a legal requirement to get vaccinated from 1 February 2022.

    He was responding to record cases numbers and one of the lowest vaccination levels in Western Europe."

    US CoV-19 figure in sharp raise too. From today on also deaths will increase again. Actual figures in NYT or worldometers.org.


    Nobody should take Pfizer/Astra/J&J crap boosters as this will for 100% sure lead to a dramatic (much worse than original COV-19) new wave in 4-6 months.


    As data from UK/Sweden shows so called vaccinated (in fact gene therapy) are up to 5x more vulnerable to get CoV-19 after 2x. This will strongly increase after 3x (booster). It also looks like vaccinated in hospital have a signifcant higher death rate than unvaxx. But here we have no age corrected data for the exact factor.


    I recommend NOVAVAX for all boosters.

    INVESTIGATES: Questions raised about possible link between COVID-19 vaccines and hearing problems

    Action News Jax’s medial expert Dr. Michelle Aquino weighs in.


    INVESTIGATES: Questions raised about possible link between COVID-19 vaccines and hearing problems
    Dr. Inbal Cohen-Rasner says in September she was diagnosed in both ears with sudden sensorineural hearing loss – about a week after receiving the Moderna…
    www.actionnewsjax.com


    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Dr. Inbal Cohen-Rasner is an award-winning composer, mother of two, and radiologist, who is used to making diagnoses, not receiving them.


    “How scary is it?” asked Acton News Jax Ben Becker.

    “I was devastated,” Cohen-Rasner said

    Cohen-Rasner said in September she was diagnosed in both ears with sudden sensorineural hearing loss – about a week after receiving the Moderna booster shot following a short bout with the common cold.

    Most of the doctors think it was viral or auto-immune,” Cohen-Rasner said.


    “What do you think?” asked Becker.

    “I don’t know yet. I started not to hear my kids, my husband,” Cohen-Rasner said.


    “At first were you hearing buzzing?” asked Becker.


    “Yes, I could hear this hiss frequently during the day and at night I couldn’t go to sleep,” Cohen-Rasner recalled

    That buzzing and hissing led to a condition called tinnitus that’s perceived in the ears, but it’s actually produced in the brain. When there is damage to the sensory cells inside your ears, the brain tries to adapt by causing the illusion of sound.


    “Ultimately if you have tinnitus, it can lead to hearing loss,” said Dr. Michelle Aquino, who is Action News Jax’s medical expert and regularly works with COVID-19 patients at Baptist Health. Tinnitus can be caused by a variety of factors, including a head injury, sinus congestion, stress, anxiety, high blood pressure or an auto-immune disease -- but Aquino says the jury is still out if it’s tied to COVID-19 vaccines.


    “Just because we see something after a vaccination, you can’t always say it’s because of the vaccine,” Aquino said. “That’s key and everyone needs to remember that.”


    INVESTIGATES: HOA suing Jacksonville military family for $20,000 in attorney fees over $3.87 lien


    According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there have been about 12,000 reports of tinnitus relating to COVID-19 vaccines -- out of 226 million Americans who have received at least one dose which works out to one case for every 19,000 people.


    The CDC goes on to say, “VAERS reports alone generally cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Some reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.”


    Becker emailed Moderna, as well as Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson to ask about any possible links between their vaccines and tinnitus.


    INVESTIGATES: Jacksonville man quits IT job, makes a living by renting out his cars


    Moderna never responded to Becker’s numerous requests for comment.


    Pfizer said in a statement: “We take adverse events that are potentially associated with our COVID-19 vaccine very seriously. Tinnitus cases have been reviewed however no causal link has been established. To date, more than 2 billion of our COVID-19 vaccines have been delivered globally. It is important to note that serious adverse events that are unrelated to the vaccine are unfortunately likely to occur at a similar rate as they would in the general population.”


    Johnson and Johnson acknowledged a link between its vaccine and Tinnitus in a statement: “Our primary goal is the safety and wellbeing of all those who use our products, and we are committed to working closely with health authorities around the world as necessary to provide the latest available safety information to patients, consumers and healthcare providers. Tinnitus was identified as an adverse event in our Phase 3 ENSEMBLE clinical trial and was included in the US COVID-19 Vaccine Fact Sheet when the vaccine was first authorized in February 2021. Following reports post-authorization, tinnitus has also been added to the “Post-Authorization Experience” section of the Fact Sheet. As the Fact Sheets note, these reactions are reported voluntarily, and it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.”


    In August, both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency added tinnitus as a possible side effect to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.


    Cohen says she’s not anti-vaccine but wants to hit the right note by raising awareness and making the best choices for herself and her family.


    “How hopeful are you that you will get all of your hearing back?” asked Becker.


    “I’m not a fortune teller,” said Cohen-Rasner, who has regained 80% of her hearing with medication.


    “Would you get Moderna again?” questioned Becker.


    “No, I’m scared. If my kids need to take the vaccine I will look for Pfizer,” Cohen-Rasner said. “I will not take Moderna.”


    Regulators maintain there is no causal relationship between tinnitus and the Moderna vaccine.


    Experts say just because tinnitus could be a side effect of certain COVID-19 vaccines, that doesn’t mean vaccines are unsafe. If you are noticing any side effects from a COVID-19 vaccine, visit: https://vaers.hhs.gov/

    Georgetown immunologist who has accurately predicted coronavirus trends says there are only 3 ways the pandemic could end—and you really don’t want option 2 or 3

    Dr. Mark Dybul predicts the U.S. will follow the COVID-19 trends in Israel and Northern Europe.


    Georgetown immunologist who has accurately predicted coronavirus trends says there are only 3 ways the pandemic could end—and you really don’t want option 2 or 3 – Fortune


    Dr. Mark Dybul has been accurately predicting COVID-19 trends for a while.

    In the spring of 2020, the CEO of Enochian BioSciences and professor at Georgetown University Medical Center’s Department of Medicine told The Hill that the following fall could see another wave, and it would likely be “more virulent.” He’s also spoken out about the need to equally distribute resources when it comes to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need for a globally “coordinated response.”


    And he doesn’t like what he’s seeing in Europe right now, which has higher rates of vaccination than the U.S. but is experiencing a record-breaking number of cases, he told Fortune at a conference earlier this week.

    Germany, Holland, Austria have higher rates [of hospitalization and death] than they ever have in the course of the pandemic,” Dybul said. “A month from now, we’re quite likely to look like those countries.”


    These are three potential scenarios Dybul can imagine in the U.S. as we continue to push through the second winter of the global COVID pandemic.


    Option 1

    “By March, April, May we will have a fully vaccine resistant variant,” said Dybul.

    The good news? There’s treatment available, like Pfizer’s antiviral pill, which Dybul said can “reduce hospitalization by 90%.” That means that while we might not be able to prevent a wave of cases fueled by a vaccine-resistant strain (which already exists in Latin America), we can reduce the severity.


    “Vaccines and therapies don’t stop transmission,” Dr. Dybul noted, but new treatment options in development, like a prophylactic nasal spray that can also stop transmission, could lead us out of the worst of the pandemic.


    Option 2

    Another scenario is that COVID-19 becomes like “influenza” or the flu for wealthy nations but will be more severe in poorer countries.

    Richer countries have a surplus of treatments to transform a health crisis into a seasonal problem, but even now, he said, malaria and tuberculosis still plague some African nations.



    Option 3

    The worst option is that the virus will mutate faster than we can chase it, and even treatment options won’t affect it.


    “The third possibility is that it’s a mess for the foreseeable future everywhere because the virus will mutate so much,” Dr. Dybul said, but he thinks this is “really unlikely.”

    Dr. Dybul’s opinion is that we’re heading toward the second option, but it will take two to three years to get there. While we’re en route to some sort of solution, he’s worried that the “in between” years could be “pretty rough.”

    What is the FDA Hiding? Demands No Full Disclosure of Pfizer Vaccine Data for 55-Years


    What is the FDA Hiding? Demands No Full Disclosure of Pfizer Vaccine Data for 55-Years
    After the Pfizer vaccine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a group of over 30 prominent academic scientists, professor, and
    trialsitenews.com


    After the Pfizer vaccine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a group of over 30 prominent academic scientists, professor, and physicians from some of the nation’s most prestigious institutions sought publicly available access to the Pfizer Biologics License Application (BLA). Working with the law firm of Siri Glimstad, the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to the FDA to access all data within Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine biological product file. With unacceptable responses the transparency -seeking organization sued the FDA in the U.S. Direct Court, Northern District of Texas to compel the FDA to disclose the material documentation associated with Pfizer’s FDA submission in an expedited manner. Rather than share any information the FDA requested from the federal judge that it be given until 2076 to share the Pfizer vaccine information with the public.


    While the FOIA process can be slow and tedious, nothing could have prepared this group of prominent scientists/doctors for the scenario where the FDA wouldn’t have to share important data for 55 years.


    In the “Second Joint Report” court filing the plaintiff writes that:


    “The FDA has proposed to produce 500 pages per month which, based on its calculated number of pages, would mean it would complete its production in nearly 55 years—the year 2076. Until the entire body of documents provided by Pfizer to the FDA are made available, an appropriate analysis by the independent scientists that are members of Plaintiff is not possible. Would the FDA agree to review and license this product without all the documents? Of course not. These independent, world-renowned scientists should be provided the same forthwith.”



    Law firm partner Aaron Siri representing PHMPT tracks the case in his blog. Previously Siri shared that the FDA promised “full transparency” as to information associated with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.


    Meanwhile great majority of the American population is now immunized with the Pfizer vaccine—in fact in many cases people are now mandated to receive the jab while the PREP Act, at least presently, ensures a complete liability shield from any adverse reactions while pandemic demands yield an unprecedented target of $33 billion in year one revenues. Increasingly it becomes apparent to many that COVID-19 represents an unprecedented confluence of corporate and state power mobilized against the individual. What on earth is the FDA hiding?


    Who is the PHMPT?

    A group of prominent scientists, public health professionals, media professionals and journalists formed to obtain and disseminate the data that the FDA relied upon to license the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Their website can be viewed here.


    Call to Action: FOIA case documents are maintained online. Aaron Siri’s blog is a good place for updates


    FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year 2076 to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data
    The fed gov’t shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its…
    aaronsiri.substack.com

    Lookng at these results, early treatment for all is the only way to go since vaccine don't stop infection, don't stop transmission and doesn't stop hospitalization or death. Seems or vaccine centric nitwit experts just don't get it!


    Lung autopsies of COVID-19 patients reveal treatment clues

    SARS-CoV-2 prevents lung tissue repair, regeneration.


    Lung autopsies of COVID-19 patients reveal treatment clues
    SARS-CoV-2 prevents lung tissue repair, regeneration.
    www.nih.gov


    What

    Lung autopsy and plasma samples from people who died of COVID-19 have provided a clearer picture of how the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads and damages lung tissue. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and their collaborators say the information, published in Science Translational Medicine, could help predict severe and prolonged COVID-19 cases, particularly among high-risk people, and inform effective treatments.


    Although the study was small—lung samples from 18 cases and plasma samples from six of those cases—the scientists say their data revealed trends that could help develop new COVID-19 therapeutics and fine-tune when to use existing therapeutics at different stages of disease progression. The findings include details about how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, spreads in the lungs, manipulates the immune system, causes widespread thrombosis that does not resolve, and targets signaling pathways that promote lung failure, fibrosis and impair tissue repair. The researchers say the data are particularly relevant to caring for COVID-19 patients who are elderly, obese, or have diabetes—all considered high-risk populations for severe cases. Study samples were from patients who had at least one high-risk condition.


    The study included patients who died between March and July 2020, with time of death ranging from three to 47 days after symptoms began. This varied timeframe allowed the scientists to compare short, intermediate, and long-term cases. Every case showed findings consistent with diffuse alveolar damage, which prevents proper oxygen flow to the blood and eventually makes lungs thickened and stiff.


    They also found that SARS-CoV-2 directly infected basal epithelial cells within the lungs, impeding their essential function of repairing damaged airways and lungs and generating healthy tissue. The process is different from the way influenza viruses attack cells in the lungs. This provides scientists with additional information to use when evaluating or developing antiviral therapeutics.


    Researchers at NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases led the project in collaboration with the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Other collaborators included the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle; University of Illinois, Champaign; Saint John’s Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, California.; the USC Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles; University of Washington Harborview Medical Center, Seattle; University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington; and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.


    Article

    F D’Agnillo et al. Lung epithelial and endothelial damage, loss of tissue repair, inhibition of fibrinolysis, and cellular senescence in fatal COVID-19. Science Translational Medicine DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abj7790(link is external) (2021).


    Who

    Jeffrey Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of the Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section in NIAID’s Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, is available to discuss this study.


    NIAID conducts and supports research—at NIH, throughout the United States, and worldwide—to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available on the NIAID website.


    About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

    COVID-19 Vaccine & Risks for Pregnant Women


    COVID-19 Vaccine & Risks for Pregnant Women
    The first COVID-19 vaccines have been available for some months now, and their widespread use has raised a lot of questions regarding the possible safety
    trialsitenews.com


    The first COVID-19 vaccines have been available for some months now, and their widespread use has raised a lot of questions regarding the possible safety issues for pregnant women. Notably, and to the concern of many, pregnant women were left out of the Phase 3 Clinical Trials. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), promulgates that given the current unfolding evidence, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks for this population, but importantly, the CDC makes the point that research in this area is still ongoing. This recommendation could change with new data. Other medical bodies such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists https://www.acog.org/covid-19/…tion-guide-for-clinicians also recommend that pregnant women get the COVID-19 vaccine due to the risk-benefit analysis based on the current data.


    Risk of COVID-19 in Pregnant Women

    Studies into the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 are still ongoing. After 1 year and 6 months of monitoring, researchers and doctors have started to address the risk of COVID-19 in pregnant women, but that knowledge still unfolds. They have found that pregnant women are no more likely to get COVID-19 than those who aren’t pregnant, but the CDC states that should they become ill, they are more likely to experience severe symptoms.


    Contracting COVID-19 may also result in pregnancy complications, like preterm birth or preeclampsia. It is, however, unlikely that an infected mother will transfer the virus to the fetus in the womb. Unfortunately, the ongoing lockdowns are limiting access to healthcare and stable income, and are adding mental and physical strain to the burden of expectant women. This does put them at greater risk of COVID-19 complications.


    Is the COVID-19 Vaccine Safe for Pregnant Women?

    The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while the other vaccines (Moderna, Janssen, AstraZeneca) are only under Emergency Use Authorization. Despite pregnant women being left out of Phase 3 clinical trials, the regulatory bodies of many countries ­– including the United Kingdom, European Union, and the United States – allow for the vaccination of pregnant women in various trimesters of their pregnancy.


    Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

    No spam - we promise

    Email address

    The recommendation for vaccination is based on the following:


    Pregnant women who have contact with COVID-19 more often, like pregnant workers on the medical frontlines

    Pregnant women who have pre-existing medical conditions that put them at more increased risk and complications

    Early data from safety monitoring systems did not find any safety concerns for women receiving the vaccine late in their pregnancy. Reporting platforms, like the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme, do, however, have pregnant recipients of the various vaccines reporting side-effects and adverse reactions.


    When in Pregnancy Can You Get the Vaccine?

    According to the CDC, the vaccines are thought to be reliable and effective at any stage of pregnancy or breastfeeding. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are recommended for pregnant women in the UK. These are two-dose vaccines, with the second dose being administered 8 weeks after the first. It has been recommended that pregnant women get the vaccines as soon as it is available to them.


    Contradicting Studies?

    Despite the claims made by the CDC and governmental websites about the safety of vaccines for pregnant women, studies are being published or in pre-print that contradict these overwhelmingly positive declarations.


    For example, scientists used data from the “v-safe after vaccination health checker” system, v-safe pregnancy tracker, and VAERS to determine the reported adverse side effects of mRNA COVID vaccines in pregnant women. The authors of the paper concluded that their findings “did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.” Their findings, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, were later disputed.


    The lead author, Dr. Shimabukuro, is affiliated with the Immunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and CDC. In a disclosure, it was stated that the “authors are U.S. government employees or U.S government contractors and do not have any material conflicts of interest.”


    Between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the authors looked at the v-safe data to characterize the initial safety of the vaccines in pregnant women. In total, 35,691 v-safe participants aged 16 to 54 were identified as pregnant. Of the 3958 enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had completed their pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births. The neonatal outcomes that were reported were preterm birth (9.4%) and small size for gestational age (3.2%).


    The paper reported that ~13% of vaccinated pregnant women miscarried before 20 weeks, which reflected real-world statistics of unvaccinated pregnant women. The authors also stated that of 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (in 46 cases).


    What the authors failed to mention was that 700 of the 827 women received the vaccine in their third trimester, and were therefore past the 20 weeks point when they were vaccinated. As the study looked at miscarriages and other complications exclusively before the 20-week mark, these 700 women should be excluded from the denominator in these calculations.


    The mistaken calculation was brought to light by Dr. Hong Sun of Dedalus Healthcare in Belgium. The original authors responded, agreeing that the calculation was an error. In their corrections to the paper, they elected not to calculate a miscarriage rate, claiming “no denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions” because follow-up was still ongoing. They also claimed that risk estimates would need to relate to the specific risk of spontaneous abortion for each week of gestation.


    A Question of Ethics

    With governments across the globe pushing vaccination programs onto their citizens, the question of ethics arises, especially as it pertains to pregnant women.


    Based on the perceived increased severity of symptoms of COVID-19 in pregnant women, government agencies are recommending pregnant women get vaccinated. However, this could pose a risk both to the recipient herself and to her unborn child. The specific risks for pregnant women are still uncertain, as these women were not included in the clinical trials and data collection is ongoing.


    Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor and report on the impacts and reported adverse events of the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women and their babies as more data becomes available


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMx210016

    Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons

    List of authors.

    Metrics


    Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons (Original Article, N Engl J Med 2021;384:2273-2282). In the Results section of the Abstract (page 2273), the third sentence should have read, “Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester),” rather than “…of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).” In the first paragraph of the Discussion section (page 2277), the parenthetical in the third sentence should have begun, “(i.e., preterm birth, small size, …,” rather than “(e.g., fetal loss, preterm birth, small size, ….” In Table 4 (page 2280), the double dagger symbol in the Spontaneous abortion row should have followed “Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk15-17.” The “Published Incidence” cell in the same row should have read “Not applicable,” rather than “10–26,” and the “V-safe Pregnancy Registry” cell should have read “104,” rather than “104/827 (12.6)‡.” In the table footnotes, the following content should have been appended to the double dagger footnote: “No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.” The article is correct at NEJM.org.

    Top Israeli Doctor Says Ivermectin Could Help Treat COVID, Urges More Research


    Top Israeli Doctor Says Ivermectin Could Help Treat COVID, Urges More Research
    In the battle against COVID-19, most of the world has turned to vaccines as the main line of defense. Still, a number of doctors and hospitals are looking for…
    www1.cbn.com


    JERUSALEM, Israel – In the battle against COVID-19, most of the world has turned to vaccines as the main line of defense. Still, a number of doctors and hospitals are looking for other options that could potentially play a role in defeating this global pandemic.


    Several treatments have seen success in treating the disease, such as Regeneron and Remdesevir. The drug Ivermectin also continues to generate interest. While the FDA and other organizations advise against it, one Israeli doctor is reporting positive results in clinical trials.


    Professor Eli Schwartz is with the Sheba Medical Center in Israel, considered one of the world’s top hospitals. For decades, Prof. Schwartz has traveled the world fighting outbreaks like Dengue Fever and Ebola. He also began the Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease Institute at Sheba. At the beginning of the pandemic and months before any vaccine, Israel's Defense Ministry assigned Schwartz to find a medical solution for COVID-19.


    “Since Ivermectin is one of the drugs that we are using in daily life in the Tropical Institute, I knew it. I know the safety profile of it. And since there was some hints of in-vitro studies, which show the efficacy against specifically, even against COVID-19, we decided to go for it.”


    That meant putting the drug through a clinical trial that lasted ten months.


    “Our study, which was done here, it's a randomized controlled trial, double-blind. It's really, I would say, this is the best method that you are doing studies. And our conclusion is that it really has antiviral activities,” Shwartz told CBN News.


    From his international experience in the field, Schwartz knew Ivermectin targeted parasites. Since its development in 1987, nearly 4 billion doses with few side effects and at low cost have protected millions of people from insidious parasitical diseases like River Blindness and Elephantiasis.


    That success won its developers the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2015. Schwartz’s study made headlines in Israel when his trial showed Ivermectin to also be anti-viral.


    “This is the first drug to show antiviral activity. And then, I think, there's a good reason to continue with a much more thorough investigation to see, for example, whether people who are at high risk, may not deteriorate to be hospitalized, to be mechanically ventilated, or to death.”

    Schwartz’s clinical study found that by day four, 86% of his patients who took ivermectin recovered. By day six, 94% recovered.


    “The bottom line is that … Ivermectin decreased faster the viral load, and also sterilized the culture much better compared to the placebo,” he said.


    Schwartz explained to CBN News this means Ivermectin killed the virus and his patients were non-infectious. Schwartz says this could save lives and reduce quarantines by days.


    “It's a huge change in life. It's a huge change for the patient. It's a huge change for his family. And from the economical point of view, it's a dramatic change. You know, it's how much money you can save for the economy of the country, if you can shorten the isolation time,” he said.


    But ivermectin is not accepted by the global health establishment. A major FDA concern is that a number of people have tried to self-medicate using a form of the drug intended for livestock.


    "Don't do it. There's no evidence whatsoever that it works and it could potentially have toxicity, as you just mentioned, with people who have gone to poison control centers because they've taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci.


    The World Health Organization advises “that Ivermectin only be used be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials.”


    The National Institutes of Health says, “Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection” and that “well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”


    For studies to be accepted by the broader medical community, it must be peer-reviewed and published in a medical journal. That’s where Prof. Schwartz hit a roadblock.


    Several journals turned him down, but one is currently reviewing his study.


    “It's something really very odd. I mean, in my career, I published, I think at least 300 papers and chapters, and I never heard the story that they have with Ivermectin. I think that this kind of international campaign, anti-Ivermectin; same that we have anti-vax, anti-vaccine, we have anti-Ivermectin. I don't understand,” said Schwartz.


    Schwartz added that while many health agencies want better studies, no large-scale trials on ivermectin happened until Oxford University began one in June of this year.


    “I mean, it took them 18 months from the beginning of the pandemic to try to do it. I mean, people dying all over the world. And you have drug under your hand and you have to wait so long until you get any conduction of a good study,” he said.


    Now, the pharmaceutical company Merck, which developed Ivermectin, and Pfizer are in a race to produce an oral anti-viral drug for COVID that some believe is what Ivermectin could do already.


    “In my view, the whole story of Ivermectin is much beyond Ivermectin. It's even beyond the corona. The problem is that we are in the arms of the pharma and the pharma is looking for new drugs. And, therefore, all old drugs which might be with a good potential to use it for whatever you're looking for, there's not any parents to push for it,” Schwartz claimed.


    Prof. Schwartz advocates the use of Ivermectin but also believes in the vaccine.


    “Most of the world, still vaccine is not available. So, if we have a medication that can try to reduce the magnitude of the pandemic in the meantime, that's absolutely needed, but when, if I have to compare the vaccine and Ivermectin for prevention, no doubt the vaccine. This is the solution, the international solution,” he said.


    Schwartz hopes more research will prove the drug can help fight this pandemic and that it will eventually be allowed to treat patients on a widespread basis and not just within clinical trials.

    Looks like there may be some resistance: https://frenchdailynews.com/po…ainst-health-dictatorship


    Austria rises up against “health dictatorship

    16th November 2021


    Only a few days after Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg decided to confine unvaccinated people, politicians and trade unions are calling for a large-scale uprising against this uniquely liberticidal measure.


    The leader of the Freedom Party (FPÖ), Herbert Kickl, called for a “mega-demonstration” on November 20 in Vienna.

    Shortly afterwards, Manfred Haidinger, president of the Austrian Armed Forces Union (FGÖ), followed suit and joined in with the call in a letter published on November 14. He intends to “defend fundamental rights and freedoms”. The FGÖ specifies that “everyone” is allowed to demonstrate, even if they are confined!


    The obligation of control imposed by the Minister of the Interior, Karl Nehammer, has already been rejected by the police union. In addition, the Union of Austrian Armed Forces announced that they will participate in the big rally in Vienna.

    Government in panic


    This is a resounding slap in the face for the government, which, according to the Austrian media, is becoming increasingly panicked.


    Hermann Greylinger, president of the Social Democratic Trade Unions (FSG) and the police union, left no doubt in an interview that the police feel unable to carry out these checks, according to the weekly Wochenblick.


    Manfred Haidinger (FGÖ) added in his letter: “We hereby point out that participation in assemblies is a particularly protected legal right and that this is also taken into account in the currently available draft ordinance. Participation and travel throughout Austria is permitted.”


    Even if non-vaccinated people are advised to travel by private transport.

    Finally, the letter points out that “the ban on a meeting planned by citizens as well as the ban on a political party rally have been recognized as illegal” by the Vienna Administrative Court.

    THE COSTS OF INOCULATING CHILDREN AGAINST COVID-19 FAR OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS


    THE COSTS OF INOCULATING CHILDREN AGAINST COVID-19 FAR OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Free to Read and Share without
    trialsitenews.com



    In our Toxicology Reports (TR) paper on COVID-19 that examined myriad issues associated with the ongoing mass inoculations (hereafter called the TR paper), we also evaluated the ratio of costs to benefits (relative to deaths) for what we termed a best-case scenario. In response to reader requests, I then performed a brief real-world cost-benefit analysis, and found the ratio of costs to benefits increased substantially compared to the best-case scenario. In this OpEd, I will start from fundamentals to show step-by-step why the ratios of costs to benefits for COVID-19 inoculations are so high in a real-world analysis, relate them to the underlying biological mechanisms that are taking place post-inoculation, and place these results in the larger context of what is being played out on a global scale.


    1. WHY ARE THE RATIOS OF COSTS TO BENEFITS SO HIGH FOR COVID-19 INOCULATIONS?

    First, some definitions. “Costs” are the deaths induced by the COVID-19 inoculations and “benefits” are the true COVID-19 deaths that only a “vaccine” could have prevented. Since the inoculations were given ostensibly as a preventive measure, the cost:benefit (c:b) ratio should be very low, on the order of a fraction of a percent. Also, in the remainder of this OpEd, I use the term “inoculation” mainly rather than “vaccine”, since the COVID-19 inoculants do not meet the legal definition of a vaccine (as we showed in the TR paper) or even the Patent Office definition (as we also showed in the TR paper).



    This analysis focuses on the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. Because of the high COVID-19 death rates in this demographic, the analysis would be expected to show the lowest c:b ratio for any demographic. In June/July, when we did the best-case scenario analysis for the TR paper, there were ~467,000 CDC-reported COVID-19-tagged deaths and ~2,600 VAERS-reported deaths post-inoculation (VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and is operated jointly by the CDC and FDA). These official CDC numbers are the starting point for the present analysis.


    a) Number of true COVID-19 deaths that required an inoculation for prevention


    The first step in developing an actual c:b ratio is to adjust the CDC-reported COVID-19 deaths and VAERS-reported deaths to conform to real-world results.


    A1) False Positives


    The main diagnostic test with which patients were tagged as having COVID-19 is the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, hereafter called PCR test. A number of studies have shown that the false positive PCR rate is significant for COVID-19, and increases with increasing values of cycle threshold (Ct). A comprehensive assessment of the data concluded that at Ct of forty, where most of the USA testing occurred (some cases even higher), the false positives ranged from 90% to 97%. Selecting the lower part of the range (90%) reduces the number of true COVID-19 deaths that required a “vaccine” for prevention to 0.1 x 467,000, or ~47,000.


    A2) Early Treatment


    A number of frontline doctors have testified (and published treatment protocols as well) that ~85->95% of COVID-19-tagged cases could have been saved from hospitalization or death had their protocols been implemented at an early stage, They have testified that, instead, patients were provided treatments known to be ineffective/harmful and denied treatments known to be harmless/safe. Selecting the median of the range (90%) reduces the number of true COVID-19 deaths that required a “vaccine” for prevention to 0.1 x ~47,000, or ~4,700.


    A3) Deaths attributable to COVID-19 only


    For patients diagnosed with COVID-19, approximately 94% had clinically-defined comorbidities, according to the CDC. In that case, approximately 94 % of the COVID-19 deaths could have been attributed to any of the comorbidities these patients had, and only 6% of the deaths could actually be attributed to COVID-19. If pre-clinical comorbidities had been included, this number of 6% would probably be decreased further. If only 6% of the deaths could be truly attributed to COVID-19 because of absence of comorbidities, the number of true COVID-19 deaths that required a “vaccine” for prevention drops to 0.06 x ~4,700, or ~280.


    As a side note, the Italian Higher Institute of Health showed “only 2.9% of the deaths registered since the end of February 2020 would be due to Covid 19”….”of the 130,468 deaths registered by official statistics at the time of preparation of the new report only 3,783 would be due to the power of the virus itself”, which is even stricter than our 6% CDC-based number.


    A4) Deaths preventable by inoculation


    Many studies have been performed modeling the number of COVID-19 deaths prevented by the inoculations. The most conservative of these studies showed that for Sao Paolo, Brazil “almost 170 thousand deaths…..will occur by the end of 2021 for Sao Paulo…..If in contrast, Sao Paulo…..had enough vaccine supply and so started a vaccination campaign in January with the maximum vaccination rate, compliance and efficacy, they could have averted more than 112 thousand deaths”. This extremely conservative estimate reduces the number of true COVID-19 deaths that required a “vaccine” for prevention to 2/3 x ~280, or ~190!


    Thus, the number of true COVID-19 deaths that required a “vaccine” for prevention was about 0.04 percent of the number of COVID-19 deaths reported by the CDC! Except for A4, the first three issues (A1-A3) were known in 2020, well before the rollout of the mass inoculations. In other words, the benefit possible from mass inoculation was exceedingly small, and did not justify mass inoculation of hundreds of millions of people in the USA with an inadequately tested new technology “vaccine”. This small potential benefit almost ensures that any c:b ratio will be relatively large, given even a moderate number of deaths resulting from the inoculation.


    b) Number of actual deaths resulting from the mass inoculations


    This section focuses on adjusting the numerator of the c:b ratio, the number of inoculation-induced deaths. The most conservative approach is to use the results of post-inoculation autopsies. “German Chief Pathologist Peter Schirmacher has recently announced that 30 to 40 percent of people he examined not long ago were found to have died from COVID-19 vaccine-related issues.”. Multiplying the VAERS reported deaths by 1/3 reduces the official number of post-inoculation deaths for the 65+ demographic from ~2,600 to ~870.


    c) Real-World Cost/Benefit Ratios


    At this point in the analysis, with no scale-up from deaths reported to VAERS, the actual c:b ratio is ~870/190, or ~4.6. However, many studies have shown that the VAERS deaths are under-reported substantially. The Harvard Pilgrim Health Care tracking study showed “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”, similar to some of our results in the TR paper. Jessica Rose showed that the number of deaths is underreported by a factor of 31, and Steve Kirsch showed that the deaths are underreported by a factor of 41. Using the lowest of these estimates (31), the c:b ratio skyrockets to ~143, while the number of deaths is relatively modest at 870 x 31, or ~27,000. The c:b ratio for this case is about five orders of magnitude above the desired target for a “vaccine” or vaccine-proxy, as was stated at the beginning of this OpEd. Even if some of the selected parameters could be relaxed downwards, it is difficult to see where much more than perhaps an order of magnitude reduction in c:b ratio could be obtained.


    While c:b ratios on the order of hundreds have not been shown by previous c:b analyses (especially for the most vulnerable 65+ demographic), and may seem extreme at first glance, they reflect the underlying reality. The only reason they do seem extreme is that the political and biomedical media have framed the narrative that these inoculations are safe and effective, with the implication that their c:b ratios are extremely low. As I have shown above, only a very small cadre of individuals could have benefited potentially from these inoculations. Mass inoculations of hundreds of millions of people in the USA with an unproven technology produced damage that overwhelmed any small potential benefits.


    It should be re-emphasized that this conservative analysis was for the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. As we proceed to lower age demographics, we can expect the c:b ratios to go substantially higher, since deaths of COVID-19-tagged individuals decrease drastically with decreasing age. Also, these numbers reflect very-short-term results only, and the hands-on results of Drs. Hoffe, Cole, and others showing alarming values of Early Warning Indicators do not bode well for increased “vaccine-induced” deaths even in the mid-term, with the attendant increase in c:b ratios.


    2. WHAT ARE THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS THAT UNDERLIE THESE HIGH COST/BENEFIT RATIOS?

    The results of a realistic cost-benefit analysis should reflect the underlying technical performance of the technology being evaluated. What are the features of the inoculant being analyzed that account for its extraordinary high c:b ratios?


    First, there are at least three types of toxicities associated with the inoculant. The spike protein resulting from the inoculant is extremely toxic, as shown in detail in the TR paper. The LNP encapsulating shell has some extremely toxic components, such as polyethylene glycol, to which many people are sensitive (also as shown in the TR paper) and cationic lipids. The desired product of the inoculations, anti-spike protein antibodies, can react with tissues and cause myriad types of damage.


    Second, it evades the immune system in two ways. It is injected, thereby entering the bloodstream directly and indirectly, and by-passing that part of the innate immune system that inhaled viruses encounter initially. The LNP-encapsulating shell, which provides mRNA stability, was developed initially for drug delivery and similar applications, where the target is to deliver drugs to any tissue or organ in the body. In this case, increased time spent in the circulatory system is the goal. For the present application, long residence time in the circulatory system means that the vascular damage and clotting associated with the spike protein endocytic merging with the endothelial cells can occur throughout the body. This impact is seen in the types of damage listed in VAERS, and in post-inoculation autopsies. Third, while it boosts the antibody titers for a few months, it affects the immune system adversely.


    Are there any positive benefits from the inoculations? Obviously, increasing antibody titers against the relevant viral strain will offer some protection before waning immunity commences. For some elderly who are concerned with short-term survival there could be benefits. The inoculation also reduces the severity of symptoms for some people. Because appropriate treatments were withheld from numerous patients, the inoculations saved lives that would have been saved had the proper treatments been administered. But the benefits under the condition that appropriate treatments were administered were small relative to the adverse effects from mass inoculation.


    3. HOW DO THESE RESULTS FIT WITHIN THE LARGER PICTURE OF GLOBAL MASS INOCULATIONS AND MANDATES?

    The following appears to be the larger picture encompassing the details presented above. In December 2019, a viral outbreak appeared to occur initially in Wuhan, China. There is not consensus on its origins, but it appears the virus was engineered in a lab and released either deliberately or accidentally. It also appears that the outbreak transitioned rapidly into a pandemic. In order for the latter to occur, at least two conditions were required: rapid growth of infections globally, and substantial numbers of deaths from the infection.


    A PCR test conducted at high Ct values giving very high numbers of false positives satisfied the rapid growth of infections requirement. COVID-19-tagged patients denied appropriate treatments and given ineffective treatments satisfied the requirement of substantial numbers of deaths from the infection. According to Drs. Zelenko and Ardis, and many others who developed successful treatment protocols for COVID-19-tagged patients, most of the COVID-19-tagged patients could have been saved had the protocols been applied early. Most people who were COVID-19-tagged and died had their deaths attributed to COVID-19. The withholding of appropriate treatments had a double benefit to enforce pandemic measures; it also meant that an EUA could be issued for a “vaccine”, since no alternative treatments were available.


    After a few short months of clinical trials, the EUA was granted, and mass inoculations were started in mid-December 2020, about one year after the outbreak occurred. This meant that the inoculants were developed and tested within one year, a process that ordinarily takes 12-15 years. As shown in the TR paper, the clinical trials were questionable, and no long-term testing was done.


    The mass inoculations in the USA have been ongoing for about ten months, and almost 200 million people have been fully vaccinated. VAERS reports a fraction of the very-near-term adverse effects, but actual scaled-up numbers are mainly estimated. While the elderly, especially with comorbidities, seem to experience the most deaths, children who previously showed no signs of illness are experiencing large numbers of serious effects such as myocarditis. Early warning indicators, such as high D-dimer and troponin levels after inoculation, are an ominous sign of future problems. Steve Kirsch has summarized many of these demonstrated and future adverse effects in an excellent slide presentation.


    Dr. Ryan Cole, CEO of a large independent diagnostics lab in Idaho, states in many videos that he has been seeing a twenty-fold increase in uterine cancer since inoculations began. Dr. Byram Bridle states the following cancer prediction succinctly: “What I have seen way too much of and it does cause me very serious concern is that we are seeing people who had cancers that were in remission or that were being well controlled and their cancers have gone completely out of control after getting the vaccine. We do know that the vaccine causes at least a temporary drop in T-Cell numbers. T-Cells are part of our immune system and they are the critical weapons that our immune system has to fight off cancer cells.” Numerous doctors are starting to report anecdotes of increased cancer, although these effects have not yet been documented in the biomedical literature.


    Studies from the UK and Sweden, among many others, seem to indicate that the second mRNA dose confers immunity for about six months, after which a booster is required to maintain immunity. This could mean that boosters would be required every six months (or sooner) indefinitely, and each booster would be accompanied by adverse effects (such as the micro-clotting that Dr. Hoffe has reported in his patients). If these effects are cumulative and irreversible, that would spell disaster for those on the endless treadmill of booster-àshort-term immunity-àwaning immunity-àpossible negative effectiveness-àbooster…..


    Beneficiaries from the lockdowns, restrictions, and mass inoculations appear to be 1) the governments worldwide who increased control over their people and implemented vaccine passports to different degrees; 2) the companies who manufacture the inoculants and drugs that will be needed to address the many adverse health effects resulting from the inoculations and boosters; and 3) the organizations who specialize in online and remote business operations, such as the Big Tech companies. Whether any of these beneficiaries played a major role in the events remains to be seen (and decided in courts of law).


    It is unclear why the five major stakeholders (healthcare industry, government at all levels, mainstream media, medical profession, academia) involved in promoting the restrictions and mass inoculations are reading from the same sheet of music. While the government is “captured” by industry and does its bidding, and the other three stakeholders are effectively “captured” by industry (and its proxy the government) because of the funding they receive from industry and government, it is unclear why all these stakeholders would have the same attitude when it comes to harming segments of the American population through e.g., mass inoculation with unproven safety.


    In particular, why would the Presidents of Universities and Principals of secondary schools, who have “in loco parentis” responsibilities for the students in their charge, be willing to sacrifice the health of their students just to maintain their research funding or salaries? These “leaders” know full well that their charges are not at risk from COVID-19, but are at substantial risks from the demonstrated adverse effects of the inoculants, and potential future adverse effects. Yet, except for a few isolated instances, there is no action taken to refuse these mandates and protect their charges; rather, action is taken to double-down on the mandates!


    The five major stakeholders’ actions to inoculate the full population of the USA in particular have resulted/are resulting/will result in physically, economically, strategically destroying the USA as a sovereign power and world leader. They are producing a populace that is becoming physically addicted to the inoculations and requisite boosters, and is becoming more subservient to a government that mandates these inoculations as a condition to access all that a civilized society has to offer. By the end of 2021, all those who operate the critical USA infrastructure (e.g., police, firefighters, military, healthcare professionals, teachers, pilots, etc.) will have been inoculated by mandate, and the non-compliers will be terminated from their jobs. If our projections of future adverse effects are correct, those who have been inoculated will beat higher risk for damage, and when the symptoms emerge after a lag period, the USA will be functionally paralyzed.


    In stark contrast, our research group has been producing monographs and journal papers showing that severe reactions to the viral exposure are the result of a dysfunctional immune system, that this dysfunction is mainly caused by exposure to toxic stimuli and adoption of toxic behaviors, and these severe reactions can be prevented by identifying and removing these toxic contributing factors as broadly, deeply, and rapidly as possible. One bonus of the latter is that many of the comorbidities that accompany COVID-19 serious effects will be eliminated as well.


    In summary, the COVID-19 inoculations are not justified from any cost-benefit perspective. The potential benefits are too small to justify mass inoculations with their demonstrated large numbers of very-short-term adverse effects, and potential ADE, autoimmune, neurological, cancer, etc. adverse effects in the mid-and long-terms. The above holds true even for the most vulnerable (elderly with many comorbidities) and is especially true for the least vulnerable from COVID-19, the children who may have to bear the brunt of adverse effects potentially for the rest of their lives.


    If those at high/medium risk from COVID-19 want to take the inoculation, that should be a decision between them and their doctor. It should not be mandated, and restrictions should be lifted immediately

    Boosters for healthy adults, insanity


    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.

    Unfortunatley the FPÖ is a (far) right wing party in Austria, which historically had many party members belonging to Third Reich institutions like the NSDAP or Waffen SS for instance. In the past some member, even famous party leader Jörg Haider had difficulties (and some still have) to clearly separate from Nazi ideology.

    I think they just "fish" in the anti vaxx. pond and if they come to power again (currently oposition) everything will be different.

    Fact is we will have a lockdown effective next week until mid December. For unvaxx. even longer! And this with the votes from the green party and agreement by the liberals.

    At the moment it also looks like that we will have a general compulsory vaxx. regime effective Feb. 2022.

    It seems to me that not one of the decision makers has any doubt, that the vaccines are the solution.

    Our decision makers (politicians) seem to be so short minded, (or afraid, because Germany is putting a potential hold on next ski season) so not unreal mid / long term adverse effects don't matter! The show must go on!

    Quote from Fm1

    What is the FDA Hiding? Demands No Full Disclosure of Pfizer Vaccine Data for 55-Years

    Within 20 different dose of Pfizer crap graphene has been found and also graphene-oxide. Pfizer delivered almost zero risk surveillance data not even about the 300 sick people excluded from the vaccine group.

    Pfizer vaccinate - to hide all risks - the placebo group. So formally the admission of Pfizer must be cancelled as there is no valid phases III study. (Would end winter 2022...)


    The admission of Pfizer, calling it a vaccine is the biggest crime in human history. Why ever could a fake drug make it to be a vaccine. The whole playbook behind the Pifzer story possible has produced more costs than all the faked testes they submitted to CDC.


    Definition of a vaccine: A vaccine produces a broad immune memory. Usually a few antibodies are a sign that the vaccine did work.

    Pfizer crap produces only monoclonal antibodies that are immune damaging due to their high number. Pfizer crap produces no immune memory, except for the single wrong spike protein. This leaves the body no chance to adapt to a new infection. Even worse the answer will be, at best, the wrong antibodies that do not work.


    The full S1 protein used in Pfizer is the main reason for mutagenic action as it hampers mitosis.


    Only idiots kill themselves with CoV-19 or a RNA gene therapy! Try NOVAVAX

    Here is the latest COVID-datasciences posting. This website is a good antidote to the torrent of misinformation and lies posted here from TrialSiteNews and other homicidal websites:



    What do UK data say about real world impact of vaccines on all cause deaths?
    To what extent is societal vaccination saving lives? Are the vaccines really safe? Some active vaccine skeptics will present bits of data suggesting the…
    www.covid-datascience.com


    What do UK data say about real world impact of vaccines on all cause deaths?


    To what extent is societal vaccination saving lives? Are the vaccines really safe? Some active vaccine skeptics will present bits of data suggesting the vaccines "aren't working" or use open reporting systems like the USA's VAERs to claim that the vaccines are causing many deaths, some even suggesting these deaths outweigh any life-saving benefit of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 deaths.


    Many of these arguments are based on simplistic arguments, like plotting the COVID-19 death or infection rate for various countries in the world vs. the overall vaccination rate as in this paper, or by highlighting anecdotal cases in which countries with few cases or deaths in the past year have their first real COVID-19 surge this summer, after vaccination is already underway. . . .

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This website is a good antidote to the torrent of misinformation and lies posted here from TrialSiteNews and other homicidal websites:

    This is a big pharma FUD site. I prefer to read the original data.


    Here the most recent UK data for week 46: https://assets.publishing.serv…llance-report-week-46.pdf


    Boosters so far didn't change anything. May be if you believe that a change from 5 to 4,8 is real then the figures slightly improved. (Table 6)

    Facts:: vaccinated still get 2.5..5x more often CoV-19 for all groups age 30..80, 80+ always was a tick lower around 1,8. Key is to add the factor 2 for because at least 50% of the vaccinated are CoV-19 recovered what is dirty cheating as recovered are 25...100x better protected than ASTRA-Oxford/Pfizer crap gives.

    So the numbers here are the true vaccine only facts!


    Protection from hospital/death is still pretty good for age 50..59(ratio > 3:1) but for all others about 50%. Ratio is 2:1 corrected by recovered.


    In Switzerland with 2/3 Moderna everything looks much better. 4x cases + 20% ICU! Most new cases about younger unvaxx....Hospitalization rate Pfizer: Moderna 4:1 (May more 70+ got Pfizer...) But we also had no death in age class 0..50 the last few weeks...


    So every country is different. Swiss men are among the least obese in Europe!

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.