Quote from zorud

In UK ICUS' are filled with unvaccinated...? Fake news?

https://www.theguardian.com/wo…ted-says-oxford-scientist

That's the storyline here as well.

Quote from Mark U

You could look up

Original Antigenic Sin

for a good start

Indeed I could, and I can read an explanation about how a persons antibodies are slightly less effective against variants of the virus that they were originally exposed too.

So what?

That’s hardly the “heavy price” you promised.

In fact, the very top google link offers up this bit of wisdom:

Quote

Although OAS has often historically been depicted as a problematic response, recent data have demonstrated that, in certain contexts, eliciting OAS may also be beneficial.

Original Antigenic Sin: How First Exposure Shapes Lifelong Anti–Influenza Virus Immune Responses

The term “original antigenic sin” (OAS) was first used in the 1960s to describe how one’s first exposure to influenza virus shapes the outcome of subsequent…

www.jimmunol.org

More death rate data

Quote from zorud

In UK ICUS' are filled with unvaccinated...? Fake news?

Here the actual UK data

Without discussing that vaccinated contains also > 50% recovered we can see that the rates (from 100) of protection for age classes > 70 that make 97% of all deaths is about 30% 70% for unvaxx. Now comes the problem. What is the data set?

This age group is about 95..96% vaccinated!

So if you take 100 ICU cases then 90 are double vaxx. So official data confirms that ICU is filled by double vaxx. FUD'ers always mix rate and data set. So we can clearly see who reads fools journals...

Here the raw data::

The double vaxx death candidates ages class deliver about 3868 ICU cases. The unvaxx 465...

What can we learn? Protection from vaccines still is here in the range of 20..40% (Here we have to reduce the vaccine group with recovered).

For the younger protection is much better. But their death risk is about the same as a car accident...But they block ICU for other people.

miracle in Japan ............ IVERMECTIN???

Quote from Zeus46

Indeed I could, and I can read an explanation about how a persons antibodies are slightly less effective against variants of the virus that they were originally exposed too.

So what?

That’s hardly the “heavy price” you promised.

Well, I said 'price', not 'heavy price', although the true extent of the price remains to be seen.

The link you provided was a pretty good summation.

"So what?" you ask.

As Sars-Cov-2 variants emerge, the generation of highly specific, vaccine-induced antibodies will cause a suppression of antibodies that would be more suited to the variants.

In other words the vaccine has trained your immune system to produce very specific antibodies that very soon can become sub optimal. Yet these sub optimal antibodies will be triggered with each subsequent infection, and in large enough amounts that they will drown out much of the potential new antibodies that would otherwise form. (The immune system has an antibody budget of sorts. It has a balanced B and T cell budget as well, and vaccines today tip that balance to the B cell (ultimately antibody) response, but that's getting complicated.)

In short, I expect that populations largely infected by the virus before substantial vaccine uptake will fare better in the longer term than countries that weren't.

Rapid Growth of Breakthrough Infections & Fully Vaccinated Transmission of COVID-19 Cannot Be Ignored

Rapid Growth of Breakthrough Infections & Fully Vaccinated Transmission of COVID-19 Cannot Be Ignored

TrialSite recently highlighted the historically horrific consequences that can derive from the fallacious game of pitting people against each

trialsitenews.com

TrialSite recently highlighted the historically horrific consequences that can derive from the fallacious game of pitting people against each other. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, this comes down to the “vaccinated” versus the “unvaccinated” as public health authorities and supportive governments in the West put up various systems to discriminate as a means of encouraging universal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. This paradigm makes more sense if the current vaccine products on the market can stop viral transmission. However, mounting data indicate that they do not and that, as Prof. Dr. Günter Kamp, a German specialist in hygiene and environmental medicine from the University of Greifswald articulates, even more forcefully COVID-19 vaccinated individuals increasingly exhibit ever greater “epidemiological relevance.”

Prof. Dr. Kamp produces another important article published in The Lancet Regional Health Europe, first pointing to data from the UK indicating that the vaccinated turn out to be just as contagious as the unvaccinated in one real-world data set. This claim is, of course, supported by several studies now.

Real World Findings

Dr. Prof. Kamp refers to one study recently published in The Lancet titled “Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARs-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study” led by researchers from the UK’s National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections and the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London.

In this study, Kampf shares the focus on the rate of secondary attacks among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated cases versus household contacts exposed to unvaccinated cases. (25% for vaccinated versus 23% for unvaccinated). Moreover, the UK study team reported that 12 of 31 SARS-CoV-2 infections in those fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) originated “… from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases.”

Moreover, Kampf summarizes the NIHR and Imperial College of London investigator-led study, sharing that “Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type.” Concerning Germany, Kamp produces some bombshell data via this peer-reviewed, prominent publication.

Troubling German Data

Kamp reports that in Germany, those fully vaccinated people who succumb to SARS-CoV-2 infection fall in the “breakthrough infection” category, which has been tracked since July 21, 2021. What does the data reveal? First, we must emphasize this study data originates from a high profile academic medical center in Germany: the Robert Koch-Institut, Weekly Report for COVID-19:

Cohort Breakthrough Infection Rate as of July 21, 2021 Breakthrough Infection Rate as of October 217

Age 60+ 16.9% 58.9%

The University of Greifswald Professor emphasizes clearly from the numbers, “This proportion is increasing week by week.” Kampf continues, saying that the data in both the UK and Germany showcase “clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission.”

Back to the UK

Kamp brings the reader back to the UK, discussing the trends surfacing between weeks 39 and 42. He notes that of the population 60 years of age and up for this duration, 100,160 COVID-19 cases were reported. 89, 821 of these cases occurred among the fully vaccinated, representing a staggering rate of 89.7% with just 3,395 among the unvaccinated (3.4%). Of course, there were far less unvaccinated at this point, which partially helps to explain the discrepancy reported by the UK Health Security Agency: COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report.

Conclusion

Kampf goes on to explain a few other scenarios, including data points in Israel and in America. In the latter, he points out that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pointed out that four of the top five counties with the greatest proportion of vaccinated populations (99.9-84.3%) were classified as “high” transmission countries.

The U.S. data was made possible by research undertaken by SV Subramanian, A. Kumar titled “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.”

TrialSite has tracked highly vaccinated nations and regions within nations and found similar outcomes—the most recent, of course, was 100% vaccinated Gibraltar with record SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

The implications of these unfolding data patterns cannot be underestimated. Prof. Dr. Kamp is correct that increasingly the vaccinated become an ever more epidemiologically relevant cohort.

Lead Research/Investigator

Prof. Dr. Günter Kamp, a German specialist in hygiene and environmental medicine from University of Greifswald articulates

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world’s most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p < 0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.

Introduction

The 2015 Nobel prize for the discovery of ivermectin (IVM) and an antimalarial treatment was the Nobel committee’s first award for treatment agents for infectious diseases since the one in 1952 for streptomycin [1]. A macrocyclic lactone of multifaceted potency [2,3], IVM as deployed worldwide since 1987 has made major inroads against two devastating tropical diseases, onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis [4]. During the year since IVM treatment was first applied to COVID-19, another global scourge [5], results from more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of IVM treatment of COVID-19 have been reported [2,6,7], with inpatient and outpatient treatments of COVID-19 conducted in 25 countries [2]. A likely biological mechanism has been indicated to be competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein sites, as reviewed [8,9].

Recently, Dr Satoshi Omura, the Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of IVM, and colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of IVM clinical activity against COVID-19, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated major reductions in mortality and morbidity [2]. Our review of that evidence, updated with consideration of several new studies, supports the same conclusion.

Animal studies for IVM treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and a closely related betacoronavirus

A framework for the examination of clinical IVM treatment results for COVID-19 is provided by related animal studies using IVM at low human-equivalent doses. In golden hamsters that were intranasally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2, causing symptomatic COVID-19 infections, concurrent dosing with IVM significantly reduced the severity of clinical signs (p < 0.001). While viral load was not reduced, these improvements included one-third of the incidence of anosmia and sharp reductions in the Il-6/Il-10 ratio in lung tissue [10]. In another animal model, mice were infected with mouse hepatitis virus MHV-A59 [11], a betacoronavirus strain that does not express hemagglutinin esterase [12], like SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS [8]. Whereas infected mice had severe histopathological liver damage, IVM-treated mice had half the hepatic viral load and minimal liver damage, not significantly different than that observed in uninfected controls.

RCTs for IVM treatment and prevention of COVID-19

More than 20 RCTs for IVM treatment of COVID-19 have been conducted to date, as cited above. A search of Google Scholar for meta-analyses of IVM treatment studies of COVID-19 that appeared in 2021 [13] yielded seven such studies that drew conclusions from RCTs only [6,[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]]. The relative risk (RR) of mortality with IVM treatment vs. controls as calculated in four of these meta-analyses using Cochrane analysis methodology ranged from 0.25 to 0.37, with a mean of 0.31 [6,14,15,19]. The three other meta-analyses reported odds ratios of 0.16, 0.21 and 0.33, with a mean of 0.23 [[16], [17], [18]]. Six of these seven meta-analyses concluded that there was a significant [6,[14], [15], [16]] or possible [17,18] indication of the efficacy of IVM in reducing COVID-19 mortality. One found no evidence of IVM efficacy in its first version [20], reporting an RR of 1.11 for IVM treatment vs. controls, and stuck with that finding even after changing this RR value to 0.37 and correcting switched treatment and control deaths it had misreported for one study [21] in a revised version [19]. Among the most recent and comprehensive of these seven meta-analyses reported a pooled total of 31 deaths among 1101 subjects in IVM treatment groups and 91 deaths among 1064 controls from 11 RCTs, amounting to a 67% reduction in mortality, with a statistical significance for an overall effect of p = 0.005 [16]. The RCT that used the largest dose of IVM, 400 μg/kg on each of days 1-4 [22], had 2 vs. 24 deaths in the treatment vs. control groups (n = 200 each).

An objection that had been raised earlier in 2021 to the preponderance of clinical evidence for the efficacy of IVM treatment of COVID-19 as summarized above was that none of these RCTs had been published in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals [23]. Closing that gap, however, was the publication in 2021 in journals from major scientific publishers of five such RCTs for COVID-19 treatment [[24], [25], [26], [27], [28]], each showing multiple clinical benefits for IVM vs. controls, most of these to statistical significance at p < 0.002. Also published in 2021 were three other RCTs for IVM treatment of COVID-19: one that reported briefer hospital stays for IVM treatment short of statistical significance (p = 0.08) [29], another that compared IVM with two other drug treatment groups but not a placebo group and found no benefit [30], and an additional study conducted in Cali, Columbia with mix-ups between treatment and placebo doses as described below.

Another objection that has been raised to the RCT evidence supporting IVM efficacy was that study populations were too small [31]. Yet, it is well known in clinical trial design that highly effective drugs will establish statistically significant results with smaller sample sizes, with larger study populations required for minimally effective drugs [32,33]. But for a drug with a more modest RR of 75%, for example, the treatment and control arms would need more than 3800 subjects each to yield the same statistical significance [33]. Although large study populations are useful to screen for adverse effects (AEs) of new drugs, IVM has been used safely in 3.7 billion doses worldwide since 1987 [2,3] and is well tolerated even at much greater doses than the standard single dose of 200 μg/kg [34,35]. It has been used in RCTs for COVID-19 treatment at cumulative doses of 1500 μg/kg [36], 1600 μg/kg [22] and 3000 μg/kg [37] over 4 or 5 days with only small percentages of mild or transient adverse effects.

Among these RCTs that established safety for high-dose IVM treatment of COVID-19 was one conducted in Cali, Columbia, with generally mild COVID-19 cases, median age 37, having only one death in the control group [36]. The study found no statistically significant symptom improvements with IVM treatment yet reported a striking anomaly: AEs distinctive for its high IVM dose, described in the study protocol as ‘security parameters’ for its IVM use, occurred at almost identical rates in its IVM and placebo arms. These included transient incidences of blurred vision (11.3%, 11.6%) and dizziness (35.6%, 34.3%). These indications of IVM use in controls occurred as over-the-counter sales of IVM surged in the study region during the study period (Supplementary Table 1). Further questions as to the study’s treatment/control boundaries were raised by the mistaken substitution of IVM for placebo for 38 patients, discovered by the lead pharmacist a month after the fact (study, p. 3; study protocol supplement, p. 43). In addition, blinding was breached by the use of the dextrose-saline solution as the placebo for 64 control patients (IVM tastes distinctively bitter), while the composition of the replacement placebo solution was not specified [38].

Supporting the findings of IVM efficacy in COVID-19 treatment as summarized above were indications of activity against SARS-CoV-2 in prevention studies. Three RCTs evaluated the prophylactic effect of IVM administered to cohorts of 100 [22], 117 [39] and 203 [40] subjects exposed to COVID-19 patients. These studies, all using IVM in doses of at least 150 μg/kg per week, reported statistically significant reductions in COVID-19 incidences, with respective RRs of 20%, 26% and 13% as compared with controls, and greater reductions in incidences of moderate and severe cases. Another RCT for COVID-19 prevention administered just one dose of IVM at 12 mg (about 150 μg/kg) to 617 subjects on day one of a 42-day observation period, while three other preventative regimens were each administered daily over that period [41]. IVM at that single low dose yielded the best results of these four regimens, with highly statistically significant reductions of close to 50% in both symptomatic COVID-19 and acute respiratory symptoms vs. controls.

14-fold reductions in excess deaths with IVM use in Peru, then 13-fold increase after IVM restricted

The clinical experience of IVM treatments of COVID-19 in 25 countries extends far beyond the RCT results summarized, yet incomplete tracking and lack of control data exclude most of this for evaluation. The record of nationally authorized such treatments in Peru provides a notable exception [42]. In ten states of Peru, mass IVM treatments of COVID-19 were conducted through a broadside, army-led effort, Mega-Operación Tayta (MOT), that began on different dates in each state. In these MOT states, excess deaths dropped sharply over 30 days from peak deaths by a mean of 74%, in close time conjunction with MOT start date (Fig. 1B). In 14 states of Peru having locally administered IVM distributions, the mean reduction in excess deaths over 30 days from peak deaths was 53%, while in Lima, which had minimal IVM distributions during the first wave of the pandemic due to restrictive government policies there, the corresponding 30-day decrease in excess deaths was 25%.

Reductions in excess deaths by state (absolute values) correlated with the extent of IVM distribution (maximal-MOT states, moderate-local distributions, and minimal-Lima) with Kendall τb = 0.524, p < 0.002, as shown in Fig. 1C. Nationwide, excess deaths decreased 14-fold over four months through 1st December 2020. After a restrictive IVM treatment policy was enacted under a new Peruvian president who took office on 17th November, however, deaths increased 13-fold over the two months following 1st December through 1st February 2021 (Fig. 1A). Potential confounding factors, including lockdowns and herd immunity, were ruled out using Google community mobility data, seropositivity rates, population densities and geographic distributions of SARS-CoV-2 genetic variations and by restricting all analysis except that for Fig. 1A to ages ≥ 60. Excess deaths were used in all analyses rather than COVID-19 case fatalities as gross underreporting of pandemic deaths by case fatalities was known to the Peruvian Ministry of Health since July 2020 [43]. This disparity has been consistently manifested in the national health database figures for COVID-19 case fatalities vs. all natural-cause deaths since that date [42].

IVM-based combination treatments and other research in progress

Combination treatments using IVM and adjuncts have shown indications of efficacy against COVID-19 in RCTs conducted to date [24,44]. Results using IVM, doxycycline and zinc to treat serious and critical cases having spO2 ≤ 90 prior to treatment, with spO2 changes tracked 24 hours after treatment, will be reported by TJB with Sabine Hazan, MD. Pronounced improvements of serious COVID-19 symptoms within 1–2 days after IVM administration have been observed in several patients treated by the lead author (ADS), and studies to objectively track such short-term clinical benefits of IVM for COVID-19 are underway. Information on other combination treatments using IVM with agents such as fluvoxamine, for which clinical studies also indicate significant benefits [45], is provided by the USA-based FLCCC alliance (https://covid19criticalcare.com).

The curative potential of combination therapy was demonstrated in a medical breakthrough of three decades prior for another disease, peptic ulcers, for which the discovery of its underlying bacterial cause, Helicobacter pylori, was honoured with the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2005. In 1990, Dr Thomas J. Borody published the original clinical trial of a combination treatment for H. pylori, achieving a 96% cure rate for a triple therapy consisting of three repurposed drugs, bismuth subcitrate and two antibiotics [46]. Between 1990 and 2015, an estimated 18,665 deaths were prevented by the timely application of this triple therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Australia [47]. After the expiration of the patents for two palliative drugs for this condition, Tagamet and Zantac [48], which had each earned billions of dollars, triple therapy became the standard of care for peptic ulcers in the rest of the world by the late 1990s.

Conclusion

We believe that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, as reviewed [8], possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains. IVM has been safely used in 3.7 billion doses since 1987, well tolerated even at much greater than standard doses [34,35] and used without serious AEs in the three high-dose COVID-19 treatment studies noted above [34,36,37]. In the current international emergency of COVID-19, with mutant viral strains, vaccination refusals and potentially waning immunities over months presenting new challenges, IVM can be an effective component of the mix of therapeutics deployed against this pandemic.

Here is a gigantic analysis of ivermectin studies that comes to a novel conclusion. The author concludes that ivermectin might have a positive effect in some countries, because in these countries parasitic worms are widespread and often undetected and untreated. A bad case of worms makes it more likely you will die from COVID, or any other infection. In other words, ivermectin might have a positive effect because it cures the parasite, not because it has any effect on COVID.

That is thought provoking. If it turns out to be true, it would explain why a few quality double-blind tests of ivermectin are positive.

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted To Know

...

astralcodexten.substack.com

Quote from Fm1

miracle in Japan ............ IVERMECTIN???

Ivermectin is not being used in Japan to treat COVID. Even if it worked, there would be no need for it now, because there only a handful of infections and deaths per day. Around 150 cases/day and 2 deaths/day average for the last few weeks.

Japan COVID: 1,725,696 Cases and 18,331 Deaths - Worldometer

www.worldometers.info

Quote from Mark U

As Sars-Cov-2 variants emerge, the generation of highly specific, vaccine-induced antibodies will cause a suppression of antibodies that would be more suited to the variants.

In other words the vaccine has trained your immune system to produce very specific antibodies that very soon can become sub optimal.

Fair enough, although surely sub-optimal antibodies are better than no antibodies ?

Quote from Mark U

In short, I expect that populations largely infected by the virus before substantial vaccine uptake will fare better in the longer term than countries that weren't

Well… “members of that population, that don’t die, may - or may not - fare better”, would appear to be a more reasonable ‘expectation’ based upon that link I had to find for you…

But like most anti-vax facebook memes, if the nuances were left intact, they wouldn’t spread so effectively.

Some 'disheartening' news from a California clinic that has measured biomarkers in its heart patients for years, and reports what mRNA vaccines are doing to these predictive biomarkers :

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

...We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

This type of heart and blood vessel lining damage was warned against by professor Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi over four months ago.

"Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative" | Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D.

Some good news and some troubling news, from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. PLEASE take the time to process this presentation. Dr. Bhakdi explains…

www.bitchute.com

Quote from Fm1

Conclusion

Kampf goes on to explain a few other scenarios, including data points in Israel and in America. In the latter, he points out that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pointed out that four of the top five counties with the greatest proportion of vaccinated populations (99.9-84.3%) were classified as “high” transmission countries.

counties? or countries?

.... and the vaxx. companies obviously get away with this (promoting flawed products), while countries are struggling, large parts of population are discriminated and individuals suffer.

If you dare to use the term "Ivermectin" as a scientist/ doctor you will be crucified .... and in the meanwhile companies like P.....(silently) design drugs which come very close to the properties of IVM, but for a premium price!

Pharma seems to rule the world! How sad.

Quote from Zeus46

Fair enough, although surely sub-optimal antibodies are better than no antibodies ?

For the immediately vulnerable, probably yes. For the younger and healthy, no.

Quote from Zeus46

Well… “members of that population, that don’t die, may - or may not - fare better”, would appear to be a more reasonable ‘expectation’ based upon that link I had to find for you…

Ah shucks, you didn't have to go find it for me. But you did, how generous!

Quote from Zeus46

But like most anti-vax facebook memes, if the nuances were left intact, they wouldn’t spread so effectively.

Nuance is the opposite of insisting that everyone with an arm get vaccinated. I'm all for nuance, not the one-size-fits-all approach of what's currently going on.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is thought provoking. If it turns out to be true, it would explain why a few quality double-blind tests of ivermectin are positive.

Yep, there’s solid theory behind this idea… Plenty of (non-controversial) research shows that symptoms of auto-immune disorders can be reduced by introducing parasitic worms to the patients’ bowels - normally by eating hookworm eggs.

Killing the worms stops the immune suppressing molecules they use to survive an otherwise hostile environment… Obvious connotations here for covid.

There’s parts of India (and likely most of Asia) where nearly everyone carries a few ‘passengers’.

New Study Indicates Growing Number of COVID-19 Infections Not Related to Vaccination Status

New Study Indicates Growing Number of COVID-19 Infections Not Related to Vaccination Status

In this recent study, researchers Akhil Kumar and S. V. Subramanian from the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies investigated the

trialsitenews.com

In this recent study, researchers Akhil Kumar and S. V. Subramanian from the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies investigated the relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2947 counties in the US. In doing so, they utilized the data from Our World in Data and White House COVID-19 Team data.

The results of this study were recently reported in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology. This report findings become highly relevant as tensions mount among the vaccinated versus unvaccinated dichotomy leading to universal vaccine passport systems in Europe and even a freshman U.S. Congress member proposing a vaccine passport for all U.S. air travel.

Growing Concerns

TrialSite, a pro-vaccine-based group nonetheless has raised concerns about the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 via universal vaccination monolithic approach to the COVID-19 crisis. The pathogen mutates fast and the premise that a neat, uniform vaccination program can span the world in short order is just franky irrational. Rather, over time, a seasonal shot much like the flu seems like a valid approach.

We are not alone. Growing numbers of people raise questions about the current approach. The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Othcer pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on the real-world effectiveness of the vaccines.

Study

The study authors incorporated data from 68 countries that met the following criteria:

Second dose vaccine data available

COVID-19 case data available

Population data available

Last update of data within 3 days prior to or on Sept 3, 2021

For the following week, the authors computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each nation and the percentage of the respective populations fully immunized.

The authors conducted a county-level analysis within the United States, utilizing the White House COVID-19 team data by September 2, 2021.

After slicing, dicing, and analyzing the data, the authors show how growing numbers of breakthrough infections–that is, the fully vaccinated not only succumbing to SARS-CoV-2 infections but also serving as vectors for the pathogen demands immediate attention.

They declare “The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants.” The authors suggest, as TrialSite has called out during the entire pandemic, that “Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological inerventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates.”

A handful of important examples pointing to the problem surface in the piece, including Israel, where reports from the Ministry of Health report BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine’s effectiveness against preventing SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19 dipped to the 39% threshold. Moreover, the authors point out that natural immunity may be as potent as vaccine-induced immunity. The authors also show how CDC data reveals increasing breakthrough infections, as well as hospitalization and deaths.

Limitations

The authors note that the COVID-19 case data is of confirmed cases, which is a function of both supply (e.g., variation in testing capacities or reporting practices) and demand-side (e.g., variation in people’s decision on when to get tested) factors.

Study Authors

S. V. Subramanian, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge, MA, USA

Akhil Kumar, Turner Fenton Secondary School, Brampton, ON, Canada

Call to Action: See more of the study findings at the source.

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States - European Journal of Epidemiology

link.springer.com

Quote from Mark U

Some 'disheartening' news from a California clinic that has measured biomarkers in its heart patients for years, and reports what mRNA vaccines are doing to these predictive biomarkers :

See also:: https://techstartups.com/2021/…eart-problems-vaccine-ho/

A new study from University of California found that teenage boys are more at risk from vaccines than covid; 6 times more likely to suffer from heart problems from the vaccine than be hospitalized from Covid

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here the actual UK data

Without discussing that vaccinated contains also > 50% recovered we can see that the rates (from 100) of protection for age classes > 70 that make 97% of all deaths is about 30% 70% for unvaxx. Now comes the problem. What is the data set?

This age group is about 95..96% vaccinated!

So if you take 100 ICU cases then 90 are double vaxx. So official data confirms that ICU is filled by double vaxx. FUD'ers always mix rate and data set. So we can clearly see who reads fools journals...

Here the raw data::

The double vaxx death candidates ages class deliver about 3868 ICU cases. The unvaxx 465...

What can we learn? Protection from vaccines still is here in the range of 20..40% (Here we have to reduce the vaccine group with recovered).

For the younger protection is much better. But their death risk is about the same as a car accident...But they block ICU for other people.

Display More

Thank you for your analysis, I find the information not coherent atm, we hear of ICU is filled with non-vaxed people and then get figures that would indicate

that the opposite is true but albeit the risk is lower as we have 90% or more vaccinated in the sensitive risk groups. This is what causing general public here to believe that you are totally

safe and do not need to be careful. If we should have a vaccine passport it need to be conditioned on something valid for x month of the jab. 2 jabs only is

too risky in my mind considering the death rates that are produced. To JED: I follow news and thought that we would be 10-20x protected from the jabs before

6 month which is where we should take the booster here. The recent numbers seam to say that, yes it helps to vaccinate, but not nearly as much as the narrative

in the news that talks of ICU filling up with non vacced people. Something is wrong here, maybe it's so simple as a timing issue and the perception does not change

with time fast enough.

Israel:: It looks like the booster effect already did vanish. Sharp increase in cases today! from 450 --> 711. > 50% +

קורונה - לוח בקרה

USA: Deaths start increasing, but no explosive growth as in many European countries.

EU:: It looks like many countries did hit the ceiling already. The story will go on like in UK and will be the same as an average flu wave.

Current Death rate here (CH) is below 0.1 if you count in all cases - including silent ones.

Worst effect of CoV-19 all media coordinated by the FM/R/J/B mafia. Usually the same fake news everywhere like "almost all ICU cases non vaxx" OR "vaccines" will help despite the unvaxx young very rarely die....

Why is there 1,2,3G for people age <60 when these have almost no influence on the pandemic? Why do they not lock in the age group > 60 only?

Answer: Look who owns the goods, does politics...

Quote from Fm1

Many immunologist believe delta has already started it's way to nothing more than a cold. The latest varients seen in the UK is this delta plus which seems as infectious as delta but symptoms are less and much more mild.

Many people are naturally optimistic. The latest UK variant - best case - will be less severe. However it evolves merely to show less symptoms for mild cases. That may not have any good effect on severe illness - though I guess it might make it less unpleasant for mots people.

We will know within a few months what it is, since it should dominate in the UK over that period.

THH