The Playground

  • There were other tests using other methods of calorimetry, such as continuous reflux boiling. These other methods also showed excess heat. Other methods were also used before and after the boil-off.

    In your previous comment, you wrote "In France, they [F&P] repeated the experiment hundreds of times, 16 tests at a time. (Four arrays of 4 cells each, run simultaneously.) Nearly all of the tests worked. Results were much stronger and clearer toward the end of the project."


    I asked you: have you any evidence that these tests (I mean the hundreds of 16 tests at a time in four arrays similar to the experimental set-up with 4 open cells that can be seen in the time lapse video you have linked) have produced stronger and clearer results with respect to those shown in the "Simplicity paper" describing the "1992 boil off experiment"?


    In such a case, or assuming that you are in possession of privy information which confirm such better results, can you explain why F&P didn't publish them, so that the 5 CF experts commissioned in 2004 to select a few meaningful works to submit to DoE for review, had no other choice to include in the list a 12 years old document such as the "Simplicity paper"?


    Quote

    It is not likely the heat started before the boil off, stopped during the boil off, and then started again after it.


    Yes, I fully agree. In my opinion it's even much more than unlikely, it's nearly impossible.


    Therefore, if F&P were able to commit such a big mistake in calculating the energy balance during the boil off phase in their 1992 experiment (the most famous and best documented of their experiments), there is no reason to believe that they were correct in calculating any excess heat in the phases before or after the boil off, nor in any other experiment carried out before or after the "1992 boil off experiment".

  • I asked you: have you any evidence that these tests (I mean the hundreds of 16 tests at a time in four arrays similar to the experimental set-up with 4 open cells that can be seen in the time lapse video you have linked) have produced stronger and clearer results with respect to those shown in the "Simplicity paper" describing the "1992 boil off experiment"?

    It is the same thing. The Simplicity paper describes the array tests, and the three types of calorimetry used in them. The tests continued after 1992, and the results improved. Papers published later gave more details about the other two methods, especially the third phase, "Heat After Death."


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf

  • I am not sure where you are getting your data!


    I have received one vaccination for mumps in 50 years. One for whooping cough, only one for polio, etc. etc.

    I get a tetanus shout every 10 years, not every 3 months!


    Your "same as any other vaccine" is simply incorrect.

    I did not mean that all vaccines have exactly the same characteristics. I mean that they all work by activating the immune system. They give it a sample of the virus outer shell so if the actual virus shows up, the immune response will be immediate, rather than delayed for several days or a week. This is illustrated in a charming Chinese animation:


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.


    As you note, some vaccine immunity lasts a lifetime, some for 10 years or so, and some only for a year or less. Influenza vaccines have been given every year because the influenza virus changes so quickly. If a new vaccine for the omicron variant is needed, then I suppose COVID changes more quickly than experts were hoping, and predicting, last year. We will see.

    There is already the third shot within 11 months now! The fourth booster being discussed / planned! Unheard of with "any other type of vaccine".

    No, it is not a bit unheard of. As I said, this is the situation with influenza. If there were a severe and highly fatal influenza epidemic sweeping the world, like in 1918, it is likely we would need new influenza vaccines and boosters many times a year.


    If COVID vaccines were widely deployed worldwide, and the infection rate fell to the level in Japan or Israel, the disease would be very rare in humans. Like rabies. With case tracking and quarantine we would not need boosters. With very few cases, the rate of mutation would be low and a new variant would probably not emerge for a long time. I wish the first world nations would get together and manufacture enough vaccines for the whole world. It would not have to be administered to every person. In Japan only 78% of the population is vaccinated, but the disease is all but extinct, even though the vaccine was not targeted to delta. If we could vaccinate 78% of the world population, without many "islands" of people resisting vaccination in places like rural Georgia, I think the disease would become as rare as rubella was in the U.S. until a few years ago when the antivaxxer lunatics began resisting childhood rubella vaccines. Rubella is the one of the most infectious diseases there is. It can be very dangerous. But it is no threat as long as everyone is vaccinated in early childhood. If everyone is vaccinated for COVID in early childhood from now on, I expect COVID can be held to a very low level. It might even become extinct in the human population.

  • And most of the protesting and marches against vaccine mandates -and earlier on in the pandemic against lockdowns, are/were in very liberal areas such as NY, LA, Chicago, etc. and all of Europe. Many were organized and orchestrated by left leaning unions.

    I do not think so. I believe your memory is faulty. That is certainly not the case in Georgia. Liberals in Atlanta and Savannah, including me, protested in favor of more restrictions. Our nitwit governor has been filing lawsuits and issuing orders to prevent local governments from mandating masks and vaccinations.


    Granted, there were protests in New York City and elsewhere, but these were mainly by conservatives. In New York many conservative Orthodox Jewish people resisted social distancing orders, and protested against other public health measures. In 2020, New York city GOP politicians and supporters famously made a mockery of social distancing and masking, by hold raucous parties in restaurants in defiance of the mandates.


    Ignoring mask mandates happens every bit as much in the blue areas as red.

    That is definitely not the case. There have been careful studies of this, showing that is not at all the case. In rural Georgia, very few people wear masks. In most stores in Atlanta, if you go in without a mask they will politely ask you to put one one. All the drug stores demand a mask. An art supply store downtown not only demands one, but it has a large sign saying that all employees are vaccinated. That would be unthinkable in a rural Georgia town. People are harassed for wearing masks in rural Georgia, whereas they are harassed for not wearing masks in Atlanta. Or not even allowed through the door. It is world of difference. Atlanta is ~70% vaccinated and rural districts are ~30%. The difference is huge. It tracks the party voting rates closely. Trump districts, 30%, Biden, 70%. There is no doubt it is political.

  • Yes, I fully agree. In my opinion it's even much more than unlikely, it's nearly impossible.


    Therefore, if F&P were able to commit such a big mistake in calculating the energy balance during the boil off phase in their 1992 experiment (the most famous and best documented of their experiments),

    You have not discovered any problems with the other methods, so perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are mistaken about boil off. Has it occurred to you that you might be wrong, and Fleischmann, Pons and the experts who reviewed their work might be right? You seem too confident in your own prowess.

  • Production and Characterization of Nucleocapsid and RBD Cocktail Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 in Nicotiana benthamiana Plant as a Vaccine Candidate against COVID-19


    Production and Characterization of Nucleocapsid and RBD Cocktail Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 in Nicotiana benthamiana Plant as a Vaccine Candidate against COVID-19
    The COVID-19 pandemic has put global public health at high risk, rapidly spreading around the world. Although several COVID-19 vaccines are available for mass…
    www.mdpi.com


    Abstract

    The COVID-19 pandemic has put global public health at high risk, rapidly spreading around the world. Although several COVID-19 vaccines are available for mass immunization, the world still urgently needs highly effective, reliable, cost-effective, and safe SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus vaccines, as well as antiviral and therapeutic drugs, to control the COVID-19 pandemic given the emerging variant strains of the virus. Recently, we successfully produced receptor-binding domain (RBD) variants in the Nicotiana benthamiana plant as promising vaccine candidates against COVID-19 and demonstrated that mice immunized with these antigens elicited a high titer of RBD-specific antibodies with potent neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we engineered the nucleocapsid (N) protein and co-expressed it with RBD of SARS-CoV-2 in Nicotiana benthamiana plant to produce an antigen cocktail. The purification yields were about 22 or 24 mg of pure protein/kg of plant biomass for N or N+RBD antigens, respectively. The purified plant produced N protein was recognized by N protein-specific monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies demonstrating specific reactivity of mAb to plant-produced N protein. In this study, for the first time, we report the co-expression of RBD with N protein to produce a cocktail antigen of SARS-CoV-2, which elicited high-titer antibodies with potent neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, obtained data support that a plant-produced antigen cocktail, developed in this study, is a promising vaccine candidate against COVID-19.


    Discussion

    SARS-CoV-2 is a novel and highly pathogenic coronavirus that began an outbreak in Wuhan, China in 2019 and continues to spread rapidly around the world. A new strain of SARS-CoV-2, Delta, has emerged that is more aggressive than previous variants with greater transmission and spread. Currently, several types of vaccines such as mRNA, DNA, viral vector-based, subunits, and protein-based types have been developed, approved, and used for mass immunization of the world’s population. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. However, the effectiveness of these vaccines is significantly reduced in relation to newer strains, especially Delta (B.1.617). Since mutations affect the S protein–ACE2 receptor interaction, they could potentially affect the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs, which were designed on the basis of the receptor-binding motif (RBM). It should be noted that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to undergo about one or two mutations per month [12,13]. A SARS-CoV-2 spike protein amino-acid change, D614G, is dominant in most places around the globe [36]. D614G viruses exhibit increased sensitivity to neutralizing antibodies, likely due to the effect of the mutation on the molecular dynamics of the S protein [37,38,39]. Recent studies demonstrated that SARC-Cov-2 infectivity, human-to-human transmission, and immune escape are significantly influenced by RBM mutations [40]. Currently, multiple new variants of concern have emerged and are circulating globally, such as the Alpha (known as B.1.1.7, British variant), Beta (B.1.351, South African), Gamma (first reported in Brazil), and Delta (B.1.617.2, Indian variant), which are associated with enhanced transmissibility and increased virulence. The British B.1.1.7 variant has a total of 17 mutations, eight of which are in the spike protein, including N501Y, A570D, P681H, T716I, S982A, and D1118H, in addition to Δ69–70 and Δ144 deletions. All four reported variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta) have mutations in the RBD and the NTD, and the N501Y mutation is common to all variants except the Delta. The N501Y mutation results in increased affinity of the spike protein to ACE2 receptors, thereby enhancing the viral attachment and entry into host cells [41,42,43]. The Beta (B.1.351, South African) variant has a total of nine mutations (L18F, D80A, D215G, R246I, K417N, E484K, N501Y, D614G, and A701V) in the spike protein, and three mutations (K417N, E484K, and N501Y) are located in the RBD. Mutations in the RBD have been shown to result in increased binding affinity for the ACE2 receptor [43,44]. The Delta (B.1.617.2) variant has a total of 10 mutations (T19R, G142D, R158G, L452R, T478K, D614G, P681R, and D950N, in addition to two deletions, Δ156 and Δ157) in the spike protein, including two deletions, five mutations in the NTD, two mutations (L452R, T478K) in the RBD, one mutation close to the furin cleavage site (P681R), and one in the S2 region (D950N) [45]. Reduced sensitivity of this SARS-CoV-2 variant Delta to antibody neutralization has been observed; this variant was resistant to neutralization by some anti-NTD (N-terminal domain) and anti-RBD monoclonal antibodies [45]. In addition to efficacy and quality, the development of safer vaccines and pharmaceutical products is critical to successful vaccination. Recent studies have shown that the frequency of allergic reactions to currently used COVID-19 vaccines is higher than that observed for other vaccines [46] despite the fact that most of the available COVID-19 vaccines do not contain potentially sensitizing compounds [46]. Anaphylaxis can also be caused by the production of high concentrations of IgG antibodies that bind to the Fc gamma receptor, present on the surface of certain cells such as macrophages, neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, human platelets, mast cells, B lymphocytes, follicular dendritic cells, and natural killer cells [47]. This is another advantage of recombinant protein-based vaccines, whereby the IgG concentration can be controlled by controlling the dosage of the vaccine. Notably, subunit vaccines based on recombinant proteins have been shown to be safer and cause fewer side-effects than other vaccine types, especially inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines [48]. Thus, the world still urgently needs to develop more effective and safer alternative SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, as well as antiviral and therapeutic drugs, to prevent the disease and stop the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded RNA virus; one-third of its genome (~30 kb) encodes S, N, E, and M structural proteins. The S protein has two subunits, S1 and S2, and plays a key role in virus binding, fusion, and entry into host cells. The S1 domain of S glycoprotein contains an RBD and plays a key role in the specific binding to its receptor, ACE2. Notably, a number of studies have shown the S protein as a leading target for the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines; therefore, most of the COVID-19 vaccines currently developed and available are S protein-, specifically RBD-based vaccines [3,4,8,9,10,11]. The RBD, which is a critical region for receptor binding, has been selected by various research groups as the main target for the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine [4,5,49,50]. We recently reported an RBD-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine produced by the N. benthamiana plant [4]. We demonstrated that, in mice, the plant-produced gRBD and dRBD antigens elicited high titers of antibodies with a potent virus-neutralizing activity [4]. We showed that the selection of amino-acid regions of RBDs is crucial for high-yield production of a functionally active and soluble protein [4]. In this study, we developed N protein and an antigen cocktail comprising RBD and N proteins of SARS-CoV-2 as vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The antigen cocktail was produced by co-expression of the RBD of S [4] and N proteins of SARS-CoV-2 in N. benthamiana plant. Although plant-produced N protein did not induce neutralizing responses in mice, our hypothesis is that an antigen cocktail may generate a durable immune response and additional protective effects compared to RBD alone. In addition, N protein has been shown to be highly immunogenic and, most importantly, more conserved among SARS-CoV-2 variants and other coronaviruses [24]. In fact, fewer mutations have been observed in the N protein over time [20,23,51,52,53]. It has also been recently shown that the crystal structure of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein [54] is very similar to coronavirus N proteins, which were previously described. Cong et al. (2020) using a mouse hepatitis virus model showed that the nucleocapsid protein contributes to forming helical ribonucleoproteins during the packaging of the RNA genome, thereby regulating viral RNA synthesis during replication and transcription [55]. A number of studies have shown the critical roles of N protein at multiple stages of the viral lifecycle [24]. It was also demonstrated that N proteins of many coronaviruses are highly immunogenic and are produced abundantly during infection [53], and high levels of IgG antibodies against N protein have been detected in sera from patients who recovered from SARS [56]. In this study, we also show that plant-produced N and N+RBD antigens were able to induce significantly high titers of antibodies with Alhydrogel adjuvant with potent virus-neutralizing activity; the cocktail antigen elicited high-titer antibodies compared to RBD or N proteins. Thus, an N+gRBD antigen cocktail is a promising vaccine candidate against COVID-19.

    5. Conclusions

    As SARS-CoV-2 mutations appear worldwide, the effectiveness of existing vaccines against variants is declining. The N-protein + RBD multi-antigen vaccine approach that we proposed, designed, and produced for the first time [2], which was widely discussed in a recently published review article [24], could be a promising approach for the production of effective vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, given that the N-protein is highly immunogenic, more conserved, and less vulnerable to possible emerging mutations. The multi-antigen vaccine approach can be applied to existing COVID-19 vaccines, in particular mRNA, DNA, viral vectors, and other types of vaccines, to be effective toward new emerging variants. Plant-produced N or N+RBD antigens can also be used as a diagnostic reagent in serological tests for the detection of SARS-COV-2 antibody in COVID-19 patients

  • U.S. Federal Judge Rules against “indefinite states of emergency”


    U.S. Federal Judge Rules against “indefinite states of emergency”
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSiteDr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial
    trialsitenews.com


    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite


    Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial


    December 1, 2021


    In the middle of the past summer, I wrote a Trial Site editorial: Have your never-ending pandemic: just don’t call it an emergency. I predicted that this coming winter would bring new variants, vaccines, and lockdowns, and I also pointed out that it was time for legislatures to cease deferring unlimited powers to the executive branches of governments by declaring a never-ending state of emergency during the pandemic. Now, I have validation from a U.S. Federal judge. In the conclusion of his Memorandum Ruling that blocked U.S. President Biden’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers across the nation, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana wrote, “If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency”: Federal judge blocks Biden vaccine mandate for health care workers nationwide.


    What exactly is the emergency? We have mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and booster shots for young and old, repurposed drugs for treatments, new COVID-19 pills soon to be released to the public, rapid antigen testing, and a growing population of people with natural immunity. Will any of that protect us? Well, if you close your eyes and wish really hard…


    Sure, cases are rising, but cases of severe acute respiratory illnesses always rise this time of year, and the hospitals become overloaded in the same way this time of year too: Panic in the ICU: Pandemic Crisis or Seasonal Event?.


    We also have the new omicron variant that the world has never seen before. Technically, what we actually have is a new genomic sequence never seen before in a virus, for the simple reason that, after decades of development, we have only gotten really good at sequencing the genome of viruses relatively recently.


    Has anyone noticed that China was only able to detect the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence soon after China purchased new and advanced genomic sequencing equipment in 2019? China PCR Purchases Spiked in Months Before First Known Covid Cases. What a coincidence. Get fancy new equipment, and immediately detect a virus with a genome sequence that the world has never seen before. There’s a good reason why the world had never seen that particular genomic sequence before. Few people had genomic sequencing equipment advanced enough to see it up until then!


    So where’s the emergency? Dr. Fauci would protest, “People are dying!” Of course people are dying, except that the number of people who are claimed to have died FROM COVID-19 only died WITH COVID-19. That’s because of something in epidemiology called a surveillance case definition, epidemiological surveillance, which is intentionally overbroad to capture lots of extra data about the comorbid conditions associated with the outbreak of a “novel virus”—lots of data!


    You know what a novel virus is, don’t you? It’s a virus that no one has ever seen before! And round and round we go

  • It is the same as some here stating that the current mRNA "Vaccines" are the safest that have EVER been produced. This is simply unfounded. There have been zero mass use of mRNA vaccines in the past. Attempts to do so were halted due to severe negative health effects. There have been zero long term safety studies done. To lump mRNA safety in with traditional attenuated virus vaccines is invalid and NOT "following science". The mRNA treatments function via a completely different mechanism than attenuated virus vaccines . Just because some call them vaccines, does not mean the historic safety record of attenuated virus vaccines can be automatically apply to them.

    No-one is saying mRNA vaccines are safer than any other vaccine: clearly not.


    However, the severe negative health effects of previous mRNA vaccines had specific causes which have been addressed. Now mRNA vaccines are highly safe. We have large-scale data (from whole population vaccination) which is separate in each country and separately analysed by regulators in different countries. There are side effects, very rarely serious, and the these are discussed continuously as new data emerges by regulators.


    That makes mRNA vaccines, now, very well safety checked.


    While you cannot in principle rule out long-term side effects from any new medical treatment the chances of this from vaccines (including mRNA vaccines) are relatively low when compared with the long-term side effects of the disease they ameliorate. That is because vaccines main effect is generated by the body's immune response, and the same thing happens during infection. mRNA vaccines deliver a subset of the stimulus the immune system gets from COVID viral infection.


    I'd contrast this with molnupiravir where there is a clear mechanism for it to cause DNA mutations, and as yet not much safety evidence proving that cannot happen. We know from animal tests it does not happen at a detectable level but I'm not sure that is good enough. A signifcant mutation rate might give rise to long-term side effects (cancer). Having said all that, it may be that those who understand cancer can do quantitative calculations based on the molnupiravir tests that show the chances of cancer developing from a treatment are very small. I just have not seen that analysis.


    Whereas every nasty that one might speculate from mRNA COVID vaccines is present, in larger amounts, from COVID infection. (COVID infections generate all sorts of protein fragments, both enveloped an free, so deliver a superset of what the vaccine does).


    THH

  • Interesting interview.


    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.


  • COVID-19 Post-acute Sequelae Among Adults: 12 Month Mortality Risk

    Quote

    https://www.frontiersin.org/ar…389/fmed.2021.778434/full Results: Of the 13,638 patients included in this cohort, 178 had severe COVID-19, 246 had mild/moderate COVID-19, and 13,214 were COVID-19 negative. In the cohort, 2,686 died in the 12-month period. The 12-month adjusted all-cause mortality risk was significantly higher for patients with severe COVID-19 compared to both COVID-19 negative patients (HR 2.50; 95% CI 2.02, 3.09) and mild COVID-19 patients (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.28, 2.74). The vast majority of deaths (79.5%) were for causes other than respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. Among patients aged <65 years, the pattern was similar but the mortality risk for patients with severe COVID-19 was increased compared to both COVID-19 negative patients (HR 3.33; 95% CI 2.35, 4.73) and mild COVID-19 patients (HR 2.83; 95% CI 1.59, 5.04). Patients aged 65 and older with severe COVID-19 were also at increased 12-month mortality risk compared to COVID-19 negative patients (HR 2.17; 95% CI 1.66, 2.84) but not mild COVID-19 patients (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.84, 2.34).

    I emphasized a couple of numbers. eg 3.3 times higher chance of death after severe covid for UNDER 65's

    Curiously, in Fig 2 (Graph of risk) the survivors of mild covid seem to end up a bit better off than non-covid.

  • Another dose? This is becoming the norm for vaccines!


    Majority of mumps cases are among the vaccinated, CDC finds

    As many as 94 percent of children and adolescents who contracted the highly contagious virus had been vaccinated.


    Majority of mumps cases are among the vaccinated, CDC finds
    Mumps cases continue to circulate in the U.S., largely among vaccinated people, including children.
    www.nbcnews.com


    Mumps cases continue to circulate in the U.S., largely among vaccinated people, including children.


    Cases of mumps, once a common childhood illness, declined by more than 99 percent in the U.S. after a vaccine against the highly contagious respiratory infection was developed in 1967. Cases dropped to just 231 in 2003, down from more than 152,000 in 1968. But cases began climbing again in 2006, when 6,584 were reported, most of them in vaccinated people.

    According to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one-third of mumps cases in the U.S. from 2007 to 2019 were reported in children and adolescents. As many as 94 percent of those who contracted the illness had been vaccinated.


    “Before that, large outbreaks of mumps among people who were fully vaccinated were not common, including among vaccinated children,” said Mariel Marlow, an epidemiologist at the CDC who led the new study. “But the disease symptoms are usually milder and complications are less frequent in vaccinated people.”


    Experts aren’t sure why vaccinated people get mumps, but multiple factors appear to be affecting immunity in vaccinated people, including a lack of prior exposure to the virus, waning immunity and the circulation of genotypes the vaccine doesn’t contain.


    The mumps virus is spread through direct contact with saliva or respiratory droplets from the mouth, the nose or the throat of an infected person. An infected person can spread the virus by coughing, sneezing, talking or sharing drinks or during close-contact activities, such as sports. Nearly 91 percent of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of the two-dose measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine, which is administered between 12 months and 6 years and is 88 percent effective against the disease.

    According to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one-third of mumps cases in the U.S. from 2007 to 2019 were reported in children and adolescents. As many as 94 percent of those who contracted the illness had been vaccinated.


    “Before that, large outbreaks of mumps among people who were fully vaccinated were not common, including among vaccinated children,” said Mariel Marlow, an epidemiologist at the CDC who led the new study. “But the disease symptoms are usually milder and complications are less frequent in vaccinated people.”


    Experts aren’t sure why vaccinated people get mumps, but multiple factors appear to be affecting immunity in vaccinated people, including a lack of prior exposure to the virus, waning immunity and the circulation of genotypes the vaccine doesn’t contain.


    The mumps virus is spread through direct contact with saliva or respiratory droplets from the mouth, the nose or the throat of an infected person. An infected person can spread the virus by coughing, sneezing, talking or sharing drinks or during close-contact activities, such as sports. Nearly 91 percent of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of the two-dose measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine, which is administered between 12 months and 6 years and is 88 percent effective against the disease.

    Cases in recent years have largely been driven by big localized outbreaks, although a peak in 2016 and 2017 included more than 150 outbreaks reported in 37 states and Washington, D.C., amounting to about 9,000 cases. Mumps cases decreased last year compared to the previous six years, but the illness continued to circulate in the U.S. despite distancing, lockdowns and masking. From April 1, 2020, to the end of the year, 32 health departments reported 142 mumps cases.


    Disruptions from the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in many children missing well-child visits and routinely recommended vaccines, including MMR, which could contribute to a future increase in cases or outbreaks.


    MARIEL MARLOW, CDC EPIDEMIOLOGIST

    The numbers are still low, and they aren’t a reason to believe vaccines are no longer effective, said Joseph Lewnard, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.


    “We’re talking about an infection that almost every kid in America would get before they were 20. Compared to the pre-vaccine era, kids who get the MMR vaccine remain extremely protected against mumps,” Lewnard said.


    Breakthrough cases

    In some people, antibodies from mumps vaccination decrease over time, reducing protection. Lewnard said older adolescents are most at risk during outbreaks among young people because they are more likely than younger children to have reduced immunity due to waning vaccine protection.

    Protection is still high, but there will be some who lose protection within a decade or less even after they are vaccinated,” he said.


    Marlow said most people aren’t routinely exposed to mumps, so there is also less immunologic boosting — when people are exposed to mumps that boosts their immunity but doesn’t make them sick. Because mumps has continued to circulate globally during the pandemic, she expects cases and outbreaks of mumps nationally that could be worsened by a bigger unvaccinated population to continue.


    “We know that disruptions from the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in many children missing well-child visits and routinely recommended vaccines, including MMR, which could contribute to a future increase in cases or outbreaks,” she said.


    A third dose?

    Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the U.S. mumps vaccines contain genotype A strain, which no longer circulates in the U.S. But that doesn’t seem to make the vaccines less effective.

    That’s one of the mysteries of understanding this is because when you give the genotype A vaccine during an outbreak, it still works,” he said. “We’ve seen that during outbreaks on college campuses, a third dose of MMR is enough to stop it.”

    Adalja said combating new outbreaks may be as simple as shifting the MMR vaccine schedule from two to three doses. Adjusting the schedule is nothing new: The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices initially recommended a single dose of the mumps vaccine for routine use in 1977 and upped it to two doses in 1989.


    In 2017, the panel suggested that a third dose of the MMR vaccine may be given to people at high risk of catching mumps during large outbreaks.


    “Maybe we will need to update the vaccine to make it more tailored to the strain we’re seeing, but this might not be necessary. The current vaccine still works very well, and when it doesn’t work, a third dose does,” Adalja said.

  • This guy sounds familiar….


    The Loneliest Anti-Vaxxer

    Even the popular polio shot had its haters.


    On March 26, 1953, virologist Jonas Salk announced a successful initial test of his polio vaccine. Newspaper front pages gleefully trumpeted good tidings. In 1952, polio had peaked in the U.S. with about 58,000 infections, resulting in 3,145 deaths and 21,269 cases of paralysis. As outbreaks moved from city to city, swimming pools and movie theaters closed, and parents safeguarded children at home. Salk’s announcement marked the start of the largest medical experiment ever conducted at the time, a placebo-controlled study of 1.8 million children in 44 states, carried out in 1954, that would pave the way for the near eradication of the disease.


    Duon H. Miller, the cantankerous owner of a cosmetics company in Florida, was having none of it.

    Under the banner of his organization, Polio Prevention Inc., Miller distributed hair-raising mailers with claims like “Thousands of little white coffins will be used to bury victims of Salk’s heinous and fraudulent vaccine.” A self-made shampoo magnate, he was one of the few malcontents who publicly campaigned against the polio vaccine. His crusade shows that even during a public embrace of the polio shot that many people frustrated at COVID anti-vaxxers have held up as the ideal reaction to a new lifesaving vaccine, there was dissent, some of it as vitriolic as that you find in the corners of Twitter that swap anti-Fauci memes and Bill Gates rants—and just as weird.


    To Miller, “polio” was not an infectious disease. It was a state of malnutrition caused by midcentury American diets, particularly soft drinks—his mortal enemy. “Disease and malfunction do not ‘strike’ us; we build them within ourselves,” he wrote in one of his two-sided handbills. “Children permitted to indulge heavily in soft drinks (especially ‘colas’), over-sweetened and refined starchy foods are the greatest sufferers from POLIO. NO CHILD OR ADULT ON A COMPLETELY COMPETENT AND BALANCED DIET EVER CONTRACTS POLIO.”


    To Miller, the disease wasn’t real. The conspiracy was. The “experts” were criminals. The vaccine was actually dangerous. This was your libertarian uncle’s Facebook profile, 50 years before there was Facebook. But unlike modern anti-vaxxers, Miller depended on the U.S. Postal Service—which proved, in the end, to be a more effective gatekeeper than social media has been for us…


    One Lonely, Wealthy Man’s Crusade Against the Polio Vaccine
    Most people celebrated Salk’s shot. This soda-hating businessman did not.
    slate.com

  • Another dose? This is becoming the norm for vaccines!


    Majority of mumps cases are among the vaccinated, CDC finds

    As many as 94 percent of children and adolescents who contracted the highly contagious virus had been vaccinated.

    See: base rate fallacy.


    When a large fraction of the population is vaccinated, most cases will be breakthrough cases. If 100% of the population is vaccinated, all cases will be breakthrough cases. I expect nearly everyone is vaccinated for mumps.

  • External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

  • It is the same thing. The Simplicity paper describes the array tests, and the three types of calorimetry used in them. The tests continued after 1992, and the results improved.

    No, it's not the same thing. The "Simplicity paper" describes only the specific test carried out in April-May 1992, and the available videos show that the conclusions of that paper were completely wrong, so its results couldn't have been improved, but only corrected.


    You were instead talking about hundreds more of other similar tests. Have you any evidence of the results obtained in these tests? Why they have not been published?


    Papers published later gave more details about the other two methods, especially the third phase, "Heat After Death."


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf

    As already explained in March 2019 (1), the only experimental evidence of an alleged Heat After Death (HAD) phenomena provided by F&P is the one referred to the cell no.2 of the "1992 boil-off experiment". However, this evidence is based on huge mistake (a time shift larger than 2 hours) in placing the arrows corresponding to "Cell ½ dry" and "Cell dry" moments.


    The SPons paper presented at ICCF4 in 1993 on this subject does not show any other experimental evidence of an HAD phenomenon, besides the wrong one of the 1992 boil off experiment.


    You have not discovered any problems with the other methods, so perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are mistaken about boil off.

    The "Simplicity paper" deals with 2 numerical methods for evaluating the alleged excess heat produced during the experiment, and a third not numerical method.


    The first numerical method, the complicate one, was used for far from boiling conditions. It was the original method used since 1989, which sometimes gave some tiny amounts of excess heat, no more than few percent of the input power, well within the error margins for such a complicate method. Therefore, these results are not significant, and in any case they were ignored in the conclusive remarks of the "Simplicity paper".


    The second numerical method, the simple one, is based on the energy balance during the boil-off phase. Despite its simplicity, it was applied by F&P in a completely wrong way, because in determining the water mass evaporated in the considered period of time, F&P didn't take into account that the liquid fraction of the fluid inside the cell was well below the unity, due to the presence of foam and bubbles, as everybody can see by watching their video.


    The third method, the so called HAD phenomenon, is not numerical. F&P just claimed that the second cell stayed at boiling temperature for 3 hours after its complete drying. But, as it was mentioned above, they made a huge error in placing the dry out instant on the temperature chart. The dry out instant was derived from the lab video, which shows the time in hh:mm:ss format, while the time on the temperature chart is reported in second. So this error derives from an incredible mistake in performing (or checking) a simple time conversion.


    The conclusions of the "Simplicity paper" only mention the results obtained with the second and the third method, but the F&P's video clearly shows that these results (not me) are totally wrong.


    Quote

    Has it occurred to you that you might be wrong, and Fleischmann, Pons and the experts who reviewed their work might be right? You seem too confident in your own prowess.

    If you agree to open a new thread dedicated to your paper on the F&P calorimetry, we can discuss more comfortably about this possibility.


    (1) RE: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Curiously, in Fig 2 (Graph of risk) the survivors of mild covid seem to end up a bit better off than non-covid.

    No curius. Ref::

    COVID-19 positive patients were classified as severe if they were hospitalized within the first 30 days of the date of their initial positive test.


    This study simply is made by idiots or FUD'ers! Over age 70 you go to hospital latest at day 7... 98% is cured after 15 days!



  • The first numerical method, the complicate one, was used for far from boiling conditions. It was the original method used since 1989, which sometimes gave some tiny amounts of excess heat, no more than few percent of the input power, well within the error margins for such a complicate method.

    That is incorrect. It often showed massive heat, many times input power.