The Playground

    Triple Jabbed Hospital Staff Infected with SARS-CoV-2 at Xmas Party in Malaga, Andalucía Province of Spain


    Triple Jabbed Hospital Staff Infected with SARS-CoV-2 at Xmas Party in Malaga, Andalucía Province of Spain
    On Dec. 1, 170 staff from a regional hospital in Malaga, Spain, attended a Christmas party held at a local eatery. Just six days later, 68 of the staff,
    trialsitenews.com


    On Dec. 1, 170 staff from a regional hospital in Malaga, Spain, attended a Christmas party held at a local eatery. Just six days later, 68 of the staff, which included intensive care nurses and physicians, all triple jabbed or recently tested for antigens, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. This incident caught national attention, including prime minister Pedro Sanchez warning Spaniards to be careful. Now Andalucía health officials caution that other staff from hospitals avoid Christmas parties.


    Authorities are not certain what was the source for the infection—whether it was a person or perhaps from the holiday food. Thankfully, the infections are mild thus far. Located in the Andalucía province, Malaga is a location experiencing a rise in cases—the 14-day infection rate now equals 136 cases per 100,000 people, reports MSN. It was reported that four Omicron cases were confirmed in the Balearic Islands of Spain.


    Spain Covid: 68 medics infected after Christmas party

    Medicago, GSK Report Primary and Secondary Endpoints Reached in Phase 3 Trial of Adjuvanted Plant-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate


    Medicago, GSK Report Primary and Secondary Endpoints Reached in Phase 3 Trial of Adjuvanted Plant-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate
    Medicago and GlaxoSmithKline reported positive efficacy and safety results from the Phase 3 portion of a phase 2/3 placebo-controlled efficacy study of
    trialsitenews.com



    Medicago and GlaxoSmithKline reported positive efficacy and safety results from the Phase 3 portion of a phase 2/3 placebo-controlled efficacy study of Medicago’s plant-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate in combination with GSK’s pandemic adjuvant. The phase 3 trial was conducted in over 24,000 adults across six countries. Primary endpoints and secondary endpoints for which data are available were met. Based on these results, Medicago is seeking regulatory approval from Health Canada as part of its rolling submission. Medicago has also initiated the regulatory filing process with FDA and MHRA and preliminary discussion is underway with the WHO for preparation of the submission.


    The Phase 2/3 study has a multi-portion design to confirm that the chosen formulation and dosing regimen of the vaccine candidate (two doses of 3.75 µg of antigen combined with GSK’s pandemic adjuvant given 21 days apart) has an acceptable vaccine profile in healthy adults 18-64 years of age, elderly subjects aged 65 and over and adults with comorbidities.


    The Phase 3 portion of the trial was launched on March 16th, 2021, and was an event-driven, randomized, observer-blinded, crossover placebo-controlled design that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the vaccine candidate formulation, compared to placebo, in over 24,000 subjects across Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil.


    The overall vaccine efficacy rate against all variants of SARS-COV-2 was 71% (Per Protocol Analysis: PP). The corresponding number for people with an initial seronegative status indicating no previous exposure to COVID-19 was 75.6%. The vaccine candidate demonstrated efficacy of 75.3% against COVID-19 of any severity for the globally dominant Delta variant. Efficacy was 88.6% against the Gamma variant. No severe cases were reported in the vaccinated group. No cases of the Alpha, Lambda and Mu variants were observed in the vaccinated group while 12 cases were observed in the placebo group. The Omicron variant was not circulating during the study. No related serious adverse events were reported and reactogenicity was generally mild to moderate and transient; symptoms lasting on average only 1 to 3 days.



    Full results of the Phase 3 study will be released in a peer-reviewed publication as soon as possible.


    About Medicago’s Plant-Based Vaccine Technology

    In the plant-based vaccine development process, living plants are used as bioreactors to produce a non-infectious particle that mimics the target virus, called Virus-Like Particles (VLP). This is all done without the use of any live viruses. VLPs are designed to mimic the native structure of viruses, allowing them to be easily recognized by the immune system. Because the VLPs lack core genetic material, they are non-infectious and unable to replicate. VLP vaccines developed by other technologies, have traditionally been used worldwide for more than 30 years. Medicago’s plant-based vaccine platform is versatile, designed to produce both vaccines and antibodies – with a combination of speed, accuracy, and adaptability that is designed to produce safe and efficacious vaccines and therapies that can be used to rapidly respond to emerging pandemics or global needs.


    The use of an adjuvant reduces the amount of vaccine protein required per dose, allowing more vaccine doses to be produced and therefore contributing to protecting more people


    Medicago and GSK announce positive Phase 3 efficacy and safety results for adjuvanted plant-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate | Medicago
    medicago.com

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The Mark U's of this world are not going to wear masks regardless - and danger they pose to others is something they will brush aside as (a) everyone might as well catch COVID - it is good for them - and (b) masks don't work. Many fewer Mark U's in Japan.

    Hardly true. Here in Ontario I'm required to wear a mask at any indoor public place. So I do, say, when I go grocery shopping. Who wants to be hit with an $880 fine? But when I go into a place like a gas station bar to pay for gas, I go in without a mask, because it is a very brief transaction and there is hardly anyone there. I haven't had a gas attendant freak out on me yet.

    The other day at the car dealer when I was getting my car's engine software updated, I had to wait around for almost two hours in a TV lounge defined by wall dividers, situated in the middle of a large car showroom. After 10 minutes I moved my mask off my nose so it only covered my mouth. Wouldn't you know ... within 5 minutes three other people in my vicinity, also waiting for their car, did the same. Trend setter!

    (a) No, everyone should not catch Covid, only ones who are relatively young and healthy and/or are well equipped to deal with infection.

    (b) Masks can work somewhat, depending on the mask and how it's worn. But for people at low risk of serious illness from Covid, like kids at school, it's a Stupid Idea. Really Dumb. Socially Harmful.

    Mark is saying that the CDC study, even with a 1 percent daily reduction in cases, is both questionable and still underwhelming. First it's highly likely that the counties that had mandatory masking when one left the house also had much more lockdowns and closures than unmasked counties. Huge confounder. But let's pretend no such economy destroying confounder existed. One percent a day doesn't really knock my socks off. That's about a 20 percent reduction in cases over 3 weeks. Let's say my chance of getting Covid in 3 weeks is 1 in a hundred. All other things being equal, if that place was masked, it would be reduced to .8 in a hundred. Whoopee. That is about as mask enticing as the Danish study, which if I recall followed 5000 masked and 5000 unmasked people. Something like 60 of the unmasked, and 50 of the masked, tested positive for Covid.


    PS I don't know how you are going from a 1 percent daily reduction to a 3700 percent yearly reduction.

    PPS I wonder if the Japanese just forgot to wear their masks during their recent spike in cases.

    In Canada they are quarantining Canadian citizens in 'hotels' if they arrive by plane from certain countries in Africa, because of Omicron. It is so badly done (going without food, or getting bad food, to getting passports confiscated) that even Canadian mainstream media is covering it. That itself is newsworthy.


    Quarantine facilities can be 'traumatic'
    Tiffany Guara details her family's 'gruelling' stay in a federal quarantine facility after returning to Canada from Egypt.
    toronto.ctvnews.ca


    'Complete madness': Travellers left waiting hours for food in quarantine hotel | CBC News
    A pregnant Ottawa woman says she and other air travellers arriving from Nigeria had to wait nearly 10 hours for food as they awaited COVID-19 test results in a…
    www.cbc.ca

    Quote from Mark U

    One percent a day doesn't really knock my socks off. That's about a 20 percent reduction in cases over 3 weeks. Let's say my chance of getting Covid in 3 weeks is 1 in a hundred. All other things being equal, if that place was masked, it would be reduced to .8 in a hundred. Whoopee.

    This comment from Mark illuminates the political dimension here well.


    If you look at it individually an extra 20% risk looks fine (to some). That is because humans are bad at risk, and because the real collective risks to Western society are health systems.


    If you have 20% more deaths over a pandemic wave that is (in the UK) maybe 120K deaths instead of 100K deaths. Or 500k instead of 400K (pandemics have this nasty exponential thing). When mark U does not wear a mask he is not much changing his own risk - masks are much better at protecting others (because they reduce particulates in the environment) than they are at protecting the wearer - he is changing the risk for other people, and their vulnerable (say - 80+) contacts.


    So thinking about this decision in terms of individual risk, to start with is just plain stupid. Pandemics are an example of things (like global warming) where individual actions collectively affect large numbers of other people. Mostly the people devastated by global warming are children of those now living in low-lying cities, and the countries that have these and pay for the cost of relocation, as well as the island states that can no longer exist.


    By extension of Mark U's argument these things are not relevant.


    In addition, looking cold-heartedly at deaths, it is not just the number of people who die. In a pandemic surge that overwhelms health system capacity doctors must decide who will live, who will die, by denying treatment to many who need and deserve it. 20% increase in hospitalisation rate during a peak can swing that from manage to let people die.


    That situation is difficult for the people involved, and difficult for politicians because tv images of it create public outrage. That will lead as day follows night to whatever measures can prevent it - probably an immensely costly lockdown.


    Such a large cost just because people like Mark U do not think deeply about risks...


    THH

    Quote from Mark U

    After 10 minutes I moved my mask off my nose so it only covered my mouth. Wouldn't you know ... within 5 minutes three other people in my vicinity, also waiting for their car, did the same. Trend setter!

    I find it interesting, as political comment, that Mark U is so wedded to his crusade he sees actually boasts about his ability to persuade others to follow him. It is not surprising - in something like mask wearing trends work in both ways - the people do not like to look different from others, and masks affect looks very strongly which is I think why they are the focus of so much political reaction from the likes of Mark U.

    Not sure if this has been linked to before.

    Data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control on vaccine effectiveness.


    I found the link in this current article from the BBC.

    How vaccines changed the course of the pandemic.


    "Researchers at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have been modelling how many deaths have been prevented, based on the infection rates seen as countries have relaxed restrictions.

    They estimate vaccines saved 157,000 lives in England alone, and more than 470,000 across the 33 countries in Europe which were studied.

    Researchers called the Covid vaccines a "marvel of modern science".

    They have essentially transformed a continent reliant on lockdowns to one that has cautiously started returning to normal.

    But the vaccines are now facing perhaps their biggest challenge yet - Omicron.

    There are fears the new heavily mutated variant could get around some of the defences built up by the vaccines.

    If the worst fears are realised, the vaccines may need to be updated. But many experts expect that won't be necessary and they will still provide pretty good protection, and help prevent severe illness."

    Quote from Mark U

    (a) No, everyone should not catch Covid, only ones who are relatively young and healthy and/or are well equipped to deal with infection.

    It is an interesting argument - do we accept small (0.1%) chances of death, and larger (1%) chances of serious disease in large amounts of the population as Mark advises here. Of course everyone will catch COVID - except for a few who are lucky until vaccination schedules and vaccines have got good enough to protect almost completely (if that happens). BUT - catching COVID now is maybe 50% more risky than catching COVID in 12 months time when treatment has got much better. Go figure.


    It is also a fantastic argument.


    You can't separate those vulnerable from those fit and able. The vulnerable get infected too - and while many have the money and housing to self-isolate very well, many do not and will catch whatever is out there.

    I'm glad to have the chance here, on this thread, to argue the politics and morality of these decisions. I don't think they are at all clear-cut. I'd like to see those on Mark U's side of the argument put up a better defence of it than he has so far!


    Faux outrage at stupidities works for politicians, not so well when trying to create a coherent and believable argument. So - go for it - what are the principled reasons for discouraging mask wearing, as Mark U boasts he did?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is an interesting argument - do we accept small (0.1%) chances of death, and larger (1%) chances of serious disease in large amounts of the population as Mark advises here. Of course everyone will catch COVID - except for a few who are lucky until vaccination schedules and vaccines have got good enough to protect almost completely (if that happens). BUT - catching COVID now is maybe 50% more risky than catching COVID in 12 months time when treatment has got much better. Go figure.


    It is also a fantastic argument.


    You can't separate those vulnerable from those fit and able. The vulnerable get infected too - and while many have the money and housing to self-isolate very well, many do not and will catch whatever is out there.

    Th number of child deaths in Sweden is comparable to flue death, recent data here.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I find it interesting, as political comment, that Mark U is so wedded to his crusade he sees actually boasts about his ability to persuade others to follow him. It is not surprising - in something like mask wearing trends work in both ways - the people do not like to look different from others, and masks affect looks very strongly which is I think why they are the focus of so much political reaction from the likes of Mark U.

    I agree that the mask thing is silly, I just do not understand why people care. If mandated, I have it, else I keep the distance. It's really not

    something to go to the barricades for and in principle I really do not care pro or not. As a father I know that one should save the fights for

    when it is important, which people understood that.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm glad to have the chance here, on this thread, to argue the politics and morality of these decisions. I don't think they are at all clear-cut. I'd like to see those on Mark U's side of the argument put up a better defence of it than he has so far!


    Faux outrage at stupidities works for politicians, not so well when trying to create a coherent and believable argument. So - go for it - what are the principled reasons for discouraging mask wearing, as Mark U boasts he did?

    My wife and I have been wearing masks since the beginning but we also only wear N95 masks. Wearing cloth masks only offer very small protection and wearing them all day long as school kids do is insane and bad science.

    Adding a mandate to the insanity just puts it over the top. I'm in favor of N95 masks but not mandating them. Mandates are the issue not masks and I'm pretty sure you understand that.

    Sadly, we cannot count on the public health establishment to take a science-based, aggressive policy on using vitamin D supplements as an alternative to COVID vaccines or expensive medicines. It’s up to individuals to protect their own lives by being well informed and proactive.



    Vitamin D: Government Should Have Promoted to Combat Pandemic


    Vitamin D: Government Should Have Promoted to Combat Pandemic
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Joel S. Hirschhorn There seems
    trialsitenews.com


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


    Joel S. Hirschhorn


    There seems to be an endless refusal by the public health establishment to fight the pandemic with the best science-based tools. Instead, they keep pushing vaccines.


    Great German research provides unequivocal medical evidence that the government should be strongly advocating two actions: 1. Take vitamin D supplements and 2. Have your blood tested for vitamin D.


    The title for this October 2021 journal article says it all: “COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” [25(OH)D3 refers to metabolite of the vitamin in blood]


    In other words, there is clear evidence that the lower your vitamin D level the greater your risk of dying from COVID infection. Moreover, the data clearly show that you need a blood level of at least 50 ng/mL.


    Odds are, however, that very, very few people have been tested for their vitamin D level. This is a situation where waiting for testing is not the prudent approach. Vitamin D pills are pretty cheap, and it is perfectly safe to take a healthy daily dose to maintain a good immune system. I take 4,000 IUs twice daily.


    Here are several highlights from this research and other sources; the discussion is aimed at informing people with information not provided by Big Media, Big Government and Big Pharma.


    Vitamin D is an accurate predictor of COVID infection. Its deficiency is just as significant, and perhaps more so, than more commonly discussed underlying medical conditions, including obesity.


    To be clear, there is a level of vitamin D for an effective strategy at the personal and population level to prevent or mitigate new surges and outbreaks of COVID that are related to reduced vaccine effectiveness and new variants.


    In the German study, fifteen other studies were cited that showed low vitamin D levels were related to cases of severe COVID infection, and seven studies that found positive results from treating ill patients with the vitamin.


    The German study noted: “The finding that most SARS-CoV-2 patients admitted to hospitals have vitamin D3 blood levels that are too low is unquestioned even by opponents of vitamin D supplementation.” The German study “followed 1,601 hospitalized patients, 784 who had their vitamin D levels measured within a day after admission and 817 whose vitamin D levels were known before infection. And the researchers also analyzed the long-term average vitamin D3 levels documented for 19 countries. The observed median vitamin D value over all collected study cohorts was 23.2 ng/mL, which is clearly too low to work effectively against COVID.”


    Why does this vitamin work so well? The German study explained: A main cause of a severe reaction from COVID results from a “cytokine storm.” This refers to the body’s immune system releasing too many toxic cytokines as part of the inflammatory response to the virus. Vitamin D is a main regulator of those cells. A low level of the vitamin means a greater risk for a cytokine storm. This is especially pertinent for lung problems from COVID.


    Other studies

    On a par with the German study was an important US medical article from May 2021: Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic. It noted: “Experimental studies have shown that vitamin D exerts several actions that are thought to be protective against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infectivity and severity. … There are a growing number of data connecting COVID-19 infectivity and severity with vitamin D status, suggesting a potential benefit of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention or as an adjunctive treatment of COVID-19. … there is no downside to increasing vitamin D intake and having sensible sunlight exposure to maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D at a level of least 30 ng/mL and preferably 40 to 60 ng/mL to minimize the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity.” This confirms the German study and its finding of a critical vitamin level of 50 ng/mL.


    Daniel Horowitz has made this correct observation about vitamin D supplementation: “An endless stream of academic research demonstrates that not only would such an approach have worked much better than the vaccines, but rather than coming with sundry known and unknown negative side effects.“


    There are now 142 studies vouching for the near-perfect correlation between higher vitamin D levels and better outcomes in COVID patients.


    From Israel came work that showed 25% of hospitalized COVID patients with vitamin D deficiency died compared to just 3% among those without a deficiency. And those with a deficiency were 14 times more likely to end up with a severe or critical condition.


    Also from Israel, data on 1,176 patients with COVID infection admitted to the Galilee Medical Center, 253 had vitamin D levels on record and half were vitamin D-deficient. This was the conclusion: “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D was associated with increased disease severity and mortality.”


    Several studies have come from the University of Chicago. One found that a vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/ml) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19, actually a 7.2% chance of testing positive for the virus. And that more than 80% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient. And Black individuals who had levels of 30 to 40 ng/ml had a 2.64 times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than people with levels of 40 ng/ml or greater.


    On the good news side is a new study from Turkish researchers. They focused on getting people’s levels over 30 ng/mL with supplements. At that level, there was success compared to people without supplementation. This was true even if they had comorbidities. They were able to achieve that blood level within two weeks. Those with no comorbidities and no vitamin D treatment had 1.9-fold increased risk of having hospitalization longer than 8 days compared with cases with both comorbidities and vitamin D treatment.


    Another option

    Some people may have absorption problems. The solution is to use the active form of D – either calcifediol or calcitriol – to raise their levels more quickly. This bypasses the liver’s metabolic process very effectively. Studies have shown that people hospitalized with low levels but given the active form of D did not progress to the ICU. Places that sell vitamin D often sell the concentrated active form.


    I have a supply of cholecalciferol pills that provide 50,000 IUs, compared to ordinary D pills typically with 2,000 IUs. A reasonable use of the high concentration pills is in the event of coming down with a serious COVID infection. This may be a sensible strategy for those who do not know what their level is or have not taken the normal pills for some period. It can take months to raise a very low level to above the critical level the German study found necessary for the best protection.


    Deficiency

    Aside from dealing with COVID, two pertinent questions are: Is there an optimal level of vitamin D and are Americans deficient in it? For the first, this has been said: “While blood levels of 30 ng/mL or higher are considered normal, the optimal blood level of vitamin D has not yet been established.” From the Cleveland Clinic is this: “Normal vitamin D levels are usually between 20-80 NG/ML. If supplementation is recommended, remember to take it with a meal and on a full stomach to help absorption. Unfortunately, about 42% of the US population is vitamin D deficient with some populations having even higher levels of deficiency.”


    A Mayo Clinic study said this: “Vitamin D deficiency is more common than previously thought. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that the percentage of adults achieving vitamin D sufficiency as defined by 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL has declined from about 60% in 1988-1994 to approximately 30% in 2001-2004 in whites and from about 10% to approximately 5% in African Americans during this same time. Furthermore, more people have been found to be severely deficient in vitamin D [ <10 ng/mL]. Even when using a conservative definition of vitamin D deficiency, many patients routinely encountered in clinical practice will be deficient in vitamin D.”


    Clearly, personal deficiency can only be determined by a blood test that prudent people will request their doctors to order for a lab test.


    Conclusions

    Seeing vitamin D as crucial to surviving COVID is supported by solid medical research. There is good data to support a desired level of 50 ng/mL. Whether a person has this level requires a blood test for the vitamin, not something that most physicians normally call for when ordering blood tests for other reasons.


    As the US approaches 800,000 COVID related deaths it is reasonable to believe that perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if the government had strongly supported vitamin D blood testing and supplementation if needed. But in the absence of such a COVID policy, people have good reasons to use D supplements if they are not routinely exposed to sunlight without using sunscreen products.


    Many physicians have issued protocols for preventing and treating COVID that include vitamin D supplements. For example, the esteemed Dr. Zelenko uses the following: 5,000 IU 1 time a day for 7 days for low-risk patients, and for high-risk patients: 10,000 IU once a day for 7 days or 50,000 IU once a day for 1-2 days.


    However, continuing its stupidity, NIH maintains that “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.” This too was said: “Vitamin D deficiency (defined as vitamin D ≤20 ng/mL) is common in the United States, particularly among persons of Hispanic ethnicity and Black race. These groups are also overrepresented among cases of COVID-19 in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency is also more common in older patients and patients with obesity and hypertension; these factors have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.” Sounds smart to fight deficiency for avoiding COVID health impacts.


    Sadly, we cannot count on the public health establishment to take a science-based, aggressive policy on using vitamin D supplements as an alternative to COVID vaccines or expensive medicines. It’s up to individuals to protect their own lives by being well informed and proactive.


    Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades, and his Pandemic Blunder Newsletter is on Substack. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

    Soon we will see weekly Covid vaccine boosters . If 3 don't work give em another and another and .........then we can give em an Omicron vaccine! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BIG PHARMA LOVES YOU!!!



    4th Booster Now in the Works in Israel for Immunosuppressed


    4th Booster Now in the Works in Israel for Immunosuppressed
    Back in July, people in Israel that were deemed higher risk, such as the immunocompromised, were first offered the third booster dose of the
    trialsitenews.com


    Back in July, people in Israel that were deemed higher risk, such as the immunocompromised, were first offered the third booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine called BNT162b2. Now the Health Ministry prepares to consider offering a fourth dose to this at-risk cohort, just four months after the third booster. This means that highly immune-compromised Israelis may well receive their forthcoming fourth booster just months after the last jab.


    Confirmed recently by The Jerusalem Post, the Health Ministry now openly discusses the prospect of offering a fourth dose for this at-risk cohort. Some immunosuppressed individuals have done well with boosters while others struggle—hence the call to provide more protection as Omicrom may take over as the predominant variant of concern.


    Study

    The Jerusalem Post indicates that based on a study conducted at Rabin Medical Center—Beilinson Campus in Petah Tikva and Clalit Health Services in August revealed that the results for the immune-compromised were less impressive, including the following:


    Condition 3rd booster impact 2nd dose impact

    Lung transplant 33% 18%

    Heart transplant 58% 31%

    Liver transplant 71% 47%

    An Israeli advisory panel will convene this week to discuss the prospect of moving forward. TrialSite will provide updates.


    COVID: Israel to consider 4th vaccine for immuno-suppressed patients
    Such patients were the first ones who were approved to receive a booster in July.
    m.jpost.com

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.