The Playground

Quote from Bob#2

It is because your are extremely arrogant. You post that you know data and that the people that wrote many reports, published and practiced hands on simply do not stack up to your arm chair analytics. I do not care if you have a degree... so do most of the researchers that wrote those reports.

Just on this. People think here that I am preferring my analysis over that of these antivaxxer creeps. Well, in some cases I do.

But I don't rate my analysis highly - I am following the experts - and I am certainly not myself an expert. The difference is these antivaxxer creeps (also not experts) have the arrogance to think that the vast majority of those working in an area for real (e.g. vaccine surveillance) are wrong in completely obvious ways, or corrupt, and only they can see it.

It is not my calcs viz the antivaxxer creep calcs. I am just reminding everyone that people whose job it is to do this stuff do not agree with the anti-vaxxers. And, often, it is easy enough to see why that I can explain it here.

That is not me thinking I'm clever. It is the antivaxxers actually being astonishingly unclever.

I apologise, the word creep above is emotive - it expresses the depth of my opinion about the harm that antivaxxers are currently doing (and have done thus far).

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" (Schiller and Asimov)

I know it, but still find it tough to swallow.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Everyone accepts that reporting rates vary, and it is plausible (to say the least) that they will be higher for a known new and not fully understood vaccine than for a Flu vaccine we have been using for 20 years. No?

No. Quite the opposite. When a vaccine is established over years, so is an established list of expected side effects. Medical people see what they are taught to see. You see? This is why people injured by novel Covid vaccines can come into hospital spasming, or numb, or whatever strange effect, and be told by doctors that their condition is anxiety related and to go home. There is no box to tick. And of course it has been repeated like a mantra that the covid vaccines are safe. So it can't be that!

Quote from THHuxleynew

But in any case why are you not curious about the very low background rate so estimated. I mean - you can understand why reporting rate for a completely new and controversial pandemic vaccine might be higher in 2021. It is more difficult to think up reasons why the background death rate should be much lower - which Kirsch needs for his estimates to stack up.

I'm not talking about the background death rate, for good reason. Death rates from vaccines are low in absolute terms, and can be easily drowned out by background death rate noise. So forget about that, for now. Simplify. Simply look at vaccine adverse event reporting numbers. They are off the charts in 2021, and almost all from the Covid vaccines. Again I ask: are adverse events for the Flu vaccine elevated in 2021? The answer is probably not. I ask: Do the adverse events reported per million Covid shots dwarf the counts per million Flu shots?

Quote from Bob#2

Again... some here keep using the term anti-vaxers.... I do not think there is a single anti-vaxer on this forum. Some argue vehemently against giving mRNA therapy to the young. No one here argues giving it to high risk and elderly.

Bob's right I think. Some here may think I'm anti-vax. But if people want to take a vaccine, I say go for it! Take one a week if you want! I don't look down on anyone for making those health choices for themselves. I would even recommend certain people get certain vaccines at certain times. I just suggest that they get informed about the risk / benefit ratio so they aren't unpleasantly surprised if something goes wrong.

As far as I know Steve Kirsch was just another highly respected, smart guy minding his own business until Covid came along. Then the vaccines. Looking at the data he became skeptical of Covid vaccine safety. And now, that has led the 65 year old down the rabbit hole of vaccine safety in general. Some here may appreciate this video of him last week interviewing someone very experienced about vaccine safety, Alix Mayer, and getting an education from this wonderful lady. Good luck.

Alix Mayer interview on children's vaccine safety

Alix Mayer became an expert on vaccine safety after she became vaccine injured when taking a set of vaccines for a business trip. Now she works for Children's…

rumble.com

Quote from Mark U

I'm not talking about the background death rate, for good reason. Death rates from vaccines are low in absolute terms, and can be easily drowned out by background death rate noise. So forget about that, for now. Simplify. Simply look at vaccine adverse event reporting numbers. They are off the charts in 2021, and almost all from the Covid vaccines. Again I ask: are adverse events for the Flu vaccine elevated in 2021? The answer is probably not. I ask: Do the adverse events reported per million Covid shots dwarf the counts per million Flu shots?

Just to reiterate - you, and the other antivaxxers - uniquely forget about everything (background rates, other reporting systems that check whether in fact events have any relationship to vaccines) and look onlyu that the one system VAERS that doe snot provide accurate quantitative info - and interpret it quantitatively.

You are expressing surprise at something that only you think is surprising. Antivax scare stories are enough to persuade 20% of the US never to get vaccinated against COVID. Hardly surprising that more reports of background events go through. It is expected that a fair proportion of the background deaths will be so reported. Anything cardiac? Could be a vaccine. Anything thrombotic? Could be a vaccine? etc. How many of that large background percentage gets reported depends on how the reporters feel about it.

You are still not answered why you show no interest in the two other US vaccine AE systems. Could it be because, unlike VAERS, they do give quantitative indications - which are very low?

You have not answered how all the people doing real analyses (rather than raw counts of VAERS) come out with low rates?

You have not answered why Self-controlled case studies - which show vaccine side effects in exquisite detail accurately controlling for background - show real but low AE rates from vaccines multiple OOMs lower than these fantasy antivaxxer numbers.

If your point is that when AEs are very low, well below background rate, it is difficult quantify them - that is true. But then, if they are well below background rate they are certainly lower than COVIF deaths, which show even at low COVID levels significant excess deaths.

If you want to focus on subcohorts, and show that for them AEs are much higher than the background rate - do that. It is what the real vaccine safety signal chasers have been doing. It is how they picked up, quickly, pericarditis in mRNA vaccines (which are highly reactogenic and will BTW result in more mild side effects than Flu vaccines) or blood clotting AEs from AstraZeneca vaccines (exact mechamism now understood).

No-one expects COVID vaccines to be 100% safe: nothing in this world is that. It is just that only the antivaxxers use these "it is so obvious we are right all the people whose job it is to evaluate vaccine safety are corrupt or incompetent" scientifically illiterate calculations from VAERS alone.

THH

Quote from Mark U

Bob's right I think. Some here may think I'm anti-vax. But if people want to take a vaccine, I say go for it! Take one a week if you want! I don't look down on anyone for making those health choices for themselves. I would even recommend certain people get certain vaccines at certain times. I just suggest that they get informed about the risk / benefit ratio so they aren't unpleasantly surprised if something goes wrong.

You are pushing - here false info about the risk benefit ratio,. I have explained how it can be shown false. You are ignoring that, ignoring all of the contrary indications, ignoring the work done by the safety signal people, and push these false inflated figures that are explicitly known to be wrong. Then, you tell people to pay attention to your false inflated figures.

And that is not being an antivaxxer?

Alix Mayer interview on children's vaccine safety

Alix Mayer became an expert on vaccine safety after she became vaccine injured when taking a set of vaccines for a business trip. Now she works for Children's…

rumble.com

And because of the internet, people with understandable biases are able to promote their views finding antivaxxers with similar gut feelings to hijack their stories.

Children can be injured by COVID vaccines, and parents can regret supporting their getting vaccinated.

However more children will die of COVID, with parents regretting not supporting them getting vaccinated.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-58772671#:~:text=A%2015%2Dyear%2Dold%20girl,a%20positive%20PCR%20test%20result.

If Mark U wishes to argue the case for NOT vaccinating under-12s - and agrees that everyone over 12 - for their own health - should get COVID vaccinated. Fair enough. Under 12 the risks from both COVID and vaccines are so small that it is not easy to be sure which is higher - that is the reason for the UK not allowing under 12 vaccines (though with omicron upping the stakes they may soon do that - we will see).

All the figures Mark U produces here are NOT FOR under-12s. They are false whole cohort figures claiming vaccine risks which are not true for the rest of the population.

Mark - I will take back my comments about you, or W, here being an antivaxxer if you agree that the risks of COVID are clearly higher than vaccine for over-12s and support parents making choices that keep children safer, support adults making choices that keep themselves safer.

THH

>Fair enough. Under 12 the risks from both COVID and vaccines are so small that it is not easy to be sure which is higher - that is the reason for the UK not allowing under 12 vaccines (though with omicron upping the stakes they may soon do that - we will see).

I'm not sure if it has changed recently (I'm only talking UK here), but when the 12-16 rollout was announced, it was admitted that there was no clear medical benefit. The spin was that the benefit was less school disruption (without any evidence to back this up IIRC).

My daughter is 11.....I'm hoping there will be better data (and a better overall situation!) to have a conversation with her by the time she turns 12.

I would encourage over 18s, and personally I've been triple jabbed. Not become magnetic as yet. Oh, and I drink a significant amount of coffee a day as a prophylactic - on past performance this works equally well as the vaccines.

I forgot to mention that I'm fully signed up for my mafia and silicon chip tracking. I don't qualify for J membership.

Quote from Nar

I'm not sure if it has changed recently (I'm only talking UK here), but when the 12-16 rollout was announced, it was admitted that there was no clear medical benefit. The spin was that the benefit was less school disruption (without any evidence to back this up IIRC).

The benefits scale with the expected COVID rate which is one reason you get different results in different countries.

Here is the recent JCVI report.

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advice on COVID-19 vaccination in people aged 16 to 17 years: 15 November 2021

www.gov.uk

That is the UK JCVI estimate (not updated for omicron which actually will make risk/benefit worse)

The figures assume 20% total infection rate (out of date, must be double that now for delta in this age group!)

So whatever is the risk/benefit judgement on medical grounds (PIMS-TS vs pericarditis) then, the actual PIMS-TS risk ends up being higher (50% will get COVID not 20%).

It is difficult to make these judgements because PIMS-TS is more serious than vaccine-induced myocarditis but it is difficult to quantify how much! And then omicron will alter all these figures in a not yet clear way.

The data will get better over time.

The JCVI report advises 1st dose only for now, but likely to change to two doses on basis of 2021 data.

First doses of COVID-19 vaccine are currently being offered to children and young people aged 12 to 15 years. JCVI aims to provide advice on second doses of vaccine in those aged 12 to 15 years, when additional data on the risks and benefits of vaccination may be available.

Clinical trials are underway in pre-school and primary-school aged students. Vaccines are only likely to be approved for use in these age groups in the UK in late 2021 or early 2022. JCVI will provide advice on vaccination of younger children in a timely way, relative to any UK authorisation in younger children.

Table 1: benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in children and young people not in an at-risk group; based on 30% infection rate in those not previously infected and 9% in those previously infected (overall ~ 20% rate), taking into account protection from prior infection (19 October 2021) – based on UK data

Prevented per million first vaccine doses:

Prevented per million second vaccine doses:

Table 2: myocarditis reporting rate following vaccination, per million vaccinations administered – reporting rate ranges based on data from different countries (until 19 October 21)

Table 3: reporting rate of suspected myocarditis and pericarditis per million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the UK (data from MHRA up to 27 October 2021)

Notes on Table 3:

1. Up to and including the 27 October 2021, the reporting rate for suspected myocarditis and pericarditis occurring after either dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) vaccine in those under 18 years is 9 suspected adverse reactions per million doses. There is currently insufficient data to calculate a precise estimate of the reporting rate post-dose 2 in under 18 year olds in the UK due to, as yet, relatively limited exposure of dose 2 in these individuals. Available data indicates the reporting rate in under 18 year olds is not higher than that in the 18 to 29 year age group.
2. This data refers to suspected adverse reaction reports. Most reports in both the adult and under 18 years age group describe mild symptoms and individuals have recovered with standard treatment.

The available data indicates that the clinical manifestations of myocarditis following vaccination are typically self-limiting and resolve within a short time. It is not known if there are any long-term sequelae (months to years) from myocarditis. The current overall reporting rate of myocarditis and pericarditis in those under 18 years (9 suspected adverse reactions per million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) is lower than that in the 18 to 29 year age group.

There is evidence that SARS-CoV2 infection is also associated with the occurrence of myocarditis. The mechanisms underlying myocarditis following SARS-CoV2 infection versus COVID-19 vaccination are not understood at present; these mechanisms and their consequences may be different, and therefore direct comparisons between these 2 forms of myocarditis cannot be assumed.

PS - I've found personally that pre-vaccine being bald was 100% effective keeping me COVID-free. Obviously one can't be sure, but 100% is a pretty compelling figure so I'd advice everyone to shave their heads immediately.

Has Omicron shifted receptor binding specificity away from deep lung tissue?

Has Omicron shifted receptor binding specificity away from deep lung tissue?

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

trialsitenews.com

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

Could this be why it appears that Omicron is less severe than other variants?

A person with a mustache Description automatically generated with medium confidence Robert W Malone MD, MS

Chart, bar chart Description automatically generated

HKUMed finds Omicron SARS-CoV-2 can infect faster and better than Delta in human bronchus but with less severe infection in lung

PreRelease of preprint from HKUMed: this paper is currently undergoing peer review

Authors: Dr Michael Chan Chi-wai, John Nicholls, Dr Kenrie Hui Pui-yan, Malik Peiris, Tam Wah-Ching, Professor Leo Poon Lit-man, Professor John Nicholls

Based on current reports, Omicron appears to be associated with three broad characteristics: Vaccine escape (resistance), increased viral replication and reduced disease. In contrast, the preceding dominant variant (Delta) is also associated with vaccine escape, increased viral replication, and increased disease severity compared to preceding dominant circulating variants.

What is going on? How can increased levels of Omicron virus replication be associated with reduced disease? How did so many mutations in the receptor binding domain of Omicron arise, apparently spontaneously? Why do the evolutionary tree plots show that Omicron represents a separate branch from currently circulating viruses? How could so many mutations which confer vaccine resistance suddenly appear? Botswana (and South Africa in general) does not have a very high vaccination rate, so why would a vaccine-resistant virus strain develop in this region. Did someone engineer and release yet another virus? Lots and lots of questions. Very few answers. And then this new press release from the University of Hong Kong arrived today, showing that Omicron replicates more highly in conducting airway cells (bronchus), and less in lung cells. I think that the paper above provides with some important clues that could help us make sense out of this puzzle.

Sometimes I get asked whether the viral mutations occur in the unvaccinated or in the vaccinated. SARS-CoV-2 is a single stranded respiratory RNA virus, and it has a high spontaneous mutation rate. This is a fact which seems to be lost on many “factcheckers”. The answer is that mutations occur in both. The high rate of mutations observed with SARS-CoV-2 occur independently of vaccination status, because they are a consequence of the viral protein which copies the viral genome to make new genomes, and the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is single stranded.

With a single stranded RNA virus, there is not a second strand (of RNA “genes”) that can be used to identify when the polymerase (enzyme that makes new viral RNA genomes) has made a mistake and added the wrong nucleotide (A, U, G or C). So, the ability of the polymerase to “error check” is limited, as there is no second strand copy of the RNA strand being used at the time to manufacture new viral genomes. Nothing to compare to, to figure out which is the “good” gene and which is the “bad” or mutated gene. This results in each infected cell releasing a “swarm” of viral particles, many of which are different from each other. This happens whether or not you are vaccinated, because the vaccines do not prevent you becoming infected or your cells replicating the virus once you are infected.

The question is not whether viral mutations occur with or without vaccination, but rather what natural selection pressures are present to select which viruses survive, infect other cells, and make more copies of themselves. If you have not been vaccinated or infected before, there are a variety of ways that our body, innate immune system (natural antibodies and natural killer cells) and adaptive immunity “select” which viruses do or do not survive to replicate and infect others. This process of repeated selection and replication of the viral particles which are most able to survive in your body causes the genetic characteristics of the “swarm” of viruses infecting you to gradually change – genetically speaking. This is called natural selection of the fittest, and this process happens for everything that uses DNA or RNA to carry information from one generation to the next. This is the process that creates the gradual changes which we call “evolution”. But with viruses, each generation of virus produces a huge number of offspring in a very short period. Viral evolution can happen very fast. Especially with single stranded RNA viruses. And each time the virus swarm “jumps” from one person to the next, the members of the swarm that make the jump encounter a new host. “Host” is a biology term used when talking about parasites. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a parasite, and you and I are its hosts.

Vaccination with the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 creates a “selection” force on any swarm of viruses that infect a new host. So does the immunity created by “natural immunity” – the adaptive and innate immune responses that your body is left with after it has been infected and recovered from that infection. Basically, anything that creates an obstacle to the virus infecting a host, replicating, and jumping to another host will drive the virus to evolve to evade that obstacle.

Spike is an interesting protein, and it performs many essential tasks for the virus. One of the most important things that Spike does is to grab onto proteins on the surface of your cells, and then it changes shape and becomes a sort of syringe that injects the RNA genome of the virus into the cell it has grabbed onto. But first it has to grab onto something. That something is a receptor, typically the ACE2 (angiotensin II) protein, that is on the outside of certain types of cells. The part of Spike that does that is called the receptor binding domain (RBD). The primary objective of the genetic Spike vaccines is to cause your body to make antibodies that block the ability of the Spike RBD to bind ACE2. But ACE2 is not just a protein- it is a protein covered with sugar molecules (eg. heavily glycosylated). Changes in the patterns of how these sugar molecules are attached to ACE2 can have a big impact on whether SARS-CoV-2 can infect cells. And changes in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of Spike will not only influence how well it can evade vaccine-induced antibodies, but also how it interacts with ACE2.

What we know about Omicron is that it has many new mutations in the RBD. These mutations are absolutely associated with increased resistance to the effects of vaccine-induced antibodies. But was the development of this cluster of new mutations driven by natural selection due to vaccination? In an area of the world that does not have a very high vaccination rate? That does not make sense.

What if Omicron is the consequence of evolutionary pressure to replicate and infect more efficiently, perhaps to compete with Delta? Or as a consequence of passing between human and animal (cat, ungulate) hosts? What if what has really happened is that Omicron has evolved to change the location where it replicates in our body? What if it has evolved to replicate more in our upper respiratory airway, and less in the deep part of our lung tissues?

Has anything like that ever happened before, perhaps with other respiratory RNA viruses? Like, say, influenza A? Absolutely yes. In general, more severe pandemic influenza strains are often associated with receptor binding mutations that enable them to infect deeper lung tissues, while influenza strains that cause less disease infect upper parts of our respiratory tract. However, viruses that generally infect deep lung may be less infectious to others.

We often seem to fall into simple, binary thinking when considering complicated problems. Left or right-wing politics. Vaccinated or unvaccinated selecting for newly evolved viruses. This can limit our ability to make sense out of the world. But what if what is going on with Omicron is not so much driven by antibodies directed against the Spike RBD, but by selection for shifting the region of the respiratory tract that it infects? Or perhaps, this variant has bounced back and forth between humans and other species, and in so doing it has accumulated mutations which have exploited subtle differences in the ACE2 receptor.

One thing that has always fascinated me about viral evolution (or any evolution, for that matter) is the existence of evolutionary islands. Regions of genetic optimization that may not be the best solution, but which might require genetic changes which are less adaptive for a given environment before they are able to reach a new genetic “island” that is more optimal. Once a population (swarm) of viruses are able to bridge the evolutionary barriers to reach a new “island”, then they have a sort of evolutionary burst that can result in many changes within a short period of time as they evolve to adapt to the new optimum of that “island”. Perhaps what we are seeing with Omicron is the genetic consequence of one of these evolutionary bursts.

This is why this new finding from a team at Hong Kong University is so significant. Because it indicates that what may be most important about Omicron may not be the ability to evade vaccine-induced immunity, but that it has shifted its preferred tissue target for infection and replication to the upper airway instead of deep lung. That could explain why it is more infectious, replicates to higher levels, and yet causes less severe disease.

Let’s hope that is our best gift this Christmas.

Robert W Malone, MD, MS

Omicron: Spreading Fast, But Likely Less Lethal but Not According to Washington Post

Omicron: Spreading Fast, But Likely Less Lethal but Not According to Washington Post

In a December 14 piece, “Omicron spreading rapidly in the U.S. and could bring punishing wave as soon as January, CDC warns,” the influential Washington

trialsitenews.com

In a December 14 piece, “Omicron spreading rapidly in the U.S. and could bring punishing wave as soon as January, CDC warns,” the influential Washington Post engages in either journalism or propaganda (or both), depending on one’s view. The titular “punishing wave” conjured appears hyperbolic given what we know about this most recent fast-spreading variant. But let’s look at the evidence, with the understating that CDC and WaPo represent the “scientific consensus,” for both good and ill. Tuesday the 14th federal officials cautioned at a briefing that omicron is “rapidly spreading” and may, “peak in a massive wave of infections as soon as January….” according to CDC modeling. In one week, omicron’s prevalence increased seven-fold, and this may put high pressure on our health care system. In the meantime, federal officials and some pharma executives have indicated that they are not in favor of making an omicron-specific vaccine at this time. They argue that the vaccines we have, along with a booster, are effective with omicron.

Who is “Fully Vaccinated”?

CDC went over two scenarios: in a worst-case, the triple whammy of delta, omicron, and the flu may overwhelm the health care system and “devastate communities, particularly those with low vaccination rates.” Marcus Plescia, who is the chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and was on the CDC phone call says, “I’m a lot for alarm. I’m worried.” While early information suggests that those “fully vaccinated” who have had a booster are mostly protected against major illness or death from the newer strain, officials worry about low booster rates. In an oxymoronic statement, the Post notes that the US has 200 million “fully vaccinated” but only 55 million have been boosted—an odd use of the term “fully.” In a second scenario considered, there will be a smaller surge of omicron this spring. Regarding the first scenario, one anonymous official noted, “The implications of a big wave in January that could swamp hospitals … we need to take that potential seriously.”

Omicron-Specific Vaccine?

Changing our vaccines is a big deal. If we do it “too early” it may harm our ability to handle new variants that may arise. “We have to be careful not to repeat mistakes of the past,” said another anonymous administration official. “If there is a change needed, we want to make it, but we don’t want to end up making a change if we don’t really need it. It costs time, money, and effort.” Experts in the field note that we can’t constantly change vaccines or boosters, “because there is not enough manufacturing capacity and other resources.” In a Monday interview, Dr. Fauci said, “there isn’t any compelling reason right now to drop everything and make an omicron-specific vaccine, as opposed to continuing to administer vaccines for people who are unvaccinated and boosting people who are vaccinated.”

Vaccines Less Effective, Disease Less Severe

CNN, also reporting on December 14, posits both that omicron may elude our vaccines and that its symptomology may well be milder than the dominant delta variant. Researchers in South Africa provided more information about this new variant on Tuesday. TrialSite recently covered some of this information.

They are confirming that vaccines are less effective against omicron, but they also see, “indications that omicron causes milder symptoms than previous variants.” Without a doubt, the new strain is very transmissible, and US statistics show that 3% of sequenced samples show omicron to be present at this time. South Africa, Britain, and some EU nations have seen a rapid spread of the new variants. Yet officials hope that the early signals that it is milder turn out to be accurate. Preliminary data from South Africa shows that hospitalization risk is 29% lower for omicron than other strains.

One Death Worldwide

Also, a two-dose Pfizer vaccine was “33% protective” for infection and 70% effective at preventing severe cases. “Our fully vaccinated Pfizer clients were 93% less likely to be admitted to hospital for Covid-19 when Delta was circulating,” Shirley Collie, a health analytics actuary at Discovery Health, opined. “However, now, in the Omicron period, that has reduced to 70%. It is a reduction. However, it does provide substantial protection against hospital admission.” The CEO of South Africa’s private Netcare hospitals notes, “Thus far — and it is very early days — our data over the last 30 days indicates that we are seeing a very mild to moderate form of Covid-19. Many of the cases are asymptomatic.” To date, it appears only one person has died from omicron

not a bad video to think about.

Quote from Fm1

350,000 US deaths before vaccine, 450,000 US deaths with a vaccine. Not convincing evidence these vaccines do anything.

Oh give us a break! I am sure you know that 90% to 95% of the people who died were not vaccinated. Do you think that a vaccine will help people who refuse to take it? Your statement is one of the most irrational I have seen here.

Quote from Mark U

Death rates from vaccines are low in absolute terms, and can be easily drowned out by background death rate noise. So forget about that, for now. Simplify. Simply look at vaccine adverse event reporting numbers. They are off the charts in 2021, and almost all from the Covid vaccines.

For vaccines this holds. But not for gene therapy that has a very high number of adverse events also in cancer therapy, where the same mechanism is used.

All adverse events from CoV-19 gene therapy now by far outnumber all adverse events of all other drugs combined. Such bad news is unprecedented. It is 10000% clear. That these therapies, in there current form, will go away for ever. No pharma company has enough money for compensating all damage done so far.

People forget, that these ugly drugs are free shot for big pharma. No risk huge gain!

Quote from Mark U

The answer is probably not. I ask: Do the adverse events reported per million Covid shots dwarf the counts per million Flu shots?

No, they are exactly the same, and both are the same as the rates for people in 2019 who did not get vaccinated for COVID or influenza. In other words, both are the same as the background rate for a control group.

One nitwit thought the COVID vaccine causes twice as many deaths as the influenza vaccine because he forgot that COVID takes two doses, so there is twice as much time for coincidental deaths to occur. See:

Renz "Whisteblower" data from CMS falsely claims death rate higher for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine than flu

Back in October, I write a blog post responding to the lawyer Renz's "whistleblower report" claiming that The USA government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid…

www.covid-datascience.com

Quote from Wyttenbach

For vaccines this holds. But not for gene therapy that has a very high number of adverse events also in cancer therapy, where the same mechanism is used.

Except this is not gene therapy. The mRNA cannot affect the DNA, any more than RNA from the common cold virus does. But I am sure you knew that, and I am sure you are lying through your teeth, hoping that stupid people here will believe you.

Quote from Fm1

“Our fully vaccinated Pfizer clients were 93% less likely to be admitted to hospital for Covid-19 when Delta was circulating,”

This (93%) is plain fantasy reporting if you look at other countries data.

In general we have two types of reports. Full disclosure of all data like in UK or in prats CH that shows more or less maximally 50% protection for vaccines among the true risk group age > 70 and other countries (IL,NL, USA, GE) that mix the data over all groups and claim natural protection as vaccine protection.

We know that only age 70+ is relevant for the pandemic as >95% of all deaths are in this group.

Other US cheating tricks are counting in all pre vaxx deaths... or cherry picking hospitals with younger patients...

Quote from JedRothwell

Except this is not gene therapy. The mRNA cannot affect the DNA, any more than RNA from the common cold virus does. But I am sure you knew that, and I am sure you are lying through your teeth, hoping that stupid people here will believe you.

Once more for JED. Gene therapy is not gene editing. In fact you are constantly lying as all experts in the field, since 20 years at least, know this type of therapy as gene therapy.

Gene therapy = delivering genetic information. Active genetic information = RNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CDC ACIP Slips in Meeting Today to Discuss Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine Risk-Benefit Analysis, While South Africa Reports No Effectiveness Against Omicron

CDC ACIP Slips in Meeting Today to Discuss Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine Risk-Benefit Analysis, While South Africa Reports No Effectiveness Against Omicron

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) typically offers more notice to

trialsitenews.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) typically offers more notice to the public when they meet to discuss the public’s business, such as the risks associated with a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine—in this case, the Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine currently authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on an emergency basis. Public agencies need to be open, transparent and offer the proper notice for important meetings. The key focus of the vaccine is, among other things, a vote on updated recommendations for use due to concerns of thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS). The agency’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group reviewed the recent updates from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Meanwhile, new information out of South Africa perhaps questions the future viability of the current Janssen vaccine. According to a recent online presentation from a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, the vaccine shows no neutralization against the Omicron variant. What does that do to the FDA’s updated risk-benefit analysis that still finds a recommendation for the use of the investigational product despite heightened risks for TTS in women under 50?

The Janssen jab has been associated with incidence, although rare, of thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, a serious condition involving blood clots with low platelets, mostly seen in adult women younger than 50. The CDC itself made this observation when it posted the recommended use of the vaccine on Nov. 15, 2021, less than a month ago.

The viral vector vaccine was discontinued in Denmark, Finland, and Norway due to concerns of blood clot risks.

Called Ad26.COV2.S, the investigational product was first granted emergency use authorization (EUA) March 29, 2021—this letter can be reviewed here. Several updates occurred, including the most recent updates to the FDA’s Authorized Fact Sheet. Included was additional information derived from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Now the updated Janssen COVID-19 vaccine FDA fact sheets for healthcare professions as well as the public include a contraindication for use in people that have a history of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS)after receiving the vaccine “or any other adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine.” The FDA points out in the updated fact sheet that “Currently available evidence supports a causal relationship between TTS and the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.”

The regulatory agency points out the following:

Highest incidence of TTS associated with women aged 30-49—the rate in that group equals 1 case per 100,000 doses administered

Symptoms of TTS can materialize 1-2 weeks post the jab with Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine

Use of heparin by people with suspected TTS “may be harmful, and alternative treatments may be needed. Consultation with hematology specialists is strongly recommended”

The FDA continues to investigate the safety risks of this vaccine but nonetheless, deems the vaccine’s utility, that is its ability to stop COVID-19, valuable enough to trump the potential risks of TTS in people aged 18 and above.

But what if it doesn’t work against Omicron?

Now, if the investigational product doesn’t work against the fastest-growing variant of concern, then new problems are introduced quickly into the discussion. That appears to be just the situation at hand.

Johnson and Johnson recently issued a statement declaring that the company was working with partners in South Africa and elsewhere to “assess the new and rapidly spreading Omicron variant.” Particularly, they reported to be “testing blood serum from participants in completed and ongoing booster studies to look for neutralizing activity against the Omicron variant.”

But according to multiple media reports including Bloomberg Quint out of India, Professor Penny Moore, a virologist and professor at University of the Witwatersrand, reports that “laboratory experiments were conducted on blood plasma samples from people who had two doses of the Pfizer Inc., and BioNTech SE vaccine and those or the J&J single-shot inoculation.” While the scientists working in South Africa found a reduction in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine efficacy, they found that in the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine antibody level tests indicate the vaccine essentially doesn’t work against the highly transmissible yet thus far mild super-mutant, reports Dr. Moore in an online presentation. Other media, mostly the Indian press, picked up on the news. Obviously, these findings need to be validated.

Next Steps

The CDC ACIP meeting is today from Noon to 4 PM Eastern Time—the agenda can be viewed here. TrialSite will attend this event and update the community.