The Playground

    Covid: One in 45 had coronavirus in last week of data - ONS - BBC News
    It's the highest level ever recorded even though it does not account for recent record case numbers.
    www.bbc.com


    one in 45 had CoV-19 last week in UK (ONS says)

    So they had about 700'000 cases and a population of 68'000'000. This gives at least 1 silent case per case seen.


    UK does extensive testing and the positive rate is lower (about 6+%) than e.g. in Switzerland with (16-19%). So this gives us good information that we have silent rate of at least 6!!! This despite vaccination etc...

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Vaccination plus masks and case tracking explain it. This is not rocket science. The vaccinations plus masks stopped delta. There are still practically no cases of omicron, because international travel is so limited and case tracking so effective. There is no doubt omicron will spread sometime in the next few months. They hope to give most of the population a booster before that happens, to limit the number of serious cases and deaths.


    Case tracking can be done effectively when there are only 200 cases a day in the whole country, and when large parts of the country have no cases, such as all of Shikoku (https://covid19japan.com/). Case tracking would be impossible with the high number of cases in the US or the UK.


    https://english.kyodonews.net/…spite-omicron-spread.html

    Did you read the article or just omit other suggestions such as


    In Japan, researchers have also examined factors like weather, cyclical patterns in the spread of the virus, and potential past exposure to mild coronavirus variants that may have led to the low case and death counts. Experts have identified potential genetic characteristics among the Japanese that may have led to a stronger immune system response to the coronavirus, but said there needs to be more research to draw definitive conclusions.


    Japan has now vaccinated most of its population and has widespread masking, which may explain the current low numbers. But so does neighboring South Korea, where authorities are rescinding reopening plans because of a spike in infections and record numbers of serious and critical cases. And Japan has barely begun rolling out its booster shots, lagging behind other countries in the region, including South Korea.

    A few months ago the CDC changed the definition of vaccine for political reasons, and here you have redefined an anti-vaxxer as someone who has an opinion different from yours for the same reason. I am vaxxed as are you, but since I am against mandates, pro-Ivermectin, and think the GBD authors were unfairly mistreated by Saint Fauci, that makes me an anti-vaxxer according to you. So be it.


    Your post misses the point about the Great Barrington Declaration authors, and the many thousands of scientists who signed on to the paper. What they did was not politics. They did what government salaried professors/scientists are expected to do; study the matter and come to a conclusion that the policy makers can take into account when forming policy.


    The politics started when Collins decided he did not like their conclusion, and what they recommended going forward (selective protection of the vulnerable), then took it personal as it contradicted the official "one-size-fits-all" lockdown narrative he and the other high level power players had sold to the public up to that point.


    To make matters worse for the GBD group, was that their recommendation was roughly aligned with what the right believed at the time. That was a big no-no, so Collins and Fauci unleashed the lap-dog media on them to publicly attack them. They were more than willing to do so.

    Quote from Fm1

    Typical insider industry respones, kill the messenger.


    You support giving boosters to fight a strain that already shows evasive tendencies to the vaccine. A booster that still allows breakthrough infections. I thought mRNA vaccines were easily tweaked to combat such issues.

    Just to quitet this (continued) straw man:


    I'm not saying whether I support it. Personally, I'm glad to have the lower risks. Politically, I'd rather keep as muhc of teh economy open as possible, if there is a chance boosters will help that I'm for them.


    For society, in the UK, our lockdown measures are determines purely by keeping the NHS working. That depends on BOTH peak infections and hospitalisation rate.


    Boosters reduce peak infections by omicron a bit (75% less transmissable has been claimed under good conditions) but not a lot since the epidemic will continue to increase until enough of the carriers have caught it as long as R stays above 1. Boosters will, we know, will reduce hospitalisation significantly.


    Now, those are facts, and although the first is a bit vague (as anything related to future infection rate) the second is clear.


    The reason for western governments wanting boosters now is to get through the omicron wave without having to shut anything down. The science supports boosters helping with this.


    Your point is irrelevant to this question. No first gen vaccine has claimed to be effective against variants - we were lucky we had some effectiveness against delta and very lucky to have a little against omicron.


    Your point about reformulation: it has not been done because it costs money and takes 3 months, also, like all vaccine development, there is some uncertainty. Governments have reckoned they do not need it. Just because mRNA vaccines are easily tweaked does not mean that governments are willing to pay for this on the off chance it is needed.


    No-one is claiming the current vaccines are perfect, or as good as we would like. On the other hand they have already made a big difference to hospitalisations and deaths - things most governments care about.


    If you leave off your political glasses, those are the facts. Boosters vs omicron make a smaller difference than the original vaccine: for the UK at any rate any difference is good and can make the difference between losing more or less of our economy through Jan and Feb due to partial lockdowns.


    I sometimes think much of the antivax sentiment comes from the unexpected success of the mRNA vaccines against original COVID. Then everyone expects such good news all the time, against all variants, or else thinks vaccines are no good. It is not true. This year Flu vaccines (50% effective typically) are absolutely vital in the UK to reduce Flu hospitalisation. COVID even more so.


    THH

    Quote from Shane D.

    A few months ago the CDC changed the definition of vaccine for political reasons, and here you have redefined an anti-vaxxer as someone who has an opinion different from yours for the same reason. I am vaxxed as are you, but since I am against mandates, pro-Ivermectin, and think the GBD authors were unfairly mistreated by Saint Fauci, that makes me an anti-vaxxer according to you. So be it.

    I accept that. You make my point. Much of that stuff is politics. Being pro-ivermectin is anti-science, and the ivermectin lobby (most but not all of it) is fuelled by antivaxxer politics. You can, politically, tell the doctors they should overtreat and give patients any unproven treatment they want. That is fair politics - where the balance between safety and freedom is taken away from the medical establishment. It would be pro-ivermectin, homeopathy, and any other zany treatment under the sun. Doctors organisations won't like it because it puts individual doctors under a lot of pressure to do something that in conscience most of the think is wrong. For ivermectin it has issues (supply, people thinking it protects them 100% due to stupid PR from FLCC etc). Anyway I respect your politics on that but not when it masquerades as science. The science is: if it leads to people changing behaviour towards more risk less vaccine it will increase the overall impact of COVID unless these factors are smaller than any possible benefit of ivermectin. The science on that possible benefit is that it is low - and jury still out on whether there is any small benefit or the reverse.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Your post misses the point about the Great Barrington Declaration authors, and the many thousands of scientists who signed on to the paper. What they did was not politics. They did what government salaried professors/scientists are expected to do; study the matter and come to a conclusion that the policy makers can take into account when forming policy.

    The GBD is a political stance, as anything that compares the relative detriment of lockdown or not in a pandemic. There are harms both ways. The lokcdown harms are obvious, and large. The non-lockdown harm includes obvious (health systems can't code) and not obvious - with high infection rates everyone becomes more fearful and you get lockdown by stealth.


    I am not on one side or other of that - as politics.


    I am however against scientists who push very one-sided (and usually provable wrong antivaxxer-style arguments) to support their political views. It is true that especially in the US some doctors have been equally one-sided pro-lockdown.


    I am also against the "silly libertarian" fringe. These argue it is man's God-given right to go into public areas (travel etc) without masks when it is clear that masks reduce risks to others individually, and for society reduce R and hence the risk of measures (whetehr mandated or people voting with their own feet) that clobber the economy.


    The God-given right argument would apply equally to anything we do in shared spaces that is easily changed and leads to a signiifcant increased risk of harming others. E.g. drunken driving. It is an infringement of individual liberties to make this illegal - we do it for good reasons.

    Quote from Shane D.

    The politics started when Collins decided he did not like their conclusion, and what they recommended going forward (selective protection of the vulnerable), then took it personal as it contradicted the official "one-size-fits-all" lockdown narrative he and the other high level power players had sold to the public up to that point.


    To make matters worse for the GBD group, was that their recommendation was roughly aligned with what the right believed at the time. That was a big no-no, so Collins and Fauci unleashed the lap-dog media on them to publicly attack them. They were more than willing to do so.

    No comment. It is politics so I expect both sides to sound good and be irreconcilable. But I do not follow US politics on this - both sides seem over-political to me - it is just unpleasant. Only idiots make mask-wearing or not a political statement.

    The GBD is certainly political.

    It was drafted by the AIER which is a right wing organisation that focuses on economic policies.

    Therefore at heart the aim is a right wing economic response to Covid-19.


    Of course just because it is political does not mean it is wrong.

    However aiming for a suitable health policy response to a pandemic and starting from a right-wing economic point of view brings a certain amount of baggage with it.


    In truth there is no correct strategy to the pandemic, all have a cost in lives and economics.

    But some are less bad than others and some work better in some countries than in others e.g. mask wearing in Japan.

    In fact the early policies have evolved as we learned more and the virus mutated. What we did in March 2020 is not the same as we would do now.

    We now have vaccines and medicines, people are now sick of lockdowns, we now have more PPE and better testing.

    So has the GBD policy been modified or is it still basically the same as when it was first proposed?


    One point that seems clear to me is that any idea of herd immunity has been blown out of the water by the continual rise of variants and obviously the more freedom the virus is given the more chance it has to create variants.


    Masks are back in the UK but even in the supermarket today a surprising amount of people did not wear masks. What I don’t understand is how the very people who are against masks and vaccines and lockdowns and travel restrictions are those who are most responsible for keeping the pandemic going, thus damaging the economy they profess to be trying to save.

    But I guess that is the craziness of politics.

    The big Oh.. soon be over..

    Richard Philbrick

    1 hour ago

    I'm an anaesthetist working in the private sector in Cape Town. in the last week about 40% of my patients have been positive for Covid.

    All incidental and all asymptomatic.

    And most had only been admitted in the last 1 or 2 days - so not hospital acquired. If that reflects the population at large then it's everywhere over here, and will soon be over.
    Thank you for your hard work and daily updates.


    Queensland Chief Health Officer Dr John Gerrard says the spread of coronavirus is "necessary" in order for everyone to develop immunity as he implored residents to come forward for a vaccine.

    Dr Gerrard said cases are expected to increase with Omicron becoming the dominant variant, but advised in order for the virus to become an endemic, everyone will have to develop immunity in one of two ways.

    Dr John Gerrard says not only is the spread of this virus inevitable, it is necessary. Picture: News Corp: John Gass Dr John Gerrard says not only is the spread of this virus inevitable, it is necessary.

    "Omicron is extremely contagious," he said during a COVID-19 press conference on Thursday.

    "Not only is the spread of this virus inevitable, it is necessary.

    "In order for us to go from the pandemic phase to an endemic phase, the virus has to be widespread. We all have to have immunity. You will all have to develop immunity.

    "There's two ways you can do that - by being vaccinated or getting infected. There are only two choices, there are only two ways to do that.

    Spread of COVID-19 across the state 'necessary' says Queensland's CHO
    Queensland Chief Health Officer Dr John Gerrard says the spread of coronavirus is "necessary" in order for everyone to develop immunity as he implored…
    www.skynews.com.au

    Is FDA’s EUA a Holiday Gift for the Public or Merck? The Data Raises Serious Questions


    Is FDA’s EUA a Holiday Gift for the Public or Merck? The Data Raises Serious Questions
    Despite questionable data including absolute risk reduction of 2.9% not to mention some concerns about safety, especially for possible risks associated
    trialsitenews.com


    Despite questionable data including absolute risk reduction of 2.9% not to mention some concerns about safety, especially for possible risks associated with reproduction, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) moved forward with the emergency use authorization (EUA) award today. But a deeper probe into the data reveals a potential Holiday gift from the FDA to Merck.


    TrialSite’s contributor Ron Brown reported that at least Merck did step up and report on these vital absolute numbers. The relative risk reduction value equals 29.8%, ten times higher than the ARR of 2.9%. Moreover, other contributors such as Leo Goldstein argue that based on a thorough analysis of the Merck data that the data associated with their studies have serious potentially devastating errors.


    Regardless the FDA proceeded to authorize under the EUA program. Of course, this implies the drug is still experimental and all liability for drug producers is shielded ongoing thanks to the emergency PREP Act as TrialSite has reported.


    The EUA applies to the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in adults with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death, and for whom alternative COVID-19 treatment options authorized by the FDA are not accessible or clinically appropriate. Molnupiravir is available by prescription only and should be initiated as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 and within five days of symptom onset. The EUA can be reviewed here.



    Another contributing community member shared inputs on this important milestone. While hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money went into this drug the controversy continues.


    The significant drop in efficacy reported between the interim analysis (50% reduction in hospitalization) vs the final analysis (30% reduction in hospitalization) is but one example. Of course, there are also concerns regarding the safety of this drug due to its mutagenic mechanism of action.


    Why did the efficacy numbers drop so significantly? Merck didn’t provide a reasonable explanation. The other factor that took the additional wind out of the sails of this promising early treatment therapeutic was the stellar results of Pfizer’s competing early treatment antiviral, Paxlovid. Pfizer released interim results of 89.5% reduction in hospitalization risk. However, unlike Molnupiravir, Paxlovid retained those impressive results through the final phase 3 analysis. However, the global surge in cases due to Omicron has governments and regulatory agencies desperate to bring every weapon possible into the fight. As we know, Paxlovid was granted EUA status by the FDA just yesterday. Although they continue to avoid Fluvoxamine which yielded solid results in the TOGETHER study.


    Pfizer has indicated that their ability to supply Paxlovid in quantity will be very limited for quite some time.


    Pfizer’s Product Looks Superior

    In looking over Molnupiravir’s s peer-reviewed Phase 3 results published in the NEJM the results are still quite positive on the surface as long as they aren’t compared head to head against it’s main competitor, Paxlovid. A 30% risk reduction in hospitalization and an 89% risk reduction in mortality are very positive results for an early treatment oral medication that’s administered outpatient. The published paper included a sub-group analysis (Figure 3 –see attachment) that shows how the risk reduction for the various subgroups such as sex, age, baseline severity, age, race, etc. There aren’t any dramatic results noted in Figure 3’s subgroups.


    Look Deeper & See the Problem

    If one delves deeper into analyzing the Phase 3 reported data and downloads the separate Supplementary Appendix there is a more comprehensive subgroup analysis that exposes some concerning data.


    Figure S3 has the same subgroup analysis as Figure 3 in the main paper. However, it includes additional subgroups that were suspiciously left out of the main paper. Specifically, there is a section on risk reduction by the SARS-CoV-2 variant. The only variant that showed a statistically significant risk reduction was the Gamma variant (aka P.1). This variant was only ever dominant in Brazil and was out-competed by the Delta. Delta’s dominance occurred during the P3 trial.


    Notice that Molnupiravir not only failed to reach statistical significance against the Delta but it didn’t even come close. It’s almost certain that this is the root cause of why the interim results were much better than the results. At the early time of the trial, the prevalence of Gamma was very high and Delta was low in Brazil. However, during the later stages of the trial Delta overtook Gamma. So in the end, Molnupiravir failed to show efficacy against any variant other than the extinct Gamma variant. It performed the worst against the most prevalent Delta variant and we have no data on how it will perform against the surging Omicron VOC.


    Serious Ethical Questions

    It’s likely unethical that this critically important subgroup was purposely left out of the published paper and buried in the Supplemental Appendix if that is in fact the case. The variant subgroup data is much more important than most of the subgroups included in the main paper’s Figure 3 which showed no difference in risk reduction.


    Did the FDA deliver an early Holiday Gift to Merck with their EUA for a drug that failed to show statistical significance against the only variant of consequence that it was tested against

    Another contributing community member shared inputs on this important milestone. While hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money went into this drug the controversy continues.


    The significant drop in efficacy reported between the interim analysis (50% reduction in hospitalization) vs the final analysis (30% reduction in hospitalization) is but one example. Of course, there are also concerns regarding the safety of this drug due to its mutagenic mechanism of action.


    Why did the efficacy numbers drop so significantly? Merck didn’t provide a reasonable explanation. The other factor that took the additional wind out of the sails of this promising early treatment therapeutic was the stellar results of Pfizer’s competing early treatment antiviral, Paxlovid. Pfizer released interim results of 89.5% reduction in hospitalization risk. However, unlike Molnupiravir, Paxlovid retained those impressive results through the final phase 3 analysis. However, the global surge in cases due to Omicron has governments and regulatory agencies desperate to bring every weapon possible into the fight. As we know, Paxlovid was granted EUA status by the FDA just yesterday. Although they continue to avoid Fluvoxamine which yielded solid results in the TOGETHER study.


    Pfizer has indicated that their ability to supply Paxlovid in quantity will be very limited for quite some time.


    Pfizer’s Product Looks Superior

    In looking over Molnupiravir’s s peer-reviewed Phase 3 results published in the NEJM the results are still quite positive on the surface as long as they aren’t compared head to head against it’s main competitor, Paxlovid. A 30% risk reduction in hospitalization and an 89% risk reduction in mortality are very positive results for an early treatment oral medication that’s administered outpatient. The published paper included a sub-group analysis (Figure 3 –see attachment) that shows how the risk reduction for the various subgroups such as sex, age, baseline severity, age, race, etc. There aren’t any dramatic results noted in Figure 3’s subgroups.


    Look Deeper & See the Problem

    If one delves deeper into analyzing the Phase 3 reported data and downloads the separate Supplementary Appendix there is a more comprehensive subgroup analysis that exposes some concerning data.


    Figure S3 has the same subgroup analysis as Figure 3 in the main paper. However, it includes additional subgroups that were suspiciously left out of the main paper. Specifically, there is a section on risk reduction by the SARS-CoV-2 variant. The only variant that showed a statistically significant risk reduction was the Gamma variant (aka P.1). This variant was only ever dominant in Brazil and was out-competed by the Delta. Delta’s dominance occurred during the P3 trial.


    Notice that Molnupiravir not only failed to reach statistical significance against the Delta but it didn’t even come close. It’s almost certain that this is the root cause of why the interim results were much better than the results. At the early time of the trial, the prevalence of Gamma was very high and Delta was low in Brazil. However, during the later stages of the trial Delta overtook Gamma. So in the end, Molnupiravir failed to show efficacy against any variant other than the extinct Gamma variant. It performed the worst against the most prevalent Delta variant and we have no data on how it will perform against the surging Omicron VOC.


    Serious Ethical Questions

    It’s likely unethical that this critically important subgroup was purposely left out of the published paper and buried in the Supplemental Appendix if that is in fact the case. The variant subgroup data is much more important than most of the subgroups included in the main paper’s Figure 3 which showed no difference in risk reduction.


    Did the FDA deliver an early Holiday Gift to Merck with their EUA for a drug that failed to show statistical significance against the only variant of consequence that it was tested against


    Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Additional Oral Antiviral for Treatment of COVID-19 in Certain Adults

    Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Additional Oral Antiviral for Treatment of COVID-19 in Certain Adults
    The FDA issued an emergency use authorization for Merck’s molnupiravir for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in certain adults.
    www.fda.gov

    Is COVID Now Becoming a Pandemic of the Vaccinated?

    By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.


    Is COVID Now Becoming a Pandemic of the Vaccinated?
    American corporate media love catchphrases that they all repeat in unison, across network and cable television and through social media. One recent example is…
    www.americanthinker.com


    American corporate media love catchphrases that they all repeat in unison, across network and cable television and through social media. One recent example is “viral blizzard” referring to the omicron variant of COVID. A search of Google News for “viral blizzard” demonstrates how in the past several days, myriad media outlets used the term in scaremongering headlines.


    Another similar phrase made the rounds this past summer, “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” attributed to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. At the time, it was believed that only the unvaccinated were transmitting, catching, and getting sick from COVID.


    The same CDC Director Dr. Walensky two weeks later acknowledged, “vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.” This lead to the July 27 CDC recommendation, “that everyone wear a mask in indoor public settings in areas of substantial and high transmission, regardless of vaccination status.” So much for it being a pandemic of the unvaccinated.


    This is the time when I must add this standard and necessary disclaimer that I am not anti-vaccine, having been personally vaccinated. Nor am I offering medical advice, only an analysis of this newsworthy issue with questions about ever-changing recommendations and certainties from the political and medical establishments.


    I am not the only one questioning this catchphrase. A German doctor wrote a letter to the prestigious medical journal The Lancet one month ago entitled, “COVID-19: stigmatizing the unvaccinated is not justified.” He raised the following points,


    There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission.


    People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated.


    I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.

    This is sage advice which hopefully doesn’t lead to the German medical authorities threatening or revoking this doctor’s medical license.


    In the early days of the vaccines, many of us, myself included, had high hopes that COVID would be a distant memory by now. We took President Joe Biden at his word last April when he promised the nation, “Getting together with friends, going to the park for a picnic without needing to mask up, we’re back to that place now as long as you get vaccinated


    Instead, we see New York, among the most vaccinated states with 95 percent of adults receiving at least one dose and 84 percent of adults fully vaccinated, locking down yet again, Broadway shows canceled and restaurants closed. We also see this surprising statistic this week for such a vaccinated state, “For a fourth day in a row, the state has broken its record for highest single-day case count since the beginning of the pandemic


    It is so bad in mostly vaccinated New York that the governor is pushing a bill that would, according to RedState, “grant the far-left governor of New York — or any government official or entity — the unilateral authority to detain anyone ‘indefinitely’ even suspected of posing a significant threat to public health.” Does this mean anyone who dares question Dr. Anthony Fauci or Gov. Kathy Hochul is now a “threat to public health” and can be disappeared like the Jan. 6 protester


    In the past few days, we have seen reports of prominent “triple vaccinated” individuals getting COVID. Notice how we have gone from “fully” vaccinated to “triple” vaccinated, at least until a second booster is needed, as in Israel, perhaps this new group called the “quad” vaccinated. We can save “penta” vaccinated for next summer.s?.”.”


    CNBC host Jim Cramer is vaccinated and boostered and yet has COVID. So do Sen. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker, Rep. Jason Crow from my home state of Colorado, and Rep. Matt Cartwright from Pennsylvania. Rep. Barbara Lee from California, also vaccinated and boostered, now has COVID.


    There is also New York acting Health Commissioner Mary Basset, vaxed and boostered, now with COVID. A triple-vaccinated White House aide who recently spent time with Biden on Air Force One also tested positive for COVID.


    Cruise ship Symphony of the Seas, which required all passengers 12 years and older to be fully vaccinated and test negative to board the ship, had a COVID outbreak among 48 passengers.


    Cornell University in upstate New York is 97 percent fully vaccinated, many with booster shots, conducts routine surveillance testing, and requires indoor mask use. Despite these measures, they had an outbreak of 903 cases and closed their Ithaca campus for the remainder of the year.


    Across the country, Cal Berkeley, with a 99 percent vaccination rate, had a COVID outbreak, leading them to postpone their football game against USC. A fully vaccinated NHL team is canceling games due to a COVID outbreak. What’s going on?


    It is clear that today’s version of the COVID pandemic is among the vaccinated, as the above examples illustrate. Recent infections, if of the omicron variant, are likely to be mild, with hospitalization or worse very unlikely. If this is true, it is good news, as this latest variant is acting like an old-school vaccine, an attenuated virus stimulating the immune system to generate cellular and humoral immunity, providing the recipient with long-term protection from future infection. In other words, omicron may promote natural immunity which at some point leads to population herd immunity.


    It is apparent that the vaccines are not doing what vaccines are supposed to do, which according to the WHO, is expressed this way: “Vaccination is a simple, safe, and effective way of protecting you against harmful diseases, before you come into contact with them.” If all they are doing is reducing the risk of severe illness, then for many they can be lifesaving, but the vaccinated are still catching and spreading COVID.


    Perhaps the PCR test is overcalling COVID, diagnosing those with a cold as having the latest COVID variant. This test is the gold standard, leading to lockdowns, quarantines, masking, school and business closures, and a total disruption of life in America. The PCR test, ideal for diagnosing, not so much for mass population screening, set with too high a cycle threshold may be producing false positive results in 60 to 90 percent of patients, according to the New York Times.


    This may explain why the CDC is withdrawing its emergency use authorization request for the current COVID PCR test to the FDA as of Jan. 1, “CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”


    This current “pandemic of the vaccinated” may be more akin to a cold rather than the nasty respiratory virus sending thousands to the ICU last year, at least based on current data. As The Economist describes, “surging cases but milder symptoms.” Watch this U.K. health minister struggle to explain the low omicron hospitalization and death figures while at the same time promoting fear and panic.


    How is omicron being treated by those in charge? President Biden issued a grave warning to the unvaccinated, “We are looking at a winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated -- for themselves, their families and the hospitals they'll soon overwhelm.”


    It has been almost two years, and little has improved in terms of mandates, rules, and restrictions, most of which have done little if anything to improve our lives. We are still masked up indoors and out, remote learning, social distancing, and travel restrictions for those trying to fly their cares away.


    Common sense measures like protecting those at highest risk for severe COVID, early outpatient treatment and prevention, and following past successful pandemic strategies have all been scrapped in favor of endless vaccine boosters with case numbers still breaking records. We are doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, and we know what that’s the definition of.


    President Biden, despite earlier claims of a desire to be, “a president who seeks not to divide but to unify,” is shaming and scapegoating the unvaccinated while news stories are replete with the vaccinated catching COVID. Is this incompetence or is it deliberate? I’ll leave that to you to answer.


    Meanwhile, we are watching Groundhog Day. Read or watch the news now and compare it to 21 months ago, and it’s déjà vu. The catchphrases may change but the oppressing COVID cloud continues to dispirit and demoralize the world. So much for “building back better.”



    Brian C. Joondeph, MD, is a vaccinated physician and writer. On Twitter as @retinaldoctor.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Dr. Andrew Hill, the fraudulent UK doctor,

    Hill,,,is culpable,, but the other people aren't.


    $40 million Gates grant vs a half million human lives
    Researcher Andrew Hill’s conflict: A $40 million Gates Foundation grant vs a half million human lives by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2021 In a...
    hotcopper.com.au


    Lawrie: I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

    Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

    Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground …You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.
    ,,
    "Lawrie: You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.


    Youtube censored the video....Ivermectin is a dangerous drug!

    "and alexandrosm from Rumble for recovering this footage from internet archives

    and reuploading it, after it was censored by the fascist video platform – YouTube.


    $40 million Gates grant vs a half million human lives
    Researcher Andrew Hill’s conflict: A $40 million Gates Foundation grant vs a half million human lives by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2021 In a...
    hotcopper.com.au

    Report today in UK;


    Glimmer of hope over Omicron.

    "The UKHSA estimates that someone with Omicron is between 31% and 45% less likely to attend A&E and 50% to 70% less likely to be admitted to hospital than an individual with the Delta variant."


    We all agree that lockdowns are costly and not desireable.

    I would guess that all would agree that a lockdown may be appropriate depending on the characteristics of a pandemic, so maybe if the death rate was say 50% or more.

    One of the arguments against lockdown seems to be that many feel that the characteristics of Covid-19 do not meet their threat level for a lockdown to be appropriate.

    And surely all woulld agree that at some point we need to dispense with lockdowns.

    We have to accept that Covid-19 is here to stay and there will be some annual deaths in the same way as influenza.


    I wonder if the reduced threat of Omicron brings us to that point?

    If the Covid deaths drop to a level that is politically acceptable and if the spread does not overwhelm the local health services then maybe we are there now.


    Having said that the UK NHS is under a tremendous amount of strain at the moment but that may be as much to do with underfunding as Omicron.

    OPKO Health Announces Topline Data from Phase 2 Trial of Rayaldee in Treating Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19, Supporting the Use of Vitamin D Repletion Therapy


    OPKO Health Announces Topline Data from Phase 2 Trial of Rayaldee in Treating Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19, Supporting the Use of Vitamin D Repletion Therapy
    OPKO Health announced preliminary topline results from its Phase 2 trial with Rayaldee to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Preliminary data indicate that
    trialsitenews.com



    OPKO Health announced preliminary topline results from its Phase 2 trial with Rayaldee to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Preliminary data indicate that improving vitamin D status with oral Rayaldee results in earlier resolution of respiratory symptoms associated with COVID-19. Following oral administration, Rayaldee gradually releases calcifediol, the natural storage form of vitamin D3, to safely and reliably raise a patient’s serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) well above current targets of 20 or 30 ng/mL.


    The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, RESCUE, was designed to evaluate Rayaldee (calcifediol) Extended-release capsules to treat symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. A total of 171 symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients were enrolled from multiple U.S. sites and randomized in a 1:1 ratio for 4 weeks of treatment with Rayaldee or placebo and a 2-week follow-up. Dosing with Rayaldee was designed to progressively raise serum 25D to 50 to 100 ng/mL by Day 7, beginning with 300 mcg on Days 1, 2, and 3 followed by 60 mcg per day on Days 4 through 27. The average age of enrolled subjects was 43. Nearly 40% were obese and 79% overweight, based on body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 or 25, respectively. Approximately 30% had comorbidities.


    The first primary efficacy endpoint, reaching the targeted serum 25D level, was reached. By Day 7, mean serum 25D levels increased with Rayaldee treatment to 82 ng/mL and remained elevated for the duration of the trial, with 88% of subjects attaining the targeted level. In contrast, mean 25D declined slightly with placebo treatment.


    A second primary efficacy endpoint was the benefit of raising serum 25D on the time to resolution of five COVID-19 symptoms: trouble breathing, chest congestion, dry or hacking cough, body aches and pains, and chills and shivering. The three symptoms related to respiratory function, evaluated together, resolved more quickly when serum 25D was elevated at Days 7 and 14, with resolution of chest congestion occurring 3.4 days sooner. In subjects achieving increases in serum 25D of at least 25 ng/mL, chest congestion resolution occurred 4 days earlier.



    Rayaldee is approved in the U.S. and Europe for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients by raising 25D to levels as high as 100 ng/mL


    OPKO Health Announces Topline Results from Phase 2 Trial Evaluating RAYALDEE to Treat Symptomatic COVID-19 Outpatients
    OPKO Health, Inc. is a diversified healthcare company that seeks to serve unmet patient needs and establish industry-leading positions in large, rapidly…
    www.opko.com

    Ontario, Canada Sets Record for New COVID-19 Cases: Most Fully Vaccinated


    Ontario, Canada Sets Record for New COVID-19 Cases: Most Fully Vaccinated
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    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 23, 2021


    Ontario, Canada reported 5,790 new COVID-19 cases on Thursday, December 23, 2021, setting the province’s one-day record for new cases since the beginning of the pandemic: Ontario: Case numbers | COVID-19. Thursday’s numbers include 971 unvaccinated new cases compared to 4,392 fully vaccinated new cases—a rapidly rising trend over the past several weeks clearly showing that most new cases are now occurring in fully vaccinated people.



    This comes as no surprise. According to public health officials, effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines has been waning—but the truth is that the vaccines never had much efficacy to start with, having an approximate 1% absolute risk reduction according to a full analysis of data from the clinical trials that was never reported to the public. The absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer booster is not much better at around 2%: Pfizer/BioNTech Fail to Report Low Absolute Risk Reduction in COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Trial Results.


    The same problem of an unreported absolute risk reduction exists for Pfizer’s new Paxlovid COVID-19 pill, now authorized for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and claimed to have below 90% efficacy in reducing hospitalizations and deaths.


    Findings of the Pfizer clinical trial were reported by TrialSite: A Pill Now Available for COVID-19 as FDA Authorizes Emergency Use for Pfizer’s Paxlovid.


    “…among these patients, 0.8% who received Paxlovid were hospitalized or died during 28 days of follow-up compared to 6% of the patients who received placebo.”


    If you subtract the 0.8% Paxlovid event rate from the 6% placebo event rate, that equals the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of the pill: 5.2%. This is the information that is not generally reported to the public.


    If you divide the ARR (5.2%) by the placebo event rate (6%), that equals the relative risk reduction (RRR) of the pill: 86.6%. This is the information that is usually reported to the public.


    Another way to calculate the RRR is by dividing the Paxlovid event rate (0.8%) by the placebo event rate (6%) to get the relative risk (RR), and then subtracting the RR from 1.


    RR = 0.8 /6 = 0.133


    1 – 0.133 = 0.867 = 86.7% RRR


    Late Winter and Early Spring

    As hospitalizations inevitably increase in the later part of the winter and early spring, the public will witness whether or not Paxlovid is almost 90% effective in reducing hospitalizations and deaths in COVID-19 patients lucky enough to receive the pill in time.


    Once again, based on the unreported absolute risk reduction of Pfizer’s Paxlovid clinical trial results, I’m not expecting any surprises by the end of winter and early spring.

    Omicron up to 70% less likely to cause hospitalization than delta variant, UK government study finds


    Omicron up to 70% less likely to cause hospitalization than delta variant, UK government study finds
    Of those admitted to hospital with omicron, 17 people had received their boosters, 74 were double vaccinated, and 27 were unvaccinated.
    www.cnbc.com


    KEY POINTS

    People with omicron are up to 70% less likely to require admission to hospital than those with the delta variant, according to a U.K. government study.

    Of those admitted to hospital with omicron, 17 people had received their boosters, 74 were double vaccinated, and 27 were unvaccinated.

    The analysis is "preliminary and highly uncertain" due to the small numbers of omicron cases currently in hospital, among other factors, Britain's Health Security Agency said.

    Quote from ZenoOfElea

    I wonder if the reduced threat of Omicron brings us to that point?


    Using the UK test/positive rate we can calculate the real Swiss cases if we would test as many people as UK. So we seem to have about 60'000/days (5 out of 6 hidden) cases among 8.6 mio people. From this you can get the expected peak for UK, that is around 4x 60'000 (1 hidden case). Always under the assumption that test percentage can be maintained what I doubt.

    Seems it might be time for that infamous tweak . I bet they just continue pushing the crap till stockpile dwindles, then the tweak, of coarse by then a new strain will be circulating. Only early treatment ends this!!!


    Omicron escapes the majority of existing SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies


    Omicron escapes the majority of existing SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies
    Discover the world’s best science and medicine | Nature.com
    www.nature.com


    The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 variant (Omicron) contains 15 mutations on the receptor-binding domain (RBD). How Omicron would evade RBD neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) requires immediate investigation. Here, we used high-throughput yeast display screening1,2 to determine the RBD escaping mutation profiles for 247 human anti-RBD NAbs and showed that the NAbs could be unsupervised clustered into six epitope groups (A-F), which is highly concordant with knowledge-based structural classifications3-5. Strikingly, various single mutations of Omicron could impair NAbs of different epitope groups. Specifically, NAbs in Group A-D, whose epitope overlap with ACE2-binding motif, are largely escaped by K417N, G446S, E484A, and Q493R. Group E (S309 site)6 and F (CR3022 site)7 NAbs, which often exhibit broad sarbecovirus neutralizing activity, are less affected by Omicron, but still, a subset of NAbs are escaped by G339D, N440K, and S371L. Furthermore, Omicron pseudovirus neutralization showed that single mutation tolerating NAbs could also be escaped due to multiple synergetic mutations on their epitopes. In total, over 85% of the tested NAbs are escaped by Omicron. Regarding NAb drugs, the neutralization potency of LY-CoV016/LY-CoV555, REGN10933/REGN10987, AZD1061/AZD8895, and BRII-196 were greatly reduced by Omicron, while VIR-7831 and DXP-604 still function at reduced efficacy. Together, data suggest Omicron would cause significant humoral immune evasion, while NAbs targeting the sarbecovirus conserved region remain most effective. Our results offer instructions for developing NAb drugs and vaccines against Omicron and future variants.


    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03796-6

    Young people less likely to have long COVID than early studies suggested


    Long COVID: Youth less likely to be affected than early data suggested
    New research finds that long COVID poses less of a risk for young people than previous studies suggested.
    www.medicalnewstoday.com


    Children and young people often report persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    In a systematic analysis of controlled and uncontrolled studies, researchers found similar symptoms in those who had tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    Children who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were slightly more likely to have some persistent symptoms.

    The study suggests that long COVID might be less of a risk for young people than previously thought.


    DEFINE_ME

    Quote from Fm1

    Young people less likely to have long COVID than early studies suggested

    Long vaxx crippling like eye thrombosis, heart damage, nerve damage is definitely more severe than any Covid damage among children...Same result as Swiss study. There is no long-Covid among children. Just pandemic stress, damaging helicopter parents etc.. social media fear mongering.

    So far we have 40'000 (2021) heart disorders from Moderna/Pfizer alone. Age < 20 is about 1/4 of the population but only about 50% max did get gene therapy so far.


    In total the EU reports about 2 mio adverse reactions for the big three vaccines.

    All flu vaccines together make about 5000/year. So these "vaccines" are about 400x worse than a standard vaccine.


    for checking : https://www.adrreports.eu/de/search_subst.html#

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.