The Playground

    Quote from Fm1

    So if Joe Biden mandates you become infected with omicrom, would you?

    Of course not. That makes no sense at all. That has nothing to do with vaccine mandates, which have been part of the U.S. since before the Constitution. That is like asking: "if Biden mandates we must run through red lights at 60 mph, would I do it?" That is preposterous. No elected official or public health official would ever mandate any treatment that has not been proven safe and effective. No sane doctor or public health expert would recommend you deliberately get infected.


    Your suggesting such stupid, unrealistic scenarios adds nothing to the conversation. You might as well suggest that FAA officials recommend that pilots ignore air traffic controllers, or that traffic cops tell everyone it is okay to ignore red lights. Nothing like that ever happens in the real world, so why do you even mention it?

    Quote from Mark U

    It's a sad day when the government, unrestrained by spineless opposition parties, mandates an experimental, proven-to-harm injection to its citizens.

    It would be, if that happened. Fortunately what you describe is paranoid bullshit. The COVID vaccine is the safest ever developed, and it has saved millions of lives. Any drug that has been used billions of times with virtually no casualties is obviously not "experimental." It would be a sad day if the government did not mandate it, or at least strongly encourage it, with penalties for people who endanger the lives others by refusing it. If you do not understand these facts, you do not understand elementary school science or the concept of risks versus benefits, or the reasons we have stop signs, or the reason you are not allowed to piss on the vegetables in the grocery store. In other words, if you believe this, you are an idiot.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Some seriously opaque plastic Rossi’s got there holding the lamp. No wonder it’s so heavy.


    Anyways, I’m building one.

    Perhaps I’ll name it the PElsk. Maybe even with 12/20 V dual output.


    Rossi’s E-cat Chat in your Hat


    Does PEIsk stand for Plastic Exotic Idiocy skam?


    Be careful, Rossi could copy your dual output feature highly competitive.

    Here is the type of high quality independent and checkable data analysis of that detailed UK vaccine efficacy data that W claims to be doing - but is not. Luckily we have this.


    I recommend the other COVID data science analyses on teh UK data as well (which contradict W's oft-repeated statements, but more important give all that detail we'd like to have from W but don't get).


    Note the proper uncertainty in the analysis. It is neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine, just pro-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-data.


    UK death data artifacts: "Stragglers" who delay vaccine doses a select group with higher death risk
    The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) has released all-cause death data for England split out by age and vaccination groups. Its first release in November…
    www.covid-datascience.com


    Here is 50-59yr, where the "stragglers" after 1st and 2nd doses have death rates substantially higher than those who received their doses on schedule. The 3rd dose boosters were just taking off late December, but we see the death rate of those >21d after 2nd dose increase as it becomes a more select group (<25% of age group). We expect this group's death rate to increase once data for January are released.


    What could be causing this phenomenon?

    1. Missclassification: Neil et al. suggest that it could be the result of misclassification -- that deaths soon after 1st dose rollout were misattributed to unvaccinated, deaths soon after 2nd dose rollout are attributed to 1st dose, and deaths soon after 3rd dose booster rollout are attributed to 2nd dose. It is difficult to envision how that could be the case given the ONS specifically defined categories <21d after 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose. It is clear from these definitions that they did not routinely assign events the first week or two after inoculation to the unvaccinated group, as some claim without evidence. I have yet to seen a reasonable explanation for how one proposes the misclassification error occurred, or how it would explain this artifact, but given the timing it is possible there is some sort of misclassification or misrecording of some of the death times.
    2. Selection bias: We consistently see this increased death risk at the point when the vast majority have received their next dose, leaving a small and shrinking select group not receiving their dose on schedule. This small group of "stragglers" includes those too sick to receive vaccine, who would clearly be a select group at higher risk of death. It would also include those who experienced medical complications after the previous dose, and so delayed or refused subsequent doses, another group one would expect to have a higher risk of death. We need more information on the demographic characteristics of these "stragglers" to see if there are any evident factors explaining the higher death risk.

    We see that overall, the age-adjusted all-cause death rates are substantially lower in the vaccinated groups than the unvaccinated. The artifacts discussed above only involve small, select subsets of individuals, and are strongly outweighed by the lower death rates for the same vaccination subgroups during times in which they contained much larger numbers of individuals.


    Quote from Fm1

    A rare side effect of the COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines (both Pfizer and Moderna), local news reports that these side effects usually show up within a few days after the vaccination.

    This "rare" is an euphemism. if you have 500 cases /million and only 50 severe cases/million from illness with a severe outcome - without vaccine - than it is an outraging killing main effect of the Pfizer vaccine.


    Just yesterday a young Greek soccer player died on the field...


    Switzerland had 68 CoV-19 deaths age < 50 since June 2020 most of them chemo patients with CoV-19. So among 5 million people we had 68 cases but expect 2500 live long lasting heart damages due to a rebranded cancer chemo gene therapy called vaccine.

    Tote während Corona-Pandemie - Übersterblichkeit in Coronazeiten: Wer ist woran gestorben?
    Für eine Bilanz ist es zu früh. Doch die Zahlen aus den Jahren 2020 und 2021 liefern aufschlussreiche Erkenntnisse.
    www.srf.ch


    After start of booster campaign Switzerland had a strong raise in excess mortality. The older that die silently like the dad's of some members here..

    2x more excess deaths than seen from CoV-19...We know that Pfizer boosters kill 300..500 Israel member during booster I


    See also : https://www.experimental.bfs.a…vative-methoden/momo.html

    Meta-Analysis Sponsored by Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics: COVID-19 Lockdowns An Utter Failure


    Meta-Analysis Sponsored by Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics: COVID-19 Lockdowns An Utter Failure
    Recently, Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics commissioned a study on the impacts of pandemic-based lockdowns centering on COVID-19. Led by
    trialsitenews.com


    Recently, Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics commissioned a study on the impacts of pandemic-based lockdowns centering on COVID-19. Led by Steve H. Hanke, Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise, the study’s authors also included Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, as well as Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University Sweden. After a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the empirical evidence in the support of the proof that lockdowns reduce COVID-19 mortality, the author’s 62-page study uncovered those lockdowns “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average,” a de minimis figure when understanding the impacts of such actions. The true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns ranged from severely reducing economic activity to raising unemployment, creating the conditions for political unrest, and contributing to domestic violence while overall serving to undermine liberal democracy.


    First, the authors employed searchers to identify 18,590 studies that potentially covered the belief that lockdowns reduced mortality during a pandemic-like situation. However, the authors conducted three review cycles to narrow their research down to just 34 core eligible studies, and 24 qualified for inclusion. Thereafter, the trio separated the 24 studies into three categories, including:


    Lockdown stringency index studies

    Shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies

    Specific NPI studies (non-pharmaceutical intervention)

    After systematic and comprehensive analyses of each category, the scholars concluded that lockdowns don’t have the material effect that public health bureaucrats, administrative branch executives, and politicians touted. In fact, when studying stringency index studies, the authors shared that lockdown actions in Europe and the United States led only to a 0.2% reduction in mortality. Moreover, SIPOs led to only a 2.9% reduction in mortality on average. The authors also found that based on their exhaustive review of NPI studies they could find no comprehensive evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Steve H. Hanke, Professor of Applied Economics and Founder & Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise



    Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark


    Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics at Lund University Sweden

    DEAR CANADIAN TRUCKERS


    DEAR CANADIAN TRUCKERShttps://trialsitenews.com/dear-canadian-truckers/


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


    We in the United States applaud your efforts to free Canadians from government overreach including the draconian Canadian government policies regarding vaccines which are not based on science and are damaging Canadians. As a physician I would like to tell you about another colossal blunder by the Canadian government which has undoubtedly caused much unnecessary suffering and many deaths.


    On August 08/6 Dr. Edward Mills at McMaster University announced the results of the TOGETHER trial in 1497 unvaccinated patients with early COVID. Fluvoxamine, a generic antidepressant, lowered admissions 32% and mortality 91% in those who finished the trial. Dr. Mills stopped the trial because it was unethical to continue in the face of such benefit. The probability of superiority to placebo was 99%. The study was published in The Lancet Global Health 10/27. “It’s a very large treatment effect, one that has ‘nt been observed for any drug yet,” Dr. Mills told CTV News back in October when the study was published. Incredibly some Canadian “experts”, like in the U.S., say their confidence in the data is too low to recommend it to patients. The same ridiculous stance in the US was taken to task by the Wall Street Journal 12/28. Just how much data does it take to try a a cheap, safe drug on a sick patient when you have nothing else?


    12/20 Ontario announced that they were listing fluvoxamine as a possible treatment for COVID. No one else in Canada has followed suit and few patients are receiving this safe, generic drug, $1 a day for 15 days with powerful data from Canada. Entrepreneur Steve Kirsch who funded the trial says almost no one treated with fluvoxamine gets long COVID which normally affects 20-40%. One can make a case that for that reason alone all Canadians with COVID should have been offered treatment.



    To this day few Canadians have received any treatment when they get COVID prior to hospitalization. All Canadians should have been offered fluvoxamine since August when the more serious delta variant dominated. This failure has led to much needless suffering and death.


    The ridiculous Canadian vaccine mandates which you are opposing include vaccinating the 50% of the country who were previously infected and have arguably better immunity than those vaccinated. Those with prior infection have little if anything to gain and risk the considerable vaccine side effects. With recent reports that insurance companies saw a 40% increase in all-cause mortality in 2021 and the US Department of Defense data suggesting huge increases in many medical problems in 2021, one can’t blame the unvaccinated for thinking COVID is less dangerous to them than the vaccines.


    The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done even less than Canada with fluvoxamine and has been sitting on an emergency use authorization for fluvoxamine since 12/21. If fluvoxamine were a branded drug company product it would have received immediate emergency use authorization quickly as happened with molnupiravir whose data wasn’t quite as good as fluvoxamine and in fact, appears to have significant safety consideration—the drug is produced by Merck.


    It appears that for the most part the Canadian government does whatever the US does, ignoring the fact that every decision made by US governmental health care agencies is for the benefit of drug companies. Is Mr. Trudeau afraid of embarrassing the US by doing something smart while the US blunders its way through the pandemic?


    How about Mr. Trudeau doing something smart for Canadians by offering all of them fluvoxamine for COVID if they get sick. It would keep a lot of people out of the hospital.


    Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

    SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-related neurological complications


    SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-related neurological complications - Neurological Sciences
    Objective To describe three cases with neurological symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Methods A case series followed by a review of the literature,…
    link.springer.com


    Abstract

    Objective

    To describe three cases with neurological symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.


    Methods

    A case series followed by a review of the literature, describing hypotheses on how neurological symptoms might develop after vaccination.


    Results

    The different temporal relationship between the onset or worsening of different neurological symptoms suggests different pathophysiological mechanisms. Progression of post-infectious myoclonus, caused by a previous SARS-CoV-2-infection, shortly after vaccination suggests a renewed auto-immune mediated crossreaction of antibodies to both viral epitopes and central nervous system components. Thunderclap headache after vaccination suggests a similar pathophysiological mechanism to the headache and other flu-like symptoms described after vaccination against other viruses. This might be ascribed to the activation of immunoinflammatory mediators or accompanying fever. Although headache accompanied by encephalopathy and focal neurological deficit might occur as part of a cytokine release syndrome, this is clinically less likely.


    Conclusions

    A variety of symptoms, including thunderclap headache, focal deficits and movement disorders, can occur after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and an activation or reactivation of the immune system is suggested as most likely cause. However, one should be careful about claiming a direct correlation. It remains important to exclude other causes, such as structural lesions, infections or subarachnoid hemorrhage, and future research is required to understand possible pathophysiological mechanisms and associations with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.


    Introduction

    Worldwide, many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, which has resulted in morbidity and mortality [1]. This pandemic is still having an enormous impact on healthcare and society in general [2]. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is important to reduce spread of the virus and death rates. Although multiple neurological signs and symptoms in patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported [1], the information about neurological complications after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is also increasing [3]. With this case series, we aim to contribute to this knowledge by describing three cases with neurological manifestations after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. All patients gave written informed consent. Adverse effects were registered in the national pharmacovigilance center (Lareb).


    Case A

    An 87-year-old man known with hypertension had a SARS-CoV-2 infection in November 2020, diagnosed with a PCR-test. Thirteen days after the initial and mild flu-like symptoms, he developed a bilateral disabling, progressive, generalized, action-induced myoclonus with a mild dysarthria, without any other symptoms. Laboratory tests showed no metabolic cause, brain MRI did not show any structural lesions, and CSF analysis showed no abnormalities, including a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR. Also, anti-neuronal antibodies in serum were negative.


    Because of the subacute onset and unremarkable ancillary investigations, a SARS-CoV-2 associated para-infectious myoclonus was diagnosed. Treatment with levetiracetam, clonazepam, and pulse therapy methylprednisolone was initiated. Three months after initial presentation, only a mild action-induced myoclonus persisted. Two months after primary infection, he was vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine [4]. One day after the first vaccine, there was a progression of myoclonic symptoms, with improvement within days. No worsening of symptoms occurred after the second vaccine (30 days after his first vaccine).


    Case B

    A 62-year-old woman with a medical history of ocular melanoma experienced a thunderclap headache without any other complaints, suddenly after her SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) [4]. The headache spontaneously improved after one day. Ten days after vaccination, she had a sudden brief loss of consciousness without head trauma, directly followed by a second episode of thunderclap headache. Neurological examination showed a bradyphrenic woman with motoric dysphasia and mild dysmetria in all extremities, and was otherwise normal. Laboratory analysis, brain CT and MRI, EEG and CSF analysis including blood pigment and cytology analysis were all unremarkable. Cardiological work-up showed no abnormalities. No cause could be found for the headache, including no signs of cerebral reversible vasoconstriction syndrome. Her symptoms recovered within a few days.


    After the second vaccination, she experienced another episode of thunderclap headache, without any other neurological deficits.


    Case C

    A 21-year-old woman with an unremarkable medical history developed general malaise with subfebrile temperature two hours after her first vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) [5]. Six hours later, she experienced a thunderclap headache, with nausea and vomiting. She had tachycardia and hypertension and was restless. Neurological examination, blood analysis, and brain CT including CT-angiography and venography were all normal. The patient was treated with paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous morphine, and oxygen therapy. The headache diminished within 24 h. She recovered completely within a few days.


    Discussion

    The pathophysiological mechanisms for the occurrence of neurological symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are not entirely clear. The origin of a para-infectious phenomenon, as suspected in case A, is thought to be autoimmune mediated and presumably based on molecular mimicry between epitopes of viral spike proteins and specific homologous self-proteins of the nervous system [6]. Antibodies produced by the activated immune system will bind to viral epitopes and additionally, via a cross-reaction, damage specific parts of the nervous system. The modified RNA within the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine will be anchored in the host cell membrane [4]. After vaccination, cross-reactivity may occur again by renewed production of the auto-antibodies already known by the immune system [7]. We hypothesize that the relative short timespan between the first and second vaccination with a still activated immune response might explain why symptoms did not worsen after the second vaccine in case A. A recent small (n = 15) post-mortem cohort-study showed, however, that patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection—vaccination status unknown—have significantly more microglial activation (innate immune system) in the brainstem. This suggests that also other pathophysiological mechanisms might be involved [8].


    The post-vaccination thunderclap headache, without a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection, (case B and C) presumably, has a different cause. The onset of symptoms shortly after vaccination suggests a direct correlation with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Different hypotheses have been postulated.


    First, headache is commonly seen in patients suffering from a respiratory virus and after a vaccination, including SARS-CoV-2-vaccines [3, 4]. Post-vaccination headache might be based on the same pathophysiological mechanism as described after a virus infection: although not fully understood, this might be ascribed to fever, activation of immunoinflammatory mediators, or a direct effect of specific microorganisms [9]. This might also apply to post-vaccination thunderclap headache, supported by the concomitant signs of malaise and subfebrile temperature (case C).


    Second, there might be reactivation of the immune system when patients have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or a SARS-related infection. Medical history of patient B and C did not reveal this, but symptoms may have been subclinical.


    Third, headache and encephalopathy have been reported as a neurological manifestation of SARS-CoV-2-infection due to virus induced systemic hyperinflammation by an extensive cytokine release [10]. This could cause inflammation of multiple organ systems, including the central nervous system, and might lead to multi-organ failure [11]. However, since the symptoms were relatively mild and the patients in case B and C were only vaccinated without a preceding infection, this cause is unlikely. Hypothetically, a milder version of this phenomenon could have occurred.


    To date, there is no evidence for higher rates of neurological disease after COVID-19 vaccination [12] and it remains therefore unclear whether the episode of bradyphrenia and focal neurological symptoms could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.


    It remains essential to exclude other underlying conditions, including subarachnoid hemorrhage, stroke, cervical artery dissection, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.


    Conclusion

    This case series show new onset or deterioration of neurological symptoms shortly after the administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Although a causal relationship could not be established, the temporal relationship between vaccination and symptoms, the exclusion of other causes of the signs and symptoms after thorough examination, and the known pathophysiological mechanisms as described support our hypotheses. In sum, after vaccination, a (re)activation of the immune system might cause neurological symptoms, but it remains important to exclude other etiologies. Further research may gain more insights into the mentioned hypotheses

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Of course not. That makes no sense at all. That has nothing to do with vaccine mandates, which have been part of the U.S. since before the Constitution. That is like asking: "if Biden mandates we must run through red lights at 60 mph, would I do it?" That is preposterous. No elected official or public health official would ever mandate any treatment that has not been proven safe and effective. No sane doctor or public health expert would recommend you deliberately get infected.


    Your suggesting such stupid, unrealistic scenarios adds nothing to the conversation. You might as well suggest that FAA officials recommend that pilots ignore air traffic controllers, or that traffic cops tell everyone it is okay to ignore red lights. Nothing like that ever happens in the real world, so why do you even mention it?

    We were talking natural immunity vs vaccination, you injected, no pun, Washington into discussion as mandating soldiers be vaccinated. Vaccines were not around in 1776. My suggestion was only as stupid as you referencing Washington. Washington ordered his troops to be exposed, so Washington was as you say, insane as no sane public figure would ever ask people be exposed

    Inhaled Nitric Oxide Can Kill COVID-Causing Coronavirus, Prevent Its Attachment to Human Cells: Indian Researchers


    Inhaled Nitric Oxide Can Kill COVID-Causing Coronavirus, Prevent Its Attachment to Human Cells: Indian Researchers | The Weather Channel - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com
    The study had suggested that the gas can prove effective in curbing the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as it induces biochemical changes which directly affect the spike…
    weather.com


    A study involving doctors and scientists has found that inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) is virucidal and kills the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while also preventing its effective attachment to human host cells.


    The study was done by doctors of the Amrita Hospital in Kochi, and scientists from the School of Biotechnology at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham.


    In the feasibility trial conducted at Amrita Hospital, COVID-19 patients who received the iNO therapy recovered faster, with lesser complications and zero mortality rates compared to patients who received the standard COVID treatment without iNO.


    Speaking on the idea behind conducting trials with this novel treatment, Bipin Nair, Dean, Life Sciences at Amrita School of Biotechnology, said their interest in looking at Nitric Oxide as a treatment option for COVUD-19 stemmed from an early study conducted by a Swedish group.


    The study had suggested that the gas can prove effective in curbing the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as it induces biochemical changes which directly affect the spike protein of the virus.


    "This protein is the main culprit in interacting with our body's receptors and immune system and creating havoc," said Nair.


    The team of experts at Amrita Hospital decided to conduct this trial on a small group of COVID patients admitted at Amrita Hospital.


    Out of the 25 patients selected for the study, 14 were given iNO along with standard treatment for COVID-19, while 11 patients were in the control standard treatment group.


    The patients treated with iNO showed a significant drop in their viral load.


    This approach to repurpose Nitric Oxide has the potential to be an effective preventative, especially in light of the highly infectious nature of the Omicron variant prevalent today.


    Geetha Kumar of the Amrita School of Biotechnology said as the global search for an effective remedy against COVID continues, this strategy to use Nitric Oxide as a therapeutic measure has the scope to be a successful, rapid and affordable game-changer in the fight against the pandemic.


    "It is conceivable that healthcare workers, who are constantly exposed to the coronavirus, could also use this as a prophylactic while treating infected patients," said Kumar.


    The study by Amrita Hospital successfully demonstrates the putative role of repurposed inhaled Nitric Oxide in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. The expert panel associated with the study now calls for an extended validation to take this treatment process to the next level.

    COVID vaccines offer better protection and more antibodies than acquired (natural) immunity. Other reports say the two together are best. You cannot depend on serologic testing to determine the level of immunity, which is another reason we cannot substitute acquired immunity for proof of vaccination for a "green passport" allowing entry into public spaces. In any case, as shown here, it is best to get vaccinated even if you are certain you had COVID.


    Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC


    QUOTE

    COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection


    People with prior or current SARS-CoV-2 infection


    COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ages 5 years and older, regardless of a history of symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. This includes people with prolonged post-COVID-19 symptoms and applies to primary series, additional primary doses, and booster doses. Viral testing to assess for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection or serologic testing to assess for prior infection is not recommended for the purpose of vaccine decision-making. Present data are insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is neither any FDA-authorized or FDA-approved test nor any other scientifically validated strategy that providers or the public can use to reliably determine whether a person is protected from infection.


    Data from multiple studies indicate that the currently approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Current evidence suggests that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is low after a previous infection but may increase with time due to waning immunity. Among individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, substantial heterogeneity exists in their immune response. Conversely, the immune response following COVID-19 vaccination is more reliable, consistent, and predictable. A primary vaccination series decreases the risk of future infections in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Numerous immunologic studies have consistently shown that vaccination of individuals who were previously infected enhances their immune response, and growing epidemiologic evidence indicates that vaccination following infection further reduces the risk of subsequent infection, including in the setting of increased circulation of more infectious variants.


    People with known current SARS-CoV-2 infection should defer vaccination at least until recovery from the acute illness (if symptoms were present) has been achieved and criteria to discontinue isolation have been met. Current evidence about the optimal timing between SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is insufficient to inform guidance. This recommendation for vaccination applies to people who experience SARS-CoV-2 infection before receiving any vaccine dose and those who experience SARS-CoV-2 infection after the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but before receipt of subsequent doses.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    COVID vaccines offer better protection and more antibodies than acquired (natural) immunity.


    More useless antibodies that just fit the delta spike protein and cause an immune suppression of the interferon path way... Only a criminal fool would ever produce such a vaccine as Biontec/Pfizer did.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Data from multiple studies indicate that the currently approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    This is a lie as it (e.g. Pfizer /Oxford Astra crap) cannot be given safely to anybody. Today these vaccines in total did produce more severe adverse reactions, than all vaccines in human history together. The number of vaccine deaths direct and indirect is far higher than 100'000 and we expect millions of cancer deaths within the next 10 years because of immune system crippling by the antibodies.


    You live in Disney land far from reality.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

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.