Covid-19 News

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    shows you have lost the plot when it comes to evaluating these figures.

    Go on with your FM/fascist Big pharma propaganda... We all got it since a long time...

    Only, an else healthy, disparate or an idiot takes untested RNA gen therapy.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    mRNA therapies and vaccines are not that new - the technology is 20 years old.

    It's used in cancer immune therapy where it can be either a lucky punch or an predated death. The mechanism is still not under control. 30 are healed 30% suddenly die the rest shows no effect.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I am getting a bit bored of the TSN ivermectin lies.

    WE are since a long time bored by your FUD- indirectly paid by FM privileges!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    However, the fact that event B occurs after event A isn’t enough to show that A caused B. Making this assumption without any further evidence is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In this case, Gateway Pundit didn’t provide evidence to prove that the inclusion of ivermectin in the guideline caused the decline in new cases. Therefore, their claim is unsubstantiated.

    THH FUD Alert. Idiots arguments reproduced by an other idiot. Delhi is on "0" CoV-19 level as 5 other India states too. Why? All new cases get a follow up treatment of all contacts with Ivermectin!

    Result Uttar Pradesh 205 mio. people < 50 cases in avg. since weeks.


    Fact: UK, USA, FR,GE,with no IVG followup treatement

    and >50% Vaccinated are 1000x worse!!!

    July 25,2021

    Quote from RobertBryant

    “Faced with an unpredictable future, it is better to abstain.”

    Dr. Luc Montagnier:

    "I am outraged by the fact that we want to vaccinate children, because then we are really affecting a future generation.

    We need to know, for example, take glyphosate, right? Recent studies on glyphosate have shown that there are epigenetic effects.

    That means people who eat glyphosate in their diet, pass on something that will affect future generations. Their children, their grand children and great-grand children, they will suffer. At the moment, this has been only shown in rats. You could extrapolate this onto humans. There are epigenetic effects. We need to consider that and not just think of our own generation, but of the future.


    This Messenger RNA that’s being injected today in vaccines, may have effects on future generations that are undetected if we aren’t searching for them. —

    So it will persist, we’ll say, if we inject this substance, without really knowing the without knowing the mid-term and long term consequences.

    Absolutely. We’re in unknown territory and proclaim mandatory vaccines for everyone. It’s insanity. It’s vaccination insanity that I absolutely condemn. I want to say as well, that I never, never said that everyone will die from the vaccine, but that a certain amount of people who take the vaccine will suffer from it. That’s impermissible.

    They will suffer from side effects, to which there have been no observations, or any data from previous studies because it’s still too soon to say.


    Exactly. There could side effects that effect future generations as well, maybe, but most probably from our generation in five to ten years. That’s absolutely possible. Notably, something we call neurodegenerative illness. There are sequences that resemble the prion sequences in the RNA of the coronavirus. These prions could disorder the natural proteins in the brain, modifying them to make prions."

    A research article titled “RNA editing alterations define manifestation of prion diseases” explains that “Prion diseases are fatal neurodegenerative disorders characterized by rapidly progressive dementia.”


    RNA editing alterations define manifestation of prion diseases
    Prion diseases are fatal neurodegenerative disorders characterized by rapidly progressive dementia. Sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (sCJD) is the most…
    www.pnas.org

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Another anti-science.. anti-biology person.. Vive la Science

    Alexandra Henrion-Caude.. Vive la Science,,


    First of all, Alexandra is a high-flying scientist, specialist in RNA, respected and listened to in her field. This probably explains why she allows herself to give her opinion on the anti-covid vaccine. It is at the age when we are at the same time able to pronounce on the most specialized scientific subjects and where we are able to take a step back to appreciate a health situation in a global way. His expertise and experience are therefore invaluable.

    Her approach is that of an authentic scientist who observes, analyzes, tries to interpret the facts, expresses doubts and refrains from any hasty assertion. What could be more respectable? It has no connection with the pharmaceutical industry and declares no conflict of interest. She is therefore one of those rare scientists whose speech is free. She made her own the maxim of Claude Bernard who recalled that: "the facts are always right " .

    https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/courriers-des-lecteurs/alexandra-henrion-caude-une-scientifique-de-haut-vol

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    WE are since a long time bored by your FUD

    a circuitous Dr rather than a Dr of circuitry..?

    not entirely boring

    has made some expert and non-boring bloopers

    Ascolian statistics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer and gamma spectroscopy..

    although now an instant dilettante on all matters of biology,,

    with repetitive "antivax " "antivax" bluster

    as a cover for ignorance...

    when is the next blooper?


    8721-fgg-png

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If you don't recommend vaccines for people like me - 60 - fully healthy - you are an anti-vaxxer in the sense that:

    (1) you have some political axe to grind

    or

    (2) you are using false statistics to do the risk comparison between vaccine and COVID

    Totally wrong: I can read statistics and even better I know the medical facts. You did fail.


    Further your arguments are children level. Why can somebody be anti if he is pro?? Only complete idiots or lawyers deny logic.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (1) You have some weird conspiracy theory about the mafia. I don't understand it - but I think it counts as political

    Sorry only the mafia (FM/R/X/B) is conspiracy. Here in Switzerland I know all the names and places and how they control Big pharma and the related state commissions, ministry...


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is actually worse than that. You have consistently used a high fraction of people in hospital with COVID vaccinated as an argument that vaccines are not effective at stopping hospitalisation.

    I never said this. You are a XXXXXX troll. Obviously your grand master is kicking you! And you deserve it as you are among the most untalented spin doctors due to lack of knowledge

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Suppose that all people in a country have been vaccinated. In that case, obviously 100% of hospital COVID cases will be vaccinated.

    OK. In MA 50% are vaccinate but make up 75 of the cases: your conclusion ?? Wrong vaccine....?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is a darn shame that unvaccinated people are holding the rest of us hostage.

    Only idiots believe that they are vaccinated and behave like vaccinate .... An RNA gen therapy (called vaccine) only reduces your risk but does not prevent CoV-19!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    He's also endorsed homeopathy, another quack treatment.

    The base statement of Homeopathy that one single molecule can trigger an immune reaction has been reward with the Nobel prize in 2006. RNA inference is the basic mechanism of any immune system also in plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_interference


    I guess some guys here simply are dumb!

    Quote from RobertBryant

    This Messenger RNA that’s being injected today in vaccines, may have effects on future generations that are undetected if we aren’t searching for them. —

    So it will persist, we’ll say, if we inject this substance, without really knowing the without knowing the mid-term and long term consequences.

    Yes, but RB at least it is very small amounts of non-reproducing mRNA


    As opposed to COVID mRNA, which is very large amounts of reproducing RNA!


    It is only anti-vaxxers who ignore the larger risk and focus on the similar but much, much smaller one.


    Even with the larger risk (COVID itself) - how many RNA viruses do you know that cause epigenetic changes that can affect offspring? Like, 0? it is not exactly something selected for.


    So this is an imaginary risk - but if it were real it would apply to COVID more than to the vaccine - and since the vaccine vastly reduces chances of bad COVID it is the lesser of these two imaginary evils.


    of course COVID itself is also a non-imaginary evil...


    :)

    Quote from ZenoOfElea

    In any case the future of vaccines are RNA vaccines, that is a fact.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    There are risks to going out for a walk in the park.

    Perhaps the future of mankind is oncogenes..

    "

    17.3 Viral Oncogenes

    17.3.1 RNA Tumor Viruses and the Identification of Proto-Oncogenes

    RNA tumor viruses (also known as retroviral tumor viruses) can be divided into two classes: acute and chronic transforming viruses. The identification of oncogenes began with the studies of acutely transforming retroviruses. Although not oncogenic in humans, these can rapidly induce tumors in animals and transform cells in vitro. In contrast to the chronic transforming viruses, the genomes of the acute transforming viruses contain nucleic acid sequences that have been acquired or transduced from the host cell as a result of genetic recombination. The altered host-derived sequences are termed viral oncogenes (v-onc genes), and these sequences, although not necessary for the replication of the virus, are directly responsible for its rapid transforming activity. Characterization of the v-onc genes present in various acute transforming viruses has led to the identification of many different cellular genes (known as proto-oncogenes when in the unaltered state) that have been transduced by various tumor viruses (Table 17-2).

    "

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    RNA_interference

    The role of the 'new' RNAs in epigenetic control

    is poorly understood by the experts

    let alone the dilettante biologists


    example..


    With the attention on non-coding RNAs in the etiology of diseases, the noncoding RNA has become a ‘hot’ issue in modern genetics research, especially as a new mechanism of epigenetic regulation.

    However, thus far, scientists have only a very limited understanding of the mechanisms by which non-coding RNAs regulate gene expression.


    Non-coding RNAs as regulators in epigenetics (Review)
    Epigenetics is a discipline that studies heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve altering the DNA sequence. Over the past decade, researchers…
    www.spandidos-publications.com


    Whether or not the current YAGC

    Pfizer 'vaccines ' interfere with the epigenetic RNA control is

    a subject for experimentation not included

    in the current global experimentation program..



    The Burden of Proof for Pandemic Treatment



    The Burden of Proof for Pandemic Treatment
    We hear time and time again that one inexpensive COVID-19 treatment or another should not be used because there is not enough evidence for it. In
    trialsitenews.com


    We hear time and time again that one inexpensive COVID-19 treatment or another should not be used because there is not enough evidence for it. In hindsight, these arguments did not deserve serious consideration. For those who demand “evidence” behind a working treatment for a pandemic disease, no evidence would ever be enough.


    Medical practice is like engineering in that both use science. I could make an analogy between the COVID-19 early antiviral treatment and airplanes 100 years ago. Opponents to airplanes would have had many more arguments against them than the opponents of ivermectin today. They would have made a long list of deadly airplane accidents, something that opponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 cannot do. They would have argued that the combustion engine is for cars, not for planes.


    Most importantly, they would have shown the paucity of academic papers in favor of airplanes. A meta-analysis of published studies would find out that a typical aircraft design was not flyable, and sometimes led to the death of the test pilot. Such meta-analysis would not have to cherry pick studies as Cochrane under new management has done. The aircraft opponents would have paraded an endless column of putative experts who have never seen an airplane and would testify that airplanes are impossible, ineffective, and unsafe. They would have had much more evidence to justify their position than the modern opponents of ivermectin. They would have also been backed by the influential railway and shipbuilding industries.


    Back then, one would respond to them by saying that those who knew how to design, manufacture, or fly an aircraft had already designed, manufactured, or flew them. That those who whine are sore losers, unable to do so. That an airplane comprises an engine and wings, but also other parts, and should be built correctly and flied competently. That prospect of aircraft should have been evaluated not by averaging the results from all published designs but by the results of the best one.


    Most importantly, one would say that those who think that airplanes are not sufficiently useful or safe were free not use them but should not stand in the way of those who wanted to build and use them. The most important difference today is that the opponents of ivermectin can prevent its use, and even to cause incorrect use. They do so by improperly influencing scientific journals, medical societies, and using the Big Tech monopoly to control the information flow between doctors and from doctors to patients.


    Back to the COVID-19 treatment—the FDA, CDC, NIH, medical boards, and so on should be told that if they do not know the evidence, that does not mean that the evidence does not exist. That not all medical evidence is published in peer-reviewed journals. That a pharmaceutical company asking for approval for a new drug must provide evidence of its safety and efficacy to the FDA, but doctors prescribing an already approved drug do not. That proving that a new drug which is 10% more efficient than old one (but would be priced 10x the old one) requires RCT, but a treatment that increases the odds by 3–6 times does not. Further, such RCT would likely be unethical. That when a doctor sees that a certain drug combination saves from hospitalization 80% of the patients who otherwise would have been hospitalized, it is sufficient evidence for that doctor. Independent description of this effect by five doctors is reliable scientific evidence. The effectiveness of HCQ for COVID-19 was affirmed by thousands of doctors.

    THE PERILOUS CENSORING OF DR. PETER MCCULLOUGH


    The Perilous Censoring of Dr. Peter McCullough
    Back in 1633 there was a guy named Galileo Galilei who was deemed a nut job by the Catholic Church because of his heretical belief the Earth revolved around the
    starkmanapproved.com


    Back in 1633 there was a guy named Galileo Galilei who was deemed a nut job by the Catholic Church because of his heretical belief the Earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest and ordered never again to teach his heresy. Centuries later the Church apologized, and Albert Einstein declared Galileo, “the father of modern science.”


    In 1846 a Hungarian doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis was fired and declared a nut job for his preposterous advocation that hand washing was one of the most important tools in public health, particularly for surgeons. Semmelweis took so much abuse from the medical establishment that he wound up in an asylum.


    In the early 40s a cardiologist named Bernard Lown was expelled from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine because he protested medical segregation by altering blood-bottle labels that denoted donors’ race. Decades later Lown invented the defibrillator, which has saved countless lives. In 1973, he founded The Lown Institute, a think tank focused on ground-breaking research to improve the quality of U.S. healthcare.

    Some of the greatest minds since the world was flat were scientists and doctors persecuted and shunned because they saw or interpreted things differently. That’s why they are heralded as visionaries. Widely held beliefs often are proven wrong, and on Wall Street the rare few with 20/20 vision profit handsomely. The CEO of Enron graced the covers of business magazines and was heralded by the folks at McKinsey as a business genius until a trader who specialized betting against conventional wisdom studied the company’s regulatory filings and determined it was a fraud. Harry Markopolos, a financial analyst repeatedly warned the SEC that famed investor Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, but he too was deemed a nut job.


    Jeff Bezos at the turn of the century was uniformly doubted by analysts and the media who said Amazon could never be profitable. Investors who ignored the naysayers likely aren’t reading this commentary.


    Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist who prior to Covid was among the most respected in his field, is a modern-day doctor who the medical establishment, the government, and the media want silenced. His views are very controversial, and I don’t have the scientific or medical expertise to evaluate them. But I know quite a bit about one of the hospitals where McCullough trained and one of the cardiologists who trained him.


    His name is Joel Kahn, and he was a public champion of my critical reporting about Michigan’s Beaumont Health when it wasn’t yet widely known how extensive cost-cutting had irreparably harmed the company’s flagship hospital. McCullough did his fellowship under Kahn when they both worked at Beaumont. Kahn, who has a considerable national following promoting the merits of a plant-based diet and other heart-healthy lifestyle measures, has supported and advocated McCullough’s views. LinkedIn has censored several of Kahn’s posts highlighting what he says are alarmingly high deaths and other serious complications from COVID vaccines. Kahn admirably doesn’t delete highly critical comments on posts that escape LinkedIn’s censors, including personal attacks calling him a “quack” and advocating the hashtag #canceljoelkahn.

    McCullough and Kahn have put themselves at great financial and professional risk. McCullough’s previous employer, a hospital whose foundation established a scholarship in his name, last week sued him for more than $1 million, alleging that McCullough has repeatedly misrepresented to the media he still works there and that it has been harmed by the association. McCullough’s lawyer issued a statement saying the lawsuit was a “politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough.” The Federation of State Licensing Boards last week issued a warning that physicians who post COVID misinformation on social media could lose their medical licenses, so more punishment could be in the offing.


    It’s understandable why McCullough’s former employer, which filed its lawsuit on the same day it announced it was requiring all its employees to be vaccinated, no longer wants anything to do with him. McCullough maintains the COVID vaccine doesn’t protect against the Delta variant and isn’t necessary for people under age 50. He’s also very critical of health authorities for focusing on how best to stop the spread of COVID rather than how best to treat it. A rebuttal to some of McCullough’s positions can be found here.


    The corporate media, which is so sycophantic to the Biden Administration that CNN anchor Brian Stelter shamelessly asked press secretary Jen Psaki how reporters could do a better job covering the president, has its own agenda wanting McCullough destroyed. The corporate media is fueling the narrative that the unvaccinated are moronic Trump supporters who watch FOX news, when in fact a significant percentage are Blacks and Hispanics. McCullough has made regular appearances on FOX, including on Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, so discrediting McCullough serves the double purpose of also discrediting FOX, which attracts a considerably bigger audience than the other cable networks.

    On paper at least, it’s hard to dismiss McCullough as a quack. According to a bio posted on the US Cardiology Review, he is recognized internationally as a leading authority on chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state, having published more than 1,000 papers and garnered more than 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine. He also is a founder of the Cardio Renal Society of America, an alliance of cardiologists and nephrologists focused on cardiorenal syndromes. He was previously co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine and served as Chair of the National Kidney Foundations’ Kidney Early Evaluation Program, among the largest screening efforts for chronic diseases. Notably, McCullough was a significant philanthropic donor to his former employer. (I wonder whether the hospital will return those funds.)


    Kahn has previously sounded alarms that proved prescient. In 2019, he posted a commentary on Medium predicting that interventional cardiologists wouldn’t curtail their lucrative stent procedures despite a massive study documenting they weren’t beneficial for patients who were stable. The influential Journal of the American Medicine two weeks ago published a paper confirming Kahn’s prediction was spot on. Inserting stents are among the most profitable hospital procedures.


    My familiarity with Kahn began a year ago last April when I began writing a series of very critical stories for Deadline Detroit about Beaumont and its management, particularly CEO John Fox. Underscoring the degree Beaumont doctors feared Fox, most were afraid to sign a petition protesting his leadership. However, when given the opportunity to respond to an anonymous survey, it was revealed that a majority of doctors had little confidence in Fox and his deputies, particularly those working at the company’s once nationally respected flagship hospital.


    Kahn showed courage. Despite having an affiliation with Beaumont, he tweeted my articles and linked to them on social media, giving them a certain validity. Deadline Detroit, an independent online publication, wasn’t known for healthcare reporting and many local residents were suspicious of my reporting because other local outlets ignored it. Kahn’s support allowed my articles to gain traction and without it I’m not sure they would have achieved impact or recognition. I ultimately garnered an award for my coverage.


    Courage possibly is in the DNA of Beaumont’s once nationally respected cardiology department. One Harvard-trained cardiologist sent multiple letters to Beaumont’s directors and trustees calling for Fox’s firing and pretty much called him a liar. The co-heads of the cardiology department wrote a letter to the chair of the hospital network warning him they had “serious concerns” about the company Beaumont was outsourcing its anesthesia services to. The warnings weren’t heeded and within three weeks of the outsourcing company taking over, a patient undergoing a routine colonoscopy died from intubation complications and another landed in the ICU because of a pain medication overdose. The outsourcing company, NorthStar Anesthesia, is owned by a holding company whose previous CEO was Jeffrey Zients, who is overseeing the president’s pandemic response.

    McCullough, Kahn, and other physicians who are increasingly sticking their necks out and daring to challenge the CDC’s COVID and vaccination data, may all be badly mistaken. However, what history abundantly teaches is that censorship, however noble the original motivation, is never isolated to the original cause. Some governments have already used their “fake news” laws to combat vaccine misinformation for other political purposes.


    The U.S. healthcare system is compromised and corrupt, and most doctors today are employees of healthcare networks or companies controlled by private equity. There are some physicians willing to speak out about how the corporatization of healthcare is harming patient safety while driving up prices. Rest assured, if McCullough and Kahn are silenced, so will others whose views the government and medical establishment doesn’t like. The corporate media can be counted on to abet the efforts or turn a blind eye to them, much like they did with my Beaumont reporting.


    I, too, have experienced personal and unfounded attacks from powerful healthcare executives. Beaumont’s CEO called me a “psycho,” a “mudslinging machine,” and alleged that I had secret Russian connections. (My response can be found here.) Fox, who has made more than $20 million since being named CEO in 2016 and stands to make tens of millions more if he can successfully merge Beaumont into Spectrum Health, is representative of many MBA suits running U.S. hospitals.


    The Biden Administration, the CDC, and Dr. Fauci don’t have the pandemic under control. The real issue isn’t contrarian doctors like McCollough and Kahn, but America’s very poor leadership and the corporate media’s failure to hold the president accountable. Biden promised to end COVID and for those with short memories, here was his plan.

    Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination


    Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination
    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that…
    www.biorxiv.org


    Summary

    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern1. As a result, vaccination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines produces high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants tested1, 2. Here, we examine memory B cell evolution 5 months after vaccination with either Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccines in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals. Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naïve individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

    Great news for stockholders not so much for the general public!


    Pfizer Raises Price of Covid-19 Vaccine by 25% in Europe: Report


    Pfizer Hikes Price of Covid-19 Vaccine by 25% in Europe


    Pfizer is raising the price of its covid-19 vaccine in Europe by over 25% under a newly negotiated contract with the European Union, according to a report from the Financial Times. Competitor Moderna is also hiking the price of its vaccine in Europe by roughly 10%.

    Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine is already expected to generate the most revenue of any drug in a single year—about $33.5 billion for 2021 alone, according to the pharmaceutical company’s own estimates. But the company says it’s providing poorer countries the vaccine at a highly discounted price.


    Pfizer previously charged the European Union €15.50 per dose for its vaccine ($18.40), which is based on new mRNA technology. The company will now charge €19.50 ($23.15) for 2.1 billion doses that will be delivered through the year 2023, according to the Financial Times.

    Moderna previously charged the EU $22.60 per dose but will now get $25.50 per dose. That new price is actually lower than first anticipated, according to the Financial Times, because the EU adjusted its initial order to get more doses.


    There’s no word yet on whether the next potential round of negotiations between the U.S. and Pfizer will see the company raise prices. Both Pfizer and Moderna did not respond to requests for comment early Monday morning.

    While most drug companies like Pfizer and Moderna are selling their covid-19 vaccines at a profit—even China’s Sinovac vaccine is being sold to make money— the UK’s AstraZeneca vaccine is being sold at cost. But AstraZeneca has suffered from poor press after a few dozen people around the world died from blood clots believed to be related to the British vaccine. As it turns out, Pfizer’s blood clot risk is “similar” to AstraZeneca according to a new study and your risk from dying of covid-19 is much higher than dying from any vaccine.


    The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are being provided free-of-charge to residents of the EU by the government, just as vaccines are free to everyone in the U.S., but governments around the world are still handing over a lot of cash for the privilege of getting the pandemic under control.

    Curiously, it seems like the folks at Moderna are getting a reputation for being assholes, perhaps due to inexperience. The company was founded in 2010 and its covid-19 vaccine is its first commercial product.


    From the Financial Times:


    One official said staff working for Moderna were especially “preposterous and arrogant” in their dealings with the commission, highlighting a lack of previous experience in government affairs.

    Pfizer, on the other hand, has been around the block a few times and told investors that things are going exceedingly well for the company on an earnings call last week. And the covid-19 vaccine is a big part of that financial success.


    “The Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine contributed $7.8 billion in global revenues during the second quarter, and we continue to sign agreements with governments around the world,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said last week.

    But Bourla was careful to note that Pfizer is providing the vaccine at discounted rates for poorer countries.


    “We anticipate that a significant amount of our remaining 2021 vaccine manufacturing capacity will be delivered to middle- and low-income countries where we price in line with income levels or at a not-for-profit price,” Bourla said.

    In fact, we are on track to deliver on our commitment to provide this year more than one billion doses, or approximately 40% of our total production, to middle- and low-income countries, and another one billion in 2022,” Boula continued.


    Only wealthy countries will have to pay through the nose.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Perhaps the future of mankind is oncogenes..

    "

    17.3 Viral Oncogenes

    17.3.1 RNA Tumor Viruses and the Identification of Proto-Oncogenes

    RNA tumor viruses (also known as retroviral tumor viruses) can be divided into two classes: acute and chronic transforming viruses. The identification of oncogenes began with the studies of acutely transforming retroviruses. Although not oncogenic in humans, these can rapidly induce tumors in animals and transform cells in vitro. In contrast to the chronic transforming viruses, the genomes of the acute transforming viruses contain nucleic acid sequences that have been acquired or transduced from the host cell as a result of genetic recombination. The altered host-derived sequences are termed viral oncogenes (v-onc genes), and these sequences, although not necessary for the replication of the virus, are directly responsible for its rapid transforming activity. Characterization of the v-onc genes present in various acute transforming viruses has led to the identification of many different cellular genes (known as proto-oncogenes when in the unaltered state) that have been transduced by various tumor viruses (Table 17-2).


    All very exciting RB - but as I suspected none of this changes our children's DNA. You can't meet my challenge.


    It is anti-vaxx fluff to say that any of these mechanisms are affected by mRNA.

    It is double anti-vaxx fluff to say that these mechanisms change our children's DNA (since that is extra special protected).

    It is triple anti-vaxx fluff because mRNA does not get into the nucleus. Retroviruses have very special machinery to allow that to happen.

    It is quadruple anti-vax fluff because retro-viruses contain specialised machinery (lots of it) necessary for them to work which mRNAs to not contain.


    All of these incredibly unlikely things are needed for mRNA vaccines to pose a risk to our children's DNA


    And in addition, were this to be possible, we would have the same risks from any RNA virus (especially retro-viruses) - only the total RNA load from such is much higher than the vaccine mRNA load. We don't see that. Your offspring are not malformed. There is no record of people with HIV having genetically damaged children (although the children may catch HIV from the mother).


    I am all for proper examination of risk, this anti-vaxx fluff is not an examination.

    When we understand a lot more about COVID, we maybe can boost vaccinated individuals by giving them a COVID infection. :)


    Till then, it is good to know that the vaccine provides very good protection and a booster shot will make that last if needed.

    It will be great news if infection provides very good and long-lasting protection as well - that seems likely (very good) and still unclear (long-lasting).


    This is BTW more evidence for a longer period between the two mRNA doses as we have had in the UK (12 weeks) providing better protection - I think the jury is still out on this but it would be great if so.

    Quote from Fm1

    Pfizer previously charged the European Union €15.50 per dose for its vaccine ($18.40), which is based on new mRNA technology. The company will now charge €19.50 ($23.15) for 2.1 billion doses that will be delivered through the year 2023, according to the Financial Times.

    Worth pointing out - the US is planning to bribe people $100 just to get vaccinated - because of the anti-vaxxer success - more than twice as much as the cost of the vaccine.


    Quote from Fm1

    “We anticipate that a significant amount of our remaining 2021 vaccine manufacturing capacity will be delivered to middle- and low-income countries where we price in line with income levels or at a not-for-profit price,” Bourla said.

    In fact, we are on track to deliver on our commitment to provide this year more than one billion doses, or approximately 40% of our total production, to middle- and low-income countries, and another one billion in 2022,” Boula continued.


    Only wealthy countries will have to pay through the nose.


    Or, put in more normal terms, wealthy countries pay a fair amount (much less than the US uses to bribe people to get vaccinated), whereas poor countries get it much cheaper as is absolutely necessary if we are to control COVID variant spread.


    I think actually it is only a weird person, or an anti-vaxxer, who would see $46:30 as "paying through the nose" for a vaccine that would protect them from COVID. I guess an anti-vaxxer would not want a vaccine at any cost?

    Take your anti vax crap and XXXXXX no one here is anti vax yet you continue to push your Huxley CRAP!!!

    FM1 - you have obviously not taken to heart my previous post. But nor have you contradicted it!


    The TSN biassed opinion piece above, taken from FLCC PR, is exactly why individual doctors have never been trustworthy to determine whether a new treatment works or not. And why historically they have often though bad treatments that harm patients were in fact necessary.


    A doctor cannot know whether a new treatment is saving 80% of patients when the mortality could be 1 in 50 or 1 in 1000 depending on demographics and luck. The high quality RCTs that have been done to test this do not show any improvement. That at least means such a dramatic slam dunk improvement is not possible.


    Now all this is Trial Knowledge 101. It is not specially difficult, nor is it specific to ivermectin. It is applied to all new drugs where there is a priori no obvious reason to expect then to work. You need evidence - not vociferous PR groups, websites, and subjective write-ups by doctots glowing with praise.


    The analogy with airplanes is silly. No-one would allow an airline to provide a service or passengers with an aeroplane that might kill its passengers, where the only evidence of its safety is a whole load of plane-watching fans who think it looks great.


    Go to my previous post where I have put the case for being careful over repurposed drugs (because if immunomodulatory whether they make things better or worse with COVID is just not known from prior safety info).

    Quote from Fm1

    Take your anti vax crap and XXXXXX no one here is anti vax yet you continue to push your Huxley CRAP!!!

    FM1 - I'm glad you are not anti-vax - but you will notice that some here are. W, for example, thinks that I, as a healthy 60 year-old, should not be vaccinated because the vaccine risks are higher than the COVID risks. This is wrong by several orders of magnitude. He has repeatedly posted arguments re the probabilities that he must know are wrong, as I've explained. He also has some idea about vaccines being pushed by corrupt governments which I do not understand but sounds like anti-vax conspiracy theory.


    RB - well - he never says what he means - but he is posting stuff from not credible sources, claiming it is credible, that says mRNA vaccines are too dangerous to use contrary to what everyone else thinks and on very poor evidence. That sounds anti-vax to me.


    There is lots of room for different opinion over exactly what is the risk balance, but those two, with zany unevidenced theories, go way over to the anti-vaxx silliness where they do not bother to balance risks because their only message is don't take vaccines (unless you are ill and old).


    And people who deliberately post indefensible stuff, do not try to defend it when the obvious critiques are made, then just repost it as though repetition makes it true should expect to be called out.

    Thomas, I don't think either are anti vax, as a matter of fact W has many times advocated for older adults to be vaccinated. Maybe his remarks to you is because he knows you are supplementing vitamin D, Robert is in a different situation being down under and a slow vac rollout but I have yet to see him say don't vaccinate. I have questions as they do, and we realize that to end this pandemic a two pronged attack is needed, early treatment and vacs, while you continue with your vac only approach. Your way isn't working!

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.