Covid-19 News

    They still have not tested for adverse effects with other drugs and it's recommended for obese and diabetics. Go figure

    Zephir, you have not been paying attention, or else are not (for whatever reason) letting curiosity and math inform your ideas.


    The vaccines reduce mortality by some amount 5X, 10X, 15X depending on exact circumstances (how long from vaccination, which age group, etc). The data that shows this is irrefutable. Where COVID risk is low (young people) reduction in mortality as a fraction tends to be less good, and also less easy to evaluate, because so few people die, but for everyone older than 40 there is a dramatic 5X or more reduction in deaths, with corresponding or better reduction in hospitalisation, symptomatic disease, etc.


    The papers that show this clearly come for example from the UK where we have accurate information about who was vaccinated, who tested positive, who went to hospital, and who dies. Looking at all these numbers you can see that of the whole UK population at a given age all those things, testing positive, hospital, death reduce by a very large amount for the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated.


    I will post one of these papers and go through it for you if you have any argument against this statement.


    The data which you post does not show what you think it shows, Simpsons's paradox (Jed's useful post above) and some other things which I call the vulnerable get vaccinated effect.


    The vulnerable get vaccinated effect.


    Everywhere - for obvious reasons, those who are at greater risk of COVID are more likely to get vaccinated. Look at the US vaccination figures banded by age:




    US Coronavirus vaccine tracker
    The number of Americans getting their first and second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine is growing daily. Use these charts to track how the nation is doing…
    usafacts.org


    It is bloody obvious that those most at risk would be more motivated to get vaccinated (see the graph below, risk increase X3-X4 for every 10 years of age). But it means if you compare vaccinated population with unvaccinated population the vaccinated lot are strongly biassed towards higher risk, higher mortality, etc because those people chose to get vaccinated.


    The way to look at it is that vaccination decreases your risk of COVID by making you 10 - 20 years younger. That is a very big risk reduction, but still vaccinated age 60 you have higher risk than unvaccinated age 30.


    This effect applies not just to age but to anything else. So if you have cancer, are on immune suppressants, or have an known immunodeficiency, you get vaccinated first in queue. And then as needed you get booster vaccinated. This means that the vaccinated deaths for younger age groups look high, because all those at greater risk with co-morbidities get vaccinated, and the risk for healthy young people is relatively low even unvaccinated.



    The US figures are very bad for all age groups compared with other countries, e.g. the UK. That means a given COVID infection rate is a lot more deadly in the US than the UK.


    More important, US hospitals, for given COVID rate, run with more patients than the UK.


    The UK has less slack in hospitals than the US, and is running a high COVID infection rate, but its very complete vaccination status in older age ranges means that it is still OK.



    How does natural immunity affect all this?


    Those with full-blown COVID, who survive, end up mostly with really good immunity (better than vaccines in many cases). So any stats about mortality need to compare:

    • naive (no infection), unvax
    • naive vax
    • prior infected, unvax
    • prior infected, vax

    This has been done. And, guess what, the best protected (in terms of lowest death rate, lowest hospitalisation, lowest infection) are those with vaccine + prior infection.


    How deadly is delta?


    We have pretty accurate statistic for that now by looking at IFR etc in the unvaccinated population.


    That is much lower than old COVID IFR. Why? The vulnerable get vaccinated effect.


    When you adjust for this delta looks about twice as deadly as original covid - a little worse than alpha. This is what you'd expect. There is no evolutionary pressure for it to get more deadly. The evolutionary pressure is for higher viral load and virus reproducting more quickly which pretty obviously makes it more likley to overwhelm the immune system.


    There is a lot of uncertainty here - but some things are so obvious, and so well documented, (like - delta is not less deadly than alpha, vaccine provides large amount of protection from infection, hopitalisation, death), I am sure if you look closely at the data you will discover it shows what i am saying.


    If you disagree please give evidence citing sources and how you calculate IFR and I'll look at them.


    THH

    Quote from Fm1

    On Tuesday Fauci said you are not fully vaccinated till you have a third shot, in January he will tell us we need a 4th to be fully vaccinated and so on........... Early treatment ends this !!!!!!

    Only if it works for almost everyone. And if it was me, with vaccine giving 5X protection and treatment giving 5X protection I'd want both if possible. But then I am 62, male.


    The monoclonal antibody therapies look good, but they have significant side effects (much, much more than the vaccines) so there is that to consider as well.


    For society as a whole, we will need both. Long-term, whether we will need yearly vaccines like for Flu will depend on many things - I don't think we can tell yet. If I had to bet I'd say it will end up like Flu but with booster vaccines needed only for older people. We have a long way to go before we get there, still with a decent probability of new nastier variants emerging regularly.


    THH

    Quote from Fm1

    They still have not tested for adverse effects with other drugs and it's recommended for obese and diabetics. Go figure

    Drugs good enough to nail COVID will always have side effects. But a drug that can nail COVID is great. Eventually we get to multiple effective drugs, all at lower doses, which nail COVID and have tolerable side effects (maybe you bavy them for people on specific other drugs).


    Finding these, and working out safety fully, will take quite a while. The first part is just finding a tolerated drug that can nail COVID. Ivermectin is not that - or it would have better RCT results - the right mAbs drugs probably are.


    In addition we need drugs which can sort out the immune system bad reaction to COVID but that seems pretty tricky to me, not much progress yet, though I hope. E.g. that Israeli exosome delivered CD21 treatment. I still think in theory it should be easier than finding a good antiviral.


    THH

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This idiots use outdated Pfizer boosters not made for delta. As research = science shows boosters (also second RNA gen therapy) do not improve the immune response (memory B-cell). Even worse these slightly lower it. But worst: The misfit between alpha antibodies and the Delta spike leads to ADE what leads to an over exposition/reaction of the vaccinated.

    The data (see recent data from Israel) probably shows that boosters reduce deaths. We will know more soon.


    Boosters not made for delta - true - but that is a (political?) decision that what we have and know is safe is still good enough. As soon as that stops being true, we can develop a newer mRNA vaccine quickly. Pfizer and Moderna want to do this, you will remember.


    Boosters do horrible things to you. No evidence. Just like no evidence for vaccines do horrible things to you. We all agree that vaccines are not perfect - no-one ever said they would be.

    monoclonal antibody therapies are also suspected of causing some mutations. Be careful what you wish for. An early anti viral is what is needed period!!!

    Quote from Fm1

    monoclonal antibody therapies are also suspected of causing some mutations. Be careful what you wish for. An early anti viral is what is needed period!!!


    The safety and side effects of monoclonal antibodies - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
    A growing number of monoclonal antibodies are being developed for the treatment of malignancies, transplant rejection, autoimmune and other immune disorders;…
    www.nature.com

    • mAbs against tumour necrosis factor-α (TNFα) have been associated with reactivation of latent tuberculosis, as well as with other serious infections and malignancies.


    That is no reason to avoid all mAbs therapies, just because one targeted at cancer can also generate cancer.


    I am not saying that any drug is safe - even ivermectin used at 10X normal dose is not well understood in terms of its effects. But ivermectin is not a good antiviral for COVID. mAbs offer the best prospect and they are not inherently more risky than other powerful drugs.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The vaccines reduce mortality by some amount 5X, 10X, 15X depending on exact circumstances

    Vaccines enhance mortality by a factor of 100 compared to Ivermectin++ treatment. Based on real data! Not your faked pseudo studies. Just compare Kerala and Uttar Pradesh, Delhi etc...


    Further we have no CoV-19 vaccines yet except Sinovac. You refer to gen therapy that just stimulates monoclonal antibodies of reduced use to all mutations.

    Compared to no therapy gen therapies protect older and vulnerable where these in average do more harm among people age <50.

    So from a medical point of view following lege artis you are lying!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Pfizer and Moderna want to do this, you will remember.

    These fools went all in for 1.351... No use for delta...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But ivermectin is not a good antiviral for COVID.

    Ask the people in India,Slovakia, Zaire, Mexico, Bolivia. They will call you a liar.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Even Dumbheads like you should be able to query the flue vaccine VAERS data and compare it with the CoV-19 VAERS data.

    What you will see is an about 1000x risk increase for the gen therapy over a real vaccine. I never said anything else. Both vaccines induce e.g. GBS but the death risk from CoV-19 vaccine is >1000x elevated compared to a flu vaccine.

    W is lying again. I call it lying, not anything else, because he know well why VAERS numbers cannot be a proxy for risks. In addition I have shown the real risks of blood clots, heart conditions, etc as result of vaccination from that very accurate self-controlled case study with 30,000,000 people in the UK.


    W knows these things. He wishes not to discuss the real numbers, or think about them, and stoke fears using meaningless numbers.


    maybe, he is lying to himself, as well as everyone else on this thread. I'm not a psychologist and frankly that is not my business. But lying is lying, and saying that the numeric difference in VAERS reports between old vaccines well understood and a new everyone takes it COVID vaccine - where every medical event close in time to a vaccination will become a VAERS report - represent risk differences is deceit pure and simple.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Vaccines enhance mortality by a factor ofm100 compared to Ivermectin++ treatment. Based on real data! Not your faked pseudo studies. Just compare Kerala and Uttar Pradesh, Delhi etc...

    Another lie. I'm not going to dissemble myself and call this a Wyttenfact.


    We have recently been through the whole ecological comparison between Kerala and UP. UP does not come out of it looking good - although as always ecological comparisons are very very difficult to make.


    W conveniently ignoring that detailed work now is his lying to everyone here (and maybe himself as well - but that is not my business).

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You refer to gen therapy that just stimulates monoclonal antibodies

    And again, W is lying, he knows it because I have replied previously (and he could not refute my reply). This is getting a bit repetitive.


    MRNA vaccines are a very efficient way to generate specific proteins in the body. The natural antibodies generated in response to these proteins are not monoclonal and are just a subset of what would e generated anyway in a natural infection where these proteins and others would evoke an antibody response.


    Now, you can argue that a more comprehensive - less specific - immune reponse would be better. That is a bit like arguing that getting multiple vaccines at the same time, dividing immune resources between different targets, is better. it is, of course, you are then protected against more different pathogens. In the content of COVID such a division might be better - or worse - given that we need a large enough response, with a low vaccine dose to minimise side effects.


    You can argue that a severe natural COVID infection will leave a stronger immune response after recovery. That is usually true. So what? The whole point about vaccination is to reduce the harm from catching sevre diseases. Saying that if you take that harm then you don't need vaccination is just silly.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    W knows these things. He wishes not to discuss the real numbers, or think about them, and stoke fears using meaningless numbers.

    Why should I discuss with a person that willfully spreads fake information?


    You cannot not even make a difference between vaccine damage and vaccine effects.


    You can only compare vaccines with vaccines. Not deaths prevented by a vaccine vs. deaths caused by vaccine - what you do.

    Fact is. CoV-19 vaccines are at least 1000X more deadly than flu vaccines.

    Further Ivermectin is at least 100x more efficient that vaccination.


    Slovakia, India IVR states have a daily absolute death rate of close to zero ="0" since two months now.


    Vaccine terror states like Kerala, Israel, USA, France,Germany,.. have much higher death rates that further increase after 3 months of vaccination.


    You should go to a house wive forum to spread your FUD.

    A simple T-cell test to show the full picture of body's immune response to COVID-19

    A rapid way to track an elusive part of the immune system will bring better vaccine strategies


    A simple T-cell test to show the full picture of body's immune response to COVID-19: A rapid way to track an elusive part of the immune system will bring better vaccine strategies
    A new method enables scientists to simply and rapidly assess T-cell immune responses in people vaccinated against or recovering from COVID-19, and verify…
    www.sciencedaily.com


    Researchers from Duke-NUS Medical School, together with collaborators from the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) and Singapore General Hospital (SGH), have discovered a simple and rapid method to measure the T-cell immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19.


    A growing body of data now demonstrates the importance of both T cells and antibodies in the coordinated immune response against SARS-CoV-2. This method is a further boost to scientists who seek to routinely monitor and assess SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses in vaccinated or convalescent individuals, as well as to test and verify the effectiveness of vaccines.


    "T cells play a vital role alongside antibodies in protecting people against COVID-19, but they are much harder to detect and measure," said Dr Anthony Tanoto Tan, Senior Research Fellow with Duke-NUS' Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) Programme and first author of the study. "Our research offers a feasible approach that can overcome the current limitations faced in detecting spike-specific T-cell responses, and will help better evaluate the protective role played by T cells in our immune system."


    For the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, scientists took blood samples from volunteers who were vaccinated against COVID-19, or who had been infected and then recovered from the disease. They then introduced small fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein directly into the blood samples. In response to these fragments, the T cells released chemical signals called cytokines, which are much easier to detect and measure than T cells, and are already being tracked to monitor T-cell activity for the diagnosis of diseases such as tuberculosis.


    Building on that, the team showed that the test, called Cytokine Release Assay (CRA), can reliably identify and quantify specific T cells present in the blood of people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19, or have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Working with different blood samples from more than 200 people, the researchers desmonstrated that the CRA test was as sensitive as existing methods used to find and measure T-cell activity.


    "This discovery allows a rapid and large-scale expansion of studies to track T-cell activity across the world, while not requiring specialised or expensive equipment," said Professor Antonio Bertoletti from Duke-NUS' EID programme, the study's corresponding author. "The study results confirm that the level of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in blood samples does not always correlate with the T-cell response. With this rapid test, we can help define the correlates of protection from T cells and antibodies for the development of COVID-19 vaccines."


    Professor Patrick Casey, Senior Vice-Dean for Research at Duke-NUS, said, "This important study advances our understanding of the human body's immune response at a critical juncture in this pandemic. As validated in this research, repurposing the well-established CRA test to fast-track the evaluation of T-cell responses in COVID-inoculated or -convalescent patients adds a new dimension to vaccine strategies as we battle the threat of new and emergent variants."


    To bring this discovery to market, Duke-NUS has licensed the assay to Hyris, an innovation-based biotechnology company, which will leverage its Hyris SystemTM to further develop this rapid SARS-CoV-2 T-cell test for clinical use globally.

    Regarding this statement: "In Israel for a time, more vaccinated people were hospitalized for covid-19 than unvaccinated people," you wrote:

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Unfortunately it applies also to people who were not hospitalized, just tested with PCR tests.

    You are missing the point. There were more vaccinated people hospitalized because there are far more vaccinated people in the population. Per capita, vaccinated people are far less likely to be infected or hospitalized. That applies to everyone, including people not hospitalized. The absolute number of people was higher, but per capita it was lower. The vaccine reduces severe illness by 85% to 92% (depending on age group).


    Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?
    A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective…
    www.covid-datascience.com


    Please read the papers about this.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    How vaccines can actually make people more vulnerable against Covid? Easily: they allergize people,

    Vaccines do not make people more vulnerable against COVID. They make them 95% to 75% less vulnerable. There is no point to speculating or theorizing how they can make people vulnerable when we know for a fact they do not make people vulnerable.


    Why not speculate about why the vaccines make people magnetic? Or why the vaccines make people win the lottery?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Boosters not made for delta - true - but that is a (political?) decision that what we have and know is safe is still good enough.

    I do not think it is political. I read they have not had enough time to make a vaccine targeted to Delta. They are working on that. In the meanwhile, epidemiologists have concluded that a booster shot now with the vaccines we have available will save more lives than waiting for Delta-targeted booster.


    There is some controversy about this. Many people say we should send available vaccines to third world countries that have low vaccination rates, rather than giving first-world people a booster. They say this will save more lives, and it will reduce the chances of another variant emerging. I agree with this . . . but I would prefer to see production ramped up to accomplish both goals.


    An expert said that for many countries it would be best to send vaccine production equipment rather than finished vaccines. That surprised me.

    Here is a cynical, rather nasty website documenting some of the prominent antivaxxers who have died of COVID in the last few months:


    Home | sorryantivaxxer.com
    www.sorryantivaxxer.com


    I have little sympathy for the antivaxxers, but I feel sorry for people who are not opposed but they procrastinated. They are pathetic idiots, thinking the virus would wait until they get around to vaccinating. I have seen several reports of such people. Here is one from today's Atlanta Journal:



    [Dr.] Olson said a patient in his 50s recently came into the ER who was severely sick. He needed high levels of oxygen, because his lungs were ravaged by COVID-19. Olson told the patient he would likely need to go on a ventilator within 24 hours. His prognosis was extremely poor.


    “When you have to look into someone’s eyes and tell them they need to call their family and say goodbye, that is an emotional thing. It is so sad,” he said.


    The patient said that while his wife got vaccinated, he “was going to wait,” Olson recalled. The patient expressed deep regret.


    “The number of times I have heard, ‘I wish I had gotten the vaccine,’” Olson said. Some who are critically ill ask for the vaccine, he said, but by then it’s too late. “You just can’t go back in time.”


    There are a small number of people who are vaccinated yet get moderately or seriously sick, Olson said. They are usually over age 65 and have chronic health conditions or are immunocompromised.


    The number of patients Olson has attended to who are under 50, healthy, vaccinated and critically ill requiring hospitalization? Zero. . . .



    Other sources say 97% of Georgia patients who have died recently were not vaccinated. The 3% of people who were vaccinated but died of breakthrough cases were nearly all elderly and in very poor health, as described above. Such people can be killed by a disease like a bad cold, that are seldom dangerous.

    Quote from Fm1

    Researchers from Duke-NUS Medical School, together with collaborators from the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) and Singapore General Hospital (SGH), have discovered a simple and rapid method to measure the T-cell immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19.

    One more children approach. They just test with a spike protein...Bug pharma will like this. But it is 90% wrong focus.

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.