Covid-19 News

  • The US is nearing immunity from COVID-19


    The US is nearing immunity from COVID-19
    The numbers of COVID-19 cases, new hospitalizations, and deaths nationwide peaked and started to decline around the beginning of September.
    nypost.com


    Despite media claims that “We Can’t Turn the Corner on COVID,” the numbers of COVID-19 cases, new hospitalizations, and deaths nationwide peaked and started to decline around the beginning of September. The combination of this milestone, new findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing widespread levels of vaccination and natural immunity, and improved availability of treatments suggests that, outside of isolated pockets, COVID-19 is likely to become a diminishing health risk in the United States.


    The CDC looked for evidence of prior infection or vaccination in the blood of approximately 1.5 million blood donors from around the country between July 2020 and May 2021. Based on the antibodies found in the specimens, they were able to distinguish between those who had been vaccinated and those with antibodies resulting from infection. As of the end of May, the combined vaccine and infection seroprevalence (indicating the proportion of the population with antibodies and some level of immune protection) was 83 percent for those 16 and older (children under 16 can’t donate blood). Over 20 percent had antibodies indicating an earlier infection and recovery. Based on the infection-induced seroprevalence, the researchers estimated that there were actually 2.1 infections per reported COVID-19 case.

    Now, following the surge from the Delta variant, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases (all ages) is over 40 million, or 8 million more than on May 31. Applying the 2.1 multiple from the blood donation study to the entire population results in a real number of cases and people with natural immunity of 84 million, or 25 percent of the population.


    In addition, 177 million people are fully vaccinated, which is 53 percent of the total population and 34 million more than at the end of May. An additional 10 percent of the population has received a single dose, which provides some protection, albeit less than the full two doses.


    While there is overlap because some previously infected people have been vaccinated, roughly 80 percent of the country has vaccine or natural immunity. Both types of immunity provide effective protection against COVID-19. The risk of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated is small, and when they occur, the vaccines continue to be effective in preventing serious illness, even for the Delta variant. The CDC also acknowledges that reinfection of recovered COVID-19 patients is rare.

    Though a few vaccines induce a better immune response than natural infection, experts generally say that “natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines.” This appears to be true with ­COVID-19.

    A new study from Israel confirms that natural immunity to COVID-19 is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, even with the Delta variant. Between June 1 and August 14, when Delta was dominant in Israel, the risk of infections was 13 times higher for vaccinated people than for previously infected, unvaccinated people when either the infection or vaccination had occurred between four and seven months before. The risk for symptomatic breakthrough infections was 27-fold higher. While natural immunity did wane somewhat over time, vaccinated persons still had a six-fold higher risk for infection and a seven-fold higher risk for symptomatic illness than people infected up to ten months before vaccinations started.

    An earlier study at the Cleveland Clinic of more than 52,000 health-care workers from December 16, 2020 to May 15, 2021 (just before Delta became dominant in the United States) found that both natural immunity and vaccine immunity provide good protection against infections. Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated was reinfected. Their risk of infection was no higher than for vaccinated people, whether they were previously infected or uninfected.


    Moreover, natural immunity thus far appears to be at least as long-lasting as vaccine immunity. Even before vaccines were widely available, studies indicated that four types of immune memory persist for more than six months after infection. The Cleveland Clinic results suggested that natural immunity provides protection against reinfection for ten or more months, leading the authors to conclude that previously infected COVID-19 patients are “unlikely to benefit” from vaccination. Another study found that convalescent individuals maintained immunologic protection for 12 months without vaccination, though protection could be enhanced by vaccination.

    COVID-19 treatments have improved as well. Several versions of monoclonal antibodies have been authorized and are now readily available. These medicines are highly effective at keeping early COVID-19 from progressing, thus decreasing the risk of hospitalization or death by 70 percent to 85 percent, particularly for people at high risk of developing severe disease. Steroids and new, more effective ICU protocols have also led to lower COVID-19 mortality.


    Of course, some super variant that escapes vaccine and natural immunity and is resistant to treatments could emerge, much as the emergence of Delta upset many forecasts. There is no way to predict such developments. But even the highly contagious Delta variant, which raised estimates of the percentages needed for herd immunity, did not evade vaccine and natural immunity protection. Delta morbidity and mortality has been heavily concentrated among those who had neither vaccine nor natural immunity.


    Ending the COVID-19 pandemic doesn’t mean that the virus will be eradicated or that there will be no new cases. It means that serious illness and death resulting from infection with a virus that has likely become endemic will become rare. Our innovative, free-market economy has provided new vaccines and therapies in record time. Thanks to that, and to the undersold but important phenomenon of natural immunity, we are most of the way there.


    Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D., is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and an associate clinical professor of surgery at the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

  • 26 of the 27 Scientists Dismissing Lab-Leak Theory Have Ties to Wuhan Institute of Virology


    26 of the 27 Scientists Dismissing Lab-Leak Theory Have Ties to Wuhan Institute of Virology
    The UK’s Daily Telegraph recently investigated the resurgent controversy as to the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Two predominant explanations include
    trialsitenews.com


    The UK’s Daily Telegraph recently investigated the resurgent controversy as to the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. Two predominant explanations include 1) natural cause—that is some zoonotic animal-to-animal-to-human transmission or 2) the lab-leak theory. Early on, experts in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cautioned Dr. Anthony Fauci that aspects of the new pathogen looked lab engineered. A frantic set of meetings occurred, and a unified message emanated thereafter—that the disease came from a natural zoonotic process like the last two coronaviruses. Yet concern was there from the start that the proximity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the wet market where the pandemic supposedly started. Despite such suspicions, however, 27 prominent scientists wrote a letter published in the influential “The Lancet” medical journal unilaterally dismissing the lab-leak theory as did Fauci and the NIH leadership apparatus. From then on, any mention of lab leak theory on social media led to immediate censorship evidencing early on in the pandemic coordination between government and private technology companies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Of course, most recently, the specter of a lab leak became a prominent discussion, and in fact, President Joe Biden ordered an investigation into the matter. Now thanks to the Daily Telegraph probe, it turns out that of the 27 scientists that collaborated on the letter outright dismissing any possibility that COVID-19 originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, 26 of them actually have substantial links to Chinese researchers, colleagues or its benefactors at the Wuhan-based lab.


    In a report by Sarah Knapton, UK’s Daily Telegraph details the intimate and intricate ties these scientists have to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One of the more notable signatories to The Lancet letter included Dr. Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance and beneficiary of NIH funds that were channeled to the Wuhan-based lab at a time that gain-of-function research was banned in America.


    But was Daszak involved with gain-of-function research? TrialSite reported that a recent document dump at The Intercept indicates that gain-of-function research was possibly going on and that Dr. Anthony Fauci was aware of such research, thus implicating the honesty of his recent testimony in front of Congress categorically denying that any gain-of-function research was occurring. Fauci and backers would propose that these probes are purely political in nature.


    Follow the link to review the entire list of scientists covered by The Daily Telegraph investigation.


    What is the Evidence

    Thus far, no one in China has come forward to prove the natural origin hypothesis and by May 14 in Science, a group of 18 experts penned that “we must take hypothesis about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.”


    While another study obtained by the Daily Mail in May led by Angus Dalgleish of the UK and Dr. Birger Sorensen of Norway declared they had a ‘prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China for a year.”


    Their study suggests Chinese destroyed, concealed, or withheld data indicating a cover-up. In January, the World Health Organization sent a team to Wuhan to investigate the origins of COVID-19 further.


    Interestingly Dr. Peter Daszak led WHO’s American representation, which seems odd at best and raises the prospect of a possible conflict of interest.


    The trip wasn’t that helpful, and in fact, WHO’s director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, implied the Chinese authorities hadn’t cooperated fully. Lately, jingoistic propaganda in China implies SARS-CoV-2 originates in possibly a U.S. military laboratory.


    Check TrialSite’s “Origin of COVID-19” for a timeline of events that could indicate a possible lab connection to the pathogen. However, no one is certain as to the truth.


    But assuming the Daily Telegraph’s assessment is correct, that the 26 scientists that were so adamant as to the nonsensical lab leak theory actually have material ties to the Wuhan lab, one’s mind can easily wander into conspiratorial land.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/

  • The combination of this milestone, new findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing widespread levels of vaccination and natural immunity, and improved availability of treatments suggests that, outside of isolated pockets, COVID-19 is likely to become a diminishing health risk in the United States.

    Of course the vaccines do not contribute much to the reduction in PCR+. CoV-19 delta has at least 10 undetected cases /1 PCR+. So the only truth is in the above sentence is: Natural immunity takes over. As natural immunity protects the airways where as gen therapy does not!


    Interesting that the let it run states Florida, Louisiana see the strongest decline in cases where the top vaxxers e.g. New York do see none...But this is just one months picture. Soon we know more when the vaccines start to wane even more....


    May be people should look once again at Sweden...1000 cases/day and 1 death/10 mio. looks quite different for most US states....

  • Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial


    DEFINE_ME


    Summary

    Background

    Awake prone positioning has been reported to improve oxygenation for patients with COVID-19 in retrospective and observational studies, but whether it improves patient-centred outcomes is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of awake prone positioning to prevent intubation or death in patients with severe COVID-19 in a large-scale randomised trial.

    Methods

    In this prospective, a priori set up and defined, collaborative meta-trial of six randomised controlled open-label superiority trials, adults who required respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were randomly assigned to awake prone positioning or standard care. Hospitals from six countries were involved: Canada, France, Ireland, Mexico, USA, Spain. Patients or their care providers were not masked to allocated treatment. The primary composite outcome was treatment failure, defined as the proportion of patients intubated or dying within 28 days of enrolment. The six trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04325906, NCT04347941, NCT04358939, NCT04395144, NCT04391140, and NCT04477655.

    Findings

    Between April 2, 2020 and Jan 26, 2021, 1126 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to awake prone positioning (n=567) or standard care (n=559). 1121 patients (excluding five who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Treatment failure occurred in 223 (40%) of 564 patients assigned to awake prone positioning and in 257 (46%) of 557 patients assigned to standard care (relative risk 0·86 [95% CI 0·75−0·98]). The hazard ratio (HR) for intubation was 0·75 (0·62−0·91), and the HR for mortality was 0·87 (0·68−1·11) with awake prone positioning compared with standard care within 28 days of enrolment. The incidence of prespecified adverse events was low and similar in both groups.

    Interpretation

    Awake prone positioning of patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 reduces the incidence of treatment failure and the need for intubation without any signal of harm. These results support routine awake prone positioning of patients with COVID-19 who require support with high-flow nasal cannula

  • interesting, the majority of unvaccinated is between the ages of 18 to 39, young, healthy and probably evenly split among Dems and repubs!


    U.S. COVID-19 vaccine tracker: See your state's progress
    Check our U.S. COVID-19 vaccine tracker to see how many people are vaccinated in your state, plus vaccine trends and expert advice.
    www.mayoclinic.org


    Age

    Fully vaccinated

    Under age 18

    <18

    14.9%

    The percentage of people in the United States under age 18 who are fully vaccinated is 14.9%Ages 18 to 24

    18 - 24

    49.4%

    The percentage of people in the United States between the ages of 18 and 24 who are fully vaccinated is 49.4%Ages 25 to 39

    25 - 39

    53.6%

    The percentage of people in the United States between the ages of 25 and 39 who are fully vaccinated is 53.6%Ages 40 to 49

    40 - 49

    62.8%

    The percentage of people in the United States between the ages of 40 and 49 who are fully vaccinated is 62.8%Ages 50 to 64

    50 - 64

    71.4%

    The percentage of people in the United States between the ages of 50 and 64 who are fully vaccinated is 71.4%Ages 65 to 74

    65 - 74

    84.4%

    The percentage of people in the United States between the ages of 65 and 74 who are fully vaccinated is 84.4%Age 75 and up

    75+

  • interesting, the majority of unvaccinated is between the ages of 18 to 39, young, healthy and probably evenly split among Dems and repubs!

    Yes, which makes sense because the personal advantages of vaccination or marginal if you are young and healthy.


    The stats that matter most are the 29% of 50 - 64 and the 15% of 65 - 74 and the (whatever) percentage unvaccinated at 85+


    Those, I am willing to bet - are skewed Republican.


    Overall the skew is:


    • Democrats: 88 percent => 12% not vaccinated
    • Independents: 60 percent => 40% not vaccinated
    • Republicans: 55 percent => 45% not vaccinated


    So Republicans are going to be clogging up the health system 4X at least as much as Democrats, even more than this if the split Republican/Democrat amongst low-risk people is more even.


    In previous waves cities (where transmisison is much easier) had by far the worst infections, and we have city -=> democrat => higher infection rate


    Now that is less so because delta will go everywhere and the cities worst affected in previous waves have more immunity, in addition city => democrat => more vaccination (though this is not entirely true).

    So now, with vaccination and attitude towards unmasked mass spreader events etc taken into account, republican => more infection (at least a bit). And certainly Republican => more death


    These are tendencies - not hard and fast rules, since other factors than voting intention have affected previous waves and current wave.

  • Did mattel just send the world a message with the introduction of Sun-Man superhero with powers from the sun absorb through the skin? Damn right they did!!! VITAMIN D = SUPERPOWERS!!!!!


    He-Man gets a new partner: Sun-Man, a pioneering Black superhero toy

    Mattel's Masters of the Universe revives a toy with a culturally significant past.


    He-Man gets a new partner: Sun-Man, a pioneering Black superhero toy
    Mattel's Masters of the Universe revives a toy with a culturally significant past.
    www.cnet.com

  • Retrospective Study: Healthy Boys Face Significantly Greater Risks Associated with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine than Hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2


    Retrospective Study: Healthy Boys Face Significantly Greater Risks Associated with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine than Hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2
    Two board-certified, cardiology-focused physicians, an MPH/epidemiologist and medical writer, and a data analyst came together to dive into the data
    trialsitenews.com


    Two board-certified, cardiology-focused physicians, an MPH/epidemiologist and medical writer, and a data analyst came together to dive into the data associated with the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis among adolescents that have received two doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The investigational team of four used the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to conduct a retrospective epidemiological assessment of case reports filed between January 1, 2021, and June 18, 2021. With a focus on adolescents ages 12 to 17, the retrospective observational study centered on those subjects that received mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 (Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech). The authors designed a study that involved key search criteria in investigating children with evidence of cardiac injury. Of course, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that a higher probability of myocarditis and pericarditis in young men comes with mRNA-based vaccines. Importantly, the researchers sought to determine in this cohort the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination versus the risks of hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This fundamental harm and benefit analysis represents what should be a central tenet in determining whether young persons between 12 to 15 and 16 to 17 should be recommended for COVID-19 vaccination or not, the authors report. This study is not peer-reviewed and uploaded to the medRxiv preprint server. No general conclusions can be drawn from these results until the study methods, analysis, and conclusion are fully vetted.


    Study Background

    Debate grows around the world as to whether young, healthy people should receive a COVID-19 vaccine at all. As TrialSite recently reported, the UK’s statutorily created Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) recently came to the conclusion that a harm/benefit analysis indicated that at this point, they would recommend that healthy young males not receive a COVID-19 vaccine.


    Yet in the U.S., mandates such as the recent sweeping proclamation at Los Angeles Unified School District unilaterally force vaccination, whether children are healthy or not, whether they have natural immunity, etc.


    In the U.S., more data is needed to determine the true risks associated with vaccination versus the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in the healthy young cohort—that is, people under the age of 18.


    That’s essentially what this research team set out to accomplish. In this study, the team utilized a series of key words for their VAERS analysis, ranging from chest pain, myocarditis, pericarditis, and myopericarditis in their attempt to pinpoint incidents reported in the targeted cohort involving any evidence of cardiac injury.


    They employed what’s known as a stratified benefit analysis across literature reviews on COVID-19 related hospitalization risks for this vulnerable cohort. Among other things, authors use this method in a bid to provide greater precision than a simple randomized selection, and it enables an economic look at the data.


    The Data

    The authors’ analysis centered on 257 stratified cardiac adverse events or “CAEs.” They discovered that after young males in the identified cohort received their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, the probability was 162.2 for males in the 12 to 15 age cohort and 94.0 for the 16 to 17 cohort. Furthermore, they found among females much lower rates at 13.0 and 13.4 per million, respectively.


    Those boys aged 12 to 15 that happen to have no underlying medical conditions that receive a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccination experience a CAE rate that is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100K population) and 2.6-4.3-fold higher at times of high weekly hospitalization risk (7-day hospitalizations 2.1/100K), such as during January 2021.


    Furthermore, healthy boys in the age 16 to 17 cohort experience a CAE rate 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization—that is during peaks in the pandemic during the study period.


    The Findings

    The study analysis yielded some notable observations. First, for those subjects that received both doses of the available mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the authors identified stratified cardiac adverse event (CAE) rates equaling 162.2 and 94.0/million for boys ages 12 to 15 and 16-17, respectively.


    The key for this study was for the authors to compare and contrast the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination as compared to the risk of hospitalization and cardiac events without vaccination to address more accurate harm and benefit analysis.


    The authors generate a bombshell conclusion. That is, the probability of a cardiac adverse event is “considerably higher” than a corresponding 120-day risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, even during times of what the authors refer to as “peak disease prevalence.” Moreover, the authors remind the reader that the long-term impacts of vaccine-associated cardiac inflammation cannot be known at this point and hence require additional study.


    Author Recommendations

    First and foremost, as the long-term impacts of post-COVID-19 vaccine-associated cardiac inflammation are not known at this point, this should be a topic of urgent study. The authors are concerned about pediatric mandates and suggest that in America, health authorities consider:


    Better understand the data associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in this cohort.

    Follow the example of Germany, Sweden, Norway, and WHO and halt the definitive recommendation of vaccination of low-risk children against COVID-19.

    Offer one dose to adolescents as the UK just announced while more information can be gleaned concerning risks and the like.

    Limitations

    The authors acknowledged that they could not secure further stratification data from the CDC by adolescent group (e.g., 12-15 and 16-17 years). Moreover, they suggest that they may not have found all the CAEs due to the “sensitivity of the CDC symptom search inclusion criteria.”


    Note the study team employed retrospective stratified sampling, which can introduce complexities and difficulties, and the authors’ work needs to be reviewed by a panel of scientific experts. Note the results of this study have not been peer-reviewed.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, Ph.D.


    Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, Ph.D. is a native of Wisconsin and a Danish-American dual citizen. She received her BA in French and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She received her MD degree from the Medical College of Wisconsin. Following a Transitional Year Internship at Gundersen Lutheran in Wisconsin, she moved to Denmark for seven years, where she worked in Ophthalmology and received her Ph.D. in Epidemiology and Public Health from the University of Copenhagen. She then completed her residency in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at UC Davis, where she was Chief Resident, followed by a fellowship in Interventional Sports, Spine and Regenerative Medicine in Napa, California.


    Allison Krug, MPH, Epidemiology


    Ms. Krug is a biomedical communications consultant, including training in epidemiology and experience in research and manuscript development. She is involved with the creation of continuing medical education programs and standard operating procedures. She specializes in medical writing, editing, and analysis, often supporting clients prior to the first submission and providing continued support through the acceptance upon revisions.


    Josh Stevenson, Truth in Data, LLC


    John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, with a focus on cardiology and electrophysiology


    Call to Action: The findings in this paper should be taken quite seriously. With two well-respected, cardiology-focused MDs, an epidemiologist, and a data analyst, the assembled team covers the range of expertise necessary for a serious investigation.

  • Vaccination can make indeed a difference...

    Not recommended for children and people age <35. 50..60 Myocardititis cases/mio vaccinated. All these cases leave live long damage. We also have close to 1000 nervous system disorders/mio with no known prognosis. So they should wait for the first DNA vaccine.


    See also -->

    Those boys aged 12 to 15 that happen to have no underlying medical conditions that receive a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccination experience a CAE rate that is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021 (7-day hospitalizations 1.5/100K population)

    So far we have two top football players now that just saw end of career due to vaccination related heart problems.

  • Dr. Sanjay Gupta to Dr. Fauci—‘What about Natural Immunity?’


    Dr. Sanjay Gupta to Dr. Fauci—‘What about Natural Immunity?’
    Recently Dr. Anthony Fauci was on CNN when Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked him about a study TrialSite covered out of Israel that found natural immunity to
    trialsitenews.com


    Recently Dr. Anthony Fauci was on CNN when Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked him about a study TrialSite covered out of Israel that found natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection was essentially better than the immunity associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Gupta asked the nation’s top doctor—a veritable treasure trove of knowledge on all things COVID-19—what he thought about this topic, given Gupta gets lots of calls asking him about this topic. Fauci, in response, sort of fumbled, paused and declared, “You know, that’s a really good point, Sanjay. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that. That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”


    Dr. Fauci knows more, of course, then he lets on. He, or more likely his subordinates, are undoubtedly picking apart these studies and raising the specter of durability, that is, how “durable” or long-lasting an immune response is, a crucial characteristic of highly effective vaccines as well as natural immune response.


    Now studies are indicating that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine has some challenges on the durable front—at least when it comes to the delta variant as studies indicate the vaccine effectivity wanes by month four or five. The Moderna mRNA vaccine fares better, according to a Mayo Clinic study. That’s why the nation of Israel embarked on a massive booster campaign and that’s why Dr. Fauci is in constant discussions with Israel—because the durability of the Pfizer vaccine, currently both under EUA and approved as Comirnaty—is in question.


    Now the good doctor challenges the durability of natural immunity but of concern is the way this question caught not only the top expert off guard but also his lack of knowledge on the current study literature. It indicates a bias toward vaccination-based eradication with no real intellectual interest in natural immunity. This is an important topic given how many people have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. We sincerely hope here at TrialSite that Dr. Fauci and the NIH team start investigating in more detail the characteristics of natural immunity.


    Call to Action: For at least one study out of Israel on the topic, follow the link to TrialSite.

  • Top Scientists At The FDA And WHO Are Arguing Against COVID-19 Booster Shots

    In a review published on Monday, the experts said the evidence does not show that boosters are needed for the general population.


    Top Scientists At The FDA And WHO Are Arguing Against COVID-19 Booster Shots


    Top scientists across the world — including experts at the FDA and the World Health Organization — pushed back against the need for widespread coronavirus vaccine booster shots on Monday.


    In a review published in the top medical journal The Lancet, the scientists argued that booster shots are not needed in the general population since vaccines still remain highly effective at preventing severe illness and death. They also mentioned the urgent need to administer doses to unvaccinated people worldwide to save lives and prevent the emergence of more dangerous variants.


    The review comes as the US nears the Biden administration's controversial proposed start date for a booster rollout, recommended eight months after an individual's second shot of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The report also comes one week after the White House announced a massive push to mandate vaccination among nearly two-thirds of the US workforce, as pockets of unvaccinated individuals continue to drive high numbers of hospitalizations and deaths nationwide.


    The FDA's external panel of experts is holding a highly anticipated meeting this Friday to discuss Pfizer's application for a booster dose.

    The 18 coauthors of the Lancet review include Marion Gruber, the director of the FDA’s vaccines office, and Philip Krause, her deputy at the agency, both of whom announced they would be resigning in the fall, reportedly in part due to their opposition to the Biden administration's booster plan. The review was also coauthored by several experts at the World Health Organization, which has called for a global booster shot moratorium in order to maximize vaccinations worldwide — especially in developing countries, where vaccination rates remain very low.


    The Lancet paper reviews the current evidence on the protection offered by existing vaccines. While the vaccines all offer less protection against infection with the Delta variant compared with the previously dominant Alpha, they still offer very good protection against severe disease. And while the ability to prevent infection or even symptomatic illness may decrease over time, protection against severe disease appears so far to hold strong.


    Three CDC reports published last week confirmed these findings across most age groups, declining more significantly in people 75 or older. One of the studies reviewed nearly 570,000 US COVID-19 cases from April to July, showing that unvaccinated people were nearly 5 times more likely to get infected, and more than 10 times as likely to be hospitalized or die compared to people who received a vaccine.


    "Current evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high," the authors of the Lancet paper wrote.


    Data out of Israel, which has already begun a rollout of booster shots, showed an increase in protection against infection and severe disease after a third shot of the Pfizer vaccine, which was originally given in two doses. But the Lancet authors noted that the data was only collected for a week after the booster dose was administered, and it's unclear how long that protection will last.

    The Lancet authors argued that boosters may ultimately be needed if immunity wanes over time, but more research was needed to determine when that will be necessary. For now, they argued, there is a more urgent need to administer existing doses among the unvaccinated. They also suggested that booster doses designed specifically against the main circulating variants of the coronavirus might be more powerful and longer lasting.


    "Even if some gain can ultimately be obtained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits of providing initial protection to the unvaccinated," the authors wrote. "If vaccines are deployed where they would do the most good, they could hasten the end of the pandemic by inhibiting further evolution of variants."


    Mike Ryan, head of the WHO's Health Emergencies Program, condemned booster shot rollouts in stark terms last month. "We're planning to hand out extra life jackets to people who already have life jackets, while we're leaving other people to drown without a single life jacket," Ryan said. "That's the reality."


    UPDATE

    Sep 13, 2021, 6:01:06 PM GMT

    This story has been updated to include information about the FDA advisory committee meeting this Friday.

  • hmmmmmm

    U.S. Covid cases finally start to dip from latest peak, but delta variant still on the rise in some states


    U.S. Covid cases finally start to dip from latest peak, but delta variant still on the rise in some states
    Covid case counts in the U.S. are showing signs of easing off their latest highs but remain elevated as the country heads into the fall season.
    www.cnbc.com


    KEY POINTS

    The seven-day average of daily Covid cases is about 144,300 as of Sept. 12, down 12% over the past week and 14% from the most-recent peak in case counts on Sept. 1, when the country was reporting an average of roughly 167,600 cases per day.

    There are also some promising signs in Covid hospitalization and death tallies, which tend to lag case counts by a couple weeks or more.

    The pace of new infections is falling in some of the states that saw the earliest impact of the delta variant this past summer, while in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, the variant is still taking hold.

  • How a ‘fatally, tragically flawed’ paradigm has derailed the science of obesity

    This article is by Gary Taubes, who is a certified idiot. He is one the most stupid people I have ever encountered, and I have encountered many stupid people. See pages 26 - 28:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf


    His thesis cannot be true. He writes:


    This energy-in-energy-out conception of weight regulation, we argue, is fatally, tragically flawed: Obesity is not an energy balance disorder, but a hormonal or constitutional disorder, a dysregulation of fat storage and metabolism, a disorder of fuel-partitioning.


    When you put people in concentration camps, they always grow thin, and then very thin, and then they die of starvation. Any animal deprived of food, or forced to live on an insufficient diet always loses weight. This happens to all animals and people in famines. Body weight is determined by the balance of the food you eat versus the CO2 you lose in respiration. Furthermore, obese people in all observations by every method, such as double labeled water, are always shown to eat too much. When they reduce their diet, they always get thinner.


    The psychological aspects of weight control are complicated, but the underlying physics are simple.

  • Breaking- UK to start 3rd jab programme, starting with vulnerable over-70's. Everyone to get Pfizer regardless of first dose type. Some suggestions that it will be the current flu-shot in one arm and Pfizer Covid in the other.


    We are going to have perforated pensioners.

  • One of the studies reviewed nearly 570,000 US COVID-19 cases from April to July, showing that unvaccinated people were nearly 5 times more likely to get infected, and more than 10 times as likely to be hospitalized or die compared to people who received a vaccine.

    All these studies are highly flawed by two effects nit accounting for.

    1) > 50% now have natural immunity. So the group at risk has only maximally half the size use to quantify the effect. So effectively the vaccine protections is 2..3 x lower than claimed for vaccinated without a natural infection.

    2) April, May,June (then lowest rate) data is of no use at all as this was the absolute low phase of the pandemic. Then from July we see much higher infection rates among vaccinated going up to 75% in UK.

    2b) The Pfizer induced post jab 1 CoV-19 eliminates the most sensible people by early killing them... So during month 1-3 after vaccination there is a dip in breakthrough infections. So all statistics should be done for Pfizer and separately for Moderna!


    We are going to have perforated pensioners.

    This will save UK pension system a lot of money... by predating some of the old/rich's lives...may be on cost of the health system...Pfizer/Astra may induce micro cloths. Do you know some actual dementia figures from UK?

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.