Covid-19 News

  • In short, you are completely wrong.

    How interesting. I'm talking about VAERS and (the extremely unlikely event of) doctors being curious if unusual symptoms might be the result of a recent vaccination. You keep making it about hospitals asking for vaccination status in their attempt to reduce infections in the middle of a pandemic. Jed, you fill me with that much more wonder. Yet I won't call it wonderful.

  • I guess now it's almost sure, that leak of Wuhan virus has been organized and planned by Big Pharma circles, subsidized with DARPA as a paramilitary research and that true reason of Peter's Daszak presence in W.H.O. group "investigating" it was to cover it instead.

    I feel there is so little common ground on this thread between those who have open minds and those who see the whole world in terms of conspiracy theories I find it a bit depressing.


    It is possible (and has always been possible) that COVID came from a Wuhan lab leak. It is also possible (and has got more likely) that harmless viruses there specifically designed with spikes that infect humans got mixed up with other stuff and resulted in COIVID. Any virus that escapes containment will get mixed up with other stuff. it is what viruses do. It is also entirely possible that COVID emerged just like original SARS and other zoonotic viruses, from those cave bats (which seem to have been doing a good job of infecting people with nasty diseases).


    The idea that COVID could have been deliberately engineered as a big pharma, or deep state, or even Chinese military conspiracy is so far from reality only kooks with tin hats could believe it - which I guess you count yourself as Zephyr. there is no possible gain from such a conspiracy. It is like Microsoft secretly engineering the start of a limited nuclear war in order to achieve some economic goal. No normal person would think such a thing plausible. I know, there are a lot of not normal people around, especially in the US, however you propose a large and thorough conspiracy which many people would have to but into, to do something so totally in no ones interest it is absurd. The difference between a virus with 0.1%, 1% and 10% IFR is just a roll of the dice. Anything as transmissable as Flu or COVID delta with 10% IFR would destroy our economic system.


    The only people I could imagine countenancing such biological warfare are autocratic states 100% controlled by one kooky person (and that is more kooky than Trump, which says a lot) or non-state actors who believe the whole world is bad and massive destruction is good. Luckily such actors tend not to stay well organised but as we have seen from I.S. they can do a lot of harm.


    I'm now thinking that some large segment of the US population, possibly including Zephir, is so deluded and might perhaps justify some extreme action. I do hope not.


    THH

  • As UK data indicates:: Pfizer shots lead to a higher CoV-19 infection rate in the higher risk group age > 40.

    Wyttenfact (by that I mean something which is demonstrably false).


    The PHE figures show > 45 years lower infection rate - once you do the work needed to clean them up, specifically note that X2 error in the number of unvaccinated people.


    But as I've pointed out, ideally, we would have a very high infection rate, with very high protection against serious disease. That would turn COVID into something more like Flu as quickly as possible. In fact it was what many people in the "let it rip" side of the debate were counselling early in the epidemic.


    So why worry about infection rate? Worry instead about the fraction of infected people who die or have serious disease. the nature of a Flu-like epidemic is that everyone is gonna get infected some time.


    W calls Israel a vaccinatio terror-state.


    Surely that label applies even more to the UK, where vaccination rates of at-risk groups are muhc higher (the number of unvaccinated is maybe 3X less than Israel for > 60s).


    Our infection rate is decreasing in England (down from 1:70 to now 1:90). Deaths are bad but no worse than a nasty Flu season, and would be 5X worse without the vaccine. We have very little in the way of controls, and people seem happy to organise and attend COVID spreaders as muhc a sthey like. That this does not spread COVID is down to the high vaccination rate, and the relatively high infection rates England has had over the epidemic which confer some amount of natural immunity.


    One interesting thing.


    People talk about fairness and the third world. A country with a median population age 20 (e.g. UP) will have COVID IFR 10X lower than the UK without any vaccine - probably the same reduction in mortality as we get from being fully vaccinated! So for such very young countries, without any wonder-drugs, COVID can be withstood as a very nasty Flu - not nice - but not something that shuts the country down.

  • The idea that COVID could have been deliberately engineered as a big pharma, or deep state, or even Chinese military conspiracy is so far from reality

    The very US official projects that wanted to do all this (what you deny) have been referenced here in this thread. As usual you never read the stuff and just repeat what your buddies once taught you! Simply laughable.

    So why worry about infection rate?

    You still don't get it. This indicates that the vaccines (gene Therapy) severely damage your immune system.


    I would not be as optimistic as you after all this news. I would look for counter actions to help recovering your immune system.


    You also once have do decide what you continue to claim either more or less unvaccinated... (For the total of age 40..80 years population) And you must also try to understand the 27x gap between vaccine and infection protection together with the >50% CoV-19 infection rate in UK.

  • The very US official projects that wanted to do all this (what you deny)

    No (tin hat interpretation)



    As usual you never read the stuff and just repeat what your buddies once taught you! Simply laughable.

    Yes. (Your comment). No buddies. And no-one teaches me.


    You still don't get it. This indicates that the vaccines (gene Therapy) severely damage your immune system.

    You might have a point, except that it is not true. You have never yet (6 times now I've said it) acknowledged the interesting issue about over counting UK population by 2% from GP registration, and how that led to a 2X underestimation of unvaccinated infection rate.


    As many have pointed out, the vaccines do not work as well for mild nasal infections as for more serious types - because they do not much stimulate specifically IgA response. Even so, when the number of unvaccinated people is correctly calculated using ONS

    (best estimate) figures rather than MIMS (not intended to be population estimate) figures, the vaccinated people have 50% of the infections that the unvaccinated do.


    That is no sign of a damaged immune system. The whole "vaccines damage immune system" is a figment of an overactive imagination and a mind that does not pay attention to inconvenient facts:

    • Base rate fallacy
    • Vulnerable get vaccinated effect
    • UK population databases (MIMS vs ONS)
    • Why 2% change in population estimation leads to 50% reduction in estimate number of unvaccinated people
  • I'd like to address this IN DETAIL. Because it is the way that science is getting hijacked by politics on both sides of the US debate - although rather more seriously on the Republican side.


    First some context. We had the SAME debate about booster shots in the UK. Scientists variable, those against have following reasons:

    (1) maybe this is too early. We need to get through winter and the boosters will probably only last 6 months ( we don't know - maybe longer, maybe - W would think - boosters will wreck your immune system and not work at all. W is provably, from first indication Israeli evidence, wrong. But we don't really know how long the boosters will last, just as we don't really know how long natural immunity will last or how effective it will be.

    (2) it is unjust to get minimal benefit from boosters in richer countries when as many vaccines as possible are needed for poorer countries where they will do more good.


    In the end the UK came up with boosters for over-50s. But it was a marginal decision and partly political. Point (2) above is not really an issue for science, it is an issue for politicians.


    I'm not firmly on one side or other of (2) myself, but it is interesting, so here are the points I think have been left out:


    (1) in terms of fairness, COVID attacks older people and therefor is mainly a disease for the developed, older population, world. UP, on its own, would see COVID as a severe form of Flu and probably do nothing special about it given it has an IFR in UP of 0.1% based on the low median age of the population there. Of course, that 0.1% comes from peasants in the country. In the cities (which in UP do not dominate statsitics) the age profile is older and COVID will seem more serious. Since politicians live in cities, not a speasants, they will probably see COVID as more like the severity it has in the developed world throughout.

    (2) Because of (1) the developing world needs less vaccine than the developed world to protect its citizens. Maybe 10% population vs 50% population for UK.

    (3) Separately, there is the issue of COVID eradication. But the current vaccines are not going to do that given we live with (Mark U, Navid, W) and they don't take vaccines, and spread lies on social media that discourage others from taking vaccines. Were the vaccines much more effective against delta (as a reformulated vaccine would be - they were targeted original COVID) perhaps they would be capable of eradication where widely used. We don't know. it seems still the case that variants evading the vaccine would emerge. In time, we may have a cocktail of vaccines that together knock out all COVID variants. We are not there now.

    (4) In any case the number of doses needed for eradication has 10X larger than that available, boosters make only a very small difference.

    (5) Therefore personally I don't see much selfish advantage for developed countries in giving boosters to underdeveloped countries as vaccine doses. Politicians do not generally disadvantage their own country to aid others much (overseas aid is done for selfish reasons - gaining influence).


    So: on the Democrat side. Sure - the politicians are not following the science over boosters, which would only see them as useful for older people (+65 or maybe as Uk +50). Personally as 62 I am glad UK is +50 not +65, I will be better off. What the Democrats say is more complex. Boosters will only marginally affect R, and therefore infection rates. Those will come down eventually due to the most spready members of the population (all those Trump-republicans, some others) dying or getting natural immunity. We can see this already happening a bit. Vaccination is a help against spreading, but no more than that - so vaccinated people re-infection, juts like unvaccinated, will reduce R, slowly over time.


    However, what destroys the economy is not COVID infection. It is fear. People are personally afraid to go out and mix, and feel it is bad for others. What stokes the fear mainly is not politicians. It is local doctors overflowing with COVID patients and therefore not being able to operate normally. That affects everyone. You can't ignore that in a free country - the media will be on to it because it is rightly a big story. just as a few hundred people dying in a mass shooting makes headlines, so a few thousand people dyiing of COVID makes headlines, and people get used to it. When in some parts of the US hospitals get clogged up and cannot function normally that is not ignored. It is a medical fact, not a political stance. And it is not mainly about the tragic deaths, it is about whether the health system can cope with them while providing normal care for everyone else.


    What we know about the vaccines (and boosters):

    • They stop infection a bit (50% or so) - not enough alone to control the epidemic - but whole country vaccination gets us to epidemic controlled faster given that no politician can stand too many people dying, so there is a limit to the tolerated infection rate. The vaccines as they are control infection enough for things to go back to close to normal. That is what happens in the UK.
    • Boosters for the most vulnerable will reduce deaths and hospital demand.
    • It is true that the unvaccinated affect everyone. A higher proportion of them (by at least 5X, and possibly 10 or 20 X) get seriously ill so they make a disproportionate demand on hospital caapcity. It is hospital capacity that in the end pushes politicians whatever their politics to lock things down.
    • Vaccinated people are less of a personal risk to others, in terms of spreading COVID. They still can spread delta, quite easily, but the unvaccinated are more likely to catch it. Mainly of course the unvaccinated are a risk to the other unvaccinated, who are at much greater personal risk, but also those vulnerable anyway - immune deficient, old, co-morbidities. Delta is not spreading that fast. It looks like a lot of the vaccinated old people will never get it this wave. Before next wave we should have better treatments etc.
    • Given all that I score Biden about 75% for truthfulness. A fair amount of spin, but broadly in line with science.
    • I score that Fox commentator 10% for making arguments that are woefully stupid and unsophisticated. His main point is wrong because vaccines => less hospital use => less likelihood of restrictions to manage health demand => better economy. Fear (from population) rationally will come from reports of overflowing hospitals regardless of personal risk. But then he is addressing an audience which is woefully unsophisticated (though not all stupid), or who care more about political points than truth. In addition, the personal risk argument remains for probably another 12 months - I don't let unvaccinated people into my father's (he is 92 year old) house. None of his friends are unvaccinated, nor any of mine. But it is not the main argument, and not the one that politicians need take.
    • In terms of personal morality I see the Republican case for ignoring risks to others, who may be for no fault of their own at much greater risk than one is oneself, as just not decent. That is a personal judgement and has not much place in politics. But politically there is a place for keeping the vulnerable in society safe, e.g. mask mandates on badly ventilated public transport that no-one can avoid etc.
  • The whole "vaccines damage immune system" is a figment of an overactive imagination and a mind that does not pay attention to inconvenient facts

    I'm not saying, in principle, that vaccination will always be perfect. The way I look at it:


    • Vaccination is the safest of medical interventions. Introduces tiny amounts of pathogen, to prime the immune system. This is no more than what happens every day with viruses.
    • In principle the wrong vaccination can program immune system in a way that increases risk for some other viruses. Just as this can (and does) happen naturally for some viral infections, where a second infection will be worse than an initial one. But it is very rare, and not a new scare story. It happens naturally, just as allergic reactions happen naturally. Get given a drug - 1 in 10,000 will have a severe allergic reaction. the numbers are smaller for vaccines because the quantities needed are smaller.
    • Vaccination is natural. The effects, side effects, are all caused by the patients own immune system fighting back and are broadly similar to what you would get from the real virus (though nearly always less severe). variolation - deliberately giving you very small qtys of a virus, would be great except that with the live virus it is too dangerous.
    • We have a lot of tools available now and can choose what vaccines do. The initial COVID vaccines are not best available, I am sure. And I thank God for that, because they are pretty good. I am glad that immunology is developing so fast and our understanding of all the immune system quirks, and how to drive it in different ways, is getting better. I am sure vaccines in 20 years time for many diseases will be better than they are now.


    Against this, anti-vaxers preferring to pump themselves full of large quantities of artificial drugs seems to me weird!


    THH

  • Pharma’s Culture War: Are Simple, Cheap & Effective Options Being Downplayed?


    Pharma’s Culture War: Are Simple, Cheap & Effective Options Being Downplayed?
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. See more of John's work on his
    trialsitenews.com


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


    See more of John’s work on his website here.


    Our long journey to eradicate the coronavirus has in part become a culture war that has pitted well-meaning groups against each other, especially around the topic of vaccines vs. therapeutic treatments for COVID. There is a growing and disturbing trend toward authoritarian censorship of well-respected and science-driven medical doctors who are sharing information about COVID-19 therapeutic approaches that go beyond vaccines. Many countries in the Global South are using early treatment protocols with outstanding success, resulting in very low rates of cases and deaths. The FDA’s and CDC’s lack of early treatment policies is not only harming Americans’ health and causing needless deaths but also hitting taxpayers, given inflation and the rising cost of hospitalization.


    It’s understandable that vaccines have taken center stage. Vaccination against diseases such as smallpox, polio, and other pandemic-level viruses throughout history has reduced or eliminated their devastating consequences and helped the world recover from their impacts. While COVID-19 vaccinations are helping to reduce hospital cases, they may not be lowering transmission rates—as seen in Israel and the USA but not widely reported in the American media.


    Call to Action: For more of Roulac’s thoughts on therapeutics, health care, media coverage, and worldwide approaches to combating COVID-19, please follow the link to his full article here.


    - John Roulac
    Spaceship Earth, Your Main Oxygen Systems Are Collapsing The good news is that we can cool both the planet and the seawater, while removing excess carbon from…
    johnroulac.com


    Pharma’s Culture War:
    Are Simple, Cheap & Effective Options Being Downplayed?
    johnroulac.substack.com


    AAAS

  • You have never yet (6 times now I've said it) acknowledged the interesting issue about over counting UK population by 2% from GP registration, and how that led to a 2X underestimation of unvaccinated infection rate.

    We here talk about an effect among the age class 40..80. You refuse to tell me how much 2% should affect this class...


    So you argument is plain FUD as the vaccination rate among 40-50 is much much lower and no effect will be seen.


    (MIMS vs ONS)
    Why 2% change in population estimation leads to 50% reduction in estimate number of unvaccinated people

    You should really stop to redistribute free mason constructed FUD that "could" work for age 80+ ,what we do not discuss here...

    and spread lies on social media that discourage others from taking vaccines.

    And you spread FUD = lies on social media to motivate people age < 50 to take a dangerous unnecessary gen therapy!

  • Truth does not mnd being questioned, a lie does not like being challenged


    Why are the FDA and CDC advisory panel members so afraid to debate COVID Vaccine Safety?


    Why are the FDA and CDC advisory panel members so afraid to debate COVID Vaccine Safety?
    Opinion Editorial By: Steve Kirsch  Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of
    trialsitenews.com


    Opinion Editorial By: Steve Kirsch


    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. This article is currently FREE to read and SHARE without paying.


    Recently, both the FDA and CDC advisory panels have voted to approve COVID vaccine booster shots for certain groups of people.


    I believe that that vote was a mistake. They should have voted to stop the vaccines entirely and replace it with early treatment protocols since such protocols are safer and more effective than the vaccines. Instead, they completely avoided talking about the issue in their meetings and they refused all reasonable attempts to be challenged on what the science actually shows.


    How we got here

    Let’s recap a quick history of how I came to this conclusion.


    In early May, my friends reported death and disability after being vaccinated. I started looking at the data and the more I looked, the more troubled I became. I arranged to tell the world what I learned on Bret Weinstein’s Darkhorse Podcast with my friend Robert Malone. That video went viral with almost 1M views before YouTube censored it. Here is the one hour version.


    Fast forward to September 17, 2021. I spoke out about the vaccines in the public input section of the FDA advisory meeting. I said that everyone was avoiding the elephant in the room: that the vaccines kill more people than they save. Nobody on the panel was paying attention to my talk. This is pretty typical. I wasn’t offended. But the public was listening and I got millions of impressions on my talk. No one in the mainstream media contacted me to challenge my statement.


    New results show two stopping conditions were triggered

    After the meeting, I did some additional research (summarized here) and I discovered that two stopping conditions have been triggered:


    The vaccines have killed over 150,000 Americans. I verified this 7 different ways.

    The vaccines kill more people than they save for all age groups

    The most troubling thing to the panel members is that both stopping conditions are now validated in the peer reviewed scientific literature.


    I have attempted to point this out to the panel in multiple emails which I’ve posted to my Gab account.


    I offered to share the original research. No interest.


    I offered to share the studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals backing up what I found. No interest.


    Next, I offered to donate to their research if they would debate a team of scientists on the two stopping conditions. They could name any donation amount they wanted to make it worth their time. No interest.


    I pointed out that 100% of the hundreds of people I surveyed wanted to see an open debate on this as soon as possible (and not see the debate happen in slow motion in the scientific literature). No interest.



    America wants a debate ASAP. The CDC and FDA committee members refuse to discuss this. They won’t debate my team under any conditions.


    And I even named the team

    Jessica Rose

    Mathew Crawford

    Chris Martenson

    Bret Weinstein

    Byram Bridle

    Myself


    Let’s be very clear: no researcher would refuse a $1M academic research grant for a two hour debate unless they were hiding something very serious.


    At this point, I must conclude that this is a tacit admission that we are right about our two stopping conditions being triggered and that the vaccines should be immediately halted.


    The message that the committee is sending to America could not be more clear:



    Summary

    One of our team members sent me this message after my final message to the committee members asking them to debate the key issues.


    We really need to call out these people and make it as public as possible that they refuse to talk based on the science. The public does not need a deep understanding of the science. If they see that we have our team of gladiators in the arena and no other team in the entire world is willing to step in, that will speak volumes. Even those who are firmly entrenched on the other side will have to start asking why their champions are showing such cowardice.

  • It is local doctors overflowing with COVID patients and therefore not being able to operate normally.

    Easy to cope in 2 minutes/patient: Hand out one of the India Ziverdoo packages and the doctor makes a 50& gain and never will see the patient again with COV-19.

    Vaccinated people are less of a personal risk to others, in terms of spreading COVID.

    THH dangerous FUD alert:


    UK statistics shows vaccinated age >40 with no previous CoV-19 infection spread CoV-19 about 3x more likely


    I urge you to stay off Pfizer/ASTRA "vaccinated" only people age > 40.

  • Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting (Israel)


    Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting (Israel)
    A group of researchers in Israel sought to understand better the risks associated with the broader adoption of COVID-19 vaccines in that nation.
    trialsitenews.com


    A group of researchers in Israel sought to understand better the risks associated with the broader adoption of COVID-19 vaccines in that nation. Preapproval trials showed that messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had a sufficient safety profile. Yet, these trials were subject to size and patient-mix limitations. An evaluation of the safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine concerning a broad range of potential adverse events is necessary. Consequently, this observational study was designed to obtain more safety data. The study team analyzed data involving over 2.4 million vaccinated persons from one of Israel’s largest health maintenance organizations (HMO) known as Clalit Health Services (CHS).


    Methods

    The Israel-based study team used Clalit Health Services (CHS) data to evaluate the safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. For each potential adverse event, in a population of persons with no previous diagnosis of that event, the study team individually matched vaccinated persons to unvaccinated persons according to sociodemographic and clinical variables. Risk ratios and risk differences at 42 days after vaccination were derived using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. To place these results in context, we performed a similar analysis involving SARS-CoV-2–infected persons matched to uninfected persons. The same adverse events were studied in the vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection analyses.


    Results

    As reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), investigators report the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6), lymphadenopathy (risk ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.05 to 2.78; risk difference, 78.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 64.1 to 89.3), appendicitis (risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.01; risk difference, 5.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 0.3 to 9.9), and herpes zoster infection (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.73; risk difference, 15.8 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.2 to 24.2). SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8) and of additional serious adverse events, including pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia.


    Study Limitations

    The authors reported a number of study limitations that raise concerns about generalizing these findings across an entire population.


    An observational study, not randomized and controlled hence can introduce confounding at baseline and selection bis at censoring

    Matching issues–study population differs include different composition than eligible population

    Exclusion of important populations such as healthcare workers and people residing in long-term care facilities that may well face a higher risk for select adverse events

    Both of these issues should be taken into account when considering the generalizability of the findings.

    Funding

    This study was funded by the following:


    Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory

    A collaboration involving Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute

    Conclusions

    In this study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting, the BNT162b2 vaccine was not associated with an elevated risk of most of the adverse events examined, according to these study findings.


    More specifically, the vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons). The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and many other serious adverse events substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study included significant limitations hence the limitation of generalizing these findings across a population.


    Source: New England Journal of Medicine

  • Two Oregon State Senators Seek Grand Jury Investigation into CDC’s Methodology of Tracking COVID-19-Related Deaths


    Two Oregon State Senators Seek Grand Jury Investigation into CDC’s Methodology of Tracking COVID-19-Related Deaths
    Not covered by much media, two Oregon state senators recently filed a petition for a grand jury investigation targeting the U.S. Centers for Disease
    trialsitenews.com


    Not covered by much media, two Oregon state senators recently filed a petition for a grand jury investigation targeting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) methodology of tracking COVID-19-related data such as adverse events associated with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. According to the petition, two senators include eight exhibits and 20 references as evidentiary items demonstrating what they declare in a letter is “a clear need to formally investigate the agencies for willful misconduct.” The two senators declare that due to “Significant irregularities in COVID-19 data published by the CDC,” the actual legal standing of executive orders and associated health policies may violate Constitutionally-backed civil rights. Kim Thatcher, State Senator District 13, and Dennis Linthicum, State Senator District 28 of Oregon, are the senators involved.


    The implications for such an accusation are significant with what is the entire medical and political-governing apparatus backing an eradication of COVID-19 via vaccination scheme. If, in fact, there is any truth to this claim that the CDC is actively distorting the nature, origin, and cause of deaths reported in CDC databases such as VAERS, the implications are far-reaching.


    What are the senators’ claims:


    A deliberate distortion of how COVID-19 deaths are reported—essentially inflating the number of COVID-19 deaths

    Withholding information associated with safe and effective treatments, from vitamin D to ivermectin

    Overall safety associated with the COVID-19 vaccines

    With far-reaching implications, if true, the 16-page petition includes serious allegations against federal agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).


    TrialSite learned about this action from the community of readers. A nonprofit called Stand for Health Freedom appears to be the only website that announced this petition. We include that press release.


    The source documents can be reviewed here.


    TrialSite Point of View

    TrialSite is a pro-vaccine, objective, and unbiased media platform. Dedicated to transparency in biomedical and health-related research, the importance of scientific debate and dissension cannot be understated. Consequently, while the mainstream media, on the one hand, becomes ever more biased and, on the other hand, some alternative media publish any number of outlandish conspiracy theories, TrialSite stands for truth, objective and rational reporting, and the pursuit of truth in biomedical and health-related research.


    The recent Ottawa Heart Institute study is a case in point. The authors of the preprint released study declared that the risk of myopericarditis was 1 in 1,000 based on observational investigation of health records during a two-month period. However, the authors disclosed that they made an error and requested a redaction. TrialSite learned of this from a community member and immediately published that that particular study was retracted.


    TrialSite seeks to report on all sides of research issues for readers worldwide. Reader-supported, TrialSite doesn’t take advertisement money (although they offer) and is committed to pursuing the evidence wherever that leads.

  • A Potential Role of the CD47/SIRPalpha Axis in COVID-19 Pathogenesis


    A Potential Role of the CD47/SIRPalpha Axis in COVID-19 Pathogenesis
    The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Most SARS-CoV-2 infections are mild or even asymptomatic. However, a small fraction…
    www.mdpi.com


    Abstract

    The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Most SARS-CoV-2 infections are mild or even asymptomatic. However, a small fraction of infected individuals develops severe, life-threatening disease, which is caused by an uncontrolled immune response resulting in hyperinflammation. However, the factors predisposing individuals to severe disease remain poorly understood. Here, we show that levels of CD47, which is known to mediate immune escape in cancer and virus-infected cells, are elevated in SARS-CoV-2-infected Caco-2 cells, Calu-3 cells, and air−liquid interface cultures of primary human bronchial epithelial cells. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 infection increases SIRPalpha levels, the binding partner of CD47, on primary human monocytes. Systematic literature searches further indicated that known risk factors such as older age and diabetes are associated with increased CD47 levels. High CD47 levels contribute to vascular disease, vasoconstriction, and hypertension, conditions that may predispose SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals to COVID-19-related complications such as pulmonary hypertension, lung fibrosis, myocardial injury, stroke, and acute kidney injury. Hence, age-related and virus-induced CD47 expression is a candidate mechanism potentially contributing to severe COVID-19, as well as a therapeutic target, which may be addressed by antibodies and small molecules. Further research will be needed to investigate the potential involvement of CD47 and SIRPalpha in COVID-19 pathology. Our data should encourage other research groups to consider the potential relevance of the CD47/ SIRPalpha axis in their COVID-19 research.


    Discussion

    Here, we show that the levels of CD47 are elevated in SARS-CoV-2-infected Caco-2 cells, Calu-3 cells, and air−liquid interface cultures of primary human bronchial epithelial cells. CD47 exerts an immunosuppressive activity via interaction with SIRPα in immune cells and as a thrombospondin-1 receptor [22,23]. In this context, human CD47 expression is discussed as a strategy to enable the xenotransplantation of organs from pigs to humans [69,70]. Moreover, a high CD47 expression is an immune escape mechanism observed in cancer cells, and anti-CD47 antibodies are under investigation as cancer immunotherapeutics [23,71]. Due its immunosuppressive action, CD47 expression is also discussed as a target for the treatment of viral and bacterial pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2 [22,24,72]. It has been demonstrated that cells infected with different viruses display enhanced CD47 levels, which function as a “do not eat me” signal, which interferes with the immune recognition of virus-infected cells [24]. Thus, our data indicating increased CD47 levels in a range of SARS-CoV-2 infection models and clinical samples further support the potential role of CD47 as a drug target for the mediation of a more effective antiviral immune response.

    Moreover, we found that, although SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in primary human monocytes, it increased the levels of the CD47 binding partner SIRPα in these cells. Hence, SARS-CoV-2 infection may affect the immune recognition of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells by upregulating both players of the CD47/SIRPα axis. Notably, other viruses and bacteria have previously been described to increase host cell SIRPα levels [73,74]. Moreover, elevated SIRP-α expression was recently reported in blood mononuclear cells of COVID-19 patients [75], and the CD47/SIRP-α interaction was associated with lung damage in severe COVID-19 [76].

    High SARS-CoV-2 loads are associated with more severe COVID-19 and a higher risk of patient death [77,78]. Therefore, high CD47 and/or SIRPα levels may affect initial virus control resulting in enhanced virus levels, which may eventually lead to the hyperinflammation and immunopathology observed in severe COVID-19. Moreover, innate immune responses appear to be critically involved in the early control of SARS-CoV-2, and the deregulation of monocytes and macrophages seems to be a factor contributing to severe COVID-19 [79,80].

    Older age, diabetes, and obesity are known risk factors for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality [1,4]. Hence, we performed a series of systematic reviews to identify potential connections between CD47 and these processes. The results indicated an ageing-related increase in CD47 expression, which may contribute to the increased COVID-19 vulnerability in older patients [1]. Moreover, high CD47 levels are known to be involved in vascular disease, vasoconstriction, and hypertension, which may predispose SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals to various conditions associated with severe COVID-19 related, including pulmonary hypertension, lung fibrosis, myocardial injury, stroke, and acute kidney injury [4,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].

    High CD47 levels have also been reported as a consequence of hyperglycemia and diabetes, which may contribute to the high risk of severe COVID-19 in diabetic patients [4]. Although there is no known direct impact of obesity on CD47 levels, obesity is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and other ageing-related conditions such as hypertension, which may result in elevated COVID-19 vulnerability [4].

    5. Conclusions

    Severe COVID-19 disease is a consequence of hyperinflammation (“cytokine storm”) in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection [1]. Hence, the optimal time window for antiviral intervention is as early as possible to prevent disease progression to severe stages driven by immunopathology [1]. As the vast majority of cases are mild or even asymptomatic [1], an improved understanding of the processes underlying severe COVID-19 is required for the early identification of patients at high risk.

    Here, we investigated a potential role of CD47 expression in determining COVID-19 severity. SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in an enhanced expression of CD47 in different cell types. CD47 interferes with the host immune response by mechanisms including binding to SIRPα on immune cells. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 also increased SIRPα levels on primary human monocytes, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 can interfere with the immune response by elevating both binding partners of the CD47/ SIRPα axis.

    Moreover, CD47 levels are elevated in groups at high risk for COVID-19, such as older individuals and individuals with hypertension and/or diabetes. Thus, high CD47 levels may predispose these groups to severe COVID-19. Additionally, CD47 is a potential therapeutic target that can be addressed with antibodies and small molecules [22,23,24,72]. Notably, targeting SIRPα also represents a therapeutic option that may be more specific, as SIRPα is restricted to monocytes and macrophages [81]. Further research will be needed to define the roles of CD47 and/or SIRPalpha in COVID-19 in more detail. Thus, our findings should also encourage other research groups to consider the potential relevance of these molecules in their COVID-19 research.


    In simple terms, the virus thrives on vitamin d deficient hosts and replicates at will!!!

  • COVID-19: Advances and Remaining Challenges International Conference Opens September 29


    COVID-19: Advances and Remaining Challenges International Conference Opens September 29
    Institut Pasteur will hold this international conference in collaboration with Inserm ANRS - Maladies infectieuses émergentes from September 29 to October
    trialsitenews.com


    Institut Pasteur will hold this international conference in collaboration with Inserm ANRS – Maladies infectieuses émergentes from September 29 to October 1, 2021. COVID-19 experts from around the globe will attend the event, which will be broadcast live in English and held under the high patronage of the French President.


    Leading researchers and clinicians will present the progress made and remaining challenges in virology, clinical presentations and management, epidemiology, and vaccinology for COVID-19. Topics to be covered include:


    Viral entry and replication/neutralization

    Viral persistence and Long COVID

    Patient management and future treatments

    Evaluation of impact of interventions

    Children and SARS-CoV-2 transmission and control

    Vaccine regimens and effectiveness

    Why and how should we get the planet vaccinated?


    International conference "COVID-19, Advances and Remaining Challenges"
    From September 29 to October 1, the Institut Pasteur, in collaboration with Inserm and the ANRS I Maladies infectieuses émergentes, will be broadcasting live…
    www.pasteur.fr

  • Quote

    The idea that COVID could have been deliberately engineered as a big pharma, or deep state, or even Chinese military conspiracy is so far from reality only kooks with tin hats could believe it - which I guess you count yourself as Zephyr. there is no possible gain from such a conspiracy.

    Here you can read about DARPA proposal for wide scale inoculation of bats in the wild using aerosolized vaccine developed with insertion of human ACE2 cell receptor into SARSr-CoV genome from living bats. Ask Peter Dashak for possible gain of his proposal - not me. BTW DARPA is USA military agency - not Chinese one.