Covid-19 News

Nice moderate discussion of why it is so difficult to gte hard evidence for/against ivermectin

What we know about Ivermectin: correlation is not causation

Millions of people around the world have turned to Ivermectin to treat COVID, especially in poor countries. But is there any evidence that it works?

cosmosmagazine.com

You can show that drownings increase after ice cream consumption but it’s not because a belly full of ice cream cramps your muscles. It’s because both events are more common in summer.

Oxford is loathe to predict when they will have their results, but after badgering head investigator Christopher Butler, he guessed it might be in the first quarter of next year. The NIH apparently won’t have anything to say till 2023.

That seems absurd, given the epidemic of people taking the drug in the hope it will work.

Carlos Chaccour, an infectious disease specialist at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health who works on Ivermectin for malaria control and has tested it in a small trial for COVID, helped clarify the situation for me. “The evidence so far doesn’t point to a large effect, if any at all. To detect a small effect you need a much larger sample size – hence it will take a long time.”

Comment from me:

Chaccour was highly enthusiastic about ivermectin, originally, from other early evidence. He was one of the early proponents. He became a less strong advocate after more evidence, but still hopes there will be some effect.

Quote from THHuxleynew

“The Egyptian study was obviously fake. We have never seen that sort of effect size [90%] with an antiviral.

This shows that you like fake news. See Uttar Pradesh 99.999% success....Also the new Hepatitis C cure is above 90%. So you are entirely disqualified to discuss. You just re-post paid FUD:

Quote from stefan

Yep that can be an explanation, but such things can be the result of chance and this paper are suggesting fraud.

The Elgazaar debunking has been made by a big pharma paid agent that did download data from an uncertified source. Nobody knows to what extent he did manipulate the data...

Quote from zorud

Switzerland is very good in population statistics, so maybe there is evidence that really more poeple die of vaccination than of other reasons?

The numbers here are to low to make a serious statistics. We also had this ex-migrants party group that produced several hundreds of ICU cases. So this certainly distorts the the numbers further. What we can see is the relative death rates only. Because Pfizer has been given early on and thus mostly to people age 70+ this strongly amplifies the negative effect. Also the relative protection rate suffers from this.

But we also have > 50% natural infections so far what leads to further complications as this reduces teh vaccine only group by at least 50%.

So for me the only reliable data is UK that shows a more or less no longer existing protection (max 20..30% with 50% natural immunity) from Pfizer for age 80+.

The real drama is the Pfizer induced CoV-19 that so far did kill more than 1'000 Israel people 500 alone with boosters. This deaths simply disappear from any vaccine statistics. India is now vaccinating too but there is no pandemics and thus no induced CoV-19! In Israel there was peek pandemics with extremely high numbers of induced CoV-19 cases.

I do not believe that generally after vaccination more people in the vaccine group will die. But this might well change over the next years especially for the Pfizer crap.

Fact is as India shows:: Vaccines do not change the pandemics only treatement can do this.

Serious Questions Raised About Aspen Destroying 30 million J and J Vaccine Doses

Serious Questions Raised About Aspen Destroying 30 million J and J Vaccine Doses

What happened to tens of millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses that purportedly may have originated from a troubled manufacturing plant? TrialSite News

trialsitenews.com

What happened to tens of millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses that purportedly may have originated from a troubled manufacturing plant? TrialSite News Africa’s Shabnam Palesa Mohamed probes the matter in one of our Drugs, Politics, and Power series.

Potentially contaminated J & J doses climb

Published in The Continent, reporter Laura Lopez Gonzalez recently wrote that Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited (Aspen) had been forced to destroy 30 million doses of J and J in June, not 2 million as initially reported.

Aspen was appointed to fill and finish the vials, but US authorities discovered that 60 million batches of the vaccine doses produced at Emergent BioSolutions factory in the US may have been contaminated before they were shipped to Aspen for finishing. It is not clear what quality control measures are in place, but of course, all such companies follow or are supposed to follow good manufacturing practices (GMP) and local laws—more of this to follow.

This revelation again raised questions whether these are the same doses that were ‘dumped’ at the US Emergent plant in April 2021 and then shipped to South Africa. The answer is no.

Transparency – Industry’s Holy Grail

There is no clarity on how 2 million doses became 30 million. When it comes to transparency, few industries are less open than the pharmaceutical companies. According to Transparency International, in 2016, one in ten corruption investigations by US authorities involved pharmaceutical companies, which is significantly higher than the banking sector. In a WHO conference on 16 September 2021, Dr. Ayoade Olatunbosun-Alakija, head of African Vaccine Distribution Alliance, said that the fact that the true number of vaccines lost was not public knowledge was a testament to the pharmaceutical industry’s ongoing lack of transparency about the Covid-19 vaccine supply. She added, “Why were African leaders not told that the vaccines they were paying for had to be destroyed and were therefore not in that supply chain? We need transparency.” In many cases, vaccines are paid for by African countries with loans and tax dollars, galvanizing the need for transparency in the acquisition process, she added.

Of course, in the age of COVID-19, when public health, pharma, and tax money co-mingle more than ever, transparency isn’t some luxury discussed at a conference but a demand by the public for an accounting of the use of public resources.

Leaks versus non-disclosure agreements

Creating blocks to determine where contaminated doses actually end up, Gonzalez further tweeted that pharmaceutical companies won’t confirm which countries are buying their products. She says the reporting tracing system depends on leaks or unnamed sources because of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The alternative is what the companies themselves say, which, given the track record of this industry and what is at stake now, ironically, cannot be fact-checked. “Aspen referred The Continent’s queries to J&J, which had not responded at the time of publication.”

Timing: J and J Ensemble trial in South Africa

Around the same time as J and J dumped the contaminated stock, it was conducting a Phase 3 Ensemble 2 trial in South Africa to test its second shot’s potential. This trial is not without controversy. At least one trial participant reported suffering clotting, heart attacks, and a body rash. The research institute Aurum maintains the complainant received a placebo, with SAHPRA, the South African Health Regulatory Authority backing them. Both SAHPRA and Aurum stand accused of funding-related conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, J and J is aiming for FDA EUA approval for shot 2.

Good manufacturing practices masked in secrecy

SAHPRA registered the J and J vaccine in March 2021. The authorization is subject to a number of conditions, which includes that the vaccine should be manufactured under conditions of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) determined by SAHPRA and aligned with global best practices.

The manufacturing process of a vaccine and active pharmaceutical ingredient requires stringent quality checks to ensure that the product meets requisite standards. According to a #PfizerLeak, a reliable source revealed that one clause included in vaccine purchase agreements is that vials cannot be examined.

At the time of publication, SAHPRA had not responded to questions related to the contaminated vaccine doses:

1. What GMP and quality audits did SAHPRA initiate in respect to these J & J (and all) doses?

2. What did SAHPRA independently discover and advise the public about vaccine contamination?

3. What tracing systems were put into place to determine whether contaminated doses were in SA?

4. Were systems hamstrung due to NDAs signed and J and J’s lack of transparency?

5. What measures have been put in place to protect the South African public from potential harm in the future?

Aspen under the health ethics spotlight

A few months ago, Aspen was viewed suspiciously because J and J made it a trade condition that it would only supply C-19 vaccine doses to South Africa if Aspen secured a signed fill and finish deal, raising questions of a monopoly during a pandemic. The Gqeberha-based company previously came under fire for price gouging and overpricing cancer medicines by up to 1500%. Their negotiation strategy was called “so aggressive as to threaten the direct supply of the drugs to the Italian market.” Aspen avoided a significant EU fine by offering to drop prices, but Italy persisted and charged Aspen 5 million euros. Aspen, Roche, and Pfizer were also investigated by the Competition Commission in South Africa. Aspen’s shareholders include a diverse array such as Colonial First State Global Asset Management, Blackrock, Vanguard, trade union CEPPWAWU, and government employee pension schemes.

Where to from here?

This understated jab contamination debacle raises crucial public health and transparency questions, including just how much public funding went into these politicized deals, was anyone affected by these and other contaminated doses, and how will these public health risks be avoided in the future.

Call to Action: Send related information you may have to [email protected]

Pfizer's COVID-19 immunity protection diminishes after 2 months, and it can reach as low as 20% after 4 months: studies

Pfizer's COVID-19 immunity protection diminishes after 2 months, and it can reach as low as 20% after 4 months: studies

Studies found Pfizer is much less effective at defending against COVID-19 infection after a few months, but its protection against hospitalization and death is…

www.insider.com

COVID-19 immunity protection from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine starts dwindling after about two month, still, the shots remain effective in guarding against hospitalization and death, according to a pair of studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

The new findings affirm what Pfizer, Moderna, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have indicated in recent weeks — that the vaccines' ability to protect the body from coronavirus infection may wane over time. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration authorized Pfizer booster shots for older or more vulnerable people.

In the first study, researchers from Qatar found that Pfizer's immunity protection drops to as low as 20% just four months after a person receives their second dose. They based their report on observations of infections among Qatar's over 900,000 vaccinated people.

The researchers found that Pfizer's protection against infection was "negligible" shortly after the first dose, but jumps to 36.8% three weeks later. When people receive their second dose, immunity protection increases to 77.5% after about a month.

But once that month is over, Pfizer's immunity effectiveness declines steadily, hovering at around 20% after the four-month mark, per the researchers.

"These findings suggest that a large proportion of the vaccinated population could lose its protection against infection in the coming months, perhaps increasing the potential for new epidemic waves," wrote the report.

Still, Pfizer's protection against hospitalization and death remained "robust" at 90% or higher for six months after the second dose, it said. The report also noted that its findings may not apply well to countries with older populations, since Qatar's population is relatively young with only 9% of its people being 50 or older.

The other study, conducted in Israel, looked at 4,868 healthcare workers. It reported that people have substantially decreased COVID-19 antibodies just six months after receiving their second dose of Pfizer's vaccine.

The drop is especially prominent among men, the elderly above 65, and those with weakened immune systems.

In comparison, vaccines for other conditions such as mumps, measles, and rubella only show small decreases of about 5% to 10% each year in neutralizing antibody levels, wrote the researchers.

They also noted that they observed higher antibody counts in

obese

participants who have a body mass index of 30 or above.

"Yet, it is still unclear whether vaccinated obese persons are at higher or lower risk for breakthrough infection and whether the relatively high humoral response to the vaccine is protective," the report stated

Two Indian drugmakers seek to end trials of Merck's antiviral drug for moderate COVID-19

Two Indian drugmakers seek to end trials of Merck's antiviral drug for moderate COVID-19

Two Indian drugmakers have requested permission to end their late-stage trials on Merck & Co's experimental antiviral drug molnupiravir in moderate COVID-19…

www.reuters.com

An experimental COVID-19 treatment pill called molnupiravir being developed by Merck & Co Inc and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics LP, is seen in this undated handout photo released by Merck & Co Inc and obtained by Reuters May 17, 2021. Merck & Co Inc/Handout via REUTERS

An experimental COVID-19 treatment pill called molnupiravir being developed by Merck & Co Inc and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics LP, is seen in this undated handout photo released by Merck & Co Inc and obtained by Reuters May 17, 2021. Merck & Co Inc/Handout via REUTERS

BENGALURU, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Two Indian drugmakers have requested permission to end their late-stage trials on Merck & Co's (MRK.N) experimental antiviral drug molnupiravir in moderate COVID-19 patients.

The two Indian drugmakers, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd (ARBN.NS) and MSN Laboratories plan to continue late-stage trails of the drug for those with mild COVID-19, the Indian drug regulator's expert committee said on Friday.

The two companies separately sought permission to end trials in the case of moderate COVID-19 patients after having submitted interim clinical trial data around the effectiveness of the drug in treating this category of patients, the committee disclosed, throwing into question the efficacy of the experimental drug in improving outcomes for patients with moderate cases of COVID-19.

Separately, a senior source at India's drug regulator told Reuters that molnupiravir had shown no "significant efficacy" against moderate COVID-19 cases. read more

Report ad

Shares in Merck soared last week after it and partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics said an interim analysis of a late-stage clinical trial on molnupiravir showed the medicine nearly halved the risk of hospitalisation or death for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. read more

It was not immediately clear whether the Indian drugmakers and Merck used identical criteria to define moderate COVID-19 cases.

Aurobindo Pharma, MSN and Merck did not immediately reply to Reuters' requests for comment.

Merck has entered into voluntary licensing agreements with at least eight Indian drugmakers for molnupiravir, with an aim to turn the South Asian nation into a manufacturing hub for the drug to supply low- and middle-income nations. read more

Report ad

Aurobindo has been conducting a clinical trial on the drug in 100 patients with moderate COVID-19 since August this year. According to its trial details, moderate patients included those with fever, coughing, breathing difficulties and oxygen deficiency.

Of the eight Indian firms, five - Dr Reddy's Laboratories (REDY.NS), Cipla (CIPL.NS), Sun Pharma (SUN.NS), Torrent Pharmaceuticals (TORP.NS) and Emcure Pharmaceuticals - are conducting a joint trial for the antiviral drug only in mild COVID-19 patients in an outpatient setting.

The other licenced company, Hetero, in early July announced interim data from its own late-stage trial in treating mild COVID-19 patients and submitted an application for emergency use approval for the same.

Hetero is separately conducting a study on moderate COVID-19 patients and it has said clinical results on the same will be shared in due course.

The durability of immunity against reinfection by SARS-CoV-2: a comparative evolutionary study

The durability of immunity against reinfection by SARS-CoV-2: a comparative evolutionary study

Among the most consequential unknowns of the devastating COVID-19 pandemic are the durability of immunity and time to likely reinfection. There are li…

www.sciencedirect.com

Summary

Background

Among the most consequential unknowns of the devastating COVID-19 pandemic are the durability of immunity and time to likely reinfection. There are limited direct data on SARS-CoV-2 long-term immune responses and reinfection. The aim of this study is to use data on the durability of immunity among evolutionarily close coronavirus relatives of SARS-CoV-2 to estimate times to reinfection by a comparative evolutionary analysis of related viruses SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, human coronavirus (HCoV)-229E, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-NL63.

Methods

We conducted phylogenetic analyses of the S, M, and ORF1b genes to reconstruct a maximum-likelihood molecular phylogeny of human-infecting coronaviruses. This phylogeny enabled comparative analyses of peak-normalised nucleocapsid protein, spike protein, and whole-virus lysate IgG antibody optical density levels, in conjunction with reinfection data on endemic human-infecting coronaviruses. We performed ancestral and descendent states analyses to estimate the expected declines in antibody levels over time, the probabilities of reinfection based on antibody level, and the anticipated times to reinfection after recovery under conditions of endemic transmission for SARS-CoV-2, as well as the other human-infecting coronaviruses.

Findings

We obtained antibody optical density data for six human-infecting coronaviruses, extending from 128 days to 28 years after infection between 1984 and 2020. These data provided a means to estimate profiles of the typical antibody decline and probabilities of reinfection over time under endemic conditions. Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 under endemic conditions would likely occur between 3 months and 5·1 years after peak antibody response, with a median of 16 months. This protection is less than half the duration revealed for the endemic coronaviruses circulating among humans (5–95% quantiles 15 months to 10 years for HCoV-OC43, 31 months to 12 years for HCoV-NL63, and 16 months to 12 years for HCoV-229E). For SARS-CoV, the 5–95% quantiles were 4 months to 6 years, whereas the 95% quantiles for MERS-CoV were inconsistent by dataset.

Interpretation

The timeframe for reinfection is fundamental to numerous aspects of public health decision making. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, reinfection is likely to become increasingly common. Maintaining public health measures that curb transmission—including among individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2—coupled with persistent efforts to accelerate vaccination worldwide is critical to the prevention of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Funding

US National Science Foundation.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Elgazaar debunking has been made by a big pharma paid agent that did download data from an uncertified source. Nobody knows to what extent he did manipulate the data...

This, like many of the comments W makes, is a lie, as well as an insult.

If anyone wants me to go through the evidence in detail, and why the group of 4 independent (and not previously known to each other) people who did the detective work are not big Pharma stooges, I will.

Or, you could just look at the data yourself!

THH

XWhy Are Americans Still—Still!—Wearing Cloth Masks?

Why Are Americans Still—Still!—Wearing Cloth Masks?

It’s long past time for an upgrade.

www.theatlantic.com

Every time I leave my apartment, I grab a mask from the stack by the door. After all these months of pandemic life, I’ve amassed a pretty big collection: Some are embroidered, while others bear the faded logos of the New York Public Library or the TV show Nailed It. What all of them have in common is that they’re made of cloth.

We might have once hoped that vaccines would entirely obviate masking, but unfortunately, masks seem poised to stick around for quite some time. And yet, even as much of our approach to the pandemic has changed in the past 18 months, our approach to masking largely has not. So why are we still strapping pieces of fabric to our face?

Unless you work in health care, the CDC still recommends masks made with at least two layers of washable, breathable fabric. A big reason for this is that, yes, surgical masks are still in limited supply, according to the FDA, and so they must be prioritized for health-care workers. Though the shortage appeared to relent this summer, when widespread vaccination led to a dip in demand for both surgical and cloth masks, the rise of the Delta variant precipitated another major mask crunch.

But that’s not the only reason masking habits haven’t shifted. Part of the problem is that the enduring mask wars have helped frame mask wearing as a simple binary. “Unfortunately there’s been so much misinformation that’s come out about masking that it’s become so polarized,” Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told me. “People are just divided into either you’re masked or you’re not. And that would be like saying everything that has wheels”—including a tricycle and a jetliner—“is the same.”

Faced with this binary, Americans generally don’t pay enough attention to the quality of a mask and how it’s worn. As the Harvard epidemiologist Bill Hanage told me in an email, we’re still wearing cloth masks because they’re “expected to still be better than nothing.” And they really are far better than nothing: He likened surgical masks to a sturdy, well-made umbrella and cloth masks to the cheap kind that inverts. “Both are better than a plastic bag held over your head, which is itself better than nothing,” he said.

But America’s complacency about masks is not simply the result of individual decisions. Public-health agencies could have prioritized using government resources to remedy the mask shortage, as well as simply mailing all Americans more-protective masks. “I can’t speak for the CDC,” Hanage said, “but I would hope that they would be able to convey the message that all masks are not alike, just like all umbrellas are not alike.” A spokesperson for the CDC told me that although the agency believes that N95 masks are “better at protecting the wearer, and if available should be worn,” cloth masks have been shown to be an “effective method of source control,” according to CDC research, and are still recommended when N95s aren’t available. (The spokesperson did not mention surgical masks, and did not respond to a follow-up question.)

Many less scientific reasons also play a role in our continued obsession with cloth masks. Even if you’re not making cloth masks at home, they’re generally more affordable than surgical masks because they are meant to be reused. (That being said, the Bangladesh study found that even a surgical mask that had been washed 10 times was more effective at filtering particles than a cloth one.) A 24-pack of cloth masks costs $9 on Amazon—about 37 cents apiece—while single-use surgical masks are about 30 cents each and N95s are upwards of 63 cents. For the same reason, cloth masks are considered more eco-friendly—a nontrivial consideration, given mounting concerns about the waste generated during the pandemic.

And for all the companies now offering fabric masks, selling them is a brisk business that, by one estimate, was worth $19.2 billion in 2020. Like T-shirts and baseball caps, cloth masks have become a way to encourage that most American of pastimes: pledging one’s allegiance to sports teams, colleges, and political causes. For the more luxury-inclined, Fendi offers a logo-embroidered silk version for $590.

Ultimately, while masking is important, it’s not the most important thing we should be doing to protect ourselves from the coronavirus. Although Osterholm makes it clear that he’s very pro-masking, “it’s really all about the whole hierarchy of environmental control,” he said, referring to the various methods for reducing risk within a space, a key concept in occupational safety. Vaccination is by far the most protective measure a person can take. Second is ensuring proper ventilation—replacing the air in a room at least five to six times an hour, he explained. Next is social distancing. And then there’s masking: “You keep going down in that order, and finally the lowest thing in terms of overall prevention potential is individual respiratory protection,” he said.

And there is still much to learn about the effectiveness of masking. Even the most rigorous studies on masking have limitations, said Osterholm, largely because of shortcomings in their methodology. Cloth masks are less protective than surgical masks, but exactly how much less remains uncertain. Roger Chou, an epidemiologist at Oregon Health & Science University who tracks mask studies, told me in an email that he “really has not found much evidence” on the effectiveness of cloth versus surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19 in communities, even though he said that plenty of other data back up their effectiveness. The most important thing, Chou said, “is to wear a mask, whether it is a surgical mask or cloth mask.”

Even if a pivot toward surgical masks wouldn’t be some pandemic panacea, America’s mask inertia is in many ways a symptom of the nation’s single-pronged pandemic response. The country has collectively banked on vaccination to end the pandemic, and one consequence is that attention to other protective measures has lagged. Our vaccines are terrific, but it’s now clear that our best way out of the pandemic does not rely on shots alone. “If you have enough pieces of Swiss cheese, you can cover every hole, and you can’t see the table,” Osterholm said. “If you put [one slice] by itself on the table, I promise you, you’re going to see the table.”

If masks are slivers of Swiss, cloth ones have more holes than the surgical kind. As long as America is stuck with masks, we might as well make the switch to a less permeable slice.

Peter Daszak, Who Sought U.S. Funds for Wuhan Lab and Aided Cover-up, Faces Calls to Quit

Peter Daszak, who sought U.S. funds for Wuhan lab and aided cover up, faces calls to quit

Scientists have asked U.S. research group EcoHealth Alliance to drop Daszak as its president, after the organization proposed enhancing viruses as part of…

www.newsweek.com

Scientists have called for Peter Daszak, the president of U.S.-based research organization EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) to quit, accusing him of concealing conflicts of interest, witholding critical information, and misleading public opinion during the COVID pandemic

EHA has been thrust into the public eye during the pandemic because of its work studying bat coronaviruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is located in the city Chinese city that was the first epicentre of the COVID outbreak.

EHA recently came under heavy scrutiny after a group of online researchers and correspondents known as the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 (DRASTIC) published a 2018 proposal to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for research that would have involved enhancing viruses to study them. The documents could not be verified by Newsweek.

DARPA rejected the 2018 proposal, partly because it did not address regulatory or ethical issues.

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and…

www.reuters.com

HELSINKI, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its use.

Mika Salminen, director of the Finnish health institute, said Finland would instead give Pfizer's vaccine to men born in 1991 and later. Finland offers shots to people aged 12 and over.

"A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna Spikevax had a slightly higher risk than others of developing myocarditis," he said.

Swedish and Danish health officials had announced on Wednesday they would pause the use of the Moderna vaccine for all young adults and children, citing the same unpublished study.

Norwegian health officials reiterated on Wednesday that they recommended men under the age of 30 opt for Pfizer's vaccine.

The Finnish institute said the Nordic study would be published within a couple of weeks and preliminary data had been sent to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for further assessment.

The EMA's safety committee concluded in July that such inflammatory heart conditions could occur in very rare cases following vaccination with Spikevax or the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty jab, more often in younger men after the second dose.

Regulators in the United States, EU and the World Health Organization have however stressed that the benefits of shots based on the mRNA technology used by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech in preventing COVID-19 continue to outweigh the risks.

A Moderna spokesperson said late on Wednesday it was aware of the decisions by the Swedish and Danish regulators.

"These are typically mild cases and individuals tend to recover within a short time following standard treatment and rest. The risk of myocarditis is substantially increased for those who contract COVID-19, and vaccination is the best way to protect against this."

Italy's Health Minister Roberto Speranza told reporters Italy was not planning to suspend the Moderna vaccine and said European countries should work together more closely to coordinate better.

"We have to trust international authorities, starting with EMA which is our reference agency and has expressed very clear judgments on the matter," he said.

Adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines - background incidences vary by sex, age and time period and are affected by the pandemic

Abstract

Background With large-scale COVID-19 vaccination implemented world-wide, safety signals needing rapid evaluation will emerge. We report population-based, age- and-sex-specific background incidence rates of conditions representing potential vaccine adverse events of special interest (AESI) for the Swedish general population using register data.

Methods We studied an age/sex-stratified random 10% sample of the Swedish population on 1 Jan 2020, followed for AESI outcomes during 1 year, as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and developed, before the start of vaccinations. We selected and defined the following outcomes based on information from regulatory authorities, large-scale adverse events initiatives and previous studies: aseptic meningitis, febrile seizure, Kawasaki syndrome, MISC, post-infectious arthritis, arthritis, myocarditis, ARDS, myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, kidney failure, liver failure, erythema multiforme, disseminated intravascular coagulation, autoimmune thyroiditis, and appendicitis. We calculated incidence rates stratified by age, sex and time period (quarters of 2020), and classified them using Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) categories: very common, common, uncommon, rare, or very rare.

Results We included 972,723 study subjects, representing the Swedish national population on 1 Jan 2020. We found that AESI incidence rates vary greatly by age and in some cases sex. Several common AESIs showed expected increase with age, while some (e.g. appendicitis, aseptic meningitis, autoimmune thyroiditis, Kawasaki syndrome and MISC) were more common in young people, and others exhibited a flatter age pattern (e.g. myocarditis, DIC and erythema multiforme). Consequently, the CIOMS classification for AESIs varied widely according to age. Considerable variability was suggested for some AESI rates across the 4 quarters of 2020, potentially related to pandemic waves, seasonal variation, healthcare system overload or other healthcare delivery effects.

Conclusion Age, sex, and timing of rates are important to consider when background AESI rates are compared to corresponding rates observed with COVID-19 vaccines.

Quote from Fm1

The researchers found that Pfizer's protection against infection was "negligible" shortly after the first dose, but jumps to 36.8% three weeks later. When people receive their second dose, immunity protection increases to 77.5% after about a month.

This is why we can properly adjust the UK antibody statistics. It takes at least two weeks for antibodies to shine up.

Quote from Fm1

We obtained antibody optical density data for six human-infecting coronaviruses, extending from 128 days to 28 years after infection between 1984 and 2020. These data provided a means to estimate profiles of the typical antibody decline and probabilities of reinfection over time under endemic conditions. Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 under endemic conditions would likely occur between 3 months and 5·1 years after peak antibody response, with a median of 16 months.

We already discussed this. Such studies are just complementary and have no meaning in prediction of the human response upon re-infection. Re-infection is not at all bound to antibody levels!!

Quote from THHuxleynew

If anyone wants me to go through the evidence in detail, and why the group of 4 independent (and not previously known to each other) people who did the detective work are not big Pharma stooges, I will.

They all looked at the dubious data from the same unknown source.

Quote from Fm1

HELSINKI, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its use.

An other nice report about vaccine side effects:

https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-vaccine-associated-parkinsons-disease-a-prion-disease-signal-in-the-uk-yellow-card-adverse-event-database-1746.pdf

So may be banning Oxford crap is more urgent...

Quote from Fm1

Adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines - background incidences vary by sex, age and time period and are affected by the pandemic

This is good background data. But not complete one more year before the pandemic would be needed!

Went out to see a comedian last week. It felt weird to get out to a show.

He was pointing out how most normal people do not have the time or knowledge to check everything so most people rely on the advice given by experts, for better or worse.

He did a little story of one of his mates.

Mate "What you wearing a mask for?"

JM "Well you see there's a pandemic, its been on the news and everything".

Mate "They don't stop farts."

JM "Sorry?"

Mate "Masks don't stop farts so they are not going to stop a virus."

JM "Well, I don't know, I am just going by the advice of the government experts."

"But the way I look at it is, worst case scenario, if I am wrong then I just look stupid, but if you are wrong then someones gran dies".

Quote from Fm1

One wonders how it is possible that while it has now been reported that vaccinated shed and transmit as much virus as unvaccinated people, t

This is reported because the people reporting it are antivaxxers who are spreading lies. However, it is not true that vaccinated people shed or transmit as much virus. They are far less likely to shed any virus at all, because they seldom are infected. Even if they get a breakthrough case, it clears more quickly and the viral load is smaller, so they shed less.

Quote from zorud

We all know that a vaccination doesn't prevent you from catching and spreading the virus

We do not know this. This is not even slightly true. The vaccine greatly lowers your chance of catching and spreading the virus.

Do not make up imaginary statements and post them as facts. That's W's role here. One W is enough.

Here is an analysis of the most abysmal, idiotic COVID related paper published in a professional journal, AFIK:

Evaluating claim in "peer reviewed" Toxicology Reports article vaccines kill 5 for every 1 save

There a paper published in Toxicology Reports that included an analysis purporting to estimate causal vaccine deaths in the US claiming between 227,792 and…

www.covid-datascience.com

Quote from Alan Smith

Filters could clean SARS-CoV-2 from air Research at a hospital in the United Kingdom suggests that portable HEPA air filters effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 virus particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world setting. The results indicate that air filters might be an affordable and overlooked tool to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission in hospitals. Nature | 4 min read

Killing COVID-19: CU Boulder Researchers Say UV Light Is The Key

Researchers found a high-energy wavelength of Far ultraviolet-C damaged the COVID-19 virus, and is not harmful to humans at a certain dose.

Killing COVID-19: CU Boulder Researchers Say UV Light Is The Key

Killing COVID-19: CU Boulder Researchers Say UV... - Boulder, CO - Researchers found a high-energy wavelength of Far ultraviolet-C damaged the COVID-19 virus,…

patch.com

BOULDER, CO — New research from the University of Colorado -Boulder suggests a specific wavelength of ultraviolet light could be key to reducing the spread of COVID-19 in public spaces.

A team of researchers led by Professor Karl Linden, Ph.D., analyzed different wavelengths of UV light on the coronavirus, according to CU Boulder. The researchers found a high-energy wavelength of Far ultraviolet-C at 222 nanometers damaged the virus, and is also not harmful to humans at a certain dose.

“Of almost every pathogen we have ever studied, this virus is one of the easiest, by far, to kill with UV light,” said Linden, a professor of environmental engineering, to the CU Boulder website. “It takes a very low dose. This indicates that UV technology could be a really good solution for protecting public spaces.”

Many of us are used to slathering on sunscreen on summer days to protect ourselves from the UV light that comes from the sun. Certain wavelengths of UV light has been used to disinfect hospitals and some other public areas when no humans are present.

This research is unique, Linden said, because it shows how UV light can kill COVID-19 in a way that is relatively safe for humans.

“We wanted to make sure that if UV light is being used to control disease, you're delivering the right dose that's protective of human health and human skin, but also going to be killing off these pathogens," he is quoted as saying on the CU Boulder website.

Linden said the use of UV-C light to kill the virus could be more cost-effective than other disinfection measures.

“There is an opportunity here to save money and energy while protecting public health in the same way. It’s really exciting,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency are still developing safety protocols for the use of UV-C light to disinfect surfaces.

Researchers from the University of Arizona and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill joined Dr. Linden and CU Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ben Ma to publish a study in Applied and Environmental Biology this month

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Elgazaar debunking has been made by a big pharma paid agent that did download data from an uncertified source. Nobody knows to what extent he did manipulate the data...

Quote from Wyttenbach

They all looked at the dubious data from the same unknown source.

Another Wyttenfact. And a particularly dumb one at that.

This apparently ‘unknown’ and ‘uncertified’ source of the Elgazzar data was…. a link provided in the 3rd preprint of Elgazzar’s paper!

The password (1234) was guessed on presumably the second or third attempt, and published to allow anyone who wanted to check the original file to do so.

Quote from Fm1

Pfizer's COVID-19 immunity protection diminishes after 2 months, and it can reach as low as 20% after 4 months: s

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is an analysis of the most abysmal, idiotic COVID related paper published in a professional journal, AFIK:

IF you don't understand a paper then say it straight out. Do not link and other guy that doesn't understand it too!

We must clear up some FUD that it used in all journals.

Vaccine protection against infection:: This is physiologically impossible with all current vaccines. So, such titles are FUD up head.

93% protection from death. This is currently the actual Big pharma commercial 100% FUD. In all these figures the > 80% deaths from prevaxx age are included. Also all CoV-19 recovered are counted as vaccinated or protected by the vaccine. The absolute best figure for vaccine protection from deaths is 3x overall 0..20% for 80+.

If we account for natural protection group size 75% and add partial protection 95% then only 5 % are vulnerable at most 1..2% of PCR+ end up in hospitals this is 0,25.. 0.5 of all infection. So the real vaccine protection for the average is far below 10%.

CoV-19 is a disease of the old age > 65 and very severe for age >75. So any general statistics anyway is FUD.

Vaccine protection for age <50 does simply not exist compared to any form of treatment.

Once more we (Switzerland) have 42 double vaxx deaths for 6 weeks 115 no vaxx includes a few vaccine promoted deaths.

Without adjustment 26.6% are double vax deaths protection 73.4%. But we have between 50..60% infection protection thus this halves 73,4 to 37% vaccine only protection from death. This is far below a factor of 3.