Covid-19 News

Quote from Wyttenbach

Facts about CoV-19::

- Vaccines give you absolute no protection from an infection. The first 2 months post jab this might look that way because the 1.2 % that got CoV-19 1..7 days post jab count as regular infections....

- Vaccinated are infected by CoV-19 at a much higher rate than unvaxxinated:: See: https://assets.publishing.serv…llance-report-week-44.pdf

Both untrue.

1 week mis-classification of an 8 week period could at most result in a 12% reduction in incidence - assuming the study did not use the correct 7 week reporting windows - which all reputable studies would.

We have many different studies showing varying infection-protection from vaccines. Over the whole population, real-world, it looks like 90% (at least initially) going down after 6 months to something more like 50%.

There is a good deal of uncertainty in all of these studies - and much more uncertainty in the cherry-picked figures above - not a study - and not useful because of problematic denominator and differential reporting rates.

It will be interesting to put all the available info together - but unless you are an antivaxxer and refuse to accept any of the studies then there is initially quite a high protective against infection effect which goes down.

For those unfamiliar with antivax (or even pro-vax) cherry-picking:

• TICS (this is COVID - stupid!) meaningful data needs to be accurately age-stratified because of extreme age-dependence of everything
• Simpson;'s paradox - need to consider - by age group - iintial fraction as well as fraction getting infection/dying/ etc
• Temporal effects. in most places infection rate varies wildly over time, vaccination rate also varies wildly over time. these things conflate and can make results weird.
• vulnerable-get-vaccinated effect tends to make everything worse for vaccinated
• vaccinated are cautious effect makes things seem better for vaccine
• vaccinated are less cautious effect - makes things seem worse for vaccine. we don't know which of these two effects dominates.
• unvaccinated-don't-report-infections effect. makes things seem worse for vaccinated. Again we do not know magnitude.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Since almost everyone has had the jab now you need more care than antivaxxers usually take to show adverse effects are jab 9no evidence) rather than long-term effect of possibly never diagnosed because mild COVID (lots of evidence).

No evidence that the jabs cause heart injury? Of course there is, lots of it.

All these athletes have been vaccinated to participate in their sports, and yet THH insinuates that a mild, undiagnosed Covid infection might be to blame. Truly a vaccine warrior.

Speaking of anti-vaxxer, Peter Doshi noted in the recent Senate hearings that the definition has been altered recently. From the Merriam Webster Dictionary it , my underline:

Definition of anti-vaxxer

: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

I think the number of anti-vaxxers here just increased considerably.

Welcome!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not however a mystery to those who have been discussing the adverse effects of even mild COVID:

I am interested in your logic of the following:

You have in the recent past stated that the vaccines primary purpose "now" is to reduce hospitalizations / deaths from Covid19 infections. I believe you generally agree that the vaccines are now shown not prevent infection (nor spreading) of the Covid19 virus but that they provide protection from serious cases. I believe this is an accurate portrayal of the current status myself.

I believe your stance further posits that if unvaccinated, even mild cases pose danger to health due to "long covid", myocarditis and other adverse effects and that these risks out weigh any vaccination risks.

If this stance is correct (and I may be incorrect in understanding your position) I would ask your logic and supporting data on this thought.

What is the difference (both medical theory and any real life data) that would show an unvaccinated "mild case" of Covid19 would be any different that a "mild case" contracted by a double vaxxed individual? Does not the "mild case" argument become moot if both vaccinated and unvaccinated have "mild cases" and thus both are still suspect to these "adverse effects"?

You have stated that some observational examples might be invalid because 99% of Covid cases are mild or even non-symptomatic anyway. Thus the vaccinations are only helping 1% (rough percentages here, not meant to be exact) of people from serious cases anyway.

So then the remaining 99% are subject to damage even though the cases are mild, whether vaccinated or not.

Or are you stating that "mild vaccinated cases" are not subject to the adverse effects and "unvaccinated mild cases" are. If so, what facts are you basing this on?

Thank you.

I am not trying to diss either view! I am just collecting data to base my decisions on.

Quote from Fm1

The mRNA products did not meet the definition of vaccine that has been in place for 15 years at Miriam Webster.

This was clear from the beginning as a monoclonal cancer chemo just provokes monoclonal antibodies and only a homeopathic immune memory. Even if the change their Neusprech definition RNA gene therapy is no vaccine.

Quote from zorud

Please do not forget that a Corona infection seems more critical when it comes to Myocarditis

A children statement. You just have forgotten to add the magic word "untreated" corona infection.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We have many different studies showing varying infection-protection from vaccines. Over the whole population, real-world, it looks like 90% (at least initially) going down after 6 months to something more like 50%.

Our clown is spreading FUD again. Please read the UK vaccination report: https://assets.publishing.serv…llance-report-week-44.pdf

Your lies are outrageous. Only a fascist can do such damaging postings when the reality shows that "vaccinated only" get up to 5x more often CoV-19 than unvaccinated.

Reality :: RNA "vaccines" promote CoV-19

So stop spreading fake news!

Quote from Mark U

Here's the tip of a very large iceberg.

Heart injuries in athletes with the jab.

https://rumble.com/voxcah-athl…-with-heart-problems.html

I did a quick look at this on another forum .. "how many athletes drop dead normally?" ( its text doesn't copy cleanly here : this form thinks ascii must be code)

Sudden Cardiac Death in Athletes
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4969030/>

1 in 53,703 athlete years overall
1 in 23,689 mens soccer

<https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/a59132e138824c1c/original/jlr5corccbsef4n4brde.pd
f>

128,983 professional soccer players.

5 per year average?

I counted 5 professional soccer players in that list. 
If you scale that to amateurs ---   hundreds of millions.

According to FIFA's most recent Big Count survey, there are 265
million [soccer] players

Expect about 1,000 per month for soccer.

(Of course these stats probably vary greatly by age and gender)

Quote from Alan Fletcher

"how many athletes drop dead normally?"

Usually top trained athletes do no die on the soccer field. If this happens a section is done and in all cases I know a hidden birth defect was the cause.

So now a few athletes die - or break down with heart damage - because of "vaccines" and others due to doping or just drugs or lets call it drug abuse.

RNA gene therapy is just a drug nothing else. France just nullified all vaccine certificates for Pfizer victims.

All over Europe we enter the UK phase of a pandemic entirely dominated by the pseudo vaccinated. Here double vaxx hospital cases just reached the 50% level what still is moderate compared to UK's 80%. We have 2/3 Moderna! As we produce it ....

Mayo Clinic Study Reveals J&J Vaccine Recipients Four Times More Prone to Blood Clots

Mayo Clinic Study Reveals J&J Vaccine Recipients Four Times More Prone to Blood Clots

The Mayo Clinic released a study on Nov. 1 revealing that Minnesota residents from Olmsted County who received the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine

trialsitenews.com

The Mayo Clinic released a study on Nov. 1 revealing that Minnesota residents from Olmsted County who received the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine are 3.7 times more likely to develop blood clots.

The Study

Published by the JAMA network, the study analyzed blood clot case numbers that were reported to the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between Feb. 28, 2021 (the date that the vaccine was approved), and May 7, 2021, comparing them to incident case numbers before the pandemic, between Jan. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2015. The study gained approval from the Mayo Clinic institutional review board.

While researching the data from pre-pandemic incident cases, the Mayo Clinic found that 39 Olmsted County residents experienced acute incident cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), with 28 of those patients having predisposing risk factors such as an infection, birth control use, or active cancer within 92 days before the CVST event.

Evaluating VAERS data from after the J&J vaccine approval date, the Mayo Clinic discovered that 46 potential CVST cases were reported to VAERS within 92 days of receiving the vaccine. Out of the 46 cases, 8 were excluded due to potential duplicate reports or not receiving an objective diagnosis.

“The present study avoided referral bias and included only objectively diagnosed and confirmed cases,” the research letter said. “Only cases with adequate details or imaging findings reported on VAERS were used. Study limitations include possible ascertainment bias by including only objectively diagnosed CVST cases.”

The study showed that females were at an increased likelihood of forming a blood clot after receiving the vaccine, with 71% of VAERS reports being among women.

Risk Factors

“It was surprising that it is predominantly women (especially 30 to 49-year-old women) who are at a higher risk for CVST in the first 15 days after the administration of Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.” According to Healio, lead investigator of the Mayo Clinic study, Dr. Aneel Ashrani, reported, “We do not have a good explanation for it but speculate that they may have additional/concomitant CVST risk factors, (e.g., oral contraceptive pill use) or may have a predisposition to autoantibody production that may have led to vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia with thrombosis.”

The average age of those who experienced a CVST after vaccination was 45. The average time to the CVST event was 9 days after receiving the vaccine with 81.6% of cases that occurred 15 days after receiving the vaccine and 94.7% occurred within 30 days.

A Trend?

This isn’t the first time J&J has been met with negative press, as their COVID-19 vaccine rollout came to a screeching halt in April due to six cases of CVST reported after individuals received their vaccine. A few months later, there were 100 reports of individuals who received one J&J dose diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, an incurable autoimmune disease that causes a sudden-onset muscle weakness brought to the surface by an individual’s immune system, resulting in damage of the peripheral nervous system.

“In individuals who had thrombotic complications after the administration of an adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., the J&J vaccine), my bias would be to consider one of the mRNA-based vaccines (i.e., one manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) for their booster shot,” Dr. Ashrani said, according to Healio.

Prominent Group of Researchers

Additional Mayo Clinic professionals that conducted the study alongside Dr. Ashrani include Dr. Daniel J. Crusan, Dr. John Heit, and Statisticians Tanya Petterson and Kent Bailey.

Age- and Sex-Specific Incidence of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis Associated With Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 Vaccination

Incidence of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis After Ad26.COV2.S Vaccination

This cohort study compares the sex- and age-adjusted incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis before the COVID-19 pandemic with that during the first 92…

jamanetwork.com

USC & UCLA Physician-Researchers: COVID-19 Natural Immunity is Real

USC & UCLA Physician-Researchers: COVID-19 Natural Immunity is Real

What does most research about whether there is natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 have to say about this topic? While national, regional, and local

trialsitenews.com

What does most research about whether there is natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 have to say about this topic? While national, regional, and local governments focus on controlling the pandemic primarily through the use of testing, vaccination, emerging treatments, and various public health measures, the mainstream press rarely mentions the natural immunity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. While hundreds of studies have been employed to better understand how vaccination can help, few studies are funded to scientifically study the natural response to COVID-19. However, numerous scientists and public health-focused researchers have looked into the phenomena. Most recently, Noah Kojima, MD a UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine grad now in the Department of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH a University of Southern California (USC) Clinical Professor of Population and Public health Sciences investigated the topic of COVID-19 natural immunity via a review of studies published in PubMed from the inception of the pandemic to September 28, 2021. They found a number of “well-conducted biological studies showing protective immunity after infection.”

Impressive Researchers

Both Dr. Kojima and Dr. Klausner are researchers to the core. While Kojima attended UCLA Med School he took a gap year to become an NIH Fogarty Fellow in South Africa investigating “microbiome determinants of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and other STIs.” Klausner has taken on major public health program research and operational oversight serving the San Francisco Department of Public Health as Deputy Health Officer, Director of STD Prevention and Control Servers for over a decade. Klausner then traveled to South Africa to become Branch Chief for HIV and TB at the Centers for Disease Control in Pretoria and helped direct the South African PEPFAR program (U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief).

Important Questions about COVID-19 Natural Immunity

Recently, The Lancet published a review of COVID-19 natural immunity studies authored by the two Los Angeles-based physician-researchers. In the article, the authors showcased the different studies involved.

Some key findings:

Natural immunity against COVID-19 is real: a myriad research involving wild type and the delta variant (B.1.617.2) finds that once an individual has been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the probability of reinfection decreases by 80.5 to 100%.

The findings are based on a range of substantial, in some cases large studies conducted worldwide

In one laboratory-based investigation involving 9119 people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 the study found only 0.7% got sick again.

A Cleveland Clinic study revealed that of those people not infected with SARS-CoV-2 they had a 4.3 per 100 potential to get infected while those who were infected had an incidence rate of 0 per 100 people. TrialSite reported on the same Cleveland Clinic study which that institution took down.

In Austria a study found hospital frequency due to repeated SARS-CoV-2 infection was five per 14,840 (0.03%) with frequency of death due to repeated infection was one per 14,840.

What about vaccination after infection?

The authors state what could be considered blasphemous in select quadrants of society today declaring, “Some people who have recovered from COVID-19 might not benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.” This declaration is based on the June Cleveland Clinic study Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals | medRxiv that does have limitations in that it wasn’t peer-reviewed and it was later declared the results didn’t factor in the delta variant.

Is vaccination preferred?

Yes. The authors emphasize that it “is certainly much safer and preferred.”

But should natural immunity be factored into mandates and passports?

Yes. The authors reply, “policymakers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses and the workplace, or travel requirements.”

Lead Research/Investigator

Noah Kojima, MD UCLA resident

Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH USC, Clinical Professor of Population and Public health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine

Quote from Mark U

No evidence that the jabs cause heart injury? Of course there is, lots of it.

All these athletes have been vaccinated to participate in their sports, and yet THH insinuates that a mild, undiagnosed Covid infection might be to blame. Truly a vaccine warrior.

Speaking of anti-vaxxer, Peter Doshi noted in the recent Senate hearings that the definition has been altered recently. From the Merriam Webster Dictionary it , my underline:

Definition of anti-vaxxer

: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

I think the number of anti-vaxxers here just increased considerably.

Welcome!

Display More

Mark, you are here using rhetoric rather than logical argument.

Suppose that more athletes now are getting pericarditis. The question is whether this is due to the known damaging long-term effects of COVID infection, or whether it is due to (your hypothesis - zero evidence) the effects of the vaccie.

We know, for example, that COVIF nyocarditis is muhc more severe than vaccine-induced myocarditis.

You need, to preserve this unlikley antivaxxer meme, to come up with a decent study that shows the incidence is higher in vaccinated than unvaccinated athletes, compensating for all the conflating risk factos.

Or, you could just ask the doctors, who will tell you that COVID-induced myocarditis is more common and more serious than vaccine-induced myocarditis.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Usually top trained athletes do no die on the soccer field. If this happens a section is done and in all cases I know a hidden birth defect was the cause.

So now a few athletes die - or break down with heart damage - because of "vaccines" and others due to doping or just drugs or lets call it drug abuse.

I know it is not worth it, but could I just ask why you suppose this effect is due to vaccines, rather than the more obvious reason (COVID infection)?

incidence of post-COVID myocarditis in athletes:

https://jamanetwork.com/journa…20prevalence%2C%200.31%25).

2.3% (but includes subclinical)

0.7% (clinical symptoms)

0.3 % (cardiac testing alone)

incidence of vaccine myocarditis:

12.6 / million = 0.001%

I am reminded of the old joke:

"How many anti-vaxxers does it take to calculate that 0.001% > 0.3%"?

One.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Or, you could just ask the doctors, who will tell you that COVID-induced myocarditis is more common and more serious than vaccine-induced myocarditis.

Let's pretend that those athletes are collapsing because of a strangely undiagnosed Covid infection - induced myocarditis. I wonder what, specifically, could be causing it? Now, we know for a fact that the vaccine also induces myocarditis. What are the two things the vaccine and SARS COV-2 have in common? Hmmm, could it be the spike protein that is causing the immune system to attack heart muscle?

Could it be also be the spike protein that is causing blood to clot, killing people, and causing people's immune system to attack their own nervous system, disabling and crippling them?

No, it couldn't be. As further proof, we'll inject some into 5 to 11 year olds and see that everything will be just fine.

Quote from Fm1

“policymakers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events,

This is live saving publishing wishi washi. Only natural infection protects. Only recovered should get an immunity certificate.

So its not equal! Its the about 100x better!

Quote from Mark U

Let's pretend that those athletes are collapsing because of a strangely undiagnosed Covid infection - induced myocarditis. I wonder what, specifically, could be causing it?

Discussing with clowns is clueless. There is no such thing as a hidden CoV-19 infection causing heart damage as then you would get the information that the athlete was PCR+.

The FUD produced by the FM/R/ B fascist mafia is flooding serious science now. This allows clowns to claim they post science.

Myocarditis is only seen among seriously ill patients. Vaccines promote an immune defect. This allows bacteria to grow over much longer time than in healthy people. For me Pfizer victims are sick people that only can pray to get some more good 5..10 years.

Quote from THHuxleynew

0.3 % (cardiac testing alone)

That 0.3 % is the percentage with symptoms (5) of those who tested positive AND were fully evaluated (1597) , not the total number at RISK (9255).

So cases/risk = 5/9255 = 0.05% unvaccinated (based on symptoms)

Compared to 12.6/1M = 0.001% vaccinated (based on symptoms)

Still, unvaxed risk is 50 * vaccinated risk

Data : Thirteen Big Ten Universities agreed to participate and submitted data. Through December 15, 2020, 9255 athletes had undergone COVID-19 testing and 2810 (30.4%) had tested positive. From this group of athletes with COVID-19 (1879 men [66.9%]), 2461 had completed cardiac evaluation, with 1597 (64.9%) including CMR imaging at the time of analysis ...

Quote from Wyttenbach

According to science surgical masks do not stop CoV-19. At best an effect of 15..30% can be seen what is below the confidence interval. 80% is laughable unless you don't use at least FP95!

All studies done the last 10 years show masks have no effect on virus. No means do not slow down the pandemic. Surgical mask only stop droplets !

Here children did never wear masks. This happens only in fascist states. We also did never shut down school.

I think this girl agrees! Maybe we should put her in charge of the CDC?

Research Study Bombshell—SARS-CoV-2 Lives & Propagates in the Human Microbiome

Research Study Bombshell—SARS-CoV-2 Lives & Propagates in the Human Microbiome

Recently, Australian and Southern California physician-researchers involved in a new microbiome venture in Ventura, California further probed a finding

trialsitenews.com

Recently, Australian and Southern California physician-researchers involved in a new microbiome venture in Ventura, California further probed a finding involving stool detections. Specifically, the research group identified SARS-CoV-2 not only in respiratory secretions but also in stool collections. The study team enriched next-generation sequencing (NGS) from fecal samples but also conducted a whole-genome analysis to better understand the impact of the novel coronavirus on patients’ microbiome. To the surprise of at least some, the researchers found SARS-CoV-2 in fecal samples. They suggest the possible role of SARS-CoV-2 in fecal-oral transmission. The recent study also showcased the advantages of SARS-CoV-2 enrichment NGS, a potential methodology to document complete viral eradication. This study indicates the SARS-CoV-2 spreads in the gut. What can be done with this knowledge to fight the pandemic?

Reported recently in the peer review journal Gut Pathogens, the study team was led by the corresponding author Andreas Papoutsis, Ph.D., joined by his research partner and Principal Investigator Dr. Sabine Hazan from Progenabiome as well as Australia’s Dr. Thomas Borody. Dr. Borody was most famous for his groundbreaking work in developing the triple therapy cure for peptic ulcers in 1987.

An expert in oversight and execution of molecular clinical trial testing under international guidelines including GxP, GmP, GLP standards, Papoutsis, and team sought to better connect SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and stool samples.

The Study

Led by Principal Investigator Sabine Hazan, MS, the study was titled, “A Study to Explore the Role of Gut Flora in COVID-19 Infection.” (NCT04359836). Targeting up to 250 participants, the study’s primary endpoint centered on the correlation of microbiome to disease via relative abundance found in microbiome sequencing over the first year.

At the Progenabiome lab in Ventura, California, the researchers tested the fecal samples of SARS-CoV-2 patients via whole-genome enrichment NGS (n = 14), and RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab analysis (n = 12). They found that the “Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 detection by enrichment NGS from stools with RT-PCR nasopharyngeal was 100%.”

Moreover, the team identified distinctive variants in four subjects, while they identified a total of 33 different mutations among the positive samples identified by genome enrichment NGS.

The authors concluded that there is in fact a significant probability that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected by feces, but larger studies must be accomplished. Moreover, the study also clarifies some of the advantages of SARS-Cov-2 enrichment NGS, which could represent a fundamental approach to document complete viral eradication.

The study team at Progenabiome recruited patients that had to be 18 or up (male or female), signed informed consent, and were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection by RT-PCR within one (1) week of study screening.

Some patients could not be included per the exclusion criteria. For example, if they refused to sign informed consent or had a history of bariatric surgery, total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or proctectomy couldn’t participate. Neither could they if an individual had a history of postoperative stoma, ostomy or ileoanal pouch, or treatment with total parenteral nutrition.

Conclusion

The team found that this sequencing technology pinpointed the SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequence in 100% of patients with positive nasopharyngeal RT-PCR and failed to detect it in asymptomatic post-treatment patients, or those with negative RT-PCR.

Of significant interest, the investigators found that one patient tested positive for the novel coronavirus via NGS from stool 38 days after the initial primary nasopharyngeal RT-PCR test. Dr. Hazan and team believe that this may indicate that the virus may remain in people’s GI tract for longer than anticipated.

The results herein include the primary value of metagenomic analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome and may present an alternative diagnostic methodology that could possibly help with viral identification, diagnosis, and surveillance of its evolutionary progression through the human population on to its termination.

The PI POV

Hazan and her team found copies of the full genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in just one tiny stool sample. That finding was the same for each person with the virus. According to Dr. Hazan, “This means that the virus is setting up shop in the gut and relies on favorable conditions in that environment to replicate. ” Hazan continued, “To understand what this means you have to understand what happens in the gut.”

Dr. Hazan further noted, “What does this mean for the prevention and treatments associated with COVID-19?

About Progenabiome

Ventura, California-based Progenabiome is on a mission to crack the genetic code of a trillion bacteria, fungi, and viruses that live in the human gut (the microbiome). Set up as a genetic sequencing research laboratory dedicated to continuing the research of the late Dr. Sydney Finegold, who many consider to be one of the fathers of the microbiome—that is a person who recognized the power of anaerobic bacteria.

Lead Research/Investigator

Sabine Hazan, MD, Progenabiome

Andreas Papoutsis, Ph.D. Progenabiome

Thomas Borody, MD, Progenabiome, Center for Digestive Diseases

Brad Barrows, MD

Siba Dolai

Jordan Daniels

Skylar Steinberg

Call to Action: More research is imminently needed in this field. Interested in connecting with Dr. Hazan? Contact Progenabiome here.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing - Gut Pathogens

Background SARS-CoV-2 has been detected not only in respiratory secretions, but also in stool collections. Here were sought to identify SARS-CoV-2 by…

gutpathogens.biomedcentral.com

The NIH to Debate Vaccine Mandates

The NIH to Debate Vaccine Mandates

There’s an interesting debate happening over vaccine mandates, and it’s in an unlikely place. The National Institute of Health, the workplace of Dr.

trialsitenews.com

There’s an interesting debate happening over vaccine mandates, and it’s in an unlikely place. The National Institute of Health, the workplace of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is a mandate advocate. According to a November 7th article in The Wall Street Journal, the NIH will hold a “roundtable session” on December 1st to discuss the “ethics” of the proposed workplace mandate.

Lots of Pushback against the Mandates within NIH

The December discussion is the first of four for the agency, which employs nearly 20,000 people. The pushback against the mandate is coming from several employees, including David Wendler, a senior NIH bioethicist. “There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” said Wendler, “It’s an important, hot topic.” Wendler has also done a lot of pediatric research.

As pointed out in an article in The Hill, the pushback isn’t coming from “anti-vaxxers”. In one case, one of the employees opposing the mandate is Dr. Matthew Memoli who supports vaccine use among “high risk” individuals including the elderly and the obese. Memoli has declined to be vaccinated for “religious reasons” and thinks the vaccine mandate is “extremely problematic”.

Blanket Vaccine May have Opposite Impact

Memoli points out that he does vaccine research and has helped develop and create vaccines. So he’s not against vaccines but “he argues that with existing vaccines, blanket vaccination of people at low risk of severe illness could hamper the development of more-robust immunity gained across a population from infection.” Memoli has even told Fauci that he believes the way “we are using vaccines is wrong”.

The objections to the proposed mandate are reverberating through the NIH. Christine Grady, who is the head of the Clinical Center of the bioethics department at the National Institute of Health, has agreed to the December 1st discussion. Grady is married to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

As pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Dr. Memoli is now considered an “outlier”, even though he’s done research on vaccines. Epidemiologists and public health officials believe that Memoli can dissuade the general population from being vaccinated. Public health officials believe the only way to defeat the covid pandemic is through mass vaccination.

Dr. Grady signed off on the December discussion with the idea that there is interest throughout the agency. However, David Wendler, who works with Grady points out that the bioethics department doesn’t seek to influence policy because they’re a “consultation service” not “policy people”.

Dr. Memoli simply wants to have the agency discussion. As he says, “if they end up saying I’m wrong, that’s fine. I just want to have the discussion”.

What could be even more interesting is if Grady and Fauci have a discussion before the NIH-led event.

COVID-19: People under 30 should not get Moderna vaccine - France

By REUTERS Published: NOVEMBER 9, 2021 11:31

COVID-19: People under 30 should not get Moderna vaccine - France

Moderna Inc applied for European authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6-11 years, weeks after it delayed a similar filing with US regulators.

m.jpost.com

Moderna Inc applied for European authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6-11 years, weeks after it delayed a similar filing with US regulators

France's public health authority has recommended people under 30 be given Pfizer's Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine when available instead of Moderna's Spikevax jab, which carried comparatively higher risks of heart-related problems.

The Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS), which does not have legal power to ban or license drugs but acts as an advisor to the French health sector, cited "very rare" risks linked to Myocarditis, a heart disease, that had shown up in recent data on the Moderna vaccine and in a French study published on Monday.

Within the population aged under 30, this risk appears to be around five times lesser with Pfizer's Comirnaty jab compared to Moderna's Spikevax jab," HAS said in its opinion published on Monday.

The decision in Paris came after regulators in several other countries, including Canada, Finland and Sweden, had also taken a more defensive stance on Spikevax over heart-related safety concerns affecting younger people.

The European Union's drug regulator EMA last month approved Moderna's booster vaccine for all age groups over 18, at least six months after the second dose.

The EMA earlier this year said that it had found a possible link between the very rare inflammatory heart condition and COVID-19 vaccines from both Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines.

However, according to the EMA, the benefits of both mRNA shots in preventing COVID-19 continue to outweigh the risks, the regulator said, echoing similar views expressed by US regulators and the World Health Organization.

Earlier in October, the company said its vaccine generated a strong immune response in children aged six to 11 years and that it plans to submit the data to global regulators soon.

Moderna said on Tuesday it had applied to the European Medicines Agency for use of a 50 micrograms dose of the vaccine in children, half the strength used in the adult vaccinations.

The drugmaker delayed the US application for children aged 6 to 11, while the FDA completes its review for the vaccine's use in the 12-17 age group.

Earlier in October, the company said its vaccine generated a strong immune response in children aged six to 11 years and that it plans to submit the data to global regulators soon.

Moderna said on Tuesday it had applied to the European Medicines Agency for use of a 50 micrograms dose of the vaccine in children, half the strength used in the adult vaccinations.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

So cases/risk = 5/9255 = 0.05% unvaccinated (based on symptoms)

Compared to 12.6/1M = 0.001% vaccinated (based on symptoms)

I do not know from where you get this figures. The risk in the vaccinated group is 500/1mio or 0.05 for a serious reaction and 50 serious heart related cases with symptoms and 5 deaths. (Not counting other deaths)

The paper reports: 9255 athletes had undergone COVID-19 testing and 2810 (30.4%) had tested positive.

This shows that the selection has been hand made. Up to the time of the study only 4% of US people had CoV-19. So you have to divide all figures by least a factor of 10.

This is typical big pharma sponsored FUD!