Covid-19 News

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here the relevant citation:

The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.

Some claim the mRNA antibodies are neutralizing and sterilizing - I suspect that is impossible to prove given the data we have.

From Peak Prosperity - Dec 8 - Censored!

GoogleYouTube Thought Police ban video on ivermectin

- Corporatists know best

Here is the video censored by GoogleYoutube Thought Police --

BEST COVID TREATMENT TO DATE BY FAR!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/YfqM1crJ50Om/

On the Big Tech Ministry of Propaganda --

YOU TUBE BANS TRUTH

Quote from Dr Richard

f you might be suffering headaches from the new microwave %G network simply wrap your head in tin foil to block the ambient mobile phone and internet radiation which might well be controlling your thought processes

There are people that are sensitive to radiation, but only a few % . As long as you can use your brain and are able to hate these guys your explanation fails!

UK investigates possible allergic reactions to COVID-19 shot

https://apnews.com/article/cor…70c38a39f880da27941db3540

LONDON (AP) — U.K. regulators said Wednesday that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions shouldn’t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country’s mass vaccination program.

U.K. Regulators Tell People With Severe Allergies Not To Get Vaccine

https://www.npr.org/sections/c…ergies-not-to-get-vaccine

Regulators in the United Kingdom are warning people with a history of severe allergies not to get the new coronavirus vaccine.

The advisory comes after two National Health Services employees, both with a history of severe allergies, had bad reactions after receiving the new Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine Tuesday, the first day of the U.K.'s nationwide immunization campaign.

My uncle (>89) tested positive 10 days ago, symptoms since about 14 days could leave quarantine today!

We gave him just early enough (3 weeks ahead..) high dose V--D3 and zinc as a prophylaxis. He then after knowing the reason for first symptoms took Sutherlandia. The last 7 day also Nigella Sativa.

This is just a sample: He never developed severe CoV-19 Symptoms - still has some cold like symptoms.

Others, in case of more severe symptoms, should have Ivermectin in hand (I did not give him!). (Loss of taste, dry cough, headaches,dizziness temperature around 38C). Be aware that if you go to a hospital you most likely don't get the proper medication. In such a case first take your private dose of Ivermectin = 4-6x normal dose. Especially Remdesivir is outstanding crap! Avoid any experimental drugs!

They are giving the vaccine to vulnerable people first, so after they administer about a million doses, I expect to see the death rate start to fall faster than the infection rate.

Quote from Fm1

Regulators in the United Kingdom are warning people with a history of severe allergies not to get the new coronavirus vaccine.

They gave me that warning for other vaccines I got recently, for influenza and shingles. I had a strong reaction to the shingles vaccine. It was miserable for about a day.

more on ivermectin

Ivermectin vs hydroxychloroquine study

Quote from Alan Smith

2 Nurses in the UK in the first 1000 people to be vaccinated developed a severe allergic reaction. But they obviously had pre-existing problems since both carried adrenaline Epipens which saved their bacon.

A severe allergic reaction shows strong immune system activation. What is the body attacking, and why? It isn't new spike antibodies. Is everyone here complacent and programmed enough to think this is not a serious red flag? If it is the ingredients of the vaccine (outside the mRNA), how do we know this won't exacerbate or induce new allergic responses?

Even the dopey "I'm Mr. Science and I say Trust Scientists" types should be seeing the kindling has been lit.

Quote from Navid

A severe allergic reaction shows strong immune system activation. What is the body attacking, and why? It isn't new spike antibodies. Is everyone here complacent and programmed enough to think this is not a serious red flag? If it is the ingredients of the vaccine (outside the mRNA), how do we know this won't exacerbate or induce new allergic responses?

It could be any number of things in the vaccine. I recently read that about 70 percent of people in the population have antibodies reactive with polypropylene glycol, and the blood samples were from the early 1990s, before the chemical was introduced! So it is a complex story.

About five years ago I realized that peanuts were effecting me, and I've had to cut way back on them. One little, delicious Reeces Peanut Butter Cup will, within a few hours, turn my complexion a noticeable shade of grey, and I hear my intestines rumbling. Other people of course have much more extreme allergies to these things. Why did I develop the allergy when I did? I have no idea, except that as a child coming home hungry from school I would routinely eat mounds of partially hydrogenated kraft peanut butter on bread, which may have primed me for a bad outcome later on.

What is concerning about vaccines is that they could be priming susceptible people to become allergic to *self* in some way, manifesting as chronic autoimmune and/or neurological disorders which become apparent many months or years after the shot, and hence they are not registered as possible effects on the product information booklet.

Here is an article about hospital ICU occupancy in the U.S. It is near capacity in many parts of the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/intera…spitals-icu-capacity.html

QUOTE:

"More than a third of Americans live in areas where hospitals are running critically short of intensive care beds, federal data show, revealing a newly detailed picture of the nation’s hospital crisis during the deadliest week of the Covid-19 epidemic.

Hospitals serving more than 100 million Americans reported having fewer than 15 percent of intensive care beds still available as of last week . . ."

Scroll down the article and there is a table where you can enter your zip code and find out how full your local hospitals are. Georgia Gov. Nitwit claimed "there is plenty of room in the hospitals." Not where I live, there isn't. They are 81% full, compared to the national average of 59%. Granted, average occupancy in 2005 was 68%:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520980/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840149/

Quote from Fm1

Ex-Pfizer Exec Demands EU Halt COVID-19 Vaccine Studies; Claims Vaccine Could Possibly Sterilize Women

https://thejewishvoice.com/202…possibly-sterilize-women/

Former Pfizer vice president and scientific director Dr. Michael Yeadon and German lung specialist and parliamentarian Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg have filed an urgent application with the European Medicine Agency calling for the immediate suspension of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies – particularly the BioNtech/Pfizer study

We should now particularly be wary of this site spreading internet lies and misinformation.

Any quote such as that - without a lot of well-checked context - is social media fluff and has no part in any intelligent and impartial investigation.

I mean, maybe this guy did say something? But if so we would need a lot of context on who he is and why he said what he said: is it based on the science, or just some politically inspired prejudice?

I don't want to shut down exact discussion of this - just to note that when an intial fact check as above comes back negative you need really careful analysis if you want to credit this meme as making nay scientific contribution at all.

That is - serious impartial analysis.

I'll do a bit:

On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.

This is pure fluff. The vaccine works well. But it does seem for whatever reason the petitioners want to squash it.

• The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.

That is true - and true of all vaccines. If it turns out it is more true of this one then it will be restricted to people less susceptible - as medical regulators in the UK have just done out of extreme (but sensible) caution. Vaccines cause allergies and monitoring this is part of any vaccine roll-out. The phase 3 trials did not show problems - but maybe speciifc groups might.

• The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.

That sounds to me like pure rubbish. After all, the same peeps who are disliking vaccines are praising natural immunity from coronavirusses - which have spike proteins. and there is zero - exactly zero - scientific evidence of infertility after COVID (which would similarly induce spike protein antibodies). Lack of any scientific support makes it fact-free rubbish.

• The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.

I don't know where this comes from - these petitioners sound to me like non-science political fake news generators. The phase 3 trials did not pick up any such effect therefore "many people" is clearly false. Any vaccine can still have problems at low rates which is why early usage is so carefully monitored, but this one - many people - is a non-starter.

Bottom line - people can say what they want. There will always be 1% of any group willing or determined to say weird things. Check them - yes. But when not checked assume this is the 1% fringe.

Unfortunately social media (and fringe mainstream media) does not do this. It seems 30% of the US is caught up in suhc propagation of untruth at the moment.

Here is one of teh more in depth checks out there on this story:

https://www.techtimes.com/arti…ertility-amongst-side.htm

https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext

That astrazeneca 62% vs 90% vaccine efficacy issue.

From the published data:

(1) the subgroup controls were homologous groups - same time, country, etc, therefore fully blind randomised. Tick

(2) The statistical significance is strong but not great. It is possible though pretty unlikely this is just unusual numbers

(3) One reason for not favouring unusual numbers is that the data on asymptomatic infections skews the same way as the data on symptomatic infection. So that is good news for the 1/2 dose + 1 dose idea delivering around 90% - but with high error bars, say 80% - 95%.

Nevertheless this is a bit unusual, though not unheard of and a mechanism exists. Treat it as not a done deal till we have more evidence but nevertheless it is much better evidenced than most of the stuff posted here (including my favourite - Vitamin D).

So I'm hoping the world will have a safe 90% effective vaccine - cheap and easily transported.

THH

Quote from Mark U

It could be any number of things in the vaccine. I recently read that about 70 percent of people in the population have antibodies reactive with polypropylene glycol, and the blood samples were from the early 1990s, before the chemical was introduced! So it is a complex story.

About five years ago I realized that peanuts were effecting me, and I've had to cut way back on them. One little, delicious Reeces Peanut Butter Cup will, within a few hours, turn my complexion a noticeable shade of grey, and I hear my intestines rumbling. Other people of course have much more extreme allergies to these things. Why did I develop the allergy when I did? I have no idea, except that as a child coming home hungry from school I would routinely eat mounds of partially hydrogenated kraft peanut butter on bread, which may have primed me for a bad outcome later on.

What is concerning about vaccines is that they could be priming susceptible people to become allergic to *self* in some way, manifesting as chronic autoimmune and/or neurological disorders which become apparent many months or years after the shot, and hence they are not registered as possible effects on the product information booklet.

There are any number of reasons to watch for increasing allergies in the modern world due to widespread industrial and domestic use of chemicals.

It seems some people single out vaccines for this speculation rather than otehr medicines (delivered in all sorts of chemicals) or industrial chemicals.

the key thing about vaccines is that the active component that you do not get in other things is just part of the disease your are being vaccinated against. The vaccine immune reaction is similar to that from getting the disease. and we do not get all these complaints about the terrible long-term side effects of getting diseases.

Such things can exist. But don't single out vaccines - which have the peculiarity of being much more carefully monitied for any sort of adverse reaction than any other medicine, or any industrial or domestic and environmental chemical.

THH The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.

That sounds to me like pure rubbish. After all, the same peeps who are disliking vaccines are praising natural immunity from coronavirusses - which have spike proteins. and there is zero - exactly zero - scientific evidence of infertility after COVID (which would similarly induce spike protein antibodies). Lack of any scientific support makes it fact-free rubbish

.fact free rubbish? You may want to read this study. I think they have legitimate concerns

The Captured Retroviral Envelope syncytin-A and syncytin-B Genes Are Conserved in the Spalacidae Together with Hemotrichorial Placentation1

https://academic.oup.com/biolr…/91/6/148,%201-16/2434207

Moreover, syncytin-2 displays immunosuppressive activity [7]. Syncytin proteins are expected to mediate cell fusion of placenta cytotrophoblasts to form the essential multinuclear syncytiotrophoblast layer at the maternal-fetal interface [3]. Remarkably, two homologous counterparts have thereafter been identified in Muridae/Cricetidae (syncytin-A and -B) [8] and then in Marmotini (syncytin-Mar1) [9], in Lagomorpha (syncytin-Ory1) [10], in Carnivora (syncytin-Car1) [11], and in Ruminantia (syncytin-Rum1) [12]. All identified syncytins share closely related functional properties, although they have a completely distinct origin and are integrated at different genomic locations, suggesting that they were acquired through a process of convergent evolution. Interestingly, additional endogenous env genes have been reported to be specifically expressed in the placenta (e.g., syncytin-like env-Cav1 [13], bos-env4/fematrin-1 [12, 14], and enJSRV env genes [15]) and, for the latter, to be involved in peri-implantation placental morphogenesis in sheep [16]. One challenging hypothesis is that this stochastic acquisition of genes of exogenous origin contributed in establishing the remarkable structural and functional diversity of placental structures. The maternal-fetal interhemal interface exhibits varying degrees of trophoblast fusion and invasion of the maternal tissues among mammalian species [17], and different types of placental structures have been identified, with, in the most invasive hemochorial form, the fetal syncytial trophoblast being in direct contact with maternal blood [18].

Quote from THHuxleynew

But don't single out vaccines - which have the peculiarity of being much more carefully monitied for any sort of adverse reaction than any other medicine, or any industrial or domestic and environmental chemical.

Oh, but vaccines should be singled out from medicines. They are under another classification called biologics. They are given to otherwise healthy people. Vaccine manufactures are usually liability free, depending on the vaccine. In the US about two dozen doses of vaccines are administered to children from birth up to two of age. It is just not true that adverse reactions from vaccines are more carefully monitored than a medicine. How can they be, when there are no true placebo studies for vaccines? You will find all kinds of studies about health outcomes of people on a particular medicine, five years out. Try finding such a study for the (say) DTaP vaccine, given to children in their first year of life. You aren't going to find it from the CDC or NIH or from the vaccine maker. No, instead you have to look up smaller retroactive studies done by individuals such as Dr. Brian Hooker https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268563/

or paediatrician Dr Paul Thomas https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674

or Dr Mawson out of Jackson State University

https://www.researchgate.net/p…o_12-year-old_US_children

to get a feel for the damage the vaccine protocol is doing to some children.

PS THH are you writing your posts in great haste lately? Lots of typos.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think anecdotes make poor science here.

there is some comparative info from the US - looking at states where individual counties had differing mask mandate policies, that mask mandates reduced R value by up to 50% but that data can be contaminated of course: those areas likley politically to mandate masks will also be likely to take social distancing more seriously.

Nevertheless on balance the science seems quite heavily on the side of masks help. The behavioural science is unclear because you can argue it your way, or that the act of putting on and wearing a mask, and seeing other masks reminds people of the virus.

Another factor is about compliance. Above all we need everyone to see that complying with social distancing measures is normal - what others do. Going out and seeing 90% of population masked up sends that message.

The behavioural science matters here as much as the medical science - though both matter!

Display More

The problem we see here is not that the one complying also getting a mask on. It's the ones that does not comply in the first place that needs to be addressed that's a huge group of people that dine, go to parties, shop at crowded shop malls etc etc.