Covid-19 News

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This article also says:


    One domestic healthcare provider, Maccabi Healthcare Services, released an encouraging smaller study on Thursday. It revealed that out of 163,000 Israelis given both shots, only 31 were infected, compared with nearly 6,500 infections among a control group of unvaccinated people.


    That means: You are 200 times more likely to be infected without a vaccine. The vaccine works better than originally estimated. Virtually all recent cases are in people who have not been vaccinated.

    I hate to nitpick, but you are (incorrectly) assuming the vaccinated group is the same size as the control group.

    After the lengthy table the article immediately continues:


    Maccabi said the data suggested the vaccine was 92% effective, close to the 95% efficacy that Pfizer claims.


    This amounts to 100/8 = 12.5 times more likely to be infected without a vaccine.

    One more paper that explains why the Pfizer vaccine does only work 1/10 for E484K (RSA) and also less for B1.171 (UK). The 1/10 is not an absolute figure but you would need 10x antibodies for clearing the E484K strain. Let's hope the T-Cell got it.

    Further the studies do show that UK people age >80 are not at all protected against E484K after just one shot.


    https://www.citiid.cam.ac.uk/w…ISSION_vaccine-DCv2-2.pdf


    It looks like E484K and 1.171 mutations did merge in countless places in UK. So it is only a question of time until this combination will be dominant as seen in RSA.


    Only an idiot prime minister can tell the UK population that the Pfizer vaccine still works as expected. This might be the case after a few weeks, when there will be a clandestine RNA update!! But all old people will need at least one more shot.

    And this was exactly the reason behind the UK delay of the second shot. This is highly criminal...


    An interesting graphic that shows a minimal decline (Israel)= in severe cases after vaccination.


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et…format=jpg&name=4096x4096

    Quote from Mark U

    I hate to nitpick, but you are (incorrectly) assuming the vaccinated group is the same size as the control group.

    It would not be a control if it wasn't the same size! A "control" means "the same." Or, if it were a different size, they would have to say so. They would have to present the data on a per capita basis, instead of absolute numbers.


    Another mass media article describes the control as "an equivalent sample" which means the same thing as "control":


    https://www.timesofisrael.com/…ed-result-outside-trials/


    Maccabi found that an equivalent sample of unvaccinated Israelis was 11 times more likely to be diagnosed with the coronavirus, which allowed it to calculate the effectiveness rate.

    "11 times" is a different number than I calculated. Something is off . . . This article goes on to say:


    Maccabi figures released earlier this week indicated that vaccination is working very well, but lacked a control group that made it hard to extract an accurate effectiveness rate.


    Now, Maccabi has analyzed a control group of Israelis with similar age and health profiles of vaccinees, composed entirely of people haven’t been infected or received shots.


    This allowed Maccabi to calculate its real-world effectiveness rate. It used complex calculations, similar to those used by Pfizer in trials, to compare vaccines and the control group and determine the extent to which the vaccine appears to be preventing infection. . . .


    Quote from Mark U

    Maccabi said the data suggested the vaccine was 92% effective, close to the 95% efficacy that Pfizer claims.

    Yes. They addressed this:


    Prof. Eyal Leshem, infectious diseases specialist at Sheba Medical Center, told The Times of Israel that people should be excited by the strong result, and not concerned by the 3% shortfall [95% minus 92%]. “This is a very high figure, well within the standard deviation we would expect,” said Leshem.


    [In other words, the 3% difference is not significant.]

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    40% and 60% is very distant from 99.96% and it's very distant from initial Pfizer's claims.

    No, it is not distant. Pfizer said it was around 60% after the first dose. They did not specify how long after the first dose. The numbers from Israel are 40% to 60% after 14 days. That's in the same ballpark.


    The numbers are confusing. You can accidentally make an apples to oranges comparison.


    Pfizer claimed 95% a few weeks after the second dose. The 99.96% is for the entire group of people in Israel who got the vaccine. That includes people who were never exposed to the virus, and who would not have gotten sick even if they had not been vaccinated.


    The other report you cited claims 33% after 14 days. That's not far from the 40%, and it could be in line with Pfizer's results after 14 days. Actually, as I understand the Pfizer report, you can't even measure the effect after only 12 days. In the double blind tests, the Pfizer document describes the two groups as "diverging" after 12 days. For the first 12 days you can't see the effect of the vaccine. Because in 12 days, only a handful of people are infected in the normal course of events, and even fewer show symptoms.


    The other report says:


    "But from 14 days onwards after the vaccination, there was a significant fall of 33% in the percentage of people testing positive for the virus who had had the vaccination, compared with those who had not."


    It is difficult to get exact numbers because not every vaccinated person is exposed to the virus. If they could deliberately infect vaccinated people, that would produce a clear result. I thought that was against the law, but apparently in some countries such tests are allowed. It is called a "human challenge trial" in the UK:


    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    New Study By Dr. Steven Quay Concludes that SARS-CoV-2 Came from a Laboratory A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived. The 193-page paper can be downloaded from Zenodo, a general-purpose open-access repository operated by CERN here. A short ‘explainer’ video about the paper is here.

    “IF true”, and that’s a big “IF”, AND, is was manufactured, purpose built and released by a Nation State, this is global terrorism on a

    genocidal scale.


    Is political hegemony that much of a motivator that killing millions of people globally is somehow justified?


    Ramses, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Caesar,

    Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Malosovic, Mugabi, etc etc etc.


    I for one, would not be surprised

    Quote from JedRothwell

    In the double blind tests, the Pfizer document describes the two groups as "diverging" after 12 days. For the first 12 days you can't see the effect of the vaccine.

    Here is the quote I had in mind. This seems to indicate that 52% is the total immunity after 4 weeks, when the second dose is administered. This starts to show up after 12 days:


    https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201210005703/en/


    The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases over time among placebo and vaccine recipients began to diverge by 12 days after the first dose, and 52.4% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval: 29.5, 68.4) was observed between dose 1 and dose 2, indicating the early onset of a partially protective effect of immunization. Two doses of vaccine provide the maximum protection observed. Ten cases of severe COVID-19 were observed with onset after the first dose. Nine cases occurred among placebo recipients and one among BNT162b2 recipients.


    So, this tells you that if you get the first dose, you should continue to be very careful for at least 12 days more. Elsewhere I read it takes about 5 days for the antibodies to begin protecting you. Based on this, 12 days would be more prudent. Of course, you can't really relax until 2 weeks after the second dose. Then again, 52% protection is much better than no protection.

    Quote from Roseland67

    Is political hegemony that much of a motivator that killing millions of people globally is somehow justified?


    Ramses, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Caesar,

    Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Malosovic, Mugabi, etc etc etc.


    I for one, would not be surprised

    I sure would be surprised. There is a reason Hitler never used poison gas on enemy troops. Because he knew the British, Russians and Americans would immediately use it on his troops, and they had more gas than he did. Even a tyrant knows better than to use a weapon likely to harm his own side more than the enemy. There is no dictator alive today who would be so crazy as to let loose a virus when his own country does not have an antidote. Bioweapons are only useful when your side has vaccines ready, and the other side does not.


    Besides, no one is at war with anyone at present. If you have a potent weapon, it makes no sense to use it before you go to war. The other side will develop countermeasures and reduce the effectiveness. For example, German Zeppelin and airplane air raids on London during the First World War in 1915 prompted to British to develop countermeasures, and these countermeasures were effective at blunting the German air offensive in the Battle of Britain in 1940. (The only major change in 1940 over 1915 was the addition of radar.) In other words, in WWI the Germans conducted 50 raids and killed 557 people. As a consequence, the British learned how to set up observers, telephone lines, patrols, and other effective countermeasures to the air raids. After 1940 it was clear that the WWI raids were a lot more beneficial to England than Germany.


    Assume for a moment that China deliberately loosed this virus. Since it originated in China, they are the only suspect. It could not have been Switzerland, Canada or Russia. China did manage to control the virus to a remarkable extent, in a short time. But no one could have predicted that with confidence. It might have killed hundreds of thousands. They might have hurt themselves more than they hurt any other country. Why would they take that risk? China is mainly an economic power, and this hurt their customers and shrank their business. Why would they do that? I can see doing it during an all-out war they are losing, but there is no rational reason to do it now. Say what you like about the Chinese government, it is not irrational or delusional. It acts in the best interests of the nation.

    UK virus variant has developed concerning new mutation in small number of cases


    https://news.google.com/articl…=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen


    The UK variant of the coronavirus has developed a new, concerning mutation in a small number of cases, which scientists said makes it similar to the South African and Brazilian variants and could reduce the efficacy of vaccines.


    The emergence of the mutation to the variant first discovered in Britain highlights how complicated exiting COVID-19 lockdown will be even once vaccines are rolled out.


    Public Health England said there had been 11 reports of the UK variant which feature the E484K mutation, mostly in south-west England.

    E484K mutation, which occurs on the spike protein of the virus, is the same change as has been seen in the South African and Brazilian variants that have caused international concern.


    "PHE is monitoring the situation closely and all necessary public health interventions are being undertaken, including enhanced contact tracing and control measures," a PHE spokesman said.


    Several laboratory studies have found that vaccines and antibody therapy are less effective against the South African variant.


    By contrast, early evidence showed that vaccines worked just as well against the UK variant, which originally did not have the E484K mutation.


    Health minister Matt Hancock said it was too early to tell the impact of variants on vaccines, but mutations of concern had been reported in Bristol and Liverpool.


    "We must continue to act with caution, not least because of the renewed challenges posed by new variants of the coronavirus," he told lawmakers.

    You could catch South Africa variant even if you have had Covid before


    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/…south-africa-19749427.amp


    People who have already had Covid-19 could catch the disease again if they encounter the South Africa variant, according to an expert.


    Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, said it may be possible for people to become infected with the South African variant even if they have had Covid-19 in the past.



    She told BBC Breakfast: “That is something that is causing concern around the world.


    “In Brazil where there is a different variant – which was badly hit in the first wave – there was a lot of reinfection there and that’s what also seems to potentially be the case with this variant in South Africa.

    She told BBC Breakfast: “That is something that is causing concern around the world.


    “In Brazil where there is a different variant – which was badly hit in the first wave – there was a lot of reinfection there and that’s what also seems to potentially be the case with this variant in South Africa.

    Research shows nasal spray that protects against COVID-19 is also effective against the common cold


    https://medicalxpress.com/news…effective-common-cold.amp


    Research into a new drug which primes the immune system in the respiratory tract and is in development for COVID-19 shows it is also effective against rhinovirus. Rhinovirus is the most common respiratory virus, the main cause of the common cold and is responsible for exacerbations of chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In a study recently published in the European Respiratory Journal, the drug, known as INNA-X, is shown to be effective in a pre-clinical infection model and in human airway cells.

    Treatment with INNA-X prior to infection with rhinovirus significantly reduced viral load and inhibited harmful inflammation.


    University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) researcher Associate Professor Nathan Bartlett, who led the study, said INNA-X showed great promise as a new way to protect people from diseases caused by common respiratory viruses such as rhinovirus. These diseases range from the common cold to potentially life-threatening exacerbations of chronic respiratory diseases, which cost the global economy billions of dollars each year.


    "Consistent with what we have reported for other respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), INNA-X treatment prior to infection reduced the level of virus in the respiratory tract," Associate Professor Bartlett said.


    "We have also examined the effect of INNA-X in airway cells from patients with asthma which we know have a less effective anti-viral immune response and found that INNA-X treatment was effective providing a rationale for the use of INNA-X in at risk populations."


    INNA-X is developed by the Australian biotech company Ena Respiratory and works by stimulating the innate immune system in the airways, the first line of defense against the invasion of respiratory viruses into the body. This immune priming makes it much more difficult for viruses such as rhinoviruses to take hold, cause serious symptoms and spread.


    INNA-X has been also shown to be highly effective at reducing virus shedding of SARS-CoV-2 and human trials of Ena Respiratory's clinical candidate INNA-051 will begin in Australia in the coming weeks.


    "If found protective, this could be used by at risk populations including elderly or asthma patients, to reduce the severity of rhinovirus, COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses' infections in conjunction with vaccine approaches," Associate Professor Bartlett said.


    HMRI is a partnership between the University of Newcastle, Hunter New England Health, and the community.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I sure would be surprised. There is a reason Hitler never used poison gas on enemy troops. Because he knew the British, Russians and Americans would immediately use it on his troops, and they had more gas than he did. Even a tyrant knows better than to use a weapon likely to harm his own side more than the enemy. There is no dictator alive today who would be so crazy as to let loose a virus when his own country does not have an antidote. Bioweapons are only useful when your side has vaccines ready, and the other side does not.


    Besides, no one is at war with anyone at present. If you have a potent weapon, it makes no sense to use it before you go to war. The other side will develop countermeasures and reduce the effectiveness. For example, German Zeppelin and airplane air raids on London during the First World War in 1915 prompted to British to develop countermeasures, and these countermeasures were effective at blunting the German air offensive in the Battle of Britain in 1940. (The only major change in 1940 over 1915 was the addition of radar.) In other words, in WWI the Germans conducted 50 raids and killed 557 people. As a consequence, the British learned how to set up observers, telephone lines, patrols, and other effective countermeasures to the air raids. After 1940 it was clear that the WWI raids were a lot more beneficial to England than Germany.


    Assume for a moment that China deliberately loosed this virus. Since it originated in China, they are the only suspect. It could not have been Switzerland, Canada or Russia. China did manage to control the virus to a remarkable extent, in a short time. But no one could have predicted that with confidence. It might have killed hundreds of thousands. They might have hurt themselves more than they hurt any other country. Why would they take that risk? China is mainly an economic power, and this hurt their customers and shrank their business. Why would they do that? I can see doing it during an all-out war they are losing, but there is no rational reason to do it now. Say what you like about the Chinese government, it is not irrational or delusional. It acts in the best interests of the nation.

    Hitler didn’t use poison gas because it didn’t kill enough, not because he was afraid of retaliation in kind.


    China would sacrifice 1,000,000 of their population to gain political ends, they are like worker bees, the colony is important, not the individual.


    They do NOT want to go to war with the US, no one does, they will lose and they know it.

    this was they can simply deny it, but they get all of the useful intel of which there is scads.


    China population believes what they are told to believe, much like Group Think Red and Blue here in the US.


    No dictator alive that would crash planes into the World Trade Center center either?


    What you KNOW about the virus in China is exactly what you have been told by China, nothing more.


    China wants political, economic and military hegemony in the East, they cannot attain this via war, they will lose, they know this.

    So how do they go about it?

    You’re seeing it now.


    Again, I would not be surprised.

    U.K. Covid Strain Gets Mutation That Raises Vaccine Concern



    https://www.bloomberg.com/news…at-raises-vaccine-concern


    The U.K. coronavirus strain that’s sparked concern around the globe has picked up another mutation that appears to make the virus more resistant to vaccines.


    Scientists have identified the mutation on 11 different sequences of the new strain, Public Health England said in an updated report Monday. The findings came from a data set of more than 200,000 sequences.

    The mutation is present in the variants that arose in South Africa and Brazil, and is thought to help the virus resist vaccines and antibody therapies -- and infect people who already fought off Covid.


    The change is “a worrying development,” Julian Tang, a professor and clinical virologist at the University of Leicester, said in remarks on the U.K.’s Science Media Centre. The “reassurances from recent studies showing that the mRNA vaccines will still offer optimum protection against the original U.K. variant may no longer apply.

    Quote from Fm1

    Several laboratory studies have found that vaccines and antibody therapy are less effective against the South African variant.

    Thanks to Pfizer only the tough new mutations will survive and for sure re-infect all UK people that had the original version.


    In the mean time Pfizer told in a statement that they project a gain of 15 '000'000'000 from vaccine for 2021. Quite modest for the investment they had to bribe CDC, & FDA. Further bribes are needed soon to really get this stake as it is illegal to maintain the admission for the experimental RAN vaccine. Possible they have to bribe the whole administration.


    According the current US laws and regulations such a vaccine can only be granted admission if no standard therapy exists. But we have ivermectin with 99.3 success overall and we have now three standard non experimental vaccines.


    Any US citizen can based on current laws and regulations just force FDA/CDC to revoke the Pfizer admission as it now is illegal.


    Summary: Thanks to a criminal and totally illegal experiment, that overall soon will much worsen the situation in many countries, Pfizer plans a profit of 15 billions this year. This is more than the mafia makes with crack and cocks...

    I remind everyone that patients must know about risks/benefits/alternatives and they MUST KNOW that taking a vaccine is entering a CLINICAL TRIAL. Failure to disclose will qualify as a crime as per the Nuremberg Code. Every time in history immense crimes happen populations sit around numb, twiddling their thumbs waiting for a superhero to tell them what to think. However, uniquely in 2021 they have so mind controlled the population people actively think it is ok to force people into this experiment, and censor people for speaking about alternatives. Please educate others, the credit for saving one life will come back to you as karma.

    Quote from Navid

    However, uniquely in 2021 they have so mind controlled the population people actively think it is ok to force people into this experiment, and censor people for speaking about alternatives.

    No one is being forced into anything. You are free to refuse any vaccine. No one is being censored. You damn well know that, and you are lying through your teeth.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.