Covid-19 News

    W - perhaps this is what you wanted me to find? I'm struggling here to find the 5000% figure.


    Over 285 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 24, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,863 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths. Get the latest safety information on the J&J/Janssen vaccine. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS.


    from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru…afety/adverse-events.html


    or (more googling from me)


    https://apnews.com/article/fac…ng-afs:Content:9957832237


    So the problem with spikes in VAERS data (if there is a spike relative to previous) is that:


    (1) as above it must be related to the overall vaccination rate at the relevant time.

    (2) it is extremely prone to hijacking by those politically or otherwise motivated reporting deaths.


    COVID vaccinations have become political in a way that flu vaccines never were.


    I'm a bit lazy so https://www.reuters.com/articl…check-vaers-idUSKBN2AE0QQ


    The CDC estimates that about 1.3 million COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered to residents in long-term care facilities as of Jan. 18, 2021. Given this, the CDC expected to see a background mortality of 11,440 deaths (slide 36 here), which is multiple times higher than the number of VAERS reports in the dataset.


    So, basically, no evidence here. background deaths are larger than VAERS reported deaths. How many VAERS reported deaths is based on whether anyone bothers or wants to report them. A death not in any obvious way related to the vaccine can be reported to VAERS, and whether this happens will depend on many variable factors.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The CDC estimates that about 1.3 million COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered to residents in long-term care facilities as of Jan. 18, 2021. Given this, the CDC expected to see a background mortality of 11,440 deaths (slide 36 here), which is multiple times higher than the number of VAERS reports in the dataset.

    Yes: This is for dilettantes and for diversion. You must read the medical details like Symptoms onset that in most cases is less than 12 hours after vaccination. Further VERS only reports 1..10% of the reality.

    And as said the Pfizer vaccines induces an immune defect that lasts 4-6 weeks after the first jab. In the current pandemic situation this did already add 50-100'000 extra CoV-19 deaths.


    Statements like you make are dangerous and childish. You can only compare a set of non vaccinated care home people with a set of vaccinated ones and of course in both we will have background deaths...

    May be you find out how this statistic works...OR else take a class in live insurance math.

    Here is an article for the layman by two virologists:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com…5-ee9558eecf4b_story.html


    We may never know where the virus came from. But evidence still suggests nature.


    Labs like the one in Wuhan are essential to preparing for future pandemics



    They address the two hypotheses I have listed:


    1. The virus may have escaped from a lab by accident. They do not think so, but they say it is difficult to tell.


    The epidemiological evidence in the World Health Organization’s origins mission report from this spring further bolsters the natural-origin hypothesis. Among early cases, 55 percent had had exposure to wildlife markets, and the growth of the outbreak over time, both in cases and excess deaths, clearly shows that the neighborhood surrounding the Huanan market was the initial center of the epidemic in Wuhan. It’s true that 45 percent of cases could not be linked to a market, but the silent spread of SARS-CoV-2 that has made it so hard to control also makes it difficult to rule out such connections.


    2. The virus was engineered. They think this is unlikely. They give some technical reasons, including:


    In March 2020, a group of renowned evolutionary virologists analyzed the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and found it was overwhelmingly likely that this virus had never been manipulated in any laboratory. Like the earlier coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, they theorized, it “spilled over” from its natural reservoir host (bats) to a new one (humans). Viruses jump species frequently, with unpredictable consequences. Often a virus hits an evolutionary dead end if it cannot adapt to the new host rapidly enough to be transmitted again. Sometimes, however, it can. Clues that reveal this scenario can be found by analyzing the sequence of the virus genome, and that’s exactly what this study did.


    The study carefully examined whether key elements of the virus, particularly the spike protein on its surface, appeared engineered. They did not. The spike didn’t optimally bind to its receptor, ACE-2, and the interaction between the two proteins was unpredictable even using the most advanced computer algorithms. Another key feature often cited as evidence of laboratory origin is the furin cleavage site, where the spike protein is cut in half to “activate” viral material for entry into cells. The viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 don’t have this site, but many others do, including other human coronaviruses. The furin site of SARS-CoV-2 has odd features that no human would design. Its sequence is suboptimal, meaning its cleavage by the enzyme furin is relatively inefficient. Any skilled virologist hoping to give a virus new properties this way would insert a furin site known to be more efficient. The SARS-CoV-2 site has more of the hallmarks of sloppy natural evolution than a human hand. Indeed, a timely analysis last year showed convincingly that it is a product of genetic recombination, a natural feature of coronavirus replication and evolution. . . .

    I was sent for treatment to the city of Nursultan in Kazakhstan. I took a covid test and was found to have signs of the disease. Now they want to assign me for 14 days for self-isolation and my family, although I do not really believe in this self-isolation. I don't know what we're going to do now.

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

    Thanks 3
    • Official Post
    Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

    I was sent for treatment to the city of Nursultan in Kazakhstan. I took a covid test and was found to have signs of the disease. Now they want to assign me for 14 days for self-isolation and my family, although I do not really believe in this self-isolation. I don't know what we're going to do now.

    How many Covid tests did you take? False positives are not unknown, one test is not a guarantee you have an active infection.
    But sorry to hear about the self-isolation.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The epidemiological evidence in the World Health Organization’s origins mission report from this spring further bolsters the natural-origin hypothesis.

    After returning home the Swiss member of the WHO team clearly said that they had to please China and that a lab escape is the most likely version. This is also what most researchers now say. Also some that had been force to sign the Daszak letter.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    In March 2020, a group of renowned evolutionary virologists analyzed the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and found it was overwhelmingly likely that this virus had never been manipulated in any laboratory.

    This is absolute nonsense. Nature cannot add >1200 base to a genom in a few steps...at a dozen of locations.

    Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

    I don't know what we're going to do now.

    Look for somebody that has a horse and ask him for the horse worm cure = Ivermectin.

    The CDC Says This New Delayed Vaccine Side Effect Is Hitting Mostly Men

    THERE'S A NEW STUDY INVESTIGATING A LINK BETWEEN THIS CONCERNING SIDE EFFECT AND THE COVID VACCINE.


    Since the COVID vaccines were first injected into people's arms in clinical trials in the summer of 2020, experts have been monitoring patients' reactions carefully. Most have fallen into the category of normal side effects your body experiences as it mounts an immune response, but there have been some reactions that have caused concern, like the blood clots linked to Johnson & Johnson that led to a pause on the vaccine. Recently, another new delayed vaccine side effect, called myocarditis, has experts on alert—and, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it's mostly affecting men.

    Myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle, has recently been cropping up since the age of vaccination was dropped to include those 12 and over. And it's not an immediate reaction, either. According to the CDC, the adverse effect is occurring "mostly in male adolescents and young adults age 16 years or older … typically within several days after COVID-19 vaccination."


    Now, a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics on June 4 has analyzed the cases of seven men between the ages of 14 and 19 who received the Pfizer vaccine who went to the hospital after experiencing chest pains and were diagnosed with myocarditis. The Associated Press reports that all of the patients were able to go home after two to six days in the hospital.


    Additionally, a June 1 study out of Israel's Health Ministry looked at the 275 reported cases of myocarditis among the country's more than five million vaccinated people between Dec. 2020 and May 2021. According to Reuters, the researchers concluded that "there is a probable link between receiving the second dose (of Pfizer) vaccine and the appearance of myocarditis among men aged 16 to 30." The CDC also says myocarditis is more commonly reported after the second dose than the first dose.


    In April, the CDC warned healthcare professionals that they were monitoring a handful of reports of myocarditis in young adults and teenagers who had gotten an mRNA vaccine. Both Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines, but currently, only Pfizer is approved for people under the age of 16 in the U.S. The CDC is currently investigating the potential link between myocarditis and these COVID vaccines, however, the agency continues to recommend that everyone 12 years and older get vaccinated.

    The exact number of cases in the U.S. is unclear. NBC reports that the Department of Defense is investigating 14 cases among members of the military. So far, there have also been 18 cases in Connecticut, seven in New York, three in Idaho, six in Oregon, and four in Colorado, bringing the total to at least 52.


    According to the CDC, signs of myocarditis include chest pain, shortness of breath, and feeling like you have a fast, fluttering, or pounding heartbeat. If you or your child experience any of these side effects within a week of vaccination, the agency says to seek medical care.


    https://www.aappublications.or…ditis-case-reports-060421


    So the signal at a rate of 30 / million of myocarditis within a few days of the vaccination looks likely real, but very mild (a few days chest pains, full recovery).


    checking for "delayed myocarditis" looks much more flaky since it happens anyway and would often be ignored if people are not altered. With 50% of US population vaccinated, vaccines can now be blames for "delayed" reaction 50% of all normal illnesses in US, which is clearly absurd.


    Either way, these signals deserve to be and will be studied carefully, with more data over time. We will see.


    THH


    PS - I've had two Pfizer jabs. the above won't stop me from gratefully taking any additional Pfizer (or other) jabs I'm offered to up Delta ad Epsilon (?) variant protection.


    W - thanks for the bromhexine paper. it is one of very many chemicals which have possible theoretical use. No evidence it actually works.


    Research medics in the area of anti-viral drug discovery (that is, I guess from your posts here, not you) know that only a small fraction of the interesting possibilities (such as bromhexine) actually pan out. You really cannot easily determine how much blocking there is in practice when administering a drug, and how much that affects disease course.


    https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceut…velopment-covid-19/99/i19


    No need for a mafia to hide bromhexine - or any other of the 100s of other possible candidates.


    The anti-mafia page seems to be a bit anti-science too, in not including all relevant evidence, not having a critical appraisal (comments are PR not appraisal).


    https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/


    The vit d study mentioned (which I liked - it was so good) had severe problems in the end. Basically, it was not a proper study.

    The zinc evidence is very weak if taken as proposals for treatment. it is showing correlation not causation and there are many confounders.


    etc, etc.


    This is just a wishlist - and since all this stuff taken artificially has unknown side effects (you know - like vaccines) even though those look pretty unlikely, I'm not sure I'd take any of the non-prescription stuff. For example Vit d at the very high doses administered has not been intensively studied - juts because it is prsent in food does not mean it is completely harmless in high quantities. it has been used enough that we know there are no common bad side effects. At the 10/million level we should don't know. That applies to almost everything.


    Monoclonal antibodies taken early look a good bet.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    What we also know since one year now: Bromhexin block virus entry by shielding the tmpprs2 trigger point.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p…739_2020_Article_2383.pdf


    Still hidden by the mafia because it is to cheap.


    Bromhexine:


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7970656/


    RCT trumps theoretical speculation. They tried it, it did not work. Like pretty well everything you can't rule out prophylatic or very early treatment benefits though.


    Results

    A total of 111 patients were enrolled in this randomized clinical trial and data from 100 patients (48 patients in the treatment arm and 52 patients in the control arm) were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of this study, which was clinical improvement. There was no significant difference in the average time to hospital discharge between the two arms. There were also no differences observed in the mean intensive care unit stay, frequency of intermittent mandatory ventilation, duration of supplemental oxygenation or risk of death by day 28 noted between the two arms.

    Conclusion

    Bromhexine is not an effective treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The potential prevention benefits of bromhexine in asymptomatic postexposure or with mild infection managed in the community remain to be determined.

    It is just a shame that all the politics and blame here means I see no chance of getting to the bottom of this. If we could, it would help everyone.


    The fact is: gain of function labs are a known risk (historically through the world they have had poor safety records and the work is inherently risky). Wet markets and other live wild animal human mixers are a known big risk. Those two factors will not go away.


    Scientists are divided about whether GOF research is worthwhile for its possible benefit in spite of risks. I'd say not - but then I'm not well informed on this.


    We do need coronavirus research - it is just a question of how much, and how to get good regulation so safety is high enough.


    The good news; theoretical advances (better simulations, AI, etc) are improving all the time and slowly beginning to replace wet experiments. The more we can do that, the better off we are, especially because simulations give you much more information if they can be made accurate enough.


    e.g. AI for protein folding prediction:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

    The whole GOF thing is a real mess:


    https://www.factcheck.org/2021…of-function-disagreement/


    So, did the NIH’s grant to EcoHealth fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab? There are differing opinions on that. As noted above, whether research is “likely” or “reasonably anticipated” to enhance transmissibility can be subjective.

    EcoHealth and the NIH and NIAID say no. “EcoHealth Alliance has not nor does it plan to engage in gain-of-function research,” EcoHealth spokesman Robert Kessler told us in an email. Nor did the grant get an exception from the pause, as some have speculated, he said. “No dispensation was needed as no gain-of-function research was being conducted.”

    The NIAID told the Wall Street Journal: “The research by EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. that NIH funded was for a project that aimed to characterize at the molecular level the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens. Molecular characterization examines functions of an organism at the molecular level, in this case a virus and a spike protein, without affecting the environment or development or physiological state of the organism. At no time did NIAID fund gain-of-function research to be conducted at WIV.”

    And in a May 19 statement, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins said that “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”

    Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and a critic of gain-of-function research, told the Washington Post that the EcoHealth/Wuhan lab research “was — unequivocally — gain-of-function research.” He said it “met the definition for gain-of-function research of concern under the 2014 Pause.” That definition, as we said, pertained to “projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.”

    Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, said in a lengthy Twitter thread that the Wuhan subgrant wouldn’t fall under the gain-of-function moratorium because the definition didn’t include testing on naturally occurring viruses “unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.” She said the moratorium had “no teeth.” But the EcoHealth/Wuhan grant “was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been excluded from the moratorium.”

    Chan, who has published research about the possibility of an accidental lab leak of the virus, also said: “But we need to separate this fight about whether a particular project is GOF vs whether it has risk of lab accident + causing an outbreak.”

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Bromhexine is not an effective treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

    As is apple juice, bicycles and watching the moon.


    Nobody said what you assume...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/…-show-he-lied/7544007002/


    (one of many such debunking links)

    What will you say with this? That the Fauci e-mails don't exist? USA Today is brain food for people with not education. May be your rhetoric comes from this.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The research by EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. that NIH funded was for a project that aimed to characterize at the molecular level the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens.

    Of course this needs to be done in China with hidden money... More nonsense please more fun please...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins said that “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”

    This is why Fauci had to secretly transfer the money to Daszak over an intermediate ...

    All these guys (Collins, Fauci, Daszak) did know all details and will be nominated for the Dr. Mengele award.

    Quote from Fm1

    The rejection of hydroxychloriquine was based on a since debunked lancet report,

    Sorry Fm1 ! You can never convince a free mason he is always right as like all other members of FM/J/R. They simply will not listen to you. They only want to define the agenda.


    But as THHuxleynew lowered his standard to USA Today it now is much more fun to read his nonsense.

    THH,

    Perhaps you missed my response? There has been a flurry of posts so it might have happened.

    I am interested in your answers.


    Thank you.

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.