This is a Jordan that Fauci wishes he did not cross. Not looking good for Fauci, who didn't show up for the hearing. I find it very telling that the followup emails from the emergency phone conference Fauci had with an international group of - let's call them virologists - are entirely redacted. An 8 minute video worth watching for those into this.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This virus/disease simply is over the head of journalist and also of 99.999% of all doctors with 1% math background...

Would nice to see a criminal FUD'er in a discussion.

Again: maximally 5% of the reported people die from COV-19. And also maximally 1/3 tested positive had CoV-19. With such nonsense data it simply is not possible to get to the bottom of truth.

Now we have UK data where more vaccinated die, than unvaccinated. But here again we have no detail data. Death reason for both, comorbidity etc.. Even the PCR data is not available. Somebody with PCR >28 (Counts positive) certainly did not die from CoV-19. Even much lower PCR cycles do not confirm death from CoV-19. But in USA all these cases go to death from CoV-19.

Best you can do: Simply do not believe any figure of vaccine efficiency if you are a member of a risk group. Buy your ivermectin. Especially Pfizer/Astra completely fail for most new variants. Already basic delta is 9x less protected in lab test where usually (if paid by Pfizer..) blood is used from specially selected people with 10x antibodies. So this tells, if you have minimal antibodies, this factor is 90x...= 90x less protection.

Display More

How can I find the lab test info above?

Quote from Mark U

. Not looking good for Fauci,

Fauci switching from popstar to camerashy after his emailgate

foxes have holes...but Fauci has nowhere..

unfortunately demonising one Fauci won't fix a global systemic problem..

BigPharma Bigmedia youtube 'scientists' Lancet .. NJEM..... WHO EMA.. even linkedin..

the list is long.

the next phase is coverup...and diversion

and then an attempt to restore the status quo as if nothing ever happened

Quote from RobertBryant

Fauci switching from popstar to camerashy after his emailgate

foxes have holes...but Fauci has nowhere..

unfortunately demonising one Fauci won't fix a global systemic problem..

BigPharma Bigmedia youtube 'scientists' Lancet .. NJEM..... WHO EMA.. even linkedin..

the list is long.

the next phase is coverup...and diversion

and then an attempt to restore the status quo as if nothing ever happened

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Display More

Yes, it looks like they will need some diversion.

I guess the people (Trolls) who work on this board will be out of a job for a few months...(I sure hope they dont do it for free, but sadly they probably do)

Fauci is in a death cult (the real one), he does what he is told like all of them.

Quote from RobertBryant

then an attempt to restore the status quo as if nothing ever happened

Maybe I am too cynical

Perhaps something beyond China/Fauci will come out of the unfolding denouement

GOP Medical Witnesses: COVID-19 'Exactly What You'd Expect If You'd Gone Through Gain-Of-Function'

Quote from RobertBryant

BigPharma Bigmedia youtube 'scientists' Lancet .. NJEM..... WHO EMA.. even linkedin..

the list is long.

J'oublie La France..

Gerard...

https://blog-gerard.maudrux.fr…edecins-police-politique/

https://blog-gerard.maudrux.fr…/13/les-cloches-du-covid/

Quote from AlainCo

Data on Covid... IFR covid vs flu, from many papers

https://github.com/mbevand/covid19-age-stratified-ifr

Did they use the PCR test to classify Flu deaths? Thought so.

Data invalid. No op. Yes it is that simple. I imagine weoponized Covid is worse, but 2x-3x. But really a very treatable virus as we now know.

Quote from AlainCo

Data on Covid... IFR covid vs flu, from many papers

This data is totally flawed as all "official" data. It's big pharma spin. We here have 10'000 death with 2.5 mio infections. So the total IFR is 0.4%. But only 10% of these deaths are CoV-19 deaths as e.g. there were 0 deaths from flue. So the real IFR with proper reporting would be 0.04%. (1/10 of above)

You can verify this reporting by looking at +/- excess mortality. The first wave of CoV-19 had no excess mortality within 6 months. The second wave about 1000. That's it.

One more time fake data.

Quote from Shane D.

What was it we are being told to do?....oh yeah, follow the science. Sure.

Since when??? ITER, CERN, .... follow the money and take it. It's all about the FM/R/J/B mafia sun fun and nothing (real) to do.

Does UK-based Interim Analysis of CDC’s VAERS Reveals 5% of Deaths Likely Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine?

https://trialsitenews.com/does…ed-with-covid-19-vaccine/

Recently, a group of researchers working out of both the UK (Queen Mary University, University of Birmingham, Network Rail, Health Informatics and Knowledge Engineering Research Group) and New Zealand (Massey University) conducted a study, in the form of a preliminary analysis, of adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. Titled “Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS),” the authors conclude with a sample of the early death data reported in VAERS—this equates to 250 out of the 1,644 deaths recorded up to April 2021. The interim analysis authors asked what many consider a supreme question here given growing concern, at least among some societal cohorts about the COVID-19 vaccine program: are the COVID-19 vaccines, currently under emergency use authorization (EUA) in America a cause or contributor to any deaths? The researchers counter the common disclaimer that contribution to the VAERS database comes solely from the lay public, hence the data is wildly unreliable. Not the case here, suggests the study authors, vowing that “at least 67%” originate from health service employees.” The study authors further posit that only 14% of these deaths can be conclusively determined as disassociated with the vaccine. Thus 86% of the 250 deaths (N=215) were scrutinized for some material connection. They concluded that while the overall data set has an inherent bias (e.g. those first vaccinated tended to be elderly or count higher rates of comorbidities) by employing a rigorous, two-part clinical review they are able to drive considerable bias out of their analysis and conclude that 13 of the 250 deaths included in the interim analysis are highly likely to be associated directly with the COVID-19 vaccine. Of course, this interim analysis isn’t peer-reviewed and won’t be eligible as worthy of evidence at this point among government agencies. But the methodical review is worthy of note, particularly as the group continues to analyze the rest of the 1,644 deaths for ensuing analysis. The study can be reviewed here.

Although the standard mainstream media narrative informs the public that there’s little to no risk associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, is that really the case? The authors here remind all that conflicting declarations about the safety of these vaccines arise from various points of view. While various government agencies, universities, and media appear to categorize any critical point of view as counterproductive, disruptive, and inherently part of disinformation campaigns, nothing could be farther from the truth for well-intentioned research scientists seeking answers to various hypotheses associated with these vaccines.

The authors here claim that although VAERS is in place, there’s no “universally agreed system for reporting either deaths or serious-side effects for which of these vaccines may have been the cause or a contributory factor,” thus leading to concerns about inconsistency in the quality of analyses as well as the credibility of the origination of such investigation.

After all, in VAERS, the authors remind, incidents associated with the vaccine are derived from multiple sources, from clinical professionals in a health system or research institute or for that matter, the general public. In fact, the authors remind all that some suggest that anti-vax-type groups actually manipulate public databases. Thus critics count that the lay public, including some with “malign intent” could skew the data considerably.

According to the study’s authors, as few as 1% of actual COVID-19 adverse events actually get formally recorded.

The Study

The study team, including Scott McLachlan, Magda Osman, Kudakwashe Dube, Patience Chiketero, and Yvonne Choi as well as Norman Fenton set out to analyze a significant slice of the data from the 2021 VAERS dataset with the goal of better identifying the “range and frequency of health problems potentially caused by the vaccines” as well as overall report data quality and by extension, establish an improved framework to better understand the credibility of those categories of people submitting reports.

Importantly, the team included a “clinically trained reviewer” to manually review each and every report with the aim of determining “source and clinical credibility” not to mention assess the medical history—including current illness of the deceased. The team repeated this objective, professionalized review with a second clinical review. An ongoing process covering the 1644 deaths recorded up to April 2021, not to mention 28,000 serious adverse events not leading to death.

The Interim Findings

What follows is a summary of the team’s interim analysis to date. Note the data analysis and reporting for this endeavor is ongoing.

Majority of Reports from Healthcare Employees

While the team continues to cycle through the 1644 deaths, this interim review covered the first 250 deaths subject to the dual, professional review procedure. First, the team found that contrary to popular chatter, 67% of the reports originate from health care employees. 5% of the reports originate from pharmaceutical employees while the lay public was implicated in 28% of the submitted death reports. Does this address the common disclaimer that a majority of VAERS reports are from grieving family members or anti-vaxxers?

Biased Data

Because the data originates from the first quarter of 2021, this implies that a majority of those inoculated were at-risk members of society, from the elderly to those with co-morbidities, placing them at greater risk from the novel coronavirus.

The Categories of Deceased

Regardless of any bias, the team appears convinced that this study’s on to compelling, unbiased results. Why? First, they found that the deceased fall into one of three categories, including 1) deceased where vaccine was most likely not a factor; 2) deceased where the vaccine may have been a factor; and 3) deceased where the vaccine was the most likely factor.

As it turns out, 14% of the deaths (n=34) fell into category number one—that is the vaccine wasn’t a factor. That is, elderly “bedridden” patients near death for various reasons. However, 81% of the total (203 out of 250) were deemed as category number two, where the COVID-19 vaccine may, in fact, be an influence in their death. Yet the authors report “many of these patients had one or more chronic or age-related comorbid conditions,” meaning it could be difficult to conclusively declare the vaccine was the culprit.

However, 5% of the total first 250 deaths are difficult to declare not related to the COVID-19 vaccine. In these cases, sudden, strong reactions followed the inoculation, leading to death either the same day or a couple of days later.

UK & Australia Woefully Behind in Transparency

The authors report vast differences in the various COVID-19 vaccine safety databases in key countries, including America, the UK, and Australia. While the researchers commend the American CDC VAERS database as more comprehensive and thus “capable of supporting meaningful research,” they report that unfortunately, this isn’t the case of the other databases, declaring “…the sparsity of data provided by the UK and Australia doesn’t even allow the most basic of conclusions to be drawn.”

Lead Research/Investigator

· Scott McLachlan

· Dr. Magda Osman

· Kudakwashe Dube, PhD

· Patience Chiketero

· Yvonne Choi

· Norman Fenton, PhD

Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor these safety studies for any meaningful signals.

Who is Declaring What’s Legitimate Information vs. Misinformation on Wikipedia?

https://trialsitenews.com/who-…information-on-wikipedia/

Wikipedia purports to be an objective, non-biased online knowledge repository seeking to “create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.” Undoubtedly, that information should be truthful and as unbiased as possible. For those tracking the ivermectin studies during the pandemic, Wiki starts to look anything but unbiased. A casual perusal of “COVID-19 Misinformation” is a telling place to start. Under ivermectin, the Wiki authors dis the existing meta-analyses evidencing positive ivermectin findings. They argue that based on one analysis, the meta-analysis used at least in part by the World Health Organization to track ivermectin during the pandemic has “Serious methodological limitations” and thus casts doubt on that important work. The Wiki authors turn their attention on Dr. Pierre Kory and Paul E. Marik of the notorious Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), declaring that while their meta-analysis was initially accepted by Frontiers Media, it was subsequently rejected. But how come the Wiki authors didn’t share the truth that the meta-analysis was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics? Why would the Wiki authors exclude the BIRD Group ivermectin meta-analysis also included by peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics? Why didn’t Wiki’s experts share with the world that the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel invited the same FLCCC group, that is the ones they lump in with cranks, cooks, and conspiracy loons, along with Dr. Andrew Hill, to share with the panel their findings? Or, for that matter, share with the world that just a couple of weeks after that meeting (again with FLCCC and Dr. Hill) that the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel changed their ivermectin guidance from a negative (only for research) to a neutral position (not enough data to recommend against or for)?

Interesting how selective Wiki has become during the pandemic….while it was able to secure all content from the World Health Organization in a deal back in October 2020, the authors didn’t bother to share that that same global health agency (again the WHO) has been watching ivermectin carefully. In fact, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove went on the record at a February 2021 media briefing that the WHO, at the time, had peered into the data associated with 1,500 study patients in 11 studies and that while there wasn’t sufficient data for them to make any recommendations, there was most certainly some promising trials and associated data. WHO emphasized that they would continue to monitor the situation. Why on earth wouldn’t that and all the rest above be mentioned unless there’s an explicit goal to completely discredit this possible therapeutic option, and the various researchers looking into the matter.

The point here is that the world’s communication channels, from the social tech giants such as Facebook and Twitter to fundamental knowledge repositories such as Wikipedia, exhibit an anti-ivermectin bias, by portraying the facts in a way that as it turns out becomes misleading by itself.

We ask the question, is it misleading to omit whole pieces of truth? We think it is. TrialSite was set up in late 2018 to track pharma studies with an aim of bringing more transparency to the whole clinical trials processes with a particular emphasis on the trial site. We appreciate pharma, the breakthroughs, and the medicines that many take for granted today. Patient/volunteer shortages are a continuous problem for clinical trials. TrialSite’s original premise, that more dynamic and participatory research—with greater patient engagement—could over time lead to an acceleration of key medicines. While pharma may think they are doing a good job of “engagement” with patients and the general public, we beg to differ. We think that true participatory research follows a formula starting with awareness-raising but must include research transparency and accessibility of information followed by bi-directional engagement.

Frankly, as the pandemic commenced, we had no interest in ivermectin other than finding it interesting that an existing repurposed drug could potentially help treat people. We knew that much research would proceed but what we didn’t expect was not only the incredible resistance to this research from all major media sources but also the open hostility directed at any group that publishes such findings. Wikipedia itself is a good example of lumping ivermectin in the misinformation campaign without any other factual points of view. This has led us to believe that perhaps regulatory capture reins in the age of COVID-19. Interestingly, among all the regulatory agencies Wiki offers as examples for regulatory capture, conspicuously absent is the FDA.

CD8+ T cells specific for conserved coronavirus epitopes correlate with milder disease in COVID-19 patients

https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/6/61/eabg5669

Abstract

A central feature of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is that some individuals become severely ill or die, whereas others have only a mild disease course or are asymptomatic. Here we report development of an improved multimeric αβ T cell staining reagent platform, with each maxi-ferritin “spheromer” displaying 12 peptide-MHC complexes. Spheromers stain specific T cells more efficiently than peptide-MHC tetramers and capture a broader portion of the sequence repertoire for a given peptide-MHC. Analyzing the response in unexposed individuals, we find that T cells recognizing peptides conserved amongst coronaviruses are more abundant and tend to have a “memory” phenotype, compared to those unique to SARS-CoV-2. Significantly, CD8+ T cells with these conserved specificities are much more abundant in COVID-19 patients with mild disease versus those with a more severe illness, suggesting a protective role.

DISCUSSION

Antigen-specific T cell responses are known to be essential for an effective immune response against many infectious diseases but defining specific benchmarks for what is protective versus what is not has been challenging, especially in human studies (50, 51). This is due to many factors, including the low frequency of disease-relevant T cells, particularly when clinical samples are limiting, as they typically are. Consequently, some methods used to investigate T cells necessitate expansion of cells in culture which may alter the relative abundance and phenotype of some T cell clonotypes. Also, the TCR repertoire cannot be studied with some of these methods due to their incompatibility with sequencing techniques. The development of tetramer technology partially addressed this limitation and enabled the direct measurement and characterization of T cells ex vivo. Subsequent advances, both in terms of reagents and methods, have widened the scope of applications (17–19, 49, 52–56). However, the detection of low-affinity T cells is still lacking in many cases (18).

Here, we report the development of a multivalent ‘spheromer’ system built on the scaffold of a self-assembling maxi-ferritin nanoparticle. As shown, the system has been engineered to be compatible with current pMHC (both MHC-I and MHC-II molecules) and SAv reagents that allows ease-of-use. The optimized spheromer assembly pipeline resulted in a very consistent reagent across multiple batches of synthesis with a relative ease of production, unlike the dodecamer (19). The defined geometry of the scaffold facilitated precise site-directed conjugation of pMHC, leading to a relatively homogenous reagent as assessed using a size-exclusion column. The spheromer bound cognate TCRs with a significantly higher avidity when compared to the tetramer, for both MHC-I (>50-fold) and MHC-II (>20-fold) molecules. Also, the low background contributed to the better signal-to-noise ratio observed in comparison to other pMHC-formulations tested. The improved TCR-binding properties of the spheromer may also be in part due to better 2D binding kinetics owing to its larger diameter. This may provide a better surrogate than either the tetramer or dextramer for membrane-embedded pMHC molecules that engage TCRs in vivo. This increased avidity and specificity can potentially enable the detection of more disease relevant, low-affinity T cells. Using the HLA-A*02:01-restricted influenza-M1 and HCMV-pp65 epitopes, we demonstrated that a significantly higher frequency of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells with a much more diverse TCR repertoire could indeed be detected with the spheromer. These results demonstrate that our engineered scaffold can be readily adapted with currently available reagents without a time-consuming systemic overhaul.

We further applied the spheromer technology to delineate the CD8+ T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 using a panel of peptides derived from multiple proteins (ORF1ab, S, M and N) that were validated for HLA-A*02:01 binding. Studies have shown that a T cell response can indeed be generated against multiple SARS-CoV-2 proteins (7–13). We observed a relatively higher frequency of T cells against a few epitopes in the ORF1ab (P5, P10, P12, and P13) and S (P17 and P18) proteins in naïve, unexposed individuals. The high sequence similarity of these epitopes to hCoVs and the predominant memory phenotype of these T cells suggests that exposure to seasonal coronaviruses could contribute to the expansion of potentially cross-reactive T cells. Importantly, the frequency of T cells against a subset of these cross-reactive peptides (P5, P10, P12 and P17) was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms. In contrast, T cells to unique ORF1ab derived peptides (P1 and P8) were higher in severely ill COVID-19 patients. These peptides (P1 and P8) have low sequence similarity to hCoVs. Overall, our data indicate that mild and severe COVID-19 patients elicit distinct T cell responses to particular SARS-CoV-2 epitopes. Also, the preferential recruitment of memory CD8+ T cells to cross-reactive epitopes likely contributes to their mild symptoms. These cross-reactive T cell responses need to be investigated in children as they may contribute to their milder clinical symptoms when compared to adults (57) since seasonal hCoVs infections are more frequent in children than adults (58). This study suggests that in addition to pre-existing cross-reactive memory CD4+ T cells reported previously (10), dissimilar SARS-CoV-2 epitope-specific CD8+ T cell responses could also contribute to divergent COVID-19 clinical outcomes. The observation of CD8+ T cell responses to multiple SARS-CoV-2 proteins is consistent with previous studies. Accordingly, the data presented here suggests that the incorporation of additional non-spike epitopes into a vaccine could further bolster anti-viral T cell immunity. This can be important given the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru…illance/variant-info.html). Sequence analysis of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes found to be associated with mild symptoms in our study across variants indicates that one of the two spike protein epitopes (P17: VLNDILSRL) has mutated (S®A) in the B.1.1.7 lineage variants circulating in Europe. In contrast, none of the non-spike protein epitopes associated with mild symptoms were mutated across the analyzed variants (59, 60).

Overall, this study demonstrates the potential of the spheromer technology but is limited in terms of the specificities and samples used for comparing the different pMHC-multimer platforms. Extending these results to other class I and class II HLA alleles will be important in the future, but the results shown here are consistent across different antigens complexed to HLA-A*02:01 and in our experience it would be surprising if it wasn’t advantageous to use this platform for other HLA alleles as well.

Quote from Fm1

Titled “Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS),” the authors conclude with a sample of the early death data reported in VAERS—this equates to 250 out of the 1,644 deaths recorded up to April 2021.

There is one simple way to find out how many deaths are vaccine related. USA had (2020) about 55% of the population vaccinated with the flu vaccine. Now look at deaths after flue vaccine. Then compare it with death after corona vaccine. No fringe or biassed method is needed here. Fact:: >90% of all deaths are from CoV-19 vaccination not 14%.

Quote from Fm1

Why would the Wiki authors exclude the BIRD Group ivermectin meta-analysis also included by peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics?

Big pharma pays Wiki troll editors for all income relevant issues. I once corrected an item in the Homeopathy section adding the reference to a noble price for RNA inference that proves that a single molecule can trigger a full body response.

Big pharma does not like Homeopathy because this diverts customers away from their income funnel. But internally they now experiment since about 10 years with Homeopatic chemo...

Dr. Campbell vinticated and the good doc is pissed off. Aspirate before you vaccinate!

Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military

https://jamanetwork.com/journa…ology/fullarticle/2781601

Key Points

Question Should myocarditis be considered a potential adverse event following immunization with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines?

Findings In this case series of 23 male patients, including 22 previously healthy military members, myocarditis was identified within 4 days of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine. For most patients (n = 20), the diagnosis was made after the second dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; these episodes occurred against the backdrop of 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered.

Meaning Vigilance for rare adverse events, including myocarditis, after COVID-19 vaccination is warranted but should not diminish overall confidence in vaccination during the current pandemic.

Abstract

Importance Myocarditis has been reported with COVID-19 but is not clearly recognized as a possible adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination.

Objective To describe myocarditis presenting after COVID-19 vaccination within the Military Health System.

Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective case series studied patients within the US Military Health System who experienced myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination between January and April 2021. Patients who sought care for chest pain following COVID-19 vaccination and were subsequently diagnosed with clinical myocarditis were included.

Exposure Receipt of a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine between January 1 and April 30, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures Clinical diagnosis of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in the absence of other identified causes.

Results A total of 23 male patients (22 currently serving in the military and 1 retiree; median [range] age, 25 [20-51] years) presented with acute onset of marked chest pain within 4 days after receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. All military members were previously healthy with a high level of fitness. Seven received the BNT162b2-mRNA vaccine and 16 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine. A total of 20 patients had symptom onset following the second dose of an appropriately spaced 2-dose series. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among 8 patients who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging within the acute phase of illness, all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis. Additional testing did not identify other etiologies for myocarditis, including acute COVID-19 and other infections, ischemic injury, or underlying autoimmune conditions. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering at the time of this report. The military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period. While the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was higher than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

Conclusions and Relevance In this case series, myocarditis occurred in previously healthy military patients with similar clinical presentations following receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Further surveillance and evaluation of this adverse event following immunization is warranted. Potential for rare vaccine-related adverse events must be considered in the context of the well-established risk of morbidity, including cardiac injury, following COVID-19 infection.

Quote from Fm1

Dr. Campbell vinticated and the good doc is pissed off. Aspirate before you vaccinate!

To many idiots have hijacked the medical system. We told it too a months ago...It is something (why??) you already did ask the doctor at age 5....

Quote from Wyttenbach

To many idiots have hijacked the medical system. We told it too a months ago...It is something (why??) you already did ask the doctor at age 5....

Again, the latest and greatest. Modern medicine is so full of itself. Aspirate before you vaccinate. Pretty friggin simple. Let the vaccine warriors spin that!!!