Quote from RobertBryant

J'oublie La France..

Gerard...

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

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

Perhaps an medical priesthood addendum to the Hippocratic Oath is now required :

""Dost thou renounce Ivermectin for Covid-19? and all its works? and all its pomps?"

Study ties milder COVID-19 symptoms to prior run-ins with other coronaviruses

https://medicalxpress.com/news…-covid-symptoms-prior.amp

A study by Stanford University School of Medicine investigators hints that people with COVID-19 may experience milder symptoms if certain cells of their immune systems "remember" previous encounters with seasonal coronaviruses—the ones that cause about a quarter of the common colds kids get.

These immune cells are better equipped to mobilize quickly against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, if they've already met its gentler cousins, the scientists concluded.

The findings may help explain why some people, particularly children, seem much more resilient than others to infection by SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. They also might make it possible to predict which people are likely to develop the most severe symptoms of COVID-19.

The immune cells in question, called killer T cells, roam through the blood and lymph, park in tissues and carry out stop-and-frisk operations on resident cells. The study, published online July 1 in Science Immunology, showed that killer T cells taken from the sickest COVID-19 patients exhibit fewer signs of having had previous run-ins with common-cold-causing coronaviruses.

Discussions about immunity to COVID-19 often center on antibodies—proteins that can latch onto a virus before it's able to infect a vulnerable cell. But antibodies are easily fooled, said Mark Davis, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology and immunology; director of Stanford's Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection; and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. Davis is the study's senior author.

"Pathogens evolve quickly and 'learn' to hide their critical features from our antibodies," said Davis, who is also the Burt and Marion Avery Family Professor. But T cells recognize pathogens in a different way, and they're tough to fool.

Our cells all issue real-time reports on their inner state of affairs by routinely sawing up some samples of each protein they've made lately into tiny pieces called peptides and displaying those peptides on their surfaces for inspection by T cells.

When a killer T-cell's receptor notices a peptide on a cell's surface that doesn't belong there—for example, it's from a protein produced by an invading microorganism—the T cell declares war. It multiplies furiously, and its numerous offspring—whose receptors all target the same peptide sequence—fire up to destroy any cell carrying these telltale-peptide indications of that cell's invasion by a pathogenic microbe.

Some of the original killer T cell's myriad daughter cells enter a more placid state, remaining above the fray. These "memory T cells" exhibit heightened sensitivity and exceptional longevity. They persist in the blood and lymph often for decades, ready to spring into action should they ever cross paths with the peptide that generated the wave of T-cell expansion that begat them. That readiness can save valuable time in stifling a previously encountered virus or a close cousin.

As the pandemic progressed, Davis mused, "A lot of people get very sick or die from COVID-19, while others are walking around not knowing they have it. Why?"

To find out, the study's first author, postdoctoral fellow Vamsee Mallajosyula, Ph.D., first confirmed that some portions of SARS-CoV-2's sequence are effectively identical to analogous portions of one or more of the four widespread common-cold-causing coronavirus strains. Then he assembled a panel of 24 different peptide sequences that were either unique to proteins made by SARS-CoV-2 or also found on similar proteins made by one or more (or even all) of the seasonal strains.

The researchers analyzed blood samples taken from healthy donors before the COVID-19 pandemic began, meaning they'd never encountered SARS-CoV-2—although many presumably had been exposed to common-cold-causing coronavirus strains. The scientists determined the numbers of T cells targeting each peptide represented in the panel.

They found that unexposed individuals' killer T cells targeting SARS-CoV-2 peptides that were shared with other coronaviruses were more likely to have proliferated than killer T cells targeting peptides found only on SARS-CoV-2. The T cells targeting those shared peptide sequences had probably previously encountered one or another gentler coronavirus strain—and had proliferated in response, Davis said.

Many of these killer T cells were in "memory" mode, he added.

"Memory cells are by far the most active in infectious-disease defense," Davis said. "They're what you want to have in order to fight off a recurring pathogen. They're what vaccines are meant to generate."

Killer T cells whose receptors target peptide sequences unique to SARS-CoV-2 must proliferate over several days to get up to speed after exposure to the virus, Davis said. "That lost time can spell the difference between never even noticing you have a disease and dying from it," he said.

To test this hypothesis, Davis and his colleagues turned to blood samples from COVID-19 patients. They found that, sure enough, COVID-19 patients with milder symptoms tended to have lots of killer-T memory cells directed at peptides SARS-CoV-2 shared with other coronavirus strains. Sicker patients' expanded killer T-cell counts were mainly among those T cells typically targeting peptides unique to SARS-CoV-2 and, thus, probably had started from scratch in their response to the virus.

"It may be that patients with severe COVID-19 hadn't been infected, at least not recently, by gentler coronavirus strains, so they didn't retain effective memory killer T cells," Davis said.

Davis noted that cold-causing seasonal coronavirus strains are rampant among children, who rarely develop severe COVID-19 even though they're just as likely to get infected as adults are.

"Sniffles and sneezes typify the daycare setting," he said, "and coronavirus-caused common colds are a big part of the reason. As many as 80% of kids in the United States get exposed within the first couple of years of life."

Davis and Mallajosyula have filed, through Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing, for patents on the technology used in this study.

Davis is a member of Stanford Bio-X, the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute, the Stanford Cancer Institute and the Stanford Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute.

NIH mounts defense in federal ivermectin deception case

https://trialsitenews.com/nih-…vermectin-deception-case/

On March 29, 2021 plaintiff Jin-Pyong Peter Yim (myself) filed a complaint in federal court in the District of New Jersey claiming that the National Institutes of Health violated the Freedom of Information Act. Yim had made the following request to the NIH:

“All updates to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines that were endorsed by a vote of the Panel. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2021 To 01/28/2021)”

The intent of the request was to not, in fact, to obtain any document since all of the Guidelines are publicly available, but to determine if a vote had been held on the current recommendation which was updated in that time period. The FOIA request was a question about the integrity of this federal agency.

The receipt date of the FOIA request was January 28, 2021. By law, the NIH has 20 days excluding weekends and federal holidays to respond to such a request either by providing the requested documents or stating the relevant exemption to FOIA that prevents the documents from being provided. In unusual circumstances, the federal agency may extend the deadline for administrative reasons such as the challenge of assembling “voluminous” records etc. When the agency cannot meet the deadline for providing records, it must notify the requester that the request must be modified or offer an alternative deadline. In this case, the NIH did none of the above. Instead, on March 8, the NIH stated:

“ Your request is being processed and is in the queue behind all other requests received ahead of yours, following HHS FOIA ‘first-in, first-out’ guideline. Once review begins on any records responsive to your request, the NIH will provide an estimated completion date.”

NIH’s violation of FOIA was flagrant and the complaint against NIH was simple:

“… despite the passage of more than 20 business days since NIH received the

above request, it has failed to provide the statutorily required response …including failing to seek a permitted extension; determine and communicate to Yim the scope of any responsive records it intended to produce or withhold and the reasons for withholding; or inform Yim of right to appeal.”

On April 23, the NIH responded to the FOIA request:

“All approved updates to the guidelines are posted online and can be found at

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/. The documents posted on this website respond to your request in full.”

Then, on June 30, in its “Answer” to the complaint, the NIH stated that the complaint is now moot; that it has properly responded to the FOIA request, albeit after the deadline. NIH also provided emails and testimony in support of their argument.

Judge Brian R. Martinotti denied a request earlier to discuss mooting of the case based on the same data set. However, for reasons that are not clear, Judge Martinotti has since been removed from the case. His replacement is Judge Zahid N. Quraishi who is likely to see the argument in the same way but that remains to be seen.

NIH remains in violation of FOIA for the following reason: the statement provided by the NIH is ambiguous as to whether the requested document exists. By law, the FOIA response must notify the requester of adverse determinations including when a document does not exist. The type of statement provided by the NIH is not consistent with FOIA. Examples of acceptable responses to this FOIA request are:

“We have located the document that is responsive to your FOIA request: https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/archive/statement-on-ivermectin-01-14-2021.pdf”

“There are no documents that are responsive to your FOIA request.”

Ultimately, NIH must provide a response that will show whether a vote was held on its ivermectin recommendation. More to the point, the response will show whether the NIH has been deceiving the American public on a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

Canadian Researcher Analyzes CDC VAERS Data for COVID-19 Vaccine Safety POV—But is the Other Side of Risk Calculated?

https://trialsitenews.com/cana…-side-of-risk-calculated/

Recently published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, authored a report titled, “A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals,” reminding the reader of the importance of safety associated with any “technologically novel” biologic therapy or vaccine still in some form of the experimental stage. The COVID-19 vaccines developed in the United States and Germany transcended any vaccine development efforts before—their compelling, effective, and according to health authorities, safe vaccines now help nations around the world combat COVID-19. The author analyzes the VAERS database and compares the number of COVID-19 versus flu vaccine safety reports. Using vaccine data up to April 10, 2021, Dr. Rose shares with the reader that by the end of March, about 100X more COVID-19 vaccinations occurred as opposed to flu vaccinations. Hence perhaps not surprising that 380 times more safety reports were generated due to COVID-19 inoculations. Thus 99% of all adverse events (AEs) recorded in VAERS are associated with the mass COVID-19 vaccination program. The researcher brings a methodical approach to the review of the VAERS database and identifies significant safety signals. On the other hand, not factored in are the risks of no vaccination—e.g. the scenario if there were no vaccinations. How many more deaths, illnesses, and long-term COVID cases would accrue? TrialSite reminds all of the Cleveland Clinic study, indicating that 99%+ of those hospitalized from January to mid-April 2021 were unvaccinated. The point is that all of the risks must be considered, analyzed, and ultimately calculated for a true depiction of actual risk that will gain public policy attention.

Dr. Rose slices and dices the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) VAERS COVID-19 vaccination data first by describing the research methodology employed to generate the data. By using the statistical language and environment for statistical computing known as “R,” the author elucidates her particular statistical methodology, then shifting the result of the data analysis.

Describing how to establish statistical causation, she emphasizes the need to determine the association, time ordering, and spuriousness. She furthermore explains how the association is depicted in incidence rate data combined with heatmaps—corroborated with Chi-Square tests. The author depicts vaccine association with AE or death via time ordering series. However, non-spuriousness is extremely difficult to prove in the real world. Thus, merely showing deaths in close time proximity to the jab doesn’t necessarily prove a statistical connection because other factors could be at play such as underlying health conditions. That can be overcome by factoring in third variable factors and employing tests for skewed data distribution.

On May 21, Rose posted a summary of her VAERS study on YouTube. The Canadian research reports on three (3) major findings, including 1) CDC VAERS-based reporting data overview, 2) Evidence of causation, and 3) breakthrough infections.

Conclusion

Rose’s work in this published piece summarizes VAERS data to April 9th, 2021. She reports while “it may appear that AEs are not currently imposing a significant burden on the fully vaccinated population, however, the weekly releases of VAERS data do not include all of the reports made to date — they are all the reports the CDC has processed to date — and the backlog is likely to be staggering. Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering an SAE following injection is significant and that the overall risk signal is high.”

Rose suggests from her analysis that at least a percentage of the reported deaths, spontaneous abortions and anaphylactic reaction as well as cardiovascular, neurological and immunological adverse events are associated with the vaccines.

In taking a cautious view, this researcher reminds that the mRNA-based vaccines are new, experimental, and “extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in the experiment.” She emphasizes that her data involving short-term analysis is in fact limited based on underreporting.

What about Risks Associated with No Vaccine?

On the other side involve the risks of no vaccination. Studies such as Cleveland Clinic reveal that the COVID-19 vaccines have greatly reduced hospitalization, for example. Put another way, that study reveals that 99% of COVID-19 hospitalized patients were in fact unvaccinated. TrialSite notes, to date, few if any studies truly factor in both the emerging safety signals in VAERS in combination with the risks associated with no vaccine.

So TrialSite reminds all that when viewing the vaccine safety data, which this platform is committed to, the alternative scenario must also be factored into the algorithm. That is what if there’s no vaccination—how would that worsen the public health situation. Again, the Cleveland Clinic study reveals out of 4,300 COVID-19 admissions from January through mid-April, approximately 99% of these patients were not fully vaccinated. Among 2,000 hospital workers who were hospitalized for COVID-19, 99.7% of the infected failed to get fully vaccinated. This has implications for death and long-term health challenges as up to 20% of COVID-19 patients end up with long-COVID.

The point here is that models of risk ultimately must look at all sides of the multifaceted, dynamic equation. Follow the link for the study.

Lead Research/Investigator

Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc

I agree with the retraction.

They read a pre-pandemic "policy" document that said all the Dutch reports were verified by a physician.

The actual data page emphasizes that (like VARS) it is a correlation report, not a causation report.

As the retraction notice says, their calculations may be perfectly correct, but irrelevant.


https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/review_report (appendix)

They clearly believe the Dutch data is "guaranteed' :

"The Dutch report most diligently and carefully, with a clear vetting of cases by second opinion, none of which is guaranteed in other countries."

As far as the journal is concerned, the one named reviewer was an expert in biology, but not in epidemiology.

https://scholar.google.de/cita…list_works&sortby=pubdate

More details about Delta ++ or 1.6.1.4.2 : https://assets.researchsquare.…/rs-637724/v1_covered.pdf

Vaccine evading is confirmed by at least a factor of 6.

So we can deduce 10-20% (with low anti body count) of the vaccinated are vulnerable again.

Senator Randy Paul versus the AMA president Susan Bailey..

which one reads more?

TM 3.38

Bailey: I think we need to understand that a previous infection is not as

robust in protecting against new variants as the vaccine

Paul. TM 3.39
we actually don't know

yeah we actually don't know that.

all the testing on natural immunity and vaccinated has

shown that we have great immunity both with the vaccine

and with natural immunity

the delta variant that everybody's talking about

the vaccine is very good for it so

you see hysteria on tv we're driving

we're still driving this debate by the hysteria of the delta variant

Reports of Growing Censorship Across Social Media Doesn’t Help Bring People Together to A More Rational Understanding of Vaccine Risk-Benefit Analysis

https://trialsitenews.com/repo…ne-risk-benefit-analysis/

Apparently, the censorship squads intensify their efforts on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and even Wikipedia as a uniform push to squash any negative discussion about COVID-19 vaccines increasingly trumps individuals’ First Amendment rights to communicate. Should government be at all communicating with the social media networks about what people can and cannot say, even indirectly, could be the basis for what could ultimately become a massive lawsuit. Most recently, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based 12-year old girl named Maddie de Garay was hospitalized a number of times after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine known as BNT162b2 (Comirnaty). The adolescent actually was a participant in a clinical trial testing the mRNA-based vaccine from December 2020 to January 2021. Apparently, what triggered the Twitter action was the fact that the mother, Stephanie, commenced sharing more details about the hospitalizations. This was all captured in a press conference sponsored by Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, reported Gabe Kaminsky with The Federalist. Ms. De Garay shared during the press conference that the family is both pro-family and pro-science, hence why they had their daughter and two other kids participate in the trial. Apparently, the sponsor’s response—the kid’s problems arise from preexisting conditions.

The Family

Apparently, this family is as patriotic and pro-science as they come. With the father working in the medical field and the mother an electrical engineer, they volunteered their children in the study involving children and adolescents in the spirit of “helping us all return to normal life.” Could this family be part of some menacing, anti-fax contingent, or are they simply distraught that their doctor was afflicted by a rare serious adverse event?

The Hospitalizations

But the adverse reactions are real, clearly connected to the study, and seemingly dangerous for this 12-year old. In the press release, the mother complained of painful electrical shocks up and down the spine and neck that impacted her posture and leading her apparently to the need for a wheelchair. With severe pain in both fingers and toes, both parts of the body apparently turned white and were ice bold to the touch.

Moreover, with severe chest pain, she had a tube inserted to help her breathe. With the symptoms ongoing, Ms. De Garay shared that their daughter has now been hospitalized three times for a total of two months in the hospital. In tears, the mother asked Pfizer why hadn’t these challenges been detected. Fearing that this injury could be permanent, the mother declared she was perfectly normal before participating in the clinical trial. Maddie participated in the large nationwide trial involving children/adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15.

Social Listening’s Ominous Tone

A review of the chatter across social media harkens to scary times ahead—in what seemingly becomes a new kind of McCarthyism for this age. TrialSite cannot confirm if true, but there are allegations that Twitter immediately blocks any mention of Maddie’s name.

Other Vantage: The Committee to Protect Health Care

A liberal-leaning group called The Committee to Protect Health Care, however, challenged this press conference, declaring it was a misinformation campaign. Apparently, a day after the press conference, a few doctors from this organization declared the event was contributing to mounting vaccine hesitancy across the country.

Emphasizing a rationale risk-benefit analysis, that vaccination is key to overcoming COVID-19, a Dr. Madelaine Tully from Milwaukee, WA, declared, “Let’s be clear, serious side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely rare. The chances of dying from COVID-19 is many, many times greater than the chance of serious side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The Math

But is that true? Does that add up? The death rate for children involving COVID-19 is incredibly low. The American Academy of Pediatricians provides a near up-to-date count of pediatric COVID-19 cases, including mortality. As of June 24, children were 0.00%-0.24% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 8 states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00% to 0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. The point here is that both sides must start using actual figures based on real underlying data, not just hurling around assumptions.

Mainstream Starts Reconsidering?

TrialSite reported recently that MedPage Today’s Editor-in-Chief Martin Makary, MD, MPH, came out and declared that of course there are cases where kids should be vaccinated, however, at least for healthy kids, there is no pressing need. That the risk-benefit analysis doesn’t add up to vaccine healthy kids. MedPage Today isn’t some fringe group of radicals but a very mainstream online publication. The World Health Organization also came out recently declaring kids don’t need to be vaccinated but they quickly updated their edict to include 12 to 15 year old, the very age range from the recently FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) on March 10, 2021.

Holistic Risk-Benefit Analysis

Many Op-Ed contributors in the TrialSite have raised concerns about vaccinating children. Granted, few studies articulate the risks associated from all sides of the equation. As TrialSite emphasized of late, a Cleveland Clinic study indicated that of all of those 4,000+ hospitalized, 99% were unvaccinated. The point from the federal government health authorities centers on the risk of not getting vaccinated. Now children face far less risk as exemplified by the American Academy of Pediatricians data.

But as TrialSite has conveyed, the overall total number of cases are dramatically dropping as the CDC reported that for March and April 2021, a total of zero deaths in an entire cohort investigated.

But Pfizer is now conducting a study for kids under 12, investigating the optimal dose for this cohort. TrialSite suggests that a comprehensive analysis be done before there are broad-based vaccinations of children under 12 with what is still an investigational product. However, there are exceptions based on risk-based analyses. For example, immuno-compromised children could fit in the more at-risk category.

Conclusion

American and other societies are facing challenging times while the pandemic appears on the wane, millions around the world are still infected and another variant-driven surge is a real possibility. There’s no easy way out of this crisis as, increasingly, people appear to take sides, as a balkanized, tribal sort of fragmentation trumps a more orderly and calm discourse factoring in the real risks as opposed to benefits of vaccination, especially for low-risk cohorts such as children. Covering up the issue only serves to create more distrust and angst, which can lead to even more extreme stances.

Somewhere, somehow, soon leadership must emerge from all different vantages, based on a common, rational understanding of the actual underlying risks associated with the vaccines across various age groups.

COVID-19 Long-Haulers Turning to Ivermectin for Relief, But Questions Over Drug’s Effectiveness Linger

https://news.wttw.com/2021/07/…-over-drugs-effectiveness

Streeterville resident Valerio Cerron led an active lifestyle before testing positive for COVID-19 in late February.

Before the pandemic, the 35-year-old ran up to 5 miles daily, had a busy social life and traveled regularly for work.

While his coronavirus infection was mild, his symptoms lingered beyond the expected two to three weeks. “I was still experiencing shortness of breath symptoms, chest pain,” he said, adding that even long conversations took a toll. “Sometimes I have to catch my breath a lot. … It’s a disconcerting feeling because you expect you’re going to get better like everybody else.”

Patrick McBriarty can relate. The 56-year-old author who lives in North Center used to be an avid cyclist, biking around 2,000-3,000 miles per year. But that changed when he contracted COVID-19 in March 2020. His case was also mild, but he has experienced symptoms for more than a year.

McBriarty and Cerron are among those known as long-haulers, people whose COVID-19 symptoms linger well beyond their initial infections. In their quests to get better, they have each tried numerous remedies, including an antiparasitic medicine used to treat tropical diseases and scabies called ivermectin.

READ: At What Point Does a COVID-19 Infection Become a Disability?

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ivermectin for the treatment of several diseases, including parasitic worms and head lice, but the agency has not approved it for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

Some doctors say it’s time for the drug to get a green light.

“Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs known in history,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist who notes that the scientists who discovered the compound that led to the drug’s development received the Nobel Prize.

Testifying before the U.S. Senate in December, Kory advocated for the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, an international group of physicians and scientists that believes ivermectin is a “miracle drug” for COVID-19 and should be used immediately.

But the drug is not a “one-size-fits-all medication” and should not be viewed as a treatment for COVID-19, says Dr. Sajal Tanna, an infectious disease specialist at Northwestern Medicine.

“Like all medications, ivermectin has side effects,” Tanna said. “Ivermectin can interact with other medications. It can cause gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, low blood pressure and allergic reaction.”

In the U.S., the drug is available only by prescription and doses are based on a person's weight, according to Tanna, who says it should be administered under the supervision of a doctor who is familiar with their patient’s full medical history.

Other health agencies are undecided when it comes to using the drug for COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health says there is insufficient data on ivermectin to make any recommendations on its use for the coronavirus. The World Health Organization says ivermectin should only be used within clinical trials.

But Kory and the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance say the drug works.

“There’s a lot of controversy as agencies say they need more data because that’s what they always do,” said Kory, who’s the president of the alliance. “There’s been lots of successes, lots of doctors are using it and saying it’s really effective.”

The alliance has developed protocols for using the drug to prevent and treat COVID-19, including guidelines specific to long-haulers.

McBriarty, who struggled for months with fluctuating fatigue, brain fog, dehydration and chest tightness, says his first treatment of ivermectin produced a noticeable change.

“The brain fog and fatigue were mostly gone,” he said. “I was now able to work a whole day or two-thirds of a day and then do a walk and get in 10,000 steps a day four to five days a week. I can live a normal life without being forced into bed for a day or more at a time each week.”

McBriarty still experiences tightness in his chest and throat and says he isn’t able to exercise like he used to before his COVID-19 infection, but he hopes his latest round of ivermectin will help.

Cerron says he felt some improvement after taking ivermectin for about a week but decided to start a different treatment plan under a doctor’s supervision.

“My biggest idea of recovery – my main goal – will be to get back to running outside daily, exercise daily and some sort of social activity that I had before,” he said.

Dr. Tanna is not convinced.

“I would not just jump to ivermectin,” she said. “We at Northwestern really focus on high-quality data, and in accordance with the World Health Organization and the FDA, we do not think ivermectin is an effective therapy for COVID-19.”

Instead, she says long-haulers should seek treatment at one of the clinics dedicated to long COVID-19 — such clinics at Northwestern, Rush University Medical Center, UChicago Medicine and Shirley Ryan are not using ivermectin, according to spokespeople. Tanna also says patients with lingering symptoms should consider getting vaccinated against COVID-19, which has reportedly decreased symptoms for some long-haulers, she said.

And while Kory advocates for the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19, he doesn’t see it as a replacement for vaccines.

“(Ivermectin) is complementary to and a safety net for vaccines. It shouldn’t be viewed as a competitor,” he said. “I know many people will not get a vaccine for months or years. Some people can’t get a vaccine for certain reasons.”

Cerron is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. McBriarty is unsure whether he’ll get it, but he plans to continue using ivermectin, under Kory’s supervision, until all his symptoms are gone. Even then, he intends to keep the medication on hand.

“We’re going to have some form of COVID for another 100 years from now, and the vaccines that we’re developing now may work but we don’t know for how long. We need to have as big a tool kit as possible to deal with it,” he said.

Contact Kristen Thometz: @kristenthometz | (773) 509-5452 | [email protected]

Quote from AlainCo

RETRACTED – COVID vaccine causes two deaths for every three deaths prevented

https://www.skepticalraptor.co…aths-prevented-bad-paper/

Beware of being manipulated.

This article is the classic hit piece article -- author believes in "parapsychology" and ignores the "massive body of evidence" that the vaccine is safe and effective -- he's an antivaxxer so don't believe him because "correlation is not causation."

Posting this crap does not help anyone get to the truth. It's the usual mind manipulation piece.

Researchers find potential path to a broadly protective COVID-19 vaccine using T cells

https://medicalxpress.com/news…broadly-covid-vaccine.amp

Gaurav Gaiha, MD, DPhil, a member of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, studies HIV, one of the fastest-mutating viruses known to humankind. But HIV's ability to mutate isn't unique among RNA viruses—most viruses develop mutations, or changes in their genetic code, over time. If a virus is disease-causing, the right mutation can allow the virus to escape the immune response by changing the viral pieces the immune system uses to recognize the virus as a threat, pieces scientists call epitopes.

To combat HIV's high rate of mutation, Gaiha and Elizabeth Rossin, MD, Ph.D., a Retina Fellow at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, a member of Mass General Brigham, developed an approach known as structure-based network analysis. With this, they can identify viral pieces that are constrained, or restricted, from mutation. Changes in mutationally constrained epitopes are rare, as they can cause the virus to lose its ability to infect and replicate, essentially rendering it unable to propagate itself.

When the pandemic began, Gaiha immediately recognized an opportunity to apply the principles of HIV structure-based network analysis to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. He and his team reasoned that the virus would likely mutate, potentially in ways that would allow it to escape both natural and vaccine-induced immunity. Using this approach, the team identified mutationally constrained SARS-CoV-2 epitopes that can be recognized by immune cells known as T cells. These epitopes could then be used in a vaccine to train T cells, providing protective immunity. Recently published in Cell, this work highlights the possibility of a T cell vaccine which could offer broad protection against new and emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 and other SARS-like coronaviruses.

From the earliest stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team knew it was imperative to prepare against potential future mutations. Other labs already had published the protein structures (blueprints) of roughly 40% of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and studies indicated that patients with a robust T cell response, specifically a CD8+ T cell response, were more likely to survive COVID-19 infection.

Gaiha's team knew these insights could be combined with their unique approach: the network analysis platform to identify mutationally constrained epitopes and an assay they had just developed, a report on which is currently in press at Cell Reports, to identify epitopes that were successfully targeted by CD8+ T cells in HIV-infected individuals. Applying these advances to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, they identified 311 highly networked epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 likely to be both mutationally constrained and recognized by CD8+ T cells.

These highly networked viral epitopes are connected to many other viral parts, which likely provides a form of stability to the virus," says Anusha Nathan, a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology program and co-first author of the study. "Therefore, the virus is unlikely to tolerate any structural changes in these highly networked areas, making them resistant to mutations."

You can think of a virus's structure like the design of a house, explains Nathan. The stability of a house depends on a few vital elements, like support beams and a foundation, which connect to and support the rest of the house's structure. It is therefore possible to change the shape or size of features like doors and windows without endangering the house itself. Changes to structural elements, like support beams, however, are far riskier. In biological terms, these support beams would be mutationally constrained—any significant changes to size or shape would risk the structural integrity of the house and could easily lead to its collapse.

Highly networked epitopes in a virus function as support beams, connecting to many other parts of the virus. Mutations in such epitopes can risk the virus's ability to infect, replicate, and ultimately survive. These highly networked epitopes, therefore, are often identical, or nearly identical, across different viral variants and even across closely related viruses in the same family, making them an ideal vaccine target.

The team studied the identified 311 epitopes to find which were both present in large amounts and likely to be recognized by the vast majority of human immune systems. They ended up with 53 epitopes, each of which represents a potential target for a broadly protective T cell vaccine. Since patients who have recovered from COVID-19 infection have a T cell response, the team was able to verify their work by seeing if their epitopes were the same as ones that had provoked a T cell response in patients who had recovered from COVID-19. Half of the recovered COVID-19 patients studied had T cell responses to highly networked epitopes identified by the research team. This confirmed that the epitopes identified were capable of inducing an immune reaction, making them promising candidates for use in vaccines.

"A T cell vaccine that effectively targets these highly networked epitopes," says Rossin, who is also a co-first author of the study, "would potentially be able to provide long-lasting protection against multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2, including future variants."

By this time, it was February 2021, more than a year into the pandemic, and new variants of concern were showing up across the globe. If the team's predictions about SARS-CoV-2 were correct, these variants of concerns should have had little to no mutations in the highly networked epitopes they had identified.

The team obtained sequences from the newly circulating B.1.1.7 Alpha, B.1.351 Beta, P1 Gamma, and B.1.617.2 Delta SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. They compared these sequences with the original SARS-CoV-2 genome, cross-checking the genetic changes against their highly networked epitopes. Remarkably, of all the mutations they identified, only three mutations were found to affect highly networked epitopes sequences, and none of the changes affected the ability of these epitopes to interact with the immune system.

"Initially, it was all prediction," says Gaiha, an investigator in the MGH Division of Gastroenterology and senior author of the study. "But when we compared our network scores with sequences from the variants of concern and the composite of circulating variants, it was like nature was confirming our predictions."

In the same time period, mRNA vaccines were being deployed and immune responses to those vaccines were being studied. While the vaccines induce a strong and effective antibody response, Gaiha's group determined they had a much smaller T cell response against highly networked epitopes compared to patients who had recovered from COVID-19 infections.

While the current vaccines provide strong protection against COVID-19, Gaiha explains, it's unclear if they will continue to provide equally strong protection as more and more variants of concern begin to circulate. This study, however, shows that it may be possible to develop a broadly protective T cell vaccine that can protect against the variants of concern, such as the Delta variant, and potentially even extend protection to future SARS-CoV-2 variants and similar coronaviruses that may emerge.

Quote from AlainCo

RETRACTED – COVID vaccine causes two deaths for every three deaths prevented

This is even worse among age group < 35. We will see how many children the USA vaccine program will kill because so far there have been no deaths among children. So the ratio will be infinite....

But the papers conclusion is not precise. Overall, if we include age > 65 its better than 2 out of 3. So far we have at least 100'000 vaccine deaths + 100'000 CoV-19 victims from Pfizer immune suppression induced CoV-19. But we had > 5 mio. deaths from CoV-19. So the ratio is 1 death for 25 vaccines net gain 24 lives.

But stop:: This is the Big Pharma calculation. In reality 95% of all people don't need the vaccine for immunity or survival. If you look at it this way then you get 1 death prevented for one vaccine death....(24 out of the above 25 are already more or less immune!)

Just as a reminder. People on chemo cannot be vaccinated a vaccine would potentially kill them and most virus will kill them too. So some hospitals reported chemo deaths as CoV-19 deaths to get an extras incentive. Thus the main problem is:: A corrupt medical system invents his own data to maintain the narrative.

Quote from Fm1

“I would not just jump to ivermectin,” she said. “We at Northwestern really focus on high-quality data, and in accordance with the World Health Organization and the FDA, we do not think ivermectin is an effective therapy for COVID-19.”

At least her motivation is clear: Greed. Join our clinic! Please give us your money. We will not heal you to increase our share of your money. We will just cure one symptom and you then must tell everybody how great we are....

Quote from Fm1

Instead, she says long-haulers should seek treatment at one of the clinics dedicated to long COVID-19 — such clinics at Northwestern, Rush University Medical Center, UChicago Medicine and Shirley Ryan are not using ivermectin, according to spokespeople. Tanna also says patients with lingering symptoms should consider getting vaccinated against COVID-19, which has reportedly decreased symptoms for some long-haulers, she said.

The USA criminal health system at work - plain sight!

Quote from Wyttenbach

At least her motivation is clear: Greed. Join our clinic! Please give us your money. We will not heal you to increase our share of your money. We will just cure one symptom and you then must tell everybody how great we are....

The USA criminal health system at work - plain sight!

Criminals and liers. Here in the US, we are lead to believe we have a world class health system. In reality we have the 37th ranked health care system in the world. Pay more for less!! It's always about the latest and greatest. Pure bullshit, yet the media eats it up and spits it out to the public.