Covid-19 News

    Is there a Correlation Between Mild COVID-19 & Previous Encounters with Coronaviruses? Stanford University Investigators Think Maybe


    https://trialsitenews.com/is-t…nvestigators-think-maybe/


    Stanford University School of Medicine investigators recently concluded that individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 may actually experience a milder form of the illness if certain cells affiliated with the immune system “remember” previous encounters with seasonal coronaviruses, that is, those pathogens that trigger roughly a quarter of the common cold experienced often by children. Apparently, if this hypothesis is correct, those specific immune cells, assuming they encountered one of the previous older and milder coronaviruses, are essentially ready for mobilization against the novel coronavirus. Perhaps this could be the reason why some individuals, especially children, appear more resilient as compared to others infected with the virus. Could this be a way in the future to actually forecast who is more likely to develop severe SARS-CoV-2 symptoms? Could these immune cells represent a sort of biomarker for additional research? TrialSite introduces an interesting study, led by Mark Davis, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and director of Stanford’s Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection as well as a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. The investigators have filed for a patent to potentially commercialize what could become a way of predicting with more certainty who is at risk for severe COVID-19.


    The Killer T Cells

    Called Killer T cells, they circulate via the blood and lymph system and according to the published study in Science Immunology, those associated with the most severely infected with SARS-CoV-2 exhibit fewer signals of past encounters with those coronaviruses associated with the common cold.


    Dr. Davis went on the record, “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. He continued, “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.”


    The Key Question

    The Stanford authors found that as the pandemic intensified, “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, PhD, 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.


    Testing the Hypothesis

    Davis and team analyzed blood samples from COVID-19 patients. Sure enough, the group uncovered COVID-19 patients with milder symptoms evidenced more 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.


    Davis commented, “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.”


    The Stanford investigator shared 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.”


    File a Patent: Potential Commercial Value

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


    Funding

    The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grants AI057229 and U01 AI140498); Stanford’s Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection; the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Sean N. Parker Center and the Sunshine Foundation.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Mark Davis, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and director of Stanford’s Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection as well as a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator.


    Note that Professor Davis is also 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.


    Other Stanford study co-authors are former undergraduate student Conner Ganjavi; postdoctoral scholar Saborni Chakraborty, PhD; former life science research professionals Alana McSween and Allison Nau; graduate student Ana Jimena Pavlovitch-Bedzyk; life science research professional Julie Wilhelmy; Monali Manohar, PhD, laboratory director and research scientist at the Sean N. Parker Center for Asthma and Allergy Research; and Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Sean N. Parker Center.


    Call to Action: Check out the release from Stanford Medicine News Center here.

    A Professional Social Network Steps Up in a Big Way and an mRNA Discoverer Returns to Contributing to the Scientific Debate


    https://trialsitenews.com/a-pr…to-the-scientific-debate/


    LinkedIn recently stepped up and re-activated a prominent member’s account, Dr. Robert Malone. Considered one of the first, if not the very first inventor of mRNA-based breakthroughs, Dr. Malone is also a member of the TrialSite advisory committee. Why was Malone removed from LinkedIn, a stringent misinformation policy that doesn’t differentiate well between scientific dissent (good), versus misinformation (bad). But thanks to a solid executive in that company (now owned by Microsoft), the social network for professionals is graced again by Dr. Malone’s presence. But what about so many other people that fall into this social network filtering process—the undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of others that are simply making well-intentioned dissenting positions? They shouldn’t be censored and removed from their social media accounts. Nor should the government be telling social media companies what terms are misinformation. For example, if ivermectin is authorized for use in Slovakia or Indonesia that’s a fact, not a piece of misinformation. We cannot accept social media, prodded on by the government, to systematically and algorithmically shelter the people from knowing what’s going on in the world. Our internet starts to look more like China’s than that of the United States.


    Although Malone’s removal from LinkedIn was covered by no media in America, it was picked up in Italy.


    In that piece, the online media shared from Malone:


    “I was blocked by LinkedIn and my account was closed. #censorship at the time of COVID “, this is the tweet of Robert W. Malone, one of the researchers who laid the theoretical and clinical foundations of current gene therapies (mRNA and DNA, from the Salk Institute in 1988), last week was interviewed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, where he expressed his concerns about Covid vaccines. The interview was removed from YouTube. Carlson immediately reiterated that Malone “has the right to speak”, even if he is contrary to what is claimed by the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), directed by Anthony Fauci. To understand how this came about, it is necessary to contextualize the facts. First, a relevant aspect of the pandemic has been the frequency with which some scientific positions have been embraced, rejected or ridiculed without having the necessary time to verify them on their merits. We can start with the SARS-CoV2 theory of escape from the laboratory, first mistreated then re-emerged and legitimized as a concrete hypothesis. A similar story has repeated itself on several occasions, for example for Tocilizumab which went from a drug with “no benefit” to an “approved treatment for COVID19”. The same goes for the rare adverse effects from vaccines such as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, purpura and myocarditis – initially not taken into account, albeit in the presence of sufficient data, now recognized by the FDA and EMA.”


    LinkedIn Steps Up but Work to Do

    But thanks again to ethical management at the social media platform owned by Microsoft, plus a contribution from a well-connected colleague, the social network not only reinstated Malone but issued an apology. Compared to some of the censorship-experienced platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, not to mention Twitter, the move by LinkedIn is a breath of fresh air.


    But in reality, none of the social media platforms are that adept at determining dissent from misinformation, so, unfortunately, many professionals are probably censored or restricted in some way even though they more than likely shouldn’t be. The impact is ominous for open, dynamic scientific discussion as such actions deter, or even scare, anyone else who might want to speak out in a legitimate scientific or professional dissent.


    Call to Action: Remember freedom of speech, especially scientific dissent, represents a foundational necessity, as uncomfortable as it may be, in a free and open, as well as innovative society.

    Recently A number of small realtime studies have shown the vaccine to be effective against delta, so here comes the next killer variant. The fear mongering never takes a break!!!!!!!!


    Lambda variant: What is the new strain of Covid detected in the UK?

    Scientists are concerned the latest strain could be more infectious and resistant to vaccines


    https://www.independent.co.uk/…ariant-peru-b1878416.html


    The Lambda variant - known to scientists as C.37 - was first identified in Peru and has been detected in samples dating back to as early as December 2020.


    Since then it has become the dominant variant in the South American country, where it accounts for more than 80 per cent of new infections.


    It has now been detected in at least 26 countries, including the UK. So should we be concerned?


    A Variant of Interest


    The World Health Organisation designated the Lambda variant as a variant of interest on 14 June.

    Nine days later Public Health England announced it was a "variant under investigation" based on a number of mutations to the spike protein which enables the virus to attach to human cells.


    Of most concern to scientists is its "potential increased transmissibility or possible increased resistance to neutralising antibodies" - meaning it could spread faster and be more resistant to vaccines or antibody

    However, PHE said "there is currently no evidence that this variant causes more severe disease or renders the vaccines currently deployed any less effective."


    What is the latest research?


    A new study - which has not yet been reviewed by other scientists and is based on tests on samples from healthcare workers in Chile - suggests that the Lambda variant is more infectious than both the Alpha (UK) or the Gamma (Brazil) variants.


    It also suggests that the Lambda variant has a higher "immune escape" compared to the Alpha or Gamma variants in relation to antibodies produced in patients who have received China’s CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccine. (The preprint, published on 1 July, did not look at other vaccines).


    How widespread is the Lambda variant in the UK?


    A total of eight cases have been detected in the UK, as of the latest update on 2 July - although this is likely to be an underestimate.


    In its initial report on 25 June, PHE gave further details of the first six cases identified by DNA sequencing or genotyping.


    Four cases were from London, one was from the South West and one was from the West Midlands. All six were linked to overseas travel.

    None of the cases has resulted in deaths within 28 days of a positive test.


    To find out how to sign up to our full range of free newsletters click here

    By comparison, 275,233 cases of the Alpha (UK) variant have been confirmed in the UK (although the total is likely to be much higher as it was the dominant strain during the second wave over the winter), and a total of 161,981 cases of the Delta variant which was first identified in India have been reported.


    "Cases are managed in line with the approach for emerging variants with review of contact tracing, additional data collection, testing of identified contacts, and consideration of targeted case finding as required where there is evidence of community transmission," said PHE.

    FLCCC weekly update


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

    Quote from AlainCo

    See how age and illnesses change the risk of dying from covid-19

    The UK link without commercials.. : https://alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/


    "First" Japanese citizen killed by Pfizer vaccine:

    KOCHI -- A man in his 60s collapsed at a COVID-19 vaccination venue in the western Japan prefecture of Kochi on July 4 after receiving the Pfizer vaccine and was confirmed dead in hospital soon afterward, it has been learned.

    Officials in the city of Nankoku, where the incident occurred, had not announced the death based on the wishes of the man's bereaved family, but they made a turnaround and publicly disclosed it on the evening of July 5.


    https://mainichi.jp/english/ar…10706/p2a/00m/0na/008000c


    This sounds like many, many more have been killed so far. But in Japan it's a shame to get CoV-19. You loose your social status!! Dying from a vaccine is the same shame. May be a doctor simply had seen enough.


    Quote from Fm1

    Stanford University School of Medicine investigators recently concluded that individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 may actually experience a milder form of the illness if certain cells affiliated with the immune system “remember” previous encounters with seasonal coronaviruses, that is, those pathogens that trigger roughly a quarter of the common cold experienced often by children.

    Wooowwww! Brilliant! we know this since 1 year 4 months....

    Quote from Fm1

    Recently A number of small realtime studies have shown the vaccine to be effective against delta,

    Thisn is fake news: Real studies with large sample (not blood selected by Pfizer) shows a decrease of a factor 8. Real data shows now its only 60% protection from Pfizer in Israel.

    During the last few days we see a strong increase in cases (about 16%/day). Switzerland allows sports wellness all without masks so Delta will spread soon.

    But: Hospitals do drain out. 28 people so far in hospital ICU.

    The real problem will come from Pfizer vaccinated old people with weak immune system. We soon will see an increase in death among older again. In UK already a reality.

    But the CFR in UK was 0.2 and now it looks like 0.06.

    This is not the real CFR of UK only the one for PCR+. The real CFR is 1/4 at most. So it was 0.05 June 2 and now 0.015.


    This is a very soft flu now. So all restrictions should be stopped as Boris will do.

    Correction : I thought that the "Republic of China" was the "People's Republic of China". It isn't. It's Taiwan! Thanks to a member for pointing this out. So funding is coming into Argentina through Taiwan, but vaccines are coming from China.


    Changing the subject, here is today's front page of the National Post in Canada.




    Truly, vaccines are increasingly seen as the Saviour of Canada. It's like a cult. Covid vaccine hesitancy In Canada has decreased to now only about 15 percent according to a recent poll.


    In May Canada was the first nation in the world to authorize the Pfizer vaccine for kids aged 12 to 15. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the same authorization is extended to kids from 5 to 11 here soon.

    At least there is dialogue about the issue, with some opposed.

    Quote from Mark U

    In May Canada was the first nation in the world to authorize the Pfizer vaccine for kids aged 12 to 15.

    1000% effective among kids according Pfizer study... Also in killing kids -see USA - but real data shows Pfizer is the worst of the bad vaccines with only 60% protection - real data Israel - against Delta and extrapolated from this at most 10% protection for the RSA strain...

    How dumb/obedient must this population be??? Food for fascists!

    Israel data as of today. > 500 infections/day since 3 weeks an increase of > 20x in cases. A true sign that vaccines work on paper or in minds or on your bank account...


    USE: https://www.google.ch/search?h…=images&as_filetype=&tbs=

    https://www.google.ch/search?h…=images&as_filetype=&tbs=


    More sources : https://www.businessinsider.co…ls-surge-2021-7?r=US&IR=T


    But so far no (but 1 reported today?) death from delta.


    The UK solution:: (Wall street journal)

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/s…ent-surprised-11625227200

    LONDON—As the Delta variant of the coronavirus surges through the U.K., almost half of the country’s recent Covid-19 deaths are of people who have been (omitted fully!) vaccinated. But doctors and scientists aren’t sounding the alarm about the apparently high proportion of deaths among the vaccinated population.


    It's bad for business to declare the vaccines don't really work.

    And as mentioned: Delta is harmless for younger and somehow deadly for fully Pfizer/Astra vaccinated older...


    This ends two myths: Corona is dangerous and vaccines (Pfizer/Astra) do work.

    Bob - "experts" is not well defined. And in this matter "experts" do not all agree. in fact on any scientiifc question, even ones like AGW which are settled science you will find experts on both sides, arguing their case.


    We developed the MATH+ protocol to provide guidance for the
    treatment of the late pulmonary phase of this disease with the goal of reducing the hospital mortality
    from COVID-19. However, it has now become blatantly clear that our emphasis needs to shift to the
    prevention and early treatment of this catastrophic disease to prevent patients progressing to the
    pulmonary phase and requiring hospitalization (see Figure 5). Hence, we developed the I-MASK+
    protocol. While we strongly believe that such an approach can mitigate the development and
    progression of this disease, limit deaths, and allow the economy to re-open, “Health-Care authorities”
    across the globe have been silent in this regard, including the WHO, CDC, NIH, etc (see NIH Guidance,
    Figure 6a and 6b).


    From your link. So these guys think Ivermectin is good, and have included it in their treatment. They may be right, or wrong. And other independent observers disagree. I'm sure also that some independent observers agree.


    People here think I am boringly on the side of the establishment. That is not true. I have a good deal of sympathy with those who are cautious when the benefits are not obvious, as with all of these drugs that have not yet clear positive RCT evidence. Others would be less cautious, and reckon doing something is always preferable to doing nothing as long as the risks are small.


    It is ironic, and shows this is a political question, that the same thinking is reversed when it comes to vaccines. The same people who would be in favour of prophylactic use of Ivermectin - because it does very little harm and might possibly help, are against vaccines that do very little harm and are known to help by a factor of 10X or more.


    Wittgenstein's (Mod edit) post above about Pfizer vaccine is only 60% effective, in large red capital letters, is an example of this type of political statement.


    (1) Against delta (the worst widespread variant around) Pfizer is enormously effective (10X or better) at reducing death and serious disease. it is not so effective at reducing infection.


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/p…eli-data-show-11625572796


    The vaccine protected 64% of inoculated people from infection during an outbreak of the Delta variant, down from 94% before, according to Israel’s Health Ministry. It was 94% effective at preventing severe illness in the same period, compared with 97% before, the ministry said. An Israeli official said Tuesday the health ministry findings released a day earlier were preliminary and based on data collected from June 6 through early July. The ministry didn’t release its methodology or the data on which its findings were based.


    I'm giving my source for this as yet unreviewed snippet of information - but it sounds about right to me.


    In terms of herd immunity 64% (not 60%, that is 36 in 100 people getting the disease not 40 in 100 people) is not quite enough - but since many infections are asymptomatic and then much less transmissable it might be enough.


    In terms of individual cost/benefit I would take a 17X reduction in personal risk of serious disease any day, even though it is less good than the previous strain 33X reduction in such risk.


    Viewing this information as somehow negative on vaccines is weird in the extreme. The personal risk/benefit analysis for younger people, where vaccine risks are compared with much lower COVID risk, is hardly affected by whether vaccines are 95%, 90%, 80% or even 75% effective against serious disease, because that is dominated by the risks of getting COVID with serious disease versus the risks of the vaccine.


    I agree with W that as strains mutate vaccines will work less well. This process will continue as long as we have a large reservoir of unvaccinated people in which the virus can circulate. That was always expected and it is why at some point we will no doubt have a tweaked vaccine which hits better the latest worst strains. If the original vaccine gies us 1 year protection (it looks like it will) then a new vaccine each year is no more than we already do for Flu.




    (2)


    Although I am sympathetic with the doctors who do what everyone on this thread has wanted - try to put together a best effort soup of drugs to help - I am sure they will err on the side of too many drugs. I equally sure that risk-averse regulatory authorities will err on the side of too few. And research scientists will vary on both sides. I don't see either the doctors nor the regulatory bodies as being evil or obviously wrong. Where things are very uncertain it is OK not to be sure (my position).


    But not it seems that of Bob#2 and many others here???


    Bob#2 do you agree that you seem very sure which side is right, on the basis of this mixed evidence, and the expected divide between most doctors (over-hopeful) and most regulatory authorities (over-cautious)? There are respectable reasons for both trends - no need for these experts to be evil or stupid. Just they take a slightly different view of what is most important when things are unclear.


    And again, you seem to think regulatory authorities should be more cautious over vaccines, but less cautious over drugs. Why the difference? The vaccines are proven highly effective. The drugs we don't know. The first one, HCQ, has proved to be positively harmful according to your liked treatment protocol here from doctors. Yet it got great non-RCT positive evidence and even some positive RCTs. Is it wrong to take that as a cautionary tale and be cautious on Ivermectin?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    They may be right, or wrong. And other independent observers disagree.

    You simply are nuts to spread your FUD here: 1.35 billion Indians not only believe that it works they used it and it did work. Look at Uttar Pradesh data!

    No vaccines IVERMECTIN alone!

    about 50 cases/day among 200mio people.

    With Delta!!!!

    Look at Israel/UK > 50% fully vaccinated with delta

    5'000x cases/mio.


    So Ivermectin is 5000x better than vaccines...?! No but it simply works.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    How dumb/obedient must this population be??? Food for fascists!

    I'm discovering we are very compliant here in Canada. But then, in Canada we are inundated everywhere with vaccination messaging. Billboards everywhere. Endlessly repeated ads on radio and TV. Ads even while browsing the internet. Only those people resistant by principle will resist the programming.


    Here are just a couple of vaccination slogans I've heard today on radio today:

    "No one is safe until everyone is safe"

    "Every dose brings us closer to what we've missed."


    It's presented like the virus shut down our businesses and freedoms, not government policy. (Which reminds me, I was mistaken last week when I shared we could now do indoor dining. We still can't in Toronto. )


    I'm also discovering people here are in denial about Covid vaccine injury. For instance talking to a person yesterday at the lake with our dog, he shared how his father, early 70's, a very healthy and high power individual, still working and very successful in business, got his fist vaccine two weeks ago. Last week he called his son, relating that he was admitted to hospital with heart trouble and blood clots. His son proposed it was an effect of the vaccine. The father denied it, and declared his intent to get his second dose in about about a month when he's better. I told the guy that there is a good chance his father will fare much worse next time.


    It's just about guaranteed that his father's heart trouble didn't make it into the Canadian adverse events reporting system. But, what else is new.

    • Official Post
    Quote from AlainCo

    COVID-19 vaccines dampen genomic diversity of SARS-CoV-2:
    Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance

    https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…07.01.21259833v1.full.pdf

    If the results are supported by further study, this could be a big boost for those arguing to vaccinate everyone:


    "This study presents the first known evidence that COVID- 19 vaccines are fundamentally restricting the evolutionary and antigenic escape pathways accessible to SARS-CoV-2. The societal benefit of mass vaccination may consequently go far beyond the widely reported mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and amelioration of community transmission, to include stemming of rampant viral evolution"

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Bob#2 do you agree that you seem very sure which side is right, on the basis of this mixed evidence, and the expected divide between most doctors (over-hopeful) and most regulatory authorities (over-cautious)? There are respectable reasons for both trends - no need for these experts to be evil or stupid. Just they take a slightly different view of what is most important when things are unclear.


    And again, you seem to think regulatory authorities should be more cautious over vaccines, but less cautious over drugs. Why the difference? The vaccines are proven highly effective. The drugs we don't know. The first one, HCQ, has proved to be positively harmful according to your liked treatment protocol here from doctors. Yet it got great non-RCT positive evidence and even some positive RCTs. Is it wrong to take that as a cautionary tale and be cautious on Ivermectin?

    THH,

    Either we just cannot communicate or one of us is being specious.


    You keep stating "And again, you seem to think regulatory authorities should be more cautious over vaccines, but less cautious over drugs.".


    Will you ever acknowledge that the current mRNA COVID vaccines have NEVER went through ANY long term testing?

    That prior mRNA vaccines were stopped due to horrid effects?


    That HCQ and Ivermectin have been used for decades, with NO adverse effects worth mentioning while the mRNA vaccines are already showing more bad side effects as time goes along.


    You bring up the HCQ "positively harmful" yet this is unsupported, MUCH less than the evidence that Ivermectin is positive and even HCQ is positive. Again, you take one "negative study" and place higher value on it than many positives.... it supports the main stream agenda.


    Again, all my posts revolve around that mRNA vaccines are not known to be long term safe. That more and more evidence of the harmful effects are popping up. Yet you keep lumping them in with attenuated virus vaccine history and have never admitted the difference.


    AND.... Ivermectin was available a YEAR ago as HCQ and the data shows it works.... you never disputed the evidence from the link I gave....


    So my point is not that "experts sometimes disagree" or that "this is a small issue". HCQ and Ivermectin was vehemently apposed and railed against early on. This is not some minor "disagreement".... it costs millions of lives.


    And again, why was D, C, Zn not promoted?...... all without risk and known to be extremely helpful?


    Your answers often spell out a lot of "info" which seems to avert the actual questions, that you rarely actually answer.


    So again as I have before:


    1) mRNA vaccines have no long term safety. NONE. Yes or No.


    2) The evidence for Ivermectin is actually quite strong, decades of safety and readily available. Yet the push against is is not as you put it "most regulatory authorities (over-cautious)". These same people approved Remedisvir? Yes or No? How "over cautious were they on that? Yet there is out and out dissention on anything that is not vaccine. No D, C or Zn.


    3) That this point is NOT the "here and now" but what has been buried the past year, when no vaccines were even available! Yet this coverup seems to be swept under the run and the same people that swept it should be trusted now? This was ACTIVE resistance, not simply difference of opinion.


    4) After all the positive evidence, the lack of a truly well designed RCT will not be done... it will endanger the vaccines.


    5) Last but no least, you never actually said if the linked Covid site I provided should be ignored or not. This was an accredited medical school... so you should be able to say "Yes, they have the credentials" or "No, they are outliers and their credentials should not be trusted". There really is no in between. It could be so if it was some unknown doctor or group, but this is an accredited medical school. Are they valid or not?


      




    Mark U. Anecdotes do not medical evidence make.


    Are you saying that studies like this one

    https://www.bmj.com/company/ne…ford-astrazeneca-vaccine/


    Their findings are based on 280,000 people aged 18-65 who received a first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine in Denmark and Norway from February 2021 through to 11 March 2021.

    Using national health records, they identified rates of events, such as heart attacks, strokes, deep vein blood clots and bleeding events within 28 days of receiving a first vaccine dose and compared these with expected rates in the general populations of Denmark and Norway.

    In the main analysis, the researchers found 59 blood clots in the veins compared with 30 expected, corresponding to 11 excess events per 100,000 vaccinations. This included a higher than expected rate of blood clots in the veins of the brain, known as cerebral venous thrombosis (2.5 events per 100,000 vaccinations).

    However, they found no increase in the rate of arterial clots, such as heart attacks or strokes.

    For most remaining outcomes, results were largely reassuring, with slightly higher rates of less severe events such as thrombocytopenia (a condition related to low blood platelet levels), clotting disorders and bleeding, which they say could be influenced by increased surveillance of vaccine recipients.

    This is an observational study, so can’t establish cause, only correlation. And the researchers point to some limitations, such as a lack of data on underlying risk factors for clotting and the possibility that their results may not apply to other ethnicities.



    Are fake?


    the point is that blood clots and heart trouble are quite common in people in their 70s.


    Proof by anecdote as you attempt above is therefore bad science.


    I could reply more strongly than this.

    Quote from Shane D.

    If the results are supported by further study, this could be a big boost for those arguing to vaccinate everyone:

    Shane you should no better: How many papers have already been constructed by the mafia to fuel vaccines sales. UK doctors did kill people with HCQ. Lancet published a fake study based in fully invented data.


    Rule one: Vaccinated people are the prime target for mutated virus it's the only victim where they have an advantage. The creation of a mutation is never the game changer else the world would be brilliant today and no live would exist...

    So such papers promote plain lies in what they conclude. As in physics too:: The action is what counts and the real dangerous action happens in vaccinated people.

    Quote from AlainCo

    Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance

    But the selection happens among vaccinated...This is the basic rule of evolution. Just have a look at UK/Israel data and then you understand it.

    Quote from Bob#2

    That more and more evidence of the harmful effects are popping up. Yet you keep lumping them in with attenuated virus vaccine history and have never admitted the difference.

    Bob#2 :: You can never convince a free mason. He is a member of the elected same as "J". FM are always right or they simply kill all that say otherwise. That's what they do with our "free press" - that since about 5 year no longer exists.


    People like THHuxleynew XXXXXXXXXXXXX with Pfizer vaccines as this fuels their business and position. This individuals also have no more free will & mind, but they cannot find out this, due to a complete brain wash. Same effect we see among members of Opus Dei or scientologly.


    So you have to accept talking with a kind of robot or more modern just bot.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    the point is that blood clots and heart trouble are quite common in people in their 70s.

    With the minimal rest of your brain that is left over you should be able to understand that these cloths occur within 10 minutes to 3 hours after vaccination. No similar thing happens after a flu vaccination. Why do we not see the same number of deaths after the flu vaccination????


    You are an ugly FUD bot.

    Israel: New details: 7% of the vaccinate have strong illness. This is more than what we see among un-vaccinated!! Possible due to the fact that more older fail again.

    How long will Pfizer block the real details data??


    Will Pfizer go on with world wide bribing of journals to promote vaccination with the now useless vaccine? (64% protection at best)


    How many children will we allow that Pfizer kills for profit alone??

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.