Covid-19 News

Quote from JedRothwell

The other gigantic advantage of vaccines is they do not make you sick,

general misinfo.

they do not make you sick is a rather untechnical blurb

the incidence of adverse effects needs to be balanced with the benefit..

as with any medication..

"

Common side effects of vaccination include fatigue, headache, body aches and fever. More
severe side effects of anaphylaxis and a condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia
syndrome (TTS) have been reported after COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.
TTS involves blood clotting with low platelet count. Current data indicates that TTS occurs in
around 2 out of every 100,000 people who receive the first dose of COVID-19 Vaccine
AstraZeneca. TTS appears to be far more rare following second doses, with data from the
United Kingdom indicating a rate of 1.5 per million second doses."

I had 2 doses.. of AZ... but i wouldn't advocate it for my 23 yr old daughter..

and neither would I advocate for the current Pfiizer.. for her..

but for my 93 yr ..father the 2 P doses were OK...

the long term effects unknown.. but hey..at 93

he is just happy to wake up to see the next day..

https://www.health.gov.au/site…vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

Quote from Fm1

The pure lies and absurdity told by the US Task Force (s) and governments with their medical advisors that have doomed and hobbled the COVID pandemic response

https://trialsitenews.com/the-…-covid-pandemic-response/

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Paul Elias Alexander, PhD

Expertise and teaching of epidemiology (clinical epidemiology), evidence-based medicine, and research methodology (former A Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine); former COVID Pandemic advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC, US government; education: graduate studies at University of Oxford England, University of Toronto Canada, McMaster University Canada, York University Canada; currently independent academic scientist and consultant

This op-ed seeks to highlight the pure lies and efforts to deceive the American people (and world) and the former President. These blatant lies severely hobbled and essentially doomed the US pandemic response from February 2020 and it continues till today under the new administration which is being advised by illogical, absurd, irrational, nonsensical, and simply inept and incompetent holdover advisors as well as new ones. These so called ‘experts’ are politicized and seemingly corrupted, and spew utter nonsense and dangerous advice that harms the people. They are aided by a hysterical and absurd corrupted media that seeks to confuse and deceive the public at every turn. I refer below to what I consider to be pure, flat out, bold-faced lies, and the lies are as follows and I will be brief (note, this is my opinion):

1) This COVID-19 pandemic was never the ‘emergency’ that governments and technocrats and the medical community told you it was. Everything that our governments and the media told us and did were lies. Pure lies! That the media medical cartel has said for 24/7 for 16 months now. With their television medical experts. This was a lie out of the gate for we knew very early on that this so called ‘pandemic’ could have been handled without even the vaccine. A bold-faced lie. This was akin to a bad flu season and could have been dealt with via early therapeutics and proper securing of the elderly high-risk populations, combined with improved hand hygiene, vitamin D supplements, weight control, and allowing the low risk ‘healthy’ and well in the population to live largely normal lives taking reasonable safety precautions. There was no need to lock the society down or close schools, never. Only the first 2 to 3 weeks was defensible to get a proper handle but we knew soon after the initial lockdowns who was at risk and how to manage. This was all a lie that costed business owner lives, employee lives, and children lives. People committed suicide due to the lockdowns. The collateral damage has been catastrophic.

No doubt, this virus is deadly to elderly with underlying risks as well as very obese persons, or younger persons who are ill etc. But this is a segment of the population and not the vast majority. The vast majority were never at risk from COVID as was told by the governments. A pure lie. It is akin to the falsehood about deaths in children when close examination of all the deaths in children, found that in all of them, there was a serious underlying medical condition and even Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins states that to date (July 2021), we are unable to be definitive as to whether these deaths were causal or incidental.

The RT-PCR test used to diagnose positive infections is not a suitable test and it is very flawed and inaccurate. Any cycle count (Ct) threshold (spin or amplification) above 20 to 24 is essentially detecting viral dust, fragments, old particles, non-culturable, non-viable, non-infectious virus. The CDC etc. had set the CT at 40 and this really means that over 90% of the ‘positives’ are false positives in terms of being infectious etc. The viral load is basically zero, so little and of no consequence. This test is a pure disaster and a lie.

2) An ‘infection’ is not a ‘case’. Saying we have 10,000 new ‘cases’ is false. A case is when someone has actual symptoms and is sick. This play with words were meant to deceive. You are being lied to. It is also a falsehood for the media to be hysterical on infections when it is actual hospitalizations, ICU use, and deaths that are important.

3) This vaccine for COVID is not ‘safe and effective’ It has never been shown to be this. One is prohibited from stating that these vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ by FDA’s very own regulations. The CDC and FDA and NIH and health officials continue to make this statement when they cannot under law, but principally because the COVID vaccines are still ‘investigational’ and experimental. FDA’s rules state that if a drug or vaccine is investigational, one is prohibited from stating they are ‘safe and effective’. Why? It is still under investigation. It is that simple. You are being lied to. My view is today they must be withdrawn from the market and not one vaccine must be given to children.

It is also important to understand that the vaccine never showed it reduced hospitalization or death, or ICU use, or moderate or severe COVID, nor stops infection or transmission. It was only geared toward reducing ‘mild’ COVID symptoms. The media and health experts and doctors who state it reduces hospitalization and death lie openly.

4) The silence by the academic scientific community, the clinical medical doctors, the public health officials, all of them, is near criminal for the disaster of the pandemic response with the failed lockdowns, school closures, the mask mandates etc. and now the seemingly harmful vaccines. This silence is devastating and this has damaged the public and costed lives. Shame on all of them and a pox on all of them. I am hoping there is accountability at some point especially for the pushing of vaccines on children and pregnant women when they know it has not been safety tested. I want them accountable legally in some manner for the roles they have played in this fake emergency.

5) Asymptomatic spread was a blatant lie. I have examined the ‘asymptomatic’ spread evidence and the premise is pure nonsense. It is junk and absurd statements by Fauci and CDC and NIH and the ‘talking head’ inept and illogical medical experts and those Task Forces. We all know of the relationship between how much virus you have in the respiratory tract or lung and the amount of symptoms you have. The more well you are, the less likely you are to infect someone. This is pure immunology 101, virology 101 and what is being imparted is pure garbage about this asymptomatic spread. A healthy person does not infect, an asymptotic person does not spread. If you have little or no symptoms, you are not infectious. Yet this pure garbage ‘asymptomatic spread’ was used to lock down our societies and cost so many lives. Even Dr. Fauci stated early on in 2020 that it is not a driver of pandemics and rare if at all. He is on record stating this. WHO is on record stating this. We have studies that show this. It is a flat lie that was used to close down the world!

6) The vaccine manufacturers were not required to study where the spike protein travels to in the body and for how long and how much of it and for how long it would be produced. As we speak, the spike protein can be produced ‘forever’ in you. This is a shocking understanding and is a devastating action by the vaccine. I need this explained to me of why this was done this way. Someone please tell me I am wrong. We do not know where the spike proteins go and how long it lasts. We are seeing that the spike protein triggers blood clotting in humans. And the FDA seems to not require this from the vaccine developers. I cannot find it anywhere. I plead, please do not take these vaccines. Never ever allow your children to be vaccinated with this. This was a pure lie used to close down society and close schools. A pure lie by the US Task Force.

7) The issue of re-current infection or of re-infection. I have examined the ‘recurrent’ infection narrative and the evidence and the premise is pure nonsense. Bogus! This is a lie, a complete lie used to also lockdown and scare you to vaccinate and it is rare, if at all. There is no definitive evidence that this occurs. All cases (which are a very few that have been published) can be counted on two hands and can be explained via a flaw in interpretation of the PCR test results. There is no evidence of re-current infection.

A protein called syncytin-1 is crucial for the formation of the placenta. There are emerging reports that there are antibodies due to the COVID vaccine against syncytin-1. It is a lie by the medical community to claim that there is no similarity between some sequences of the amino acids in SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and syncytin-1. It is a lie to state that the risk is small when it has not been studied in the vaccine trial. How can the medical community dismiss this potential risk when it has not been studied? Last time I checked pregnancy is 10 months long and the vaccine developers studied the vaccines for a few months and not the duration of pregnancy. How can they even know that it is safe in pregnant women given they did not study this? Or importantly, safe for the developing child in utero? Did they stop to think of the baby, the life in the womb? How the vaccine would affect the fetus in utero? How it would affect the pregnant woman?

9) It is a lie to state that these vaccines confer better, stronger immunity than natural exposure immunity. These vaccines with the narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity cannot compare to the broad, comprehensive, durable, long-lasting immunity with its rich immunity library, that natural immunity can confer.

10) Myocarditis is rare. This is a lie by the CDC and NIH etc. A pure lie when teens in the US have emerged with myocarditis due to the COVID vaccines. The seeds of heart failure are sown when there is myocarditis and there is elevated risk that 20 years into the future, those who get past myocarditis from the vaccines, will suffer heart failure and can potentially die.

11) It was a lie to state that we should not use a more ‘focused’ age-risk stratified approach. This was a pure lie for we knew early on that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and your baseline risk was prognostic on your mortality. A focused tailored approach was far more optimal than a broad ‘carte blanche’ one-size-fits-all approach that decimated the vast majority of the population.

12) It was a devastating lie to state that there were no therapeutic options for this pathogen. That there were no early drug treatments that could have saved lives. This was a pure lie and one can see today that the FDA issued an EUA for the vaccines that is based on the non-existence of any viable drug treatments. So, the FDA had to deny the existence of early safe, effective, and cheap therapeutics that would allow them to authorize the EUA, which I must remind, means the vaccines are only investigational and not deemed safe and effective. This is the most treatable respiratory viral infection ever. Estimates are that 80 to 90% of the deaths in the US could have been prevented, which means we could have saved 550,000 of the 630,000 who have died thus far. Denial of early drug treatment (anti-virals, corticosteroids, and anti-blood clotting drugs see McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Cory etc.) costed thousands of lives. This can be considered to be criminal.

13) It was a lie by the US Task Force to imply in March 2020 etc. that all persons were at equal risk of severe illness and/or death if infected with COVID virus. This one lie severely hobbled the response for the general public still believes this lie that was meant to drive fear and compliance.

14) It was a lie by the US Task Force and medical experts including the nonsensical television medical experts to allude to and suggest that lockdowns were effective, that masks were effective, that school closures were effective, that mask mandates were effective etc. when all evidence clearly showed and very early on, that all of these measures were complete failures. None of them reduce transmission or deaths. There is no nation, no setting, no where, in the entire world, where there is any evidence, after 16 months, that any lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates or any of the policy decision by these Task Forces, worked to reduce transmission or deaths. None! Not one! It was all a lie and a failure. I have examined all of the evidence on each of these lockdown and closure policies.

15) It is a lie to state (Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC and NIH and other medical experts) that children need to be vaccinated so that population level ‘herd’ immunity can be attained. This is a pure lie. The United States was at or past herd immunity late December 2020 and early January 2021 and certainly in many States, and way before any shots entered any arms and there were any possible effects. But importantly, when you consider cross-protection from prior coronaviruses and common cold coronaviruses, as well as the near 200 million Americans who had COVID and recovered (cleared the virus), then well over 75% of the population were immune. Dr. Fauci is mistaken and being untruthful when he claims that children must be vaccinated to arrive at herd immunity. These health officials are being duplicitous and using the very tame yet infectious Delta variant to scare parents into vaccinating their children. This is near criminal and Dr. Walensky who is the CDC director blatantly lied recently when she reported on a rise in teen hospitalization in the US by showing half of a graph and data, deliberately omitting the peak and downside slope of the graph. Shame on her as the head of the CDC to deliberately deceive the nation this way.

Children are at very low risk of acquiring the infection in the first place due to limited ACE 2 receptors in their nasal epithelia and upper respiratory tract and also cross-reactivity/cross-protection from prior coronaviruses. Children do not spread the virus to other children, do not spread it to adults, or take it home. This is stable settled science globally. No question. Children do not get ill or die from COVID and thus they are not at risk from it. So why the interest in vaccinating them with a vaccine that has been untested for safety?

The safety profile is unknown and there is a reasonable expectation for harm for the following groups at all age ranges: COVID-19 recovered, suspected COVID-19 recovered, women of childbearing potential, children, persons with one or more chronic diseases. But we are focusing on children here, and for children and young persons particularly, they have a near statistical zero risk of severe illness or death from COVID. and spread usually comes from adult home clusters to children. Children symptoms are usually non-existent and if there are, it is usually very mild and self-limiting. We lack the proper safety data to attest to the safety of these vaccines and with 80 odd years of life facing children, we ask again, why would we subject them to a vaccine with potential risk of serious harm, yet vaccine that confers no benefit? We simply do not know the long-term possible harms and as such, given the potential expectation, then we have to say a definitive ‘no’. Any reasonable risk-benefit analysis today will point to a potential for risk yet no benefit, and thus skew the risk-management decision to avoidance of the risk. Children must be fully exempted from these vaccines.

We also never ever ask our children to protect adults, it is always the other way around. We do not need children to be vaccinated to arrive at population level herd immunity and this is a falsehood being stated in the media and by public health leaders who know better. Between prior cross-protection/reactive immunity, immunity from persons who have recovered, and from those already vaccinated, we are already at or past herd immunity threshold and there is no need to include children.

Importantly, we have early treatment and prophylaxis (even suitable to children/young persons) that could be used in lieu of these potentially harmful vaccines especially for the groups outlined who should be exempted. Such treatments are optimal for high-risk persons, regardless of age. We must be willing to trust the immunity conferred by natural exposure rather than the sub-optimal narrow ‘spike-specific’ vaccine immunity with its very limited immune library. Natural immunity can offer way better protection than the vaccine immunity in these vaccines and especially against the variants e.g., Delta.

I close by saying how disappointed and dismayed I am, and I know many share this view, by the abhorrent, distasteful, and shameful behavior by doctors in the US and elsewhere. They have stood by and have been silent. Silent so that they will not lose their research grants and positions. Silent because they fear their university leadership. Silent because they are academically sloppy and lazy and refuse to do the work to read the science and are just not informed optimally. Silent because they are just hiding behind the pure garbage trickled down to them from their colleges and regulatory bodies. Silent because they are politicized and corrupted, and bring their biases to the table when they should have checked them at the door. Shame on them. Their silence cost thousands of lives. They know early drug treatment works via the use of anti-virals very early on in the disease sequelae. They know it. They know natural immunity is way better and robust than the ‘narrow’ immunity conferred from this sub-optimally developed vaccine. They know that the vaccine is unsafe. It cannot be safe if it was developed in months versus the decade it typically needs. They know the vaccine does not prevent transmission or infection, or death or hospitalization. They know children in no way require this vaccine, and they know it is potentially very dangerous for pregnant women. Shame on them and they are placing thousands in harms way by their silence. Their silence has garnered them a significant loss in credibility and I wonder if it can ever return.

Display More

FM1 - not sure if you realise how unhinged this article is?

I mean - Ivermectin is being trialled - it might help although I don't see at the moment much except a popular bandwagon and misconceptions about the power of non-randomised or poor quality trials going for it. All it needs is for positive results from one of the randomised trials and it will be taken up everywhere.

This rant (it is that, if you look at the hyperbole) is polemic, not evidence. It contains any number of gross and obvious errors. I'll highlight just one:

It was a lie by the US Task Force and medical experts including the nonsensical television medical experts to allude to and suggest that lockdowns were effective, that masks were effective, that school closures were effective, that mask mandates were effective etc. when all evidence clearly showed and very early on, that all of these measures were complete failures. None of them reduce transmission or deaths. There is no nation, no setting, no where, in the entire world, where there is any evidence, after 16 months, that any lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates or any of the policy decision by these Task Forces, worked to reduce transmission or deaths. None! Not one! It was all a lie and a failure. I have examined all of the evidence on each of these lockdown and closure policies.

Taking one country I know very well, the UK, it is absolutely clear that (as any epidemiologist will tell you) reducing contact between the population reduces R number. When this goes below 1 the infection rate reduces.

We have seen this multiple times in the UK. Before you make naive comparisons I suggest you consider the factors that could possibly alter cases:

1. lockdown
2. seasonal differences in behaviour (summer => windows open more, people outside more, all reducing spread)
3. availability of testing
4. COVID variant poulation
5. Level of vaccination

Luckily in the UK we have the ONS survey which gives us infection numbers every week in a way which is completely independent of 3, and the level of vaccination is known (though not entirely its effect, because somone isolating and getting vaccinated will have zero efefct on transmission, whereas a high contact person getting vaccinated will have a large effect).

And not surprisingly the government - not at all keen to lock people down, wants to know what lockdown effects are. here is a report:

https://assets.publishing.serv…70_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf

"Reduction of Rt from 2.7 to 0.6 in most of the UK - high confidence"/. the intervention that caused this was the "stay at ho,me except for essential travel" lockdown.

FM1 - I am just a bit surprised that you seem so enthusiatically to support things that are obviously false - like this stuff, Navid's comments on immune response saying that Sabra Klein was lying which did not hold water and in any case you should consider when random internet trolls with scary conspiracy theory baggage claim that a whole load of hard-working, well-qualified research scientists, busting their guts out to find solutions to COVID, and willing honestly to say "I don't know" when they don't know, are lying. I actually think you might want to apologise for that like of his post. How would you like it if someone did the same to you in an area where you have worked for 20 years and have just started a new job where your performance can save lives? I mean - I am quite sure that Sabra will not see Navid's post, and know doubt can deal with social media trolls in any case. But I thought on this site we tried to debate the science, not claim without evidence that serious people doing research are liars?

If you really believe Sabra is wrong perhaps you could re-read what she says and make an argument. as i do when I disagree with something in some preprint etc. It would still be out of order for you to call her a liar.

Quote from RobertBryant

. but i wouldn't advocate for my 23 yr old daughter..

However I still have one syringe of Equimec... in my fridge.. the other I donated to a 35 year old who

has a history of hypersensitivity to all kinds of things... the other day..

18.7 mg/g 6 grams enough for 3 people 3days x12 mg/day....

I will suggest that few side effects have been shown so far for ivermectin

plus of course .vitamin D plus Zn...

but knowing her she will drink of the Holy Spirit instead..

Warning GB syndrome risk in J&J vaccine

"The warning was added to the Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets for health care providers and patients. It states that adverse event reports suggest an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome in the 42 days after vaccination."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/i…ease/covid19vaccine/93537

Quote from RobertBryant

In general .. they do not make you sick is a rather untechnical blurb

but the incidence of adverse effects needs to be balanced with the benefit..

as with any medication..

"

Common side effects of vaccination include fatigue, headache, body aches and fever. More
severe side effects of anaphylaxis and a condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia
syndrome (TTS) have been reported after COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.
TTS involves blood clotting with low platelet count. Current data indicates that TTS occurs in
around 2 out of every 100,000 people who receive the first dose of COVID-19 Vaccine
AstraZeneca. TTS appears to be far more rare following second doses, with data from the
United Kingdom indicating a rate of 1.5 per million second doses."

I had 2 doses.. of AZ... but i wouldn't advocate for my 23 yr old daughter..

and neither would I advocate for the current Pfiizer.. for her..

but for my 93 yr ..father the 2 P doses were OK...

the long term effects unknown.. but hey..at 93

he is just happy to wake up to see the next day..

https://www.health.gov.au/site…vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

Display More

RB - I don't want to give medical advice - we must all make decisions for ourselves. But we had a student (one of a cohort of 150) die recently from COVID. He was younger than 23. It was deeply shocking. Luckily, I had advised my daughter to gte vaccinated some time ago - and she being switched on did this as soon as it was possible.

The personal risk profile of COVID vs Pfizer vaccine is very heavily in favour of the vaccine having lower risk at age 23. We could, if you like, look at the evidence on this. It is obviously a matter that we are all weighing individually, and good to have the quantitative facts, in context, out in the open when we do so.

Here are my assumptions (which can pretty easily be shown true) when comparing risks:

(1) Nearly everyone will catch COVID who is not vaccinated, so we can do a straight comparison for vaccination risk and COVID risk. Obviously if somone has already had COVID that is a diferent matter I am not addressing the more cdifficult issue if whether it is worth them being vaccinated because there is less information on exact risks, and cetrainly the risks from COVID are muhc muhc lower.

(2) Although delta is more deadly than previous variants, care has got better, so let us assume that risks of serious adverse outcomes for those infected have stayed roughly constant over time. I realise this is not exactly true - but it is OK as a first approximation and simplifies things.

(3) Let us compare risks of serious symptoms more than 3 months after infection or vaccination. So even if somone is in hospital with COVID, if they recover without long COVID we will count that as just the same as taking the vaccine and having a mild temperature for 24 hours after. In both cases there is no long-term harm.

We need to compare two things:

COVID: mortality + > 3 months long-COVID rates

Vaccination: death + side effects that lead to impairment lasting > 3 months

In both cases we have unknown long-term effects - COVID clearly does very strange things to the immune system, some of which last, and which we cannot yet fully quantify. you could say the same of vaccines although we have the Phase II/III trial data long-term followup data which does not yet show such effects - as opposed to COVID where we know there are long-term effects. Shall we call the unknown long-term effects a draw? I think that is rather favouring non-vaccination, because the weight of evidence is all on the side of COVID disease more likely throwing up long-term impairments - after all it has a much larger effect on the body than vaccination.

I am confident that without the unknowns, vaccination will prove much much safer at age 24 than COVID.

I will let others comment, give figures, question the above assumptions, before I give my figures.

Quote from RobertBryant

Warning GB syndrome risk in J&J vaccine

"The warning was added to the Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets for health care providers and patients. It states that adverse event reports suggest an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome in the 42 days after vaccination."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/i…ease/covid19vaccine/93537

Excellent. Would you like to do the risk calculation also for J&J? you could add in the G-B syndrome risks.

Spoiler - they are very very small compared to COVID risks at age 23.

So... what do you think are the risks of getting Guillain Barre syndrome (ignoring all other problems, like death) as a result of catching COVID?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ene.14860

Recent estimate, 15 cases per million above the background rate.

The J&J advisory shows 10 cases per million adverse reaction reported. Set against a background rate of ~ 1 case per million, in a 6 week period following vaccination.

So:

Background, 1 in 1,000,000 get Guillane Barre. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2194431/ (you have to divide the yearly incidence by 52/6 to gte the equivalent incidence over 6 weeks)

J&J vaccine: 8 in 1,000,000 get Guillane Barre https://www.medpagetoday.com/i…ease/covid19vaccine/93537

COVID: 150 in 1,000,000 get Guillane Barre. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ene.14860

Guillane-Barre is a very rare side effect of COVID, even so it looks on current data 20X higher than the vaccine side-effect risk.

That perhaps explains why regulators do not change their risk/benefit analysis after this new signal?

Quote from RobertBryant

In general .. they do not make you sick is a rather untechnical blurb

but the incidence of adverse effects needs to be balanced with the benefit..

as with any medication..

"

Common side effects of vaccination include fatigue, headache, body aches and fever. More
severe side effects of anaphylaxis and a condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia
syndrome (TTS) have been reported after COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.
TTS involves blood clotting with low platelet count. Current data indicates that TTS occurs in
around 2 out of every 100,000 people who receive the first dose of COVID-19 Vaccine
AstraZeneca. TTS appears to be far more rare following second doses, with data from the
United Kingdom indicating a rate of 1.5 per million second doses."

I had 2 doses.. of AZ... but i wouldn't advocate it for my 23 yr old daughter..

and neither would I advocate for the current Pfiizer.. for her..

but for my 93 yr ..father the 2 P doses were OK...

the long term effects unknown.. but hey..at 93

he is just happy to wake up to see the next day..

https://www.health.gov.au/site…vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

Display More

There was a recent spat btw Queensland Health and the Federal govt..

the Federal is pushing for AZ for under 40's but the Q head said..

"I don't want an 18 yr old dying from a clot.."

The Federal Health site showed that the risks outweighed the benefits..

1.9 clots versus 1 hospitalisation.

TM 6..02

Here, so set against the (non-fatal) vaccine risks, is a first pass estimate of long COVID risks from the wonderfully detailed UK ONS survey. It does not give all the information we would want, but still does give overall incidence after 12 weeks of symptoms (10% of infections) and age distribution of symptoms after 5 weeks - this - alarmingly - is much more uniform that you might expect (over all age groups a variation of no more than 3X)

https://assets.publishing.serv…d-prevalence-estimate.pdf

The 5 week age breakdown (the best we can do with this data) gives the 17-24 age group about 50% the average incidence. If we take this as representative of 12 weeks as well we get an overall 5% incidence of long COVID after 12 weeks in the 17-24 age group.

Even if we suppose that 90% of these long COVID symptoms in young people will resolve eventually, are are not significant, we are still left with 0.5% suffering long COVID. This is relatively flat across the age range from the (limited, I agree) data we have.

So let us add to the equation, for young people aged 17-24:

5000 per 1,000,000 - risk of long COVID still symptomatic after 1 year.

We can also calculate mortality. I use this paper

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

Perhaps someone can find a better estimate that this. Eyeballing Fig 2 I get approximately 0.01% IFR at age 24. We were right to be shocked at the death of 1 of our cohort of 150 final year students. It is not that likely.

100 per 1,000,000

This is relatively low, but remember this is death, not serious disease. If you look at the figures for actual deaths from vaccine ARs they are much low than this. And against non-death vaccine side effects with have the alarmingly high rate of long COVID - although this estimate is extremely approximate - especially the age stratification of long COVID needs more data - is it really so flat?

I know that the regulators can do a better job of estimating the risks than we can. But, since a theme in this thread is that no regulator should be trusted, it is good we can also do it ourselves.

I can't say I like these figures for long COVID and COVID mortality. At age 23 they look higher than I'd like. They do at least make me thankful that i was not obviously giving my daughter (age 24) the wrong advice.

To finish this, it would be helpful to estimate the mortality risks from:

blood clots (AstraZeneca)

cardiac inflammation (Pfizer)

Since those risks seem to be the dominant ARs by far of these two vaccines.

Remember - both are nasty conditions but the cardiac one, in particular, seems to have very good outcomes. So on our count of death or impairment after 6 weeks it will take a high incidence of pericarditis to push it above the COVID mortality.

I can't remember the mortality from blood clots - they are nasty things although many will clear up without side effects. One of the ironies here is that they are one of the main causes of COVID deaths as well...

So - anyone care to put together these estimates (since we work under the assumption that regulators can't be trusted and are trying to deceive us, put microchips in our heads, make magnets stick to our foreheads - or whatever).?

I hope also these figures, and the fact that I like you have a family, and am faced with most people unvaccinated who have not yet caught COVID catching it in the UK over the next 2 months, explain the fract that I feel very very strongly about this matter of vaccine disinformation.

It costs lives.

"I don't want an 18 yr old dying from a clot.. (from this post above)

Understandable. But clots also happen as the result of COVID

https://ccforum.biomedcentral.…0.1186/s13054-020-03175-z

With increasing reports of PE following COVID-19 infection, our findings indicate that nearly 2 in 10 developed PE among a total of 1835 COVID-19 patients. Immobilization, inflammation, activated coagulation, and suppressed fibrinolysis have been proposed to explain the occurrence of PE in COVID-19 patients; however, the incidence of PE in COVID-19 patients is higher than in patients with seasonal and pandemic influenza (3%) [21]. In addition, our report indicates COVID-19 patients with PE may have up to 45% higher mortality rate compared to general cases (in-hospital mortality rate 4%) [22]. Therefore, first-line healthcare providers should be vigilant about the occurrence of severe and potentially fatal PE complications in COVID-19 patients [23].

Putting these two figures together we get approximately a 20% * 45% * IFR risk of dying of COVID-induced blood clot.

From the previous paper (eyeballing Fig 2) we have IFR approx 0.003% at age 18. So the fraction age 18 dying of blood clots because they are NOT vaccinated is

0.09 * 1 : 33,000 = 1 : 300,000 = 3 : 1,000,000

That is pretty low. And overall COVID mortality is much higher - but I guess there is something particularly distasteful about pulmonary embolism deaths in Queensland?

Now - what was the faction of 18 year old's dying of AstraZeneca vaccine blood clots?

https://www.gov.uk/government/…eporting#analysis-of-data

Up to 30 June 2021, the MHRA had received Yellow Card reports of 399 cases of major thromboembolic events (blood clots) with concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts) in the UK following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. Thirty six of the 399 reports have been reported after a second dose. Of the 399 reports, 207 occurred in women, and 189 occurred in men aged from 18 to 93 years. The overall case fatality rate was 18% with 71 deaths, five of which occurred after the second dose.

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was reported in 142 cases (average age 46 years) and 257 had other major thromboembolic events (average age 54 years) with concurrent thrombocytopenia.

The estimated number of first doses of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca administered in the UK by 30 June was 24.6 million and the estimated number of second doses was 21.5 million. The overall incidence after first or unknown doses was 14.8 per million doses.

Taking into account the different numbers of patients vaccinated with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in different age groups, the data shows that there is a higher reported incidence rate in the younger adult age groups following the first dose compared to the older groups (20.1 per million doses in those aged 18-49 years compared to 10.9 per million doses in those aged 50 years and over).

The number of first doses given to those in the 18-49 years age group is estimated to be 8.4 million while an estimated 16.2 million first doses have been given to patients aged 50+ years.

that shows overall an Astrazeneca blood clot mortality, and breaks it down a bit by age.

Overall mortality 3 : 1,000,000 (coincidentally the same as COVID pulmonary embolism (blood clot) figure for 18 year old's!)

Adjusted for lower ages having double the clot incidence of higher ages:

Lower age mortality 5 : 1,000,000

Indeed Queensland is right to be concerned. 18 year olds are more likely ( by a factor of 50%) to die of a AZ blood clot than they are of a COVID blood clot. however overall death rate from COVID is still 5X higher than death rate from the vaccine.

These are rough not properly checked calculations. There might be mistakes - so redo them yourselves if you do not want to follow your local health authority advice. They do show issues with the AZ vaccine in younger people < age 18 which is what the regulators are also saying! But, for age 18, AZ looks better than no vaccine, though maybe not as good as Pfizer.

Next up - what are the cardiac risks from Pfizer at young ages?

More medico-politics from fortress Australia..

"Australian MP Craig Kelly has heaped praise on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for the works during the second wave of Covid pandemic. Lauding the leadership of Adityanath, he said that the Uttar Pradesh administration effectively provided ‘Ivermectin’ to the people of the state.

UP invited Kelly to UP to observe their Covid control measures but he declined..

"

However, because of the failures of our Australian governments to follow UP’s lead, we are locked up indefinitely & I’m unable to leave Sydney.

https://www.indiatvnews.com/ne…ath-up-covid-model-718649

UP ivermectin not reported in the Australia media

currently MP Kelly is a one of those "iver........" untouchables"

Long Covid + Vaccine ADR treatment

Some salient points ....

..from the tongue of fire bean and the head bean.

Long Covid: Non med tx.

: Don't exercise too much.. no junk food for 30 days after first Covid..

Intermittent fasting... (to trigger autophagy..)

Long Covid Med tx

start with ivermectin.(least side-effects)

higher dosing with IVM now.. generally start with 0.2mg/kg .. 0.4mg/kg

treating with IVM up to 14 days ,+ fluvoxamine + pravastatin!! according to response

low dose steroid.. according to response

budesonide for lung inflammation

Vaccine ADR

Vaccine injuries are not that common..

no justification for pretreatment with IVM/fluvoxamine..

even though IVM may protect from spike protein..induced inflammation..

Dr Beens wife has recovered from the J&J vaccine ADR... but it took months TM 34.

TM 35.08 yeah they you know i've seen a handful maybe five or ten so far

they don't seem exactly like long haulers you know they seem to have more targeted specific symptoms

for the first one i saw just terrible tinnitus was the main symptom

they don't have the whole constellation of long-haul symptoms that you usually see

ivermectin seems to work really well for them and they seem to respond very quickly

t doesn't always solve the entire problem but

it gets them significant relief you know

maybe 70 80 ... that's been my experience

Quote from RobertBryant

There was a recent spat btw Queensland Health and the Federal govt..

the Federal is pushing for AZ for under 40's but the Q head said..

"I don't want an 18 yr old dying from a clot.."

The Federal Health site showed that the risks outweighed the benefits..

1.9 clots versus 1 hospitalisation.

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.

TM 6..02

Display More

That is helpful.

So they have risks;

19 : 1,000,000 of getting a blood clot from AZ vaccine - neatly this is almost identical to the UK figure of 20 : 1,000,000

We (Queensland and I) agree on the vaccine risks of getting blood clots in this case.

There is then an 18% (from the UK figures) mortality rate.

Where we do not agree is their death rate from COVID. I'm pretty sure I know why. They are comparing current death rates - extrapolated. They are not assuming that everyone who is not vaccinated will catch COVID.

Until the delta variant that was possibly reasonable. Now we have a highly infectious variant around it is pretty obvious that if you are not vaccinated you catch COVID.

RB - they do not give any breakdown for their 0.0 deaths per 100,000 figure. Do you think you could do this for them?

I hesitate to disagree with them using such back of envelope stuff except that they seem something of on outlier amongst medical authorities. Luckily - whereas I am reluctant to think I know better than experts (except when experts are in a small minority, contradicted by other experts), the assumption here is we cannot trust the medical authorities. So Queensland saying this - without evidence - will I'm sure not be seen by anyone here as advancing their argument.

If we change that - then we have all those many other medics who disagree

What this does mean is we should look for more age stratified data on the real COVID risk figures - taking into account delta variant, and advances in treatment since the start of the pandemic. You remember I said i thought those cancelled out? Well my figures were in any case international. Under the assumption health systems are not overwhelmed (maybe true for the US, if you can move resources between states? Looking uncertain for UK, but i hope it will be true) we have current best care - we have learnt quite a bit.

The trouble is a lack of data. Delta is quite new.

THH

Quote from Alan Smith

ANSA Editorial Office WASHINGTON 13 July 202120: 21

After some cases of the rare neurological syndrome of Guillain-Barrè which occurred in the USA following the anti-Covid immunization with the single-dose vaccine J&J, and the consequent decision of the US drug agency Fda to insert this pathology in the vaccine information sheet, the question also ends up under the lens of the European Medicines Agency Ema. The FDA has in fact announced a new warning for the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, explaining that it can carry the risk of this rare neurological disease.

The risk is three to five times higher among those vaccinated with J&J than the general population in the US. About 100 cases have been identified so far, mostly among men, many aged 50 and over.

Most of the patients recovered, but one death was also recorded. The FDA concluded that the vaccine's benefits in preventing death or severe forms of Covid still strongly outweigh this risk but decided to include the warning in the information sheets. Even the EMA today announced that it "is analyzing the data provided" by Johnson & Johnson "on cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome reported following vaccination" with the immunizer, and has asked J&J to provide "further detailed data". Currently, databases indicate that symptoms of the syndrome develop within about three weeks of vaccination. This pathology, explains to ANSA Ugo Nocentini, Director of the Neurorehabilitation Unit at the Irccs Santa Lucia Foundation and Professor of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, "is defined acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. In practice, due to of an autoimmune process, antibodies attack myelin, which is the lining of the nerve fibers of the peripheral nervous system.

The consequences are twofold and can affect first of all the level of movement causing weakness of the muscular structures up to, in the most serious cases, paralysis of the upper and lower limbs and also of the respiratory muscles and cranial nerves ". The second consequence, he clarifies. , "is that there can be an alteration of the nerve fibers related to touch and the perception of cold and heat, up to the complete loss of sensitivity." use of appropriate care. In 20% of cases, however, there is also the absolute need for neurorehabilitative treatments ". As for the causes of the disease," it is hypothesized that the triggering cause may be contact with various types of viruses. The SarscoV2 virus also seems to be involved and to date, in the world, there are several hundred cases of this syndrome in patients positive for the new coronavirus ". Compared to the link with the J&J vaccine," this immunizer - Nocentini says - uses a viral vector inactivated, but its constituents still come into contact with the organism and this could be the mechanism that leads to the autoimmune reaction. On the contrary, the anti-Covid vaccines with messenger mRna introduce only the RNA of the virus, and not its components, and this would avoid this complication ". However, concludes the expert," these are only hypotheses, which require further studies of in-depth study ".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Display More

Good summary. And if the speculative bit of it is true this is one definite advantage of mRNA vaccines over other vaccines or "natural immunity".

https://www.statista.com/stati…ths-from-covid-by-age-us/

These are uptodate US figures, unfortunately they do not reflect delta variant yet, and they don't help with overall IFR. But, overall IFR can be tied down in other ways, they do give a Western-specific and accurate breakdown of relative mortality risk by age.

If we assume delta variant does not change this relative risk (big assumption, but the best we can do without more data)

It tells us very little!

The problem is that vaccination rates vary with age, so we need to factor those in. Also behaviour varies with age, with young adults typically having a higher number of contacts and therefore being more likely to get infected.

April 2021 data from a Swedish study into the incidence of long COVID.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778528

Summary from https://www.aafp.org/journals/afp/content/covid-briefs.html

Although it has been well reported that persistent symptoms are common after hospitalization for moderate to severe COVID-19, there are fewer data regarding the prognosis for persons with a milder episode of illness. These Swedish researchers enrolled 2,149 health care workers between April 15 and May 8, 2020, and obtained baseline serology. They then had regular follow-up for eight months, drawing blood for serology and asking about the persistence of symptoms. The researchers excluded anyone who had an episode of severe COVID-19 illness and anyone who went from seronegative to seropositive during the study. This left 323 who were seropositive at the beginning of the study and had experienced no or mild symptoms and 1,072 who were seronegative at the beginning of the study and remained that way for the duration of the study. Groups were similar demographically and with regard to chronic disease. They identified patients with persistent anosmia, fatigue, ageusia, dyspnea, sleeping disorder, headache, palpitations, impaired concentration, myalgias, or memory impairment rated as moderate to severe. Any moderately severe or worse symptom was present more often in the seropositive patients at two months (26% vs. 8.9%), four months (21.4% vs. 7.2%), and eight months (14.9% vs. 3.4%). The most common persistent symptoms at eight months were anosmia (9.0%), fatigue (4.0%), ageusia (3.7%), and dyspnea (1.9%). They were also more likely to report that these symptoms at least moderately disrupted their work life, social life, and home life. It is encouraging that for each symptom, the percentage reporting it declined over time.

Direct quote from the paper:

Comparing seropositive vs seronegative participants, 26% vs 9% reported at least 1 moderate to severe symptom lasting for at least 2 months (RR, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.2-3.8]) and 15% vs 3% reported at least 1 moderate to severe symptom lasting for at least 8 months (RR, 4.4 [95% CI, 2.9-6.7]) (Table). The most common moderate to severe symptoms lasting for at least 2 months in the seropositive group were anosmia, fatigue, ageusia, and dyspnea.

Of the seropositive participants, 8% reported that their long-term symptoms moderately to markedly disrupted their work life, compared with 4% of the seronegative participants (RR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.2-2.9]); 15% reported their long-term symptoms moderately to markedly disrupted their social life, compared with 6% of the seronegative participants (RR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.8-3.6]); and 12% reported that their long-term symptoms moderately to markedly disrupted their home life, compared with 5% of the seronegative participants (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.6-3.4]) (Figure). Furthermore, 11% of the seropositive participants reported moderate to marked disruption in any Sheehan Disability Scale category as well as having at least 1 moderate to severe symptom lasting for at least 8 months, compared with 2% of the seronegative participants (RR, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.7-7.3]).

Quote from THHuxleynew

FM1 - not sure if you realise how unhinged this article is?

I mean - Ivermectin is being trialled - it might help although I don't see at the moment much except a popular bandwagon and misconceptions about the power of non-randomised or poor quality trials going for it. All it needs is for positive results from one of the randomised trials and it will be taken up everywhere.

This rant (it is that, if you look at the hyperbole) is polemic, not evidence. It contains any number of gross and obvious errors. I'll highlight just one:

It was a lie by the US Task Force and medical experts including the nonsensical television medical experts to allude to and suggest that lockdowns were effective, that masks were effective, that school closures were effective, that mask mandates were effective etc. when all evidence clearly showed and very early on, that all of these measures were complete failures. None of them reduce transmission or deaths. There is no nation, no setting, no where, in the entire world, where there is any evidence, after 16 months, that any lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates or any of the policy decision by these Task Forces, worked to reduce transmission or deaths. None! Not one! It was all a lie and a failure. I have examined all of the evidence on each of these lockdown and closure policies.

Taking one country I know very well, the UK, it is absolutely clear that (as any epidemiologist will tell you) reducing contact between the population reduces R number. When this goes below 1 the infection rate reduces.

We have seen this multiple times in the UK. Before you make naive comparisons I suggest you consider the factors that could possibly alter cases:

1. lockdown
2. seasonal differences in behaviour (summer => windows open more, people outside more, all reducing spread)
3. availability of testing
4. COVID variant poulation
5. Level of vaccination

Luckily in the UK we have the ONS survey which gives us infection numbers every week in a way which is completely independent of 3, and the level of vaccination is known (though not entirely its effect, because somone isolating and getting vaccinated will have zero efefct on transmission, whereas a high contact person getting vaccinated will have a large effect).

And not surprisingly the government - not at all keen to lock people down, wants to know what lockdown effects are. here is a report:

https://assets.publishing.serv…70_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf

"Reduction of Rt from 2.7 to 0.6 in most of the UK - high confidence"/. the intervention that caused this was the "stay at ho,me except for essential travel" lockdown.

FM1 - I am just a bit surprised that you seem so enthusiatically to support things that are obviously false - like this stuff, Navid's comments on immune response saying that Sabra Klein was lying which did not hold water and in any case you should consider when random internet trolls with scary conspiracy theory baggage claim that a whole load of hard-working, well-qualified research scientists, busting their guts out to find solutions to COVID, and willing honestly to say "I don't know" when they don't know, are lying. I actually think you might want to apologise for that like of his post. How would you like it if someone did the same to you in an area where you have worked for 20 years and have just started a new job where your performance can save lives? I mean - I am quite sure that Sabra will not see Navid's post, and know doubt can deal with social media trolls in any case. But I thought on this site we tried to debate the science, not claim without evidence that serious people doing research are liars?

If you really believe Sabra is wrong perhaps you could re-read what she says and make an argument. as i do when I disagree with something in some preprint etc. It would still be out of order for you to call her a liar.

Display More

Thomas I'm happy you are so concerned with my thought process and I do agree the opinion article is a bit unhinged but as usual in your analysis leaves out human emotion. Now as for giving a thumbs up to navid, you actually check who's agreeing? Troll!!!