Quote from RobertBryant

the old Merck...1987

Roy Vagelos.. Ixxxxxxxxx donor + statin inventor..

External Content youtu.be

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.

"67:15 we chose France the FDA would not take it because they have no river blindness

the French took it because of French Africa and French people living in Paris with river blindness and so they took it

and to my surprise far faster than ever with a commercially important drug they called and they said we're going to approve it in two days

we had to make a very rapid decision and so we decided in a two-day period and we had a we had a press conference in Washington

we announced that Merck would provide the drug free to anyone anywhere in the world for as long as it was required

and the last I heard which about 2009 Merck was treating at that time something over 90 million patients a year FREE.."

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342973/EAC23.8-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

balanced discussion of vaccines and ivermectin and other repurposed drugs

recent evidence for nitazoxanide.. an antiparasitic

not cheap.... although it could be. as cheap as ivermectin..

TM 44..

the all-or-nothing approach from regulatory authorities needs to changed..

recommendations for treatmnet need to be graded according to evidence..

44:27

why why not give it a grade 2b or the

very least like a 2c recommendation

which does a couple things

it gives doctors who want to use it and patients who want

to try it the ability to justify it

it gives some guidance around dosing and duration but it also does not relegate

doctors who aren't convinced

to do it because oh there's this high

level recommendation at standard of care

44:48

so it gives that wiggle room and

guidance and

it leaves enough sort of wiggle room and

uncertainty to acknowledge that

further information may change the

estimated effect that effect

and maybe some guidelines left to be

updated around that treatment

and that often happens and particularly

in infectious diseases we know that the

majority of these guidelines are from

often just expert opinion with no trial

Quote from THHuxleynew

But, since it is well established that wearing a mask protects you very little, and protects others quite a bit

Riiiiight. That is why countries like South Korea and Japan, where people routinely wear masks when they are feeling unwell, nevertheless have twice the influenza per capita as the US, even though they are more vaccinated than the US. Why? Because a non medical mask is about as useful as a screen door in a submarine for stopping an aerosolized respiratory virus. Best thing is to stay home when sick. If you're feeling well, why not show people your radiant face, as we have been doing for thousands of years.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Well - in the US it seems any statement needs to be cloaked in this Christian rhetoric. Not my style.

But, since it is well established that wearing a mask protects you very little, and protects others quite a bit, what would you call wearing a mask in shared public space? And what would you call not doing that?

I mean - I understand that in the US masks are not masks - but political statements. In the UK they are still (thank the Lord) still masks.

Display More

Now the reverse psychology, nice spin. You recently said you don't understand American politics yet continue to post ignorant political posts. The left doesn't believe, Hippocrates all !!!

Does White House spread misinformation about spreading vaccine misinformation?

Does White House spread misinformation about spreading vaccine misinformation?

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

trialsitenews.com

Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial

July 17, 2021

Proposed U.S. government censorship of vaccine misinformation, in partnership with Facebook, was announced during a recent White House press conference. White House wants Facebook to censor posts containing ‘COVID-19 misinformation’ | LiveNOW from FOX – YouTube. As people point fingers and accuse each other of censorship and misinformation, I hope to avoid further spreading vaccine misinformation about the White House spreading vaccine misinformation about the public spreading vaccine misinformation. So let’s straighten out this mess by first defining vaccine misinformation. The word truth comes to mind. As long as vaccine information is truthful, it is not misinformation. Furthermore, the whole truth must not leave out information in a way that misleads one to draw untruthful conclusions.

For example, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction, of approximately 95%. But the whole truth is that the mRNA vaccines also have a much lower absolute risk reduction of approximately 1%, which is more meaningful for clinical and public health purposes. Medicina | Free Full-Text | Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials (mdpi.com).

Most COVID-19 cases also occur in unvaccinated people. But the whole truth is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer counts cases in vaccinated people unless they are hospitalized or die, potentially undercounting millions of breakthrough infections in people receiving mRNA vaccines with practically no clinical efficacy. CDC’s biased undercount of COVID-19 breakthrough infections (trialsitenews.com). The whole truth also includes the fact that lower socioeconomic groups, having higher susceptibility to COVID-19 before vaccine availability, also have more vaccine hesitancy. AP analysis doesn’t prove COVID-19 vaccines prevent deaths (trialsitenews.com).

Let’s apply the whole truth about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to the recent White House press conference, in which the spokesperson claimed that the vaccines save lives. Where is the clinical evidence proving this claim? The only causative proof we have of vaccine efficacy are the clinical trials, which demonstrated that vaccine groups had fewer infections with mild symptoms than unvaccinated groups. Death is hardly a mild symptom, and no conclusive estimates of death risk can be drawn from these trials.

Nevertheless, White House misinformation that the COVID-19 vaccines save lives threatens to trample the public’s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech by censoring social media. After all, what good are First Amendment rights if you die from COVID-19 because you were convinced by someone’s Facebook blog to forego vaccination? In a statement that carefully avoided mention of misinformation censorship, Facebook boasted that it also saved lives by posting “authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines,” Facebook pushes back against White House criticism, says it’s ‘looking for scapegoats’ | TheHill,

The problem, of course, is that arguments to save lives by censoring misinformation are awash with their own misinformation. Where is the proof that people are dying because they declined vaccination after reading Aunt Millie’s rant against vaccines, posted along with her favorite meatloaf recipes on her homepage? No matter, according to proposed government policy, Aunt Millie must be censored from social media!

The left stole the Nazi playbook, subvert,suppress, kill the opposition!

The only reason the media tries to cancel Joe Rogan: He terrifies them

The only reason the media tries to cancel Joe Rogan: He terrifies them

He’s encouraging listeners to do the last thing they want them to do — think for themselves.

nypost.com

With a Spotify podcast that gets millions of downloads, Joe Rogan will ask the questions the mainstream media avoids — including wondering about President Biden’s mental fitness.

With a Spotify podcast that gets millions of downloads, Joe Rogan will ask the questions the mainstream media avoids -- including wondering about President Biden's mental fitness.

Joe Rogan is staying one step ahead of Cancel Culture, but not if the media has anything to say about it.

The host of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” the podcast sensation who joined Spotify last year following a jaw-dropping $100 million deal, is under near-constant attack from his woke critics — and, sadly, journalists who pledge allegiance to the new woke order.

The short list of complaints against Rogan?

He’s too willing to speak to fringe players like conspiracy monger Alex Jones.

He’s too willing to give “problematic” voices like Abigail Shrier, a critic of the trans agenda, a platform.

He’s too willing to question the government’s COVID-19 dog-eared rule book.

He’s too willing to curse out Cancel Culture.

He’s too enamored of free speech, worst of all.

Rogan invites guests on his show who have been deplatformed by social media giants (Jones, for example). He blasted Joe Biden as too old during the heat of the 2020 presidential campaign after endorsing an even older Sen. Bernie Sanders in the primaries. More recently he brought up President Biden’s mental fitness anew, something the mainstream media refuses to consider after years of questioning the mental state of Donald Trump.

He ran afoul of COVID-19 narratives in March when he and guest Jamie Metzl, an author, futurist and scientific adviser, questioned the origins of the virus while media and Big Tech were still downplaying connections to the Wuhan lab in China.

These atypical stances should worry us all, say his critics, citing his massive platform and influence over his loyal flock. (Business Insider reported Rogan’s show was downloaded nearly 200 million times a month prior to joining Spotify.)

That ignores the fact he’s a comedian, not a news reporter. He’s best known in some circles for making contestants chug donkey fluids as the host of NBC’s “Fear Factor.” But that hasn’t stopped mainstream journalists from training their digital guns on Rogan.

A July 1 profile in The New York Times about the podcaster contained several low blows suggesting his podcast empire is bad for the country. The feature worried that Rogan’s “social capital” with fans can cause them to attack targets en masse (the same can be said for many celebrities on social media) and noted that being an opinionated straight white male has been very good for business.

The article also feared the “absence of curation, or any discernible editing” in his podcast and how it’s “alarming” to some that he defied the “traditional gatekeeping strictures of mainstream fame.”

Try to find similar warnings in profiles tied to John Oliver, Stephen Colbert or Seth Meyers, late night comics who could keep fact checkers busy with their partisan yuks shared to millions each weeknight. Meyers once called the nightly chaos in Portland little more than “graffiti and light property damage,” for example.

Gulp.

Earlier this month, Axios fretted that independent voices like Rogan’s are rising up as the nation’s trust in traditional media sags, as if the latter wasn’t self-inflicted.

The piece noted it’s “troubling” that Rogan fans “could also lead to an increase in the perception that misinformation runs rampant and that audiences shouldn’t trust anything they see in the news.”

Try to find similar warnings in profiles tied to John Oliver, Stephen Colbert or Seth Meyers, late night comics who could keep fact checkers busy with their partisan yuks shared to millions each weeknight. Meyers once called the nightly chaos in Portland little more than “graffiti and light property damage,” for example.

Gulp.

Earlier this month, Axios fretted that independent voices like Rogan’s are rising up as the nation’s trust in traditional media sags, as if the latter wasn’t self-inflicted.

The piece noted it’s “troubling” that Rogan fans “could also lead to an increase in the perception that misinformation runs rampant and that audiences shouldn’t trust anything they see in the news.”

How many fake news scandals can the public endure, from the Covington Catholic kids unfairly slammed as racists to reporters discrediting, without facts, the Hunter Biden laptop story, before they realize Rogan has a point?

In May, Rogan enraged his critics once again when he uncorked the following rant claiming that the new woke comedy rules impede both creativity and who can tell jokes in our Cancel Culture age:

“It’ll eventually get to where straight white men are not allowed to talk because it’s your privilege to express yourself when other people of color have been silenced throughout history,” Rogan said.

On one level it’s just comical, hearing this rich and famous guy express worries that even though he’s paid to talk for a living he’s going to be silenced in the future. But he’s not the only one talking that way. The fear about ‘woke’ culture, about an overreaction, is pervasive, especially in the right-wing media.”

It’s worth noting that Rogan has fessed up to some of his mistakes over the past year. Last September he apologized for incorrectly saying left-wing activists had been arrested for instigating deadly forest fires in Oregon. He also backpedaled somewhat on suggesting younger people not get the COVID-19 vaccine after media reports all but demanded he change his opinion.

It’s clear why the media feels threatened by Rogan, a comedian still feeling his way around superstardom. He’s part of a new, independent wave of media stars loosening journalism’s stranglehold on cultural narratives.

It’s why Substack, an emerging platform that allows free-thinking reporters like Bari Weiss and Glenn Greenwald to share their work sans traditional filters (and get paid big bucks), is similarly under fire from old-school media voices.

Columbia Journalism Review attacked Substack, in part, for promoting white male voices above others, even though the platform is open to all who command robust social media followings.

New Yorker magazine worried Substack would hurt the mainstream media’s ability to “hold powerful people and institutions to account,” a curious claim given the “Oooh, President Biden is eating butter pecan ice cream” coverage of the current commander in chief.

As the public’s trust in news media craters, people are craving more authentic voices, from pundits to podcasters alike. The marketplace is telling Spotify they want “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast. The downloads tell the story, not what a handful of critics or reporters think.

Once upon a time, the news media cheered unfettered debate and stood up for the First Amendment. Now, reporters rage against independent forums like Substack and the freewheeling audio platform Clubhouse, and worry a comedian with a massive following might be bad for America.

It’s why they keep pumping out fear-based articles to damage Rogan’s reputation. He’s encouraging listeners to do the last thing they want them to do — think for themselves.

Risks of covid-19 hospital admission and death for people with learning disability: population based cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

Abstract

Objective To assess the association between learning disability and risk of hospital admission and death from covid-19 in England among adults and children.

Design Population based cohort study on behalf of NHS England using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Setting Patient level data were obtained for more than 17 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics and hospital admission data from NHS Secondary Uses Service.

Participants Adults (aged 16-105 years) and children (<16 years) from two cohorts: wave 1 (registered with a TPP practice as of 1 March 2020 and followed until 31 August 2020); and wave 2 (registered 1 September 2020 and followed until 8 February 2021). The main exposure group consisted of people on a general practice learning disability register; a subgroup was defined as those having profound or severe learning disability. People with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy were identified (whether or not they were on the learning disability register).

Main outcome measure Covid-19 related hospital admission and covid-19 related death. Non-covid-19 deaths were also explored.

Results For wave 1, 14 312 023 adults aged ≥16 years were included, and 90 307 (0.63%) were on the learning disability register. Among adults on the register, 538 (0.6%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission; there were 222 (0.25%) covid-19 related deaths and 602 (0.7%) non-covid deaths. Among adults not on the register, 29 781 (0.2%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission; there were 13 737 (0.1%) covid-19 related deaths and 69 837 (0.5%) non-covid deaths. Wave 1 hazard ratios for adults on the learning disability register (adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and geographical location) were 5.3 (95% confidence interval 4.9 to 5.8) for covid-19 related hospital admission and 8.2 (7.2 to 9.4) for covid-19 related death. Wave 2 produced similar estimates. Associations were stronger among those classified as having severe to profound learning disability, and among those in residential care. For both waves, Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy were associated with increased hazards for both events; Down’s syndrome to a greater extent. Hazard ratios for non-covid deaths followed similar patterns with weaker associations. Similar patterns of increased relative risk were seen for children, but covid-19 related deaths and hospital admissions were rare, reflecting low event rates among children.

Conclusions People with learning disability have markedly increased risks of hospital admission and death from covid-19, over and above the risks observed for non-covid causes of death. Prompt access to covid-19 testing and healthcare is warranted for this vulnerable group, and prioritisation for covid-19 vaccination and other targeted preventive measures should be considered.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We could be celebrating the extraordinary achievements of medical science in combating COVID

Today I will celebrate the 100'000 CoV-19 vaccine death. A real great achievement of man(d)kind. I will also celebrate the 20 billion income gain of Pfizer for abusing the state laws of emergency use drugs.

Why do you take a vaccine that does not prevent you from an illness?? Rubella is more harmless, than what you will get despite you had Pfizer...Taking IVM after first symptoms or a known bad contact will cure you within two days.

Quote from Mark U

Riiiiight. That is why countries like South Korea and Japan, where people routinely wear masks when they are feeling unwell, nevertheless have twice the influenza per capita as the US,

Japanese/Korean people think they must go to work at any cost for their personal health. So people with a flu mount a mask a commute in the underground...This is called work ethics taught by the old B Japanese/Korean B-mafia.

Quote from THHuxleynew

because although vaccine reduces risk that exponential age/risk curve gives a factor of 1000 risk difference

As said 2 times before. The risk curve is strongly flattened by the vaccines, so you here spread FUD again. The risk for olds with vaccine is not much larger than for younger. Your 1000x enhanced risk for older, vaccinated is a fairy tale.

I guess you fear CoV-19 again and look for some reason to calm you down.

Quote from THHuxleynew

And with just two rather flakey (likely biased) papers removed,

Elgazzar was one of the first important studies. My critic was that they killed 18 people in the placebo group, that only got HCQ, but still better than nothing that would have killed at least 50 people at that time.

The problem with this study was that the top doctor obviously did choose/trust the wrong people and some of them intentionally? spoiled the data. The other problem was, that the setup that was to broad. The seen cut and paste is no error and no fraud because some people first were in the outpatient treatment and later were reused in an other arm. This happens quite naturally in an observational study. Of course this is a bad style.

The result of the study was very important for the dosage regime among severely ill patients. Only one other study from Bangladesh did deliver similar input.

This eventually did also convince FLCCC to adjust the dose towards higher levels for certain groups.

We here, since more than a year, did recommend 4x or 6x IVM for severely sick people for the first 2-3 days based on Banglasdesh data. So we have been more than 8 months ahead of FLCCC!

We will continue to use Elgazzar as a reference for dosage among critically ill patients. There is no problem with this data!

Mafia attacks will have no impact on the use of IVM.

Quote from Fm1

Conclusions People with learning disability have markedly increased risks of hospital admission and death from covid-19, over and above the risks observed for non-covid causes of death.

Looks like the locked in lock-down syndrome. Countries with lockdown, locked-in at home like France/Germany had 3x more deaths in the second wave than Switzerland that never used this regime. Disabled people often hide or are kept hidden. So this is more a social issues than a CoV-19 problem.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Looks like the locked in lock-down syndrome. Countries with lockdown, locked-in at home like France/Germany had 3x more deaths in the second wave than Switzerland that never used this regime. Disabled people often hide or are kept hidden. So this is more a social issues than a CoV-19 problem.

In the states we don't hide nor do mentally challenged hide from their disabilities. I believe a great portion of the populate has risen above old ways of treating these individuals. As a matter of fact recently we just announced our newest hero. A 25 year old Down Syndrome man who completed a triathlon in less than 17hours. It was and still is headline heading news. Unfortunately many also suffer from compromised immune system. Vaccines have little to no effect. Some here would shun these people, others might call to quarantine leading to concentration camps. I see this coming!

Christian Elliot’s “18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine”: Viral antivaccine misinformation

As a general practice, I tend to be reluctant to do point-by-point rebuttals of listicles published by antivaxxers, quacks, conspiracy theorists, and other…

sciencebasedmedicine.org

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

#5: “No Access to the Raw Data from the Trials”

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

#17: THE WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM…

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

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

A few TSN-specific additions

#19: VACCINES ONLY REDUCE RISK BY 1%

Does White House spread misinformation about spreading vaccine misinformation?

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

trialsitenews.com

For example, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction, of approximately 95%. But the whole truth is that the mRNA vaccines also have a much lower absolute risk reduction of approximately 1%, which is more meaningful for clinical and public health purposes.

Not for personal purposes:

• If my father has a 10% risk of death from COVID... Reducing that to 0.5% seems a very good deal
• If I have an average 1% risk of death from COVID... Reducing that to 0.05% still seems a good deal
• If my children have a 0.1% risk of death from COVID (that is 100 per 1,000,000 die, or approx 7000 US child deaths), reducing that, for them, to 0.005% is still what I'd want for them

In all these cases the phrase "1% absolute risk reduction" is grossly unhelpful.

I think most people would hear "1% risk reduction" and think - "let's not bother with that". TrialSiteNews thinks this is not misinformation, when circulated without context or detailed explanation (as above) on social media. I disagree.

#20 VACCINES DO NOT PREVENT DEATHS

AP analysis doesn’t prove COVID-19 vaccines prevent deaths

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown June 30, 2021

trialsitenews.com

The problem is that reported vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction measures in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trials, did not include absolute risk reduction measures of approximately 1%, which is a more meaningful outcome for clinical and public health applications. Medicina | Free Full-Text | Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials (mdpi.com). Furthermore, the vaccine trials’ clinical endpoints were laboratory confirmed infections with a mild symptom in otherwise healthy participants, not hospitalizations and mortality in participants with severe infections and underlying health conditions. If the vaccines aren’t really so efficacious after all, even for mild infections, what explains the “staggering demonstration” of vaccine effectiveness to prevent deaths claimed in the AP observational analysis? The answer lies within biases often found in observational studies.

Let’s apply the whole truth about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to the recent White House press conference, in which the spokesperson claimed that the vaccines save lives. Where is the clinical evidence proving this claim? The only causative proof we have of vaccine efficacy are the clinical trials, which demonstrated that vaccine groups had fewer infections with mild symptoms than unvaccinated groups. Death is hardly a mild symptom, and no conclusive estimates of death risk can be drawn from these trials.

This is so weird I don't know what to do with it. Look at UK infection vs death figures now - with nearly all of the most at-risk population fully vaccinated - relative to the same thing earlier in the pandemic. If the difference is a confounding factor, governments all ove rthe world would pay billions to know what it is! Both infections (via the ONS random sample survey), and deaths, are accurate in the UK.

For a more careful analysis of how we know this:

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: findings from real world studies

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: findings from real world studies

www.mja.com.au

For a summary of related anti-vax memes (and many cases of TrialSiteNews propagating them), as well as rebuttal

“Holistic cardiologist” Dr. Joel Kahn is amplifying misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines and VAERS

Last week, a reader of my not-so-secret other blog alerted me to the social media activities of a physician in my area. Oddly enough, this particular physician…

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Today I will celebrate the 100'000 CoV-19 vaccine death.

#8

Quote

According to a study done by Harvard (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) – read page 6 at the link above.
While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

And those numbers don’t include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy.
If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8 to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

First of all, no, it is quite simply not true that “only 1%” of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS. That’s a study frequently cherry picked by antivaxxers. Moreover, VAERS is not the be-all and end-all of vaccine safety monitoring anyway; there are multiple and redundant active monitoring systems as well. Also, as a passive reporting system, is prone to gaming by lawyers and antivaxxers, who love to imply causation from what might or might not even be correlation. I’ve written about how antivaxxers have, like Mr. Elliot, been weaponizing VAERS reports against COVID-19 vaccines by implying what are almost certainly coincidences are, in fact, caused by the vaccine. (And, no, Bell’s palsy was almost certainly not caused by the vaccine.)

Seriously, if your cherry picking of studies and “analysis” of the VAERS database lead you to conclude that there are as many as 220,000 unreported deaths after COVID-19 vaccination that no one’s detected, you are as innumerate as those who claim that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US.

“Holistic cardiologist” Dr. Joel Kahn is amplifying misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines and VAERS

Last week, a reader of my not-so-secret other blog alerted me to the social media activities of a physician in my area. Oddly enough, this particular physician…

sciencebasedmedicine.org

The problem with VAERS

As I said earlier, even before there were safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, my fellow science advocates and I who have paid attention to the antivaccine movement were warning that antivaxxers would weaponize VAERS reports to frighten people. We warned that, by random chance alone, coupled with the unprecedented vaccine safety monitoring system set up as the COVID-19 vaccines rolled out that solicited VAERS reports using a smart phone text messaging system (V-Safe), there would be a lot of reports of deaths and many other adverse events by random chance alone and that antivaxxers would widely report any news report of a death after vaccination as though it implied causation. Similarly, antivaccine propagandists like RFK Jr. have basically taken advantage of the openness of VAERS to set up a regular reporting infrastructure that leaps on each new week’s VAERS update to use it to spread fear of vaccines. You’d think that such supposedly brilliant physicians like Joel Kahn would understand baseline rates and that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, especially in VAERS reports, but unfortunately you’d be wrong, because yesterday he was Tweeting this:

Joel Kahn MD, FACC

@drjkahn

11 Jul

Death rate per @CDCgov
last 2 weeks 250/d. Awful but down 90%. No deaths in Oakland County MI. Per VAERS 172 died of the vaccine in the same period. Are they all going to be verified? Let’s see. No DSMB exists. Talk about. Very concerning when mainly low risk are jab targets

Clearly, he is innumerate in many ways and, as I pointed out to him multiple times, does not understand VAERS.

So what is VAERS? Basically, VAERS was intended as an early-warning system. Anyone can report to it, not just doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. Thus, even the VAERS website states:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.

Or, as a blog friend of mine put it:

VAERS is a feel-good system for those who think that there’s a link between vaccines and something terrible, but without an active investigation, the data is just above the level of totally meaningless. Most epidemiologists know it is valueless. Even the VAERS system itself says that the data cannot be used to ascertain the difference between coincidence and true causality.
For example, there is a background rate for mortality, across all causes, irrespective of whether an individual is vaccinated or not, and unless you understand the background rate, the vaccine “mortality” rate has no scientific meaning. In fact, we could provide a Starbucks coffee drinking in the car “mortality rate”, which may or may not have any causality whatsoever.

However, and many vaccine supporters miss this point, the VAERS system can be used to provide observational data that could be used to form a testable hypothesis, the hallmark of real science. Using VAERS as evidence to support a hypothesis, for example, “vaccines cause people to die”, is pseudoscience, pure and simple.

I’m not as hard on VAERS. I understand the value of having a system that anyone can report to, even if it sometimes accepts reports that the flu vaccine turned a man into The Incredible Hulk (this is not the first time I’ve mentioned this) and even if antivaccine lawyers looking to sue for “vaccine-induced autism” game VAERS by encouraging reporting of autism as an adverse reaction to vaccines. That being said, VAERS was always intended as a “canary in the coalmine” system, never as the be-all and end-all of vaccine safety monitoring. Antivaxxers love to misrepresent it as such because VAERS by its very design cannot infer causation from correlation, and often there isn’t even convincing correlation in its reports. All it can do is this, according to the CDC:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

The CDC also notes that:

• Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
• The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

The VSD and CISA are much better systems in that they are not passive reporting systems and therefore aren’t subject to the same biases as VAERS. Funny how antivaxxers rarely mention them.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If my father has a 10% risk of death from COVID... Reducing that to 0.5% seems a very good deal
If I have an average 1% risk of death from COVID... Reducing that to 0.05% still seems a good deal
If my children have a 0.1% risk of death from COVID (that is 100 per 1,000,000 die, or approx 7000 US child deaths), reducing that, for them, to 0.005% is still what I'd want for them

This only works without treatment and if you exclude the Pfizer crap vaccine that caused corona among 1.3% of all vaccinated and the risk for children is somewhere near 0.00001% without vaccination and around 0.05 for a strong vaccine adverse reaction and 0.004 for direct death & live long disability from vaccine ....

Quote from THHuxleynew

I’ve written about how antivaxxers have, like Mr. Elliot, been weaponizing VAERS reports against COVID-19 vaccines by implying what are almost certainly coincidences are, in fact, caused by the vaccine.

I explained why you linked rubbish. Just go to the VAERS flu vaccine data for 2020 and compare it with the new CoV-19. This is fair and neutral as the same amount of people got the flu vaccine.

The official CoV-19 death count was some 30'000 three weeks ago (USA,EU,UK) . So a factor 3 for under reporting is very mild given that it usually is a factor 10. Also given the fact that governments pressure doctors not to report deaths as seen in Canada and the USA.

And we still miss about 100'000 Pfizer induced corona deaths...This is also a lower limit.

Real Israel world says: Pfizer works for 64% as of two week ago. This may change soon further downwards as the Israel cases now double every week. True - serious studies show Pfizer is a factor 7 less protective for Delta.

You can go on to promote your cricket brain buddies fuss. This will not change the reality.

Quote from THHuxleynew

https://sciencebasedmedicine.o…tivaccine-misinformation/

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

#5: “No Access to the Raw Data from the Trials”

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

#17: THE WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM…

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

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

A few TSN-specific additions

#19: VACCINES ONLY REDUCE RISK BY 1%

https://trialsitenews.com/does…g-vaccine-misinformation/

For example, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction, of approximately 95%. But the whole truth is that the mRNA vaccines also have a much lower absolute risk reduction of approximately 1%, which is more meaningful for clinical and public health purposes.

Not for personal purposes:

• If my father has a 10% risk of death from COVID... Reducing that to 0.5% seems a very good deal
• If I have an average 1% risk of death from COVID... Reducing that to 0.05% still seems a good deal
• If my children have a 0.1% risk of death from COVID (that is 100 per 1,000,000 die, or approx 7000 US child deaths), reducing that, for them, to 0.005% is still what I'd want for them

In all these cases the phrase "1% absolute risk reduction" is grossly unhelpful.

I think most people would hear "1% risk reduction" and think - "let's not bother with that". TrialSiteNews thinks this is not misinformation, when circulated without context or detailed explanation (as above) on social media. I disagree.

#20 VACCINES DO NOT PREVENT DEATHS

https://trialsitenews.com/ap-a…-vaccines-prevent-deaths/

The problem is that reported vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction measures in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trials, did not include absolute risk reduction measures of approximately 1%, which is a more meaningful outcome for clinical and public health applications. Medicina | Free Full-Text | Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials (mdpi.com). Furthermore, the vaccine trials’ clinical endpoints were laboratory confirmed infections with a mild symptom in otherwise healthy participants, not hospitalizations and mortality in participants with severe infections and underlying health conditions. If the vaccines aren’t really so efficacious after all, even for mild infections, what explains the “staggering demonstration” of vaccine effectiveness to prevent deaths claimed in the AP observational analysis? The answer lies within biases often found in observational studies.

Let’s apply the whole truth about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to the recent White House press conference, in which the spokesperson claimed that the vaccines save lives. Where is the clinical evidence proving this claim? The only causative proof we have of vaccine efficacy are the clinical trials, which demonstrated that vaccine groups had fewer infections with mild symptoms than unvaccinated groups. Death is hardly a mild symptom, and no conclusive estimates of death risk can be drawn from these trials.

This is so weird I don't know what to do with it. Look at UK infection vs death figures now - with nearly all of the most at-risk population fully vaccinated - relative to the same thing earlier in the pandemic. If the difference is a confounding factor, governments all ove rthe world would pay billions to know what it is! Both infections (via the ONS random sample survey), and deaths, are accurate in the UK.

For a more careful analysis of how we know this:

https://www.mja.com.au/journal…ndings-real-world-studies

For a summary of related anti-vax memes (and many cases of TrialSiteNews propagating them), as well as rebuttal

https://sciencebasedmedicine.o…id-19-vaccines-and-vaers/

Display More

You continue to bash trial site as biased and unreliable. What you fail to inform your brother members is trial site offers you or anyone the space to express your opinions and review of the data trial site posts. Why are you not taking advantage of this? Maybe you really can't justify your Huxley crap to a much wider audience

Facebook calls big daddy Biden a liar?

Facebook refutes Biden claim that it is ‘killing people’ with vaccine misinformation

Facebook refutes Biden claim that it is ‘killing people’ with vaccine misinformation

Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of integrity, said Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among users in the U.S. has declined by 50%.

www.cnbc.com

KEY POINTS

Facebook on Saturday refuted remarks made by President Joe Biden that social media platforms are "killing people" by allowing Covid vaccine misinformation to proliferate on their services.

Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of integrity, pointed to data suggesting that vaccine hesitancy among U.S. users has declined by 50%.

"These and other facts tell a very different story to the one promoted by the administration in recent days," Rosen wrote in a blog post.

Facebook on Saturday refuted remarks made by President Joe Biden that social media platforms are "killing people" by allowing coronavirus vaccine misinformation on their services and argued that vaccine acceptance among its users has actually risen in the U.S.

In a blog post, Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of integrity, pointed to data suggesting that vaccine hesitancy among U.S. its users has declined by 50%, and 85% of users said they have been or would like to be vaccinated against Covid-19

"These and other facts tell a very different story to the one promoted by the administration in recent days," Rosen wrote.

Rosen also pointed to the Biden administration's narrowly missed goal to vaccinate 70% of Americans by July 4, arguing that Facebook "is not the reason this goal was missed."

The response from Facebook comes after the president, on the South Lawn of the White House on Friday, was asked what his message was to companies like Facebook with respect to Covid misinformation. In response to the question, Biden responded: "They're killing people."

"I mean they really, look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that's — they're killing people," the president said, echoing earlier comments from White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

Psaki, at a news briefing last week, said the Biden administration was flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread misinformation, including false information that the Covid-19 vaccine causes infertility

The press secretary urged Facebook and other social media companies to address misinformation, including publicly sharing data regarding the impact of misinformation on their services, promoting quality information sources in their feed algorithm, and taking faster action against harmful posts.

Deaths from Covid-19 are increasing again in the U.S. as the delta variant affects largely unvaccinated pockets of the country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The U.S. is reporting an average of 530,000 vaccinations each day over the past week.

Read the full Facebook blog post here:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are rising in America, the Biden administration has chosen to blame a handful of American social media companies. While social media plays an important role in society, it is clear that we need a whole of society approach to end this pandemic. And facts — not allegations — should help inform that effort. The fact is that vaccine acceptance among Facebook users in the US has increased. These and other facts tell a very different story to the one promoted by the administration in recent days.

Since April 2020, we've been collaborating with Carnegie Mellon University and University of Maryland on a global survey to gather insights about COVID-19 symptoms, testing, vaccination rates and more. This is the largest survey of its kind, with over 70 million total responses, and more than 170,000 responses daily across more than 200 countries and territories. For people in the US on Facebook, vaccine hesitancy has declined by 50%; and they are becoming more accepting of vaccines every day.

Since January, vaccine acceptance on the part of Facebook users in the US has increased by 10-15 percentage points (70% → 80-85%) and racial and ethnic disparities in acceptance have shrunk considerably (some of the populations that had the lowest acceptance in January had the highest increases since). The results of this survey are public and we've shared them — alongside other data requested by the administration — with the White House, the CDC and other key partners in the federal government.

The data shows that 85% of Facebook users in the US have been or want to be vaccinated against COVID-19. President Biden's goal was for 70% of Americans to be vaccinated by July 4. Facebook is not the reason this goal was missed.

In fact, increased vaccine acceptance has been seen on and off Facebook, with many leaders throughout the US working to make that happen. We employed similar tactics in the UK and Canada, which have similar rates of Facebook usage to the US, and those countries have achieved more than 70% vaccination of eligible populations. This all suggests there's more than Facebook to the outcome in the US.

Now vaccination efforts are rightly turning to increasing access and availability for harder-to-reach people. That's why we recently expanded our pop-up vaccine clinics in low-income and underserved communities. To help promote reliable vaccine information to communities with lower access to vaccines, we are using the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index. This is a publicly available dataset that crisis and health responders often use to identify communities most likely to need support, as higher vulnerability areas have had lower COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

We have been doing our part in other areas, too:

Since the pandemic began, more than 2 billion people have viewed authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines on Facebook. This includes more than 3.3 million Americans using our vaccine finder tool to find out where to get a COVID-19 vaccine and make an appointment to do so.

More than 50% of people in the US on Facebook have already seen someone use the COVID-19 vaccine profile frames, which we developed in collaboration with the US Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC. From what we have seen, when people see a friend share they have been vaccinated, it increases their perceptions that vaccines are safe.

We're continuing to encourage everyone to use these tools to show their friends they've been vaccinated. For those who are hesitant, hearing from a friend who's been vaccinated is undoubtedly more impactful than hearing from a large corporation or the federal government.

And when we see misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, we take action against it.

Since the beginning of the pandemic we have removed over 18 million instances of COVID-19 misinformation.

We have also labeled and reduced the visibility of more than 167 million pieces of COVID-19 content debunked by our network of fact-checking partners so fewer people see it and — when they do — they have the full context.

In fact, we've already taken action on all eight of the Surgeon General's recommendations on what tech companies can do to help. And we are continuing to work with health experts to update the list of false claims we remove from our platform. We publish these rules for everyone to read and scrutinize, and we update them regularly as we see new trends emerge.

The Biden Administration is calling for a whole of society approach to this challenge. We agree. As a company, we have devoted unprecedented resources to the fight against the pandemic, pointing people to reliable information and helping them find and schedule vaccinations. And we will continue to do so.

Chinese Military Backed Laboratory Secures Favipiravir Patent: A Domestic Play or Global Aspirations?

Chinese Military Backed Laboratory Secures Favipiravir Patent: A Domestic Play or Global Aspirations?

Is the Chinese military eying the antiviral drug favipiravir (Avigan®) for use against COVID-19? Apparently so, as a PLA-backed laboratory this year

trialsitenews.com

Is the Chinese military eying the antiviral drug favipiravir (Avigan®) for use against COVID-19? Apparently so, as a PLA-backed laboratory this year secured the intellectual property rights for the use of the drug against SARS-CoV-2. Originally developed and patented by Fujifilm Toyama Chemical Co. Ltd. (Fujifilm) in Japan as an antiviral for the national influenza stockpile, the company has been not only conducting clinical trials directly targeting COVID-19 but also entering into licensing deals with pharmaceutical companies around the world to provide a relatively economical treatment for early-onset, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 in low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). While the original patent for influenza expired, the company has been actively developing the product in Japan (and again elsewhere) hence the move by the PLA-backed Academy of Military Medical Sciences represents a questionable, egregious action. TrialSite has shared that Fujifilm already had a license with a Chinese pharmaceutical company prior to the pandemic. Favipiravir (Avigan) in one form or another is authorized for treatment of early-onset, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 in numerous countries as discussed below. While currently under study in about 50 clinical trials targeting COVID-19, TrialSite reports that the results have been mixed thus far and according to one well-placed, knowledgeable advisor, the drug’s probably somewhat effective, but not very much so. Now reports in Asia are that the Chinese military-backed research institute controls the intellectual property in that country. Will they try to leverage patent agreements and exploit them for export to other LMICs? Japan’s Fujifilm has concerns, as do some observers in Japan who suspect that this move may be part of a broader and deeper set of actions by China to control the medical supply chain in the age of COVID-19. As about 90% of SARS-CoV-2 cases are either asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate in severity, the antiviral-like market for a relatively economical, orally available, easily administered therapy is massive—TrialSite has estimated several billion per year, if not more. With some observers believing SARS-CoV-2 will stick around for a long time—like others viruses such as influenza—the Chinese PLA-backed play could be a move to control the supply of this particular treatment worldwide, or as much territory as they can. And such an action, of course, threatens the aspirations of favipiravir’s original developer, Fujifilm, as it has global aspirations to become a major supplier of medical therapies.

Recently writing for Nikkei Asia, Wataru Suzuki shares how China’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences, a military-backed research operation, commandeered the Favipiravir intellectual property. This has been verified by a review of China’s patent office, indicating that the Academy of Military Medical Sciences secured the intellectual property rights to “use of favipiravir for the treatment of coronavirus infections.” Apparently, the patent was first filed on Jan. 21, 2020, just days after the world discovered that a scary new virus emerged. China’s patent office issued the final grant on May 4, 2021, according to the Nikkei Asia piece.

A brief reminder that TrialSite introduced readers to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in the context of CanSino Biologics—remember the COVID-19 vaccine company that reneged on the Canadian government in a debacle of a deal to supply investigational product for the entire country’s clinical trials program.

Formed in 1951, the Chinese medical military research operation has developed other drugs, such as “Night Eagle,” developed to keep soldiers awake as well as an Ebola virus candidate.

The Product

Discovered back in 1998 by Toyama Chemical, Avigan (generic name favipiravir) prevents the influenza virus from replicating inside human cells. While the company early on sought out to conduct clinical trials targeting other viruses, money was lacking. Hence the acquisition in 2008 by Fujifilm, in the latter’s bid to enter healthcare to exit a dying industry sector.

Sold in tablet form, the drug is a pyrazine carboxamide derivative targeting activity against RNA viruses. The drug is converted to the ribofuranosyl triphosphate (T-705 RTP) derivative via host enzymes then selectively inhibits the influenza viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.

Authorized by Japanese health regulators for commercialization in Japan back in 2014 as an antiviral for influenza, its use was prescribed as a stockpile for an outbreak of flu-based viral infections. The original branded version from Fujifilm is known as Avigan” while there are numerous generic producer names (more on that below).

Its maker, Fujifilm Holdings, applied for market authorization for the COVID-19 indication last year but Japanese health authorities pushed back, declaring the need for more sufficient data. Hence they restarted clinical trials in that country.

Fujifilm Partnerships & Licensees

Note that TrialSite has written extensively about this product around the world. The U.S. government via the Department of Defense looked into the product via a series of clinical trials costing over $200 million as recently as 2015. A form of favipiravir became authorized in Russia known as Avifavir last summer. This version was developed by ChemRar Group, a Russian pharmaceutical company, supported by the RDIF, the Russian sovereign wealth fund.

Canada’s Appili Therapeutics is also developing a version of the drug and is conducting clinical trials in Canada and the United States, among other places.

Appili Therapeutics via a partnership with Dr. Reddy’s, an Indian generic drug manufacturer as well as Global Response Aid, a Dubai-based health venture (a 50-50 venture owned by Agility (KSE/DFM: AGLTY), a leading logistics company, and AiPharma, a pharmaceutical distribution organization), submitted an application to market the drug (Reeqonus®) in Canada at the end of 2021. Health Canada hasn’t made any decisions. Note they have licensed the underlying intellectual property from Fujifilm Holdings.

The following countries have authorized favipiravir (Avigan) for the COVID-19 indication:

Russia

UAE

India

Thailand

Malaysia

Indonesia

Turkey

Note that ChemRar, the maker of a branded version in Russia, distributes the drug to dozens of countries as a treatment for early-onset COVID-19. And Interestingly, TrialSite reported Fujifilm licensed favipiravir to a Chinese pharmaceutical company known as Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical Co. (Hisun) back in 2016.

By July 2020, TrialSite reported that Hisun touted the drug’s effectiveness in combating the coronavirus in China—but it was noted this was via Chinese press, hence the true accuracy and details were opaque and questionable.

In Turkey, a form of favipiravir is produced by Atabay, a domestic pharmaceutical company, marketing the product as Favicovir. This drug is prescribed widely in Turkey for early-onset COVID-19, combined with at-home isolation. The cost: $12 per box as compared to $100 for a comparable imported product (say from Russia). Nikkei Asia’s Wataru Suzuki notes that the Turkish government has saved hundreds of millions of dollars during the pandemic thanks to this approach.

At this point, a handful of companies now produce a brand of favipiravir targeting COVID-19 in India.

In regards to the recent Nikkei Asia piece, Fujifilm Holdings did acknowledge the Chinese patent approval but offered no further comment.

What does the Chinese patent offer?

Well, significant numbers of countries are already buying a form of the product via either A) Fujifilm Holdings direct; B) Dr. Reddy’s partnership (Appili Therapeutics and Global Response Aid); C) Russia’s producers including ChemRar; D) generic producers from India; or E) generic producers, such as the company in Turkey.

So theoretically, there is some room for competition but not much. Hence, more than likely, TrialSite suggests that China’s patent will be used both domestically (which could very likely hurt Hisun) as well as for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), such as places in Africa.

Fujifilm’s Position

Nikkei Asia reports that Japanese hospitals have been acquiring the drug, evidenced by sales for another 1.6 million tablets to Japanese hospitals worth about $100 million. Fujifilm apparently is monetizing all the partnerships in Russia, India, Turkey, and the like.

risk for children is somewhere near 0.00001% without vaccination

COVID-19 cases in children surpass 2 million

At least 172 children had died as of Dec. 17. About 1.8% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations and 0.07% of the deaths have been among children. About 1.3% of children with a known case of COVID-19 have been hospitalized and 0.01% have died. Data were not available from all states.

The AAP believes the number of reported COVID-19 cases in children likely is an undercount because children’s symptoms often are mild, and they may not be tested for every illness.

0.01% is not the same as 0.000001%

Remember that with delta we can assume that every unvaccinated child will catch COVID.

and around 0.05% for a strong vaccine adverse reaction

Millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been given, and there have only been 1,000 cases of heart inflammation. Doing the math, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that for every million doses given, there have been 67 cases of heart inflammation in boys 12 to 17 (nine in girls of that age group), 56 in those aged 18 to 24 (six in girls), and 20 in males 25 to 29 (three in girls). That means the risk is quite low.

50 / 1,000,000 = 0.005%

0.0005% is not the same as 0.05%

Vaccine-induced pericarditis seems to be nearly always transient - no-one has died as yet and 90% recover completely in a few days. Strong but not long-lasting.

and 0.004% for direct death & live long disability from vaccine ....

No.

See also The problem With VAERS

Doctors Are Puzzled by Heart Inflammation in the Young and Vaccinated

Weighing the balance of risks is a shade more challenging when it affects the youngest among us.

www.theatlantic.com

That the recent cases of post-vaccination myocarditis are relatively mild is, to start, “very reassuring,” said Judith Guzman-Cottrill, a pediatric-infectious-disease physician at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), who helped identify some of the earliest instances of inflammation back in April. Symptoms have lasted just a couple of days; most of the inflammation has been fairly straightforward to treat. According to Katherine Poehling, a pediatrician at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and an ACIP member, no deaths or severe outcomes had been reported at the time of last week’s meeting. “This is not like any myocarditis I’m used to seeing,” said Grace Lee, a pediatrician at Stanford and a member of ACIP. Though most of the identified patients have been hospitalized, “it’s because we wanted to monitor them, out of an abundance of caution,” said Sallie Permar, the chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital. Many of these patients were discharged after receiving little more than over-the-counter pain medication as therapy. “Even the kids are asking, ‘Why am I going to the hospital?’” Permar said.

Risk balance for different ages:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf

I explained why you linked rubbish. Just go to the VAERS flu vaccine data for 2020 and compare it with the new CoV-19. This is fair and neutral as the same amount of people got the flu vaccine.

The official CoV-19 death count was some 30'000 three weeks ago (USA,EU,UK) . So a factor 3 for under reporting is very mild given that it usually is a factor 10. Also given the fact that governments pressure doctors not to report deaths as seen in Canada and the USA.

Anyone can report events to VAERS following a vaccine with no filter nor time limit. The number of vaccination doses over this period is approx 1 billion. If adults die on average at age 80 that is one death per 60 years per person. Given that deaths within 1 week of a vaccine dose will likely reported as possible vaccine-related, that is a background death rate of 1/60*52) * 1bn = 300,000 deaths. that is a significant under-estimate, because those vaccinated in many countries are skewed strongly to those who are older and therefore more likely to die of other causes. For VAERS (US) only we have 300M doses so background (ignoring under-estimation due to uneven age distribution) of 100,000 deaths within 1 week of a jab.

It is not surprising that a new relatively untested vaccine gets a much much higher reporting rate of these background coincidental deaths than regular Flu vaccine.

Misleading to compare the safety of COVID-19 and flu vaccines based solely on VAERS reports; VAERS reports alone cannot demonstrate that a vaccine caused an adverse event

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a high level of safety and efficacy during clinical trials in order to receive emergency use…

healthfeedback.org

With the worldwide rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, claims that the vaccines caused severe adverse events or deaths spread on social media. A meme published on 15 February 2021 claimed that a person is 300 to 900 times “more likely to die” after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine than after getting the flu vaccine. The meme is a screenshot of a 14 February 2021 tweet by journalist Alex Berenson, who previously spread misinformation about public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The basis of the claim is a comparison between the number of deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) after receiving the COVID-19 and flu vaccines. Based on these reports, Berenson claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with “one death per 35,000 shots or 10,000 complete vaccinations” compared to “one death per 9,000,000 vaccinations” in the case of flu. However, these numbers are inaccurate. As of 16 February 2021, the U.S. administered more than 55 million COVID-19 vaccine doses and 15 million full vaccinations. VAERS received 934 reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination, which makes one reported death every 59,000 doses or 16,000 full vaccinations.

This comparison is also misleading readers into thinking that the vaccines caused these deaths. However, VAERS reports only tell us that an adverse event occurred after vaccination, without judging whether the vaccine caused it. Therefore, VAERS reports alone don’t demonstrate that one vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event, as Health Feedback explained in this earlier review. For the same reason, these reports don’t allow us to compare the safety of different vaccines.

VAERS is a reporting system co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The system collects information about adverse events occurring following vaccination, serving as “a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines”. For that reason, VAERS encourages healthcare professionals and vaccine manufacturers to report any adverse events, regardless of whether they believe the vaccine caused them.

In addition, VAERS relies on individuals to report on any adverse event that occurs after vaccination, from mild side effects to serious adverse events. Since anyone can voluntarily report any adverse event, these reports may be subject to biases and contain information that is “incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable”. Therefore, as the CDC explains, “the number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines”.

Quote from Fm1

At a time when COVID-19 cases are rising in America, the Biden administration has chosen to blame a handful of American social media companies.

Don Corleone wants the absolute power... Biden is just the nice side of the ass = US FM/R/J/B mafia.

Quote from Fm1

Since the beginning of the pandemic we have removed over 18 million instances of COVID-19 misinformation.

Facebook is killing people by hiding information about Ivermectin and HCQ therapies. In fact it is a state terror network.

Quote from Fm1

The following countries have authorized favipiravir (Avigan) for the COVID-19 indication

Avigan is not very useful and not suited for third world countries like Russia as it is teratogenic and has a very limited use for people with strong symptoms and low Oxygen only. Use it only as a last resort if nothing else (IVR) is available or your therapy starts late.