Covid-19 News

Quote from Bob#2

Wyttenbach and THH both have advanced math.... yet are polar opposites.

Bob - just a point here.

Wyttenbach's calculations may or may not be correct - it does not matter, because they are presented in a way so vague that no-one who is interested in precision can no what they really mean. They certainly sound wrong - and if in fact they are correct all he has to do is lay them out in detail so we can all see that. I have no great confidence I understand anything he is saying.

So I don't think we are opposites in content. I try to be clear, and give reasons for all my statements (links, nearly always). anyone can check what I say, and question why i say it. Also anyone can know what I mean. I am very happy to explain further if anyone is unsure. And happy to correct myself when I make mistakes.

Wyttenbach is opposite in that his statements are unclear - and how he gets to them is equally unclear. Given his statements are unclear I get the impression that he is polar opposite to me in content, but I don't really know it is true. I suspect he is equally happy to correct mistakes but I'm not sure I would notice when he does this

All I know is he thinks there some some sort of mafia with a weird name that is in control of the world's media and misleads everyone except a few enlightened souls of which Wyttenbach is one.

That is clear - but still does not help me understand what he actually is trying to say.

PS - I discovered doing pure math at uni undergraduate level that sounding right, or personally thinking things are plausible, often goes wrong and is no substitute for precision. The real world is often surprising and only a lot of clarity and attention to detail, together with a willingness to backtrack when ideas are wrong, let's us see it more clearly. For me that was a wonderful discovery - and it has stayed with me.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

The spike proteins are not toxic. If they were, the common cold would kill patients

Not all spikes are equal.. same for virus. Ebola is a monster virus of the size of a full cells DNA...

Spike anti bodies are toxic in the sense that these cause an immune suppression and did kill many people that after the first jab caught Cov-19.

But it is not a very simple poison like cyanide (CNH) that has a basic toxicity.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bob - you will remember as a prolific "vaccine warrior" I have happily researched and posted statistics on vaccine deaths, and other side effects.

You posted FM/R/XXX/B state information of no value. Please next time use the correct database and do your own analysis.

There is no code= "vaccine death" for death certificates. So it will never be reported. Great official data...

Quote from THHuxleynew

You should think of the vaccine as being just like a good drug. It may not stop you from getting COVID, though it makes that less likely, but it reduces chances of something bad by a factor 10 or so.

Only a disparate person can talk such nonsense. The chance to get something bad from the vaccine is much greater than getting something bad from CoV-19, if you are younger than 55 and are healthy.

With treatment of CoV-19 vaccines look very damaging worse than getting a flu.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Those vaccine warriors talk all the time about not being sure how well vaccines will work against the next variant.

We know it from detailed studies that were not paid by Pfizer. We know Pfizer/Astra totally fail for the RSA strain. We also know that an infection will protect you much better than a vaccine based on re-infection v.s. breakthrough in Israel.

So basically THH is a soliloquist inventing stuff we never mention and explaining himself how his fiction could be countered.

He never counters real data. He never looks at real independent studies or worst he denies real data....

Quote from THHuxleynew

My problem is that 95% of the material online about such things is written in such a way as to mislead, like for example Wyttenbach's statement here. if you believe him, taking an mRNA vaccine increases personal risks, and does not massively reduce them, for a 24 year old (like my daughter). That is strongly counterfactual.

You simply are a dumb mind that just looks for himself with a lucky daughter, that had no side effects (so far..) from the vaccine . We here talk about science and population statistics. from this it is clear that THH's daughter was on the lucky side - mine too (so far...). Obviously he is somehow forced to deny papers, that show why the vaccine generated antibodies can be a risk for future infections by other virus. He also must deny that some 100/mio vaccinated are crippled/dead by the vaccine and 20,..40/mio die from the vaccine. Even facts = data from US army that confirm 12% of mycarditis cases lead to death are wrong for him.

Summary: We here talk with a guy (THH) that has a deep boarderline syndrome. As he already denies reality= facts it's grand time to look for treatment.

He also upholds fake facts like Pfizer efficiency is 95% that wrongly includes the natural immunity. So he has a strong tendency to support fake facts because these have been created by his buddies.

We here fight for nothing else than the truth even if it will make our future very hard. We all are happy that 100ds of millions of Indians are lucky to live in an CoV_19 free state without vaccination.

Why BBC does censor India and Ivermectin:: Answer from BCC::

Many stories compete for coverage each day and we select items based on their editorial merit (against play book --> censor). We look at the significance of each story, the likely level of interest in it and whether the facts it contains are new (fake excuse). However, we strive to be objective and dispassionate in the way we select stories, as we feel this best serves (manipulates) the target audience for the relevant BBC network. We know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover. Our news editors make these complex decisions, based on the editorial merit (dislike facts outside playbook) of all the stories at hand. Inevitably, there may be disagreements about the level of prominence we give to stories.

However we did cover on the BBC News website the fact Ivermectin is currently being studied as a possible treatment in UK (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377). red = corrected...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bob - just a point here.

First, I want to express appreciation for discussion free of insult and personal innuendo. It certainly can help in bringing sides to a view each others perspective......

Although, I am not sure that my previous post has been really interpreted correctly. The post was the impact and severity that tribalism has and that education often plays a very minor role in one's world view. I gave a few clear examples, one being your and Wyttenbach's high education compared to widely differing views of Covid vaccines. (Not vaccines in general, but specifically Covid, not notably mRNA type)

Jed responded with "nonsense", the vaccines are the most tested ever in history, which is factually incorrect. They have no long term tests, nor have passed even the standard short term protocols. He can argue all he wants, but factually, the vaccines are being used under emergency use clauses because they have not yet passed standard protocols. I am not saying the vaccines are bad, just stating a fact, and he reacts extremely negative about it... proving my point.

You either misunderstand my "tribal" post or are disagreeing. I am not sure which. My point is that "W" apparently has very high math skills and education. Skills which on the surface should allow him to "follow the science" and come to a factual conclusion. You likewise, have high math skills have the same data sets available and yet come to a completely different conclusion, although you would also claim to be "following the science".

My point is that most people "join a tribe" very early in any debate and rarely change sides.....no matter what their education or what 'the data" says.

I look at it this way... I could be wrong.... you read a public service announcement from TSN and expect it to be a full RCT. Do you expect CNN to be the same? Also, the people that report on TSN for example, often have high degrees and field experience in medicine. However, because you do not agree with their conclusions, you can pick apart the submitted data to support your view. I fully expect that the Pfizer RCT data supporting their vaccines can be picked apart as well. "W" states it is bogus, and he has a high math aptitude!!!

Do you see what I am saying.... "follow the science" is in the eye of the beholder and often that eye is cast by the "Tribe" a person joins early. I know Chicago Cubs fans that possibly would get physically violent with a White Sox fan... or vice versa..... over a simple sport! Unfortunately, it is the same with this Covid arena.

Rothwell blames the Republicans and Fox news for Biden's incompetence. (See previous post) He has to blame someone, he cannot blame his own tribe! Covid cases are on the rise.. it cannot be the vaccines fault... it has to be "stupid conservatives".... (it certainly cannot be that the virus has mutated and the vaccines are losing strength.... that is a vaccine negative!

So that is my point and I am unsure there is a solution.

I would like to point out .... I do not know of any "anti-vaxxers" on this site. Perhaps one? But I believe just about everyone on this site HAS taken the vaccine, certainly the majority.... so much for "stupid conservatives"....... They are just concerned about long term safety of mRNA vaccines. Tribalism does not seem to allow that open and impersonal discussion. (From BOTH sides I might add!)

(P.S. I will acknowledge that I have not taken any Covid vaccines yet. To restate, I have contracted the virus and I have seen no studies that have convinced me natural protection is inferior to the vaccines. As with everything, there are reports with opposing conclusions. Actually I am leaning towards that natural is better than the artificial. I also take D, Zn and Quercetin, all having some level of studies showing efficacy, with NO side affects and other positives to take it.

I also had Ivermectin, which I took during my Covid case, which was extremely mild. My wife took it a second time a few weeks ago having some symptoms, which truthfully is almost impossible to detect from regular cold or flu without testing. Both times, we saw physically noticeable improvement, the next day! (Proof? No...but certainly not a negative)

However I have not been able to get Ivermectin locally so I reordered from Amazon.... it was supposed to be here today and it apparently has never shipped... I am concerned that there has been some type of stoppage on shipping Ivermectin similar to what happened with HCQ. We will see.

I plan to wait at least six months before making a final decision on a vaccine shot. )

A Mainstream Academic Research Superstar Starts to Question Things

A Mainstream Academic Research Superstar Starts to Question Things

Recently, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School, and also

trialsitenews.com

Recently, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School, and also Editor-in-Chief at MEDPAGETODAY®, wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) calling out the society-wide push by the nation’s government agencies, academic medical centers, industry, and great majority of mass media to vaccinate all children as a concerted effort to save lives. It turns out, writes Makary, that based on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the total number of children under 18 that have died with a COVID-19 diagnostic code associated with their record comes out to 335. Makary shares that despite the fact that the CDC employs 21,000 people, no one there has systematically investigated the cause of each child’s death, in an effort to determine if COVID was actually involved or if the death was the result of a preexisting condition. But, the Johns Hopkins professor asks, how could the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices conclude back in May that “the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15”? Unless they have come to a prerequisite solution that’s overwhelmingly detached from reality, what data drove their conclusion?

Professor Makary has already published one public piece about the CDC. Just last month, he suggested that the CDC could be sitting on troves of data in a bid to support their mass vaccination narrative. But why would this be the case? Who went ahead and decided this would be the approach without probing the actual underlying data on deaths of children?

The FAIR Health Study

In his recent opinion piece, Professor Makary reports on a study he and his team conducted at Johns Hopkins in collaboration with FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization. They analyzed about 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 in health-insurance data from April to August 2020.

No Children have Died in U.S. without Pre-existing Conditions

The results were telling: “a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.” Imagine what the implications are for healthy kids here?

Correct Data

Makary reminds us that researchers to regulators to public health officials must be working with the right data. Such data is certainly required before organizations, such as the National Education Association, make decisions about COVID-19 vaccination requirements before kids return to school. The true risk associated with this group must be understood, as recently covered by TrialSite.

What is going on?

Makary represents a crack in the proverbial dike associated with the mass vaccination program now underway in the United States. Makary suggests the CDC:

“may also be under capturing data on vaccine complications. The CDC risk-benefit analysis for vaccinating all children used rates of complications extrapolated from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database known as VAERS, which contains raw, self-reported data that is unverified and likely underreports adverse events.”

TrialSite has reported that some analysts who searched the VAERS database find, overall, about 6,000 deaths associated with the vaccine. However, just because a death is reported, doesn’t mean it’s associated with the COVID-19 jab. But in this case, the government vows none of the deaths are associated with the vaccines, even though a sizable percentage of reported deaths occurred within the first 36 hours of receiving the vaccine.

Recommendations et al.

Makary goes on to make some good recommendations, such as to study the UK where, at least according to one study, one dose of an mRNA-based vaccine was sufficient. TrialSite has made this case as well. Other more controversial suggestions indicate the need for early COVID-19 treatment, especially since not all people will opt for vaccines, which is not a crime.

Groupthink and political tribalism permeate today’s society, and unfortunately, the political party now in power appears to be using the pandemic as a political weapon, attacking those that aren’t vaccinated with accusations of “killing people.” Of course, the other side has wielded the pandemic as a political weapon for other reasons unrelated to vaccination. This is a pandemic of politics as much as it is a fight against a dangerous virus. The groupthink, tribalism, and dialogue around vaccination can lead to dangerous times, ones where societal pressures to shame the unvaccinated will only backfire to the detriment of everyone. Sound, rational, brave, and balanced leadership needs to emerge. In the world of academic medical centers, Professor Makary is one of those leaders.

Call to Action: Check out Professor Makary’s article in the WSJ.

Quote from Bob#2

I plan to wait at least six months before making a final decision on a vaccine shot.

May be there is a save new vaccine available in 6 months. But the basic problem remains. New vaccines must be tested at least for 10 years before these can be use widespread. At least if a classic cure is available, that delivers similar results. I know about 5 classics cures for CoV-19. So I will wait at least 10 years.

But most people now have a brain live (in facebook, Instagram,Yahoo, gameworld, twitter) so for these a vaccine is just a new excitement - like! - even if it is the last ... Not much to clean up. Just delete *.*.*....

Quote from Bob#2

Jed responded with "nonsense", the vaccines are the most tested ever in history, which is factually incorrect. They have no long term tests, nor have passed even the standard short term protocols.

That is incorrect. Similar mRNA vaccines have been tested for over 20 years, in people and in animals.

Furthermore, double-blind tests with tens of thousands of people were conducted more than a year ago. Other vaccines were not tested any longer than a year before they were fully certified. No vaccine in history was tested with so many people. Many are never administered to tens of thousands of patients during the entire commercial life of the vaccine.

All the RNA and spike proteins from the vaccine disappears within days. The only thing left is the effect of the spike proteins. The only known effect is the production of antibodies, and -- of course -- these are exactly the same antibodies as the disease causes. If they were not the same, they would not prevent the disease. Antibodies do not cause disease. They are not a threat to your health.

It is conceivable there are other, undiscovered effects from the vanished spike proteins. But the mass of these proteins is about a million times smaller than you get from the common cold or from COVID-19. So it is extremely unlikely they will cause any problem that the cold or COVID-19 do not cause. If they could cause problems, so would the cold. The problems caused by COVID-19 are not from the spike proteins themselves but rather from the overall effect of the virus on millions of times more cells than the vaccine can affect.

The spike protein from the vaccine can latch onto the surface of a cell, but it cannot inject anything or harm the cell, the way a virus does. It has nothing to inject; no RNA. You need the entire shell of the virus to do this. So it is difficult to imagine how the isolated spikes might cause harm, especially given the small number of them. The RNA from the vaccine is injected into cells, but it does not reproduce. We can estimate the maximum number of cells it could affect. The delivery method is a lipid nanoparticle attaching to the surface of a cell. This is far less effective than the mechanism the virus uses. A much smaller fraction of the RNA will end up in the cell than the same mass of RNA from viruses. The main thing is, it is absolutely impossible for the RNA to self-reproduce after it is injected in the cell. It can only express spike proteins; not itself. Whereas the full genome from a virus expresses the entire virus. It is self-replicating, using the cellular machinery (ribosomes in the cytoplasm).

Quote from Wyttenbach

We here talk about science and population statistics.

THH supports Ascolian statistics... when it suits his rhetoric..

talks bayesian etc..

In response to my statement that: "Every reported side effect of the vaccine has been investigated in more detail, with better diagnostics and more data than any vaccine in history."

Quote from Bob#2

Prime example...

A prime example of what? What is your point? You demanded a close look at every side effect. That is what the public health establishment has given you. It has done the best job in history of following up on problems. It has reported on potential problems in enormous detail, in sources fully open to the public. Never before has a public health crisis been met with such transparency, and this kind of open, immediate publication of potential problems. The establishment has given you exactly what you demand. So, what are you complaining about? You will not take "yes" for an answer.

This is a "prime example" of you being wrong, and not admitting it, or worse, not even realizing it.

I suppose your only complaint is that after exhaustive examination of the potential problems, experts have shown that these are the safest vaccines in history, and there is no evidence they have caused any deaths or serious problems. This upsets you. You want the vaccines to be dangerous. You have been hoping they kill people and cause harm. You refuse to face the fact that they are safe. You are rooting for Team Death. You want the pandemic to kill millions more people. Sorry to disappoint you. The good news (for you, anyway) is that ignorant and deluded fools in many U.S. states refuse to be vaccinated, so they will get sick and die.

Here is grim news from India:

India’s true pandemic death toll is likely to be well over 3 million, a new study finds.

A comprehensive effort to estimate excess deaths in the country during the pandemic produced figures 10 times the government’s official coronavirus toll.

www.nytimes.com

India’s true pandemic death toll is likely to be well over 3 million, a new study finds.

By Karan Deep Singh

July 20, 2021, 6:25 a.m. ET

The number of people who have died in the coronavirus pandemic in India so far is likely to exceed three million — nearly 10 times the official Covid-19 death toll — making it one of the worst human tragedies in the nation’s history, according to a new study.

In a comprehensive examination of the true toll of the pandemic in the sprawling nation of 1.4 billion, the Center for Global Development, a Washington research institute, attempted to quantify excess deaths from all causes during the pandemic based on state data, international estimates, serological studies and household surveys.

“True deaths are likely to be in the several millions, not hundreds of thousands, making this arguably India’s worst human tragedy,” said its authors, one of whom is a former chief economic adviser to the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. . . .

Disappointing news about prophylactics:

DGHS drops Ivermectin, Doxycycline from Covid-19 treatment; ICMR rules unchanged

The revised guidelines have also dropped drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc and multivitamins, that were earlier prescribed by…

www.indiatoday.in

DGHS [Indian health agency] drops Ivermectin, Doxycycline from Covid-19 treatment; ICMR rules unchanged

The revised guidelines have also dropped drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc and multivitamins, that were earlier prescribed by doctors to treat asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic Covid-19 patients.

In asymptomatic cases, the revised guidelines have said no medication is required. In the case of mildly symptomatic patients, self-monitoring for worsening of symptoms has been recommended. . . .

The Union Health Ministry and Family Welfare's directorate general of health services (DGHS) has issued revised guidelines to stop the use of Ivermectin and Doxycycline in Covid-19 treatment. The new guidelines have dropped all medicines, except antipyretic and antitussive, for asymptomatic and mild cases.

However, there seems to be a split in opinion about the new directives as the Indian Council for Medical Research, the country's leading health agency in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, has not yet approved the revised guidelines. . . .

Quote from JedRothwell

as the Indian Council for Medical Research, the country's leading health agency in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic,

Quote from JedRothwell

grim news from India:

The May guidelines from the ICMR are still 200 mcg/kg of ivermectin..,, \

not as a prophylactic

Probably a bit low... FCCC recommends 400 mcg/kg.. 5 days

https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/COVID_Management_Algorithm_17052021.pdf

Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators

Hospitals are paid more for Medicare patients with COVID-19, but a senator who first said that says he doesn't think the system is being gamed.

www.usatoday.com

three million sounds a bit grimmer than 2.6 million

its lucky India is no longer under the British Raj

when 3 million died in Bengal when the Indian population was only 388 million.

Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study

Study is first time weather data has been used argue wartime policies exacerbated famine

www.theguardian.com

2.6 million = the population adjusted deaths for the USA 625K *1.393/0.333

but how many of those US Covid deaths are Medicare deaths?

P: Dr Fauci... knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress..

F: Senator Paul you do not know what you are talking about..

Quote from JedRothwell

In response to my statement that: "Every reported side effect of the vaccine has been investigated in more detail, with better diagnostics and more data than any vaccine in history."

This was not a statement: It is a blatant lie. We have more than 1 million vaccine side effects in Europe and only a tiny fraction will have follow up studies.

Quote from JedRothwell

India’s true pandemic death toll is likely to be well over 3 million, a new study finds

This is true: The deportation after lookdown did lead to starvation of many 100'000 Indians...Also medical aid was not available and thus a large number of Indians did die from simple infections.

The rest is fake news.

Quote from JedRothwell

DGHS [Indian health agency] drops Ivermectin, Doxycycline from Covid-19 treatment; ICMR rules unchanged

Jed repeats spreading Big Pharma fake news from start of June possibly from the bribed state Tamil Nadu. Ivermectin still saves India.

A different approach

Unbiased interrogation of memory B cells from convalescent COVID-19 patients reveals a broad antiviral humoral response targeting SARS-CoV-2 antigens beyond the spike protein

Unbiased interrogation of memory B cells from convalescent COVID-19 patients reveals a broad antiviral humoral response targeting SARS-CoV-2 antigens beyond the spike protein

Patients who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infections produce antibodies and antigen-specific T cells against multiple viral proteins. Here, an unbiased int…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract

Patients who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infections produce antibodies and antigen-specific T cells against multiple viral proteins. Here, an unbiased interrogation of the anti-viral memory B cell repertoire of convalescent patients has been performed by generating large, stable hybridoma libraries and screening thousands of monoclonal antibodies to identify specific, high-affinity immunoglobulins (Igs) directed at distinct viral components. As expected, a significant number of antibodies were directed at the Spike (S) protein, a majority of which recognized the full-length protein. These full-length Spike specific antibodies included a group of somatically hypermutated IgMs. Further, all but one of the six COVID-19 convalescent patients produced class-switched antibodies to a soluble form of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S protein. Functional properties of anti-Spike antibodies were confirmed in a pseudovirus neutralization assay. Importantly, more than half of all of the antibodies generated were directed at non-S viral proteins, including structural nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins, as well as auxiliary open reading frame-encoded (ORF) proteins. The antibodies were generally characterized as having variable levels of somatic hypermutations (SHM) in all Ig classes and sub-types, and a diversity of VL and VH gene usage. These findings demonstrated that an unbiased, function-based approach towards interrogating the COVID-19 patient memory B cell response may have distinct advantages relative to genomics-based approaches when identifying highly effective anti-viral antibodies directed at SARS-CoV-2.

Discussion

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has stimulated extraordinary efforts to study anti-viral response and to develop means for treatment and prophylaxis, in both the academic and the biopharmaceutical research communities. By the end of October 2020, a mere 11 months after the virus was first identified, the Clinicaltrials.gov database listed more than 3500 distinct clinical trial activities directed at patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. There is significant diversity among these efforts, from the assessment of existing drugs, to the use of convalescent plasma from recovered patients, to the use of specific vaccines and antibodies directed at the viral S protein. It is not yet apparent that there will be a single approach that will prove to be uniformly effective at preventing viral infections or accelerating viral clearance in all groups of COVID-19 patients.

It is possible that even the most effective approaches will have limited or unsustainable efficacy. The vast majority of the ongoing efforts are all targeting the S protein. Both passive (therapeutic antibodies) and active (vaccine) approaches directed at S protein are expected to promote virus neutralization, that is, inhibition of viral entry into healthy cells. Unfortunately, a mutation in S protein has already been reported [20], [21] and further mutations may ultimately limit the effectiveness of therapies directed at this single protein [22].

Given the multiplicity of SARS-CoV-2 proteins that induce antigen-specific T and B cell responses in humans, it is reasonable that an unbiased interrogation of the memory B cells generated by high-titer, convalescent COVID-19 patients could identify high-affinity Igs directed at specific viral antigens. As an outcome of this approach, there was not a single dominant V gene LC/HC combination specific to a particular viral protein among characterized 134 Igs from convalescent patients. In fact, sequence analysis revealed a lower rate of SHM of anti-Spike Igs than of antibodies directed at other viral proteins (N, M, ORF8 and ORF10). Remarkably, even a modest rate of germline mutations in anti-S antibodies resulted in potent neutralization of both S-expressing pseudovirus (Fig. 7) and SARS-CoV-2 live virus (manuscript in preparation). To our surprise, these Spike-specific antibodies included an atypically high proportion of well-mutated anti-viral IgMs (26.4% with a mean mutation rate of 5.73%) suggesting that non-switched memory B cells also undergo affinity maturation in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further, a subset of such mutated IgMs targeted the full-length Spike, but not soluble S1 or RBD domains. The identification of IgG and IgA antibodies specific for the full range of targets screened, including the RBD domain of S, highlights the requirement of additional events, such as immunoglobulin class switching, for the development of a productive neutralizing antibody response. Finally, and perhaps not unexpectedly, we have identified a group of polyreactive antibodies (data not shown). A relatively high rate of SHM in these polyreactive antibodies may suggest a secondary maturation event that redirected immature B cell clones toward SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The majority of anti-S antibodies, as expected, recognized a full-length S protein (Table 3). Further, all but one of the six COVID-19 convalescent patients produced antibodies to a soluble receptor-binding domain of S protein (RBD). Of note, while most of the RBD- and S1-specific antibodies were less mutated than those specific to the full-length S protein, we identified several highly mutated RBD-specific outliers. Lower rate of SHM in the S-specific antibody group may connote limited rounds of affinity-maturation for a high antigenic protein. These anti-Spike antibodies demonstrated functional activity in a pseudovirus neutralization assay. In fact, there were several potent neutralizing antibodies (e.g., Ab#3, Ab#26), that had EC50 in 100 ng/mL range. One of these two antibodies demonstrated a combinatorial effect with Ab#1 in pseudovirus (Fig. 7C, D) neutralization assays. The selectivity, affinity, and functional activity of the anti-Spike antibodies suggest that they were a part of the successful anti-viral responses mounted by the patients from which they were derived. By extension, the antibodies identified against other viral targets may have also contributed to the viral clearance through mechanisms other than neutralization (i.e., activators of complement and/or effector cells).

In summary, an unbiased interrogation of the B cell repertoires of convalescent COVID-19 patients demonstrated that these patients make a strong humoral response against a broad array of SARS-CoV-2 proteins. These responses included high affinity antibodies of multiple Ig isotypes. The natural immune response to SARS-CoV-2 among these patients stands in stark contrast to the anti-S focused approaches being taken to develop therapeutic antibodies to treat COVID-19. An alternative approach should include targeting a breadth of SARS-CoV-2 proteins with a cocktail of antibodies, with the anticipation that a multi-targeted mixture will be more effective at inducing robust viral clearance via neutralization and Fc-mediated activation of complement and effector cells.

Efficacy of “Essential Iodine Drops” against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Efficacy of “Essential Iodine Drops” against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Background Aerosolization of respiratory droplets is considered the main route of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, reducing the viral load of…

journals.plos.org

Abstract

Background

Aerosolization of respiratory droplets is considered the main route of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, reducing the viral load of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shed via respiratory droplets is potentially an ideal strategy to prevent the spread of the pandemic. The in vitro virucidal activity of intranasal Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) has been demonstrated recently to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral titres. This study evaluated the virucidal activity of the aqueous solution of Iodine-V (a clathrate complex formed by elemental iodine and fulvic acid) as in Essential Iodine Drops (EID) with 200 μg elemental iodine/ml content against SARS-CoV-2 to ascertain whether it is a better alternative to PVP-I.

Methods

SARS-CoV-2 (USAWA1/2020 strain) virus stock was prepared by infecting Vero 76 cells (ATCC CRL-1587) until cytopathic effect (CPE). The virucidal activity of EID against SARS-CoV-2 was tested in three dilutions (1:1; 2:1 and 3:1) in triplicates by incubating at room temperature (22 ± 2°C) for either 60 or 90 seconds. The surviving viruses from each sample were quantified by a standard end-point dilution assay.

Results

EID (200 μg iodine/ml) after exposure for 60 and 90 seconds was compared to controls. In both cases, the viral titre was reduced by 99% (LRV 2.0). The 1:1 dilution of EID with virus reduced SARS-CoV-2 virus from 31,623 cell culture infectious dose 50% (CCID50) to 316 CCID50 within 90 seconds.

Conclusion

Substantial reductions in LRV by Iodine-V in EID confirmed the activity of EID against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, demonstrating that Iodine-V in EID is effective at inactivating the virus in vitro and therefore suggesting its potential application intranasally to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission from known or suspected COVID-19 patients.

Sequential contralateral facial nerve palsies following COVID-19 vaccination first and second doses

Sequential contralateral facial nerve palsies following COVID-19 vaccination first and second doses

A 61-year-old man presented to the ENT emergency clinic with a history of unilateral facial nerve palsy occurring shortly after each dose of the…

casereports.bmj.com

Abstract

A 61-year-old man presented to the ENT emergency clinic with a history of unilateral facial nerve palsy occurring shortly after each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The first episode developed 5 hours after administration of the first dose and the second 2 days after administration of the second dose. Investigations at initial presentation to the emergency department were unremarkable, and the patient was diagnosed with Bell’s palsy on both occasions. We describe the first case of Bell’s palsy occurring after each dose of any UK-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Single episodes of unilateral facial nerve palsies have been reported in clinical trials and in subsequent case reports. There has been no evidence, however, of an episode after each dose. We also describe the earliest onset of symptoms from timing of administration of the vaccine, further suggesting the Bell’s palsy was associated with the vaccine.

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

Coronavirus (covid-19) Hub usage terms

Coronavirus (covid-19) Hub usage terms

bmj.com

Sequential contralateral facial nerve palsies following COVID-19 vaccination first and second doses

A 61-year-old man presented to the ENT emergency clinic with a history of unilateral facial nerve palsy occurring shortly after each dose of the…

dx.doi.org

Discussion

Bell’s palsy is defined as a rapid unilateral facial paresis or paralysis of unknown cause.13 Although the aetiology is unclear, the pathogenic mechanism is believed to be related to facial nerve inflammation and oedema caused by a virus. Most patients show some recovery without intervention in 2–3 weeks and the majority of cases resolve within 3–4 months. Risk factors include diabetes, obesity, hypertension, pregnancy, pre-eclampsia and upper respiratory disease.13 Although most cases spontaneously recover with time, the symptoms can cause significant temporary disability for patients, affecting their facial expression and ability to eat and drink. Long-term facial weakness can lead to significant morbidity along with high rates of anxiety and depression.14

Bell’s palsy has previously been linked with influenza vaccinations. In 2004 the inactivated intranasal influenza vaccine was shown to significantly increase the risk of Bell’s palsy and was discontinued.15 Increased incidence of Bell’s palsy has also been described with administration of other multiple influenza and meningococcal vaccines, although a causal link has not been established.16

A possible mechanism of action could involve reactivation of the dormant virus within the CNS causing facial nerve inflammation or oedema after administration of the vaccine. A proposed mechanism of idiopathic facial nerve palsy suggests reactivation of latent herpes virus in a similar mechanism to Ramsey Hunt syndrome and the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus.17 Autopsies have also confirmed that COVID-19 viral RNA is present in the CNS.18 However, we are unable to account for the rapid onset of the facial nerve palsy.

A review of the current literature produced two formal case reports of unilateral facial nerve palsy occurring after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. In Los Angeles, a 57-year-old woman developed a severe Bell’s palsy 36 hours after administration of her second dose of vaccine.19 The dose was given 19 days after the first dose. The patient had a left-sided facial palsy and improved with an antiviral and steroid. Of note, the patient had a history of three previous episodes of Bell’s palsy which had affected her on both sides. Similarly, a unilateral facial nerve palsy was reported in a healthy Italian 37-year-old man, occurring 5 days after his first dose of vaccine. The patient had no significant past medical history or previous Bell’s palsy and made some improvement with high-dose steroids.20

We describe the first case of two discrete contralateral facial nerve palsies to be reported in the literature following both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. This case also describes the earliest onset of symptoms after administration of the vaccine compared with the two aforementioned cases and those within the clinical trials. The occurrence of the episodes immediately after each vaccine dose strongly suggests that the Bell’s palsy was attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, although a causal relationship cannot be established.

Learning points

Given the rapid roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine, it is essential that clinicians are vigilant and report adverse effects in a timely manner.

Our case is the first reported incidence of two discrete contralateral episodes of Bell’s palsy shortly after receiving his first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The current data from clinical trials do not wholly comment on relevant medical history or previous cases of Bell’s palsy in those who suffered side effects.

Healthcare professionals should continue to report and share these findings in order to further investigate the potential of a causal relationship and the pathophysiology underlying Bell’s palsy. A longitudinal cohort study could be used for further analysis of these cases.

Quote from Bob#2

I would like to point out .... I do not know of any "anti-vaxxers" on this site. Perhaps one? But I believe just about everyone on this site HAS taken the vaccine, certainly the majority.... so much for "stupid conservatives"....... They are just concerned about long term safety of mRNA vaccines. Tribalism does not seem to allow that open and impersonal discussion. (From BOTH sides I might add!)

(P.S. I will acknowledge that I have not taken any Covid vaccines yet. To restate, I have contracted the virus and I have seen no studies that have convinced me natural protection is inferior to the vaccines. As with everything, there are reports with opposing conclusions. Actually I am leaning towards that natural is better than the artificial. I also take D, Zn and Quercetin, all having some level of studies showing efficacy, with NO side affects and other positives to take it.

I think that anyone who goes against the advice of their local medical professionals needs strong reasons. At least in the UK that would be almost universally for adults to get vaccinated with whatever vaccien is availble and allowed - regulatory approval for a given case implies that balance of personal risk has been considered and vaccine is better than no vaccine.

I agree, the equation changes if you have already caught COVID. Local professional advice is helpful. Here in the UK I know the advice is in that case also to get vaccinated. Whether natural or vaccine immunity is best is a moot point, and will depend on length of time since infection or vaccination, and also which variant you were infected by, which variant you are at risk of catching (that would now everywhere be delta - I expect it to change over time). There is quite a lot of data to show that natural immunity + vaccination is better than just natural immunity, and the risks from COVID are so very much larger than the risks of the vaccine that this motivates the advice.

I think to be not believing advice from health authorities in any country with competent authorities is a strong statement - doing this in the direction of less vaccine makes you an anti-vaxxer, or one of the many influenced by anti-vaxxers. Specifically, the regulatory authorities take risks very very seriously and only recommend vaccines when risks of vaccine are, in their judgement, less than risks of not taking the vaccine.

There is uncertainty and grey areas. Thus if you compare regulatory authorities across EU and UK and US (add Australia and Canada if you like) you can see what everyone agrees and where due to lack of knowledge judgments vary.. Maybe do you take vaccine if you have recovered from COVID is such a greay area but i'm not sure - I know of no country not advising you to do this.

If you can research and understand the risk equation you can definitely improve on the generic advice. My problem with this is where decisions made on the basis of internet research lead to behaviour outside the normal advice (e.g. anyone over 18 not being vaccinated). To prefer fringe anti-vax website views over a clearly stated considered medical judgment from experts is in my view just wrong. Few are in a position to do a more accurate risk analysis than the regulators can do.

Personally, I like to check everything and want my own risk analysis. Where this differs significantly from mainstream advice I would be concerned that my own judgement was partial, or based on other people who them selves had partial or biassed judgement.

Finally looking at the published risk analyses (the quantitative versions) I'd say the mRNA vaccines look less risky (no blood clots) and more effective against future variants than the non-mRNA vaccines. I don't think another 6 months is likely to change that risk equation. As always local medical professionals aware of your history will be better placed to make judgements - and will check the various infrequent at risk factors for different vaccines. However, what is unknown is when new variants will propagate that evade both vaccines and natural immunity (the two go together). That will prompt development of new vaccines.

Contrary to what W says above, tweaking a vaccine for new variants is commonly done, e.g. with Flu. It can be done over 6 months and does not take 10 years.

Dear THH,

Slight caveat to your post; local health authorities will take into consideration the wider community risks/benefits and not just personal/subset risk/benefit. This is why there is still some debate, even within the various authorities, as to what age to go down to for the Covid19 vaccination programme(s).

Nar.

Hmm, here is an interesting discussion about 4 million excess death in India at hacker news.

My take of this is simply you cannot do anything with Indias official statistics. The only data to trust is information

from proper randomized samples. All else arguments go to the garbage can.

The paper discussed did indeed study random samples I believe and there was also a number presented in the discussion

that said that around 70% of the Indians have antibodies (not sure if it's from subsampling but these numbers typically is that

but the sampling method can be of different quality). Combine that and you get an IFR=0.4% Looks low as if 4 million was dead,

you would have a huge amount of people not treated in hospitals. (we know that hospitals where full) On the other hand

India has a young population so I do not find the figure strange on a first look and these numbers seam to have ended in the

right ball park.

This suggest that the decay of cases in India seam to be a combination of immunity and lock down and that we now see what

a free falling epidemic does to the population. If this was USA you would have gotten around 2 million deaths (with an IFR=0.6%)

but probably more as hospitals would not cope in USA as well. The delta really penetrates quickly and this indicates why lock

downs (previously an parts of the world now) in some way is needed. I prefer the Swedish one with recommendations, but I do understand that other countries, with more of a dense population, and less complying to what the governments say, does a more strict lock down.