Covid-19 News

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    All experts that are not FM/R/XXX/B members agree that vaccines for healthy people age < 55 cause more harm than benefits.

    I can see why that acronymic organisation you quote has - in your mind - such a large membership. 99% of experts would disagree.


    Refreshingly on this thread we do not need to rely on experts. Could you give us your estimate for:

    (1) the vaccine risk (of mortality) for a healthy 55 year old

    (2) the COVID risk of mortality for a healthy 55 year old


    You have studied this, so probably know. Is it that 98% of experts (due no doubt to their membership) are understanding vaccine risk, or overstating healthy person risk?


    Finally, for clarity, what do you mean by "healthy"? Do you reckon all BMIs are healthy, or would you exclude anyone overweight? If so how much? Similarly what about people who take less than the recommended amount of exercise, or who have a poor diet? I'd like to understand your thinking better, and how narrowly you define healthy is part of that. You could clarify by saying what fraction of the US 55 year old population you consider healthy.


    Best wishes, THH

    I'd sort of like to understand your correction of my (possible) errors. Maybe you think I should be multiplying by 2 because the per jab numbers need to be converted to overall numbers? That depends on many things including country policy - even one jab provides enough protection to greatly change death figures. In any case I was using your numbers which were not very clear to anyone except you. Writing is like that you know - you always think it is clear to others because you (who know it) find it clear.


    Finally as far as COVID risk = 0 for under 25 healthy. That cannot possibly be known, and would be inherently implausible. Any analysis in great detail that leads to that conclusion will be counterfactual. Perhaps you mean the risk is very small - like the vaccine risk.

    Quote from stefan

    Do you know if the current analysis depends on onset or on day of death? I find that if onset is available you get a sharper instrument, but not sure if experts already does this and

    or if those values are available with quality in e.g. the Swedish database.. I asked my friend about this but it's summer and people log out and relax here.

    The trouble is that different countries have different methodology, and with these very low numbers and contaminating background deaths it would be good to pool data.


    AFAIK vaccine deaths can in principle be attributed any length of time after the jab. Obviously showing causality gets more difficult when times are longer but it could happen.


    Given a proper database you could do a good job, for any specific fast onset putative side effect, by looking at the distribution of deaths (or as you say for more resolution) onset relative to jab. If that were obviously non-uniform the right way probabilities could be inferred. I think the difficulty is that you either have a very inaccurate and unpruned database like VAERS, or an accurate one where professionals tend to look out only for known side effects. So quantifying new low probability side effects is difficult.


    I am sure this is what everyone does. And the side effects that have been discovered at low levels (mRNA - pericarditis, AstraZeneca - unusual blood clots, many others if you look at the official statements) show it works quite well.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    And the side effects that have been discovered at low levels (mRNA - pericarditis, AstraZeneca - unusual blood clots, many others if you look at the official statements) show it works quite well.

    May be this is the new standard for future vaccines 25..40 deaths/ mio. vaccinated. 250..400 live long damages/mio vaccines....


    Really excellently working $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ vaccines...


    We will nominate you for the Dr. Mengele award together with the UK HCQ killer doctors...

    W


    No answer from you yet, so I thought I'd help.


    here is a nice interactive COVID risk calculator:


    See how age and illnesses change the risk of dying from covid-19
    Our risk model estimates chances of death and hospitalisation based on age, sex and comorbidities | Graphic detail
    www.economist.com


    55 year old male, no health problems, mortality = 0.8%.


    Let us see how that relates to vaccine risk. That would be a mortality risk of 8000 : 1,000,000


    That is 100 times higher than even the most inflated estimates of vaccine risks.


    THH

    UK death figures show:: Since about 2 months 1 death/500 cases = IFR 0.2. Real IFR 0.05 as usually 3 of 4 cases are silent.

    Use worldometer 7 day average as deaths have weekend bumps.


    This proves that delta is the deadliest virus for any fear propaganda...


    Conclusion:: The discussions about boosters will intensify also the amount of fakes new about long Covid will soon multiply in the news as seen here on the forum too...And may be soon we know that herd immunity includes people that despite vaccines have a strong CoV-19 illness...and working vaccines are the ones that can be sold...


    Vaccination master Israel now sees a telling weekly 60% increase in CoV-19 cases. But studies show even looking at a Pfizer flask reduces your risk by 60%...So who shall we believe??


    In south Africa - some crack pots believe - a virgin cures you from AIDS...and 1.3 billion Indians believe Ivermectin did save them. In reality as shown above it was the picture of a Pfizer placebo vaccine flask they will get soon (=within some months) that gave them complete happiness - what did cured them...

    THH, somehow I didn't like any of the nine options you offered. I wonder why, hmmm.


    I didn't view badly the athletes who were wearing masks and doing as they were asked, but my heart admittedly did warm to the relative few that didn't. In my estimation they were not significantly increasing real infection risk to themselves or others.


    I guess I'm old school and believe all the established, dull literature that says surgical masks and cloth masks don't provide significant protection against aerosolized respiratory viruses. (Surgical masks were never intended to provide such protection.) However I did notice that at least one country that I recall (from Africa) were wearing what looked to be N95 masks. I thought, OK, they're intelligent about truly reducing any risk of infection.

    The risk of infection of an individual during that opening ceremony? I'll guess about 1 in 1000 for those without a mask, 1 in 1200 for those with a typical mask, and 1 in 10000 for those with an N95 mask.


    Given that athletes are tested before they leave for Japan, when they arrive in Japan, and each day while in Japan, any spreading is going to be minimal and conventional masks are barely going to help matters.


    By the way, here in Toronto I haven't seen anyone on our street today wearing a mask, and there are lots of people out and about, standing on lawns and chatting in groups. We're having a get together and dinner on Sunday at our place, about ten people total, and I doubt anyone will be masked. No one will think that anyone is being rude, or virtuous. Daily cases in Ontario are down to where they were last July.


    Enjoy the Olympics!

    Umm....


    W - I realise the UK is now out of the EU and maybe you don't know much about us.


    Still - you could read my post showing that a few weeks ago in the UK 50-59 year olds were 96% fully vaccinated. Older ages even higher rates.


    So I agree - real IFR of vaccinated people from delta is reassuringly low. I can tell you that I, and all the others I know in the UK, are very happy about that.


    Everyone I know over age 18 is double vaccinated.


    I have to say that I admire your PR abilities. You seem able to convince apparently level-headed but not very science-oriented people like Shane that you are possibly correct (as in - well those eggheads are very clever - they disagree - I don't know who to believe) in spite of posting conclusions like the above that just don't make sense. I don't claim to be very clever. I do claim to be able to read a wide variety of material (from many sources) and come to sane conclusions which are as unbiassed as I can make them. And, no I am not a member of any sinister organisation.


    3/4 cases silent - well that might be true but the estimates I've seen for asymptomatic infection are lower - maybe 40%, and in the UK we have a LOT of testing - for example in schools, where a lot of the infection now is. in spite of an incompetent government I have to say I am proud overall of the UK population response to COVID, which has been sensible and patient, with a high level of adherence to regulations.

    Quote from Mark U

    I guess I'm old school and believe all the established, dull literature that says surgical masks and cloth masks don't provide significant protection against aerosolized respiratory viruses. (Surgical masks were never intended to provide such protection.)

    I guess I admire your certainty. Over these matters of life and death you reckon your old school beliefs are 100% correct - so precautionary principle does not apply.


    I don't know what is the real effectiveness of masks, especially with delta, which can change things. There is significant evidence both theoretical and experimental that they might help. Your old-school view was followed by most everyone until there was significant contrary evidence. I'm just not clever enough myself to think my views so definite here I can risk other's lives on them.


    In any case, as I've pointed out - wearing masks is partly about being polite in public spaces towards others. Just like when driving a car I try hard not to induce road rage in others. Road rage is very wrong. the people who claim to have it are brainless idiots. But I would be a brainless idiot if I did not take their feelings into account.


    I don't think non-mask-wearing in close proximity to others in public spaces will result in COVID-rage. But in public spaces there may be people, immuno-supressed or otherwise vulnerable, who suffer a good deal of anguish due to your actions not wearing a mask.


    Maybe you reckon that is their fault. I don't. When there is no need to share space this is not an issue. But in cities, public transport, olympic stadiums, etc, sharing space is inevitable and politeness helps everyone.

    Thomas, there you go again making an ass of yourself. I acknowledged the games beginning but paranoid crazy people jump to conclusions. By the way the FLCCC has offered their support to the games.

    Quote from Fm1

    Thomas, there you go again making an ass of yourself. I acknowledged the games beginning but paranoid crazy people jump to conclusions. By the way the FLCCC has offered their support to the games.

    FM1 - there have been a few times when you have completely misunderstood me. this is one. Brit sense of humour, eh? What can you do...

    The Olympic teams of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan paraded mostly maskless into Tokyo's Olympic Stadium at the Games opening ceremony on July 23, in stark contrast with all the national teams who had preceded them wearing masks in accordance with COVID-19 protocols.

    Just four members of Kyrgyzstan's team wore masks, with the seven other members of the delegation, including its two flag bearers, waving and smiling maskless as they walked in during the ceremony, which was broadcast live around the world.

    Most of Tajikistan's team also marched into the stadium maskless a short time afterwards, while Pakistan's two flag bearers also chose not to cover their faces, unlike the vast majority of the other participants at the ceremony.

    Tokyo 2020 organizers did not immediately comment about the delegations without masks.

    Tajik officials initially denied the existence of any coronavirus infections in the country when the pandemic first started last year. Since admitting the virus had hit the country, officials have been accused of underreporting cases and covering up the extent of its spread.

    Health officials in Kyrgyzstan have long complained of noncompliance with recommendations on mask use and social distancing by the country's citizens.


    I guess it must be reassuring for the politicised US citizens on the don't wear masks side to know they have such good company!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I have to say that I admire your PR abilities. You seem able to convince apparently level-headed but not very science-oriented people like Shane that you are possibly correct

    I will take that as a backhanded compliment. When listening to other peoples science opinion, it seems like a good idea to consider they may be "possibly correct". You have said as much by acknowledging Ivermectin, and communist China are possibly correct. That is a sign of an open mind, so we share the same values. Good on you.


    And BTW, I am pro vaccine. Very much so.

    Quote from Shane D.

    I am pro vaccine. Very much so.

    Me too ... but will wait for the longterm data on the adverse effects of synthetic RNA .on the young.ones.

    as for the old ones..dementia will probably get me first... if it hasn't already..

    I can't check with Dementia Australia opposite my house.. Covid has blocked off the street.since yesterday..


    More lab info on ivermectin... a long time coming...5 months..

    from the Pasteur institute..thanks to the citizens of France..

    Nous saluons les hamsters heroiques :(

    image

    ."Here, we show that the modulation of the host’s inflammatory response using IVM as a repurposed drug strongly diminished the clinical score and severity of the disease (including anosmia) observed in these animals, although it has no impact on viral load.

    https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202114122


    This is an interesting paper, and is rare motivation for the very many IVM RCTs being conducted now.


    It is a great example of how peer review (usually) increases the quality of papers. Note here the robust but respectful dialog between the three reviewers and the authors:


    https://www.embopress.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.15252/emmm.202114122&file=emmm202114122-sup-0008-reviewer_comments.pdf



    • It provides some fragmentary but fascinating info about possible ways that IVM immunomodulation combines with COVID (in hamsters)
    • It raises a lot of questions
    • The evidence here is that overall, in hamsters, IVM reduces disease severity by down-regulating immune-response inflammation in female (but not so clearly male) hamsters.
    • There is no alteration in viral load as the result of IVM.
    • Those who love hamsters will note that they had a pretty horrible time of it, and were killed at the end. Myself, I think treatments for COVID are worth sacrificing a few hamsters though I would not like to have been the one doing it.


    The search to find the best ways of managing the typical COVID immune response dysregulation is really complex, and this contributes to it. It gives a bit of hope to the trials of ivermectin that look at its ability to decrease disease severity (like PRINCIPLE). It is pretty uncertain evidence, because of differences between the models, between the hamster sexes, etc. There is some question about dose and how BMI affects that. But, even if it does not directly help drug discovery the details here will help our understanding of COVID.


    It is also interesting that (as I speculated a few times here) we see zero action for IVM as anti-viral, but some possibly useful action as immunomodulatory agent. That was always likely. It means:

    (1) using IVM as prophylactic or to reduce disease spread definitely does not (in this hamster model) work (no anti-viral action).

    (2) using IVM to reduce disease severity might work (weak evidence here - enough to motivate further research)

    (3) using IVM to decrease mortality (we don't know - a long way to go for that - but if it reduces disease severity it might also decrease mortality)


    THH


    EDIT - corrected for counterintuitive hamster spelling

    Hamsters have been the best model so far for showing us any clinical disease,” says Martinot. “They develop weight loss, and they develop a fulminant pneumonia where it’s affecting sometimes over fifty percent of their lung,” she adds. “They also will recover if given time, but the pathology we feel is more representative of what you might see in humans.” Martinot, Dan Barouch, who directs the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and other collaborators recently published a study showing that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protected against weight loss and pneumonia in Syrian hamsters.

    This species, also known as the golden Syrian hamster, has some drawbacks, too, Trimpert says. They’re big, for one, weighing in at 150–160 grams fully grown, in contrast to adult mice, which tip the scales at about 30–35 grams. Syrian hamsters are also aggressive toward each other and sometimes the people taking care of them. Their size and aggression mean that they often have to be housed alone in larger cages, which makes them more expensive to keep.

    The biggest issues, according to Trimpert, are the poor quality of the sequenced genome—many genes are just missing—and the lack of molecular tools that work in hamsters. To circumvent these problems, Trimpert and his colleagues are resequencing and annotating the Syrian hamster genome.

    Because the weight loss in Syrian hamsters—their only easily observable clinical symptom—is quite mild, it’s also a drawback, particularly when testing therapies or vaccines, Trimpert tells The Scientist. “If you need thirty hamsters in order to get statistical significance . . . that is a huge practical problem.”


    The researchers are skirting this issue by beginning work with another species, Roborovski dwarf hamsters (Phodopus roborovskii), which are smaller than mice and less aggressive than Syrian hamsters. The dwarf hamsters also get much sicker than their larger relatives following SARS-CoV-2 infection, developing massive blood clots in the lungs, which are often present in severe cases of COVID-19 in people as well. Most of these hamsters eventually die of the complications of the infection, which, according to Trimpert, indicates that they might be a good model of severe disease in humans.

    Quote from Shane D.

    I will take that as a backhanded compliment. When listening to other peoples science opinion, it seems like a good idea to consider they may be "possibly correct". You have said as much by acknowledging Ivermectin, and communist China are possibly correct. That is a sign of an open mind, so we share the same values. Good on you.


    And BTW, I am pro vaccine. Very much so.

    Glad to hear that Shane. Just a small correction. I consider that everyone here who posts is possibly correct - that includes W whose repetitive insults directed towards me and 99% of the scientific and medical establishment to not particularly bias me.


    However, after reading specific posts, that judgement (for that post) changes. My beef with you is that you often miss out that second step.

    It sure seems like Fauci is lying about gain-of-function research


    It sure seems like Fauci is lying about gain-of-function research


    Coronavirus czar Dr. Anthony Fauci insisted this week that Sen. Rand Paul had slandered him during a congressional hearing. Paul had pressed Fauci about whether the National Institutes of Health funded dangerous gain-of-function research in China. However, all of the evidence suggests Paul is right, and Fauci is lying.


    Fauci has been adamant that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan lab, even swearing under oath that the agency “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” But as Paul pointed out this week, there are records proving the WIV was conducting gain-of-function research and that the funding the NIH granted to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based research organization that has long supported the WIV’s work, helped fund that research.

    Paul specifically cited a 2017 scientific paper co-authored by Shi Zhengli, who was in charge of the WIV’s coronavirus research, which says Shi “took two bat coronavirus genes — spike genes — and combined them with a SARS-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature.” And we’re to believe this doesn’t fit the definition of gain-of-function research, otherwise known as research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease?


    There’s been a bit of debate among virologists over whether Shi’s work actually did make the spike genes more transmissible, which is technically what would have needed to occur for the experiment to qualify as gain-of-function. Let’s say the skeptics are right and the WIV’s experiments didn’t make the virus more deadly or transmissible than it already was. Regardless, there is no question that Shi was taking an enormous risk by creating a new chimeric virus that could have become more dangerous and transmissible than the original. How is that not a problem?

    The 2017 paper also noted that Shi received funding from the NIH through EcoHealth Alliance, which has received more than $15.2 million from the NIH over the years, $3.74 million of which was directed toward bat coronavirus research. So, yes, the NIH was funding extremely questionable research in Wuhan, and Fauci’s claim otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. He likes to say the NIH only sent money to EcoHealth Alliance, as if we don’t know where that money went afterward. That connection matters, and Fauci knows it.


    Fauci has claimed that he didn’t really know what was going on in the Wuhan lab, but this is almost impossible to believe. He has spent much of his career advocating for the exact kind of research Shi was performing. He continually pushed the federal government toward gain-of-function research under the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. As recently as 2018, he was praising the NIH’s decision to lift its pause on the funding of gain-of-function research. This is his life’s work — of course he’s going to be defensive about it.

    So, yes, it matters whether Fauci lied. He’s still operating as the face of the federal government’s coronavirus response, and he is a powerful public health official who knew the risks the Wuhan lab was taking, yet aided its researchers anyway. There’s a good chance 4 million people are dead because of that research.

    It seems like Paul is lying about Fauci lying


    Don't be surprised - Paul is a US politician up for reelection...


    That is way out of court. A US politician (from a party that has recently become dramatically anti-science and whose base is mostly uneducated) knowing better than scientific experts what is or is not GOF research?


    Give me a rest. I have to say this whole political stunt reflects badly on the US. Keep politics out of science please.


    I agree that coronavirus research is dangerous: as does everyone. Personally I don't think the benefits (understanding things like COVID better, being more prepared for the next one) outweigh the risks. But it is easy, now, to think that. At the time although it was contentious most felt the risks outweighed the benefits.


    What the NIH funded was not GOF research (according to NIH definitions).

    • It had clear value in terms of understanding coronavirus behaviour and therefore developing drugs etc, to offset possible risk
    • It did not include anything to make viruses more transmissible to humans

    As result of its pause and now (effective) defunding we lose valuable information. Of course, we are maybe also safer - this is a risk/benefit calculation like so many.


    Was this "new chimaeric virus" a risk? Well, there was data in the paper showing that in fact it was not a risk, as would always be expected the isolated wild spikes did not make these viruses more transmissable, and would not effect them in any other way. You can argue that potentially a wild (non-human) virus spike might be more well adapted to human tissue than the existing (known dangerous) WIV1-CoV. You can argue that we badly need to understand this because WIV1-Cov is a threatening possible transfer virus we need to understand:

    SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence
    The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV highlights the continued risk of…
    www.pnas.org


    Summary below

    As Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, explained, the EcoHealth Alliance/Wuhan Institute of Virology research did not fall under the moratorium because it was using natural viruses and it could be reasonably argued that these were not likely to be highly transmissible and highly virulent in humans.

    Stanley Perlman, a microbiologist at the University of Iowa, told FactCheck.org that EcoHealth’s research was about “trying to see if these viruses can infect human cells and what about the spike protein on the virus determines that.” According to FactCheck.org, Perlman did not think there was anything in the EcoHealth grant description that would be gain-of-function research.

    As shown above, the definition of gain-of-function research is difficult to pin down. But in relation to the NIH’s definition of gain-of-function research, the research described in EcoHealth’s grant application didn’t fall under the NIH’s definition from 2014.

    No evidence that coronaviruses were engineered to be more dangerous for humans

    A 2017 study published by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, listing the NIH as a funding body, appears related to this grant[4]. The researchers wanted to test whether the spike protein of new wild coronaviruses, which they isolated in bats, would allow the coronaviruses to enter human cells.

    The problem with studying coronaviruses is that they are hard to culture in the lab[5]. To carry out their study, the researchers used the genetic sequence of a coronavirus (WIV1) that does replicate in vitro (in the lab) and inserted the spike proteins of the newly isolated viruses. In this way, they could test whether the newly isolated viruses could replicate in human cells in a lab dish.

    Data included in the publication[4] showed that these experiments did not enhance the viruses’ infectivity. The experiments therefore did not make viruses more dangerous to humans or more transmissible.


    What is known about the claims that the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted research to bioengineer bat coronaviruses?
    Image: Scanning electron microscope image showing SARS-CoV-2 (round gold objects) emerging from the surface of cells cultured in the lab. Credit NIAID-RML…
    healthfeedback.org

    Thomas, you prove you have no understanding of American politics. Rand Paul is a licensed medical doctor. Republicans as anti science and low education levels? You as usual paint one party as the cause. And as usual you have your American politics backwards. Republicans support wall street, the educated, while democrats support blue collar, uneducated. Minorities are the leading cause of vaccine hesitancy, they vote blue!!!!!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.