Quote from JedRothwell

The virus has shown it can jump from one species to another, and in the worse case, it could become established in a common animal species,

Maybe the deer to be vaxxed,, too but not the chickens....they are already ivermectinized..

"in experimental studies SARS-CoV-2 did not successfully infect chickens."

https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/wild-birds-are-neglected-hosts-for-coronaviruses

Ivermectin 1% Spot On Drops 10ml

Please read and follow the instructions carefully on the product leaflet and contact us if you are at all unsure on how to administer the product.

www.chickenvet.co.uk

John Campbell's report

UK pingdemic depinging

Vietnam swamped by delta

China fine...

from Reddit

"

Are you in any of the expat Facebook group in Vietnam? They don’t approve posts that mention Ivermectin either. I feel like there is a coordinated campaign to suppress Ivermectin.

Good thing is a lot of Vietnamese know about Ivermectin.

It is really hard to buy Ivermectin in Vietnam now due to shortage. Many of the pharmacists know about Ivermectin and they are raising prices like crazy.

Normally it was 35k VND for pack of 4x6mg, now it is 155k, some even charge 260k.

I bought 50 packs at 120k. Two of my employees got COVID. I gave them 24mg a day with Vitamin D and Zinc. They got better in within 48 hours.

The motives? One shot of Pfizer vaccine is about 12$, just watch how much they are going to charge the people or taxpayers for each shot. I have no confidence the Vietnam government would consider using Ivermectin anytime soon. The high ranking officials are not interested, and the lower one are not willing to take the responsibility."

US children and numbers

I find myself quite confused here, about what are the actual risks, to children, of vaccines and COVID. The relative risk is what would inform my decisions, had I young children I was responsible for.

First thing to say is that thank God the risks are very low. Still I know of no area of medicine where we ignore very low but preventable risks to children.

I take as my first reference Jonathan Howard's post on relative risks - which has a lot of 1 month old figures.

Howard shows, from the tone of his post, that he comes down on the vaccinate side of this balance (and he says this). I want to ignore his conclusions, and see whether the facts he provides:

(a) are fair and correct

(b) lead to his conclusions.

I will focus on deaths. There are nasty side effects of vaccines, and nasty long-term non-fatal COVID cases - so if we look at non-fatal events we get much larger numbers. That would be a different and more difficult (what constitutes "serious") comparison.

I will look at mRNA vaccines where the main risk is pericarditis.

0-4 years.

COVID:

cases: 576,162

estimated infections (CDC): 4,466,733

deaths: 155 (1 in 28,818 infections)

mRNA vaccines:

we do not have exact figures for this age group but can extrapolate:

• For males age 12-17 years, the risk after the second dose is 66.7 per one million, or 1 in 14,992.
• For males age 18-24 years, the risk after the second dose is 56.3 per one million, or 1 in 17,761.
• For males age 25-29 years, the risk after the second dose is 20.4 per one million, or about 1 in 49,019.

This is risk of vaccine-induced pericarditis, not risk of death.

Let us extrapolate to a risk of 1 in 10,000 for these very young children.

The risk of death from vaccine-induced pericarditis in US young people is not know - because there have been zero deaths!

There have been in these figures (all ages) about 1000 cases of vaccine-induced pericarditis after 300 million doses of mRNA vaccine. So the chances of pericarditis leading to death look to be less than 1 : 1000.

That gives us the death rate, from pericarditis, for 0-4 year olds as 1 : 10,000,000

Now, even though there are gross approximations here - based on deaths - we have the COVID death risk to very young children is 10,000,000 / 28,818 = 234 time higher than the vaccine death rate.

We would get similar figures for other age ranges.

Even allowing 10X error due to estimates - we still have an overwhelming higher risk from COVID than from vaccine.

I note that Fauci (who many here view as an inverterate liar) but also many others agree with me that now we have delta variant, we should reckon everyone will either be vaccinated or catch COVID.

Those who are vaccinated may catch COVID after, but it is much less severe, so it is reasonable to suppose that after vaccination the propability of COVID death goes down to 10% its original value.

Thus we compare as the overall risk to anyone.

prob of vaccine death + 0.1 * probability of COVID death

probability of unvaccinated COVID death

This actually alters the risk balance. Because COVID is so much more dangerous than the vaccine, if children take the vaccine, their chances of death are still dominated by catching COVID after vaccination, but this is much lower than the chances of death catching COVID unvaccinated.

In actual fact the protection from mRNA vaccine is probably a bit higher than 90%, so 10% is an overestimate.

Anyway - I am surprised when I work through the figures that my intuition - based on all the stuff posted here - is that somehow the vaccine risks should be higher. But it is not true.

Would anyone like to propose things I have left out in this analysis - with sources for real figures.

• Only deaths - harm is a whole different analysis on both sides - but with large amounts of known COVID harm so I don't expect COVID to be prefable on harm basis
• Where deaths are claimed sources please - so we can check whetehr they are vaccine deaths or something else

I'm not actually suggesting this analysis means we should vaccinate very young children. There are always the unknowns. The case for doing this, however, could reasonably balance vaccine unknowns with COVID unknowns. The known causes of death in this age-group from COVID seem much higher than the known causes of death from vaccines.

THH

Ivermectin 1% Spot On Drops 10ml £26.87 (= 100mg)

This prize is typical for the pharma mafia - only the rich can pay this. We - in EU - bought it here between 6..8 Euro. You have to look carefully which conserving agent they use.

With delta you need double doses now, if you are in a progressed state. So you have to order 3 bottles at least depending on your body weight.

India prize for 12mg is 10 cents! So you pay 40x the base prize...

Quote from THHuxleynew

0-4 years.

COVID:

cases: 576,162

estimated infections (CDC): 4,466,733

deaths: 155 (1 in 28,818 infections)

All these deaths of children have been tracked down to chemo patients. Most of them Leukemia. These children would have died of any virus. Here we have 0 deaths same for Germany in the healthy children group. This holds up to age 35! This is different for the over fat united states and UK.

We already have a (still short) list of healthy children that died from the vaccine...But none from CoV-19.

Somone who likes Hilda (her vaccine predictions, positive and negative, have been very accurate)

The scientist who’s been right about Covid-19 vaccines predicts what’s next

Hilda Bastian on the most important pandemic vaccine in the pipeline and why we’re on track for annual booster shots.

www.vox.com

Hilda likes Novavax

The mRNA Vaccines Are Extraordinary, but Novavax Is Even Better

Persistent hype around mRNA vaccine technology is now distracting us from other ways to end the pandemic.

www.theatlantic.com

But the fascination with the newest, shiniest options obscured some basic facts. These two particular mRNA vaccines may have been the first to get results from Phase 3 clinical trials, but that’s because of superior trial management, not secret vaccine sauce. For now, they are harder and more expensive to manufacture and distribute than traditional types of vaccines, and their side effects are more common and more severe. The latest Novavax data confirm that it’s possible to achieve the same efficacy against COVID-19 with a more familiar technology that more people may be inclined to trust. (The mRNA vaccines delivered efficacy rates of 95 and 94 percent against the original coronavirus strain in Phase 3 trials, as compared with 96 percent for Novavax in its first trial, and now 90 percent against a mixture of variants.

Read: The differences between the vaccines matter

Pandemic-vaccine success, as I wrote last year, was never just about the technology. You needed a good vaccine, sure—but to get it out the door quickly, you also had to have a massive clinical-trial operation going, and it had to be situated in places where the virus would be spreading widely at just the right time. Even if your candidate worked amazingly well, if you weren’t testing it in the middle of a huge outbreak, you’d have to wait a very long time for the evidence to build.

The precise timing of these studies mattered a great deal in practice. The Phase 3 clinical trials for Pfizer and Moderna, for example, were up and running in the U.S. by late summer 2020, and so they caught the nation’s giant wave of infections in the fall. By the time Novavax had finished recruiting in the U.S. and Mexico, in February, case rates had been dropping precipitously. This fact alone, independent of any aspect of vaccine technology, did a lot to shape the outcome.

Corporate strategy was another crucial factor. To “win” the vaccine race, a company would need to be able to produce high-quality vaccine doses reliably and quickly, and in vast numbers. It would also need to field the challenges of working with multiple regulatory agencies around the world. And it would need to do all of this at the same time.

BioNTech, the German company that developed the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, could not have accomplished so much, so quickly by itself. Last October, the company’s CEO, Uğur Şahin, told German interviewers that BioNTech had sought out Pfizer for help because of the scale of the clinical-trial program necessary for drug approvals. That strategic partnership, and not simply the “triumph of mRNA,” was what propelled them past the post. (Moderna had the advantage of its partnership with the National Institutes of Health.) Consider this: The BioNTech-Pfizer first-in-human vaccine study appeared on the U.S. government’s registry of clinical trials on April 30, 2020—the same day as the first-in-human vaccine study for Novavax, which would be going it alone. In a parallel universe where Novavax had paired up with, say, Merck, this story could have come out very differently.

In the meantime, the early success of two mRNA vaccines pulled attention away from the slower progress of other candidates based on the same technology. Just two days after last week’s Novavax announcement came the news that an mRNA vaccine developed by the German company CureVac had delivered a weak early efficacy rate in a Phase 3 trial, landing below even the 50 percent minimum level set by the World Health Organization and the FDA. “The results caught scientists by surprise,” The New York Times reported. CureVac is the company that President Donald Trump reportedly tried to lure to the U.S. early in the pandemic, and the one that Elon Musk said he would supply with automated “RNA microfactories” for vaccine production. In the end, none of this mattered. CureVac’s mRNA vaccine just doesn’t seem to be good enough.

The “sobering” struggles of CureVac perfectly illustrate what epidemiologists call “survivor bias”—a tendency to look only at positive examples and draw sweeping conclusions on their basis. When the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines triumphed, The Washington Post suggested that a bet on “speedy but risky” mRNA technology had paid off with a paradigm-shifting breakthrough. Anthony Fauci called the gamble “a spectacular success.” Such analyses usually had less to say about the non-mRNA vaccines that had gotten into clinical trials just as quickly—and about the other mRNA vaccines that were hitting snags along the way.

Now we’ve seen what happened to CureVac, and that some mRNA formulations clearly work much better than others. By one count, nine groups were testing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in animal studies as of May 2020, and six were expected to be in clinical trials a few months later. By the end of the year, only BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna, and CureVac had reached Phase 3 testing, compared with 13 non-mRNA vaccines. Of the nine mRNA-vaccine candidates that were already testing in animals in mid-2020, just two have proved efficacy at this point, while no fewer than nine vaccines based on more traditional technologies have reached the same mark.

These other, non-mRNA vaccines have been widely used throughout the world—and some could still make an important difference in the U.S. Although the U.S. has plenty of doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines available right now, demand for them has cratered. The Washington Post reports that in 10 states, fewer than 35 percent of American adults have been vaccinated. An international study of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, published in May, found that among the most common online rumors were those alleging particular dangers of mRNA technology—that it leads, for example, to the creation of “genetically modified human beings.” The CDC has also made a point of debunking the circulating falsehood that COVID-19 vaccines can change your DNA. For a time, it looked as though the Johnson & Johnson vaccine would help address this worry. It’s based on a fairly new technology, but not as new as mRNA. However, concerns about tainted doses made at a Baltimore factory and the emergence of a very rare but serious side effect have pretty much dashed that hope. The Johnson & Johnson single-dose vaccine has reportedly accounted for fewer than 4 percent of doses administered in the country.

In this context, the success of the Novavax vaccine should be A1 news. The recent results confirm that it has roughly the same efficacy as the two authorized mRNA vaccines, with the added benefit of being based on an older, more familiar science. The protein-subunit approach used by Novavax was first implemented for the hepatitis B vaccine, which has been used in the U.S. since 1986. The pertussis vaccine, which is required for almost all children in U.S. public schools, is also made this way. Some of those people who have been wary of getting the mRNA vaccines may find Novavax more appealing.

The Novavax vaccine also has a substantially lower rate of side effects than the authorized mRNA vaccines. Last week’s data showed that about 40 percent of people who receive Novavax report fatigue after the second dose, as compared with 65 percent for Moderna and more than 55 percent for Pfizer. Based on the results of Novavax’s first efficacy trial in the U.K., side effects (including but not limited to fatigue) aren’t just less frequent; they’re milder too. That’s a very big deal for people on hourly wages, who already bear a disproportionate risk of getting COVID-19, and who have been less likely to get vaccinated in part because of the risk of losing days of work to post-vaccine fever, pain, or malaise. Side effects are a big barrier for COVID-vaccine acceptance. The CDC reported on Monday that, according to a survey conducted in the spring, only about half of adults under the age of 40 have gotten the vaccine or definitely intend to do so, and that, among the rest, 56 percent say they are concerned about side effects. Lower rates of adverse events are likely to be a bigger issue still for parents, when considering vaccination for their children.

Don’t get me wrong—the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been extraordinary lifesavers in this pandemic, and we may well be heading into a new golden age of vaccine development. (This week, BioNTech started injections in an early trial for an mRNA vaccine for melanoma.) But even the best experts at predicting which drugs are going to be important get things wrong quite a bit, overestimating some treatments and underestimating others. Pharmaceuticals are generally a gamble.

But here’s what we know today, based on information that we have right now: Among several wonderful options, the more old-school vaccine from Novavax combines ease of manufacture with high efficacy and lower side effects. For the moment, it’s the best COVID-19 vaccine we have.

Streptococcus pneumoniae colonisation associates with impaired adaptive immune responses against SARS-CoV-2

Abstract

Although recent epidemiological data suggest that pneumococci may contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 disease, secondary pneumococcal pneumonia has been reported as infrequent. This apparent contradiction may be explained by interactions of SARS-CoV-2 and pneumococcus in the upper airway, resulting in the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from protective host immune responses. Here, we investigated the relationship of these two respiratory pathogens in two distinct cohorts of a) healthcare workers with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by systematic screening and b) patients with moderate to severe disease who presented to hospital. We assessed the effect of co-infection on host antibody, cellular and inflammatory responses to the virus. In both cohorts, pneumococcal colonisation was associated with diminished anti-viral immune responses, which affected primarily mucosal IgA levels among individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection and cellular memory responses in infected patients. Our findings suggest that S. pneumoniae modulates host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and raises the question if pneumococcal carriage also enables immune escape of other respiratory viruses through a similar mechanism and facilitates reinfection occurrence.

DISCUSSION

Here we report the first immunological analysis to our knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the context of co-infection with pneumococcus among two distinct cohorts - asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic HCWs and patients who experienced moderate to severe symptoms during SARS-CoV-2 infection. More importantly this is the first comprehensive analysis showing the potential role of S. pneumoniae carriage in modulating the host immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings have potential implications for other respiratory viruses.

We investigated mucosal and systemic antibody responses to the virus, memory B cell, CD4+ and CD8+ T cell anti-viral responses, as well as inflammatory responses and assessed whether colonising pneumococci modulate any of these arms of adaptive immunity or associate with an inflammatory profile early during the infection, making a number of important observations. Humoral and cellular antiviral immune responses varied substantially by pneumococcal carriage status both in HCWs who had asymptomatic to mild and patients who had moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggesting that colonisation of upper airways by pneumococcus may induce an immunosuppressive effect and thereby facilitating SARS-CoV-2 to escape protective host immune responses. This immunosuppressive effect was more apparent in the nasal mucosa of HCWs, where diminished salivary anti-S1 and S2 IgA levels were observed in the pneumococcal colonised individuals. In the patient cohort pneumococcal carriage was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B cells and weakened T cell responses, particularly CD4+ T cell responses.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and virus replication starts in the naso/oropharynx-the primary site of infection24. Mucosal antibodies, particularly secretory IgA, play an important role in defence against respiratory viruses, as it promotes virus neutralisation and inhibits viral adhesion to the respiratory epithelium25, 26. For SARS-CoV-2 infection, in vitro studies with monoclonal anti-spike IgA demonstrated the superiority of IgA to block binding to the ACE2 receptor compared with the IgG isotype27. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies in mice highlighted that musosal anti-spike IgA production is critical for sterilizing immunity in the upper respiratory tract26. We found that Spn colonised HCWs had significantly reduced IgA responses against SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 antigens compared to non-colonised individuals, and that these responses were similar in both Spn colonised and non-colonised groups in the patient cohort. This may indicate that such a suppressive effect is more important at the early phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and less relevant once infection has progressed to symptomatic and severe disease.

We further investigated a potential mechanism responsible for the association between bacterial colonisation and IgA immunosuppressed responses against viral co-infections using the influenza virus infection model. S. pneumoniae and some other invasive respiratory pathogens (e.g., Neisseria species and Haemophilus influenzae) cleave human IgA1, which constitutes 90% of total IgA, by IgA1-proteases17, 28. This protease is primarily bacterial cell-associated but could potentially cleave also unbound, non-pneumococcal specific IgA1, contributing to the reduction in mucosal IgA to other pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. Here, we expanded our previous observation to investigate the role of pneumococcal IgA1 protease in cleaving non-specifically anti-viral IgA. We observed that preceding experimental pneumococcal colonisation impaired the induction of both influenza-specific IgA1 and IgA2 nearly a month after influenza infection-an effect that was not seen in the absence of pneumococcal colonisation. This suggests that cleavage of IgA1 subclass by pneumococcal IgA1 protease most likely is not a mechanism, through which pneumococcus contributes to the reduction in mucosal IgA to other pathogens.

In addition, when influenza infection preceded experimentally induced pneumococcal colonisation, both Spn colonised and non-colonised, LAIV recipients mounted similar influenza-specific IgA levels. These findings imply that the order of exposure to respiratory pathogens during co-infection can affect some of the defence mechanisms. Differential nasal inflammatory responses during the early stages of infection, driven by either the virus or S. pneumoniae, depending on the order of infection, may have a differential effect on downstream immune responses11, 15, 16, altering the dynamics between the pathogens and fitness advantages18.

Recent reports demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 virus is effective at avoiding or delaying the triggering of early innate immune responses, such as type I interferons (IFNs) in vitro29 and in humans30, 31. On the other hand, it has been shown that S. pneumoniae infection stimulates IFN-I production and upregulates the expression of IFN-stimulated genes in both mice and human studies16, 32. Therefore, it is possible that pneumococcal colonisation interferes with the replication cycle of the virus33, 34 and contributes to host antiviral defences by governing the production of IFNs35, 36. Here, despite a trend of higher viral load in the non-colonised groups, we did not observe significant viral load difference between pneumococcal colonised and non-colonised individuals. However, as SARS-CoV-2 viral load changes rapidly from day to day, the nature of the study prohibited the assessment of such a time-course dependent variable37, 38.

Consistent with published studies of COVID-19 infection39, 40, we observed inflammatory responses, including IL-6, IP-10, IL-1b and IL-8, in nasal lining fluid and serum in both cohorts, with increased cytokine induction in the patient groups, particularly the non-colonised individuals. The induction of cytokines that influence T cell activation (IL-2, IL-12, IFN-γ, IL-15, IL-17A), which subsequently assists B cell maturation 41, was distinctive in the nasal mucosa of patient cohort. Impairment of inflammatory response in the nasal mucosa could also affect the influx of effector immune cells and influence downstream immune responses 11, 16. Also, pneumococcal colonised individuals in both cohorts exhibited a lack of IL-2 and IL-12 induction, which could partially explain the weakened T cell responses observed in those groups.

The differences in the magnitude of immune responses between the two cohorts could be related to differences in viral load and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consistent with previous studies, convalescent patients mounted higher serum IgG levels compared to asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic HCWs 42, 43, showed increased frequency of memory B cells, broader and stronger T cell responses in the convalescent phase 44 and had elevated acute proinflammatory responses both in the nose and blood 45. Coordinated immunity by all three branches of adaptive immunity is more likely to protect against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, as it is seen in protection against other infectious diseases43, whereas suboptimal immunity against SARS-CoV-2 could allow reinfection to occur.

The differential prevalence of pneumococcal carriage between COVID-19 cases and unexposed individuals amongst HCWs supports the hypothesis of pneumococcus and SARS-CoV-2 interplay in the upper respiratory tract. Co-infections amongst COVID-19 cases in HCWs likely reflect bacterial and viral transmission prior to social distancing and other community interventions. These observations should be evaluated in larger epidemiological studies, providing also the opportunity to assess whether the pneumococcus and SARS-CoV-2 interrelationship is serotype-specific, as has been previously reported in mouse and epidemiological studies of other viral co-infections, such as influenza and RSV46–48.

Our study has limitations. Diagnosis of co-infection was complex amongst patients, as pneumococcus might be carried by the patient before the viral infection or might be picked up later. High use of antibiotics (potentially prescribed at an outpatient visit) and reduced social mixing affected survival, prevalence and transmission dynamics of other respiratory pathogens, such RSV1, 49, and most likely pneumococcal transmission. Hence, we observed decreased prevalence of pneumococcus amongst patients-particularly during periods of national lockdown, which subsequently limited the number of SARS-CoV-2/ pneumococcus co-infected individuals studied here. Thus, despite inclusion of nearly 500 subjects in our study, we were able to evaluate pneumococcal mediated immunomodulatory effects only for a relatively small number of individuals, limiting the ability to do further stratifications.

In children, pneumococcal colonisation has been profusely documented. Children however experience an attenuated course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This emphasises the importance of our findings in adults and indicate the need to conduct future studies aimed at understanding the differential disease course in children, taking this important variable into consideration. In addition, differences in age and underlying disease between the HCW and patient cohorts are some factors that have potentially affected the course and outcome of the disease. Further studies, ideally in the setting of controlled human co-infection model, are needed to explore S. pneumoniae/respiratory virus interactions and the biological mechanisms through which pneumococcus assists viruses to subvert immune responses at the primary site of infection.

Despite the observational design, our study has identified pneumococcal colonisation as an important variable which can modulate host immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection; an effect that was observed in both cohorts despite the aforementioned differences. An impaired adaptive immunity, including all three arms of immune responses, against SARS-CoV-2 natural infection could potentially increase susceptibility to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection or associate with long-Covid symptoms. The increased evidence on PCV-induced protection against lower respiratory infections associated with viral infection and the broader ability of pneumococcus to interact with respiratory viruses in a way that increases pneumococcal virulence, viral pathogenicity or impairs anti-viral immune responses highlights the importance of PCVs in both paediatric and older adults as an additional public health tool for those who are at increased risk of pneumococcal and viral lower respiratory infections.

Just for fun:

Putting Microchips in Vaccines Is a Terrible Idea, When You Think About It

Let me explain.

www.theatlantic.com

Includes (linked) "why you are probably getting a microchip some day".

For those of us familiar with semiconductor tech the whole "Bill Gates is microchipping you through vaccines" is a non-starter. But here is a wearable tech guy spelling it out with the numbers.

Interestingly - The "Bill Gates wants to microchip you" meme started from an interview where he said he though digital certificates might be used as proof of vaccination status. "Digital certificates" morphed rather quickly - through the good offices of the anti-vax crowd - into "implanted microchips".

I know the anti-vax-lite people here reckon they are not crazy like the Bill Gates wants to microchip you crowd.

I'm not so sure.

Whatever, since a good 26% of US Republican voters believe the microchip hypothesis there is I guess even more support for the less crazy-sounding anti-vax memes out there.

Quote from Wyttenbach

All these deaths of children have been tracked down to chemo patients. Most of them Leukemia. These children would have died of any virus. Here we have 0 deaths same for Germany in the healthy children group. This holds up to age 35! This is different for the over fat united states and UK.

We already have a (still short) list of healthy children that died from the vaccine...But none from CoV-19.

Ok - two unevidenced statements.

I'd like source information for both (I don't believe either of these).

Quote from JedRothwell

I find this surprising, and disturbing:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2…xposed-to-the-coronavirus

A third of white-tailed deer tested in a survey were exposed to the coronavirus.

A third of the white-tailed deer tested in four states during a federal study had been exposed to the coronavirus, in yet another indication of the unpredictable nature of the disease. The percentage was highest in Michigan, where 60 percent of the animals tested positive.

The presence of the virus in wild deer is not just a curiosity for scientists. The virus has shown it can jump from one species to another, and in the worse case, it could become established in a common animal species, creating a reservoir from which the virus could spill back into humans. . . .

Display More

I don't know why you find this surprising. Two months ago I raised the possibility of Covid building a reservoir in animals and provided 3 different studies on the subject. I guess posts here are not relevant until it makes national headlines.

It's starting to get real interesting

The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with both natural or laboratory origin: Response to Tyshkovskiy and Panchin (10.1002/bies.202000325)

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Abstract

Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several “points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis.” As our paper is titled “The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin,” points of disagreement should provide evidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin provide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments that highlight aspects of SARS-CoV-2 that could be consistent with the lab leak hypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's main point of criticism is based on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, and their other points of criticism are either not valid, based on flawed mathematical analysis, or are unrelated to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 remains consistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both the zoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equally thoroughly.

CONCLUSION

In closing, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin’ attempted use of the principle of maximum parsimony in the context of deciding whether a natural origin is more likely than a lab leak is highly debatable, especially considering that the authors state in their introduction that a lab leak can only be established by investigating the lab in question and not “by analyzing the genetic and phenotypic properties of the virus,” which is in contradiction with the title of their commentary. There clearly are several observations about SARS-CoV-2 and the research that has been ongoing in Wuhan that are consistent with both natural and lab escape origin of the virus. Moreover, the authors are mistaken that genetic or phenotypic properties of the virus cannot potentially provide evidence of lab origin. In fact, it was precisely genetic and phenotypic proerties of the 1977 H1N1 flu strain that have utlimately established the scientific consensus that the 1977 pandemic was the result of a lab accident:[11]namely, the close genetic proximity of the 1977 strain to a 1950s stain, as well as phenotypic characteristics consistent with vaccine development — temperature sensitivity.

In conclusion, not a single point of criticism expressed by Tyshkovskiy and Panchin about our article is valid: their comment is based on false assumptions and consists of analysis that is mathematically flawed and mostly irrelevant to our hypotheses.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here we have 0 deaths same for Germany in the healthy children group. This holds up to age 35! This is different for the over fat united states and UK

Obesity rates

22.3% Germany

27.8% UK

36.2% US

In any case what are you suggesting? that the 30% of young adults who are not 100% healthy do not count?

Quote from THHuxleynew

In any case what are you suggesting?

No: I just say Swiss data is much better because we don't have an obesity problem here. For the last 40 years the average US body weight did increase 10% for every 10 years!! This is outraging and nuts.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Novavax

It's a real vaccine!

In the Novavax NVX-CoV2373 candidate, the spike protein is organized around a nanoparticle and formulated with Matrix-M adjuvant. This technology platform using the full-length spike protein with Matrix-M adjuvant has, according to Novavax’s spokesperson, delivered outstanding efficacy against the original COVID-19 virus (96.4% in a United Kingdom Phase III clinical trial), protection against variants, and a favorable safety profile. In mid-June 2021, the company reported 90.4% efficacy overall from a Phase III trial in the US and Mexico.

Subunit Vaccines and the Fight Against COVID-19

Advances in technology are accelerating the development and manufacture of subunit vaccines, an established class of vaccines.

www.pharmtech.com

But vaccines only can be judged after 5..10 years monitoring. For Pfizer we know already after 6 months that it is crap.

All figures have been cheated through all studies and I hope there will be a legal follow up.

Quote from Wyttenbach

No: I just say Swiss data is much better because we don't have an obesity problem here. For the last 40 years the average US body weight did increase 10% for every 10 years!! This is outraging and nuts.

We both agree obesity is a bad problem in the US. However looking at the figures it is 61% as bad in Germany. So saying "we don't have an obesity problem" is surely wrong?

I mean the UK has 77% as much obesity as the US. we have an obesity porblem too - a bit less bad then the US, a bit worse than Germany.

Quote from Wyttenbach

But vaccines only can be judged after 5..10 years monitoring. For Pfizer we know already after 6 months that it is crap.

All figures have been cheated through all studies and I hope there will be a legal follow up.

I have no information that the Pfizer studies were flaky - and every expectation they were good. And after 9 months of whole population use we have seen it have a good safety record and reduce death even from delta.

The only problem is that delta is so infectious you would need a very high vaccination rate to get herd immunity without lockdown - and this is not helped by the fact that the vaccine does not fully protect from infection, or being infectious when infected. But glass half full in this case means countries if fully vaccinated can open up without undue fear of high deaths - assuming we do not get another worse variant.

Astrazeneca is different - their studies were flakier.

Quote from Wyttenbach

But vaccines only can be judged after 5..10 years monitoring.

Well you make the decision on vaccines based on the risk of not vaccinating. With COVID, the risk of not vaccinating is pretty high, and will need 5..10 years to be certain how high. Whereas the vaccine risks are lower, even though you might need 5-10 years to be certain how much lower.

Given everyone will get COVID who is not vaccinated it is a matter of looking at relative risk.

Vaccination Nation Turning Against Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine—Concern Shifts to Government Deceit & Lockdowns

Vaccination Nation Turning Against Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine—Concern Shifts to Government Deceit & Lockdowns

Israel was known for its COVID-19 vaccination, being one of the most heavily vaccinated places on the planet. But with the Delta variant and growing

trialsitenews.com

Israel was known for its COVID-19 vaccination, being one of the most heavily vaccinated places on the planet. But with the Delta variant and growing numbers of breakthrough infections, a shift in public sentiment indicates that Israeli faith in the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is on the wane. A recent survey issued by Prof. Michal Grinstein-Weiss, director of the Social Policy Institute (SPI) at Washington University and visiting professor at Herzliya’s Interdisciplinary Center, suggests that only 52% of the population currently fully vaccinated would accept a third vaccine dose. And interest in any further vaccination dilutes the younger people become; in those under 60 years old, only 47% would accept another jab. However, that figure rises as the over-60 crowd would be far more likely to move forward 67% of the time. The anti-vaccine sentiment is spreading, as seen in parents with the inoculation of their children. Even overall fear of the coronavirus itself is declining. Rather, fears of government deceit and misinformation and moves to authoritarianism concern ever more Israelis as the pandemic evolves into what appears to be the next phase.

This survey was conducted between July 26-28 thanks to the support of Yaniv Shlomo, a senior research associate at SPI, along with the MasterCard Center for Inclusive Growth. This survey occurs in a rapidly changing situation, one where many of the assumptions underlying vaccination are flipped upside down. For example, the Israeli Health Ministry now reports that over half (53%) of COVID-19 cases in the country are breakthrough infections, meaning fully vaccinated people are getting infected. This has profound implications.

Changing Sentiment

This latest change in sentiment counters the initial imminent demand for a pervasive third booster across Israel. Professor Grinstein-Weiss shared with the Jerusalem Post, “But there is a big drop in the number of people who are interested in vaccinating. It’s surprising, but there is not a real desire for a third vaccination.”

Children Vaccination

Another big turn of events is the move away from parent’s desires to vaccinate their children with the Pfizer vaccine. According to the recent Jerusalem Post entry authored by Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, the survey had questions for parents to consider. Would they vaccinate their children between the ages of five and eleven if the vaccination was ready and available for this age cohort? A majority of 54% went on the record that they would spare their young children from the product. Just 23% of the parents agreed that they would vaccinate their young children while another 23% are on the fence.

Not surprisingly, those parents that didn’t get vaccinated themselves would opt for their children not to get vaccinated. But only 27% of those immunized volunteered their children for the jab.

What are parental concerns?

So why are parents turning so quickly against the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in Israel? Probably the No. 1 reason is the lack of proper knowledge of the long-term impact of these vaccines. And generally, of course, children face far fewer risks from COVID-19 than the elderly, although the Delta variety does appear to be infecting young people at higher frequencies.

But perhaps the elephant in the room is the growing breakthrough infection rates across the country. The survey sponsors suggest there may be a growing sentiment here that more and more people don’t believe the vaccine products work. That’s a real challenge on a number of fronts.

In fact, only 59% of the respondents in the survey believe the Pfizer vaccine works to protect against infection. In comparison, 69% declared the vaccine could prevent viral spread—but there’s growing data in Israel and the United States that put this fundamental tenant under question. 82% of the respondents still believe the vaccine can prevent the worst symptoms.

Government Lies and Deceit

The other signal governments should take very seriously is the growing mistrust in government health authorities and agencies. For example, 61% of the survey respondents believe they are being lied to (in one way or another) by the government. They think that the public isn’t receiving accurate information from those meant to be stewards of public trust in all matters of healthcare.

Disturbingly, 20% of the population believes the pandemic is part of a government conspiracy, while 33% of the respondents believe the media is serving to scare the public and hyping up the pandemic to drive vaccinations, etc.

Perhaps the final kicker here is that few people in Israel actually have a fear of the coronaviruses. While Arabs and Haredim Jews report little fear of infection, about 50% of traditional Jews still do. But Prof. Grinstein-Weiss told the Jerusalem Post, “The fear of being locked down is much greater than the fear of being hit with coronavirus.”

Israelis are tired of the measures isolating populations from each other. They are growing ever more leery of government intentions.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We both agree obesity is a bad problem in the US. However looking at the figures it is 61% as bad in Germany. So saying "we don't have an obesity problem" is surely wrong?

I mean the UK has 77% as much obesity as the US. we have an obesity porblem too - a bit less bad then the US, a bit worse than Germany.

Yes you have problems but I don't think your media promotes obesity like here in the US. What's worse is our CDC and NIH remain silent while this is promoted

Google-Ergebnis für https://i0.wp.com/curiosityshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/37712104-9121533-image-a-6_1610008717553.jpg?resize=634%2C793&ssl=1

Quote from Fm1

Yes you have problems but I don't think your media promotes obesity like here in the US. What's worse is our CDC and NIH remain silent while this is promoted

https://images.app.goo.gl/tD8nmXTfCNdFv1cb7

This is a bit OT - but

It is absolutely clear that obesity is a major problem in developed countries - particularly the US, with teh UK half-way there.

The food lobby, and capitalism, where things that people like can be marketed without constraint, is the problem.

Everyone knows junk food is a problem - and no-one is willing to face up to this and regulate it. People choose to be unwell - just as for a long time people chose to kill themselves smoking.. I'm not blaming anyone, it is hard to resist.

The worse thing is that bad quality high carb high fat food high additive convenience food is much cheaper than good quality food. If governments cared about health they would cross-subsidise from sugar and salt and fat to vegetables. But it is not easy because nutrition is not well understood - we just know we are getting it wrong.

Quote from THHuxleynew

you might need 5-10 years to be certain how much lower.

As said: Israel states Pfizer vaccine now is worthless for the older. This is expected as it is not a vaccine. It's a gen therapy that stimulates a one time antibody production.

Quote from THHuxleynew

t bad quality high carb high fat food high additive convenience food is much cheaper than good quality food.

Why does this happen in countries where the upper 1% own 99% of all resources?

Could it be that the underdogs cannot afford to buy better food, do not have the time to cook better food?

Why is the chicken Ivermectin prize in UK 30 euro?

Quote from Fm1

But perhaps the elephant in the room is the growing breakthrough infection rates across the country. The survey sponsors suggest there may be a growing sentiment here that more and more people don’t believe the vaccine products work. That’s a real challenge on a number of fronts.

The vaccines did work in fake tests only. None did show a reproduction event of anti bodies after an infection...

So these are not vaccines just in body produced single shot single target protecting antibodies are the result. This is like sun cream. May be daylong can be realized the next day business restarts.

The initial speculation (lie to the public) was that spike mutations are/ will be rare. Fact is: where else can a quick change have success?