Covid-19 News

  • it would be prudent to reduce your exogenous AAS use at least down to therapeutic levels to support immune function during this time

    For the nonSchwarzeneggargenic majority.. its vital to increase your immune function

    the Covid chimera eats the immune - weak which includes the AAS-enhanced 'strong'


    You shall know the Covid and the Covid shall make you free........or dead


    As Wyttenbach has hinted possibly better immunity is with vaccine plus infection.


    Those in Israel / China who have been twice vaccinated and been infected with delta

    may have more resilient immunity than any others. How this compares with those unvaccinated who have survived ( with or without ivermectin)infection is a matter of research/statistics.)


    getting to know the virus before infection is the advantage of vaccination because sudden full blown knowledge is overwhelming for the weak. The Pfizer vaccines etc seem to focus on a small part of the virus... newer vaccines may give us broader preknowledge.


    Immune function and immunity are natural processes and although they may be challenged by synthetic chimeras they can be enhanced by synthetic vaccines.....or not


    I received this inspiration via the effect of AZ vaccines on my non AAS enhanced neurons.... :)

  • Catching Covid in January of 2020 is oddly early.

    It is early. But the article says, "a test found he had antibodies against the virus." I suppose the newspaper talked to the doctors. The interview is in a hospital so they could easily do that.


    It is also odd that he contracted such a bad case of Covid at a relatively young age and for someone so fit.

    I do not think being fit is a defense against COVID. Youth does reduce risk, but many young people have died. Once you get seriously ill you are in danger at any age.


    To put it bluntly, it is not an unreasonable possibility that this guy had been taking anabolic steroids.

    Would that hurt his prognosis? I do not know anything about anabolic steroids. I think that is what the text you quoted means, but I do not understand it: "Supraphysiological doses of common anabolic steroids have been shown to directly influence the production of certain cytokines . . ."


    Or, are you saying the illness he had may have been caused by anabolic steroids?

  • Table 5 on p. 18 and 19 seems to show that vaccinating old people makes them sick!

    The only Figure of concern is number 12 that shows that most vaccinated have a higher virus load than the unvaccinated with delta. This points to immune suppression and ADE.


    The good news is that with delta (Table 4) there are over all > 2x less deaths!


    According table 3 the difference is even larger but the data is less clear and includes vaccinated.



    What is very clear, and what all the experts agree on, is that in some cases natural immunity has failed. So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated.

    This is now much more obvious for the vaccinated!

  • This is a really fascinating and useful study, which answers questions about the risks of vaccination and COVID, looking only at the adverse events that have been noted for the vaccines. So the COVID risks here are a small part of the overall COVID risk.


    The abstract does not really say what they results are - you need the whole paper https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n1931.full.pdf


    You will also want to read the data supplement https://www.bmj.com/content/bm…931.DC1/hipj066873.ww.pdf


    It is self-controlling - they tracked the people who were vaccinated (or had COVID) and compared AEs of those people in days 7-28 after vaccination or COVID test with the same before and well after the event.


    All those anti-vax lists of numbers of AEs in VAERS are dross - because uncontrolled. The self-control here is near perfect and allows us to see clearly whether these rare cardiac and thrombotic events are caused by vaccines, or COVID.


    Risks are measured over days 8-28 after the vaccine or COVID test. Days 0-7 are not counted because of the well person effect Someone with an existing illness (that might lead to an AE) will not go to be vaccinated. You can see for the RRs on day 0 and days 1-7 that this is a significant effect.



    The RRs given should be interpreted like this. If a vaccine gives you and overall RR of 2, then being vaccinated gives you the risk that you would have anyway if you waited 3 weeks. (The time interval used for monitoring is 3 weeks).


    Thus RR=1 => no extra risk.


    As we have been saying, COVID is more dangerous than vaccination for all these events (picked out as adverse events the vaccines were suspected of - obviously COVID can harm you in many other ways as well not considered here).


    The overall ratio of COVID risk to vaccine risk - for these vaccine-specific side effects - is 3 - 10X. more. Not surprising, because we know COVID can cause pretty well any illness.


    The absolute values of these excess risks is very small. 1 : 1,000,000 or less for vaccination AEs. At such risk values the background risks - at all ages - are higher.


    There is lots of detail, e.g. the CVST (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) RRs which are high for vaccines, and even higher for COVID.


    When reading this you need to remember that high RR does not mean high risk. For example, the CVST RRs are high for vaccine, and higher for COVID, but the background rate of CVST is low. It is roughly the same at all ages, around 1.26 per 100,000 person years, or a probability over the 3 week monitoring interval of 7 per 10,000,000 people.


    I'll post some useful tables in a moment

  • and what all the experts agree on, is that in some cases natural immunity has failed. So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated

    "in some cases natural immunity has failed.>>>>> So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated"


    statement has loose premise and conclusion


    immunity needs to defined,,, immunity to alpha beta and or gamma etc

    vaccinated needs to be defined... vaccinated with what.. a narrowly targetted Pfizer of something more broadly targetted


    Here is another loose statement p>>>>q


    "in some cases vaccination has failed.>>>>> So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated

  • Israeli Study Reveals Natural SARS-2-CoV-2 Immunity Far Superior to Pfizer’s mRNA Vaccine for Fighting Off Delta Variant


    Israeli Study Reveals Natural SARS-2-CoV-2 Immunity Far Superior to Pfizer’s mRNA Vaccine for Fighting Off Delta Variant
    Israeli researchers affiliated with Maccabi Healthcare Services and Tel Aviv University, School of Public Health, uploaded a yet-to-be-reviewed study
    trialsitenews.com


    Israeli researchers affiliated with Maccabi Healthcare Services and Tel Aviv University, School of Public Health, uploaded a yet-to-be-reviewed study indicating bombshell results. Their research suggests that natural immune protection that develops post a COVID-19 infection generates materially more protection against the Delta variant than the two-dose Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Some now label this as a “Don’t try this at home” approach. Led by a large Israeli health maintenance organization, those individuals who become ill with SARS-CoV-2 have superior immunity to those that have been vaccinated, based on these study results.


    This recent study raises several questions considering the common assumptions across various societies that COVID-19 vaccination is superior to natural immunity. According to this study uploaded to the preprint server medRxiv, the opposite is the case.


    The Study

    The research team conducted a retrospective observational study evaluating three groups that included 1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals who were administered the two-dose BNT162b2 vaccine, 2) individuals that were previously infected and who have not been vaccinated at all, and 3) previously infected individuals who received a single dose of the vaccine.


    The team employed four (4) models when using a series of multivariate logistic regression analyses, including 1) SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2) symptomatic disease, 3) COVID-19-related hospitalization, and 4) death. The study team conducted this evaluation from June 1 to August 14, 2021, during the Delta variant-driven surge in Israel.


    Results

    The team from Israel determined based on the study results that those SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccines had a 13.06 fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) greater risk for breakthrough infection associated with Delta variant as compared to those previously infected, at the time the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during the study period January and February 2021.


    The study authors wrote that the greater risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease. The authors continued that those individuals that were infected before vaccination (March 2020 to February 2021) evidenced what the team refers to as “waning natural immunity” through SARS-CoV-2 naïve subjects who were vaccinated had a 5.96 fold boost in risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13 fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) greater risk for symptomatic disease. Finally, SARS-CoV-2 naïve subjects who were vaccinated also faced more risk for COVID-19 related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.


    Thus, according to this study data, those infected with SARS-CoV-2 that developed natural immunity experienced a long-lasting and stronger defense against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization triggered by the Delta Variant SARS-CoV-2 when compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Those persons who both experienced previous infection with the coronavirus and were exposed to a single dose of the vaccine gained some additional protection against the Delta variant.


    Research Centers

    This study included authors from Maccabi Healthcare Services, one of the four Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) active in Israel, and Tel Aviv University, School of Public Health.


    Limitations

    The study authors report several limitations, and of course, the findings have not been peer-reviewed as of yet. Limitations include:


    · First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains.


    · This analysis addressed protection afforded solely by the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term protection following a third dose, of which deployment is underway in Israel.


    · Note this study isn’t randomized but rather represents a real-world observational study, where PCR screening was not performed by protocol. Thus the authors acknowledge they could underestimate asymptomatic infections, as these individuals often do not get tested.


    · While the authors controlled for age, sex, and region of residence, this study’s results might be affected by differences between the groups regarding health behaviors (such as social distancing and mask-wearing), a possible confounder that was not assessed.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Sivan Gazit, MD MA, Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, 68125, Israel; Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel.


    Roei Shlezinger, BA, Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, 68125, Israel.


    Galit Perez, MS, Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel.


    Roni Lotan, Ph.D., Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel.


    Asaf Peretz, MD, Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv; 3 Internal Medicine COVID-19 Ward, Samson Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ashdod Israel


    Amir Ben-Tov, MD, Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.


    Dani Cohen, Ph.D., Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.


    Khitam Muhsen, Ph.D., Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.


    Gabriel Chodick, Ph.D., MH, Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.


    Tal Patalon, MD, Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, 68125, Israel; Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel.


    Call to Action: Does this study challenge dominant paradigms today about how to arrive at herd immunity? A majority will argue that vaccination is key to stopping severe disease and worse. But these results, if verified, need to be incorporated into a broader discussion

  • "in some cases natural immunity has failed.>>>>> So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated"


    statement has loose premise and conclusion


    immunity needs to defined,,, immunity to alpha beta and or gamma etc

    vaccinated needs to be defined... vaccinated with what.. a narrowly targetted Pfizer of something more broadly targetted

    agreed. But that cuts two ways. For example, the early COVID vaccines were chosen to give very tightly focussed immunity. many people are now (here) assuming that is a bad thing. There is as yet no evidence. Getting that evidence is difficult because there are so many variables that alter the question.


    All we can expect is that the next iteration of vaccines (if we need them, and that is pretty likely) will have a chance to be better than these initial ones now we have much more data.

  • Israeli Study Reveals Natural SARS-2-CoV-2 Immunity Far Superior to Pfizer’s mRNA Vaccine for Fighting Off Delta VariantInhaled nitric oxide use in COVID19-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure


    Inhaled nitric oxide use in COVID19-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure
    Introduction Nitric Oxide (NO) is an endogenous vasodilator that is synthesized by the vascular endothelium. Due to its vasodilatory effect and short…
    www.medrxiv.org


    Abstract

    Introduction Nitric Oxide (NO) is an endogenous vasodilator that is synthesized by the vascular endothelium. Due to its vasodilatory effect and short half-life, the use of NO as an exogenous inhaled medication (iNO) to target the pulmonary vasculature, in conditions with increased pulmonary vascular resistance, has been studied.


    The use of iNO in patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 has therapeutic importance in improving oxygenation. It also has potential anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, and anti-thrombotic properties.


    Herein, we want to share our experience of use of iNO in hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID 19 pneumonia. We hypothesized that iNO may be beneficial at preventing intubation, decreasing invasive mechanical ventilation duration, and consequently improve outcomes including hospital mortality.


    Methods This is a descriptive hypothesis generating study of patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia who received iNO for hypoxemic respiratory failure, at a single tertiary care center. We collected information on patient demographics, co-morbidities, iNO treatment, need for intubation, arterial blood gas analysis, laboratory values, hospital length of stay, and mortality. Patients were divided into two groups based on the timing of iNO administration: group 1 - “pre-intubation” (i.e. iNO started at least 1 day prior to endotracheal intubation, if any) and group 2 - “post-intubation” (i.e. iNO started on the same day as or after endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation).


    Result A total of 45 (group 1, n=26 [57.8%] vs group2, n=19 [42.2%]) COVID 19 patients who had iNO use. The mean time from hospital admission to iNO administration(days) in group 1 was 2.1 (±1.8) vs 4.2 (±5.9) in group 2. The mean hospital length of stay from the beginning of iNO treatment until discharge or death was 18.3 vs 26.2 days, with 8 deaths (30.8%) vs 9 deaths (47.4%) in group 1 vs group 2, respectively.


    Discussion Our study is unable to demonstrate comparably outcomes benefit of iNO. Although there was a trend towards decreased need for invasive mechanical ventilation in group 1[Only 11 (42.3%) patients were intubated out of 26 who received iNO early after hospital admission (2.3 days)], no statistical significance could be achieved because of small sample size.


    Our study demonstrated that iNO administration pre-intubation did not appear harmful and appears to be safe, complementary to HFNC, signalling the domain where systematic investigation is required to confirm or not the potential for iNO to improve patient outcomes in the management of COVID 19-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure.


    Conclusion This study showcases the potential benefit of early pre-intubation use of iNO in COVID patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. This study could conclusively form the basis for a prospective trial and could have a tremendous impact in improving patient outcomes.


    Highlights


    Inhaled nitric oxide can be used in the treatment COVID 19 induced hypoxemic respiratory failure.


    Inhaled nitric oxide use can lower the burden on overwhelmed medical system.


    Inhaled nitric oxide use may lower the need for intubation and subsequent invasive mechanical ventilation.

  • Another very interesting preprint.


    This does give good evidence that infection offers much better delta immunity than original COVID vaccination - which is very good news.


    It does not address the issue of how much does natural immunity (or vaccination immunity) decrease over time.


    It does address the question of protection from vaccine and infection which is better than protection from just infection:


    In model 3, we matched 14,029 persons. Baseline characteristics of the groups are
    presented in Table 1b. Examining previously infected individuals to those who were
    both previously infected and received a single dose of the vaccine, we found that the
    latter group had a significant 0.53-fold (95% CI, 0.3 to 0.92) (Table 4a) decreased risk
    for reinfection, as 20 had a positive RT-PCR test, compared to 37 in the previously
    infected and unvaccinated group. Symptomatic disease was present in 16 single dose
    vaccinees and in 23 of their unvaccinated counterparts. One COVID-19-related
    hospitalization occurred in the unvaccinated previously infected group. No COVID19-related mortality was recorded.
    We conducted a further sub-analysis, compelling the single-dose vaccine to be
    administered after the positive RT-PCR test. This subset represented 81% of the
    previously-infected-and-vaccinated study group. When performing this analysis, we
    found a similar, though not significant, trend of decreased risk of reinfection, with an
    OR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.21, P-value=0.188).

    Interestingly, although not explicitly checked, it looks as though vaccine followed by infection offers significantly better protection than infection on its own - comparing these two results. That is worth knowing. The point is that an infection after vaccination is likely to be much less severe than one without vaccine, so it is good to know that vaccine protection can be topped up with a breakthrough infection.


    (Others might want to check my reasoning on this - it is a bit indirect).


    THH

  • Here is another loose statement p>>>>q


    "in some cases vaccination has failed.>>>>> So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated

    Loose generalised statements ignore the complexity of modern vaccine science


    example..."We have developed pandemic live attenuated influenza vaccines (pLAIVs) against clade 1 H5N1 viruses on an Ann Arbor cold-adapted (ca) backbone that induced long-term immune memory. In 2015, many human infections caused by a new clade (clade 2.2.1.1) of goose/Guangdong (gs/GD) lineage H5N1 viruses were reported in Egypt, which prompted updating of the H5N1 pLAIV."


    there is also the question of which sector of the population is vulnerable.

    for example although younger people do get shingles the vaccine is usually targetted at the elderly..

    then of course there is the broader risk,benefit tradoff to consider..



    not just anyone is included in anyone


    Development of Clade-Specific and Broadly Reactive Live Attenuated Influenza Virus Vaccines against Rapidly Evolving H5 Subtype Viruses - PubMed
    We have developed pandemic live attenuated influenza vaccines (pLAIVs) against clade 1 H5N1 viruses on an Ann Arbor cold-adapted (<i>ca</i>) backbone that…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • This is a really fascinating and useful study, which answers questions about the risks of vaccination and COVID, looking only at the adverse events that have been noted for the vaccines.

    Typical vaccine terrorist statement. These guys use a pointless study from 2020 to compare apple with tomato risk....see:



    No common variables. Just a fake argument. Of course many people in ICU die from a thrombosis as they get no proper treatment and the vessels collapse.

    The difference is:: Healthy - gen therapeutic people die from blood disorder hemorrhagic shock, Myocarditis and deep vein thromboses (Astra). Not from any induces thrombosis....


    You compare deaths from driving a car with deaths from hit by a car...

    Israeli researchers affiliated with Maccabi Healthcare Services and Tel Aviv University,

    The paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf


    Natural infection protects 7x better than 2x Pfizer....7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21)

    increased risk for symptomatic disease.

  • Burden and characteristics of COVID-19 in the United States during 2020


    Burden and characteristics of COVID-19 in the United States during 2020 - Nature


    Abstract

    The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health systems and economies throughout the world during 2020 and was particularly devastating for the United States, which experienced the highest numbers of reported cases and deaths during 20201–3. Many of the epidemiological features responsible for observed rates of morbidity and mortality have been reported4–8; however, the overall burden and characteristics of COVID-19 in the United States have not been comprehensively quantified. Here we use a data-driven model-inference approach to simulate the pandemic at county-scale in the United States during 2020 and estimate critical, time-varying epidemiological properties underpinning the dynamics of the virus. The pandemic in the US during 2020 was characterized by national ascertainment rates that increased from 11.3% (95% credible interval (CI):8.3 – 15.9%) during March to 24.5% (18.6 – 32.3%) during December. Population susceptibility at year’s end was 69.0% (63.6 – 75.4%), indicating that roughly one third of the US population had been infected. Community infectious rates, the percentage of people harbouring a contagious infection, rose above 0.8% (0.6 – 1.0%) before the end of the year, and were as high as 2.4% in some major metropolitan areas. In contrast, the infection fatality rate fell to 0.3% by year’s end.


    Burden and characteristics of COVID-19 in the United States during 2020 | Nature

  • That IRR study using self-controls (clever idea) to evaluate low level vaccine and COVID risks with great precision.


    says it all ... (except for the absolute risks)



    Note how the only significant vaccine extra risk (compared with background) is CVST. But this has a very low 0.7 per million per week background rate which does not change much with age. And even so the COVID risk for this specific harm is higher.


    You can dig into the paper and its supplementary data to answer more complex questions.


    NB - this does show the extra blood clot risk from ChAdOx1 - but note how much larger the COVID risk is. Note also that the risk scale is logarithmic, and the error bars are quite large for CVST because it is so unlikely to happen.


    The graph here is relative risks (relative to just living normally) and the absolute risks are very small.

  • Where are you getting this information, that health care providers were not required to make VAERS reports before Covid? They have been 'required' to make reports since it was started in 1990, because lawmakers in the Reagan era understood the gravity of the potential consequence of the unprecedented removing of liability from vaccine makers!


    (But the CDC has failed at this responsibility to Congress as well, and VAERS has been, and continues to be, woefully under reporting vaccine adverse events. Doctors are well taught and conditioned to 'know' that vaccines hardly ever cause injury, and so most injuries, if they are reported by patients or parents at all, are seldom reported as possible vaccine injuries by health administrators. )

    I stand corrected. I'll try to update my original post to reflect your comment.

  • "in some cases natural immunity has failed.>>>>> So to be safe anyone who has had COVID should be vaccinated"


    statement has loose premise and conclusion

    Let me rephrase:


    Get a vaccination because the doctors tell you it often makes you safer than you would be if you did not get a vaccination. And why not get one? What downside is there to getting a vaccination, apart from a day of feeling lousy?


    Rather than "safe" I should say "probably safer than you would be without the vaccine." Is that satisfactory?


    Something tells me you know that is what I meant, and you are nitpicking.


    immunity needs to defined,,, immunity to alpha beta and or gamma etc

    vaccinated needs to be defined... vaccinated with what.. a narrowly targetted Pfizer of something more broadly targetted

    The Pfizer vaccine is broadly targeted. It protects and Alpha and Delta remarkably well. It protects against all variants better than the experts hoped in 2020, according to Ashish Jha. Not only that, but it can be rapidly reformulated to work even better against Delta, or some other variant that emerges. No previous vaccine was as broadly protective, quick to develop, or as flexible.

  • Reader Beware
    Doctors' ErrorsIn prior articles, I discussed several doctors who opined to varying degrees that children need not be vaccinated against COVID-19 (here, here,…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    Doctors’ Errors

    In prior articles, I discussed several doctors who opined to varying degrees that children need not be vaccinated against COVID-19 (here, here, here, and here). Each of their arguments contained significant factual errors that undercut their argument.

    • One doctor said that there is “about one in a million chance of death for a child under 19 from COVID”. This is false. In reality over 500 young people had died of the virus in the US when she made her claim, making her claim a mathematical impossibility that would require there to be over 500 million children in America.
    • One doctor claimed that a vaccine trial for adolescents didn’t measure “clinical outcomes … because so few kids get sick with COVID-19.” This is false. In reality, the trial measured whether or not children got COVID-19, something that was in the title of the article. The vaccine worked. Sixteen children who received the placebo got the disease, while zero children who received the vaccine got the disease. The author apparently does not consider it a “clinical outcome” when a child gets COVID-19 in a trial of a vaccine designed to prevent them from getting COVID-19 and so didn’t mention this in his article.
    • One doctor claimed that after “reviewing the medical literature and news reports, and in talking to pediatricians across the country, I am not aware of a single healthy child in the U.S. who has died of COVID-19 to date.” This is false. In reality, a simple Google search returns multiple news reports of otherwise healthy children dying of COVID-19 in the US, and a CDC study of 121 young people who died of COVID-19 found that 25% were healthy.

    This is just a small sampling of the basic factual errors highly-credentialed doctors have made this pandemic.



    (W please note - healthy young people can die of COVID).