^{Age < 50 rarely dies from CoV-19 (UK live data)}

Quote from THHuxleynew

That low death rate, in spite of delta, is because of vaccination (and the COVID age-dependence).

THH FUD alert! The group age > 50 is more like fully vaccinated and guess the death rate? 2% versus 0.03 for < 50....

The report clearly states protection from death with vaccines is 50% only !!!! So stop your FUD!

CoV-19 is a disease of the old that did accumulate comorbidity. AS UK and all other data shows people age <50 rarely die from COV-19. Real death rate among this group is among 0.002 with delta! So its at best like from a cold...

IVERMECTIN SAVES INDIA!

#IndiaFightsCorona COVID-19

www.mygov.in

But not the vaccine terrorist state of Kerala. Vaccination into a pandemic with a vaccine (Pfizer) that promotes CoV-19 (factor 5x) did make things much work

Vaccine terror in Kerala now is responsible for 2/3 of all India CoV-19 cases.

Kerala 33 mio people is responsible for over 200'000 active cases = 2/3 of Indias sick people. Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat have together about 10x more inhabitants and are below 1000 case in total.

So vaccination in India (Kerala) is 2000x less effective compared to Ivermectin. 2000x more active cases/population.

Quote from Wyttenbach

^{Age < 50 rarely dies from CoV-19 (UK live data)}

THH FUD alert! The group age > 50 is more like fully vaccinated and guess the death rate? 2% versus 0.03 for < 50....

The report clearly states protection from death with vaccines is 50% only !!!! So stop your FUD!

CoV-19 is a disease of the old that did accumulate comorbidity. AS UK and all other data shows people age <50 rarely die from COV-19. Real death rate among this group is among 0.002 with delta! So its at best like from a cold...

For somone we all know to be clever you are showing your a remarkable lack of joined up thinking.

You are the one who has always emphasised the greater risk from COVID for older age-groups. Not surprisingly those who are more at risk are more likely to get vaccinated. the vaccination reduces the risk for this higher-risk cohort a lot, but still it remains higher than for much younger people.

No report that I have seen says that this mortality risk change after vaccination is only 50%. Estimates vary between 20% mortality (80% protection) and 7% mortality (93% protection). If you disagree by all means state your detailed argument quoting clearly from explicitly linked sources and I will either admit error or correct you.

I will match unsubstantiated statements with my own unsubstantiated but more plausible statements. COVID is worse than a cold for those less than 50, it has significant mortality, and also many (1.4% - 10%) of people suffer long-term symptoms beyond 3 months.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Kerala now is responsible for 2/3 of all India CoV-19 cases.

Justus R Hope has written along similar lines as wytt.. without the barbs

, the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) added Ivermectin to the protocol as an option for the early treatment – even in mild cases – of COVID-19.

This guideline was updated May 17, 2021, and continues to incorporate Ivermectin, although some states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have chosen NOT to adopt this Ivermectin protocol – much to their detriment.

Justus Hope is a writer/MD somewhere in US of A..this article in the Desert Review is well written

India's Ivermectin Blackout - Part III: The Lesson of Kerala

India's Ivermectin Blackout - Part III: The Lesson of Kerala

The Ivermectin Effect

www.thedesertreview.com

reviews

"

What a good article, so surprised to find it in local newpaper. Excellent. excellent. excellent. I have done so much research on both vaccines and Ivermectin, but do yo know I never knew Ivermectin will stop transmission unlike vaccines. Now that just ratchets up my frustration even more; but glad to have learned that today. But was always an Ivermectin fan. Using it in addition to an inactivated virus vaccine I found in Mexico. Thank you for this article that covered so many things I'm interested in; Reported just today that Kerala now has 68% of India's new cases.

markfmccarty Aug 24, 2021 10:55am

Excellent - now you are doing a great job of explaining the centrality of contact prophylaxis to Uttar Pradesh's amazing success against COVID.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Kerala 33 mio people is responsible for over 200'000 active cases = 2/3 of Indias sick people. Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat have together about 10x more inhabitants and are below 1000 case in total.

So vaccination in India (Kerala) is 2000x less effective compared to Ivermectin. 2000x more active cases/population.

All false. Note first that:

• vaccination in Kerala is not significant (only 19% double vax in Kerala)

Reasons why UP will always look better than Kerala:

• median age difference (10 years => 3 X better without any other change)
• development difference => poor recording (reliably estimated 10X or more)
• development difference => more of population peasants in country
• governance difference => deliberate suppression of real statistics

These confounding factors have together a very large effect on reported statistics throughout the pandemic. They are highly uncertain - which makes any sort of comparison in this specific case even more impossible that these geographic comparisons normally are.

Another conceptual error in this argument, continually made by W, is conflating current infection rate with R value and mortality. R Value and mortality change with various interventions - vaccination - prophylaxis - social distancing - previous level of infection (and hence natural immunity). Crude statistics (case rate and mortality rate) are then scaled by current, or 3 weeks previous, infection rate.

The third thing neglected by W when making this comparison (it is in this case a triumph of deliberate - I've corrected it many times - disinformation):

Epidemics will have exponential peaks after which (for that variant) they stop. A complication in comparisons is that places with poor resistance to COVID can end up looking good because they have unrestrained whole-population epidemics early and fast and therefore high natural immunity.

Thus UP - highest seroprevalence:

Covid antibodies found in 71% of UP's population; unvaccinated remain at risk

The sero suvery conducted in the last 10 days of June and the first week of July covered 28,975 people including children over the age of six across the…

www.hindustantimes.com

Kerala - lowest seroprevalennce:

Coronavirus | Kerala has the lowest seroprevalance among 21 States, M.P. has the highest: ICMR study

Generate district-level data to formulating localised public health response measures, says Centre

www.thehindu.com

Quote from RobertBryant

The Lesson of Kerala

the comparative numbers for Kerala are staggering

"

The Times of India published this statement on July 29. Kerala has continued to have the majority of new daily cases and almost 25% of India's daily deaths despite a population of 34 million, less than 3% of India's total population.

On August 15, Kerala accounted for 18,582 of India's 32,937 new cases and 102 of India's 417 new deaths.

By contrast, the Ivermectin-using state of Delhi, with nearly the same population size, recorded only 53 new cases and ZERO deaths. In comparison, Uttar Pradesh, with almost eight times as many inhabitants, had only 30 new cases and ONE death.

Kerala had 619 times as many new cases as Uttar Pradesh and over 100 times as many deaths"

Kerala population 34 million

Uttar Pradesh population 204 million

India's Ivermectin Blackout - Part III: The Lesson of Kerala

The Ivermectin Effect

www.thedesertreview.com

Quote from RobertBryant

Justus R Hope

Hello to my Colleagues: I am Dr. Justus R. Hope.

It does not take a rocket scientist to ascertain my real name and my credentials. Go to my detailed bio displayed in my last three books and you can easily deduce my identity based on this transparent information:

Honors Graduate and Lilly Scholar of Wabash College, Graduate of Baylor College of Medicine, Licensed California Physician, former Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at University of California Davis Medical Center, and location Redding, California. I am a man of science and integrity. Authors throughout history have used pen names.

I have not lost one single patient to COVID. My sole goal is to save lives and to help other doctors do the same. Please google the result, and you can see my credentials are what I say they are. Yes, I enjoy not being in the headlines, and I enjoy my privacy. However, no one may claim that I am not an active board-certified practicing and licensed physician. To those of you who would rather smear the source when you cannot attack the substance of what I am reporting, I say, "shame on you."

Dr. George Fareed, former Harvard Professor and NIH scientist, and 2015 California Rural Physician of the Year, has endorsed my recent book as a "monumental treatise." He knows my credentials and identity.

Dr. Marc-Eric Halatsch, German Neuro-Oncologist and Head of Brain Tumor Research at Ulm University Hospital, has said my book on cancer is "a great work" and he is familiar with my credentials.

I am a member of the FLCCC and communicate with Dr. Tess Lawrie, world-renowned scientist and consultant for the WHO and co-founder of the British Ivermectin and Research Consortium.

I also work with Dr. Pierre Kory, a founding member of the FLCCC and world-renowned Ivermectin researcher and intensivist. In addition, I have worked with Ralph Lorigo, a progressive attorney in New York, to strategize and help patients gain legal access to life-saving Ivermectin while hospitalized. He is aware of my credentials.

I am also in regular contact and communication with Dr. Peter McCullough, Vice-Chair of Medicine at Baylor University. Dr. McCullough, Dr. Fareed, and Dr. Kory all testified before the United States Senate, and I have served to amplify their voices and life-saving messages. My goal and recent writings have been to get life-saving information out to the public on repurposed drugs for both cancer and COVID-19.

Signed: Justus R. Hope, MD, writer's pseudonym.

Why did UttarPradesh succeed where Kerala failed..in 2021

while this was written in 2000

"

Why did Kerala succeed where Uttar Pradesh failed?

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/5986/9780821354681_Spot%20Kerala.pdf

Was it Ivermectin?

Texas A&M’s MP18 Targeting SARS-CoV-2 & Variants Destroys Merck’s Molnupiravir in Preclinical Testing—Sorrento Therapeutics Licenses

Texas A&M’s MP18 Targeting SARS-CoV-2 & Variants Destroys Merck’s Molnupiravir in Preclinical Testing—Sorrento Therapeutics Licenses

Texas A&M researchers led by Prof. Wenshe Ray Li, a biological chemist, have developed a drug that could take on COVID-19. Now the university has

trialsitenews.com

Texas A&M researchers led by Prof. Wenshe Ray Li, a biological chemist, have developed a drug that could take on COVID-19. Now the university has inked a deal with a California biotech company to progress to clinical trials. With yet another pandemic surge raging due in part to the highly transmissible, virally loaded Delta variant, Texas A&M researchers developed an investigational product called MP18. This compound halts viral replication in preclinical laboratory testing. In preclinical head-to-head tests, MP18 absolutely crushed Merck’s molnupiravir against not only wild-type SARS-CoV-2 but also Delta and all other variants of concern. The results in the lab are so impressive that San Diego, California-based Sorrento Therapeutics negotiated an exclusive license to the intellectual property, memorialized in a licensing deal this past Tuesday. Thus the Texas A&M University System and Sorrento Therapeutics partner in the hopes of developing a powerful new drug to use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind the COVID-19 pandemic. With rights in hand, Sorrento Therapeutics will work to progress the IND-enabling preclinical work in the hopes of securing U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to commence clinical trials by Q1 2022.

Professor Liu is no lightweight, having been one of the first researchers to identify remdesivir as a possible treatment. Of course, that drug has turned out to be controversial, as described below.

Death of Treatments and Growing Tensions

Only remdesivir is approved by the FDA as a treatment for COVID-19, yet studies indicate its benefits are “modest” to patients. In fact, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), remdesivir provides no benefit, and thus they have yanked it from their list of COVID-19 recommended treatments.

That leaves nothing with FDA approval in the United States. Of course, the use of ivermectin for early care treatment has exploded worldwide. Some nations have formally authorized the use, including massive use in India during the Delta surge there. U.S. data indicate rapid growth in ivermectin sales while government authorities and mainstream media intensify warnings and outright attacks on those doctors prescribing the drug off-label. The mainstream press likens pro-ivermectin doctors to anti-vax right-wing loons and nuts. The general level of civility and scientific discourse in American society declines to heretofore new lows.

A ‘Game Changer’ & Recognition by Local Media Vaccines Not Enough

Thus far, the drug compound known as MP18 evidences considerable promise in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 viral replication. In fact, Professor Liu declares, “if it can be approved clinically, this will be a game changer.”

Local news reported that “while vaccines provide protection, this new drug could represent a permanent solution.” Of course, KENS 5 (CBS) recognizes that a vaccine-centric strategy alone isn’t sufficient to overcome COVID-19. That a combination of medical and public health initiatives, from vaccines and early care antivirals to appropriate data-driven, risk-based public health measures in combination will carry society out of this crisis.

Sorrento Therapeutics also reported the deal announcing in a press release the inking of the deal with the Texas A&M University System on August 24 and 25. The biotech exercise an option to license based on “very promising preclinical data for the lead compound, MP18” evidencing “..highly potent broad-spectrum antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and all of the major Variants of Concern (VOCs) (alpha, beta, delta and gamma).”

MP18 Crushes Merck’s Molnupiravir

Sorrento made its decision based on “initial in vitro data evidencing “superior antiviral activity in a head-to-head comparison with a current Phase 3 investigational oral antiviral agent (EIDD2801)” also known as molnupiravir produced by Merck and currently in clinical trials. Merck licensed the experimental product from Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, securing access from Emory University’s Drug Innovation Ventures (DRIVE).

The California biotech furthermore shared with investors that the study drug absolutely destroyed molnupiravir, demonstrating 10-fold (10x) higher antiviral potency targeting not only wild type SARS-CoV-2 but also variants of interest including Alpha (U.K.) and Delta (India), while superior to the Merck drug showing 3 to 7x higher antiviral potency against Beta (South Africa, 3X) and Gamma (Brazil/Japan, 6-7X).

These tests and corresponding data outcomes were based on the IC50 data of the Plague Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT) involving live virus-infecting Vero E6 cells.

Sorrento Therapeutics Moves Forward

Now Sorrento Therapeutics plans on completing what is known as IND-enabling preclinical studies during the rest of the year in the hopes of seeking U.S. FDA approval to commence clinical trials at the start of 2022. Of course, this early-stage drug is considerably behind Merck’s molnupiravir as well as Roche’s AT-527 and Pfizer’s PF-07321332. Still, if the drug does make it to clinical trials and continues to evidence such superiority, it could catch up at some point.

An Elite ‘Billion Dollar Research Club’ Player

With over a $13.5 billion endowment, the College Station, Texas university was founded via a public land grant in 1876 as a research university. By 2020, Texas A&M’s student body represented the second largest student body in all of America. The only Texas university to hold in parallel designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution, the university is well known to manage large studies funded by prominent government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

With nearly $1 billion in research dollars according to a HERD survey a couple of years ago, Texas A&M ranked 20th among 912 U.S. degree-granting colleges and universities and 11th among all public institutions based on Texas A&M annual research expenditures. By 2020 Texas A&M cross the $1 billion mark making it into the Billion dollar research club.

About Sorrento Therapeutics

Sorrento Therapeutics is a clinical and commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company developing new therapies to treat cancer, pain (non-opioid treatments), autoimmune disease and COVID-19. Sorrento’s multimodal, multipronged approach to fighting cancer is made possible by its extensive immuno-oncology platforms, including key assets such as fully human antibodies (“G-MAB™ library”), immuno-cellular therapies (“DAR-T™”), antibody-drug conjugates (“ADCs”), and oncolytic virus (“Seprehvec™”). Sorrento is also developing potential antiviral therapies and vaccines against coronaviruses, including Abivertinib, COVIGUARD™, COVI-AMG™, COVISHIELD™, COVI-MSC™ and COVIDROPS™; and diagnostic test solutions, including COVITRACK™, COVISTIX™, and COVITRACE™.

Sorrento’s commitment to life-enhancing therapies for patients is also demonstrated by their effort to advance a first-in-class (TRPV1 agonist) non-opioid pain management small molecule, resiniferatoxin (“RTX”), and SP-102 (10 mg, dexamethasone sodium phosphate viscous gel) (SEMDEXA™), a novel, viscous gel formulation of a widely used corticosteroid for epidural injections to treat lumbosacral radicular pain, or sciatica, and to commercialize ZTlido® (lidocaine topical system) 1.8% for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia. RTX has completed a Phase I.B. trial for intractable pain associated with cancer and a Phase 1B trial in osteoarthritis patients. SEMDEXA is in a pivotal Phase 3 trial for the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain, or sciatica. ZTlido® was approved by the FDA on February 28, 2018.

Publicly traded at 9.15 as of this writing, the 52-week high low ranged from 5.17 to 17.25. The company continues to lose money despite some revenue, keeps about $112 million cash on hand, and currently enjoys a market cap of $2.7 billion. Their most recent quarterly statement can be reviewed here. Blackrock is the largest holder of stock (6.41%) followed by Vanguard Group (4.74%) and State Street Corporation (3.43%).

Lead Research/Investigator

Wenshe Ray Li, Ph.D., Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M; a biological chemist and a 2018 Texas A&M Presidential Impact Fellow and holder of the Gradipore Chair in the Department of Chemistry.

Call to Action: TrialSite tracks university to biotech licensing deals relevant to our audience’s interests. TrialSite will continue to follow the progress of MP18.

Emory's DRIVE, Ridgeback partnering for drug vs coronavirus

Ridgeback Biotherapeutics will license EIDD-2801, a potential drug against coronaviruses, from Emory's DRIVE and take it through clinical trials.

news.emory.edu

Emory's DRIVE, Ridgeback partnering for drug vs coronavirus

Ridgeback Biotherapeutics will license EIDD-2801, a potential drug against coronaviruses, from Emory's DRIVE and take it through clinical trials.

news.emory.edu

Note: TrialSite notifies all that the rapidly growing online media and social network platform dedicated to open, transparent and accessible clinical research is first and foremost a pro-science and pro-vaccine based media platform. Moreover TrialSite has no political agenda, one way or the other and that’s apparent in the volumes of articles generated over the past couple of years. Part of transparent research and science is absolutely to objectively review data, and not hide, nor pretend it doesn’t exist.

COVID-19 Vaccinations 98 Times More Deadly Than Flu Vaccines (According to VAERS Reports)

COVID-19 Vaccinations 98 Times More Deadly Than Flu Vaccines (According to VAERS Reports)

TrialSite researchers recently compared adverse event reports submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events

trialsitenews.com

TrialSite researchers recently compared adverse event reports submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines to the numbers associated with the influenza vaccines over the years. With the COVID-19 vaccine campaign there has been a dramatic increase in the number of reports submitted to VAERS: by August 6, 2021, reports of serious events and deaths after the vaccinations represented 39% of serious events and 51% of deaths of all reports submitted to VAERS since 1990 based on reports in the system involving U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The data point to a couple of key questions including: 1) Is the dramatic increase in adverse event and death reports causally linked to the vaccinations? 2) Could it be that this intense increase in reported adverse events and deaths in fact be due to what is known as “stimulated reporting”? IE: that people (at least 50% more healthcare professionals) are reporting greater numbers of incidents due to heightened awareness of the existence of the VAERS and/or greater fear associated with the new COVID-19 vaccines due to media exposure, social media misinformation and the like.

First TrialSite looked at the question as to whether the increase in reported cases is in fact due to an increased number of vaccinations. TrialSite can provide methodological notes and table and figures on demand. Also the comparison of data here is based on reports for COVID-19 vaccines appearing in the VAERS as of August 6, 2021.

As depicted in figure 1 below the number of reports, serious events and death reported to VAERS in comparison with all other vaccines submitted from 2010 to 2020 use metrics such as totals and panels and rates per million vaccine doses.

The number of all reports per million is nine (9) times the annual average from 2010 to 2020 while serious averse events are 17 times the average and deaths represent 42 times the average. The average reporting rate for all three types of reports per million doses are 31% lower than unadjusted figures, suggesting that about 31% of the increase is in fact due to the increase in the number of vaccination. Thus we conclude here that the number of vaccinations doesn’t explain a majority of the boost in reports to VAERS during the pandemic and since the commencement of mass vaccinations using COVID-19 vaccines.

Figure 1. Reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) (for Non-Covid-19 Vaccines 2010-2020 and for COVID-19 Vaccines)

TrialSite addresses the next question: Is the boost in reported cases the result of so-called “Stimulated Reporting?”

Note the major increase in VAERS reports could be the result of influencing factors such as media, so-called misinformation, anti-vax-hyperbole or the like.

The CDC uses VAERS as a way to detect safety signals associated with vaccines. If they detect a signal, they can drill down into the data and pursue subsequent analyses to investigate any causal links. As described by a paper authored by CDC researchers, the primary method for detecting safety signals using VAERS involves the comparison of “the proportion of reports involving a specific adverse event and a specific vaccine can be compared to the proportion of reports involving the same adverse event and other vaccines” (Shimabukuro et al. 2015:4401). These authors inform the reader that such an analysis “also includes evaluation of reporting rates of adverse events in the context of vaccine doses distributed for use in the U.S. marketplace.” (Ibid.:4401)

Representing the logic associated with the statistical methods used by the CDC to asses if an increase in reported adverse events correlates or associates with stimulated reporting.

In another paper authored by different CDC researchers (Velozzi et al. 2010) a team investigated stimulated reporting this time in the context of the H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine introduced to the market in 2009, after an increase in reported incidents in VAERS, representing case reports 2 to 3 times greater than for seasonal influenza vaccines per million vaccinations.

This CDC group came to the conclusion that in fact stimulated reporting was a factor, given the overall proportion of adverse events reported in different categories for the H1N1 vaccine was overall comparable to the proportion reported for seasonable influenza vaccines.

TrialSite Analysis

TrialSite incorporated the Shimabukuro et al. (2015) approach while employing the Velozzi et al. (2010) method to compare reporting rates for categories of adverse events between COVID-19 vaccines and seasonal influenza vaccines.

We selected several categories of adverse events taken from the CDC’s “VAERS Standard Operating Procedures” internal planning document dated January 29, 2021. That document outlines the CDC’s plans to continuously monitor VAERS for safety signals.

The adverse events from that document included in this report are: serious events, deaths, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), coagulopathy, and acute myocardial infarction.5 Serious adverse events include events that involved at least one of the following: death; hospitalization; life-threatening illness; “permanent disability” (defined as a persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of ability to function normally); or a congenital anomaly/birth defect. I also included all adverse events reported and all reports received.

Adverse events are not the same as reports. Reports refers to reports submitted by individuals (some studies show the majority as health professionals) to VAERS, whereas events refer to all of the adverse event codes contained in those reports. For COVID-19 vaccines there is an average of 4.5 events per report and 3.8 per report for influenza vaccines over this period.

5 Reports to VAERS are coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Each specific code is called a “preferred term” (PT). In the CDC’s on-line system (WONDER) for analyzing VAERS data, “symptoms” correspond to preferred terms. The “coagulopathy” category created by the CDC includes a set of 26 preferred terms for thromboembolic events (although the category does not include coagulopathy PT. The full list of PT’s for GBS, coagulopathy and acute myocardial infarctions can be found in Table 3 of the CDC’s SOP document.

Comparison of Adverse Event Reports per 100K Vaccination Doses: COVID-19 vs. Flu

The tables below respond to the second question regarding stimulated reporting. Table 1 shows the reporting rate for different adverse events per million doses of vaccine administered, comparing reports for COVID-19 vaccines to the total number of reports for flu vaccines from July-June in five recent influenza seasons: 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 influenza seasons. (The 2020-21 flu season was excluded to avoid conflation with the SARS Cov-2 pandemic and vaccination drive). The comparison is made for 4 different age groups and for the total of those age groups. Note that all reports with an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 were not included in counts for COVID-19 vaccines. (Further methodological details can be found in the appendix.)

Table 1. COVID-19 vs Flu Vaccines:

Adverse Event Reporting Rate per Million Vaccine Doses

Notes: The COVID:Flu ratio is the ratio of COVID-19 reporting rate to the flu reporting rate (per million vaccines). All differences between COVID-19 and flu reporting rates are statistically significant. “n.e.” is not-estimable because dividing by zero is undefined. Flu reporting rates represent the total reports to VAERS across the 2015/16 to 2019/20 flu seasons for each age group. Covid-19 reporting rates include all reports to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines for each age group through Aug. 6, 2021. Vaccine doses estimated using data from the CDC and the US Census Bureau. COVID-19 vaccination totals are from Aug. 5, 2021. All reports with SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 are excluded from counts.

Note that the first set of columns marked “All Events” depicts the reporting rate for all adverse events reported to VAERS per million doses for COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations, as well as the ratio between these reporting rates. The other columns show the comparative reporting rates and ratios for all reports, serious reports, deaths, GBS, coagulopathy, and myocardial infarction. The results indicate that, compared to influenza vaccines, the reporting rate per vaccine dose is much higher for all types of events and reports compared to number of reports for influenza vaccines from 2015 to 2020. We note here that all differences in reporting rate per vaccine dose between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are statistically significant using a 2-sample, 2-tailed test of proportion. While a ration could not be calculated for years when no deaths were reported for the flu vaccine for a give age cohort (e.g. dividing by zero is undefined), tests of statistical significance could still be calculated.

Thus If the increase was due to stimulated reporting, we would expect the difference between COVID-19 vaccines to be fairly similar across different types of events and age categories. But the table shows exactly the opposite: The overall COVID: Flu reporting ratio for all age groups for all reports is 19, for serious reports 28, for deaths 91, for GBS 3, for coagulopathy 276 and for myocardial infarctions it is 126.

The rate varies significantly across ages as well. For example, the death reporting rate for 18-49 year old is 64 while the reporting rate for 65 and up is 91. It is worth underscoring that among 10-17 year old, there were zero myocardial infarctions reported for influenza vaccines from 2015-2020, whereas there have been 5 reported so far for that age group following COVID-19 vaccination.

Taken together, the greater rate of serious events, deaths, GBS, coagulopathy and myocardial infarction reported and the variation across age groups constitute a strong prima facie signal of disproportionately serious harm from COVID-19 vaccines. But TrialSite acknowledges this isn’t peer reviewed research and any declarative claims would need to be verified by experts out in the field. But the findings here are noteworthy of publication.

Comparison of Adverse Events as Percentage of Reports: COVID-19 vs. Flu

Back to the CDC-authored Velozzi et al. (2010) investigated the number of serious events and reports of GBS as a proportion of all reports to VAERS without taking into account number of vaccine doses distributed.

Table 2 below reports a similar comparison for the adverse events examined herein. Revealing “proportional reporting ratio” (PRR) that is based on the calculating the proportion of all reports (or events) that are for a specific type of report (or event). For example, the PRR for deaths takes the proportion of all reports for COVID-19 vaccines that included death as an outcome (.01012) divided by the proportion of deaths out of all flu reports (.00205).

The CDC’s SOP document states that a PRR greater than 2 with a chi-square statistic greater than 4 and with more than 3 events constitutes a safety signal (see page 16). (Further methodological details can be found in the appendix.)

The results reported in Table 2 provide another way of examining whether the overall pattern of reporting for COVID-19 vaccines is different from the pattern of reporting for influenza vaccines. Although they paint a slightly different picture than the tables of reports per vaccine dose, they still provide strong indication that the increase in reporting is not simply due to stimulated reporting but instead constitutes a very clear safety signal.

Note: The PRR is the ratio of the proportion of a specific event type out of all reports for COVID-19 divided by its proportion out of all reports for the combined 2015-2019 flu seasons. PRR’s in bold constitute a safety signal according CDC criteria. A * indicates a statistically significant difference between the proportion of COVID-19 and flu reports for each age group and event type. Numbers for flu represent the total reports to VAERS across the 2015/16-2019/20 flu seasons for each age group. Covid-19 reporting rates include all reports to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines for each age group as of Aug. 6, 2021.

The data above offers a another vantage into whether the overall pattern of reporting for COVID-19 vaccines diverges from the pattern of reporting for influenza vaccines. All of the PRR’s in bold in Table 2 exceed the CDC’s threshold for signal detection.

This includes all PRR’s for death except for the youngest age group, all PRR’s for coagulopathy and all PRR’s for myocardial infarction, except for the youngest age group because there were no myocardial infarctions reported for influenza vaccines. The only event outcome for which the COVID-Flu reporting ratio is less than one and statistically significant is for GBS.

What this means is that a greater proportion of reports for flu are for GBS compared to COVID-19 vaccines. However, as demonstrated in Table 1, the GBS reporting rate per million doses for flu vaccines is three times the reporting rate for COVID-19.

Indicating that, per vaccine dose an individual is three times more likely to report GBS following a COVID-19 vaccination than an influenza vaccination (Table 1). However, because the reporting rate for other adverse events is so much higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for flu, the overall proportion of reports for GBS out of all reports is lower for COVID-19 than for flu (Table 2).

With regards to the question of stimulated reporting, the pattern of reporting as measured by the PRR is different across different types of events and different ages. TrialSite suggests if this increase was merely due to stimulate reporting, one would expect similar proportions of reports from COVID-19 and influenza vaccines across different type of events and ages.

For example, the reporting ratio for deaths is nearly 5, for GBS it is 0.15, for coagulopathy it is 15 and for myocardial infarction nearly 7. Furthermore, there is substantial variation across age groups. For example, while the COVID: Flu ratio for deaths for the 18-49 age group is 2.5, for 50-64 years old it is 4.7, and 9.2 for 65 plus.

Conclusion

TrialSite analysis suggest a striking increase in the number of serious adverse events and deaths reported to VAERS. This report has provided material evidence that the increase is not due mainly to an increase in the number of vaccinations given, nor to stimulated reporting.

After taking the number of vaccine doses into account, the reporting rate for deaths following COVID-19 vaccines is 30 times higher than the reporting rate for all vaccines combined from 2010-2020. Furthermore, the reporting rate for serious events and deaths per vaccine dose is significantly higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for influenza vaccines since 2015, reaching as high as 98 times the reporting rate of deaths and 370 times the reporting rate for coagulopathy for ages 65 and older.

If the increase in the reporting rate was due to stimulated reporting, one would expect to see a comparable reporting ratio across different adverse event types and age groups. However, TrialSite analysis’ indicates substantial differences, and these deltas are evident in all tables for all age groups.

Of course it is possible, even likely, that some of the difference between COVID19 and influenza vaccination reporting is due to stimulated reporting. In their 2010 study on stimulated reporting for the H1N1 vaccination, Velozzi et al. (2010) found that per vaccine dose, reports for H1N1 were about three times higher than for other influenza vaccines. The average reporting rate per million COVID-19 vaccinations for all events and reports is 20 times the average reporting rate for influenza. One could take that as an upper-bound for the increase in reporting due to stimulated reporting.

TrialSite notes that even if stimulated reporting accounts for a difference of 20 fold, the reporting rate for serious events, deaths coagulopathy and myocardial infarction are still well above that number, and so the overall conclusions remain unchanged. A noticeable safety signal is present that hasn’t been noticed, at least publicly, by the majority of experts within the CDC, FDA much of academia.

Taken together, the greater rate of serious events and even greater rate of deaths, coagulopathy and myocardial infarction reported following COVID-19 vaccines and the variation across age groups constitute a robust and urgent signal of disproportionately serious harms from COVID-19 vaccines that cannot be attributed, TrialSite posits herein, to stimulated reporting.

TrialSite cannot declare that these findings are declarative evidence unless others take the time to review this data in detail. Nonetheless the data points to what should translate to an urgent scrutiny of the data. These findings are not meant to materially impact any vaccination program. TrialSite has noted repeatedly that a vaccine-centric strategy isn’t sufficient to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines as one local media station recently mentioned are a temporary solution for such a pathogen, and that a more long-term sustainable solution involves not only safe and effective vaccines, but just as importantly early care treatments (generic, off-label and novel therapeutics to prevent to be safe and effective) as well as rational, true data-driven, risk-based public health measures.

Note: TrialSite notifies all that the rapidly growing online media and social network platform dedicated to open, transparent and accessible clinical research is first and foremost a pro-science and pro-vaccine based media platform. Moreover TrialSite has no political agenda, one way or the other and that’s apparent in the volumes of articles generated over the past couple of years. Part of transparent research and science is absolutely to objectively review data, and not hide, nor pretend it doesn’t exist.

Quote from Fm1

. The mainstream press likens pro-ivermectin doctors to anti-vax right-wing loons and nuts. The general level of civility and scientific discourse in American society declines to heretofore new lows.

NBC 'apocalypse reporter' Ben Collins plumbs the depths..

there has been a swath of such stuff in past days

Anyone see this in the national or international media?

Federal Judge Allows NIH Ivermectin Deception Case to Proceed

Federal Judge Allows NIH Ivermectin Deception Case to Proceed

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. On August 25, NIH appeared in

trialsitenews.com

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

On August 25, NIH appeared in conference in federal court in the District of New Jersey. The purpose of the appearance was for resolution of Jin-Pyong Peter Yim v National Institutes of Health and for scheduling of “motion practice”, if necessary. I am the plaintiff in the case. Beneath the legal formalities, the case could reveal that NIH deceived the nation on a treatment for COVID-19.

NIH is alleged to have violated the Freedom of Information Act. NIH failed to respond to a document request made on January 28, 2021:

“All updates to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines that were endorsed by a vote of the Panel. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2021 To 01/28/2021)”

The purpose of the FOIA request was not to obtain the document. Rather, it was to know if a vote was held to endorse the NIH recommendation on ivermectin. NIH violated FOIA because it did not respond within the time defined by statute. A complaint was filed against the NIH on March 26, 2021 to appeal the non-response. NIH answered the complaint on June 30. The answer included an exhibit and testimony.

NIH was represented by Margaret Ann Mahoney. She stated that NIH had responded to the FOIA request. She was referring to the NIH FOIA response from April 23:

“You requested all updates to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines that were endorsed by a vote of the Panel (Date range for record search from 01/01/2021 to 01/28/2021). All approved updates to the guidelines are posted online and can be found here. The documents posted on this website respond to your request in full.”

I requested a change to the NIH response. The NIH response is ambiguous as to whether the requested document exists. I provided a URL that refers to a single document. I requested that that URL be given in the NIH FOIA response if that recommendation was endorsed by a vote.

The conference was presided over by Judge Lois H. Goodman. She gave her opinion following discussion between the plaintiff and defendant. She expressed skepticism of the legal basis for the complaint. However, she urged further negotiation and allowed for “motion practice” if no agreement was reached. Her concluding remarks are here.

Following the conference, Judge Goodman also issued the following order:

“TEXT ORDER directing parties to confer to attempt resolution to this dispute. Parties to report to the Court as to the results of those efforts to resolve by 9/8/2021. If, matter cannot be resolved, dispositive motions to be filed by 9/24/2021 and to be returnable on 10/18/2021. Ms. Mahoney is directed to provide pro se plaintiff with a copy of this text order. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on 8/26/2021 .”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ov81289XbP_aGqIml6TCooaUzJ9OiRXv/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/154LA5f2Jwl9wCycV0Y9rDsXguhSKN5Kx/view

A Tale of Two Provinces

Uttar Pradesh

seroprevalence (29 July): 79%

vaccination: 50% (approx) single. 10% (approx) double.

Single vaccination may not imply seropositivity, but even if it does, we have some 29% of population who have had COVID, or 60 million.

Official cases statistics for UP (now) 1.71 million.

that is an infection case ratio of 35!

Kerala

seroprevalence (29 July) 44%

vaccination (29 July) 58%

cases (29 July) 10%

we can't determine the case reporting rate from this since we do not know how much of that 44% seropositivity is from vaccination.

The worst assumption is that vaccination does not contribute to seropositivity at all, in which case infection s/ cases = 4.4 - nearly 10X better than UP.

The high vaccination rate means the actual number of infections must be a lot lower than this. So we expect Kerala reporting to be >> 10 X better than UP.

Quote from Fm1

Note: TrialSite notifies all that the rapidly growing online media and social network platform dedicated to open, transparent and accessible clinical research is first and foremost a pro-science and pro-vaccine based media platform. Moreover TrialSite has no political agenda, one way or the other and that’s apparent in the volumes of articles generated over the past couple of years. Part of transparent research and science is absolutely to objectively review data, and not hide, nor pretend it doesn’t exist.

COVID-19 Vaccinations 98 Times More Deadly Than Flu Vaccines (According to VAERS Reports)

https://trialsitenews.com/covi…ccording-to-vaers-reports

TrialSite researchers recently compared adverse event reports submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines to the numbers associated with the influenza vaccines over the years. With the COVID-19 vaccine campaign there has been a dramatic increase in the number of reports submitted to VAERS: by August 6, 2021, reports of serious events and deaths after the vaccinations represented 39% of serious events and 51% of deaths of all reports submitted to VAERS since 1990 based on reports in the system involving U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The data point to a couple of key questions including: 1) Is the dramatic increase in adverse event and death reports causally linked to the vaccinations? 2) Could it be that this intense increase in reported adverse events and deaths in fact be due to what is known as “stimulated reporting”? IE: that people (at least 50% more healthcare professionals) are reporting greater numbers of incidents due to heightened awareness of the existence of the VAERS and/or greater fear associated with the new COVID-19 vaccines due to media exposure, social media misinformation and the like.

First TrialSite looked at the question as to whether the increase in reported cases is in fact due to an increased number of vaccinations. TrialSite can provide methodological notes and table and figures on demand. Also the comparison of data here is based on reports for COVID-19 vaccines appearing in the VAERS as of August 6, 2021.

As depicted in figure 1 below the number of reports, serious events and death reported to VAERS in comparison with all other vaccines submitted from 2010 to 2020 use metrics such as totals and panels and rates per million vaccine doses.

The number of all reports per million is nine (9) times the annual average from 2010 to 2020 while serious averse events are 17 times the average and deaths represent 42 times the average. The average reporting rate for all three types of reports per million doses are 31% lower than unadjusted figures, suggesting that about 31% of the increase is in fact due to the increase in the number of vaccination. Thus we conclude here that the number of vaccinations doesn’t explain a majority of the boost in reports to VAERS during the pandemic and since the commencement of mass vaccinations using COVID-19 vaccines.

Figure 1. Reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) (for Non-Covid-19 Vaccines 2010-2020 and for COVID-19 Vaccines)

TrialSite addresses the next question: Is the boost in reported cases the result of so-called “Stimulated Reporting?”

Note the major increase in VAERS reports could be the result of influencing factors such as media, so-called misinformation, anti-vax-hyperbole or the like.

The CDC uses VAERS as a way to detect safety signals associated with vaccines. If they detect a signal, they can drill down into the data and pursue subsequent analyses to investigate any causal links. As described by a paper authored by CDC researchers, the primary method for detecting safety signals using VAERS involves the comparison of “the proportion of reports involving a specific adverse event and a specific vaccine can be compared to the proportion of reports involving the same adverse event and other vaccines” (Shimabukuro et al. 2015:4401). These authors inform the reader that such an analysis “also includes evaluation of reporting rates of adverse events in the context of vaccine doses distributed for use in the U.S. marketplace.” (Ibid.:4401)

Representing the logic associated with the statistical methods used by the CDC to asses if an increase in reported adverse events correlates or associates with stimulated reporting.

In another paper authored by different CDC researchers (Velozzi et al. 2010) a team investigated stimulated reporting this time in the context of the H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine introduced to the market in 2009, after an increase in reported incidents in VAERS, representing case reports 2 to 3 times greater than for seasonal influenza vaccines per million vaccinations.

This CDC group came to the conclusion that in fact stimulated reporting was a factor, given the overall proportion of adverse events reported in different categories for the H1N1 vaccine was overall comparable to the proportion reported for seasonable influenza vaccines.

TrialSite Analysis

TrialSite incorporated the Shimabukuro et al. (2015) approach while employing the Velozzi et al. (2010) method to compare reporting rates for categories of adverse events between COVID-19 vaccines and seasonal influenza vaccines.

We selected several categories of adverse events taken from the CDC’s “VAERS Standard Operating Procedures” internal planning document dated January 29, 2021. That document outlines the CDC’s plans to continuously monitor VAERS for safety signals.

The adverse events from that document included in this report are: serious events, deaths, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), coagulopathy, and acute myocardial infarction.5 Serious adverse events include events that involved at least one of the following: death; hospitalization; life-threatening illness; “permanent disability” (defined as a persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of ability to function normally); or a congenital anomaly/birth defect. I also included all adverse events reported and all reports received.

Adverse events are not the same as reports. Reports refers to reports submitted by individuals (some studies show the majority as health professionals) to VAERS, whereas events refer to all of the adverse event codes contained in those reports. For COVID-19 vaccines there is an average of 4.5 events per report and 3.8 per report for influenza vaccines over this period.

5 Reports to VAERS are coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Each specific code is called a “preferred term” (PT). In the CDC’s on-line system (WONDER) for analyzing VAERS data, “symptoms” correspond to preferred terms. The “coagulopathy” category created by the CDC includes a set of 26 preferred terms for thromboembolic events (although the category does not include coagulopathy PT. The full list of PT’s for GBS, coagulopathy and acute myocardial infarctions can be found in Table 3 of the CDC’s SOP document.

Comparison of Adverse Event Reports per 100K Vaccination Doses: COVID-19 vs. Flu

The tables below respond to the second question regarding stimulated reporting. Table 1 shows the reporting rate for different adverse events per million doses of vaccine administered, comparing reports for COVID-19 vaccines to the total number of reports for flu vaccines from July-June in five recent influenza seasons: 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 influenza seasons. (The 2020-21 flu season was excluded to avoid conflation with the SARS Cov-2 pandemic and vaccination drive). The comparison is made for 4 different age groups and for the total of those age groups. Note that all reports with an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 were not included in counts for COVID-19 vaccines. (Further methodological details can be found in the appendix.)

Table 1. COVID-19 vs Flu Vaccines:

Adverse Event Reporting Rate per Million Vaccine Doses

Notes: The COVID:Flu ratio is the ratio of COVID-19 reporting rate to the flu reporting rate (per million vaccines). All differences between COVID-19 and flu reporting rates are statistically significant. “n.e.” is not-estimable because dividing by zero is undefined. Flu reporting rates represent the total reports to VAERS across the 2015/16 to 2019/20 flu seasons for each age group. Covid-19 reporting rates include all reports to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines for each age group through Aug. 6, 2021. Vaccine doses estimated using data from the CDC and the US Census Bureau. COVID-19 vaccination totals are from Aug. 5, 2021. All reports with SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 are excluded from counts.

Note that the first set of columns marked “All Events” depicts the reporting rate for all adverse events reported to VAERS per million doses for COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations, as well as the ratio between these reporting rates. The other columns show the comparative reporting rates and ratios for all reports, serious reports, deaths, GBS, coagulopathy, and myocardial infarction. The results indicate that, compared to influenza vaccines, the reporting rate per vaccine dose is much higher for all types of events and reports compared to number of reports for influenza vaccines from 2015 to 2020. We note here that all differences in reporting rate per vaccine dose between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are statistically significant using a 2-sample, 2-tailed test of proportion. While a ration could not be calculated for years when no deaths were reported for the flu vaccine for a give age cohort (e.g. dividing by zero is undefined), tests of statistical significance could still be calculated.

Thus If the increase was due to stimulated reporting, we would expect the difference between COVID-19 vaccines to be fairly similar across different types of events and age categories. But the table shows exactly the opposite: The overall COVID: Flu reporting ratio for all age groups for all reports is 19, for serious reports 28, for deaths 91, for GBS 3, for coagulopathy 276 and for myocardial infarctions it is 126.

The rate varies significantly across ages as well. For example, the death reporting rate for 18-49 year old is 64 while the reporting rate for 65 and up is 91. It is worth underscoring that among 10-17 year old, there were zero myocardial infarctions reported for influenza vaccines from 2015-2020, whereas there have been 5 reported so far for that age group following COVID-19 vaccination.

Taken together, the greater rate of serious events, deaths, GBS, coagulopathy and myocardial infarction reported and the variation across age groups constitute a strong prima facie signal of disproportionately serious harm from COVID-19 vaccines. But TrialSite acknowledges this isn’t peer reviewed research and any declarative claims would need to be verified by experts out in the field. But the findings here are noteworthy of publication.

Comparison of Adverse Events as Percentage of Reports: COVID-19 vs. Flu

Back to the CDC-authored Velozzi et al. (2010) investigated the number of serious events and reports of GBS as a proportion of all reports to VAERS without taking into account number of vaccine doses distributed.

Table 2 below reports a similar comparison for the adverse events examined herein. Revealing “proportional reporting ratio” (PRR) that is based on the calculating the proportion of all reports (or events) that are for a specific type of report (or event). For example, the PRR for deaths takes the proportion of all reports for COVID-19 vaccines that included death as an outcome (.01012) divided by the proportion of deaths out of all flu reports (.00205).

The CDC’s SOP document states that a PRR greater than 2 with a chi-square statistic greater than 4 and with more than 3 events constitutes a safety signal (see page 16). (Further methodological details can be found in the appendix.)

The results reported in Table 2 provide another way of examining whether the overall pattern of reporting for COVID-19 vaccines is different from the pattern of reporting for influenza vaccines. Although they paint a slightly different picture than the tables of reports per vaccine dose, they still provide strong indication that the increase in reporting is not simply due to stimulated reporting but instead constitutes a very clear safety signal.

Note: The PRR is the ratio of the proportion of a specific event type out of all reports for COVID-19 divided by its proportion out of all reports for the combined 2015-2019 flu seasons. PRR’s in bold constitute a safety signal according CDC criteria. A * indicates a statistically significant difference between the proportion of COVID-19 and flu reports for each age group and event type. Numbers for flu represent the total reports to VAERS across the 2015/16-2019/20 flu seasons for each age group. Covid-19 reporting rates include all reports to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines for each age group as of Aug. 6, 2021.

The data above offers a another vantage into whether the overall pattern of reporting for COVID-19 vaccines diverges from the pattern of reporting for influenza vaccines. All of the PRR’s in bold in Table 2 exceed the CDC’s threshold for signal detection.

This includes all PRR’s for death except for the youngest age group, all PRR’s for coagulopathy and all PRR’s for myocardial infarction, except for the youngest age group because there were no myocardial infarctions reported for influenza vaccines. The only event outcome for which the COVID-Flu reporting ratio is less than one and statistically significant is for GBS.

What this means is that a greater proportion of reports for flu are for GBS compared to COVID-19 vaccines. However, as demonstrated in Table 1, the GBS reporting rate per million doses for flu vaccines is three times the reporting rate for COVID-19.

Indicating that, per vaccine dose an individual is three times more likely to report GBS following a COVID-19 vaccination than an influenza vaccination (Table 1). However, because the reporting rate for other adverse events is so much higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for flu, the overall proportion of reports for GBS out of all reports is lower for COVID-19 than for flu (Table 2).

With regards to the question of stimulated reporting, the pattern of reporting as measured by the PRR is different across different types of events and different ages. TrialSite suggests if this increase was merely due to stimulate reporting, one would expect similar proportions of reports from COVID-19 and influenza vaccines across different type of events and ages.

For example, the reporting ratio for deaths is nearly 5, for GBS it is 0.15, for coagulopathy it is 15 and for myocardial infarction nearly 7. Furthermore, there is substantial variation across age groups. For example, while the COVID: Flu ratio for deaths for the 18-49 age group is 2.5, for 50-64 years old it is 4.7, and 9.2 for 65 plus.

Conclusion

TrialSite analysis suggest a striking increase in the number of serious adverse events and deaths reported to VAERS. This report has provided material evidence that the increase is not due mainly to an increase in the number of vaccinations given, nor to stimulated reporting.

After taking the number of vaccine doses into account, the reporting rate for deaths following COVID-19 vaccines is 30 times higher than the reporting rate for all vaccines combined from 2010-2020. Furthermore, the reporting rate for serious events and deaths per vaccine dose is significantly higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for influenza vaccines since 2015, reaching as high as 98 times the reporting rate of deaths and 370 times the reporting rate for coagulopathy for ages 65 and older.

If the increase in the reporting rate was due to stimulated reporting, one would expect to see a comparable reporting ratio across different adverse event types and age groups. However, TrialSite analysis’ indicates substantial differences, and these deltas are evident in all tables for all age groups.

Of course it is possible, even likely, that some of the difference between COVID19 and influenza vaccination reporting is due to stimulated reporting. In their 2010 study on stimulated reporting for the H1N1 vaccination, Velozzi et al. (2010) found that per vaccine dose, reports for H1N1 were about three times higher than for other influenza vaccines. The average reporting rate per million COVID-19 vaccinations for all events and reports is 20 times the average reporting rate for influenza. One could take that as an upper-bound for the increase in reporting due to stimulated reporting.

TrialSite notes that even if stimulated reporting accounts for a difference of 20 fold, the reporting rate for serious events, deaths coagulopathy and myocardial infarction are still well above that number, and so the overall conclusions remain unchanged. A noticeable safety signal is present that hasn’t been noticed, at least publicly, by the majority of experts within the CDC, FDA much of academia.

Taken together, the greater rate of serious events and even greater rate of deaths, coagulopathy and myocardial infarction reported following COVID-19 vaccines and the variation across age groups constitute a robust and urgent signal of disproportionately serious harms from COVID-19 vaccines that cannot be attributed, TrialSite posits herein, to stimulated reporting.

TrialSite cannot declare that these findings are declarative evidence unless others take the time to review this data in detail. Nonetheless the data points to what should translate to an urgent scrutiny of the data. These findings are not meant to materially impact any vaccination program. TrialSite has noted repeatedly that a vaccine-centric strategy isn’t sufficient to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines as one local media station recently mentioned are a temporary solution for such a pathogen, and that a more long-term sustainable solution involves not only safe and effective vaccines, but just as importantly early care treatments (generic, off-label and novel therapeutics to prevent to be safe and effective) as well as rational, true data-driven, risk-based public health measures.

Note: TrialSite notifies all that the rapidly growing online media and social network platform dedicated to open, transparent and accessible clinical research is first and foremost a pro-science and pro-vaccine based media platform. Moreover TrialSite has no political agenda, one way or the other and that’s apparent in the volumes of articles generated over the past couple of years. Part of transparent research and science is absolutely to objectively review data, and not hide, nor pretend it doesn’t exist.

Display More

OK - now i'm really getting bored. TSN here shows its antivax colours by using VAERS reports in a way guaranteed to deliver wrong answers. Why do they do this?

For an actual comparison you could look at the real-world data, as has been done in that SCCS UK study I liked.

Quote from THHuxleynew

No report that I have seen says that this mortality risk change after vaccination is only 50%.

Thanks for confirming that you did not read/understand the UK public health report!

Quote from THHuxleynew

I will match unsubstantiated statements with my own unsubstantiated but more plausible statements. COVID is worse than a cold for those less than 50, it has significant mortality,

One more confirmation that you just ignore facts and only spread FUD!

Quote from RobertBryant

https://openknowledge.worldban…1354681_Spot%20Kerala.pdf

Educated people seem to be more easily manipulated...

Quote from THHuxleynew

vaccination (29 July) 58%

Oh yeah: They get vaccines for nothing now. At June the vaccination rate was 8% and the cases rate already down on today's level... What did you want to tell us????

Quote from THHuxleynew

TSN here shows its antivax colours by using VAERS reports in a way guaranteed to deliver wrong answers.

Happy FUD day!

With world class medical expert THH that does not read real data reports, but always cites his buddies spin.

OH how I like the free masons medicine round table.... Your buddies must spin like mad....

2/3 of India case is better that 0.0000001% of India's cases would be a typical THHuxleynew buddies FUD...

Boring, but it needs saying, since anyone reading this thread aged 40 would think vaccination was a bad idea. It is no good saying we are not anti-vax when weasel words are used here to discourage real 40 year old males from a vaccine that will save a significant number of their lives.

Staffordshire Covid sceptic Marcus Birks dies in hospital

Marcus Birks, 40, went on to urge other people to get the Covid vaccine after he was hospitalised.

www.bbc.co.uk

Staffordshire Covid sceptic Marcus Birks dies in hospital

Mrs Birks, who is pregnant, wrote on Facebook: "The pain I feel writing this is unbearable, my heart has been ripped out, my soul and world completely and utterly shattered."

She went on to describe her husband as her best friend and soulmate.

Speaking to the BBC earlier in August, Mr Birks said: "If you haven't been ill, you don't think you're going to get ill, so you listen to the [anti-vaccine] stuff.

"When you feel like you can't get enough breath, it's the scariest feeling in the world."

He said information had been skewed by social media and conspiracy theorists and he had not had the vaccine.

The 40-year-old said his symptoms started with a flu-like feeling, which got progressively worse, and he was eventually admitted to hospital, suffering from breathing difficulties.

"First thing I am going tell all my family to do is get the vaccine and anybody I see," he said.

Quote from THHuxleynew

He said information had been skewed by social media and conspiracy theorists and he had not had the vaccine.

The 40-year-old said his symptoms started with a flu-like feeling, which got progressively worse, and he was eventually admitted to hospital, suffering from breathing difficulties.

One more young killed by the UK medical establishment not allowing Ivermectin for treating CoV-19. This happens when rotten minded pseudo intellectuals rule a country. See also Kerala,USA,Israel,Germany,France,....

As the real UK data reports show vaccines give at best a protection between 2-3x also for younger age <50.

Such posts are silly, like uncle Charles died in a car accident. Ohh! I told everybody cars are dangerous...

This guy still would live with Ivermectin and with just a 50% chance after a vaccination depending on when it happened..-

Pro VAXX champion Israel just hits all time high in cases!

(12073 + 700 above old top)

As said following the science is not following doctor strange love...

Quote from Wyttenbach

just ignore facts and only spread FUD!

anyone care to do a word search ..of "antivax"... on this thread..?

A certain pseudonym comes up trumps..

Of course this pseudonym may stand for " a man of science and integrity"

but it may be a reincarnation of old Darwin's bulldog

or an Ascolian doppelganger

or just a bored/boring retired circuit designer

Whichever , the obsession with"antivax" is following the scheissence . not the science.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Such posts are silly, like uncle Charles died in a car accident. Ohh! I told everybody cars are dangerous...

This guy still would live with Ivermectin and with just a 50% chance after a vaccination depending on when it happened..-

Repeating false statements does not make them less false, or less dangerous to life and limb if believed.

And I'm not one to go on repeating things myself. I will leave this thread for a while till either there is anything new to discuss or my tolerance for repeating should be obvious to everyone refutations of false statements clearly approved of by this thread returns.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I will leave this thread for a while

While the cats away, the mice will play. Anti-vaxxers can come out now, and someone break out a tube of IVM horse paste.