Covid-19 News

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Vaccines do not make people more vulnerable against COVID. They make them 95% to 75% less vulnerable. There is no point to speculating or theorizing how they can make people vulnerable when we know for a fact they do not make people vulnerable

    Official UK data shows twice as many people have died

    after the Covid-19 Vaccines in 6 months than people who have died of Covid-19 in 15 months. According to data published by the NHS on deaths related to Covid-19 up to the 10th June 2021 there have been 87,253 deaths within 28 days of a positive PCR test.


    The actual truth emerges gradually but relentlessly. See also:

    “Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.”

    -- Thomas S. Kuhn


    I guess money driven blunders will be revealed even slower...

    My theory (which I still collect evidence for/against) why vaccines have so big trouble with Wuhan coronavirus is, it exploits just the autoimmune reaction normally induced with vaccines: the cytokine storm. This is because it's merely resistant against immune cells in similar way like HIV virus (which actually invades human immune cells preferentially). There is theory that coronavirus leaked from gain of function experiments with bat coronaviruses in an effort to develop vaccine against HIV in Wuhan. There is also genetic evidence of similarity of Wuhan coronavirus with HIV virus, supported with good experience of HIV antivirals against Covid. So it makes a good meaning for coronavirus to lure immune cells rather than escape from them.


    At the moment when these cells aren't learned well how to kill it, then the vaccination can easily make things worse than better. Another source of problem is in application of untested m-RNA vaccines, which sorta defies the measures of effective immunity, as I explained already. Third source of this problem is in vaccination in the middle of pandemics, which is discouraged by all experienced immunologists.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Because every action provokes reaction, I guess that similar site for prominent vaxxers who died of Covid or even after vaccine against it will emerge soon.

    That is unlikely, for several reasons:


    The vaccine reduces the likelihood of death by a factor of 80 to 100. In other words, all else being equal there will be only about 1 dead prominent vaxxer per 100 dead anti-vaxxers.


    All else is not equal. A prominent vaxxer such as Fauci is likely to be a doctor and/or a researcher. Doctors and researchers tend to be health conscious, and they know how to avoid infection. They wash their hands, wear a mask, avoid indoor restaurants, and so on. This reduces the likelihood of disease by another large factor. Not 100, but perhaps 10. So there will be 1 dead vaxxer for every 1,000 anti-vaxxers. (Non-famous vaxxers such as me also do these things, of course.)


    Not only that, but because doctors and researchers tend to be health conscious, they are healthier. As you see in photos of them, they avoid things like obesity and other common comorbidities. They keep their blood pressure low. They treat any serious illness such as a heart problem as soon as it appears. They know a lot about illness, and they know how to diagnose and treat it. You might say they visit a doctor every day. So even if they get COVID they are more likely to survive. Whereas if you look at photos of people who died of COVID you will see that many of them were obese.


    Anti-vaxxers tend to live clustered together in places where the infection rate is high, such as rural Georgia. They tend to go to church with others opposed to vaccination. There is community-wide hostile opposition to vaccination. People who wear masks are harrassed. People who want to get vaccinated are afraid to tell their families. When doctors in rural Georgia try to vaccinate people, or go to meetings advocating vaccination, they are shouted down, doxxed and their families are threatened with violence. So they back off, leaving even more vulnerable people. Hospitals in these districts are crammed with COVID patients, which inevitably lowers the quality of care. In other words, anti-vaxxers tend to live in places where you are probably 10 times more likely to be infected than, say, Atlanta. Even pro-vaccination people in such districts are in danger. Whereas Fauci or I live in places where everyone follows the rules and we do all we can to avoid infection. On a personal level, if a plumber or a friend told me he is not vaccinated, I wouldn't think of letting him in the house. Whereas antivaxx people often live in houses full of unvaxxinated people, and they let their friends, neighbors and unvaccinated plumbers in without a thought.


    In short, very few prominent vaxxers will die of COVID, whereas many extreme anti-vaxxers will die of it, for obvious reasons. There will be very few pro-vaxx people to make fun of, or to put on a website. Of course some elderly vaxxers, or vaxxers who have cancer, will die from COVID. That is inevitable. Fauci is old, so he is likely to die of something soon, but it probably will not be COVID. Probably cancer or some other non-infectious disease that often kills old people.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    My theory (which I still collect evidence for/against) why vaccines have so big trouble with Wuhan coronavirus is,

    Vaccines do not have trouble with COVID. The COVID vaccines are among the most effective in history, and by far the safest. Why are you making a theory to explain something that does not exist? It is like making a theory to explain why the moon is made of green cheese, or why people who are vaccinated turn into werewolves. Your theories are bullshit by definition. A theory that "explains" absurd nonsense is, itself, nonsense.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Third source of this problem is in vaccination in the middle of pandemics, which is discouraged by all experienced immunologists.

    This says they may discourage vaccinations for other diseases, but it does not say they discourage vaccinations for the pandemic itself. That would be absurd.


    Are you trying to kid us? Do you really think anyone would believe that experienced immunologists would oppose a COVID vaccination during a COVID pandemic? When everyone knows it reduces infection, serious illness, and death by huge factors? How stupid do you think we are? Or how stupid do you think immunologists are?

    Why Big Pharma gets so desperate about alternatives like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroqine? Because the vaccines are not approved by the FDA but instead they are authorized only only for emergency use. The emergency use authorization can only be granted if "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". Well, and a growing body of scientific research is showing that Hydroxychloroqine, Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine (among other drugs) are adequate alternatives for early treatment of Covid19, and all of these drugs have been FDA approved for years in addition.

    Unfortunately, that also means they are now off patent and no one can make any money off of them. So, for the vaccines to continue to receive their EUA, the existence of these treatments must be suppressed at all cost. We now have seen a huge amount of censorship of doctors who have been speaking out about these drugs.

    There are also slower but safer drugs which prohibit long covid symptoms. For example Fluvoxamine helps in covid treatment:

    Quote

    The COVID vaccines are among the most effective in history, and by far the safest

    You can tell this Dr. Fauci: Fauci says he wouldn't be surprised if Covid vaccines require three shots for full regimen, instead of two Giving people an additional dose several months after they've received their initial vaccination helps the immune system "mature", Fauci said.


    With the massive vaccination campaign well underway in response to the declared international emergency of Covid-19, we have rushed into vaccine experiments on a worldwide scale.


    "If the facts don't fit the theory change the facts"


    --Ivanka Trump, science advisor

    Ivermectin Appears to be Working as the Ohio Court Drama Continues


    Ivermectin Appears to be Working as the Ohio Court Drama Continues
    TrialSite recently reported that an Ohio judged compelled UC West Chester Hospital to treat a severe COVID-19 patient with ivermectin after the official
    trialsitenews.com


    TrialSite recently reported that an Ohio judged compelled UC West Chester Hospital to treat a severe COVID-19 patient with ivermectin after the official hospital protocol failed to work. The patient, 51-year-old Jeffrey Smith, was ‘on death’s doorstep’ in the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) with severe COVID-19. However, the order last month by Butler County Common Pleas Judge Gregory Howard compelled the hospital to administer 14 days worth of ivermectin, which appears to have helped. The patient’s condition seems to have improved since the court-enforced temporary mandate compelling the use of ivermectin, according to both the family attorney Ralph Lorigo and the patient’s wife, Julie Smith. The bad news is that the temporary order expired, and another order is necessary to ensure the continuance of this regimen. A recalcitrant hospital administration won’t agree to treat the critically ill patient, citing U.S. FDA, CDC, and other guidance that the drug shouldn’t be used. In a hearing Friday, the new presiding Judge Michael Oster declared he needed more time to make the final call. He did change the temporary order, however, empowering UC West Chester Hospital doctors to cut the ivermectin regimen with the first sign of any life-threatening side effects. With a pending decision as soon as this weekend, what will Judge Oster decide? If the judge cuts the prescription and the patient dies, he’ll have to live with that one for the rest of his life. What’s apparent during the pandemic with numerous, desperate patient pleas for access to ivermectin is that most hospital administration uniformly defers to federal guidance unless forced by a judge.


    Background

    Jeffrey Smith was brought to UC West Chester Hospital with worsening COVID-19. The conditions degraded even after the approved hospital protocol of Remdesivir, steroids, and plasma were applied. At first, a physician/pulmonologist associated with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCCC), Dr. Fred Wagshul, wrote a prescription for ivermectin, yet the hospital doctors refused to embrace this approach, even while all other efforts failed. Ms. Smith even agreed to waive all liability. Mr. Smith was dangerously close to death when the court order possibly extended his life by at least 14 days.


    Some Positive Signals

    According to Dr. Wagshul, attorneys, and the Smith family, the ivermectin appears to be helping. Local media WLWT5 interacted with Smith attorney Ralph Lorigo, who went on the record, “Over the last three days, his vent setting has dropped. Before ivermectin, his vent setting was at 100 percent. His vent setting has now dropped to 50 percent.” Yet the hospital doctors wouldn’t budge from their position, only pointing to various edicts from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that such use of this drug amounts to an improper order, declared Charles Galvin, UC West Chester Hospital attorney.


    Decision Could Spell Death

    With Davis seemingly getting a little better (according to plaintiff testimony), the new presiding judge essentially made no decision yesterday, Sept. 3. The Dayton Daily Times reported that new Judge Oster needed more time to review the matter’s documentation and consider testimony before any ruling. The judge told the parties that a verdict could happen over the holiday weekend.


    Again, Oster modified the Aug. 23 ruling, empowering UC West Chester Hospital physicians to discontinue the ivermectin use should they see any “life-threatening side effects.”


    Call to Action: TrialSite has interviewed attorney Ralph Lorigo and continues to monitor this situation closely. What are the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, where top-down edicts from the federal government impede local patient-physician decisions?

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why Big Pharma gets so desperate about alternatives like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroqine? Because the vaccines are not approved by the FDA but instead they are authorized only only for emergency use.

    You are behind reading the news. The Pfizer vaccine was fully approved, and the others soon will be.


    But based on money alone, there is no reason why Big Pharma would be opposed to alternatives such as ivermectin. On the contrary, a course of ivermectin will cost much more than a COVID vaccine, so if Big Pharma is only interested in making money, it will promote ivermectin and discourage the use of the vaccine.


    The problem with this strategy is that ivermectin is either marginal, or it does not work at all. So, if Big Pharma tells people, "go ahead and use ivermectin; you don't need a vaccination" then the death rate will continue to rise, the hospitals will remain jammed with sick and dying people. In other words, it won't work. Antivaxx people will ignore this, but the rest of us -- who are the majority -- will see that in states and cities where vaccination rates are high, people are not dying. The difference between rural Georgia and Atlanta is stark. So, we will be upset and we will point out Big Pharma is engaged in genocide in the pursuit of profit. The way Purdue Pharma did. Sooner or later, they would probably be held responsible, and destroyed the way Purdue was.


    The Sackler family has $10 billion, so they can avoid any serious repercussions. They just have to fork over $4 billion, over several years, leaving them with the bulk of their money. When you have $10 billion, you can slaughter 500,000 people and get away with it in modern U.S. society. The Sacker's money ensures they are safe from any punishment and they will remain among the richest people on earth. The CEO and the managers at an ordinary Big Pharma company do not have billions of dollars. They might have millions, but that is not enough to keep you out of prison when you slaughter 500,000 people. You will be ruined. They know that.


    That is apart from any moral considerations or guilty conscience. Most people at most Big Pharma companies would not take part in mass murder one-tenth the size of the Nazi holocaust, even when you pay them a lot of money. The Sacklers did this because they are homicidal psychopaths, but most people at most Pharma companies are not. So it is not likely they would all agree to kill hundreds of thousands more Americans by urging them to use ivermectin instead of vaccines.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    You can tell this Dr. Fauci: Fauci says he wouldn't be surprised if Covid vaccines require three shots for full regimen, instead of two Giving people an additional dose several months after they've received their initial vaccination helps the immune system "mature", Fauci said.

    What is your point? The COVID vaccines are still the most effective in history. If everyone got one, the pandemic would vanish.


    Many vaccines need boosters. Influenza ones because the virus keeps evolving. Tetanus because it stops working after 10 years. The cost of a flu or tetanus booster is trivial.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are behind reading the news. The Pfizer vaccine was fully approved, and the others soon will be.

    This is a high criminal story. Never before a in US medical history a more deadly drug has been approved without any existing 2 year safety study. FDA are jump jackets of the FM/R/X/B mafia ruling big pharma. May be tomorrow they will allow Heroin for even bigger profits....

    All Roads Leading To Definition of Fully Vaccinated at 3-Doses


    All Roads Leading To Definition of Fully Vaccinated at 3-Doses
    TrialSite shared recently that political factors may have led to the announced departure of two prominent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    trialsitenews.com


    TrialSite shared recently that political factors may have led to the announced departure of two prominent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine regulators as the POTUS recently proactively declared an imminent forthcoming booster program. The problem: Biden proclaimed the forthcoming booster initiative without full data review and signoff by the FDA. That is, the Biden Administration appears to be pushing the boundaries of appropriate drug and vaccine approval processes, thus politicizing the vaccine program by improperly accelerating the booster campaign. Recently, Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA’s acting commissioner and the head of the CDC, and Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky met with the White House’s pandemic coordinator, Jeffrey D. Zients. They met, on the one hand, to level with the administration that the agencies must be able to do their proper due diligence but, on the other hand, publicly endorse a plan that essentially aligns with the POTUS proclamations, putting their respective agencies in a bind.


    Vaccine-Centric Strategy Runs into Speed Bumps

    The vaccine-centric strategy, in which mass vaccination will eradicate SARS-CoV-2, ran into a number of constraints, from vaccine hesitancy to the realities of a global market, where poor nations access far less product than wealthy nations do. Additionally, it’s apparent that the mRNA-based vaccines, especially the Pfizer-BioNTech product’s effectiveness, wanes after a few months. That, combined with the viral strength and transmissibility of the Delta variant, led to widespread breakthrough infections. Israel, one of the most vaccinated nations, experiences large numbers of breakthrough infections and breakthrough hospitalizations.


    The World’s Real World Lab: Israel

    Israel has become a sort of a laboratory for the rest of the Western world, particularly America, to follow as an aggressive third booster campaign starts to yield data. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s top medical advisor, communicates with Israeli health officials and top hospital administration on a near-daily basis. Israel embarked on an aggressive third booster vaccine program that appears to be keeping more people out of harm’s way.


    TrialSite interacted with the heads of Herzog Hospital, a place that struggled with many breakthrough infections leading to hospitalization. We reported that the hospital leadership reports a marked decrease in infections among people over 60.


    Israeli regulatory authorities approved a booster, and between July 30 and August 22, 1.1 million Israeli’s received a third jab, and according to Fauci, “…a rather substantial positive impact was seen.”


    America’s top doctor also referred to new non-reviewed data supporting boosters.


    But a number of important questions must be asked: does aggregate data in America point to the need for boosters for all? Which vaccine would be eligible? According to the FDA and CDC, only the currently approved product from Pfizer-BioNTech would be appropriate for such a booster program. Yet POTUS declared both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson would also be available.


    Recently in the New York Times, White House Spokesperson Chris Meagher declared, “We always said we would follow the science, and this is all part of a process that is now underway.” This spokesperson acknowledged that the White House must await a “full review and approval” by the FDA for any approval of the booster program.


    Proactive or Overstepping?

    With COVID-19 cases driven by the highly transmissible Delta variant over the past months—leading to swamped hospitals and over 1,500 deaths per day for the past week—POTUS went on the aggressive, declaring on August 18, “The plan is for every adult to get a booster shot eight months after you got your second shot.” Biden emphasized, “it will make you safer, and for longer. And it will help us end the pandemic faster.”


    But is this the job of POTUS? Is it the White House’s role to proclaim a booster plan before studies are even complete, data analyzed and findings solidified? How could Biden know it is safe and effective to take this action? Can he be certain there are no safety concerns?


    TrialSite suggests POTUS has possibly crossed a major line, which more than likely led to the departure of key FDA vaccine regulatory leadership. The ever-present influence of Dr. Anthony Fauci impacts the situation. Referring to the booster data from Israel on Thursday, September 2, Fauci met with the White House COVID-19 Response Team promoting the case for the booster shot based on promising Israeli data. Reported on by CNBC, Fauci’s enthusiasm should be guarded, as the data for the booster case isn’t solidified in the U.S. as of yet. But despite that reality, the POTUS advisor seemingly pounces on any opportunity to accelerate more vaccination. In response to whether fully vaccinated will be defined as three shots, Fauci is on the record for all: “But I must say from my own experience as an immunologist, I would not at all be surprised that the adequate full regimen for vaccination will likely be three doses.”


    Regulator Independence?

    Behind the scenes, reports are that Dr. Woodcock, a rational and committed regulatory professional, privately points to the importance of regulatory agency independence from any politics or industry influence. In the case of Biden and Fauci’s proactive assertions to the press, Woodcock understands the risks associated with actually setting dates for a booster program, such as a late September target shared by POTUS. Yet, regulatory scientists need the time to undertake proper due diligence. After all, in some cases these reviewers may not even have access to all of the necessary data for any comprehensive review.


    Yet recently, both Woodcock and Walenski participated in and publicly endorsed a plan that effectively drives a regulatory timeline aligned with the POTUS declarations. This indicates the possible dangerous meddling of POTUS in what should be independent regulatory and scientific due diligence of all the necessary data.


    In “Health Officials Advise White House to Scale Back Booster Plan,” the New York Times secured a quote from Dr. Steven Joffe, a professor of medical ethics and health policy at University of Pennsylvania, who raised the real concern that the recent actions by the FDA and CDC leadership crosses the line, placing the regulatory bodies in a politically created “box.” The ethicist declared, “We want doctors and scientists and the public to trust in the recommendations and decisions that are made, to be able to point to the FDA and CDC during their due diligence.”


    Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor for any inappropriate political influence of the regulatory process


    BNT162b2 vaccine booster dose protection: A nationwide study from Israel
    Background On July 30, 2021, a third (booster) dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine was approved in Israel for individuals 60 years or older who had been fully…
    www.medrxiv.org

    Censored Effect – Magnetic effect at site of vaccination for some people  I wouldn't call it exactly negative effect, as it would have multiple usage in households. I just cannot imagine the way, in which this stuff could become real. We for example know, that spike protein concentrates at the place of jab because it adheres on surface of cells and it glues them together. So it may orient red cells, which contain paramagnetic deoxy-hemoglobine. But its magnetic effect cannot be such strong.

    Quote from Fm1

    BNT162b2 vaccine booster dose protection: A nationwide study from Israel

    In conjunction with safety reports, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of a third vaccine dose in both reducing transmission and severe disease and indicates the great potential of curtailing the Delta variant resurgence by administering booster shots. Twelve days or more after the booster dose we found an 11.4-fold (95% CI: [10.0, 12.9]) decrease in the relative risk of confirmed infection, and a >10-fold decrease in the relative risk of severe illness. Under a conservative sensitivity analysis, we find ≈5-fold protection against confirmed infection.


    This is really great - but how high the Pfizer its vaccine efficiency originally claimed to have? 95%? Now we already have ten-times higher efficiency, which gives some 950%. How many booster shots the vaxxers are supposed to get, before they become fully mature in matter of vaccination propaganda?

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why Big Pharma gets so desperate about alternatives like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroqine? Because the vaccines are not approved by the FDA but instead they are authorized only only for emergency use. The emergency use authorization can only be granted if "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". Well, and a growing body of scientific research is showing that Hydroxychloroqine, Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine (among other drugs) are adequate alternatives for early treatment of Covid19, and all of these drugs have been FDA approved for years in addition.

    Zephir - you have not contested my previous post explaining why the antivax lies you were posting (and i'm sure believing) were wrong. I take from that, that you agree with me. I am happy if you do not agree to go through all the details of why we know without doubt that the vaccines reduce mortality. I showed you why your antivax argumnet seeming to indicate the reverse was wrong. I can go through the detailed papers from high quality UK data that show just how effective vaccines have been.


    The vaccines are approved by FDA - Pfizer is now, others will be shortly. Some of the vaccines are going for full approval without emergency approval.

    Yes, the FDA really HAS given full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
    One week ago today, the FDA granted full approval to Comirnaty, the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, and there was much rejoicing.…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    The only difference in data is that you need only 2 months followup for emergency approval, you need 6 months for full approval.


    Because I know you enjoy conspiracy theories here is a rundown of the new variant (sic) conspiracy theories that have spawned after this FDA full approval - and why they are wrong.


    One week ago today, the FDA granted full approval to Comirnaty, the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, and there was much rejoicing. One reason for the rejoicing was the belief, widespread among health authorities, that one thing holding many back from getting vaccinated against COVID-19 was the knowledge of how the three COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the US (made by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson) had been distributed under an emergency use authorization (EUA). Because this was less than full FDA approval in that it is a mechanism which permits the FDA to “allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives”, so the thinking goes, many vaccine-hesitant didn’t trust the vaccines but would trust them once the FDA formally approved them, as Steve Novella discussed last week. To some extent, this might be true, although I rather suspect that the number of vaccine-hesitant who will be persuaded by full FDA approval of Comirnaty to get the shot will be relatively small compared to what was hoped for. I also know that full FDA approval won’t sway antivaxxers in the least.


    Indeed, it was almost as though antivaxxers were ready with a line of propaganda about Comirnaty and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Just to be transparent, I will note that I wrote about this last week for my not-so-super-secret other blog, but this bit of misinformation has gone viral to the point where I thought it very much worthwhile to cover it for Science-Based Medicine as well. Obviously, there will be overlaps between my previous post and what I’m writing now, but there have also been developments since last week that weren’t covered, and as a result this post is substantially different from the previous one. (Also, if you don’t read my other blog, this will be all new to you anyway.) Moreover, since I wrote that post, I think I’ve found an element from FDA messaging that left the door open to a new conspiracy theory that builds on this one. As I’ve said before, I do grudgingly almost have to hand it to antivaxxers. No matter how often their misinformation based on bad science, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories is debunked with science, evidence, events, and reason, they’re always ready with a Talking Point B (and C and D and E) to replace the debunked talking point with a new one. In this case, after Comirnaty had been approved on Monday, antivaxxers came up with this conspiracy theory by Tuesday.


    [the new anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory #1]. To sum up its essence, antivaxxers are claiming that the FDA did a “bait and switch,” approving Comirnaty, the Pfizer vaccine given a trade name while leaving BNT162b2, the designation of the vaccine that had been granted an EUA under the same EUA, all in order to not just give the “appearance” that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are now legal but to allow the old BNT162b2 not to have to be covered under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the law that created the Vaccine Court and mandates that all claims of vaccine injury go through the Vaccine Court first before they can go through regular federal courts.


    Of course, antivaxxers frequently forget to mention that the Vaccine Court is rather lax. The Vaccine Court was designed, if anything, to err on the side of paying out, as the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert witnesses isn’t always enforced, leading sometimes to “expert” witnesses who would never be allowed in regular courts. Speculation is permitted, and all that is required to potentially win a settlement is a “biologically plausible” mechanism, rather than a scientifically demonstrated mechanism. Also, it’s a civil court, and the standard of evidence for compensation is what some have called “50% and a whisker”. Moreover, compensation is automatic for so-called “table injuries” (known injuries that science attributed to vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table). Indeed, I frequently suspect that what drives so much of the antivax hatred towards the Vaccine Court is not just that it has rejected claims of causation of autism by vaccines, but from trial lawyers. Even though they can get a lucrative steady paycheck billing their hourly rates while representing families taking their case to the Vaccine Court, trial lawyers who want to sue vaccine manufacturers for fantastical “vaccine injuries” will never get a massive contingency fee percentage of a huge headline-making award.


    In any event, UC-Hastings law professor Dorit Reiss has explained that vaccines issued under an EUA are probably not covered by the NCVIA of 1986 and the Vaccine Court, but under a much more restrictive system:


    In essence, COVID-19 vaccines manufacturers, distributors, and administrators are currently almost completely exempt from liability because the vaccines – and other COVID-19 products – are under a Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) declaration.

    The only exception – the only situation where you can sue these actors – is if you can show they engaged in “willful misconduct”.

    The conditions are rather restrictive, too. The vaccine maker must have acted:

    • intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose;
    • knowingly without legal or factual justification; and
    • in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.

    Reiss further notes:


    People harmed by a vaccine covered by the declaration may turn for compensation to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program – which is hard to use.

    So there you have the conspiracy theory in a nutshell. Ironically, RFK Jr.’s version of the conspiracy theory is the least wild one.


    [conspiracy theory #2]


    Hunter takes Malone’s conspiracy theory and runs with it, cranking the conspiracy up to 11 by claiming that, besides the FDA’s extension of the EUA on the Pfizer vaccine (now called Comirnaty) for indications not covered in the BLA (children age 12-15 years and the third dose for immunosuppressed people), the FDA also extended the EUA for existing stocks of vaccines, leading Hunter to rant that it’s a “huge lie” that the Pfizer vaccine has been “fully approved.” Not only that, but he claims that Comirnaty doesn’t exist yet:


    While they did approve the biologics license, the BLA submitted by BioNTech manufacturing for Comirnaty, they didn’t approve the Pfizer vaccine, what we already have…And…Comirnaty, you can’t get that now. That’s not out for a few years. So what did they do? Oh, here’s what they really did.

    Before I go on, though, I can’t help but point out that Comirnaty is indeed available and being used in Europe under that very name, making Malone’s point seem rather silly.


    None of this, of course, deters Hunter. Hunter then quotes the part in the passage above about the FDA “reissuing the August 12, 2021 letter of authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to clarify that the EUA will remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses, and to authorize use of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in the approved BLA.” He then goes on to rant:


    Can you get the Comirnaty now? Can you get that now? No, that’s the only license they gave. You can’t get that right now. What you can get is what’s in the emergency use authorization. That’s what they’re going to inject everyone with. You can’t get the new approved vaccine. It’s not been created yet, and it’s only for the BioNTech manufacturing of Comirnaty. I believe that’s how you say it. It doesn’t matter; you can’t get it for a couple of years. What you can get is the crap they’ve already been injecting into us, and they’ve extended the emergency use violation, meaning that when you have the Pentagon mandating vaccinations and mandating for state and federal workers they’re mandating the forced participation in an experimental drug trial—and a dangerous one at that. Shame on you, FDA, for lying! You didn’t give full approval for the crap that they’re going to use in the next couple of years.

    It’s not just Hunter, either, who picked up this conspiracy theory and ran with it. For example, Robert Barnes, a conservative lawyer who has worked for Alex Jones and has been a regular contributor to Jones’ conspiracy website Infowars, Tweeted:


    There is no *available* FDA approved licensed vaccine. Here's what is happening. If FDA approved & licensed COVID19 vaccine, it would have to revoke the EUA vaccines & subject the vaccine maker to more liability risk. So it only approved a future vaccine that isn't "available".


    Again, this doesn’t make sense, given that Comirnaty is clearly already available in Europe, at least. Indeed, when RFK Jr. sounds less out there than you do, you really should rethink, but rethinking is not what conspiracy theorists do. Instead, they double down. Where RFK Jr. only says that the FDA has stated that supplies of Comirnaty are simply constrained right now and that the FDA is taking advantage of this to allow the old vaccine to continue to be distributed under the EUA and thereby supposedly escape falling under the NCVIA of 1986, Malone and Hunter go far beyond that and much deeper into the rabbit hole of conspiracy mongering by saying that this was intentional all along.


    But what’s really going on?


    The FDA’s action, explained

    Last Thursday (after I had written the first version of this post in which I expressed a bit of puzzlement over why the FDA would have chosen this route), Aaron Blake wrote an excellent explainer for The Washington Post titled “Vaccine conspiracy theorists become even more desperate after full FDA authorization“. (That is, of course, a great title and very accurate.) Blake, as I did, notes first about the claim that the FDA never really approved the Pfizer vaccine:

    It’s a claim many of the most prominent vaccine skeptics you might have heard of are pushing with increasing gusto. It’s just not something that, according to experts, actually lines up with the FDA’s announcement.

    Some of these claims are rather inscrutable. But they boil down to the idea that the FDA has engaged in a bait-and-switch. While it fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that will be marketed under the name Comirnaty, the FDA also extended the emergency-use authorization for the same vaccine under the existing name.

    Some have gone so far as to ignore the former and claim this was strictly about extending the emergency-use authorization (EUA). But most of it involves suggesting the full authorization provides a pretext for mandating the emergency-use version (which some wrongly suggest is different). Others have wrongly claimed that if this was truly a real, full authorization, the EUAs would have to be voided — so the fact that they aren’t means it isn’t a full authorization.

    Blake then cites a different footnote that I should have cited:


    Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA. Additionally, there are no products that are approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals age 12 through 15, or that are approved to provide an additional dose to the immunocompromised population described in this EUA.

    This is actually quite clear and I should have noticed it in my first version. There isn’t enough Comirnaty to take care of the entire population that needs to be vaccinated. That is a very different claim than saying that Comirnaty is not available and even more different than the claim made by Hunter and others that it won’t be available until 2023, which appears to have come out of thin air. (At least, if there is a basis for it, I haven’t been able to find it in nearly a week.)


    Blake then goes on to explain why the FDA acted as it did, pointing to another claim by antivax conspiracy theorists that came out of thin air:


    As for the idea that they simply wouldn’t be allowed to continue the EUAs if they truly had a fully approved version? That comes out of thin air. The FDA is allowed to continue with EUAs even if a fully approved treatment is available, as long as there isn’t an “adequate” amount of the fully approved treatment available. (The above footnote is appended to the FDA using this precise language.)
    What’s more, the full authorization doesn’t include some groups in the EUAs, such as those between 12 and 15 years of age — meaning those groups won’t yet have access to the fully authorized version.
    “That language gives FDA a tremendous amount of flexibility to continue to issue EUAs, or to retain existing EUAs, even after one or more products are approved,” said Patricia J. Zettler, a former FDA attorney and law professor at Ohio State University. “For example, remdesivir is fully approved for the treatment of covid-19 requiring hospitalization, but there remains an EUA for the product for pediatric patients outside the scope of the approval.”
    Zettler added: “There is nothing suspicious going on here; this is just regulatory language explaining why a legal standard is met.”

    In other words, the FDA phrased its letter as it did in order to explain that it was meeting the standard of the law. Basically, even though Comirnaty is available now, it’s not available in sufficient supply to meet current need, and the FDA is allowed to continue the EUA for BNT162b2 until supplies of Comirnaty are sufficient. Also, by law, the FDA couldn’t yet approve BNT162b2 for the other uses covered by its EUAs, namely children 12-15 years old and third “booster” doses for people with weakened immune systems for whatever reason, be it disease, cancer chemotherapy, or whatever.


    If you want a more step-by-step explanation, I found a great Twitter thread explaining the situation:

    I also like how he finishes thusly, one might say…insolently:


    Truly, I couldn’t do better myself, other than to reference this particular post on Robert Malone. You’ll excuse me if I couldn’t resist, but, whatever role Malone might have played in developing lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA as a means of getting cells to make a desired protein, right here, right now, in 2021 he has become a full-on conspiracy crank.


    There is more - you might call it conspiracy theory #3 - in the link I'm quoting. It is a bit involved but if Zephir comes out with anything about the different composition of bnt162b2 and cominarty we will go into it.





    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Official UK data shows twice as many people have died

    after the Covid-19 Vaccines in 6 months than people who have died of Covid-19 in 15 months. According to data published by the NHS on deaths related to Covid-19 up to the 10th June 2021 there have been 87,253 deaths within 28 days of a positive PCR test.

    Zephir - do you need this one debunking as well? It is very stupid.


    Let us look at the data: we need infections, vaccinations, and deaths.


    Infections



    Vaccinations (England)


    You can see there are two infection peaks in the UK. December - February, and July-present.


    During the December-Feb peak vaccination started off low and increased. During the more recent peak vaccination was very high.


    Deaths (England)



    NB - note that deaths are delayed from infections by typically 3 weeks (infections are before even cases).


    You can see for the Dec-Feb peak the deaths are high, but during the recent peak the deaths are much much lower. Why? Because of the vaccine!


    Now, looking at these three graphs you can see that the death rate depends on:

    • the infection rate
    • how much of the high risk population is vaccinated


    You can clearly see the very large effect of increasing vaccination in reduction of death.


    Again - if you wish to argue about this please give me more details of your argument - what precisely you are saying, etc, etc. I was a bit vague about which 15 month period you were referring to - since it must surely overlap the 6 month period you talked about. Anyway the real graphs posted here (all from official ONS data - everyone here knows how much a like the Oxford University - Office for National Statistics Survey data - it is official but independent of the UK govt) should make things clearer to you?


    If you don't understand my argument please say and I will reply.

    Quote

    You can see for the Dec-Feb peak the deaths are high, but during the recent peak the deaths are much much lower. Why? Because of the vaccine!

    Nope, because of much lower mortality of delta variant independent of vaccination rate. Public Health England reported that the Delta variant in England had a case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.2%, while the Alpha variant's case fatality rate was 1.9%. It's also visible on global mortality rates, once delta variant became prevalent. See also:


    Kids and the Delta Variant: Should you Act Differently? Several studies out of the UK showed extremely low child death rates. Of almost half a million infections, there were 25 deaths, 15 of which were in children with serious underlying illness. The hospitalization rate of coronavirus - while already low for children - dropped to nearly zero for kids at the case of delta variant. Corona has a lower death rate than flu/pneumonia in children.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why Big Pharma gets so desperate about alternatives like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroqine? Because the vaccines are not approved by the FDA but instead they are authorized only only for emergency use. The emergency use authorization can only be granted if "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". Well, and a growing body of scientific research is showing that Hydroxychloroqine, Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine (among other drugs) are adequate alternatives for early treatment of Covid19, and all of these drugs have been FDA approved for years in addition.

    Unfortunately, that also means they are now off patent and no one can make any money off of them. So, for the vaccines to continue to receive their EUA, the existence of these treatments must be suppressed at all cost. We now have seen a huge amount of censorship of doctors who have been speaking out about these drugs.

    There are also slower but safer drugs which prohibit long covid symptoms. For example Fluvoxamine helps in covid treatment:

    Zephyr, maybe you started reading this thread after my long posts on the ivermectin study issue. Have you read the paper that discusses other meta-analyses and shows how which studies you select affects the overall results. It is fascinating.


    I'll summarise that and other recent posts below - which refutes I believe all your ivermectin points above. I can back everything up with a lot of detail if you tell me what you don't understand, or don't agree with:


    • Ivermectin might be some help (e.g. 30% mortality reduction) though there is no evidence for this. You need ig high quality tests to be sure it is not some help
    • It is not being suppressed, two big studies, UK (PRINCIPLE) and US (ACTIV-6) are currently underway. The UK one started ivermectin June 13 (if I remember right). Drugs it finds help get immediately incorporated into UK standard of care. And picked up and followed by many otehr countries, e.g. dexamethasone which gives 30% mortality reduction and is dirt cheap.
    • The positive meta-analyses on ivermectin include Elgazzar - a large and very positive study which has been very comprehensively shown fraudulent - see my recent detailed post on it. We can go ove rthat if you like. Without that, and one other large high likelihood of bias study, the evidence is negative.
    • The prophylaxis evidence (e.g. Argentine) is v low quality. Low quality studies inevitably are strongly biased positive - file drawer effect etc. See the paper on bias which goes into a lot of detail.
    • Anyway - if ivermectin does work the big high quality studies now running will report this within a few months and everyone will rejoice. Will you come back then and face me? I'm not saying it does not work, juts that it cannot work amazingly well as you and many others claim. It could work a bit, like dexamethasone. If it worked amazingly well the high quality studies would show something.

Subscribe to our newsletter

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

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

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

Our Partners

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