Covid-19 News

    Error - Cookies Turned Off


    OK - apologies for not seeing the link previously!


    I actually agree with the writers of this report, that this coincidence motivates further investigation (mildly) but no more.


    Consider.


    There must be 100s of 1000s of LTCFs throughout the (developed - since this is a well-written article) world.


    Filter those by:

    • uses ivermectiin for scabies treatment at same time as a COVID outbreak (strong but not very strong filter)
    • has a COVID outbreak (weak filter)


    You then get the number of samples for this sort of report.


    Those that do not show a coincidence such as this will not be written up. Those which do show such a coincidence will attract interest and be written up as in this paper.


    The coincidental p value here was 0.03, you would expect such a coincidence if (after the above filters) there were 1000 samples (or a total filter of 0.01).


    The coincidence would be considered significant if (after the filters) there was more than 1 such case, since it is only juts significant.


    This is typical of retrospective study evidence. It can be thought-provoking, and is interesting, but it is very difficult to attach much weight to its quantitative findings, because it is only the outstanding (coincidental) cases that you hear about.


    THH

    Israel’s Booster Program’s Not Stopping Sky Rocketing Cases and Higher Number of Deaths—What’s Going On?


    Israel's Booster Program's Not Stopping Sky Rocketing Cases and Higher Number of Deaths—What's Going On?
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Starting in July Israel
    trialsitenews.com


    Starting in July Israel commenced the most aggressive booster vaccination program worldwide. The nation has one of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates at 63%. What follows are some graphs depicting the situation there. Despite the booster program Israel now has one of the highest infection rates per million in the world.


    1) Here is the URL for the site that I used the data to build the graphs: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus


    2) Here is my first graph to show the % of the populations fully vaccinated, with Israel as of Sept 14th being 63%


    Graph A




    Israel=as of Sept 13th fully vaccinated population 63%, US 53%, India 12%


    3) Here is the graph I built for the infections per million persons to normalize and I used Israel, the US to compare and India given India’s very low vaccination rate; as you see Israel has extensively more infections and the question is, what transpired post the implementation of the booster (3rd vaccine) program on August 1. It must have had a good result by turning the increase in cases downward. Right? Well, lets see:


    Graph B



    Israel as of Sept 14th, per million, 1254/million, US 457/million, India 22/million infections


    So what do we see? Well, Israel has the highest vaccination rate as above (graph A), but highest daily cases (graph B)…if vaccine was working this would not be the case


    On August 1st, Israel started its 3rd booster and the daily cases was 246/million on that day and US 240/million on that day, August 1st…so what happened over the next month?


    Here is the official evidence that the booster started on Aug 1st in case you were wondering where I got that from:


    “Israel — the first country to officially offer a third dose — began its COVID booster campaign on August 1, rolling it out to all those over age 60. It then gradually dropped the eligibility age, expanding it last week to anyone 30 and older. As of Sunday, over 1.9 million Israelis had received the third dose”.


    Israel widens 3rd COVID booster shot to those aged 12 and over
    Those who've had 3rd dose, or 2nd dose within past half-year, will be exempt from full 7-day quarantine when returning from abroad; 'Green Pass' to expire 6…
    www.timesofisrael.com


    It seems, however, over the month of August and onwards (August 1st onwards), with the 3rd booster, Israel’s daily cases exploded; the booster is driving the new infections, the vaccine has failed.


    In the month of August, Israel gave 2 million 3rd boosters but from August 1st you can see an explosion. We can only conclude that the vaccine is not working. The booster is a disaster, a failure. The rate of increasing cases remains steady and likely we wont be able to plot it any further as the increasing cases will go off the chart. The infections after 3rd booster show no sign of stopping.


    If you look at the prior peek on Jan 18th 2021 (green dotted vertical line), Israel has 929/million infections so now with 3rd booster (Sept 14th), it is even dramatically higher than the former highest peak in January 2021 (green dotted vertical line).


    Even when we compare Israel to nations in the vicinity and not the US or India, so if we added the middle eastern nations, we see Israel as the nation with the highest vaccination rate and now 3rd booster, has most cases relative to nations that are similar as to climate, location in middle east etc:


    What does this mean? It means the booster has failed and may actually be driving infections (maybe facilitating antibodies), and actually causing enhanced transmission; this is a catastrophe and no 3rd booster must be given in the US; this is my argument for your consideration based on the data.


    Graph C



    This graph C has 3 key points:


    1) the surge in infections in Israel post 3rd booster start Aug 1st 2021 is greater than the peak seen in the prior highest level (green dotted line, January 18th, 2021)


    2) You can see that from August 1st 2021 to Sept 14th 2021, the infections are sky rocketing and the key issue is that the booster program was started on August 1st. It has failed. It is likely that the vaccinated are carrying the Delta and participating in the transmission of it and fuelling the transmission and it can be argued that the booster is driving this3) If you look at Israel and compare it to other middle eastern nations, you see the clear difference in infections and especially how Aug 1st 2021, their infections are going down while Israel’s escalated up and mainly due to the booster initiation



    COVID-19 infections have skyrocketed in Israel post-Aug 1st with the implementation of the third shot booster program—the expectation would be by now cases would be on the decline. Israel has far greater than other similar nations geographically…and the new peak with this 4th wave post booster is even higher than the prior highest peak on Jan 18th, 2021.

    Nicki Minaj was right and all the world’s COVID vaccine experts were wrong


    Nicki Minaj was right and all the world’s COVID vaccine experts were wrong
    Opinion Editorial By: Steve Kirsch Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of
    trialsitenews.com


    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. This article is currently FREE to read and SHARE without paying.


    Nicki Minaj made a tweet about a friend of her cousin who got vaccinated and had orchitis (swelling of the testicles) afterwards.



    Nicki was globally mocked for this tweet by COVID vaccine experts and the mainstream media from around the world. As far as I could tell, not a single medical expert supported her position. Nobody in a position of authority came to her rescue. Nobody.


    It turns out Nicki was absolutely right. And all the world’s authorities and medical experts were incorrect (aka FOS).


    This is known as an “inconvenient truth.”


    I posted the scientific evidence on Nicki’s Twitter feed: the VAERS results, the Fisher Exact tests. Twitter blocked my main tweet (with all the sub tweets) shortly after I posted it so no one would learn the truth.


    So I decided to write this article for TrialSiteNews so that everyone can decide for themselves who to believe.


    Misinformation and VAERS

    But first, let’s get a few housekeeping issues out of the way about me and about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the reporting system relied upon by the FDA and CDC to track adverse events.


    I am not a medical expert. I am just an engineer from MIT who graduated in 1980 with a couple of degrees. I understand science, math, and statistics. I have no conflicts of interest. I have no history of giving out medical misinformation.


    I’m also knowledgeable about the VAERS system. When you have an adverse event that you report to the V-SAFE application, you are directed to VAERS to report it. This doesn’t work so well if you are dead. This is why deaths are somewhat under-reported.


    I’ve written articles showing that the VAERS data shows that over 150,000 deaths are due to the vaccine. But people dismiss that and cite the CDC disclaimer about VAERS. The CDC disclaimer gives people “permission” to ignore VAERS. The people who dismiss my arguments are not VAERS experts.


    I have 5 independent ways that arrive at the same number. Nobody has been able to supply a comparable analysis (with 6 different independent approaches) that all converge on a different number. They just claim my number is wrong. How can they know I’m wrong if they don’t have the “correct” analysis??


    The CDC disclaimer is wrong on so many fronts. My favorite article on the lunacy of believing that CDC disclaimer is If Vaccine Adverse Events Tracking Systems Do Not Support Causal Inference, then “Pharmacovigilance” Does Not Exist.


    To counter the CDC disclaimer, I offered to bet anyone $1M that there are over 20,000 deaths vs. under 500 deaths. I’d have bet a higher number, but nobody believes that even 20,000 deaths is remotely possible so 20,000 is sufficient to prove my point.


    I discovered that nobody would bet me. Which tells us all that nobody in the world strongly believes that there are <500 deaths from the vaccine, because if they truly were confident of that, then this is a quick way to make $1M for a few hours of work. The CDC still says there are NO deaths caused by the vaccine. Just 500 deaths would stop the vaccine; it was around 50 deaths in 1976 when they halted the H1N1 vaccine nationwide.


    Unfortunately, people think the CDC is correct in their VAERS disclaimer. So they attack me as being incorrect. The FDA dismisses my analysis with the hand-waving argument that they disagree with me and there is nothing further to discuss. This is precisely why they never see a safety signal in VAERS: the FDA and CDC will ignore any rational person who challenges their set of (incorrect) beliefs.


    It isn’t just me they won’t talk to; it is all of the VAERS experts, statisticians, doctors, and medical scientists that I confer with who all would love to challenge the false narrative. See the list at the end of this document.


    If you are looking for a safety signal and have found nothing, why aren’t the CDC and FDA interested in what we have to say?


    How to find out who is telling you the truth on issues you don’t understand

    One easy way to find the truth tellers is to see which side will put their money where their mouth is on important issues under discussion.


    Another way is a public debate. Truth tellers LOVE recorded public debates. Liars hate that and depend on censorship. Sound familiar? Censorship also takes the form of not running my op-eds, doing hit pieces on me, defaming me in Wikipedia, and making sure all reporters who support my position have their stories killed.


    None of the “experts” who attack me will ever agree to a neutral public debate about this because they will be exposed as pushing an unsafe vaccine. There is no way they can explain all the evidence that is out there. The evidence is consistent with my hypothesis, not theirs.


    Any open debate on vaccine safety would completely obliterate the narrative that the vaccines are safe and effective. That’s why the White House uses censorship as their weapon against people like me who are trying to tell the truth.


    And just like they are unfairly attacking me, they are also unfairly attacking Nicki Minaj who did nothing more than tell the truth. They should all be ashamed of their behavior.


    The “experts” all aligned to discredit Nicki

    Here’s the Trinidad expert criticizing Nicki.



    Here’s Sanjay Gupta laughing at Nicki Minaj:



    Sanjay simply stated the vaccines don’t cause swollen testicles. That’s it. No evidence. Basically Sanjay is making this stuff up out of thin air. This is irresponsible medical journalism at its finest. Listen to him. He cites no evidence. He simply says the vaccines don’t cause this. That’s opposite to what the primary evidence (VAERS) says. Doesn’t seem to matter to him.



    Fauci couldn’t resist commenting. He’s full of shit. “No evidence that it happens.” Are you kidding me? He’s a buffoon. He never even looked for the evidence that was in plain sight the entire time. This is how all this misinformation happens.

    Here’s what I mean by hiding in “plain sight”… a web page summarizing all this that anyone can load:



    It’s right there. There are line items for miscarriage, testicular pain/swelling. All the stuff Fauci said the vaccine didn’t cause… it’s all there in plain sight: miscarriages, menstrual disorders, testicular pain/swelling, erectile dysfunction, vaginal/uterine hemorrhage, etc.


    Or there are article like this one:



    If Fauci really wants to stop the medical misinformation, all he has to do is stop talking. Simple. Effective. Problem solved.


    Comedians chimed in their expertise in the vaccine field:



    Trinidad officials said it was a wild goose chase.



    Basically, these experts ignore all the negative data that doesn’t fit their agenda. And they gang up on anyone who has the courage to speak the truth to silence and ridicule them.


    And Congress enables all this by doing absolutely nothing to stop the censorship.


    All the evidence shows that all the experts were wrong and Nicki is right

    Instead of people issuing opinions on whether vaccines cause orchitis or not, isn’t it time for us to look at the scientific data?


    Did anyone produce any evidence that her cousin’s friend was lying? Nope.


    That’s our first clue that she’s telling the truth.


    So I did a full investigation in VAERS and posted the result. But because it started heavily trending, Twitter censored it within hours of posting.


    Here’s the first message. Nobody is allowed to see the sub-tweets… all censored.



    Through censorship, Twitter is basically preventing the spread of legitimate scientific data so that NOBODY WILL EVER FIND OUT the truth.


    There was nothing misleading at all about the tweet. It was 100% factual. But you cannot argue with the Twitter censors. They are ALWAYS right and there is no appeal.


    Truth about the vaccine must be censored because if it wasn’t censored, they wouldn’t be able to get anyone to take it. Censorship is hugely important, especially on social media platforms. When you have a product that is so unsafe that anyone informed wouldn’t take it, you can’t do it without censorship help.


    Suppressing the truth is bad enough, but then you are given a very biased statement that fails to point out that the drug company’s own studies do not agree with these health officials.


    Twitter never mentions that Pfizer’s own data shows that the vaccines kill more people than they save (18 vaccine group vs. 14 in placebo group). Why not give a balanced picture? Why are you giving expert opinions of experts who are wrong (and won’t debate the safety in a fair debate) rather than telling the world that the actual DATA from Pfizer doesn’t support the safety story?


    In evidence based medicine, a double-blind randomized controlled trial data always out ranks expert opinion. But Twitter can’t figure that out. They probably never will.


    Will any of these people ever apologize to Nicki? I doubt it. Because that would be an admission that 1) the vaccines caused an event that the FDA and CDC missed, and 2) it would expose all the world’s experts as giving out misinformation and 3) that Twitter was deliberately censoring truthful medical information. It’s not going to happen.


    How could all the experts be wrong? Simple. They don’t check the data before they criticize people for making truthful statements. If you make any statement that is against the false narrative that the vaccines are safe and effective, you will get shot down, even when the facts don’t support it.


    So, with that out the way, let’s get into the data.


    An impossible anecdote

    First we have a really interesting anecdote from one of my Twitter followers who saw my post. I just talked to him on the phone. It’s legit. There were 10 kids in the group:



    So this is statistically IMPOSSIBLE (i.e., “highly unlikely to ever happen in your lifetime”) if the vaccines don’t cause this condition. I suspect this anecdote is not isolated. This is likely under-reported due to embarrassment.


    Does this really affect half of teenage boys? I don’t know. The URF of this symptom would be really high.. Much higher than the 41 we’ll use below.


    At this point, we have two anecdotes from people we trust suggesting that this is real.


    VAERS analysis confirms testicular swelling events are elevated after the COVID vaccines

    Let’s see if we can also confirm in VAERS as that would really add a lot of weight to the argument that this wasn’t just a “coincidence.” And then we’ll talk about mechanisms of action confirmation for even more credibility.


    It’s always nice when we use a large primary safety data source like VAERS. It will also show everyone just how under-reported VAERS is. Even if just one of those 10 kids was telling the truth, the under-reporting factor in VAERS for this condition is likely huge.


    So now let’s dig into the data. We’ll use a VAERS under-reporting factor (URF) of 41 based on my previous work. This is very conservative. The article also discusses the propensity to report and that allows us to compare previous years with this year with a correction factor (we are not trying to get a super accurate answer but just get in the ballpark).


    Now we run some VAERS comparative analysis between what gets reported in a typical year vs. this year.




    The second analysis was over 10 years (all vaccines). 64/3.6 is a 17.7X higher incidence rate than for a typical vaccine side effect. That’s clearly an elevated condition.


    If we multiply each event by the URF of 41, we can then do a test for statistical significance over 200M people and that easily passes:



    VAERS analysis confirms orchitis events are elevated after the COVID vaccines

    Now we do the same test for orchitis which is another name for the same class of symptoms:




    So we have 20 / 1.3 = 15.3 X elevation so not that much different than we found earlier (17.7X).


    Clearly both are elevated. Now we multiply by the URF of 41 (which is very conservative) and test for significance:



    In short, so far, all the data we have shows Nicki was right and the experts were wrong.


    VAERS analysis confirms erectile dysfunction events are elevated after the COVID vaccines

    Here’s the search for COVID vaccines:



    Here’s the search for 10 years worth of all previous vaccines:



    So 171/1.8 = 95X


    In other words, your chance of impotence is elevated by nearly 100X after the COVID vaccine vs other vaccines. We have all the Bradford-Hill criteria now satisfied for causality. In addition we can add dose dependency (97 dose 1 and 43 on dose 2) as shown below.


    But 15% fewer people get the second dose, and the vast majority of the people who skip the second dose are those who either (1) had a bad reaction to the first dose or (2) saw their friends having a bad reaction and decided to skip it (the slide showing this is midway in the deck). So the number should be 15% lower on the second dose reports. It isn’t. So there is dose dependency here as well, likely that people after the second dose reacted so badly they didn’t come back for a second dose.




    As for the test for significance, here it is:



    So once again, all the experts were wrong. The effect is highly statistically significant.


    Mechanism of action

    Is there a plausible mechanism of action here that can be causing the swelling.


    Absolutely. Physicians are experiencing swelling in other parts of the body. Why would the testes be an exception? If you do a VAERS search for “swelling” you see that I’m right. It’s happening all over people’s bodies.


    Here’s a plot of the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles that are used to deliver the mRNA instructions. Note that some organs are omitted so you can see the detail more clearly.


    Clearly the ovaries are having much more uptake than the testes.



    So if we refer to the original Pfizer data, and look for the heart on page 16 and the testes on page 17. We see comparable concentrations at 48 hours!


    We know the vaccines injure kids’ hearts (myocarditis). Since it looks like we’re delivering similar amounts to the testes, it is plausible to believe that the testes might be damaged in a similar way due to the blood clots and inflammation that the spike protein causes.


    Finally, keep in mind that the spike protein is toxic and it is being delivered to every part of your body. Even if Wikipedia doesn’t agree with me, the scientific literature does. Here is a mix of papers and articles referencing papers on this:


    Be aware of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: There is more than meets the eye

    Toxicological insights of Spike fragments SARS-CoV-2 by exposure environment: A threat to aquatic health?

    SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2

    Pay no attention to the spike proteins behind the curtain

    Clearing up misinformation about the spike protein and COVID vaccines

    Attacks on this analysis

    If you think I’m wrong and the vaccines cannot cause this symptom, I will make the same $1M bet. The terms would be similar to the term sheet I use for betting people on vaccine deaths (we’d substitute “vaccine causes testicular swelling” as the item to be decided upon).


    So if you think Fauci is right, see my term sheet and have your attorney contact my attorney.


    Attacks on this analysis like “VAERS is over-reported this year” or “there are 2 false report in VAERS” or “you are not a doctor” or anything else like that are all instantly defeatable by the bet. If you think any of your criticisms are valid, then why not take my money? If you are not willing to back your arguments with cash, that tells me you are not confident at all in your position and you are just trying to create FUD and waste my time. That’s counter-productive. The bet simply makes it crystal clear who is serious and who is not.


    In short, none of the world experts who criticized Nicki will put their money where their mouth is. Instead, they will continue to spread misinformation and not be held accountable for it.


    Recently, I was in a debate with Honourable Fitzgerald Ethelbert Hinds, the Minister of National Security for Trinidad/Tobago on Power102fm radio. The radio station booted me off the zoom call when it was clear that Minister Hinds was losing badly. The comments from the Trinidad listeners were telling. None of them supported their own official. This is why nobody wants to debate me; because the public can see who is telling the truth when a liar and a truth teller get into a debate.


    Summary

    This sums things up pretty nicely:



    Thank you Nicki Minaj for telling the truth and not backing down when you were unfairly attacked.


    I hope you will take a look at the vaccine information I’ve posted at skirsch.io and help people to become aware of it.


    A note to the fact checkers

    Before you fact check this article and spew out more misinformation doing so, why don’t you educate yourself on the facts first by at least reading the 600 pages of material I prepared for you here so you will at least know something.


    Not that it will make any difference.


    After this article is falsely fact checked, I’ll modify the article to respond to the fact check.


    And the fact checkers will never debate me or bet me that they are right. They are faceless and nameless and operate in the shadows and don’t respond to corrections.


    If you want to fact check me, show yourself and debate me in a public forum.


    But they will never do this. They would lose. Badly. Just like Minister Hinds. That’s why they never dare show their names or faces. The evidence is not supportive.


    A simple law could restore freedom of “true” speech

    It would be great if there were a federal law enabling anyone to recover statutory damages of $50,000 anytime a large social media company blocked information that was factual (and not illegal). That’s a simple law. Wouldn’t it be great if truth would be protected in America?


    This would REALLY fix the censorship problem in a heartbeat.


    A note about censorship

    I’m also sure that all the social media companies will block any message or tweet that tries to reference this article. They do not want you to read this article. Because if you read this article, you will realize how they have been lying to you about the safety and side-effects of the vaccine from the very beginning.


    Sadly, no one in Congress wants to ensure that “truth” is protected from censorship on the popular communication platforms.


    We live in a new world today. I’ve never seen anything like this.

    Since I'm not bothering to do repetitive replies now let me just summarise, for those not carried away by the sheer volume of clearly biased info posted here, here is comment on the prevailing themes:


    • ivermectin is good?: ecological evidence does not hold up when you look at confounders (e.g. UP), and is any case cherry picked. Really difficult to attach any weight to suhc evidence even if it was doine properly with an attempt to compensate for all confounders because there is too muhc uncertainty in that compensation. The stuff posted here does not compensate for even the most obvious confounder (age).
    • FDA, UK MRA are trying to kill people by not recommending ivermectin. Take the UK case where there is no systemic conflict of interest. When they look at the evidence there is quite a lot of negative evidence from high quality studies. There is also a very strong pressure group with social media style PR. The negative is because even if you ignore OD risk (you have to take a lot to OD - but people are stupid and some will do this) giving people a non-working pill - which ivermectin most likely is - actually harms them because they therefore take less precautions.
    • Remdesivir does not work - why recommend it when ivermectin is not recommended. Remdesivir has marginal effect on mortality but significant effect on overall reduction in hospital usage. That is a is deal for hospitals over-run by COVID patients. Remdesivir has lab evidence as useful antiviral to support its case (which ivermectin does not - that lab evidence is it suhc a high concentration it is actually negative evidence at doses anyone is willing to use). That predisposes people to give it benefit of the doubt. However i agree that from patient point of view it is not giving much benefit.
    • Vaccines don't last. True, but they last quite a while, and have resulted in many countries opening up without health systems collapsing
    • Anything about comparison of death rates between countries. You need to relate death rates to infection rates. Infection rates depend on social distancing and many other things - e.g. how much infection has their been previously as well as level of vaccination in country, demographics, social contact patterns, whether contacts are indoor or outdoor (e.g. is aircon used widely).
    • Anything about vax vs non-vax death rates. Remember Simpsons's rule + vulnerable get vaccinated effect.


    THH

    Why the new A.23.1 variant is so troubling

    Experts identified a new variant — titled A.23.1 — that reveals a troubling sign of what’s possibly to come next


    Why the new A.23.1 variant is so troubling
    www.deseret.com


    A new COVID-19 variant has been found in Africa, and it offers a troubling sign of what could come from COVID-19 variants in the future.

    What is the A.23.1 COVID variant?

    The new variant — titled A.23.1 — was first discovered in Uganda back in October 2020. Now, it has reached 26 different countries and represents just under 2,000 cases of COVID-19 across the world. Details of the variant were published in the medical journal Nature.


    The variant has not been deemed a variant of concern or of interest by the World Health Organization yet.

    Why is A.23.1 COVID variant different?

    The variant “contains several mutations found in variants of concern as well as six unique substitutions,” according to Forbes.


    But, more interestingly, the variant “does not share a common origin with all of the variants of interest or concern, including alpha, beta, gamma, delta and mu,” according to Forbes.

    All of those variants have a mutation that shows its comment origin. But A.23.1 does not share that.

    In fact, it has more connections to the A.30 variant, which was originally found in Angola, and might have originated in Tanzania. Both of these variants don’t share an origin with the other major strains, Forbes reports.


    “The discovery of two distinct but distantly related variants in East Africa is concerning in and of itself,” according to Forbes. “The observations that these variants arose independently from all others in the world, lacking the distinctive triad of mutations that link all other current variants demonstrates the versatility of SARS-CoV-2 adaptations to local conditions.”

    Why the A.23.1 COVID variant is so dangerous

    Scientists in Africa are concerned about the spread of COVID-19 variants in the continent. COVID-19 variants continue to emerge from Africa — somewhat because there is low vaccine availability and vaccination rates there — that could lead to a mutation that might evade vaccines, according to Bloomberg.


    Per Bloomberg, the scientists — a group of 112 African and 25 international organizations — said that a “slow rollout of vaccines in most African countries creates an environment in which the virus can replicate and evolve. This will almost certainly produce additional VOCs, any of which could derail the global fight against COVID-19.”

    Quote from Fm1

    A note to the fact checkers

    Before you fact check this article and spew out more misinformation doing so, why don’t you educate yourself on the facts first by at least reading the 600 pages of material I prepared for you here so you will at least know something.

    Whenever somone says this it raises a red flag.


    detailed line by line rebuttal of kirsch view re danger of spike proteins:


    Are the mRNA vaccines really safe? Evaluating claims by Steven Kirsch on danger of spike proteins
    There are a number of individuals on social media confidently claiming the mRNA vaccines are dangerous and killing people, and implying the vaccine…
    www.covid-datascience.com



    The post here is Niki Minaj - who claims to be objective and numerate.


    I won't fact check - instead I'll internal math check.


    Twitter never mentions that Pfizer’s own data shows that the vaccines kill more people than they save (18 vaccine group vs. 14 in placebo group). Why not give a balanced picture? Why are you giving expert opinions of experts who are wrong (and won’t debate the safety in a fair debate) rather than telling the world that the actual DATA from Pfizer doesn’t support the safety story?


    These numbers are not statistically significant. The high number of placebo deaths represents a high (random) background death rate. The excess (4) in vaccine over placebo is not significant.


    In addition suppose some such statistic were significant. there have been at least 4 independent safety and efficacy trials from which the numbers of deaths close to vaccine shots can be compared. Which ones are considered here? With 4 vaccines you have 15 possible combos to pick - and cherry pick if you are making a point.


    My point is that a numerate person concerned about the excess here would address cherry picking, and also give the p value for this to happen by chance. That this is made as a point without such analysis shows lack of understanding of the topic at its most basic level.


    Through censorship, Twitter is basically preventing the spread of legitimate scientific data so that NOBODY WILL EVER FIND OUT the truth.


    Most people use medium otehr than twitter for finding out legitimate truth. For example, you could publish stuff as a preprint. But I can see this guy might gte censored. preprint servers require a certain minimum of scientiifc rigor - nothing like peer review - but will eliminate the obvious dross which the arguments here provably are.


    I’ve written articles showing that the VAERS data shows that over 150,000 deaths are due to the vaccine. But people dismiss that and cite the CDC disclaimer about VAERS. The CDC disclaimer gives people “permission” to ignore VAERS. The people who dismiss my arguments are not VAERS experts.


    I have 5 independent ways that arrive at the same number. Nobody has been able to supply a comparable analysis (with 6 different independent approaches) that all converge on a different number. They just claim my number is wrong. How can they know I’m wrong if they don’t have the “correct” analysis??


    It is easy to do this analysis with a single answer if you assume all VAERS reports are caused by vaccine. However, that is not true for any vaccine, but especially not for a new one where essentially any death coincidental with the vaccine might be an adverse event and will therefore get recorded as such. Ignoring background deaths is a theme in this analysis. if you don't ignore background things get a lot more complex - ecause you need to work out background based on the exact demographics of people getting the vaccine etc. Of course a bettwe way to gain insight into vaccine safety is a self-control case study (such as a posted , using all 30M people in UK vaccinated over a recent time interval). this perfectly controls for background events and therefore gives high quality info. it does not agree with this guy.


    Now we run some VAERS comparative analysis between what gets reported in a typical year vs. this year.


    The second analysis was over 10 years (all vaccines). 64/3.6 is a 17.7X higher incidence rate than for a typical vaccine side effect. That’s clearly an elevated condition.


    If we multiply each event by the URF of 41, we can then do a test for statistical significance over 200M people and that easily passes:



    VAERS analysis confirms orchitis events are elevated after the COVID vaccines

    Now we do the same test for orchitis which is another name for the same class of symptoms:


    That does not take into account reporting bias: established vaccines will have fewer events registered as adverse than experimental ones because the vaccine side-effects are well understood

    It also does not take into account demographics of those vaccinated this year for COVID, how that compares with typical demographics, and what effect this has. SSince COVID vaccination is highly skewed towards COVID risk and therefore older people with higher background almost everything, normal vaccination is much less skewed, this is obviously a factor that must be considered.


    Here’s a plot of the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles that are used to deliver the mRNA instructions. Note that some organs are omitted so you can see the detail more clearly.


    Clearly the ovaries are having much more uptake than the testes.


    We have gone through this before, many times, with detailed figures which I do not have to hand. The context here is missing. the amt of these lipids in ovaries is extraordinarily small. And much smaller than in other places. The study referred to was a GH (or mouse - can't remember) study and the vaccine dosage was some 100 - 1000 X (can't remember) larger than given to humans. When you do a quantitative analysis, look at the conveniently omitted context, this stuff looks as silly as it is.


    Recently, I was in a debate with Honourable Fitzgerald Ethelbert Hinds, the Minister of National Security for Trinidad/Tobago on Power102fm radio. The radio station booted me off the zoom call when it was clear that Minister Hinds was losing badly. The comments from the Trinidad listeners were telling. None of them supported their own official. This is why nobody wants to debate me; because the public can see who is telling the truth when a liar and a truth teller get into a debate.


    God help us from politicians trying to debate science. They do not understand it, mostly. Those that do, and are knowledgable, would know that a considered and proper objective analysis of any argumnet, no matter how batty, would be long enough that the audience would switch off. It would get reported in headlines as whatever sound-bites sounded best. That is not the way to arrive at scientiific truth.


    I'm sure there is battiness there I've skipped over - if you think that post has any merit at all pots the bit with merit and I will comment further.


    THH


    PS - this scientifically illiterate stuff should not be posted - or at least not posted without severe unanimous critique - on a site that claims to be serious about science.

    Here is a proper scientific reply to the (proper scientific) but flawed preprint looking at VAERS data on myocarditis/pericarditis (where the signal is highest).


    More Thoughts on the VAERS Pre-Print
    As I wrote previously, there are three important questions when discussing COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis (C-VAM):How frequently does it occur?What…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    A recent pre-print by Dr. Tracy Hoeg et al. sought to answer some of these questions. Drs. Daniel Freedman and David Gorski recently discussed the problems with using Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to determine the rate of C-VAM. Please read their articles if you have not done so already. I was pleased to see in the comments section of these articles and on social media that Dr. Hoeg and her co-authors are taking these criticisms seriously. In this spirit, I would like to offer several additional critiques.


    [ other critques omitted]


    I found Dr. Hoeg’s discussion of the COVID-19’s harms particularly lacking. I suspect no one will be surprised to learn that I feel the paper understated both the harm of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccine. Several of authors have a history of applying different standards to the virus and the vaccine, in my opinion. One of the authors said that the “young have almost no risk” from the virus, and then later said myocarditis from the vaccine should never be called “mild“. Another suggested that RSV was being misdiagnosed as COVID-19 in hospitalized children, meaning COVID-19 wasn’t really that bad. I’ve written about this several times before. Another of the authors, Josh Stevenson, “is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates”. The pre-print did not make this fact known. So let me make my bias clear: I expected this paper to understate both the harm of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccine. I feel my expectations were met. Read my criticisms with this in mind.


    Dr. Hoeg’s paper compares those hospitalized from the vaccine with those hospitalized from the virus. Following a model used by the CDC, Dr. Hoeg compares hospitalization rates over a 120-day period. But there is nothing magical about 120-days, and zooming out over a longer time frame a bit brings more clarity. As of August 14th, 2021, 1 in 2,000 children in the US had been hospitalized according to the CDC. This means tens of thousands of American children have been hospitalized. Even if 40% of these were due to incidental COVID-19 cases (a complicated topic I discussed here), this rate still exceeds the highest rate of C-VAM in Dr. Hoeg’s study, which was about 1 in 6,200 boys age 12-15 years after the second vaccine dose. At present, an average of 344 children are hospitalized every day with COVID-19 in the US. While the number is decreasing slightly for the first time in a month, this is still well above the previous peak during January 2021.


    Moreover, as one critic noted, “the study does not take into account differences in treatment practices when comparing hospitalisation rates between covid-19 infections and myocarditis and pericarditis presenting post-vaccination”. In other words, pediatricians may have different standards when deciding whether to admit a child with COVID-19 compared to a child with C-VAM. It’s conceivable that as pediatricians grow more familiar with C-VAM, they’ll decide that not all children need to be hospitalized.


    Importantly, the benefits of the vaccine accrue over time, while its risks are contained within the first week. For this reason, the CDC also calculated the vaccine’s benefit at one-year, not just after 120 days. Unless the vaccine stops being effective at 120-days, a longer time frame provides a more realistic sense of the vaccine’s benefits. I believe Dr. Hoeg’s paper should discuss this further rather than simply note this as a limitation of its methods.

    Quote from Fm1

    It seems, however, over the month of August and onwards (August 1st onwards), with the 3rd booster, Israel’s daily cases exploded; the booster is driving the new infections, the vaccine has failed.


    In the month of August, Israel gave 2 million 3rd boosters but from August 1st you can see an explosion. We can only conclude that the vaccine is not working. The booster is a disaster, a failure. The rate of increasing cases remains steady and likely we wont be able to plot it any further as the increasing cases will go off the chart. The infections after 3rd booster show no sign of stopping.

    As I understand it the motivation for the vaccine is primarily to save severe disease and death. it does this, the boosters do this.


    Whether the vaccine reduces R value (and hence helps the infection rate to go up or down) is complicated. You cannot determine how much this is or is not happening without looking at:

    • What %age of the transmitting population have been given the vaccination - if it is small tehre will be no difference visible even with a highly effective vaccine.
    • What would R value have been without the vaccine. With delta the vaccines provide only some protection against infection, and against people infected being infectious.


    So the conclusion here is knocking down a straw man, even then it is logically incorrect, and - to parrot the post's own phraseology - we can only conclude that this analysis of the vaccine is presented in a manner so partial as to be misleading.


    THH

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It isn't skyrocketing anymore. That's what's going on.


    https://graphics.reuters.com/w…s-and-territories/israel/

    And for some more transparency, you would not expect 3rd doses given so are to effect the transmission much - since that is primarily younger unvaccinated people, and 3rd doses tail off with age dramatically, with only 50% having them age 45, less than 50% below this. In Uk transmission is now mainly from young people. I expect the same in israel.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Since COVID vaccination is highly skewed towards COVID risk and therefore older people with higher background almost everything, normal vaccination is much less skewed, this is obviously a factor that must be considered.

    This effect is larger than you might think. Most vaccines are administered to babies and children up to age 15. That is by far the healthiest segment of the population, with the lowest death rates from all causes, including infectious diseases and things like cancer. In other words, the number of coincidental deaths is lowest in the population that is usually vaccinated, and it is highest in the population that was first vaccinated for COVID.


    (Historically, children had the highest death rate, mainly from infectious diseases. Now they have the lowest rate thanks to -- wait for it! -- vaccines.)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    In Uk transmission is now mainly from young people. I expect the same in israel.

    News reports say transmission is mainly from young people in Japan. Reports also say that young people are anxious to be vaccinated. It is still mainly by appointment, but a few unscheduled mass vaccination sites opened near commuter railroad stations. People lined up and they ran out of vaccine by mid-morning. Most people lined up appeared to be in their 20s. I think the population over 65 is almost all vaccinated. In the U.S., I regret to say only 87% of people over 65 are vaccinated nationally, and only 75% in Georgia. (I think that is the number, but the Georgia Dept. of Health has recently hidden their data again. See, or I should say don't see: https://www.nytimes.com/intera…vid-19-vaccine-doses.html)


    That partly explains the continued mass deaths: a 9/11 catastrophe every 2 days. Brought to you by FOX News, the Republican Party, the Nitwit Governor of Georgia who is fighting tooth and nail to stop private organizations and school districts from mandating masks and vaccinations, the Death Cult, and distinguished experts in public health such as Nicki Minaj.

    Quote from Fm1

    So what do we see? Well, Israel has the highest vaccination rate as above (graph A), but highest daily cases (graph B)…if vaccine was working this would not be the case

    Yesterday for some ours timesofisrael had a highly concerning story online that did complain the boosters did strongly fuel CoV-19 infection - what is a known effect of the Pfizer vaccine. Some hours later the story has been replaced by Pfizer commercials that claim highly effect booster after some days of application....


    But to late to convince US FDA!!!!!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    ivermectin is good?: ecological evidence does not hold up when you look at confounders (e.g. UP), and is any case cherry picked.

    THH FUD alert :: THE Freemason trumpet again! Are 1'000'000'000 Covid free Indian's really cherry picket???


    I think your posting stinks like a rotten cherry!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    And for some more transparency, you would not expect 3rd doses given so are to effect the transmission much - since that is primarily younger unvaccinated people, and 3rd doses tail off with age dramatically, with only 50% having them age 45, less than 50% below this.

    How many beer did you have? Do you understand what you want to tell us..


    The real question is why did 20% of the Israel age group16-19 already get boosters? How brain sick are these people??

    University of Liverpool-led AGILE Study Suggests Promise of Nitazoxanide for COVID-19


    University of Liverpool-led AGILE Study Suggests Promise of Nitazoxanide for COVID-19
    The University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom led the AGILE platform master protocol known as the AGILE trial, a Phase 1 study evaluating a range of
    trialsitenews.com


    University of Liverpool-led AGILE Study Suggests Promise of Nitazoxanide for COVID-19


    The University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom led the AGILE platform master protocol known as the AGILE trial, a Phase 1 study evaluating a range of potential therapies including Nitazoxanide, an FDA approved antiparasitic medicine. The Phase 1/2 multicenter, multi-arm, multi-dose, and multi-stage, open-label adaptive seamless study was designed to determine the optimal dose, activity, and safety of multiple candidate agents, including Nitazoxanide, for the treatment of COVID-19. The drug was well-tolerated and safe. TrialSite also reports that the drug’s maker, Rowmark International, reported promising results in April 2021.


    Background

    One key public health goal of many academic medical centers, apex research institutes, and national regulators should be investigating repurposed approved drugs that may lead to effective interventions during this pandemic. To date, unfortunately, in America, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the first year of the pandemic focused solely on vaccines and novel monoclonal antibodies and expensive pharmaceuticals such as the antiviral remdesivir.


    An inherent bias in the drug development system favors novel, branded pharmaceuticals over economic, repurposed drugs for apparent reasons.


    The Study Drug

    University of Liverpool and collaborators at the University of Southampton, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the University of Cambridge set to investigate repurposed antivirals, including an antiparasitic medicine called Nitazoxanide.


    Sold under the brand name Alina, this broad-spectrum antiparasitic and broad-spectrum antiviral medication is used in medicine to treat various helminthic, protozoal, and viral infections. The drug presently is indicated for the treatment of infection by Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia Iamblia in immunocompetent individuals and has been repurposed for the treatment of influenza.


    It is a prototype member of the thiazolides, a class of drugs that are nitro thiazolyl-salicylamide derivatives with antiparasitic and antiviral activity. Tizoxanide is an active metabolite of Nitazoxanide in humans and is also an anti-parasitic drug of the thiazolide class.


    In 2020, Nitazoxanide tablets were approved as a generic medication in the United States.


    Other uses are investigated in various research initiatives. For example, the drug has been used in phase 3 clinical trials to treat influenza viruses resistant to neuraminidase inhibitors like oseltamivir.


    COVID-19

    The drug has been under investigation as a possible treatment for COVID-19. A search in Clinicaltrials.gov turns up 29 clinical trials involving the use of the drug. Out of those was one Phase 3 trial sponsored by Romark Laboratories L.C. https://www.romark.com/


    Back in April, Roark reported on the study results declaring that in regards to the primary endpoint—median time to sustained response (recovery time)—the study drug performed comparably to the placebo (approximately 13 days). However, in the pre-defined subgroup of patients with mild disease, the median time to sustained response was reduced by 3.1 days with NT-300 (Nitazoxanide).


    In regards to the secondary endpoint, the study drug was associated with an 85% (0.5% of NT-300-treated patients vs. 3.6% of patients treated with placebo) reduction in progression to severe illness (shortness of breath at rest with SpO2.


    The AGILE Phase 1 Study Results

    In this open-label, adaptive Phase 1 trial in healthy adult participants, adults were administered 1500 mg nitazoxanide orally twice-daily with food for seven days. The endpoints for this study centered on safety, tolerability, optimum dose, and schedule.


    The UK-based study authors reported that 14 healthy participants joined the study between February 18, 2021 and May 11, 2021. The participants completed all 10 out of the 14 participants. While the drug was well tolerated with no significant adverse events, 8 of the participants did experience gastrointestinal disturbance (loose stools) with urine and sclera discoloration in 12 and 9 participants, respectively, without clinically significant bilirubin elevation.


    The study team wrote that PBPK predictions were confirmed on day 1, leading to underprediction by day 5. They reported that median Cmin was above the in vitro target concentration by the first dose while maintained during the study. The University of Liverpool-led study team shared that the study drug administered at 1500mg twice per day was safe and well-tolerated. Consequently, the study team has initiated a Phase 1b/2a study involving COVID-19 patients.


    Study Funding

    · This study was funded by Unitaid as part of a supplement to the project LONGEVITY in response to the pandemic.


    · NIH


    · European Commission


    · Wellcome Trust


    · Medical Research Council


    · Lead Research/Investigator


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Dr. Lauren Walker, BSc (Hons) MBChB, (Hons), PhD MRCP (UK)

    FDA Advisory Panel Overwhelmingly Votes Against The Powers-that-be: Opting For Rational, Risk-based & Data-Driven Approach


    FDA Advisory Panel Overwhelmingly Votes Against The Powers-that-be: Opting For Rational, Risk-based & Data-Driven Approach
    An independent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Panel today voted overwhelmingly against the mass booster program at this point. This is
    trialsitenews.com


    An independent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Panel today voted overwhelmingly against the mass booster program at this point. This is an unprecedented situation, one where the U.S. White House and the nation’s top doctor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, went on the record promoting the booster for much of society. The independent advisory panel put a screeching halt on an imminent mass booster access and rather elected that the boosters should only be available for a far more narrow subsection of the population, from the elderly to severely ill, and select occupations facing higher risks of exposure. But this decision will undoubtedly create more tension as, on the one hand, Biden, VP Kamala Harris, Dr. Fauci, and others had essentially marketed this program as imminent before the experts were, in fact, ready to conclude that was the right option.


    The Vote

    In a move that may further confuse the public, given POTUS’ aggressive declaration that a booster program would be ready for all this month, the advisor panel of experts voted to recommend that the third jabs only be made available to select groups, such as elderly Americans aged 65 and up, as well as other cohorts considered at high risk. This includes, for example, people with severe illness or select occupations such as healthcare workers and teachers.


    TrialSite suggests that today the panel did the right thing, rejecting Pfizer’s push for full booster approval covering everyone across America 16 years of age and up. Instead, the advisory panel has aligned with a more rational, risk-based, and data-driven approach, authorizing booster access for select and targeted groups. Will the FDA honor this decision?


    POTUS Playing a Dangerous Game

    Biden, Fauci, and others have been doubling down on the vaccine-centric strategy in the hope of eradicating COVID-19, perhaps thinking that is not only the best way to transcend the pandemic but also to ensure an at-risk U.S. economy moves out of ever more dangerous waters.


    Earlier today, Reuters reported that the White House was keen on a mass booster rollout of the Pfizer-BioNTech booster vaccine to as many people as possible.


    An unexpected vote for many, the decision may trigger further political, socioeconomic, and scientific-related tensions as a clash of pandemic fighting paradigms manifest in this age of COVID-19. TrialSite suggests today’s decision was a sound, rational one, concurring with the departing FDA vaccine regulators who recently published an article suggesting the time was not now for massive vaccine boosters for all. Two top regulators announced their resignation recently, as reported by TrialSite.


    TrialSite’s Founder Daniel O’Connor shared, “Today’s advisory panel vote isn’t what President Biden and his team expected—the White House made a serious blunder, getting too far ahead of regulators in declaring vaccination schedules.” O’Connor continued, “Biden and Vice President Harris are seasoned politicians, and they should have known better than to make such declarations. Because of their overzealous, almost promotional cheerleading for the imminent program, the American public may become even more confused than they were before.” O’Connor emphasized, “Today’s vote, while focused, offers a broad interpretation for high-risk populations—meaning that the door is somewhat open to vaccinate more people than may be readily apparent.”


    The Biden administration was on the record declaring that the general population would have access to the vaccine by September 20. However, with this overwhelming vote, a strong precedent is set to follow a more conservative approach, favoring targeted, risk-based access over mass vaccination.


    If the FDA follows today’s vote, the Gold Standard agency will start to at least head in the right direction, working to repair its’ image, which has recently taken a hit from the perception that industry and political bias sways decisions one way or another.

    Japanese Researchers Investigate Intracranial Hemorrhage Deaths Possibly Caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine


    Japanese Researchers Investigate Intracranial Hemorrhage Deaths Possibly Caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine
    A clinical pharmacology and medical informatics professional from two Japanese universities recently analyzed potential adverse events associated with the
    trialsitenews.com


    A clinical pharmacology and medical informatics professional from two Japanese universities recently analyzed potential adverse events associated with the COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccine called tozinameran—the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine known as BNT162b2. The Japanese report indicates that reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) after receiving COVID-19 vaccination point to concerns involving safety. Rumiko Shimazawa, with the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Tokai University School of Medicine and Masayuki Ikeda, Department of Medical Informatics, Kagawa University Hospital, Miki-Cho, Kagawa, shared that presently no regulatory authority recognizes ICH as an adverse event associated with BNT162b2. But they share that in Japan, fatal and non-fatal cases are known. For example, in Japan, ten people have died in association with this vaccine. The dead included both five men and five women. Of note, four of the five women died of ICH, and the other died of aspiration pneumonia. Apparently, all five of the males died due to causes other than a stroke.


    Shimazawa and Ikeda write that “Cumulatively…a disproportionately high incidence of death by ICH in Japanese women” who were inoculated with BNT162b2. The researchers suggest “a potential association of ICH with the vaccine.” The authors do declare that at least at this state, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. Meanwhile, they cannot provide a causal relationship associating with the vaccine and ICH, but they believe this topic deserves more investigation.


    The Data

    In Japan, by April 18, 2021, an estimated 1.21 million people had received one jab, while .72 million received the second dose of BNT162b2, known as tozinameran in Japan. The Japan Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) reported ten fatal cases as of April. Four of the incidents included death by ICH, and all deaths involved women passing after the first jab.


    The remaining cases involved five men and one woman. The one woman not dying from ICH passed due to aspiration pneumonia four days post the first jab. At the same time, the five men passed due to a number of issues other than a stroke, such as acute heart failure, sepsis, and others.


    The authors provide a case series to describe the patients and situation. The authors strongly suspect causal links but haven’t proven this as of yet.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Rumiko Shimazawa, the department of Clinical Pharmacology, Tokai University School of Medicine


    Masayuki Ikeda, Department of Medical Informatics, Kagawa University Hospital, Miki-cho, Kagaw


    Call to Action: Review the entire paper at the Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Yesterday for some ours timesofisrael had a highly concerning story online that did complain the boosters did strongly fuel CoV-19 infection - what is a known effect of the Pfizer vaccine. Some hours later the story has been replaced

    Study: COVID booster recipients 20 times more protected against serious illness
    As US officials set to mull okaying Pfizer's 3rd dose, data from a million Israelis shows it boosts protection from infection tenfold compared with eligible…
    www.timesofisrael.com


    So that is what they say now, which aligns with data from elsewhere, and as you can see shows why the booster campaign is effective, as you in particular would expect since you have been telling us (and we would agree) that COVID vaccine efficacy wanes significantly over 6 months.


    There are two reasons for a 3rd jab - the main one, which applies to older people, is reduction is hospitalisation burden and death (governments care more about the former than the latter!). In addition there will be some small downward effect on R if enough people get a 3rd jab.


    It is grossly unfair to all those old people in countries without vaccines, who would benefit much more. But what we really need is much higher vaccine production if our ambition is to vaccinate the world, and governents are not in the business of being fair to the rest of the world, they want to do what is best for their own citizens.


    The true argument for big money spent on delivering vaccines to the whole world is reducing total chances of nasty new variants. Getting rid of COVID entirely seems unlikely, for many reasons, so I'm not usre this is such a compelling reason. We will get whatever variants there are eventually.

    Quote from Fm1

    POTUS Playing a Dangerous Game

    Biden, Fauci, and others have been doubling down on the vaccine-centric strategy in the hope of eradicating COVID-19, perhaps thinking that is not only the best way to transcend the pandemic but also to ensure an at-risk U.S. economy moves out of ever more dangerous waters.

    Pfizer plays a cheating story since day one when they bought the rights from Biontec to sell their incomplete gene therapy as a pseudo vaccine. (Remember the faked the phase III study!)

    The claim that antibody count is in important in fighting CoV-19 is just one side of the medal. Usually a high antibody count is sign of a strong infection and a strong immune response. A real vaccine can mirror this process and the the antibodies decrease after teh infection because antibodies are only the first responding element in a fight.


    Now Pfizer cheats the public that the booster 10x increase the antibodies and claims that this is a higher protection.... But what type of antibodies? Misfitting ones for delta. Antibodies that block the ACE-2 signaling path- your signaling path for fighting other virus. Also the gen therapies (Astra, Moderna, Pfizer) produce no mucosal T-Cells! === no protection from CoV-19

    It is well known that the Pfizer gen therapy induces no proper immune memory. The B-cells are more or less monoclonal just for one spike protein that does not fit. Now some new mutations did emerge where Pfizer 100% fails and your body will produce endless amounts of useless anti bodies what will lead to a strong ADE effect and very likely will kill thousands of people. This happened already several times in lab trials.


    So without Ivermectin in place current boosters are a high risk game.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So that is what they say now, which aligns with data from elsewhere, and as you can see shows why the booster campaign is effective, as you in particular would expect since you have been telling us (and we would agree) that COVID vaccine efficacy wanes significantly over 6 months.

    You repeat big pharma FUD again. After applying 3'000'000 booster dose real Israel data shows no effect so far. Pfizer sponsored blood sample antibody counts have nothing to do with real world infection fighting if ADE is present!

    Quote from Fm1

    POTUS Playing a Dangerous Game

    Biden, Fauci, and others have been doubling down on the vaccine-centric strategy in the hope of eradicating COVID-19, perhaps thinking that is not only the best way to transcend the pandemic but also to ensure an at-risk U.S. economy moves out of ever more dangerous waters.

    Just a minor TSNFact here.


    I very much doubt anyone has any hope of eradicating COVID - certainly there is no evidence that motivated politicians wanting boosters.


    Politicians want boosters because it will (short-term) reduce stress on hospitals, slightly reduce R. Over time no-one really knows what will happen: how enduring will natural immunity be? What new vaccines/treatments will we have? What new variants will exist. I have some sympathy with a short-term approach given that current vaccines will not last forever against new variants we might as well get some use from them.


    Doctors, rightly, think this is immoral because globally those booster shots would do more good in the arms of older people in Africa etc. Both in UK and US politicians want boosters for own population, doctors see benefits as small except for those at high risk and want boosters for other countries.


    But politicians are not in the business of being fair to Africa, nor do most of their voters want that.


    Just saying...

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.