Covid-19 News

Thomas my friend, I dare you, no, I double dog dare you. Here's your chance to challenge TSN

Challenge to the Scientific Community – It’s Time for Honest and Open Debate on Vaccine Safety

WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay

Covid-19 could become endemic like the flu and circulate in the population at low levels.

www.cnbc.com

Open Debate on Vaccine Safety

TrialSite Staff

September 28, 2021

TrialSite has published articles that counter the mainstream narrative promoted by the CDC, NIH, and the US government. While we have been criticized, we believe that transparent and open debate is the best way to uncover the risks as well as the benefits. The authors we have presented on TrialSite are experts in their fields with decades of experience and impeccable credentials. Silencing scientists and physicians with smear campaigns, bans, and threats strikes us as Un-American, and contrary to the public interest.

With disagreement on COVID vaccines reaching fever pitch, it’s time for the scientific community to embrace open and transparent debate on the issue of vaccine safety.

Our Challenge to the Scientific Community

Entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch has assembled a group of experts that are willing to debate a similarly credentialed group of pro-vaccine scientists on the issue of vaccine safety.

Two key issues will be addressed in the debate:

Kirsch and his team have asserted that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the COVID vaccines and that they can defend that number using multiple methods. They also point out that the peer-reviewed scientific literature supports their assertion. The CDC says the vaccine hasn’t killed anyone. Which is correct?

Kirsch and his team have asserted that the COVID vaccines kill more people than they are expected to save over a 6-month efficacy period and that this is true for all ages. Again, they point out that the peer-reviewed scientific literature supports their assertion. The CDC says the vaccine risk-benefit is justified for ages 12 and above. Which is correct?

If you are a pro-vaccine expert that believes the current Covid vaccines are ‘safe and effective,’ these two points should be easy to address. We invite you to apply to participate in this live debate which will be impartially hosted and moderated by TrialSiteNews as a live event.

Details of the Debate

Two-hour event hosted on Zoom

Broadcast live on social media

Impartially moderated by TrialSite staff

Up to five team members (or less) on each side

Each participant will receive a $3,000 honorarium for their participation (sponsored by Steve Kirsch).

Who Can Participate?

To participate, you must be a qualified expert on vaccine safety (as judged by TrialSite). We invite you to apply to participate.

Voldermectin

The drug that must not be named

Voldermectin | The Spectator Australia

On 10 September, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) banned GPs from prescribing ivermectin for preventing or treating Covid-19, citing ‘a number of…

spectator.com.au

On10 September, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) banned GPs from prescribing ivermectin for preventing or treating Covid-19, citing ‘a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent Covid-19 infection rather than getting vaccinated’. In other words it’s meant to promote vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns Americans against taking ivermectin, a medicine used to deworm livestock: ‘You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it’. But the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association Haruo Ozaki recommends it. In Africa, he says, countries that don’t distribute it have suffered seven times as many cases and thirteen times more deaths than those that do distribute ivermectin. The TGA’s proscription of ivermectin, says Rebecca Weisser, is ‘peak lunacy’. Overnight, ivermectin morphed into Voldermectin: the drug that must not be named.

There are three parallel tracks along which to assess ivermectin efficacy and risks: randomised control trials (RCTs), observational data and meta-analysis. Signals along all three indicate moderately positive outcomes, including about 30 RCTs and 40 peer-reviewed publications. Yet doubts persist about the quality of the trials and studies (publication bias, small, single-centre, open-label instead of double-blind, not fully randomised, fraudulent, etc.). An exceptionally useful, if slightly sceptical-of-centre review of all the data and studies was done by medical doctor Buzz Hollander for RealClear Science (8 September). He explains why ivermectin’s effectiveness is biologically plausible; points to several country-level studies (India, Peru, Slovakia, Zimbabwe) recording improvements in cases, hospitalisations and deaths after large-scale distribution and deployment of ivermectin; and ends up with a glass half-empty, half-full conclusion, leaving analysts open to accepting or rejecting the drug. His ‘cautious, but still curious’ overall conclusion – ‘the matter of ivermectin’s value as a Covid-19 therapeutic is still an open question under investigation’ – indicates the TGA decision to insert itself into the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship may be premature.

From April to November 2020, Peru’s national policy was to authorise treatment with ivermectin. Peru’s 25 autonomous states deployed ivermectin at different times and for different lengths. One study by three Canada and US-based researchers, published in March, showed a 14-fold reduction in excess deaths associated with ivermectin use and a 13-fold increase after use was restricted. On Flat White I recently provided suggestive evidence via charts of the efficacy of ivermectin to tame India’s rampaging pandemic. In May this year, the state government of Uttar Pradesh (India’s most populous state with 200 million people!), boasted it had been the first to authorise large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin against Covid-19 in May–June 2020 and studies were now confirming that ‘the drug helped the state to maintain a lower fatality and positivity rate as compared to other states’.

‘Meta-analysis’ refers to a study that collates and scrutinises the results from different studies already in existence in order to create a single large ‘meta’-study. This is a standard approach when the separate individual studies are statistically underpowered; the results of the meta-analysis in effect have a much higher level of statistical significance. A World Health Organisation-supported meta-analysis of 24 RCTs involving 3,328 patients by a British team, published in July, found a 56 per cent mortality reduction from ivermectin use. An analysis in May of seven RCTs, covering 1,327 patients, by Sebastian Rushworth, a practising physician in a Stockholm hospital who has his own informative and science-literate website, found ‘a 62 per cent reduction in the relative risk of dying among Covid patients treated with ivermectin’. Rushworth comments: ‘the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin… is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespread use of Remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important’. A major, and possibly the best, meta-analysis by a team led by biostatistician Andrew Bryant and medical doctor and researcher Tess Lawrie, published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics in June, examined 24 RCTs in 15 countries (one of which was subsequently pulled as possibly fraudulent). It concluded that ivermectin significantly helps to prevent and treat Covid-19 and, with a 62 per cent mortality reduction, can potentially save millions of lives. They published a follow-up analysis in July that removed the suspect study and the results still showed robust ivermectin efficacy.

Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies frown on cheap generic drugs like ivermectin and few regulators of rich Western countries seem able to escape industry capture. This leaves the field of research to countries in the global south and I can understand, although I don’t share, the widespread scepticism in the West towards research results coming from them. Australian research, by contrast, would come with platinum-plated global credibility. So why, in addition to putting billions into vaccines, did the government not fund studies into Covid treatment with a sense of urgency?

I do share the cynicism towards Big Pharma. The industry has long been notorious for having the biggest lobbying budget of any sector and possibly the most successful regulatory capture of any industry. On 11 September, Liam Cosgrove provided an overview of the ‘legacy of corruption in the FDA and Big Pharma’ in Mises Wire. His list includes AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Moderna, FDA officials and advisers and a director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Remember the class action case in Australia in 2009, when court documents revealed that Merck had prepared a ‘hit list’ of doctors who criticised Vioxx, introduced to the market in 1999 and withdrawn in 2004 because of deadly cardiovascular side-effects, with the labels ‘discredit’, ‘neutralise’ or ‘neutralised’ next to their names? The judgment, delivered in March 2010, held that Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and Merck had breached the Trade Practices Act by selling a drug not fit for sale. You’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to learn that in February, Merck – which makes ivermectin and has been selling it for years – released a statement questioning both its efficacy and safety. By pure coincidence, by then the drug was available off-patent for negligible commercial profit.

One of the long-standing allegations from the Left has been that Big Pharma tries to put more of normal lifestyle into the ‘sick’ category that requires treatment by drugs, the more expensive the better. The notion of asymptomatic carriers is manna to them and the copycat rush to punish entire healthy populations for being healthy – prolonged confinement indoors makes most people sicker – and inflict community-wide testing, masking and vaccination mandates must be orgiastic.

Quote from THHuxleynew

And we know that over the last 2 months, in spite of no lockdown, almost no masks, schools back, our infection rate has stayed stable., R ~ 1.

That is because, unlike last year when delta caused massive increase in infections, we have a very highly vaccinated population.

I find it odd that R is stuck at ~1. In other words, the number of cases is remarkably stable. I suppose it should be trending up or down. In most other countries it is constantly changing exponentially, in one direction or the other. See Japan, for example:

Japan: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps

Tracking the COVID-19 outbreak, updated daily

graphics.reuters.com

Stable UK:

United Kingdom: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps

Tracking the COVID-19 outbreak, updated daily

graphics.reuters.com

Quote from Fm1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7275155/

Evaluating the massive underreporting and undertesting of COVID-19 cases in multiple global epicenters

Yes that is fine FM1, in fact I have pointed out that case rates and even in many countries death rates are unreliable.

In the UK though we have under-reporting of infections by about 60% (asymptomatics, and people who think it is juts a cold). We have very little under-reporting of deaths because there are systems in place to check and anyway almots everyone with severe COVID ends up in hospital where they are properly tested and reported.

But you make the point that the ONS data, which I rely upon more than anything else, is specially valuable. It does random sample household testing on a large scale, with followups. They come to your house and test you and ask you questions whether you are ill or not.

the infection etc rates from this survey are very accurate - at least when as now COVID rates are quite high.

Anyway I was questioning you saying that I had talked up vaccines as important for reducing R value. In fact I've said since delta that is not the main point of vaccinating a population in delta days.

However, W here is claiming that vaccination somehow damages your immune system. He is wrong, and he is not looking at the plentiful evidence that shows this is not true. Multiple studies have shown vaccination + infection gives bettwe protection than infection on its own. My argument with him was about that - I'm not saying that vaccines reduce infections a lot - though even if they only reduce them a bit that will mean you get to herd immunity quicker, which is helpful.

It is not that a vaccine is guaranteed to work. ADE is a possible thing. But W seems to think that he, unqualified and I have to say on multiple times here shown to be innumerate, knows better than all the scientists who look at this. If they thought the vaccines were not working against delta they would immediately go for the mRNA mark 2 vaccine optimised for delta which we know Pfizer and Moderna could generate quickly.

Form my POV in the UK we are now close to herd immunity, because cases are not rising now with delta in a situation where we are unrestricted. That comes from a combo of high vaccination and some immunity from past infection.

W truly believes (he is not quite sane on this topic) that the UK has damaged its population's immune systems and increased delta infection by having so many people vaccinated. The evidence in the opposite direction is overwhelming.

I will be getting my 3rd Pfizer jab in November - and glad to have it. It will give me some pleasure also to note W's surprise when I do not keel over dead with a compromised immune system. But I'm sure he will have some excuse, and possibly say that my posts here are so irrational that the vaccine must have damaged my brain.

Quote from JedRothwell

I find it odd that R is stuck at ~1. In other words, the number of cases is remarkably stable.

In the first wave we had this, I thought it strange, and it was an artifact of poor testing.

Now we have R measured through random sample population infection testing. No artifacts possible there. The infection rate has been going up an down a bit over the summer, but the ups and downs have cancelled out.

You tend to get flatter tops when an epidemic is peaking at different times in different areas of a country, so that is probably what is happening here.

Influenza mutates much faster than COVID.

Quote from Fm1

Are you sure?

Not me. That's what many experts say.

Coronavirus seems to mutate much slower than seasonal flu

That could be good news for a vaccine.

www.livescience.com

Covid Mutates Slower Than Flu, WHO Reports

The novel coronavirus is mutating “at a much slower rate” than the seasonal influenza virus, according to the World Health Organization.

rtmagazine.com

"Compared with HIV, SARS-CoV-2 is changing much more slowly as it spreads."

The coronavirus is mutating — does it matter?

Different SARS-CoV-2 strains haven’t yet had a major impact on the course of the pandemic, but they might in future.

www.nature.com

Quote from Fm1

HEALTH AND SCIENCE

WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay

That has nothing to do with the rate of change. Viruses that hardly change can be endemic. Such as smallpox or polio. COVID will be endemic unless the wealthy nations decide to supply vaccines to the whole human race. Most experts I have read are confident that will wipe it out, because -- like smallpox -- it cannot survive outside human hosts. The CNBC experts disagree.

Quote from Fm1

Here's your chance to challenge TSN

Oh come now. Everything they publish is nonsense. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see through it. That's like "challenging" Douglas Morrison. All you have to do is quote him.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

My favorite put-down in this paper:

Douglas Morrison starts by asserting: "Firstly, a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made". He has failed to observe that we manifestly have not used this technique in this paper . . .

Quote from Fm1

Challenge to the Scientific Community – It’s Time for Honest and Open Debate on Vaccine Safety

Okay! Here is all the debate you need:

Q: What do the statistics for every vaccine for the last 200 years show?

A: That vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than the diseases they prevent. Even crude smallpox vaccines in the 18th century, such as the ones Gen. Washington ordered the army to take in 1777, were safer than smallpox.

Q: What about the COVID mRNA vaccines?

A: They are by far the safest in history, with fewer than 1 fatality per billion.

Q: What about all these claims that they have caused harm, or they will cause harm?

A: Those are all confusion or lies. If you don't understand why, learn some high school level biology and read the literature. Many of the lies are despicable, such as the one in this graph of "Organ bio-distribution":

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

Look at the correct version below it. This resembles the deliberate misrepresentation of the Fleischmann and Pons graph by the New Scientist, where they showed the startup of the experiment with no heat and claimed it was the maximum heat production at the end of the experiment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Those detailed and accurate ONS figures: real-world data,

Real world data from Israel hospital , a dozen super spreader events like in MA,Münster. Infection protects at least 27x better from a hospital visit than Pfizer vaccine. Seems one time you like ONS data the next time not...

Quote from Shane D.

Seriously; the protocol has been established now for quite some time, and the real world feedback is that almost everyone using it seems to think it works.

Us people told me that a hospital he knows that uses the math+ IVR protocol has the highest CoV-19 cure rate in the US. Of course he did smile when telling this an added - even smiling more horse dewormer!!

Quote from THHuxleynew

I will be getting my 3rd Pfizer jab in November - and glad to have it.

Welcome to the Dr. Mengele memorial immune suppressive trial stage 3. ACE-2 key (the famous spike) antibodies almost stop the signaling of the interferon pathway of the immune system. You can select a virus for the first test you will like to have....

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is not that a vaccine is guaranteed to work. ADE is a possible thing. But W seems to think that he, unqualified and I have to say on multiple times here shown to be innumerate, knows better than all the scientists who look at this.

You mix up Pfizer marketing paid junior doctors with scientists... These guys to everything for money or a place in a lodge.

Quote from JedRothwell

Look at the correct version below it.

Nobody with one left over independently working brain cell will ever lookup a mafia sponsored hit page...Nice for you to calm down your fears...

Quote from JedRothwell

"Compared with HIV, SARS-CoV-2 is changing much more slowly as it spreads."

You should not reference outdated papers from the beginning of the pandemic. Vaccines did speed up CoV-19 mutation by factors!

Regarding the VAERS database, as I said, doctors have a legal obligation to report many events to it. There is no chance they are unaware of this obligation. That is as unlikely as a driver who does not know you are supposed to stop at a red light. See:

What to Report After Any Vaccination

Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:

• Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination  pdf icon[PDF – 5 pages]external icon that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination
• Any adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

Healthcare providers are encouraged to report:

• Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether or not it is clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
• Vaccine administration errors

Reporting Adverse Events Following Vaccination | Vaccine Safety | CDC

The number of antibodies from vaccines seam to be reduced quickly after the jab, faster then experts here assumed. But for those that had a real infection and a jab the reduction

is much less. People here are worried and most likely we will start to deliver a third jab for at least elderly people and those working with them quit soon.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Real world data from Israel hospital , a dozen super spreader events like in MA,Münster. Infection protects at least 27x better from a hospital visit than Pfizer vaccine. Seems one time you like ONS data the next time not...

I'm sticking with this though God knows why.

The ONS data is special because it is very controlled - random households samples and tracked through time. You get from this statistics less contaminated by the things that you (W) have in the past on this thread not understood and ignored - like base rate fallacy, reporting rates, confounders, etc.

Your Israeli data https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 is a retrospective survey using multivariate logistic regression to control for confounders. I don't dismiss this information - but it is less reliable than the ONS data because it makes more assumptions, as for example here (from the copious preprint comments)

I think you misunderstand. I’m focusing on this study and its methodology. This study relies on RT-PCR testing for all outcomes – so no RT-PCR test – no outcome. There are no infection outcomes, symptomatic COVID-19 outcomes or COVID-19 related hospitalization outcomes in this study if a person never got a chance to take a RT-PCR test during study observation period. Any bias significantly reducing or increasing the probability that a recovered or vaccinated person actually takes a RT-PCR test during study observation period undermines the validity of results in this study if it isn’t accounted for. That is true regardless of any other studies that might be looking into the same or similar issue and regardless of the validity of positive RT-PCR test being used as proxy for infection. The use of positive RT-PCR test as a proxy for infection is common across the board - to quote the Qatar study that you have linked: “Reinfection was defined as a PCR positive result in an individual who had a prior infection that had cleared.” And regarding the presentation of Israel Corona Committee, I’m unfamiliar with Hebrew so I’m not able to analyze the research, however – validity of that research doesn’t confirm the validity of methods in the study we are all commenting on.

A hospital in North Carolina has fired about 175 people for not getting vaccinated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/28/nc-hospital-175-unvaccinated-fired/

Florida’s Democratization of mAb Access for COVID-19 Working—So Biden Cuts Supply by Over 50%

Florida’s Democratization of mAb Access for COVID-19 Working—So Biden Cuts Supply by Over 50%

Although Florida represents among the worst, if not the most severely hit of states in this most recent Delta variant-driven surge, the Biden

trialsitenews.com

Although Florida represents among the worst, if not the most severely hit of states in this most recent Delta variant-driven surge, the Biden administration recently cut back the state’s supply of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as part of a rationing program. Florida’s Governor Rick DeSantis and POTUS have been at odds over approach to the pandemic, perhaps driven by deeper underlying life philosophies and associated convictions. With a less vaccinated population, DeSantis aggressively rolled out monoclonal antibody infusion centers to care for people around the state. This approach appears to be working with a marked reduction in new COVID-19 infections recorded. However, deaths are still high, indicating the importance of monoclonal antibody access. But what a difference a few weeks make. Just a few weeks ago, Florida was receiving 40,000 treatments per week, but that supply was cut to under 18,000 doses of the Regeneron monoclonal antibody. DeSantis, in an urgent move to help the people of the state, ordered 3,000 doses of the new monoclonal antibody treatment from GlaxoSmithKline. This by no means makes up for the over 55% cut in doses. Why would POTUS cut the supply of life-saving therapies under emergency use authorization (EUA) to arguably the present-day worst-hit state during this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic?

DeSantis Democratization of mAbs Working

With more than 25 monoclonal antibody infusion sites around the state, the work by DeSantis appears to be paying off big time. For example, on August 16—the apex of the Delta surge in Florida—the state reported 56,036 cases in one day, shattering old records there. Just a month-and-a-half later and the daily case count stands at 8,804 and a 7-day average totaling 7,303.

According to local news NBC Miami, the democratization of the mAbs is, in fact, working, but now Governor DeSantis warns the drastic cut may force closures. Meaning the entire premise for the DeSantis democratization of COVID-19 is at stake. Did these cuts have any political underpinnings? TrialSite’s “Drugs, Power & Politics” point of view suggests that politics, unfortunately, could be a distinct possibility.

Horrible Consequences

In badly hit parts of the state, such as Tampa Bay, local hospitals are hurting from the loss of mAb supply. John Couris, CEO of Tampa General Hospital, reports the Biden decision to cut the state’s supply of mAbs, calling it in a recent meeting “plain wrong.”

As reported in NBC, Miami Couris declared, “I don’t know why they did it, because the supply chain was working perfectly the way it was,” Couris said before the Florida House Pandemics and Public Emergencies Committee. “This change is going to hurt people in Florida. It’s already starting to make us, for example, think about how we are going to have to limit the hours of operations associated with our ability to provide this life-saving therapy.”

Part of A Bigger Agenda?

POTUS issued an unprecedented federal mandate to use executive branch power to compel nearly 100 million people to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. While making that announcement, Biden expressed his frustration with those unvaccinated people, indicating the wrath now felt in Florida—that Biden moved to punish the residents of Florida. Perhaps not intended in this way, health authorities are essentially corralling the population to get vaccinated or pay the consequences.

The off-label use of ivermectin, for example, was targeted starting about six months ago in what appears to be a highly orchestrated campaign, involving the fabrication of misinformation and, in some cases, outright lies in what appears to be an attempt to identify all ivermectin (even the drug meant for humans, as merely a horse deworm pill) while attempt to secure care now are disrupted by POTUS.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254397879.html

Quote from Fm1

Why would POTUS cut the supply of life-saving therapies under emergency use authorization (EUA) to arguably the present-day worst-hit state during this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic?

It says right there! Because they are rationing. I assume they are handing out doses in proportion to the number of patients in each state. How else would they do it? For DeSantis to complain about this is tantamount to saying that people in Florida have more right to live than people in other states.

The people at TrialSiteNews are dumbasses. Really stupid. Their arguments are so ridiculous they are self defeating.

Monoclonal antibodies - despite of their much higher price - are getting into similar position, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine: everything what competes the vaccines and threats justification of mandatory vaccination must be removed from public sight.

TrialSite has nothing to do with it - this information was published at Miami Herald.

LRRC15 mediates an accessory interaction with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

LRRC15 mediates an accessory interaction with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

The interactions between severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and human host factors enable the virus to propagate infections…

www.biorxiv.org

Summary

The interactions between severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and human host factors enable the virus to propagate infections that lead to COVID-19. The spike protein is the largest structural component of the virus and mediates interactions essential for infection, including with the primary ACE2 receptor. We performed two independent cell-based systematic screens to determine whether there are additional proteins by which the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 can interact with human cells. We discovered that in addition to ACE2, expression of LRRC15 also causes spike protein binding. This interaction is distinct from other known spike attachment mechanisms such as heparan sulfates or lectin receptors. Measurements of orthologous coronavirus spike proteins implied the interaction was restricted to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting LRRC15 represents a novel class of spike binding interaction. We localized the interaction to the C-terminus of the S1 domain, and showed that LRRC15 shares recognition of the ACE2 receptor binding domain. From analyzing proteomics and single-cell transcriptomics, we identify LRRC15 expression as being common in human lung vasculature cells and fibroblasts. Although infection assays demonstrated that LRRC15 alone is not sufficient to permit viral entry, we present evidence it can modulate infection of human cells. This unexpected interaction merits further investigation to determine how SARS-CoV-2 exploits host LRRC15 and whether it could account for any of the distinctive features of COVID-19.

In brief We present evidence from genome-wide screening that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cells expressing LRRC15. The interaction is distinct from previously known classes of spike attachment factors, and appears to have emerged recently within the coronavirus family. Although not sufficient for cell invasion, this interaction can modulate viral infection. Our data point to an unappreciated host factor for SARS-CoV-2, with potential relevance to COVID-19.

Highlights

- Two systematic cell-based screens for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding identify LRRC15 as a human host factor

- Interaction with LRRC15 is reproducible in different human cell lines and independent of known glycan or ACE2 binding pathways

- The C-terminal S1 domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike binds LRRC15 with sub-micromolar affinity, while related coronavirus spikes do not

- LRRC15 is expressed in tissues with high ACE2 levels and may modulate infection

Quote from Zephir_AWT

TrialSite has nothing to do with it - this information was published at Miami Herald.

Whoever said it is a certified idiot. The governor of Florida is a certified idiot. It says right there that this is a "rationing program." That means sending doses to all states based on need. The Biden administration is not cutting doses to Florida out of spite. Trump did that, but that is an insane thing for any politician to do.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Monoclonal antibodies - despite of their much higher price - are getting into similar position, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine: everything what competes the vaccines and threats justification of mandatory vaccination must be removed from public sight.

Oh, they are doing great, aren't they? 2,000 people dying every day, 99% of them unvaccinated. Because ivermectin does such a great job. Sure. 2,000 people a day is the casualty level of WWII for the U.S. If that is a success, what would you consider a disaster?

Monoclonal antibodies may actually work, unlike these quack cures you listed, but they are a last-ditch effort. Vaccines work hundreds of times better, and cost thousands of times less when you factor in the cost of the doctors, nurses, hospital facilities, the patients' lost work hours and deaths.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The use of positive RT-PCR test as a proxy for infection is common across the board - to quote the Qatar study that you have linked:

Do not mix up the tests. PCR is a method. Antibody tests e.g. Roche basically look for IG-S and IG-M.

Roche:: The Roche assay will detect IgM, IgA, or IgG antibodies if they are high affinity antibodies, which appear in the late or convalescent phase of infection. This approach offers excellent specificity, as evidenced by the 99.81% specificity across 5,272 samples, and greatly reduces the risk of false positives.

The problem with this is that people with fitting mucosal IgA will not develop enough antibodies to trigger positive as teh virus will be killed before entering the body. 10..20% of PCR positive people develop no measurable antibodies!! This is good news!!

But there are much cheaper tests on the market, that just look for IG-S what is good to see whether the vaccination did work but delivers no answer for an infection if IG-S is already low. Only IG-M that show up late >= 4 weeks tell the story!

So how good the ONS data is depends on the money they invested. I guess they use the 40% selective test only.