Covid-19 News

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Not controlled quite the same way as when used for humans, though I'm not sure it is very dangerous.

    Oh yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! Ivermectin for horses is outrageous dangerous!!! In a German pharmacy I got the horse version (on prescript) with the comment:: It is 100% human compatible.


    The only real danger for humanity are people like you THHuxleynew that enjoy watching people dying. Spreading lies non stop, with the intention to help buddies making huge profits. You are even worse than any fascist I know.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Actually W, I was waiting for the Wyttenfactual population subgroup data.

    You are an outrageous silly person. I linked the report twice..

    COVID-19 vaccine surveillance reports (weeks 19 to 38)
    Data on the real-world effectiveness and impact of the COVID-19 vaccines.
    www.gov.uk

    Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: technical briefings
    Technical briefing documents on novel SARS-CoV-2 variants.
    www.gov.uk


    Strange that I have to feed a troll with data he already knows....


    Quote from Fm1

    Dr. Fauci at it again as He Calls Merck’s COVID-19 Pill “Impressive:”

    Today Big pharma (Merck) launched advertising for Merck-Vectin. You have to come early to the hospital latest day 5 of symptoms. Sounds familiar?? Making $$$$ with a drug that just cuts the odds rate by 50% at best. Where as it is 99.5% for Ivermectin.


    So I expect more hunters for black market "Ivermectin resellers" = the true hero's of today!

    So - I found the molnupiravir data interesting. It is true that the trial data is very preliminary. IF you believe it then reducing hospitalisation by 50% is a big deal. But I'm not convinced, because I would need it to be a double-blind randomised trial for its results on hospitalisation (a judgement call) to be that believable.


    On the other hand they had also very impressive vital load reduction results. And the people doing it were not (whatever you think about big pharma) likely fraudulent - unlike many of those extremely positive ivermectin studies in places where medical ethics etc are not quite the same and the people doing this stuff are often convinced before they do it of what the result should be.


    What swings it for me as this is probably great is the lab evidence. It shows excellent anti-COVID action at the concentrations actually used. Which, you will remember, ivermectin does not.


    So there is a decent chance we will have at least one good anti-viral.


    I'm still not sure about it. For it to be most useful, it must be given to everyone who starts to get symptoms as soon as. But then we don't have adequate safety data. I'm not sure what they will do about that - maybe initially give it only in hospital or something?


    Anyway, I'm negative about that trial but with it (it was not obviously killing people, though not obviously not doing that) and the really excellent data on anti-viral action on mice with LoH (lung of human - yuk) tissues, and other lab evidence I am overall positive.


    Ivermectin has the advantage of course - it is known safe and already in large trials. But alas it is less likely to work.

    Quote from Fm1

    Moderna COVID-19 shot linked to higher rates of heart inflammation - Canada

    Here the original Moderna Phase III report: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl…ejmoa2035389_appendix.pdf


    Also Moderna did cheat away about 80 people from the vaccine group. This is about 4x less than Pfizer.


    So we now can say. That both vaccines failed in the phases III study Pfizer > 100%!! (3x more CoV-19 in vaccine group than placebo) , Moderna about 60% and only with some paint on the face it could be sold as positive outcome.


    The positive thing to note is: Moderna did a true phase III study with full adverse event reporting. Pfizer just did a fake study with more or less no reporting. The goal of Pfizer was, from day one, to get first place with a 100% untested fake solution, that was at least 2 years behind Moderna.

    I guess this did need more than 100mio. $$$ in bribes for all the involved.


    Pfizer is tightly related to the ZZZ-mafia (Goldman & friends) that sponsored the Israel vaccines to make billions from stock market gains. So on all levels the Pfizer story is glued to crime & fraud.

    Ivermectin Opposition Depraved – Big Pharma Ready to Market Expensive Copies of It


    Ivermectin Opposition Depraved – Big Pharma Ready to Market Expensive Copies of It
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Joel S. Hirschhorn The
    trialsitenews.com



    JoelSHirschhorn

    October 2, 2021

    9 Comments

    Ivermectin Opposition Depraved – Big Pharma Ready to Market Expensive Copies of It



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


    Joel S. Hirschhorn


    The unrelenting opposition to using ivermectin to treat and prevent COVID-19 is stronger than ever. This has resulted from a gigantic increase in demand for IVM by much of the public. Despite big media tirades against IVM, the truth about its effectiveness has reached the public through many articles on alternative news websites and truth-tellers on countless podcasts. Its success has forced Big Pharma to create expensive copies of it.


    And in my book Pandemic Blunder I made the case with data that using cheap, safe, and effective generics like IVM and hydroxychloroquine would save 80% or more of COVID deaths. Esteemed physician Peter McCollough later said 85%. For the US, that means over 500,000 lives could have been saved, and globally over 4 million lives. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have died from COVID vaccines, the failed solution to the pandemic.


    Merck, a maker of IVM, is getting much positive press coverage for its forthcoming prescription oral antiviral (molnupiravir). It is designed to replace IVM that they cannot make big money from. FDA will soon give it emergency use authorization because of the emerging clarity that COVID vaccines do NOT work effectively or safely.


    That the Washington Post says that what Merck has created is the “first covid-fighting pill” illustrates how awful big media has been in ignoring the proven benefits of the IVM and HCQ generics. And ignoring the many failures of COVID vaccines. In its October 2 front-page story on the new Merck pill, it did not even mention IVM or present any data showing IVM as proven even more effective than the new expensive drug tested on only hundreds of people. In contrast, IVM has been used successfully on hundreds of thousands of people to treat and prevent COVID.


    Speaking as someone who is using IVM, here is what I have seen in recent times. Though getting a prescription for it is very difficult and stressful it can be done through a number of websites. But then the battle just begins. Many pharmacies, especially big chain ones, will not fill IVM prescriptions if there is any evidence that it is being used to fight COVID. And then you will likely discover, as I did, that virtually no pharmacy (typically small community ones) that will fill such prescriptions has any IVM. That’s right. There is a national shortage of IVM because of huge demand in recent months and because US makers have not escalated production.


    Probably, millions of vaccine resisters are using IVM, especially those resisting booster shots.


    Can you still get it? Yes, and even without a prescription. It will have to come from India, with many makers of IVM. It can take many weeks to get it. But the cost is a tiny fraction of what US pharmacies have been charging when they did have it in stock. Rather than $4 or $5 for a 3 mg pill, you can buy 12 mg pills for way under $1 a pill.


    But there is more to the IVM story.


    There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is massive medical science data showing absolute reliable data that IVM is safe and effective for both treating and preventing COVID. This is what should be a bold large headline in newspapers if we had honest big media: IVM SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO COVID VACCINES.


    But instead, there is a constant barrage of articles and statements from government agencies asserting IVM should not be used to fight COVID. They argue it is unsafe and ineffective. Both are lies aimed solely at protecting the mass vaccination effort and the profits of big drug companies. And now protecting the new Big Pharma market for antiviral pills.


    FDA has issued very strong warnings against using IVM for COVID. Nothing it has said follows the true science and mountains of data supporting safe and effective IVM use. Like other IVM opponents, it has conflated personal IVM use with the use of IVM products designed for animals.


    This is even more infuriating. Merck, despite being a maker of IVM discredited its use for COVID by irresponsibly stating, “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”


    Clearly, Merck, Pfizer and other vaccine makers are developing their own oral antivirals to directly compete with the cheap and effective IVM. These antivirals, unlike cheap generic IVM, would be patented so expensive pills could be sold worldwide. They will find some ingenious ways to copy IVM but make enough changes to get patents.


    Already, Merck has begun production of its new pill to be taken twice daily for five days. Even more significant: the US government has made an advance purchase of 1.7 million treatment courses for $1.2 billion! That is over $700 per treatment. So much more profitable than making IVM. Forget the billions of dollars spent on vaccines that are injuring and killing many people.


    I am confident in predicting that as more and more bad news about the ineffectiveness and dangerous side effects of COVID vaccines become increasingly known to more of the public, the big drug companies will increasingly switch from vaccines to prescription antiviral medicines. This is what smart corporate business strategic planning is all about. With Merck, it has already started. And FDA, CDC, and NIH will go along with this strategic switch.


    This will preserve a trillion-dollar market for pharmaceutical companies. How the government and public health establishment weasel word their switch from COVID vaccines to antiviral pills will be a marvelous magical trick to watch. Do you think that they will admit that millions of people worldwide have lost their health and lives from vaccine use? Of course not. Expensive antiviral pills will simply be sold as a better solution.


    Be clear about the science explaining why IVM and HCQ have worked. They both (along with zinc) interfere at the earliest stage of COVID infection with viral replication. Stops infection in its tracks. They work as prophylactics for the same reason. If you keep a modest amount of IVM and HCQ in your body (and take zinc, vitamins C and D, and quercetin) any virus that enters your body can be stopped before major viral replication. The new prescription medicines coming from Merck and other Big Pharma are designed to serve the same function as the cheap generics.


    This is the big truth coming to fruition: All the emerging information on COVID vaccine ineffectiveness and dangerous and often lethal side effects is forcing a major strategic shift to antivirals.


    Congressman Louie Gohmert has recently made a number of solid observations about IVM:


    “Almost 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been prescribed for humans, not horses, over the past 40 years. In fact, the CDC recommends all refugees coming to the U.S. from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean receive this so-called dangerous horse medicine as a preemptive therapy. Ivermectin is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be an ‘essential medicine.’ The Department of Homeland Security’s ‘quick reference’ tool on COVID-19 mentioned how this life-saving drug reduced viral shedding duration in a clinical trial.”


    “To date, there are at least 63 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials showing benefits to the use of ivermectin to fight COVID-19 prophylactically as well as for early and late-stage treatment. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. It has strong anti-inflammatory properties and prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either before or after exposure to the virus.”


    “Ivermectin also speeds up recovery and decreases hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 patients. It has been FDA approved for decades and has very few and mild side effects. It has an average of 160 adverse events reported every year, which indicates ivermectin has a better safety record than several vitamins. In short, there is no humane, logical reason why it should not be widely used to fight against the China Virus should a patient and doctor decide it is appropriate to try in that patient’s case.” And that small number of adverse events pales in comparison to hundreds of thousands for COVID vaccines.


    A new, comprehensive report noted that 63 studies have confirmed the effectiveness of IVM in treating COVID-19. This is a great website to see positive IVM data.


    To sum up: The IVM story is far from over. We now have a pandemic of the vaccinated. From all over the world the fractions of people said to have died from COVID who were fully vaccinated are very high, often 80%. Many people with breakthrough COVID infections die. Big media suppresses all the negative information on the vaccines and all the positive information on IVM. This double whammy is pure evil. It is designed to pave the way for the new, expensive generation of antiviral pills once the medical and public health establishments backtrack from their vaccine advocacy and coercion.


    Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, the author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

    Project Salus’ Study 5.6m Vaccinated Medicare Beneficiaries—Waning mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Raises Questions


    ‘Project Salus’ Study 5.6m Vaccinated Medicare Beneficiaries—Waning mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Raises Questions
    Recently, community members sent TrialSite a presentation sponsored by Humetrix, a real-time analytics data platform used to monitor and analyze
    trialsitenews.com


    Recently, community members sent TrialSite a presentation sponsored by Humetrix, a real-time analytics data platform used to monitor and analyze health care outcomes associated with 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries (65+). Part of a U.S. Department of Defense study called “Project Salus,” or “Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant among 5.6M Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older,” was recently presented Sept 28, 2021. Consisting of 17, the Project Salus study represented an AI-based project sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) to understand better the data associated with the vaccinations. The findings should concern everyone interested in COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccine performance and seriously raise questions about POTUS declarations that the current pandemic is one of the “unvaccinated.” If the Project Salus findings are correct—and there are some limitations the authors acknowledge—a majority of those now infected by COVID-19 are vaccinated. This means that transmission may be primarily occurring by vaccinated individuals. A disturbing trend appears starting 3 to 4 months post-vaccination with growing SARS-CoV-2 infections, which becomes quite prominent by month 5 to 6 post-vaccination with either Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech. Although Project Salus reveals Moderna to be a superior vaccine in terms of length of protection, both vaccines are associated with significant waning effectiveness. Death rates have declined thanks to the vaccine, so not all the news is negative, but this data again raises several substantial questions that must be addressed. Those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 have greater protection once vaccinated, according to the data. Does the number of infections possibly imply ADE? Moreover, the claims that the present pandemic is one of the “unvaccinated” have shown to be a falsity based on this data, mindful of the limitations listed. Kudos to the team at DoD, JAIC, and Humetrix for taking the time to run this vital study covering the Medicare population age 65 and above across America.


    The Study

    Led by JAIC, the study looked into a total Medicare cohort of 20 million beneficiaries nationwide, with 16 million of the subjects aged 65 years and up. The study data covered 5.6 million vaccinated Medicare beneficiaries (2.7 million with Pfizer and 2.9 million with Moderna) from January to Aug 21, 2021. With a total of 161,000 breakthrough infections, the investigators discovered 33,000 breakthrough hospitalizations and 10,400 breakthrough ICU admissions.


    The study team used the Humetrix cloud-based analytics platform to crunch data from HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the CDC’s “SVI” data. Other platforms will be employed for mapping and analysis purposes.


    The Findings

    The findings suggest that the bulk of COVID-19 infections occur among those fully vaccinated, and outcomes for this purportedly projected cohort worsens over time. Moreover, the study authors find the actual rise of breakthrough hospitalization (fully vaccinated people with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection) grows with time after mRNA vaccination—meaning the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine products wanes considerably by month 6. In addition, the increase for risk such as breakthrough infection rises by 2.5X, according to the study.


    The study authors point out that based on this mass analysis, those who have previous COVID-19 infection (natural immunity) fare better than those that don’t when measuring risk for COVID-19-based breakthrough hospitalization, which means that those who have been infected and then vaccinated are safer than those that have just been vaccinated. Moreover, the analysis points out that the older the Medicare beneficiary, the weaker the mRNA vaccine is in protecting the person against breakthrough hospitalization.


    Generally, the hospitalization rates and death rates associated with breakthrough infections are lower than the rates observed in COVID-19 cases in the pandemic pre-vaccination phase in 2020. The hospitalization rate previously was 32% and now, in the vaccination stage is 23% for breakthrough infections. Moreover, the death rate in the pre-vaccine stage for Medicare beneficiaries was 12%, and now has plummeted to 4% in the post-vaccine stage.


    Study Limitations

    The study authors listed several possible breakthrough limitations, including the following:


    Possible overestimation of breakthrough rates due to definitions associated with COVID19 diagnosis but not confirmed by PCR or antigen test

    Possible overestimation of breakthrough cases due to assuming identical breakthrough rates between people with claim-based vaccination data and those lacking vaccination data in their claims

    Overestimation of breakthrough rates would lead to underestimation of vaccine effectiveness breakthrough infections and breakthrough hospitalization

    Other Findings of the Study

    Additionally, in the slides depicting the study data “Total & Breakthrough Cases in the 65 Years and Older Salus Cohort,” the study depicts a graph showing the number of COVID-19 cases from Feb 6, 2021, to Aug 21, 2021, showing how, with the advent of Delta cases dramatically increased again. The data reveals that 71% of all COVID-19 cases by August were of vaccinated people, indicating that while the vaccine reduces hospitalization and death, it most certainly doesn’t stop the transmission of the disease.


    Moreover, in slide eight titled “Is mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Delta Breakthrough Infection Waning over Time in 65 Year Older Salus Cohort?,” the study team demonstrates a dramatic decline in vaccine effectiveness within just a matter of 3 to 4 months. That is, “Breakthrough infection rates 5-6 months post-vaccination are twice as high as 3-4 months post-vaccination.” This data, if accurate, suggests, at best, a suboptimal vaccine product. Any vaccine product that only provides strong protection for a few months cannot be described as compelling. Moreover, it doesn’t make sense to have boosters every three to four months.


    In Slide #10 titled “Does Age Affect Vaccine Effectiveness Against Breakthrough Infections in the 65 Years and Older Cohort,” the study authors come to a conclusion that “Age has a minor contribution to the reduced vaccine protection seen in the group vaccinated 5-6 months ago.”


    By Slide #11, the study team identifies clear waning vaccine immunity and that Moderna affords greater protection than Pfizer. For both vaccines, Slide #13 establishes that vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough hospitalization wanes considerably by months 5-6 as compared to months 3-4. Slide #16 depicts data revealing that mRNA vaccine effectiveness falls short of what was predicted in studies. And of course, they conclude on this slide with data that the vaccine does a better job of preventing hospitalization than an actual infection—hence the virus still spreads and offers, TrialSite suggests, a potential viral reservoir for variant evolution?


    The last slide, “Risk for Model Breakthrough Hospitalization,” suggests considerable more risk for vaccinated individuals as they approach age 75, 84, and then again above 85.


    Summary

    This study called Project Salus, sponsored by the DoD in conjunction with the JAIC, analyzed 5.6 million Medicare beneficiary records. Using Humetrix, they uncover disturbing data that a majority of COVID infections are now vaccinated people and that a growing number of hospitalization are also among the fully vaccinated in the 65 years and up cohort.


    The data herein suggest that President Joe Biden’s claim that this pandemic is one of the “unvaccinated” is an outright falsity.


    TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor suggested, “Assuming the identified study limitations don’t materially impact the findings, the implications of the Project Salus study results are notable, identifying significant risk in vulnerable vaccinated populations.” He continued, “A substantial proportion of infections during the Delta surge are among the vaccinated, indicating that the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ thesis may need to be revisited.” O’Connor also emphasized that “assuming vaccine effectively significantly wanes starting at the third or fourth month—markedly worsening by month five and six after the vaccination, what are the implications for ongoing protection for COVID-19? We don’t know these answers now but hopefully, a diverse panel of experts can pick apart this data for more insight.”


    The Players

    Back in January 2021, Humetrix touted the “now configured for COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy monitoring in the Medicare population targeted to be vaccinated in priority.” The group posted initial work in the preprint server medRxiv and also published in JAMA.


    Key researchers for the preprint included:


    Follow the TSN COVID-19 Channel

    Bettina Experton, Project Salus healthcare analytics group at Humetrix Inc., Del Mar, CA

    Hassan A. Tetteh, Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) Warfighter Health Mission Team, Washington, D.C

    Nicole Lurie, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), Oslo, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

    Peter Walker, Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) Warfighter Health Mission Team, Washington, D.C

    Colin J. Carroll, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Baltimore, MD

    Adrien Elena, Project Salus healthcare analytics group at Humetrix Inc., Del Mar, CA

    Christopher S. Hein, Project Salus healthcare analytics group at Humetrix Inc., Del Mar, CA

    Blake Schwendiman, Project Salus healthcare analytics group at Humetrix Inc., Del Mar, CA

    Justin L. Vincent, Amazon Web Servi


    Waning Effect of COVID Vaccine

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It shows excellent anti-COVID action at the concentrations actually used.

    Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment Jerusalem .pdf

    Thanks for confirming the action of Ivermectin.


    Quote from Fm1

    The findings suggest that the bulk of COVID-19 infections occur among those fully vaccinated, and outcomes for this purportedly projected cohort worsens over time. Moreover, the study authors find the actual rise of breakthrough hospitalization (fully vaccinated people with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection) grows with time after mRNA vaccination—meaning the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine products wanes considerably by month 6. In addition, the increase for risk such as breakthrough infection rises by 2.5X, according to the study.

    So, others see it too.

    Now experts can debate the origins of Covid but not vaccine safety. Hmmmmmm confusion rules


    Unanswered questions about COVID's origins


    The unanswered questions around COVID-19's origins
    The one thing scientists on both sides agree on: "We need more transparency."
    www.axios.com


    As the world nears two years after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, there's still a lot more we don't know about SARS-CoV-2's origins than we do know.


    Why it matters: Accurately determining the causes of COVID-19 will go a long way toward informing what can and should be done to prevent the next pandemic.


    Driving the news: Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported the WHO is reviving its stalled investigation into the origins of COVID-19, while a separate academic task force looking into the same question was disbanded over concerns about bias.


    At this point, there is no smoking gun in favor of either of the two main theories — that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in animals before spreading to people, or that it originated in lab work done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — but plenty of circumstantial evidence for both.

    What they're saying: On Thursday morning, Science magazine convened a rare roundtable featuring scientists from both sides of the debate.


    A major problem is "we can't really say how the virus got to Wuhan," said Jesse Bloom, an evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, adding there is "not a high, or any natural prevalence of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan."

    That fact — and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was working with samples taken from bats that have a high risk of harboring COVID-like coronaviruses — "is why I continue to think a lab leak is highly probable," Bloom said.

    The other side: Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona, argued there were "so many more opportunities for non-research-connected activity to bring these viruses" to Wuhan, such as via China's robust wildlife trade.


    The political disputes between the U.S. and China have also made it hard to fairly judge the origins, argued Linfa Wang, a professor at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore.

    "You're guilty because you're in Wuhan," he said. "That's it."

    The bottom line: With time running out to gather more evidence — and the Chinese government stonewalling further efforts — the chance of finding a definitive answer is dwindling.


    But one lesson for the future is clear, as Bloom put it: "We need more transparency."

    Quote from Fm1

    The other side: Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona, argued there were "so many more opportunities for non-research-connected activity to bring these viruses" to Wuhan, such as via China's robust wildlife trade.

    This guy is a joke!

    We know that SARS-COV-2 cannot infect bats and not even pangolins and that the genetic distance (>800 amino acides) is about 30 years (straight line) to the nearest natural virus. But under real conditions these 30 years are a once in a universe live-time chance as all selections (must survive and pass) among 4800 possible changes must happen the right way....

    Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is likely, study finds This is what we already know and this observation also virtualizes all vaccination programs. Viruses simply like to mutate and new strains gain resistance against vaccines easily. Progressive Big Pharma shills are indeed aware of it and this is how they figured out to handle this problem:


    For unvaccinated, reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is likely, study finds


    Note that original study never dealt with vaccination status of their subjects - they just analysed how easily they can get reinfected again. In another words, just by inserting of few words into followup article title they achieved exactly the opposite outcome than the original study. This is just one of many examples of how Big Pharma propaganda manipulates public on behalf of mandatory vaccination programs. See also:


    Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine The 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on 238 infections in the vaccinated populationof 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    For unvaccinated, reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is likely, study finds


    Townsend and his team analyzed known reinfection and immunological data from the close viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 that cause “common colds,” along with immunological data from SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.


    Yes!: This is how a fake narrative is generated!

    Quote from Fm1

    Shows how pathetic your thought process really is. Still checking who reacts to posts, pathetic and despite!

    Why? If no-one liked W's posts I would be much less likely to bother answering then because I'd reckon opinion here was not swayed by him and navid etc.


    There are things that interest me intellectually about this thread - sometimes you post stuff (preprints - not rubbish TSN editorial comment) that are interesting. I get a lot of fun out of working stuff out.


    But W's repetitions are not intellectually stimulating in that way: and I know nothing I post will influence him.


    I mean precisely what I say about anti-vax disinformation killing people. So I think, inasfar as it has any hold on this site, I should put the case for sanity.

    You mean the fake science mafia getting a payday disinformation killing people.

    New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection. The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated.


    A study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.


    It looks like if we have huge contradiction in data now - but we actually don't have. The demagogy of this study is, it pretends that inoculated immunity is being the main contributing factor under situation when natural immunity was actually the culprit. One must be careful like lawyer when interpreting interpretations of research studies these days.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Seriously? I suggest you watch this 1 minute Tiktok video. Watch it several times; it is only a minute.


    A View of an Unvaccinated Covid Patient


    TikTok

    If that had been a vaccinated patient in the hospital, rather than someone who had taken Ivermectin, Jed would have been quick to point out that despite her difficulties at least she is talking, and she might otherwise have been dead!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I mean precisely what I say about anti-vax disinformation killing people.

    I mean precisely what I say about fascists like THH that do not allow treatment of CoV-19 by cheap known working drugs.

    We still wait your correction....


    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection. The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated.

    This study is of no value at all as the infected are collected over 1 year without any mention of the CT cycle number. Everything above CT 28 is no real infection above 32 is just fake positive. Further the time of vaccination is not given. This is important as we know that the most vulnerable get CoV-19 from the first shot already and after this are missing.

    So it looks like a made up hit piece based on very sparse data. Most odd is that a single vaccination performs better than double...


    The Israel study is based on a very large data set. With no selection bias...

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.