Covid-19 News

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not sure whether this is a Wyttenfact (because its false) or a WyttenLie - because I recently pointed out that a TSN op-ed idiot surprised at high nasal viral loads for delta, with good protection against serious illness, just was totally out of touch.

Thanks for committing that vaccines do not prevent a CoV-19 infection or the spreading of CoV-19 virus. As a large number of studies proves that vaccinated have at least the same high viral load as unvaccinated you must commit that you did spread pro-vaxx FUD.

Quote from Fm1

“Recently, the team had to choose which of two patients critically ill with Covid-19 should use a single specialized dialysis machine. The team saw little hope for one patient and selected the other to start dialysis. The patient who had to wait died,” the newspaper wrote.

Obviously NyTimes did hire some brain dead journalists . If there is one machine for dialysis and two patients then indeed one can die. But this happens always with or without CoV-19....

Quote from Zeus46

Works fine for me. But try this one.

I own the paper since 1.5 years. The original data has been reviewed by the BIRD group and found to be save. This happened a long time before an agent claimed to have downloaded the data without having granted access.

Why should anybody trust people that commit hat they did illegally access data (what data? version ?..) that long time before has been verified by several groups?

Usually you keep many versions on a server. So for me the fake news factor is far to high to even spend a minute on this issue.

If you like to have the real data ask the BIRD group!

And your point is…?

That preprints don’t contain links to data?

That when preprints that do contain links to their data, this data is “an uncertified source”

Or the zero-calorie word salad above… What point are you trying to make here? Different versions of the data? Really?! What, pre & post manipulation?

Moving on.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Perhaps W has been playing too much Myst. (OK, some of you too young to get the reference!).

Too young? My son plays Myst on ‘his’ VR headset!

It’s OK… it’s no ‘Walking Dead - Saints and Sinners’, which last week had me running into a wall in pure panic, trying to get away from a zombie sneaked up behind me…

Myst seems fairly true to the original though:

Quote from Zeus46

And your point is…?

I have no point. All people in the field that have seen the original data know that the mafia constructed fake data...

The Miracle drug Ivermectin still works for India!

#IndiaFightsCorona COVID-19

www.mygov.in

Since > 4 months 3/4 of India is free of CoV-19. And the vaccine terror control group states (Kerala,Mizoram) still struggle with the pandemic and deliver > 50% of all the India CoV-19 cases from < 1/40 of the population....

So a claimed very successful vaccine shows that it totally fails to influence the pandemic, while a failing drug (THH) shows that it can end the pandemic within 4 weeks.

Strange world. Who, in this history, takes the wrong drugs??

Swiss data shows that the Pfizer crap "vaccine" protection from death is 6x less than from Moderna. So far no echo in international press, what proves heavy spending/lobbying from Pfizer, that wants to sell more of it's dangerous crap (boosters for fools).

Quote from Fm1

Reuters Fact Checkers Perpetuate Misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

https://trialsitenews.com/reut…n-covid-19-mrna-vaccines/

Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial

October 8, 2021

Reuters published a “fact check” article several months ago: Why Relative Risk Reduction, not Absolute Risk Reduction, is most often used in calculating vaccine efficacy. In presenting their arguments, the authors of this article minimized the importance of reporting the absolute risk reduction (ARR) and defended the use of the relative risk reduction (RRR) to represent vaccine efficacy. Yet, the article also mentioned that the ARR is more dependent on group infection rates in a clinical trial, implying that the ARR is a more sensitive and relevant measure for vaccine efficacy than the RRR. For example, the larger the groups in a clinical trial, and the smaller the rate of infected people in the groups, the smaller the absolute risk reduction (ARR), even if the relative risk reduction (RRR) remains the same. This is why both the ARR and RRR of a clinical trial must be reported. The following examples illustrate this effect based on formulas for calculating the ARR, RRR, and the relative risk (RR)—a method that an epidemiologist might use to calculate these measures.

First, we have to define three terms.

ARR = Placebo infection rate – (minus) Vaccine infection rate.

This is the absolute risk reduction, or the simple mathematical difference in the infection rates between the Placebo and Vaccine groups, assuming a higher rate in the Placebo group.

RR = Vaccine infection rate / (divided by) Placebo infection rate.

This is the relative risk, or the proportion of the Vaccine infection rate (the numerator) relative to the Placebo group (the denominator).

RRR = 1 – RR.

This measures the relative risk reduction assuming that the relative risk is less than 1. In other words, the RRR assumes that the Vaccine infection rate (the RR numerator) is lower than the Placebo infection rate (the RR denominator).

Let’s say we have three infected people out of four people in our mini trial. That is, we have one infected person out of two people in the Vaccine group, and two infected people in the Placebo group.

Vaccine infection rate = 1 infected person out of 2 people = 50%

Placebo infection rate = 2 infected people out of 2 people = 100%

ARR = 100% – 50% = 50%

RR = 50% / 100% (same as .5 / 1) = 50%

RRR = 1 – 50% = 50%

The ARR and RRR both start off evenly with each other at 50%. But our sample is too small to give us accurate estimates, so, let’s see what happens if we place the three infected people in larger groups of 100 people. Notice that the RRR stays the same, but the absolute risk reduction drops by 49 percentage points to 1%.

Vaccine infection rate = 1 infected person out of 100 people = 1%

Placebo infection rate = 2 infected people out of 100 people = 2%

ARR = 2% – 1%= 1%

RR = 1% / 2% = 50%

RRR = 1 – 50% = 50%

The examples show that the absolute risk reduction is dependent on the increasing number of people in the groups and the dropping group infection rate, while the relative risk reduction is not. In the RRR, as long as the proportion of the group rates don’t change, the RRR doesn’t change regardless how many people are in the groups.

This explains why the ARR can be used to determine the number of people needed to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is the reciprocal of the ARR (1/ARR). In other words, one reduced infection (the numerator) relative to the difference in the group infection rates (the ARR in the denominator).

Let’s put our three infected people into even larger groups of 1000 people.

Vaccine infection rate = 1 infected person out of 1000 people = 0.1%

Placebo infection rate = 2 infected people out of 1000 people = 0.2%

ARR = 0.2% – 0.1%= 0.1%

RR = 0.1% / 0.2% = 50%

RRR = 1 – 50% = 50%

The absolute risk reduction further drops by 10-fold to one tenth of one percent, while the RRR continues to remain the same. This proves that the absolute risk reduction is the more sensitive and relevant measure for vaccine efficacy depending on the group size and infection rate.

Population studies versus clinical studies

Still, noting that the RRR remains consistent regardless of the setting, the Reuters article quoted an assistant professor of biostatistics from the University of Florida, who said of the RRR, “It is more meaningful.”

Meaningful, perhaps, for epidemiological analysis of various sized populations, based on the RR or risk ratio used by epidemiologists. As long as the proportion of the populations exposed and unexposed to the risk remains the same, larger population sizes in different settings do not matter. But, as demonstrated in the examples above, the RRR is less meaningful for clinical research involving smaller groups of individuals where the size and infection rate of the group matters, even if the proportion of the group infections (the RRR) remain the same.

A similar distinction between population and clinical studies occurs in the Body Mass Index (BMI), used to categorize weight and height. Originally intended to measure entire populations, BMI is not sensitive to an individual’s body composition such as body fat and lean body mass levels, and BMI often miscategorises people by weight class.

Summing up, vaccine efficacy in clinical trials, based solely on RRR normally used by epidemiologists for larger population studies, ignores absolute risk differences in smaller group sizes and misrepresents vaccine efficacy in clinical trials. At the least, both ARR and RRR should be reported in clinical trials to prevent information bias.

Furthermore, I see no reason why clinicians shouldn’t drop the RRR altogether and leave its use exclusively for larger population studies. If clinicians want to compare treatment efficacies from different trials, the NNT or number needed to treat (or the NNV for vaccine trials) are more informative than the RRR.

Unfortunately, our current dysfunctional public health system continues to ignore this important issue, and with the assistance of media outlets like Reuters, the public remains largely unaware of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines’ true efficacy.

Display More

Yet another mind-boggling editorial from TSN.

In a vaccine trial you measure vaccine efficacy as this article states by comparing number of control (unvaccinated) and active (vaccinated) people who get infected.

Now, that ratio (RRR) is independent of the infection rate in the community over the period of the trial. What is tells you is, given the current infection rate, how much better off you will be if vaccinated.

The ARR - absolute Risk Reduction - tells you nothing about the vaccine unless you happen to know the precise infection rate during the trial. And that will vary, so you need some sort of average figure.

So using ARR to characterise how good vaccines are at preventing infection is thoroughly brain-dead.

The question for all the alert listeners here not liking my pots, and liking those from TSN, is: "Why do they do it".

It is quite simple. ARR makes vaccine benefits sound smaller. Even though it is meaningless without an extra figure (the trial infection rate).

It does make sense to think about ARR in the context of risks in a country at a specific time. Depending in COVID rate the actual risk to an individual of becoming infected will be variable, and saying you have RRR of 10X means very little additional protection if the unvaccinated risk is only 1 in 10,000. But that is a snapshot, whereas when we get vaccinated it chnages risks over a period of time (say 6 months).

That is about the COVID rate, not the vaccine. Obviously, it is not the way you want to summarise the results of a trial at some point in the past. It is also a bad way to think about risk over time because with any pandemic we know that infection rate can vary from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 50 and then back down again in just a few months.

So, one of the antivax memes is to talk (as in the TSN editorial) about RRR and ARR (or their cousins RR and AR) and say that what is most appropriate to us is the one that sounds smaller.

It disgusts me that there are apparently intelligent people who do this PR stuff, and misuse maths. In the context given here (of a vaccine efficacy trial) it is highly inappropriate to characterise the vaccine with trial ARR.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why should anybody trust people that commit hat they did illegally access data (what data? version ?..)

This is actually quite funny.

The data is exactly that published - the detectives merely managed to guess the (feeble) password. Note that the author promised to make it available on reasonable request from the link it was found on - however you have to doubt whether, given its inadequacy, he would find any request reasonable except from a person known to be friendly with his conclusions and not likely to investigate the data. In addition, weirdly, that link needs a subscription to access. So not exactly transparent publication of data.

Here is the article reference. In fact, it's not in a peer-reviewed journal. It's just a preprint—in spite of which it has already acquired 30 citations in just over six months, according to Google Scholar, and—as reported by Jack—has also become a major component of the weight of evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in several meta-analyses (see Gideon's Medium piece, linked above, for more on this).

Elgazzar, A., Eltaweel, A., Youssef, S. A., Hany, B., Hafez, M., & Moussa, H. (2020). Efficacy and safety of Ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 pandemic. Research Square, 100956. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v3

The preprint is currently in its third revision(*). You can download it, plus the two previous revisions if you want to compare those, from the preprint hosting service Research Square. (I use draftable.com to compare PDFs.)

The authors have, well, "sort of" made their data available. To quote from the preprint (p. 6): "The study data master sheet are [sic] available on reasonable request from the corresponding auther [sic] from the following link. https://filetransfer.io/data-package/qGiU0mw6#link". It is tempting to imagine that one might be able to download the data file directly from that link; however, when you attempt to do that, the site says that you have to create a premium account ($9 per month), and after you have done that and downloaded the file, it turns out to be password-protected. This suggests that the authors did not want anyone to be able to read it without their approval, which is not quite in the spirit of open science. (It is, however, not incompatible with Research Square's rather feeble data sharing policy.)

Fortunately, Jack Lawrence did a lot of work here. Not only did he pay for a premium account at filetransfer.io, but he also guessed the password of the file, which turned out to be 1234. I have never met Jack Lawrence in person, though, so as part of my due diligence for this blog post, I also paid $9 plus VAT for a one-month subscription to filetransfer.io, and downloaded the file for myself. To save you, dear reader, from having to go through that process, I have made an unlocked copy of the file available here.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Miracle drug Ivermectin still works for India!

Forgive me for not seeing India as a great example when one of our students (Anecdote alert!), age 21, no health conditions, died there of COVID. No-one was expecting it.

Whether infection rates increase or decrease in India depends on:

• levels of lockdown
• vaccination immunity
• prior infection immunity
• weather/air con

I'm not sure about weather/air con - generally the poor parts of near equator countries do better because: (1) it is always hot (2) there is lots of sun (3) people tend to be outdoor, or indoor with lots of ventilation (4) no money for air con.

Whereas Florida does badly in summer because of the indoor air con circulating COVID, and the fact that everyone would rather be indoors with air con than outdoors where it is too hot. (Conversely, the UK, with almost no air con and weather not too hot) does well in the Summer.

Anyway weather and air con status apart, the other three factors have varied enormously in India and even within different parts of India. Notable though is the prior infection immunity. India had a very large second wave that made most of the population immune (N IgG antibody tests on random samples of UK population show that 18% only have prior infection N antibodies => (est) 25% have some level of prior infection immunity. Counting cases, and multiplying by the known infection/case ratio, give sthe same figure). Through a combination of young population, official undercounting of stats, lack of health care so no-one knows, the official death rates are much much lower than developed countries. But the good thing (for India) that with a lot of prior infection immunity and naturally favourable conditions (the weather / air con issue) rates can stay low. Except, of course, in the most developed parts of India (cities) where people are predominately inside spreading COVID via air con systems. Also, ironically, those who did best at keeping the second wave down will now have less prior infection immunity and will do worse now.

It is why trying to use correlations between infection rates and ivermectin use is a antivaxxer's mug's game.

When making political points in the US about which States have high infection rates this should be remembered. This Summer the southern states have mostly been hit hard. Because of that, and because they are vulnerable to indoor air con effect - we should expect them to do better, and the northern states to do less well, this winter. Pandemics spare no-one long-term - except the vaccinated who have a high RRR from severe disease. Similarly NYC benefits to some extent from its high infection rates earlier in the pandemic. We do not have much data on specifically how good original COVID immunity is against delta.

The only 100% safe vaccine is the Pfizer/Biontec one because it only contains the mRNA. and not the virus itself. And anyway one of the first symptoms of COVID infection is psychosis, so anti-psychotic drugs like Olanzipine could be used in ANTI-Bat too.

Quote from Zeus46

Interesting if true, but is this a polite way of saying ‘a wyttenfact’?!

I read a couple of German news articles on this party, none seem to mention whether the infected were vaxxed or recovered. Do you have a link that suggests otherwise, please?

It was hard to find any serious source for this. Most media were covering the fact only that there was a party with 380 younger participants, 85 out of them were infected afterwards, probably by one (?) or more who were not aware of their infection and did not show any symptoms. So did many of the infected, that were tested afterwards. There was a careful check of the vaccination certificates by officials of all infected after the party, to exclude fake vaccination certificates to get access to the party. All 85 were correct, and all were from double vax persons! It seems there was a kind of public (?) interest to not share the fact, that none of those with natural immunity (Genesen=recovered from cov-19) did catch the virus, that was spread among the participant that night. Here in Germany there is a lot of discussions going on if and how people can get back to normal live and live with the virus. A large part of the population being double vaccinated is the goal in first place to reach this.

Here a quite hidden source (in German only)…

Münster: 86 Corona-Infizierte nach 2G-Party – Kein einziger Nicht-Geimpfter war zugegen

Von Felizitas Küble Wie bereits hier berichtet, gab es in Münster vor zwei Wochen in der Nähe des Hauptbahnhofs eine 2G-Party mit meist jüngeren Gästen und…

charismatismus.wordpress.com

COVID Symptom Study Reveals Delta Variant Not Worse for Children than Alpha in the UK

COVID Symptom Study Reveals Delta Variant Not Worse for Children than Alpha in the UK

A large group of researchers led by scientists from King’s College London designed a study to investigate the differences between the Delta variant of

trialsitenews.com

A large group of researchers led by scientists from King’s College London designed a study to investigate the differences between the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 and other novel coronavirus variants. They sought out to do this study because the differences between the two were unknown. Called the prospective COVID Symptom Study, the team evaluated the records of 109,626 school-aged children in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 28, 2020, and July 8, 2021. Children participants were symptomatic with COVID-19 and tested positive and were thereafter “proxy-reported” on at least a weekly basis for two periods, including 1) Alpha (B.1.1.7) during the period December 28, 2020, to May 6, 2021, and then 2) Delta between May 26 to July 8, 2021. Overall, the King’s College London investigators found some differences between the two variants, but, in both cases, few children became hospitalized as long-COVID symptoms were unusual. While the popular press seeks to convey the Delta variant as far worse than the previous Alpha variant in the UK, the data from this study indicate that is just not the reality. Rather, COVID-19 in UK school-aged children due to SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of strain is similar in effects with short duration and reports of similar symptoms.

Background

The COVID Symptom study represents a large COVID-19 epidemiological research mobile app developed in the UK that represents a collaboration between King’s College London, Guy’s, and St. Thomas’ Hospitals, and Zoe Global Limited with funding by the UK government.

The study was designed so that the researchers could track symptoms and other relevant data in a large population to help generate epidemiological data.

Led by corresponding author Emma L. Duncan with the Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology Department at King’s College London, the UK-based research team sought to answer a fundamental question: was there a difference in symptom or disease burden between two major COVID-19 variants. The popular press was full of stories in the summer that the Delta variant was far more dangerous for school-aged children. In fact, there are some clear trends in America that more school-age children were infected and even hospitalized. But what did the data indicate in this study?

The study team organized the study group and evaluated illness profiles (e.g., symptom prevalence, duration, and burden) and hospitalization and the presence of long covid—meaning 28 days or more symptomatic reports. The results were uploaded to the preprint server. Note that the findings haven’t been peer-reviewed yet, so the outcomes cannot be cited as medical evidence.

Findings

The Kings College of London research team found the following differences in the large pool of 109,626 school-aged children in the Alpha cohort: a total of 694 symptomatic school-aged children tested positive for COVID-19. In this cohort, 276 were associated with younger children aged 5 to 11, while 418 were associated with older school-age children aged 12 to 17.

With Delta, a total of 706 symptomatic school-age children were identified with positive COVID-19 tests. (227 younger and 479 older).

They found that the median illness duration was short with either cohort—that is, five days (IQ 2 9.75) with Alpha and five days (IQR 2 9 with Delta.

The researchers reported that this observational study led to similar reports of symptoms with both cohorts. That is, symptom burden during the first 28 days of illness was “slightly greater with Delta” than was the case with Alpha infection in younger and older children.

The study authors did conclude that based on a probability calculation, the odds of several symptoms were projected higher with Delta than Alpha, including headache and fever.

Furthermore, in both cohorts, few children required hospitalization and the authors report “long illness duration was uncommon with either variant.”

Takeaway

The authors concluded that unlike what the press has been reporting, COVID-19 cases in school-age children due to SARS-CoV-2 infection Delta strain resembled the illness characteristics associated with the Alpha variant—both most commonly exhibiting short duration and comparable symptom burden.

Collaborators

Note dozens of authors were involved with this study representing or affiliated with multiple academic medical centers and research institutions in the UK, including the following:

Kings College London

Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

University College London

Newcastle University

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Evelina London Children’s Hospital,

St. Thomas’ Hospital

King’s Health Partners

Academic Health Science Centre

Lead Research/Investigator

Emma L. Duncan, Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology Department at Kings College London

Illness characteristics of COVID-19 in children infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant

Iceland Dumps Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, While Finland & Norway Join Sweden and Denmark to Halt Use of mRNA-1273 in Young Population

Iceland Dumps Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, While Finland & Norway Join Sweden and Denmark to Halt Use of mRNA-1273 in Young Population

Recently TrialSite reported that both Denmark and Sweden declared that their health authorities will place at least a temporary pause on using

trialsitenews.com

Recently TrialSite reported that both Denmark and Sweden declared that their health authorities will place at least a temporary pause on using the Moderna mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine due to safety concerns based on reports of side effects such as myocarditis. The Swedish health agency’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, went on the record stating, “The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna’s Spikevax, especially after the second dose.” While the health authorities here acknowledge the rare incidences, there is enough concern to issue the halt, at least temporarily for young people. Now other Nordic countries are joining these two, limiting the use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273. Finland’s national health authority, THL declared that this Nordic nation would put a pause on the use of mRNA-1273 in young men. Norway also joined the pack to lose Moderna, at least temporarily. On Friday, Iceland also joined Nordic peers to suspend the Moderna vaccine, at least temporarily, again citing risks of heart inflammation. Iceland went a step further, however.

Unlike the other Scandinavian nations, which issued a pause on the use of the mRNA-based vaccine, at least in young people, now Iceland has canceled all uses of Moderna, declaring that sufficient supplies of Pfizer’s vaccine afford them the opportunity only to use that product.

TrialSite quotes the Icelandic Directorate of Health website, which declares, “As there is sufficient supply of Pfizer vaccine in Iceland for both the vaccination vaccine of defined priority groups and the basic vaccination of those who have not yet been vaccinated, the epidemiologist has decided that the Moderna vaccine will not be used in Iceland, while further information is obtained.”

Interpretation—Iceland is dropping the use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 immediately as they have sufficient supplies of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2, and the risks associated with Moderna aren’t worth the benefits at this point.

The other Nordic countries of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland thus far only have temporary pauses, but these could easily become permanent as well. TrialSite will continue to monitor.

Notkun COVID-19 bóluefnis Moderna á Íslandi

Undanfarna daga hafa komið fram gögn frá Norðurlöndum um aukna tíðni hjartabólgu og gollurshússbólgu eftir bólusetningu með Moderna bóluefni umfram…

www.landlaeknir.is

As Indonesia’s Regulatory Body Authorizes Another Chinese Vaccine, There is Dramatic Turnaround in COVID-19 Delta Variant Cases

As Indonesia’s Regulatory Body Authorizes Another Chinese Vaccine, There is Dramatic Turnaround in COVID-19 Delta Variant Cases

Indonesia’s food and drug regulatory authority (BPOM) authorized the use of a COVID-19 vaccine produced in China on Thursday. Known as “Zifivax, the

trialsitenews.com

Indonesia’s food and drug regulatory authority (BPOM) authorized the use of a COVID-19 vaccine produced in China on Thursday. Known as “Zifivax, the product is produced by a unit of China’s Chongqing Zhifei Biological Products. The vaccine is now accepted on an emergency use basis for the world’s fourth most populous nation of 275 million people. According to BPOM’s head Penny Lukito, the protein-recombinant vaccine is administered three times in three months with a reported efficacy rate of 815%—77.47% against the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. In parallel, Indonesia has experienced a dramatic turnaround—for the good—with a marked decline in COVID-19 cases. Is Indonesia overcoming the pandemic? And if so, how are they accomplishing this?

With a report recently in Reuters and in the Chinese media, TrialSite provides a brief breakdown of this most recently authorized vaccine. We also update the network that Indonesia has experienced a dramatic reduction in cases. TrialSite has reported that several treatments have been in use, at least in certain segments of society, including ivermectin. TrialSIte has a team in Indonesia investigating possible factors involved with this positive turnaround.

What Vaccines have Indonesia approved?

Presently Indonesia has approved the use of three China-based vaccines, including products produced by Sinovac, Sinopharm, and CanSino Biologics.

What is the current COVID-19 situation in Indonesia?

Indonesia had a very large Delta variant-driven surge that started in June and went through September however the nation is now in a far better place. For example, by June 19th, the 7-day new daily case average was nearly 50,000 SARS-Cov-2 cases; however, a dramatic decline started in July and continued in August and September. Now the 7-day average new case count as of October 7 is 1,340.

Does Indonesia have a high COVID-19 vaccination rate?

Not at this point. According to Our World in Data, by October 7, 20.5% of the total population is fully inoculated, while 35.3% has received one dose.

Does this mean that vaccination is not the reason for the rapid decline?

We cannot say for certain but given relatively low vaccination rates, that wouldn’t explain the rapid decline in cases.

What is Zifivax?

Also known as ZF2001, it is a protein subunit vaccine that uses a dimeric form of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) as the antigen, a harmless bit of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Where were Phase 3 clinical trials conducted?

The vaccine was tested on approximately 28,000 participants in Phase 3 clinical trials in China, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Ecuador, and Indonesia, according to multiple press outlets, including CGTN News in China.

How many Indonesia participants were in the Phase 3 trial?

4,000

What company will partner with Zhifei to produce the doses in Indonesia?

Jakarta Biopharmaceutical Industry

Who is a key contact at Jakarta Biopharmaceutical Industry?

Mahendra Suhardono

What is Zhifei Biological Products’ profile?

Chongqing Zhifei Biological Products Co., Ltd. (“Zhifei” or “the Company” for short) has its presence in biological product industry in 2002. The Company achieved an operating income of RMB 13.2 billion in the first half of 2021 with the support of its nearly 4500 employees. Zhifei was listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (stock code: 300122), becoming the first privately-run vaccine enterprise listed on ChiNext. Zhifei has five wholly-owned subsidiaries and a joint-stock subsidiary, of which Beijing Zhifei Lvzhu Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Anhui ZhifeiLongcom Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. are new high-tech enterprises.

Note the unit that produced Zifivax is Anhui Zhifei Longcom Biopharmaceutical.

Indonesia approves COVID-19 vaccine of China's Zhifei unit

Indonesia has approved a COVID-19 vaccine produced by a unit of China's Chongqing Zhifei Biological Products for emergency use, its food and drug agency (BPOM)…

www.reuters.com

Delta does not appear to make children sicker; Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot

Delta does not appear to make children sicker; Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot

The following is a summary of some recent studies on COVID-19. They include research that warrants further study to corroborate the findings and that have yet…

www.reuters.com

Oct 8 (Reuters) - The following is a summary of some recent studies on COVID-19. They include research that warrants further study to corroborate the findings and that have yet to be certified by peer review.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The ARR - absolute Risk Reduction - tells you nothing about the vaccine unless you happen to know the precise infection rate during the trial. And that will vary, so you need some sort of average figure.

It's exactly the opposite way round... The random risk reduction rate during a random trial period is never the true protection rate of a vaccine. Especially if you do it like Pfizer in a far to young test group...

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is actually quite funny.

It is easy for you to get down to the truth. Just ask the UK BIRD group... I never trust agents. In fact you trust a criminal what seems to acceptable to undermine your position.

I on my side would like to have legally acquired proper data.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Whether infection rates increase or decrease in India depends on:

levels of lockdown
vaccination immunity
prior infection immunity
weather/air con

According to our FUD'er . India had 4 months perfect anti CoV-19 weather. Had a mental lockdown. All people got immunity from a remote ghost healing doctor and the greatest miracle the flu vaccine did protect them. CoV-19 vaccination was 6% at end of pandemic....

Can you further boost this nonsense THHuxleynew ???

We would like to see more jumping jack action from you!!

Doctors Have No Say Anymore—Hospital Administration Decide What to Prescribe & Rest Assured They Align with Feds

Doctors Have No Say Anymore—Hospital Administration Decide What to Prescribe & Rest Assured They Align with Feds

Recently Dr. Pierre Kory shared on his Twitter feed that a sizeable health system with about twenty (20) hospitals issued a directive to

trialsitenews.com

Doctors Have No Say Anymore—Hospital Administrators Decide What to Prescribe & Rest Assured They Align with Feds

Recently Dr. Pierre Kory shared on his Twitter feed that a sizeable health system with about twenty (20) hospitals issued a directive to thousands of physicians instructing them how to practice medicine. Put another way, the “practice of medicine” is now prohibited for doctors working in health systems, such as the one referred to herein. The hospital administration instructs the doctors what they can and what they cannot use for COVID-19 patients.

What are Doctors Allowed to use?

Not surprisingly, the health system instructs doctors to use Remdesivir (Veklury) even though the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the drug brings no clinical value. They, of course, include some limitations with Remdesivir as they associate with Tocilizumab (Actemra), the Roche drug with real questionable benefits based on several clinical trials. They base the allowance for this drug on two studies, including RECOVERY and REMAP-CAP. Also on the list are corticosteroids such as Dexamethasone, and for non-critically ill patients, the use of therapeutic anticoagulation will be tolerated.

What is banned from doctors?

Not surprisingly, ivermectin is off the list. And so fluvoxamine even though the Together study shows some benefit. Doctors don’t think about using bicalutamide, etoposide, dutasteride, and finasteride despite the numerous studies showing large reductions in hospitalization and death when patients are treated with anti-androgen therapies” (large DB MC RCT’s show this!!) Before the federal takeover of medicine, physicians could prescribe these drugs off-label depending on the situation using their good judgment with patient consent.

Now, they are banned from using these drugs in this new world order unless they are part of a clinical trial. Welcome to the new world order, physicians. TrialSite suggests that while a small minority of doctors have spoken up against this travesty, a majority of them pick job security over freedom, comfort over patient life, and convenience over what is now a compelling need for a conviction to fight what are incredibly dark forces bellowing through medicine.

TrialSite obtained the memorandum in question, and sure enough, the doctors have absolutely no say anymore. The health system has been identified and recorded for future reference. As Kory announced in this tweet, “Hey patients: next time you get sick, stat page a hospital administrator, I’m sure it’ll be fine. WTF.”

A Senator Tries to Get Some Basic Questions Answered from FDA, Pfizer & BioNTech

A Senator Tries to Get Some Basic Questions Answered from FDA, Pfizer & BioNTech

This past week a U.S. Senator critical of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates sought further transparency into the decisions behind the U.S. Food and Drug

trialsitenews.com

This past week a U.S. Senator critical of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates sought further transparency into the decisions behind the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) unorthodox decision to both maintain the emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s BNT-162b2 while at the same time issue a formal approval for BioNTech Comirnaty. TrialSite reported on this quite unusual situation, speculating that this approach was meant to justify what many consider draconian and illegal vaccine mandates. Although no Comirnaty supply would show up in America for some time, the legal framework was in place to force vaccinations with the still emergency use authorized product—hence our title “Games Regulators & Lawyers Play as Pfizer FDA authorization Not Fully that.” We asked a few questions back on August 24, including Why are growing mandates necessary if herd immunity is impossible via vaccination? Secondly, what’s the plan for boosters after eight months? Third, what happens with the next variant? Other considerations involve liability concerns as even though the FDA “approved” Comirnaty, the PREP Act ensures no liability for any patient or consumer. Pfizer, of course, forecasts $33 billion and no risk—crony capitalism under the current POTUS has never been worse.

TrialSite isn’t a political place, and we most certainly don’t have too much overlap with Ron Johnson on many topics—but we have appreciated his commitment to transparency, liberty, and medical freedom. He has stood up when most politicians stepped aside, heads down in shame, with hands out on the backside for their payments.

So, this past Thursday, Johnson wrote a few letters to get some clarification for those purportedly in the know. They included 1) Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, 2) BioNTech CEO Dr. Uğur Sahin Gain, and 3) FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock. The Senator issued a press release reminding all that he sent Woodcock a previous letter on August 26, 2021, requesting some clarity about the strangest decision—to include both a EUA and a formal approval. Although Johnson represents the American people, Woodcock hasn’t responded yet.

The Most Recent Letters

In his letter to both Pfizer and BioNTech, Johnson wrote:

“When the FDA made its August announcement it stated ‘[a]lthough COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.’ On September 13, 2021, the National Library of Medicine within the National Institutes of Health reported, ‘[a]t present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new [Comirnaty National Drug Codes] and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.’ On September 22, 2021, the FDA reissued the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, with the same language regarding availability limitations for individuals 16 years of age and older. Based on these statements, it appears that individuals who are required to be vaccinated under President Biden’s and the Department of Defense’s vaccine mandates may not be able to receive the fully licensed and approved vaccine.”

A Request for Clarification

The senator asked the FDA to clarify the language in the FDA’s August 23 reissued EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the FDA’s announcement of the approval of the biologics license application for Comirnaty.

“As I previously noted, your answers are crucial to Americans who are being forced into making potentially life-altering decisions in response to employer, military, and school vaccine mandates,” the senator wrote to the FDA. “In the midst of these coercive mandates, your inability to answer basic questions shows a complete disregard for the many Americans who continue to seek clarity about the vaccines.”

The letters can be found here and here, and below.

Words of Advice

Words of advice to Woodcock and the two pharmaceutical executives—show some respect to the American system of democracy and respond to the Senator. We remind you that nothing in this world is static, nor fixed, and even with all the political security and tremendous cash windfall buffering one’s fear of the external angst…and anger…all that feels so solid and secure today will melt away into a dynamic, probably scary, heavily uncertain reality tomorrow. You won’t want to be caught on the wrong side of history then.

Sen. Johnson Continues to Press the FDA, Pfizer, BioNTech on Transparency and Politicization of Vaccine Approval Process

www.ronjohnson.senate.gov

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114?articleTools=true

The Quattar study::

Some more confirming input for the UK CoV-19 infection rate:

Estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against any SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible in the first 2 weeks after the first dose. It increased to 36.8% (95% confidence
interval [CI], 33.2 to 40.2) in the third week after the first dose and reached its
peak at 77.5% (95% CI, 76.4 to 78.6) in the first month after the second dose.

So this is exactly what we did know from other studies. You have to take data from 3 week + vaccination point!

The rest (serious outcome protection) of the study is of minor use as the average age was below 40 years where people in general are not at risk! (see appendix)

But may be THH can learn that with a young test group you can perfectly cheat (as Pfizer did) vaccine efficiency.

CoV-19 is nothing for simple minded people as we have 4 major factors (Age, comorbidity, initial dose, natural immunity) that influence efficiency. Here age & natural immunity lead up to a 10..100x overestimation of the vaccine protection.