Covid-19 News

    For every experienced immunologist the application of antiviral drug must be much better than application of any vaccine, the m-RNA vaccine in particular:

    1. Viral particles are localized, whereas m-RNA vaccines are diffuse source of antibodies, they even lack adjuvants. White cells are trained to chase spot-like infection, when they're surrounded with spike proteins from all sides, that don't know how/where to attack it
    2. In m-RNA vaccines normal healthy cells are source of spike-protein, when white cells will finally realize, the normal cells are source of toxin, they will learn to destroy healthy cells and their innate (interferon based) immunity, which children and young persons are utilizing against coronavirus.
    3. Spike protein from viral particles killed with Ivermectin cannot spread to organism, being bound to virions. Whereas spike-protein generated with m-RNA is toxic glue which binds coronavirus to surface of cells, m-RNA vaccines are producing it across all organism, where it can glue the blood cells to wall of arteries and clog them, leading to myocarditis and brain strokes.
    4. The immune cells trained on inactivated virus develop way more effective and targetted immunity than immune cells trained to single aspect of coronavirus, i.e. spike protein only. White cells trained on m-RNA vaccines behave like cops, who were trained in distinguishing criminals only by their skin colour from the rest of population. Such a cops will attack many innocent black people and vice-versa, they will leave many criminals of another colour without notice.
    5. The principle of proper function of immune system is based on recognizing end of infection by sudden decrease of antibody levels or it will continue in mutations of immune cells by activation of sleeping genes from "junk DNA". m-RNA vaccines don't stop production of spike protein abruptly, they behave like diffuse inflammation generating spike-protein long time after immune cells get trained for it, so that these cells mutate further which leads into development of autoimmune diseases and allergies too and it makes cytokine storm (which HIV-derived coronavirus utilized for invading the organism) worse.
    Quote from Fm1

    . The results above were obtained after a very short observation period (12 days), and there is no data yet on the long-term outcome of repeated booster immunizations.

    Such studies have zero ="0" value at all. Pfizer chemo therapy induces CoV-19 after each shot. Several 100 people are still in ICU and we can say that all the vulnerable have been sorted out by the booster.


    Lets wait 3 months at least. This is also the minimal interval after each other chemo-therapy you wait for new conclusions/ decisions.


    We know from UK that all Pfizer victims get more CoV-19 than unvaccinated latest after 6 months. This is expected as all non working chemo's show this bounce back effect.

    Pfizer is crap. Applying it is against the Nürnberg protocol and a crime against humanity.

    Quote from Fm1

    The claim that there’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated is, therefore, patently untrue. As a retired nurse from California recently asked, “Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?” If the vaccine works to prevent infection, then the vaccinated have nothing to worry about. If the vaccine does not prevent infection, then the vaccinated remain at some risk, and the unvaccinated would be less likely to choose a vaccine that does not work well.

    This is a logically fallacious argument. It relies on vaccines either working perfectly, or not working at all.


    In reality - vaccination overall prevents delta infection a bit - modulated by age of recipient, length of time from vaccine, etc. Exactly how large a bit remains unclear.


    It is fair to argue we don't know how much vaccines protect from transmission (in particular). They do not protect strongly (90%) except soon after the vaccine has been given - not the usual case unless ypu have new shots every 3 months! To be fair though, we don't yet know how immunity from boosters against covid goes.


    It is certain that the analysis above - either vaccines work or don't work against infection - is fallacious.

    Quote from Fm1

    The mRNA vaccine efficacy is very narrow and focused on the original alpha strain of COVID-19. By targeting one antigen group on the spike protein, it does help for the original alpha strain, but it is clear now it does not protect against Delta strain and is likely not protective against any future strains that might circulate.

    It protects against serious disease and death - so effect on whole population (can your hospitals survive and continue normally) is enormous. As is affect on personal safety.


    Also worth pointing out that it works a lot better than Flu vaccines do, which we take because they save lives and reduce Flu endemic circulation.



    Quote from Fm1

    VAERS, our vaccine adverse effect reporting system, showed at the beginning of this week 16,000 deaths, 23,000 disabilities, 10,000 MI/myocarditis, 87,000 urgent care visits, 75,000 hospital stays, and 775,000 total adverse events. The VAERS system is widely known to under-report events, with an estimated 90 to 99% of events going unreported there.

    This is antivax spin. Whatever the safety profile of vaccines is, you can't get it from this analysis:


    1. VAERS massively under-reports mild AEs (e.g. fever, headache, muscle pain)

    2. VAERS for known vaccines will under-report relative to experimental vaccines - where anything could be a vaccine side-effect. it will not under-report hospitalisations after vaccines (at least guaranteed not in EU and UK).

    3. VAERS for covid vaccines will therefore include many of the background events. That is (if you reckon there is a 2 week post-jab window and 200M in US have had two jabs) 200M * 2 * 1/26 years of background = 15M years. That means 150,000 deaths - just from the fact that people die. You can see it is including only 15% of the background death rate ( 1 per 100 person-years).


    These arguments are juts wrong, and do not stand up to:

    • checks against other vaccine monitoring systems
    • checks against other countries


    Why is it that antivaxxers only talk about VAERS, and do not do any analysis? Because it is the only way they can make vaccines seem unsafe. By using false statistics (ignoring background rate - making obviously wrong assumptions - assuming reporting rate for serious and mild AEs is identical - etc, etc).


    This is what I mean when I say that antivax PR posted here is not just "the otehr side" of a scientific debate. It is anti-science. And it kills people.


    There are valid science debates - exactly how much do vaccines protect against infection. How does R rate go in populations with combination of covid-infection and vaccine immunity? How does that change with time?


    That all matters - and affects how we use vaccines. It does not affect the fact that high vaccination rates save our society - at least till everyone has had COVID.


    For developed countries without vaccines - it will take a long time for everyone to gte COVID - of else there will be a health system meltdown of the sort no democratic politician can bear (Bolsano not democratic).

    For developed countries with vaccines: high infection rates are possible without craching the system and will get us to herd immunity quicker

    For undeverloped countries, or countries that resist public opinion: you can let the infection rip killing a lot of unvaccinated people and get it over quickly.


    Some here would argue that in spite of public opinion it is best for society to do that in all countries. Just let COVID happen, accept 1% of the population die. It is mostly retired people doing this.


    That is a valid though horrible argument - and I'm not sure it works well because of the chilling effect so muhc death has on peopel whether you like it or not. Arguably it could be chilling for only 6 months then we have pretty good immunity.


    Luckily we have vaccines - we can do better (kill many fewer people). As one of the people who might die (2% chance) I'm personally glad of that. We should all be glad for the death reduction that allows societies to continue through high covid infection rates.


    Quote from Fm1

    The Rome declaration has 6,700 medical signatories attesting that the handling of the pandemic amounts to crimes against humanity for denying the best medical treatment and continuing to advocate for harmful vaccines. The evidence is right in front of Americans to end the propaganda and mass mask psychosis.

    This shows that there are always small numbers of outliers, especially on political questions . Surely if we are polling medical opinion we should also note the millions of doctors who disagree with this declaration?

    Quote from Fm1

    Project Salus also follows the Medicare population and shows vaccinated Medicare recipients are having worse outcomes week by week of the type consistent with Antibody Dependent Enhancement.

    This is a fair thing to be interested in. Note the weasel words. The vaccinated worse outcomes are simply vaccinated not as good as soon after the vaccine outcomes. The data from Israel show that protection goes up 15X after being given a booster dose of the vaccine. Everyone under all conditions is protected by the vaccine (but less in some conditions).


    Even so, ADE is a possible thing, and something to watch. Just, I would not trust antivaxxers to do the watching - they have all-or-nothing jump-to-conclusions non-scientific attitudes.


    Quote from Fm1

    If the vaccine is so important why do our government leaders and illegal aliens not have to take it? Currently, 13 states that are Democratic with high vaccination rates have the highest “case” rates (using a faulty PCR test), while Republican states are all doing better. How does this happen?

    I guess it is political which jobs have to take vaccines. But mainly if you are in contact with many people who cannot avoid you (medical staff, travel, ect, etc). It is a financial decision for companies what to require of staff - an a complex one. Pros and Cons. And I have been really ashamed of some of the US politicians who parade not taking the vaccine (to be fair - very few) also of those who refuse to say if they have taken it (more). It is their responsibility to lead.


    Comparing vaccination and case rates is scientifically illiterate for the reasons explained again and again. Short reason: with multiple pandemic waves, the worse you do in one wave, the better off you are in the next one. In addition: Southern (Republican) states have a disadvantage from weather in the Summer, and advantage in Winter. Northern States exactly the opposite, from outdoor temps and air con effects. in addition cities have higher contacts and alwasy will do less well that isolated rural places (a Repuplican built-in advantage). Of course, less well now will mean better later, if you have had enough infections.


    Bioth sides are guilty of these sensless "my color state is better than your color state" comparisons. You would need to e very careful to do them well. Not something antivaxxers have any track record in.

    Quote from Fm1

    If we allow the government to decide this medical decision for us, it is a short step for the government to say it can decide other medical decisions for you, e.g., all persons over 75 never be resuscitated; people may have only three children (or two or one) with mandatory sterilization for women; or refusing the government’s demands will see you denied health care.


    Is this the totalitarian state you want to live in? If you are proudly vaccinated now and on the government side, what about the next government mandate, when you’re on the other side, coerced into a decision you don’t want, how will you feel then?


    It is obvious that the government (with the Fauci subset), the media, and big tech, are trying to divide us and take away the freedoms we have enjoyed as Americans. I am praying that all who call themselves Americans can unite to end this medical tyranny and regain a free America before it is too late. Peacefully resist and do not comply.

    There are genuine arguments about liberty - how much are States allowed to interfere, over health issues which run along left/right political lines. You can tell which side this guy is. he is not making the genuine arguments here, just waving a flag and saying - I know which side is right.


    From a European POV the US has a rubbish track record on health protection because its environmental protection has been so poor, with low income towns often blighted by nasty chemicals etc. We would see that as not enough regulatory oversight over what is the bear minimum needed for a civilised society. The COVID liberty vs safety arguments are different but here also Europe is all a lot to the left of the US.


    THH

    Why Don’t We Have Vaccines Against Everything? A few diseases, like H.I.V., so far have outwitted both the immune system and scientists.


    The vaccines are by their principle less efficient against diseases transmitted with viruses which mutate relatively faster given their smaller genome. The antibiotics work better against these bugs than against bacteria, which often gain resistance against chemotherapy instead.


    But the situation with Wuhan coronavirus is specific in the fact it contains fragments of HIV virus, which is specialized to hunting of immune cells (1, 2, 3, 4). The vaccines which would lure immune cells to such a virus could easily make situation worse at the moment, once they wouldn't recognize virus effectively enough. See also:


    Stealth mutant HIV could hold key to vaccine - the article is from 2008 and vaccines based on functionalized viruses are undoubtedly under development long time ago.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Spike protein from viral particles killed with Ivermectin cannot spread to organism, being bound to virions.

    The natures universal basic immune mechanism is called RNA inference (even plants have it!). So each cell that hosts a stranded virus will develop an epigenetic immune memory of all virus proteins that are recognized as foreign.

    RNA gene therapies ("vaccines") try to fake this mechanism but just for 1 specific RNA strand. So the induced "genetic" immune memory is as broad as the tip of a needle....

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    For every experienced immunologist the application of antiviral drug must be much better than application of any vaccine, the m-RNA vaccine in particular:

    1. Viral particles are localized, whereas m-RNA vaccines are diffuse source of antibodies, they even lack adjuvants. White cells are trained to chase spot-like infection, when they're surrounded with spike proteins from all sides, that don't know how/where to attack it

    This is an argument against so-called natural immunity as well. It does not work. mRNA vaccines do train the bodies own immune system pretty well. Maybe not perfectly. Then, neither is a mild infection perfect. And a severe infection - yoiu don't want to get it. More importantly - antivirals are known not to work well - not for anything. It is difficult to find good ones, they work only in early stage.


    i'm not saying we should not go for anti-virals - just that they are nothing we have now is anything like as effective as the covid vaccines.

    1. In m-RNA vaccines normal healthy cells are source of spike-protein, when white cells will finally realize, the normal cells are source of toxin, they will learn to destroy healthy cells and their innate (interferon based) immunity, which children and young persons are utilizing against coronavirus.

    No - that is antivaxxer FUD. it does not happen (or at least not to any significant extent and I expect not at all). Evidence?

    1. Spike protein from viral particles killed with Ivermectin cannot spread to organism, being bound to virions. Whereas spike-protein generated with m-RNA is toxic glue which binds coronavirus to surface of cells, m-RNA vaccines are producing it across all organism, where it can glue the blood cells to wall of arteries and clog them, leading to myocarditis and brain strokes.

    Myocarditis and strokes are generated much more by COVID, and generally from viral infections, than from the vaccines. I very much doubt this is the mechanism. Myocarditis is usually from an over-active immune reposnse - one of the relatively common vaccine side-effects. Looking at the safety reord the worst side effects are bblood clots from astrozeneca - clearly not thsi hypothesised mechanism. I've seen no evidence for the "sticky spike protein" meme and strongly suspect it is total antivax fabrication. whetehr that are not, it is not the point. The myocarditis/pericarditis safety profile is good (because they are very mild cases nearly always) and much much better than the same for COVID infection. Go figure.

    1. The immune cells trained on inactivated virus develop way more effective and targetted immunity than immune cells trained to single aspect of coronavirus, i.e. spike protein only. White cells trained on m-RNA vaccines behave like cops, who were trained in distinguishing criminals only by their skin colour from the rest of population. Such a cops will attack many innocent black people and vice-versa, they will leave many criminals of another colour without notice

    this is saying both that mRNA trains the immune system more specifically, and less specifically. I agree the former - it is looking out for only a few proteins. Not the latter, which is logically inconsistent.

    1. The principle of proper function of immune system is based on recognizing end of infection by sudden decrease of antibody levels or it will continue in mutations of immune cells by activation of sleeping genes from "junk DNA". m-RNA vaccines don't stop production of spike protein abruptly, they behave like diffuse inflammation generating spike-protein long time after immune cells get trained for it, so that these cells mutate further which leads into development of autoimmune diseases and allergies too and it makes cytokine storm (which HIV-derived coronavirus utilized for invading the organism) worse.

    That is another antivax no evidence scare story. Zero evidence. And known evidence that the cytokine storm does not come from this but from the way covid interferes with IL-6 (can't remember which) pathways increasing inflammation 9in aotehr pathways - sorry I'm very imprecise here).


    For the antivax scare stories - let us see high quality papers advancing these hypotheses, so we can do citation stuff and look at the alternate views. You have to be an antivaxxer to prefer some made up hypothesis here with no direct evdidence - because the immune system is complex and you can make up almost any hypothesis. Occasionally they are true. But I have no idea whether the ones here are even vaguely plausible as possibilities, since Zephir is not a trained virologist, you need a specialist in the immune system (not a virologist) to determine this, and he has given no links.


    THH

    Interesting perspective about how antivax memes get propagated and amplified.


    As a virologist I’m shocked my work has been hijacked by anti-vaxxers | David LV Bauer
    A news interview I did was re-edited and misquoted by online conspiracy theorists. My advice is: get the vaccine, says David LV Bauer of the Francis Crick…
    www.theguardian.com


    The original interview was about our research on the Pfizer vaccine, which found that the antibody levels it generates are not as good at neutralising the Delta variant than against the original Wuhan strain – a simple update on likely vaccine protection. But the widely shared versions of the video were often edited, or taken out of context, to make me out to be some sort of supervillain, or the unlikely hero of the anti-vax world.


    In some videos, I’m shown playing the part of the brave dissenter inside the establishment, blowing the whistle against some imagined harm of the vaccine. In another, I’m introduced as the head of the “UK bioweapons programme”, being caught admitting that the Covid vaccine could somehow destroy your immune system.


    Like the virus itself, the videos seemed to be mutating and spreading, with new, more virulent variants catching on online. One of the most widely viewed videos created a convoluted and conspiratorial narrative involving vaccines, alien DNA and abortion which was repeated over and over – and featured the same clip of me replayed over and over at various points.


    Judging by the messages coming into my inbox, there are a lot of people taken in by this. I get tens of notifications a week (even three months later) from people still citing these videos as proof that vaccines don’t work.

    And I still get direct inquiries from people genuinely worried about the impact of these videos. I’ve heard from a nurse for a prison in New Zealand, wanting to reassure prisoners under her care who were fearful of being vaccinated. I’ve heard from a woman in the United StatesS, fearful for her clinically vulnerable brother, who she said was taken in by online conspiracies. I’ve heard from a couple in Canada trying to decide whether to accept the vaccine, who wanted to understand exactly where these videos adhered to the truth, and where they had departed from it.


    When I’ve replied to them, the response has always been grateful. I hope I’ve been able to persuade people to get the protection vaccination offers. But the hundreds of thousands of social media accounts sharing this distortion of my words are a different matter, forcing me to reflect on what makes anti-vaxxers share their misguided views so energetically.


    A clever aspect of the videos is that they start with a trace of plausibility before veering into the implausible. In our research we did find that antibodies generated by the vaccine neutralise the Delta variant six times less well than they did the original strain in the lab.


    But it’s far better to have some antibodies than none at all – a fact borne out by the vaccine’s continued success in preventing severe disease and death worldwide. And the idea that the vaccines destroy your immune system is just plain false: antibody levels in vaccinated people are still far higher than they are in unvaccinated people. Obscuring this fact has obvious tragic consequences, as unvaccinated patients continue to fill intensive care units around the world.


    Another part of the appeal of such misinformation is that it restores a sense of agency to people who lack a sense of control over their own lives. It makes people feel part of a “tribe” of those in the know. Every time Twitter or YouTube blocked one of these videos, people commenting on it took it as proof that its misinformation was therefore true.


    And the fact that these claims are obviously ridiculous and widely condemned by doctors and scientists serves its own purpose. The people most involved in spreading misinformation can claim they and their followers are being oppressed – further isolating those who are susceptible, and creating an online echo chamber.


    It may seem contradictory for a scientist to discourage scepticism: after all, the first thing I teach my students is to be critical of data and to think of alternative interpretations. But in this case, it is scepticism built on a foundation of deep theoretical and practical knowledge and an understanding of the field in which they work – something that vaccine critics lack, no matter how knowledgable they may be in other areas.


    It would be as if I, as a scientist, refused to drive a car fitted with airbags because I heard they had explosives in them, no matter how many times qualified engineers explained to me that airbags would save my life.

    Norway did really well and is usually compared to sweden by everyone and the dog, no mask mandate there!! So masks are not the only thing on the plate.

    The Guardian is the worst example of a free masons journal as it upholds a fake reputation of being critical to allow even stronger bashing of people that disturb the free masons easy live.



    Why do the scientists not explain that Pfizer sells a cancer chemo therapy as a vaccine??

    Many deep research papers did show that the Pfizer cancer gene therapy does not produce an adequate immune memory. Even worse are Pfizer boosters, that further narrow the minimal spectrum of memory B-cells.


    Why does UK data show that vaccinated latest after 6 months get more often CoV- 19 ? Up to 4x!


    Why does the same data show that the vaccinated viral load after a CoV-19 infection is magnitudes lower after 1 jab compared with 2 jabs?


    Pfizer chemo obviously is strongly damaging your immune system!


    So the Guardian just spreads gossip of a free masons wimp that was forced to make a statement...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Why does UK data show that vaccinated latest after 6 months get more often CoV- 19 ?

    It is a good question. I'm going to stick with my original - and most likely answer. All those figures are wrong due to the number of unvaccinated denominator being incorrect. I blame Brexit (it caused atypical entry/exit patterns for people of working age). Why does my spidey sense go for that? The relative efficacy of different age groups (vaccinated at different times) makes no sense if the figures are correct. So there are big errors, and the one i suggest is the one most obvious.


    That is a boring reason - it is what the report itself says you should think in a footnote.


    Because I am a bit obsessive about details I don't view this answer as definite and will continue to revisit it. We will go on getting more precise data about vaccine performance in many different ways.


    THH

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Why does the same data show that the vaccinated viral load after a CoV-19 infection is magnitudes lower after 1 jab compared with 2 jabs?

    I do not have this data to hand - it may even be Wyttendata.


    But if true - it would be because, perhaps, the average time after 1 jab to infection is 9 weeks, after 2 jabs is longer, and we know that like Flu jabs (only not as bad, they do better than Flu jabs) the COVID vaccines all have efficacy that reduce over time. Or maybe some other reason. The only thing I've learnt looking at this stuff is that interpreting data often surprises us.


    Before anyone says it - Pfizer reduces rather more, but not Moderna (so not an mRNA thing). AFAIK the two companies took similar approaches in terms of using just selected spike proteins. We do not have enough of a timeline to know whether the reduction plateaus (as natural infection immunity maybe does) or falls off a cliff. We do know that the vaccine-induced immunity is both T-cell and B-cell, so there will be multiple components to it and therefore multiple decay rates. in short - it is still all open.


    Anyway It is encouraging that we will clearly be able to do better with gen 2 vaccines - including delta if no other difference. Annoying that no-one in control of things sees the need for them but then again I don't think I'm better able to weigh this than the people who do - it is very complex. Maybe they are all thing - wait until we know more about what the next nasty variant will be, since current vaccines are good enough...

    Quote from stefan

    Norway did really well and is usually compared to sweden by everyone and the dog, no mask mandate there!! So masks are not the only thing on the plate.

    Masks are a very bad idea as these delay soft immunization . In fact we currently see that all European Nordic (Baltic's, Poland etc.. too) countries except Norway & Sweden see a strong to very strong raise in CoV-19 cases. This is one part V-D driven and the result of a wrong fake vaccine strategy and also due to the "vaccine terror" mask regime.

    As UK shows. Failing fake vaccines will soon lead to a very strong increase in all Pfizer/Oxford (Zeneca) crap countries!


    Sample:: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/estonia/

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Before anyone says it - Pfizer reduces rather more, but not Moderna (so not an mRNA thing). AFAIK the two companies took similar approaches in terms of using just selected spike proteins.

    THH Fake news:: Moderna is totally different from Pfizer crap that uses a dangerous method to stop the "during transport" RNA decay.


    ++++ Moderna uses a combined protein (in fact 2 of them) that also presents a spike extension to TMPRSS what allows the immune system to produce a more reasonable cross matching B-cell memory.


    To repeat it once more. Biontec-Pfizer (Oxford too) crap is a typical mono vector cancer therapy approach whereas Moderna is a first step in direction of a vaccine like response. The only mistake of Moderna is to also use almost all spike RNA.

    The induced Spike proteins are highly toxic.

    Some people say that CoV-19 vaccinated persons most likely cannot be allowed as blood donors as long as they express spike proteins same for donating an organ.

    There is more to come.


    Here the CT value after 1 jab Figure 12. Difference 1 CT cycles = > 2 x

    Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_20 UK.pdf

    Merck’s Molnupiravir—An Independent Newspaper Reports on the Potential Risk for DNA Mutation & Cancer


    Merck’s Molnupiravir—An Independent Newspaper Reports on the Potential Risk for DNA Mutation & Cancer
    With heightened excitement centering on the recent announcement by Merck that its  investigational antiviral therapy molnupiravir reduces the risk of
    trialsitenews.com


    With heightened excitement centering on the recent announcement by Merck that its investigational antiviral therapy molnupiravir reduces the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19, the mainstream press has overwhelmingly served as cheerleader. Developed originally by a group within Emory University called DRIVE, the investigational product was licensed by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics. They attempted to secure taxpayer money during the start of the pandemic from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Given the government had already awarded the drug’s preliminary developers money, the acting director at the time—and soon- to-be whistleblower Rick Bright expressed concerns about funding this product reported TrialSite. As it turns out the antiviral induces mutations in SARS-CoV-2 purportedly stopping the virus from replicating itself. However preliminary results from a pivotal study showed efficacy and no immediate safety issues so the company halted the study and applied to receive emergency use authorization (EUA). The mainstream press cheered—led by industry’s main man at the top.


    Fauci Cheerleads Again

    The recent molnupiravir study ended early on preliminary data evidencing that while 14.1% of those subjects in a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that didn’t receive the study drug ended up hospitalized or dead due to COVID-19 within 29 days (53 out of 377 participants) only 7.3% of the participants taking molnupiravir were hospitalized and no one in this cohort died. TrialSite notes that while results of this study show promise the numbers still require a lot of cases for someone to benefit. The data has not yet been released nor has there been any substantial review, yet Dr. Anthony Fauci was already out promoting the drug—knowing all too well when he speaks, the markets listen. The nation’s top doctor and medical right hand to POTUS clearly thinks he operates with impunity from all typical standards immediately declaring the results “very impressive.” Fauci did the same thing with Gilead’s remdesivir—in fact he gave that study quite a helping hand—leading to $1 billion or more in the first nine months of the pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial concluded shortly after that since the drug brought no clinical benefit.


    Massive Financial Stakes

    TrialSite shares that since the beginning of the pandemic front-line physicians and care providers have called out that the government health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) focused not enough attention on antiviral medications, especially repurposed ones that found some positive evidence including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fluvoxamine and even colchicine.


    Rather the NIH and other agencies such as BARDA allocated billions of dollars to novel therapeutics developers—right in a time of pandemic crisis—a point in time where doctors needed to provide urgent care for dying patients. Hundreds if not thousands of doctors first embraced hydroxychloroquine and then ivermectin.


    While there has been tremendous medical establishment pushback a recent Nebraska Attorney General opinion suggests doctors in that state should have a green light to prescribe those drugs off-label with certain conditions met.


    Over the last several months aggressive media, government agencies, and health system campaigned to tarnish drugs such as ivermectin. Not surprisingly, these have coincided with the emergence of potentially expensive drugs such as molnupiravir. The stakes are gargantuan as about 90% of all COVID-19 cases are mild-to-moderate in and simply require effective, comprehensive home care to reduce the number of cases that progress. Given that most COVID-19 cases fall in this category the estimation of market size for an antiviral such as molnupiravir ranges from several hundred million to several billion per annum. The drug costs little to make but Merck plans on selling the drug at $700 per course (5-day treatment) should the investigational product be authorized.


    A Real Newspaper—The Philadelphia Inquirer

    In a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer science writer Tom Avril is one of a few reporters that raises any critical perspectives of late. Perhaps this is because the Philadelphia Inquirer is a public benefit corporation owned by the nonprofit Lenfest Institute https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/. Maybe this media outlet has a little more leeway than the others?


    Regardless, Avril raises some safety concerns associated with the drug due to a University of North Carolina study in which results showed the drug “induced low levels of mutations in the DNA of hamster cells” suggesting that the investigational product could pose some “slight risk of cancer.” He shared that the authors in the University of North Carolina-led study shared in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that the risks associated with the antiviral “…may not be zero.”


    Arguments Over Risk

    Not surprisingly Avril informs the reader that Merck scientists sent a letter to the journal’s editor suggesting that their heightened concern was misdirected. The observations after all were accomplished in a lab cell culture, and “not relevant to how the drug would affect an entire animal—much less a human being” wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter.


    But the UNC preclinical research authors defended their approach calling for more studies while urging significant caution with the drug. Should the drug be authorized for emergency use, the UNC authors urge that only people facing serious risk should be able to access the drug.


    Ronald Swanstrom who has a lab at UNC served as a lead author and shared while the drug looked promising, his study team’s observations cannot be ignored declaring “It’s really an unknown risk” further emphasizing “It’s someplace between an inconsequential risk and an important risk.”


    What’s the Risk?

    Avril goes on to describe how the antiviral experimental drug works. He shares that the “nucleoside analogue” indicates the molecules represent the “Chemical cousins of one of the building blocks of RNA, the genetic material inside the coronavirus.”


    So, the drug’s molecules “incorporate themselves into the virus RNA ” triggering mutations, shared Drew University biologist, Brianne Barker. According to the Inquirer’s science writer the actual mutations associated with molnupiravir help direct a process called “error catastrophe” where the molecule serves to essentially disrupt SARS-CoV-2 replication by “adding more and more mutations in chemical ‘bases’ throughout the virus genome until it can no longer copy itself.”


    UNC Concern

    The crux of the concern, identified in the UNC letters, suggests that during their use of the study drug the investigators found that the drug triggered “low levels of mutation in DNA” and thus raised some cause for concern.


    But the UNC researchers exposed hamsters in the preclinical animal studies for 32 days. Merck’s scientists contend that this amount of exposure was far greater than the “…3-to-6-hour exposure duration typically used per established guidelines.” Merck declared that when they conducted their preclinical studies on lab rats, they found no such observations for concern.


    If No Risk…

    TrialSite raises the issue of reproductive safety risks in the human clinical trials. If the drug posed no risks for mutation, why would the sponsor limit the drug’s access to those that are not actively trying to conceive children. TrialSite reported concerns expressed by UNC’s Dr. Shuntai Zhou affiliated with the Swanstrom Lab who declared “There is a concern that this will cause long-term mutation effects, even cancer.” Declaring that “Biochemistry won’t lie,” the scientists seemed highly confident that “This drug will be incorporated into the DNA.”


    TrialSite also shared pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria including the fact that if males were to participate in the study they would need to abstain from heterosexual intercourse for at least four days after the last dose of molnupiravir. Moreover, pregnant, or breastfeeding females were excluded from the study. Clearly this criterion indicates some concern.


    Merck’s COVID-19 pill and the ‘unknown risk’ of DNA mutation
    In a University of North Carolina study, the drug induced low levels of mutations in hamster cells, leading some experts to suggest the drug be limited to…
    www.inquirer.com

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Moderna is totally different from Pfizer crap

    Wyttenfact


    Moderna is not identical to Pfizer. But they are both mRNA vaccines using similar platforms. That makes them more similar than they are different.


    If the Moderna protein selection is obviously better than that of Pfizer then that is great - next gen COVID vaccines can learn from that. But without automatic belief in all those Wyttenfacts I do not understand all the difference, for example why the Moderna dose is 3X the size of the Pfizer dose.


    Those making the gen 1 vaccines reckoned the safest way to get high efficacy quickly (without iterations or problems) is to concentrate on a small number of spike-only proteins. No doubt better vaccines, still effective, with broader response, will be manufactured eventually. More proteins => higher risk of something going wrong so not a great idea for emergency vaccine development. mRNA is a tech peculiarly able to be manufactured easily at scale and adapted for different proteins.


    THH

    Inhalable vector-based COVID-19 vaccine increases antibodies 300-fold, better than mRNA & inactivated type as booster


    Inhalable vector-based COVID-19 vaccine increases antibodies 300-fold, better than mRNA & inactivated type as booster - Global Times


    According to latest lab studies, China’s first aerosolized COVID-19 vaccine has showed an increase of 250- to 300-fold in neutralizing antibody levels after two rounds of inactivated vaccine administration, proving greater efficacy in using a combination of different types of vaccines to enhance effects.


    Taking the CanSinoBIO's aerosolized inhaled adenovirus type-5 vector-based COVID-19 vaccine (Ad5-nCoV) as a booster shot after completing two doses of inactivated vaccine shots for half a year is proven to be safe and significantly more immunogenic than taking an inactivated vaccine as a booster, said Zhu Tao, co-founder and chief scientific officer of the CanSinoBIO, at a recent industrial conference.


    In contrast, neutralizing antibodies can increase by only 30 times if taking an inactivated vaccine as a booster after two inactivated vaccine shots.


    Zhu cited a previous study conducted in Turkey whose data showed a booster dose of the mRNA vaccine widely used in Western countries for people administered along with two inactivated doses can increase the neutralizing antibodies by about 25 times as compared with a booster dose of the inactivated vaccine again.


    These clinical trials suggested that a heterologous prime-boost regimen can increase the breadth, intensity and duration of the immune response, more than a homogeneous booster shot.


    US researchers previously conducted clinical trials on a heterologous booster shot regimen with three approved vaccines – one adenovirus-based vaccine by Johnson & Johnson and two mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer. The results similarly showed that heterologous enhanced immunity had obvious advantages.


    The study showed that boosting with any of the three vaccines currently licensed or authorized for emergency use in the US will stimulate an anamnestic response in persons who previously received any of the primary series of any of these vaccines. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers 4.2- to 20-fold whereas heterologous boosters increased titers 6.2- to 76-fold, said the research report published on medRvix on October 13.


    So far, at least 13 provinces and regions in China, such as East China's Anhui and Fujian provinces, and Central China's Hubei Province, have initiated programs to enhance residents' immunity against COVID-19.


    The latest studies proved that taking the approved Chinese vaccines – inactivated and vector-based ones – in heterologous a booster regime is expectedly the most effective one among all current world-wide regimens using the mRNA vaccine as a booster.

    Quote from Fm1

    So, the drug’s molecules “incorporate themselves into the virus RNA ” triggering mutations, shared Drew University biologist, Brianne Barker. According to the Inquirer’s science writer the actual mutations associated with molnupiravir help direct a process called “error catastrophe” where the molecule serves to essentially disrupt SARS-CoV-2 replication by “adding more and more mutations in chemical ‘bases’ throughout the virus genome until it can no longer copy itself.”

    How can somebody even start to believe that such a drug has no consequences ???


    This treatment idea is 1000% nuts. If a cell is on the way to replicate, then this drug for sure will cause harm! Such damaging mutations only will show up (e.g. as cancer) after many many years. Much time to generate cash not like Pfizer where game over will be soon.

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.