Covid-19 News

  • it is true that only a few children die, that is the COVID exponential age/death curve.

    Recent data shows that children usually survive, but even mild cases sometimes result in long-haul effects. This happens more often than previously thought. So the risk of death is not the only reason to vaccinate children.


    Long-Haul COVID-19 in Children and Teens
    Most children and teens who test positive for COVID-19 have mild, or even no, symptoms. But some are experiencing symptoms more than a month after they've been…
    www.healthychildren.org


    Long COVID and kids: scientists race to find answers
    Children get long COVID too, but researchers are still working to determine how frequently and how severely.
    www.nature.com


    QUOTE:


    Paediatrician Danilo Buonsenso, at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome, led the first attempt to quantify long COVID in children. He and his colleagues interviewed 129 children aged 6–16 years, who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November 2020.


    In January, they reported in a preprint that more than one-third had one or two lingering symptoms four months or more after infection, and a further one-quarter had three or more symptoms. Insomnia, fatigue, muscle pain and persistent cold-like complaints were common — a pattern similar to that seen in adults with long COVID. Even children who’d had mild initial symptoms, or were asymptomatic, were not spared these long-lasting effects, Buonsenso says. . . .


    Data released by the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) in February and updated in April also sparked concern. They showed that 9.8% of children aged 2–11 years and 13% aged 12–16 years reported at least one lingering symptom five weeks after a positive diagnosis. Another report released in April found that one-quarter of children who were surveyed after discharge from hospital in Russia post-COVID-19, had symptoms more than five months later. . . .

  • Data released by the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) in February and updated in April also sparked concern. They showed that 9.8% of children aged 2–11 years and 13% aged 12–16 years reported at least one lingering symptom five weeks after a positive diagnosis.

    This is silly. A broad study did show there is no long Covid among children. > 1000 no CoV-19 children have been interviewed to get a stable background result: Long CoV children had fewer symptoms...

    Long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection in school children: population-based cohort with 6-months follow-up
    Although long COVID in children exists, it is still unclear to what extent children are affected. The Ciao Corona study is a longitudinal cohort investigating…
    doi.org


    After each infection you can have lasting symptoms. Ask your wive or a friend. (S)He always has at least two symptoms and if you ask in detail you will get 3-5!


    So stop the fear mongering please

  • In UK the pandemic of the vaccinated now starts with top gear!

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf


    Now almost all age classes double vaxx have 4x more CoV-19 than unvaxx!!


    Keep in mind that > 50% so far had a CoV-19 infection and thus you must multiply teh rates by at least 2!


    This dirty trick so far did allow big pharma to blind people with a far to high vaccine protection.


    In Switzerland we see the same: Hospitalization rate among double vaxx doubled last month!!


    Welcome back on the Titanic! The music starts playing

  • And the Winners Are ..! Three repurposed drugs have shown efficacy in large early COVID-19 treatment trials


    And the Winners Are ..! Three repurposed drugs have shown efficacy in large early COVID-19 treatment trials
    by Stephen Ditmore Large, fully funded outpatient clinical trials of repurposed drugs for COVID-19 were (with an exception we’ll discuss) painfully slow
    trialsitenews.com


    by Stephen Ditmore


    Large, fully funded outpatient clinical trials of repurposed drugs for COVID-19 were (with an exception we’ll discuss) painfully slow in coming. Without home treatment advice, patients were and are left to monitor their O2 saturation and await hospitalization without officially sanctioned treatment options. Clinicians for whom this state-of-affairs was and is unacceptable have been left to develop their own protocols without benefit of relevant clinical trials except for those developed on the fly, many of which were observational and open-label.


    There have been improvements. Governments, universities, foundations, and independent funders have responded by developing adaptive platforms and multi-drug randomized clinical trials that are underway. Two of them, the PRINCIPLE Trial in the UK and McMaster University’s TOGETHER Trial, coordinated from Canada but conducted mostly in Brazil, have reported that two treatments, inhaled Budesonide and Fluvoxamine, benefited the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who received them. A third, the COLCORONA study of colchicine, finally reached full publication in The Lancet on May 27, 2021. Though the study outcome did not live up to a controversial early press release, there was an affirmative (if not statistically significant) result. The colchicine dose used in the study was relatively low; higher doses (over 1 mg/day) can be given if kidney function is monitored.


    Inhaled Budesonide (related drugs include Fluticasone)

    TrialSite News reported the result of Oxford’s STOIC trial on February 10, 2021. “Recently published on the MedRxiv pre-print server, the findings suggest that out of 146 participants the half that took 800 micrograms of inhaled budesonide experienced a reduction of relative risk of needing urgent care or hospitalization by 90% in the 28—day trial,” we said. STOIC was not a large trial, so the relatively inexpensive corticosteroid, available to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was added to the PRINCIPLE trial, also Oxford University affiliated, on November 28, 2020. The initial 961 participants were either over 65 or over 50 with an underlying health condition that put them at increased risk of serious COVID-19. They were randomly assigned to receive inhaled budesonide at home and were compared with 1819 patients randomly assigned to the usual standard of care alone.


    Recruitment for the inhaled budesonide arm of the trial stopped on 31st March 2021 because, in the view of the steering committee, enough patients had been enrolled to establish whether the drug had any meaningful benefit on time to recovery. Of these, 751 people in the budesonide group and 1028 in the usual care group were SARS-CoV-2 positive and included in the primary interim analysis. The results showed the estimated median time to self-reported recovery for inhaled budesonide was 3.011 days shorter compared to usual care, with a high probability (0.999) of being superior to the usual standard of care. 32% of those taking inhaled budesonide, compared to 22% in the usual care group, recovered within the first 14 days since being randomized into the trial and subsequently have remained well until 28 days. Participants in the budesonide group also reported greater wellbeing after two weeks.


    Among patients who had completed all 28 days of study follow up by 25th March 2021, 8.5% (59/692) in the budesonide group were hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with 10.3% (100/968) in the usual care group. Since fewer than expected people were admitted to hospital in the trial, and with COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continuing to drop in the UK, it was not clear from the interim analysis whether budesonide reduced hospitalizations.


    On April 12, the National Health Service of the UK issued an interim report on Budesonide use <downloadable here>.


    On August 10, the final, peer reviewed analysis was published in The Lancet. While reductions in hospitalizations for the budesonide group failed to reach statistical significance, all signs point to benefit and possible long-term harm reduction, yet the UK’s NHS website continues to recommend only that people take acetaminophen or ibuprofen if they have a fever and “feel uncomfortable”.


    In 2019, budesonide alone was the 201st most frequently prescribed drug (of any kind) in the United States. The combination of budesonide and the bronchodilator formoterol was 57th. Another inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone, was 18th, while another inhaled bronchodilator, albuterol, was 7th. Fluticasone is now part of the U.S. government’s repurposed outpatient drug trial, ACTIV-6.


    Fluvoxamine (related drugs include fluoxetine, also known as Prozac)

    Unlike asthma inhalers, SSRI type antidepressants did not leap to most clinicians’ minds as first-line COVID-19 treatment candidates. Dr. Angela Reiersen, however, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis, saw reason to believe an SSRI might help and recognized that fluvoxamine, having the strongest activity of all SSRIs at the inflammation related sigma-1 receptor, was an ideal candidate. Dr. Reiersen and her colleague Dr. Eric Lenze mounted a phase 2 study in St. Louis, publishing preliminary positive results in JAMA in November 2020. Nevertheless, a confirmatory phase 3 trial was needed. Fortunately, the result caught the attention of McMaster University’s Dr. Ed Mills, organizer of the multi-drug TOGETHER trial.


    While the sigma-1 receptor was and remains a likely fluvoxamine anti-inflammatory target, discussion of the St. Louis result brought discussion of other hypotheses regarding fluvoxamine’s mechanism of action. At about the same time the phase 2 study was published, Laguna Hills Gastroenterologist Farid Jalali, who had plunged himself into mapping COVID-19 pathogenesis, began focusing on the role of platelet activation and serotonin in disease processes. Jalali presented his ideas to TrialSite News in April 2021. At about the same time, Sukhatme & Reiersen published a discussion of possible fluvoxamine mechanisms of action in Frontiers in Pharmacology, citing correspondence with Jalali among their sources.


    The result of the Fluvoxamine arm of the TOGETHER trial was telescoped in an August 6 presentation by Ed Mills on the Rethinking Clinical Trials website. While Mills’ paper remains in preprint, and the result of the larger trial is less remarkable than the St. Louis result, the outline is clear: fluvoxamine helps.


    A doctor from India reignites discussion of colchicine (together with clopidogrel, also known as Plavix)

    Because many respected physicians have been advocating early treatment using combination therapies, this survey would be incomplete without mention of the recent renewed interest in colchicine together with clopidogrel spurred by Dr. Darrell DeMello, who practices outside Mumbai, India. “COVID is a clotting disease” states DeMello in interviews. One of many who treat with a combination of an antiviral, an anti-inflammatory, and an anti-coagulant, Dr. DeMello’s focus is agents that act on platelets. The third of his four appearances to date on the DrBeen webcast is particularly worthwhile.


    Which to use, and what of timing?

    Much has been written and debated concerning outpatient antivirals for COVID-19. The medications being discussed here are in a different category: anti-inflammatories which may have other helpful effects that interfere with the processes leading to severe COVID-19 disease.


    Steroids (budesonide is a corticosteroid) are powerful, broad anti-inflammatories. As such, they are immunosuppressants, and should not be given in the first week of COVID disease, when a robust immune response is helpful to fighting the virus. The means of administration matters, though. An inhaled therapeutic intended to treat the lungs is, without a doubt, a more targeted therapy than a therapeutic administered orally, or by injection or i.v.


    Fluvoxamine and colchicine are thought to be more targeted than steroids and thus safer to start in the early days of the disease. In both cases, their pharmacokinetics and mechanisms of action are such that the earliest possible start date may be wise. Like any SSRI, fluvoxamine can have psychological effects, or may interact with other medications, but in general is probably the safer of the two drugs. Colchicine at high doses is toxic, so a person must have a healthy kidney to clear it and must not overdose.


    Conclusion

    It can finally be said that an outpatient medication has been shown in a large randomized clinical trial to be effective. While none of the results of the largest trials of oral medications to date quite meet some measures of statistical significance, the results that were achieved, especially in the case of fluvoxamine, are extremely promising if not completely compelling. We’d say the FDA should issue an EUA for the use of fluvoxamine in COVID-19 patients except, in fact, they don’t need to. Not only do licensed physicians have broad latitude to write off-label prescriptions once a drug has FDA approval, the EUA guidelines themselves state:


    Section 564A allows FDA to facilitate certain emergency activities involving FDA-approved MCMs without an EUA.


    Some will still say to wait for the result of NCAT’s ACTIV-6 clinical trial – so where that study is available, sign those eligible! One way or another, though, the notion of sending a SARS-CoV-2 patient home to isolate untreated has become indefensible

  • An Independent Review? Spotlight on the Cochrane Collaboration


    An Independent Review? Spotlight on the Cochrane Collaboration
    The Cochrane Collaboration is a prestigious, well-respected non-profit organization that reviews systematic reviews of research in health care and health
    trialsitenews.com


    The Cochrane Collaboration is a prestigious, well-respected non-profit organization that reviews systematic reviews of research in health care and health policy. With a journal impact factor of 9.26, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is placed 11th out of 169 journals in the Medicine, General, and Internal categories. TrialSite recently reported on the potential for bias on Cochrane’s Ivermectin Analysis. Two well-respected German microbiologists recently informed TrialSite’s editorial board that the WHO and European EMA’s opposition to the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 therapy is based in part on inaccurate Cochrane assessments. Here, TrialSite looks to the names behind the Cochrane reports and connections they have with government or industries that could lead to a conflict of interest.


    Cochrane Board’s Members Reduced

    Following a contentious vote to expel a member for the first time in the Cochrane Collaboration’s 25-year history, the board of the Cochrane Collaboration was reduced from 13 to 6 members in September 2018. The action is being taken in response to “numerous complaints” regarding a member following the release early 2018 of a critique he co-authored on the Cochrane HPV vaccination review in the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine


    Cochrane independently aggregates and organizes medical findings; it publishes the Cochrane Review in a subscription-based library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. There are Cochrane Groups in 45 countries.


    Because the results of new research can modify the conclusions of a review, Cochrane Reviews are updated to reflect the findings of new data as it becomes available. Cochrane Reviews have shown to be a helpful resource for persons receiving and delivering treatment, as well as decision-makers and researchers, over the years.


    Peter Gøtzsche is a former founder member of the Cochrane Collaboration. After a critique of Cochrane’s review of the HPV vaccine was revealed, Peter Gøtzsche publicly clashed with the organization’s leadership.


    Mark Wilson, appointed CEO of the Cochrane Collaboration in 2012, had previously accused Gøtzsche of violating Cochrane’s spokesperson policy by using the organization’s letterhead on a complaint to the European Medicines Agency concerning the agency’s assessment of suspected HPV vaccination hazards.


    In the fall of 2018, Gøtzsche was abruptly removed from the group he helped build. He was voted off the board and then fired as director of Cochrane’s Danish branch, the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche contended that the Cochrane Collaboration is pursuing a financial model at the expense of scientific independence in a letter explaining his backstory.


    HPV Vaccine Gardasil

    Concerns have been raised about HPV vaccines causing significant neurological issues, such as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS).


    At 2018’s IFICA conference in Dublin, Gøtzsche spoke on the subject ‘Complaint to the European Ombudsman and maladministration at EMA’ in relation to the EMA HPV vaccine safety review. In his book Vaccines: Truth, Lies, and Controversy, Peter Gøtzsche points out some of the research flaws in the HPV vaccination clinical trials.


    Following a request from Danish authorities, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) looked into the matter and published a report in November 2015 stating that “the evidence does not establish a causal link between HPV vaccine (Cervarix, Gardasil/Silgard and Gardasil 9) and CRPS and/or POTS.”


    A leaked confidential paper used to inform the EMA’s appointed scientific advisory council discloses major disagreements among specialists, hinting that the science is more unclear than the EMA report suggests.


    Rather than conducting an impartial review, the EMA asked the businesses to examine the safety of their vaccinations. Previous industry-led searches had similarly proved insufficient. Sanofi Pasteur MSD, the manufacturer of Gardasil, was ordered by the Danish drug regulator in 2014 to examine its database for certain symptoms such as dizziness, palpitations, high heart rate, tremor, exhaustion, and fainting.


    Sanofi only looked for ‘postural dizziness,’ ‘orthostatic intolerance,’ and ‘palpitations and dizziness,’ despite these recommendations. After only 3 of 26 cases of POTS registered in Denmark turned up in Sanofi’s searches, the Danish authorities noticed this.


    A Commercial Interest?

    Cochrane’s main source of revenue is royalties from its principal product, the Cochrane Library, which is published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (‘Wiley’).


    The Cochrane Library’s sales in 2020 climbed by 7% to $13.7m (2019: $12.8m), with royalties paid to Cochrane increasing by 9% to $8.8m (2019: $8,0m). Commercial advantages connected to the new publishing contract with Wiley are included in Other Publications Income, which has climbed significantly to $7.5m (2019: $1.45m).


    The major reasons for a significant operating surplus of $5.1m compared to the net operating deficit of $1.44m in 2019 were increased publishing income, particularly in respect of commercial enhancements, alongside flat spending, partly due to COVID-19.


    When commercial enterprises sponsor research, a conflict of interest occurs that jeopardizes the credibility of the results. In their editorial policy, commercial companies with a financial interest in the topic cannot directly fund or generate Cochrane Library content, although financing may come from non-commercial granting bodies such as governments and not-for-profit organizations.


    Nevertheless, Cochrane may be receiving funds from commercial enterprises indirectly, through its relationship with Wiley, casting doubt over the independence of its findings. Through an organization as prestigious as Cochrane, whose reports inform governmental policy around the world, a commercial interest could significantly influence international demand for certain pharmaceuticals

  • Adverse events are happening and being ignored

    Toward the end of the video Kyle says that he had to submit a report to VAERS himself because no doctor would do it for him. He also said it was difficult and lengthy process. One has to access information from a variety of sources : Vaccine batch number, vaccine administrator, vaccine purchaser, lab data, etc, etc.


    What really bothered Dr. Campbell was hearing that the first doctor who 'diagnosed' Kyle said it was a mental condition. But it's not only injection victims who are being gaslighted. I heard a Canadian doctor say months ago, that when he became outspoken about the importance of informed consent and the potential dangers of the Covid vaccine, his health board suspended him from practice and suggested he get psychiatric help. The conversation was recorded.

  • There are no significant adverse events from the vaccination. You are describing a hypothetical option in a parallel reality, not something we need to worry about.

    O contraire, it is something we need to worry about. The mystery here is not that the injectables cause severe adverse events. Rather, the mystery is why they cause an exponential rise in coincidences that make it only appear like they cause such adverse events. To put it in the terms of physics : Some insist we live in a multiverse with a well nigh infinitude of parallel universes of various outcomes. Let us say that the real chance of an adverse event from an injectable is one in a trillion. Thus, we shouldn't be seeing adverse events at all. But there is a near infinity of parallel universes where adverse reactions happened. For some reason, many of those adverse reactions from parallel universes are manifesting in our timeline, positively inflating our numbers to like one in a thousand! Not fair!


    Our Covid injectables are very safe, it's just we have to understand why these parallel universes are infecting our own timeline with vaccine adverse events. Is there a vaccine to stop this cross contamination across universes?


  • If this one comment from the surveilence report:"recent observations from UK Health Security Agency

    (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire

    infection following 2 doses of vaccination" is confirmed in later reports, it will not be good.


    Since "N" antibodies are acquired from natural infection, this statement would indicate that for the more robust antibody protection, get infected first, then vaxxed, and not the other way around.


    Lots of good data in there. Thank goodness for the Israelis and Brits giving us such comprehensive, easy to read reports, as our US health agencies seem too busy playing politics to do the same.

  • Toward the end of the video Kyle says that he had to submit a report to VAERS himself because no doctor would do it for him. He also said it was difficult and lengthy process. One has to access information from a variety of sources : Vaccine batch number, vaccine administrator, vaccine purchaser, lab data, etc, etc.

    Along those lines: https://www.mcaa.org/news/osha…ed-covid-19-vaccinations/ Now carefully read the second paragraph!


    OSHA Suspends Recordkeeping Enforcement of Adverse Reactions to Employer Mandated COVID-19 Vaccinations

    May 24, 2021


    2021-05-24-09_19_38-Window.png

    MCAA reported previously that if your company requires a worker to get vaccinated and that worker has an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and the results of the adverse reaction meet the criteria for an OSHA recordable injury (medical treatment beyond first aid, days away from work, etc.), OSHA considers the case to be “work-related,” and employers are required to treat the case as a “recordable illness.”

    The DOL, OSHA, and other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to discourage workers from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination, or disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. The agency will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

  • Rather, the mystery is why they cause an exponential rise in coincidences that make it only appear like they cause such adverse events.

    They do not cause any such rise. Again, you are discussing a purely hypothetical event that has not occured. (You probably think it has, but you are wrong.) There is no increase in coincidences. If there were, the epidemiologists would take note of that fact, and find out why. That's the whole point of collecting a database of all events, including events that we know are extremely unlikely to be caused by the vaccine. A rise in coincidences would be the first indication there may be a problem, even without any apparent causality.

  • Since "N" antibodies are acquired from natural infection, this statement would indicate that for the more robust antibody protection, get infected first, then vaxxed, and not the other way around.

    Obviously, the problem with that method is, you might die from the infection, or you might be left with a lifelong debility. There is no point to "robust protection" that kills you. Even if vaccination first is somewhat less robust, it is still the preferred method.


    One method of ensuring robust protection against fire would be to burn your house to ashes, leaving nothing combustible. That would work, but the disadvantages are clear.

  • Following a contentious vote to expel a member for the first time in the Cochrane Collaboration’s 25-year history, the board of the Cochrane Collaboration was reduced from 13 to 6 members in September 2018.

    Sad to repeat but. This is the date of the big pharma take over of Cochrane. Revenue increase is most likely due to big pharma spending certainly not due to royalty ...Lets guess. The remaining 6 big pharma friendly got a large salary increase...


    As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022.

    This has already been shown in the good "old" Cell paper. The second dose of the monoclonal Pfizer antibody chemo reduces the spectrum of B-cells = the immune memory...

    This is intended in cancer chemo!


    If this one comment from the surveilence report:"recent observations from UK Health Security Agency

    (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire

    infection following 2 doses of vaccination" is confirmed in later reports, it will not be good.

    National FM/R/ :thumbdown: /B mafia at work! Damage yes, responsibility no, help not expected --> profit stable and high!

  • One method of ensuring robust protection against fire would be to burn your house to ashes, leaving nothing combustible. That would work, but the disadvantages are clear.

    Much simpler :: A 2$ Ziverdo dragée is better than 2 100$ shots chemo (vaccine) and a follow up 1 mio. damage or a 10k funeral or a live long vacation in a care home...

  • They do not cause any such rise. Again, you are discussing a purely hypothetical event that has not occured. (You probably think it has, but you are wrong.) There is no increase in coincidences. If there were, the epidemiologists would take note of that fact, and find out why. That's the whole point of collecting a database of all events, including events that we know are extremely unlikely to be caused by the vaccine. A rise in coincidences would be the first indication there may be a problem, even without any apparent causality.


    You aren't understanding. Vaccines are almost perfectly safe. The problem is that the adverse reactions are being imported from a near countless number of parallel universes, into ours. So any severe adverse events are pure coincidence, with no known causality in our universe. There is nothing that vaccine makers or epidemiologists can do about coincidences. It's just an unfortunate cosmic conundrum of parallel universe contamination.


    To bring the point home: the video below is an interview with a South African woman who reports so many adverse events from her J&J injection that it would make your head spin. Before the ten minute mark she describes how a doctor wanted to admit her into a mental hospital because she was reporting adverse reactions. If this seems 'out of this world' it is because it is! It was imported from a parallel universe, and wouldn't have happened otherwise. After all, the covid injectables are almost perfectly safe!


    Jab Mandate Victim Speaks Out: HORRIFIC Injuries EVERYONE Should See
    Blood Clots, Everlasting Menstruation, Pericarditis, Spinal Injury, Neurological problems, heart issues ALL experienced by a Covid "vaccine" recipient that was…
    rumble.com

  • Large UK Observational Study: COVID-19 Vaccines Don’t Stop Transmission for Long—Rethink the Vaccination to Herd Immunity Premise


    Large UK Observational Study: COVID-19 Vaccines Don’t Stop Transmission for Long—Rethinking the Vaccination to Herd Immunity Premise
    Researchers from the University of Oxford, the United Kingdom government, and the private sector recently completed a study and uploaded the results to
    trialsitenews.com


    Researchers from University of Oxford, the United Kingdom government and the private sector recently completed a study and uploaded the results to the preprint server medRxiv. Conducting a retrospective observational cohort study centering on adult contracts of SARS-CoV-2 infected adult index cases, this study included a total of 108,498 index cases and 95,716 persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Leveraging data derived from the English contact testing system, the team led by corresponding author David W. Eyre from University of Oxford’s Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health used multivariable Poisson regression in a bid to analyze associations between COVID-19 transmissions and index case and contract vaccination. They were particularly interested in better understanding the variability of this data based on Alpha and Delta variants. The results aren’t great for the mass vaccination premise. On the one hand sufficient data now is available that at least in the short run mass vaccination can help protect at least some people from more severe COVID-19 implications. COVID-19 vaccinated people transmit SARS-CoV-2 less than those that are unvaccinated only up to a point—and that comes quickly. This study indicates that the actual protective effect of the COVID-19 vaccines are not that durable, and rapidly dwindle at three months after administration of the second jab. Meaning that fully vaccinated individuals are just as contagious as unvaccinated people by month three after full inoculation. This study is yet another reminder that mass vaccination doesn’t lead to herd immunity and rather can be considered more of a therapeutic strategy to reduce hospitalization and death. TrialSite suggests to health authorities that after this study is peer reviewed—and if the findings hold up—that serious consideration must be made to global COVID-19 pandemic strategies moving forward.


    Funded by the UK Government’s Department of Health and Social Care, this study was also funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in collaboration with Public Health England and the NIHR Biomedical Research Center in Oxford.


    Of course, the study results don’t necessarily reflect the views of the institutions but rather the authors of the study.


    Background

    While other studies suggest that those infected with Delta may have comparable levels of viral genetic material in the nasal area—regardless of vaccination status—some studies suggested that vaccinated people were less contagious. This investigation probed and analyzed data in the UK covering the period of January to August 2021, a time when both Alpha and Delta variants were prevalent.


    This study investigated vaccine transmission in a more direct manner. Probing 139,164 close contacts of 95,716 persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. While the study data indicate that vaccination does afford some protection targeting viral transmission unfortunately the Delta variant greatly diminished that outcome. In fact a Delta infection essentially doubled the vaccinated person’s transmissibility as compared to the Alpha variant. Moreover, the risk that a vaccinated person faces of becoming infected with Delta was twice as high as Alpha.


    Bombshell Findings

    The British study team brought some bad news to the world. While vaccine mandates and passports are all the rage among government leaders and politicians, product outcomes aren’t great. For example testing AstraZeneca’s vaccine in England reveals that over a short period of time the vaccine effectiveness wanes to no real benefit.


    For instance, the study team reveals that those individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant just a couple weeks after vaccine administration become highly infectious. For example, their unvaccinated close contacts have a 57% chance of becoming infected by the vaccinated person. Meanwhile after 12 weeks post full vaccination the probability of transmission of the virus to others rises to 67%.


    Moreover, the investigators uncovered comparable issues with BNT162b2, the virus made by Pfizer-BioNTech. While the American government just recently declared a national mandate for all companies with 100 employees or more, the English researchers found the vaccine’s product durability wants considerably sooner after full inoculation—lowering to just 42% with a slight increase to 58% over time.


    Principal Investigator Point of View

    Corresponding author and epidemiologist at the University of Oxford David Eyre went on the record for an article in Nature authored by Smriti Malapaty declaring “There’s a step-change with Alpha versus Delta, but then there’s also a change over time.” He continued that those results “possibly explain why we’ve seen so much onward transmission of Delta despite widespread infection.”


    Conclusion

    In the preprint the authors declare that while vaccination does reduce transmission of Delta, far less so than by the Alpha variant. Moreover, this waning durability rapidly decreases by month three the vaccinated person essentially becomes highly contagious—as much so as an unvaccinated person. There are some differences between the AstraZeneca and Pfizer—BioNTech vaccines and while the authors attempt to tow a party line declaring that vaccination “may help control transmission together with preventing infection” , TrialSite suggests it’s time to revisit the mass vaccination strategy with the current crop of products.


    The contentious effort to divide vaccinated from unvaccinated does more damage to society to good; in the meantime, the first generation COVID-19 vaccine products while serving a therapeutic purpose of reducing hospitalization and death –noble and important pursuits—are not that effective at reducing viral transmission and hence leading to herd immunity—the original intended purpose of mandates.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    David W. Eyre, University of Oxford, Big Data Instituted, Nuffield Department of Population Health, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance

    Donald Taylor, Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government

    Mark Purver, Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government

    David Chapman, Deloitte, MCS

    Tom Fowler, Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government

    Koen B. Pouwels, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance

    Sarah Walker, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance

    Tim EA Peto, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance


    The impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on Alpha & Delta variant transmission

    The impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on Alpha &amp; Delta variant transmission
    Background Pre-Delta, vaccination reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission from individuals infected despite vaccination, potentially via reducing viral loads. While…
    www.medrxiv.org

  • Mix-and-match COVID vaccines work well

    For the first time, researchers have shown that regimens combining two different COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing the disease — and they protect against the Delta variant. The results fulfill hopeful expectations set by evidence of potent immune responses in people who received a mix-and-match regimen, with side effects no worse than those caused by standard regimens. “I was delighted to see that it’s as effective as one would expect,” says immunologist Martina Sester. “This is really good news and this will certainly have influence on clinical practice.”


    Nature | 5 min read

    Reference: Nature Medicine paper, The Lancet paper 1 & The Lancet paper 2



  • Heavily Vaccinated UK Faces Scary Surge of COVID-19 Cases as Government Explores ‘Plan B’


    Heavily Vaccinated UK Faces Scary Surge of COVID-19 Cases as Government Explores ‘Plan B’
    The United Kingdom (UK) follows a pattern observed by TrialSite in other heavily vaccinated nations. From Singapore and Iceland to Israel countries with
    trialsitenews.com


    The United Kingdom (UK) follows a pattern observed by TrialSite in other heavily vaccinated nations. From Singapore and Iceland to Israel countries with high vaccination rates struggle to overcome the pandemic. As a combination of breakthrough and new infections rise, breakthrough infections skyrocket in cohorts such as the age 40 to 49 group. A new mutant variant arrives–Delta Plus, or AY.4.2, while the nation experiences the highest number of cases since mid-summer despite nearly 90% of the population 12 and above being vaccinated. While hospitalization and death rates are far lower than previous surges thanks to a confluence of factors including vaccination, both are on the rise despite near-universal vaccination. However, with waning immunity, booster programs commence as the focus is on inoculating younger people. The UK now contemplates a “Plan B” (mandatory masks and vaccine passport) with a far more draconian “Plan C” waiting in the wings.


    The Situation in the UK

    According to Our World in Data 74% of the UK’s 68.4 million people have received at least one jab while nearly 68% have been fully immunized. However, of the population aged 12 and above, Public Health England reports that nearly 9 out of 10 people in this age bracket (86%) have received one COVID-19 dose while 8 in 10 (80%) are fully vaccinated. A massive inoculation program, this the largest this nation has ever launched, declares the BBC. Following heavily vaccinated Israel, the UK now rolls out the third-dose booster program for the fall.


    The BBC reports “a steep rise in people having booster shots.” Offered first to frontline medical workers, those in their 50s and above, as well as the “clinically vulnerable,” over 4.2 million of the booster doses were administered by September 16 in England. While in Scotland, also part of the UK, 400,000 booster doses have been administered. As depicted below the teen group is undoubtedly a target for the UK as well.



    Despite these high vaccination numbers, the pandemic now explodes again, much like TrialSite reported recently in Singapore. By October 21, Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) reports 51,484 cases new cases. Put in perspective TrialSite provides the following graphs.


    Reported new COVID-19 cases (7-day average)



    As TrialSite reported in heavily vaccinated Israel and Singapore, the UK wasn’t spared as the new number of new deaths increases despite vaccination.



    Thankfully, death rates are not as high as in previous spikes. TrialSite suggests that is due to a combination of factors including vaccination, emerging care options, (both those authorized and off-label use of various treatments) as well as improved care in the hospitals.


    While seemingly timely articles in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) showcase low breakthrough infection rates among medical workers in the UK, breakthrough infections are rising in this latest surge.


    What are the Causes

    While several causes could be at play, waning immunity undoubtedly plays a role as the majority of the UK were fully vaccinated months ago. TrialSite has reported on multiple studies indicating the waning effectiveness of the various COVID-19 vaccines. Studies in Israel, a nation that leads in vaccination, reveal waning COVID-19 vaccine immunity within months of the vaccine administration.


    The BBC reported that according to Professor Eran Segal with Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel shared the cause of Israel’s COVID-19 surges despite mass vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech’s BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) “by month five or six after vaccination, people are probably only 30-40% protected, compared with more than 90% when protection first kicks in.”


    However, any other number of factors influence the current spike as populations grow increasingly restless due to the coronavirus-based pandemic.


    Good News/Bad News

    While vaccination undoubtedly contributes to lower overall death and hospitalization rates, breakthrough infections are on the rise in the UK. The UK booster program now full in gear was initiated to help the population overcome the dangerous one-two punch of waning COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and more virulent viral strains such as Delta or Delta Plus. So compared to earlier surges, the death rates are markedly lower. That represents significant progress in battling COVID-19.


    As compared to previous spikes, the rate of hospitalization is considerably less as well, although hospitalizations are on the rise.


    Some disturbing trends also emerge. According to Will Jones writing for Conservative Women, Covid infection in vaxxed 40-49 yr olds double the unvaxxed rate – The Conservative Woman Public Health England data indicates that fully vaccinated people in the age range 40 to 49 experience an infection rate twice as high as those unvaccinated. Generally, this more sobering view suggests vaccine effectiveness continues to drop.


    What is ‘Delta Plus’?

    A SARS-CoV-2 mutation of the delta variant (AY.4.2), UK government health authorities to date report there isn’t sufficient data to determine the levels of risk. Last Friday a UK Health Security Agency report delineated “a delta sub-lineage newly designated as AY 4.2 is noted to be expanding in England.” Monitoring subtypes associated with the mutant including A222V and Y145H, some health officials argue to reintroduce COVID-19 restrictions.


    UK’s Health Security Agency continued “In the week beginning 27 September 2021 (the last week with complete sequencing data) this sub-lineage accounted for approximately 6% of all sequences generated, on an increasing trajectory. This estimate may be inaccurate…Further assessment is underway.”


    Coming Soon–Plan B…& C…?

    TrialSite reports in the UK chatter of a “Plan B” and even a “Plan C” are in discussion. Doctors are increasingly agitated with politicians in the UK, reports the BBC. For example, the British Medical Association (BMA) recently pointed out that the government is “willfully negligent” for not re-triggering stricter rules such as mandatory face masks.


    UK’s Plan B includes a re-introduction of mandatory face masks and vaccine passports. While “Plan C” contemplates a far more dire situation, implicating the need for lockdowns and closures.


    Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor the situation. Interested in having your topics researched and reported on? Send them to [email protected]


    Source: CNBC

  • Obviously, the problem with that method is, you might die from the infection, or you might be left with a lifelong debility. There is no point to "robust protection" that kills you. Even if vaccination first is somewhat less robust, it is still the preferred method.


    One method of ensuring robust protection against fire would be to burn your house to ashes, leaving nothing combustible. That would work, but the disadvantages are clear.

    Well said. This is emerging new data that may not pan out after gathering more observations, so no need for anyone to make plans based on it..


    Lots of "what if's" though if it turns out to be true. If so, it may turn those with only the vaxx acquired antibodies into junkies, waiting desperately for each new years jab from our drug dealer (big Pharma). With each new jab comes the compounding chance of adverse risks.


    It would also be something very important to consider when it comes to the question of vaxxing the children. Since they have so little chance of experiencing severe symptoms, and even less for hospitilization/death, it may be better to not vaxx them at all, or if they decide to anyway...only for those with the N antibodies..

  • You aren't understanding. Vaccines are almost perfectly safe. The problem is that the adverse reactions are being imported from a near countless number of parallel universes, into ours.

    I realize this is a joke, but the fact is, there has been no increase in deaths or serious adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines. The only reactions are those listed in the vaccine information package, ranging from a sore arm to a short fever. None of these are serious, or unexpected. The number of deaths and reactions is the same as a control population of people who were not vaccinated. That would be a control population in a normal year such as 2018. Obviously, in an unvaccinated control population in 2021, many people would get sick from COVID.


    To put it another way, there have been a number of deaths following the vaccinations, but no more than there would be from eating bananas. There is no evidence for causality, any more than there would be from bananas.

  • This is emerging new data that may not pan out after gathering more observations, so no need for anyone to make plans based on it..


    Lots of "what if's" though if it turns out to be true.

    Okay, suppose it is true. What would you recommend? Do you think people should deliberately expose themselves to the virus, in order to get sick, in order to have more robust protection? It seems like a risky strategy.


    If so, it may turn those with only the vaxx acquired antibodies into junkies, waiting desperately for each new years jab from our drug dealer (big Pharma). With each new jab comes the compounding chance of adverse risks.

    No vaccine works that way. Ever. This is ridiculous. There is no compounding of adverse risks. They are exactly same in every instance. Like the chances of winning a lottery ticket. That fact that you won $10 last week (which you can with Georgia's lottery) does not make it more or less likely you will win this week.


    As you know, influenza evolves rapidly, so we have to get a flu vaccination every year, with 4 strains in it. The risk of an adverse reaction from a flu vaccine is the same this year as last year, and the year before. The risks from getting influenza are about the same every year too. Although as you get older they do increase somewhat. So, if it was a good idea to get a flu vaccine in 2010, it was just as good an idea in 2015. The risks do not compound or increase in any sense. If the balance of risk/benefit pointed to getting a flu vaccine in 2010, it still does. Nothing has changed that calculation.


    It is not yet clear whether COVID will need a booster shot every year. But it it does, the risk/benefits of the booster will the same in 10 years as they are this year, * unless you are my age, in which case you will be MUCH more likely to die if you get COVID.




    * With one obvious exception. If COVID become exceedingly rare years from now, the benefits may decrease to the point where it is not worth the risk. Or the bother. This will not happen with influenza. It will remain endemic. There are sure to be years in which influenza infects many people with dangerous cases. So the risks from influenza will not decrease. UNLESS they invent a vaccine that stops all forms of influenza permanently, in which case you will only need one shot, and in which case influenza may become increasingly rare in years to come.