It is not yet clear whether COVID will need a booster shot every year.
Obviously some will need it every six months, then five months ,3,2,1 then daily - just the junky reality..
Once get it (CoV-19) with Ziverdo and you get at least 4 years free. No damage no costs no more free Bordeaux wine for FM/R...
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.
I think that would depend on the age of the person, and their health. Personally, I would have done the same thing I already did...get the vaxx promptly. Someone younger and healthy might decide otherwise. If they had the choice that is...an option increasingly being taking away from them if they want to live a normal life.
For those under the age of 18; even before this new data I was against them getting vaxxed.
I think that would depend on the age of the person, and their health.
Nope. The risk is much higher for everyone, in all age groups tested so far. I don't think they have tested babies yet, but they have done extensive double-blind tests of children. There is no question the risks of the disease are far higher than the risks from the vaccines. If there was any question, the FDA would never approve the vaccines for children. That would be crazy. They don't issue an approval when the risk/benefit does not merit it. The FDA is not in favor of giving vaccinations when they cause more harm than good.
Death from COVID in children is rare, but risks include severe illness and long-term "long haul" symptoms. When you factor in these, children are at great risk. Many vaccines are given to children for diseases that seldom kill people, such as chickenpox. Even though chickenpox seldom kills you, it has many other serious effects. The risk/benefit clearly favors getting the vaccine. Even if the only benefit were to avoid the misery of a chickenpox infection, which lasts for weeks, the vaccination would still be preferable. See:
Pfizer’s Power in the COVD-19 Vaccine Space
In an October 19 article titled simply “Pfizer’s Power,” the nonprofit group Public Citizen took a well-footnoted look at the relationship between pharma and national governments. Following up on a story from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism about Pfizer “bullying” governments in its COVID-19 vaccine negotiations, Public Citizen has located some unredacted Pfizer contracts that show us how much power that firm wields. In the prior piece by BIJ, one official noted, “Five years in the future when these confidentiality agreements are over, you will learn what really happened in these negotiations.” But now we do have some answers as to what is in these deals. Per Public Citizen, Pfizer has the power to “silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk, and maximize profits” during the COVID-19 pandemic. To demonstrate this, their article looks at six global examples of this pharma giant’s power. Many around the world have been upset about Pfizer’s demands, which have slowed purchase agreements and pushed back vaccine delivery; some fear that these tactics could “threaten President Biden’s commitment to donate 1 billion vaccine doses.” And since wealthier nations have enabled the firm’s power via international intellectual property protection, they have an obligation to “rein in” that oligopolical power.
Secrecy and Indemnification
President Joe Biden has the ability to renegotiate some of the Pfizer commitments to ensure what could be considered a “fairer future.” Also, he could use the Defense Production Act to force the firm to share their vaccine “recipe.” This would allow many more producers of the vaccine product, which would expand availability and reduce price. His administration could further work with the World Trade Organization to obtain waivers of intellectual property rules. But what are the specific issues regarding Pfizer? Point one is that the company reserves the right to silence governments. Back in January, Brazil dissented that Pfizer’s terms were “unfair and abusive.” The problem terms included a waiver of the sovereign immunity that protects public assets and an absence of consequences if Pfizer delivered the product late. Perhaps backing down, in under two months, the Brazilian government had agreed to most of the terms it once determined to be unfair. Sovereign immunity was waived, there were no penalties for late delivery, decided that any disputes would be resolved “under a secret private arbitration under the laws of New York,” and to indemnify Pfizer from civil liability.
Brazil not Allowed to Accept Donations
Perhaps most off-putting, the contract has one term that is missing from Pfizer’s deal with other Latin American nations: Brazil is banned from making, “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter, or terms of [the] Agreement” or even conversing about its deals with Pfizer without consent of the company. To quote Public Citizen, “Pfizer gained the power to silence Brazil.” Also, some similar “gag orders” are in Pfizer’s deals with both the European Commission and the US government—but in the deals with these first-world nations, the gag was reciprocal, so that Pfizer couldn’t comment either. A separate problem is Pfizer’s control over its vaccine donations by “tightly” controlling supply. E.g., Brazil is not allowed to accept donations of Pfizer products from third-party nations without the pharma firm’s permission. Further, Brazil is not allowed to donate or even transport the vaccine outside of Brazil unless Pfizer signs on. Violation could be painful: e.g., if Brazil accepted donations without corporate approval, it would constitute an “uncurable material breach,” allowing Pfizer to end all agreements with the country. Adding insult to injury, the country would still have to pay full price for all products that it had not nor will ever receive.
IP for Me, but Not for Thee
Another bone of contention is that Pfizer got a purported “IP Waiver” for itself. Their CEO Albert Bourla has been a strong defender of IP during COVID-19’s social landscape. He even called a WHO program for voluntary sharing of IP to up vaccine production both “nonsense” and “dangerous.” Also, the contracts move responsibility for IP infringement from Pfizer to the government buyers. So effectively, Pfizer can use any IP it chooses without a direct consequence. At least four nations are required “to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Pfizer” regarding any IP claims or suits. E.g., if another vaccine producer sued Pfizer for patent violation in Colombia, the deal means that that foreign government will “foot the bill.” In a nutshell, while Pfizer has in some ways gotten an IP waiver for itself, they are fighting international efforts to waive IP barriers for all vaccine makers. The next critique is that “private arbitrators, not public courts, decide disputes in secret.” This means any contractual dispute would be decided by a “secret” panel of private arbitrators and not any court. Both parties would be required to maintain secrecy re the proceedings: “The parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by law and to the extent not already in the public domain.”
“Public Health Should Come First”
Public Citizen lists even more problems with these deals, e.g., Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru all had to waive sovereign immunity, as discussed above. This includes “immunity against precautionary seizure of any on its assets.” So, if a government fails to pay up, Pfizer may be able to seize foreign bank accounts, investments, and even assets of state-owned firms such as oil companies. A final complaint is that “Pfizer calls the shots on key decisions.” In the event of a shortage, the Brazil and Columbia deals state that Pfizer will determine delivery “adjustments” on its own, and Albania, Brazil, and Columbia “shall be deemed to agree to any revision.” In sum, Pfizer’s excess power is a problem in our pandemic response. Public Citizen argues that the US has enough leverage to demand a better approach. As the article concludes, “Empowering multiple manufacturers to produce the vaccine via technology transfer and a TRIPS waiver can rein in Pfizer’s power. Public health should come first.”
Nation-State vs. Multinational
Some vexing questions surface in the critical mind. Could COVID-19 represent some game-changing geopolitical event? Based on these contracts, one could argue that the concept of the nation-state has lost some of its power. How can one company wield such power over so many nations? Especially when at least some vaccine competition exists.
On the one hand, traditionally democratic and open places such as Australia or Canada embrace quasi-authoritarian rule—inclusive of vaccine mandates, while on the other hand, one company seemingly runs roughshod over dozens of countries while financially benefiting from the quasi-authoritarianism—e.g. secures $33 billion in sales for the first year. This situation offers fertile ground for rampant conflicts of interest and a worse-than-distasteful globally scaled crony capitalism
Obviously some will need it every six months, then five months ,3,2,1 then daily - just the junky reality..
No vaccine works that way. None ever did. Everyone with the slightest knowledge of disease or medical science knows this, and will know that what you say is nonsense. Along with just about everything else you say. So the question arises: Why so you say this stuff? Why do you make yourself look like a blithering idiot? If you are trying to fool people, it isn't working. If you really do believe this stuff, I suggest you read some grade-school level textbooks about biology and health.
Per Public Citizen, Pfizer has the power to “silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk, and maximize profits” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Well, when they are in bed together, the lines between government and pharma are a bit blurred:
REVOLVING DOOR: The Three Big Pharma Companies with COVID Vaccines Authorized for Emergency Use All Employ Former FDA Commissioners
No vaccine works that way.
I fully agree for vaccines. But we here have a monoclonal cancer antibody chemo. Pfizer/Astra/J&J are far from being similar to any vaccine! It's pure chemo gene therapy!
They did cheat the public with fake papers pointing to an immune response where there is none at all! Of course a single type of B-cells shows up. but there should be at least 10 different ones. Even worse the Pfizer memory B-cells do harm you as these are for the wrong -Alpha spike...
The goal of a vaccine is not to produce antibodies. This is a fake claim to make money only! If there are antibodies after a vaccination this only tells that it did work. The main protection comes from the memory cells that after re-infection ramp up the production of antibodies.
All this is not the case for the Pfizer mono-clonal antibody producing cancer "gene chemo therapy".
UK shows it. Age group 40..50 now has a rest protection of 50% for double vaxx people. 80+ has no protection left at all.
REVOLVING DOOR:
Page already gone - like Pfizer vaccine protection...
Page already gone - like Pfizer vaccine protection...
You have to be a Q-anon member to gain access.
Just joking Wytten:
The Freedom First Network made the following observations about another revolving door, this time in the drug industry.
In today’s America, you can buy yourself a former FDA commissioner, and use the public-sector private-sector revolving door system of corruption to impose your will on the American public, and make a windfall for your executives and shareholders in the process.
That appears to be the exact strategy utilized by Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and the company that founded Moderna, which have rostered a series of former top ranking government officials into top positions in their respective organizations.
Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, the ultimate personification of the revolving door mechanism, sits on the board of Pfizer. The frequent Pfizer-sponsored CNBC guest also maintains several thousand shares of Pfizer stock, and he is compensated well into the six figures on an annual basis. Gottlieb earns millions from his continually increasing board appointments to a plethora of pharmaceutical and healthcare companies.
The pandemic profiteer also sits on the boards of Illumina and Tempus Labs, which sell FDA-authorized COVID-19 test kits.
Additionally, he sits on the board of Aetion, which has partnered with the FDA on researching COVID-19 policy.
Stephen Hahn, who led the FDA when it authorized Moderna’s COVID shots, recently took an executive level post with Flagship Pioneering, the company that launched Moderna. Flagship holds 20 million shares of Moderna stock, which as of October 16, 2021, is valued at $6.5 Billion. They earned $1.4 billion through the sale of Moderna stock earlier this year…
…Mark McClellan was the FDA commissioner from 2002-2004 (and served in other high-ranking government posts). He has maintained a board of directors seat with pharma giant Johnson & Johnson since 2013. McClellan owns thousands of shares in the company and receives around $300,000 annually.
We see this now in multiple industries and government bodies. Whether it be former Dominion employees working for the EAC, former Hedge fund managers working for the SEC, former generals working for the military complex, or former FDA Commissioners working for Big Pharma, the conflicts of interest are alarming.
Statistics up top today.
Age group 12..17
Pfizer:: (cases in DB: 8278 ) // Moderna:: (in DB: 714) // ASTRA (in DB: 240)
917 cardiac disorders. // none in DB ??? // none in DB ??
3252 nervous system disorders //1921 // 150
863 reproductive system disorders //28 // none
e.g Pfizer cardiac disorders are about 72% serious. Moderna 80%
So we already have about 3000 vaccine damaged children and > 50 deaths.
Display MoreIf 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.
Well, what we know (from other studies) is that antibody response from natural infection is higher when the disease is more severe. Not surprisingly!
So it would be really strange if on average being vaccinated did not reduce the response form natural immunity, just as it reduces the severeity of covid.
You want that full-on -W loves it - natural immunity protection?
You need to get yourself a really severe nearly kill you bout of COVID! Good luck doing that after vaccination.
THH
Well, what we know (from other studies) is that antibody response from natural infection is higher when the disease is more severe. Not surprisingly!
So it would be really strange if on average being vaccinated did not reduce the response form natural immunity, just as it reduces the severeity of covid.
Sounds plausible. I think this new info (if true) may be more applicable to the decisions the younger, and healthy are faced with. What is "young"...that is still open for debate.
Sounds plausible. I think this new info (if true) may be more applicable to the decisions the younger, and healthy are faced with. What is "young"...that is still open for debate.
Shane; I don't understand how it changes the balance of risk?
Young people have a choice of getting COVID first unprotected, or after vaccination.
The protection delivered by vaccination for young people is exceptionally good. Sure, it decreases over time, as does natural immunity.
Are you saying the wise balance of risk thing is to have COVID once unprotected and see what happens?
Surely the comparison is between risk of COVID unvaccinated, and risk of vaccine. Anything after that is a minor issue because risks after vaccination are much lower. And don't think catching COVID will prevent you from catching it again. Natural immunity decays over time a well.
It is the same thing with Flu. If you want good protection you get a new jab each year. Even with that you have a decent chance of still catching Flu, just less severely. And the Flu vaccine only lasts 6 months.
Shane; I don't understand how it changes the balance of risk?
Young people have a choice of getting COVID first unprotected, or after vaccination.
But the young have little risk of hospitalization/death. Just because you may convincingly claim they have less risk getting a vaccine does not determine if they they should therefore get the vaccine. It is a very small margin of risk either way. The young are faced with far greater odds of death for their behavior in many other areas, so why should they bow to your assessment of COVID risk, and submit to the jab?
The protection delivered by vaccination for young people is exceptionally good. Sure, it decreases over time, as does natural immunity.
Are you saying the wise balance of risk thing is to have COVID once unprotected and see what happens?
Let us see first how this new information your government so generously provided, with more that will come, plays out before taking firm stances. I go where the honest, "unfiltered", unpoliticized science takes me.
Display MoreStatistics up top today.
Age group 12..17Pfizer:: (cases in DB: 8278 ) // Moderna:: (in DB: 714) // ASTRA (in DB: 240)
917 cardiac disorders. // none in DB ??? // none in DB ??
3252 nervous system disorders //1921 // 150
863 reproductive system disorders //28 // none
e.g Pfizer cardiac disorders are about 72% serious. Moderna 80%
have you heard of background adverse events? What happens anyway even if you have not taken a vaccine?
The cardiac disorders from Pfizer have been very extensively monitored by cardiac specialists who care about children and are not part of some mafia. They say that reassuringly the vast majority of vaccine-induced cases are very mild.
It occurs to me that like all the anti-vaxxers you treat VAERS (and similar catch-all correlation0 warning systems as though every event in them that is correlated with vaccination is caused by it. Why do you do that?
Fascinating study into how VAERS reports reflect public anxiety about vaccines.
Medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services are well aware of VAERS’ limitations. Rather than taking each individual report at face value, regulators remove clearly fraudulent reports. Demonstrating this, anesthesiologist and autism advocate James Laidler once used the system to report that a vaccine turned him into the “Incredible Hulk,” which was only removed after he agreed to have the data deleted.
Regulators also look for reporting patterns that can be corroborated by additional evidence. For example, reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be more common in people over 50 than in younger adults. This can help researchers identify potential adverse events that were not detected in clinical trials.
Because VAERS claims are self-reported, they tell us something about what ordinary people, as opposed to doctors and medical researchers, think about vaccine safety. In other words, people who feel that a vaccine is responsible for a side effect they might be experiencing can log that concern with the federal government, whether or not those claims would stand scrutiny in rigorous clinical testing.
Consequently, VAERS reports might not only document people’s negative experiences with vaccination, but also their attitudes toward vaccination. People may be more likely to report side effects, for example, in response to media stories about vaccine safety concerns. If reports to VAERS increase following these stories, then the reporting system may be functioning similarly to a public opinion poll. It could reflect, in part, public attentiveness to and concern about potential side effects. To see if this is the case, we examined a well-known case of vaccine misinformation: the since-retracted paper that claimed a link between the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine to childhood autism.
In 1998, former physician Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues published a since-retracted paper claiming that the MMR vaccine could cause autism in children. Although the study was rife with unreported conflicting interests and data manipulation, it nevertheless garnered significant media attention in the late 1990s. Some journalists and researchers have since argued that the paper played a major role in inspiring MMR vaccine hesitancy.
While this is plausible, there hasn’t been evidence to support the argument. Virtually no opinion polling about MMR existed prior to the publication of Wakefield’s paper. Consequently, researchers have not been able to directly observe whether or not the study influenced how Americans think about the MMR vaccine.
VAERS data, however, could offer some clues. In our study, we examined whether the number of VAERS reports following publication of Wakefield’s paper was significantly greater than expected based on typical report numbers prior to its publication. We found that the number of adverse event reports for MMR increased by about 70 reports per month following publication of the paper. This is significantly greater than what we would expect by chance based on previous reporting frequencies. Notably, we did not find a similar effect for other childhood vaccines in the same time period. This further underscores the power this since-debunked study has had in shaping public opinion about the MMR vaccine.
Importantly, we also found that adverse event reporting rates rose in tandem with negative media coverage of the MMR vaccine. Following the publication of Wakefield’s paper, television and print news published significantly more stories about MMR than before the paper was published. These results suggest that Wakefield’s article influenced how much more attentive Americans were about the MMR vaccine.
In recent months, interest in the side effects reporting system has been growing exponentially. Google search engine trends suggest that more Americans have been looking up VAERS than ever before. The trend began shortly after emergency use authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. and has continued to increase until a peak in early August.
THH
But the young have little risk of hospitalization/death. Just because you may convincingly claim they have less risk getting a vaccine does not determine if they they should therefore get the vaccine. It is a very small margin of risk either way. The young are faced with far greater odds of death for their behavior in many other areas, so why should they bow to your assessment of COVID risk, and submit to the jab?
I want you to say that sentence out loud, and reflect on it.
Children have a small risk of dying of of COVID: in the US: 700 have died so far.
They have a roughly equal (annual) risk of dying of meningitis (500/year in the US). The two things are comparable. Does that mean you, as a parent, would not want to take precautions for them against meningitis, like the MenACWY jab? this, by the way, is given to every child, and a booster.
Is it wrong to ask them to submit to the jab given the very small risk, and the fact that I am telling you these figures, and I may be wrong?
You might worry about MenACWY if the jab risks (to your child) were higher than the meningitis risks. Of course you do not know: you trust your doctors.
In the case of COVID the disease risks are about the same. You seem convinced that the COVID vaccine risks are higher than doctors say, when you are happy accept the MenACWY risks are as low as the doctors say?
I am not saying vaccine risks are lower than COVID risks for children. Others, who have looked at it really carefully, are saying that.
You are right - both risks are absolutely tiny. But you seem to have this particular concern about the vaccine that you would not apply to the (absolutely tiny, but real) risks of any other medical treatment. I think this is because the whole issue of COVID has become politicised in the US, and you are no longer treating it, as rationally you should, like any other disease where you do the best for your children that you can.
Is ivermectin safe in long term pre-exposure use?
Tensions mount among physicians seeking to treat COVID-19 with safe doses of ivermectin as they face push-back from medical councils. TrialSite has reported on the success stories around the globe of ivermectin reducing COVID-19 transmission, which are impossible to ignore. However, it remains to be established whether the drug is safe for prolonged use as prophylaxis against COVID-19. With the onset of the pandemic, its safety profile has come under close scrutiny. The drug’s credibility has been challenged as a result. The pressure is mounting to determine its long-term safety profile, so that it may be prescribed as a prophylactic measure for those who are at-risk from adverse effects of vaccination.
As featured in earlier reports on TrialSite, ivermectin has demonstrated a safety profile for over three decades, shown through copious epidemiological studies, expert meta-analyses, and peer-reviewed studies. In a systematic review of more than 500 scholarly works commissioned to an independent reviewer, Dr Jacques Descotes, ivermectin revealed very low percentages of adverse events. These were non-fatal and evanescent. Less than 1% resulted in serious implications.
Analyses on neurological impacts of ivermectin, such as seizure, indicated that 0.000000007% of cases exhibited adverse effects. This was derived from a global pharmacology database search. Out of 4 billion doses issued, only twenty-eight cases had negative neurological effects. Again, these were self-limiting and temporary, disputing warnings issued of ivermectin’s possible neurotoxicity.
The rationale behind ivermectin’s extremely low toxicity is because it does not “cross the blood-brain barrier … (and) displays a 100-fold greater affinity for parasitic Cl– channels compared to the human homologs.”
To evaluate the potential risks associated with prolonged use of ivermectin or pre-exposure ivermectin, studies involving susceptible groups such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly are investigated.
Safety profile of off-label ivermectin use in children and infants
Infants and children are the most susceptible groups to any drug implications, so research on this age group can be particularly illuminating. While some non-clinical animal studies caused hypothetical concern around ivermectin toxicity in children, human studies do not support these assertions.
Studies done from 1980 to 2019 on children weighing less than 15 kilograms (33lbs) were analyzed using systematic review and individual patient data (IPD). From this, 1088 children were included to find interactions with the effects of ivermectin treatment. Only 1.4% of cases (15 out of 1088 children) had any negative experience, and these minor cases were resolved on their own without complications.
In France, children between 1-64 months of age, (below 33 lbs.) received oral ivermectin for scabies. The study examined data from 170 infants in 28 different centers treated between July 2012 and November 2015. Even though ivermectin is not recommended for infants, the centers used it as an off-label treatment. Out of all the children treated, seven cases from 170 children (4%) reported mild reactions that were self-limiting.
Safety of ivermectin use in pregnant women
Pregnant women also need to be carefully considered in terms of safety during prolonged dosage, as there are concerns regarding possible teratogenic effects on the fetus after exposure in the womb.
A meta-analysis conducted in one study showed inconclusive results. Other studies indicate that there is no demonstrable cause for alarm.
To better understand these outcomes, retrospective case studies from years of mass distribution administration (MDA) Merck campaigns were systematically reviewed. The outcomes of interest included: neonatal deaths, stillbirths, congenital abnormalities, low birth weights, congenital anomalies, spontaneous abortions, and maternal morbidities.
From the seven outcomes examined, there were zero cases of preterm births, low birth weight, maternal morbidities, or neonatal deaths reported. However, it was unclear whether spontaneous abortion, congenital anomalies, and stillbirths resulted from ivermectin exposure. For babies and infants breastfeeding, the concentration in human milk is very low and has shown to be tolerably below the threshold.
Observational studies done with a control group found that out of 500 pregnancies, 12 cases reported birth anomalies (2.4%), while the control of 2666 had 33 congenital abnormalities (1.2%). The results varied widely across different retrospective case studies with conclusions failing to give definitive answers.
Previously, ivermectin was classified as pregnancy category C by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pregnancy category C of any drug means that the available data is from animal studies demonstrating teratogenic effects, but no adequate data from controlled human studies. This grouping criteria has since been replaced. The ivermectin animal studies have since been rescinded after finding the lab animals had a defect that gave erroneous results.
Safety of ivermectin in an elderly cohort
The elderly are another vulnerable group that should be considered when investigating ivermectin’s safety. Interestingly, there was a situation in an elderly residential facility in France which served to shed some light on this. Ivermectin was inadvertently served as pre-exposure prophylaxis to the 69 residents there who averaged 90 years old–they received ivermectin treatment after a case of scabies, which proved to be a blessing in disguise.
While recovering from scabies, COVID-19 affected the facility along with others in the area. Only seven of the elderly who had taken ivermectin got COVID-19. No fatalities occurred, unlike neighboring facilities which reported 5% fatalities with 23% infections. This situation showed that ivermectin was not a lifesaver but was well tolerated in the elderly. Concomitant drugs, comorbidities, and dosage were not indicated.
Weighing the risks and benefits of ivermectin pre-exposure
Research indicates a few contraindications of ivermectin with other drugs. In patients taking blood thinners such as warfarin, caution is highly recommended. Immunosuppressed individuals and organ transplant patients taking calcineurin inhibitors are also at risk of drug interaction. Studies advise that it is imperative to carefully evaluate the amount of intake in concurrent administration.
There is a clear consensus of data on ivermectin as a safe pre-exposure drug. Combined studies of more than 50, 000 patients have established the overall safety of ivermectin. Doses have varied from 0.15 mg /kg to 12 mg/kg, from infants to the elderly. Similarly, frequency has differed from daily intake to weekly, monthly, and annually.
Indications for a long-term dosage of ivermectin for pre-exposure prophylaxis
A central question for ivermectin pre-exposure prophylaxis over long-term use is how to ensure safe dosage, while at the same time making sure it provides adequate protection.
In Dhaka, Bangladesh, participants in a clinical study took 12 mg/ month of ivermectin for four months, while in Argentina health workers took 12 mg every week for four weeks as prophylaxis protocol. Since both cohorts reported comparable significant effectiveness, studies asserted that monthly dosing provided an adequate protective effect.
The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) implemented their own efficacious ivermectin prophylaxis procedure in healthcare workers of 0.3 mg/kg taken twice, 72-hours apart, every month. The meta-analysis averred that since there has not been a definitive standardized prophylaxis, “studies should be undertaken to better define … the optimal dose and frequency required.”
The sooner ivermectin’s long-term safety profile is determined, the sooner physicians will be able to use its potential benefits to the advantage of their patients
SARS-CoV-2 Immune Response in Nursing Home Residents after Full Dose of Pfizer Vaccine
A group of researchers in Spain recently conducted a study on whether nursing home residents who had contracted SARS-CoV-2 and had been fully vaccinated had more antibodies six months after vaccination than those residents who had not contracted SARS-CoV-2 and were also fully vaccinated. This study, which appeared in medRxiv, has not been peer-reviewed and consequently shouldn’t be cited as evidence yet.
The study was authored by researchers at The University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain; and Valencia Clinico Malvarrosa, Valencia, Spain, and included the following researchers: Estela Giménez, Juan Alberola, Ignacio Torres, Eliseo Albert, María Jesús Alcaraz, Pilar Botija, Paula Amat, María José Remigia, María José Beltrán, Celia Rodado, Dixie Huntley, Beatriz Olea, David Navarro.
Real-world experience has shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective in reducing the incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in nursing home residents based upon their ability to elicit a robust immune response to the virus.
This observational study consisted of 46 nursing home residents ages 60 to 100 years old, 34 women and 12 men. Ten of these residents had COVID-19 prior to vaccination. There was a baseline median of 17.5 days after vaccination and a follow-up median of 195 days. However, over time, maintaining a protective immune response in these individuals may have been compromised by their old age, frailty, and comorbidities.
Findings
The study’s main findings showed that while antibodies were found in 97.7 percent of the nursing home residents six months after they were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, their antibody levels declined significantly over time. However, those residents who had recovered from COVID-19 and had also been fully vaccinated maintained high antibody levels. These observations were not unexpected and have been seen in other populations including younger individuals with few or no comorbidities at comparable timeframes after full vaccination with mRNA vaccines.
Limitations
This study is limited by its small sample size and the lack of a control group. The data reveals that a large percentage of nursing home residents in the study showed detectable SARS-Co-V-2-S antibody and T cell responses at around six months after complete vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech, and this response did decline over time. However, it has not been determined whether these immune responses are enough to prevent COVID-19.
Conclusion
The study concludes that all residents showed detectable SARS-CoV-2-S reactive antibodies and T-cell responses at around 6 months after complete vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech although this did wane in magnitude over time.
The data also suggests that a booster, or third dose of vaccine proposed for the elderly, may be delayed past the six-month time in both the fully vaccinated and COVID-19 recovered residents.
Lead Research/Investigator (corresponding author)
David Navarro, Ph.D. INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain; University of Valencia
Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in nursing home residents following full dose of the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine
