Covid-19 News

    Prominent Trial Site Network Reports Inhaled Interferon Beta Study Shows Success Against COVID-19


    Prominent Trial Site Network Reports Inhaled Interferon Beta Study Shows Success Against COVID-19
    The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), the largest global HIV research network, which recently expanded its focus to include evaluating outpatient
    trialsitenews.com



    The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), the largest global HIV research network, which recently expanded its focus to include evaluating outpatient treatment for COVID-19, today announced that the external data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) has recommended that SNG001, an inhaled formulation of interferon beta, advance to phase 3 in the ACTIV-2 Outpatient Monoclonal Antibodies and Other Therapies Trial (ACTG A5401). SNG001 is the third agent to graduate to phase 3 in ACTIV-2, evaluating multiple investigational agents to treat early, symptomatic COVID-19 in non-hospitalized individuals.


    Background

    ACTIV-2 is sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also funds the ACTG. ACTIV-2 is part of NIH’s Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV), a public-private partnership program to create a coordinated research strategy that prioritizes and speeds the development of the most promising treatments and vaccines. It also receives support from the Federal COVID Response-Therapeutics, the U.S. government’s multi-agency effort to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.


    The Study Drug

    The investigational product under evaluation is called SNG001, an inhaled formulation of interferon beta. Developed by Synairgen, SNG001 contains an antiviral protein called interferon beta (IFN–β), a substance produced in the lungs during viral lung infections.


    The developer (Synairgen) has shown that older people with some chronic diseases have an IFN-β deficiency. Many viruses inhibit IFN-β as part of their strategy to evade the immune system.


    SNG001 is self-administered as a nebulized dose (15.6 MIU) that participants inhale once daily for 14 days. Participants are trained to use the nebulizer device by study staff and take all doses at home. BRII-196/BRII-198 (a combination monoclonal antibody treatment) and SAB-185 (a novel polyclonal antibody therapy) are both currently also in phase 3 study in ACTIV-2.


    The Study

    Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), ACTIV-2 is the first U.S. study to evaluate SNG001 (developed by Synairgen) among non-hospitalized people with COVID-19.


    ACTIV-2 is a randomized, blinded, controlled adaptive platform that allows promising therapies to be added and removed throughout the study to efficiently test a variety of new agents within the same trial infrastructure. The SNG001 study is being led by William Fischer, M.D., University of North Carolina (UNC) and Upinder Singh, M.D., and Prasanna Jagannathan, M.D., both of Stanford University. Kara W. Chew, M.D. lead ACTIV-2, M.S., UCLA, and Davey Smith, M.D., University of California, San Diego (protocol chairs) and David Alain Wohl, M.D., UNC, and Eric S. Daar, M.D., Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center (vice-chairs) and supported by Dr. Currier and ACTG Co-Chair Joseph J. Eron, M.D., UNC.


    “ACTIV-2 is currently evaluating treatment options that can be delivered in different ways, which is important as we aim to identify solutions that work for people who have a variety of needs,” said ACTG Chair Judith Currier, M.D., M.Sc., University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). “In addition to a combination monoclonal antibody infusion and polyclonal antibody infusion, this nebulized, inhaled version of interferon-beta broadens potential treatment options for people who have COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, which we believe could significantly simplify care for some people with COVID-19.”


    DSMB Recommendation

    The ACTIV-2 DSMB recommended that SNG001 advance into a phase 3 study among participants with mild to moderate COVID-19.The planned phase 3 study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of SNG001 in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death among non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.


    About the ACTG

    Founded in 1987, the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) was the world’s first HIV research network. The ACTG conducts groundbreaking studies to improve the treatment of HIV and its complications, including tuberculosis and viral hepatitis; reduce new infections and HIV-related illness; and advance new approaches to prevent, treat, and ultimately cure HIV in adults and children. ACTG investigators and research units in 15 countries serve as major resources for HIV/AIDS research, treatment, care, and training/education in their communities. ACTG studies have helped establish current paradigms for managing HIV disease, and have informed HIV treatment guidelines, resulting in dramatic decreases in HIV-related mortality worldwide.


    About Synairgen Plc

    A university spin-off and public limited company, Synairgen was founded in 2003 by University of Southampton professors Stephen Holgate, Donna Davies, and Ratko Djukanovic. The company focuses on the development of respiratory disease drugs.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    William Fischer, MD, University of North Carolina (UNC)


    Upinder Singh, MD, Stanford University


    Prasanna Jagannathan, MD, Stanford University.


    Call to Action: To check out more on ACTIV-2, see their website.


    ACTG announces graduation of investigational inhaled COVID-19 treatment to phase 3 study in activ-2
    The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), the largest global HIV research network, which recently expanded its focus to include evaluating outpatient treatment…
    www.eurekalert.org

    Children 5-11 Years Old Targeted by Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine with Unreported Low Absolute Risk Reduction


    Children 5-11 Years Old Targeted by Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine with Unreported Low Absolute Risk Reduction
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com


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


    Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial


    October 23, 2021


    Seeking emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer/BioNTech reported a 90.7% efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5 to 11 years old. Pfizer vaccine in children. But parents and guardians of children in this age range should understand that Pfizer/BioNTech measured the efficacy of its vaccine using the relative risk reduction, which is an unreliable measure for reporting experimental trial results. Pfizer/BioNTech did not report the vaccine’s more clinically important and much lower absolute risk reduction of approximately 2.3%.


    FDA guidelines for reporting clinical trial results to the public point out the need to report both the relative risk reduction and the absolute risk reduction measures. Communicating Risks and Benefits | FDA. But the FDA’s own guidelines are being ignored while the vaccine is under preparation for marketing to young children, denying the public access to important information necessary before consenting to having their children vaccinated.


    Concerned parents and other adults might want to address these issues directly with members of the FDA Advisory Committee who are reviewing the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for youngsters. Roster of Vaccines Advisory Committee | FDA. The Advisory Committee is scheduled to discuss the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for children on Tuesday, October 26, 2021.


    In the Pfizer/BioNTech clinical trial report for vaccine efficacy, 3 SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred out of 1,273 children in the vaccine group, and 16 infections occurred out of 637 children in the placebo group.


    The trial vaccine infection rate is 0.235%, and the placebo infection rate is 2.511%.


    The absolute risk reduction of the clinical trial is calculated by subtracting the vaccine infection rate from the placebo infection rate, which is 2.276%, rounding to 2.3%.


    However, this number can be manipulated into a higher number by dividing the absolute risk reduction by the placebo infection rate (2.511%), which equals the relative risk reduction, of 90.61%, approximately equal to the 90.7% vaccine efficacy reported by Pfizer/BioNTech.


    For more information and links to free online calculators to calculate the unreported absolute risk reduction from clinical trial results, see my medical journal article: Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials.

    Quote from Fm1

    Those vaccines actually work, most for a lifetime, not so with Covid vax. Protection begins waning at 2 months.

    Let us have a sense of proportion here.


    Horror; the COVID vaccine, like the Flu vaccine, has a limited life. it is however much more effective than the flu vaccine.


    Are we therefore to say that neither works?


    Let us hope that with the amazing advances in mRNA technology made in the last few years we can make a better COVID vaccine.


    I would not hold my breath. Why?


    It is not mainly the fault of the vaccine that protection wanes. It is the body's immune system, which responds in different ways to different pathogens.


    It is helpful to remember that unlike drug therapies, which saturate the body with artificial chemicals, the effect of vaccines is natural. They merely prime the body's own defences to do a bit faster what they will do anyway.


    THH

    If they lied to the world over this, just what else are they hiding and does this have anything to do with Francis Collins stepping down?


    After Strong Denials, NIH Admits Funded Gain-of-Function Research at Wuhan Lab


    After Strong Denials, NIH Admits Funded Gain-of-Function Research at Wuhan Lab
    According to an October 21 report from Yahoo News, the NIH has now admitted to paying for Gain-of-Function work at the Wuhan Institute of
    trialsitenews.com


    According to an October 21 report from Yahoo News, the NIH has now admitted to paying for Gain-of-Function work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. At the same time, NIH is pointing the finger at its contractor EcoHealth Alliance for violating reporting requirements. The NIH’s Lawrence A. Tabak made the admissions in a letter to US Representative James Comer while asserting that Ecohealth failed to be transparent in its reporting. Tabak cited a “limited experiment” that was done to see if “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 reception in a mouse model,” and said that mice with the altered virus “became sicker” than the mice were infected with the unaltered version. Per Yahoo, this disclosure vindicated Senator Rand Paul, who has accused NIAID director Anthony Fauci of suppressing information on such dangerous work in the May and July hearings.


    Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogen

    Most GoF work involves taking viruses from animals and changing them in the lab to be more transmissible or more deadly to human beings. The Tabak letter never uses this phrase, perhaps to maintain consistency with Fauci’s earlier denials that such work took place. Still, the research he describes exactly fits the definition of GoF. The Intercept has previously shown that $599,000 from NIAID specifically went to work designed to make viruses more dangerous. Rutgers University biosafety expert Dr. Richard Ebright has previously disputed Fauci’s assertion that NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” as being “demonstrably false.” Ebring told the National Review that the financed work at WIV is the epitome of GoF research as it “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” and was “resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.”


    EcoHealth Asserts Evolutionary Distance from SARS-CoV-2

    Tabak also asserts that EcoHealth did not properly execute its reporting requirements under the grant. They were supposed to submit to a “secondary review” if certain events that could make the research more dangerous occurred. Ergo when the WIV work was able to bind a coronavirus to a human ACE2 receptor in mice, they should have told NIH, and they allegedly failed to do this. Tabak also said that EcoHealth has only five days to provide to NIH “any and all unpublished data” regarding the award for compliance purposes. The rest of Tabak’s letter tried to show that the viruses used under the 2014-2018 NIH grant work are “are decades removed from SARS-CoV-2 evolutionarily,” so not related to the COVID-19 pandemic.


    National Review asks, What Else Are They Hiding?

    Also on October 21, the National Review asked, “What Else Is EcoHealth Alliance Hiding?” Given that EcoHealth allegedly did not make full reports, we must ask what else we don’t know yet. And it is fishy that Dr. Fauci testified under oath repeatedly that NIH never funded GoF work at Wuhan. As alluded to above, “Out of an abundance of caution,” EcoHealth was to have a “secondary review” of its work if developments that might increase the risk of the research took place. Then, when the human ACE2 receptor was able to bind with the modified virus, EcoHealth was required to, and also failed to, report it to the NIH. They “sat on” this work from 2018 to August 2021 when they “came clean” in a final report. “EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant. EcoHealth is notified that they have five days from today to report any unpublished data from the experiments and work conducted under this award. Additional compliance efforts continue,” Tabak posited. Given that it took 18 months for all of this information to come out, the Review asks, “So, what other Wuhan research developments — or accidents — has EcoHealth concealed?”


    EcoHealth President Aims to Narrow Oversight

    Instead of full cooperation with an inquiry into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, EcoHealth president Peter Daszak “has worked hard to narrow the field of acceptable debate on the topic.” He even organized a Lancet letter early in the pandemic, which put the lab-leak theory “out of bounds.” And instead of signing on to the letter, “he tried to conceal his involvement in it so that the public wouldn’t call out his conflict of interest.” And Daszak was “the lone American whom Beijing permitted to participate in the WHO’s initial COVID-origins investigation, which concluded that the lab-leak theory was ‘extremely unlikely’ based on such little information that the WHO director himself rejected their conclusion.” The National Review concludes: “Tabak takes pains in his letter to rule out the possibility that the work done under this specific grant produced COVID-19, but if EcoHealth wasn’t being fully transparent in this case, what else are they hiding

    Quote from Fm1

    The trial vaccine infection rate is 0.235%, and the placebo infection rate is 2.511%.


    The absolute risk reduction of the clinical trial is calculated by subtracting the vaccine infection rate from the placebo infection rate, which is 2.276%, rounding to 2.3%.


    However, this number can be manipulated into a higher number by dividing the absolute risk reduction by the placebo infection rate (2.511%), which equals the relative risk reduction, of 90.61%, approximately equal to the 90.7% vaccine efficacy reported by Pfizer/BioNTech.

    Ron Brown on absolute risks for vaccines. Again.


    It is right that the absolute risk reduction are a better measure of personal risk reduction at any one time than the relative risks.


    Two things make RB's point the antivaxxer spin you would expect from him:


    (1) absolute risks reported in a vaccine trial are not meaningful. They are proportional to the overall COVID infection rate then which has no relationship to vaccine efficacy. To give an absolute risk as measure of a vaccine you would have all the drug companies competing to find the highest COVID infection rates and times, and conduct trials there. So this is not Pfizer spin, it is the right way to judge how well a vaccine prevents infection.


    (2) Over a relatively short period of time everyone unvaccinated will have had COVID. So the chances of unvaccinated getting COVID (at least in the UK with its Boris - let it rip - style government) are high. Thus the real absolute risk reduction is much higher than the small values reported in the trials.


    I detest Ron Brown's TSN stuff because I think he understand the real issues - he is deliberately and cynically spinning things in a way that does not make sense while claiming to be expert and and objective.

    Many of us here believe it's you that's spinning, and I think some might even detest your spin!

    COVID vaccination may trigger Functional Neurological Disorder, much like other stressors


    Recently EU scientists reveal long-term brain damage caused by Covid Most of covid symptoms (blood clots, heart inflammation) are mirrored by its vaccines too, so that we can expect similar outcome like with tetanus vaccine. It's also given by fact, that m-RNA vaccinates induce antigens with production of single most toxic component of coronavirus, i.e. its spike protein rather than immobilized virus as a whole. See also: The Unvaccinated Are Looking Smarter Every Week

    NIH Bat Coronavirus Grant Report Was Submitted More Than Two Years Late The unusual timing of a bat coronavirus grant report suggests that an earlier version may have been revised. How many times can one grantee violate the Terms and Conditions of one NIH grant without being penalized? Apparently, if the grantee is EcoHealth Alliance, the number is at least eight:

    1. Violation: "No funds are provided and no funds can be used to support gain-of-function research covered under the October 17, 2014 White House Announcement (NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-15-011)."
    2. Violation: "Should any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under this grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain you must stop all experiments with these viruses"
    3. Violation: "Should any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under this grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain you must..provide..NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist..with..data"
    4. Violation: "Progress reports document grantee recipient accomplishments and compliance with terms of award. Progress reports...are due the 15th of the month preceding the month in which the budget period ends" (e.g., if the budget period ends 11/30, the due date is 10/15)."
    5. Violation: "Effective February 9, 2017, if the recipient organization has submitted a renewal application on or before the date by which a..Final-RPPR..would be required for the current competitive segment, then submission of an 'Interim-RPPR' via eRA Commons is now required."
    6. Violation: "NIAID defines a Highly Pathogenic Agent as an infectious Agent or Toxin that may warrant a biocontainment safety level of BSL3 or higher..When submitting future Progress Reports indicate at the beginning of the report.... ....If your IBC or equivalent body or official has determined, for example, by conducting a risk assessment, that the work being planned or performed under this grant may be conducted at a..safety level that is lower than BSL3."
    7. Violation: "When submitting future Progress Reports indicate at the beginning of the report: Any changes in the use of the Agent(s)..including its restricted experiments that have resulted in a change in the required biocontainment level, and any..change in location"
    8. Violation: "When submitting future Progress Reports indicate at the beginning of the report:.. If work with a new or additional Agent(s)..is proposed in the upcoming project period, provide..list of the new and/or additional Agent(s) that will be studied"
    Quote from Fm1

    Austria’s Chancellor Plans to Lock Down Unvaccinated in their Homes—1930s Era Tactics .....

    Call to Action: TrialSite Community—what are thoughts

    Thanks Fm1 . ..yes, we are directly under way to an autocratic nation or apartheid on vaxx. status in the middle of Europe.

    Really sad! And ONLY because real alternatives (IVM) are mainly due to political reason no option, since the PLAN is to vaccinate everyone. No deviation from the PLAN, but in science there are always options. But now its political, which is complete BS!

    An example of bias in the international media and the deterioration of investigative journalism!


    FLASHBACK: Media defended Anthony Fauci's false claims about Wuhan lab funding in feud with Rand Paul

    Journalist Drew Holden broke down the media's defense of Fauci in light of revelations NIH funded bat coronavirus research


    FLASHBACK: Media defended Anthony Fauci's false claims about Wuhan lab funding in feud with Rand Paul | Fox News


    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) admitted Thursday that it funded gain-of-function research on bats infected with coronaviruses at a lab in Wuhan, China despite repeated denials from Dr. Anthony Fauci that U.S. tax dollars were used.


    Journalist Drew Holden, who is known for pointing out media hypocrisy in lengthy Twitter threads, brought receipts proving mainstream news organizations were wrong when they declared that accusations against Fauci and the NIH over the funding were false.


    "I hope that outlets will correct the record," he wrote before sharing the evidence.


    You may remember a dust up in July between Dr. Fauci & [Rand Paul] around precisely this point. It seems inarguable that what Fauci told Congress isn’t true. And the press uncritically helped him convince the American people otherwise," Holden wrote, referring to Fauci's July congressional testimony in which he clashed with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., while claiming that no NIH money went towards gain-of-function research in Wuhan.


    Holden detailed the framing by a number of media outlets covering the exchange and how they appeared to favor Fauci, including CNN writing that he "excoriated" Paul and MSNBC saying the exchanges weren't going well for the Kentucky Republican.


    MSNBC even referred to Paul's pressure on Fauci as "slander," and ran a softball interview with him rebuking PaulHolden noted that Newsweek also picked up the MSNBC interview and ran its own headline "treating Fauci's word as gospel."

    This is yet another example of the power of media to frame stories. By choosing to focus only on what Fauci had to say, it conveys that there is only one side of this debate worth believing. That’s clearly not true," he wrote, citing a headline from The New York Times.


    Holden noted that Newsweek also picked up the MSNBC interview and ran its own headline "treating Fauci's word as gospel."

    He noted that The Washington Post also ran a story reiterating that officials had repeatedly dismissed Paul's allegations and suggested the paper should follow up now that the NIH had corrected the record. He added that the Post's resident fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, gave Paul's allegations two "Pinocchios" and suggested he also follow up to correct the record

    Holden went on to call out reporting from NBC News, Reuters, Vanity Fair, ABC News, Deadline Hollywood and FactCheck.org for also covering the story "poorly."

    Holden gave credit to some who stood in support of Paul but mocked some tweets from detractors, including The Lincoln Project, which accused him of lying and being a "moron

    Some might say that media are only as good as their sources: if the authority on this wasn’t truthful, how could the media know better? The problem, however, is that there was never even a shred of incredulity. The press took the government at its word and moved on," Holden said.

    "It should go without saying, but this is simply an inexcusable way to handle getting to the bottom of whether American taxpayers were responsible for funding research that could’ve contributed to a global pandemic that has killed millions of people," he added, before imploring media organizations again to correct the record.

    Biden Mocks Freedom: “I Have the Freedom to Kill You with My COVID


    Biden Mocks Freedom: “I Have the Freedom to Kill You with My COVID”
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com


    Scapegoating the unvaccinated as the cause of death and murder is nothing new. Its roots go back to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when people who resisted wearing face masks were accused of killing Grandma. But when scapegoating language is used by top government officials, as when U.S. President Joe Biden mocked freedom in a Town Hall meeting broadcast by CNN, a higher demand for accountability is in order. Biden CNN Town Hall. President Biden, please present your scientific evidence proving that I can kill you with my COVID. He might respond, “It’s simple. I catch the virus from you and I die.” Right away, we have a problem.


    In the logic of science, this temporal relationship, in which something happens followed by something else happening, is known as an association or correlation. But correlation doesn’t imply causation. Just because two events occur in close proximity doesn’t prove that one event caused the other.


    Perhaps Biden was already about to die from COVID-19 and I just happened to be standing next to him at the time. Or perhaps something entirely different killed Biden while he had COVID-19, having nothing to do with me or the virus. There is much surveillance data showing that people die from unrelated causes while infected with SARS-CoV-2. How are COVID-19 deaths counted? It’s complicated.


    Furthermore, clinical controlled trial evidence challenges the conventional wisdom that people can catch a viral infection from each other.


    Today we know that influenza is associated with a viral infection. But back during the 1918 pandemic, before the development of the electron-microscope and the discovery of viruses, U.S. Navy doctors tried to prove that healthy sailors could be infected with influenza by directly exposing the sailors to the coughs, breath, and sputum of hospitalized influenza patients. U.S. Navy Controlled Clinical Experiments. After conducting trials in Boston and San Francisco, results of interpersonal influenza infection transmitted between hospitalized patients and healthy controls proved negative, and the scientists never came up with an explanation for their negative findings.


    This clinical proof continues to be conveniently ignored by today’s virologists, epidemiologists, and immunologists who create models of viral infection transmission based on so-called viral reproduction numbers.


    Additionally, a survey of 1,269 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York City in May 2020 found that most of the patients had been sheltering in place for six weeks. COVID-19 patients in NY. From this evidence, it is reasonable to surmise that other causative agents must be involved in viral infections. For example, World Health Organization listed nutritional status, underlying health conditions, age, and compromised immune status as factors that increase susceptibility to infection. Infections and infectious diseases. Evidence from the emerging fields of nutritional epidemiology and nutritional immunology also implicates dietary factors in causing viral infections. Sodium Toxicity in the Nutritional Epidemiology and Nutritional Immunology of COVID-19.


    But in Biden’s simplistic world of limited knowledge, just having unvaccinated people around is sufficient to put vaccinated people’s lives in danger. Such ignorance is itself dangerous as it disrupts the welfare of society by burdening us with vaccine mandates and unprecedented infection control measures that work outside the framework of our rights and freedoms.


    Before we were encouraged to copy China’s totalitarian system of infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic, our society got along by conducting public health investigations and implementing pandemic responses that operated within the framework of our rights and freedoms. Why did we abandon our proven approach and copy China’s inept, untrustworthy, authoritarian, and dictatorial system which has reported only two deaths from COVID-19 in the past year and a half? Two Coronavirus Deaths Reported in China in Past 15 Months.


    Further investigations are needed to uncover the truth and return us back to a normal system of public health that protects us while operating under our cherished democratic rights and freedoms that Joe Biden is so quick to mock

    Quote from Fm1

    Many of us here believe it's you that's spinning, and I think some might even detest your spin!

    I know you do, but you have not yet given us all any reasons for that belief.


    Whereas my reasons for RB spinning I have stated, and they are not based on opinion or hunch, but fact. It does not make any sense at all to quote absolute risk reduction in a vaccine trial as indicating how well the vaccine works. And it has no relationship to the actual absolute risk people run, since that depends on infection rate when the vaccine is used, not during the vaccine trial.

    Quote from Fm1

    The trial vaccine infection rate is 0.235%, and the placebo infection rate is 2.511%.

    Usual Pfizer fake data. Infection rate has to be measured over 1 year not 2 weeks or 3 months. Further only severe outcome counts. Also here after one year. You can easily cheat PCR data what Pfizer certainly tried.

    Only terrorist/social Taliban apply an experimental high risk cancer chemo (vaccinate) to their children...


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (2) Over a relatively short period of time everyone unvaccinated will have had COVID.

    Plain vaccine terrorist FUD. 6 out of 7 have natural immunity for CoV-19 delta. This is also included into the Pfizer fake data. In reality - immunity reduced Pfizer protects at most 60%!

    Quote from gerold.s

    ONLY because real alternatives (IVM) are mainly due to political reason no option, since the PLAN is to vaccinate everyone. No deviation from the PLAN, but in science there are always options

    I agree with parts of this, other parts are wrong.


    IVM being discouraged is partly political - in the sense that doctors see a quack remedy that everyone believes makes them invulnerable to COVID as increasing vaccine hesitancy.


    But IVM is not a real alternative, unless you want people to have false security and feel better (which is what through the ages and still a lot of medicine does).


    Governments through COVID (well, western ones) PLAN some way that will prevent bad "health service can't cope" headlines. without vaccines those would be everywhere. they would not last forever, juts as in India, without vaccines, if we had a really severe high infection wave it would burn itself out quite quickly. Those high rates of infections would leave bodies in the streets because hospitals can't take them and that is a political no-no.


    So: since the vaccine - although it reduces effectiveness over time - reduces hospitalisation by 10X or so, you can see why governments want almost everyone to be vaccinated. The case for children is much less strong, The risks are low to them personally, though not zero, and obviously the effect on hospitals is tiny. The main case for children being vaccinated personally is that covid infection is disruptive of schooling and that carers catching covid can be a big deal. The main reason I see for governments wanting this is that it pushes less COVID into the community. That reduces the chance of a really high peak. In the Uk we are getting that now, and at the limit of what our hospitals can stand because they run normally with not much spare capacity. So the government is trying hard to get children vaccinated, and older adults boostered.


    It is partly political, but the politics is more or less in line with what most people want - at least in the UK where we do not have so much party politics in this area. We still have some though.


    As for science options, I don't think there is much in the way of treatment. We have got better over time, and eventually there will be much better drugs I guess. It can take a long time because antivirals are tricky. The main option is political - what rate do you let COVID run at in the population.


    I see the main benefit of the vaccine as being that you can run COVID at a much higher rate without too much political problem. Though you see where there are limits to that now in the UK.


    If we had a delta-specific vaccine it would (in the UK, high vaccination rates) knock out the virus completely. I'm not sure natural immunity will do that because it takes several years at tolerable infection rates (tolerable in UK) to give everyone that by which time it has maybe decayed and/or there is a new variant that evades it. So I see yearly vaccine, like Flu, as being the likely long-term containment strategy. With variant-specific vaccine and high take-up we should be able to more or less eradicate it in a country though never completely. Wildlife, other countries too poor or too disorganised to vaccinate enough... in any case COVID seems scary because so many people have never met it before. Once everyone has been vaccinated or caught it, even though they will catch it again, it will not be so scary. Still I think a bit more scary than Flu. So lucky the vaccines work better.


    THH

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    6 out of 7 have natural immunity for CoV-19 delta.

    Wyttenfact.


    In the Uk - based on N IgG antibodies, and also on infection counts over time, it is 25% or so. The official figures, N IgG antibodies, are 18% (maybe gone up to 20% now)? Not sure. But coiunting infections is pretty definite and shows that N antibodies are not massively underestimating the recovered number at the moment.


    If you just mean 6 out of 7 do not get severe disease - that is true. So what?

    The divisiveness when it comes to handling this disease and also the craziness we now see in democratic countries has me thinking that democracy is under attack and that we should make sure that our citizen are immune towards bad actors. For example we should hammer into the young and our population to be resistant towards bad actors with an hour a week that could focus on many modern things that should excite most people if presented correctly.


    On top of my head I have.

    1. Be sensitive to politicians arguing using tricks that are dirty e.g. not discuss the issues at hand but in stead do name calling.

    Like

    "Vote on me because he is a commie" or "Vote on me because she is a fascist"

    Lot's of such example's can be found all over the world, which is nasty and evil.


    2. In the same class discuss internet, how it works and all the problems that are around that, like information manipulation

    manipulation, sexual harassment and worse, economical crimes etc etc


    3. Statistics basic course with no math. My favorite (there is more) is to teach the danger of fishing expeditions

    My pet peeve is the danger of fishing expeditions, Which basically is this: If you consider 1000 numbers and consider all even numbers as miracles that was just due to chance, and odd number a meh event, then everybody would now that drawing an even ´number is very likely and although an individual is a 1/1000 chance, just drawing a miracle is 1/2. Now the problem with for example the world trade accident is that if people said we are going to look for 202, and then finds a 202 thing in the data, that's a miracle. This is not what is happening in reality in the internetz, there they go out and do a fishing expedition and finds a 944. Woow that's awkward, they say, clearly CIA was behind that. So the problem is that the number of outcomes we would classify as en event of interest is not well defined and so the viewer of the story will be fooled if not careful. Now consider that we have info from the whole wold at our findings and small probabilities and the human psyche does not mix well we kind of understand why people can fall into cult's. Another example that shows the danger to our democracy projects through out the world is the fishing for election fault. I will not put a value on that, just to notice that a bad actor in any of our democracies could do a fishing expedition nowing that "miracles" can be found and be able to foul quite a lot of people and initiate a divide and deterioration of the democracy. Hammering in the mechanisms of fishing, by example would indeed limit the probabilities for those bad actors to do any harm.


    4. Be critical of research results in the news, and know how things are manipulated.

    Demand that papers that cite sientific results really say that it is published or not and when published. One should know that commentaries of the papers by experts takes some time after the publication. So the date of the paper is important - I have found a lot if this issue happening recently and have a lot of examples. The longer time that has gone since the report the better is the quality if no serious critiques have appeared. Explain the science process och our current system, shows flaws (Semmelwise,cold fusion) but also strengths of it. A discussion on smoking science and how economical interests worked to manipulate the research. After that make parallels to the AGW. Lots if good and interesting stuff in this segment that is far from dry and could excite students/people


    5. Teach the danger of movies and picture manipulation,

    There are good movies that are entertaining that shows this by example be first being a bad actor and then show the tricks in the end - the best with humor. Also

    teachers should show how one can manipulate movies e.g. deep fakes, which are a scary future progression everyone knows about this. Examples how bad actors use this can be found in masses. Both entertaining examples but also scray manipulating pieces. Lots of good examples from the left and right in order to make a balance.


    6. Read 1984.


    7. Teach the importance of using text as text is memory and you can go back and forth to check things and enable you to be more critically empowered, (this is why bad actors prefer movies)


    What more, do you have, any favorites, make sure to keep the balance so politics can be kept out of the discussion, the topic in this post is keeping democracy and a good society flowing and that means that this is about the playing rules (that we learned form cold fusion, covid, and what not ) and by making sure we punish bad actors from not sticking to the rules by being voted out.

    Quote from stefan

    the topic in this post is keeping democracy and a good society

    The problem is that only Taliban and some small countries like Switzerland or e.g. California are close to a democracy. If the electors, every 4 years, can choose between mafia member wearing blue socks or red socks then this is called an election oligarchy.

    Currently USA is even worse:: Its a plutocracy as you can buy the power. That way any idiot can become president as we recently could see...


    The same for CoV-19:: In a plutocracy you are just cattle (s)elected for steak or ham.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The problem is that only Taliban and some small countries like Switzerland or e.g. California are close to a democracy. If the electors, every 4 years, can choose between mafia member wearing blue socks or red socks then this is called an election oligarchy.

    Currently USA is even worse:: Its a plutocracy as you can buy the power. That way any idiot can become president as we recently could see...


    The same for CoV-19:: In a plutocracy you are just cattle (s)elected for steak or ham.

    Yes there are too few choices in US to my taste. But I actually have my own country in mind as there is where I can suggest things to our politicians. I like the current state of our political system although not perfect but are not the Chamberlain type that sticks the head in the sand when I see a possible Reich in the rising. if the state of our teaching is not on the right level i would like to suggest to fix this for the political parties here. I would prefer other countries to be able to avoid such problems as well though, as we make a den't in our world with 10 million people, but focusing on my country is what I can do realistically. If I'm ignored I have at least done my duty.

    Rare Yet Disturbing Reports of Fully Vaccinated Health Care Workers in India Infected for the Third Time with COVID-19


    Rare Yet Disturbing Reports of Fully Vaccinated Health Care Workers in India Infected for the Third Time with COVID-19
    Reports out of India share a disturbing and purportedly rare example of vaccinated health care workers getting infected not once or twice but three
    trialsitenews.com


    Reports out of India share a disturbing and purportedly rare example of vaccinated health care workers getting infected not once or twice but three times! Apparently, a 28-year-old male working in a Pune-based hospital was first infected with the SARS-CoV-2 wildtype, and then re-infected with the Delta variant. Then, after full immunization, he was infected yet again. The Pune health care worker was infected for the third time a month after receiving the second dose of Covishield, the brand name for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine product developed domestically by Serum Institute of India. Apparently, at least two other doctors in India have been infected three times.


    Vulnerable Health Care Workers

    Indian press including Healthworld and Times of India report that healthcare workers are far more vulnerable to these rare occurrences of reinfection. This is due to the high amount of exposure associated with the profession, reports a Pune-based research team from Dr D.Y. Patil Medical College as well as CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB) in New Delhi.


    Dr. Vinod Scaria, a scientist with CSIR-IGIB, reported to the Times of India that this condition was very rare—but TrialSite suggests it is no less disturbing. Recently, Dr. Scaria and a large group of colleagues published a study on breakthrough infections in India.


    Genomic survey of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections in healthcare workers from Kerala, India - PubMed
    Genomic survey of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections in healthcare workers from Kerala, India
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    covid: Rarest of rare: Man reinfected with Delta after full vaccination | India News - Times of India
    India News: PUNE: Researchers have come across a 28-year-old male healthcare worker from a Pune-based hospital, who caught the Delta variant of coronavirus…
    timesofindia.indiatimes.com

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.