The secret of it's application is to use it early before virus multiplicates in cells - not in high doses when it's already too late (as it's common in hospital trials which handle only late cases of Covid).
I just visited (for one full day) a friend who's wive had Covid and was present in the house. He also was in the active transmission phase. But Ivermectin prophylaxis together with iodine prophylaxis did save my PCR! So no infection has been confirmed!
Bad news for the fear monger army. No Swiss measures for Omicron :: https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/c…-aufgenommen-633429942031
But Germans like to vaxxinate (kill or damage) Babies. Oh yes we live in a wonderfull world where the people suffering from cancer get no gene therapy and the healthy babies are killed by gene therapy.
Just one reminder: 30% of the cancer patient die much, much faster after a gene therapy...
In Germany you also need mask in trains as some CDU members did run out of bribe money...and need a refill.
Massive 30m Prospective Cohort Study Across UK: Serious Durability Problems with COVID-19 Vaccines
Corresponding author Aziz Sheikh from the Usher Institute at the University of Edinburgh and colleagues conducted a large-scale prospective cohort study across all four UK nations linking underlying data sources from primary care across several key variables from COVID-19 positivity, vaccination, hospitalization, and mortality data covering 30 million persons. The team was assembled at the urgent request of the high government: the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, which sought to identify among persons who were fully vaccinated as well as those boosted (third dose) what cohorts were most at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (e.g., breakthrough infections that lead to morbidity and mortality.). These questions had to be addressed due to a shifting policy initiative in the UK—the government seeks to better understand which population segments could benefit most from the vaccination, thus a departure from the one-size-fits-all policy of the U.S. government. The impressive research initiative found that despite full vaccination and even a third boost, substantial numbers of people in the UK faced the risk of serious injury and even death from COVID-19. This means the UK government must better pinpoint the highest-risk individuals that should receive a fourth jab, including the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 booster dose in addition to COVID-19 therapeutics when appropriate.
This study also continues to prompt concerns about the existing COVID-19 vaccines in use and their durability in the context of a dynamic, mutating pathogen. This, of course, is a concept that many members of national scientific leadership comprehended upfront at the start of the pandemic. Yet they embarked down the path of rigid, one-size-fits-all mass vaccination to eradicate the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen. What follows are some results that suggest the limitations of the current class of what this media refers to as Version 1.0 mRNA vaccine technology in response to the dynamic and morphing RNA-based SARS-CoV-2.
This important recent study was funded by the following:
Medical Research Council (National Core Studies—Immunity, UK Research, and Innovation)
Health Data Research UK
The Scottish Government
The University of Edinburgh
The Study
This massive prospective cohort study covered all four UK nations with results based on Reporting of Studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected Data (RECORD) as well as the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.
The team tapped into four near real-time nationwide healthcare datasets stored in separate secure Trusted Research Environments (TREs) in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. As reported by the authors, these data marts included various clinical and demographic characteristics of study subject, vaccination status and type of vaccine used, and information on positive SARS-CoV-2 infection from RT-PCR and subsequent COVID-19-related hospitalization or death.
Subjects were 18 years and up who had received their primary vaccine schedule with the following:
BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines only, or
Had subsequent booster doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022
However, because of the licensing timeline, most of the subjects were vaccinated with either Pfizer-BioNtech (BNT162b2) or AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). The authors report that the mRNA-1273 vaccine became available more than 4 months later and was, therefore, almost exclusively used in individuals aged 40 years or younger. There were not enough Moderna vaccinated persons for the study and thus were excluded.
What was the main goal?
The team set out to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics and estimate risk factors for individuals who had severe COVID-19 outcomes after completing the primary vaccination schedule or subsequent booster dose during the period when the omicron variant was dominant.
What were the findings?
The following is a breakdown of completed vaccinations in this study:
Duration
# Vaccinations
Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022
· 16?208?600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule
· 13?836?390 individuals received a booster dose
What were the vaccination outcomes?
Duration
experienced severe COVID-19 outcomes
Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022
· 59?510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group
· 26?100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster
The study team reports that the third booster did in fact lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years).
Furthermore, risks increase with older adults as the study authors report:
“Older adults (≥80 years vs 18–49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45–3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07–9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20–1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions—in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53–6·09])—and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90–4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29–0·58]).”
The data is a wake-up call that despite full COVID-19 vaccination and a third booster dose due to known issues involving vaccine durability as well as a mutating virus certain high-risk cohorts faced considerable risk for morbidity and mortality including the following:
80 years and above
Underlying health conditions (persons on immunosuppressants)
Chronic kidney disease
Conclusion
This large study generates what many might consider controversial findings. The data indicate that a full vaccination series includes 2 jabs of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine) plus a third booster dose, unfortunately, doesn’t protect a large segment of the UK population. In fact, the authors report “All groups aged 65 and over” face increased risk of serious outcomes relative to the reference groups (aged 18-49 years), while these findings line up with other investigations, report the University of Edinburgh-led team.
Emerging evidence suggests Moderna’s vaccine triggers greater immunity-fighting powers than Pfizer-BioNTech but as the study protocol precluded direct comparison, such interpretation should be done with caution.
TrialSite Comments
The study results demonstrate serious vaccine durability challenges. Yes, of course, the RNA virus mutates but that should have been discussed from day 1 of the decision to employ a mass vaccination to eradicate SARS-CoV-2. The reality is that there are no vaccines that prevent other major RNA viruses such as influenza or HIV/AIDS.
Disturbingly, the risk of serious infection or worse rises four-fold within just 10 weeks or 2.5 months after the primary vaccination (e.g., fully vaccinated). Likewise, a month after the third jab (first booster), a marked waning of vaccine effectiveness only accelerates by the week.
For example, the authors point out that in one study, by week 16 (4 months after a third jab booster dose), vaccine effectiveness wanes by a disturbing 5.5 times as measured compared to peak antibody titers.
Frankly, the situation is probably worse for individuals with clinical risk factors; though the study team didn’t have access to serological data, they did refer to other studies showing “suboptimal immunological responses across many of the groups identified in our analysis as being at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.”
Depending on point of view, the current mass vaccine campaign can be deemed problematic at best and the more critically minded could be far harsher. Why? Because of vaccine durability challenges. Yes, the manufacturers can blame a mutating virus for these problems, but wasn’t it their job to have effective updates done expeditiously with quality to keep up with the mutants? That just hasn’t been the case, and within weeks of a third dose, the vaccine effectiveness markedly wanes.
TrialSite’s Founder Daniel O’Connor asked “Is it viable to base our entire pandemic response on products that necessitate booster doses practically every quarter? Depending on novel technology every three or four months could become dangerous. We haven’t studied on the human body the long-term effects of such a regimen. Rather, the mRNA vaccines are actually more like therapeutics and should be investigated as a regimen for the most at-risk members of society where the risks of COVID-19 continue to far outweigh the risks of what we know about the vaccines, although the long-term use must be properly studied.”
O’Connor continued, “Moreover, now that we are able to better profile the risk for COVID-19 more tailored, precise strategies can be embraced and executed by public health agencies, regulators, industry, and the medical establishment. Thus, we applaud this British study. Yet in many regards, the COVID-19 vaccines show real promise but for what we consider an all but failed government pandemic response scheme.”
This media has been questioning this unifying, top-down vaccination-driven approach from the start as many physicians and scientists early on during the pandemic called for a risk-based approach to treating people. But a confluence of industry, government, and academia along with major health systems and licensing boards fully bought into a rigid, top-down Orwellian approach to pandemic response, perhaps permanently changing medicine itself. This study raises considerable problems for the CDC ACIP unanimous decision yesterday.
Yes, the vaccines have helped certain cohorts for sure, and this media isn’t opposed to mRNA technology, which has great promise if time is taken to better understand how to drive highly effective, durable, and high-quality products.
During this pandemic, other potentially viable approaches were frequently attacked while regulators, apex research institutes, and medical societies—backed by industry pressures—promulgated near authoritarian-like conditions. Patients and advising doctors discussing different approaches were considered loons and quacks: how dare they deviate from the top-down edicts! Diversity was rejected with hierarchical uniformity promoted as science itself. Deviate from that position and you commit blasphemy; discuss a different approach and you are a spreader of misinformation---pariahs, often chastised if not attacked by fact-check hired guns employed by the biggest media corporations, tech, and social networks such as Facebook and possibly directly even by agencies within the federal government.
What’s the study author’s call to action?
The UK-based study team led by the University of Edinburgh and other prominent institutions urge the need to conduct studies identifying the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes after a booster dose in persons who did in fact demonstrate a full immunological response.
Limitations
Large studies such as this one impress, complex, large and difficult to pull off and of course include numerous limitations. These include:
Observational studies by their nature are based on numerous data limitations and the potential for bias
Dynamic situation involving changing mutations challenging the harmonization of underlying data risk groups across UK nations
Residual confounding risks
Timing of primary series and boost lead to differing situations that couldn’t be controlled
Not all infections caused by Omicron which could impact study results
Other limitations are included in the report.
Lead Research/Investigator
Aziz Sheikh, OB, FRSE, FMedSci, Professor of Primary Care Research and Development
Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales
Why was there no Omicron wave in India???? No vaxxines and tons of Ivermectin/Ziverdo kits.
It looks like war against humanity is the new business model...For folks like Gates and other born criminals like Putin, Egowahn, Xsi Ping,..
Why was there no Omicron wave in India???? No vaxxines and tons of Ivermectin/Ziverdo kits.
It looks like war against humanity is the new business model...For folks like Gates and other born criminals like Putin, Egowahn, Xsi Ping,..
Something else to think about. Why do patients treated early with ivermectin, do not report long COVID symtoms in followup to the ivermectin trials?
A ‘Global Scandal’ As Laura Ingraham of Fox News Interviews Dr. Aseem Malhotra
TrialSite recently reported that prominent London cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra went on the record that the COVID-19 vaccines need to be suspended until all the raw data associated with the products can be thoroughly analyzed. It turns out this eminent specialist was one of the first persons to take the full series (two doses) as well as serve as a key proponent, speaking about the importance of the product on Good Morning Britain. But something changed with the death of his father. A fit and active man in his 70s, Malhotra’s father died due to cardiac arrest shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Malhotra recently published the findings of his investigation in the peer-reviewed Journal of Insulin Resistance. Now Malhotra advocates for suspending the mass vaccination campaign arguing that the evidence of effectiveness and true safety has been probably covered up by both manufacturers—Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna, and possibly the government. The doctor has gone on the record that he believes that the COVID-19 “mRNA vaccines likely accelerate coronary artery disease.” Ingraham calls it “a global scandal.”
Conservative-leaning mainstream media such as Fox News have picked up the story. Recently, the well-known conservative anchor Laura Ingraham interviewed the cardiologist who shared that while he always had his suspicions about pharmaceutical-sponsored research, he always gave the benefit of the doubt. And he would never have suspected that a vaccine could be dangerous. That’s why he raced to the front of the line to get the jabs himself.
Heading up a group called Public Health Collaboration, Dr. Malhotra told Ingraham on prime-time cable news that when he lost his father to a truly unexpected cardiac arrest upon post mortem he became disheartened, finding evidence of vaccine-induced coronary artery disease. Yet not too long before, he had done some heart checkups, and all was OK. Malhotra deduced this had to be the mRNA vaccines.
When he went public, he was immediately censored by Facebook for violating community standards. Probably not a surprise for any group or individual that has tried to question official narratives during the pandemic. TrialSite has reported that Facebook even censored the preeminent BMJ journal when they published an article from a Pfizer whistleblower on COVID-19 vaccine trial data quality issues.
So, Malhotra did his own critical appraisal, conducting several months of research, including speaking to eminent scientists from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, experts in vaccinology, immunology, and cardiology as well two Pfizer whistleblowers and investigational journalists. He worked to submit a paper for peer review to tell the world about his horrific conclusion. Unfortunately, this particular vaccine, while not that effective according to the cardiologist, represents a substantial risk for harm. He concluded that the mounting evidence overwhelmingly represents the need for mRNA-based vaccines to be suspended until an exhaustive data review can be conducted by objective third parties.
Ingraham raised a study led by Kaiser Permanente revealing that 1 in 7,000 boys in the USA aged 12 to 15 develop myocarditis after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. She noted that recently the FDA just approved boosters for children as early as age 5 to 11. She asked the expert cardiologist, ‘Is the myocarditis just something of a side effect?’ Of course, every drug has a side effect.”
But unfortunately, Malhotra conveyed the situation is far more dire based on his findings. In more general terms, he reports, when reviewing the data, he found that the risk of harm involving serious adverse events such as myocarditis, other incidents leading to disability, hospitalization, etc. does occur at a rate of at least one in every 800 vaccinations—a far higher rate of incidents than otherwise reported. And he claims that this number is derived from Pfizer and Moderna’s own data!
Malhotra wonders aloud with Ingraham how this product could even be authorized on an emergency basis, let alone approved. A smoking gun exists and, according to Malhotra, the Florida Attorney General of Florida understands these risks, hence the recommendation now not to administer the COVID-19 vaccines to young people in that state. Of course, Florida AG Dr. Joseph Ladapo has experienced a real blowback for going in this direction. Malhotra now believes that safety or harm is for everyone. Even for persons over 65, although not to the same degree.
While myocarditis is one issue, Malhotra continued, other issues surface such as a heightened risk of cardiac arrests with the vaccines versus even the SARS-CoV-2 disease itself. Ingraham asked Malhotra, “given what we know thus far, was this vaccine rolled out too quickly without adequate testing because of the global pandemic nature of things?
The British cardiologist said yes, declaring that “this vaccine should have probably never been rolled out.” Ingraham responded, “If this is the case, this is a global scandal.”
Malhotra emphasized on the COVID-19 vaccines that “they represent the biggest miscarriage of medical science, an attack on democracy damage to population health as well as an erosion to trust in medicine that we will witness in our lifetime.”
He now lobbies the British Parliament to advocate for the suspension of the vaccine program.
Has Malhotra simply converted to some kind of anti-vaxxer? This seems unlikely.
Study suggests widespread severe vaccine injury in US veterans
A study published on June 13, 2022 in JAMA Internal Medicine was unheralded. The Meanings section began: “This study’s findings suggest that there were few differences in risk of adverse events within 14 days of the first dose of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine and small-magnitude differences within 42 days and 38 weeks of the first dose.”
However, that statement bears no resemblance to the actual study findings.
Recipients of BNT162b2 (Pfizer & BioNTech) had an excess of 10.9 ischemic stroke events and 14.8 myocardial infarction events per 100,000 patients than in a cohort receiving mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The findings were obtained by following subjects in a retrospective manner over 38 weeks following vaccination. Baseline differences between the cohorts were minimized using matching. Follow-up was censored at COVID-19 diagnosis to minimize any possible protective effects of these vaccines.
One possible interpretation of the results is that mRNA-1273 (Moderna) provided more protection against cardiovascular and other adverse events than BNT162b2 (Pfizer & BioNTech). The authors state:
“Although our primary analysis was designed to detect safety events unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection, we are unable to exclude the possibility that these differences may be partially explained by a lower effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine in preventing the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the mRNA-1273 vaccine.”
However, since follow-up beyond the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis that was excluded for cases visible to the healthcare system, the differences between the vaccines is likely due to BNT162b2 (Pfizer) causing a massive number of severe cardiovascular and other events in this population. The study also does not exclude the possibility that mRNA-1273 (Moderna) is also causing large-scale severe cardiovascular events.
The trial outcome strongly supports the already overwhelming evidence of the devastation of COVID-19 vaccines.
Pandemic Perhaps Is Over: Pfizer Back to Price Gouging Business with 400% Proposed Price Increase for COVID-19 Vaccine
Pfizer’s getting restless for more profits, perhaps sensing a shift in market demand for their mRNA based vaccine products? As demand goes down, the price goes up—but isn’t that contrary to free market laws? This push is despite the fact that the company earned record revenues and profits. They now propose a 400% price increase. Perhaps POTUS was correct—it’s back to normal business in the land of Big Pharma.
Jared Hopkins writing for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that the New York-based pharma company continues to negotiate with payers (health insurers) a list price ranges. The WSJ’s Hopkins interacted with Pfizer’s Global Primary Care & US President Angela Lukin
who shared that the company planned to sell the COVID-19 vaccine via intermediary wholesalers also offering rebates off the list price, a standard practice. The company will shift from a multi-dose vial package (pandemic model) to a single-dose vial version, reports the WSJ. Hopkins writes, “the details are the latest sign that the preparations are underway for a transition to the typical commercial sales form U.S. government purchases of the vaccine.” See another WSJ piece on this topic.
Pfizer recently announced the record profits they made mainly due to the Covid-19 vaccines on their earnings call. Pfizer can't claim they are recouping R&D costs since BioNTech did nearly all the development work and during the pandemic itself, the government indirectly subsidized clinical trials. Although, Pfizer did try to avoid government entanglement as much as possible until commercialization time.
Pfizer goes on the record that insurers will cover the cost, but that’s likely an attempt at obfuscation and appeasement. Most persons with eyes wide open understand the results of this type of Big Pharma price gouging when following the run-up of their insurance premiums. Perhaps this is a stark reminder that big Pharma in America often has the luxury of pricing their drugs arbitrarily because insurers can pass on the costs to everybody in the form of higher healthcare premiums.
Some will defend the move as just pricing to what the market will bear in a capitalistic, free-market type of society. However, when the barrier of entry is exorbitantly high to prevent real competition, the market rules of a monopoly apply. Just think about how the FDA has been making it so hard for Novavax, despite every other major regulatory authorizing the use of that competitive vaccine. Also, think about those government mandates, CDC-authorized vaccine schedules, and the states, counties, and school districts that may force the issue of consumption. Not as free of a market as we would like—Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave.
In some ways, Biden may have been quite correct in declaring an end to the pandemic. Now Big Pharma is getting back to business as usual.
Japan Bombshell: COVID-19 Vaccines 4X+ Myocarditis Risk than Background Population: 'Extremely High Myocarditis Death Odds'
Yet another study, this time in Japan, raises concerns about mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety signals. Recently posted in the preprint server medRxiv, co-author Rokuro Hama, director of the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, a Japanese post-approval monitoring agency, reports evidence of growing concern. A sophisticated operation, this Japanese group diligently pursued its mission. They report that myocarditis mortality ratios (MMRRs) and their confidence intervals (95%) after receiving the COVID-19 vaccines compared with the general reference population over the past three years were significantly higher not only among the young adult population (highest in the 30s with MMRR of 6.69) but also in the elderly. A bombshell finding, the authors in Japan report that myocarditis risk among COVID-19 vaccinated may be four times higher than the apparent MMRRs considering healthy vaccinee effect. They declare, “Underreported post-vaccination deaths should also be considered as suggested by the extremely high myocarditis mortality odds ratio (205.60; 133.52 to 311.94 ).”
The Study
This real-world investigation compares the myocarditis mortality rate in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated with that in the general population in Japan. The study was based on the materials and the vital statistics disclosed by the Japanese government
This Japanese study is still in preprint involving 99,834,543 individuals aged 12 and up who had received a COVID-19 vaccine once or twice by February 2022. The authors report the reference population as those aged 10 and above from 2017 to 2019.
Findings
The authors report in medXriv that the number of myocarditis deaths meeting inclusion criteria were 38 cases. MMRR (95% 16 confidence interval) was 4.03 (0.77 to 13.60) in 20s, 6.69 (2.24 to 16.71) in 30s, 3.89 (1.48 to 8.64) 17 in 40s, respectively. SMR of myocarditis was 2.01 (1.44 to 2.80) for the overall vaccinated population, and 1.65 (1.07 to 2.55) for those 60 years or older. Estimated adMMRRs and adSMR were about 4 times higher than the MMRRs and SMR. Pooled MOR for myocarditis was 205.60 (133.52 to 311.94).
Discussion
The results of this study raise bombshell implications. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with a higher risk of myocarditis death, not only in young adults but also in all age groups including the elderly. Considering the healthy vaccinee effect, the authors suggest that the risk of this serious adverse event could be four times or higher than the apparent risk of myocarditis death. Importantly they emphasize that any underreporting must also be considered. Based on this study, the risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 24 vaccination may be more serious than that reported previously. This study dovetails with other evidence that the safety of vaccines must be reconsidered.
Limitations
This study does have numerous limitations. They can be reviewed in the preprint here. TrialSite notes this Japanese organization is well known for thorough work.
Lead Research/Investigator
Sintaroo Watanabe, MD, PhD, Japan Marine United Corporation, Kure Shipyard, Kure, Japan
Rokuro Hama, MD, Non-profit Organization “Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance (Med Check),” Osaka, Japan, Corresponding Author)
Covid-19 vaccine administration must stop’ – Dr Aseem Malhotra’s MUST READ paper on mRNA vaccines
Just one more reminder::
Alternative explanations must include the
(more likely) possibility that a rise in mortality after
vaccination was misattributed to the unvaccinated
population: in other words, those counted as ‘unvaccinated
deaths’ would in fact be those who had died within 14 days
of being vaccinated (a freedom of information [FOI] request
has now confirmed that authorities in Sweden were indeed
categorising deaths within 14 days of dosing as unvaccinated,
creating a misleading picture of efficacy vs death)
This is what we say since almost 1.5 years now. The Pfizer deaths are cheated away as Covid deaths.
Swiss Excess mortality among age <65 is very low since months but for age >=65 it never came back to normal since vxxination started.
So we can definitely say that CoV-19 never was the slightest problem for age < 65!
But vaxxination for age > 65 is more deadly than COV-19.
Pffizer CEO no show at the EU Covid meeting
ROOS 52.38
"Was the Pfizer vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus
before it entered the market?"
if NO please say it clearly
if YES are you willing to share the data with this committee
and I really want straight answer yes or no
SMALL (Pfizer shill)1.01.32
NO
you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand
what is taking place in the MARKET
and from that point of view we had to do everything AT RISK.
External Content
www.youtube.com
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
A banana a day keeps Covid and flu away!
Treatment From Banana Protein Beats All Known COVID Variants, Flu
An international study has produced a promising treatment from banana protein which has proven effective against all known COVID variants and flu in animal testing.
The COVID treatment worked in animal models whether delivered systemically or through the nose, either prophylactically or therapeutically early on in the illness, the University of Michigan Medical School explains in a blog post.
The initial study, published in early January 2020, announced that a compound modeled on a protein found in bananas safely protects against multiple strains of the influenza virus.
An international study has produced a promising treatment from banana protein which has proven effective against all known COVID variants and flu in animal testing.
The COVID treatment worked in animal models whether delivered systemically or through the nose, either prophylactically or therapeutically early on in the illness, the University of Michigan Medical School explains in a blog post.
The initial study, published in early January 2020, announced that a compound modeled on a protein found in bananas safely protects against multiple strains of the influenza virus.At the time, we thought MERS would be the big target, which we were worried about because of its 35% mortality rate,” said David Markovitz, M.D., professor of internal medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School.
“When COVID-19 occurred, we of course wanted to study the therapy’s potential and discovered it was effective against every type of coronavirus, in vitro and in vivo,” Markovitz added.
Researchers who inserted a gene from the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 into another strain of the virus have triggered a fierce controversy over what constitutes perilous COVID-19 research. The team at Boston University, Massachusetts, was trying to understand why Omicron causes mild disease. But the experiments have sparked a debate: whether researchers who are modifying pathogens need to keep regulators and funding agencies informed about their work, and when they should do so. The controversy highlights “the lack of clarity that people have on exactly what sorts of experiments have benefits that outweigh risks, and who decides how it’s all reviewed”, says evolutionary virologist Jesse Bloom.
Reference: bioRxiv preprint 1 & bioRxiv preprint 2 (both not peer reviewed)
Heidelberg Team Care for Neurological Autoimmune Diseases Likely Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines
A group of clinician-investigators from University Hospital Heidelberg Germany as well as Hospital Ludwigshafen, both of Germany recently report in a peer-reviewed case series the results of a single-center prospective case study covering the long-term, clinical, laboratory and imaging characteristics of patients diagnosed with neurological autoimmunity diagnosed in temporal association with COVID-19 vaccinations. While most of these patients overcame their conditions and re-vaccinations were well tolerated, the incidence of neurological autoimmunity conditions temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccines raises concern and most certainly suggests case by case, individual risk/benefit analysis for each and every vaccination.
The German-based physician-scientists were aware of incidence worldwide of COVID-19 vaccines likely triggering neurological autoimmunity such as immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
Published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Neurology, this case series report was led by corresponding authors Silvia Schönenberger, MD and Leon Kaulen, MD both with the Heidelberg University Hospital
In this single-center prospective case study the clinician-investigator tracked post-COVID-19 vaccine-injured patients for 387 days assessing clinical laboratory and imaging characteristics of patients with neurological autoimmunity diagnosed in what they refer to as “temporal association ( ≤6 weeks) with SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations.
The German care and research team tracked the following patient caseload:
Diagnosed Post-COVID-19 Vaccine Injury
N
CNS Demyelinating diseases
8
Inflammatory peripheral neuropathies
4
VITT
3
Myositis
2
Myasthenia
1
Limbic encephalitis
1
Giant cell arteritis
1
Results
After following up treatments two patients’ conditions worsened even after administration of immunosuppressants. The study authors speculate possibly due to the autoimmune diagnoses. By a year 12 of the 15 patients achieved complete clinical remission while five of the patients achieved what the case series authors report as partial response (meaning that patients are still struggling). They report one patient to have stabilized (stable disease).
Importantly the German study authors share that none of the patents had any detectable autoimmune antibodies and titers had lowered in all patients while radiological responses were achieved in most cases based on repeat imaging.
15 of the patients underwent additional COVID-19 vaccines with both Pfizer-BioNTech (12) and Moderna (3). Overall, the doctors wrote that the patients’ re-vaccinations were well tolerated except in one case where a patient experienced a “short-lasting relapse which responded well to steroids.”
University Hospital Heidelberg Germany
One of the largest medical centers in Germany, University Hospital Heidelberg includes 1,091 beds and is linked closely to the Heidelberg University Medical School founded in 1388 representing the oldest such medical school in Germany.
Lead Research/Investigator
Silvia Schönenberger, MD Assistant Professor
Leon Kaulen, MD, Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg
The US branch of the together kill Ivermectin trial.
As usual it took along time and "careful selection" to get appropriate trial victims. Deadline was 7 days post infection. All got the same IVR dose/kg for 3 days albeit we know that this is total nonsense for all the severe cases that have been included. For these higher dose for 5..10 days are required.
Half of the folks were vaxxinated = immune suppressed. Avg. BMI was high as usual in USA. Of course nobody takes IVR alone > 100 million Indians got the ziverdo kit and did extremely well and fully avoided the Omicron peek.
We can only hope that there are enough victims with money to sue the doctors for neglecting minimal care.
Interesting new preprint on Lab-leak origin of SARS-Cov2 explains in detail the "finger print" of common gain-of-function research...
