Vitamin D Supplements May be Fending Off People’s Dementia, New Large Study Shows–Especially in Females

Vitamin D Supplements May be Fending Off People’s Dementia, New Large Study Shows–Especially in Females

Taking vitamin D supplements may ward off dementia, according to a new, large study with 12,388 participants who were dementia-free.

www.goodnewsnetwork.org

Taking vitamin D supplements may help ward off dementia, according to a new, large-scale study with 12,388 participants who were dementia-free when they signed up.

To examine the vitamin’s association for participants with a mean age of 71, researchers at the University of Calgary’s Brain Institute in Canada and the University of Exeter in the UK partnered with the US National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center.

Of the group, 37 percent (4,637) took vitamin D supplements.

The team found that it was associated with 40 percent fewer dementia diagnoses in the group who took supplements.

New Evidence of Possible Coverup: Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins & Jeremy Farrar, then Dir. Wellcome Trust Influenced Direction of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Cover

New Evidence of Possible Coverup: Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins & Jeremy Farrar, then Dir. Wellcome Trust Influenced Direction of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Cover

New evidence suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National…

www.trialsitenews.com

New evidence suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), along with former NIH Director Francis Collins and a former director of a major global pharmaceutical foundation called Wellcome Trust, Jeremy Farrar, were the orchestrators behind getting a group of virologists to change their critical outlook of SARS-CoV-2, from a highly suspect pathogen possibly developed via gain-of-function, and leaked inadvertently, to a zoonotic, naturally occurring pathogen. The powerful heads organized a late-night meeting where a serious discussion occurred--top-level virologists and critics about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 did a complete turnaround, arguing in an ensuing influential paper that the overwhelming probability of origin was associated with a zoonotic/organic explanation. Thus, a group of top virologists, at the prompting of men commanding huge research purse strings, drafted a memorandum countering the validity of the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak theory, perhaps on behalf of vested interests, including Wellcome Trust and the NIH?

As speculation grew about the prospect of an engineered pathogen during the early part of 2020, powerful forces may have conspired to subvert any truthful pursuit. Based on an ongoing House of Representatives inquiry, is it possible that top virologists collaborated to cover up any investigation into the lab leak theory of SARS-CoV-2?

In what could be a bombshell memorandum authored by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Top brass at the NIH and the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom orchestrated moves behind the scenes to convince top virologists to author an article systematically arguing for a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 despite initial concerns of top virologists as to the contrary.

The congressional memo reveals that the key principle authoring the article informed the scientific journal that authoring was “prompted” by Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome Trust at the time, and not surprisingly, Dr. Antony Fauci, then Director of NIAID as well as NIH Director Francis Collins.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) emails have revealed that on February 1, 2020, the virologist met with the power trio of Farrar, Fauci, and Collins via private teleconference in what appeared to be a move to thwart any acknowledgment that SARS-CoV-2 could have been engineered in a lab. Apparently, some of the scientists involved have a conscience, concerned that the whole meeting was not appropriate.

Based on earlier emails obtained via FOIAs, Kristian Andersen was one of the virologists who had expressed initial skepticism as to a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.

TrialSite reported on emails obtained via FOIA back in 2021 and 2022 suggesting Andersen did a complete turnaround after Fauci held an emergency meeting to discuss concerns of top virologists.

Kristian Andersen shared earlier on January 31, 2020, that he and virologist Eddy Holmes, as well as Robert Garry from Tulane University, found that “The genome looks inconsistent with natural evolution.”

In fact, by February 2, 2020, Garry raised serious doubt about the zoonotic/organic explanation for SARS-CoV-2, once relating its genome to one eerily similar from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, noting, “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level … stunning.”

Of course, after that notorious late-night meeting called by Fauci, the whole point of view would change, and any lab-origin theory became implausible.

Back to Andersen, by February 12, 2020, he wrote in an email, “There has been a lot of speculation, fear-mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space.”

The latest emails reveal:

“Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origin of the virus,” said the Scripps Research virologist.

Source: Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

At the time of the first disclosure during a meeting involving Fauci and Collins, it wasn’t mentioned that Farrah was involved in the effort to hammer home the consensus that a lab leak premise was all but impossible.

In piecing together the various emails, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic members discovered that the private meeting bringing together Dr. Fauci and scientists concerned about a gain-of-function origin theory in February 2020 implies genuine concern on the part of the NIH leadership. Was the virologist getting too close for comfort?

The meeting led to a vastly different tone and mood, declaring strongly that the virus was zoonotic in origin. After that letter, social media initiated an orchestrated censorship program, punishing anyone online that suggested a human-made hypothesis. Was this orchestration of social media on this topic coincidental?

Before now, it wasn’t known that Farrar was involved with these meetings. At the time, he was involved with one of the most prominent drug development foundations with no known connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Farrar served as an advisor to the paper, recommending key changes to the text, including requesting Andersen to modify a sentence, “it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus.” He recommended that “unlikely” be changed to “improbable,” and Andersen went ahead and made the change.

Source: Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Farrar was recently appointed as chief scientist of the World Health Organization, an interesting position.

Early on during the pandemic, Farrar informed the group he would capitalize on high-level contacts at the journal Nature to get the article hammering home the zoonotic/organic theory of the proximate origin of SARS-CoV-2.

While many speculated about the involvement of powerful brass, including Fauci and Collins, the involvement of Farrar wasn’t disclosed until a FOIA much later after the article was published. Interesting that he now has a top position with WHO.

Contradictory Corners

The consensus among the virologists that ultimately authored the “Proximal Origins” piece made their opposition to any allegations of manipulation or a coverup, disclosing that they, in fact, did look into a lab leak theory but found not enough evidence there to continue any investigation in that direction.

But the congressional investigation as found in the recent memo, raises serious concerns about the public posturing behind the official story.

For example, Ian Lipkin, a virologist employed at Columbia University, communicated on February 11, 2020, that a previous draft “does not eliminate the possibility of inadvertent release following adaptation through selection in culture at the institute in Wuhan,” unfortunately emphasizing a “nightmare of circumstantial evidence” at the Chinese lab.

Now with the majority Republican Congress looking into the matter, the memo reveals that one of the other virologist authors mentioned before, Eddie Holmes communicated on February 11, 2020, that he concurred with Lipkin’s point of view, but this occurred after he authored the first version of the article shooting down the lab leak theory. Why would he express such contradictory messages? Was Fauci, Collins, and Farrar putting the pressure on him and the others?

Among other issues raised by Holmes was the uncanny speed that the pathogen presented in humans, less any evidence whatsoever of any zoonotic reservoir. This, of course, was a quite different scenario experienced than the first coronavirus (SARS-CoV).

Eddy Holmes went on the record, “It is indeed striking that this virus is so closely related to SARS yet is behaving so differently. Seems to have been preadapted for human spread since the get go.” Preadapted?

Source: Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Why would Holmes have used that terminology for SARS-CoV-2? Why wasn’t this fact emphasized in the final article that was published?

TrialSite’s Founder, Daniel O’Connor, said, “we find the timing quite interesting. There was absolutely no certainty surrounding the zoonotic theory, yet this group of scientists, just days after some of them expressed serious concern about what appeared to be engineered elements of SARS-CoV-2, did a complete turnabout now arguing forcefully for the zoonotic/organic origins theory.”

The TrialSite founder continued, “While the most recent evidence from a string of different FOIA-originated emails courtesy of the congressional committees’ resources and initiative doesn’t provide conclusive evidence for the lab-leak theory, it most certainly validates the pit many of us felt in our stomachs when we heard of the emergency late-night meeting called by Fauci and Collins.”

Call to Action: Follow the link to the memo titled “New Evidence Resulting from the Select Subcommittee’s Investigation into the Origins of COVID-19 – “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

Scott Gotlieb,head of Pfizer-pFDA

"Lab leak possible"

I guess the lableak story is a distraction from Pfizer's "spikecine' excess deaths..

This is for the huxsters of the world. The tide has turned!

Note to the media: Even a broken clock can be right about COVID-19 virus origin

If you mock people who unquestionably believe every word that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth, consider how it sounds to believe the opposite of everything the former president says.

Note to the media: Even a broken clock can be right about COVID-19 virus origin

If you mock people who unquestionably believe every word that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth, consider how it sounds to believe the opposite of everything…

www.inquirer.com

Early in 2020, the idea that the COVID-19 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “debunked.” Even before an investigation could begin, the Washington Post declared the idea “a fringe theory” and “unhelpful.” The New York Times noted that the “conspiracy theory lacks evidence and has been dismissed by scientists.”

There was not yet enough evidence to prove or disprove anything — and the Chinese government tried to make sure that there never would be — but the lines were already being drawn.

The idea that the virus came from a wet market — an open-air market selling produce and meat, including sometimes live animals — was what “respectable” people believed. That it might have spread from one of the only two biosafety level 4 labs in China, the one that was located right near the origin of the virus, well, only “bad” people said that. Not sophisticated. Not helpful. Even racist, somehow.

The CDC told social media companies that the theory was “theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely,” and the companies used that pronouncement to prevent anyone from even talking about the idea on their networks

Study finds silicon, gold and copper among new weapons against COVID-19

Study finds silicon, gold and copper among new weapons against COVID-19

New Curtin research has found the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2, a strain of coronaviruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, become trapped when they come into…

phys.org

New Curtin research has found the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2, a strain of coronaviruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, become trapped when they come into contact with silicon, gold and copper, and that electric fields can be used to destroy the spike proteins, likely killing the virus.

Lead researcher Dr. Nadim Darwish, from the School of Molecular and Life Sciences at Curtin University said the study found the spike proteins of coronaviruses attached and became stuck to certain types of surfaces.

"Coronaviruses have spike proteins on their periphery that allow them to penetrate host cells and cause infection and we have found these proteins becomes stuck to the surface of silicon, gold and copper through a reaction that forms a strong chemical bond," Dr. Darwish said.

"We believe these materials can be used to capture coronaviruses by being used in air filters, as a coating for benches, tables and walls or in the fabric of wipe cloths and face masks."

"By capturing coronaviruses in these ways we would be preventing them from reaching and infecting more people."

Co-author Ph.D. candidate Essam Dief, also from the School of Molecular and Life Sciences at Curtin University said the study also found the coronavirus could be detected and destroyed using electrical pulses.

SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins react with Au and Si, are electrically conductive and denature at 3 × 108 V m−1: a surface bonding and a single-protein circuit study

SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins react with Au and Si, are electrically conductive and denature at 3 × 108 V m−1: a surface bonding and a single-protein circuit study

Developing means to characterise SARS-CoV-2 and its new variants is critical for future outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins have peripheral disulfide bonds…

pubs.rsc.org

Two experts discussing Covid with zero politics..

well until around TM 40.00

unavoidable really..

because the Covid vaccine mandate is not about science but about politics and greed

"

we're being coerced into taking a vaccine and nobody has ever explained

it logically speaking traditionally what is a vaccine it is a

a substance a a chemical compound traditionally it was a either an inactivated virus or a dead virus it was

injected into someone to produce an immune response so that they're then immune to the illness if that is what a

vaccine does how could the actual infection ever produce less immunity

than a vaccine logically speaking that makes no sense to me how could the low

potency version be stronger than the actual infection but yet you have all of

these leading doctors out there who still insist this and it defies all science and I do not understand how they can continue to push this narrative which makes no sense whatsoever

and the the idea that human beings have become more clever than the immune thanthe human immune system which can recognize nine billion different types of foreign antigen it's just the the if they believe it it's incredibly arrogant

and uh if they don't believe it then then why is something which is going

against one of the axioms of basic human physiology being propagated

very hard to explain exactly yes these people are almost worth it worse

than uh flat earthers because natural immunity is a very basic fundamental of

evolutionary biology literally no animal species would exist if there was no such

thing as natural immunity and once more

I'll stress again this is not an argument saying all vaccines are bad

but it's the very fact that you have these people at the top of medicine and

clients who are in complete denial of natural immunity

complete denial of natural immunity

and I took a fundamental stand on this on principle

and I was actually prepared at one stage I was getting ready to leave my state I would have left the United States because this is such a violation

.. if authorities can force me as a doctor someone with the medical knowledge someone who's been treating covid-19 patients

to go against their better judgment and take a vaccine

then what comes next.. if my body can be violated like that

with something I know is not going to be good for me

am I saying that I would have taken an mRNA vaccine and and and dropped dead the next day or got Myocarditis ?

no I I'm not saying that

but I'm saying that I know that the benefits doubt don't outweigh the risk

so I'm I'm not going to do it ..end of story ".

Pfizer Whistleblower Case—Judge Must Decide: Dismiss or Proceed to Discovery & Open Pfizer’s Clinical Trial Quality Up for the World to Review

Pfizer Whistleblower Case—Judge Must Decide: Dismiss or Proceed to Discovery & Open Pfizer’s Clinical Trial Quality Up for the World to Review

The ongoing Brook Jackson legal saga continues, as the clinical trial professional and whistleblower spent another day recently in court. On March 2, 2023, in…

www.trialsitenews.com

The ongoing Brook Jackson legal saga continues, as the clinical trial professional and whistleblower spent another day recently in court. On March 2, 2023, in a motion to dismiss the case, a packed courtroom evidenced growing interest in what could be the most important whistleblower case in recent memory. While the judge went on record that he would not decide whether to dismiss or proceed with discovery on that day, Judge Michael Turncale presided over the Qui Tam action for the U.S. Eastern District Court in Beaumont, Texas. This hearing was based on Pfizer’s successful motion to hold off on any discovery pending the motion to dismiss. Consequently, the stakes are big. A decision to dismiss stops this historic proceeding while a decision to continue opens up what could be damaging discovery for the American pharmaceutical company and its co-defendant vendors including ICON, the international clinical research organization (CRO), and Ventavia, the investigator site network that formerly employed Ms. Jackson. And by extension, discovery could expose both the Trump and Biden administrations some form of complacency in what emerged, allegedly, as an illicit response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pfizer argues that the normal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related good clinical practice (GcP) standards do not apply based on overarching government contracts negotiated and memorialized as part of the U.S. government’s declared national Public Health Emergency. Pfizer is literally arguing that all the rules, processes, and best practices required of all drug and vaccine producers do not apply as their agreement with the government as part of the emergency supersedes such basic practices established over decades to ensure quality and patient safety. This argument seems a great stretch, given the terms between the U.S and Pfizer clearly call for adherence to regulatory rules, standards, and norms. How else can a quality drug or vaccine be developed?

In the recent hearing, Judge Turncale questioned Jackson’s attorney about key clauses in the government and Pfizer agreement that clearly delineate the need for adherence to the standard quality and patient safety rules and practices. Fred Barnes, Jackon’s attorney, suggested in his Viva Frei interview recently that this clearly points to a judge that is looking at the facts and the law honestly.

What follows is a brief summary of the situation.

Who are the litigants?

Litigants include the plaintiff, whistleblower Brook Jackson versus Pfizer, the sponsor of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial, along with Ventavia, an investigator site network and ICON, the clinical research organization managing the overall study.

Jackson filed a Qui Tam action against the three defendants.

Why did Brook Jackson file the lawsuit against Pfizer?

Brook Jackson, a clinical trials professional with over two decades of experience, was employed by Ventavia, an investigational site network in Texas, to manage three trial sites and over 1,000 study participants for the Phase 3 Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.

During this time, Jackson observed numerous egregious quality breaches. She first reached out to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a whistleblower. While there was initially an inspector that responded, that person quickly retired. The agency never bothered to follow up on Jackson’s claims.

Jackson submitted her findings to The British Medical Journal (The BMJ), a prestigious peer review medical journal which not only substantiated her observations but published an article on the matter.

That piece was censored by Facebook, but was covered by TrialSite.

As part of her lawsuit, Jackson claims Ventavia, Pfizer, and ICON acted not only to cover up shocking, egregious mishaps and intentional manipulation, deprioritizing patient safety, but also engaged in a coverup of errors and malfeasance throughout the study as reported by Sonia Elijah, who interviewed Ms. Jackson for TrialSite.

Jackson’s concerns that led to the whistleblower lawsuit included:

There was a lack of experienced and certified trial site staff

The informed consent process was inadequate

COVID vaccines were stored at incorrect temperatures, potentially compromising their effectiveness

Electronic diaries of participants’ reactogenicity were not properly reviewed

Clinical trial staff were unblinded since the randomization scheme placed in every participant’s chart

Lab specimens were mislabeled

Fabrication of data including participants’ informed consent signatures and lab specimen logs

Potentially COVID-19-positive trial participants were untested due to a lack of testing supplies

Adverse events were not investigated or followed up on in a timely manner

Expired emergency medications in the crash cart included expired epinephrine the cornerstone of emergency treatment plus other essential items that were missing

The principal trial investigator was typically absent and rarely seen at the sites

TrialSite founder Daniel O’Connor, a graduate of University of California College of the Law, has spent nearly 25-years developing software products and complementary services that adhere to FDA rules and GcP. He delcared:

“I have reviewed much of the documentation associated with that case, and under any normal circumstances, likely the trial sites involved with the alleged violations would have been temporarily put on hold during the Phase 3 study making way inspection and root cause investigation. But more than likely, the declared national public health emergency and associated concern for morbidity and mortality, politicization, and perhaps, other agendas not readily understood as of yet led to a very different dynamic benefiting the company and shareholders versus consumers and the general public.”

O’Connor continued:

“Pfizer has played ruthless pandemic hardball, not just in cases like Ms. Jackson but also with entire nation states during the pandemic as evidenced by Public Citizen’s excellent investigation called Pfizer’s Power. The company exploited the pandemic to the fullest, maximizing revenues, profits while minimizing liability, all enabled by a more than docile, supporting government, across both Republican and Democrat. Frankly, it’s not surprising that the company would exploit the crisis to the extent it did, given intense shareholder pressures, general apathy, and lack of critical awareness in the public domain, a complicit fairly incompetent government not to mention the active, overt censorship regime established during the pandemic to stifle any critical engagement in the name of protecting the people from dangerous misinformation.”

What happened at the hearing to dismiss?

In a packed courtroom in Beaumont, the judge went on the record that no decision would be made today. Jackson’s attorney Fred Barnes, Fred Barnes was interviewed on the “VivaFrei” show on Rumble to discuss the recent hearing which was covered by a few conservative-focused media, such as Epoch Times, but no mainstream media. On the topic of mainstream coverage, attorney Barnes said, “It’s as if this case doesn’t exist.”

Barnes said in his recent interview that at the beginning of the hearing, the Judge asked three important questions involving the interpretation of the Pfizer and U.S. government contracts. While Pfizer argues that key clauses demanding quality and adherence to Good Clinical Practices are superseded by the governing terms of the master agreements between the pharmaceutical company and the government during the declared Public Health Emergency, Barnes points out the actual terms in governing agreements that do necessitate adherence to standard FDA rules and quality considerations associated with drug and vaccine development.

Attorney Barnes went on the record that he believes that a conflict of interest does exist at the higher levels of the Biden Department of Justice, as it was his administration that promulgated COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Does the current federal leadership have an interest in exposing what appears to be egregious forms of fraud and misrepresentation? The Department of Justice issued a statement of interest in the case and hasn’t attempted to intervene in the matter.

Call to Action: TrialSite will update the readers when a decision is made by Judge Turncale.

References

United States of America ex rel. Brooks Jackson v. Ventavia Research Group, LLC, 1:21-cv-00008 - CourtListener.com

Docket for United States of America ex rel. Brooks Jackson v. Ventavia Research Group, LLC, 1:21-cv-00008 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free…

www.courtlistener.com

Why the Body Attacks Itself after COVID-19 Vaccination

Autoimmunity is a Direct Consequence of Poorly Conceived Genetic Vaccines

Why the Body Attacks Itself after COVID-19 Vaccination

Autoimmunity is a Direct Consequence of Poorly Conceived Genetic Vaccines

petermcculloughmd.substack.com

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH™

6 hr ago

The human immune system is designed to recognize foreign invaders (microbes, other substances) attack, kill, and then clear the debris away. For that reason, we must be sure that our bodies recognize our own cells as “protected” and the foreign ones as targets. For the first time, mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and adenoviral DNA (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccines install the genetic code for our bodies to make a deadly foreign protein with the aspiration that our immune system would not only respond and protect us, but also form live saving immunity from SARS-CoV-2. We have come to learn this was the drug development miscalculation of all time. Production of a foreign protein in the human body has turned out to be a disaster as illustrated by Polykretis et al in a recent paper. Here are some of the reasons why: 1) each cell that takes up the vaccine expresses the protein in the cell surface initiating autoimmune attack, 2) the tissue distribution appears to be wide involving organs where this attack could be lethal (heart, brain, bone marrow, etc.), 3) both the genetic material and the Spike protein are long lasting (months to years) which is long enough to cause an autoimmune syndrome which may be permanent.

Quote from Fm1

We have come to learn this was the drug development miscalculation of all time. Production of a foreign protein in the human body has turned out to be a disaster as illustrated by Polykretis et al in a recent paper. Here are some of the reasons why: 1) each cell that takes up the vaccine expresses the protein in the cell surface initiating autoimmune attack, 2) the tissue distribution appears to be wide involving organs where this attack could be lethal (heart, brain, bone marrow, etc.), 3) both the genetic material and the Spike protein are long lasting (months to years)

DARPA military intelligence bears strange fruit after 10 years..

"not 60 days to stop a Pandemic"

but

7 years to create a pandemic for billions

and 2 years to make Pfizer billions..

As it is written

" Even so every good tree bringeth forth goodfruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Laughs..at the Covid hearing.. unfortunately many died..

there's more than opportunity cost...

re: Fauci's proximal "NATURE" origin theory versus lab-leak theory

TM 4.16 ff

I'm just a common sense guy from Ohio

I majored in wrestling in college

but I got a degree in economics

you're supposed to get a degree when you go to college

I got one in economics and one of the things they

tell you about is a thing called opportunity cost

so when you're spending your time

making sure that the country believes only one of these theories

when you could have been doing what Dr Redfield was doing in our government

trying to figure out how we deal with this virus and

what was.. what was Dr Fauci doing?

he was trying to cover his backside and everybody knows it

and that's the part that ticks us up because

this is the highest paid guy in our government getting all kinds of money

to tell us things that were not accurate

because we now know U.S tax dollars went to a lab in China

a lab that was not up to code

a lab that was doing gain of function research

and that's where this thing most definitely came from

and Dr Fauci had to prove "No,No"

he can't have that news getting out and

that's why he did what he did to the exclusion

of a brilliant guy running our CDC

kept him out of the loop ..keeping him out of the loop

probably potentially could have harmed America

that's the thing that ticks us all off

and that's why Mr Chairman this hearing is so darn important

that we get to the bottom of really what happened

..

Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team Demonstrate Potential for L-Arginine & Vitamin C Supplementation to Combat Long COVID

Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team Demonstrate Potential for L-Arginine & Vitamin C Supplementation to Combat Long COVID

Italian scientists and physicians involving Gemelli Hospital in Rome, known as the “Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team,” recently had…

www.trialsitenews.com

Italian scientists and physicians involving Gemelli Hospital in Rome, known as the “Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team,” recently had their study “Effects of L-Arginine Plus Vitamin C Supplementation on L-Arginine Metabolism in Adults with Long COVID: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial” published in the open access MDPI. Driving this particular study: the observation that altered L-arginine metabolism has been described in patients with COVID-19, associating with immune and vascular dysfunction. But what about long COVID—is there an association? In this study, the Italian team controlled the serum concentrations of l-arginine, citrulline, ornithine, monomethyl-l-arginine (MMA), and symmetric and asymmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA, ADMA) in adults with long COVID at baseline and after 28-days of l-arginine, plus vitamin C or placebo supplementation enrolled in a randomized clinical trial, compared with a group of adults without previous history of SARS-CoV-2-infection. The team also tested specific L-arginine markers such as nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability, thereafter, building and running partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) models. PLS-DA is a versatile algorithm that can be used for predictive and descriptive modeling as well as for discriminative variable selection. Their aim: characterization of systemic L-arginine metabolism along with an evaluation of the effects of this supplemental regimen.

The Study

The team represented by corresponding author Ricardo Calvani, PhD, and the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team conducted secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial that involved 28 days of supplementation with l-arginine plus vitamin C or placebo. Data from a group of adults without previous history of SARS-CoV-2-infection were also analyzed for the control group. The investigators assayed a comprehensive panel of metabolites pertaining to l-arginine metabolism to obtain further insights into systemic arginine metabolism and NO bioavailability in adults with long COVID. The team reviewed the effects of l-arginine plus vitamin C supplementation on l-arginine metabolites.

What did the Italy-based team of medical-focused scientists find?

PLS-DA actually supported identification and separation of the study participants with long COVID from healthy controls with 80.2 ± 3.0% accuracy.

Furthermore, the team represented by corresponding author Ricardo Calvani, PhD, notes that lower markers of NO bioavailability were found in the long COVID cohort.

After 28 days of the regimen (L-arginine plus vitamin C), the Italian investigators determined that concentrations of serum L-arginine and L-arginine/ADMA significantly increased as compared to the placebo cohort. The takeaway—if the goal is to increase NO bioavailability in long COVID patients then administration of this supplemental regimen may be a remedy.

What follows is a brief breakdown providing some context for this study.

What’s the importance of L-arginine metabolism?

This amino acid formula is involved in the regulation of numerous biological processes, including immune and vascular function.

What are relevant metabolic pathways?

The authors inform us in their article uploaded to MDPI two primary pathways: conversion to nitric oxide (NO) by NO synthase (NOS), or L-arginine catabolism to ornithine by arginase.

Why is this important to health?

Indirectly, the NOS and arginase support reciprocal regulatory interactions that impact NO bioavailability. While NO is a “master regulator of cardiovascular function, metabolism, neurotransmission and immunity,” the study authors educate that “the flux of L-arginine towards NO synthesis is associated with positive effects on immune and vascular health.”

The “upregulation of arginase inhibits NO production, thus promoting “immune and endothelial dysfunction.” The study authors point out that major ailments, from hypertension and diabetes to inflammatory disease, associated with a “rewiring of L-arginine metabolism towards increased arginase activity.”

Importantly, certain derivatives of L-arginine, in addition to the NOS/arginase pair, can control NO bioavailability. For example, data from in vitro and in vivo lab work suggests monomethyl-l-arginine (MMA) and symmetric and asymmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) and ADMA can potentially inhibit NOS. For example, the authors point out that with heightened levels of ADMA and SDMA in circulation comes higher risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality regardless of population.

So how is this all relevant to COVID-19?

The authors report COVID-19 is associated with “Perturbations in L-arginine metabolism…across all disease stages.” For example, during acute COVID-19, greater “arginase activity shifts l-arginine away from NO synthesis to induce immune dysregulation and endothelial dysfunction, which both increase the risk of thrombosis, arterial stiffening, and vascular occlusion.”

In another example medical scientists have found in patients with COVID-19 and children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) “a low l-arginine-to-ornithine ratio, indicative of upregulated arginase activity.” They raise a handful of other examples in their paper.

Based on the unfolding knowledge of the science and recent observations, “interventions targeting l-arginine metabolism have been proposed to increase NO bioavailability and contrast immune and vascular complications of COVID-19.

For example, the authors point out that an oral L-arginine supplement may possibly lessen the oxygen therapy requirement as well as length of hospitalization for patients with severe COVID-19. Moreover, combining L-arginine plus vitamin C may serve to NOS activity in endothelial cells which has demonstrated a “synergistic antiviral action on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro” via inhibition of the primary protease Mpro.

What’s some evidence?

Observation

Source

L-Arginine & vitamin C supplement relieved burden of persistent symptoms while improving perceived exertion based on large cohort of adults with long COVID.

Combining L-Arginine with vitamin C improves long-COVID symptoms: The LINCOLN Survey

Recent evidence suggests that oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction play critical roles in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and Long-COVID. We…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Applied to patients at three months of an acute symptomatic COVID-19-episode experience persistence of symptoms for at least two months no explained by other diagnosis

A clinical case definition of post COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus, 6 October 2021

www.who.int

Published in journal Nutrients, the current Italian study team demonstrated that 28-day oral supplementation L-arginine and vitamin C restored circulating L-arginine levels while improving walking performance, muscle strength, endothelial function and fatigue in adults with long COVID.

Effects of l-Arginine Plus Vitamin C Supplementation on Physical Performance, Endothelial Function, and Persistent Fatigue in Adults with Long COVID: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial - PubMed

Long COVID, a condition characterized by symptom and/or sign persistence following an acute COVID-19 episode, is associated with reduced physical performance…

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Lead Research/Investigator

Ricardo Calvani, PhD, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team

Matteo Tosato, MD, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Team

References

Effects of l-Arginine Plus Vitamin C Supplementation on l-Arginine Metabolism in Adults with Long COVID: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Altered l-arginine metabolism has been described in patients with COVID-19 and has been associated with immune and vascular dysfunction. In the present…

www.mdpi.com

Britain has endured a decade of early deaths. Why?

The mystery of 250,000 dead Britons

Mar 9th 2023
Share

In recent years Britain has been hit by one health crisis after another. First came the covid-19 pandemic—then backlogs in health and social care that the coronavirus exacerbated, and a long winter of strikes and overwhelmed emergency departments. But in the background, long before the pandemic hit, an even more disturbing story has been unfolding. Britain has endured a grim decade during which perhaps a quarter of a million people died younger than expected. Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

By our calculations, that is the number of extra deaths Britain has suffered, compared with similar countries such as France and Denmark. The reason is that, in the early 2010s, life expectancy stalled in Britain compared with long-run trends and other countries. This slowdown in life expectancy struck all age groups, not just the elderly. And it disproportionately affected the poor. If you travel just 10km (six miles) from the poshest part of Kensington in London to New Cross Gate, life expectancy for men falls by a staggering 18 years, from 92 to 74. The burden these deaths place on the living is not just weighed in grief. When more people are dying and life expectancy is stagnating, a greater number of people are also living in ill health.

Life expectancy in Britain, as in almost all other rich countries, had been rising for nearly two centuries. But something went wrong in the early 2010s. Life expectancy at birth today, at 81, is just eight weeks longer than it was in 2011. In a best-case scenario, in which the pace of improvement between 1980 and 2011 had been sustained, life expectancy today would have been over 83. By The Economist’s calculations, that is no minor difference: it implies that between 2012 and 2022 approximately 700,000 Britons died sooner than they might have.

Two features make this figure even more worrying. Death comes mostly when people are old. But the slowdown in life expectancy has occurred across all age groups. Mortality rates have stalled for infants, and risen among young adults and the middle-aged. Death rates for 30- to 49-year-olds have steadily increased in Britain since around 2012, in sharp contrast with neighbouring countries.

Although the deaths have been spread across generations, they have not been spread across the income spectrum. Life expectancy has fallen among the poorest in society but risen for the richest. A poor English girl could on average expect to live 6.8 years less than a rich girl in 2011, but 7.7 less in 2017. For boys, the gap increased from 9.1 to 9.5 years over the same period.

The combined effect of the pandemic and global demographic trends can explain only some of Britain’s missing multitude. Though other rich countries have also experienced slowdowns, Britain has done the worst out of a cohort of its European peers. After stripping out the effects attributable to covid and the broad European slowdown from the toll of 700,000, you are still left with those 250,000 unexplained deaths.

Working out what has gone wrong is not easy. In America, where life expectancy has fallen even more sharply in recent years, “deaths of despair” from drugs, alcohol and suicide have done the most harm. The same is true for Scotland, where drug deaths have more than doubled in a decade; Dundee is now the drug-death capital of Europe. Yet although a similar problem may be brewing in England and Wales, the rate of drug deaths is nearly four times higher in Scotland.

The recent struggles of the National Health Service (nhs) have played their part. Hospital waits of record lengths and a crisis in primary care jeopardise timely treatment. But delays in medical care cannot explain all the extra deaths, especially before the pandemic. Besides, the greatest improvements in life expectancy come not from treatment but from better diagnosis and prevention, and wider prosperity. This is where Britain appears to have fallen short. It could do much better in all three.

First, diagnosis. Poorer Britons are 20% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage, when the disease is more complex and expensive to treat. Having more nhs diagnostic centres would help, as well as cutting the pandemic-related backlog. Prescribing more statins for those at risk of heart attack or stroke would be good, too. Both treatments are cheap and cost-effective, and are recommended. But with around one in 11 nhs posts vacant, it will be tricky to find enough radiologists and general practitioners to make a difference.

Next, prevention. Individuals bear responsibility for their own decisions but public-health interventions, from vaccines to anti-smoking and weight-loss programmes, can improve things. They also provide good value for money. One study found that it cost nearly four times as much to gain an extra year of good health via clinical interventions than through public-health programmes. Yet funding for the public-health grant, which is allocated to local authorities by central government and amounts to a mere 2% of the nhs budget, has been cut in real terms in recent years.

Ultimately the greatest improvements will come from raising the living standards of the poor. Their lower life expectancy has many causes, from less money to spend on home insulation or nutritious food, to the stress of financial insecurity. One useful long-term thing the government can do is help improve the country’s dreadful record on productivity by liberalising planning and devolving fiscal powers to local authorities.

Life after life

The government should also recognise the role that deprivation plays in health. Reweighting funding formulas to benefit general practitioners in the poorest areas would be a good idea. They care for 10% more patients than practices in the richest areas, but receive 7% less cash. And as Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor of the exchequer, prepares his budget for March 15th, he should recognise how spending cuts show up in other areas. The data show that life expectancy was worst affected in the places with the largest relative declines in housing services and adult social-care spending between 2009 and 2019.

In its covid response, Britain went to extraordinary lengths to prevent its citizens from suffering an early death. The pandemic may be over, but that job is nowhere near complete.

Large Finish Population Study: COVID-19 Bivalent Boosters Bombs: Fails to Protect Chronically Ill Adults; Elderly Protection Wanes within 60 Days

Large Finish Population Study: COVID-19 Bivalent Boosters Bombs: Fails to Protect Chronically Ill Adults; Elderly Protection Wanes within 60 Days

Researchers from the Finish Institute for Health and Welfare, Infectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security recently…

www.trialsitenews.com

Researchers from the Finish Institute for Health and Welfare, Infectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security recently completed a study designed to estimate the effectiveness of BA.1 and BA.4-5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 outcomes, one, two, and three months after vaccination in this Nordic nation based on data derived from the national register. This latest retrospective study reviewed persons who received at least two monovalent boosters then the bivalent booster. The study authors, represented by corresponding author Eero Poukka, sought to control for confounding influences by ensuring all analyses were adjusted for a set of potential confounders while using a negative control outcome to assess the presence of residual confounding. The results of this relatively large population study are disappointing. The COVID-19 bivalent booster doses, while working initially to add a surge of protection in the elderly, rapidly wanes in protective impact within 60 days. The chronically ill adult population experienced no reduction in risk of serious outcomes due to COVID-19. The value of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to the Finnish public become increasingly questionable.

The study results were recently uploaded to the preprint server medRxiv and of course, must go through peer review before being cited as medical evidence.

Findings

This large retrospective observational study covered the following study population in the nation of 5.5 million people:

Cohort

Patients

Elderly

1,197,700

Chronically ill age 18-64

444,683

The study team reports in this yet to be peer-reviewed study result that a small number of individuals were associated with pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The authors report that during the 2022-2023 influenza season vaccination rates equaled the following:

Cohort

Vaccination Rate

Elderly

58%

Chronically ill

37%

During this study, 627,378 (52%) elderly and 66,871 (15%) chronically ill were vaccinated with a bivalent 49 booster; approximately a third of them received Comirnaty BA.1 while the other two-thirds received Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) BA.4-5. Moderna’s Spikevax was used in very small quantities.

Also, the study authors reveal that the median time since bivalent vaccination by the end of follow-up was 75 days (interquartile range 61–85 days) and 73 days (interquartile range 54–88 days) among the elderly and chronically ill, respectively.

Among the elderly, we observed 1,721 hospitalizations due to COVID-19, 1,002 deaths due to COVID-19, and 809 deaths in which COVID-19 was a contributing factor. During the first 14–30 and 31–60 days since vaccination, a bivalent booster lowered the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 56 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33–0.57; HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33–0.57), death due to COVID-19 (0.39, 0.26– 57 0.57; 0.57, 0.42–0.77) and death in which COVID-19 was a contributing factor (0.36, 0.24–0.54; 0.41, 0.29– 58 0.57) (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table S5).

Thereafter, the HRs increased: during the third month, i.e., 61–90 59 days since vaccination, the HR estimates for the aforementioned outcomes were 0.74 (95% CI 0.50–1.09), 60 0.74 (0.49–1.13) and 0.42 (0.25–0.69). When stratified by age, the HRs for 65-79-year-olds and 80-120-year-olds were similar (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table S6).

Both BA.1 and BA.4–5 bivalent vaccines reduced the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and the HRs were similar (Supplementary Table S7). The Finnish authors report that among the chronically ill they observed 240 hospitalizations due to COVID-19, 16 deaths due to COVID-19 64, and 18 deaths in which COVID-19 was a contributing factor.

What about HRs for hospitalization due to COVID-19?

It was estimated at 0.82 (95% CI 0.32–2.07) for days 14–30 since bivalent vaccination and 1.57 (0.78–2.07) for the subsequent 30 days. The HR for the other two outcomes could not be estimated (Supplementary Table S8).

In this Finland-government-driven negative control outcome analysis, the study team observed 9,447 emergency room visits due to injury among the elderly and 2,173 such visits among the chronically ill.

Noteworthy, the study team discovered no difference in the risk of injury among the elderly who received a bivalent booster and those who did not (Supplementary Table S5). However, among the chronically ill, the risk of injury appeared slightly elevated (Supplementary Table S8).

What follows is a brief breakdown of these study results.

Do the bivalent boosters reduce the risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes among the elderly?

Yes.

What about the chronically ill in the 18-64 years age range—did the bivalent boosters lower the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes?

No. Among this cohort, the risk was actually similar among those who received the jab versus those who did not. This goes against the formal narrative of the U.S. government, for example.

Does the bivalent booster protective strength last in the elderly?

No. While they provide a surge of antibody protection during the first couple of months after vaccination, that protection wanes markedly.

Among the chronically ill does the bivalent booster evidence effectiveness?

No. The Finish authors report that they did not observe any reduction in risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes suggesting concerning findings.

What research is required moving forward?

The Finnish study authors report that more research is required to assess the existence and rate of waning in a quest to decide A) whether annual boosters should be recommended for vulnerable groups and B) if the development of novel COVID-19 vaccines including long-lasting immune responses should be pursued.

What are some study limitations?

The study team acknowledges the following limitations:

Only a small proportion of the cohort received a bivalent booster, and the negative control outcome analysis indicated the presence of residual confounding.

Secondly, individuals who did not receive the booster might have had a higher likelihood of unregistered SARS-CoV-2 infection and thus hybrid immunity prior to the study, which could have led to an underestimation of the effectiveness.

Thirdly, the number of cases among the chronically ill was small, which together with the low bivalent vaccine uptake led to unprecise estimates for that group.

Fourthly, good baseline protection due to monovalent vaccinations and hybrid immunity among the chronically ill might have limited the additional benefit of a bivalent booster.

As another limitation, the team reports a decreased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes during the first 0–13 days since bivalent vaccination. The study authors speculate that this was likely caused by selection (i.e., healthy vaccinee) bias as individuals with acute respiratory symptoms, a predeterminant of severe COVID-19 outcomes, were not advised to seek vaccination.

The authors do offer a caveat that they believe that the impact of the bias should mitigate over time and is possibly negligible post-day 13 or latest 30 days since vaccination.

Bivalent booster effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes in Finland, September 2022 — January 2023

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines were introduced in 2022 but knowledge of how their effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes is sustained over time is…

www.medrxiv.org

Academic Fraud on Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Hearings “Investigating the Origins of COVID-19” Hit Tip of Iceberg

Academic Fraud on Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Hearings “Investigating the Origins of COVID-19” Hit Tip of Iceberg

petermcculloughmd.substack.com

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

On November 19, 2020 I testified as the lead witness in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs led by Senator Ron Johnson. I used the term “academic fraud” in a series of sharp exchanges with now White House Coronavirus Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha. I was told by colleagues that the term fraud was too strident and I should tone down my comments for the media. Over two years later the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held hearings on “Investigating the Origins of COVID-19” and has hit the tip of an iceberg of academic fraud with a trail of peer-reviewed manuscripts as evidence for the creation of the SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology Biosecurity Annex Level 4 laboratory (WIV). This lab had been conducting experiments designed by UNC researcher Dr. Ralph Baric for years and publishing their progress on creation of a coronavirus that could invade human respiratory cells via the ACE2 receptor. They were also developing countermeasures including monoclonal antibodies and killed virus vaccines.

House votes 419-0 to declassify intelligence on COVID-19 origins, sending bill to Biden's desk

House votes 419-0 to declassify intelligence on COVID-19 origins, sending bill to Biden's desk

The bill requires the declassification of information about possible links between the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

www.cbsnews.com

Washington — The House voted unanimously Friday on a bill ordering the declassification of intelligence about the origins of COVID-19 in China, sending the bill to President Biden's desk.

The bill, which already passed the Senate, would require Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to declassify any information about links between the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the controversial viral research laboratory in the city where the SARS-CoV-2 virus first emerged. The vote in the House was 419 to 0.

Unrepentant US health agencies issue more bizarre directives

Unrepentant US health agencies issue more bizarre directives

Most recently, the Biden White House has doubled down on not allowing Novak Djokovic into our country, because the world’s top tennis player is not vaccinated.

thehill.com

You might think U.S. health authorities would be embarrassed. After all, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies oversaw policies that produced more COVID-19 deaths per capita than nearly any other developed country.

More humiliating, they earned that distinction while dictating draconian shutdowns and school closures that profoundly damaged our economy and our children’s educations. And even though Americans had early access to the world’s best vaccines.

You would be wrong. Instead of adopting a humbler or more cautious approach to managing the waning virus, the CDC and the Biden administration are more truculent – and incomprehensible – than ever.

Most recently, the Biden White House has doubled down on not allowing Novak Djokovic into our country because the world’s top tennis player is not vaccinated. The tennis star was similarly prevented from coming to the U.S. last year, causing him to miss out on playing in the prestigious U.S. Open and for a brief period leading to his losing his number one status.

At the same time, the White House is set to announce that people coming to the U.S. from China will no longer need a negative COVID test to gain entry. Neither policy makes sense.

The Djokovic decision seems bizarre, especially given what we know about the vaccines and their impact over time. The vaccines’ efficacy declines rapidly, meaning that booster shots are needed to revive its protections and to address today’s most prevalent variants.

MIT Mathematician Scrutinizes Israel MOH Data—Formal Study Reports No Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals….But…

MIT Mathematician Scrutinizes Israel MOH Data—Formal Study Reports No Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals….But…

A study led by the Israel Ministry of Health compares non-COVID-19 deaths of vaccinated persons over day 1-30 versus days 31-60 post the second dose of mRNA…

www.trialsitenews.com

A study led by the Israel Ministry of Health compares non-COVID-19 deaths of vaccinated persons over day 1-30 versus days 31-60 post the second dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The group waves what Retsef Levi, PhD a mathematician with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a known critic of the mRNA vaccine, reports as “the striking safety signal: 540 vs. 1275 deaths (1st vs. 2nd period)! What did they do? What follows is a breakdown of the study followed by Levi’s critique.

Levi reports that the current study centers on an investigation into the increased risk, if any, of mortality or a cardiovascular event in the 30 days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine (second dose) compared to the 30 days after.

In a translated document the study authors report on various study findings pointing to the possibility of cardiovascular complications or even death from these causes, in close proximity to the administration of Pfizer's and Moderna's mRNA vaccine against the new coronavirus -2CoV-SARS.

For example, the paper cites a self-controlled case series (SCCS) series study in France investigating the incidence of acute cardiovascular events in the three weeks after administration of the mRNA vaccine compared to other time periods in 74-18-year-olds did not find any difference. See the link. Similar from Hong Kong, which focused on people with known heart disease and examined the incidence of major cardiovascular events 0 - 13 days and 14 - 27 days after vaccination. See the link to the study result.

The author also raises a highly criticized study sponsored by the Florida Department of Health Services which found that greater mortality risk from cardiovascular causes in the 28 days post the administration of the jab when compared to other time periods in persons aged 18 and up (95% confidence, RI = 1.07, Incidence Relative (interval, 1.03 - 1.12 CI). The author reports the risks in all age groups except for the adult cohort age 40-59 years of age. As a consequence, the Sunshine State now recommends against COVID-19 vaccination for healthy young people arguing that the risk-benefit calculus favors avoidance.

Owen Dyer writing for The British Medical Journal (The BMJ) reports that the recommendations are based on “careless” research practice.

Study Methodology

Researchers employed a series case controlled -self study targeting vaccinated subjects (second dose) with endpoints including A) death or hospitalization due to cardiovascular event or B) acute cardiovascular incidence (myocardial infarction, stroke or new thromboembolic event). Looking at Israeli data from January 11, 2021, through October 2021 with a study design factoring in the 60-day follow-up period from the day of vaccination, the authors looked into two periods:

Study Period

Summary

1-30 days (first period)

According to the hypothesis, it has an increased risk due to its proximity to the vaccination date

31-60 days (second period)

The control period serves as a comparison period. According to the hypothesis, the risk in this period is lower than the risk in the first period because of the distance in time from the day of vaccination.

Findings

The MOH investigated the linkages between the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) against COVID-19 and mortality or acute cardiovascular incidence across the eastern Mediterranean nation using comparable methodologies as previous.

The current report acknowledges the lack of cause of death data in Israel for the period 2021 and 2022 so they adjusted their work asking the question whether recipients of a second Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose face an increased risk of A) mortality from all causes and B) acute cardiovascular event leading to hospitalization.

The study focused on the period between January 11, 2021, and the end of October 2021. The source of the data was (a) the database of those vaccinated against COVID-19; (b) the death file; (c) and the national Israeli database.

As converted from Hebrew, and depicted in the diagram, the study team observed far fewer deaths in the first period (540)) compared to the second period (1,275).

Could a certain bias known as the vaccinee health effect explain this observation? For example, persons who opt to get vaccinated all things being equal are likely healthier compared to the general population.

What about hospitalization associated with an acute cardiovascular event after the BNT162b2 jab?

The study authors reported that they excluded myocarditis as that risk was already established, particularly in the young male cohort.

As translated out of the 4057 cases, 1979 occurred in the first period compared to 2078 in the second. The risk (Odds) in the first period in relation to the second is 0.95 (an index that indicates a lower risk in the first period) with a 95% confidence interval (0.90 - 1.01) which is not statistically significant (p = -0.12 value).

The study team reports the fitting of a conditional logistic regression model to evaluate the effect of the following variables on the difference between the two periods: sex, age group (divided into 0 - 29, 30 - 59, 60 - 79 and +80) and whether there was a previous sudden cardiovascular event In the last 10 years. Also, the authors controlled for the season (winter versus the rest of the year). The effects of all the above variables were not significant at a significance level of >5% (Table 2).

What were the findings?

The Israeli researchers using the series case controlled-self research method, the team investigated if there were greater risks of acute cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization post administration of the second mRNA shot from Pfizer-BioNTech. They report finding “no indication of an increased risk…post the 30-day period after the vaccination when compared to the 31–60-day period; and inclusion of sensitivity analyses led to no such finding.

The researchers downplay the search for greater risk for mortality investigation due to “a built-in bias” (the healthy vaccinee effect).

What’s Professor Levi’s critique?

The MOH study ignores over 600 deaths from COVID-19 just after administration of the first jab of BNT162b2. While the group must “waive” a “striking safety signal: 540 vs, 1275 deaths (1st vs. 2nd period).

The MIT professor reports that not only was the study published behind a paywall, they of course argue that the “healthy vaccinee effect” precludes them from concluding that the vaccines are associated with excess deaths. He cites “With no comparison to normal rates, they want us to believe the risk of death almost tripled in matter of 2 weeks.”

Something is rotten in the State of Israel argues Levi pointing out that not only are the findings and assumptions “not believable” but also, they but also “abuses the definition of ‘healthy vaccinee effect” which involves the comparison of one group (vaccinated) against the other (unvaccinated). Why also asks Levi did the investigators ``ignore the increased number of deaths shortly after dose 2, then decrease and then rapid increase.``

Call to Action: Follow the link to review the attached study translated from Hebrew.

References

Low vitamin D levels predict outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with both severe and non-severe disease at hospitalization

Low vitamin D levels predict outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with both severe and non-severe disease at hospitalization - PubMed

25(OH)vitamin D levels at hospital-admission strongly predicted the occurrence of worsening outcomes in COVID-19 independently of the disease severity at…

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract

Purpose: Low vitamin D in COVID-19 have been related to worse outcomes. However, most of the studies conducted so far were not-controlled and retrospective, including biases potentially influencing this association. We evaluated 25(OH)vitamin D levels of patients with both severe and non-severe disease at hospital-admission, and in a cohort of control subjects. Moreover, we evaluated sACE-2 levels to investigate the mechanisms underlying the association between vitamin D and COVID-19.

Methods: COVID-19 patients were enrolled in a matched for age, sex and comorbidities 1:1-ratio based on the presence/or not of respiratory-distress/severe-disease at hospital-admission. Control matched subjects were enrolled from an outpatient-setting.

Results: Seventy-three COVID-19 patients (36 severe and 37 non-severe) and 30 control subjects were included. We observed a higher vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/mL) prevalence in COVID-19 patients than control subjects (75% vs 43%). No differences were found regarding 25(OH)vitamin D and sACE-2 levels between patients with and without severe-disease at study entry. During the disease-course, in the severe group a life-threatening disease occurred in 17 patients (47.2%), and, in the non-severe group, a worsening disease occurred in 10 (27%). 25(OH)vitamin D levels, at admission, were negatively correlated with sACE-2 levels, and were lower in patients whose disease worsened as compared to those in whom it did not, independently from the disease severity at admission. In multivariate-analysis, lower 25(OH)vitamin D resulted as an independent risk factor for disease worsening.

Conclusions: 25(OH)vitamin D levels at hospital-admission strongly predicted the occurrence of worsening outcomes in COVID-19 independently of the disease severity at presentation.

Now I hope the liers and deniers are paying attention. Let's look at what happens when you are vit d deficient and it's effects on the ACE2 receptor

Vitamin D and COVID‐19: Role of ACE2, age, gender, and ethnicity

Vitamin D and COVID‐19: Role of ACE2, age, gender, and ethnicity

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) virus, disproportionally targets older people,…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, disproportionally targets older people, particularly men, ethnic minorities, and individuals with underlying diseases such as compromised immune system, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The discrepancy in COVID-19 incidence and severity is multifaceted and likely involves biological, social, as well as nutritional status. Vitamin D deficiency, notably common in Black and Brown people and elderly, is associated with an increased susceptibility to many of the diseases comorbid with COVID-19. Vitamin D deficiency can cause over-activation of the pulmonary renin-angiotensin system (RAS) leading to the respiratory syndrome. RAS is regulated in part at least by angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which also acts as a primary receptor for SARS-CoV-2 entry into the cells. Hence, vitamin D deficiency can exacerbate COVID-19, via its effects on ACE2. In this review we focus on influence of age, gender, and ethnicity on vitamin D-ACE2 interaction and susceptibility to COVID-19.

Quote from RobertBryant

Two experts discussing Covid with zero politics..

well until around TM 40.00

unavoidable really..

because the Covid vaccine mandate is not about science but about politics and greed

"

we're being coerced into taking a vaccine and nobody has ever explained

it logically speaking traditionally what is a vaccine it is a

a substance a a chemical compound traditionally it was a either an inactivated virus or a dead virus it was

injected into someone to produce an immune response so that they're then immune to the illness if that is what a

vaccine does how could the actual infection ever produce less immunity

than a vaccine logically speaking that makes no sense to me how could the low

potency version be stronger than the actual infection but yet you have all of

these leading doctors out there who still insist this and it defies all science and I do not understand how they can continue to push this narrative which makes no sense whatsoever

Display More

Well, I don't know about politics and greed and who does that.

But I do know the above "expert" comment is transparently non-expert.

There is no reason at all why a vaccine cannot produce better immunity than infection.

Many vaccines have adjuvants to help the immune system respond to the vaccine: and because virus is inactivated higher amts can be tolerated than would be the case of a real infection. Hence stronger response is hoped for and often achieved.

The COVID mRNA vaccines deliver higher qtys of spike protein than is typically found in infections - so they get a massive antibody response.

Now, you might argue for various complex reasons that such a high response to very specific protein sequences is in fact counter-productive - in some circumstances. That would be a cautionary comment about vaccines not necessarily wrong.

But this so-called expert is not arguing that, and is showing a lack of expertise (on this topic that he talks about). Which means that those claiming him as an expert are either misinformed or liars...

As they say, there are idiots, liars, and then there are antivaxxers...

America's Long, Expensive, and Deadly Love Affair with mRNA

US Government Spends $31.9B to Develop Failed Products over Three Decades

America's Long, Expensive, and Deadly Love Affair with mRNA

US Government Spends $31.9B to Develop Failed Products over Three Decades

petermcculloughmd.substack.com

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Approximately 92% of Americans who took a COVID-19 vaccine have mRNA injected into their bodies with absolutely no idea on where it would go, how long would it last, and what price would be paid for having foreign genetic code loaded on lipid nanoparticles in human circulation. Its now known that mRNA is circulatory for at least 28 days and can be found stuck in lymph nodes for at least two months. Both of these may be short estimates. A recent paper by Lalani et al, from Harvard, summarizes the very intensive and expensive US government investment in mRNA technology. Normally pharmaceutical companies front the cost of drug development and then have to win FDA approval and later recover those costs through product sales over the next 20 years. Not the case with mRNA, here NIH BARDA and the DOD DARPA has paid for development using taxpayer dollars to the tune of $31.9B!