The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

Good summary in the video of Dr. Campell. The negative effect of Pfizer for Children is least 4:1.

Not fitting vaccines are a death cure not a cure from death. Take your V-D3 at a high enough dose and some zinc and you have nothing to worry as a RAN therapy resistant, fully vaxxed person.

Is the Government planning to undermine the Covid Inquiry?

Is the Government planning to undermine the Covid Inquiry? - Good Law Project

We are today seeking urgent clarification from the Government that it is not planning to fatally undermine the official Covid Inquiry. According to an article…

goodlawproject.org

We are today seeking urgent clarification from the Government that it is not planning to fatally undermine the official Covid Inquiry. According to an article published by Bloomberg, the Government is trying to block essential information from being passed to the Inquiry.

After receiving legal advice that Ministers could face extensive claims for damages from families who lost loved ones during the pandemic, the Government has reportedly begun directing officials to use a traffic-light system that would mark as ‘red’ politically-sensitive or embarrassing documents, which they will seek to withhold.

The Inquiry is meant to provide answers for the UK public and for the many thousands of people who lost loved ones during the pandemic. It will report on the quality of decision-making by the Government, and the impact of those decisions, in particular on vulnerable groups such as the elderly. It should be an opportunity for the Government to examine its actions and reflect on the failings in its response to ensure they are not repeated.

The Government’s reported plan would represent a shocking attack on transparency and accountability, and a betrayal of the victims of the pandemic, denying families the answers they clearly deserve.

Prior Omicron infection protects against BA.4 and BA.5 variants

Catching an earlier version of SARS-CoV-2 — particularly Omicron — provides some immunity against the two fast-spreading lineages.

Prior Omicron infection protects against BA.4 and BA.5 variants

Catching an earlier version of SARS-CoV-2 — particularly Omicron — provides some immunity against the two fast-spreading lineages.

www.nature.com

The Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 have proven to be stealthier at evading people’s immune defences than all of their predecessors.

But recent research shows that previous infection with an older variant (such as Alpha, Beta or Delta) offers some protection against reinfection with BA.4 or BA.5, and that a prior Omicron infection is substantially more effective. That was the conclusion of a study that evaluated all of Qatar’s COVID-19 cases since the wave of BA.4 and BA.5 infections began1.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In may 2022 1017 unvaxx died !!!

We can also use the vaxx/unvax only deaths data that is 28186:: 935 for may 2022 UK. This implies that 100-100*935/28186 % (96.7%) should be vaccinated to get break even... What of course is not case...

Quote from uncertainH

There is nothing humorous about the death of children

Vaccines and sudden infant death

"While the findings in this paper are not proof of an association between infant vaccines and infant deaths, they are highly suggestive of a causal relationship."

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national safety surveillance program that collects information about possible adverse reactions to vaccines administered in the United States. Each report includes information about the patient, vaccines administered, and symptoms related to their adverse event. Since 1990, VAERS has received over 700,000 reports, which describe everything from mild side effects to serious life-threatening conditions, including hospitalization, permanent disability, and death. CDC considers VAERS an important vaccine safety assessment tool and regularly conducts its own studies using VAERS data. The VAERS database is also available to independent researchers. By monitoring adverse events documented in VAERS, it is possible to identify unusual patterns and important safety concerns.

In the study presented here, the timing and distribution of sudden infant deaths post-vaccination were assessed. If no relationship exists between infant vaccines and sudden infant deaths, the expectation would be for SIDS cases to be evenly distributed each day rather than clustering in the early post-vaccination period (Day 1 through Day 7). To test this hypothesis, the VAERS database was analyzed to ascertain the onset interval of infant deaths post-vaccination.

This paper has a glaring statistical error, typical of antivaxxer pseudo-science. It is a pity that Toxicology allows such statistical errors through its peer review process but to be fair the second half of the paper (relevant to toxicology) is speculation about possible causal mechanisms. I doubt the reviewers here were interested in the pitfalls of evaluating statistics.

I want to point out - I have no idea whether vaccines cause SIDS. It seems a typical antivaxxer meme, and I've seen no evidence of it. Doctors get worried about things that kill children, so I'd expect the regulators to be very alert to any such possibility. Those interested should look for difference between vaccine approval in different countries - some have a higher benchmark than others for approval.

I would like every reader of this thread to use their own capacity for critical thinking and understand why this paper is glaringly wrong.

In the study presented here, the timing and distribution of sudden infant deaths post-vaccination were assessed. If no relationship exists between infant vaccines and sudden infant deaths, the expectation would be for SIDS cases to be evenly distributed each day rather than clustering in the early post-vaccination period (Day 1 through Day 7). To test this hypothesis, the VAERS database was analyzed to ascertain the onset interval of infant deaths post-vaccination.

This paragraph shows the key problem. SIDS by definition are infant deaths without obvious explanation. That paragraph would be true only if the expected likelihood of a SIDS death being reported to VAERS was independent of the time between vaccine administration and death.

That is obviously not true. Whatever the reasons for such a report (which anyone can make, on suspicion of some link) deaths shortly after vaccination are more likely to be suspected as maybe vaccine-related then those a longer time after. VAERS does not provide a neutral sampling of SIDS deaths. It provides a sample very specifically correlated with vaccination.

The paragraph in this paper on which all the experimental results hang is therefore wrong.

What should worry people here more is how Mark U, and uncertainH did not realise this? uncertainH in particular is not living up to hir (sic - note my language so very polite) nom de plume and looking critically at the argument used here.

Regards, THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

VAERS does not provide a neutral sampling of SIDS deaths. It provides a sample very specifically correlated with vaccination.

Yes, that is right.

Beware of drawing any conclusions from VAERS. You have to know a lot about statistics and epidemiology to understand it. It is raw data. Really, only an expert should try to use it. Some people have criticized the CDC for even hosting it, because it is full of trash and misleading information. Others criticize the CDC for leaving VAERS fully open to the public. They say it should only be accessible to experts. I get that, but I think it should be open. We taxpayers paid for it, so we should be allowed to see it. In any case, it is much too late to hide it now. People would say the CDC is trying to hide the truth.

Before saying anything about VAERS, read what Jeffrey Morris has to say, in papers such as this one:

Interpreting VAERs: What is the expected background death rate for the USA vaccinated population?

VAERs is an open reporting system put together by the FDA and CDC for people to enter in adverse events after vaccination for post approval safety assessments.…

www.covid-datascience.com

Quote from THHuxleynew

What should worry people here more is how Mark U, and uncertainH did not realise this? uncertainH in particular is not living up to hir

I'll just be totally honest here, as I always try to be. I didn't read that paper that I linked in any great detail. I was so offended by Zues' meme of the crying antivaxxer baby having a midlife crisis that for the first time ever I reported a post on this forum. In keeping with my moniker it took about 2 seconds to find an alternative view point (that's what being uncertain is all about). What struck a nerve? other than obvious perverse use of dying babies to reinforce a stereotype of so called anti-vaxxers? It is that what should be robust scientific discussions have been reduced to silly memes and sound bites that mean nothing. Any paper should be read without judgement apriori and considered with uncertainty and discussed openly.

And by the way I'm male there's no need to address me as hir. I'm not uncertain about that.

Dr. Deborah Birx says she 'knew' COVID vaccines would not 'protect against infection'

The former White House COVID response coordinator downplays vaccine efficacy

Dr. Deborah Birx says she 'knew' COVID vaccines would not 'protect against infection' | Fox News

DR. BIRX: I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it's not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. It will. But let's be very clear: 50% of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated. So that's why I'm saying even if you're vaccinated and boosted, if you're unvaccinated right now, the key is testing and Paxlovid. It's effective. It's a great antiviral. And really, that is what's going to save your lives right now if you're over 70, which if you look at the hospitalizations, hospitalizations are rising steadily with new admissions, particularly in those over 70. And so if you live in the South - I know people keep talking about the fall - I'm worried about the South.

A Failure to Communicate—Or a Communication Failure?

A Failure to Communicate—Or a Communication Failure?

Why don’t governmental agencies charged with informing, educating, and protecting the American public fess up to what’s really going on with the…

www.trialsitenews.com

Why don’t governmental agencies charged with informing, educating, and protecting the American public fess up to what’s really going on with the pandemic and vaccination? While the COVID-19 vaccines presently available across America are all developed to match the original SARS-CoV-2 “wildtype” pathogen, this RNA-based virus has dramatically evolved over the past two-and-a-half years to the point that the current vaccines may have questionable utility to adequately protect Americans from the current SARS-CoV-2 variants in circulation such as Omicron subvariant BA.5. While agency communication switched from “protection against infection” to “protection against severe disease and hospitalization” once they realized that the vaccine would not stop transmission, they have not addressed the durability problem or the need for frequent booster shots. Nor have they addressed the strategic issues with frequent boosters as a population-based solution, namely feasibility, affordability, and accessibility. Additionally, academic medical centers still promulgate a message of “controlling” the pandemic yet that’s not what these products are doing. They are helping to prevent more severe disease in some cases. On the one hand, the government seems to be in a rush to support the vaccine manufacturers to crank out another iterative version, while on the other hand, they signal to us that we should be excited about vaccinating our children with the existing product, designed for the original Wuhan variant. What’s going on here?

So, do we still have a great vaccine to work with against COVID-19 even though the new dominant variant far more easily evades vaccine-induced antibodies? If one listens to President Biden, the answer is a resounding yes. For example, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) enthusiastically gave greenlight to vaccinate very young children aged 5 down to babies six months old, the President of the United States communicated via White House press that the American people should both celebrate and be relieved that our youngest children would now be out of grave danger thanks to the vaccines.

Yet Biden didn’t utter a word about the implications of the Omicron variant, and the fact that the previous strain that the COVID-19 vaccine was optimized to address has been replaced by the mutants BA.4 and BA.5, which now represent a majority of infections nationwide. More transmissible, these subvariants of Omicron more easily evade vaccine antibodies.

Biden, the FDA nor the CDC with any clarity of force inform us that the vaccines offer much less protection against mutated variants such as the now dominant BA.4 and BA.5. With greater tolerance, the pathogens evade vaccine neutralizing antibodies far more easily. While boosting with the existing vaccine can protect someone from serious disease and hospitalization for a while, that window of protection is narrowing as the virus mutates. (Consequently, breakthrough infections have exploded across the country.)

Now, the good news is that these infections turn out to mostly be mild in nature with seemingly nothing more than cold or flu-like symptoms. This is the case even as it turns out one’s natural immunity is also compromised by these variant mutants, meaning while previous infections still offer the body robust immune responses, they aren’t as robust as before.

The reality is that the risk of more severe disease and death declines due to a combination of natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity, despite a more transmissible, yet seemingly less virulent pathogen. But some data suggests BA. 5 could become more virulent. And, in fact, disturbingly, both new case infections and hospitalizations are on the rise. It’s too early to tell what this means in terms of overall impact.

In the meantime, the vaccine companies started re-developing their vaccines to target Omicron. Specifically, they focused on the BA.1 variant given the dominance of that pathogen for a while. However, even in Pfizer’s own press release, the updated vaccine is already not a great match for BA.5. And we can assume that COVID won’t stop with BA.5.

Some scientists such as Geert Vanden Bossche predicted that the mass vaccination to eradicate the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen would give rise to new variants appears to have occurred. It’s not clear if it’s occurring due to Vanden Bossche’s hypothesis or some other reason. Now the Belgium scientist suggests the pathogen will become more virulent—could this be the case with BA.5?

It turns out that with RNA-based viruses, it is hard to develop stable, consistent, and sustained vaccination strategies ongoing. SARS-CoV-2 represented a novel RNA virus—similar but more transmissible than SARS-CoV-1. But perhaps, because the first coronavirus disappeared from the start of the pandemic, public health authorities, health agencies, and regulators unequivocally emphasized that mass vaccination against the brand-new SARS-CoV-2 would help us collectively achieve herd immunity. How could they know this? It’s never happened before. The science of RNA viruses informed us of a different reality. Despite this fact, a whole new reality was produced by health agencies and governing bodies, with pharmaceutical companies lined up to capitalize on massive, urgent spending in the countermeasure-driven emergency.

This underlying premise that the virus could be controlled for a long duration was inherent in key agency targets, such as the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 70% country vaccination rate as a means to help the world’s population achieve herd immunity.

Before COVID, what was the track record of vaccines targeting RNA diseases? What’s apparent is that COVID-19 represents what is, in fact, the greatest experiment in the history of humankind. Why do we make that claim? Because when considering several, and in some cases deadly viruses, we have yet to develop a safe, effective, and economical vaccine. That is not to say research on this type of vaccine technology hasn’t been going on for years—it has been.

What are some examples?

RNA Virus Type

Discussion

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

There is no vaccine available despite decades of research and billions of dollars allocated to the effort. About 34 million people have died due to HIV/AIDS with another 38 to 40 million people living with the condition.

Ideally, vaccines would control this disease. Although antiretroviral therapy has made an enormous difference in helping HIV patients live far more normal lives, the regimen is expensive and not accessible to numerous geographies and demographics. While there are promising early-stage vaccines starting to emerge, no breakthroughs have occurred yet.

Human rotavirus (HRV)

This virus leads to serious dehydrating gastroenteritis often in children. While live rotavirus products are on the market, they are quite expensive, and data suggests they pose a risk of intussusception due to vaccine replication in the gut of vaccinated children. Some promising products are in the pipeline, but more time is needed.

Hepatitis C

There is no Hepatitis C vaccine. Thus, the best defense is staying away from behaviors that can spread the disease such as the injection of drugs.

While there have been advances in therapeutics, they fail often to prevent reinfection and are costly.

Influenzas

Although vaccines have been developed, these live attenuated vaccines don’t stop the constant burden of the dynamically mutating viruses. The current batch of influenza virus vaccines, which have taken decades to evolve, most induce antibodies directed toward the highly variable head domain of the hemagglutinin protein on the virus surface. Often strain-specific, they offer limited cross-protection against divergent flu pathogens, leading to poor efficacy. They do not stop viral transmission and merely act as a protectant for the most at-risk populations (similar to what we are now seeing with the COVID vaccines). There is no way health authorities would ever claim that mass flu vaccination would lead to herd immunity. The beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign represented a stark deviation from the norm of public health.

Various Pig-based RNA viruses

Important, as discussed by Sais, pigs are primary human livestock (36%) and are frequently impacted by RNA viruses. They serve as a bridge between wild hosts, animals, and humans thus the availability of efficient vaccines is important. Yet ongoing experimentation continues for the right vaccine.

One example is the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) that’s a culprit behind reproductive failure in pregnant sows as well as respiratory disease in younger pigs. A major challenge in developing vaccines, despite huge economic losses associated with the virus, is the significant genetic diversity. The quest to find answers continues.

Back to Omicron

So, while the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate—and this was to be expected based on the known science, the vaccines have not evolved with the mutations. A massive vaccination program was made possible under emergency countermeasures and associated legal conditions offering immunity for not only manufacturers but all participants in the value chain.

In the meantime, the regulatory requirement to employ normal, good clinical and manufacturing practices has been relaxed during the emergency. Most recently, this occurred when the VRBPAC gave the greenlight to allow Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech to proceed with their Omicron-specific vaccines after only two votes were counted as nay.

Those two included Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and Hank Bernstein of the Zucker School of Medicine. The consensus of the VRBPAC was that the use of two component vaccines (that is original strain and Omicron BA.1) infused in a booster would offer the population continued sufficient protection against emerging variants, or subvariants of concern, such as BA.5.

But in a recent entry in STAT, Offit and John P. Moore note:

“We would all gain from having more insights into the performance of the Omicron-based Covid-19 vaccines. The full datasets from all the variant booster trials should not be analyzed using the best available models. To provide an informed judgment about whether—and to what extent—the slightly superior neutralizing antibody response to Omicron-based boosters translates into significantly greater protection against BA.4/BA.5-mediated infections and severe or fatal disease.”

While VRBPAC members overwhelmingly gave the greenlight for Omicron-specific boosters, (thereby foregoing the requirement for extensive clinical trials) Offit and Bernstein wondered aloud about whether “changing the booster vaccine to include the Omicron sequence offers enough of an advantage to justify the cost and complexity associated with making the switch.”

The authors rightly point out that Americans need “accurate information about how the new boosters perform against mild infections and virus transmission.”

No, an Omicron-based booster will not be a “magic bullet,” but due to the Biden Administration’s handling of public health matters, it may be perceived that way. Otherwise, the White House press wouldn’t issue statements that the masses should now be relieved and celebratory as they can now get their kids vaccinated. Durability is still a problem.

Actually, one survey suggests only 18% of American parents plan on getting their kids vaccinated against COVID-19, and to date, a fraction of that number have gone through with getting their kids vaccinated. Of course, accessibility for kids is more challenging than it was for the adult vaccination campaign, as many kids have to visit a doctor to receive the vaccine versus the numerous pop-up sites we witnessed for adults.

TrialSite wholeheartedly concurs with Offit and Bernstein that the next regulatory decision involving the Omicron booster vaccine should not be unduly rushed. Early in the pandemic, emergency countermeasure logic prevailed. The threat of imminent death directed decision-making over the prudent deliberation of all the risks and true benefits of the vaccines. In the case of the anticipated novel booster dose for Omicron, the attentive analysis as to the precise vaccine makeup and a more granular accounting of true efficacy is important, based on not only the time and public expense but also the risks that thus far have been discounted due to emergency countermeasures.

If we step back and look at the situation critically, we find that from the very start, government agencies were spinning the vaccine program as a strict means of stopping the spread of the pathogen, which countered all science associated with our current state of knowledge with RNA viruses.

That “stop the spread” narrative changed to helping prevent more serious disease, hospitalization, hospital burden, and death. Yet since last summer with Delta, evidence for breakthrough infections, vaccine durability issues, and a rapidly mutating virus was significant enough to move away from mandates. Further, the logistics and expense of maintaining a public-health campaign driven by the need for frequent booster doses of expensive vaccines have yet to be clearly articulated to a population growing more and more tired and confused by COVID measures and official communication from those in charge.

Quote from JedRothwell

Beware of drawing any conclusions from VAERS.

Completely right. VAERS contains at most 10% of the cases because US hospitals force there doctors not to report at all. Worst VAERS sometimes as shown in studies contains only 1-2% of the cases...

So in reality things are much worse. RNA "vaccines" (also historically called monoclonal cancer gene chemo) are a Russian roulette therapy or like the live insurance company said:: Intentional suicide.

Quote from Fm1

But let's be very clear: 50% of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated.

This figure is far to low. Here we have a much higher ratio. Most so called boostered die from an other cause...

And please remember teh most important thing:

In UK e.g. 90% already had omicron so far also the vaccinated. So vaccine protection in reality 10x lower as given by all the Pfizer fake studies.

Quote from Mark U

What's funny is that you think I don't realize that, yes, this is a weakness of the paper. It is not clear how much this timing bias for reporting to VAERS affects the clustering. The important thing to note is that this is just one particular aspect of the paper. There is much, much more to the paper, which you ignore. For instance, explain why the Japanese infant mortality rate plummeted after the policy to vaccinate children much later.

All this could be settled if only, say, the CDC compared the rate of SIDS (or other things like autism, allergies, autoimmune disorders, etc) in vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children. Easy peasy. But they won't.

Show one glaring weakness in an antivaxxer argument, they shrug shoulders and move onto another... Note the big red flag here - the argument moves from SIDS mortality to total motrtality.

I'm happy to tolerate this (a bit) but there will come a time when for the sake of everyone's sanity here I will have to stop.

1. It is not clear how much this timing bias affects the clustering. The timing bias explains the clustering. Only if you are an antivaxxer do you see this as evidence for a causal relationship between vaccines and SIDS.

2. Japanese infant mortality plummeted after the decision.

There are actually two separate arguments in the paper here:

2a. In Japan, from 1970 through 1974, there were 37 documented sudden infant deaths following pertussis vaccinations, inciting parents and doctors to reject the shot. In 1975, Japanese authorities reacted to these events by raising the age of vaccination from 3 months to 2 years. As a result, the number of vaccine injury compensation claims that were paid out for sudden deaths following vaccination dropped from 37 cases during a 5-year period to just 3 cases during the next 6-and-a-half years (from 1975 through August of 1981). The sudden death rate following vaccination dropped from 1.47 to 0.15 deaths per million doses—a 90 % improvement [40,41].

This large fall is restating the previous "clustering" argument. Since SIDS occurs early in childhood if you raise the vaccination age the number of coincidentally correlated SIDS deaths will vastly reduce.

2b. In addition, from the early 1970s (a period when 3-month-old infants were vaccinated) to the mid-1980s (ten years after the age of vaccination was raised to 2 years) the Japanese infant mortality rate (infant deaths per 1000 live births) declined from 12.4–5.0—a 60 % improvement [42].

Note we have nor moved from SIDS (a very small number of total infant deaths) to total infant deaths, and the observed decline is over a 10 year period. Total infant deaths of course include deaths from diseases the vaccine prevent. Therefore we would expect deaths to decrease. Mark U, an antivaxxer who suspends his normal critical thinking when processing antivaxxer memes) might therefore think that because infant mortality is defined as <1 year this positive effect of vaccination would not be seen. However there are two positive affects from vaccination:

(1) individually, children vaccinated do not die

(2) collectively, as vaccination levels in the population increase (of all age children) so the level of childhood disease outbreaks reduces and the unvaccinated children (e.g. those with antivaxxer parents) benefit. This is quite a slow process, and will be happening during this selected (cherry picked) period. (It is also possible that vaccination uptake increases over time - we would need to look at figures, but even with constant vaccination uptake the collective effects takes many years to evidence as vaccination levels slowly increase).

In addition many factors affect infant mortality other than vaccination: we would need to look historically at what other changes (alongside vaccination) were made in this period to draw any conclusions.

Always good to look at context when critically appraising antivaxxer arguments. Shall we do that for this infant death statistic?

I can't see anything unusual about the change from 1970s to 1980s. Can you? There is a constant improvement over time as vaccines and many other health measures improve total mortality.

All this could be settled if only, say, the CDC compared the rate of SIDS (or other things like autism, allergies, autoimmune disorders, etc) in vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children. Easy peasy.

Only easy-peasy for an antivaxxer who does not bother to learn basic statistics. Diagnosis and reporting rates for these diseases are very variable - one child's Autism is another child who is undiagnosed and difficult. Those parents who seek medical help more readily will be more likely to have vaccinated children, and also more likely to have diagnoses of Autism etc. This is statistics 101 and is discussed in all the literature (except perhaps some fringe antivaxxer papers) on vaccination. People have attempted to quantify these effects, but as you can imagine it is not easy to do that.

The point is - there is no evidence to suggest a link between vaccination and these childhood diseases. Antivaxxers assume such links are likely, and find statistics which (for other reasons) show correlations, as above. That is not evidence. Nor is it a pattern of data - of the sort that VAERS can helpfully generate to prompt further investigation, because all the observed correlations are those expected from already know causes.

Looking at the Japanese Infant Mortality graph above i would be reasonably happy that the Japanese medical establishment - though vaccines and many other measures - was doing well to bring total infant mortality down.

Quote from Fm1

Why don’t governmental agencies charged with informing, educating, and protecting the American public fess up to what’s really going on with the pandemic and vaccination? While the COVID-19 vaccines presently available across America are all developed to match the original SARS-CoV-2 “wildtype” pathogen, this RNA-based virus has dramatically evolved over the past two-and-a-half years to the point that the current vaccines may have questionable utility to adequately protect Americans from the current SARS-CoV-2 variants in circulation such as Omicron subvariant BA.5. While agency communication switched from “protection against infection” to “protection against severe disease and hospitalization” once they realized that the vaccine would not stop transmission, they have not addressed the durability problem or the need for frequent booster shots.

Well, I don't know about the fessing up issue - I have little faith in the politicised US health system generally: and by all the comparative measures it performs badly.

But, on this specific argument, TSN is not fessing up. They are not distinguishing between protection against server disease and death (where the vaccines continue to provide broad and lasting T-cell immunity) and protection against infection, where evasion and decline in immunity over time mean greatly reduced protection after just 2 or 3 months. If people are protected against severe disease there is no need for boosters (except to top-up said protection).

In the UK it looks like one booster per year or possibly a bit more often than that is what the health authorities think will be best at keeping most people out of hospital. And in the Uk no-one cares about reducing infection rates. Every new variant runs its course with up to 5% of the population or more infected at any one time.

THH

Quote from Mark U

We all know that VAERS is not used to prove or demonstrate causality, but to provide a signal for any potential safety issues for particular vaccines, which would then be further investigated.

Signal? What signal?

Again, antivaxxers are not using their normal ability to critically analyse data. Luckily the rest of us do not have this disability,

That signal is expected anyway and therefore does not raise safety issues. VAERS reports will correlate with vaccinations (because background deaths are reported). Vaccinations have peaked over that period because of mass COVID vaccination of older more likely to die, and the mass (and politicised) antivaxxer propaganda.

Only an antivaxxer would think it indicated cause for concern that there were no COVID vaccine reports VAERS events when there were no COVID vaccine jabs.

Let me ask Mark U. What proportion of background deaths would you expect to be reported in the VAERS database? Quantify this. then we can see whether that blip is larger or smaller than (you) expect. You could start by comparing that blip with total US background deaths.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mark U, an antivaxxer who suspends his normal critical thinking when processing antivaxxer memes)

Please can somebody tease this big pharma gene therapy clown?

But may be this forum is made for cheaters and trolls like THHuxleynew that like to bully 100% vaxxers as anti vaxxer...

RNA gene therapy AKA Cov-19 fake vaccines also called monoclonal genetech cancer therapy is nowhere near any vaccine as it just promotes a single Ig-G / antibody like any allergy will do too.

Pfizer 1000% fails for Omicron. Only in company paid fake studies Pfizer claims to see some effect for the first 8 weeks, but fails to account for all the victims that happen the 14 first days after the booster etc. shot.

So stay off Pfizer!! As it currently has at least 100% negative efficiency.

Moderna is one step better as the second RNA leads to a bit broader response but with the same deadly problems during the 14 first days. Moderna's protection is also way more stable as the second RNA so far barely did mutate - but is of lesser use.

V-D3 is at least 10x better than any fake vaccine if you supply it at a high enough dose (5000IU staring in autumn for most regions) If you use Iodine solution as primary treatment you gain an other factor of 10 at least.

Only fools get killed or damaged by CoV-19 or idiots by a RNA gene therapy...

#IndiaFightsCorona COVID-19

www.mygov.in

Why has India still 100x less cases/mio than e.g. Germany,Japan,USA,etc,....?

Only the death count of the vaxxer country Kerala matches western figures....

Oh I have forgotten the facts: ... The famous worms protect India.... Luckily they kicked out the WHO big pharma clowns...

Tokyo begins 4th vaccinations of medical workers amid 7th wave - The Mainichi

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Medical staff and elderly care workers in Tokyo began to receive their fourth COVID-19 vaccinations on Saturday after the government

mainichi.jp

Previously, the fourth dose was only available to people aged 60 and over and those between 18 and 59 with pre-existing conditions who are considered at higher risk of developing severe symptoms when infected with the virus.

A study shows the fourth inoculation has relative efficacy for elderly people but may only provide marginal protection for younger people.

Desperately selling "vaccines" that don't work... relative efficacy ??!! marginal protection !!!!

To many idiots live on this planet.