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

Quote from Wyttenbach

I would opt for the Kaviar champagne group with full shiatsu/tantra once a week...

Champagne, Caviar, tantric sex, and sports cars should do the trick.

That's an old British cure for what ails you -'A blonde and a bottle of whisky'.

Surprise surprise

Here once more the leaked Pfizer contract:: Pfizer contract Albanien.pdf

Its the base version: May be each country has slight additions/cross outs.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here once more the leaked Pfizer contract:: Pfizer contract Albanien.pdf

Its the base version: May be each country has slight additions/cross outs.

Most contracts are very similar, with slight nuances, but basically the same, and also the contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, and in Chile even the contracts with the Chinese companies are very similar.

Ivermectin, supported by evidence-based medicine, was cast aside during Covid at great cost

Ivermectin, supported by evidence-based medicine, was cast aside during Covid at great cost

Science supporting the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19, visible throughout the entire T-EBM wheel, was ignored during Covid-19.

www.biznews.com

The Covid-19 pandemic turned a few things upside down. Society was turned on its head when normal, natural social interaction became unlawful with the imposition of unprecedented restrictions such as social distancing. Evidence-based medicine (EBM), “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients”, was cast aside, the most notorious example of which was global public health authorities’ denunciation of ivermectin, the safety of which was already compellingly evident prior to Covid-19. And, of course, the emergency use authorisation and rollout of experimental Covid-19 vaccines. In this article by several acclaimed healthcare scientists, including Professor Colleen Aldous, the principle of the Totality of Evidence-Based Medicine (T-EBM) wheel was applied in contrast to the quality/certainty hierarchy associated with the pyramid model. The authors concluded; “Never in the history of using EBM theory has it been that only a specific type of study design is considered adequate for informing practice.” By using the T-EBM wheel, the authors show that we will benefit dealing with the current pandemic as well as those in the future – a fundamental benefit that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, was sidelined as the science supporting the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19, which is visible throughout the entire T-EBM wheel, was ignored. – Nadya Swart

The Totality of EBM still points to the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19: The Totality of Evidence–Based Medicine Wheel

By Colleen Aldous1, Philip Oldfield2, Jerome Dancis3, Barry Dancis4

This week we published the Totality of Evidence-Based Medicine (T-EBM) wheel on TrialSite News for the first time. By totality, we mean both the totality of the types of reports and the totality of reports for a given type. The T-EBM wheel also shows outcomes and visualises the relative numbers of reports and outcomes without the quality/certainty hierarchy associated with the pyramid model. We have applied the principle of the T-EBM wheel to the repurposing of ivermectin and show that the totality of evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 still weighs towards an advantage in using the drug, enough to risk a TYPE 1 error decision.

The study results show that “this virus is 99.9 percent an artificial, probably manipulated, copy of a natural virus,”

New study claims to have determined origin of Covid-19

The virus behind the pandemic has a genetic structure typical of “synthetic viruses,” authors say

New study claims to have determined origin of Covid-19

The Covid-19 virus structure could not be a result of a natural evolution, a new study claims

www.rt.com

The virus that caused the Covid-19 pandemic was most likely created in a laboratory, a study by German and American scientists has claimsed.

A team of three researchers concluded that Sars-CoV-2 was a genetically modified virus, after comparing its structure to that of “wild” and laboratory-borne equivalents.

Sars-CoV-2 literally has “fingerprints” of genetic manipulations, according to a preprint released by Valentin Bruttel of Germany’s Wuerzburg University, Alex Washburne of the US-based Selva Analytics research center and Antonius VanDongen of Duke University, also in the US. The paper published this week reported that the three scientists had found a recurring genetic structure element called a restriction site, which they describe as a sign of the virus’ genome having been “stitched” together.

“To make a virus in the lab, researchers usually engineer the viral genome to add and remove stitching sites, called restriction sites. The ways researchers modify these sites can serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly,” the paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, claims.

The structure of Sars-CoV-2 is “anomalous in wild coronaviruses” but “common in lab-assembled viruses,” it adds, pointing to the certain “synonymous or silent mutations” that differentiate the restriction sites. The concentration of such mutations “is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution,” the preprint says

Here the first (April 2020) reference for the Lab virus outside Fauci emails from a specialist.

:: https://yurideigin.medium.com/…ion-research-f96dd7413748

Researchers investigating long COVID might do themselves a favor by listening to this podcast. It's all about vitamin and mineral deficency!!!!

VITAMIN DEFICIENCY AND ITS IMPACT ON BRAIN HEALTH

Vitamin Deficiency and Its Impact on Brain Health | Alzheimer's Disease Research Center

A study from the University of Wisconsin found 40% of geriatric memory patients were deficient in at least one vitamin linked to brain health. Vitamins tested in this study included B1, B6, B12, and D, all of which play an important role in brain health. Dr. Robert Przybelski joins the podcast to discuss his study, the influence of vitamin deficiency on brain health, and the potential consequences of vitamin deficiency when treating a patient for a memory condition. Guest: Robert Przybelski, MD, associate professor, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

Episode Topics:

Why is it important to look for vitamin deficiencies during a memory evaluation? 1:19

What were your research findings? 2:03

What do you focus on during a memory evaluation? 5:13

Is there a difference between normal vitamin levels and optimal levels? 6:40

What supplements do you take? 7:42

What diet do you think promotes brain health? 8:06

Why does your research look at general patients rather than participants? 8:41

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here the first (April 2020) reference for the Lab virus outside Fauci emails from a specialist.

:: https://yurideigin.medium.com/…ion-research-f96dd7413748

Fauci released his fact checkers on the latest article in a pathetic attempt to debunk the manmade virus. They focus on it not being peer reviewed, not the findings!

UK MPs Demand Investigations Into Post-COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries

UK MPs Demand Investigations Into Post-COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries

Recently, the UK Petitions Committee debated on a petition relating to the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. There have been a significant number of heart attacks…

www.trialsitenews.com

Recently, the UK Petitions Committee debated on a petition relating to the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. There have been a significant number of heart attacks and other related issues since the rollout of the vaccines in Britain. Is there a connection between the vaccine rollout and these cardiovascular events? It’s the duty of the government to investigate. One MP and member of the Petitions Committee, Elliot Colburn, opened the debate for discussion. At five minutes into the proceeding (video attached), Coburn puts forward the Government’s case for the COVID-19 vaccine. Declaring the medicinal products are all tested, reviewed, and safe and effective, he discusses diligent safety monitoring via the Yellow Card system, the problem of anti-vaxxers, and the like. By minute 26, the first opposing views present, and by minute 38, Christopher Chope puts forward the case for investigations into COVID-19 vaccine safety.

A British barrister and politician who has served as an MP for Christchurch and Dorset since 1997, Chope is a member of the Conservative Party. Classified as a “Eurosceptic” and advocate of Brexit, Chope raises serious concerns about vaccine safety in these debates. His position: the increasing cardiovascular problems reported around Britain warrant an inquiry into COVID-19 vaccine safety. Representing over a hundred thousand that signed a petition to investigate the vaccines, he argues the British public need to have all the facts so that they can both assess the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines given ongoing booster doses.

Chope reports that he has been speaking with coroners up and down the UK. According to conversations with many coroners, the MP suggests that many deaths are the direct result of the vaccines. However, this would hardly be considered a scientific approach to analyzing and concluding whether the deaths are in fact causally linked to the vaccines. That would involve medical adjudication. Yet, with trust so strained, conservatives and critics of the existing vaccination scheme appear open to alternative forms of research in pursuit of the truth.

The MP criticizes some of his colleagues for not having empathy with the vaccine injured and dead. Many people he reports are suffering from post-COVID-19 vaccine injuries across the UK. Chope also referred to data from Germany’s Paul-Ehrlich Institute, and that German regulator’s finding that 1 in 5,000 are somehow adversely affected by the COVID-19 vaccines.

Currently, damages are limited to £120,000 only of 60% disabled. Vaccine videos are being ignored, according to the MP. Several MPs also suggest monitoring of adverse events. At the end, the Opposition Spokesman for Health also gave a pro-vaccine stance.

COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

There are over 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the preprint server system and or in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED) describing side effects after mRNA…

www.trialsitenews.com

There are over 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the preprint server system and or in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED) describing side effects after mRNA or adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccination. One of the most dreaded complications is vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

Because the Spike protein produced in response to the vaccine genetic code causes hemagglutination and micro blood clotting, there is excessive antigenic presentation of platelets to the spleen and reticuloendothelial system. As a result, the body produces auto-antibodies directed against a platelet receptor (PF4) which has homology with an endothelial protein. This causes autoantibody “pinning” of platelets to the lining of blood vessel cells resulting in consumption of platelets, blood clotting, and bleeding at the same time. Unfortunate victims are fine for a few weeks after vaccination. Then bleeding from the oral and nasal mucosa associated with bruising under the skin occurs, commonly with serious blood clotting within the brain and elsewhere in the body. Most patients are hospitalized in critical condition as doctors try a variety of medical and interventional maneuvers to combat simultaneous clotting and bleeding. As you can imagine, in some individuals the process is overwhelming and no matter how much critical care support is given, the patient dies.[i] The obituary of Mrs. Jessica Berg, age 37, a previously healthy vibrant mother is given in the figure.[ii] It indicates she died as a result of VITT.

Jessica Berg Wilson, Oct. 29, 1983 - Sept. 7, 2021, died of COVID-19 VITT

To her left is a paper by Tsilingiris et al., titled, “Vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: The shady side of a success story.[iii]” The authors never state what “success” meant in the title, but it is clear that schools, employers, and the military are “shady” when they don’t fairly warn people what can happen when forcing mass vaccination. Television commercials, internet promotions, and consent forms do not describe VITT. Ms. Berg and her family had no way of getting an informed consent.

To her right is a treatment pathway described that doctors commonly take to treat patients in the hospital. As in her case, many patients (~39%) succumb to this premature and bloody death which leaves more questions than answers. How could this have been anticipated? Is VITT associated with prior heparin induced thrombocytopenia (a similar syndrome)? What is the best initial blood thinner? Why aren’t patients with prior blood disorders given prompt exemption from such a horrific threat? Ask your doctor next time about VITT and how they would advise to avoid it. If you get a blank look or a queasy uncomfortable expression, show a copy of Ms. Berg’s obituary and start a critical conversation.

Dr. Peter McCullough participates on the TrialSite advisory committee. Check out Dr. Peter McCullough and writing partner John Leake at Substack as well.

The Greatest Enemy in the Control of the C-19 Pandemic is the Immunological Ignorance of Our Leading Scientific, Public Health and Regulatory Experts

The Greatest Enemy in the Control of the C-19 Pandemic is the Immunological Ignorance of Our Leading Scientific, Public Health and Regulatory Experts

On rare occasions, I read some vaccine talk produced by mainstream journalists. It is interesting to see how in light of the continuing series of disappointing…

www.trialsitenews.com

On rare occasions, I read some vaccine talk produced by mainstream journalists. It is interesting to see how in light of the continuing series of disappointing vaccine experiments on humans they cautiously begin to balance their remaining critical thinking faculties with the mainstream narrative that dominated their views for so long. The recent article: ‘Updated Covid-19 vaccines boost protection, but may not beat original formula against BA.4 and BA.5, early studies suggest ‘ is one such marvelous example.

Since I am much better at mastering the science than I am at the language, I am going to provide science-based critiques of the big gaps in the immunological interpretation of the data reported on the first bivalent booster studies. I’ll share my comments on the cited interpretations of leading scientists and experts, however, I’ll refrain from citing their names as I have no intention to ridicule these individuals—I only intend to point out the immunological ignorance of those still officially referred to as acknowledged key opinion leaders and decision-makers in the field. Their immunological ignorance is now inspiring further efforts to fight evil (mass vaccination) with more evil (mass vaccination with updated vaccines)—a recipe for disaster that will certainly end the pandemic the ‘hard’ way. Nature will ultimately teach them how immunology works, and unfortunately not before massive damage is inflicted by the mass vaccination experiment. Before I get to the specific comments uttered by our leading ‘experts’ and cited within this article, I’ll open with a mind-boggling statement made by the journalist to first give a “master class” of softs in immunology to these very leading ‘experts’:

“But the hope was that by tweaking the vaccine recipe to include currently circulating strains of the Omicron variant, it would help broaden immunity against those variants and perhaps offer better and longer-lasting protection”

Geert (G): How can one conduct experiments on humans just based on some naïve ‘hope’? Why do scientists produce extensive data on deep mutational scanning without investigating the immunological driver behind the patterns of such reported mutations? If they would only do so, they would immediately realize the abundance of scientific rationale that could substitute for all the hope they put in empirical research on humans.

The scientific evidence clearly indicates that no single updated/ adapted vaccine booster will improve the temporary protective effect conferred by the Wuhan-Hu S-based C-19 vaccines but will instead only expedite immune escape.

Why?

Meanwhile, a myriad of reports documenting the convergent mutations in steadily evolving SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) variants unambiguously illustrates that both productive vaccine breakthrough infections and mRNA vaccine-based boosters place immune pressure on more conserved, immune subdominant spike (S)-associated epitopes by recalling immature memory B cells that produce low-affinity antibodies (Abs). Of course, the resulting suboptimal pressure exerted by these Abs on these more conserved antigenic domains drives immune escape, first away from the recalled broadly neutralizing (i.e., variant-nonspecific) Abs and subsequently from the broadly infection-inhibiting Abs. This is due to ‘immune refocusing’, a phenomenon that occurs when pre-existing Abs bind to their pathogen-associated target epitopes with low affinity (i.e., not allowing virus neutralization in case of SC-2, for example): see fig. attached at the bottom. In this way, previously immunodominant epitopes expressed on the free-circulating antigen (e.g., spike protein in case of SC-2) can no longer be recognized by the host immune system whereas previously outcompeted antigenic determinants comprised within the same antigen but expressed on infected or transfected target cells will take advantage of the masking effect to recall the corresponding previously primed Abs.

Immune refocusing occurs upon vaccine breakthrough infections or administration of mRNA booster doses in previously mRNA-primed individuals.

But what is the underlying mechanism?

It suffices to understand that internalization of secreted in vivo synthesized S protein into antigen-presenting cells (APCs) will provide cognate and noncognate T help to immunodominant epitopes on the free-circulating S protein and S protein expressed at the surface of the mRNA-transfected target cells, respectively. Abs to the latter have therefore much lower affinity and are the first to be recalled upon breakthrough infections or administration of mRNA vaccine booster doses. As they will subsequently bind (with low affinity) to the immunodominant determinants on S protein expressed on free circulating SC-2 virus or on the free circulating S protein (i.e., once released from the virus-infected or mRNA-transfected cell, respectively), the subdominant antigenic determinants will be able to outcompete the immunodominant epitopes for assistance from memory T helper cells (recalled as a result of internalization of S protein into APCs) to recall their corresponding, broadly cross-functional memory B cells. The neutralizing anti-S Abs (NAbs) recalled as a result of the original Wuhan-Hu spike memory (i.e., the ‘hidden’ original antigenic sin) imprinted by the mRNA vaccine have low affinity and are directed at conserved but less immunogenic S-associated domains. So, repeated breakthrough infections or boosting with mRNA-based vaccines in previously mRNA vaccine-primed individuals will merely drive the immune system to repeat commitment of the ‘hidden’ antigenic sin. Consequently, breakthrough infections or mRNA booster injections will expedite immune escape by enabling immune refocusing to be repeated. As illustrated in the figure attached at the bottom, immune refocusing subsequently triggers the elicitation of low-affinity infection-inhibiting Abs targeted at more conserved domains. So, regardless of the S version comprised in the breakthrough variant or the mRNA vaccines, vaccine breakthrough infections or mRNA vaccine booster doses facilitate humoral immune pressure on shared (i.e., variant-nonspecific) antigenic domains that contribute to viral neutralizability and infectiousness. Large-scale breakthrough infections and/ or massive mRNA vaccine booster campaigns will therefore accelerate immune escape long before enhanced maturation of the recalled, poorly matured memory B cells takes place in germinal centers (as equally described in several recent publications).

As mRNA booster doses as well as vaccine breakthrough infections facilitate immune pressure on variant-nonspecific domains, the type of immune escape they indirectly promote is no longer determined by specific characteristics of the dominantly circulating SC-2 variant. This explains why we’re now witnessing more and more NAb-resistant, highly infectious variants co-circulating in the population. Lastly, as immune refocusing shifts the immune response to conserved domains with very different antigenic characteristics, it is not surprising that ‘mutation spotters’ consider the mutations to reflect ‘large scale’ immune escape.

End of master class…

Here come the expert interpretations or cited comments followed by my critique:

“Immunologists say a vaccine against two strains may not be better than a single strain shot because of a phenomenon called immune imprinting”

G: These immunologists are confusing ‘immune imprinting’ or ‘antigenic sin’ with ‘immune refocusing’. If immune imprinting was responsible for the protective effect observed, one would expect improved protection (even if only short-lived) after the booster dose. This is not the case as each new additional booster has become less and less effective.

“Scientists say imprinting may complicate efforts to stay ahead of new variants as the coronavirus continues to evolve, and it adds urgency to the development of new vaccine technologies to fight the virus” or: “We may need different kinds of vaccine technologies if the virus ever changes so much that it outcompetes our immunity altogether”

G: These scientists don’t seem to realize that the virus only needs about 12 hours to put a new generation (and hence, new immune escape variants to select from) on the globe. What are the new technologies they’re alluding to? They haven’t yet advanced any scientifically sound approach to a universal Coronavirus (CoV) or Sarbecovirus vaccine. Is it so difficult to understand that performing mass vaccination with any kind of CoV vaccine during a pandemic will drive immune escape? Adaptive immune effector cells (typically those vaccines rely on to protect) need time to mature and reach sufficient affinity to have optimal neutralizing capacity. Perhaps they were thinking of ‘mucosal’ immunization? Regardless, the latter will never solve the issue of immune escape either when administered during a pandemic.

“When the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations for new bivalent Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna at the end of August, it did so on the basis of studies in mice and previous human trials with a different two-strain booster formulation. Little was known about how protective the shots might be in people; full data from clinical trials testing the BA.4 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines in humans hasn’t yet been made public. But modeling data suggested that getting the boosters out in September could save tens of thousands of lives….”

G: It is simply unbelievable that experts and regulatory folks largely rely on mice data to conduct new experiments on humans using yet another mRNA vaccine! Have those working for decades in this field not yet learned that mice lie, especially when it comes to immunizing animals with an immunological background that is not comparable to that of the target human population? And when will all these computational scientists and mathematicians finally learn that a model is only as good as its assumptions? As they clearly don’t understand the immunology involved, their assumptions are always wrong and so too are the results of their modeling.

“We can’t say that a few months from now, there won’t be any difference,” he said. “We won’t know that until these individuals are followed for a longer period of time.”

“Clinical trials being conducted by vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna involve hundreds of people who have had the updated boosters and are being followed for longer periods of time. Data from those studies are still coming”.

G: Clearly, this scientist/ doctor is alluding to the maturation of the elicited memory B cells that have now been repeatedly reported to result from breakthrough infections or booster shots. However, it has been convincingly documented that this maturation process takes several months (4-6 months) before accomplishing full-fledged affinity maturation. Again, the virus is not waiting for this to happen. By the time this occurs the virus will long since have accomplished additional immune escape operations, especially when immune pressure is exerted at a population level.

“…the researchers found that neutralizing antibodies spiked after both shots to about the same high levels, which was good news”

G: Oh really? Why would this be good news knowing that the only effect of these Abs is to drive immune refocusing which triggers large-scale immune escape? How many times must I state that if there is one rule that doesn’t apply to immunology it is that more is not always better (in fact, the opposite usually applies)

“Unfortunately, neither one increased T-cell responses very much, and we believe that T-cell responses in addition to antibody responses are important for protection against severe disease,”

G: Some of the top researchers doggedly continue to preach the power of cross-reactive T cells in controlling the virus and taming the pandemic. They seem to have little understanding of the pathobiology and immunology involved in acute SELF-LIMITING viral infections. Maybe some of them are confused by too much HIV vaccine research?

Once again, I am citing just a few of the many articles I’ve written to debunk the critical role of T cells in protecting against SC-2 infection/ disease:

When anti-S(pike) antibodies against Omicron can no longer sustain the narrative, why not resort to T cells?

Q&A #09: Do cross-reactive T cells explain mild course of Omicron infection?

To all those who continue to attribute abrogation of SARS-CoV-2 infection to pre-existing cross-reactive T cells rather than to innate immunity. The devil is in the detail of peer-reviewed publications.

Cross-reactive memory T cells are associated with (but not responsible for) protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts.

‘Killer’ immune cells still recognize Omicron variant.... oh really?

“A booster is a booster until proven otherwise and we are in great need of getting more of them in the US”

G: Yes, and a vaccine is a vaccine until proven otherwise, correct??! This scientist/ doctor seems to be a real fanatic of the concept: the more, the better (i.e., the higher the Ab titers and the more boosters, the better) without asking himself about the immunological mechanism triggered by the boosted Abs and the longer-term effects thereof.

“I would be lying to you if [I said] it doesn’t keep me up at night worrying that there is a certain chance that we may have to deploy another booster – at least for a portion of the population, perhaps older individuals – before next September, October,”

G: It seems to me that many regulators would be better off spending their sleepless nights on trying to put the pieces of the immunological puzzle together (or listening to others?!) instead of complaining about their inability to answer the obvious questions that keep them up at night….

“Both new studies have limitations, but I think when you put them together, they paint a pretty clear picture that that antigenic imprinting is causing issues here, for sure.” “That’s the reason some strains of the flu may hit certain age groups harder than others, too. When viruses look more similar to the first infection or vaccine you had, your body tends to do a better job fighting them off.”

”It probably would have been better to update the vaccine by including only the components against BA.4 and BA.5.” or: “For me, the take-home message is, if you want to boost and provide protection against Omicron, leave the original variant out of the vaccine.” Or: “Imprinting will complicate efforts to keep up with the virus”

G: Given the fact that ‘immune imprinting’ or ‘original antigenic sin’ is one of the oldest and irrefutable paradigms in immunology, why was the ancestral S version made part of the bivalent booster formulations in the first place? But as I explained before, it wouldn’t have made any difference as any version of mRNA-based S protein will entail immune refocusing to other (i.e., subdominant) epitopes. Immune refocusing implies immune imprinting (i.e., ‘hidden’ antigenic sin) but not the other way around.

“It’s possible to break through immune imprinting. Certain kinds of vaccine ingredients, or adjuvants – things that just happen to really wake up the immune system – can do it.”

G: This fellow has forgotten about one key principle in vaccinology: The vaccine is only as good as the antigen! Of course, adjuvants can increase the magnitude and breadth of the immune response, but this will not influence noncognate Th-dependent priming of low-affinity Abs to spike protein because the latter are directed against membrane-bound spike protein which is de facto not internalized into APCs, which is a conditio sine qua non for putting adjuvants at work!

Conclusion

Given the deep immunological incompetence of our leading scientific, public health, and regulatory experts, one can easily predict that there will be many more plans for empiricism and injecting yet other experimental formulations than there are lucid brains. We should not forget, though, that mankind has never been in control of this pandemic and that this is even less the case as the irrational experimentation continues. Indeed, the more man mismanages the pandemic by scientifically irrational immune interventions, the more (and the faster) the virus is evolving towards teaching a lesson in immunology that will hopefully be remembered by the future generation of scientists to come. History, however, will not be as mild as I am with the quotes of those who thought to learn from inconsiderate and dangerous experiments conducted on humans.

Fig.: Immune refocusing (IR) occurs when pre-existing Abs bind to their target epitopes with low affinity (e.g., in case of vaccine breakthrough disease or vaccine boosters in previously mRNA vaccine-primed persons). Masking of immunodominant S(pike)-associated epitopes allows subdominant epitopes to outcompete the former for assistance from memory T helper cells. This will enable the subdominant S-associated epitopes to recall low-affinity Abs directed at these epitopes. By placing suboptimal immune pressure on these more conserved antigenic domains, the recalled Abs promote large-scale immune escape. The latter results in natural selection and dominant propagation of a multitude of NAb-resistant, highly infectious immune escape SC-2 variants.

Senate Committee's Interim Report on Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Senate Committee's Interim Report on Origins of SARS-CoV-2

As reported recently by ProPublica, China watcher Toy Reid spent 15 months supporting a nine-person team dedicated to investigating the mystery of…

www.trialsitenews.com

As reported recently by ProPublica, China watcher Toy Reid spent 15 months supporting a nine-person team dedicated to investigating the mystery of COVID-19’s origins. Commissioned by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the team drilled deeply into dark evidentiary crevices; while mostly open source, some of it too was classified and weighed the major credible theories for how the novel coronavirus first made the leap to humans. An interim report, released on Thursday by the minority oversight staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP), concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic was “more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident.”

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Minority oversight staff released yesterday the interim report titled, “An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The interim staff report summarizes a review to date of publicly available, open-source information related to the potential origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

The Costs of the Pandemic—Human Life

As Senator Burr reminded all in the forward to the interim report, “Over one million Americans have died from COVID-19 and tens of millions have died from this virus worldwide. In addition to the tragic loss of life, over the past three years we have experienced the social, educational, and economic costs of a global pandemic.”

He continued, “With COVID-19 still in our midst, it is critical that we continue international efforts to uncover additional information regarding the origins of this deadly virus.” Expanding on the topic, he said, “I hope this report will guide the World Health Organization and other international institutions and researchers as they proceed with planned work to continue investigating the origins of this virus. Uncovering the answers to this critical question is imperative to our national and international ability to ensure that a pandemic of this size and scope does not happen again.

“My ultimate goal with this report is to provide a clearer picture of what we know, so far, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 so that we can continue to work together to be better prepared to respond to future public health threats. I believe this interim report does just that.”

What are the key findings thus far?

Experts have proposed two dominant theories on the origins of the virus: (1) the virus is the result of a natural zoonotic spillover or (2) the virus infected humans as a consequence of a research-related incident. This report has reviewed open-source, publicly available information relevant to the origins of the virus.

While it remains possible that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of a natural zoonotic spillover, facts and evidence found in previous documented zoonotic spillover events have not, to date, been identified in relation to this pandemic. Such gaps include the failure to identify the original host reservoir, the failure to identify a candidate intermediate host species, and the lack of serological or epidemiological evidence showing transmission from animals to humans, among others outlined in this report. As a result of these evidentiary gaps, it is hard to treat the natural zoonotic spillover theory as the presumptive origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Substantial evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a research-related incident associated with a laboratory in Wuhan, China. A research-related incident is consistent with the early epidemiology showing rapid spread of the virus exclusively in Wuhan with the earliest calls for assistance being located in the same district as the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) original campus in central Wuhan. The WIV is an epicenter of advanced coronavirus research, where researchers have collected samples of and experimented on high-risk coronaviruses.

This report describes a pattern of persistent biosafety problems at the WIV as indicated by a series of patents and procurements relevant to the biocontainment of a highly-pathogenic virus, like SARS-CoV-2. Also outlined in this report are a series of management and training concerns at the WIV further indicating biosafety problems and an unsafe work environment for laboratory personnel. The research-related incident hypothesis also explains the low genetic diversity of the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 human infections and the failure to identify an intermediate host and any animal infections pre-dating human COVID-19 cases.

This investigation’s interim report concludes that SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting COVID-19 global pandemic was, more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident associated with coronavirus research in Wuhan, China.

Unvaccinated, COVID-19 Infected Identified with 90%+ Humoral Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 for 20 Months

Unvaccinated, COVID-19 Infected Identified with 90%+ Humoral Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 for 20 Months

Carlota Dobaño, Anna Ramirez-Morros, as well as physician-scientists at both ISG Global Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, and other Spanish…

www.trialsitenews.com

Carlota Dobaño, Anna Ramirez-Morros, as well as physician-scientists at both ISG Global Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, and other Spanish academic research institutions, conducted a longitudinal cohort study involving 247 Barcelona-based primary health care workers who were infected with SARS-COV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Assessing natural SARS-CoV-2 induced levels of immunoglobulins M (IgM), G (IgG), and A (IgA) in response to the spike as well as nucleocapsid proteins associated with the novel coronavirus, the Spanish researchers tracked the patients for 616 days covering the range when they were first tested positive to SARS-CoV-2. Both the vaccinated and those who were previously infected and benefited from natural immunity both face risk with waning humoral immunity combined with mutating variants of SARS-CoV-2—the latter leading to the emergence of immune-evading pathogens. Both of these dynamics can lead to vulnerabilities associated with risk for COVID-19 reinfection. While studies and real-world observations find association with comorbidities and COVID-19 severity, the impact of comorbidity on residual antibody levels (from previous infection) hasn’t been studied. The authors detected a robust natural immunity as measured in humoral protection against SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated health care workers subjects.

Humoral Responses

While the richest economies developed vaccines for a mass vaccination program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a sizable number of the human population around the world has yet to be vaccinated. While many of this global cohort survive based on natural induced antibodies (assuming they have been infected with SARS-CoV-2) how robust is this natural immunity. While studies have demonstrated that it may be active for one year or more, apex research institutes such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) centered their research investment on vaccine-induced immunity, largely avoiding the topic of natural immunity until they absolutely had no choice but to include it in discussions. But now long does natural immunity persist?

With the vaccines, a primary measure of effectiveness is the inducement of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. But the humoral immune response to the novel coronavirus represents another vital immunity response. This class of immunity consists of immunoglobulins in reaction to SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins). When a person is first infected, IgM and IgA represent key humoral responses, while later, the immune response centers on IgM and IgG neutralizing actions.

The Study

The study is a real-world evidence study involving 247 health care workers from Barcelona, Spain who were diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. The study team collected samples covering different time points between March 2020 and November 2021. The goal of this study: to identify and quantify the impact of comorbidities on antibody response to COVID-19. Comorbidities included autoimmune disease, cancer, obstructive pulmonary disease, and more.

How were antibody responses quantified?

The investigators evaluated levels of IgG, IgA, and IgM against the spike protein, subunit S2, nucleocapsid protein, receptor binding domain (RBD), and the C-terminal region of the pathogen while seeking to better understand how antibody levels modified over time.

Results

In what could be considered stunning results, naturally induced antibody levels, as measured by seropositivity against the novel coronavirus, remained cumulatively over 90% even a year after the initial infection. Yes, the level of natural immunity as measured by humoral response proxies gradually declined leading to materially less protection, however, the 90% level of protection persisted during the study period.

For example, Dobaño, Ramirez-Morros, and team report a 95.65% seropositivity rate in the unvaccinated cohort with 95.65% (IgA and IgG) in response mostly to the spike protein as well as RBD-responses that were lower (IgA and IgM), at 47.83%.

Interestingly, while RBDs associated with both Alpha and Delta were associated with comparable IgG seropositivity, as to the wildtype (original) strain, Beta and Gamma variants of concern were associated with lower seropositivity levels.

Low Reported Reinfection Rate

The robustness of humoral powered natural immunity was considerable given that the subjects of this study—again health care workers from Spain who were not vaccinated but were infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the past—experienced a COVID-19 reinfection rate of only 3.23%.

Multivariate regression models suggested comorbidities from fever and hospitalization to smoking, obesity, and other factors associated with lower antibody levels. A year later, antibody levels associated with age, occupation, hospitalization, duration of symptoms, and a host of other factors.

Stable persistence of IgG and IgA responses and cross-recognition of the predominant variants circulating in the 2020–2021 period indicate long-lasting and largely variant-transcending humoral immunity in the initial 20.5 months of the pandemic, in the absence of vaccination.

Conclusion

The authors point out that those health care workers that didn’t get vaccinated experienced robust antibody levels even up to approximately 1.7 year with seropositivity over 90% up to 20.5 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

The authors point out:

“The maintenance of anti-S IgG, whose levels highly correlate with neutralizing antibodies, appears to be clinically relevant in protecting individuals particularly against the wild type and Alpha variants, despite lack of vaccination, consistent with having symptomatic infections in low responders, and those reinfected with the more transmissible Delta variant.”

Furthermore, the Spanish team reports that the “antibody kinetics after natural infection appear to be stably sustained, more so than after vaccination, which has led to the implementation of booster immunizations, particularly in the face of more contagious VoCs like Omicron.”

The authors remind that individuals who benefit from natural immunity also gain further protective benefit from vaccination, as unfolding study data suggests so-called hybrid immunity offers the greatest protection against COVID-19.

About ISG Global Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona

Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, officially Hospital Clinic Provincial de Barcelona, is a university hospital founded in 1906 and based in Barcelona. It opened its doors on December 23, 1906, with a capacity of 400 patients, some of which were moved from Hospital de la Santa Creu. It is currently part of the Catalan Health Service.

Lead Research/Investigator

Carlota Dobaño, ISG Global Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona

Anna Ramirez-Morros, ISG Global Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona

Sustained seropositivity up to 20.5 months after COVID-19

Sustained seropositivity up to 20.5 months after COVID-19 - BMC Medicine

This study evaluated the persistence of IgM, IgA, and IgG to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antigens up to 616 days since the onset of symptoms in a…

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

It seems China is still very insistent on following a zero-Covid programme involving continuing city-wide lockdowns. They also have a relatively low percentage of vaccinated elderly citizens. Do they know something we don't?

Quote from Fm1

Experts have proposed two dominant theories on the origins of the virus: (1) the virus is the result of a natural zoonotic spillover or (2) the virus infected humans as a consequence of a research-related incident.

Experts = spin doctors. The facts are clear since ever and the Fauci e-mails confirm it. The virus has first been manipulated in the USA and then brought to Wuhan for some more bat specific manipulations.

Quote from Fm1

Recently, the UK Petitions Committee debated on a petition relating to the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Australia - the CoV-19 free control group - data confirms that 2x vaxxines shortens the live span by 15%... For this you need no committee just a logically thinking brain and the proper data.

Strange increase of vaxx death rate. The last 3 weeks the vaxx death rate soared higher than 10:1 (vaxx::unvaxx).

https://www.covid19.admin.ch/de/vaccination/status?indicator=death

The graph labeled unknown is just unknown number of vaxx dose and contains no unvaxx. Unknown has been introduced to obfuscate the applied vaxxine.

Quote from Alan Smith

It seems China is still very insistent on following a zero-Covid programme involving continuing city-wide lockdowns. They also have a relatively low percentage of vaccinated elderly citizens. Do they know something we don't?

Chinas zero Covid policy is just a way to have 100% absolute control over their citizens without the rest of the world pointing the finger