Author Topic: The War with Medical Fascism  (Read 106332 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
good summary of Fauci - Collins cover up
« Reply #350 on: January 26, 2022, 10:35:17 AM »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-report-outlines-fresh-questions-on-what-fauci-government-knew-about-covid-origin

I think what is also revealing
is not only the obvious fact Fauci was lying up his ass the whole time about the China lab origins

is the power he wields being the money man at NIH

it sounds like researchers were all cowards in that they would not contradict him and thus get onto his shit list
 they mostly all jumped on board to cover it up even though it was obvious it was not true

in the name of SCIENCE!

we have to continue to collaborate with China!

Hey Fauc - I thought science sought to seek the truth
no cover it up

and lie when at your discretion you determine what is best for the world
and your ego.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2022, 03:40:16 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #351 on: January 26, 2022, 06:51:07 PM »
"the power he wields being the money man at NIH"

Yup.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Dr. Makary: The high cost of disparaging natural immunity
« Reply #353 on: January 27, 2022, 03:33:04 PM »
The High Cost of Disparaging Natural Immunity to CovidVaccines were wasted on those who didn’t need them, and people who posed no risk lost jobs.By Marty MakaryJan. 26, 2022 11:52 am ETSAVEPRINTTEXT1,485 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-disparaging-natural-immunity-to-covid-vaccine-mandates-protests-fire-rehire-employment-11643214336?mod=opinion_lead_pos5#comments_sector)







Public-health officials ruined many lives by insisting that workers with natural immunity to Covid-19 be fired if they weren’t fully vaccinated. But after two years of accruing data, the superiority of natural immunity over vaccinated immunity is clear. By firing staff with natural immunity, employers got rid of those least likely to infect others. It’s time to reinstate those employees with an apology.




For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused. Finally last week, the CDC released data (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm) from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination.




OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch)Are Free Tests & Booster Shots Biden's Covid Answer? (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/are-free-tests-booster-shots-biden-covid-answer/E5294BE4-FCE0-4849-A855-E524C0CAF465)00:001xSUBSCRIBEYet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization.




Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the two-dose Moderna vaccine against infection (not severe disease) declines to 61% against Delta and 16% against Omicron at six months, according to a recent Kaiser Southern California study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v2). In general, Pfizer (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PFE)’s Covid vaccines have been less effective than Moderna’s.




The CDC study and ours confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found: The immune system works. The largest of these studies (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1), from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness. 




None of this should surprise us. For years, studies have shown that infection with the other coronaviruses that cause severe illness, SARS and MERS, confers lasting immunity. In a study (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abc4776) published in May 2020, Covid-recovered monkeys that were rechallenged with the virus didn’t get sick.




Public-health officials have a lot of explaining to do. They used the wrong starting hypothesis, ignored contrary preliminary data, and dug in as more evidence emerged that called their position into question. Many, including Rochelle Walensky, now the CDC’s director, signed the John Snow memorandum (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext) in October 2020, which declared that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”




Many clinicians who talk to other physicians nationwide had have long observed that we don’t see reinfected patients end up on a ventilator or die from Covid, with rare exceptions who almost always have immune disorders. Meanwhile, public-health officials recklessly destroyed the careers of everyday Americans, rallying to fire pilots, truck drivers and others in the supply-chain workforce who didn’t get vaccinated. And in the early months of the vaccine rollout, when supplies were limited, we could have saved many more lives by giving priority to those who didn’t have recorded natural immunity.




The failure to recognize the data on natural immunity is hurting U.S. hospitals, especially in rural areas. MultiCare, a hospital system in Washington state, fired 55 staff members on Oct. 18 for being out of compliance with Gov. Jay Inslee’s vaccine mandate—and that was in addition to an undisclosed number of staffers who quit ahead of the vaccination deadline. The loss of workers contributed to a full-blown staffing crisis.




It got so bad that the hospital summoned staff who were Covid-positive to return to work even if they were sick, according to an internal memo obtained (https://mynorthwest.com/3309765/rantz-multicare-hospitals-forcing-symptomatic-covid-positive-staff-work/) by Jason Rantz of KTTH radio. The memo stated that “positive staff with mild to moderate illness” could work, so long as they wear appropriate personal protective equipment, don’t take breaks with others, and agree to stay home “if symptoms worsen.” Managers were recommended to assign Covid-positive staff to Covid-positive patients and vaccinated patients, but not immunosuppressed patients.




The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services took the hospital mandate national by decreeing that all medical facilities under its jurisdiction require vaccination for employees, including those with natural immunity. The Supreme Court upheld the rule on Jan. 13, the same day it issued a stay against a similar mandate from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which OSHA formally withdrew Tuesday.




Connecticut has suspended its vaccine mandate for state employees, and Starbucks (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/SBUX) is rehiring employees fired for being unvaccinated. Other states and businesses should follow their lead. Politicians and public-health officials owe an apology to Americans who lost their jobs on the false premises that only unvaccinated people could spread the virus and only vaccination could prevent its spread. Soldiers who have been dishonorably discharged should be restored their rank. Teachers, first responders, and others who have been denied their livelihood should be reinstated. Everyone is essential.




Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How to Fix It.”




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
ET: Great Natural Immunities article
« Reply #357 on: January 30, 2022, 04:48:53 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/evidence-on-natural-immunity-versus-covid-19-vaccine-induced-immunity_4244570.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-01-30&utm_medium=email&est=aM8B3m2AXwvlwbIUtv05wcBI1nuo96wFjL0cygpBwPkb%2Bbo1vvgpUxJW70wSSwkye5KQ

146 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to COVID-19
Paul E. Alexander
Paul E. Alexander
 January 29, 2022 Updated: January 29, 2022biggersmaller Print
Commentary

We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves.

Public health officials and the medical establishment with the help of the politicized media are misleading the public with assertions that the COVID-19 shots provide greater protection than natural immunity.  CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, was deceptive in her October 2020 published LANCET statement that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”

Immunology and virology 101 have taught us over a century that natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus’s outer coat proteins, and not just one, e.g. the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. There is even strong evidence for the persistence of antibodies. Even the CDC recognizes natural immunity for chicken-pox and measles, mumps, and rubella, but not for COVID-19.

The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated (Acharya et al. and Riemersma et al.), and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated).

This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients), and the Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients). These studies also revealed that the PPE and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines (increased transmission, faster transmission, and more ‘hotter’ variants).

Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable.

The Brownstone Institute previously documented 30 studies on natural immunity as it relates to Covid-19.

This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 146 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.

This represents the judged trustworthy ‘body of evidence’ that includes peer-reviewed studies and high-quality literature and reporting that contributes to that body of evidence. The aim here is to share and inform for your own decision-making.

I’ve benefited from the input of many to put this together, especially my co-authors:

Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health)
Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)
Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas
Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)
Evidence on Natural Immunity Versus COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Immunity:
Study/report title and the predominant finding on natural immunity

1) Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, Shrestha, 2021
“Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52,238 employees in an American healthcare system. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…”

2) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020
“Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein…showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.”

3) Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,Gazit, 2021
“A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons…the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para)…this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

4) Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, Le Bert, 2021
“Studied SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic (n = 85) and symptomatic (n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion…thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.”

5) Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, Israel, 2021
“A total of 2,653 individuals fully vaccinated by two doses of vaccine during the study period and 4,361 convalescent patients were included. Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001). In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month…this study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group”.

6) SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, Pilz, 2021
Researchers recorded “40 tentative re-infections in 14, 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8, 885, 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13)…relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.” Additionally, hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%) (tentative re-infection).

7) mRNA vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells recognize B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Neidleman, 2021
“Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose.”

8) Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection, Bhandari, 2021
“Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while. The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.”

9) Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months, Wajnberg, 2021
“Neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein persisted for at least 5 months after infection. Although continued monitoring of this cohort will be needed to confirm the longevity and potency of this response, these preliminary results suggest that the chance of reinfection may be lower than is currently feared.”

10) Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2, Gaebler, 2020
“Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by five-fold in pseudo-type virus assays. In contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells is unchanged. Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies they express have greater somatic hypermutation, increased potency and resistance to RBD mutations, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response…we conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.”

11) Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans, Haveri, 2021
“Assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following WT SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8 and 13 months after diagnosis in 367 individuals…found that NAb against the WT virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection.”

12) Quantifying the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, Murchu, 2021
“Eleven large cohort studies were identified that estimated the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, including three that enrolled healthcare workers and two that enrolled residents and staff of elderly care homes. Across studies, the total number of PCR‐positive or antibody‐positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of follow‐up was more than 10 months in three studies. Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%–1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.”

13) Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so, Makary, 2021
The Western Journal-Makary

Makary writes “it’s okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science. More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.”
“The data on natural immunity are now overwhelming,” Makary told the Morning Wire. “It turns out the hypothesis that our public health leaders had that vaccinated immunity is better and stronger than natural immunity was wrong. They got it backwards. And now we’ve got data from Israel showing that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity.”

14) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity, Nielsen, 2021
“203 recovered SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in Denmark between April 3rd and July 9th 2020, at least 14 days after COVID-19 symptom recovery… report broad serological profiles within the cohort, detecting antibody binding to other human coronaviruses… the viral surface spike protein was identified as the dominant target for both neutralizing antibodies and CD8+ T-cell responses. Overall, the majority of patients had robust adaptive immune responses, regardless of their disease severity.”

15) Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, Goldberg, 2021
“Analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19… vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI: [94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI: [91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI: [92·5, 98·3])…results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”

16) Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees, Kojima, 2021
“Employees were divided into three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve and unvaccinated, (2) previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) vaccinated. Person-days were measured from the date of the employee first test and truncated at the end of the observation period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as two positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests in a 30-day period… 4313, 254 and 739 employee records for groups 1, 2, and 3…previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.”

17) Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital, Wadman, 2021
“Israelis who had an infection were more protected against the Delta coronavirus variant than those who had an already highly effective COVID-19 vaccine…the newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”

18) One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents, Zhang, 2021
“A systematic antigen-specific immune evaluation in 101 COVID-19 convalescents; SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, and also NAb can persist among over 95% COVID-19 convalescents from 6 months to 12 months after disease onset. At least 19/71 (26%) of COVID-19 convalescents (double positive in ELISA and MCLIA) had detectable circulating IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 at 12m post-disease onset. Notably, the percentages of convalescents with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses (at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen S1, S2, M and N protein) were 71/76 (93%) and 67/73 (92%) at 6m and 12m, respectively.”

  19) Functional SARS-CoV-2-Specific Immune Memory Persists after Mild COVID-19, Rodda, 2021
“Recovered individuals developed SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies, neutralizing plasma, and memory B and memory T cells that persisted for at least 3 months. Our data further reveal that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG memory B cells increased over time. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2-specific memory lymphocytes exhibited characteristics associated with potent antiviral function: memory T cells secreted cytokines and expanded upon antigen re-encounter, whereas memory B cells expressed receptors capable of neutralizing virus when expressed as monoclonal antibodies. Therefore, mild COVID-19 elicits memory lymphocytes that persist and display functional hallmarks of antiviral immunity.”

20) Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection, Ivanova, 2021
“Performed multimodal single-cell sequencing on peripheral blood of patients with acute COVID-19 and healthy volunteers before and after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine to compare the immune responses elicited by the virus and by this vaccine…both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells…we observed the presence of cytotoxic CD4 T cells in COVID-19 patients that were largely absent in healthy volunteers following immunization. While hyper-activation of inflammatory responses and cytotoxic cells may contribute to immunopathology in severe illness, in mild and moderate disease, these features are indicative of protective immune responses and resolution of infection.”

21) SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, Turner, 2021
“Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) are a persistent and essential source of protective antibodies… durable serum antibody titres are maintained by long-lived plasma cells—non-replicating, antigen-specific plasma cells that are detected in the bone marrow long after the clearance of the antigen … S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, which suggests that they are part of a stable compartment. Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans…overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) and memory B-cells.”

22) SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN), Jane Hall, 2021
“The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study… 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study… a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.”

23) Pandemic peak SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroconversion rates in London frontline health-care workers, Houlihan, 2020
“Enrolled 200 patient-facing HCWs between March 26 and April 8, 2020…represents a 13% infection rate (i.e. 14 of 112 HCWs) within the 1 month of follow-up in those with no evidence of antibodies or viral shedding at enrolment. By contrast, of 33 HCWs who tested positive by serology but tested negative by RT-PCR at enrolment, 32 remained negative by RT-PCR through follow-up, and one tested positive by RT-PCR on days 8 and 13 after enrolment.”

24) Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are associated with protection against reinfection, Lumley, 2021
“Critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection… 12219 HCWs participated…prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection.”

25) Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells, Cohen, 2021
“Evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells… most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after infection, spike IgG+ memory B cells increase and persist post-infection, durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells recognize distinct viral epitope regions.”

26) Single cell profiling of T and B cell repertoires following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, Sureshchandra, 2021
“Used single-cell RNA sequencing and functional assays to compare humoral and cellular responses to two doses of mRNA vaccine with responses observed in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic disease… natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”

27) SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy, Abu-Raddad, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive persons from April 16 to December 31, 2020 with a PCR-positive swab ≥14 days after the first-positive antibody test were investigated for evidence of reinfection, 43,044 antibody-positive persons who were followed for a median of 16.3 weeks…reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”

28) Orthogonal SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity, Ripperger, 2020
“Conducted a serological study to define correlates of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Compared to those with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, individuals with severe disease exhibited elevated virus-neutralizing titers and antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein…neutralizing and spike-specific antibody production persists for at least 5–7 months… nucleocapsid antibodies frequently become undetectable by 5–7 months.”

29) Anti-spike antibody response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population, Wei, 2021
“In the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021…we estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.”

30) Researchers find long-lived immunity to 1918 pandemic virus, CIDRAP, 2008
and the actual 2008 NATURE journal publication by Yu

“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains…the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101..the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus, the authors report. The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.” Yu: “here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”

31) Live virus neutralisation testing in convalescent patients and subjects vaccinated against 19A, 20B, 20I/501Y.V1 and 20H/501Y.V2 isolates of SARS-CoV-2, Gonzalez, 2021
“No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups…the reduced neutralising response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.”

32) Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals, Camara, 2021
“Characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination…results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”

33) Op-Ed: Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity, Klausner, 2021
“Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death.”

34) Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection, Harvey, 2021
“To evaluate evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among patients with positive vs negative test results for antibodies in an observational descriptive cohort study of clinical laboratory and linked claims data…the cohort included 3 257 478 unique patients with an index antibody test…patients with positive antibody test results were initially more likely to have positive NAAT results, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but became markedly less likely to have positive NAAT results over time, suggesting that seropositivity is associated with protection from infection.”

35) SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study, Letizia, 2021
“Investigated the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection among young adults (CHARM marine study) seropositive for a previous infection…enrolled 3249 participants, of whom 3168 (98%) continued into the 2-week quarantine period. 3076 (95%) participants…Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-week follow-up (1·1 cases per person-year). In contrast, 1079 (48%) of 2247 seronegative participants tested positive (6·2 cases per person-year). The incidence rate ratio was 0·18 (95% CI 0·11–0·28; p<0·001)…infected seropositive participants had viral loads that were about 10-times lower than those of infected seronegative participants (ORF1ab gene cycle threshold difference 3·95 [95% CI 1·23–6·67]; p=0·004).”

36) Associations of Vaccination and of Prior Infection With Positive PCR Test Results for SARS-CoV-2 in Airline Passengers Arriving in Qatar, Bertollini, 2021
“Of 9,180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.”

37) Natural immunity against COVID-19 significantly reduces the risk of reinfection: findings from a cohort of sero-survey participants, Mishra, 2021
“Followed up with a subsample of our previous sero-survey participants to assess whether natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of re-infection (India)… out of the 2238 participants, 1170 were sero-positive and 1068 were sero-negative for antibody against COVID-19. Our survey found that only 3 individuals in the sero-positive group got infected with COVID-19 whereas 127 individuals reported contracting the infection the sero-negative group…from the 3 sero-positives re-infected with COVID-19, one had hospitalization, but did not require oxygen support or critical care…development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.”

38) Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19, NIH, 2021
“The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection… virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards… levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus… 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.”

39) SARS-CoV-2 Natural Antibody Response Persists for at Least 12 Months in a Nationwide Study From the Faroe Islands, Petersen, 2021
“The seropositive rate in the convalescent individuals was above 95% at all sampling time points for both assays and remained stable over time; that is, almost all convalescent individuals developed antibodies… results show that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted at least 12 months after symptom onset and maybe even longer, indicating that COVID-19-convalescent individuals may be protected from reinfection.”

40) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells, Jung, 2021
“ex vivo assays to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent patients up to 317 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), and find that memory T cell responses are maintained during the study period regardless of the severity of COVID-19. In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (TSCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO.”

41) Immune Memory in Mild COVID-19 Patients and Unexposed Donors Reveals Persistent T Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Ansari, 2021
“Analyzed 42 unexposed healthy donors and 28 mild COVID-19 subjects up to 5 months from the recovery for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory. Using HLA class II predicted peptide megapools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4+ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8+ T cells. Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population.”

42) COVID-19 natural immunity, WHO, 2021
“Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARSCoV-2. Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms. Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).”

43) Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination, Cho, 2021
“We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination…boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.”

44) Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland, Gudbjartsson, 2020
“Measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland…of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive…results indicate risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis (para).”

45)  Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection, Dan, 2021
“Analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 254 samples from 188 COVID-19 cases, including 43 samples at ≥ 6 months post-infection…IgG to the Spike protein was relatively stable over 6+ months. Spike-specific memory B cells were more abundant at 6 months than at 1 month post symptom onset.”

46) The prevalence of adaptive immunity to COVID-19 and reinfection after recovery – a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 011 447 individuals, Chivese, 2021
“Fifty-four studies, from 18 countries, with a total of 12 011 447 individuals, followed up to 8 months after recovery, were included. At 6-8 months after recovery, the prevalence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory remained high; IgG – 90.4%… pooled prevalence of reinfection was 0.2% (95%CI 0.0 – 0.7, I2 = 98.8, 9 studies). Individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had an 81% reduction in odds of a reinfection (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.1 – 0.3, I2 = 90.5%, 5 studies).”

47) Reinfection Rates among Patients who Previously Tested Positive for COVID-19: a Retrospective Cohort Study, Sheehan, 2021
“Retrospective cohort study of one multi-hospital health system included 150,325 patients tested for COVID-19 infection…prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time, suggesting that viral shedding or ongoing immune response may persist beyond 90 days and may not represent true reinfection.”

48) Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy, Vitale, 2020
“The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies.”

49) Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection, Hanrath, 2021
“We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers…this apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months…test positivity rates were 0% (0/128 [95% CI: 0–2.9]) in those with previous infection compared to 13.7% (290/2115 [95% CI: 12.3–15.2]) in those without (P<0.0001 χ2 test).”

50) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals, Grifoni, 2020
“Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide “megapools,” circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted.”

51) NIH Director’s Blog: Immune T Cells May Offer Lasting Protection Against COVID-19, Collins, 2021
“Much of the study on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has focused on the production of antibodies. But, in fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including—it now appears—COVID-19.An intriguing new study of these memory T cells suggests they might protect some people newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 by remembering past encounters with other human coronaviruses. This might potentially explain why some people seem to fend off the virus and may be less susceptible to becoming severely ill with COVID-19.”

52) Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, Wang, 2021
“Our study demonstrates that convalescent subjects previously infected with ancestral variant SARS-CoV-2 produce antibodies that cross-neutralize emerging VOCs with high potency…potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern.”

53) Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans, Makary, 2021
“Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.”

54) Protracted yet coordinated differentiation of long-lived SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells during COVID-19 convalescence, Ma, 2021
“Screened 21 well-characterized, longitudinally-sampled convalescent donors that recovered from mild COVID-19…following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”

55) Decrease in Measles Virus-Specific CD4 T Cell Memory in Vaccinated Subjects, Naniche, 2004
“Characterized the profiles of measles vaccine (MV) vaccine-induced antigen-specific T cells over time since vaccination. In a cross-sectional study of healthy subjects with a history of MV vaccination, we found that MV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells could be detected up to 34 years after vaccination. The levels of MV-specific CD8 T cells and MV-specific IgG remained stable, whereas the level of MV-specific CD4 T cells decreased significantly in subjects who had been vaccinated >21 years earlier.”

56) Remembrance of Things Past: Long-Term B Cell Memory After Infection and Vaccination, Palm, 2019
“The success of vaccines is dependent on the generation and maintenance of immunological memory. The immune system can remember previously encountered pathogens, and memory B and T cells are critical in secondary responses to infection. Studies in mice have helped to understand how different memory B cell populations are generated following antigen exposure and how affinity for the antigen is determinant to B cell fate… upon re-exposure to an antigen the memory recall response will be faster, stronger, and more specific than a naïve response. Protective memory depends first on circulating antibodies secreted by LLPCs. When these are not sufficient for immediate pathogen neutralization and elimination, memory B cells are recalled.”

57) SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B-cells from individuals with diverse disease severities recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Lyski, 2021
“Examined the magnitude, breadth, and durability of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in two distinct B-cell compartments: long-lived plasma cell-derived antibodies in the plasma, and peripheral memory B-cells along with their associated antibody profiles elicited after in vitro stimulation. We found that magnitude varied amongst individuals, but was the highest in hospitalized subjects. Variants of concern (VoC) -RBD-reactive antibodies were found in the plasma of 72% of samples in this investigation, and VoC-RBD-reactive memory B-cells were found in all but 1 subject at a single time-point. This finding, that VoC-RBD-reactive MBCs are present in the peripheral blood of all subjects including those that experienced asymptomatic or mild disease, provides a reason for optimism regarding the capacity of vaccination, prior infection, and/or both, to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate.”

58) Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 generates T-cell memory in the absence of a detectable viral infection, Wang, 2021
“T-cell immunity is important for recovery from COVID-19 and provides heightened immunity for re-infection. However, little is known about the SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity in virus-exposed individuals…report virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell memory in recovered COVID-19 patients and close contacts…close contacts are able to gain T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 despite lacking a detectable infection.”

59) CD8+ T-Cell Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals Target Conserved Epitopes From Multiple Prominent SARS-CoV-2 Circulating Variants, Redd, 2021and Lee, 2021
“The CD4 and CD8 responses generated after natural infection are equally robust, showing activity against multiple “epitopes” (little segments) of the spike protein of the virus. For instance, CD8 cells responds to 52 epitopes and CD4 cells respond to 57 epitopes across the spike protein, so that a few mutations in the variants cannot knock out such a robust and in-breadth T cell response…only 1 mutation found in Beta variant-spike overlapped with a previously identified epitope (1/52), suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.”

60) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2,La Jolla, Crotty and Sette, 2020
“Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2”

61) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans, Mateus, 2020
“Found that the pre-existing reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus. These findings underline the importance of determining the impacts of pre-existing immune memory in COVID-19 disease severity.”

62) Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dehgani-Mobaraki, 2021
“Better understanding of antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection might provide valuable insights into the future implementation of vaccination policies. Longitudinal analysis of IgG antibody titers was carried out in 32 recovered COVID-19 patients based in the Umbria region of Italy for 14 months after Mild and Moderately-Severe infection…study findings are consistent with recent studies reporting antibody persistency suggesting that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, might be very efficacious against re-infection (>90%) and could persist for more than six months. Our study followed up patients up to 14 months demonstrating the presence of anti-S-RBD IgG in 96.8% of recovered COVID-19 subjects.”

63) Humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell responses in recovered patients with COVID-19, Juno, 2020
“Characterized humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell (cTFH) immunity against spike in recovered patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We found that S-specific antibodies, memory B cells and cTFH are consistently elicited after SARS-CoV-2 infection, demarking robust humoral immunity and positively associated with plasma neutralizing activity.”

64) Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals, Robbiani, 2020
“149 COVID-19-convalescent individuals…antibody sequencing revealed the expansion of clones of RBD-specific memory B cells that expressed closely related antibodies in different individuals. Despite low plasma titres, antibodies to three distinct epitopes on the RBD neutralized the virus with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50 values) as low as 2 ng ml−1.”

65) Rapid generation of durable B cell memory to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins in COVID-19 and convalescence, Hartley, 2020
“COVID-19 patients rapidly generate B cell memory to both the spike and nucleocapsid antigens following SARS-CoV-2 infection…RBD- and NCP-specific IgG and Bmem cells were detected in all 25 patients with a history of COVID-19.”

66) Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime, Callaway, 2021
“People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades…the study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting.”

67) A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2, Majdoubi, 2021
In greater Vancouver Canada, “using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2.”

68) SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in healthy donors and patients with COVID-19, Braun, 2020
Presence of SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in COVID-19 patients and healthy donors, Braun, 2020

“The results indicate that spike-protein cross-reactive T cells are present, which were probably generated during previous encounters with endemic coronaviruses.”

“The presence of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 naïve HD is of high interest.”

69) Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection, Wang, 2021
“A cohort of 63 individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 assessed at 1.3, 6.2 and 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection…the data suggest that immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting.”

70) One Year after Mild COVID-19: The Majority of Patients Maintain Specific Immunity, But One in Four Still Suffer from Long-Term Symptoms, Rank, 2021
“Long-lasting immunological memory against SARS-CoV-2 after mild COVID-19… activation-induced marker assays identified specific T-helper cells and central memory T-cells in 80% of participants at a 12-month follow-up.”

71) IDSA, 2021
“Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection can persist for at least 11 months… natural infection (as determined by a prior positive antibody or PCR-test result) can confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

72) Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study, Holm Hansen, 2021
Denmark, “during the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]).”

73) Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity, Moderbacher, 2020
“Adaptive immune responses limit COVID-19 disease severity…multiple coordinated arms of adaptive immunity control better than partial responses…completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19.”

74) Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral and Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals, Ni, 2020
“Collected blood from COVID-19 patients who have recently become virus-free, and therefore were discharged, and detected SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in eight newly discharged patients. Follow-up analysis on another cohort of six patients 2 weeks post discharge also revealed high titers of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. In all 14 patients tested, 13 displayed serum-neutralizing activities in a pseudotype entry assay. Notably, there was a strong correlation between neutralization antibody titers and the numbers of virus-specific T cells.”

75) Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection, Zuo, 2020
“Analysed the magnitude and phenotype of the SARS-CoV-2 cellular immune response in 100 donors at six months following primary infection and related this to the profile of antibody level against spike, nucleoprotein and RBD over the previous six months. T-cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 were present by ELISPOT and/or ICS analysis in all donors and are characterised by predominant CD4+ T cell responses with strong IL-2 cytokine expression… functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses are retained at six months following infection.”

76) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees, Tarke, 2021
“Performed a comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent subjects recognizing the ancestral strain, compared to variant lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and CAL.20C as well as recipients of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines… the sequences of the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes are not affected by the mutations found in the variants analyzed. Overall, the results demonstrate that CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 subjects or COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees are not substantially affected by mutations.”

77) A 1 to 1000 SARS-CoV-2 reinfection proportion in members of a large healthcare provider in Israel: a preliminary report, Perez, 2021 Israel,
“out of 149,735 individuals with a documented positive PCR test between March 2020 and January 2021, 154 had two positive PCR tests at least 100 days apart, reflecting a reinfection proportion of 1 per 1000.”

78) Persistence and decay of human antibody responses to the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in COVID-19 patients, Iyer, 2020
“Measured plasma and/or serum antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in 343 North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (of which 93% required hospitalization) up to 122 days after symptom onset and compared them to responses in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic…IgG antibodies persisted at detectable levels in patients beyond 90 days after symptom onset, and seroreversion was only observed in a small percentage of individuals. The concentration of these anti-RBD IgG antibodies was also highly correlated with pseudovirus NAb titers, which also demonstrated minimal decay. The observation that IgG and neutralizing antibody responses persist is encouraging, and suggests the development of robust systemic immune memory in individuals with severe infection.”

79) A population-based analysis of the longevity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity in the United States, Alfego, 2021
“To track population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration across the United States using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays… specimens from 39,086 individuals with confirmed positive COVID-19…both S and N SARS-CoV-2 antibody results offer an encouraging view of how long humans may have protective antibodies against COVID-19, with curve smoothing showing population seropositivity reaching 90% within three weeks, regardless of whether the assay detects N or S-antibodies. Most importantly, this level of seropositivity was sustained with little decay through ten months after initial positive PCR.”

80) What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high- quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? Hellerstein, 2020
“Progress in laboratory markers for SARS-CoV2 has been made with identification of epitopes on CD4 and CD8 T-cells in convalescent blood. These are much less dominated by spike protein than in previous coronavirus infections. Although most vaccine candidates are focusing on spike protein as antigen, natural infection by SARS-CoV-2 induces broad epitope coverage, cross-reactive with other betacoronviruses.”

81) Broad and strong memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells induced by SARS-CoV-2 in UK convalescent COVID-19 patients, Peng, 2020
“Study of 42 patients following recovery from COVID-19, including 28 mild and 14 severe cases, comparing their T cell responses to those of 16 control donors…found the breadth, magnitude and frequency of memory T cell responses from COVID-19 were significantly higher in severe compared to mild COVID-19 cases, and this effect was most marked in response to spike, membrane, and ORF3a proteins…total and spike-specific T cell responses correlated with the anti-Spike, anti-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) as well as anti-Nucleoprotein (NP) endpoint antibody titre…furthermore showed a higher ratio of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ to CD4+ T cell responses…immunodominant epitope clusters and peptides containing T cell epitopes identified in this study will provide critical tools to study the role of virus-specific T cells in control and resolution of SARS-CoV-2 infections.”

82) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19, Sekine, 2020
“SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells will likely prove critical for long-term immune protection against COVID-19…mapped the functional and phenotypic landscape of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in unexposed individuals, exposed family members, and individuals with acute or convalescent COVID-19…collective dataset shows that SARS-CoV-2 elicits broadly directed and functionally replete memory T cell responses, suggesting that natural exposure or infection may prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19.”

83) Potent SARS-CoV-2-Specific T Cell Immunity and Low Anaphylatoxin Levels Correlate With Mild Disease Progression in COVID-19 Patients, Lafron, 2021
“Provide a full picture of cellular and humoral immune responses of COVID-19 patients and prove that robust polyfunctional CD8+ T cell responses concomitant with low anaphylatoxin levels correlate with mild infections.”

84) SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes define heterologous and COVID-19 induced T-cell recognition, Nelde, 2020
“The first work identifying and characterizing SARS-CoV-2-specific and cross-reactive HLA class I and HLA-DR T-cell epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 convalescents (n = 180) as well as unexposed individuals (n = 185) and confirming their relevance for immunity and COVID-19 disease course…cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed pre-existing T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection…intensity of T-cell responses and recognition rate of T-cell epitopes was significantly higher in the convalescent donors compared to unexposed individuals, suggesting that not only expansion, but also diversity spread of SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses occur upon active infection.”

85) Karl Friston: up to 80% not even susceptible to Covid-19, Sayers, 2020
“Results have just been published of a study suggesting that 40%-60% of people who have not been exposed to coronavirus have resistance at the T-cell level from other similar coronaviruses like the common cold…the true portion of people who are not even susceptible to Covid-19 may be as high as 80%.”

86) CD8+ T cells specific for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid epitope cross-react with selective seasonal coronaviruses, Lineburg, 2021
“Screening of SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools revealed that the nucleocapsid (N) protein induced an immunodominant response in HLA-B7+ COVID-19-recovered individuals that was also detectable in unexposed donors…the basis of selective T cell cross-reactivity for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 epitope and its homologs from seasonal coronaviruses, suggesting long-lasting protective immunity.”

87) SARS-CoV-2 genome-wide mapping of CD8 T cell recognition reveals strong immunodominance and substantial CD8 T cell activation in COVID-19 patients, Saini, 2020
“COVID-19 patients showed strong T cell responses, with up to 25% of all CD8+ lymphocytes specific to SARS-CoV-2-derived immunodominant epitopes, derived from ORF1 (open reading frame 1), ORF3, and Nucleocapsid (N) protein. A strong signature of T cell activation was observed in COVID-19 patients, while no T cell activation was seen in the ‘non-exposed’ and ‘high exposure risk’ healthy donors.”

88) Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis, Shenai, 2021
“Systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date, that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of full vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit of vaccination in the COVID-recovered, for prevention of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection…review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis.”

89) ChAdOx1nCoV-19 effectiveness during an unprecedented surge in SARS CoV-2 infections, Satwik, 2021
“The third key finding is that previous infections with SARS-CoV-2 were significantly protective against all studied outcomes, with an effectiveness of 93% (87 to 96%) seen against symptomatic infections, 89% (57 to 97%) against moderate to severe disease and 85% (-9 to 98%) against supplemental oxygen therapy. All deaths occurred in previously uninfected individuals. This was higher protection than that offered by single or double dose vaccine.”
« Last Edit: January 30, 2022, 04:51:00 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Great article continued
« Reply #358 on: January 30, 2022, 04:52:27 AM »
continued

===================

90) SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells and antibodies in COVID-19 protection: a prospective study, Molodtsov, 2021
“Explore the impact of T cells and to quantify the protective levels of the immune responses…5,340 Moscow residents were evaluated for the antibody and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and monitored for COVID-19 up to 300 days. The antibody and cellular responses were tightly interconnected, their magnitude inversely correlated with infection probability. Similar maximal level of protection was reached by individuals positive for both types of responses and by individuals with antibodies alone…T cells in the absence of antibodies provided an intermediate level of protection.”

91) Anti- SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Antibody Evolution after mRNA Vaccination, Cho, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern.”

92) Seven-month kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and role of pre-existing antibodies to human coronaviruses, Ortega, 2021
“Impact of pre-existing antibodies to human coronaviruses causing common cold (HCoVs), is essential to understand protective immunity to COVID-19 and devise effective surveillance strategies…after the peak response, anti-spike antibody levels increase from ~150 days post-symptom onset in all individuals (73% for IgG), in the absence of any evidence of re-exposure. IgG and IgA to HCoV are significantly higher in asymptomatic than symptomatic seropositive individuals. Thus, pre-existing cross-reactive HCoVs antibodies could have a protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease.”

93) Immunodominant T-cell epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen reveal robust pre-existing T-cell immunity in unexposed individuals, Mahajan, 2021
“Findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 reactive T-cells are likely to be present in many individuals because of prior exposure to flu and CMV viruses.”

94) Neutralizing Antibody Responses to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Inpatients and Convalescent Patients, Wang, 2020
“117 blood samples were collected from 70 COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients…the neutralizing antibodies were detected even at the early stage of disease, and a significant response was shown in convalescent patients.”

95) Not just antibodies: B cells and T cells mediate immunity to COVID-19, Cox, 2020
“Reports that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are not maintained in the serum following recovery from the virus have caused alarm…the absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory.”

96) T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and vaccination, DiPiazza, 2020
“Although T cell durability to SARS-CoV-2 remains to be determined, current data and past experience from human infection with other CoVs demonstrate the potential for persistence and the capacity to control viral replication and host disease, and importance in vaccine-induced protection.”

97) Durable SARS-CoV-2 B cell immunity after mild or severe disease, Ogega, 2021
“Multiple studies have shown loss of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific (SARS-CoV-2-specific) antibodies over time after infection, raising concern that humoral immunity against the virus is not durable. If immunity wanes quickly, millions of people may be at risk for reinfection after recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, memory B cells (MBCs) could provide durable humoral immunity even if serum neutralizing antibody titers decline… data indicate that most SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals develop S-RBD-specific, class-switched rMBCs that resemble germinal center-derived B cells induced by effective vaccination against other pathogens, providing evidence for durable B cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after mild or severe disease.”

98) Memory T cell responses targeting the SARS coronavirus persist up to 11 years post-infection., Ng, 2016
“All memory T cell responses detected target the SARS-Co-V structural proteins… these responses were found to persist up to 11 years post-infection… knowledge of the persistence of SARS-specific cellular immunity targeting the viral structural proteins in SARS-recovered individuals is important.”

99) Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, Sette, 2021
“The adaptive immune system is important for control of most viral infections. The three fundamental components of the adaptive immune system are B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4+ T cells, and CD8+ T cells…a picture has begun to emerge that reveals that CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and neutralizing antibodies all contribute to control of SARS-CoV-2 in both non-hospitalized and hospitalized cases of COVID-19.”

100) Early induction of functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells associates with rapid viral clearance and mild disease in COVID-19 patients, Tan, 2021
“These findings provide support for the prognostic value of early functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells with important implications in vaccine design and immune monitoring.”

101) SARS-CoV-2–specific CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 individuals, Kared, 2021
“A multiplexed peptide-MHC tetramer approach was used to screen 408 SARS-CoV-2 candidate epitopes for CD8+ T cell recognition in a cross-sectional sample of 30 coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent individuals…Modelling demonstrated a coordinated and dynamic immune response characterized by a decrease in inflammation, increase in neutralizing antibody titer, and differentiation of a specific CD8+ T cell response. Overall, T cells exhibited distinct differentiation into stem cell and transitional memory states (subsets), which may be key to developing durable protection.”

102) S Protein-Reactive IgG and Memory B Cell Production after Human SARS-CoV-2 Infection Includes Broad Reactivity to the S2 Subunit, Nguyen-Contant, 2021
“Most importantly, we demonstrate that infection generates both IgG and IgG MBCs against the novel receptor binding domain and the conserved S2 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Thus, even if antibody levels wane, long-lived MBCs remain to mediate rapid antibody production. Our study results also suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection strengthens pre-existing broad coronavirus protection through S2-reactive antibody and MBC formation.”

103) Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Over Nine Months After Infection, Yao, 2021
“A cross-sectional study to assess the virus-specific antibody and memory T and B cell responses in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients up to 343 days after infection…found that approximately 90% of patients still have detectable immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies against spike and nucleocapsid proteins and neutralizing antibodies against pseudovirus, whereas ~60% of patients had detectable IgG antibodies against receptor-binding domain and surrogate virus-neutralizing antibodies…SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG+ memory B cell and interferon-γ-secreting T cell responses were detectable in more than 70% of patients…coronavirus 2-specific immune memory response persists in most patients approximately 1 year after infection, which provides a promising sign for prevention from reinfection and vaccination strategy.”

104) Naturally Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Immunity Persists for Up to 11 Months Following Infection, De Giorgi, 2021
“A prospective, longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors at multiple time points over an 11-month period to determine how circulating antibody levels change over time following natural infection… data suggest that immunological memory is acquired in most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 and is sustained in a majority of patients.”

105) Decreasing Seroprevalence of Measles Antibodies after Vaccination – Possible Gap in Measles Protection in Adults in the Czech Republic, Smetana, 2017
“A long-term high rate of seropositivity persists after natural measles infection. By contrast, it decreases over time after vaccination. Similarly, the concentrations of antibodies in persons with measles history persist for a longer time at a higher level than in vaccinated persons.”

106) Broadly cross-reactive antibodies dominate the human B cell response against 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus infection, Wrammert, 2011
“The expansion of these rare types of memory B cells may explain why most people did not become severely ill, even in the absence of pre-existing protective antibody titers”…found “extraordinarily” powerful antibodies in the blood of nine people who caught the swine flu naturally and recovered from it.”…unlike antibodies elicited by annual influenza vaccinations, most neutralizing antibodies induced by pandemic H1N1 infection were broadly cross-reactive against epitopes in the hemagglutinin (HA) stalk and head domain of multiple influenza strains. The antibodies were from cells that had undergone extensive affinity maturation.”

107) Reinfection With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Patients Undergoing Serial Laboratory Testing, Qureshi, 2021
“Reinfection was identified in 0.7% (n = 63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .5%–.9%) during follow-up of 9119 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

108) Distinct antibody and memory B cell responses in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered individuals following mRNA vaccination, Goel, 2021
“Interrogated antibody and antigen-specific memory B cells over time in 33 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 11 SARS-CoV-2 recovered subjects… In SARS-CoV-2 recovered individuals, antibody and memory B cell responses were significantly boosted after the first vaccine dose; however, there was no increase in circulating antibodies, neutralizing titers, or antigen-specific memory B cells after the second dose. This robust boosting after the first vaccine dose strongly correlated with levels of pre-existing memory B cells in recovered individuals, identifying a key role for memory B cells in mounting recall responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens.”

109) Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? Doshi, 2020
“Six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus… in a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2… Researchers are also confident that they have made solid inroads into ascertaining the origins of the immune responses. “Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related…we have really shown that this is a true immune memory and it is derived in part from common cold viruses.”

110) Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans, Ng, 2020
“We demonstrate the presence of pre-existing humoral immunity in uninfected and unexposed humans to the new coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive antibodies were readily detectable by a sensitive flow cytometry-based method in SARS-CoV-2-uninfected individuals and were particularly prevalent in children and adolescents.”

111) Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, Weiskopf, 2020
“We detected SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in 100% and 80% of COVID-19 patients, respectively. We also detected low levels of SARS-CoV-2-reactive T-cells in 20% of the healthy controls, not previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and indicative of cross-reactivity due to infection with ‘common cold’ coronaviruses.”

112) Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns, Sette, 2020
“T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in unexposed people…it is speculated that this reflects T cell memory to circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses.”

113) Pre-existing immunity against swine-origin H1N1 influenza viruses in the general human population, Greenbaum, 2009
“Memory T-cell immunity against S-OIV is present in the adult population and that such memory is of similar magnitude as the pre-existing memory against seasonal H1N1 influenza…the conservation of a large fraction of T-cell epitopes suggests that the severity of an S-OIV infection, as far as it is determined by susceptibility of the virus to immune attack, would not differ much from that of seasonal flu.”

114) Cellular immune correlates of protection against symptomatic pandemic influenza, Sridhar, 2013
“The 2009 H1N1 pandemic (pH1N1) provided a unique natural experiment to determine whether cross-reactive cellular immunity limits symptomatic illness in antibody-naive individuals… Higher frequencies of pre-existing T cells to conserved CD8 epitopes were found in individuals who developed less severe illness, with total symptom score having the strongest inverse correlation with the frequency of interferon-γ (IFN-γ)(+) interleukin-2 (IL-2)(-) CD8(+) T cells (r = -0.6, P = 0.004)… CD8(+) T cells specific to conserved viral epitopes correlated with cross-protection against symptomatic influenza.”

115) Preexisting influenza-specific CD4+ T cells correlate with disease protection against influenza challenge in humans, Wilkinson, 2012
“Precise role of T cells in human influenza immunity is uncertain. We conducted influenza infection studies in healthy volunteers with no detectable antibodies to the challenge viruses H3N2 or H1N1…mapped T cell responses to influenza before and during infection…found a large increase in influenza-specific T cell responses by day 7, when virus was completely cleared from nasal samples and serum antibodies were still undetectable. Pre-existing CD4+, but not CD8+, T cells responding to influenza internal proteins were associated with lower virus shedding and less severe illness. These CD4+ cells also responded to pandemic H1N1 (A/CA/07/2009) peptides and showed evidence of cytotoxic activity.”

116) Serum cross-reactive antibody response to a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus after vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine, CDC, MMWR, 2009
“No increase in cross-reactive antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus was observed among adults aged >60 years. These data suggest that receipt of recent (2005–2009) seasonal influenza vaccines is unlikely to elicit a protective antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus.”

117) No one is naive: the significance of heterologous T-cell immunity, Welsh, 2002
“Memory T cells that are specific for one virus can become activated during infection with an unrelated heterologous virus, and might have roles in protective immunity and immunopathology. The course of each infection is influenced by the T-cell memory pool that has been laid down by a host’s history of previous infections, and with each successive infection, T-cell memory to previously encountered agents is modified.”

118) Intrafamilial Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Induces Cellular Immune Response without Seroconversion, Gallais, 2020
“Individuals belonging to households with an index COVID-19 patient, reported symptoms of COVID-19 but discrepant serology results… All index patients recovered from a mild COVID-19. They all developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and a significant T cell response detectable up to 69 days after symptom onset. Six of the eight contacts reported COVID-19 symptoms within 1 to 7 days after the index patients but all were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative… exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can induce virus-specific T cell responses without seroconversion. T cell responses may be more sensitive indicators of SARS-Co-V-2 exposure than antibodies…results indicate that epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may lead to a substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus.”

119) Protective immunity after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, Kojima, 2021
“It important to note that antibodies are incomplete predictors of protection. After vaccination or infection, many mechanisms of immunity exist within an individual not only at the antibody level, but also at the level of cellular immunity. It is known that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces specific and durable T-cell immunity, which has multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targets (or epitopes) as well as other SARS-CoV-2 protein targets. The broad diversity of T-cell viral recognition serves to enhance protection to SARS-CoV-2 variants, with recognition of at least the alpha (B.1.1.7), beta (B.1.351), and gamma (P.1) variants of SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have also found that people who recovered from SARS-CoV infection in 2002–03 continue to have memory T cells that are reactive to SARS-CoV proteins 17 years after that outbreak. Additionally, a memory B-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1·3 and 6·2 months after infection, which is consistent with longer-term protection.”

120) This ‘super antibody’ for COVID fights off multiple coronaviruses, Kwon, 2021
“This ‘super antibody’ for COVID fights off multiple coronaviruses…12 antibodies…that was involved in the study, isolated from people who had been infected with either SARS-CoV-2 or its close relative SARS-CoV.”

121) SARS-CoV-2 infection induces sustained humoral immune responses in convalescent patients following symptomatic COVID-19, Wu, 2020
“Taken together, our data indicate sustained humoral immunity in recovered patients who suffer from symptomatic COVID-19, suggesting prolonged immunity.”

122) Evidence for sustained mucosal and systemic antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens in COVID-19 patients, Isho, 2020
“Whereas anti-CoV-2 IgA antibodies rapidly decayed, IgG antibodies remained relatively stable up to 115 days PSO in both biofluids. Importantly, IgG responses in saliva and serum were correlated, suggesting that antibodies in the saliva may serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity.”

123) The T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2: kinetic and quantitative aspects and the case for their protective role, Bertoletti, 2021
“Early appearance, multi-specificity and functionality of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells are associated with accelerated viral clearance and with protection from severe COVID-19.”

124) The longitudinal kinetics of antibodies in COVID-19 recovered patients over 14 months, Eyran, 2020
“Found a significantly faster decay in naïve vaccinees compared to recovered patients suggesting that the serological memory following natural infection is more robust compared to vaccination. Our data highlights the differences between serological memory induced by natural infection vs. vaccination.”

125) Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance, Lan, 2021
“Followed a population of urban Massachusetts HCWs…we found no re-infection among those with prior COVID-19, contributing to 74,557 re-infection-free person-days, adding to the evidence base for the robustness of naturally acquired immunity.”

126) Immunity to COVID-19 in India through vaccination and natural infection, Sarraf, 2021
“Compared the vaccination induced immune response profile with that of natural infection, evaluating thereby if individuals infected during the first wave retained virus specific immunity…the overall immune response resulting from natural infection in and around Kolkata is not only to a certain degree better than that generated by vaccination, especially in the case of the Delta variant, but cell mediated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 also lasts for at least ten months after the viral infection.”

127) Asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits durable neutralizing antibody responses in children and adolescents, Garrido, 2021
“Evaluated humoral immune responses in 69 children and adolescents with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. We detected robust IgM, IgG, and IgA antibody responses to a broad array of SARS-CoV-2 antigens at the time of acute infection and 2 and 4 months after acute infection in all participants. Notably, these antibody responses were associated with virus-neutralizing activity that was still detectable 4 months after acute infection in 94% of children. Moreover, antibody responses and neutralizing activity in sera from children and adolescents were comparable or superior to those observed in sera from 24 adults with mild symptomatic infection. Taken together, these findings indicate that children and adolescents with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection generate robust and durable humoral immune responses that can likely contribute to protection from reinfection.”

128) T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review, Shrotri, 2021
“Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear.”

129) Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections as Compared with Primary Infections, Abu-Raddad, 2021
“Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”

130) Assessment of the Risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Reinfection in an Intense Re-exposure Setting, Abu-Raddad, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.”

131) Increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Beta, Gamma, and Delta variant compared to Alpha variant in vaccinated individuals, Andeweg, 2021
“Analyzed 28,578 sequenced SARS-CoV-2 samples from individuals with known immune status obtained through national community testing in the Netherlands from March to August 2021. They found evidence for an “increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. No clear differences were found between vaccines. However, the effect was larger in the first 14-59 days after complete vaccination compared to 60 days and longer. In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”

132) Prior COVID-19 protects against reinfection, even in the absence of detectable antibodies, Breathnach, 2021
“Studies did not address whether prior infection is protective in the absence of a detectable humoral immune response. Patients with primary or secondary antibody deficiency syndrome and reduced or absent B cells can recover from COVID-19…Although there have been few mechanistic studies, preliminary data show that such individuals generate striking T-cell immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools…SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell immune responses but not neutralising antibodies are associated with reduced disease severity suggesting the immune system may have considerable redundancy or compensation following COVID-19…our results add to the emerging evidence that detectable serum antibody may be an incomplete marker of protection against reinfection. This could have implications for public health and policy-making, for example if using seroprevalence data to assess population immunity, or if serum antibody levels were to be taken as official evidence of immunity – a minority of truly immune patients have no detectable antibody and could be disadvantaged as a result. Our findings highlight the need for further studies of immune correlates of protection from infection with SARS-CoV-2, which may in turn enhance development of effective vaccines and treatments.”

133) Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?, Rosenberg, 2021
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID…By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”

134) Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study, Singanayagam, 2021
“Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”

135) Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection, Greaney, 2021
“The neutralizing activity of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more targeted to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared to antibodies elicited by natural infection. However, within the RBD, binding of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more broadly distributed across epitopes compared to infection-elicited antibodies. This greater binding breadth means that single RBD mutations have less impact on neutralization by vaccine sera compared to convalescent sera. Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution.”

136) Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity, Moderbacker, 2020
“Limited knowledge is available on the relationship between antigen-specific immune responses and COVID-19 disease severity. We completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19. Notably, coordination of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific responses was disrupted in individuals ≥ 65 years old. Scarcity of naive T cells was also associated with aging and poor disease outcomes. A parsimonious explanation is that coordinated CD4+ T cell, CD8+ T cell, and antibody responses are protective, but uncoordinated responses frequently fail to control disease, with a connection between aging and impaired adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2.”

137) Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity, Goldberg, 2021
“Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event.”

138) A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection, Kojima, 2021
“The protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination.”

139) High-affinity memory B cells induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection produce more plasmablasts and atypical memory B cells than those primed by mRNA vaccines, Pape, 2021
“Compare SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain (S1-RBD)-specific primary MBCs that form in response to infection or a single mRNA vaccination. Both primary MBC populations have similar frequencies in the blood and respond to a second S1-RBD exposure by rapidly producing plasmablasts with an abundant immunoglobulin (Ig)A+ subset and secondary MBCs that are mostly IgG+ and cross-react with the B.1.351 variant. However, infection-induced primary MBCs have better antigen-binding capacity and generate more plasmablasts and secondary MBCs of the classical and atypical subsets than do vaccine-induced primary MBCs. Our results suggest that infection-induced primary MBCs have undergone more affinity maturation than vaccine-induced primary MBCs and produce more robust secondary responses.”

140) Differential antibody dynamics to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, Chen, 2021
“Optimal immune responses furnish long-lasting (durable) antibodies protective across dynamically mutating viral variants (broad). To assess robustness of mRNA vaccine-induced immunity…compared antibody durability and breadth after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination…While vaccination delivered robust initial virus-specific antibodies with some cross-variant coverage, pre-variant SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced antibodies, while modest in magnitude, showed highly stable long-term antibody dynamics…Differential antibody durability trajectories favored COVID-19-recovered subjects with dual memory B cell features of greater early antibody somatic mutation and cross-coronavirus reactivity…illuminating an infection-mediated antibody breadth advantage and an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody durability-enhancing function conferred by recalled immunity.”

141) Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive spike-specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dowell, 2022
“Compare antibody and cellular immunity in children (aged 3-11 years) and adults. Antibody responses against spike protein were high in children and seroconversion boosted responses against seasonal Beta-coronaviruses through cross-recognition of the S2 domain. Neutralization of viral variants was comparable between children and adults. Spike-specific T cell responses were more than twice as high in children and were also detected in many seronegative children, indicating pre-existing cross-reactive responses to seasonal coronaviruses. Importantly, children retained antibody and cellular responses 6 months after infection, whereas relative waning occurred in adults. Spike-specific responses were also broadly stable beyond 12 months. Therefore, children generate robust, cross-reactive and sustained immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 with focused specificity for the spike protein. These findings provide insight into the relative clinical protection that occurs in most children and might help to guide the design of pediatric vaccination regimens.”

142) Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections as Compared with Primary Infections, Abu-Raddad, 2021
Abu-Raddad et al. has recently published on the severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections as compared with primary infections. They reported that in earlier studies, they assessed the efficacy of previous natural infection “as protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 as being 85% or greater. Accordingly, for a person who has already had a primary infection, the risk of having a severe reinfection is only approximately 1% of the risk of a previously uninfected person having a severe primary infection…Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”

143) SARS-CoV-2 spike T cell responses induced upon vaccination or infection remain robust against Omicron, Keeton, 2021
“Assessed the ability of T cells to react with Omicron spike in participants who were vaccinated with Ad26.CoV2.S or BNT162b2, and in unvaccinated convalescent COVID-19 patients (n = 70). We found that 70-80% of the CD4 and CD8 T cell response to spike was maintained across study groups. Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar to that of the Beta and Delta variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. Additionally, in Omicron-infected hospitalized patients (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those found in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49). These results demonstrate that despite Omicron’s extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies, the majority of T cell response, induced by vaccination or natural infection, cross-recognises the variant. Well-preserved T cell immunity to Omicron is likely to contribute to protection from severe COVID-19, supporting early clinical observations from South Africa.”

144) Pre-existing immunity against swine-origin H1N1 influenza viruses in the general human population, Greenbaum,2009
“69% (54/78) of the epitopes recognized by CD8+ T cells are completely invariant. We further demonstrate experimentally that some memory T-cell immunity against S-OIV is present in the adult population and that such memory is of similar magnitude as the pre-existing memory against seasonal H1N1 influenza. Because protection from infection is antibody mediated, a new vaccine based on the specific S-OIV HA and NA proteins is likely to be required to prevent infection. However, T cells are known to blunt disease severity. Therefore, the conservation of a large fraction of T-cell epitopes suggests that the severity of an S-OIV infection, as far as it is determined by susceptibility of the virus to immune attack, would not differ much from that of seasonal flu. These results are consistent with reports about disease incidence, severity, and mortality rates associated with human S-OIV…overall, 49% of the epitopes reported in the literature and present in recently circulating seasonal H1N1 are also found totally conserved in S-OIV. Interestingly, the number of conserved epitopes varied greatly as a function of the class of epitopes considered. Although only 31% of the B-cell epitopes were conserved, 41% of the CD4+ and 69% of the CD8+ T-cell epitopes were conserved. It is known that cross-reactive T-cell immune responses can exist even between serologically distinct influenza A strains (14, 15). Based on this observation and the data presented above, we hypothesized that it is possible that immune memory responses against S-OIV exist in the adult population, at the level of both B and T cells.”

145) Protection afforded by prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron,  variant, Altarawneh, 2021
“PES against symptomatic reinfection was estimated at 90.2% (95% CI: 60.2-97.6) for Alpha, 84.8% (95% CI: 74.5-91.0) for Beta, 92.0% (95% CI: 87.9-94.7) for Delta, and 56.0% (95% CI: 50.6-60.9) for Omicron. Only 1 Alpha, 2 Beta, 0 Delta, and 2 Omicron reinfections progressed to severe COVID-19. None progressed to critical or fatal COVID-19. PES against hospitalization or death due to reinfection was estimated at 69.4% (95% CI: −143.6-96.2) for Alpha, 88.0% (95% CI: 50.7-97.1) for Beta, 100% (95% CI: 43.3-99.8) for Delta, and 87.8% (95% CI: 47.5-97.1) for Omicron.”

146) Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts, Kundu, 2022
“Observe higher frequencies of cross-reactive (p = 0.0139), and nucleocapsid-specific (p = 0.0355) IL-2-secreting memory T cells in contacts who remained PCR-negative despite exposure (n = 26), when compared with those who convert to PCR-positive (n = 26); no significant difference in the frequency of responses to spike is observed, hinting at a limited protective function of spike-cross-reactive T cells. Our results are thus consistent with pre-existing non-spike cross-reactive memory T cells protecting SARS-CoV-2-naïve contacts from infection, thereby supporting the inclusion of non-spike antigens in second-generation vaccines.”

From the Brownstone Institute

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #359 on: January 31, 2022, 12:09:55 PM »
Operation Warp Speed Slowly Gets Its Due
The program’s premature abandonment left the country unprepared for the Delta and Omicron Covid waves.
By Allysia Finley
Follow
Jan. 31, 2022 1:37 pm ET


The Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed delivered three Covid-19 vaccines in record time. Yet liberals are giving the program its due only now, amid President Biden’s Covid-19 stumbles. Some, including former Biden adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, are even calling for another Operation Warp Speed to boost therapies. Operation Warp Speed also delivered the two monoclonal antibody treatments. More such treatments would have been available this winter had the Biden team not abandoned the program.


Early in the pandemic, the government struggled to persuade drugmakers to invest in vaccines and therapies. Many companies lost money during previous public-health emergencies when treatments they developed turned out not to be needed. “I’m not like a drug company fan, but there’s no question that a lot of them lost a lot of money trying to produce an Ebola vaccine,” said Ron Klain, now White House chief of staff, in February 2020.

Operation Warp Speed shifted the financial risk to government by placing orders for vaccines and therapies before they were authorized by the Food and Drug Administration or even shown to be effective. This encouraged pharmaceutical companies to expand manufacturing capacity so vaccines and therapies were ready to be distributed once they had the FDA’s green light.

Three Operation Warp Speed leaders explained the strategy in a September 2020 commentary for the New England Journal of Medicine. “Predicting drug performance in a new disease is difficult,” Moncef Slaoui, Shannon E. Greene and Janet Woodcock wrote. “Many candidates may fail to demonstrate efficacy or have safety problems. It’s necessary, however, to take a financial risk early to scale up manufacturing in order to have drug supplies on hand if the results are positive. If we wait for clinical trial readouts before initiating large-scale manufacturing, developing an adequate supply could take months or years.”


In July 2020, Operation Warp Speed announced a $450 million manufacturing and supply agreement with Regeneron for up to 300,000 doses of its experimental monoclonal antibody. A few months later, it ordered 300,000 doses of Eli Lilly’s experimental antibody. The FDA granted emergency-use authorization to both treatments in November 2020.

Supply of both monoclonals exceeded demand last winter because many people were unaware of the treatments. Still, during the final two months of the Trump presidency, Operation Warp Speed ordered another 1.25 million doses of Regeneron’s and 650,000 of Eli Lilly’s antibody treatments, leaving the Biden administration well supplied.

When the Biden team took over, they dismissed Mr. Slaoui, announced they were “phasing in a new structure,” and retired the Operation Warp Speed name. Cases and hospitalizations fell as vaccines rolled out. President Biden prematurely declared success last Fourth of July and failed to prepare for another wave by stockpiling treatments and investing in new ones.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or Barda, did announce in June 2021 that it would pay $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of Merck’s investigational antiviral pill molnupiravir, but only if the FDA granted emergency-use authorization. That meant Merck had to put its own money at risk to expand manufacturing in advance, which may have reduced the supply that was available once the drug was authorized in December.

When the Delta variant slammed the South in July, GOP governors promoted the Regeneron and Eli Lilly monoclonal treatments. Supplies had to be rationed as demand surged. As the Delta wave crested in mid-September, the Pentagon and the Health and Human Services Department ordered 1.4 million more doses of Regeneron’s antibody and 388,000 doses of Eli Lilly’s.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sought to circumvent the feds by ordering a monoclonal antibody treatment from GlaxoSmithKline and Vir. The antibody binds to a target on Covid-19 that is shared with the SARS virus, making it more difficult for variants to evade. It was authorized by the FDA in May, but the Biden administration then declined to add it to its meager treatment arsenal. This was a colossal mistake, since it was the only monoclonal treatment for infected patients that turned out to be effective against the Omicron variant.

The administration couldn’t have anticipated that, but Operation Warp Speed’s strategy was to diversify its bets expecting some to fail. The Biden team relied almost exclusively on Regeneron and Eli Lilly antibodies, even though scientists had warned that new variants might be able to evade them. The additional doses that Barda ordered in September were helpful for a couple of months until Omicron arrived.

Only in November did GSK and Vir announce a $1 billion contract with Barda. Around the same time Barda reached a $5.3 billion agreement with Pfizer for 10 million courses of its oral antiviral Paxlovid. Had it ordered these treatments earlier, much more supply would have been available this winter.

Why did the new administration abandon the successful Operation Warp Speed playbook? Most likely because progressives loathe pharmaceutical companies. Recall how congressional Democrats attacked Mr. Slaoui, a former GSK executive, without evidence, accusing him of profiting off his public service. Or maybe the Biden team believed their own cynical 2020 campaign line that Operation Warp Speed “lacks sound leadership, global vision, or a strategy.”

Asked by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein last week whether the government should adopt OWS’s strategy for other technologies, Mr. Klain replied: “I think we have to be careful about the level of government intervention in the economy and make sure that we’re not putting our judgment in the place of private-sector thoughts and consumer demand and whatnot. I think vaccines are a very, very special case, a public good we wanted everyone to get.”

He’s right, but life-saving Covid-19 therapies are also a special case. At the same time, the Biden administration wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars intervening in the economy to support green energy technologies that consumers largely don’t want and are unlikely to do much public good.

Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Wuhan counter measures should be age specific
« Reply #360 on: January 31, 2022, 12:39:29 PM »
COVID-19 Counter Measures Should be Age Specific

Martin KulldorffClick here to view Martin Kulldorff’s profile
Martin Kulldorff
Biostatistician and epidemiologist. Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Published Apr 10, 2020

Among COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.

To determine effective public health counter measures against COVID-19, it is important to know the population characteristics of the epidemic [1]. It has been widely reported that mortality rates among those diagnosed and hospitalized are higher in older age groups [2, 3], but to determine public health action, it is the mortality among those exposed or infected that is of primary importance. Absolute risk estimates are uncertain at this stage of the epidemic, due to asymptomatic infected individuals [4] and limited population based testing [1], but with reasonable assumptions about exposure, it is possible to obtain rough estimates of the relative risks in different age groups, as well as upper bounds for the absolute risks.

We consider two alternative exposure scenarios at the early stages of the outbreak in Wuhan, before any social distancing was in place. In Scenario A, the likelihood of being exposed was equal in all age groups. In Scenario B, those <70 had twice the exposure compared to ages 70-79, who in turn had twice the exposure of those 80 and older. The truth probably lies somewhere in between these two scenarios.

Using Wuhan data for the relative risk of a COVID-19 diagnosis after exposure (RRC|E) and national Chinese data for the relative risk of death after a diagnosis (RRD|C) [2], the estimated relative risk of death among those exposed is RR = RRC|E x RRD|C. The Wuhan data better reflect the pre-social distancing phase of the epidemic while the Chinese mortality data increase the sample size of diagnosed individuals, generating more reliable estimates.

With age 70-79 as baseline, relative mortality risks are shown in Table 1. For COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Under Scenario B, with higher exposure among the young, the age differences are even larger.

In the United States, social distancing was in place early on, and since it is easier for retired people to stay home, it is likely that there was much less exposure among older people. Despite this, there is a higher proportion of diagnosed cases among the older population [5]. This means that the U.S. numbers are consistent with those from China. 

No alt text provided for this image
Table 1: Relative risks (RR) for COVID-19 mortality by age group. In scenario A, pre-social distancing probability of exposure is assumed to be equal across all ages. In scenario B, it is assumed to be twice as high for those <70 and half as much for those >80, compared to age 70-79.

Since 1/RR is approximately 100 for age 30-39, exposure of only 1,000 people in their 70s would lead to the same number of deaths as the exposure of 100,000 persons in their 30s. In other words, in order to avoid the same fixed number of deaths, one must prevent COVID-19 exposure to 1,000 people in their 70s, or 10,000 people in their 50s, or 40,000 in their 40s, or 100,000 in their 30s, or 300,000 in their 20s, or 3.5 million children. Preventing exposure of 3.5 million children or 100,000 people in their 30s is practically, logistically, and financially more challenging than preventing exposure of 1,000 people aged 70-79.

Government officials would be wise to take advantage of these widely different mortality rates by age in devising their COVID-19 counter measures, while still maintaining essential societal services. Whether mandated counter measures are intensified, recalibrated, or gradually relaxed sometime in the future, age specific measures should be part of the strategy. If not, there will be unnecessary mortality, burden on hospitals and economic disruption. Counter measures directed specifically at older people will not only protect them, it will also free up health care resources for those younger people that do need hospital care.

To date, most government mandated mitigation measures have either been age neutral, such as restaurant closures, or targeted at young and middle-aged people, such as school and office closures. A more appropriate age targeted approach is needed. Just as some pubs ban customers under the age of 21, government officials could set temporary upper age limits of say 50, 60, or 65 for visiting or working at restaurants, stores, offices, airports, and other public places. So, for example, while all 60-plus-year-old supermarket cashiers, gas station attendants, police officers, postal workers, garbage collectors and bus drivers should stay home, their younger colleagues should keep working, taking extra shifts as needed.

Counter measures must consider not only relative risks but also absolute risks. Among diagnosed cases age 70-79, the mortality rate in China was 1 in 25. [2] Their absolute mortality risk when simply exposed is then less than that, although we do not know how much less. Transformed to other age groups, using the data from Table 1, the absolute risk-of-death point estimates among those exposed is less than 1 in 25x3560=89,000 for children, less than 1 in 7,500 for age 20-29, less than 1 in 2,500 for age 30-39, less than 1 in 1,000 for age 40-49, less than 1 in 230 for age 50-59, less than 1 in 58 for age 60-69, less than 1 in 25 for age 70-79 and less than 1 in 17 for those in the 80+ age group. These numbers for exposed individuals are more favorable but similar to recent mortality estimates for infected individuals [3]. To put these upper bounds in context, the upper bounds for children and young adults are lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate of 1 in 170 or the annual child mortality rate of around 1 in 6,000 [6]. For the older age groups, on the other hand, the upper bounds on the mortality rates are staggeringly high.

Infectious disease outbreaks have occurred throughout history and will continue to do so, aided by urbanization and long-distance travel. COVID-19’s ability to kill and its rapid spread make it a formidable enemy that is impossible to stop until herd immunity is reached. Just as in war, we must exploit the characteristics of the enemy in order to defeat it with the minimum number of casualties. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.

Martin Kulldorff, Biostatistician, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

References

[1] M. Lipsitch, D. L. Swerdlow och L. Finelli, ”Defining the Epidemiology of Covid-19 — Studies Needed,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, pp. 1194-1196, 2020.

[2] J. T. Wu, K. Leung, M. Bushman, N. Kishore, R. Niehus, P. M. d. Salazar, B. J. Cowling, M. Lipsitch och G. M. Leung, ”Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China,” Nature Medicine, pp. 1-5, 2020.

[3] R. Verity, L. C. Okell, I. Dorigatti, P. Winskill, C. Whittaker, N. Imai, G. Cuomo-Dannenburg och etal, ”Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2020.

[4] R. Li, S. Pei, B. Chen, Y. Song, T. Zhang, W. Yang och J. Shaman, ”Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2),” Science, nr March 16, 2020.

[5] CDC COVID-19 Response Team, ”Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 69, nr 12, pp. 343-346, 2020.

[6] S. L. Murphy, J. Xu, K. D. Kochanek och E. Arias, ”Mortality in the United States, 2017,” National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, USA., 2018.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Different strategies
« Reply #362 on: February 02, 2022, 06:48:02 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
This one has me looking like a Jewish Don King
« Reply #368 on: February 08, 2022, 04:37:02 PM »


https://www.educationviews.org/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death/

EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.
Apr 8, 2021 by LifeSite News


4.7.21 — LifeSiteNews

“EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’”

By Patrick Delaney

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death

Excerpts from this article:

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

His main points included:

There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”
Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”

Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.

“… on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.

“…every single one of those things is demonstrably false…”

“…There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

…“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.

“For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”

“[With such a system]…You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time…make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources…and that it produces variants…which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.

“…then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: …But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”

“…There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].

…“pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.

“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.

“So…why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines?— you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.

“…unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”

…“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far…all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’

“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —their kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. Their called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.

“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.

“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity…

“You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty, and all of the other co-authors.

“… If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’

“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie…”

“I don’t think 3% would be enough…That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.

…“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!”

“They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.

…“So, that’s why I’m frightened.

“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”

…“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.

…“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.

“…They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are…

“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.

Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”

Donna Garner

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
ET: Therapeutics
« Reply #369 on: February 10, 2022, 02:43:54 PM »
Dr. Pierre Kory: ‘Covid-19 Is Highly Treatable’
Joseph Mercola
Joseph Mercola
 February 9, 2022 Updated: February 9, 2022biggersmaller Print
Commentary

Dr. Pierre Kory, a New York pulmonologist, talked about his experience in treating patients using a protocol that those in power tried to censor.



New York pulmonologist Dr. Pierre Kory, an unapologetic champion of evidence-based medicine, has had remarkable success treating patients with ivermectin and other therapies during the pandemic. His efforts to get the word out on this treatment protocol as part of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) have largely been stifled by censorship, ridicule and colleagues — brainwashed by the official narrative — unwilling to accept the science.

Kory spoke with Dr. Chris Martenson, host of the Peak Prosperity podcast, about his incredible experiences over the last nearly two years. On December 8, 2020, Kory testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution.”

He called on the NIH, CDC and FDA to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover. As he told Martenson, due to their promising results, he believed early on that “the pandemic has been solved,” until he realized that those in power weren’t open to hearing what he had to say.

Despite his impassioned pleas and astonishing science to back them up, the treatment not only was ignored by the Senate committee but promptly eviscerated. Now, he feels his colleagues in the health care field are living in one of two worlds — by either not following the data or putting patients first because they’re afraid of losing their job or status, or by risking everything to put patients first. He’s become estranged from many colleagues who he says “don’t get it.”

There Is Treatment Available for Viruses
Kory’s eyes have been opened to the reality that many people only hear or believe what public health officials tell them, whether it’s because they’re overworked and don’t have time to delve into the real data or because they’re following with blind trust. Many of Kory’s colleagues have gone along with those they believe to be authoritative experts, even when their guidance defies logic and commonsense. Kory’s trust in the “experts,” however, started to erode the more that he learned.

One of Kory’s role models is Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, who is renowned for his work in creating the “Marik Cocktail,” which significantly reduces death rates from sepsis using inexpensive, safe, generic medications.

Marik was one of a small group of critical care physicians who formed FLCCC, which developed a highly effective COVID-19 treatment protocol known as MATH+. Marik is so in tune with science that if he reads a new study and has questions, he’ll contact the first author on the paper to get direct answers.

Right off the bat, the MATH+ protocol led to high survival rates. Out of more than 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with the MATH+ protocol by mid-April 2020, only two died. Both were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions.

After several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+, due to the addition of ivermectin.

Kory is now a public face of FLCCC, and he’s forged a global network of colleagues who are willing to adapt to new information in any way they can to help patients. One of Kory’s biggest revelations involved the treatment of viruses — specifically, the fact that there are dozens of treatment options available, about 90% of which are repurposed, cost pennies and are readily available:

“I went into this pandemic believing what I’ve been taught my whole career, which is that there is no specific antiviral therapy … I mean, you get a cold, you just rest … and now here I am 18 months later — oh my gosh — there are literally two dozen compounds and now we have trial evidence showing pretty profound large magnitude benefits, either in the duration of symptoms, the duration of viral transmission, hospitalization and death.

We have a number of molecules that actually reduce mortality in what’s turned out to be a deadly viral disease. This isn’t the common cold, we’re clear on that.

I went from, there’s nothing to do for a virus to now, anytime I have a cold going forward, or any of my children, or any other virus that comes at us, we already have a whole armory of stuff that we can employ. And that data for those — which are best, which should be employed — is only going to increase.”

Giving Patients Agency Over Their Own Health
Marteson said that, since learning about accessible treatment options, “I feel like I have agency in my own health that I didn’t have before.” Kory mentions natural options like curcumin and nigella sativa, or black cumin, which he would have laughed off years ago, but now realizes they have multiple mechanisms by which they fight viruses:

“Reading about something like curcumin or nigella sativa, which if someone told me a year ago to take something like nigella sativa — black cumin seed — it would save your life in a viral disease, I would have literally burst out laughing … but when you look, there’s literally 10 years of lots of little trials and studies that have evaluated and defined multiple mechanisms of black cumin seed — immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, antiviral.

So you have all of these building blocks, and then you have this trial from Pakistan — large randomized controlled trial with really large magnitude benefits — of literally nigella sativa and honey. And then you find out about honey. Honey also has pleotropic properties.”

Kory is driven to share what he’s learned with as many people as possible, because he believes that everyone should feel empowered to stay healthy, similar to what I have long advised — to take control of your health. He told Marteson:

“It’s so satisfying because now we have agency, and so many people have agency by learning this knowledge of things that are readily available, cheap, don’t need a prescription, that you can actually treat yourself with very safe compounds. Not only is that agency so satisfying, but boy does it seem critical for the future. Is this going to be the last viral pandemic?”

His index case with ivermectin — the first person with COVID-19 whom he treated with the drug — is also etched in his memory. The patient — a “slightly older, slightly overweight” woman — was two weeks into COVID-19 and still having fevers and night sweats, so still quite sick. He treated her with ivermectin and she woke up in the morning feeling great:

“Literally I saw what could only be described as a phenomenal response to a medication. So when we talk about data that we use, I’m sorry but I was sold right there on the first dose. First patient, first dose. And then I had repeated experiences.”

COVID-19 Is Highly Treatable
Fear has dominated the pandemic, but both Martenson and Kory say there’s no need to walk around in fear. As a lung and ICU expert, Kory is a master at treating acute illnesses which, he says, “is all about trajectories.” “When we make rounds on patients, we see them every day, we’re following their course … in an ICU, I have to be very knowledgeable about their minute-to-minute, or sometimes hour-to-hour trajectory,” he said.

He teaches medicine also, and he teaches his trainees to study trajectories in their patients. When the trajectory worsens, especially in critical illness, therapies must be instituted but, he says, when “I see a trajectory on the improvement, I always say just stand back. They’re getting better, they’re going to continue to get better …”

In the case of his index patient with ivermectin, she was on a steady trajectory, but it rapidly improved upon administration of ivermectin — a pattern he sees regularly with the drug. The ability to get a sense of this pattern recognition is what makes the difference between an expert and nonexpert in critical care medicine, Kory says.

“The longer you’re in medicine, the better you get at that and you can see which medicines are working.” In this case, ivermectin is one that quickly stood out from the rest. Especially if you’re an expert at trajectories, patterns and diseases, as Kory is, “you can figure things out much quicker than a massive, multicentered, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.”

If there were one thing that Kory could share, it’s that he wants everyone to know that COVID-19 is a highly treatable disease:

“I want everybody to know how treatable this is … I’m not that worried about it for me, my friends, my family, my colleagues. I’m not worried about it for those who follow the FLCCC and our protocols because we know that they’re effective.

And I just hope that umbrella of reassurance and protection, which is to say there are effective treatments which will save your life and prevent the need for hospitalization, I just hope that number grows. But me personally, I’m not that bothered by COVID. As you know, I actually got COVID. It was a relatively mild case and so I also have natural immunity in my camp.”

Early treatment, however, is essential. One of his friends became ill with COVID-19 and made the mistake of thinking he had a cold. He didn’t contact Kory until he’d been sick for seven or eight days and by that time, he said, “I had to pull out all the stops for him. I really had to use every tool in my arsenal to keep him out of the hospital.” So if you have COVID-19, the sooner you implement the treatment protocol, the better.

There’s a War Against Truth
The successful treatment of COVID-19 using ivermectin and other therapies is being actively suppressed. Few, for instance, have heard about the astonishing success in Uttar Pradesh, India, which embraced large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients, close contacts of patients and health care workers.

They’ve since had a COVID-19 positivity rate of almost zero, marking a major public health achievement that Kory believes should be a model for the world. Even the World Health Organization praised Uttar Pradesh for their excellent public health measures, which included sending people out to villages to conduct rapid COVID-19 tests and, if positive, treat patients and close contacts with ivermectin.

WHO, however, did not mention ivermectin as part of Uttar Pradesh’s success story. Kory now calls the FLCCC an “army,” because “they’re actively fighting a war”:

“They’re challenging the pharmacists. They’re talking to their doctors. They’re writing to pharmacy boards … I don’t think war is an overstatement here. There’s a war on truth. There’s a war on free discourse and sharing of opinions. One of the catastrophic things is the way they branded misinformation on the level of a felony. Someone who has an opinion that differs from the agency’s is automatically medical misinformation.

It’s treated as though it’s a scourge of society that needs to be extinguished. I think people are fighting back against that. It’s nice to hear the army and the tribe is growing and most important is, I think we’re helping people. We’re arming people with agency and the ability to navigate a pretty confusing world.”

FLCCC’s I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full, giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19. FLCCC also has protocols for at-home prevention and early treatment, called I-MASS, which involves ivermectin, vitamin D3, a multivitamin and a digital thermometer to watch your body temperature in the prevention phase and ivermectin, melatonin, aspirin and antiseptic mouthwash for early at-home treatment.

Household or close contacts of COVID-19 patients may take ivermectin (18 milligrams, then repeat the dose in 48 hours) for post-exposure prevention. FLCCC also has a management protocol — I-RECOVER — for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. The protocols are translated into 23 different languages to provide widespread, free access to this lifesaving information, including how to get ivermectin.

FLCCC remains hopeful that ivermectin will be formally adopted into national or international COVID-19 treatment guidelines in the near future.

References
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021
FLCCC Alliance, Ivermectin & COVID-19
Mountain Home May 1, 2021
FLCCC Alliance, Math+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19
Dr. Pierre Kory Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol
FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 24:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 26:41
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 28:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 28:58
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 32:04
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 34:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 34:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 38:33
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 40:00
Indian Express May 12, 2021
World Health Organization May 7, 2021
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 1:04
FLCCC Alliance, I-Mask+
FLCCC Alliance, I-MASS
FLCCC Alliance, I-RECOVER
FLCCC, How to Get Ivermectin


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 15, 2022, 10:59:51 AM by DougMacG »



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Nasal Sprays?
« Reply #375 on: February 22, 2022, 09:30:09 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
ET: Truth Coming Out about Wuhan Deaths
« Reply #377 on: March 04, 2022, 04:49:41 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-truth-is-coming-out-about-covid-deaths_4309806.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-03-03&utm_medium=email&est=6ZUnsnXtIxVvSFkhw1ZIsmGmZVVv3prBspdcYCxThMxSU2%2FPwxhQrEDBPrtqCg7K%2BoMt

The Truth Is Coming Out About COVID Deaths
By Joseph Mercola March 1, 2022 Updated: March 2, 2022biggersmaller Print
Hospitals receive payments for testing every patient for COVID, every COVID diagnosis and every ‘COVID death,’ as well as any time they use remdesivir and mechanical ventilation.


Early on in the COVID pandemic, people suspected that the deaths attributed to the infection were exaggerated. There was plenty of evidence for this. For starters, hospitals were instructed and incentivized to mark any patient who had a positive COVID test and subsequently died within a certain time period as a COVID death.

At the same time, we knew that the PCR test was unreliable, producing inordinate amounts of false positives. Now, the truth is finally starting to come out and, as suspected, the actual death toll is vastly lower than we were led to believe.

COVID Deaths Have Been Vastly Overcounted
In the video above, Dr. John Campbell reviews recent data released by the U.K. government in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. They show that the number of deaths during 2020 in England and Wales, where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, was 9,400. Of those, 7,851 were aged 65 and older. The median age of death was 81.5 years.

During the first quarter of 2021, there were 6,483 deaths where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, again with the vast majority, 4,923, occurring in seniors over 65.

A total of 346 died from COVID-19 alone during the second quarter of 2021, and in the third quarter, the COVID death toll was 1,142. Again, these are people with no other underlying conditions that might have caused their death.

So, in all, for the 21 months covering January 2020 through September 2021, the total COVID-19 death toll in England and Wales was 17,371 — a far cry from what’s been reported. As of the end of September 2021, the U.K. government reported there were 137,133 deaths within 28 days of a positive test, and these deaths were therefore all counted as “COVID deaths.”

In a January 19, 2022, press conference, U.K. health secretary Sajid Javid admitted that the daily government figures are unreliable as people have been and continue to die from conditions unrelated to COVID-19, but are included in the count due to a positive test.

He also admitted that about 40% of patients presently counted as hospitalized COVID patients were not admitted due to COVID symptoms. They were admitted for other conditions and simply tested positive.

COVID Has Primarily Killed Those Close to Death Anyway
Campbell also points out that of the 17,371 people who had COVID-19 as the sole cause of death, 13,597 were 65 or older. The average age of death in the U.K. from COVID in 2021 was 82.5 years. Compare that to the projected life expectancy in the U.K., which is 79 for men and 82.9 for women. This hardly constitutes an emergency, least of all for healthy school- and working-age individuals.

Campbell then goes on to review data on excess deaths from cancer. Estimates suggest there have been an extra 50,000 cancer deaths over the past 18 months — deaths that normally would not have occurred. Delayed diagnosis and inability to receive proper treatment due to COVID restrictions are thought to be primary reasons for this.

As noted by Campbell, when we’re looking at excess deaths, we really need to take things like age of death into account. COVID-19, apparently, killed mostly people who were close to the end of life expectancy anyway, so the loss of quality life years isn’t particularly significant.

That needs to be weighed against the deaths of people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who have died from untreated cancer and other chronic diseases, thanks to COVID restrictions.

CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths
In the U.S., data suggest a similar pattern of exaggerated COVID death statistics. Most recently, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky cited research showing that 77.8% of people who had received the COVID jab yet died from/with COVID also had, on average, four comorbidities.

“So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with,” Walensky said. But while Walensky points to this study as evidence that the COVID shot works wonders to reduce the risk of death, the exact same pattern has been shown in the unvaccinated. People without comorbidities have very little to worry about when it comes to COVID.

“COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, and that’s true whether you’re ‘vaccinated’ or not.”

For example, a 2020 study found 88% of hospitalized COVID patients in New York City had two or more comorbidities, 6.3% had one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none. At that time, there were no COVID jabs available.

Similarly, in late August 2020, the CDC published data showing only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths. So, yes, COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, just as Walensky said, but that’s true whether you’re “vaccinated” or not.

Most COVID Deaths Likely Due to Ventilator Malpractice
In addition to the issue of whether people die “from” COVID or “with” a SARS-CoV-2 positive test, there’s the issue of whether incorrect treatment is killing COVID patients. By early April 2020, doctors warned that putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation increased their risk of death.

One investigation showed a staggering 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, causing some doctors to question their use. U.K. data put that figure at 66% and a small study in Wuhan found 86% of ventilated patients died. In an April 8, 2020, article, STAT News reported:

“Many patients have blood oxygen levels so low they should be dead. But they’re not gasping for air, their hearts aren’t racing, and their brains show no signs of blinking off from lack of oxygen.

That is making critical care physicians suspect that blood levels of oxygen, which for decades have driven decisions about breathing support for patients with pneumonia and acute respiratory distress, might be misleading them about how to care for those with COVID-19.

In particular, more and more are concerned about the use of intubation and mechanical ventilators. They argue that more patients could receive simpler, noninvasive respiratory support, such as the breathing masks used in sleep apnea, at least to start with and maybe for the duration of the illness.”

At the time, emergency room physician Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell argued that patients’ symptoms had more in common with altitude sickness than pneumonia. Similarly, a paper by critical care Drs. Luciano Gattinoni and John J. Marini described two different types of COVID-19 presentations, which they refer to as Type L and Type H. While one benefited from mechanical ventilation, the other did not.

Despite that, putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation is “standard of care” for COVID across the U.S. to this day. Without doubt, most of the early COVID patients were killed from ventilator malpractice, and patients continue to be killed — not from COVID but from harmful treatments.

Better Alternatives to Ventilation Exist
Mechanical ventilation can easily damage the lungs as it’s pushing air into the lungs with force. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) would likely be a better alternative, as it allows your body to absorb a higher percentage of oxygen without forcing air into the lungs. HBOT also improves mitochondrial function, helps with detoxification, inhibits and controls inflammation and optimizes your body’s innate healing capacity.

Doctors have also had excellent results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in an April 2020 press release from doctors at UChicago Medicine:

“High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.

A team from UChicago Medicine’s emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …

The HFNCs are often combined with prone positioning, a technique where patients lay on their stomachs to aid breathing. Together, they’ve helped UChicago Medicine doctors avoid dozens of intubations and have decreased the chances of bad outcomes for COVID-19 patients, said Thomas Spiegel, MD, Medical Director of University of Chicago Medicine’s Emergency Department. The proning and the high-flow nasal cannulas combined have brought patient oxygen levels from around 40% to 80% and 90% …”

How to Use Prone Positioning at Home
You can also use prone positioning at home if you struggle with a cough or have trouble breathing. If you’re struggling to breathe, you should seek emergency medical care. However, in cases of cough or mild shortness of breath being treated at home, try to avoid spending a lot of time lying flat on your back.

Guidelines from Elmhurst Hospital suggest “laying [sic] on your stomach and in different positions will help your body to get air into all areas of your lung.” The guidelines recommend changing your position every 30 minutes to two hours, including:

Lying on your belly
Lying on your right side
Sitting up
Lying on your left side
This is a simple way to potentially help ease breathing difficulties at home. If you or a loved one is hospitalized, this technique can be used there too.

Hospital Incentives Are Driving Up COVID Deaths
You might wonder why doctors and hospital administrators insist on using treatments known to be ineffective at best and deadly at worst, while stubbornly refusing to administer anything that has been shown to work, be it intravenous vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine and zinc, ivermectin or corticosteroids.

The most likely answer is because they’re protecting their bottom line. In the U.S., hospitals not only risk losing federal funding if they administer these treatments, but they also get a variety of incentives for doing all the wrong things. Hospitals receive payments for:

COVID testing for all patients
COVID diagnoses
Admitting a “COVID patient”
Use of remdesivir
Use of mechanical ventilation
COVID deaths
What’s worse, there’s evidence that certain hospital systems, and perhaps all of them, have waived patients’ rights, making anyone diagnosed with COVID a virtual prisoner of the hospital, with no ability to exercise informed consent. In short, hospitals are doing whatever they want with patients, and they have every incentive to maltreat them, and no incentive to give them treatments other than that dictated to them by the National Institutes of Health.

As reported by Citizens Journal, the U.S. government actually pays hospitals a “bonus” on the entire hospital bill if they use remdesivir, a drug shown to cause severe organ damage. Even coroners are given bonuses for every COVID-19 death.

A Bounty Has Been Placed on Your Life
“What does this mean for your health and safety as a patient in the hospital?” Citizens Journal asks. Without mincing words, it means your health is in severe jeopardy. Citizen Journal likens government-directed COVID treatments to a bounty placed on your life, where payouts are tied to your decline, not your recovery.

“For Remdesivir, studies show that 71–75% of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to 10 days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death,” Citizen Journal writes.

“Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that Remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of Remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.

In ventilated patients, the death toll is staggering … [attorney Thomas] Renz announced at a Truth for Health Foundation Press Conference that CMS data showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% percent of all patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.

Then there are deaths from restrictions on effective treatments for hospitalized patients. Renz and a team of data analysts have estimated that more than 800,000 deaths in America’s hospitals, in COVID-19 and other patients, have been caused by approaches restricting fluids, nutrition, antibiotics, effective antivirals, anti-inflammatories, and therapeutic doses of anti-coagulants.

We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches.

Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.

Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19. Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.”

Treat COVID Symptoms Immediately and Aggressively
Considering the uncertainties around diagnosis, it’s best to treat any cold or flu-like symptoms early. At first signs of symptoms, start treatment. Perhaps it’s the common cold or a regular influenza, maybe it’s the much milder Omicron, but since it’s hard to tell, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would treat earlier forms of COVID.

Considering how contagious Omicron is, chances are you’re going to get it, so buy what you’ll need now, so you have it on hand if/when symptoms arise. And, remember, this applies for those who have gotten the jab as well, since you’re just as likely to get infected — and perhaps even more so. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include:

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC’s) prevention and early at-home treatment protocol. They also have an in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. You can find a listing of doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website
The AAPS protocol
Tess Laurie’s World Council for Health protocol
America’s Frontline Doctors
Based on my review of these protocols, I’ve developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.

dr mercola covid treatment protocol
References
The Telegraph January 19, 2022 (Archived)

Gov.UK National Life Tables 2018-2020

CDC MMWR January 7, 2022; 71(1): 19-25

Delta News January 10, 2022

Washington Examiner January 10, 2022

JAMA April 22, 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.6775 [Epub ahead of print]

CDC.gov August 26, 2020, Comorbidities Table 3, updated October 14, 2020

Medscape April 6, 2020

Daily Mail April 9, 2020

Business Insider April 9, 2020

The Associated Press April 8, 2020

STAT News April 8, 2020

JAMA Insights April 24, 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.6825

Newswise April 23, 2020

Elmhurst Hospital Self-Proning Positioning Guide

Citizens Journal December 20, 2021

The Daily Jot November 2, 2021


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
ET: Natural Immunity vs. Vax
« Reply #381 on: March 05, 2022, 05:12:28 AM »
second


https://www.theepochtimes.com/naturally-acquired-immunity-versus-vaccine-acquired-immunity_4082499.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-03-05&utm_medium=email&est=CezJHNyF%2FgqXcA62Id8YpJkWLg1F7CsMrIvkNgavbex12TbHOyQkhOnbgLowLAqZVbEe

Naturally Acquired Immunity Versus Vaccine Acquired Immunity
Science and public policy seem to disagree over which one is better
BY Jennifer Margulis TIMENovember 9, 2021
“He’s got a pass!” said the dad sitting across from me at the airport in Bismarck, North Dakota, where we were both stranded due to flight delays. He gestured to his 5-year-old son.

“Had a slight fever and tested positive for COVID. We had to keep him home from school for a couple weeks. Then, he tested negative and was good to go. I got the vaccine. My wife did, too. But he can travel anywhere without any testing, and there’s no vaccine for his age anyway.”

In Germany Natural Immunity Counts

Since the beginning of July in Germany, where that family lives, if you can demonstrate proof of being COVID-recovered and then have a subsequent negative COVID test, you are considered immune. For six months anyway, according to the German government.

But in the United States, where my family lives, even those who are COVID-recovered (and show high protection via either antibody or T-cell testing) are being told they also must get vaccinated. Indeed, the CDC has been actively urging Americans who have already had COVID to get the vaccine.

America’s federal and state health officials, via the mainstream media and social media, as well as on their official channels, insist that COVID vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone.

CDC Urges Vaccination for COVID-Recovered

A CDC statement from August sums up the official position nicely: “New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection.”

“If you have had COVID-19 before please still get vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky urged the public in that release. “Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

But is it really?

Natural Immunity Versus Vaccine Immunity

Despite sensationalist headlines, reinfection with COVID-19 appears to be exceedingly rare. If you are unvaccinated and have had COVID, the chances of you getting it again are slim. A preliminary report from Israeli scientists shows that out of 149,735 people in Israel with confirmed COVID-19 cases (documented via positive PCR tests) only 154 people had evidence of reinfection, which is about 1 in 1,000.

Another study, however, suggests that the chances of reinfection are even lower than 1 in 1,000. Cleveland Clinic scientists who examined a cohort of 52,238 employees found no cases of reinfection among unvaccinated people with evidence of prior SARS-Co-V-2 infections.

The same study showed that vaccinated people who hadn’t had COVID-19 had a lower risk of infection than unvaccinated people. Still, the researchers concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”

Sarbecovirus Infections Protect Against Future Disease

The benefits of naturally acquired immunity may go beyond protection against COVID. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is part of a family of viruses known as sarbecoviruses. Symptoms vary widely in different people, but these viruses can create severe acute respiratory syndromes that usually begin with a fever and body aches, according to the CDC.

There have been two previous SARS outbreaks. A 2003 outbreak thought to have originated in China in 2002 infected about 8,098 people and led to about 774 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. Another smaller SARS outbreak occurred in 2004.

Both of these outbreaks were self-limiting: humans managed to overcome the illnesses naturally without mass vaccination campaigns. Research on these other sarbecovirus infections is limited, but it seems that when we acquire natural immunity to these viruses, it helps protect us against future disease.

To study this, scientists in San Francisco took blood from people who had had previous COVID infections (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-Co-V) and assessed 12 antibodies in the blood. As reported in Nature, the California researchers found that one antibody in particular (S2H97) was able to bind to a range of sarbecovirus infections and keep the viruses from spreading in lab experiments. When they tested the antibody in hamsters, it kept the rodents from getting sick.

This “super antibody,” which was acquired naturally, essentially blocked SARS viruses from spreading to other cells. While the research is being used to promote the idea of developing a broad-ranging vaccine, it also shows that there may be long-lasting benefits to natural infection.

Viral Illness: Natural Immunity Provides Long-Lasting Protection

With other infectious diseases caused by viruses, we have seen that natural infection provides longer-lasting protection than vaccine immunity. For example, a 2017 study of adults in the Czech Republic published in the scientific journal PLOS One showed that the highest protection against the measles, as measured by antibody levels in people’s blood, was in people over 50 years of age who were naturally infected before the implementation of a measles vaccine.

Other research on swine flu (H1N1) published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine in 2011, found “extraordinarily” powerful antibodies in the blood of nine people who caught the swine flu naturally and recovered from it.

Though, again, this research was showcased by news reports as evidence that it may be possible to develop a one-size-fits-all vaccine against different strains of flu viruses, what it actually demonstrates is that recovering from naturally acquired viral infections not only gives people short-term immunity against other viruses but may also be of lasting benefit in fighting off other viral infections as well.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus and the vaccines to protect against it only became available in January, it isn’t scientifically possible to know the long-term protection offered by either the infection or the vaccines.

As more data comes in, however, it appears that even mild infection can provide robust protection from COVID-19 infection. A study from July evaluated 254 COVID-19 patients for up to eight months and found “durable broad-based immune responses,” even among COVID-recovered patients who had only mild symptoms.

Other recent data also suggests that natural immunity is long-lasting. A study from Finland published in September in the European Journal of Immunology found that in COVID-recovered patients protection against reinfection persisted for over a year.

Immunologist: Natural Immunity Better Than Vaccination

Yet another large study from August looked at a database of 2.5 million Israelis and found that “natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

This Israeli study found that people who were vaccinated who hadn’t been previously infected were 6 to 13 times more likely to get infected with COVID-19 than unvaccinated people who had already had the illness.

“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” Charlotte Thalin, an immunology researcher and specialist in internal medicine who is based in Stockholm, Sweden, told Science.org.


Given the natural protection provided to people who recover from COVID, why is the CDC so eager to get every eligible American vaccinated, even those who have recovered and have naturally acquired immunity?

The CDC press release references only two reports. The first report showed that people in Kentucky who recovered from COVID who did not subsequently get vaccinated were nearly 2 1/2 times more likely to get re-infected with COVID compared to people who had recovered from COVID who were subsequently vaccinated.

The second CDC report, co-authored by more than 40 medical doctors and public health officials (several of whom disclose direct ties to the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing and profiting from these vaccines), looked at hospitalization rates of adults aged 65 and older. It concluded that “among adults aged 65-74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination for preventing hospitalization was 96 percent for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96 percent for Moderna, and 84 percent for Janssen COVID-19.”

The second report cited by the CDC excluded hospitalized patients who had only one dose of any COVID vaccine less than 14 days prior. It also didn’t specify if those who were vaccinated or those who were unvaccinated had a history of prior infection.

So that report sheds no light on whether vaccine immunity is more long-lasting than immunity from infection and offers no evidence to justify the idea that COVID-recovered patients should get vaccinated.

The CDC didn’t mention other studies that showed findings contrary to the Kentucky study. It’s unclear whether the agency reviewed those studies and found the Kentucky study to be stronger or only considered the Kentucky study in making their policy to recommend and require that the previously infected get the vaccine.

Meanwhile, much of the established science supports the superiority of acquired immunity. That fact has put some people, such as Laurie Lentz-Marino, in a difficult position as they try to balance the consequences of not complying with vaccine mandates against their understanding of what’s in the best interest of their health.

“Vaccine-induced immunity can never be as long-lasting and robust as naturally acquired immunity,” said Lentz-Marino, who taught chemistry and biology classes at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, for more than 20 years. “The human immune system knows what it’s doing. We are an incredibly successful species. There would not be close to 8 billion people on the planet otherwise.”

Lentz-Marino, 61, recently resigned from her teaching position over vaccine and mask mandates at the college.

“It’s a sad joke to think that we know better than Mother Nature. We’re going in the wrong direction. It’s really arrogant to think that we can re-design our immune systems.”

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning science writer and book author. A Fulbright grantee, she is also a frequent contributor to The Epoch Times. Learn more and subscribe to her free weekly newsletter at her website JenniferMargulis.net.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
British report: 90% of Wuhan deaths are vaxxed
« Reply #384 on: March 17, 2022, 07:42:03 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/9-in-10-covid-deaths-are-in-vaccinated-people-report_4339503.html?utm_source=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2022-03-16&utm_medium=email&est=U6hAvnv6tcEKqKwCvBgbPljNAnudTAIqRXTtZ72YlobnR3ZLeSPSWxx2gaNpyQRxgk%2FN

9 in 10 COVID Deaths Are in Vaccinated People: Report
Joseph Mercola
Joseph Mercola
 March 15, 2022 Updated: March 16, 2022biggersmaller Print

A report released by the UK government has confirmed that 9 out of every 10 deaths related to COVID-19 are found in those who are fully vaccinated. Although the virus variant is the same and the UK approved only one different vaccine (AstraZeneca) from the United States, the data in the U.S. are different. This may be due in large part to the CDC definition used to identify who is “vaccinated.”

U.S. data are also likely to become even more sparse in the coming weeks and months. In addition to the CDC hiding data, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) quietly decided in early February to stop recording deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Data Is Essential
Yet, data is the foundation of scientific analysis. Without it, researchers are unable to analyze statistics and draw conclusions, which leaves public health experts unable to make accurate recommendations. Knowledge gives you the power to make informed decisions based on evidence.

Six months into the pandemic, a report revealed that most Americans had significant misconceptions of the COVID-19 risks. Months later, a second survey demonstrated that not much had changed. While analysts blamed “ignorance of fundamental, undisputed facts on who is at risk” for the so-called misconceptions, others said the politicization of the pandemic was also at fault. But there were other factors at play that skewed the data scientists thought they had.

According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID injection clinical trials, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections and follow up on reported side effects lagged way behind. Her testimony was published November 2, 2021, in the British Medical Journal by investigative journalist Paul Thacker.

This is yet another indication that the true number of adverse events and deaths from the shots currently identified as COVID vaccines may never be known. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the data don’t support the Warp Speed production and mass vaccination program initiated in early 2020.

In fact, the shot program not only is ineffective, but also has likely damaged and killed far more people than any health agency will ever publicly admit. It is essential to share this information to help prevent more deaths and damaged lives.

UK Government Report: 90 Percent of Deaths Are in Fully Vaccinated
A reporter from The Exposé points out that while the world has been distracted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK government quietly released a report that confirmed 9 in every 10 deaths from COVID-19 in England were in people who were fully vaccinated.

The February 2022 report was from the UK Health Security Agency, which publishes weekly surveillance. The report contains several tables of raw data showing that the vast majority of people who were infected, hospitalized or died from COVID-19 were fully vaccinated.

The Exposé, demonstrated step by step how the data, gathered from Jan. 24, 2022, through February 28, 2022, supported this assertion. In the UK, health authorities differentiate between those who have never received a shot and those who received one, two or three doses. All told, there were 1,086,434 cases of COVID in vaccinated individuals that accounted for 73 percent of all cases during that period.

When children were removed from the equation, vaccinated individuals accounted for 91 percent of all cases. The reporter also compared data taken in 2021 when Delta was the dominant variant against the current report when Omicron is the dominant variant in England. It showed a higher number of children hospitalized for Omicron than for Delta.

Since children have never been at high risk for severe disease from any COVID variant, it begs the question if the current number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 may be due to increased PCR testing—known to have a high false-positive rate—in children hospitalized for other reasons, such as a broken leg or appendicitis.

When children were included in the figures for hospitalization, the data showed 75 percent of those hospitalized with COVID in the current period were vaccinated. But, when children were removed from the equation, 85 percent of the hospitalized individuals were vaccinated. Similar results were found when the data were analyzed for COVID deaths.

During the four-week period in the current report, vaccinated individuals accounted for 89 percent of deaths. Most interestingly, not only are the deaths in vaccinated individuals rising precipitously, but the number of deaths in those who are not vaccinated is dropping.

Vaccinated Deaths Rising in California
Headlines in the March 7, 2022, Mercury News read, “COVID-19 Deaths in California Among Vaccinated Rose Sharply With Omicron.” The corresponding story added that 10 deaths recorded in Santa Cruz County, California, and nine of those were vaccinated. On the surface, this is similar to findings reported from the UK. Yet, the raw numbers in the United States are different.

This is likely because U.S. data do not differentiate between individuals who have had one, two or three shots. In fact, the U.S. CDC clearly states that you can only be considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the final dose in the primary two-shot series from Pfizer and Moderna or the one shot from Johnson & Johnson.

Therefore, as the UK analyzes data that identify individuals on the spectrum of having received one of three shots, the United States only counts vaccination if you’re two weeks after your last dose. Since not all patients who are fully vaccinated are identified on admission, analyzing U.S. numbers is difficult, if not impossible. You must ask yourself if this is intentional.

It probably is safe to assume that if a person in the United States is identified as being vaccinated, they are likely fully vaccinated by CDC standards. However, there are also likely individuals lumped into the unvaccinated group who have had one or two shots or may even be fully vaccinated by CDC standards but were not counted as such on admission.

The Mercury News justified the vaccinated deaths, writing: “Of the vaccinated patients who died, one was in his early 100s, three were in their 90s, two were in their 80s, three were in their 70s and most had underlying health problems. The unvaccinated man who died was in his 50s.”

While age is certainly a significant factor in any infectious disease including COVID, the article did not mention any of the other CDC-identified comorbidities that contribute to COVID deaths. To add to the misinformation, the article quoted Dr. Errol Ozdalga, a hospitalist at Stanford, who told the Mercury News that patients admitted during the Delta wave and earlier infections were otherwise healthy.

The implication is that those with comorbidities the CDC identified as increasing the risk of severe illness, such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease and immunocompromised, were not hospitalized with COVID before Omicron.

““That went away with Omicron,” Ozdalga said. The variant has afflicted those with weakened immune systems, those who were “predisposed in some way” to severe illness, he said.” Additionally, without supporting information, the news report included a simple statement:

“Dr. George Rutherford, an infectious disease expert at UC-San Francisco, said the raw numbers make the deaths among the vaccinated look worse than they are — their rates of dying remain far less than the unvaccinated.”

Economist Survey Reveals Significant Vaccine Injury Rate
Economist Mark Skidmore executed a critical online survey using the U.S. population to estimate damage from the COVID-19 shots. He presented the most recent and significant data20 from the ongoing study at the Doctors for COVID Ethics Symposium 3.

His paper seeks to understand the number of people who have died from the COVID shots that he estimates based on the survey. He used the survey to triangulate information from the general population and what they are experiencing.

The participants were asked to report on the adverse events of people they knew best in their social circle — in other words, good friends or family members. The surveys were close to representative of the general population in age, income and gender in December 2021.

Skidmore first presented a list of adverse events the FDA acknowledged could be possible and compared it against the documented data of injury and deaths from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) published in OpenVAERS.

Some of the most common events on the list were stroke, heart attack, myocarditis, death, thrombocytopenia and venous thromboembolism (blood clots). According to Skidmore, everyone agrees that adverse events can and do occur — the main difference in opinion is how often and how many.

Skidmore then looked at the ratio between COVID illness fatalities and COVID shot fatalities. The ratio in OpenVAERS is 2.6 percent and in VAERS (the number reported by the CDC that doesn’t contain all data originally substantiated) it’s 0.9 percent.

If these numbers reflect reality, the number of people who report injury or death in the survey should be close to zero since the cohort is small enough that it may not capture such a small percentage. Skidmore then asks, if we assume that the survey is a reflection of the true ratio in the population, what is the true population ratio for injury or death after receiving the COVID-19 shot?

From the data collected the ratio reveals there have been 307,997 deaths from the shot. The method used gives a 95 percent confidence interval between 215,018 and 391,410 deaths. Using the same mathematical approach to identify the number of severe adverse events to the general population, the data show there were roughly 1.1 million severe events and 2.3 million less severe events from the shot.

He acknowledges that much of what people see and report is through the lens of their biases. One of those is political affiliation. He showed that people who identified as Democrats reported far fewer shot-related deaths than did Republicans or independents. This likely also affects the number of deaths and adverse events reported to VAERS.

Using the fatality counts by party affiliation, he found that if the Democrat perception was correct, there were 119,000 fatalities compared to 487,000 fatalities if the Republican perception was correct. This gives a potential range of deaths and illustrates the differences in perceptions of people based on how they see the world. However, no matter which number is used, it is still far more than the number of fatalities reported in the VAERS system.

Unprecedented US Death Toll Keeps Rising
While the data from Skidmore and the UK reflect the death rate from COVID-19, it is also important to track the number of all-cause mortality as it’s one of the most reliable data points we have. This statistic is clear-cut. Either a person is dead or they’re not. It does not rely on the reason for death.

In early 2022, mutual insurance holding company OneAmerica announced an increase in the death rate of working Americans, aged 18 to 64, in the third quarter of 2021. Their data show it was 40 percent higher than prepandemic levels.

Other insurance companies have also cited higher mortality rates, including the Hartford Insurance Group that announced mortality increased 32 percent from 2019 and 20 percent from 2020 before the shots. Lincoln National reported death claims have increased 13.7 percent year over year and 54 percent in quarter four of 2021 compared to 2019.

Funeral homes are also posting an increase in burials and cremations in 2021 over 2020. One large German health insurance company reported their company data were nearly 14 times greater than the number of deaths reported by the German government. This data were gathered directly from doctors applying for payment from a sample of 10.9 million people.

The rising death toll that can be linked to the COVID shots is an inconvenient truth for the health agencies that have promoted mass vaccinations with a genetic therapy experiment. In what appears to be a response to this data, Health and Human Services (HHS) have decided to stop the reporting requirements for hospitals and acute care facilities on COVID-19 deaths.

Although the information is published on the HHS website, fact-checkers have claimed the viral social media posts are “false” by simply changing the headline.29 So, while the HHS publicly announced they would no longer require hospitals to report deaths from COVID-19, fact-checkers erroneously report the U.S. government is not ending daily COVID death reporting.

If it helps to sort all this out, an unnamed federal health official actually acknowledged the move to stop reporting COVID-19 hospital deaths when they spoke with a reporter from WSWS, calling the move “incomprehensible.” The official added, “It is the only consistent, reliable and actionable dataset at the federal level. Ninety-nine percent of hospitals report 100% of the data every day. I don’t know any scientists who want to have less data.”

CDC Withholds Data, Fearing Hesitancy and Misinterpretation
When data from multiple sources all reveal the same trends and values, it’s easy to see how the CDC would be unwilling to acknowledge the information or want to release their data for fear it would have a negative impact on the mass vaccination campaign. February 20, 2022, The New York Times reported the CDC still had not published large parts of the data they collected during the pandemic.

While they have published data on the effectiveness of boosters in some individuals, data from people 18 to 49 years were left out. Interestingly, this is also the group who are the least likely to benefit from the shot, since they have some of the lowest rates of severe disease and death as reported by the CDC.

In comments to The New York Times, a CDC spokesperson attempted to justify why the organization had withheld large portions of data since the beginning of the pandemic. She said the data were “not yet ready for prime time,” that the information may be misinterpreted to mean the vaccines are ineffective and that the data they have is based on 10 percent of the U.S. population, which the Times pointed out is the same sample size used to track influenza each year.

Without raw data from the United States, scientists have relied on Israeli data. One study gathered information from 4.6 million people ages 16 and older who had received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. They compared severe illness and death between those who had the booster and those who did not. The data showed the group from 16 to 29 years had zero deaths whether they were boosted or not.

Likewise, the group from 30 to 39 years had one death whether they were boosted or not. In fact, the difference in death rate did not rise until the participants were 60 to 69 years, at which point the non-boosted group had 44 deaths and the boosted group had 32 deaths.

In an opinion piece, Staten Island Advance’s Tom Wrobleski characterizes the CDC’s decision, writing about what has happened to most people who have been willing to publish data and opinions that go against a national or international health agency’s narrative:

“We’re told to have faith in the CDC, in Dr. Anthony Fauci, in all the experts who are trained to handle public health crises.

But we can’t have trust if vital information is withheld from us. Because then it becomes a case of, “Shut up and do what we say. We’re the experts. You don’t need to know how we come to our decisions. We know what’s best.”

And if you question the received wisdom, you’re suddenly a dangerous person. You’re likened to a terrorist. You’re told you want people to die. You get banned from social media.

If you dare protest, you can have your bank account frozen and your vehicle insurance suspended, as we saw during the Freedom Convoy protest in Canada. You can get trampled by police on horseback.

Withholding information only makes people more skeptical. It breeds suspicion. Or mere doubt. The CDC needs to do better if it wants our trust.”

Originally published March 15, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References
The Exposé, March 1, 2022
NHS, Feb. 24, 2022
Food and Drug Administration, March 8, 2022
Mercury News, March 6, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jan. 16, 2022
The New York Times, Feb. 20, 2022
Health Data.gov, Jan. 6, 2022
Wirepoints, Aug. 19, 2020
CNN, Feb. 10, 2021
The BMJ 2021; 375:n2635
UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, Feb. 24, 2022
Mercury News, March 7, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jan. 16, 2022, When are you up to date, chart 3 lines down
Bitchute, Sept. 18, 2021, Min 1:01:30
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Feb. 25, 2022
Mark Skidmore, How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations?
Rumble, Feb. 18, 2022, Minute 3:38:00 starts
Open VAERS, COVID Data
The Center Square, Jan. 1, 2022
Zero Hedge, Feb. 5, 2022
Health Impact News, Feb. 23, 2022
Greater Mountain Publishing, Feb. 27, 2022
MSN, Jan. 28, 2022, Headline and What We Found
WSWS, Feb. 3, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jan. 31, 2022
NEJM, 2021; 385:2421
 SI Live, Feb. 27, 2022
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #387 on: March 19, 2022, 06:40:51 AM »
cdc removing 24 %
of childhood deaths

not suspicious to me

This is opposite conspiracy logic
I would think
if mo of CDC is for child vaccination then removing deaths originally "coded " as corona
would make make vaccination less urgent

no I don't think it has anything to do with corona vaccinations
and they are covering it up

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
additional thoughts
« Reply #388 on: March 19, 2022, 06:55:54 AM »
in conjunction with above post

what does account for the higher # of childhood "corona" deaths

mistake in coding?
purposeful coding from hospitals to get more more money

or children who had coincidental corona that had nothing to do with death?

that would be question

 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Failure of Chinese Approach
« Reply #389 on: March 27, 2022, 12:27:55 AM »
China’s Covid-19 Outbreak: Hugely Consequential, Barely Discussed

On the menu today: It’s understandable if you never want to read another word about Covid-19 again, but while the U.S. has the pandemic in its rear-view mirror, the Omicron variant has arrived in China and Hong Kong, and the Chinese government, following its “zero Covid” philosophy, is trying to deal with a super-contagious variant by locking down anyplace it appears. As you can imagine, it’s not going well — and perhaps illustrating that as frustrating and flawed as the U.S. response to Covid-19 was, a “zero covid” approach just delays the problem instead of stopping it.

Covid-19, Now an Afterthought in America, Is Shutting Down China

It is arguably the biggest story in the world that you’re hearing very little about: China, which for much of the past two years held itself up as a Covid-19 success story for enacting a “zero Covid” policy, is now dealing with an explosion of cases and is trying to stop a virus as contagious as the common cold through lockdowns — with predictably bad results.

Shanghai:

There is growing concern in Shanghai, where health officials in the city of about 25 million people reported 1,609 cases on Friday. Just over 1,500 cases were asymptomatic, marking a sharp increase from the previous day’s 979.

Shanghai’s authorities have resisted going into city-wide lockdown, a harsh measure still being used in other provinces, and are instead closing individual buildings and communities for testing. But some residents have claimed they’ve been locked down for far longer than warned, and others reported issues in securing fresh food and other deliveries. . . .

On Wednesday a nurse in Shanghai died after she was denied entry to hospitals after suffering an asthma attack, echoing the cases of people who died during a lockdown in Xi’an last year after they were denied medical care because of overly strict Covid policies.

It takes a particular kind of genius to respond to a public-health crisis by denying people access to hospitals. This is like fighting arsonists by shutting down firehouses.

Hong Kong:

From overwhelmed hospitals to overflowing morgues, the scenes from Hong Kong’s COVID-19 crisis were strikingly similar to those that unfolded around the world in the early months of the pandemic.

Except that for the wealthy city of 7.5 million people, the sight of bodies piling up in hallways and around patients in hospitals emerged only this month, a year after vaccines against the virus became widely and freely available in the territory. . . .

In a matter of weeks, the contagious Omicron variant of the virus has infected more than 1 million people and caused more than 5,000 deaths, mostly among unvaccinated, elderly people.

This detail is just jaw-dropping: “More than 70 percent of Hong Kong’s COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 80 and older, many of whom lived in elderly care homes. The same age group was the least vaccinated at the outset of the current wave of infections, with less than one in five people fully vaccinated.”

Somehow, Hong Kong authorities failed to vaccinate the demographic that is most likely to succumb to Covid-19:

At the time of writing, 78 percent of people aged 12 years and older in Hong Kong had received both doses of the vaccine. But less than a third of those over the age of 80 years had been fully vaccinated. When omicron hit Hong Kong, the proportion of fully vaccinated residents of care homes was under 20 percent.

“I am very disappointed that despite having early, privileged, and sustained access to the COVID-19 vaccines, we still have this large vulnerable group that remains sub-optimally covered”, commented Gabriel Leung, dean of medicine at the University of Hong Kong. The fifth wave of COVID-19 has already killed more than 2000 people in Hong Kong. An analysis of the first 1153 deaths revealed that 92 percent of the deceased had not received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Elsewhere in Shenyang, China:

Shenyang — an industrial base home to factories, including car-maker BMW — reported 47 new cases on Tuesday as authorities put all housing compounds under “closed management” and barred residents from leaving without a 48-hour negative test result.

During the worst months of the pandemic, many U.S. health-care and hospital workers felt like they were being worked to death. In Shandong, it is apparently literally true:

On Tuesday, a state-media report said the state-sponsored All-China Women’s Federation had posthumously awarded a badge of honor to a woman who died after working for 11 days straight at a hospital in Shandong province, including seven night shifts. The woman, 42-year-old Bai Xiaohui, who led a Covid-testing team, collapsed Sunday as she came off a shift, the federation said, describing her as a model worker. After the state-media report was posted on social media, one commenter said, “Please give medical workers more time to rest while they are alive.”

And the Chinese government is expecting similar waves of cases nationwide:

China’s provinces should set up at least two to three temporary hospitals each to treat Covid-19 patients, Beijing said on Tuesday (March 22), a potential sign the country is anticipating an increase in cases as it battles an Omicron outbreak and ponders how to exit its isolationist virus strategy.

As usual, it is exceptionally difficult for outsiders to get a clear picture of how bad the outbreak is. The official Chinese statistics would have you believe that only two people died of Covid-19 in that country in the entire year of 2021 — in a country with 1.4 billion people. Since the start of the pandemic, China’s official statistics suggest that “when adjusted for population size, China has reported fewer deaths than any other country in the world except Burundi.”

Entirely coincidentally, the Chinese mortality rate of deaths per 1,000 inhabitants jumped from 7.07 in 2020 to 7.18 in 2021, and an analysis by The Economist calculates that since the start of the pandemic, China has had 280,000 to 430,000 more deaths than they would expect to have.

As we’ve all learned during the past two years, it is really tough to “stop the spread” of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. Human beings want and need to interact with other human beings, and it’s unrealistic to expect people to stay in their homes and minimize their interactions with others for months at a time. And once a virus gets as contagious as the Omicron variant, it’s just about impossible to stop. A new study determined that Omicron patients can shed the virus from six to eight days. In this case, the mildness of many Omicron infections may work against preventing the spread; people walk around and interact with each other longer before realizing they feel sick. Back in December, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said, “Early in the course of illness, in the one to two days prior to the onset of symptoms and in the two to three days after the prior onset of symptoms is really when the vast majority of transmission occurs.”

For a while, people pointed to Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand as Covid success stories — and some of us observed that those countries had mostly taught us that it is easier to quarantine an island than a country with land borders.

“Zero Covid” policies can delay a country’s encounter with the virus, but they can’t stop it. As frustrating, flawed, and stumbling as the U.S. response to Covid-19 was, the strategy was sound: Minimize your risk of exposure until a vaccine is developed, particularly if you’re old, immunocompromised, or have comorbidities; once a vaccine is available, get your shots and get your immune system primed and trained for a run-in with SARS-CoV-2; get additional boosters as needed. Once you’ve got the shots, your run-in with Covid-19 is likely to feel like a winter cold, and then you’ll have natural immunity on top of your vaccine immunity.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese people are noticing that two years after the pandemic started, they’re still getting their cities shut down, while the rest of the world — having endured two years of fits and starts and several waves — is generally moving on and returning to normal:

In the tech hub of Shenzhen on Sunday, videos shared online showed residents protesting in a locked-down district, after restrictions lasted for several days longer than scheduled, according to social media posts.

“You can’t do this — we need to eat and pay the rent,” a man among a crowd of protesters is heard yelling in anguish at health care workers, who stood behind high plastic barriers, according to a video shared online.

“Unlock! We demand lifting the lockdown!” others shouted in a second clip.

In another instance, in the neighboring city of Guangzhou earlier this month, thousands of people were seen in video footage trying to escape being caught up in a snap lockdown at a trade fair. Some hopped fences to avoid being locked inside the venue after a single positive case was found.

The other complication for China is that Chinese-manufactured vaccines didn’t seem as effective against the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 as other countries’ vaccines; the early evidence suggests that the Chinese vaccines are even less against effective against Omicron.

A Yale study concluded that: “An analysis of blood serum from 101 individuals from the Dominican Republic showed that omicron infection produced no neutralizing antibodies among those who received the standard two-shot regimen of the Sinovac vaccine. Antibody levels against omicron rose among those who had also received a booster shot of the mRNA vaccine made by Pfizer-BioNTech.” And a study “by Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine found that a booster shot of Sinopharm produced significantly lower antibodies against omicron, compared with the protection it provided for the variant discovered in Wuhan in early 2020.”

Then again, from the holiday season until a few weeks ago, lots of Americans learned that being fully vaccinated and boosted didn’t prevent you from having symptomatic Covid-19 when you encountered the Omicron variant; the vaccines just made the effects milder.

Thankfully, this doesn’t mean that China will experience an overwhelming number of deaths; Omicron is still milder than other strains. British researchers have calculated that “after adjusting for a number of factors, the risk of hospital admission for Omicron cases was found to be less than half (59 percent lower) compared to the risk for Delta cases. The risk of dying was 69 percent lower for those with Omicron compared to those with Delta infections.” China is “lucky” in the sense that this outbreak is Omicron, not Delta, and if the Chinese circumstances are like those in the U.S., they’re all Omicron; the last significant recording of Delta variant cases was back on January 29.

But the experience of China in recent weeks should pour even more cold water on the “China showed the world how to respond to the pandemic” narrative.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
NIH admits suppression of data
« Reply #393 on: April 03, 2022, 09:14:50 AM »

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-admits-it-suppressed...
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins holds up a model of the coronavirus as he testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the budget estimates for National Institute of Health (NIH) and the state of medical research, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)
US NEWS

NIH Admits it ‘Suppressed’ Wuhan Lab Genetic Data, but Disputes Watchdog’s ‘Deleted’ Label
Sequence data was removed from public access

By Mark Tapscott April 2, 2022 Updated: April 2, 2022biggersmaller Print

A National Institutes for Health (NIH) spokesperson is disputing a non-profit watchdog group’s claim that the agency “deleted” genetic sequencing data on the CCP virus from a Chinese lab, but the same official acknowledged the data was “suppressed.”

“The headline says the sequences were deleted which is inaccurate. They were not deleted. This is a really important point, and I’ve highlighted what did happen from what we provided to you earlier this week,” NIH Media Branch Chief Amanda Fine told The Epoch Times in a March 31 email.

Fine was referring to a March 29 Epoch Times story headlined “NIH Deleted Info Received From Wuhan Lab on CCP Virus Genetic Sequencing, Watchdog’s FOIA Finds.” The information Fine referenced as having been provided to The Epoch Times by NIH earlier in the week was included in the published story:

“’In June 2020, in response to a request by the same [Wuhan] researcher, National Center for Biotechnology [NCBI] gave the sequence data the status of ‘withdrawn,’ which removes sequencing data from all public means of access but does not delete them.

“NCBI subsequently reassigned the status of the sequence data to ‘suppressed,’ which means that sequence data are removed from the search process but can be directly found by accession number. This action to reassign the data was identified as part of NLM’s ongoing review into the matter. We are working to make more information available,” the spokesperson said.

The biotechnology center, which is part of the institute’s National Library of Medicine (NLM), is the U.S. component of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration.

The Epoch Times story was prompted by a report published on March 29 by Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research (EO) that was based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses the group received from the institute.

The non-profit reported that “on June 5, 2020, a Wuhan University researcher requested that NIH retract the researcher’s submission of BioProject ID PRJNA637497 because of error. The Wuhan researcher explained ‘I’m sorry for my wrong submitting,'” Empower Oversight said in a statement (pdf) on March 29.

“BioProject ID PRJNA637497 is also referred to as Submission-ID SUB7554642. Three days later, on June 8th, the NIH declined the researcher’s request, advising that it prefers to edit or replace, as opposed to delete, sequences submitted to the SRA,” EO reported. SRA refers to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) data resource made available by NCBI, and it “stores raw sequencing data.”

“But then, on June 16, 2020, NIH officials reversed themselves and deleted the genetic sequencing data, as requested by the Wuhan researcher. That researcher was quoted by EO as explaining to NIH: ‘Recently, I found that it’s hard to visit my submitted SRA data, and it would also be very difficult for me to update the data. I have submitted an updated version of this SRA data to another website, so I want to withdraw the old one at NCBI in order to avoid the data version issue.’

“After some discussion about what would be deleted, the NIH concluded the discussion by reassuring the Wuhan researcher that it ‘had withdrawn everything.’”

Asked for a response to Fine’s claim the information was not deleted, EO Founder and President Jason Foster told The Epoch Times that NIH’s actions ensure the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus genetic sequencing info is only available to the few individuals possessing its “accession number,” which effectively deletes the data from open access and research.

“NIH documents released with Empower Oversight’s report demonstrate that the sequencing data was deleted from public view by the NIH at the request of the Wuhan researcher,” Foster said.

“Our report also details emails between Professor Jesse Bloom and the NIH’s Steve Sherry from October 2021 that clearly indicate NIH retained copies ‘for archival purposes.’ Yet, the emails demonstrate that NIH refused to share that data in an open, transparent scientific process sought by Professor Bloom,” Foster continued.

“The NIH should make more information available about each and every time it reassigned the status of sequence data and any information potentially relevant to the origins of COVID-19 should be made available for scientific inquiry,” he said.

Fine did not respond when The Epoch Times asked who “has access to all of the genetic sequencing information provided by the Wuhan researcher and which was requested by that researcher to be removed.”

The Epoch Times also asked that because “NIH must know who in fact has accessed the data … who did so and when since the Wuhan researcher requested the information’s removal?”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: NIH admits suppression of data
« Reply #394 on: April 03, 2022, 11:13:31 AM »
Hiding data from the taxpayers that paid for it is totally legitimate! Why do you rethuglians hate science?



https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-admits-it-suppressed...
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins holds up a model of the coronavirus as he testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the budget estimates for National Institute of Health (NIH) and the state of medical research, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)
US NEWS

NIH Admits it ‘Suppressed’ Wuhan Lab Genetic Data, but Disputes Watchdog’s ‘Deleted’ Label
Sequence data was removed from public access

By Mark Tapscott April 2, 2022 Updated: April 2, 2022biggersmaller Print

A National Institutes for Health (NIH) spokesperson is disputing a non-profit watchdog group’s claim that the agency “deleted” genetic sequencing data on the CCP virus from a Chinese lab, but the same official acknowledged the data was “suppressed.”

“The headline says the sequences were deleted which is inaccurate. They were not deleted. This is a really important point, and I’ve highlighted what did happen from what we provided to you earlier this week,” NIH Media Branch Chief Amanda Fine told The Epoch Times in a March 31 email.

Fine was referring to a March 29 Epoch Times story headlined “NIH Deleted Info Received From Wuhan Lab on CCP Virus Genetic Sequencing, Watchdog’s FOIA Finds.” The information Fine referenced as having been provided to The Epoch Times by NIH earlier in the week was included in the published story:

“’In June 2020, in response to a request by the same [Wuhan] researcher, National Center for Biotechnology [NCBI] gave the sequence data the status of ‘withdrawn,’ which removes sequencing data from all public means of access but does not delete them.

“NCBI subsequently reassigned the status of the sequence data to ‘suppressed,’ which means that sequence data are removed from the search process but can be directly found by accession number. This action to reassign the data was identified as part of NLM’s ongoing review into the matter. We are working to make more information available,” the spokesperson said.

The biotechnology center, which is part of the institute’s National Library of Medicine (NLM), is the U.S. component of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration.

The Epoch Times story was prompted by a report published on March 29 by Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research (EO) that was based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses the group received from the institute.

The non-profit reported that “on June 5, 2020, a Wuhan University researcher requested that NIH retract the researcher’s submission of BioProject ID PRJNA637497 because of error. The Wuhan researcher explained ‘I’m sorry for my wrong submitting,'” Empower Oversight said in a statement (pdf) on March 29.

“BioProject ID PRJNA637497 is also referred to as Submission-ID SUB7554642. Three days later, on June 8th, the NIH declined the researcher’s request, advising that it prefers to edit or replace, as opposed to delete, sequences submitted to the SRA,” EO reported. SRA refers to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) data resource made available by NCBI, and it “stores raw sequencing data.”

“But then, on June 16, 2020, NIH officials reversed themselves and deleted the genetic sequencing data, as requested by the Wuhan researcher. That researcher was quoted by EO as explaining to NIH: ‘Recently, I found that it’s hard to visit my submitted SRA data, and it would also be very difficult for me to update the data. I have submitted an updated version of this SRA data to another website, so I want to withdraw the old one at NCBI in order to avoid the data version issue.’

“After some discussion about what would be deleted, the NIH concluded the discussion by reassuring the Wuhan researcher that it ‘had withdrawn everything.’”

Asked for a response to Fine’s claim the information was not deleted, EO Founder and President Jason Foster told The Epoch Times that NIH’s actions ensure the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus genetic sequencing info is only available to the few individuals possessing its “accession number,” which effectively deletes the data from open access and research.

“NIH documents released with Empower Oversight’s report demonstrate that the sequencing data was deleted from public view by the NIH at the request of the Wuhan researcher,” Foster said.

“Our report also details emails between Professor Jesse Bloom and the NIH’s Steve Sherry from October 2021 that clearly indicate NIH retained copies ‘for archival purposes.’ Yet, the emails demonstrate that NIH refused to share that data in an open, transparent scientific process sought by Professor Bloom,” Foster continued.

“The NIH should make more information available about each and every time it reassigned the status of sequence data and any information potentially relevant to the origins of COVID-19 should be made available for scientific inquiry,” he said.

Fine did not respond when The Epoch Times asked who “has access to all of the genetic sequencing information provided by the Wuhan researcher and which was requested by that researcher to be removed.”

The Epoch Times also asked that because “NIH must know who in fact has accessed the data … who did so and when since the Wuhan researcher requested the information’s removal?”




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
ET: FDA and Pfizer knew of immunosuppression
« Reply #398 on: April 16, 2022, 12:09:14 PM »
FDA and Pfizer Knew COVID Shot Caused Immunosuppression
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEAPRIL 14, 2022

April 1, 2022, another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents were released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer trial data reveal natural immunity was as effective as the jab, and that shot side effects were more severe in those under 55.


With another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents, released April 1, 2022, old suspicions have gained fresh support. As reported by “Rising” cohost Kim Iversen (video above), the first bombshell revelation is that natural immunity works, and Pfizer has known it all along.

The clinical trial data showed there was no difference in outcomes between those with previous COVID infection and those who got the shot. Neither group experienced severe infection. Natural immunity was also statistically identical to the shot in terms of the risk of infection.

Younger Adults More Likely to Experience Side Effects
The second revelation is that side effects from the shots were more severe in younger people, aged 18 to 55, than those aged 55 and older. (The risk of side effects also increased with additional doses, so the risk was higher after the second dose than the first.)

As many of us have said all along, the risk of severe COVID is dramatically lower in younger people than those over 60, which makes an elevated risk of side effects unacceptable.

As noted by The Naked Emperor on Substack,[1] “with a vaccine that is producing more frequent and more severe reactions and adverse events in younger individuals, the vaccine should have been restricted to those who were actually at risk of severe COVID-19.”

Pfizer Documents Show High Rate of Myocarditis
Interestingly, Pfizer’s documentation also includes medical information that mainstream media and fact checkers have labeled as misinformation or disinformation. A pediatric consent form lists several possible side effects, including a myocarditis rate of 10 in 100,000 — far greater than the 1 in 50,000 (i.e., 2 in 100,000) rate previously reported.

We also know that myocarditis is far more frequent in young males, so for them, the risk is significantly higher than 10 in 100,000, as they make up the bulk of these injuries.

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement Has Not Been Ruled Out
Many who have warned about the possibility of mRNA shots causing antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) — a situation in which you end up being more susceptible to serious infection than you would have been otherwise — have been smeared and demonized by media and labeled as disinformation spreaders.

Yet Pfizer’s own consent form clearly states: “Although not seen to date, it cannot yet be ruled out that the studied vaccine can make a later COVID-19 illness more severe.” As noted by Iversen, if ADE truly was of no concern at all, the consent form would not include it. Yet there it is.

Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is also listed as an “Important Potential Risk” in Table 5 on page 11 of a document called “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”[2]

As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer had 138 cases of suspected VAED, 75 of which were severe, resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences or death; a total of 38 cases turned out to be lethal and 65 remained unresolved.[3][4]

Moreover, as noted by the Daily Expose,[5] “Phase 3 clinical trials are designed to uncover frequent or severe side effects before a vaccine is approved for use, including ADE. But herein lies the problem, [because] none of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed Phase 3 trials.”

Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial is due to be completed February 8, 2024[6]— nearly two years from now! Despite that, Pfizer concluded in its FDA submission that “None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED.”

“[H]ow on earth could they not definitively conclude that VAED was to blame when 75% of the confirmed ‘break-through’ cases reported to them were severe disease resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences of death?” The Daily Expose asks.[7]

Pfizer Knew About Immunosuppression
Another revealing statement found in the documents is this:

“Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”

In other words, Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.

As noted by Iversen, this may have skewed infection rates, as people were not considered partially vaccinated until 14 days after their first shot,11 and officially fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose.

If people are susceptible to infection during that first week, yet are counted as unvaccinated during that time, this makes it appear as though the unvaccinated are more prone to infection when that’s simply not true. Pfizer’s own trial showed infection was significantly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group — 409 versus 287 — within the first seven days of the jab.

Fully Vaxxed Are More Likely to Die From COVID
The fact that Pfizer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were aware the shot caused immunosuppression is incriminating, now that U.K. government data show that, compared to the unvaccinated, those who have received two doses are:[8]

Up to three times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19
Twice more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19
Three times more likely to die of COVID-19
The Pfizer documents admit there was a temporary drop in immune function after the first dose, but the real-world data showing an increased risk of severe infection and death due to COVID among the double jabbed suggest ADE may indeed be at play later on as well.

The chart below, created by the Daily Expose,[9] using data from the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022[10] (pages 40 and 45), reveals who’s more likely to get COVID. And the infection rate for triple-vaxxed is even higher than the double vaxxed.

covid-19 case rate
The next chart was created by the Daily Expose[11] using data from pages 41 and 45, comparing COVID hospitalization rates.

covid-19 hospitalization rate
And, finally, there is a comparison of the death rates, based on pages 44 and 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022.[12] Anyone over the age of 40 who has been double jabbed is now more likely to die of COVID than an unvaccinated person of the same age.

covid-19 death rate
Negative Vaccine Effectiveness in the Real World
The Daily Expose goes on to calculate and graph the real-world effectiveness rate of the COVID jab, and it’s dire news:[13]

“If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the COVID-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real-world effectiveness among each age group actually is.

Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness …

This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 18 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to be infected, with a minus-87% vaccine effectiveness among 18 to 29 year olds, and a minus-178% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalized, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

The following chart shows the real world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above …

[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of COVID-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.”

covid-19 vaccine effectiveness
Pfizer Hired 600 to Process Unprecedented Report Load
For the last two years, we’ve been keeping an eye on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), shaking our heads in disbelief as the numbers shot up by the hundreds every single week, rapidly outpacing injuries for every other vaccine combined over the past 32 years.[14]

As of March 25, 2022, there were 1,205,753 COVID jab-related reports, including 145,781 hospitalizations and 26,396 deaths.[15] There has never been a medical product in modern history that can compare. Nothing has been as injurious and lethal as these experimental injections.

Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1:800.
In an earlier batch of documents, we learned Pfizer received 42,086 case reports containing a total of 158,893 events in the first three months of the rollout. In that release, the number of doses shipped was redacted, but in the April 1, 2022, release, it was left unredacted, which means we can now calculate the rate of adverse events reported to Pfizer in those first three months.

Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1 in 800,[16] which is just crazy irresponsible.

We now also have documentation showing Pfizer, by the end of February 2021, had hired 600 additional full-time employees to process the unprecedented influx of adverse event reports, and they predicted that by the end of June 2021, they’d end up hiring more than 1,800.[17]

In the end, the COVID jab will go down in history as the biggest medical malfeasance ever to occur with the willing participation of both drug companies and regulatory agencies. And there’s no end in sight.

In March 2022, the FDA went ahead and authorized doses 4 and 5, based on a preprint study[18][19] that found a fourth Moderna shot was 11% effective and caused side effects in 40% of recipients, and a fourth Pfizer shot was 30% effective and caused side effects in 80% of people.

I’m not sure what it’ll take for this public health nightmare to end and for the responsible parties to be held to account for their criminal negligence, but apparently, we’ve not hit critical mass outrage yet.

Originally published April 14, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References
[1] The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022
[2],[3] The Defender March 15, 2022
[5],[3],[6] Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, Page 11, Table 5
[4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [11], [13] Daily Expose April 3, 2022
[6] Clinical Trials NCT04368728
[11] MMWR March 19, 2021; 70(11): 396-401
[10],[12] UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022
[14], [16], [17] The Defender April 5, 2022
[15] OpenVAERS As of March 25, 2022
[18] MedRxiv February 15, 2022, DOI: 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270948
[19] NEJM Correspondence March 16, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2202542

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: ET: FDA and Pfizer knew of immunosuppression
« Reply #399 on: April 16, 2022, 12:12:14 PM »
This is why the PTB are so desperate to start WWIII.

FDA and Pfizer Knew COVID Shot Caused Immunosuppression
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEAPRIL 14, 2022

April 1, 2022, another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents were released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer trial data reveal natural immunity was as effective as the jab, and that shot side effects were more severe in those under 55.


With another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents, released April 1, 2022, old suspicions have gained fresh support. As reported by “Rising” cohost Kim Iversen (video above), the first bombshell revelation is that natural immunity works, and Pfizer has known it all along.

The clinical trial data showed there was no difference in outcomes between those with previous COVID infection and those who got the shot. Neither group experienced severe infection. Natural immunity was also statistically identical to the shot in terms of the risk of infection.

Younger Adults More Likely to Experience Side Effects
The second revelation is that side effects from the shots were more severe in younger people, aged 18 to 55, than those aged 55 and older. (The risk of side effects also increased with additional doses, so the risk was higher after the second dose than the first.)

As many of us have said all along, the risk of severe COVID is dramatically lower in younger people than those over 60, which makes an elevated risk of side effects unacceptable.

As noted by The Naked Emperor on Substack,[1] “with a vaccine that is producing more frequent and more severe reactions and adverse events in younger individuals, the vaccine should have been restricted to those who were actually at risk of severe COVID-19.”

Pfizer Documents Show High Rate of Myocarditis
Interestingly, Pfizer’s documentation also includes medical information that mainstream media and fact checkers have labeled as misinformation or disinformation. A pediatric consent form lists several possible side effects, including a myocarditis rate of 10 in 100,000 — far greater than the 1 in 50,000 (i.e., 2 in 100,000) rate previously reported.

We also know that myocarditis is far more frequent in young males, so for them, the risk is significantly higher than 10 in 100,000, as they make up the bulk of these injuries.

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement Has Not Been Ruled Out
Many who have warned about the possibility of mRNA shots causing antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) — a situation in which you end up being more susceptible to serious infection than you would have been otherwise — have been smeared and demonized by media and labeled as disinformation spreaders.

Yet Pfizer’s own consent form clearly states: “Although not seen to date, it cannot yet be ruled out that the studied vaccine can make a later COVID-19 illness more severe.” As noted by Iversen, if ADE truly was of no concern at all, the consent form would not include it. Yet there it is.

Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is also listed as an “Important Potential Risk” in Table 5 on page 11 of a document called “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”[2]

As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer had 138 cases of suspected VAED, 75 of which were severe, resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences or death; a total of 38 cases turned out to be lethal and 65 remained unresolved.[3][4]

Moreover, as noted by the Daily Expose,[5] “Phase 3 clinical trials are designed to uncover frequent or severe side effects before a vaccine is approved for use, including ADE. But herein lies the problem, [because] none of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed Phase 3 trials.”

Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial is due to be completed February 8, 2024[6]— nearly two years from now! Despite that, Pfizer concluded in its FDA submission that “None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED.”

“[H]ow on earth could they not definitively conclude that VAED was to blame when 75% of the confirmed ‘break-through’ cases reported to them were severe disease resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences of death?” The Daily Expose asks.[7]

Pfizer Knew About Immunosuppression
Another revealing statement found in the documents is this:

“Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”

In other words, Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.

As noted by Iversen, this may have skewed infection rates, as people were not considered partially vaccinated until 14 days after their first shot,11 and officially fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose.

If people are susceptible to infection during that first week, yet are counted as unvaccinated during that time, this makes it appear as though the unvaccinated are more prone to infection when that’s simply not true. Pfizer’s own trial showed infection was significantly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group — 409 versus 287 — within the first seven days of the jab.

Fully Vaxxed Are More Likely to Die From COVID
The fact that Pfizer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were aware the shot caused immunosuppression is incriminating, now that U.K. government data show that, compared to the unvaccinated, those who have received two doses are:[8]

Up to three times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19
Twice more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19
Three times more likely to die of COVID-19
The Pfizer documents admit there was a temporary drop in immune function after the first dose, but the real-world data showing an increased risk of severe infection and death due to COVID among the double jabbed suggest ADE may indeed be at play later on as well.

The chart below, created by the Daily Expose,[9] using data from the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022[10] (pages 40 and 45), reveals who’s more likely to get COVID. And the infection rate for triple-vaxxed is even higher than the double vaxxed.

covid-19 case rate
The next chart was created by the Daily Expose[11] using data from pages 41 and 45, comparing COVID hospitalization rates.

covid-19 hospitalization rate
And, finally, there is a comparison of the death rates, based on pages 44 and 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022.[12] Anyone over the age of 40 who has been double jabbed is now more likely to die of COVID than an unvaccinated person of the same age.

covid-19 death rate
Negative Vaccine Effectiveness in the Real World
The Daily Expose goes on to calculate and graph the real-world effectiveness rate of the COVID jab, and it’s dire news:[13]

“If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the COVID-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real-world effectiveness among each age group actually is.

Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness …

This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 18 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to be infected, with a minus-87% vaccine effectiveness among 18 to 29 year olds, and a minus-178% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalized, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

The following chart shows the real world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above …

[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of COVID-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.”

covid-19 vaccine effectiveness
Pfizer Hired 600 to Process Unprecedented Report Load
For the last two years, we’ve been keeping an eye on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), shaking our heads in disbelief as the numbers shot up by the hundreds every single week, rapidly outpacing injuries for every other vaccine combined over the past 32 years.[14]

As of March 25, 2022, there were 1,205,753 COVID jab-related reports, including 145,781 hospitalizations and 26,396 deaths.[15] There has never been a medical product in modern history that can compare. Nothing has been as injurious and lethal as these experimental injections.

Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1:800.
In an earlier batch of documents, we learned Pfizer received 42,086 case reports containing a total of 158,893 events in the first three months of the rollout. In that release, the number of doses shipped was redacted, but in the April 1, 2022, release, it was left unredacted, which means we can now calculate the rate of adverse events reported to Pfizer in those first three months.

Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1 in 800,[16] which is just crazy irresponsible.

We now also have documentation showing Pfizer, by the end of February 2021, had hired 600 additional full-time employees to process the unprecedented influx of adverse event reports, and they predicted that by the end of June 2021, they’d end up hiring more than 1,800.[17]

In the end, the COVID jab will go down in history as the biggest medical malfeasance ever to occur with the willing participation of both drug companies and regulatory agencies. And there’s no end in sight.

In March 2022, the FDA went ahead and authorized doses 4 and 5, based on a preprint study[18][19] that found a fourth Moderna shot was 11% effective and caused side effects in 40% of recipients, and a fourth Pfizer shot was 30% effective and caused side effects in 80% of people.

I’m not sure what it’ll take for this public health nightmare to end and for the responsible parties to be held to account for their criminal negligence, but apparently, we’ve not hit critical mass outrage yet.

Originally published April 14, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References
[1] The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022
[2],[3] The Defender March 15, 2022
[5],[3],[6] Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, Page 11, Table 5
[4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [11], [13] Daily Expose April 3, 2022
[6] Clinical Trials NCT04368728
[11] MMWR March 19, 2021; 70(11): 396-401
[10],[12] UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022
[14], [16], [17] The Defender April 5, 2022
[15] OpenVAERS As of March 25, 2022
[18] MedRxiv February 15, 2022, DOI: 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270948
[19] NEJM Correspondence March 16, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2202542