Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
The main finding of this study concerns with increases of over 25% in both the number of CA [cardiac arrest] calls and ACS [acute coronary syndrome] calls of people in the 16-39 age group during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Israel (January-May, 2021), compared with the same period of time in prior years (2019 and 2020). Moreover, there is a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly CA and ACS call counts, and the rates of first and second vaccine doses administered to this age group. At the same time there is no observed statistically significant association between COVID-19 infection rates and the CA and ACS call counts. This result is aligned with previous findings which show increases in overall CA incidence were not always associated with higher COVID-19 infections rates at a population level, as well as the stability of hospitalisation rates related to myocardial infarction throughout the initial COVID-19 wave compared to pre-pandemic baselines in Israel. These results also are mirrored by a report of increased emergency department visits with cardiovascular complaints during the vaccination rollout in Germany as well as increased EMS calls for cardiac incidents in Scotland.
...
Myocarditis is a particularly insidious disease with multiple reported manifestations. There is vast literature that highlights asymptomatic cases of myocarditis, which are often underdiagnosed, as well as cases in which myocarditis can possibly be misdiagnosed as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Moreover, several comprehensive studies demonstrate that myocarditis is a major cause of sudden, unexpected deaths in adults less than 40 years of age, and assess that it is responsible for 12-20% of these deaths. Thus, it is a plausible concern that increased rates of myocarditis among young people could lead to an increase in other severe cardiovascular adverse events, such as cardiac arrest (CA) and ACS. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this might not be only a theoretical concern
@AmateurEnginee1
·
Unfortunately, this proposal goes to show, how mediocre, moronic and feeble-minded some inventors can be.
@ApertaAria
Replying to @AmateurEnginee1
..and yet such a contraption would likely make someone wealthy today. 'Idiocracy' playing out now, in 2022, not hundreds of years into the future as the screenwriter indicated in his work of fiction. Unbridled fear and inability to discern leads to this.
@AmateurEnginee1
Replying to @ApertaAria
Very disappointing.
@EthicalSkeptic
Being an employee, just following orders - will not work as a defense in human rights trials.
Millions died from information sequestration... get ready.
@Not_Muaddib
Replying to @EthicalSkeptic
There won’t be human rights trials unless there’s a revolution first.
@anidra1984
Replying to @EthicalSkeptic
In a fair and just courtroom.
Now where's one of those?
@Y0L0cholo
Replying to @EthicalSkeptic
Sadly, this wont be happening. The ppl are too apathetic, cowardly & enjoy their cognitive dissonance too much.....
@DonNewmeyer
Replying to @EthicalSkeptic
Think of how many people were caught up in this. I think the only defense would be to say you were part of a mass formation psychosis.
@EthicalSkeptic
Replying to @DonNewmeyer
They have already floated the litmus inside the DGB (Data Governance Board) charter:
'actions based upon the best available information at the time' -
which is a circular appeal, but umbrellas a lot of employees.
@Chris_Carson_
Replying to @EthicalSkeptic and @DonNewmeyer
Who determines what the “best available information” is?
@dustincorkern
The same people who have been caught suppressing information.
@nixk33
Replying to @EthicalSkeptic and @DonNewmeyer
So they will be exempt. It’s the best info we have they will say.
@JeffWellsRigInt
The modellers are never held accountable because their purpose is not to forecast accurately, but to keep the public afraid and to incite governments to severe overreaction.@rupasubramanya
How is this April 14 projection for April 30/May 1 of hospital and ICU occupancy by OST holding up.
Hospital occupancy:
Forecast: best case scenario:> 2,500
Reality: 1,676
Forecast: ICU occupancy: Nearly 400.
Reality: 184
Why are these scenarios so off the mark from reality?
https://twitter.com/COVIDSciOntario/sta ... sx1BNtwmFg
CDC censored science due to political pressure, GAO concludes
Whistleblower says employees feared 'retaliation' if they spoke up
May 1, 2022
The watchdog Government Accountability Office concluded in an investigation that CDC and FDA officials "suppressed" scientific findings related to the COVID-19 pandemic due to political pressure.
Whistleblowers who spoke with GAO investigators said they did not speak up prior to the investigation because they feared retaliation. They said they were unsure how to report the alleged politicizing of science or believed leaders already knew about it, DailyMail.com reported.
The 37-page report found that both the CDC and the FDA did not have a system in place for employees to report allegations of political interference. And the agencies, the GAO said, failed to train staff how to spot political interference and report it.
"A few respondents from CDC and FDA stated they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings," the report said.
"Some of these respondents believed that this potential political interference may have resulted in the politically motivated alteration of public health guidance or delayed publication of Covid-related scientific findings."
In February, unnamed CDC officials told the New York Times that the agency had withheld most of its data regarding COVID-19 for fear it would be misinterpreted by critics.
Last summer, two top FDA scientists resigned amid charges the agency was being pressured by the Biden administration to made decisions based on politics.
The GAO, in a separate report published in February, said the CDC, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response were all at "high risk" for fraud, mismanagement and abuse, citing a "lack of leadership and preparedness" during the COVID pandemic and other crises.
Pfizer drops India vaccine application after regulator seeks local trial
NEW DELHI, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) said on Friday it had withdrawn an application for emergency-use authorisation of its COVID-19 vaccine in India, after failing to meet the drug regulator's demand for a local safety and immunogenicity study.
The decision means the vaccine will not be available for sale in the world's two most populous countries, India and China, in the near future. Both countries are running their immunisation campaigns using other products.
Unlike other companies conducting small studies in India for foreign-developed vaccines, Pfizer had sought an exception citing approvals it had received elsewhere based on trials done in countries such as the United States and Germany.
The U.S. company, which was the first drugmaker to seek emergency approval in India for its vaccine developed with Germany's BioNTech (22UAy.DE), made the withdrawal decision after a meeting with India's Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) on Wednesday.
The drug regulator said on its website its experts did not recommend the vaccine because of side effects reported abroad were still being investigated. It also said Pfizer had not proposed any plan to generate safety and immunogenicity data in India.
Belligerent Savant » Mon May 02, 2022 10:13 am wrote:Moderna Knew Vaccinated People Will Never Acquire Proper Immunity After Breakthrough Infections
Original Antigenic Sin was hidden from us until Apr 19, 2022
`Ever wondered why some vaccinated people seem to be having endless Covid? An interesting study came out.
This study looked at two sides of the Moderna Phase 3 vaccine trial: the vaccinated group and the control group. They looked at unvaccinated people having Covid, versus vaccinated people having so called “break-through Covid infections”.
The question that they asked, was: do the vaccinated acquire the same full-spectrum immunity as the unvaccinated?
The answer was no. Vaccinated people were much LESS likely to develop broad natural immunity, compared to unvaccinated people.
Broad Natural Immunity and Nucleocapsid Antibodies
I discuss the definition of broad spectrum immunity and explain nucleocapsid antibodies in my Nov 18 article “UK Week 42-45”. I am going to plagiarize myself and copy the text right here to make it easy for my readers:
What are these N antibodies and why am I talking about them? What’s so important?
The Covid coronavirus presents numerous “epitopes” to our immune system. Those are similar to body parts in people, those are things that the virus presents to our body just as we “present” our eyes, mouths and nose.
After defeating an infection, our immune system learns to recognize these “epitopes” and reacts later, when the pathogen is reintroduced, fighting it off easier than the first time. This is the whole point of immunity.
Skipping some details, our natural, unvaccinated immunity learns to recognize the “spikes” (S-protein), the “nucleocapsid” (N-Protein) and other pieces of the virus, and develops antibodies and immune memory reacting to all of those.
This multifaceted memory also provides broader protection against “variants”.
In contrast, vaccination with any existing Covid vaccine, floods our cells with only S-protein (the “spike protein”) from a virus that only existed around January 2020. As an aside, this spike protein is extremely toxic (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm), it causes numerous side effects that we have heard about. Its effects depend on many things such as how exactly you were jabbed and how much of the vaccine entered the blood stream. S-protein can also penetrate cell nuclei and interfere with DNA repair.
Continuing, the point of “Covid vaccine” is that our immunity learns to recognize this S-protein and develops antibodies. This allows the vaccinated to fight off Covid-19 infection in the first few months post-vaccination. Then these S-antibodies decline, immunity wanes, and we end up with no immunity in the vaccinated.
What is important is that vaccine immunity ONLY creates antibodies for S-protein, but not for other proteins of the real virus, such as the N-protein. This is what the Roche N test is about: it detects presence of N-antibodies, which can only appear in survivors of actual Covid-19, which has N protein, which Covid vaccine lacks.
Thus, unvaccinated survivors of Covid19 develop a variety of antibodies, including S-antibodies (like the vaxxed), N-antibodies (never seen in vaxxed who did not have covid), etc.
The Moderna Trial
During the original Moderna Phase 3 trial, even before Delta and Omicron, scientists found the same effect: the vaccinated are much less likely to “seroconvert” and develop the above described N antibodies. The difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is FIVE TIMES, which is huge. The unvaccinated are five times more likely than the vaccinated to develop broad immunity including N antibodies.
It gets even worse: for those vaccinated persons whose breakthrough infection occurred after the second dose, (illness detected on Day 29), their ability to develop N antibodies was 13 TIMES worse than that of the unvaccinated:
This inability to obtain broader natural immunity is the reason for endless covids: a covid infection in the vaccinated does not result in lasting immunity and acts similarly to an almost-worthless booster shot. A “breakthrough infection” adds a large number of temporary S-antibodies to the obsolete Wuhan virus. Whereas, the unvaccinated obtain numerous antibodies to all sorts of facets (epitopes) of the virus that infected them.
Authors also acknowledge importance of this finding and mention other studies showing the same effect:
N-Antibody Prevalence was Used for Questionable “Vaccine Effectiveness” Claims
It turns out that certain, perhaps intentionally misleading studies were using low N-antibody prevalence among the vaccinated, to falsely “prove” vaccine effectiveness. They would say “look how low is N antibody prevalence among the vaccinated!” as a proof that they do not get sick. But, as the above shows, it is not proof that they do not get sick! Sick or not, the vaccinees would NOT develop N antibodies.
What are those potentially misleading studies?
The authors mention studies 29-31. Here they are:
If you are a substack writer, take a look at them and see if you can find methodological flaws in them, based on incorrect use of N-antibody tests.
Brian Mowrey
If you like healthy disagreement, without cancel culture, note that a respected Substack writer, Brian Mowrey, does not agree with those who bring up evidence of OAS (Original Antigenic Sin). Brian is very articulate and wrote two interesting articles on the topic. I do not happen to agree with his opinion on OAS, however I respect Brian and want my readers to be exposed to his opposing point of view. Click on the above two links if you are interested. Let us know what you think.
Implications
The implications of the failure of vaccinated people to acquire full immunity are enormous. As a result of haphazardly tested vaccines, the vaccinated cannot become naturally immune after first, second, or any further infection.
Thus, any kind of herd immunity, successfully reached by low-vaccination countries, is impossible in the highly-vaccinated countries.
Endless Covid infections are NOT harmless, because Sars-Cov-2 infects immune cells and acts as a battering ram against our immune systems. Repeated blows of this “battering ram” are extremely deleterious to the immune systems of the vaccinated.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/sars- ... medium=web
The UK is a bit ahead of other highly vaccinated countries and has statistics exposing the depth of the problem.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/aids- ... medium=webAIDS-Like "Chronic Covid" is Taking Over Europe, Australia and NZ
The Boosted Cannot Clear Covid Easily and Keep Getting Reinfected
And:
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-co ... medium=web
Timing of Events
The timing of events suggests that Moderna had access to the N antibody data a very long time ago. In my opinion, a well-intentioned person who had this data, would quickly conclude that the general public deserves to be informed about OAS concerns. However, this was not done.
The data was available in or around March, 2021:
However, that study was only published now. I am NOT aware of Moderna alerting the public to this issue before. And the public had to know this, right? Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Update: Todd Zywicki mentioned that he also found some (less granular) information in Moderna’s publication of Phase 3 results, in his article dates March 10 2022. The data that he cites is very important, but it is based on a publication from Moderna that barely provided any details for N antibodies, however Todd very astutely took a note of it and reported it. I would not count that as a proper disclosure.
What do you think? Let us know in comments!
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/moder ... e-will?s=r
@teresa59420516
·
BREAKING! Pfizer data released today. 80,000 pages. Pfizer knew vaccine harmed the fetus in pregnant women, and that the vaccine was not 95% effective, Pfizer data shows it having a 12% efficacy rate.
Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed
Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint.
Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.
…
We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.
...
Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years. The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from thirty thousand to sixty thousand participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy. The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants.
These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.
Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy. The vaccine or placebo will be given to thousands of people in each trial. For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms, which may be mild, in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group.
Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.
The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.
These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.
stickdog99 » 06 May 2022 06:40 wrote:https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-nov-2020
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/healt ... 0-dec-2021
Why was Australia's all cause mortality so much higher in 2021 compared to 2020? According to official statistics, there were just 359 COVID deaths in the first 8 months of 2021 compared to 682 COVID deaths in the first 8 months of 2020. So why the far higher OVERALL 2021 mortality rate compared to that of 2020?
And why am I the only one on Earth asking this question?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests