I spoke on OAS in "(Not) Coming Up," of course - but Alexander isn't really using the term in the way I object to.
Instead, he is describing hypothetical non-correction of cellular memory immunity during "breakthrough" viral challenge. I agree this is the most plausible mechanism for "Covid vaccine induced immunodeficiency against SARS-CoV-2" - namely, that resident T Cells with wide-spectrum epitope recognition do not populate the respiratory tract after "breakthrough" infection, as they do after natural infection. We know they aren't doing so in the first place after vaccination - so if they don't do so after "breakthrough" infection, the Covid vaccinated can't "correct" the essential defect of the vaccine-induced immune response.
I disagree that the UK data is persuasive evidence that this is already occurring. And I think his fears of "lung damage" are overblown - even the defective (IgG antibody-focused) antibody response still seems to mitigate severe outcomes via antibody ramp-up during infection.
This is essentially how old-school childhood vaccines do their thing. However, not all viruses are alike. The appearance of safety for polio and measles vaccines could be a product of near-zero antigenic drift for those viruses. There's a reason no one successfully made a coronavirus vaccine before.
"My hunch is that boosting will not drive escape pressure. To suppose that it will invites a paradox: First, it requires asserting that the original Covid vaccine roll-out was responsible for the rapid changes to the spike protein that led to Delta, via escape pressure. Then, it requires asserting that Delta is not capable of escaping the vintage-2020 antibodies stimulated by the Covid vaccines at all."
There isn't necessarily a paradox. There would be a paradox if it was only one set of antibodies produced to which delta has now escaped from. However a research paper out of Japan I believe had looked at the possibility for ADE to develop and noted that 4 mutations in delta would be sufficient to produce the changes required for the virus to escape the neutralising antibodies whilst retaining the increased affinity that delta's spike protein shows for the non-neutralizing antibodies (which in turn could act as facilitating/enhancing antibodies). In that study if I remember it correctly, they noted that around the world delta plus strains had in some cases independently developed 3 of the 4 mutations that they demonstrated experimentally would afford delta complete immune escape from neutralising antibodies.
I'll have to find that paper again (and when I do I'll post the link here) but I recall that there were at least 3 different antibodies (all neutralizing) investigated just for the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and that the non-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein also had at least 2 antibodies produced to it (one a neutralising and one non-neutralizing). So in essence we are really talking about how delta responds to maybe 3 or 4 vintage RBD antibodies, some of which still have an effect on it whilst the others either have reduced effects or no effects.
In such a scenario, boosting those specific antibodies (which is what the boosters would be intended to do) alongside the NTD antibodies should provide an environment wherein delta virions encounter them more including the still those RBD antibodies that are still effective. In turn this will mean that when a delta variant that might have 3 of those 4 mutations the team investigated eventually develops the fourth mutation by random chance inside the body of a person that is only producing the various spike protein antibodies (and none of the nucleocapsid antibodies) then this new delta variant (let's call it Delta 4+) can now become the dominant strain in that person and be shed. Just as delta then rapidly became the dominant variant, delta 4+ would likely become THE dominant variant in an environment where everyone was getting those specific RBD antibodies boosted.
The process would probably take longer than what happened for the original delta strain and the delta + variants that have various combinations of 4 mutations seemingly necessary for immune escape, but logically it could and likely would happen.
Only after that would further booster shots no longer drive immune escape since the delta 4+ would have completely escapes all of the neutralising RBD and NTD antibodies.
Yes, I reviewed that paper at the time - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/lurking-leviathans#footnote-anchor-3 - in short, the problem is that they did not use a non-vaccinated, immune-naive control. No effort to falsify their interesting but convoluted proposal that Delta is somehow leveraging anti-wild-type NTD antibodies, and only the familiarity of the Delta RBD is holding it back; rather, only an effort to "prove" it with a pseudovirus that they barely give any details about. It wasn't a great experimental design.
I grant your point that there's some hypothetical room for "incomplete immune escape," but I don't think the Poised to Acquire paper is a plausible mechanistic proof of how that would take place. The problem, "In what way would the virus 'partially' escape vaccine-induced antibodies (if it can't infect and spread beyond the antibodies, there's no selection / escape)?" remains difficult to answer.
I have trouble picturing what John Dee's means by "shifting the records." As for Dobromylskyj's explanation, the Israel "vaccinated" cohorts were already more or less set in stone in July. I did a back-of-the-napkin test of their per-100k rates and they seemed fine, except perhaps for the "partially" cohort (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-18 - this is before the redefinition of "fully vaccinated" after the booster rollout kicked in, obviously).
Beginning to wonder if I hadn't worked so closely with the Israel dashboard for that brief window, I wouldn't disbelieve severe efficacy just like everyone else...
Topol was well known for jamming stents in coronary arteries that didn't need it - and he so much as admitted his mistakes after he made millions being a shill for stent companies. Now he is remaking himself as a global health pioneer - whatever.
To look at any data that the CDC is putting out and try to make any sense of it - is almost impossible. First of all - we dont have all cause mortality. When doing comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxed groups - we need to know what's happening there. Second, we can't draw any conclusions because we just dont know what percent of the vaxed are Covid recovered. Even if its a low amount say 20% - that would reduce the vaccine efficacy by a significant amount. Third - the vaccine group and the untaxed group are so different - you almost cannot compare them.
I agree with all of those caveats. But if that means for example that the evidence for antibody dependent enhancement is in fact statistically impossible to derive, then that essentially means we can safely "act as if" it is not occurring.
The problem with ALL of this data is that a lot of it is simply BS in some basic respects. First: Officials here in the US made an active choice NOT to test for antibodies to covid. We have no idea how many people truly have natural immunity or not.
As for the unvaccinated dying much more than the vaccinated from covid. I have always granted that the vaccines can possibly provide short-term protection from worst outcomes. They may still be a worthwhile risk for the elderly. HOWEVER, we haven't done a Freakonomics analysis on this.
Are there other reasons unvaccinated people may be dying more? Do they tend to have conditions or issues like lower vitamin D (i.e., blacks and hispanics tend to vaccinate less in general and have less vitamin D typically)? Plus a lot of the unvaccinated deaths are counted from when the vaccines were just starting up in usage and/or include people recently but not "fully" vaxxed.
So...I'm just not sure if the net is a win here for the vaccine, especially since they wear off and have HUGE adverse reaction rates compared to all other vaccines in history...except perhaps smallpox, where the adverse reactions may be worth the risk due to the highly deadly nature of the disease.
I'm only looking at "Covid 19 deaths" after July 15, and the anomalous difference between the same time period last year. After posting, it has occurred to me that I didn't offer any reason why the US hospital system is coming down disproportionately on the unvaccinated - why not use an estimate for overall hospitalizations, like Covid-vaccinated X .2 + unvaccinated X 1, which might imply something like 2 to 1 deaths (if unvaccinated are only ~10% of the population in the given age groups on average between July and October) among Covid-vaccinated? I failed to offer any reason - but I think that in reality, the Covid-vaccinated are not being as aggressively tested and shoved into the ventilator pathway, just based on anecdotes etc.
That's a truckload of assumptions you make in the last paragraph. And it is never clear to me why you disagree with el gato about the "worry window". There may not be any studies, but the stats seem to support his assertion. You, on the other hand, make wild assertions and leaps of logic but with very little evidence.
To what degree does "very little" evidence exceed actually available evidence? To what degree does "the stats" exceed "assumptions + cherry picked substantiation - (all other data X 0)?
I'm not a fan of pointing out the top level correlations between graphs of cases and vaccination, because there are many potential factors at play, the data may be garbage, and lined up plots often are deceptive, but convincing.
However, looking at UK data where they break out partial vax as a category, the effect does seem to exist. I have not done an exhaustive survey, only a few points, but the principle seemed to be borne out. For the week 37 data, I tried to regenerate the UK case rate numbers using the raw case totals and their reported vaccination percentages, for the age range 18-29. The resulting rates were close to the reported rates for the Vax and Unvax categories, and the corresponding rate for partially vaxed (which is not provided in the UK reporting) was 2x the rate of unvax.
Note that I chose the 18-29 age group because it had the most even split between these populations.
Well, I disavowed the Health Security Agency's "unvaccinated per 100k" rates a few weeks ago. It's not that I don't believe in negative efficacy, just that it seems like the unvaccinated rate isn't a reliably calibrated gauge to measure anything with. I'll take a look back at week 37 again. Surveys also apparently reveal that younger partially vaccinated are more likely to seek a test for symptoms, interestingly (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights "9 in 10 students...").
But going by the comparison of the raw counts in footnote 11, things look bad for the "vaccinating under-18 year olds" until you compare differences in totals. The groups that are past the "worry window" had near doublings in total case rates while the group that was currently churning through it only increased 2.6% (and both under-18 year-olds and 40-50 year-olds seem to be over-tested during both 3-week snapshots)
The unknowns around testing are a definite problem. I'm also unsure how to interpret the alleged UK negative efficacy - it could be testing, it could also be differential prevalence of prior immunity. Some claimed it could be problems in the data around estimating population size, although I'm not sure I understand why.
Another hypothesis is that Delta is more adaptive to vaccinated hosts. Delta evolved last half of 2020 and first months of 2021, but it never got a foothold in the UK until after there was significant vaccine rollout, at which point it rapidly dominated. This makes sense as there is evidence that Delta evades NTD ab coverage, and so would have an advantage in vaccinated hosts. But, prior to mid-2021, it was apparently losing to the other strains. So, it is possible that Delta has a lower attack rate on unvaccinated hosts, which would result in this type of case rate differential. This paper https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext would seem to contradict this hypothesis, although the data was collected in Sept, so vaccinations were overall more recent. They did see that the median time since dose 2 for breakthrough infections was 101 says vs 64 days for those who did not see an infection.
(for a plot of variant prevalence for 2021: page 23)
Thanks for the pointer to the students data, it's very interesting. I guess it just further points out the difficult of interpreting this data without testing data.
The last part I didn't follow completely. I think due to the period of actual immunity post "worry window", it's difficult to analyze the breakthrough cases for the younger cohorts who rolled out later and less consistently. Of course HSA has the data on time since vaccination but it's difficult for us to calculate this. Maybe using the vaccination rate data and projecting forward a distribution of days since dose 2..
Right, I hashed out the Lancet results at https://unglossed.substack.com/p/forever-spike-v11#footnote-anchor-1 - the partially vaccinated did the "best" against SAR and the unvaccinated the "worst." More non-evidence for the worry-window. Fair point about my last PP, the slower case growth could be the post-2nd dose protection window at work.
Delta seems to have "increased fitness" even where there are low rates of vaccine uptake, i.e. Eastern Europe, which is why I have backed off of provisionally blaming the vaccines for increased case rates in 2021. That doesn't rule out that something exogenous to the virus itself is driving the increase in cases, which I've alluded to before and will possibly be fleshing out in my next post.
Thanks for the pointer.. I only recently subscribed and haven't gone through the archive yet :)
Yes, now I recall partially vaccinated performed very well in the Lancet study. Thank you for reminding me.. this is probably a sign of cognitive bias on my part. It is hard to keep all this information organized.
The more interesting question is with 800,000 covid deaths, why don't we have 800,000 excess deaths? Apparently most of those would have checked out anyway. Certainly, its more complex than that, but the simplest answer is often pretty close. If we can get 800,000 flu deaths and remain on track for a normal death year, it becomes clear this was nothing to worry about.
Since excess deaths in 2021 are running about 120,000 more than in 2020, it is obvious to the casual observer that "public health" policies have been a disaster. I'm convinced we would be MUCH better off if they had done nothing at all, and treated this like the annual flu.
Maybe. Deaths are recorded locally, and are notoriously difficult to assemble national stats accurately. Some researchers will make a career out of trying. But those numbers seem in the ball park if we assume no one died of covid who wasn't just about done anyway, which is not consistent with the observation that most deaths were way over the hill. So if there is a bump in deaths in 20 and 21, it will probably revert to mean with fewer deaths next couple years.
Reversion to mean is pretty standard process. Changes from the mean requires a change in the process. Assumptions that the mean raised by virus deaths will remain high presumes the virus will continue killing people. That has never happened. Why do you think it will this time?
I keep going back to the question of 'Why did we choose to go with mRNA technology based 'vaccines' rather than our traditional inactivated or dead whole virus method?' We had decades of research on coronaviruses and influenza to understand that nothing could actually inoculate us against rapidly mutating aerosolized viruses. If life saving measures were the goal, we'd have attempted vaccines similar to the influenza model. We would have embraced, and allowed off label use, of any medication showing promise. Rather, we chose a novel technology on a novel virus and denied the right to try early treatments. This could not have been for anything but money (greed). The NIH and Moderna had the sequence ready to go. Big Pharma gets tax payer funded, liability free research for mRNA technology on billions of people. All of this to determine the true downfalls of mRNA technology and its limitations in application. The anti-virals are an equal, money making scam. They know damn well Remdesivir is dangerous, especially for people sick enough to be admitted. They know damn well that Molnupiravir is dangerous and they'll push it anyway. Pfizer ripping off Ivermectin to develop Paxlovid is, atleast, potentionally capable of actually helping people (unless they put unnecessary toxic ingredients in it).
I don't think the evidence truly exists to suggest that these 'vaccines' are remotely effective at reducing severe symptoms and death. There are too many variables at play. Big Pharma destroyed their control groups at 2 months. We know that the data is manipulated, often flat out false at times. There is every incentive to continue pushing some hope with the vaccines. I am going with- they do not work in any capacity, the long term harms are coming and humanity has shown the absolute worst sides.
well if you like conspiracy theories - I think the reason we went with these is because thats what Fauci, ECO Health Alliance, Baric (UNC) and the Wuhan lab were working on. Just look at the timeline. Its extraordinary. First described case 12/29/19. The sequencing of the virus was done in early January and the mRNA vaccines were manufactured within 30 days? Biotech and Moderna were in on it from the beginning.
Lots of evidence of conspiracies, even criminal conspiracies. Question is what will we do about it. Evidently, not much. But the motives don't really matter. Conspirators will conspire. What matters is whether we will (continue to) allow the conspirators to abuse us. I choose resistance, but I resist their actions, not their motives.
The technology to produce RNA vax was developed over decades, but it was mature enough in January 2020 to produce a vax in days. So, yes, they could quickly produce a vax with no prior knowledge of a specific virus. They'll figure out why it causes reactions in a few, and will fix that. This technology will make our lives better. It can also be applied to cancers and other illnesses, even aging. Exciting times.
I don’t base any of my severe efficacy conclusions on the trials - rather, the Israel dashboard data from the summer, the UK data which seems to skew negatively for the vax anyway, and every available study. Antibodies are not immunity - but they plausibly inhibit damage from viremia in the absence of real immunity, which is why monoclonal antibody therapy seems to work pretty well. There’s plenty of cons against the vaccine, but the important point to acknowledging severe outcome efficacy is to remove the imaginary “pro” assigned to boosters.
As always, my goal is to downplay or rather de-centralize the virus itself from the story of what is going on. It’s a coronavirus that never merited the attention given to it. That’s why claims that ADE is going to rip through the covid vaxxed population any minute now activate my contrarian instincts. What is central is the inherent harm of the injection. mRNA was used because it is a bioweapon.
I could take the Israel and UK data as an edge for efficacy if I trusted the data. What is presented as efficacy of the vaccines could be just the natural fall of that wave. The counter measures taken in society, to lockdown when cases surge is another factor influencing that wave. The narrow focus on the antibody creation to just the S1 protein also bothers me since robust antibodies to help defend an individual are typically a collection in response to several parts of a virus. These one trick pony antibodies remind me more of an autoimmune response than a defense. Lastly, what incentive do the Israeli and UK governments have to be completely honest with their data? After what we have seen across these two years, ass covering, pride and greed have trumped open discourse and discovery.
Israel's transparency needs to be placed in context. At the beginning of July, boosting for the elderly only was a crazy idea being floated by the deposed prime minister (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/netanyahu-to-horowitz-third-covid-vaccine-should-be-given-in-august-672582); by the end of July the universal booster campaign was underway. Just as importantly, it couldn't have been known that the rest of the West would take so long to follow suit - So Israel had both means and "incentive" to publish accurate stats on breakthrough infections during July, in an apparent premeditated effort to create the pretext that would pave the way for endless boosters both at home and around the world. That's why I take the severe (hospitalizations) and death efficacy revealed in July to be credible (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-anchor-14).
I'll add that I think most of Covid vax skeptic world has been an echo chamber to the opposite effect since August, which has led to some really sloppy thinking - such as the uncritical reporting on the Sweden study. I didn't see anyone revisit that and say, "Actually, this isn't such a great study to base any conclusions on; turns out there's a really good and obvious reason the confidence intervals were outrageous." Not one.
Israel seemed to have no choice but to bite its own foot off. Scaring people into boosters by reporting breakthroughs works for one aim, but it only solidifies the skepticism by the refusers as a "See, they don't work. I'm not getting it.". Which, I suppose, is the entire point of your post.
We went with RNA vax because it's available quickly. These were developed in days when most estimates predicted millions dead just in the US. It was rational to deploy them, but irrational to withhold them for nearly a year after they were available. Those bureaucratic delays cost hundreds of thousands of deaths. A lot of pathological politicized decisions screwed up what could have been a great success. Instead we snached defeat from the jaws of victory.
Yes, a few had adverse reactions to the vax. That happens with every vax. Society needs to decide if they want perfection or success. Quests for perfection always fail.
The biggest risk is that the inevitable next pandemic will kill millions who could see salvation within reach, like a kid in a candy store, but died while bureaucrats, indecisive rulers, and terrified public conspire to withhold that salvation. Screwing up the credibility of the medical industry has screwed us all. The future of society is at risk because of our ubiquitous ignorance.
oh and if these vaccines are "so quick" how come we dont have the next generation already out. Its been a year. You know ones that stop you from actually getting sick.....
We don't know, yet, but it appears to be a corrupt effort by medical bureaucrats to maximize distribution, not to maximize outcomes. The labs could produce a new vax for every strain, every day. But distribution is much harder than development with this technology. It would certainly be more effective to produce and manufacture focused vax for the most common variant in each region -- there are many -- and that is technologically achievable. But that would dilute profits, currently enjoyed by the two biggest manufacturers and their government advocates (yes, government bureaucrats are profiting from their demands).
to say there are a few bad reactions to the Vax - means you dont understand VAERS reporting and outcome analysis. We went for mRNA because Biotech/ Moderna were already working on it with the Chinese.
I don't mean to interfere with your conspiracies, but the vaccine technology had been in development in America by Americans for decades. The construction of the specific biologic for the vaccines only required reading the genone of the target virus, an unambiguous computerized process, and mostly automated application of the technology. If you want to look for conspiracies, you should look elsewhere.
Everyone understands VAERS data is incomplete and likely inaccurate or irrelevant. A lot of hypochondria is included, a lot of real reactions are omitted. But it provides clues. The important observation from the shaky data we have is the reported reactions are very small relative to the number of vaccinations. It's a low risk proposition. Not zero risk, but some people choke on their Cheerios. It is a nice turn to overstate the vax risk to counter the overstated virus risk, though, so I don't worry much about either form of hysteria. Irrational thinking isn't unusual.
"Screwing up the credibility of the medical industry has screwed us all. The future of society is at risk because of our ubiquitous ignorance."
The medical industry and their "regulators" screwed themselves by constantly lying, suppressing promising treatments which seemed to work and had very long safety records, and pushing a vaccine as "safe and effective" that is certainly not as safe as portrayed and very likely less effective than early treatment with known safe drugs.
The future of society is at risk because the institutions we set up to address public health have gone in a very different direction, and when people figure it out, they are going to be very disappointed.
In answer to the original question, I believe the theory was that ADE problems could be avoided by making an RNA vax narrowly focused on the spike.
True enough. There really is no substitute for people having common sense.
However, you could argue that the full court psy-op that has been inflicted on us by every part of the establishment, primarily in an effort to get us to accept this vaccine, has made it a lot more difficult for a typical person to apply common sense to this situation. And even if they succeed, they are being openly discriminated against, threatened, shamed and bullied, just for the crime of thinking for themselves.
So, I still place the blame on the medical industry & government lackeys.
People attack others all the time, in many forms. It's why some people practice jiu jitsu. We don't have to submit to discrimination, threats, shaming, and bullying. They're wrong to do so, and not particularly difficult to counter. Verbal jiu jitsu is being played in the courts, the media, and in real life. I think it was eugypius had a good discussion of this yesterday.
That's what vax does. This vax, like all others, builds antibodies that boost immune response. Some of those who succumbed to covid would have gotten enough boost to save them. For most of us it didn't matter - we were healthy enough to survive infection on our own. A few it wouldn't have helped, their immune system is too badly compromised to survive even with the vax, unless they got treatments in time, most of which are politically prohibited. Maybe someone will be prosecuted tor that. Probably not.
The rest of your post reads like you just work from a coma, given what is actually happening in the world.
The ignorance is true, but it's ubiquitous because pharma and government don't appreciate their profits or power being interrupted by people who seek the truth or wish to communicate it.
The public is terrified of the virus. Most don't need to be. Very few are terrified of the vax. Most don't need to be. If you're vulnerable to the virus, vax is reasonable risk for most. If you're healthy, the vax is unnecessary risk. Everything has risks. Some manage their risks well, some don't. Nothing new here, except the political cover up.
I have a coma every night. Recover fine every morning. If you have a point, let us know. Usually works better to just stand up and say it.
Well, I look at the reports in the VAERS database and it is definitely new to have just one brand new type of vaccine eclipse all others (across 30 years of data) in terms of adverse reactions and post-vaccine death.
It's not even a cover up as much as a willful downplaying and censorship of the obvious safety signals that is not just new but frightening.
No-one can take a reasonable risk assessment when adverse reaction support groups are mass-deleted from Facebook and people like me are kicked off of Medium for writing my opinion that these covid vaccines are perhaps the most dangerous vaccines ever put on the market...based off the *publicly available* VAERS data.
So I don't see what's new about this other than an odd denial by many people that adverse reactions are even possible with vaccines. I've even showed people some videos of vaccine victims with neurological damage resulting in tremors and seizures and people laugh, claiming the victims are making it up.
Should those safety signals in VAERS be actually pointing to a massive glacier we can't easily see from the surface...we have one of the biggest man-made health catastrophes ever (barring the release of the probably man-made COVID-19 virus in the first place).
All vaccines are available quickly. The only reason these ones were used are as stated - money - and desire on the part of Fauci, et al.
The reasons vaccines take a long time is they are tested properly before being deployed.
"A few had adverse" is ridiculous. Present tense "have" "are having" is the correct tense, and it's not a few, you sound like a pharma shill with that framing.
No, conventional vax take years to develop, years to test, often return ing to step 1hese were developed in days, and demonstrated fairly safe and effective in weeks. It was immoral to withhold them. If you have anything besides paranoid insults, do let us know ow.
I'd like to see you debunk this post, where they show pretty convincingly that the vaccine was developed after or with the GoF development of the original virus as it was happening in 2019, that it probably took a year to develop and was because they were basically across the virus itself behind the scenes:
I'm not interested in "debunking" just stating my own case. Others can "debunk" if they choose, or insult, or state their own case, which is the most productive approach. If the vax benefitted from Gof, it would seem to be a commendation for gof. Not sure why anyone would be concerned about that. Maybe you'll tell us. The more likely story is as Moderna described it -- they developed the tech with decades of elegant research, and when Wuhan gave them the gene sequence it was straightforward to identify a target and design an rna solution. Whether the virus was developed with gof is irrelevant. Get the sequence, ID a target, build rna. Plug and play.
For the illegal use of gof in general, fda already confessed, so it seems superfluous to do much analysis. The only useful question is what will we do about it. Unless the perps are punished, it will continue, and probably get worse. I haven't heard anyone interested in punishing anyone. In this case, it only matters to those with compromised immune systems, most of them voluntarily. The most useful response is maintain your immune health. The next one will be worse.
They were developed in "days", but the delta strain vaccine still hasn't been released despite being detected in October 2020 and the dominant strain since June 2021.
But apparently it would only take days to develop.
Huh.
So weird.
They were demonstrated to be safe and effective.
Huh.
So weird.
There was no difference in mortality between control / placebo and vaccinated in the study, until they removed the control by ... vaccinating them (!!) and then 2 more people died.
But you think they are effective.
You think they were proven effective after 6 months.
Not only that, but if you had an adverse reaction after dose 1 you were removed from the study if you sought outside medical help.
You were removed from the study if you caught covid after dose 1.
People were excluded from trials if they were outside 18-50 age group or had any comorbidities.
PFizer have been fined for criminal bs trial practices so often it makes the mafia look like pussy cats.
But they are proven safe and effective?
Really?
Seriously?
You claim to know the immune system but are fine with early treatment being denied patients the world over, and clearly do not understand spike-specific anti body immunity vs natural, broad based nucleocapsid + spike anti body immunity. You probably do not know that post-vax infection results in lower N antibodies, indicating poor training of immunity via vaccination.
I'm fine with the medical knowledge I have accumulated in the past 3-4 months and whilst I would agree it's deficient, it provides enough grounding to know when someone else is way out of their depth.
Delta vax has been suppressed same reason as hcq, ivm, etc. Medical industry corruption. They want the public to be focused on one magic potion at a time. They're working on acclimating the herd to change up with the "booster" shots. Eventually they'll just dose the water supply.
Your final line “around 40,000 unvaccinated Americans between ages 45 and 74 have been killed by American hospitals since the summer, via suppression of effective therapeutics and deliberate use of Remdesivir and ventilators.” is what I think is super important. They are STILL &#@!^? killing people by censoring *EFFECTIVE* EARLY TREATMENT. Fortunately word continues to spread through independent media.
I's far more than 40,000 in total. Most of the ~1,000,000 excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 would have been prevented by early pre-hospitalization treatment and a public health campaign to reassure instead of terrorize. As if...
I have been wondering if the main danger from SARS-Cov-2 is its spike protein. Is it possible that the high excess deaths in the US in both 2020 and 2021 were caused by spike exposure? In 2020, from covid cases that were not immediately fatal, but caused latent injury, and in 2021 from covid cases plus vaccine-induced spike. 2021 excess deaths are much higher than 2020, which reflects much higher spike exposure from vaccines, plus ongoing spike exposure from infections.
Excess deaths are higher for many causes, over and above covid attribution. But most of these deaths (heart, neurologic, diabetes, unintentional, kidney) could plausibly be due to latent spike injury. Data for 2020 at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
I agree that hospital treatment contributes to excess deaths, but not sure we can back this out, given the wide variety of injury that's possible from spike (and that we see from VAERS).
The worst failing in our 2020 covid response was delaying treatment until hospitalization. Early treatment will almost always reduce spike exposure, and thus reduce overall excess death rates, not to mention reduced deaths from covid directly.
I find it entirely plausible that “environmental spike toxicity” is the smoking gun. I also find it plausible that it is a red herring. For any given cellular receptor, we are probably swimming in compatible viruses with compatible glycoproteins every day. The pathology of “severe Covid-19” might highlight the danger of exposing the bloodstream of adults to such proteins but on the “top side” - the respiratory and GI tract - there doesn’t seem to be any direct danger. These are cells that already rapidly shed and replenish. Here, in the top side, the issue is one of counter-productive inflammatory response that leads to elevated shedding into the bloodstream.
So as mentioned in Forever Spike my hunch is that the primary danger from “environmental spike” is some type of dysregulated immune response - either allergic sensitization or tolerance - that arises from the prolonged exposure artificially prompted by the vaccines.
I think there are two effects. A short-term sharp increase in blood clotting and inflammation from spike, and a potential longer-term immune dysregulation. The blood clotting and inflammation can cause latent injury (heart, brain, pancreas, pituitary, etc) that isn't realized until much later, and all of these can reduce lifespan. As you say, I'm also concerned about immune dysregulation!
Ok, now I better understand your OP (which said the same thing but I misread it). Yes, that's a very good-fitting model for "post-wave and post-vax baseline increases."
Given antibodies wane pretty quick and are mostly gone by 6 months, I asked if that was because the body was tolerating spike and not generating antibodies until the booster forced a signal... but uh... didn't get a reply.
"Delta has remained dominant, at this point settling down from “flavor of the month” to “flavor of the half-year.”"
I was under the impression that this is what we would expect, given Alpha(?? original strain)-specific vaccines are still being rolled out and delta is the evolutionary step caused by that roll out. No attempt is being made to combat Delta, so it's experiencing no evolutionary pressure to escape. Boosters are still original strain specific too.
IMO if / when they bring in the delta- killer, we will see another dominant strain. And I've written it down too, so we can return to this and test my hypothesis :D
if I don't write my thoughts down before reading it all I'll forget the things I want to discuss - apologies for making you work even more than you need.
In Australia, vaccine is being rolled out and cases were exploding at the start.
I only just started reading this article, but are you keeping in mind we are hitting summer now, that our weather is getting warmer and we thus spend more time outside - coinciding with a lock down end?
More UV = More vit D = less cases. Vaccine is immaterial, as shown in the first 2 waves we had.
If anything, our current wave should match or be smaller than the first two, but it's not. This seems to indicate that vaccine = increased cases, not decreased.
I don't know how else to put it besides "the reversal in cases and the rollout of the Covid vaccine are two realities which clearly exist in the same place at the same time." Intimating a link between the roll-out and the (small relative to the example country used in the footnotes, Romania) rise in cases on its own is fine. But I still don't grant the "worry window" mechanism. It isn't supported by any studies.
Part of the reason I am so strong about this increase is because the CHO (this was all our state btw, not the country) who signed off on all the (useless, socially and economically debilitating NPIs) said "we won't be hitting 400 cases a day again, not on my watch".
Then we hit 400, the vaccine mandate and people getting fired ramped up like crazy and then we just accelerated to 2000 cases a day, then they ended most of the NPIs.
The process we are living under is effing ridiculous.
I am telling you as someone living here that the cases exploded from 400 to 2000 a day as the vaccines were being forced onto the population. The likeliest explanation is massively increased movement with the lock downs ending.
Summer weather kicking in is when the cases started turning around. Vaccine rollout and movement remained mostly unchanged.
This is not to suggest that vaccine causes increases in cases, but that
"cases reversal happened at the same time as vaccine rollout" can be as strongly argued as
"case rate increase happened at the same time as vaccine rollout"
the difference between reversal and increase was not vaccine, but weather.
I'd say weather trumps virus as the seasonality is evident everywhere, regardless of NPI or vaccine uptake.
Alright, then compare your (population 25.69 million) peak case rates (2.5k per day) to Punjab (population 28 million) in April and May (8.5k per day, avg temps 34 & 39C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_India#Climate).
The virus can spread in warm temps regardless of A/C use. That's not disputable.
Seasonality, in my model, is an artifact of the rapid increase in natural immunity during the winter due to the enhanced fitness in colder temps, not in any innate unfitness in warm temps. Without a cold temp spike to jack up baseline immunity, the virus should have torn through Down Under in my model. That's not prescriptive; it's just one model among others.
Our premier (the one trying to introduce permanent pandemic laws that have riled even QCs up) had the audacity to celebrate "0" cases in August - it was nauseating.
As if testing catches all infections like red light cameras catch all red light jumpers ffs. The propaganda effort this guy engages in is egregious.
If you mean to say that states outside of NSW and Victoria should be discounted, fine - that leaves you with a population of 15 million. Now you're in the same neighborhood as NCT Dehli - 16.8 million, peak cases in April 25k per day, avg temps 36C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi#Climate
Oh no I was more saying - population of Australia is 25M but we're not transmitting state to state at all, as the border closures are policed and result in prison sentences.
Each state's infection rate is specific to the state and you can't really combine state populations and infection rates as they may as well be islands with the lack of transmission between them.
Some US states are seeing high transmission in warm weather too, but the explanation there is apparently people are inside, in air conditioning. Inside = good transmission potential, air conditioning = dry air = dry mucous membranes = good infection potential.
I am giving the wrong impression here too. I am not disagreeing with your proposition nor making one myself, just wanted to clarify that Australia's peak case load was due to 1 state alone, pretty much, and the cases really went nuts as the vaccine was pushed and people were getting fired, 1000s of health care workers stood down, so plenty of coercion in play to ramp up vaccination rates. Then when the weather started to improve, the cases stalled.
Purely observational vs some supported / adamant position.
Ok received a 10 month sentence, still, it's very rare that people are crossing state borders - so the spread is being contained pretty effectively within each state.
What do you think of this?
https://trialsitenews.com/the-original-antigenic-sin-covid-19-vaccination-and-sub-optimal-initial-immune-priming-deranges-the-antibody-cytotoxic-t-cell-immune-response/
It's written quite well with respecht to bio-logical context.
I spoke on OAS in "(Not) Coming Up," of course - but Alexander isn't really using the term in the way I object to.
Instead, he is describing hypothetical non-correction of cellular memory immunity during "breakthrough" viral challenge. I agree this is the most plausible mechanism for "Covid vaccine induced immunodeficiency against SARS-CoV-2" - namely, that resident T Cells with wide-spectrum epitope recognition do not populate the respiratory tract after "breakthrough" infection, as they do after natural infection. We know they aren't doing so in the first place after vaccination - so if they don't do so after "breakthrough" infection, the Covid vaccinated can't "correct" the essential defect of the vaccine-induced immune response.
I disagree that the UK data is persuasive evidence that this is already occurring. And I think his fears of "lung damage" are overblown - even the defective (IgG antibody-focused) antibody response still seems to mitigate severe outcomes via antibody ramp-up during infection.
This is essentially how old-school childhood vaccines do their thing. However, not all viruses are alike. The appearance of safety for polio and measles vaccines could be a product of near-zero antigenic drift for those viruses. There's a reason no one successfully made a coronavirus vaccine before.
Thank you.
"My hunch is that boosting will not drive escape pressure. To suppose that it will invites a paradox: First, it requires asserting that the original Covid vaccine roll-out was responsible for the rapid changes to the spike protein that led to Delta, via escape pressure. Then, it requires asserting that Delta is not capable of escaping the vintage-2020 antibodies stimulated by the Covid vaccines at all."
There isn't necessarily a paradox. There would be a paradox if it was only one set of antibodies produced to which delta has now escaped from. However a research paper out of Japan I believe had looked at the possibility for ADE to develop and noted that 4 mutations in delta would be sufficient to produce the changes required for the virus to escape the neutralising antibodies whilst retaining the increased affinity that delta's spike protein shows for the non-neutralizing antibodies (which in turn could act as facilitating/enhancing antibodies). In that study if I remember it correctly, they noted that around the world delta plus strains had in some cases independently developed 3 of the 4 mutations that they demonstrated experimentally would afford delta complete immune escape from neutralising antibodies.
I'll have to find that paper again (and when I do I'll post the link here) but I recall that there were at least 3 different antibodies (all neutralizing) investigated just for the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and that the non-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein also had at least 2 antibodies produced to it (one a neutralising and one non-neutralizing). So in essence we are really talking about how delta responds to maybe 3 or 4 vintage RBD antibodies, some of which still have an effect on it whilst the others either have reduced effects or no effects.
In such a scenario, boosting those specific antibodies (which is what the boosters would be intended to do) alongside the NTD antibodies should provide an environment wherein delta virions encounter them more including the still those RBD antibodies that are still effective. In turn this will mean that when a delta variant that might have 3 of those 4 mutations the team investigated eventually develops the fourth mutation by random chance inside the body of a person that is only producing the various spike protein antibodies (and none of the nucleocapsid antibodies) then this new delta variant (let's call it Delta 4+) can now become the dominant strain in that person and be shed. Just as delta then rapidly became the dominant variant, delta 4+ would likely become THE dominant variant in an environment where everyone was getting those specific RBD antibodies boosted.
The process would probably take longer than what happened for the original delta strain and the delta + variants that have various combinations of 4 mutations seemingly necessary for immune escape, but logically it could and likely would happen.
Only after that would further booster shots no longer drive immune escape since the delta 4+ would have completely escapes all of the neutralising RBD and NTD antibodies.
Yes, I reviewed that paper at the time - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/lurking-leviathans#footnote-anchor-3 - in short, the problem is that they did not use a non-vaccinated, immune-naive control. No effort to falsify their interesting but convoluted proposal that Delta is somehow leveraging anti-wild-type NTD antibodies, and only the familiarity of the Delta RBD is holding it back; rather, only an effort to "prove" it with a pseudovirus that they barely give any details about. It wasn't a great experimental design.
I grant your point that there's some hypothetical room for "incomplete immune escape," but I don't think the Poised to Acquire paper is a plausible mechanistic proof of how that would take place. The problem, "In what way would the virus 'partially' escape vaccine-induced antibodies (if it can't infect and spread beyond the antibodies, there's no selection / escape)?" remains difficult to answer.
Found the paper:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114v1.full
Statistical illusions. https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vaccine-efficacy-statistical-illusion.html
Read the link to the John Dee tweet – it's pretty interesting.
I have trouble picturing what John Dee's means by "shifting the records." As for Dobromylskyj's explanation, the Israel "vaccinated" cohorts were already more or less set in stone in July. I did a back-of-the-napkin test of their per-100k rates and they seemed fine, except perhaps for the "partially" cohort (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-18 - this is before the redefinition of "fully vaccinated" after the booster rollout kicked in, obviously).
Beginning to wonder if I hadn't worked so closely with the Israel dashboard for that brief window, I wouldn't disbelieve severe efficacy just like everyone else...
Topol was well known for jamming stents in coronary arteries that didn't need it - and he so much as admitted his mistakes after he made millions being a shill for stent companies. Now he is remaking himself as a global health pioneer - whatever.
To look at any data that the CDC is putting out and try to make any sense of it - is almost impossible. First of all - we dont have all cause mortality. When doing comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxed groups - we need to know what's happening there. Second, we can't draw any conclusions because we just dont know what percent of the vaxed are Covid recovered. Even if its a low amount say 20% - that would reduce the vaccine efficacy by a significant amount. Third - the vaccine group and the untaxed group are so different - you almost cannot compare them.
I agree with all of those caveats. But if that means for example that the evidence for antibody dependent enhancement is in fact statistically impossible to derive, then that essentially means we can safely "act as if" it is not occurring.
you only find things. that you are looking for....
The problem with ALL of this data is that a lot of it is simply BS in some basic respects. First: Officials here in the US made an active choice NOT to test for antibodies to covid. We have no idea how many people truly have natural immunity or not.
As for the unvaccinated dying much more than the vaccinated from covid. I have always granted that the vaccines can possibly provide short-term protection from worst outcomes. They may still be a worthwhile risk for the elderly. HOWEVER, we haven't done a Freakonomics analysis on this.
Are there other reasons unvaccinated people may be dying more? Do they tend to have conditions or issues like lower vitamin D (i.e., blacks and hispanics tend to vaccinate less in general and have less vitamin D typically)? Plus a lot of the unvaccinated deaths are counted from when the vaccines were just starting up in usage and/or include people recently but not "fully" vaxxed.
So...I'm just not sure if the net is a win here for the vaccine, especially since they wear off and have HUGE adverse reaction rates compared to all other vaccines in history...except perhaps smallpox, where the adverse reactions may be worth the risk due to the highly deadly nature of the disease.
I'm only looking at "Covid 19 deaths" after July 15, and the anomalous difference between the same time period last year. After posting, it has occurred to me that I didn't offer any reason why the US hospital system is coming down disproportionately on the unvaccinated - why not use an estimate for overall hospitalizations, like Covid-vaccinated X .2 + unvaccinated X 1, which might imply something like 2 to 1 deaths (if unvaccinated are only ~10% of the population in the given age groups on average between July and October) among Covid-vaccinated? I failed to offer any reason - but I think that in reality, the Covid-vaccinated are not being as aggressively tested and shoved into the ventilator pathway, just based on anecdotes etc.
That's a truckload of assumptions you make in the last paragraph. And it is never clear to me why you disagree with el gato about the "worry window". There may not be any studies, but the stats seem to support his assertion. You, on the other hand, make wild assertions and leaps of logic but with very little evidence.
To what degree does "very little" evidence exceed actually available evidence? To what degree does "the stats" exceed "assumptions + cherry picked substantiation - (all other data X 0)?
I'm not a fan of pointing out the top level correlations between graphs of cases and vaccination, because there are many potential factors at play, the data may be garbage, and lined up plots often are deceptive, but convincing.
However, looking at UK data where they break out partial vax as a category, the effect does seem to exist. I have not done an exhaustive survey, only a few points, but the principle seemed to be borne out. For the week 37 data, I tried to regenerate the UK case rate numbers using the raw case totals and their reported vaccination percentages, for the age range 18-29. The resulting rates were close to the reported rates for the Vax and Unvax categories, and the corresponding rate for partially vaxed (which is not provided in the UK reporting) was 2x the rate of unvax.
Note that I chose the 18-29 age group because it had the most even split between these populations.
Well, I disavowed the Health Security Agency's "unvaccinated per 100k" rates a few weeks ago. It's not that I don't believe in negative efficacy, just that it seems like the unvaccinated rate isn't a reliably calibrated gauge to measure anything with. I'll take a look back at week 37 again. Surveys also apparently reveal that younger partially vaccinated are more likely to seek a test for symptoms, interestingly (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights "9 in 10 students...").
But going by the comparison of the raw counts in footnote 11, things look bad for the "vaccinating under-18 year olds" until you compare differences in totals. The groups that are past the "worry window" had near doublings in total case rates while the group that was currently churning through it only increased 2.6% (and both under-18 year-olds and 40-50 year-olds seem to be over-tested during both 3-week snapshots)
The unknowns around testing are a definite problem. I'm also unsure how to interpret the alleged UK negative efficacy - it could be testing, it could also be differential prevalence of prior immunity. Some claimed it could be problems in the data around estimating population size, although I'm not sure I understand why.
Another hypothesis is that Delta is more adaptive to vaccinated hosts. Delta evolved last half of 2020 and first months of 2021, but it never got a foothold in the UK until after there was significant vaccine rollout, at which point it rapidly dominated. This makes sense as there is evidence that Delta evades NTD ab coverage, and so would have an advantage in vaccinated hosts. But, prior to mid-2021, it was apparently losing to the other strains. So, it is possible that Delta has a lower attack rate on unvaccinated hosts, which would result in this type of case rate differential. This paper https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext would seem to contradict this hypothesis, although the data was collected in Sept, so vaccinations were overall more recent. They did see that the median time since dose 2 for breakthrough infections was 101 says vs 64 days for those who did not see an infection.
(for a plot of variant prevalence for 2021: page 23)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
Thanks for the pointer to the students data, it's very interesting. I guess it just further points out the difficult of interpreting this data without testing data.
The last part I didn't follow completely. I think due to the period of actual immunity post "worry window", it's difficult to analyze the breakthrough cases for the younger cohorts who rolled out later and less consistently. Of course HSA has the data on time since vaccination but it's difficult for us to calculate this. Maybe using the vaccination rate data and projecting forward a distribution of days since dose 2..
Right, I hashed out the Lancet results at https://unglossed.substack.com/p/forever-spike-v11#footnote-anchor-1 - the partially vaccinated did the "best" against SAR and the unvaccinated the "worst." More non-evidence for the worry-window. Fair point about my last PP, the slower case growth could be the post-2nd dose protection window at work.
Delta seems to have "increased fitness" even where there are low rates of vaccine uptake, i.e. Eastern Europe, which is why I have backed off of provisionally blaming the vaccines for increased case rates in 2021. That doesn't rule out that something exogenous to the virus itself is driving the increase in cases, which I've alluded to before and will possibly be fleshing out in my next post.
Thanks for the pointer.. I only recently subscribed and haven't gone through the archive yet :)
Yes, now I recall partially vaccinated performed very well in the Lancet study. Thank you for reminding me.. this is probably a sign of cognitive bias on my part. It is hard to keep all this information organized.
Re eastern europe, looking at Nextstrain filtered by Poland as an example, https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/europe?f_country=Poland Delta starts showing up around the start of July. According to OWID https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/poland#how-many-covid-19-vaccine-doses-have-been-administered-in-total they reached 78 doses per 100 people (35% fully vaxed?) July 1. This is just one data point though. Did you have more comprehensive info on eastern europe?
I wouldn't say I have high certainty on any of these topics, but an increasingly large collection of not entirely consistent data .. .
+"
The more interesting question is with 800,000 covid deaths, why don't we have 800,000 excess deaths? Apparently most of those would have checked out anyway. Certainly, its more complex than that, but the simplest answer is often pretty close. If we can get 800,000 flu deaths and remain on track for a normal death year, it becomes clear this was nothing to worry about.
We are actually on track for about 1,000,000 total excess deaths in 2020 plus 2021. https://www.usmortality.com/excess
Since excess deaths in 2021 are running about 120,000 more than in 2020, it is obvious to the casual observer that "public health" policies have been a disaster. I'm convinced we would be MUCH better off if they had done nothing at all, and treated this like the annual flu.
Maybe. Deaths are recorded locally, and are notoriously difficult to assemble national stats accurately. Some researchers will make a career out of trying. But those numbers seem in the ball park if we assume no one died of covid who wasn't just about done anyway, which is not consistent with the observation that most deaths were way over the hill. So if there is a bump in deaths in 20 and 21, it will probably revert to mean with fewer deaths next couple years.
It depends on the longer-term injury rate from spike and vaccines, nobody knows...
And we could be hit by asteroids. Best not to muddy your stats with conjecture.
I thought I was responding to your conjecture that we will revert to the mean in a few years :-)
Reversion to mean is pretty standard process. Changes from the mean requires a change in the process. Assumptions that the mean raised by virus deaths will remain high presumes the virus will continue killing people. That has never happened. Why do you think it will this time?
About the only place not experiencing excess mortality is Sweden.
and thus no need for any vaccine deaths or injuries, or the loss of jobs and creep of governmental overreach, agreed.
I keep going back to the question of 'Why did we choose to go with mRNA technology based 'vaccines' rather than our traditional inactivated or dead whole virus method?' We had decades of research on coronaviruses and influenza to understand that nothing could actually inoculate us against rapidly mutating aerosolized viruses. If life saving measures were the goal, we'd have attempted vaccines similar to the influenza model. We would have embraced, and allowed off label use, of any medication showing promise. Rather, we chose a novel technology on a novel virus and denied the right to try early treatments. This could not have been for anything but money (greed). The NIH and Moderna had the sequence ready to go. Big Pharma gets tax payer funded, liability free research for mRNA technology on billions of people. All of this to determine the true downfalls of mRNA technology and its limitations in application. The anti-virals are an equal, money making scam. They know damn well Remdesivir is dangerous, especially for people sick enough to be admitted. They know damn well that Molnupiravir is dangerous and they'll push it anyway. Pfizer ripping off Ivermectin to develop Paxlovid is, atleast, potentionally capable of actually helping people (unless they put unnecessary toxic ingredients in it).
I don't think the evidence truly exists to suggest that these 'vaccines' are remotely effective at reducing severe symptoms and death. There are too many variables at play. Big Pharma destroyed their control groups at 2 months. We know that the data is manipulated, often flat out false at times. There is every incentive to continue pushing some hope with the vaccines. I am going with- they do not work in any capacity, the long term harms are coming and humanity has shown the absolute worst sides.
well if you like conspiracy theories - I think the reason we went with these is because thats what Fauci, ECO Health Alliance, Baric (UNC) and the Wuhan lab were working on. Just look at the timeline. Its extraordinary. First described case 12/29/19. The sequencing of the virus was done in early January and the mRNA vaccines were manufactured within 30 days? Biotech and Moderna were in on it from the beginning.
Come on man!
Lots of evidence of conspiracies, even criminal conspiracies. Question is what will we do about it. Evidently, not much. But the motives don't really matter. Conspirators will conspire. What matters is whether we will (continue to) allow the conspirators to abuse us. I choose resistance, but I resist their actions, not their motives.
The technology to produce RNA vax was developed over decades, but it was mature enough in January 2020 to produce a vax in days. So, yes, they could quickly produce a vax with no prior knowledge of a specific virus. They'll figure out why it causes reactions in a few, and will fix that. This technology will make our lives better. It can also be applied to cancers and other illnesses, even aging. Exciting times.
We can follow the patent documents (and Fauci e-mails) to get that timeline. Not sure it still 'conspiracy'. That little twerp is evil.
I don’t base any of my severe efficacy conclusions on the trials - rather, the Israel dashboard data from the summer, the UK data which seems to skew negatively for the vax anyway, and every available study. Antibodies are not immunity - but they plausibly inhibit damage from viremia in the absence of real immunity, which is why monoclonal antibody therapy seems to work pretty well. There’s plenty of cons against the vaccine, but the important point to acknowledging severe outcome efficacy is to remove the imaginary “pro” assigned to boosters.
As always, my goal is to downplay or rather de-centralize the virus itself from the story of what is going on. It’s a coronavirus that never merited the attention given to it. That’s why claims that ADE is going to rip through the covid vaxxed population any minute now activate my contrarian instincts. What is central is the inherent harm of the injection. mRNA was used because it is a bioweapon.
I could take the Israel and UK data as an edge for efficacy if I trusted the data. What is presented as efficacy of the vaccines could be just the natural fall of that wave. The counter measures taken in society, to lockdown when cases surge is another factor influencing that wave. The narrow focus on the antibody creation to just the S1 protein also bothers me since robust antibodies to help defend an individual are typically a collection in response to several parts of a virus. These one trick pony antibodies remind me more of an autoimmune response than a defense. Lastly, what incentive do the Israeli and UK governments have to be completely honest with their data? After what we have seen across these two years, ass covering, pride and greed have trumped open discourse and discovery.
Israel's transparency needs to be placed in context. At the beginning of July, boosting for the elderly only was a crazy idea being floated by the deposed prime minister (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/netanyahu-to-horowitz-third-covid-vaccine-should-be-given-in-august-672582); by the end of July the universal booster campaign was underway. Just as importantly, it couldn't have been known that the rest of the West would take so long to follow suit - So Israel had both means and "incentive" to publish accurate stats on breakthrough infections during July, in an apparent premeditated effort to create the pretext that would pave the way for endless boosters both at home and around the world. That's why I take the severe (hospitalizations) and death efficacy revealed in July to be credible (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-anchor-14).
I'll add that I think most of Covid vax skeptic world has been an echo chamber to the opposite effect since August, which has led to some really sloppy thinking - such as the uncritical reporting on the Sweden study. I didn't see anyone revisit that and say, "Actually, this isn't such a great study to base any conclusions on; turns out there's a really good and obvious reason the confidence intervals were outrageous." Not one.
Israel seemed to have no choice but to bite its own foot off. Scaring people into boosters by reporting breakthroughs works for one aim, but it only solidifies the skepticism by the refusers as a "See, they don't work. I'm not getting it.". Which, I suppose, is the entire point of your post.
We went with RNA vax because it's available quickly. These were developed in days when most estimates predicted millions dead just in the US. It was rational to deploy them, but irrational to withhold them for nearly a year after they were available. Those bureaucratic delays cost hundreds of thousands of deaths. A lot of pathological politicized decisions screwed up what could have been a great success. Instead we snached defeat from the jaws of victory.
Yes, a few had adverse reactions to the vax. That happens with every vax. Society needs to decide if they want perfection or success. Quests for perfection always fail.
The biggest risk is that the inevitable next pandemic will kill millions who could see salvation within reach, like a kid in a candy store, but died while bureaucrats, indecisive rulers, and terrified public conspire to withhold that salvation. Screwing up the credibility of the medical industry has screwed us all. The future of society is at risk because of our ubiquitous ignorance.
oh and if these vaccines are "so quick" how come we dont have the next generation already out. Its been a year. You know ones that stop you from actually getting sick.....
We don't know, yet, but it appears to be a corrupt effort by medical bureaucrats to maximize distribution, not to maximize outcomes. The labs could produce a new vax for every strain, every day. But distribution is much harder than development with this technology. It would certainly be more effective to produce and manufacture focused vax for the most common variant in each region -- there are many -- and that is technologically achievable. But that would dilute profits, currently enjoyed by the two biggest manufacturers and their government advocates (yes, government bureaucrats are profiting from their demands).
to say there are a few bad reactions to the Vax - means you dont understand VAERS reporting and outcome analysis. We went for mRNA because Biotech/ Moderna were already working on it with the Chinese.
I don't mean to interfere with your conspiracies, but the vaccine technology had been in development in America by Americans for decades. The construction of the specific biologic for the vaccines only required reading the genone of the target virus, an unambiguous computerized process, and mostly automated application of the technology. If you want to look for conspiracies, you should look elsewhere.
Everyone understands VAERS data is incomplete and likely inaccurate or irrelevant. A lot of hypochondria is included, a lot of real reactions are omitted. But it provides clues. The important observation from the shaky data we have is the reported reactions are very small relative to the number of vaccinations. It's a low risk proposition. Not zero risk, but some people choke on their Cheerios. It is a nice turn to overstate the vax risk to counter the overstated virus risk, though, so I don't worry much about either form of hysteria. Irrational thinking isn't unusual.
Perhaps it is cognitive dissonance and they have taken the vaccine and are having trouble facing reality??
"Screwing up the credibility of the medical industry has screwed us all. The future of society is at risk because of our ubiquitous ignorance."
The medical industry and their "regulators" screwed themselves by constantly lying, suppressing promising treatments which seemed to work and had very long safety records, and pushing a vaccine as "safe and effective" that is certainly not as safe as portrayed and very likely less effective than early treatment with known safe drugs.
The future of society is at risk because the institutions we set up to address public health have gone in a very different direction, and when people figure it out, they are going to be very disappointed.
In answer to the original question, I believe the theory was that ADE problems could be avoided by making an RNA vax narrowly focused on the spike.
Medical industry only screwed themselves if we don't buy their fraud. Most people seem willing to accept it. Eager, even.
True enough. There really is no substitute for people having common sense.
However, you could argue that the full court psy-op that has been inflicted on us by every part of the establishment, primarily in an effort to get us to accept this vaccine, has made it a lot more difficult for a typical person to apply common sense to this situation. And even if they succeed, they are being openly discriminated against, threatened, shamed and bullied, just for the crime of thinking for themselves.
So, I still place the blame on the medical industry & government lackeys.
People attack others all the time, in many forms. It's why some people practice jiu jitsu. We don't have to submit to discrimination, threats, shaming, and bullying. They're wrong to do so, and not particularly difficult to counter. Verbal jiu jitsu is being played in the courts, the media, and in real life. I think it was eugypius had a good discussion of this yesterday.
You're saying these vaccines could have saved hundreds of thousands? How so?
That's what vax does. This vax, like all others, builds antibodies that boost immune response. Some of those who succumbed to covid would have gotten enough boost to save them. For most of us it didn't matter - we were healthy enough to survive infection on our own. A few it wouldn't have helped, their immune system is too badly compromised to survive even with the vax, unless they got treatments in time, most of which are politically prohibited. Maybe someone will be prosecuted tor that. Probably not.
The rest of your post reads like you just work from a coma, given what is actually happening in the world.
The ignorance is true, but it's ubiquitous because pharma and government don't appreciate their profits or power being interrupted by people who seek the truth or wish to communicate it.
I've never heard of anyone writing in a coma, so your medical knowledge is deficient. As I said, it's a common affliction.
Agreed, I miswrote, I meant to write, "woke" from a coma.
You seem to think the public are terrified of the vaccines, which is such a significant error on your part I don't even know where to begin.
The public is terrified of the virus. Most don't need to be. Very few are terrified of the vax. Most don't need to be. If you're vulnerable to the virus, vax is reasonable risk for most. If you're healthy, the vax is unnecessary risk. Everything has risks. Some manage their risks well, some don't. Nothing new here, except the political cover up.
I have a coma every night. Recover fine every morning. If you have a point, let us know. Usually works better to just stand up and say it.
Well, I look at the reports in the VAERS database and it is definitely new to have just one brand new type of vaccine eclipse all others (across 30 years of data) in terms of adverse reactions and post-vaccine death.
It's not even a cover up as much as a willful downplaying and censorship of the obvious safety signals that is not just new but frightening.
No-one can take a reasonable risk assessment when adverse reaction support groups are mass-deleted from Facebook and people like me are kicked off of Medium for writing my opinion that these covid vaccines are perhaps the most dangerous vaccines ever put on the market...based off the *publicly available* VAERS data.
So I don't see what's new about this other than an odd denial by many people that adverse reactions are even possible with vaccines. I've even showed people some videos of vaccine victims with neurological damage resulting in tremors and seizures and people laugh, claiming the victims are making it up.
Should those safety signals in VAERS be actually pointing to a massive glacier we can't easily see from the surface...we have one of the biggest man-made health catastrophes ever (barring the release of the probably man-made COVID-19 virus in the first place).
All vaccines are available quickly. The only reason these ones were used are as stated - money - and desire on the part of Fauci, et al.
The reasons vaccines take a long time is they are tested properly before being deployed.
"A few had adverse" is ridiculous. Present tense "have" "are having" is the correct tense, and it's not a few, you sound like a pharma shill with that framing.
No, conventional vax take years to develop, years to test, often return ing to step 1hese were developed in days, and demonstrated fairly safe and effective in weeks. It was immoral to withhold them. If you have anything besides paranoid insults, do let us know ow.
I'd like to see you debunk this post, where they show pretty convincingly that the vaccine was developed after or with the GoF development of the original virus as it was happening in 2019, that it probably took a year to develop and was because they were basically across the virus itself behind the scenes:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/more-evidence-fauci-daszak-and-the
I'm not interested in "debunking" just stating my own case. Others can "debunk" if they choose, or insult, or state their own case, which is the most productive approach. If the vax benefitted from Gof, it would seem to be a commendation for gof. Not sure why anyone would be concerned about that. Maybe you'll tell us. The more likely story is as Moderna described it -- they developed the tech with decades of elegant research, and when Wuhan gave them the gene sequence it was straightforward to identify a target and design an rna solution. Whether the virus was developed with gof is irrelevant. Get the sequence, ID a target, build rna. Plug and play.
For the illegal use of gof in general, fda already confessed, so it seems superfluous to do much analysis. The only useful question is what will we do about it. Unless the perps are punished, it will continue, and probably get worse. I haven't heard anyone interested in punishing anyone. In this case, it only matters to those with compromised immune systems, most of them voluntarily. The most useful response is maintain your immune health. The next one will be worse.
They were developed in "days", but the delta strain vaccine still hasn't been released despite being detected in October 2020 and the dominant strain since June 2021.
But apparently it would only take days to develop.
Huh.
So weird.
They were demonstrated to be safe and effective.
Huh.
So weird.
There was no difference in mortality between control / placebo and vaccinated in the study, until they removed the control by ... vaccinating them (!!) and then 2 more people died.
But you think they are effective.
You think they were proven effective after 6 months.
Not only that, but if you had an adverse reaction after dose 1 you were removed from the study if you sought outside medical help.
You were removed from the study if you caught covid after dose 1.
People were excluded from trials if they were outside 18-50 age group or had any comorbidities.
PFizer have been fined for criminal bs trial practices so often it makes the mafia look like pussy cats.
But they are proven safe and effective?
Really?
Seriously?
You claim to know the immune system but are fine with early treatment being denied patients the world over, and clearly do not understand spike-specific anti body immunity vs natural, broad based nucleocapsid + spike anti body immunity. You probably do not know that post-vax infection results in lower N antibodies, indicating poor training of immunity via vaccination.
I'm fine with the medical knowledge I have accumulated in the past 3-4 months and whilst I would agree it's deficient, it provides enough grounding to know when someone else is way out of their depth.
Delta vax has been suppressed same reason as hcq, ivm, etc. Medical industry corruption. They want the public to be focused on one magic potion at a time. They're working on acclimating the herd to change up with the "booster" shots. Eventually they'll just dose the water supply.
Your final line “around 40,000 unvaccinated Americans between ages 45 and 74 have been killed by American hospitals since the summer, via suppression of effective therapeutics and deliberate use of Remdesivir and ventilators.” is what I think is super important. They are STILL &#@!^? killing people by censoring *EFFECTIVE* EARLY TREATMENT. Fortunately word continues to spread through independent media.
I's far more than 40,000 in total. Most of the ~1,000,000 excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 would have been prevented by early pre-hospitalization treatment and a public health campaign to reassure instead of terrorize. As if...
"License to Kill wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual" - Timothy Dalton
I have been wondering if the main danger from SARS-Cov-2 is its spike protein. Is it possible that the high excess deaths in the US in both 2020 and 2021 were caused by spike exposure? In 2020, from covid cases that were not immediately fatal, but caused latent injury, and in 2021 from covid cases plus vaccine-induced spike. 2021 excess deaths are much higher than 2020, which reflects much higher spike exposure from vaccines, plus ongoing spike exposure from infections.
Excess deaths are higher for many causes, over and above covid attribution. But most of these deaths (heart, neurologic, diabetes, unintentional, kidney) could plausibly be due to latent spike injury. Data for 2020 at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
I agree that hospital treatment contributes to excess deaths, but not sure we can back this out, given the wide variety of injury that's possible from spike (and that we see from VAERS).
The worst failing in our 2020 covid response was delaying treatment until hospitalization. Early treatment will almost always reduce spike exposure, and thus reduce overall excess death rates, not to mention reduced deaths from covid directly.
I find it entirely plausible that “environmental spike toxicity” is the smoking gun. I also find it plausible that it is a red herring. For any given cellular receptor, we are probably swimming in compatible viruses with compatible glycoproteins every day. The pathology of “severe Covid-19” might highlight the danger of exposing the bloodstream of adults to such proteins but on the “top side” - the respiratory and GI tract - there doesn’t seem to be any direct danger. These are cells that already rapidly shed and replenish. Here, in the top side, the issue is one of counter-productive inflammatory response that leads to elevated shedding into the bloodstream.
So as mentioned in Forever Spike my hunch is that the primary danger from “environmental spike” is some type of dysregulated immune response - either allergic sensitization or tolerance - that arises from the prolonged exposure artificially prompted by the vaccines.
I think there are two effects. A short-term sharp increase in blood clotting and inflammation from spike, and a potential longer-term immune dysregulation. The blood clotting and inflammation can cause latent injury (heart, brain, pancreas, pituitary, etc) that isn't realized until much later, and all of these can reduce lifespan. As you say, I'm also concerned about immune dysregulation!
Ok, now I better understand your OP (which said the same thing but I misread it). Yes, that's a very good-fitting model for "post-wave and post-vax baseline increases."
"or tolerance - that arises from the prolonged exposure artificially prompted by the vaccines."
Interesting. McKenna tweeted about 2 studies finding spike in the body post-vax after 4 and 15 months.
https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1457911521321881602
Given antibodies wane pretty quick and are mostly gone by 6 months, I asked if that was because the body was tolerating spike and not generating antibodies until the booster forced a signal... but uh... didn't get a reply.
What would the mechanism for spike damage be, given it mainly provides entry to the cell, where the virus can then do its replication thing?
Cationic lipids sounds pretty nasty to me, and the vaccines inject a lot of them into your body, as outlined in this interview: http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/gcep_dr_vanessa_schmidt_krueger/
Very interested in your hypothesis. Spike cannot replicate on its own, whether introduced via virus or vaccine.
More inclined to think virus killed a lot and vaccine is damaging a lot via various mechanisms than it is exclusively the spike protein in isolation.
Spike protein causes blood clots by affecting platelets.
Spike protein is inflammatory because it binds to ACE2, thereby preventing ACE from reducing angiotensin II, and higher angiotensin is inflammatory.
The combination can be deadly, or cause latent problems.
Immediate death from severe covid infection is typically from sepsis, and spike contributes to this, although there are other inputs.
https://joomi.substack.com/p/coming-soon?showWelcome=true
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/silent-type-ii-covid-19
"Delta has remained dominant, at this point settling down from “flavor of the month” to “flavor of the half-year.”"
I was under the impression that this is what we would expect, given Alpha(?? original strain)-specific vaccines are still being rolled out and delta is the evolutionary step caused by that roll out. No attempt is being made to combat Delta, so it's experiencing no evolutionary pressure to escape. Boosters are still original strain specific too.
IMO if / when they bring in the delta- killer, we will see another dominant strain. And I've written it down too, so we can return to this and test my hypothesis :D
Agree; that's more or less where I come down on things in footnote 9.
if I don't write my thoughts down before reading it all I'll forget the things I want to discuss - apologies for making you work even more than you need.
No need for apology - All push-back is good push-back
In Australia, vaccine is being rolled out and cases were exploding at the start.
I only just started reading this article, but are you keeping in mind we are hitting summer now, that our weather is getting warmer and we thus spend more time outside - coinciding with a lock down end?
More UV = More vit D = less cases. Vaccine is immaterial, as shown in the first 2 waves we had.
If anything, our current wave should match or be smaller than the first two, but it's not. This seems to indicate that vaccine = increased cases, not decreased.
I don't know how else to put it besides "the reversal in cases and the rollout of the Covid vaccine are two realities which clearly exist in the same place at the same time." Intimating a link between the roll-out and the (small relative to the example country used in the footnotes, Romania) rise in cases on its own is fine. But I still don't grant the "worry window" mechanism. It isn't supported by any studies.
Part of the reason I am so strong about this increase is because the CHO (this was all our state btw, not the country) who signed off on all the (useless, socially and economically debilitating NPIs) said "we won't be hitting 400 cases a day again, not on my watch".
Then we hit 400, the vaccine mandate and people getting fired ramped up like crazy and then we just accelerated to 2000 cases a day, then they ended most of the NPIs.
The process we are living under is effing ridiculous.
I am telling you as someone living here that the cases exploded from 400 to 2000 a day as the vaccines were being forced onto the population. The likeliest explanation is massively increased movement with the lock downs ending.
Summer weather kicking in is when the cases started turning around. Vaccine rollout and movement remained mostly unchanged.
This is not to suggest that vaccine causes increases in cases, but that
"cases reversal happened at the same time as vaccine rollout" can be as strongly argued as
"case rate increase happened at the same time as vaccine rollout"
the difference between reversal and increase was not vaccine, but weather.
I'd say weather trumps virus as the seasonality is evident everywhere, regardless of NPI or vaccine uptake.
Alright, then compare your (population 25.69 million) peak case rates (2.5k per day) to Punjab (population 28 million) in April and May (8.5k per day, avg temps 34 & 39C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_India#Climate).
The virus can spread in warm temps regardless of A/C use. That's not disputable.
Seasonality, in my model, is an artifact of the rapid increase in natural immunity during the winter due to the enhanced fitness in colder temps, not in any innate unfitness in warm temps. Without a cold temp spike to jack up baseline immunity, the virus should have torn through Down Under in my model. That's not prescriptive; it's just one model among others.
Our premier (the one trying to introduce permanent pandemic laws that have riled even QCs up) had the audacity to celebrate "0" cases in August - it was nauseating.
As if testing catches all infections like red light cameras catch all red light jumpers ffs. The propaganda effort this guy engages in is egregious.
Except it was in the state - so 6M population at 2k per day, not the country ie not 25M.
The state that was shooting rubber bullets at protesters and pepper spraying kids and grandmas.
This is raw data: https://covidlive.com.au/report/daily-cases/vic
If you mean to say that states outside of NSW and Victoria should be discounted, fine - that leaves you with a population of 15 million. Now you're in the same neighborhood as NCT Dehli - 16.8 million, peak cases in April 25k per day, avg temps 36C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi#Climate
Oh no I was more saying - population of Australia is 25M but we're not transmitting state to state at all, as the border closures are policed and result in prison sentences.
Each state's infection rate is specific to the state and you can't really combine state populations and infection rates as they may as well be islands with the lack of transmission between them.
Some US states are seeing high transmission in warm weather too, but the explanation there is apparently people are inside, in air conditioning. Inside = good transmission potential, air conditioning = dry air = dry mucous membranes = good infection potential.
I am giving the wrong impression here too. I am not disagreeing with your proposition nor making one myself, just wanted to clarify that Australia's peak case load was due to 1 state alone, pretty much, and the cases really went nuts as the vaccine was pushed and people were getting fired, 1000s of health care workers stood down, so plenty of coercion in play to ramp up vaccination rates. Then when the weather started to improve, the cases stalled.
Purely observational vs some supported / adamant position.
Ok received a 10 month sentence, still, it's very rare that people are crossing state borders - so the spread is being contained pretty effectively within each state.
I'll add here that it's very dangerous to move between states - 2 guys went to another state to watch the football grandfinal and were jailed for 10 months: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/afl-border-breachers-given-jail-terms/100532080