I’ll have to look up a mutation list for “BA.4” (which last time I looked seemed to simply be a mutated BA.1, maybe I have that wrong). The arrival of mutant nsp5 variants outside of a patient taking an inhibitor probably wouldn’t have an escape feature, but inside of such a patient could be expected to at least possibly have one. The OUTRT definitely doesn’t rule out escape happening, since a “pause”-free mutant would presumably out-replicate the main version
EUAs confer protection for vendors and prescribers against liability. That indemnification is voided by fraud. Seems likely that fraud will be proven, opening the doors for lawsuits. The first few to get their cases in front of juries will own the companies.
Government employees who approved them aren't liable financially, but can be prosecuted criminally. It will take a few years.
Very interesting article. I wrote a post, which as you know I retracted, on these seropositive people. I misinterpreted them as previously vaccinated, which we know did not agree with the original study presumably rejecting vaccinated people. While I have some suspicions that vaccinated people were actually included, it would be crazy to write about it, so I canceled my article.
Anyway, you are assuming here that these seropositive people just seroconverted from the ongoing infection. Are you sure that this is why they were seropositive? Could it be that it was a second infection to them?
"Anyway, you are assuming here that these seropositive people just seroconverted from the ongoing infection"
I wondered about that too. I had to look up IgG and IgM to remember which was short-term and which was long-term. IgM is the short-term one that appears in just a few days, so it's not unreasonable to think it's from the current infection.
I might go back in and put a footnote about seroconversion. What's key here, in my best guess, is that "Day 1" is defined as 0-5 days post onset of symptoms, not just a PCR test, which makes IgM seronegativity more powerful as a predictor of risk. There really should be IgM seropositivity after 5 days of symptoms, as opposed to just PCR+. So people with severe outcomes are having a slow immune response. This "out of shape immune system"-ness is possibly *because* of their comorbidities, but it still not actually true for half the people with same comorbidities. In other words, it is the secondary effect which actually causes severe outcomes. And all this other rube-goldberg theorizing about previously primed ADE this and that, which never made sense given that children have some of the same exposures (e.g. flu shots), can just be set aside. But as I said we'll probably never get replication of this result, the window is passed.
Absolutely. Again, what is wanted is the raw data - what kind of antibodies did they have, IgM, IgG, spike, N? If it was IgM in particular, that would be hugely useful as a risk diagnostic. Too bad, humanity, can’t tell you that, Pfizer needs to sell drug.
Did you see this Washington Post article?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/04/27/paxlovid-second-case-covid/
It shows a ton of vaccinated people not clearing the virus after Paxlovid
And contains a Pfizer rep statement! I reviewed this morning https://unglossed.substack.com/p/updates-to-unfinished
Awesome, I will make sure I read again
I am writing a tweet about that article and mention your substack
https://twitter.com/TotallyCanc3l3d/status/1519883800507043842
Did you see this? Thailand Medical in his usual style, but related to our conversation
https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/warning-mutations-in-new-emerging-ba-2,-ba-4-subvariants-are-changing-the-main-coronavirus-protease-drastically,-rendering-many-previous-antivirals-ob
I’ll have to look up a mutation list for “BA.4” (which last time I looked seemed to simply be a mutated BA.1, maybe I have that wrong). The arrival of mutant nsp5 variants outside of a patient taking an inhibitor probably wouldn’t have an escape feature, but inside of such a patient could be expected to at least possibly have one. The OUTRT definitely doesn’t rule out escape happening, since a “pause”-free mutant would presumably out-replicate the main version
EUAs confer protection for vendors and prescribers against liability. That indemnification is voided by fraud. Seems likely that fraud will be proven, opening the doors for lawsuits. The first few to get their cases in front of juries will own the companies.
Government employees who approved them aren't liable financially, but can be prosecuted criminally. It will take a few years.
In the link to FDA they refer to "pregnant people". These are the folks that some people trust to provide accurate information.
Hey. They’re not a biologist.
Very interesting article. I wrote a post, which as you know I retracted, on these seropositive people. I misinterpreted them as previously vaccinated, which we know did not agree with the original study presumably rejecting vaccinated people. While I have some suspicions that vaccinated people were actually included, it would be crazy to write about it, so I canceled my article.
Anyway, you are assuming here that these seropositive people just seroconverted from the ongoing infection. Are you sure that this is why they were seropositive? Could it be that it was a second infection to them?
"Anyway, you are assuming here that these seropositive people just seroconverted from the ongoing infection"
I wondered about that too. I had to look up IgG and IgM to remember which was short-term and which was long-term. IgM is the short-term one that appears in just a few days, so it's not unreasonable to think it's from the current infection.
I might go back in and put a footnote about seroconversion. What's key here, in my best guess, is that "Day 1" is defined as 0-5 days post onset of symptoms, not just a PCR test, which makes IgM seronegativity more powerful as a predictor of risk. There really should be IgM seropositivity after 5 days of symptoms, as opposed to just PCR+. So people with severe outcomes are having a slow immune response. This "out of shape immune system"-ness is possibly *because* of their comorbidities, but it still not actually true for half the people with same comorbidities. In other words, it is the secondary effect which actually causes severe outcomes. And all this other rube-goldberg theorizing about previously primed ADE this and that, which never made sense given that children have some of the same exposures (e.g. flu shots), can just be set aside. But as I said we'll probably never get replication of this result, the window is passed.
Absolutely. Again, what is wanted is the raw data - what kind of antibodies did they have, IgM, IgG, spike, N? If it was IgM in particular, that would be hugely useful as a risk diagnostic. Too bad, humanity, can’t tell you that, Pfizer needs to sell drug.
Yeah
At least they're distributing it to people for whom it has shown no benefit.
What a sci-fi horror comedy.
That's shameful. An honest actor would chain-smoke 100 cigarettes to become authentically eligible per the CDC.