All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Current affairs, gossip and general conversation

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby dutchman » Sat Apr 29, 2023 4:42 am

It's not the Jews who are complaining...

User avatar
dutchman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 50290
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:24 am
Location: Spon End

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Tue May 09, 2023 11:59 am

Increased Risk of Serious Eye Problem After COVID-19 Vaccination: Study

People who received a COVID-19 vaccine have an increased risk of a serious eye problem, according to a new study.

The risk of retinal vascular occlusion “increased significantly” after a first or second dose of the messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines, researchers reported in a study published by Nature.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines both use mRNA technology.

Retinal vascular occlusion refers to the blockage of veins or vessels that carry blood to or from the retina. It can cause sudden vision loss.

Out of 207,626 Pfizer vaccine doses administered in the population that was studied, 226 cases of the eye problem were detected after two years. Among 97,918 Moderna vaccine doses administered, 220 cases were detected over the same time.

While some cases were detected among AstraZeneca recipients, the risk wasn’t statistically significant.

The risk of retinal vascular occlusion was 3.5 times for vaccinated people compared to an unvaccinated group after 12 weeks and 2.19 times higher after two years. An increased risk was found shortly after vaccination.

“We demonstrated a higher risk and incidence rate of retinal vascular occlusion following COVID-19 vaccination, after adjusting for potential confounding factors,” Chun-Ju Lin, an eye doctor, and other Taiwanese researchers reported in the study.

Patients on medications that could alter blood osmolarity should be especially aware of the risks identified in the study, although further research is needed to figure out whether COVID-19 vaccines actually cause the eye problem, the researchers said.

They drew data from TriNetX, a global network, and adjusted the results with a model that included excluding people with a history of retinal vascular occlusion.

Limitations include not confirming the accuracy of diagnoses listed in the system.

Lin, Pfizer, and Moderna didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Other Studies

A study published in April in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked at the onset of retinal vascular occlusion after Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccination and found the risk didn’t significantly differ from the risk following influenza and Tdap vaccinations.

Ian Dorney and the other Ohio researchers said the results suggested that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination “occurs extremely rarely at rates similar to those of 2 different historically used vaccinations.”

The researchers also drew data from the TriNetX network but only looked at diagnoses within 21 days of vaccination and didn’t compare with an unvaccinated group.

Dr. Lee Jampol of Northwestern University and Maureen Maguire of the University of Pennsylvania said in an editorial that the results showed “no red flags” for retinal vascular occlusion after receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna shot.

Jampol told The Epoch Times he was going to read the new study closely to examine how the analysis was performed but noted there were differences in the populations studied, with the Taiwanese researchers looking at worldwide data and the Ohio researchers looking at U.S. data only.

Another study, conducted by Italian researchers and published in February by Nature, found no increased risk between retinal vein occlusion and COVID-19 vaccination. Retinal vein occlusion and retinal artery occlusion are two types of retinal vascular occlusion.

Some other studies, though, have found eye problems after vaccination, including a systemic review published by Vaccines in 2022 that indicated, according to the authors, a plausible link between the vaccines and the symptoms.

CDC Detects Safety Signal

U.S. authorities detected eye problems as a safety signal for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 2022.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analysts, crunching reports lodged with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, found both retinal artery occlusion and retinal vein occlusion met the criteria for safety signals for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, when compared for the first time to reports lodged after vaccination with any other vaccine.

Hundreds of other signals also were detected, according to files obtained by The Epoch Times.

CDC officials have said the results of the monitoring “were generally consistent” with those from analyses the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted, “revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” Officials haven’t explained why they expected so many signals, and the FDA has refused to release the results of their analyses.

That refusal prompted a lawsuit in Washington, which said the FDA was violating federal law by withholding the data.

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/increased-risk-of-serious-eye-problem-after-covid-19-vaccination-study_5249288.html

Interestingly enough, I was only talking to my brother about this on Sunday. He'd seen reports about it on a medical site!
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby dutchman » Sat May 13, 2023 12:58 pm

CDC = Center for Disease Control

User avatar
dutchman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 50290
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:24 am
Location: Spon End

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Sun May 14, 2023 1:01 pm

Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines Had No Effect on Overall Mortality: Trial Data Reanalysis

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did not impact overall mortality, a reanalysis of clinical trial data found.

The two vaccines, both based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, protected against deaths from COVID-19 but that effect was offset by vaccinated trial participants being more likely to die from cardiovascular problems, Christine Stabell Benn, a health professor at the University of Southern Denmark, and other researchers reported in April in the Cell journal.

On the other hand, vaccines that utilized adenoviruses, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, had a favorable impact on both COVID-19 mortality and overall mortality, according to the reanalysis.

The research analyzed data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported by the companies that manufacture the vaccines.

“In the RCTs with the longest possible blinded follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against some COVID-19 deaths. On the other hand, the adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with lower overall mortality,” researchers said.

“The differences in the effects of adenovirus-vector and mRNA vaccines on overall mortality, if true, would have a major impact on global health,” they added later.

Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca did not respond to requests for comment.

Study

Benn and colleagues took data from three RCTs for the mRNA vaccines and six RCTs for the adenovirus-vector vaccines that had mortality data available. They compared the overall deaths in the vaccinated arms with the placebo arms. They also broke deaths down into different categories: attributed to COVID-19, cardiovascular problems, other non-COVID-19 causes, accidents, and non-accident, non-COVID-19 causes.

“We extracted the number of deaths from the studies that led to approval of the new mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines. We calculated the relative risk of dying, overall, and for various causes of death, for each vaccine type,” Benn told The Epoch Times in an email.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the researchers found, were associated with lower COVID-19 mortality but higher cardiovascular and non-accident, non-COVID-19 mortality. There was no difference in overall mortality between the vaccinated arms and the placebo groups.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was associated with lower overall mortality and with lower non-COVID-19 mortality, with no effect on COVID-19 mortality. AstraZeneca’s shot, never authorized in the United States but cleared in some other countries, performed well against overall mortality and other categories across several trials, except for one trial where slightly more vaccinated people died from non-COVID causes or non-accident, non-COVID-19 causes.

“The results suggest that adenovirus-vector vaccines compared with placebo have beneficial non-specific effects, reducing the risk of non-COVID-19 diseases. The most important cause of non-COVID-19 death was cardiovascular disease, against which the data for the current RCTs suggest that the adenovirus-vector vaccines provide at least some protection,” researchers said.

They noted that trial populations were largely healthy adults and that in the real world, even mRNA vaccines were expected to reduce overall mortality. But “the intriguing differences in the effects on non-accident, non-COVID-19 mortality are likely to persist and should be investigated in future studies,” they added.

Overall mortality spiked in a number of highly vaccinated countries after the vaccines were rolled out, including the United States. Researchers are divided as to the causes, with some arguing the vaccines primarily drove the increases and others blaming COVID-19 and other factors.

The study was published ahead of peer review in 2022, but the authors struggled to find a journal that would accept the paper, Benn said. Several journals rejected it without explaining why, causing a delay in publication.

Immune System Impact

Several experts complimented the paper.

“This is a good article that raises food for thought,” Dr. Peter Gotzsche, professor emeritus and director of the Institute for Scientific Freedom in Denmark, told The Epoch Times via email.

Gotzsche wrote about research conducted by Peter Aaby, one of Benn’s co-authors, in his book “Vaccines: Truth, Lies, and Controversy.” Some of Aaby’s other papers have supported the hypothesis that live attenuated vaccines like adenovirus vectors help decrease overall mortality while vaccines that contain the killed version of a germ that causes a disease increase total mortality.

Such “unexpected results” can complicate public health messaging, Gotzsche wrote.

Previous research, including a 2013 paper from Benn and Aaby, has suggested that some vaccines provide non-specific effects, or increased protection against unrelated pathogens. They posited that the adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines might “prime the immune system in a way similar to a ‘live’ vaccine,” while noting that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines increase inflammation, which could lower the immune system’s protection against other illnesses.

Benn, Aaby, and other experts said in a separate paper in April that the current framework for testing and regulating vaccines needs to be updated because of how vaccines may impact the risk of contracting unrelated diseases.

Criticism

Dr. David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School, was among the critics of the new study. He told The Epoch Times in an email that it was poorly designed because of differences in where the trials were conducted. That’s because some countries, such as the United States, have better health care, he said.

The researchers acknowledged that might be true in the limitations section, writing that “differences between the study populations in the RCTs of the two vaccine types could have biased the comparison as different disease patterns and level of care could have influenced the measured effect of the vaccines on overall mortality.”

The researchers added: “More individuals were infected with COVID-19 in the mRNA RCTs than in the adenovirus-vector vaccine RCTs, but there were more COVID-19 deaths in the adenovirus-vector RCTs. This suggests that participants in the mRNA RCTs may have had access to better health care during COVID-19 infection, and this may have reduced the impact of mRNA vaccination on overall mortality.”

Boulware also said that real-world data “does not support the conclusions of the paper,” pointing to observational data from Israel and Minnesota. “Clearly the mRNA vaccines protect better against COVID than adenovirus vector vaccines,” he said.

Benn said the study was “built on a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled RCTs—the highest degree of evidence in the evidence pyramid.” and that the key point of focus was overall mortality.

“He is discussing COVID-19—we are studying all-cause mortality,” Benn said. “It is irrelevant if a vaccine protects better against COVID-19 than another vaccine, if it reduces overall mortality to a lesser degree—unless you think that COVID is worse than death.”

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/messenger-rna-covid-19-vaccines-had-no-effect-on-overall-mortality-trial-data-reanalysis_5258825.html
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Sun May 14, 2023 1:04 pm

Judge Orders FDA to Speed Up Release of COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Data From 23.5 Years to Just 2

A federal judge in Texas this week ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make public data it relied on to license COVID-19 vaccines—Moderna’s for adults and Pfizer’s for children—at an accelerated rate, requiring all documents to be made public by mid-2025 rather than, as the FDA wanted, over the course of around 23.5 years.

In a decision hailed as a win for transparency by the lawyer representing the plaintiffs (the parents of a child injured by a COVID-19 vaccine) in a lawsuit (pdf) against the FDA, the Texas judge ordered the FDA to produce the data about ten times faster than the agency wanted.

“Democracy dies behind closed doors,” is how U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman opened his order (pdf), issued on May 9, which requires the FDA to produce the data on Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines at an average rate of at least 180,000 pages per month.

The FDA had argued it would be “impractical” to release the estimated 4.8 million pages at more than between 1,000 and 16,000 pages per month, which would have taken at least 23.5 years.

Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad, who represents the plaintiffs in the legal action against the FDA, called the decision “another blow for transparency and accountability” that builds on an earlier court order targeting Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine data for those aged 16 and older.

The January 2022 order (pdf), also issued by Pittman, forced the FDA to produce all its data on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 16 and older at a rate of 55,000 pages per month, or much faster than the 75 years the agency had sought.

“That production should be completed in a few more months,” Siri said in a statement, referring to the earlier Pfizer data for those aged 16 and up.

The latest order requires the FDA to produce all of its data on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds (and Moderna’s product for adults) by June 31, 2025.

The FDA did not immediately return a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

‘Stale Information Is of Little Value’

While the judge noted in his order that the court recognizes the FDA’s limited resources dedicated to freedom of information requests (FOIA), he argued that “the number of resources an agency dedicates to such requests does not dictate the bounds of an individual’s FOIA rights.”

“Instead, the Court must ensure that the fullest possible disclosure of the information sought is timely provided—as ‘stale information is of little value,'” Pittman wrote.

In order to ensure the FDA can meet the accelerated deadline—so around ten times faster than the agency wanted—the judge ordered the parties to the lawsuit to confer and submit a joint production schedule for the data by May 23, 2023.

In the earlier case adjudicated by Pittman, the FDA had argued it only had the bandwidth to review and release around 500 pages per month of an estimated total 450,000 pages of material about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 16 and older.

The FDA has not disputed in either case that it has an obligation to make the information public but it has argued that its short-staffed FOIA office could not meet the pace of production sought by the plaintiffs.

The judge disagreed, arguing in both cases that the imperatives of transparency and accountability are of paramount importance.

In the January order, Pittman said that too much foot-dragging and secrecy on the part of federal agencies feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s trust in government.

Confidence in the FDA over COVID-19 vaccine approvals was shaken by the disclosure that regulators sped up the approval of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Republicans on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in March announced they were seeking answers after recently released emails indicated that the FDA rushed the approval of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters to accommodate vaccine mandates.


Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-fda-to-speed-up-release-of-covid-19-vaccine-trial-data-from-23-5-years-to-just-2_5263217.html
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Sun May 28, 2023 12:40 pm

Oh dear, maybe 'the science' wasn't so good, after all? The implications here are rather disturbing. If I had my way, I'd strip these research centres of their government funding.

Over 300 COVID-19 Papers Withdrawn for Not Meeting Standards of Scientific Soundness

Research journals have withdrawn well over 300 articles on COVID-19 due to compromised ethical standards and concerns about the publications’ scientific validity.

Retraction Watch has provided a running list of withdrawn papers on COVID-19 ranging from “Acute kidney injury associated with COVID-19” to “Can Your AI Differentiate Cats from COVID-19?”

A total of 330 research papers have currently been retracted.

During the pandemic, researchers have compromised on ethical standards and tried to either get more publications approved or to take shortcuts around ethics, senior researcher Gunnveig Grødeland at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo says, after going through the list of articles that have been withdrawn, and the reasons for some of them.

While it is quite natural for some articles to be updated or changed to be published in a different form, some have been retracted because the researchers did not obtain informed consent during the research.

“It will, of course, be withdrawn when it is found that ethical guidelines have been breached,” Grødeland told Khrono, a Norwegian higher education and research newspaper.

She pointed out that other articles have been withdrawn after the editors noticed that the strategies the papers mentioned were giving the wrong impression in the media of being recommended as actual treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

She said these sorts of articles had to be withdrawn as they claimed things that neither the authors of the articles nor their institutions could vouch for.

In addition, some studies did not include a large enough sample size.

When more subjects were included, the researchers could no longer maintain the same conclusions they made earlier about the effect of the drugs.

“A Little Out of Hand”

Grødeland said that part of the reason this happened during the pandemic was that relatively more people suddenly started conducting research on a topic they really knew relatively little about.

Even prestigious journals such as the Lancet were publishing those articles.

One of Lancet’s studies even caused both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the national government to stop the comprehensive testing of hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness against COVID-19.

The extensive Lancet study, allegedly based on research fraud, said that the drug increased the risk of heart arrhythmia and mortality for COVID-19 patients.

However, most of the retracted papers were published in smaller journals, the vaccine researcher points out.

“When you look at the articles that have been retracted, the vast majority were published in the less interesting journals. It is they who are mainly affected by withdrawals,” Grødeland said.

But there were a number of environments that do not normally carry out research, which suddenly started producing research after receiving funding from local hospitals.

“It may have caused things to get a little out of hand in some places,” she said.

Hearing Loss?

A recent case from the University of Manchester backtracked on an earlier study that said that COVID-19 was associated with hearing loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and vertigo.

Published in 2021, the researchers said they had identified about 60 studies that report audio-vestibular problems in people with confirmed COVID-19.

“Our analysis of the pooled data, published in the International Journal of Audiology, reveals that seven to 15 percent of adults diagnosed with COVID-19 report audio-vestibular symptoms,” audiology professor at the University of Manchester Kevin Munro said.

“The most common symptom is tinnitus followed by hearing difficulties and vertigo.”

Two years later, after the virus has been blamed for a range of health problems, including auditory disorders, the same university published a new study concluding that hearing loss is unlikely to be caused by COVID-19.

Lead author and audiologist Anisa Visram explained their reasoning.

“We know that viruses such as measles, mumps, and meningitis can damage the auditory system,” Visram said in a release.

“It is also well known that COVID-19 can affect our sense of smell and taste, so it was reasonable to assume it might also affect our sense of hearing.”

Visram assured that their current study is well designed and executed and is the most thorough assessment of hearing conducted in people with COVID-19.

Munro also acknowledged that their earlier work may have been rushed.

“There was an urgent need for this carefully conducted clinical and diagnostic study to investigate the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the auditory system,” he said.

“Many previous studies were published rapidly during the pandemic but lacked good scientific rigour.”

“It hasn’t been clear if these are incidental findings or if COVID-19 is damaging the hearing system,” Professor Richard Ramsden, Trustee at the Dowager Countess Eleanor Peel Trust, added.

“While the study cannot rule out infrequent hearing loss as a result of COVID-19, we now know that for most people, there is nothing to be concerned about.”


Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-300-covid-19-papers-withdrawn-for-not-meeting-standards-of-scientific-soundness_5293140.html
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Mon May 29, 2023 11:51 am

The truth is slowly coming out...

Majority of COVID Hospital Deaths Were Due to Untreated Bacterial Pneumonia

Hospitals sticking to the strict hand-me-down, highly profitable “COVID protocol” may have doomed a majority of admitted COVID-19 patients to death due to a perfect storm of institutional failure, a new study shows.

This article was originally published by The Defender—Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website

Hospital protocolists sticking to the strict hand-me-down highly profitable “COVID protocol” may have doomed a majority of admitted COVID-19 patients to death due to a perfect storm of institutional failure.

I first warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 that because the commercial kits did not use internal negative controls there would be arbitrarily high COVID-19 false positive rates due to the abuse of non-quantitative PCR.

The majority of “cases,” I pointed out, would be false because the test was to be used as a screening device—and when you screen with an imperfect test when prevalence is low, you end up with more false positives than negatives in the set of positives.

Knowing that people who were symptomatic for respiratory infections would be among the most tested population and that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s medical approach to COVID-19 was to tell people to go home and get as sick as possible, it was readily clear that people would be dying due to lack of treatment for treatable conditions, like bacterial pneumonia and fungal infections in the lung.

Now a study from the National Institutes of Health-funded researchers in Chicago has found that unresolved respiratory infections—not necessarily those involved in SARS-CoV-2—were present in people who failed to “respond” to mechanical ventilation.

The authors wrote:

“Recent data suggest that secondary pneumonia is present in up to 40% and pneumonia or diffuse alveolar damage is present in over 90% of autopsy specimens obtained from patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (18).

“Consistent with these observations, we and others found high rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation, suggesting that bacterial superinfections such as VAP may contribute to mortality in patients with COVID-19 (7, 19–22).

“These findings prompt an alternative hypothesis that a relatively low mortality rate directly attributable to primary SARS-CoV-2 infection is offset by a greater risk of death attributable to unresolving VAP (23).”

They concluded:

“These data suggest mortality associated with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is more often associated with respiratory failure that increases the risk of unresolving VAP and is less frequently associated with multiple-organ dysfunction.”

Unsurprisingly, the study found that people with bacterial pneumonia who were on ventilators had the highest mortality.

Although their analysis restricted consideration to bacterial pneumonia cases detected 48 hours after ventilation, they did not distinguish between undiagnosed cases of bacterial pneumonia upon admission and those acquired in-hospital (nosocomial infection).

The rate of co-infection is not clear either, due to insufficient testing for bacterial pneumonia in patients once diagnosed with COVID-19.

The study leads to the stunning potential that perhaps 58 percent of “COVID” cases were respiratory issues other than COVID-19 (43 percent bacterial pneumonia, 16 percent non-pathogen causes of respiratory failure). Treated as “COVID,” these patients were doomed to a fate of non-treatment due to mis- or under-diagnosis.

It is unclear what percentage of deaths attributed to COVID-19 could have been prevented via a standard therapy for bacterial pneumonia, but it is potentially very high.

Fauci’s prescription—sending patients home to do nothing—no corticosteroids, no antibiotics just in case it was bacterial—drove the COVID-19 death rate up far higher than it had to be.

Originally published on James Lyons-Weiler’s Popular Rationalism Substack page.

This article was originally published by The Defender—Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.


Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/majority-of-covid-hospital-deaths-were-due-to-untreated-bacterial-pneumonia_5294482.html
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Tue May 30, 2023 1:26 pm

Maybe I shouldn't laugh? S*d it I'm laughing like a drain...

Most Infected in COVID Outbreak at CDC Conference Were Vaccinated, Agency Confirms

A COVID-19 outbreak unfolded at a conference held by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) despite most attendees being vaccinated.

About 1,800 CDC staffers and others gathered in April in a hotel in Atlanta, where the CDC is headquartered, for a conference focused on epidemiological investigations and strategies.

On April 27, the last day of the conference, several people notified organizers that they had tested positive for COVID-19. The CDC and the Georgia Department of Public Health worked together to survey attendees to try to figure out how many people had tested positive.

“The goals were to learn more about transmission that occurred and add to our understanding as we transition to the next phase of COVID-19 surveillance and response,” the CDC said in a May 26 statement.

Approximately 80 percent of attendees filled out the survey. Among those, 181 said they tested positive for COVID-19.

Pretty much all respondents—99.4 percent—had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose.

The number of unvaccinated people who got sick, if any, was not disclosed. Officials also did not break down the vaccinated between those who had received a dose of the updated bivalent vaccines and those who had not. The CDC has not responded to requests for more information.

About 360 people did not respond to the survey, so the actual outbreak may have been larger.

Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, said on Twitter that the numbers made the conference a “superspreader event.”

Dr. Tom Inglesby, director of the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, added that the outbreak shows COVID-19 is “still capable of causing big outbreaks and infecting many.”

A Georgia Department of Public Health spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that many people who attended the conference were not residents of Georgia, and that many used tests at home.

Bivalent Protection

The CDC said the survey results “underline the importance of vaccination for protecting individuals against severe illness and death related to COVID-19” because none of the people who said they tested positive reported going to a hospital.

No clinical trial efficacy data are available for the bivalent shots, even though they were first cleared nine months ago. They provide little protection against infection, according to observational data, though officials maintain they protect against severe illness. That protection is short-lived, according to studies, including non-peer-reviewed CDC publications.

The most recent publication, released on May 26, showed poor effectiveness against hospitalization from the Pfizer and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, which replaced the old vaccines earlier this year.

Among adults without “documented immunocompromising conditions,” the protection was 62 percent between seven and 59 days but went to 47 percent before plunging to just 24 percent after 120 days.

Among adults with “documented immunocompromising conditions,” the effectiveness peaked at just 41 percent, hitting 13 percent after 120 days.

Researchers did not provide the effectiveness estimates among all adults, or the combined population of those with and without “documented immunocompromising conditions.” They also did not provide the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, or estimates before adjusting for certain variables.

“Both the crude VE and adjusted VE should be reported so that big discrepancies are evident to the reader and questioned,” David Wiseman, founder and president of Synechion, told The Epoch Times via email.

Effective against critical illness—defined as admission to intensive care, or death—peaked at 85 among the people deemed immunocompetent, but plunged to 33 percent after 120 days. Among those described as immunocompromised, the effectiveness was not estimated above 53 percent.

Effectiveness was not measured beyond 180 days.

Effectiveness for children was not examined as part of the research.

CDC researchers looked at data from its VISION Network, a network of hospitals in the United States. Exclusions included people under 50 who received four or more old vaccine boosters.

Just 23.5 percent of the immunocompetent and 16.4 percent of the immunocompromised were vaccinated, while the rest had received at least two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 8 percent of American adults are still unvaccinated, according to CDC data, though that percentage may be a big overestimate (pdf).

Researchers said the data showed that bivalent doses “helped provide protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and critical disease” adding that “waning of protection was evidence in some groups.”


Source; https://www.theepochtimes.com/most-infected-in-covid-outbreak-at-cdc-were-vaccinated-agency-confirms_5297678.html
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby rebbonk » Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:38 pm

Many of us could see this coming. Six(?) jabs in under 2 years...?

Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study

Repeated COVID-19 vaccination weakens the immune system, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, according to a new study.

Multiple doses of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines lead to higher levels of antibodies called IgG4, which can provide a protective effect. But a growing body of evidence indicates that the “abnormally high levels” of the immunoglobulin subclass actually make the immune system more susceptible to the COVID-19 spike protein in the vaccines, researchers said in the paper.

They pointed to experiments performed on mice that found multiple boosters on top of the initial COVID-19 vaccination “significantly decreased” protection against both the Delta and Omicron virus variants and testing that found a spike in IgG4 levels after repeat Pfizer vaccination, suggesting immune exhaustion.

Studies have detected higher levels of IgG4 in people who died with COVID-19 when compared to those who recovered and linked the levels with another known determinant of COVID-19-related mortality, the researchers also noted.

A review of the literature also showed that vaccines against HIV, malaria, and pertussis also induce the production of IgG4.

“In sum, COVID-19 epidemiological studies cited in our work plus the failure of HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines constitute irrefutable evidence demonstrating that an increase in IgG4 levels impairs immune responses,” Alberto Rubio Casillas, a researcher with the biology laboratory at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico and one of the authors of the new paper, told The Epoch Times via email.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccines in May.

Pfizer and Moderna officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Both companies utilize messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in their vaccines.

Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the technology, said the paper illustrates why he’s been warning about the negative effects of repeated vaccination.

“I warned that more jabs can result in what’s called high zone tolerance, of which the switch to IgG4 is one of the mechanisms. And now we have data that clearly demonstrate that’s occurring in the case of this as well as some other vaccines,” Malone, who wasn’t involved with the study, told The Epoch Times.

“So it’s basically validating that this rush to administer and re-administer without having solid data to back those decisions was highly reductive and appears to have resulted in a cohort of people that are actually more susceptible to the disease.”

Possible Problems

The weakened immune systems brought about by repeated vaccination could lead to serious problems, including cancer, the researchers said.

“Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals,” they wrote in the paper.

Myocarditis is a form of heart inflammation that is caused by COVID-19 vaccination, with young males facing the highest risk.

Potential longer-term consequences of repeated vaccination include vaccinated people who get infected suffering from more severe cases of COVID-19, according to the researchers.

“Without an adequate protection level, even the new Omicron sub-variants (considered as mild) could cause severe multi-organ damage and death in immuno-compromised individuals and those with comorbidities,” they said.

Some studies have pegged the vaccinated as having a higher risk of infection when compared to people who enjoy natural immunity, or post-recovery protection. One recent study, published in April by Open Forum Infectious Diseases, found that each additional dose raised the risk of infection.

The tolerance stemming from heightened levels of IgG4 means the immune system lacks the ability to respond to antigens, or foreign substances, Malone said.

Further experiments could include following vaccinated patients over time and comparing their antibody profile to a group of naturally immune people, Malone said. Other testing could include in vitro studies or animal experiments, Casillas said.

Cautious Approach Warranted

The new paper shows that repeated vaccination “should be approached with caution,” the researchers said.

Some countries have recently halted or slowed down recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination after years of promoting repeated shots as data show the vaccines provide substandard protection against infection and short-lived protection against severe illness. The United States, for instance, stopped recommending boosters for all and changed the primary vaccination of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines from two doses to one.

Still, some health agencies are moving toward a model based on the approach to influenza vaccination. That would involve selecting updated vaccine compositions each year aimed at targeting the circulating COVID-19 strains, and recommending certain groups, or virtually everybody, get an annual shot.

The World Health Organization said in May that the composition should be updated to focus on the XBB.1 Omicron subvariant “in order to improve protection.” Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are set to convene in June to consider whether the vaccines should be updated for the 2023–2024 “vaccination campaign.” Officials in many countries have already discontinued the old Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and cleared shots that target the BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron subvariants.

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/repeated-covid-19-vaccination-weakens-immune-system-study_5305770.html
Of course it'll fit; you just need a bigger hammer.
User avatar
rebbonk
 
Posts: 65580
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:01 am

Re: All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

Postby dutchman » Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:09 am

This is from a motoring channel I seldom watch and often disagree-with but YouTube recommended it to me anyway:

User avatar
dutchman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 50290
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:24 am
Location: Spon End

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

  • Ads