CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

[Heliobas Disciple]

https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/johor-malaysia-reports-2169-new-dengue-cases-as-covid-19-infections-also-rises

(fair use applies)


Johor-Malaysia Reports 2,169 New Dengue Cases As COVID-19 Infections Also Rises
Nikhil Prasad Fact checked by:Thailand Medical News Team
Feb 13, 2024

Amidst the backdrop of an ongoing battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, the Malaysian state of Johor finds itself confronting another significant health challenge - a surge in dengue fever cases. The latest epidemiological data reveals a concerning spike in dengue infections, adding to the complexities of managing public health in the region.


Dengue Outbreak Grips Johor
State health officials in Johor report a staggering total of 2,169 new dengue cases during the sixth epidemiological week, marking a substantial increase compared to the same period last year. Ling Tian Soon, the chairman of the state's Health and Unity Committee, expressed deep concern over the 154% rise in reported cases. This surge underscores the urgency of addressing dengue prevention and control measures across the state.

Dengue cases in Johor spike to 2,169, says exco

JOHOR BARU: A total of 2,169 dengue cases have been reported throughout Johor in the sixth epidemiological week, which is a worrying spike, says state health and unity committee chairman Ling Tian Soon.

www.thestar.com.my

A breakdown of the reported cases highlights Johor Baru as the epicenter, contributing to 83.6% of the total number of cases, followed by Kulai, Kota Tinggi, Batu Pahat, Muar, Kluang, Pontian, Tangkak, Mersing, and Segamat. Ling Tian Soon emphasized the crucial role of community engagement in combating the spread of dengue fever, urging families to prioritize environmental cleanliness and proactive measures to eliminate mosquito breeding sites.

Despite ongoing efforts by health authorities to identify and destroy mosquito breeding grounds, challenges persist as evidenced by the discovery of breeding sites within residential areas. Ling Tian Soon underscored the importance of public awareness and compliance with preventive measures, citing enforcement actions that have resulted in fines totaling RM 188,400.

Johor records alarming spike in dengue cases | New Straits Times

JOHOR BARU: Johor recorded a worrying spike with 1,755 dengue cases recorded state-wide, compared with the 737 cases in same period in 2023.

www.nst.com.my

He told local Dengue News outlets that the public needs to remain vigilant, advocating for regular environmental checks and the use of mosquito repellents as additional protective measures.


Dual Crisis - Dengue and COVID-19
The dengue outbreak in Johor unfolds against the backdrop of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, compounding the challenges faced by health authorities. While efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 have seen some success, recent data indicates a resurgence of cases in the region. As of February 3rd, Johor has recorded a cumulative total of 412,305 COVID-19 cases, with a notable increase observed since the 51st epidemiological week of 2023.

Despite the recent decline in COVID-19 cases, concerns remain regarding the potential for future surges, mirroring global trends. Johor Baru, Batu Pahat, and Kulai emerged as t he districts with the highest number of COVID-19 cases during the latest epidemiological week, highlighting the need for targeted interventions and enhanced surveillance measures.


Addressing Dual Health Threats
In response to the dual health threats posed by dengue and COVID-19, health authorities in Johor are intensifying their efforts to mitigate transmission and safeguard public health. Strategies aimed at dengue prevention include:

-Community Engagement: Empowering communities to take proactive measures in eliminating mosquito breeding sites through educational campaigns and outreach programs.

-Environmental Cleanup: Encouraging regular cleaning activities to eliminate stagnant water and potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

-Enforcement and Fines: Implementing strict enforcement measures to penalize individuals and premises found to be in violation of dengue prevention guidelines.

-Collaboration and Coordination: Strengthening partnerships between government agencies, community organizations, and healthcare providers to streamline efforts and maximize impact.

Similarly, in the fight against COVID-19, authorities are prioritizing:

-Vaccination: Accelerating vaccine distribution efforts to achieve herd immunity and reduce the risk of transmission.

-Surveillance and Testing: Enhancing surveillance systems and expanding testing capabilities to detect and isolate cases promptly.

-Public Health Measures: Implementing and enforcing public health protocols, including mask mandates, social distancing, and hygiene practices.

Healthcare Capacity: Bolstering healthcare infrastructure and capacity to manage both COVID-19 and dengue cases effectively.


Conclusion
The concurrent rise in dengue fever and COVID-19 cases in Johor underscores the need for comprehensive and coordinated public health responses. As authorities strive to contain both outbreaks, community engagement, proactive measures, and collaborative efforts will be instrumental in overcoming these dual health threats. By prioritizing prevention, surveillance, and intervention strategies, Johor aims to protect the health and well-being of its residents amidst these unprecedented challenges.

For the latest Dengue News keep on logging to Thailand Medical News.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

COVID-19 "Vaccine mRNA is Not Localized to the Injection Site and Can Spread Systemically to the Placenta and Umbilical Cord Blood"

The latest peer-reviewed science.

viralimmunologist.substack.com

COVID-19 "Vaccine mRNA is Not Localized to the Injection Site and Can Spread Systemically to the Placenta and Umbilical Cord Blood"
The latest peer-reviewed science.
Dr. Byram W. Bridle
Feb 11, 2024

It has been two years, six months, and twenty days (932 total days) since the administration of my employer, the University of Guelph, banned me from accessing my office and laboratory. I spoke truths about COVID-19 when much of the world was not ready to hear them. As the University of Guelph still expects me to work, I would like to have access to my work spaces. Segregation makes me feel less than human.
- B. Bridle -

A journal pre-proof has just been published. It is entitled "Transplacental Transmission of the COVID-19 Vaccine mRNA: Evidence from Placental, Maternal and Cord Blood Analyses Post-Vaccination". This is not the same as a pre-print article. This particular article has completed the peer review process and has been accepted for publication in the impactful and long-running American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (impact factor 9.8). Following acceptance, proofs of the manuscript are generated. These are then reviewed and authorized by the authors to ensure no mistakes were introduced during the type-setting process. In other words, this paper is in its final or near-final form. There will be no changes to the scientific content; only potential minor edits to non-scientific components are allowed at this point. Here is the full citation…

Lin X, Botros B, Hanna M, Gurzenda E, Manzano De Mejia C, Chavez M, Hanna N. "Transplacental Transmission of the COVID-19 Vaccine mRNA: Evidence from Placental, Maternal and Cord Blood Analyses Post-Vaccination". American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2024 Jan 31:S0002-9378(24)00063-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.022. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38307473.​

The research reported in this paper was done at New York University in the United States of America. It caught my attention due to one of the keywords for search engines; “biodistribution”. Specifically, the authors wanted to address the question, ‘can modified RNA COVID-19 shots or any components or derivatives thereof cross the maternal-fetal barrier?’.

This is something of great interest to me because I, as an expert vaccinologist, highlighted my serious concerns about the biodistribution of the COVID-19 modified RNA shots in a nine-minute interview that I gave way back on March 26, 2021. Specifically, I highlighted the reality that lipid nanoparticle-encased modified RNAs likely do not remain at the injection site. Rather, most of the dose appeared to get distributed widely throughout the body.

This science in and of itself was not news to me at the time. What surprised me is that all the public messaging up until then was that the doses did remain at the injection site. Combined with the proprietary nature of the formulations, I had assumed there must have been some non-disclosed tweaking of the long-standing technology to keep it at the site of injection. So, to find evidence that the public, me included, had been lied to is what bewildered and frightened me.

I would not have shared such a grave message if I was not confident in the scientific foundation upon which I stood. However, my life has never been the same since that interview. The scathing attacks that I suffered and the profound harms to my career and personal life still continue to this day. So, it is with some frustration, but also relief, that I see others being allowed to back up this message with more science, albeit years later. What I have learned is that to speak the truth too soon can result in vilification by way too many people. But, I digress. What is most important is that many people still need to learn the truth. Their health and well-being, and potentially that of their unborn children may rely on it.

The authors of the paper only looked at two pregnant women that had received modified RNA shots. This is a very small sample size; two case studies. However, what was found in both mothers is extremely concerning and provides the proof-of-principle required to once again call for a moratorium on this technology until all relevant scientific questions can be addressed. I keep repeating myself, but there is no crisis with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was forced to become endemic a long time ago by the mismanagement of COVID-19 and it represents no more of a threat than any other endemic respiratory pathogen that we live with. There is no need to keep pushing the shots.

In contrast, there is a massive and ever-growing number of reasons to legitimately question the “safe and effective” mantra. We must stop using the global rollout as though we are conducting research in a world-scale laboratory.

Here is why I am concerned. Have a look at these quotes from the conclusions section of the paper. They say it all…

​

“Our findings suggest that the vaccine mRNA is not localized to the injection site and can spread systemically to the placenta and umbilical cord blood. The detection of the spike protein in the placental tissue indicates the bioactivity of the vaccine mRNA reaching the placenta. Notably, the vaccine mRNA was largely fragmented in the cord blood and, to a lesser extent, in the placenta.”​

​

“To our knowledge, these two cases demonstrate, for the first time, the ability of the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA to penetrate the fetal-placental barrier and reach the intrauterine environment.”​

Is it misinformation if it is peer-reviewed science!?! Call me a foolish scientist if you like, but I would contend that scientific facts are being stated when quoting peer-reviewed science. If any so-called ‘misinformation’ ‘gurus’ disagree, let’s have a respectful and professional public chat.

For those pushing these shots on pregnant women, the science says cease and desist!

For those who are pregnant, research suggests that you should not take these shots! Ask whoever is recommending it to explain why this recent publication should be ignored.

Let the scientific process, which is designedly slow and methodical, catch up to the narrative that was blasted at us at the speed of propaganda.

Our children are worth this consideration.

 

[danielboon]

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-02-13/us-cdc-plans-to-drop-five-day-covid-isolation-guidelines-washington-post

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-02-13/us-cdc-plans-to-drop-five-day-covid-isolation-guidelines-washington-post

More on this; but see next post too:

CDC to drop five-day COVID isolation guidelines: Report

The planned recommendation would be the first update from the CDC on COVID-19 guidelines since 2021.

justthenews.com

(fair use applies)


CDC to drop five-day COVID isolation guidelines: Report
The planned recommendation would be the first update from the CDC on COVID-19 guidelines since 2021.
By Madeleine Hubbard
Published: February 13, 2024 12:41pm

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reportedly issuing new guidance that would drop the five-day isolation guidelines for Americans who test positive for COVID-19.

The CDC currently recommends Americans stay home from work and school for at least five days if they test positive for COVID. The federal health agency is expected to announce in April that people can end their isolation if they are experiencing mild symptoms and are fever-free without the aid of medication for at least 24 hours, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

The planned recommendation, which is the first update from the CDC on the matter since 2021, comes after Oregon and California issued similar guidelines. The proposed guidelines would treat COVID similarly to the flu and RSV.

The White House has not formally signed off on the guidance, and one agency official said the recommended isolation time could "move around a bit" until everything is finalized.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

CDC says it has no plans to ease Covid isolation yet, despite urging from doctors

People who test positive for Covid should still isolate for five days according to the CDC, even though many Americans are already ignoring the policy.

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


CDC says it has no plans to ease Covid isolation yet, despite urging from doctors
Erika Edwards and Berkeley Lovelace Jr. - NBC News
Tue, February 13, 2024, 10:19 PM EST

People who test positive for Covid should still isolate for five days, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, even though many Americans are already ignoring the policy. That guidance is likely to change at some point, however.

Following reports that the CDC was considering easing Covid isolation restrictions — including guidelines that people can leave their homes after being fever-free for 24 hours — the agency refused to confirm that such plans were in the works. The potential change was first reported by The Washington Post.

But an official at the Department of Health and Human Services who asked not to be identified said federal health officials are considering relaxing Covid isolation guidelines, although the discussions are at an early stage and no definitive decisions have been made.

“It’s way too preliminary,” the source said. There’s “lots more consultation to be had.”

The CDC is looking at changes to its overall Covid guidance, which could include recommendations about masking as well as isolation, said a public health official who was involved with a recent call with the CDC. The CDC currently recommends masking for 10 days following a Covid diagnosis.

There’s no evidence that the virus that causes Covid has evolved to become less dangerous or contagious. What has changed is Americans’ attitudes about Covid restrictions. People are no longer willing or able to spend a week out of work or school because of Covid, experts say.

Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious diseases expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said he and his colleagues have privately encouraged the CDC to drop the five-day isolation period, in part because there’s little evidence it’s stopping the spread of Covid.

The “rigorous recommendations that are currently in place do not reflect common practice,” Schaffner said. “It’s difficult to demonstrate that strict isolation has had a notable impact on transmission.”

California and Oregon have already broken with the CDC, suggesting that people don't need to stay home if they've been fever-free for 24 hours without medication.

“With each day, the risk of communicability diminishes,” Schaffner said. “Public health recommendations have to be practical.” That is, people may stay home for a few days if they have a fever and feel achy and fatigued. After that, it’s back to business as usual.

Dr. David Margolius, the public health director for the city of Cleveland, said he was also in favor of easing isolation restrictions.

“For a couple years, people really associated public health with the elimination of Covid,” Margolius said. But “public health is about increasing life expectancy for our residents. It’s about improving quality of life. And that is more than just controlling one virus.”

Covid is still contagious, said Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician at Stanford Medicine. “What the CDC and health departments are trying to say is that we need to have policies that people are going to actually follow,” Karan said.

As of this month, emergency room visits, hospitalizations and deaths from Covid are down, according to the latest CDC data.

In a statement, the CDC said it had “no updates to Covid guidelines to announce at this time,” adding that it would “continue to make decisions based on the best evidence and science to keep communities healthy and safe.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

How Covid wreaks havoc on women's sex lives months after infection

American women who have been infected with Covid-19 have less desire, arousal, satisfaction, and fewer orgasms during sex, even months later, a study from researchers in three states suggests.

www.dailymail.co.uk

(fair use applies)


First-of-its-kind study reveals Covid wreaks havoc on women's sex lives for months after infection
By Emily Joshu Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com
Published: 16:29 EST, 13 February 2024 | Updated: 16:46 EST, 13 February 2024

• Women who previously had Covid or long Covid reported less sexual desire
• Researchers suggested that long Covid could hamper blood flow to the genitals

Women who've had a Covid-19 infection have less desire, arousal, satisfaction, and fewer orgasms compared to those who've never been infected, a first-of-its-kind study suggests.

Researchers in three states compared the sexual function of more than 1,300 women who either never had Covid, had been infected with the virus, or suffered from long Covid - those who contracted the infection at least three months before the study.

They also measured the participants' levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.

The team found that women who had never had Covid had 'significantly higher' levels of desire, arousal, lubrication, and satisfaction than the Covid and long Covid groups combined.

Additionally, 'those with long Covid reported significantly worse arousal, lubrication, orgasm, and pain,' compared to the other groups, the team wrote.

Dr Amelia M Stanton, study author and assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, said: 'It might be surprising to some folks that long Covid symptoms really may have a physiological and psychological impact on sexual well-being for women.'

The researchers suggest that long Covid could alter blood flow to the genitals, resulting in less arousal. Previous studies have shown that the condition can damage the delicate lining of blood vessels, disrupting flow around the body.

Dr Stanton estimates that this is the first study to highlight the effect of long Covid on sex drive in women.

The team called for doctors to discuss sexual health with patients who have had Covid and offer more resources, such as medication and counseling, for sexual dysfunction.

The researchers - from Vermont, Massachusetts, and California - surveyed 1,313 women who were broken into four age groups: 18-20, 21-30, 31-40, and over 41.

Additionally, the researchers divided the women into three groups: those who never had Covid, those who had Covid at least once, and those who met the criteria for long Covid, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The body defines long Covid as a condition including symptoms like shortness of breath, brain fog, and fatigue for at least three months after initial infection.

Roughly half of the participants reported never testing positive for Covid.

The vast majority of partipants in all three groups were white, and lesbian, bisexual, asexual and heterosexual women were all included.

The participants were given a quiz including questions like 'Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel sexual desire?'

Only women who reported having sex within the last month were included in the results.

Women who had been infected with Covid scored 8.5 percent lower in terms of desire, 2.5 percent less arousal, and had three percent less satisfaction.

And those with long Covid had 12 percent less desire, five percent less arousal, and five percent less lubrication.

The team is largely unsure why Covid resulted in hampered sexual desire, though they suggested that it could be due to blood not properly flowing to the genitals.

'Long Covid may reflect, in part, underlying sensitivity to bodily sensations, discomfort, or pain,' the researchers wrote.

These sensitivities, they add, could help explain why desire and satisfaction did not differ between women with Covid-19 and those with long Covid, whereas the more physiological components (i.e. lubrication, orgasm, pain) did differ between these two groups.

The study was published earlier this month in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

DOD Told Pharma Exec the Virus "Posed a National Security Threat" on Feb. 4, 2020

IT WAS NOT ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH.

debbielerman.substack.com

(fair use applies)


DOD Told Pharma Exec the Virus "Posed a National Security Threat" on Feb. 4, 2020
IT WAS NOT ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH.
Debbie Lerman
Feb 7, 2024

A leaked recording obtained by investigator and writer Sasha Latypova features an executive at the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca stating the following:

“It wasn’t a surprise to me when I got a call on February 4th from the Defense Department here in the US saying that the newly discovered Sars-2 virus posed a national security threat.”

This is an astonishing, major-newspaper headline-worthy revelation.

Here’s what was happening on February 4, 2020:

Virus Activity in the U.S.​

• According to CNN, on February 4th there were 11 “confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus” in the United States.
• There were zero reported deaths from the virus in the U.S.
• As documented in my recently launched Covid Timeline Wiki Project, The New York Times had two headlines about the virus focused on China and travelers from Wuhan. There were no op-eds on the virus.

Virus Activity Internationally​

• Approximately 490 reported deaths
• The disease caused by the virus had not even been named “Covid-19” yet.
• The WHO said the outbreak “was not yet a pandemic.”

Behind-the-scenes Virus-Related Activity​

EUA & PREP ACT

Crucially, the FDA and HHS declared the first emergency basis for issuance of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Covid on February 4th.

EUA is an authority that was granted to the FDA “to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents.”

As explained in a previous post, EUA powers were granted to the FDA to be used in situations of grave, immediate emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. They were intended to allow the use of countermeasures against biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological (CBRN) agents without going through all the usual steps of ensuring safety and efficacy, because the immediate threat of the CBRN attack would be so much greater than any potential risks caused by the countermeasure.

In conjunction with EUA, PREP Act protection was also granted retroactively to February 4th (announced March 17). The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, as noted in a another previous post, legally indemnifies from all liability anyone who does anything related to a product that receives Emergency Use Authorization.

Again, this was intended for very extreme emergency situations involving CBRN agents, so that if a countermeasure caused harm while being used during the attack, no one would get sued.

ORIGINS COVER-UP

Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes and others in the international group of gain-of-function funders and researchers, were conspiring to publish multiple documents denying the possibility that the virus could have emerged from the bioweapons lab they were funding/working with in Wuhan, China.

Emily Kopp at U.S. Right to Know compiled a detailed timeline of these activities, many of which occurred on the days just before and just after February 4, 2020.

Conclusion​

If the Department of Defense was telling pharmaceutical executives that the “novel coronavirus” was “a national security threat” on February 4, 2020 – when it had killed no one in the U.S. and infected 11 people – there must have been a reason other than public health.

If EUA and PREP Act emergency declarations – reserved for dire situations involving attacks with CBRN agents – were issued on that same day, there must have been a reason other than public health.

If the heads of the U.S. public health agencies, including Anthony Fauci (NIAID) and Francis Collins (NIH), were spending a large portion of their time on that day frantically trying to come up with ways to claim the virus was not manufactured in a bioweapons lab – there must have been a reason other than public health.

The reason is becoming increasingly undeniable: The Covid crisis was a military/national security operation, not a public health event.

 

[psychgirl]

This stuff comes out now in reports and as usual, not a soul pays attention and not do they seem to care anymore.
No one but those of us on this thread, I should say.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

This author seems to be very much aligned with Geert's thinking. I've posted a few posts from him in the last few weeks. Here's another good one.

~~~~~~~~~~

Why people are now constantly sick all the time – Rintrah

(fair use applies)


Why people are now constantly sick all the time
Radagast
February 13, 2024

Please take a look with me at some worrisome developments in the Netherlands.

So to start with, here is the excess mortality we observe:



We simply have too many people dying again, compared to what you would expect during this time of the year. The rest of Europe has the same problem.

Am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut and move on, when people are dying, after they were threatened with social ostracism if they did not sign up for an experimental vaccine? These are just the people dying, I have also personally met people who began to develop autoimmune nerve conditions, within weeks of receiving the third shot. Again, am I supposed to just ignore it, as the problem steadily grows worse?

In recent weeks, the excess deaths have been steadily growing. If you look at this graph, it’s pretty clear that the excess mortality mostly tends to show up during winter. That strongly suggests it is related to how our body deals with the unique challenges of winter, namely our increased susceptibility to respiratory infections during winter.

We can look at data from Dutch General Practitioners, to see how people are doing.

People of all ages have high rates of acute infection of the upper airways, that doesn’t go away:




We see a very big increase in pneumonia among children, that lingers for a long time:




We see a lot of whooping cough in kids:





We see an ongoing epidemic of acute respiratory infections among adults of all ages:




Pneumonia among adults is at very high levels too:




Importantly, this is also being seen on the other side of the world right now, in Australia, where it’s summer right now! Australian emergency departments are seeing cases of pneumonia in their teenagers and young adults, at levels worse than what they see in winter!

In the Netherlands, we now see everyone is coughing all the time:




Every night, especially in the morning, I lay in bed and I hear all my neighbors coughing, they wake up coughing their lungs out, but people seem to think this is perfectly normal. I’m apparently supposed to just ignore it all, like everyone else is.

And yet, the evidence we have says that people’s lung capacity is rapidly deteriorating, with the deterioration continuing even two years after they were first infected.

So why is this happening?

If you want to understand the human immune system, there is one soft-white underbelly that nobody wants to talk about. The big open secret is as following: The immune system is characterized by constrained space. If you want to learn more about this, you can read this or this.

All the tissues in your body that serve as barriers to protect you from the outside world have some lymphocytes (white blood cells) that take up residence in them. You can not stack infinite numbers of these lymphocytes in there, without interfering in the ability of these tissues to do their job.

And so, what you generally want to see is for the lymphocytes that protect your barriers (the first line of innate defense) to be well-rounded. You want to see cells there that can effectively deal with a variety of different types of threats.

That’s what Natural Killer cells happen to excel at. These cells are important to patrol the body for any signs of cancer, but they have specialized receptors that allow them to directly detect signs of viral infection in a cell too. The most-studied of these receptors are NKp46, NKp44 and NKp30. Almost all of them have NKp46 and NKp30 even at rest, they acquire NKp44 when they’re activated. If you browse through the literature, you’ll find that these receptors can detect just about any respiratory virus you can think of.

Influenza A? Check.

Influenza B? Check.

Metapneumovirus? Check.

Rhinovirus? Check.

SARS-COV-2? Check.

Importantly, the Natural Killer cells can be encouraged to do their job by antibodies, but they can also do their job without antibodies to stimulate them, simply thanks to these receptors that allow them to directly detect a cell infected by a virus that is displaying viral proteins on its surface.

When a human being or an animal similar to us is exposed to a new respiratory virus that causes a nasty infection in the lungs, you will see NK cells decrease in blood, because they start migrating into the lungs, where they are needed.

One of the differences you see between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, is that the immune system relies more on the Natural Killer cells to kill infected cells in the unvaccinated, than on cytotoxic T cells.

This fits what you see in mice too. You see a sixfold increase in NK cells in the lungs upon SARS-COV-2 infection in unvaccinated mice, but not in vaccinated mice. You also see a huge increase in plasmacytoid dendritic cells in the lungs of the unvaccinated mice, but not in the vaccinated mice. These plasmacytoid dendritic cells are extremely important, because they are among the first cells to ring the alarm bells when a virus shows up.

When they find viral material, they start secreting enormous amounts of Interferon alpha. This is called Interferon, because it directly interferes with viral replication at many stages of the process. This Interferon Alpha also serves to wake up the NK cells, which then produce Interferon Gamma, which also interferes with viral replication in cells. As Natural Killer cells grow older, they tend to get better at learning when to instruct an infected cell to protect itself and cleanse itself of viral RNA, versus when to go ahead and kill the cell.

Not all NK cells are created equally. They are normally about 10% of white blood cells in the lung, but they mature over time, losing some receptors while maintaining those that fit well for the sort of threats they encounter in the environment. We know what receptors we see in people whose NK cells are well-suited to clear the SARS2 virus rapidly from their lungs: NKp46, NKp30, and DNAM1.

So, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll realize these are NK cells that also help people’s lungs to deal with just about every other respiratory virus. Some of these NK cells are long-lived, they will stick around for months or even years, to do this job.

Depending on the sort of cytokines the NK cells are exposed to, they produce different spliced versions of NKp46 and NKp30, this is not very well understood yet. The most important thing to understand however, is that these proteins work very different from how an antibody works.

Whereas an antibody looks for a specific short chain of amino acids, these NK cell receptors just look at the overall nature of the protein they’re interacting with. The same physical forces that allow a viral protein like Spike to bind tightly to the receptor it needs to enter a cell, cause it to bind tightly to these NK cell receptors. That’s why you see them working for most respiratory viruses.

So why am I explaining this? Well the important thing to take away from this is that humans have a generalist innate immune response that plays a very big role in the fight against respiratory viruses. This generalist innate immune response takes on a bigger role over time and is trained, by exposure to respiratory viruses.

On the other hand, when we vaccinate people with inactivated vaccines against a new respiratory virus they have never been infected by before, we stimulate a highly specific adaptive immune response, consisting mainly of B cells and T cells, rather than these NK cells. This is particularly true if we vaccinate them against one single protein (Spike). The damage is worst when it happens before their first infection.

This adaptive immune response will then be the first to start the fight whenever we are exposed to that particular virus again and further grow and take on a bigger role in the defense of our bodies with every new exposure to the virus. The innate immune response on the other hand, is forced to take a backseat ride.

The impact you would expect this to have, is that this highly specific adaptive immune response takes up more of the constrained immunological space your tissues have, at the cost of the more generalist innate immune response. This makes it comparatively difficult, for your body to fight off other respiratory pathogens that are not targeted by this adaptive immune response.

[continued next post]

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

[continued from above post]

Remember: You can not just stack infinite numbers of immune cells in your lungs!

With every new infection by this new corona virus, your body will devote more of its limited immunological capacity to whatever it was taught to devote to this corona virus. If your body had to learn on its own to deploy plasmacytoid dendritic cells and NK cells to this virus, then that’s what it will do during successive infections.

If on the other hand, your body was taught to deploy an antibody response and CD8+ T cells against this virus, then these are the elements of the immune response that will take up more and more of your body’s scarce capacity to fight this virus. That will help it keep this evolving virus at bay (for now), but because these cells and antibodies generally have little ability to deal with unrelated respiratory viruses, it gets harder over time to deal with other respiratory viruses.

The T cells and B cells that deal with SARS2 are in competition with NK cells, but they are also to some degree in competition with T cells and B cells that deal with the other respiratory pathogens. Just as the adaptive immunity against the seasonal corona viruses interferes with immunity against SARS2, the opposite is seen too, as SARS2 antibodies react with Influenza. This means there is interference with the adaptive immune response to other respiratory pathogens.

The adaptive immune response against respiratory viruses is intended for problems the innate immune system could not deal with on its own. It inherently takes the adaptive immune system more time to deal with an infection, hence we see that vaccinated people take longer to bring the viral load back to zero. As a result, the damage that these constant reinfections can do to the immune system is exacerbated too.

This affects everyone to some degree. If you were vaccinated, your body has a more difficult time fighting off these viruses. We have known this for a long time, we see it with the influenza vaccine too. We vaccinate children with inactivated vaccines against influenza and we observe that it works to protect them against influenza, but now they’re more vulnerable to respiratory infections by other viruses! For SARS-COV-2, you can expect a similar effect.

For everyone who was not vaccinated, there is increased exposure to respiratory viruses, from all the people who are infected by these viruses. This leads to an increase in respiratory infections, especially in young children whose immune systems have not yet had sufficient training against the variety of those viruses that circulate.

This would be bad enough, if we now had a very competent highly specific immune response against SARS-COV-2. But as I have explained a number of times in previous articles, the immune response deployed by people’s bodies is not even well-suited for SARS-COV-2! People are now deploying IgG4 antibodies that are poorly suited for neutralizing viral particles, but worst of all, don’t tell your T cells and your NK cells to kill infected cells!

Instead, these IgG4 antibodies tell almost all your immune cells to calm down, by binding to their FcγRIIb receptor. This means that when these antibodies bind to your plasmacytoid dendritic cells, they tell them to calm down and stop releasing interferon. This then in turn means that these plasmacytoid dendritic cells are not activating your natural killer cells either. And again, we can expect that this abnormal antibody response will interfere in the response against other respiratory pathogens too.

I can not sufficiently emphasize how nightmarish this problem is. It effectively shuts down all the pro-inflammatory messaging that your immune cells produce, that encourages infected cells to destroy the viral RNA that infected them, warns the neighboring vulnerable cells there is a virus present and encourages other immune cells to get active. You will have reduced symptoms of the infection as a result, while the virus happily spreads through your cells. That is insanely dangerous when dealing with a virus like this, that has the inherent ability to spread by fusing an infected cell together with an uninfected cells.

Infections don’t solve this problem, they make it steadily worse. The first signs are seen after two shots, but it only becomes significant once those two shots are followed by an infection. We have not seen a fraction yet of what this problem will cause, because respiratory pathogens like SARS2 will evolve in response to this abnormal immune response to abuse it. You can expect an increase in asymptomatic infections from a variety of respiratory pathogens. The absurd rates of pneumonia now seen in children may be largely a result of them constantly being exposed to those asymptomatic carriers. I have been warning for a long time now, that some solution needs to be sought to remove these B cells doing this, but nothing is being done.

I will emphasize once again: There is still no evidence of this problem happening to anyone other than people who received these mRNA vaccines, because it’s not normal and not part of any sort of normal compensatory mechanism either. It’s what happens by placing extreme demands on the adaptive immune system, while intentionally fooling the cellular innate immune system into going along. Those two very contrasting signals coming from the innate and the adaptive immune system lead the immune system to think it’s overreacting to an environmental contaminant that does not infect cells, thus encouraging a class switch.

I have said from day one, that if we want to override how our immune system would normally respond to a new virus like this, we need to be really sure of what we’re doing. But for some reason, humanity decided to go with a very experimental new technique, that has now led to a very unusual adaptive immune response that is entirely incorrect for a virus of this nature.

If we were dealing with a new strain of influenza, this would be bad enough. But we’re dealing with a coronavirus, one most closely related to viruses that persistently infect bats. These viruses are very good at persistently infecting a host, if you give them a chance, because unlike Influenza, they are naturally good at suppressing the body’s interferon response. Well, if your body deploys antibodies against this virus that fail to instruct your NK cells and your CD8 T cells to kill infected cells, then that’s what you’re encouraging in these viruses.

The broken immune response people deploy against this virus is encouraging this virus to evolve into a persistent infection, that spreads by fusing an infected cell to neighboring cells. This is hugely damaging for your body, you don’t want your cells to be fusing together with neighboring cells. Yet, this is the best route to survival available for the virus, when the antibodies are IgG4 antibodies that don’t instruct cytotoxic cells to kill infected cells.

The broken balance of the immune response seen in people’s lungs due to vaccination, is not stable. It continues to escalate towards increasing dependence on B and T cells with every additional vaccine against SARS-COV-2, as well as with every additional SARS-COV-2 infection that recalls this poorly effective adaptive immune response.

The big change in the virus from Delta to Omicron did not encourage a new immune response, but merely recalled the vaccine induced adaptive immune response. Every subsequent subtle change to the virus then again recalled this adaptive immune response.

The virus in turn continues to evolve to get better at evading this broken immune response, by reducing the immunogenicity of Spike and improving Interferon suppression. This then forces the immune system to rely even more on it. With the evidence we have, we can say that the cannabis plant appears like an effective candidate to address this harmful cycle.

So what’s going to happen now? Well as I explained before, the virus will continue to evolve, to use people’s broken immune response to its advantage. You see versions emerge everywhere now, that have improved the Furin cleavage site, which allows it to fuse cells together. Fuse cells together and you never have to worry about the antibodies neutralizing your viral particles, you can spread undetected!

More importantly however, we have an increasingly clear picture of what is going to happen to the evolution of this virus. People’s immune systems are now very dependent on antibodies against a particular region of the N-Terminal Domain: The antigenic supersite. This site mostly consists of three loops (corresponding to amino acids 14-26 (N1), 141-156 (N3) and 246-260 (N5)). It now mostly seems to be IgM antibodies.

So what’s happening instead, is that these regions are undergoing deletions. The first example has already been seen of this in South Africa. When this happens, the virus starts looking more like SARS1 and other Sarbecoviruses in bats. It avoids these antibodies, but has the added effect of making it easier to fuse cells together. The only reason it hasn’t happened on a wide scale yet, is because it makes transmission to other people more difficult.

You can see that this deletion of the antigenic supersite is the direction the virus is going, by looking at the variants now emerging. The recently seen South African variant deletes 15-27 and 136-146, so it gets rid of N1 and most of N3.

The important thing to keep in mind, is that IgM antibodies normally don’t last very long. They’re produced for a few weeks, then decline. When antibodies are needed to produce lasting protection against infection, you need IgG antibodies. This means that if protection now depends on IgM against the highly immunogenic region of the NTD, you will now have a situation where people are just reinfected after a few weeks.

This means you get suboptimal pressure on the immunogenic region of the NTD: These antibodies will neutralize most viral particles and stop the virus from spreading to other people, but they won’t effectively neutralize all viral particles. Under those conditions, you start to encourage rare mutations in the immunogenic region of the NTD to spread. This includes the rare large deletions in these loops.

So what’s going to happen now?

In the weeks ahead, we’re going to see versions of SARS2 spread that have improved their ability to establish chronic infections. There are multiple routes for this. The BA.2.86 versions can take the backbone of the other versions. But equally important, there’s a very easy path to improve the Furin cleavage site (S:679R), thereby making it easier to spread from one cell to another.

These increasingly chronic infections are hard to test for and they’re associated with other secondary viral and bacterial infections. A lot of the observed pneumonia in people right now is SARS2 that’s simply going unrecognized.

Eventually, we will see the same thing as we recently saw in South Africa: These persistent infections will end up with shorter loops in the N-Terminal Domain, turning this virus into something more similar to the original SARS. You will see deletions emerge in these regions: 14-26 (N1), 141-156 (N3) and 246-260 (N5).

You may also see mutations of amino acids to Serine or Threonine, either within these regions, or around them. Once you see this happen, you can expect a rapid increase in virulence. It will be impossible to deny something is seriously wrong. An awful lot of people will get very sick simultaneously.

Once we reach this point, there will be no places left where antibodies can bind and neutralize the Spike protein, because the whole RBD either looks similar to our own amino acids, or is shielded by the glycans. Binding to the glycans seems to be insufficient to neutralize the Spike protein, but causes autoimmune problems, as these antibodies also bind to your own cells glycans.

Because people’s immune systems have spent the past three years, devoting more and more of their limited capacity to this adaptive immune response of antibodies and T cells, proliferating these cells at the cost of the innate immune system’s ability to do its job, now treating this Spike protein as if it were a kind of strange new bee venom or pollen that is continually showing up in our lungs somehow, the loss of these immunogenic regions of the N-Terminal Domain would suddenly leave most people in highly vaccinated Western countries with no protection.

The immune system would likely resort to antibodies against the glycan shield (something already being observed in severe cases), which results in acute autoimmune problems and generally fails to neutralize the Spike protein.

It’s hard to see how that could result in anything other than a sudden outbreak of severe disease in most of the population.

On the other hand, among people with natural immunity, the innate immune system would continue to do its job:

-NK cells have proliferated, adjusted their receptor repertoire and know when to strike.

-Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have proliferated and are not told to shut down by IgG4 antibodies.

This is my warning. And as the unexplained deaths continue to pile up, as the children have record levels of pneumonia, as more people every week go to the doctor with coughs and respiratory infections that don’t seem to go away, I hope people will take it seriously. The problems you caused take time to reveal themselves, but they are now becoming undeniable.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

About some unforgivable sins in vaccinology....

About some unforgivable sins in vaccinology: Vaccination with a replicating-competent vaccine during the incubation time of a viral disease, or exposure to an infectious virus during the ‘incubation time’ of a vaccine-induced immune response... I was baffled upon reading the following...

voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com

(fair use applies)


About some unforgivable sins in vaccinology....
Geert Vanden Bossche
Feb 13, 2024

About some unforgivable sins in vaccinology: Vaccination with a replicating-competent vaccine during the incubation time of a viral disease, or exposure to an infectious virus during the ‘incubation time’ of a vaccine-induced immune response...

I was baffled upon reading the following publication: ‘Case fatality risk among individuals vaccinated with rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP: a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with confirmed Ebola virus disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’ (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00819-8/fulltext). Apparently, the scandal of the previous publication on this vaccine wasn't significant enough to prevent The Lancet from once again showcasing the same propaganda for a potentially life-threatening vaccine (rVSVΔG-ZEBOV), this time authored by different scientists, 8 years later. Back then, I conducted a post-hoc peer review of the publication—previously published by the WHO—reporting vaccine efficacy results from the ring vaccination trial conducted in Guinea with the very same vaccine (https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736(16)32621-6). Even a child could have suspected that ring vaccination, which involves vaccinating some contacts (or contacts-of-contacts) of the index case with lab-confirmed Ebola disease during the disease's incubation period, wouldn't yield a positive outcome, especially when using a live viral vector for vaccination.

The astonishingly high number reported for the purported efficacy of the vaccine (100%!), as previously published in The Lancet, immediately raised suspicion. I published my analysis in a report that, of course, I couldn't get published in any peer-reviewed journal, but that I did send to all relevant health authorities and regulatory bodies in Europe and the US (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolid...accine-trial-and-the-reported-interim-results). Many officials read it, but no one dared to react. Read it for yourself and compare it with the conclusions from the current retrospective study. The protective effect of the vaccine against severe disease and death reported in the current study is significantly lower than the vaccine efficacy against disease (and therefore, likely against severe disease and death) reported in the 2015 WHO study. This fact alone demonstrates that we were fundamentally misled by the results generated by the WHO in its study published in The Lancet in 2015 regarding the efficacy of the Merck Ebola vaccine.

Regrettably, the authors of the current study concluded that the vaccine provided protection against death for all patients, even when adjusted for Ebola virus disease-specific treatment, age group, and time from symptom onset to admission, and even when administered shortly before symptom onset (i.e., after exposure to the virus). I profoundly disagree with this conclusion because this retrospective study only included patients who, after experiencing symptom onset, managed to reach an Ebola treatment center. In essence, the case fatality rate (CFR) among those who were vaccinated during the incubation period of the disease (i.e., shortly before symptom onset) but did not reach an Ebola health facility due to vaccine-induced enhancement of severe Ebola virus disease has not been accounted for in this study.

Although the results of the current study lacked sufficient power to demonstrate an antagonistic effect between the vaccine and Ebola virus disease-specific treatment, even when administered shortly before symptom onset (such as in the case of a vaccine breakthrough infection), this does not suggest in any way that the vaccine could potentially be utilized for post-exposure prophylaxis. On the contrary, it is probable that vaccine breakthrough infections occurring within four days of symptom onset would have resulted in a higher CFR among individuals who did not receive Ebola virus disease-specific treatment, as observed in the WHO's Ebola vaccine trial in Guinea in 2015, compared to those who did receive this treatment.

Where has all the science gone? More and more often, sophisticated methodologies and elaborate statistics obviously prevent scientists from seeing the forest for the trees. Many seem to blindly surrender themselves to measurements and statistics without understanding the underlying biology. Similar to vaccination during a pandemic (see the Covid-19 mass vaccination program), ring vaccination with a live viral vector (specifically, a recombinant, live attenuated vesicular stomatitis virus) during the incubation period of a highly inflammatory viral disease has resulted in detrimental health consequences.

In the case of the Ebola vaccine, the WHO has intentionally concealed the data on the CFR in the vaccinees (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolid...accine-trial-and-the-reported-interim-results), and we are currently witnessing a similar strategy from public health authorities and regulatory agencies regarding the catastrophic safety issues provoked by the Covid-19 vaccines amidst an increasing number of reports indicating negative vaccine efficacy (i.e., when compared to unvaccinated individuals). The question remains whether scientists and public health authorities are even capable of fully assessing the consequences of their conclusions and interpretations, which only testify to their unforgivable failure to grasp the complex interactions between the pathogen and the host immune system….

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

It’s time to continue exploring promising avenues for potential solutions….

After nearly 4 years of studying the Covid-19 pandemic on a daily basis, I have decided to change course. Over the last 4 years, I have mainly focused on studying the effect of collective (i.e., population-level) immunity, which can either fuel virus spread and evolution when it is insufficient...

voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com

(fair use applies)


It’s time to continue exploring promising avenues for potential solutions….
Geert Vanden Bossche
Feb 13, 2024

After nearly 4 years of studying the Covid-19 pandemic on a daily basis, I have decided to change course. Over the last 4 years, I have mainly focused on studying the effect of collective (i.e., population-level) immunity, which can either fuel virus spread and evolution when it is insufficient to eliminate the virus (e.g., in the case of vaccination during a pandemic!), or control viral transmission (e.g., in the case of herd immunity acquired during a natural pandemic).

Because my extensive professional experience with vaccines increasingly led me to understand that the greatest challenge in designing efficient vaccines against chronic/ recurrent infectious or immune-mediated, non-infectious diseases (including cancer) is immune evasion, I have specialized in the last 12 years of my career in designing a completely new concept of vaccines that is not subject to immune evasion and is also safe. The entity I founded several years ago is not coincidentally named COIMEVA, which stands for COuntering IMmune EVAsion.

When I learned at the end of 2020 that the WHO did indeed intend to start mass vaccination in the midst of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (!), I knew that such a strategy would inevitably lead to viral immune evasion, even though SARS-CoV-2 causes acute, self-limiting infections rather than chronic ones (i.e., in the vast majority of cases the virus is completely eliminated from the body by the host immune system after infection/illness). Therefore, in early 2021, I made an almost pleading appeal to the WHO to abandon their ‘mass vaccination’ plan. Back then, the probably most renowned and respected vaccinologist on this planet agreed with my deep concerns but indicated in his email that I would not be able to oppose the powerful mainstream. Of course, I already knew that, based on my previous experiences with all the players involved in this global operation. However, what I will certainly remember for the rest of my life is that this icon in the vaccine field openly agreed with me, thereby immediately making it very clear that I could not count on support from the vaccine community to put a halt to this unbelievably stupid and dangerous initiative. Whereas at that time I was still one of the very few who were lying awake at night, fearing what I believed would become a gigantic catastrophe, resistance has since slowly but steadily grown much stronger.

On all fronts, highly skilled individuals have now thoroughly investigated and denounced the deception and various catastrophic consequences of the COVID-19 vaccination program. The battle progresses slowly and arduously but will undoubtedly be won because large-scale fraud always comes to light, and no one can escape the ancient laws of nature, which unquestionably will restore order in a host-pathogen system that has been heavily and widely disturbed. This realization runs like a common thread through my interviews, articles, book, lectures, and online courses. It is from these laws that I practice deductive science, allowing me to approach scientifically, in a holistic manner, the consequences of an ecosystem (virus-host-environment) profoundly disrupted by mass vaccination; it is from these very same laws that I predict the outcome... I will continue to hold onto the rope of scientific opposition, but given all the havoc wreaked, I believe there is now a more important task for me to pursue than to merely serve as a scientific activist.

I find it difficult to accept that I dedicated eight years of my life to uncovering and exploiting the healing potential of Natural Killer (NK) cells, only to now simply reconcile myself with the possibility that this technology may never see the light of day. Based on all the research conducted on the unique immunological properties of NK cells, I believe there is a real chance that adequate education of these cells could offer an effective immunological solution to the deranged adaptive immunity of C-19 vaccinees. Therefore, I think it is more than time for me to further explore the potential of the safe and simple method I devised for training NK cells in vivo without having to expose the recipient to infectious virus. This effort may be more important than my contribution as a voice for science and solidarity, which is now resonated by many (but still by far too few) fellow fighters.

I will continue to support David in his fight against Goliath, but my scientific insight and biological instinct tell me that we will have to wait for Mother Nature's verdict regardless. How long it will take for that unfortunate mutation to be selected is difficult to predict. The daily monitoring of when and where this undesirable new variant may emerge is distressing beyond what I find acceptable. Instead of passively watching the spectacle unfold, it makes much more sense for me to work towards a potential solution. I am convinced and reassured that the fierce opposition against the political, economic, and academic establishments and elites will continue, even without me. This, however, does not apply to truly translational NK cell-based vaccine research, as progress in the academic field is still primarily limited to speculative publications on how the potential of these cells could possibly be used for harnessing the immune system against infected, or otherwise pathologically altered, host cells.

A final word on this technology. I have attached below a brief description of the concept (an unchanged 'teaser' dating back to when the greedy VCs were even begging to invest in this technology….). The concept sparked amazement and admiration from several vaccine companies, research institutions and investors to whom I pitched it. However, I soon realized that interest from the vaccine industry rapidly waned upon the realization that each NK cell antigen could serve to simultaneously combat several diseases, even of diverse types. Big pharma naturally prefers to develop a new vaccine for each disease, and - if possible - even for each new serotype of infectious agents. While it is accepted that antibiotics work against different types of microorganisms, suggesting that vaccines, which stimulate our own, ‘endogenous’ antibiotics (i.e., in the form of elicited antibodies or immune effector cells), could achieve a similar effect is dismissed as utter nonsense.

I have filed provisional patents for the technology multiple times, but each time, I had to withdraw them because progress in generating results was too slow. The slow development was partly due to a lack of financing (I declined collaboration with corporate VCs for valid reasons) but also due to a lack of support from NK cell scientists who had both sufficient vaccine expertise and the interest to further explore and test this technology. Nonetheless, with limited resources, quite remarkable results were generated. But then the shareholders started quarreling over their shares, and some left like thieves in the night. I subsequently downsized the company, renamed it to ‘COIMEVA’, and continued on my own... But then SARS-CoV-2 emerged, and everything came to a halt because lab activities were suspended for several months.

It has never been my goal to become rich with this technology. Instead, it has always been my dream to make it available worldwide. Anyone willing to provide laboratory support, further finance this research, and assist in further developing the technology is welcome. Depending on parties’ interest, I would even consider transferring the technology to any entity that is willing to make NK cell vaccines arising from this technology available to those who need them most, in sufficient supply and at an affordable price (i.e., according to the so-called 'global access' principle). The question remains, however, as to whether an entity will be willing to provide the funds for further development, considering that no official patent has been filed at present. It also remains uncertain whether any of the few labs currently working with NK cells will still be willing to collaborate with me after all the negative criticism I have faced due to my outspoken disapproval of the Covid-19 mass vaccination program. Nonetheless, I have decided to refine and complete the concept so that I can at least share it publicly, should nobody be interested in helping to further develop the technology. The world will then have to decide what to do with this knowledge and discovery. But at the very least, that’s the kind of task I still want to accomplish. You never know...

Att.:

COIMEVA: Entering a new era in vaccines​

HQ: Schoolstraat 9, 3040 Huldenberg, Belgium April 2019​

Vaccines enabling universal, NK cell-mediated protection against multiple infectious or immune-mediated diseases

We are guided by the belief that a better understanding of the mechanisms of evolutionary immune adaptation of pathogenic agents to the host immune system will drive paradigm-shifting innovation in the vaccine field.​

Summary

Coimeva (‘Countering immune evasion’) is a preclinical-stage biotechnology start-up company developing a first-of-its-kind technology which is capable of exploiting immune mechanisms that are naturally protective of ‘self’ to target highly conserved, vitally important pathogen-derived antigens, thereby activating self-centred NK cells. Coimeva vaccines are designed at preventing or treating a broad range of infectious, immune-mediated or oncologic diseases while avoiding immune escape. Coimeva vaccines have the unprecedented potential to meet medical needs for which prevention or treatment is currently not feasible or highly cost-ineffective.

Technology: countering natural infection or immuno-pathogenesis of disease

Coimeva revolutionises vaccinology by designing and developing universal vaccines that educate the host immune system to redirect immune targeting away from conventional, foreign antigens towards highly conserved, ‘self-mimicking’ antigens that are expressed at the surface of cellular microbial pathogens or at the surface of pathogen-infected, transformed or immunopathologically altered vertebrate host cells. Although ‘non-self’ and exposed on the surface of pathogens or infected or diseased host cells, these antigens are ignored or not effectively recognised by the host immune system while also subverting immune recognition of conventional pathogen-derived antigens as of an early stage of natural infection or immune pathogenesis. There is compelling evidence that structural or functional mimicry between ‘self-mimicking’ pathogen-associated antigens and components of cell surface-expressed MHC-associated self-proteins (which are critical to Ag presentation) or terminal self-glycan patterns (which are critical to immune modulation) underlies the mechanism of immune subversion. It is reasonable to assume that pathogens have evolved such molecular mimicry during their evolutionary adaptation to their natural host.

To target these self-mimicking, immune subversive motifs, Coimeva vaccines are designed to unlock the untapped potential of innate cell-mediated immunity by training MHC-unrestricted NK cells to specifically and durably recognise a broad and diversified spectrum of pathogen-derived self-mimicking peptides (PSMPs) or self-mimicking glycan (PSMG) patterns. By enabling presentation of self-peptides or self-glycans in a highly repetitive pattern on the surface of vertebrate cells, Coimeva vaccines prime a self-centred, NK cell-based immune response which is not directed at the very self-antigen but at pathogen-derived self-mimicking motifs. Preliminary in vivo data in a natural host-pathogen model suggest that the resulting self-centred immune response has the capacity to prevent infection or abrogate disease caused by a broad range of antigenically distinct pathogens (even including phylogenetically unrelated pathogens) across a diversified immunogenetic background of the host (even including phylogenetically unrelated vertebrate species). This is in sharp contrast to immune responses that are naturally induced by infection, immune-mediated or oncologic disease or which are elicited by contemporary vaccines, the efficacy of which is ‘restricted’ by antigenic variability of the pathogen and/ or the host’s MHC haplotypes.

Value proposition

•Truly universal vaccines, since overriding both, immunogenetic host polymorphism and Ag variation of the pathogen. Hence, one and the same vaccine protects against a diversified range of pathogens in several different vertebrate host species (enabling their usage in both, human and animal vaccines)

•Capable of countering immune escape strategies that pathogens deploy to adapt to their natural host
•Safe vaccines, since their targeting of immune subversive, pathogen-associated self-mimicking motifs relies on immune mechanisms that are naturally protective of ‘self‘

•Inducing immune responses that do not involve foreign-centred, Ag-specific or MHC-restricted immune effector or helper cells and don’t interfere with (passively or actively acquired) pre-existing immunity

•While targeting cell surface-expressed Ags, Coimeva vaccines have both, prophylactic and therapeutic potential

•Rapid onset (since relying on NK cells) and long-lasting effect (memory!) of vaccine-mediated immunity

•No need for adjuvants as the putative mechanism of action does not rely on innate immune signalling cascades or upregulation of MHC or co-stimulatory molecules

•Enhanced type hypersensitivity (ETH) response is NK cell-mediated and triggered by post-immunisation recall with relevant cell surface-expressed PSMPs or PSMG patterns (administered via intradermal inoculation); positive ETH reactivity may serve as a correlate of protection (CoP)

•The self-derived vaccine constructs are well-characterised; their chemical synthesis in high quantities and with high level of purity is fast, straightforward and highly cost-effective

•Based on the highly conserved nature of the vaccinal ‘self’ components, demonstration of vaccine-mediated immune protection in infectious challenge trials using a given ‘susceptible host-relevant pathogen’ model is thought to be predictive of immune protection conferred by the same vaccine in other susceptible vertebrate species (including humans)

•As Coimeva’s vaccines are not adjuvanted, they can readily be administered by the intradermal or mucosal route (i.e., needle- and pain-free)

Data



Four in vivo experiments provide initial supportive evidence for Coimeva’s value proposition:

•Outbred pigs immunised with Coimeva’s self-derived vaccine and subsequently challenged with a lethal dose of porcine -Herpesvirus (Pseudorabies):

90% of immunised as compared to 10% of control pigs were protected against or rapidly recovered from severe Herpes-associated disease.

•Outbred pigs immunised with Coimeva’s self-derived vaccine and naturally exposed to circulating Enterovirus:

Immunised but not control pigs showed significant evidence of protection against natural infection based on lack of seroconversion to VP4.

•Two additional studies in pigs provided evidence that the vaccine induced immune responses that could be recalled by intradermal post-immunisation challenge (as shown by ETH assay), thereby providing first evidence of immunological memory. Immuno-histochemical analysis of biopsies suggested that ETH-mediated activation of NK cells may serve as a correlate of protection (CoP).



• None of the in vivo studies revealed any notable local reactogenicity or other
undesirable side-effects.

• Results from In vitro stimulation of chicken NK cells with autologous DCs loaded
with different concentrations of optimal (e.g., TP1) as compared to suboptimal
(e.g., TP6) self-derived vaccine constructs strongly suggest in vitro priming
capacity of Coimeva’s vaccine:

For more information please feel free to contact: geert.vandenbossche@live.be​

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Should CDC cut the 5-day COVID isolation guidelines? Experts weigh in.

The CDC is reportedly weighing a revision to COVID-19 guidance which could allow people who test positive to return to work sooner.

www.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)



Should CDC cut the 5-day COVID isolation guidelines? Experts weigh in.
Alexander Tin, Sara Moniuszko - CBS News
Updated Wed, February 14, 2024, 1:58 PM EST

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is weighing its first major revision to COVID-19 guidance since the end of the federal public health emergency last year.

Among the changes being considered by the agency is an end to its pandemic-era plea that people isolate for at least five days after testing positive for COVID-19, according to a Tuesday report by The Washington Post.

Instead, Americans who test positive for COVID-19 could reportedly stop isolating and potentially return to work and other activities once their fever ends for at least 24 hours and their symptoms are mild and improving. Such guidelines would be similar to recommendations announced by state health authorities in Oregon last year.

Current CDC guidance has said since 2021 that people with COVID should isolate for at least five days, regardless of symptoms. That is different from the CDC's guidance for other common respiratory viruses, influenza and RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus.

A spokesperson for the CDC declined to confirm whether the agency was planning this change.

"No updates to COVID guidelines to announce at this time. We will continue to make decisions based on the best evidence and science to keep communities healthy and safe," CDC spokesperson David Daigle said in a statement.

The current five-day isolation guidance had already been a compromise between the science of how to curb the spread of the virus and other priorities, Dr. Céline Gounder, a CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News, told "CBS Mornings" on Wednesday.

"I think this is really an effort on the part of the CDC to align their guidance with what people are willing and able to do. People have not been following this guidance, let's be real," Gounder said.

Gounder said COVID-19 isolation policies had taken a toll on many who lost wages or had to pay extra for child care, as officials tried to blunt the ongoing danger of the virus by asking people to stay home.

"We have 20,000 people hospitalized, over 2,000 people dying per week from COVID right now. And it is more dangerous than the flu and other respiratory infections," she said.

A new "pan-respiratory approach"

Agency officials had said last year they were working on plans to draw up a new "pan-respiratory approach" to its recommendations, combining guidance for COVID-19, influenza, and RSV, but those were not finished in time for this winter virus season.

"It's not something that ended up happening for this fall. Definitely still being considered for the future," Brendan Jackson, head of the CDC's COVID-19 response, told state and local health officials last November.

It is unclear how far the agency's draft changes are from being finalized. In the past, proposed revisions to the CDC's COVID-19 guidance have changed as the agency consulted stakeholders and did modeling and analysis of its impacts.

A person familiar with the discussions said the agency had begun outreach to some outside health experts and officials about updates to its respiratory virus guidance, with the goal of finalizing them before next winter.

This comes after states and other countries abroad have already moved to ease their own COVID-19 recommendations.

As the official public health emergency wound down last May, health authorities in Oregon announced they would replace their five-day isolation recommendation with a plea for people to stay home only until they had gone 24 hours without a fever, if their symptoms were mild and improving. California said it would make a similar recommendation earlier this year.

"This change acknowledged that isolation alone (i.e., in the absence of additional protective measures such as universal masking) was doing almost nothing to halt transmission at the community level," Afiq Hisham, an Oregon Health Authority spokesperson, said in an email.

Hisham said data they shared with the CDC and other state health departments showed the change did not lead to "disproportionate increases" in the toll inflicted by the virus across Oregon.

"It's also important to consider that isolation is a policy that is typically used when the public health goal is to contain an infection. That is not OHA's goal. Our goal is to help people in Oregon make informed decisions to protect themselves from severe infection," Hisham said.

Not a big change for many

While ending the five-day COVID-19 isolation policy could mark a significant departure from the CDC's previous guidance, the shift may amount to little more than catching up to reality for many Americans.

"When people don't have the luxury to stay home, when they don't have paid sick leave, it can be very hard to get folks to stay home because they tested positive for five days," said Marvia Jones, head of the Kansas City Health Department in Missouri.

Jones said she was skeptical shortening the isolation guidance would have much of an impact in her community.

Some workplaces are also already offering less flexibility to stay home after testing positive, she said, or stepping up demands for doctors to confirm that people were sick with COVID-19. Even during the height of the pandemic, getting a doctor's note was a tall order for residents without primary care providers or worried about facing big bills for a visit.

"Some doctor's offices, they're even saying, 'we don't want to do testing. Don't come in here. If you have symptoms, take the test at home,'" she said.

Hospitals are also not expected to see big changes imminently.

A separate sweeping update to the agency's recommendations for managing the spread of COVID-19 and other infections specifically in healthcare settings is already underway. An early draft drew fierce criticism from the National Nurses United union last year.

The CDC says its updates to those guidelines will be "accomplished in stages over a period of several years."

"The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections," the agency said in a blog post in January.

New variants could pose a risk

Dr. Janak Patel, director of the department of Infection Control & Healthcare Epidemiology at The University of Texas Medical Branch, says he understands the shift, but worries if future variants could disrupt this step toward a "new normal."

"We have to be very cautious that perhaps another variant that escapes our immunity completely may emerge and may require different precautions," he says. "Once we make policy in this forward manner, if we had to have a situation where we would need more caution, it will be very hard to go back to more prolonged isolation."

On Friday, the CDC said it had begun tracking a new highly mutated variant spotted in South Africa called BA.2.87.1. While strain does not yet appear to have gained a foothold outside of the country, other potentially worrying variants have been able to mutate to spread faster.

"Experience with BA.2.86 demonstrates that the ability of the virus to transmit can change quickly over time," the agency said, referring to the strain last year that later evolved into the now-dominant JN.1 variant.

Even with current variants, experts worry about what this may mean for people who are most vulnerable.

"Frankly, there has been no change in the science. Most people continue to be shedding virus for about nine days, with a range of six to 11 days," said Dr. Lara Jirmanus, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and member of the health watchdog group called The People's CDC. "Younger patients will tend to be infectious for maybe one day less than that. Older patients or people with severe disease can shed the virus for a longer time."

Patel worries that if isolation begins to be viewed as unnecessary, vaccination will as well.

"Over time, immunity from both natural infection as well as vaccination subsides… so we need to continue to focus on prevention with vaccination in order to live life as normally as possible, including reducing the number of days to stay home — yes, that's a benefit — but we need to continue to keep our immunity up if we have to benefit from this relaxation of new guidelines."

Any shortened isolation recommendations will make vaccination as well as masking vital, adds Dr. Joëlla Adams, an epidemiologist in the Center for Applied Public Health research at nonprofit research institute RTI International.

"Vaccination will be an even more important strategy to prevent severe illness, particularly for individuals at higher risk of complications with COVID," she says. "It is not too late to get the updated COVID vaccine."

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

COVID patients are 4.3 times more likely to develop chronic fatigue, CDC report finds

COVID-19 patients are at least four times more likely to develop chronic fatigue than someone who has not had the virus, a new federal study published Wednesday suggests. Among COVID-19 patients, the rate of new cases of fatigue was 10.2 per 100 person-years and the rate of new cases of chronic...

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


COVID patients are 4.3 times more likely to develop chronic fatigue, CDC report finds
MARY KEKATOS - ABC News
Wed, February 14, 2024, 12:29 PM EST

COVID-19 patients are at least four times more likely to develop chronic fatigue than someone who has not had the virus, a new federal study published Wednesday suggests.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looked at electronic health records from the University of Washington of more than 4,500 patients with confirmed COVID-19 between February 2020 and February 2021.

They were followed for a median of 11.4 months and their health data was compared with the data of more than 9,000 non-COVID-19 patients with similar characteristics.

Fatigue developed in 9% of the COVID patients, the team found. Among COVID-19 patients, the rate of new cases of fatigue was 10.2 per 100 person-years and the rate of new cases of chronic fatigue was 1.8 per 100 person-years.

Person-years is a type of measurement that multiplies the number of people in a study and the amount of time each person spends in a study. It is useful for evaluating risk.

Compared with non-COVID-19 patients, those who has tested positive were 68% at risk of fatigue and were 4.3 times more likely to develop chronic fatigue in the follow-up period, the study found.

Fatigue following COVID-19 infection was more common among women, older people and those who had other medical conditions including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of mood disorders.

There was no strong evidence of racial or ethnic differences when it came to developing fatigue after COVID-19 except a slightly lower incidence among Black patients, results also showed.

Additionally, researchers found that patients with COVID-19 who developed fatigue after the infection had far worse outcomes such as hospitalization or death than patients without fatigue.

Among 434 COVID-19 patients in whom fatigue developed, 25.6% were hospitalized more than one time during the follow-up period compared to 13.6% of 4,155 patients without fatigue who were hospitalized.

What's more, COVID-19 patients with fatigue were at higher risk of dying. During the follow-up period, 5.3% with fatigue died compared to 2.3% of those without fatigue.

"Our data indicate that COVID-19 is associated with a significant increase in new fatigue diagnoses, and physicians should be aware that fatigue might occur or be newly recognized [more than] one year after acute COVID-19," the authors of the study wrote. "Future study is needed to better understand the possible association between fatigue and clinical outcomes."

The authors added that the high rates of fatigue "reinforce the need for public health actions to prevent infections, to provide clinical care to those in need, and to find effective treatments for post–acute COVID-19 fatigue."

The team said it also hopes that increased awareness of fatigue and other long COVID symptoms helps COVID patients seek early care when needed to reduce their risk.

The results build upon those seen in previous reports including a joint U.S.-U.K. study of electronic health records that found 12.8% of patients received a new fatigue diagnosis within six months of COVID-19 infection.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

What more evidence do we really need?

The Covid-19 vaccination hoax is best summarized in the work of M.N. Mead et al. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38274635/). This narrative review unambiguously demonstrates that the Covid-19 (C-19) vaccines are neither safe nor efficacious, and their quality has consistently fallen short. Even...

voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com

(fair use applies)


What more evidence do we really need?
Geert Vanden Bossche
Feb 14, 2024

The Covid-19 vaccination hoax is best summarized in the work of M.N. Mead et al. (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign - PubMed). [my comment: pdf of study here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10810638/pdf/cureus-0016-00000052876.pdf] This narrative review unambiguously demonstrates that the Covid-19 (C-19) vaccines are neither safe nor efficacious, and their quality has consistently fallen short. Even though this amazing piece of work does not put much emphasis on what I believe remains the biggest concern related to the mass vaccination program—namely, viral immune evasion due to the emergence of virulence-inhibiting non-neutralizing antibodies following immune refocusing—, it stands in my humble opinion as the most comprehensive and unbiased scientific review I’ve encountered on this topic. This publication together with my recent contribution (Critique to CDC Publications | Voice for Science and Solidarity) are a must- read for both the medical/scientific community and the general public in order to fully grasp the insanity of the C-19 mass vaccination program. While my recent contribution pales in comparison to the remarkable work achieved by M.N. Mead et al., it clearly shows that the reported effectiveness of the bivalent C-19 vaccines or updated vaccine boosters does NOT directly result from the vaccines themselves. Instead, it stems from non-specific, short-lived immune protective mechanisms that resulted from VBTI (vaccine breakthrough infection)-mediated immune refocusing. These ‘pseudo’-protective mechanisms are now causing highly C-19 vaccinated populations to exert high immune selection pressure on viral virulence...

Scientists and experts who continue to deny this overwhelming amount of evidence while studying the pandemic are not worthy of the title 'scientist' or 'expert'. Their futile attempts to contradict scientific logic with contrived statistical constructs only make their position more precarious. Therefore, I have decided to distance myself from their ‘pseudo’-scientific convulsions and dedicate my valuable time to those who have suffered the consequences of the intellectual laziness of these so-called experts and their misuse of their influential positions to hide their conflicts of interest.

 

[Zoner]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757952640766681090

View: https://twitter.com/ThailandMedicaX/status/1757952640766681090?s=20

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Tensions run high in House hearing on COVID vaccine safety, efficacy

House lawmakers exchanged pointed barbs Thursday in what ended up being a rather “political” hearing held by the House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Top federal health officials appeared before the subcommittee to discuss how to...

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


Tensions run high in House hearing on COVID vaccine safety, efficacy
Joseph Choi - The Hill
Thu, February 15, 2024, 3:28 PM EST

House lawmakers exchanged pointed barbs Thursday in what ended up being a rather “political” hearing held by the House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Top federal health officials appeared before the subcommittee to discuss how to engender further trust in vaccines as well as examine how the initial COVID-19 vaccine campaigns were carried out. At various points throughout the hearing, however, Democrats accused their colleagues across the aisle of creating further mistrust in immunizations.

The witnesses included Peter Marks, director Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Daniel Jernigan, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and George Reed Grimes, director of the Division of Injury Compensation Programs for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chair of the select subcommittee, appeared to anticipate how the hearing would play out Thursday, advising the members to abide by “established standards of decorum” even as “vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative process.”

Republican members of the panel concentrated largely on the public perception of the coronavirus vaccines’ efficacy, which they characterized as misleading. Wenstrup said during the hearing, “When you say reduce, it’s different than saying prevent. And that happened too often.”

While praising the development of the vaccines as an “extraordinary triumph of science,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) argued that “subsequent actions from overstating vaccine efficacy to the implementation of sweeping mandates and the suppression of open scientific debate eroded public trust.”

COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce the chances of severe illness, hospitalization and death due to an infection but they don’t provide 100 percent protection against transmission. As Marks noted during his testimony: “No pharmaceutical is 100 percent safe. In fact, even the water we drink is not 100 percent safe.”

Asking no questions of the officials, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) accused Marks of rushing the authorization of the vaccines and criticized Grimes and his department for not processing enough claims of injury resulting from COVID-19 vaccinations.

As of Jan. 1, 2024, there are 12,854 COVID-19 countermeasure claims, 9,682 of which are claims of injury or death due to the vaccines, according to the HRSA. Grimes noted in his opening remarks that the claims account for less than 0.001 percent of vaccine administrations.

“The caseload for the CICP [Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program] is orders of magnitude higher than it was prior to 2020,” Grimes said. The program’s director called on more staffing to handle the claims, though lawmakers like Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) pushed back on this Thursday, saying he believed the process should be streamlined.

When asked by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) about his role in the vaccine approval process, Marks acknowledged there were sentiments about “speeding up” the approval process due to the high rate of COVID-19 deaths that were occurring at the time. When pressed by Comer, Marks said the decision around speeding up that process was “made on” his “own.”

Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) blasted her Republican colleagues for spreading “dangerous rhetoric” during the hearing.

“I am deeply concerned about some of the dangerous rhetoric we’ve heard throughout today’s hearing, which appears purposely aimed at undermining confidence in vaccines,” Tokuda said.

“My Republican colleagues have failed to handle this subject with the care our public health officials have asked for, recklessly amplifying the spread of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine,” Tokuda continued.

“And while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that today’s hearing is only about the COVID-19 vaccine, they cannot and must not ignore the fact that the COVID misinformation, intentional spread of disinformation of the COVID-19 vaccine, has resulted in across the board decreases in immunization levels over the last few years.”

Wenstrup made note of the tension in his closing remarks, saying, “This hearing should not have been political — and most of it was not I would say today, fortunately — but the fact that it is simply is further evidence this conversation is completely necessary to take place.”

Ranking member Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), a physician like Wenstrup, accused GOP members of throwing around facts “without the context and understanding.”

Touching on the nature of the vaccines and the level of protection they provide, Ruiz ended his remarks by saying, “When we talk about absolutes, again, we are intentionally giving disinformation to the American public that they don’t work.”

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

This is craziness. /my comment, especially see bolded text at end of article

Will you need a Covid booster shot this spring? The CDC will discuss the matter this month

People who are most vulnerable to Covid complications, such as older people and those with weak immune systems, may be able to get another dose of the vaccine.

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


Will you need a Covid booster shot this spring? The CDC will discuss the matter this month
Erika Edwards - NBC News
Updated Thu, February 15, 2024, 8:08 PM EST

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering whether to recommend yet another Covid booster shot this spring, especially for people most at risk for severe complications of the illness.

A spring booster would be the same vaccine that was approved last fall, which was formulated to target the XBB.1.5 subvariant. The vaccine is also very effective against the JN.1 subvariant, which is causing almost all Covid infections in the U.S. right now.

While it's unlikely that the majority of Americans would opt for another dose — just 21.9% of adults received the latest version of the vaccine — experts say that it's critical to make it available sooner rather than later.

"Waiting till the fall, I think, is a mistake," said Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "We have clear evidence that either vaccine or previous infection probably gives four to six months of relative protection against serious illness, hospitalizations and deaths, but wanes substantially after that."

Earlier this week, the CDC said it had no immediate plans to pull back on isolation guidelines for people who test positive for Covid.

Advisers to the CDC are expected to vote on whether to recommend a spring Covid booster during a meeting scheduled for Feb. 28, according to a source close to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It's expected that the panel will focus its discussion on those most vulnerable to Covid, including people age 65 and older and anyone with a weakened immune system, such as organ transplant recipients.

"The discussion will be aimed at the people who are most accepting of public health recommendations," said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious diseases expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. "The committee, in its rigorous fashion since the question has come up, will be considering a second dose for people at high risk or for people who wish to get it."

But even some vulnerable groups who usually adhere closely to their doctors' advice to get vaccinations are experiencing vaccine fatigue, said Dr. William Werbel, associate director of epidemiology and quantitative sciences with the Johns Hopkins Transplant Research Center in Baltimore.

"Some people have had seven, eight vaccines," Werbel said. "Transplant recipients would be more receptive and much more likely to follow recommendations, particularly if recommended by the transplant center, but the ceiling is kind of lowered because of this societal fatigue and societal disenchantment with Covid."

He added that he would recommend a spring booster to his patients if the CDC signs off on one.

Experts generally recommend waiting at least two months after a Covid vaccination or Covid infection before getting another shot, even for high-risk patients.

Vaccination rates are higher for people ages 65 and older, at 42%, according to the CDC. Research shows that people who got the latest booster shot were 54% less likely to be infected with Covid this winter. That level of protection held against the strain found in nearly all circulation of Covid right now: JN.1.

The CDC is not required to follow the advice of its advisory panels, but it usually does.

As of this month, emergency room visits, hospitalizations and deaths from Covid are down, according to the latest CDC data.

"We're lucky that the vaccines are safe," Werbel said, "certainly much safer than getting Covid."

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

This one is just bizarre. Interesting, but bizarre... again, imho...

Scientists Discover Simple Trick To Enhance Vaccine Efficacy

COVID-19 vaccine discovery could shape clinical practices globally. New research reveals as much as a four-fold increase in immune response when people alternate from one arm to the other when given a multi-dose vaccine. The laboratory study led by researchers at Oregon Health & Science Univ

scitechdaily.com

(fair use applies)


Scientists Discover Simple Trick To Enhance Vaccine Efficacy
By Oregon Health & Science University
February 15, 2024


COVID-19 vaccine discovery could shape clinical practices globally.

New research reveals as much as a four-fold increase in immune response when people alternate from one arm to the other when given a multi-dose vaccine.

The laboratory study led by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University measured the antibody response in the blood of 947 people who received two-dose vaccinations against COVID-19 early in the pandemic. Participants included OHSU employees who agreed to enroll in research while getting vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and were randomized to get the second dose in either the same or the opposite arm as the first dose.

The study was recently published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Historically, clinicians thought that arm choice didn’t matter.

The new study tested serum samples collected at various times after vaccination. They found a substantial increase in the magnitude and breadth of the antibody response among people who had “contralateral” — or a shot in each arm — boosting compared with those who did not.

The improved response clearly materialized three weeks after the second booster and persisted beyond 13 months after boosting. Investigators found heightened immunity to the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and an even stronger immune response to the omicron variant that emerged roughly a year after arm alternation.

Researchers aren’t sure why this happens, but they speculate that giving a shot in each arm activates new immune responses in different lymph nodes in each arm.

“By switching arms, you basically have memory formation in two locations instead of one,” said senior author Marcel Curlin, M.D., associate professor of medicine (infectious diseases) in the OHSU School of Medicine and medical director of OHSU Occupational Health.


Laboratory research yields eye-opening results

OHSU had the opportunity to examine the question as part of a series of laboratory studies using blood drawn from willing employees beginning early in the COVID-19 pandemic. That line of research has produced a series of published studies related to the durability, breadth and potency of immune response following vaccination and breakthrough infections.

After vaccines became available in late 2020, some participants wondered whether it made a difference if they alternated arms in the two-dose regimen.

“This question hasn’t really been extensively studied, so we decided to check it out,” Curlin said. “It turned out to be one of the more significant things we’ve found, and it’s probably not limited to just COVID vaccines. We may be seeing an important immunologic function.”

Among the people in the study who agreed to switch arms, researchers matched 54 pairs for age, gender, and relevant time intervals between vaccination and exposure — half getting the two doses in one arm and half in both.

Two weeks after the second dose, researchers didn’t see much of a difference in immune response. After three weeks, however, researchers measured significantly greater numbers of antibodies capable of binding and neutralizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus in blood samples. The rates progressively increased over four weeks from 1.3-fold to as much as a 4-fold increase against the omicron variant of the virus.

“Any incremental improvement might save a lot of lives,” Curlin said.


Further research needed

At this point, most people have long since been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus multiple times either through vaccination, infection, or both.

Although the new study focused on vaccination against COVID-19, researchers say they expect the improved immune response could be similar for other multidose vaccinations. They call for further research to determine whether contralateral vaccination improves immune response for other vaccines, and especially among children.

“Several prime-boost vaccine regimens are essential components of pediatric care, and immune responses may differ in children,” they write.

Curlin said further study is needed and it is too soon to make clinical recommendations based on the results of this study. If and when a new virus emerges requiring a new two-dose vaccine, Curlin said he won’t hesitate.

“I’m going to switch up my arms,” he said.

Reference: “Contralateral second dose improves antibody responses to a two-dose mRNA vaccination regimen” by Sedigheh Fazli, Archana Thomas, Abram E. Estrada, Hiro A.P. Ross, David Xthona Lee, Steven Kazmierczak, Mark K. Slifka, David Montefiori, William B. Messer and Marcel E. Curlin, 16 January 2024, The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
DOI: 10.1172/JCI176411

The study was supported by the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust; the OHSU Foundation; and the National Institutes of Health award R01AI145835 and P51OD011092.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

This one is frightening.

(I'm in a commenting mood...)

France's 'Article Pfizer': A Controversial Shift in Health Policy and Free Speech

France introduces penalties for opposing mRNA treatments, sparking debate on free speech and public health. Learn about the implications and controversy.

bnnbreaking.com

(fair use applies)


France's 'Article Pfizer': A Controversial Shift in Health Policy and Free Speech
France passes a law penalizing critics of mRNA treatments, igniting debates on free speech and public health. The law, dubbed 'Article Pfizer', sets a precedent in the global health policy landscape and raises questions about individual rights and state control.
Mahnoor Jehangir
15 Feb 2024 20:15 EST

In an unprecedented move that has sparked widespread debate across France and beyond, the French parliament has recently passed a law that introduces severe penalties for those opposing mRNA LNP injections or other treatments recommended by the state based on current medical knowledge. As of today, criticism of such therapeutic treatments, when deemed obligatory or recommended by the state, could result in up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of 45,000 euros. This bold legislative step, quickly dubbed 'Article Pfizer' by critics, represents a significant shift in the balance between public health policy and individual freedom of expression.


A Controversial Stand on Health and Free Speech

The core of the controversy lies in the creation of a new criminal offense targeting individuals who encourage others to withhold from medical treatments that are considered appropriate according to the prevailing medical standards. The law specifically targets the resistance to mRNA treatment, positioning it as a cornerstone in the fight against future pandemics. This move has been interpreted by many as an anti-democratic maneuver, stifling any opposition or critique of the state-endorsed medical treatments under the heavy hand of legal penalties.

The passing of the law came with minimal debate within the parliament, a fact that has only fueled the outrage among its detractors. Critics argue that the law not only undermines the democratic process by limiting the scope of public discourse on health policy but also prejudges alternative medicine and potential whistleblowers who may have valid concerns about mRNA technology or other treatments.


The Implications of 'Article Pfizer'

Labelled 'Article Pfizer', the law is seen as emblematic of a broader trend towards increasing state control over public health narratives and personal health choices. The nickname itself, referencing one of the major pharmaceutical companies behind the development of mRNA vaccine technology, hints at the perceived alignment between government policy and the interests of big pharma—raising questions about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on health policy.

Furthermore, the timing and urgency of the law's enactment, with warnings of an imminent next pandemic and the positioning of mRNA technology as the sole solution, add layers of complexity to the debate. Supporters argue that in the face of unprecedented global health threats, such measures are necessary to ensure public safety and prevent the spread of misinformation that could undermine vaccination efforts.


Between Public Safety and Personal Freedom

At the heart of this legislative move is a delicate balance between the need to protect public health and the imperative to safeguard individual rights and freedoms. The law raises critical questions about where the line should be drawn between preventing harmful misinformation and preserving the right to free speech and open debate on medical treatments.

As France steps into uncharted territory with the enactment of this law, the international community watches closely. The implications of such a legal framework extend beyond the borders of France, potentially setting a precedent for how governments around the world might seek to regulate public discourse on health and medical treatments in the future.

In conclusion, the recent enactment of the law penalizing opposition to state-recommended mRNA treatments in France marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about the role of government in regulating health policy and preserving public safety. While intended to combat misinformation and protect public health, the law's critics see it as a concerning move towards limiting free speech and privileging certain medical treatments over others. As the world continues to navigate the complexities of public health in an ever-evolving landscape, the debate over 'Article Pfizer' serves as a poignant reminder of the tensions between collective safety and individual rights.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/covid-19-infections-in-russia-rises-by-more-than-6-percent-in-a-week

(fair use applies)


COVID-19 Infections In Russia Rises By More Than 6 Percent In A Week
Nikhil Prasad Fact checked by:Thailand Medical News Team
Feb 15, 2024

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a global challenge, with various countries grappling with different variants of the virus. While much of the world is focused on the JN.1 variant and its offspring, a silent surge in COVID-19 cases has been unfolding in Russia, raising concerns about a peculiar SARS-CoV-2 variant that could have far-reaching consequences. In this COVID-19 News report, we will delve into the recent surge in COVID-19 infections in Russia, explore the evolving situation, and shed light on the mysterious XBB variant that might be driving the crisis.


Rising COVID-19 Infections in Russia
The operational headquarters for the fight against COVID-19 in Russia reported a 6.2% increase in coronavirus infections during the week of February 5 to 11, compared to the previous week. The incidence rate per 100 thousand population reached 18.8, with 47 constituent entities of the Russian Federation experiencing an uptick in cases. Disturbingly, 15 regions reported infection rates surpassing the national average.

During this period, 106 individuals succumbed to the coronavirus infection. In the preceding week, from January 29 to February 4, the incidence rate surged by 7.2%, with 107 reported deaths.

In the week spanning from February 5 to February 11, the number of hospitalizations reached 3,177 individuals, reflecting a 4.1% increase compared to the prior week. Hospitalizations escalated in 43 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with 20 regions witnessing an increase surpassing the national average.

Moreover, over the past week, a total of 24,650 individuals recovered from the virus, marking a 1.6% increase compared to the previous week.

Заболеваемость COVID-19 в РФ за неделю увеличилась более чем на 6%

Заболеваемость коронавирусом в России за неделю с 5 по 11 февраля увеличилась по сравнению с предыдущей неделей на 6,2%, сообщили во вторник в оперативном штабе по борьбе с COVID-19.

www.interfax.ru

The Situation in Perspective
Despite stringent controls by Russian authorities, including efforts to downplay the crisis, the surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths has continued. In mid-January 2024, reports surfaced about rising infections in St. Petersburg, with hospitals becoming overstretched due to the escalating caseloads.


The Origins of the Crisis
The COVID-19 crisis in Russia began unfolding in mid-December 2023 when Thailand Medical News alerted the world to a surge in cases nationwide. Initial assumptions pointed towards the JN.1 variant, similar to trends observed globally.

https://www.thailandmedical.news/ne...-hospitalizations,-148-deaths-for-epi-week-49

However, deeper analysis reveals that a different player may be behind the scenes - the XBB variant.


Unraveling the XBB Variant
Contrary to widespread belief, the COVID-19 surge in Russia is not primarily driven by the JN.1 variant but rather by an XBB variant that has potentially mutated in a unique manner. Speculations point towards a sub-lineage, XBB.1.16.11, exhibiting a G20055A reversion - a reverse mutation process altering the phenotype back to its original wild-type.

https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/breaking-covid-19-news-russia-witnessing-a-surge-in-covid-19-cases-but-it-is-not-jn-1-that-is-driving-it

The XBB.1.16.11 sub-lineage also carries a spike mutation, A701V, adding to the complexity of the situation. This variant was identified over three weeks ago, initially from sequences uploaded from Vologda. However, due to delays in sequence uploads and a lack of comprehensive data sharing by Russia, the true emergence and spread of this sub-lineage remain unclear.


Challenges in Understanding the XBB Variant
Despite an increase in sequencing efforts, the XBB sub-lineage is yet to receive an official designation. It appears that teams involved in the research may be preoccupied with media coverage or other priorities, delaying the vital task of naming and characterizing the variant. This delay in information dissemination hampers global efforts to understand the variant's behavior, spread, and potential threat.


The Role of Genomic Sequencing
Genomic sequencing plays a crucial role in tracking and understanding the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, Russia's limited genomic sequencing and data-sharing practices hinder a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The lack of transparency raises questions about the true extent of the XBB variant's impact and the potential consequences for global health.


Thailand Medical News: Advocating for Transparency
Thailand Medical News, labeled by some as a "gossipy medical news tabloid," has been at the forefront of providing updates on the evolving situation in Russia. The platform emphasizes the importance of transparency and comprehensive data sharing in tackling the global pandemic. Despite potential criticisms, the outlet vows to continue updating the public on the XBB variant and the broader COVID-19 landscape.


Conclusion
As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's silent battle against the XBB variant adds a new layer of complexity to the global crisis. The lack of comprehensive genomic sequencing, delayed data sharing, and the potential reversion mutation highlight the challenges in understanding and mitigating the impact of emerging variants. As researchers strive to uncover the mysteries surrounding the XBB variant, transparency, collaboration, and accurate information dissemination remain essential in the ongoing fight against the evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

USDA funding $1M study with China to make bird flu more contagious

The US government is spending $1million of American taxpayer money to fund dangerous experiments with bird flu viruses in collaboration with Chinese scientists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

(fair use applies)


REVEALED: US is collaborating with Chinese scientists to make bird flu strains more infectious and deadly as part of $1m project - despite fears similar tests unleashed Covid
By Alexa Lardieri U.S. Deputy Health Editor Dailymail.Com
Published: 18:35 EST, 15 February 2024 | Updated: 18:45 EST, 15 February 2024

• Research involves infecting birds with flu viruses to make them more infectious
• The USDA is spending more than $1million to fund the risky experiments

The US government is spending $1million of American taxpayer money to fund gain-of-function experiments on dangerous bird flu viruses in collaboration with Chinese scientists.

The research involves infecting ducks and geese with different strains to make them more transmissible and infectious, and study the viruses' potential to 'jump into mammalian hosts,' according to the research documents.

It is being funded through the US Department of Agriculture and will take place at sites in Georgia, Beijing and Edinburgh in Scotland.

It comes despite such research being restricted in 2022 and growing concerns that dubious Chinese research may have started the Covid pandemic.

The documents were obtained by the campaign group, The White Coat Waste Project, and shared with DailyMail.com.

The papers show funding for the avian virus research began in April 2021 and it is slated to continue through March 2026.

The specific viruses the researchers will work with include H5NX, H7N9 and H9N2.

A 2023 study described H5NX viruses as 'highly pathogenic' with the ability to cause neurological complications in humans.

The H7N9 strain first infected humans and animals in China in March 2013 and the World Health Organization said it is of concern 'because most patients have become severely ill.'

The H9N2 strain has been found in dove in China and while it has a lower pathogenicity than the other strains, it can still infect humans.

The main collaborators on the project are USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute - a Wuhan lab partner.

Additionally, one of the researchers being funded by the USDA is Wenju Liu, who is affiliated with the WIV - which is believed to have sparked the Covid pandemic - and a member of the board of a scientific journal, working with Zheng-Li Shi, who is known as the 'bat lady' for her extensive work on bat coronaviruses.

Different aspects of the research are slated to take place in multiple locations, including poultry research centers in Athens, Georgia, at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh and at the Chinese academy in Beijing.

Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the WCW, said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'It's reckless and indefensible for... bureaucrats to bankroll dangerous avian flu gain-of-function studies involving virus experimenters from the notorious Wuhan animal lab that likely caused COVID and its CCP-run parent organization, the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

'Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for animal experiments with foreign adversaries that soup up viruses and can cause pandemics or create bioweapons.'

Following the publication of the documents by WCW, Republican Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa wrote a letter Thursday to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, seeking more information about the department's ongoing funding of the research.

The letter read: 'I was troubled to learn from the non-profit group White Coat Waste Project that USDA is supporting experiments involving a "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus" that poses a "risk to both animals and humans."'

Sen Ernst said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'The health and safety of Americans are too important to just wing it, and Biden’s USDA should have had more apprehension before sending any taxpayer dollars to collaborate with [China] on risky avian flu research.

'They should know by now to suspect "fowl" play when it comes to researchers who have ties to the dangerous Wuhan Lab, and simply switching from bats to birds causes concern that they are creating more pathogens of pandemic potential.

'Here’s my warning: the Biden administration should be walking on eggshells until they cut off every cent going to our adversaries. We cannot allow what happened in Wuhan to happen again.'

DailyMail.com has reached out to the USDA for comment.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part of Republican Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa's letter Thursday to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture

 

[psychgirl]

Do you think this article ^^^ deserves its own thread?

 

[ktrapper]

USDA funding $1M study with China to make bird flu more contagious

The US government is spending $1million of American taxpayer money to fund dangerous experiments with bird flu viruses in collaboration with Chinese scientists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

(fair use applies)


REVEALED: US is collaborating with Chinese scientists to make bird flu strains more infectious and deadly as part of $1m project - despite fears similar tests unleashed Covid
By Alexa Lardieri U.S. Deputy Health Editor Dailymail.Com
Published: 18:35 EST, 15 February 2024 | Updated: 18:45 EST, 15 February 2024

• Research involves infecting birds with flu viruses to make them more infectious
• The USDA is spending more than $1million to fund the risky experiments

The US government is spending $1million of American taxpayer money to fund gain-of-function experiments on dangerous bird flu viruses in collaboration with Chinese scientists.

The research involves infecting ducks and geese with different strains to make them more transmissible and infectious, and study the viruses' potential to 'jump into mammalian hosts,' according to the research documents.

It is being funded through the US Department of Agriculture and will take place at sites in Georgia, Beijing and Edinburgh in Scotland.

It comes despite such research being restricted in 2022 and growing concerns that dubious Chinese research may have started the Covid pandemic.

The documents were obtained by the campaign group, The White Coat Waste Project, and shared with DailyMail.com.

The papers show funding for the avian virus research began in April 2021 and it is slated to continue through March 2026.

The specific viruses the researchers will work with include H5NX, H7N9 and H9N2.

A 2023 study described H5NX viruses as 'highly pathogenic' with the ability to cause neurological complications in humans.

The H7N9 strain first infected humans and animals in China in March 2013 and the World Health Organization said it is of concern 'because most patients have become severely ill.'

The H9N2 strain has been found in dove in China and while it has a lower pathogenicity than the other strains, it can still infect humans.

The main collaborators on the project are USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute - a Wuhan lab partner.

Additionally, one of the researchers being funded by the USDA is Wenju Liu, who is affiliated with the WIV - which is believed to have sparked the Covid pandemic - and a member of the board of a scientific journal, working with Zheng-Li Shi, who is known as the 'bat lady' for her extensive work on bat coronaviruses.

Different aspects of the research are slated to take place in multiple locations, including poultry research centers in Athens, Georgia, at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh and at the Chinese academy in Beijing.

Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the WCW, said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'It's reckless and indefensible for... bureaucrats to bankroll dangerous avian flu gain-of-function studies involving virus experimenters from the notorious Wuhan animal lab that likely caused COVID and its CCP-run parent organization, the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

'Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for animal experiments with foreign adversaries that soup up viruses and can cause pandemics or create bioweapons.'

Following the publication of the documents by WCW, Republican Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa wrote a letter Thursday to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, seeking more information about the department's ongoing funding of the research.

The letter read: 'I was troubled to learn from the non-profit group White Coat Waste Project that USDA is supporting experiments involving a "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus" that poses a "risk to both animals and humans."'

Sen Ernst said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'The health and safety of Americans are too important to just wing it, and Biden’s USDA should have had more apprehension before sending any taxpayer dollars to collaborate with [China] on risky avian flu research.

'They should know by now to suspect "fowl" play when it comes to researchers who have ties to the dangerous Wuhan Lab, and simply switching from bats to birds causes concern that they are creating more pathogens of pandemic potential.

'Here’s my warning: the Biden administration should be walking on eggshells until they cut off every cent going to our adversaries. We cannot allow what happened in Wuhan to happen again.'

DailyMail.com has reached out to the USDA for comment.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part of Republican Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa's letter Thursday to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture

There is only one reason why they are doing this. Prepare accordingly.

 

[naegling62]

Do you think this article ^^^ deserves its own thread?

Sad to say, not yet. It should be book marked as the lead post for the inevitable upcoming Bird Flu thread though.

It's nuts to even be playing with this stuff but absolutely criminal to be doing it in conjunction with communist China.

 

[Zoner]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758314582135959777

View: https://twitter.com/thailandmedicax/status/1758314582135959777?s=46&t=1GPp52vDMcboAD8_ZMiCSw

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758315786723324186

View: https://twitter.com/thailandmedicax/status/1758315786723324186?s=46&t=1GPp52vDMcboAD8_ZMiCSw

 

[Zoner]

USDA funding $1M study with China to make bird flu more contagious

The US government is spending $1million of American taxpayer money to fund dangerous experiments with bird flu viruses in collaboration with Chinese scientists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

(fair use applies)


REVEALED: US is collaborating with Chinese scientists to make bird flu strains more infectious and deadly as part of $1m project - despite fears similar tests unleashed Covid
By Alexa Lardieri U.S. Deputy Health Editor Dailymail.Com
Published: 18:35 EST, 15 February 2024 | Updated: 18:45 EST, 15 February 2024

• Research involves infecting birds with flu viruses to make them more infectious
• The USDA is spending more than $1million to fund the risky experiments

The US government is spending $1million of American taxpayer money to fund gain-of-function experiments on dangerous bird flu viruses in collaboration with Chinese scientists.

The research involves infecting ducks and geese with different strains to make them more transmissible and infectious, and study the viruses' potential to 'jump into mammalian hosts,' according to the research documents.

It is being funded through the US Department of Agriculture and will take place at sites in Georgia, Beijing and Edinburgh in Scotland.

It comes despite such research being restricted in 2022 and growing concerns that dubious Chinese research may have started the Covid pandemic.

The documents were obtained by the campaign group, The White Coat Waste Project, and shared with DailyMail.com.

The papers show funding for the avian virus research began in April 2021 and it is slated to continue through March 2026.

The specific viruses the researchers will work with include H5NX, H7N9 and H9N2.

A 2023 study described H5NX viruses as 'highly pathogenic' with the ability to cause neurological complications in humans.

The H7N9 strain first infected humans and animals in China in March 2013 and the World Health Organization said it is of concern 'because most patients have become severely ill.'

The H9N2 strain has been found in dove in China and while it has a lower pathogenicity than the other strains, it can still infect humans.

The main collaborators on the project are USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute - a Wuhan lab partner.

Additionally, one of the researchers being funded by the USDA is Wenju Liu, who is affiliated with the WIV - which is believed to have sparked the Covid pandemic - and a member of the board of a scientific journal, working with Zheng-Li Shi, who is known as the 'bat lady' for her extensive work on bat coronaviruses.

Different aspects of the research are slated to take place in multiple locations, including poultry research centers in Athens, Georgia, at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh and at the Chinese academy in Beijing.

Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the WCW, said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'It's reckless and indefensible for... bureaucrats to bankroll dangerous avian flu gain-of-function studies involving virus experimenters from the notorious Wuhan animal lab that likely caused COVID and its CCP-run parent organization, the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

'Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for animal experiments with foreign adversaries that soup up viruses and can cause pandemics or create bioweapons.'

Following the publication of the documents by WCW, Republican Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa wrote a letter Thursday to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, seeking more information about the department's ongoing funding of the research.

The letter read: 'I was troubled to learn from the non-profit group White Coat Waste Project that USDA is supporting experiments involving a "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus" that poses a "risk to both animals and humans."'

Sen Ernst said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'The health and safety of Americans are too important to just wing it, and Biden’s USDA should have had more apprehension before sending any taxpayer dollars to collaborate with [China] on risky avian flu research.

'They should know by now to suspect "fowl" play when it comes to researchers who have ties to the dangerous Wuhan Lab, and simply switching from bats to birds causes concern that they are creating more pathogens of pandemic potential.

'Here’s my warning: the Biden administration should be walking on eggshells until they cut off every cent going to our adversaries. We cannot allow what happened in Wuhan to happen again.'

DailyMail.com has reached out to the USDA for comment.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part of Republican Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa's letter Thursday to Tom Vilsack, secretary of the US Department of Agriculture

Satan is hard at work and the best preparation is to be “in Christ”. Psalm 91
Those in the know are saying a release could come within weeks....April/May.

 

[Tristan]

This one is frightening.

(I'm in a commenting mood...)

France's 'Article Pfizer': A Controversial Shift in Health Policy and Free Speech

France introduces penalties for opposing mRNA treatments, sparking debate on free speech and public health. Learn about the implications and controversy.

bnnbreaking.com

(fair use applies)


France's 'Article Pfizer': A Controversial Shift in Health Policy and Free Speech
France passes a law penalizing critics of mRNA treatments, igniting debates on free speech and public health. The law, dubbed 'Article Pfizer', sets a precedent in the global health policy landscape and raises questions about individual rights and state control.
Mahnoor Jehangir
15 Feb 2024 20:15 EST

In an unprecedented move that has sparked widespread debate across France and beyond, the French parliament has recently passed a law that introduces severe penalties for those opposing mRNA LNP injections or other treatments recommended by the state based on current medical knowledge. As of today, criticism of such therapeutic treatments, when deemed obligatory or recommended by the state, could result in up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of 45,000 euros. This bold legislative step, quickly dubbed 'Article Pfizer' by critics, represents a significant shift in the balance between public health policy and individual freedom of expression.


A Controversial Stand on Health and Free Speech

The core of the controversy lies in the creation of a new criminal offense targeting individuals who encourage others to withhold from medical treatments that are considered appropriate according to the prevailing medical standards. The law specifically targets the resistance to mRNA treatment, positioning it as a cornerstone in the fight against future pandemics. This move has been interpreted by many as an anti-democratic maneuver, stifling any opposition or critique of the state-endorsed medical treatments under the heavy hand of legal penalties.

The passing of the law came with minimal debate within the parliament, a fact that has only fueled the outrage among its detractors. Critics argue that the law not only undermines the democratic process by limiting the scope of public discourse on health policy but also prejudges alternative medicine and potential whistleblowers who may have valid concerns about mRNA technology or other treatments.


The Implications of 'Article Pfizer'

Labelled 'Article Pfizer', the law is seen as emblematic of a broader trend towards increasing state control over public health narratives and personal health choices. The nickname itself, referencing one of the major pharmaceutical companies behind the development of mRNA vaccine technology, hints at the perceived alignment between government policy and the interests of big pharma—raising questions about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on health policy.

Furthermore, the timing and urgency of the law's enactment, with warnings of an imminent next pandemic and the positioning of mRNA technology as the sole solution, add layers of complexity to the debate. Supporters argue that in the face of unprecedented global health threats, such measures are necessary to ensure public safety and prevent the spread of misinformation that could undermine vaccination efforts.


Between Public Safety and Personal Freedom

At the heart of this legislative move is a delicate balance between the need to protect public health and the imperative to safeguard individual rights and freedoms. The law raises critical questions about where the line should be drawn between preventing harmful misinformation and preserving the right to free speech and open debate on medical treatments.

As France steps into uncharted territory with the enactment of this law, the international community watches closely. The implications of such a legal framework extend beyond the borders of France, potentially setting a precedent for how governments around the world might seek to regulate public discourse on health and medical treatments in the future.

In conclusion, the recent enactment of the law penalizing opposition to state-recommended mRNA treatments in France marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about the role of government in regulating health policy and preserving public safety. While intended to combat misinformation and protect public health, the law's critics see it as a concerning move towards limiting free speech and privileging certain medical treatments over others. As the world continues to navigate the complexities of public health in an ever-evolving landscape, the debate over 'Article Pfizer' serves as a poignant reminder of the tensions between collective safety and individual rights.

The Cover-up noose is tightening...

 

[Tristan]

Satan is hard at work and the best preparation is to be “in Christ”. Psalm 91
Those in the know are saying a release could come within weeks....April/May.

Any names associated with those in-the-know?

 

[Zoner]

Any names associated with those in-the-know?

This was just tweeted publicly so if you have a Twitter account, you can tweet him and ask him.
Martin Armstrong is pointing to May for an outbreak in the war.
and Dr. David Martin, has clearly said that the WEF has told the nations to prepare for disease X. It’s happening soon.


Thailand Medical News
@ThailandMedicaX

Follow
I strongly suggest that everyone keep a look out on D68 Enterovirus. Darpa & the US.NIH seems to be doing some strange studies on it. Along with swine coronavirus and and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains, ..these are my three bets on Disease X!

 

[psychgirl]

Satan is hard at work and the best preparation is to be “in Christ”. Psalm 91
Those in the know are saying a release could come within weeks....April/May.

I encourage everyone to be aware of this possibility
If it doesn’t happen then no harm no foul

 

[Zoner]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758740800241033470

View: https://twitter.com/mrmickme/status/1758740800241033470?s=46&t=1GPp52vDMcboAD8_ZMiCSw

 

[Profit of Doom]

"We're lucky that the vaccines are safe," Werbel said, "certainly much safer than getting Covid."

Quercetin, zinc, D3, with an IVM chaser, beats the pants off the vaccines.

 

[Profit of Doom]

This was just tweeted publicly so if you have a Twitter account, you can tweet him and ask him.
Martin Armstrong is pointing to May for an outbreak in the war.
and Dr. David Martin, has clearly said that the WEF has told the nations to prepare for disease X. It’s happening soon.


Thailand Medical News
@ThailandMedicaX

Follow
I strongly suggest that everyone keep a look out on D68 Enterovirus. Darpa & the US.NIH seems to be doing some strange studies on it. Along with swine coronavirus and and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains, ..these are my three bets on Disease X!

Do we have any clues on possible protocols for Enterovirus?

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

House COVID panel leader threatens to subpoena HHS for lack of cooperation

The chair of the House panel investigating the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to subpoena Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials Friday over a lack of cooperation with the committee’s investigation unless they answer another round of specific questions. In a letter sent to HHS...

news.yahoo.com

(fair use applies)


House COVID panel leader threatens to subpoena HHS for lack of cooperation
Nathaniel Weixel - The Hill
Fri, February 16, 2024, 5:05 PM EST

The chair of the House panel investigating the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to subpoena Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials Friday over a lack of cooperation with the committee’s investigation unless they answer another round of specific questions.

In a letter sent to HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation Melanie Egorin, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) expressed frustration with Egorin’s recent public testimony and what he said was a persistent lack of cooperation from the agency on producing documents related to the virus’s origins, vaccine messaging and policies about COVID closures.

Egorin repeatedly insisted during a hearing late last month that HHS has cooperated with the panel and has produced thousands of pages of documents in response to the panel’s requests.

But Wenstrup in the letter accused HHS officials of “dragging their feet” on responding to more than a dozen specific requests. He and other Republicans on the panel have said the documents are either heavily redacted or completely irrelevant.

“We know, for a fact, that the Department is currently withholding critical documents. The Department’s failure to provide the requested documents is unacceptable,” Wenstrup wrote.

If the agency doesn’t respond to the latest requests for information in a way that Wenstrup finds satisfactory, he said the panel “will evaluate the use of the compulsory process to obtain the testimony of Department employees who know the answers to these questions.”

Yet panel Democrats have said Wenstrup’s efforts are aimed at further politicizing the pandemic and portraying the Biden administration in a negative light rather than trying to resolve any real problems or challenges. During Egorin’s hearing, ranking member Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) noted agency officials sat for more than 80 hours of transcribed interviews.

As part of its investigation, Wenstrup’s panel has also heard closed-door testimony from the nation’s former top infectious diseases doctor, Anthony Fauci, and the former National Institutes of Health director, Francis Collins.

Fauci is expected to testify publicly later this year.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Effectiveness Questioned: Study Finds That Paxlovid Fails To Reduce Long COVID Risk

Researchers at UCSF have discovered an unexpectedly high rate of COVID rebound following treatment with Paxlovid. A group of scientists from the University of California, San Francisco, discovered that Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) was ineffective in lowering the chances of vaccinated, non-hosp

scitechdaily.com

(fair use applies)


Effectiveness Questioned: Study Finds That Paxlovid Fails To Reduce Long COVID Risk
By University of California San Francisco Medical Center
February 16, 2024

Researchers at UCSF have discovered an unexpectedly high rate of COVID rebound following treatment with Paxlovid.

A group of scientists from the University of California, San Francisco, discovered that Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) was ineffective in lowering the chances of vaccinated, non-hospitalized patients contracting long COVID during their initial infection with the virus. Additionally, they observed a greater frequency of acute symptom recurrence and test positivity for the virus than what had been earlier documented.

The study was recently published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Paxlovid treatment for acute COVID-19 has been shown to be effective for high-risk unvaccinated individuals. But the effect of the treatment on long COVID risk, including whether it protects vaccinated people from getting long COVID, has been less clear.

The research team selected a group of vaccinated people from the UCSF Covid-19 Citizen Science study who had reported their first positive test for COVID-19 between March and August of 2022 and who were not hospitalized. Some of these participants reported taking oral Paxlovid treatment during the acute phase of their COVID infection, while others did not. In December of 2022, they were invited to answer a follow-up survey with questions about long COVID, COVID rebound symptoms, and how long they continued to test positive.


Study Findings on Long COVID and Symptom Rebound

Researchers found the two groups were similar. About 16% of those treated with Paxlovid had long COVID symptoms compared to 14% of those who were not treated with the medication. Commonly reported symptoms included fatigue, shortness of breath, confusion, headache, and altered taste and smell. Those who took Paxlovid and then went on to develop long COVID reported as many long COVID symptoms as those who were not treated with Paxlovid. A small percentage of people developed severe long COVID, and those who had received Paxlovid were just as likely to have severe Long COVID symptoms as those who did not.

Among individuals who experienced symptomatic improvement during Paxlovid treatment, 21% reported rebound symptoms. And among those with rebound symptoms, 10.8% reported one or more Long COVID symptoms compared to 8.3% without rebound symptoms. For participants who repeated antigen testing after testing negative and completing treatment, 25.7% reported rebound test positivity. In total, 26.1% reported rebound symptoms or test positivity.


Conclusions and Observations

“We found a higher proportion with clinical rebound than previously reported but did not identify an effect of post-treatment rebound on long COVID symptoms,” said study first author Matthew Durstenfeld, MD, MAS, a cardiologist and UCSF assistant professor of Medicine. “Our finding that Paxlovid treatment during acute infection is not associated with lower odds of long COVID surprised us, but it is consistent with two other rigorously conducted studies finding no difference in post-COVID conditions between 4 and 6 months after infection.”

The authors note that the study may have been impacted by limitations arising from its observational nature with researchers relying on patient self-reporting of treatment and Long COVID symptoms.

Reference: “Association of nirmatrelvir for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with subsequent Long COVID symptoms in an observational cohort study” by Matthew S. Durstenfeld, Michael J. Peluso, Feng Lin, Noah D. Peyser, Carmen Isasi, Thomas W. Carton, Timothy J. Henrich, Steven G. Deeks, Jeffrey E. Olgin, Mark J. Pletcher, Alexis L. Beatty, Gregory M. Marcus and Priscilla Y. Hsue, 04 January 2024, Journal of Medical Virology.
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.29333

This work (Eureka Research Platform) was supported by NIH/NIBIB 3U2CEB021881-05S1. The COVID-19 Citizen Science Study is supported by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract COVID-2020C2-10761 and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contract INV-017206. Dr. Durstenfeld is supported by NIH/NHLBI grant K12HL143961.

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

Headaches, Memory Problems, and Fatigue – How COVID-19 Affects the Brain

Neurological symptoms are apparently not a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection of the brain. Scientists still are not sure how neurological symptoms arise in COVID-19. Is it because SARS-CoV-2 infects the brain? Or are these symptoms the result of inflammation in the rest of the body? A study by Charité

scitechdaily.com

(fair use applies)


Headaches, Memory Problems, and Fatigue – How COVID-19 Affects the Brain
By Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
February 16, 2024

Neurological symptoms are apparently not a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection of the brain.

Scientists still are not sure how neurological symptoms arise in COVID-19. Is it because SARS-CoV-2 infects the brain? Or are these symptoms the result of inflammation in the rest of the body? A study by Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin has now produced evidence to support the latter theory. It was published today in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

Headaches, memory problems, and fatigue are just some of the neurological impacts that arise during coronavirus infection and can last well beyond the acute period. Even early on in the pandemic, researchers surmised that direct infection of the brain could be the cause.

“We took that as our hypothesis at the start, too. But so far, there has been no clear evidence that the coronavirus can persist in the brain, let alone proliferate,” explains Dr. Helena Radbruch, head of the Chronic Neuroinflammation working group at the Department of Neuropathology at Charité. “For that, we would have needed to find evidence of intact virus particles in the brain, for example. Instead, the indications that the coronavirus could infect the brain come from indirect testing methods, so they aren’t entirely conclusive.”

According to a second hypothesis, the neurological symptoms would instead be a kind of side effect of the strong immune response the body deploys to defend against the virus. Past studies have produced indications that this might be the case. The current Charité study now bolsters this theory with detailed molecular biology and anatomical results from autopsies.

Cross-section of the brainstem: Neurons (blue-gray) are in close contact with immune cells (purple). The threadlike blue structures are extensions of the neurons, which can reach all the way into distant organs in the form of nerve fibers. According to the study, the immune cells and neurons in the brainstem can be activated directly via the nerve fibers as a result of inflammation in the lungs. Credit: © Charité | Jenny Meinhardt


No Signs of Direct Infection of the Brain

For the study, the team of researchers analyzed various areas of the brain in 21 people who died in hospital settings, typically in an ICU, due to severe coronavirus infection. For comparison, the researchers studied nine patients who died of other causes after treatment in intensive care. First, they looked to see whether the tissue showed any visible changes and hunted for any indication of coronavirus. Then they conducted a detailed analysis of genes and proteins to identify the specific processes that had taken place inside individual cells.

Like other teams of researchers before them, the Charité scientists found coronavirus genetic material in the brain in some cases. “But we didn’t find neurons infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Radbruch notes. “We assume that immune cells absorbed the virus in the body and then traveled to the brain. They’re still carrying the virus, but it doesn’t infect cells of the brain. So coronavirus has invaded other cells in the body, but not the brain itself.”


Brain Reacts to Inflammation in the Body

Still, the researchers did note striking changes in molecular processes in some cells of the brain in those infected with COVID-19: For example, the cells ramped up the interferon signaling pathway, which is typically activated in the course of a viral infection.

“Some neurons evidently react to the inflammation in the rest of the body,” says Prof. Christian Conrad, head of the Intelligent Imaging working group at the Berlin Institute of Health at Charité (BIH) and one of the principal investigators in the study, along with Radbruch. “This molecular reaction could be a good explanation for the neurological symptoms we see in COVID-19 patients. For example, neurotransmitters emitted by these cells in the brainstem could cause fatigue. That’s because the brainstem is home to groups of cells that control drive, motivation, and mood.”

The reactive nerve cells were found primarily in what are known as the nuclei of the vagus nerve. These are nerve cells located in the brainstem that extend all the way to organs such as the lungs, intestine, and heart. “In simplified terms, our interpretation of our data is that the vagus nerve ‘senses’ the inflammatory response in different organs of the body and reacts to it in the brainstem – without there being any actual infection of brain tissue,” Radbruch explains. “Through this mechanism, the inflammation does spread from the body to the brain in a way, which can disrupt brain function.”


Limited-Time Reaction

The neurons’ reaction to the inflammation is temporary, as shown by a comparison of people who died during an acute coronavirus infection with those who died at least two weeks afterward. The molecular changes are most evident during the acute infection phase, but they do normalize again afterward – at least in the vast majority of cases.

“We think it’s possible that if the inflammation becomes chronic, that could be what causes the neurological symptoms often observed in long COVID in some people,” Conrad says. To follow up on this suspicion, the team of researchers is now planning to study the molecular signatures in the cerebral fluid of long COVID patients in greater detail.

Reference: “Proteomic and transcriptomic profiling of brainstem, cerebellum and olfactory tissues in early- and late-phase COVID-19” by Josefine Radke, Jenny Meinhardt, Tom Aschman, Robert Lorenz Chua, Vadim Farztdinov, Sören Lukassen, Foo Wei Ten, Ekaterina Friebel, Naveed Ishaque, Jonas Franz, Valerie Helena Huhle, Ronja Mothes, Kristin Peters, Carolina Thomas, Shirin Schneeberger, Elisa Schumann, Leona Kawelke, Julia Jünger, Viktor Horst, Simon Streit, Regina von Manitius, Péter Körtvélyessy, Stefan Vielhaber, Dirk Reinhold, Anja E. Hauser, Anja Osterloh, Philipp Enghard, Jana Ihlow, Sefer Elezkurtaj, David Horst, Florian Kurth, Marcel A. Müller, Nils C. Gassen, Julia Melchert, Katharina Jechow, Bernd Timmermann, Camila Fernandez-Zapata, Chotima Böttcher, Werner Stenzel, Elke Krüger, Markus Landthaler, Emanuel Wyler, Victor Corman, Christine Stadelmann, Markus Ralser, Roland Eils, Frank L. Heppner, Michael Mülleder, Christian Conrad and Helena Radbruch, 16 February 2024, Nature Neuroscience.
DOI: 10.1038/s41593-024-01573-y

 

[Heliobas Disciple]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLl69c46JK0
White clots USA
Dr. John Campbell
Feb 16, 2024
13 min 11 sec

Continuation of the clot videos this one is an interview with Richard Hirschman from Alabama.

 

[psychgirl]

This was just tweeted publicly so if you have a Twitter account, you can tweet him and ask him.
Martin Armstrong is pointing to May for an outbreak in the war.
and Dr. David Martin, has clearly said that the WEF has told the nations to prepare for disease X. It’s happening soon.


Thailand Medical News
@ThailandMedicaX

Follow
I strongly suggest that everyone keep a look out on D68 Enterovirus. Darpa & the US.NIH seems to be doing some strange studies on it. Along with swine coronavirus and and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains, ..these are my three bets on Disease X!

…..bumping.

 

[Profit of Doom]

If the agency doesn’t respond to the latest requests for information in a way that Wenstrup finds satisfactory, he said the panel “will evaluate the use of the compulsory process to obtain the testimony of Department employees who know the answers to these questions.”

Fingernails, meet bamboo.