Interesting IMO that nobody have paid attention (as far as I know) to the control-placebo group in Polack et al. NEJM Dec 2020. That was the key paper for the anti SARS CoV2 RNAvax approval and their massive use in humans that followed. Only 9 ( yes, 9!!!!) cases of "serious symptoms" of COVID-19 among the 20.000 individuals in the placebo group, individuals collected in different countries (Brazil, Argentina, India, etc) at the peak of the pandemic in 2020. An approx. 150 positive cases (this is by lab detection, either mild or non symptomatic ) in the placebo group of 20.000 total. From this numbers they got the wildly propagandized number of "95%"of efficiency (1 and 15 positives, respectively, among the test group that received the RNAvax). No decent journal would have accepted publishing those RNA vax efficacy numbers against COVID-19 or any other viral disease, in under normal circumstances.
Cleveland Clinic has new report, people with booster more apt to contract cvd than ones skipping them. This was on Substack in the last few days. Very surprised since they went along with the narrative.
Good question. The supposed purpose of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system of the recipient to make antibodies against the pathogen. The elderly experience a decline in the efficiency of their biological systems---presumably including their immune system. So why is it almost always postulated that the elderly and immunocompromised should be especially diligent in keeping up with vaccines? Isn't it likely that the diminished immune response would mean that they would get less benefit from a vaccine than would those with a healthier immune system? Could it be possible that a vaccine would pose a greater risk to these individuals? I don't know the answers to these questions but it seems to be sensible to address them.
Maybe less benefit but no greater risk. It's also possible that repeated vaccines can boost the response to that of younger people. That's what they found at the beginning of the pandemic. Immune compromised people needed 3 doses where regular people just needed 2 doses.
I would agree that is possible but my questions are theoretical ones concerning true vaccines. The mRNA shots given to so many do not in any way fit the definition of vaccines which are attenuated or killed microbes designed to stimulate the body's immune system to generate antibodies. There could be no real vaccine for "Covid" since no virus was ever isolated or grown in pure tissue culture. The mRNA technology was designed by cancer researchers looking for a way to generate proteins that would be toxic to particular cancer cells. Application to microbial infection was problematic at best.
I looked it up and it isn't. Hard to kill a virus that has never been isolated and cultured. A group of investigators sent Freedom of Information requests to the CDC and about 200 other health agencies and laboratories around the world asking for evidence that a virus had been isolated. All returned answers stating that they had no cultures or other documentary evidence of Covid-19. There are lots of interesting questions concerning the science of virology and worth investigating. I had always accepted what I was taught about viruses in medical school fifty years ago and only started looking it to it in any depth during the Covid period and what I have learned has changed my outlook considerably.
Clonar el virus es otra cosa. Las vacunas comerciales basadas en virus inactivado no necesariamente implican , y en la urgencia, amplificar un inoculo inicial del SARS-CoV-2 clonado. Podria quizás inclusive, en la urgencia, haberse usado un Coronavirus o mezcla de Coronavirus similares ya que las proteínas estructurales N y M , aparte de la proteina S, parecen ser importantes para inducir inmunidad protectiva cruzada. La censura a todo lo chino ha hecho muy difícil saber lo necesario sobre como se han producido esas vacunas basadas en virus inactivado (que a diferencia de las RNA vaxs de Pfizer/ Moderna, son vacunas REALES en el sentido clásico).
Well, imagine that. Who knew? All this yammering about covid is nonsense. The "tests" are completely unreliable and meaningless. Lots of people have tested positive and had no clinical symptoms at all. The myth of asymptomatic covid was advanced in order to explain this troublesome fact. The diagnosis of "long covid. is equally absurd. It is hard to believe that anyone would attach any credence to statistics for "death from covid" unless they had been living in a cave for the past few years.
We are coming up to year four of this clown show! I will say both my husband and I have not yet had covid. Have been undeterred by the fear campaign, have not followed masking or the other policies. Had one shot (j and j) and have see every single person I know get boosted multiple times and they have also had covid multiple times.
You're right, it's all a farce. There are more and more people who know the truth. But still, after 4 years there are many people lost, and I'm sure it's because they continue watching TV. Many people are unaware that they were not and are not vaccines. The truth is that it is unfortunate that other people are influencing so that the truth is never revealed.
What a day for Covid podcasts! Right before this video segment, I listened to the Honestly podcast (Bari Weiss)on which the book, “The Big Fail” was discussed. The next podcast I listened to was from Eric Topal and his Ground Truths podcast on which he discussed the new book “They Want Us Infected.” So in which basket shall I put my eggs? I tend to be team Prasad/Hoag and Battachariya overall. But I find it interesting that there are still medical doctors that disagree. Dr Prasad, might you comment on these two books and their authors?
That we are still having a debate on the effectiveness of the Covid Vaccines let alone the net benefit they provide is only due to regulatory capture and the utter corruption of the scientific process.
This has resulted in the continued publishing of deeply flawed studies that were obviously designed with a predetermined outcome in what were once considered reputable scientific journals.
Your colleague on this Substack cited a deeply flawed study published in the Lancet and alleging that the "Under-vaccinated" in the UK had worse outcomes. The segmentation in the study defies logic. It groups those never vaccinated with those who were vaccinated but failed to stay on the schedule and continue boosters and compares them to those that are on schedule. The segments in the "Under-vaccinated" group have nothing in common, one was never vaccinated and one took at least one shot and most took at least two shots.
The true control group is the never vaccinated. Yet they do not provide segmented data separating the never vaccinated from the under-vaccinated but in the discussion section they bury this paragraph.
"Our estimates for the 16–74 years and 75 years and older age groups show that being unvaccinated (strictly maximum dose deficit) was associated with similar or lower hazard ratio for severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with being vaccinated but having a vaccine deficit of at least one dose..."
Obviously they have the segmented data but chose not to share it. Likely because it does not align with their predetermined conclusion. This is the definition of Junk Science and your colleague citing this paper in his latest post and in a prior post the Commonwealth Fund blog post about a model as proof the vaccine was effective and provided material benefits should be embarrassing. That practicing doctors are still using obviously deficient studies to justify recommending treatments to their patients illustrates the medical community has learned nothing from their failures.
By do not reduce, do you mean increase? Check out the Mike Dickson “sudden death”. Journalist heaped hate on Novak for not getting jabbed, now he has passed away at 59.
Interesting IMO that nobody have paid attention (as far as I know) to the control-placebo group in Polack et al. NEJM Dec 2020. That was the key paper for the anti SARS CoV2 RNAvax approval and their massive use in humans that followed. Only 9 ( yes, 9!!!!) cases of "serious symptoms" of COVID-19 among the 20.000 individuals in the placebo group, individuals collected in different countries (Brazil, Argentina, India, etc) at the peak of the pandemic in 2020. An approx. 150 positive cases (this is by lab detection, either mild or non symptomatic ) in the placebo group of 20.000 total. From this numbers they got the wildly propagandized number of "95%"of efficiency (1 and 15 positives, respectively, among the test group that received the RNAvax). No decent journal would have accepted publishing those RNA vax efficacy numbers against COVID-19 or any other viral disease, in under normal circumstances.
I would love for you to compare/contrast annual Flu vs Covid booster.
Less benefit but not greater risk
Cleveland Clinic has new report, people with booster more apt to contract cvd than ones skipping them. This was on Substack in the last few days. Very surprised since they went along with the narrative.
People at higher risk of CVD more likely to get vaccine
How lost some people are!! They continue talking about vaccines when it has been proven more than 3 years ago that they are not vaccines. That awful!!
What about effectiveness in the elderly?
Good question. The supposed purpose of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system of the recipient to make antibodies against the pathogen. The elderly experience a decline in the efficiency of their biological systems---presumably including their immune system. So why is it almost always postulated that the elderly and immunocompromised should be especially diligent in keeping up with vaccines? Isn't it likely that the diminished immune response would mean that they would get less benefit from a vaccine than would those with a healthier immune system? Could it be possible that a vaccine would pose a greater risk to these individuals? I don't know the answers to these questions but it seems to be sensible to address them.
Maybe less benefit but no greater risk. It's also possible that repeated vaccines can boost the response to that of younger people. That's what they found at the beginning of the pandemic. Immune compromised people needed 3 doses where regular people just needed 2 doses.
I would agree that is possible but my questions are theoretical ones concerning true vaccines. The mRNA shots given to so many do not in any way fit the definition of vaccines which are attenuated or killed microbes designed to stimulate the body's immune system to generate antibodies. There could be no real vaccine for "Covid" since no virus was ever isolated or grown in pure tissue culture. The mRNA technology was designed by cancer researchers looking for a way to generate proteins that would be toxic to particular cancer cells. Application to microbial infection was problematic at best.
Chinese vaccines ( i.e. Sinopharml) are clasic inactivated-virus based vaccines. They have been widely used in , for instance, Brazil since 2021.
Novavax is a killed virus vaccine. Look it up.
I looked it up and it isn't. Hard to kill a virus that has never been isolated and cultured. A group of investigators sent Freedom of Information requests to the CDC and about 200 other health agencies and laboratories around the world asking for evidence that a virus had been isolated. All returned answers stating that they had no cultures or other documentary evidence of Covid-19. There are lots of interesting questions concerning the science of virology and worth investigating. I had always accepted what I was taught about viruses in medical school fifty years ago and only started looking it to it in any depth during the Covid period and what I have learned has changed my outlook considerably.
Clonar el virus es otra cosa. Las vacunas comerciales basadas en virus inactivado no necesariamente implican , y en la urgencia, amplificar un inoculo inicial del SARS-CoV-2 clonado. Podria quizás inclusive, en la urgencia, haberse usado un Coronavirus o mezcla de Coronavirus similares ya que las proteínas estructurales N y M , aparte de la proteina S, parecen ser importantes para inducir inmunidad protectiva cruzada. La censura a todo lo chino ha hecho muy difícil saber lo necesario sobre como se han producido esas vacunas basadas en virus inactivado (que a diferencia de las RNA vaxs de Pfizer/ Moderna, son vacunas REALES en el sentido clásico).
It all makes sense when you accept they want you dead
Well, imagine that. Who knew? All this yammering about covid is nonsense. The "tests" are completely unreliable and meaningless. Lots of people have tested positive and had no clinical symptoms at all. The myth of asymptomatic covid was advanced in order to explain this troublesome fact. The diagnosis of "long covid. is equally absurd. It is hard to believe that anyone would attach any credence to statistics for "death from covid" unless they had been living in a cave for the past few years.
We are coming up to year four of this clown show! I will say both my husband and I have not yet had covid. Have been undeterred by the fear campaign, have not followed masking or the other policies. Had one shot (j and j) and have see every single person I know get boosted multiple times and they have also had covid multiple times.
You're right, it's all a farce. There are more and more people who know the truth. But still, after 4 years there are many people lost, and I'm sure it's because they continue watching TV. Many people are unaware that they were not and are not vaccines. The truth is that it is unfortunate that other people are influencing so that the truth is never revealed.
" ... in people who had covid"
So long as it reduces the chance of "having" it, that will do for me. So far, for whatever reason, I remain uninfected and hope to remain so.
I wonder about this too.
What a day for Covid podcasts! Right before this video segment, I listened to the Honestly podcast (Bari Weiss)on which the book, “The Big Fail” was discussed. The next podcast I listened to was from Eric Topal and his Ground Truths podcast on which he discussed the new book “They Want Us Infected.” So in which basket shall I put my eggs? I tend to be team Prasad/Hoag and Battachariya overall. But I find it interesting that there are still medical doctors that disagree. Dr Prasad, might you comment on these two books and their authors?
That we are still having a debate on the effectiveness of the Covid Vaccines let alone the net benefit they provide is only due to regulatory capture and the utter corruption of the scientific process.
This has resulted in the continued publishing of deeply flawed studies that were obviously designed with a predetermined outcome in what were once considered reputable scientific journals.
Your colleague on this Substack cited a deeply flawed study published in the Lancet and alleging that the "Under-vaccinated" in the UK had worse outcomes. The segmentation in the study defies logic. It groups those never vaccinated with those who were vaccinated but failed to stay on the schedule and continue boosters and compares them to those that are on schedule. The segments in the "Under-vaccinated" group have nothing in common, one was never vaccinated and one took at least one shot and most took at least two shots.
The true control group is the never vaccinated. Yet they do not provide segmented data separating the never vaccinated from the under-vaccinated but in the discussion section they bury this paragraph.
"Our estimates for the 16–74 years and 75 years and older age groups show that being unvaccinated (strictly maximum dose deficit) was associated with similar or lower hazard ratio for severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with being vaccinated but having a vaccine deficit of at least one dose..."
Obviously they have the segmented data but chose not to share it. Likely because it does not align with their predetermined conclusion. This is the definition of Junk Science and your colleague citing this paper in his latest post and in a prior post the Commonwealth Fund blog post about a model as proof the vaccine was effective and provided material benefits should be embarrassing. That practicing doctors are still using obviously deficient studies to justify recommending treatments to their patients illustrates the medical community has learned nothing from their failures.
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/lancet-study-confirms-unvaccinated
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/lancet-paper-on-dangers-of-undervaccination
More proof at the “Where are the numbers” Substack of the blatant corruption and lack of interest in truth and real science at the Lancet.
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-lancet-has-become-a-laughing
I thought you didn’t trust observational studies?
Only when they support his laughable agenda.
By do not reduce, do you mean increase? Check out the Mike Dickson “sudden death”. Journalist heaped hate on Novak for not getting jabbed, now he has passed away at 59.