How Vaccine Messaging Confused The Public

Authors: John Gibson the Brownstone Institute 

Pivotal randomized control trials (RCTs) underpinning approval of Covid-19 vaccines did not set out to, and did not, test if the vaccines prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nor did the trials test if the vaccines reduce mortality risk. A review of seven phase III trials, including those for Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, found the criterion the vaccines were trialled against was just reduced risk of Covid-19 symptoms

There should be no secret about these facts, as they were discussed in August 2020 in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal); one of the oldest and most widely cited medical journals in the world. Moreover, this was not an isolated article, as the editor-in-chief also gave her own summary of the vaccine-testing situation, which has proved very prescient:

“…we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection [and] provide only short-lived immunity, … as well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long-term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment.”It was not just the BMJ covering these features of the RCTs. When health bureaucrats Rochelle Walensky, Henry Walke and Anthony Fauci claimed (in the Journal of the American Medical Association) that “clinical trials have shown that the vaccines authorized for use in the US are highly effective against Covid-19 infection, severe illness and death” this was felt sufficiently false that the journal published a comment simply titled “Inaccurate Statement.”

The basis of the comment was that the primary endpoint for the RCTs was symptoms of Covid-19; a less exacting standard than testing to show efficacy against infection, severe illness, and death.

Yet these aspects of the vaccine trials discussed in medical journals are largely unknown by the general public. To measure public understanding of the Covid-19 vaccine trials I added a question about the vaccine testing to an ongoing nationally representative survey of adult New Zealanders.

While not top-of-mind for most readers, New Zealand is a useful place for finding out about public understanding of the vaccine trials. Until recently, when a few doses of AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines were allowed, it was 100% Pfizer, making it easy to word the survey question very specifically about the Pfizer vaccine trials.

Also, New Zealanders were vaccinated in a very short period, just prior to the survey. In late August 2021 New Zealand was last in the OECD in dosing rates but by December, when the survey was fielded, it had jumped into the top half of the OECD, with vaccinations rising by an average of 110 doses per 100 people in just over three months. 

This rapid rise in vaccination was partly driven by mandates, for health, education, police, and emergency workers and also by a vaccine passport system that blocked the unvaccinated from most places. The mandates were strictly applied, and even people suffering adverse reactions after their first shot, such as Bell’s Palsy and pericarditis, still had to get the second shot. The vaccine passport law had gone through Parliament just prior to the survey, so the vaccines, and what was expected of them, should have been utmost in peoples’ minds. 

The other relevant factor about New Zealand is the government-dominated media, which is either publicly funded, or is heavily subsidized by a “public interest journalism fund” and by generous government advertising of the Covid-19 vaccines. Also, supposedly independent commentators prominent in the media got their talking points about the vaccines from the government in a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign. 

Thus, it was mainly overseas journalists who expressed concern when New Zealand’s Prime Minister made the Orwellian claim that in matters of Covid-19 and vaccines: “Dismiss anything else, we will continue to be your single source of truth.”

Yet a government-controlled media and a vaccine advertising blitz yielded widespread public misunderstanding about the testing the vaccines underwent in pivotal trials. The survey asked if the Pfizer vaccine had been trialled against: (a) preventing infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, or (b) reducing risk of getting symptoms of Covid-19, or (c) reducing risk of getting serious sick or dying, or (d) all of the above. The correct answer is (b), the trials only set out to test if the vaccines reduced the risk of getting Covid-19 symptoms.

Only four percent of respondents got the right answer. In other words, 96 percent of adult New Zealanders thought the Covid-19 vaccines were tested against more demanding criteria than is actually the case. 

Currently, most Covid-19 cases in New Zealand are post-vaccination. And despite almost everyone being vaccinated, and most boosted, the rate of new confirmed Covid-19 cases is one of the highest in the world. As people see with their own eyes that one can still get infected they may question what they have been led to (mis)understand about the vaccines.

Elsewhere it is noted that vaccine fanaticism—especially denying natural immunity—fuels vaccine scepticism. As people see that public health authorities lied about natural immunity they will wonder if they also lied about vaccine efficacy. Likewise, as they realise they were given a misleading impression about what the vaccines were trialled against they might doubt other claims about vaccines.

In particular, by believing the vaccines were tested against more demanding criteria than was actually so, public expectations of what vaccination would achieve were likely too high. As the public witnesses a failure of mass vaccination to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections, and a failure to reduce overall mortality, scepticism about these and other vaccines will grow.

In New Zealand this issue is exacerbated by the Prime Minister creating a false equivalence between Covid-19 vaccines and measles vaccines. Currently the paediatric vaccination rate (which includes the measles vaccine) for indigenous Maori has dropped 12 percentage points in two years and 0.3 million measles vaccines had to be discarded after expiring due to lack of demand. The advertising for Covid-19 vaccines particularly targets Maori, with claims that boosters will protect them against Omicron. The progress of infections is likely to prove this claim to be largely untrue, and so Maori are likely to be even more sceptical about future vaccination, even for vaccines that truly can be described as ‘safe and effective.’

If politicians and health bureaucrats had been honest with the public, setting out the criteria the Covid-19 vaccines were trialed against, and what could and could not be expected of the vaccines, then this widespread misunderstanding need not have occurred. Instead, their lack of honesty is likely to damage future vaccination efforts and harm public health.

Protection by a Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 against Omicron in Israel

Authors: Yinon M. Bar-On, M.Sc., Yair Goldberg, Ph.D., Micha Mandel, Ph.D., Omri Bodenheimer, M.Sc., Ofra Amir, Ph.D., Laurence Freedman, Ph.D., Sharon Alroy-Preis, M.D., Nachman Ash, M.D., Amit Huppert, Ph.D., and Ron Milo, Ph.D. April 5, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2201570 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Abstract

BACKGROUND

On January 2, 2022, Israel began administering a fourth dose of BNT162b2 vaccine to persons 60 years of age or older. Data are needed regarding the effect of the fourth dose on rates of confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).

METHODS

Using the Israeli Ministry of Health database, we extracted data on 1,252,331 persons who were 60 years of age or older and eligible for the fourth dose during a period in which the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was predominant (January 10 through March 2, 2022). We estimated the rate of confirmed infection and severe Covid-19 as a function of time starting at 8 days after receipt of a fourth dose (four-dose groups) as compared with that among persons who had received only three doses (three-dose group) and among persons who had received a fourth dose 3 to 7 days earlier (internal control group). For the estimation of rates, we used quasi-Poisson regression with adjustment for age, sex, demographic group, and calendar day.

RESULTS

The number of cases of severe Covid-19 per 100,000 person-days (unadjusted rate) was 1.5 in the aggregated four-dose groups, 3.9 in the three-dose group, and 4.2 in the internal control group. In the quasi-Poisson analysis, the adjusted rate of severe Covid-19 in the fourth week after receipt of the fourth dose was lower than that in the three-dose group by a factor of 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7 to 4.6) and was lower than that in the internal control group by a factor of 2.3 (95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). Protection against severe illness did not wane during the 6 weeks after receipt of the fourth dose. The number of cases of confirmed infection per 100,000 person-days (unadjusted rate) was 177 in the aggregated four-dose groups, 361 in the three-dose group, and 388 in the internal control group. In the quasi-Poisson analysis, the adjusted rate of confirmed infection in the fourth week after receipt of the fourth dose was lower than that in the three-dose group by a factor of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.1) and was lower than that in the internal control group by a factor of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7 to 1.9). However, this protection waned in later weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe Covid-19 were lower after a fourth dose of BNT162b2 vaccine than after only three doses. Protection against confirmed infection appeared short-lived, whereas protection against severe illness did not wane during the study period.

During late December 2021, with the emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant, the prevalence of confirmed infection rose sharply in Israel. Some of the contributing factors were increased immune evasion by the variant1 and the passage of more than 4 months since most adults had received their third vaccine dose. In an effort to address the challenges presented by the omicron variant and to reduce the load on the health care system, on January 2, 2022, Israeli authorities approved the administration of a fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) to persons who were 60 years of age or older, as well as to high-risk populations and health care workers, if more than 4 months had passed since receipt of their third dose. The real-world effectiveness of the fourth dose against confirmed infection and severe illness remains unclear. In this study, we used data from the Israeli Ministry of Health national database to study the relative effectiveness of the fourth dose as compared with only three doses against confirmed infection and severe illness among older persons in the Israeli population.

Methods

STUDY POPULATION

For this analysis, we included persons who, on January 1, 2022, were 60 years of age or older and had received three doses of BNT162b2 at least 4 months before the end of the study period (March 2). We excluded the following persons from the analysis: those who had died before the beginning of the study period (January 10); those for whom no information regarding their age or sex was available; those who had had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before the beginning of the study, determined with the use of either a polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay or a state-regulated rapid antigen test; those who had received a third dose before its approval for all older residents (i.e., before July 30, 2021); those who had been abroad for the entire study period (January 10 to March 2; persons were considered to be abroad 10 days before traveling until 10 days after their return to Israel); and those who had received a vaccine dose of a type other than BNT162b2.

For persons who met the inclusion criteria, we extracted information on March 4, 2022, regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed either by state-regulated rapid antigen test or by PCR) and severe Covid-19 (defined with the use of the National Institutes of Health definition2 as a resting respiratory rate of >30 breaths per minute, an oxygen saturation of <94% while breathing ambient air, or a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <300) during the 14 days after confirmation of infection. During the study period, infections were overwhelmingly dominated by the omicron variant.3 We also extracted data regarding vaccination (dates and brands of first, second, third, and fourth doses) and demographic variables such as age, sex, and demographic group (general Jewish, Arab, or ultra-Orthodox Jewish), as determined by the person’s statistical area of residence (similar to a census block4).

STUDY DESIGN

The study period started on January 10, 2022, and ended on March 2, 2022, for confirmed infection and ended on February 18, 2022, for severe illness. The starting date was set to 7 days after the start of the vaccination campaign (January 3, 2022) so that at least the first four-dose group (days 8 to 14 after vaccination) would be represented throughout the study period (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). The end dates were chosen to minimize the effects of missing outcome data due to delays in reporting PCR or antigen test results and to allow time for the development of severe illness.

The design of the study was similar to that of a previous study in which we assessed the protection conferred by the third vaccine dose as compared with the second dose.5 We calculated the total number of person-days at risk and the incidence of confirmed infection and of severe Covid-19 during the study period defined for each outcome. For persons who received the fourth dose, treatment groups were defined according to the number of weeks that had passed since receiving that dose, starting from the second week (8 to 14 days after vaccination). These four-dose groups were compared with two control groups. The first control group included persons who were eligible for a fourth dose but had not yet received it (three-dose group). Because persons who received the fourth dose might have differed from those who had not according to unmeasured confounding variables, a second control group was defined as persons who had received a fourth dose 3 to 7 days earlier (internal control group). This control group included the same persons as the four-dose groups, but during a period in which the fourth dose was not expected to affect the rate of confirmed infection or severe illness. The membership in these groups was dynamic, and participants contributed risk days to different study groups on different calendar days, depending on their vaccination status.

OVERSIGHT

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Sheba Medical Center. All the authors contributed to the conceptualization of the study, critically reviewed the results, approved the final version of the manuscript, and made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the data in this report. The Israeli Ministry of Health and Pfizer have a data-sharing agreement, but only the final results of this study were shared.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Using quasi-Poisson regression, we estimated the rates of confirmed infection and severe Covid-19 per 100,000 person-days for each study group (included as factors in the model), with adjustment for the following demographic variables: age group (60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, or ≥80 years), sex, and demographic group (general Jewish, Arab, or ultra-Orthodox Jewish). Because incidences of both confirmed infection and severe illness increased rapidly during January 2022, the risk of exposure at the beginning of the study period was lower than at the end of the study period. Moreover, the fraction of the population in each study group changed throughout the study period (Fig. S1). Therefore, we included calendar date as an additional covariate to account for changing exposure risk.6 The end of the study period for severe Covid-19 was set to 14 days before the date of data retrieval (March 4), allowing at least 14 days of follow-up time for the development of severe illness. To ensure the same follow-up time for severe Covid-19 in all persons, we considered only cases of severe illness that developed within 14 days after confirmation of infection. The date used for counting events of severe Covid-19 was defined as the date of the test confirming the infection that subsequently led to the severe illness.

Persons who received four doses were assigned to groups according to the numbers of weeks that had passed since receipt of the fourth dose; for each outcome, we estimated the incidence rate in each of these four-dose groups and in the two control groups. We calculated two rate ratios for each treatment group and each outcome: first, the ratio of the rate in the three-dose group to that in each four-dose group; and second, the ratio of the rate in the internal control group to that in each four-dose group. Note that the higher this rate ratio is, the greater the protection conferred by the fourth dose of vaccine. In addition, adjusted rate differences per 100,000 person-days during the study period were estimated with a method similar to that used in our previous analysis.7 Confidence intervals were calculated by exponentiating the 95% confidence intervals for the regression coefficients, without adjustment for multiplicity. Thus, the confidence intervals should not be used to infer differences between study groups.

To check for possible biases, we performed several sensitivity analyses. First, we estimated the rate ratios for confirmed infection using an alternative statistical method that relied on matching (similar to that used by Dagan et al.8), as described in detail in the Supplementary Appendix; this approach could not be applied to the analysis of severe Covid-19 because of the small case numbers. Second, we examined the results of using data on infections confirmed only by PCR testing and excluding data on those confirmed by state-regulated antigen testing. Third, we repeated the analyses with data from the general Jewish population only. Fourth, we analyzed the data while accounting for the exposure risk over time in each person’s area of residence. Fifth, we analyzed the data while accounting for the time of vaccination since the third dose. Further details of the sensitivity analyses are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Results

STUDY POPULATION

Figure 1.Study Poplation.Table 1.Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Persons in the Study Groups.

A total of 1,252,331 persons met the criteria for inclusion in the study (Figure 1). The total number of events and person-days at risk in each of the study groups, along with the distribution of covariates used in the analysis, are shown in Table 1, which provides statistics aggregated across weeks since receipt of the fourth dose from the second week onward. The information for each treatment group according to the week since receipt of the fourth dose is provided in Table S1. Overall, the distributions of covariates in the aggregated treatment groups are similar to those in the internal control group. As compared with the three-dose group, the aggregated four-dose groups and the internal control group included more person-days over the age of 80 years (24.9% and 25.1%, respectively, vs. 16.2%) and more person-days from the general Jewish population (94.2% and 93.7% vs. 84.4%). Those in the three-dose group had a larger number of risk days than did those in the aggregated four-dose groups (31.0 million person-days vs. 23.9 million person-days) but had more confirmed infections (111,780 vs. 42,325) and more severe cases (1210 vs. 355).

PROTECTION CONFERRED BY THE FOURTH DOSE

As shown in Table 1, the unadjusted rate of confirmed infection was 177 cases per 100,000 person-days in the aggregated four-dose groups, 361 cases per 100,000 person-days in the three-dose group, and 388 cases per 100,000 person-days in the internal control group. The unadjusted rate of severe Covid-19 was 1.5 cases per 100,000 person-days in the aggregated four-dose groups, 3.9 cases per 100,000 person-days in the three-dose group, and 4.2 cases per 100,000 person-days in the internal control group.Table 2.Results of the Quasi-Poisson Regression Analysis of Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Table 3.esults of the Quasi-Poisson Regression Analysis of Severe Covid-19.Figure 2.Adjusted Rate Ratios for Confirmed Infection and Severe Illness.

The results of the quasi-Poisson regression analysis are summarized in Table 2 for confirmed infection and in Table 3 for severe illness. Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the results for both confirmed infection and severe illness.

The adjusted rate of confirmed infection was lower in the four-dose groups than in the two control groups. The adjusted rate among persons in the fourth week (22 to 28 days) after receipt of the fourth dose was lower by a factor of 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 2.1) than that in the three-dose group and was lower by a factor of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7 to 1.9) than that in the internal control group. The adjusted rate of confirmed infection (after rounding) in the fourth week after the fourth dose was 171 cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 165 to 177), as compared with 340 cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 337 to 343) in the three-dose group and 308 cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 299 to 317) in the internal control group (Table S2). In the analysis of adjusted rate differences, the group in the fourth week after the fourth dose had 170 fewer confirmed infections per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 162 to 176) than the three-dose group, and 137 fewer confirmed infections per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 125 to 148) than the internal control group. From the fifth week (29 to 35 days) onward, the rate ratio for confirmed infection started to decline. The adjusted rate of infection in the eighth week after the fourth dose was very similar to those in the control groups; the rate ratio for the three-dose group as compared with the four-dose group was 1.1 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.2), and the rate ratio for the internal control group as compared with the four-dose group was only 1.0 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.1).

The rate ratios comparing the control groups with the four-dose groups were larger and longer-lasting for severe Covid-19. For persons in the fourth week after receipt of the fourth dose, the adjusted rate of severe illness was lower by a factor of 3.5 (95% CI, 2.7 to 4.6) than that in the three-dose group and was lower by a factor of 2.3 (95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3) than that in the internal control group. The adjusted rate of severe Covid-19 (after rounding) in the fourth week after the fourth dose was 1.6 cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0), as compared with 5.5 cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 5.2 to 5.9) in the three-dose group and 3.6 cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.5) in the internal control group (Table S2). The adjusted rate differences were 3.9 fewer cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.5) and 2.1 fewer cases per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.0) than the three-dose group and the internal control group, respectively. Severe illness continued to occur at lower rates in the four-dose groups than in the control groups in later weeks after receipt of the fourth dose, and no signs of waning were evident by the sixth week after receipt of the fourth dose (Figure 2).

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

The results of the matched analysis of confirmed infection were similar to the results obtained in the main analysis (Fig. S3). In addition, restricting the quasi-Poisson regression analysis to the general Jewish population, adding as a covariate the exposure risk over time in each individual’s area of residence, or adding as a covariate the time since administration of the third dose did not substantially change the results of the main analysis (Figs. S4 and S5).

As described in the Supplementary Appendix, the testing policy in Israel was changed in early January 2022 (before the study period) for persons younger than 60 years of age. Even though the testing policy for the study population (persons ≥60 years of age) did not change, we tested the possible effect of the type of diagnostic test used to confirm infection by repeating the analysis counting only infections confirmed by positive PCR tests. This resulted in only very minor changes to the estimated level of protection conferred by the fourth dose (Figs. S4 and S5). In addition, we compared the testing rate and test type (PCR or antigen) among persons who received the fourth dose as compared with those who received only three doses and found the differences to be of limited extent (Fig. S2).

Discussion

The omicron variant is genetically divergent from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain for which the BNT162b2 vaccine was tailored. The results presented here indicate that as compared with three vaccine doses given at least 4 months earlier, a fourth dose provides added short-term protection against confirmed infections and severe illness caused by the omicron variant. The incidence rate for confirmed infection was lower by a factor of 2 and the rate of severe disease lower by a factor of 3 among persons in the fourth week after receiving the fourth dose than among eligible persons who did not receive the fourth dose.

Comparing the rate ratio over time since the fourth dose (Figure 2) suggests that the protection against confirmed infection with the omicron variant reaches a maximum in the fourth week after vaccination, after which the rate ratio decreases to approximately 1.1 by the eighth week; these findings suggest that protection against confirmed infection wanes quickly. In contrast, protection against severe illness did not appear to decrease by the sixth week after receipt of the fourth dose. More follow-up is needed in order to evaluate the protection of the fourth dose against severe illness over longer periods.

Although our analysis attempts to address biases such as confounding, some sources of bias may not have been measured or adequately controlled for — for example, behavioral differences between persons who received the fourth dose and those who did not. For severe illness, differences in the prevalence of coexisting conditions could potentially have affected the results; however, this information is not recorded in the national database, and therefore we did not adjust for such differences. Differences in coexisting conditions could also be associated with differential treatment with antiviral drugs such as ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, which could have affected the results. To address some of these biases, we compared the rate of confirmed infection and severe illness within the group of people who received the fourth dose. Estimates of the rate ratio during the first days after vaccination could include the effect of transient biases (Fig. S6). These potential biases include the “healthy vaccinee” bias,9 in which people who feel ill tend not to get vaccinated in the following days, which leads to a lower number of confirmed infections and severe disease in the four-dose group during the first days after vaccination. Moreover, one would expect that detection bias due to behavioral changes, such as the tendency to perform fewer tests after vaccination, is more pronounced shortly after receipt of the dose.

Thus, we compared the rates of confirmed infections and severe illness at different weeks after the fourth dose, from the second week onward, with the rates on days 3 to 7 after its receipt, a period during which the transient biases would have diminished but before the vaccine would be expected to have affected the rate of the outcomes of interest.6 The rate ratios obtained for confirmed infections were very similar to those obtained when comparing the treatment groups with the persons who did not receive a fourth dose. For severe illness, the rate ratios relative to the internal control group were lower than the rate ratios relative to the three-dose group. Even when the internal control group was the basis for comparison, the rate ratios for severe illness were still higher than those for confirmed infection and did not show signs of waning immunity.

In addition, several sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results to further potential biases. First, we performed the analyses using data only from the general Jewish population, since the participants in that group are more common in the population that received the fourth dose. Second, we included in the model the risk of exposure in the person’s area of residence. The results of these analyses were similar to the results of the main analysis.

Overall, these analyses provided evidence for the effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose against severe illness caused by the omicron variant, as compared with a third dose administered more than 4 months earlier. For confirmed infection, a fourth dose appeared to provide only short-term protection and a modest absolute benefit. Several reports have indicated that the protection against hospital admission conferred by a third dose given more than 3 months earlier is substantially lower against the omicron variant than the protection of a fresh third dose against hospital admission for illness caused by the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant.1,10,11 In our study, a fourth dose appeared to increase the protection against severe illness relative to three doses that were administered more than 4 months earlier.

Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Persons Who Have Already Had COVID-19

Authors: Nabin K ShresthaPatrick C BurkeAmy S NowackiPaul TerpelukSteven M Gordon

Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciac022, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac022

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in persons with prior COVID-19.Methods

Employees of Cleveland Clinic working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included. Anyone who tested positive for COVID-19 at least once before the study start date was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receiving the second dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19, symptomatic COVID-19, and hospitalizations for COVID-19, were examined over the next year.Results

Among 52238 employees, 4718 (9%) were previously infected, and 36922 (71%) were vaccinated by the study’s end. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was substantially higher throughout for those previously uninfected who remained unvaccinated than for all other groups, lower for the vaccinated than unvaccinated, and lower for those previously infected than those not. Incidence of COVID-19 increased dramatically in all groups after the Omicron variant emerged. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, both prior COVID-19 and vaccination were independently associated with significantly lower risk of COVID-19. Among previously infected subjects, a lower risk of COVID-19 overall was not demonstrated, but vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of symptomatic COVID-19 in both the pre-Omicron (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.90) and Omicron (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23–0.57) phases.Conclusions

Both previous infection and vaccination provide substantial protection against COVID-19. Vaccination of previously infected individuals does not provide additional protection against COVID-19 for several months, but after that provides significant protection at least against symptomatic COVID-19.SARS-CoV-2COVID-19IncidenceVaccinesImmunityTopic: 

Issue Section: Major Article PDF

Public Health Scotland COVID-19 Winter Statistical Report

As at 17January 2022 Publication date: 19 January 2022

The latest public health data published by the Scottish Government reveals that the COVID-19 “age-standardized case rate” is at its highest among the double-jabbed ‘fully vaccinated’ – and it isn’t particularly close.

The update also showed the sharp negative efficiency was maintained throughout double vaccinated rates for hospitalizations and deaths over the past four weeks.

Introduction

Since the start of the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) outbreak Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been working closely with Scottish Government and health and care colleagues in supporting the surveillance and monitoring of COVID-19 amongst the population. As part of our continuous review of reporting, as of 08 December 2021 Public Health Scotland has implemented changes to the COVID-19 Weekly Report to support the reader in drawing insights from a wider range of existing metrics around COVID-19 and winter pressures.

Caution should be used when making comparisons between metrics; each metric is calculated independently and may cover different time periods or cohorts of the population. The consolidated report will include the following content weekly: COVID-19

• Summary of tests and cases
• Contact Tracing
• Hospital and ICU admissions
• Testing in care homes
• COVID-19 vaccination status cases, hospitalisations and deaths
• Covid-19 vaccination uptake summary
• Ad-hoc reporting on topics such as: Covid-19 and Vaccination in pregnancy, Equality
reporting etc.

Hospital/ Wider System Pressures

• Unscheduled Care
• Waiting Times
• Delayed Discharges

Additional charts for a number of variables related to COVID-19 service use in the NHS, including some metrics previously presented in the weekly COVID-19 report, are available to view in our interactive dashboard. These include breakdowns by age, sex and deprivation. The variables currently available on the dashboard include:

• Positive cases per day and cumulative total
• COVID-19 hospital admissions
• COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU admissions
• COVID-19 related contacts to NHS24 and the Coronavirus Helpline
• Community Hubs and Assessment Centers
• Scottish Ambulance Service incidents
• Contact tracing
• Health care workers
• Care homes
• Targeted community testing
• Travel outside of Scotland
• Quarantine Statistics
• NHS Protect Scotland App
• Lateral Flow Device (LFD) Testing 5

The Public Health Scotland COVID-19 Daily Dashboard publishes daily updates on the number of positive cases of COVID-19 in Scotland, with charts showing the trend since the start of the outbreak. From 26 February 2021 the Daily Dashboard also includes daily updates on vaccinations for COVID-19 in Scotland.

There is a large amount of data being regularly published regarding COVID-19 (for example, Coronavirus in Scotland – Scottish Government and Deaths involving coronavirus in Scotland – National Records of Scotland). This report complements the range of existing data currently available.

To View The Current COVID-19 Report for Scotland Click Link Below:

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11223/22-01-19-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf

Long-Term Dangers Of Experimental mRNA Shots

Authors: Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • mRNA-based COVID shots have used codon optimization to improve protein production. A codon consists of three nucleotides, and nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA. Use of codon optimization virtually guarantees unexpected results
  • Replacing rare codons must be done judiciously, as rarer codons can have slower translation rates and a slowed-down rate is actually necessary to prevent protein misfolding
  • Stop codons, when present at the end of an mRNA coding sequence, signals the termination of protein synthesis. According to a recent paper, both Pfizer and Moderna selected suboptimal stop codons
  • The COVID shots induce spike protein at levels unheard of in nature, and the spike protein is the toxic part of the virus responsible for the most unique effects of the virus, such as the blood clotting disorders, neurological problems and heart damage. To expect the COVID shot to not produce these kinds of effects would be rather naïve
  • Other significant threats include immune dysfunction and the flare-up of latent viral infections such as herpes and shingles. Coinfections, in turn, could accelerate other diseases. Herpes viruses, for example, have been implicated as a cause of both AIDS and chronic fatigue syndrome

“Let’s start with a thought experiment: If an engineering design flaw exists and no one measures it, can it really injure people or kill them?” a Twitter user named Ehden writes.1 He goes on to discuss an overlooked aspect of the COVID mRNA shots, something called “codon optimization,” which virtually guarantees unexpected results. Ehden explains:2

“Trying to tell your body to generate proteins is hard for many reasons. One of them is the fact that when you try to run the protein information via ribosomes which process that code and generate the protein, it can be very slow or can get stuck during the process.

Luckily, scientists found a way to overcome this problem, by doing code substitution: instead of using the original genetic code to generate the protein, they changed the letters in the code so the code would be optimized. This is known as Codon Optimization.”

COVID Shots Use Codon Optimization

A codon consists of three nucleotides, and nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA. An August 2021 article in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, addressed the use of codon optimization as follows:3

“The open reading frame of the mRNA vaccine is the most crucial component because it contains the coding sequence that is translated into protein.

Although the open reading frame is not as malleable as the non-coding regions, it can be optimized to increase translation without altering the protein sequence by replacing rarely used codons with more frequently occurring codons that encode the same amino acid residue.

For instance, the biopharmaceutical company CureVac AG discovered that human mRNA codons rarely have A or U at the third position and patented a strategy that replaces A or U at the third position in the open reading frame with G or C. CureVac used this optimization strategy for its SARS-CoV-2 candidate CVnCoV …

Although replacement of rare codons is an attractive optimization strategy, it must be used judiciously. This is because, in the case of some proteins, the slower translation rate of rare codons is necessary for proper protein folding.

To maximize translation, the mRNA sequence typically incorporates modified nucleosides, such as pseudouridine, N1-methylpseudouridine or other nucleoside analogues. Because all native mRNAs include modified nucleosides, the immune system has evolved to recognize unmodified single-stranded RNA, which is a hallmark of viral infection.

Specifically, unmodified mRNA is recognized by pattern recognition receptors, such as Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), TLR7 and TLR8, and the retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIGI) receptor. TLR7 and TLR8 receptors bind to guanosine- or uridine-rich regions in mRNA and trigger the production of type I interferons, such as IFNα, that can block mRNA translation.

The use of modified nucleosides, particularly modified uridine, prevents recognition by pattern recognition receptors, enabling sufficient levels of translation to produce prophylactic amounts of protein.

Both the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccines … contain nucleoside-modified mRNAs. Another strategy to avoid detection by pattern recognition receptors, pioneered by CureVac, uses sequence engineering and codon optimization to deplete uridines by boosting the GC content of the vaccine mRNA.”

Much of this information was previously reviewed in my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. You can’t see the article but the video is embedded above. This study was published well after our interview and merely confirms what Seneff and Mikovits have unraveled in their research.

According to Ehden, 60.9% of the codons in COVID shots have been optimized, equivalent to 22.5% of the nucleotides, but he doesn’t specify which shot he’s talking about, or exactly where the data came from.

That all mRNA COVID shots are using codon optimization to one degree or another is clear, however. A July 2021 article4 in the journal Vaccines specifically evaluates and comments on the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA shots, noting:

“The design of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines involves many different types of optimizations … The mRNA components of the vaccine need to have a 5′-UTR to load ribosomes efficiently onto the mRNA for translation initiation, optimized codon usage for efficient translation elongation, and optimal stop codon for efficient translation termination.

Both 5′-UTR and the downstream 3′-UTR should be optimized for mRNA stability. The replacement of uridine by N1-methylpseudourinine (Ψ) complicates some of these optimization processes because Ψ is more versatile in wobbling than U. Different optimizations can conflict with each other, and compromises would need to be made.

I highlight the similarities and differences between Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines and discuss the advantage and disadvantage of each to facilitate future vaccine improvement. In particular, I point out a few optimizations in the design of the two mRNA vaccines that have not been performed properly.”

What Can Go Wrong?

One key take-home from the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery article5 cited above is that replacing rare codons “must be used judiciously,” as rarer codons can have slower translation rates and a slowed-down rate is actually necessary to prevent protein misfolding.The spike protein is the toxic part of the virus responsible for the most unique effects of the virus, such as the blood clotting disorders, neurological problems and heart damage. To expect the COVID shot to not produce these kinds of effects would be rather naïve.

A (adenine) and U (uracil) in the third position are rare, and the COVID shots replace these A’s and U’s with G’s (guanine) or C’s (cytosine). According to Seneff, this switch results in a 1,000-fold greater amount of spike protein compared to being infected with the actual virus.

What could go wrong? Well, just about anything. Again, the shot induces spike protein at levels unheard of in nature (even if SARS-CoV-2 is a “souped up” manmade concoction), and the spike protein is the toxic part of the virus responsible for the most unique effects of the virus, such as the blood clotting disorders, neurological problems and heart damage.

So, to expect the COVID shot to not produce these kinds of effects would be rather naïve. The codon switches might also result in protein misfolding, which is equally bad news. As explained by Seneff in our previous interview:

“The spike proteins that these mRNA vaccines are producing … aren’t able to go into the membrane, which I think is going to encourage it to become a problematic prion protein. Then, when you have inflammation, it upregulates alpha-synuclein [a neuronal protein that regulates synaptic traffic and neurotransmitter release].

So, you’re going to get alpha-synuclein drawn into misfolded spike proteins, turning into a mess inside the dendritic cells in the germinal centers in the spleen. And they’re going to package up all this crud into exosomes and release them. They’re then going to travel along the vagus nerve to the brainstem and cause things like Parkinson’s disease.

So, I think this is a complete setup for Parkinson’s disease … It’s going to push forward the date at which someone who has a propensity towards Parkinson’s is going to get it.

And it’s probably going to cause people to get Parkinson’s who never would have gotten it in the first place — especially if they keep getting the vaccine every year. Every year you do a booster, you bring the date that you’re going to get Parkinson’s ever closer.”

Immune Dysfunction and Viral Flare-Ups

Other significant threats include immune dysfunction and the flare-up of latent viral infections, which is something Mikovits has been warning about. In our previous interview, she noted:

“We use poly(I:C) [a toll-like receptor 3 agonist] to signal the cell to turn on the type I interferon pathway, and because [the spike protein your body produces in response to the COVID shot] is an unnatural synthetic envelope, you’re not seeing poly(I:C), and you’re not [activating] the Type I interferon pathway.

You’ve bypassed the plasmacytoid dendritic cell, which combined with IL-10, by talking to the regulatory B cells, decides what subclasses of antibodies to put out. So, you’ve bypassed the communication between the innate and adaptive immune response. You now miss the signaling of the endocannabinoid receptors …

A large part of Dr. [Francis] Ruscetti’s and my work over the last 30 years has been to show you don’t need an infectious transmissible virus — just pieces and parts of these viruses are worse, because they also turn on danger signals. They act like danger signals and pathogen-associated molecular patterns.

So, it synergistically leaves that inflammatory cytokine signature on that spins your innate immune response out of control. It just cannot keep up with the myelopoiesis [the production of cells in your bone marrow]. Hence you see a skew-away from the mesenchymal stem cell towards TGF-beta regulated hematopoietic stem cells.

This means you could see bleeding disorders on both ends. You can’t make enough firetrucks to send to the fire. Your innate immune response can’t get there, and then you’ve just got a total train wreck of your immune system.”

We’re now seeing reports of herpes and shingles infection following COVID-19 injection, and this is precisely what you can expect if your Type I interferon pathway is disabled. That’s not the end of your potential troubles, however, as these coinfections could accelerate other diseases as well.

For example, herpes viruses have been implicated as a trigger of both AIDS6 and myalgic encephalomyelitis7 (chronic fatigue syndrome or ME-CFS). According to Mikovits, these diseases don’t appear until viruses from different families partner up and retroviruses take out the Type 1 interferon pathway. Long term, the COVID mass injection campaign may be laying the foundation for a rapidly approaching avalanche of a wide range of debilitating chronic illnesses.

Are COVID Shots Appropriately Optimized?

As noted in the Vaccines article cited earlier, the codon optimization in the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be problematic:8

“As mammalian host cells attack unmodified exogeneous RNA, all U nucleotides were replaced by N1-methylpseudouridine (Ψ). However, Ψ wobbles more in base-pairing than U and can pair not only with A and G, but also, to a lesser extent, with C and U.

This is likely to increase misreading of a codon by a near-cognate tRNA. When nucleotide U in stop codons was replaced by Ψ, the rate of misreading of a stop codon by a near-cognate tRNAs increased.

Such readthrough events would not only decrease the number of immunogenic proteins, but also produce a longer protein of unknown fate with potentially deleterious effects …

The designers of both vaccines considered CGG as the optimal codon in the CGN codon family and recoded almost all CGN codons to CGG … [M]ultiple lines of evidence suggest that CGC is a better codon than CGG. The designers of the mRNA vaccines (especially mRNA-1273) chose a wrong codon as the optimal codon.”

The paper also points out the importance of vaccine mRNA to be translated accurately and not merely effectively, because if the wrong amino acids are incorporated, it can confuse your immune system and prevent it from identifying the correct targets.

Accuracy is also important in translation termination, and here it comes down to selecting the correct stop codons. Stop codons (UAA, UAG or UGA), when present at the end of an mRNA coding sequence signals the termination of protein synthesis.

According to the author, both Pfizer and Moderna selected less than optimal stop codons. “UGA is a poor choice of a stop codon, and UGAU in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines could be even worse,” she says.

What Health Problems Can We Expect to See More Of?

While the variety of diseases we may see a rise in as a result of this vaccination campaign are myriad, some general predictions can be made. We’ve already seen a massive uptick in blood clotting disorders, heart attacks and stroke, as well as heart inflammation.

More long term, Seneff believes we’ll see a significant rise in cancer, accelerated Parkinson’s-like diseases, Huntington’s disease, and all types of autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders.

Mikovits also suspects many will develop chronic and debilitating diseases and will die prematurely. At highest risk, she places those who are asymptomatically infected with XMRVs and gammaretroviruses from contaminated conventional vaccines. The COVID shot will effectively accelerate their death by crippling their immune function. “The kids that are highly vaccinated, they’re ticking time bombs,” Mikovits said in my May 2021 interview. 

What Are the Options?

While all of this is highly problematic, there is hope. From my perspective, I believe the best thing you can do is to build your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L).

I also recommend time-restricted eating, where you eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. Time-restricted eating will also upregulate autophagy, which may help digest and remove spike protein. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure.

Sauna therapy may also be helpful. It upregulates heat shock proteins, which can help refold misfolded proteins. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal.Sources and References

Early Omicron Breakthroughs Show MRNA Vaccines’ Weakness

Authors: Antony Sguazzin Copyright © Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) — Booster shots with messenger RNA vaccines such as those made by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE failed to block omicron in a study of some of the first documented breakthrough cases caused by the highly contagious variant. Seven German visitors to Cape Town experienced symptomatic Covid-19 infections between late November and early December despite being boosted, the researchers, whose investigation was authorized by the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University, said in findings published Tuesday in The Lancet. All the cases were mild or moderate, providing support for the extra shots’ ability to fend off severe disease, death and hospitalizations. Still, the findings demonstrate omicron’s ability to evade immunity generated by even the most powerful Covid-19 vaccine That underscores the need to continue fighting the pandemic with measures besides vaccination, such as social distancing and masking, the authors said. The shots appear to generate protection against omicron with other parts of the immune system in addition to antibodies, such as T-cells, and so far hospital and mortality data have been less severe than with the delta variant that dominated earlier.

Booster Programs

The rapid global spread of omicron, first identified in Botswana and South Africa in late November, has spurred the U.K., the U.S., South Africa and other countries to step up or introduce booster programs. However, the latest research shows the limits of such plans.  

Vaccines made with new mRNA technology have come to the fore during the Covid-19 pandemic. The shots instruct cells to make highly specific antibodies that block the coronavirus spike, a protein that allows it to enter cells. More traditional inoculations use inactivated or dead viruses to stimula te a response from immune systems. Preliminary data from an Israeli trial involving 154 health worker — released Monday, just two weeks after that study began — showed that a fourth dose of Pfizer’s shot didn’t prevent infection with omicron. Still, those in the trial had mild symptoms or none at all. Data from the U.K. have also shown a significant rise in protection against symptomatic infection and hospitalizations after a booster shot but suggest there may be a need for a fourth shot for those over 65, according to a report by Bloomberg Intelligence. In the Cape Town study, four of of the Germans were training at local hospitals, three were on vacation, and all were between the ages of 25 and 39. Five were female, two were male, and none were obese. Five had received three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and one received Moderna Inc.’s shot — also made with mRNA technology– followed by a Pfizer booster. Another received one dose of AstraZeneca Plc’s viral vector vaccine followed by two shots of Pfizer’s. None reported a prior Covid-19 infection. Five of the subjects received their booster dose in late October or early November.

‘Unique Opportunity’

“The presence of this group from Germany presented a unique opportunity to study omicron breakthrough infections in individuals with mRNA vaccine boosters,” the researchers said.  All of the subjects reported the onset of respiratory symptoms between Nov. 30 and Dec. 2, and ultimately experienced mild or moderate disease, they said.  Strong responses from T-cells were detected in the subjects, the researchers said. “The mild to moderate course of illness suggests that full vaccination followed by a booster dose still provides good protection against severe disease caused by omicron,” they said. Better vaccines will ultimately be needed to stop symptomatic infections with omicron, they said.

“Doomed To Fail” – Top Immunologist Blasts Global COVID Response Driven By “False Propaganda”

Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.

Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure

In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did to some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

Irreversible damage to trust

However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.

You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.

You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.

When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.

There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.

This emergency must stop!

Professor Udi Qimron, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

Fauci Doesn’t Have An Answer To Why Those Who Recovered From Covid Are Required To Take Vaccine

Authors: JORDAN LANCASTER REPORTER September 10, 20214:03 PM E

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday night on CNN that he didn’t have a “firm answer” as to why those who have been previously infected with Covid and have natural immunity are being required to take the vaccine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent, pointed out a recent study from Israel that found people with natural immunity from Covid due to a previous infection were much less likely to become infected, be hospitalized, or die from Covid than their counterparts who had never been infected but had received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. The scientists also found that previously infected people were more protected if they had one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Gupta asked if previously infected people should also get the vaccine, and if so, how Fauci plans to make the case for those people to get it.

“You know, that’s a really good point, Sanjay. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”

Fauci also said that the study didn’t discuss how long the immunity lasts. (RELATED: Natural Immunity To COVID-19 May Last More Than A Year After Infection, New Studies Show)

“The one thing the paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection – what’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” he added. “So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously, because you very appropriately pointed out it is an issue, and there could be an argument for saying what you said.”

First case of postmortem study in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2

Author:TorstenHansenaUlfTitzeaNidhi Su AnnKulamadayil-HeidenreichbSabineGlombitzacJohannes, et. al.

Highlights

• We report on a patient with a single dose of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

• He developed relevant serum titer levels but died 4 weeks later.

• By postmortem molecular mapping, we found viral RNA in nearly all organs examined.

• However, we did not observe any characteristic morphological features of COVID-19.

Immunogenicity might be elicited, while sterile immunity was not established.

Abstract

A previously symptomless 86-year-old man received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. He died 4 weeks later from acute renal and respiratory failure. Although he did not present with any COVID-19-specific symptoms, he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before he died. Spike protein (S1) antigen-binding showed significant levels for immunoglobulin (Ig) G, while nucleocapsid IgG/IgM was not elicited. Acute bronchopneumonia and tubular failure were assigned as the cause of death at autopsy; however, we did not observe any characteristic morphological features of COVID-19. Postmortem molecular mapping by real-time polymerase chain reaction revealed relevant SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values in all organs examined (oropharynx, olfactory mucosa, trachea, lungs, heart, kidney and cerebrum) except for the liver and olfactory bulb. These results might suggest that the first vaccination induces immunogenicity but not sterile immunity.

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2VaccineAutopsyHistologyRT-PCR

We report on an 86-year-old male resident of a retirement home who received vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Past medical history included systemic arterial hypertensionchronic venous insufficiencydementia and prostate carcinoma. On January 9, 2021, the man received lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine BNT162b2 in a 30 μg dose. On that day and in the following 2 weeks, he presented with no clinical symptoms (Table 1). On day 18, he was admitted to hospital for worsening diarrhea. Since he did not present with any clinical signs of COVID-19, isolation in a specific setting did not occur. Laboratory testing revealed hypochromic anemia and increased creatinine serum levels. Antigen test and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 were negative.

For More Information: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003647

Even Mainstream Media Is Now Asking Big Questions About Covid Vaccines

Authors: BY TYLER DURDENWEDNESDAY, AUG 25, 2021 – 11:19 A

Former Congressman Ron Paul has highlighted this week that a handful of mainstream media articles have actually begun to break ranks in terms of questioning key aspects of vaccine effectiveness and mandates, particularly when it comes to the controversial boosters now being widely proposed.

“Even mainstream media is now asking big questions about the vaccines” Wednesday’s Liberty Report featured. A couple of recent headlines in Bloomberg and BBC were unexpected in terms the criticism reflected and somewhat skeptical pushback against the ‘consensus narrative’. 

The first news article that Congressman Paul and co-host Daniel McAdams highlight is from Bloomberg.

Here’s how the very unexpected Bloomberg article, which was published this past weekend, began:

Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 

Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

And the same day as the BBG headline, there was this from UK government-funded BBC…

“Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?”

The story began:

It is now a serious question that has implications for whether children should ever be vaccinated. And whether we use the virus or booster shots to top up immunity in adults. Both have become contentious issues.

“We could be digging ourselves into a hole, for a very long time, where we think we can only keep Covid away by boosting every year,” Prof Eleanor Riley, an immunologist from the University of Edinburgh, told me.

A mere month or more ago such statements found in these couple of mainstream media articles would get a person possibly suspended from Facebook or Twitter.

But they underscore just how ‘experimental’ the whole scenario is, despite governments in a number of places now mandating COVID-19 vaccines, with boosters just around the corner and already being implemented in some places (with Israel previously being the first) on a mass scale.

Soon we could see health officials pushing a second booster, a third, and on and on it will go…

Even The Daily Beast, which has spent much of the pandemic shaming the ‘vaccine hesitant’ is now admitting that “ultra-vaxxed” Israel is now seeing numbers of infections skyrocket

It appears that some in the media are actually beginning to acknowledge the “rush” for boosters is far too premature, and too little is yet known.