Author: vincenzo

Virologist Drosten: what changed from 2014 to 2020?

December 9, 2020 / / 0 Comments

2014: the [PCR] method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of this virus. For example, if such a pathogen scurrys over the nasal mucosa in a nurse for a day without falling ill or noticing anything else, then she is suddenly a Mers case. Where previously fatally ill people were reported, mild cases and people who are actually core healthy are now suddenly included in the reporting statistics.
— Read on amp2.wiwo.de/technologie/forschung/virologe-drosten-im-gespraech-2014-der-koerper-wirdstaendig-von-viren-angegriffen/9903228.html

Very sensible. PCR testing is a bad idea for diagnostics. Yet, fast forward 6 years, and Drosten is responsible for the paper that formed the basis for the worldwide mass testing policy for Covid19.

What changed? Certainly not the science or the tests. After all, use of PCR has been widely criticised by many scientists (no, not on the MSM). And recently a damning review of the above paper appeared.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

December 7, 2020 / / 0 Comments

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

Immunodominant T-cell epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen reveal robust pre-existing T-cell immunity in unexposed individuals | bioRxiv

December 5, 2020 / / 0 Comments
“our findings raise the expectation that a significant majority of the global population is likely to have SARS-CoV-2 reactive T-cells because of prior exposure to flu and CMV viruses, in addition to common cold-causing coronaviruses”
— Read on www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.03.367375v1

Ivermectin quickly replacing Hydroxychloroquine as best treatment for Covid-19

December 4, 2020 / / 0 Comments

Allow me to be blunt, but at this point in time, anyone denying that HCQ-based protocols are effective is either a total ignorant or an evil liar. There’s just too much evidence. As Dr McCullough said, there’s only 1 in 17 billion chances that HCQ doesn’t work for Covid-19.

However, evidence for the even superior efficacy of Ivermectin is mounting quickly.

The video below and the accompanying post are worth your time.

HCQ in Spring cut mortality by 50% in 17 hospitals 2075 COVID cases

December 2, 2020 / / 0 Comments

The association of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Peter Doshi on BMJ: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data

December 2, 2020 / / 0 Comments

[A]ll eyes are on Pfizer and Moderna […] both companies to claim around 95% efficacy.

Let’s put this in perspective.

First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.

Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown.

Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.

[…]

“Following administration of Ad26.COV2.S, fever, muscle aches and headache appear to be more common in younger adults and can be severe. For this reason, we recommend you take a fever reducer or pain reliever if symptoms appear after receiving the vaccination, or upon your study doctor’s recommendation.”

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/

Seems a lot of unknowns and potential problems for a vaccine that, in the end, is completely unnecessary.