Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

CDC Did Not Put COVID Shots On Childhood Schedule – But it Ain’t Over

**UPDATE**

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, told The Epoch Times in an email that if the COVID-19 vaccines weren’t added to the schedule this week, they likely would be in the future.

“There has not been one vaccine that has been produced by the pharmaceutical industry and licensed for children in the U.S. that has not been eventually recommended by federal health officials for children and placed on the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule,” she said.

The article also states that while the CDC sought to distance itself from mandates, some jurisdictions adopt virtually all CDC guidelines as mandates. Similarly to how virtually all medical doctors/clinics adopt antiquated, unscientific CDC/IDSA Lyme guidelines.  CDC “guidelines” ARE essentially mandates.

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/cdc-did-not-put-the-covid-vaccines?

CDC did not put the COVID vaccines on the childhood schedule today

What happens tomorrow? My liveblog with some useful additions

CDC did something strange today: they added COVID to the Vaccines for Children program, which is a federal entitlement program that pays for vaccines for kids who don’t have other insurance. But it was not necessary to do this yet, as CDC cannot buy EUA vaccines. The COVID vaccines (as well as monoclonal antibodies, some other drugs, PCR and rapid tests) are unlicensed experimental products. EUA vaccines cannot be sold. The government buys them and your taxes pay for them.

CDC spends about 5 billion dollars a year to buy vaccines on the childhood schedule for kids on medicaid or without insurance from the manufacturers. Here is the price list.

So the vote today meant that once the COVID vaccines are sold commercially, they will be included in the Vaccines for Children program. At some time that was unspecified.

There was no clear explanation why this vote was held today, when CDC is jumping the gun. Did the CDC switch out a vote on adding COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule for a different vote at the last minute?

The CDC briefer, Jeanne Santoli, who was trying to explain why the members were voting on this, gave a very short and non-explanatory talk. I just timed her and it lasted all of 3 minutes. It was totally unlike the presentations by other briefers. Jose Romero, who is the Director of CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, followed her and said this is not about the childhood schedule. You can listen to them and read the slides at 6 hours 31 minutes and draw your own conclusions.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the VFC vote was a last-minute plug-in and that CDC cancelled a vote on adding the COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule, which would cause them to be required for most American kids to attend school. The midterms are coming, after all. And people are watching.

Below is my live blog.

merylnass: It is October 19, 2022 and the CDC has scheduled a 2 day meeting of its advisory committee. However, CDC has been cagey about what they plan to change in the childhood schedule.

merylnass: There is a large vaccine lineup to be discussed:chikungunya, pneumococcal vaccines, flu vaccines, meningococcal vaccines, RSV vaccines, monkeypox vaccines and dengue vaccine.

merylnass: I had to give it a couple of extra clicks to get the show to start at https://video.ibm.com/channel/VWBXKBR8af4

merylnass: Does anyone have any memory of when the CDC or ACIP responded to comments at any time in the past? CHD encouraged comments regarding the authorization of COVID vaccines for the youngest kids–I think about 40,000 comments were sent. CDC was silent. Crickets. No response.

merylnass: Dr. Nirav Shah, the head of the Maine CDC, a smart narrative pusher, has now joined the ACIP. Dr. Kevin Ault is now gone–did he criticize the vaccines for COVID?

merylnass: Katherine Paling, Cybil Cinneas, Camille Kotton, Sarah Long, Nirav Shah,Matt Daley, Oliver Brooks, Lynn Bhata RN, Jamie Lehrer, Wilbur Chen, Keipp Talbot, Beth Bell, Ms. Veronica McNally, Dr. Sanchez, Grace Lee.

merylnass: These are the voting members. Now they go through the ex officio, nonvoting members.

merylnass: The CMS and FDA members are MIA. That is odd. Office of ID and HIV_AIDS policy is also missing—he came late. Sean O’Leary is an ex officio and he also made a comment to the last meeting, strongly in favor of covid vax for kids.

No AMA rep. Normally that would be Dr. Sandra Fryhofer. She came late. Stinchfield also made a comment last time–I’d wager the CDC asked its ex officios to weigh in and give it some support last time. Society for adolescent medicine is also missing. It is odd that so many are missing, especially the FDA member who might be needed for the discussions.

merylnass: There are several pneumococcal vaccines and clarification for which should be used when is needed. Pfizer and Merck have 2 each for adults.

merylnass: The numbers in the names refer to the number of strains aka serotypes of pneumococcal bacteria included in each vaccine. In general, the more serotypes, the more cost.

merylnass: I will again note that CDC has a 100 million dollar media center but it seems to use a $20 dollar setup for the ACIP meetings, which are chock full of delays, disconnections, and now a ten minute break. We never see the faces of the speakers and there is no livestreaming.

merylnass: The break appears to be due to difficulty connecting the speaker. These glitches may serve to cover up deliberate glitches when someone is saying something the CDC does not want the public to hear.

merylnass: Pablo Sanchez has arrived and the system is back up. Sandra Fryhofer is here too.

merylnass: No one has acknowledged any conflicts of interest

merylnass: Anyone else finding the sound keeps cutting off?

merylnass: Best I can tell, in the silence, this will be a presentation of modelling and therefore another example of how CDC hates to use real data

merylnass: Rochelle, what’s up with the $100 million media center? Suggest you try Zoom.

merylnass: Finally I refreshed the page and learned I have missed a bunch

merylnass: The guesstimate is that it costs a lot of money to save a single year of life–hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who pays the costs? Whose life is saved? If you save a 70 year old for 10 years, it might cost $4 million. Did the money come from another program or is it from moneyprinting that will debase the currency and cause inflation?

merylnass: And most of the benefits are speculative.

merylnass: How much is a life worth? In other places $100K/year or $127K/yr have been suggested. So using these models, the vaccine is too expensive given the benefits.

merylnass: Maine’s Dr. Shah is the first questioner. They can’t find slide 12. how can that be?

merylnass: Did anyone hear how long the vaccine lasts? Why do these people get so many different pneumococcal vaccines?

merylnass: No one understands this comparison, which is all modelling anyway.

merylnass: As western civilization ends, the science becomes unintelligible

merylnass: Let’s move on to something else and maybe some of the members will be able to understand that one.

merylnass: Note that PCV 23 is the OLDEST vaccine. Its efficacy was called into question at least 15 years ago, and it causes significant inflammation when given. You would think that the broadest spectrum vaccine would be the most beneficial, but all these other vaccines have been created because PCV23 is not that good. Instead of replacing it, they just keep adding more kinds.

merylnass: Now the slide show fails again. CDC is such a clown show. The Keystone Cops. 13,000 employees. A 15 billion per year budget.

merylnass: The evidence to recommendations part of the discussion is the BS part, in which all sorts of fluffy considerations are thrown together to conclude whatever CDC wants the committee to conclude. Note that her slide was based on “claims data” so you cannot check the database and make sure what she is telling you is accurate

merylnass: Invasive pneumococcal disease numbers come from CDC, but there is no reference where we can look up the data and see how it was derived.

merylnass: Now she admits they used estimates for some of the numbers.

merylnass: When PCV13 vaccine was introduced, there was no reduction in disease, and in fact a slight increase.

merylnass: Pfizer study admits the new serotypes in PCV20 only account for 3-4% of cases–not a great benefit, especially when Pfizer is telling you.

merylnass: Not sure that data gathered during the pandemic is that accurate, when people would do anything to stay out of the hospital.

merylnass: The newer vaccines “are expected” to do better than the old PCV23–wait, what? The conjugate vaccines have been available for decades and are very expensive. They still don’t know how well they work?

merylnass: Note: no PCV20 efficacy or effectiveness data

merylnass: Gee whiz, we are looking at antibodies 1 month post vax. Means nothing. And the data must suck, because they provide no numbers for us to evaluate. This is a travesty: believe what I say, as I won’t show you the data.

merylnass: Now we look at anticipated benefits, since we don’t have data to tell us the benefits. Even so, the benefits predicted are slim. They never tell us how the workgroup voted when there is questionable benefit. Then, anticipating no side effects, you might as well add this new 20 valent vaccine since of course all vaccines bring tremendous benefits and no adverse events

merylnass: Maybe the fact they were already vaccinated with older vaccines has something to do with benefit? Pfizer surveyed medical providers and they liked the vaccine, but liked it least for adults who are healthy and already had 2 different PCV vaccines.

merylnass: GIGO again. Complex assumptions that vary between models for the Pfizer and Merck vaccines, thus of limited value.

merylnass: Still quite expensive to gain years of life for people in their 70s and up–up to half a million per year to gain a bit more life–and this is based on modelling that is entirely unreliable.

merylnass: Now she fails to show how the work group voted–but I can assume they were not favorable

merylnass: The Affordable Care Act was a giveaway to vaccine mfrs. Once the vaccine is recommended by this committee, insurance is required to cover the cost 100%–no copay or deductible–by one year after the recommendation is made. This is how Obama was able to claim he was all in on prevention. Note that this allowed vaccine prices to skyrocket.

merylnass: Now they give Merck a special dispensation to weigh in!!! What did that cost Merck?

merylnass: He asks them to remember that the oldest PCV23 vaccine works, and “remains a good option.” In other words, you don’t have great data for the PCV20, and our old vaccine works (but maybe it works, unclear about that) so use us not Pfizer.

merylnass: One thing these members hate is complexity and this PCV20 vaccine addition will make a complicated schedule even more complicated.

merylnass: Dr. Brook says maybe vaccinating the kids will help the adults (and then you won’t need to vaccinate the adults, since that appears to be what happened when the Prevnar vaccines rolled out.

merylnass: Dr. Long: this is difficult stuff. The work group rarely settled on a single answer, and we were a problematic group. What they should have concluded is that there is not enough benefit to go with the new vaccine, and can revisit the issue after the vaccine is used in the population, probably by the immunocompromised, and then see how much benefit and risk it conveys.

merylnass: Dr. Shah from Maine points out the issue of having to stock so many similar vaccines. It means the clinics throw more away; it costs the clinics more; the staff make more mistakes.

merylnass: Grace Lee likes the new vaccine for the immunocompromised for 12,000 Americans. But the mfrs will not produce vaccines for such a small population and will rely on general use, once recommended.

merylnass: Helen Keipp Talbot points out that the models ignore post-hospital disability and this would make the vaccines more useful.

merylnass: Sarah Long points out that the PCV7 in kids helped adults, but the PCV13, which came out later, did not–so the PCV20 may not either. I like her.

merylnass: I suspect the cost of the PCV20, based on Prevnar costs, is likely to be $250-300 per dose.

merylnass: The last speaker implies they should approve it now cause it takes a year to get the insurers to cover it, so let’s get ahead of that

merylnass: This speaker says they should put pressure on Pharma for rational pricing. Duh. Lowered price could make cost-effectiveness better.

merylnass: Kudos to the pharmacist who represents a national organization for pointing out pharmacists generally do not have access to the medical record and cannot necessarily make good decisions and provide good advice to patients

merylnass: Current speaker said she got the PCV20 and insurance would not pay and she was charged $247 for a dose out of pocket–because it was not recommended by ACIP for a year, I guess.

merylnass: Be aware how arbitrary the decisions this committee will make will be, based on little more than speculation

merylnass: The staff are asked to provide cleaner questions for a vote. Because the members are confused by what is being asked of them. Dr. Kobayashi wants to clarify. It seems there are never too many vaccines and never too many permutations for how they can be used.

merylnass: I am avoiding all this minutiae about changes to existing recommendations. But note the vagueness of the adverse event information. You don’t learn what they are. And you get a meaningless statement that most of the reactions were mild or moderate and not severe. Well, that is true of every vaccine I know of. It conveys no information. It hides relevant information. It fills in the space where real data about adverse events should be specified with their rates, but are not.

merylnass: Ten minute break till 11:35. We are already nearly an hour behind.

merylnass: Chikungunya vaccine now. Votes on the pneumococcal vaccines later.

merylnass: No chik vaccine has ever been licensed, but I am aware of attempts to make one for probably 30 years. Which may mean there are intrinsic problems with making a vaccine for this condition.

merylnass: The US government’s DOD has long been interested in this virus, though there were no US outbreaks until 2013.

merylnass: Aedes aegypti and albopictus daytime dusk-dawn mosquitos carry it, but there can be vertical transmission, needlestick, and even airborne in labs.

merylnass: Note that we are not told how frequent the serious complications may be. Not good in pregnancy, it seems. Usually it lasts 7-10 days but there is occasional prolonged symptomatology

merylnass: It seems the studies are not very helpful. Bug repellants are the preventive.

merylnass: Valneva and Emergent BioSolutions, the crooked anthrax vaccine mfr that threw away the ingredients for 400 million doses of cOVID vaccines due to contamination is developing one vaccine–stay away from it. They also now own a cholera and a typhoid vaccine. Their typhoid vaccine made one of my patients fairly ill 2 years ago.

merylnass: There is also a Merck and an Indian candidate vaccine, both sponsored by CEPI (started by Bill Gates)

merylnass: It seems there is an interesting business plan: bring a tropical disease to the US that was never seen there before, then bring in a new vaccine for the disease. This has happened with Dengue and Dengvaxia

merylnass: They say that human challenge studies can be justified. This new unethical way of studying a vaccine is apparently now joining the ranks of acceptable clinical science.

merylnass: It looks like the Animal Rule is being invoked to get the Valneva version licensed under accelerated approval. Dr. Chen asks who is really at risk of a complicated course?

merylnass: Remember that less than 100 Americans per year get this infection, though the numbers could rise. Dr. Hills sounds stressed, as if she does not want to answer, probably due to lack of data. Though mother-fetus transmission can be devastating.

merylnass: Dr. Brooks asks how outbreaks get started–especially in the US, when the disease is so rare?

merylnass: She dodges the question of how it gets to a place where it has not previously been seen.

merylnass: Dr. Dubischar from Valneva now presents on their candidate vaccine. It is live with a genetic deletion of 60 amino acids in one protein.

merylnass: Neutralizing antibodies–human sera injected into monkeys who were then challenged with the real virus. The injected primates had no fever and most lacked live replicating virus. Some did have virus but lower titers. Valneva believes they have identified a dose that will provide sterilizing immunity, i.e., no virus growing in patients after vaccination and exposure.

merylnass: Some monkeys did grow virus, which is what is telling Valneva how large a dose to use to prevent virus in the vaccinated and exposed.

merylnass: Medium dose (3 x 10 to the 4th) viral particles is being used.

merylnass: They were allowed to skip Phase 2 by assuming that the booster dose acted as a challenge study.

merylnass: Solicited adverse events were only collected for 10 days–nice work if you can get it! Great way to avoid finding serious side effects. Vaccinees followed up to 6 months for unsolicited side effects.

merylnass: Odd that neutralizing antibodies were identical in those over and under 65 years.

merylnass: The immunogenicity seems remarkable, with antibodies in over 96% at 6 months. The side effect profiles are not good however.

merylnass: 50% had systemic AEs, some severe fevers

merylnass: 17% of recipients got joint pain vs 5% in placebo. In 3,000 subjects, one case of SIADH occurred 10 days after his shot. One developed muscle pain requiring a 5 day hospitalization. Serious AEs in 1 in 1500 recipients–but more may have been overlooked because of the short duration of active surveillance.

merylnass: 73% had any AE. Seems like you will be better off accepting a very low risk of getting chikungunya than taking a chance with this vaccine.

merylnass: Why is the ACIP looking at these vaccines before they are licensed? This makes sure there is a lot less data and less give and take because they don’t have the info that would have been presented to FDA.

merylnass: While pregnant women are the ones who would potentially get the most benefit, the company is clearly scared to death to test the vaccine in them, as it is a live vaccine and will likely cause intrauterine infection.

merylnass: 0.3% had joint pain severe enough to interfere with daily activities. Mean duration 8 days.

merylnass: Dr. Sanchez asked about the joint pains–any arthritis? And pregnancy?

merylnass: OOps. She had to admit women did get pregnant during the study and they had miscarriages and normal births and she claims it was what would be expected generally. If so, she would have presented those data as evidence of safety. The fact that she failed to present them initially suggests there is a potential problem. Dr. Sanchez asked if the fetus got infected? She says we didn’t look. That is the clincher.

merylnass: Now the speaker was instructed by a committee member to do pregnancy studies in monkeys.

merylnass: Now CDC presents again on the vax. 100 of 462 subjects were dropped due to protocol deviations–this is a high dropout rate.

merylnass: Most stopped coming back. Hmmm.

merylnass: 2% had a severe adverse event. That is VERY HIGH, especially when the placebo group only had 0.1%

merylnass: 2% of the subjects had joint pain for over 15 days. Sounds like we are normalizing prolonged side effects from vaccines now

merylnass: The data have only had a preliminary review–so why is this being presented to ACIP when it seems there is no good reason to license this, as there is almost no chikungunya disease in the US and the side effect profile is poor; furthermore, there were no data presented to convince us the disease is a serious problem.

merylnass: Except in pregnancy, for whom the vaccine is probably too dangerous.

merylnass: Someone asked about simultaneous live virus vaccines being given. I will say that in literature 20 years ago, giving lives vaccines together was said to reduce the immunity induced.

merylnass: So it was NOT RECOMMENDED to give live vaccines together. But that was when there was still a modicum of real science. I am not surprised Valneva refused to answer.

merylnass: Hills from CDC also refused to take up the question.

merylnass: Severe immunocompromise will be a contraindication to this vaccine

merylnass: What a cluster. A dangerous vaccine for which limited data are made available for what is usually a minor disease that almost does not exist in the US.

merylnass: Break till 1:30

merylnass: Next up, COVID VACCINES

merylnass: From a 2007 Senate report headed by Tom Coburn https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cdc_off_center.pdf

CDC’s $106 million Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications (and Visitor) Center • CDC’s new $109.8 million Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center has $10 million in furniture • CDC’s $200,000 fitness center includes $30,000 saunas and rotating light shows • CDC’s new Hawaii office announced by Hawaii Senator who oversees CDC funds

merylnass: No wonder they don’t manage to do competent reviews of vaccines; they are spending too much time in the saunas or at the Hawaii office. Remember that these amounts are 2006 dollars

merylnass: Announcement: TODAY the Novavax was approved by FDA for use as a booster in addition to an initial vaccine for adults. Despite the ACIP meeting today,the members were not asked to approve this rollout, and Rochelle Walensky has already approved it for adults. Strange omission.

merylnass: The lesson is that the fed agencies are in a RUSH to get all this investigational garbage into arms as fast as possible before the entire program explodes.

merylnass: 7 days ago the FDA granted an authorization for moderna and Pfizer boosters for kids 5 years and up.

merylnass: Ellington slipped and just said “pregnant women” and then slipped in the word people a few words later.

merylnass: The data being presented here come from a BMJ article published in 2020–when there were much more severe variants and much fewer treatments available, so it is not surprising that pregnant WOMEN had significantly worse morbidity and mortality than non-pregnant women. Pregnancy itself turns down the immune system

merylnass: While the intent of the presentation is to scare us regarding 1-6 month old babies, in fact COVID was present in only 0.5% of babies who died over the pandemic.

merylnass: This presentation uses CDC’s VSD data to assess risk of vaccination in pregnancy from the earlier vaccines. This database in earlier studies never showed a problem with the mRNA vaccines. Finally it did so re myocarditis, but has failed to find any other problems. I suspect there is a crooked method of analysis. CDC never lets us know how these numbers were derived, how they adjust them and how they analyze the raw data.

merylnass: As expected, these data claim you supposedly actually benefit slightly in terms of miscarriage from the vaccine.

merylnass: And they are assiduously studying the data and stay tuned for more happy news

merylnass: I have screenshot all the people involved in these studies for future reference so we can get them discussing these studies with their hands on a bible

merylnass: The V-safe data shows less than half the expected miscarriages in vaccinated moms. Do you believe these data? Of course not–it is impossible to have such low rates. That proves there is a problem with the study.

merylnass: Furthermore, the claim is being made that comparing vaccinated pregnant women to vaccinated pregnant women who got covid, the covid patients did not have a worse fetal outcome. How likely is that?

merylnass: Now Fleming-Dutra presents and gives the commercial that everyone should stay up to date with the vaccine and pregnant and breastfeeding women should especially get it. What? Her data claim the vaccine worked wonderfully for Delta. But here is some DOD contractor data on Delta in the vaccinated elders—about 10% benefit

merylnass: Now the bivalent commercial. But they will show no bivalent data.

merylnass: Note that almost every presenter is from CDC and they have had a team work on the presentations so every word has been crafted. That is probably why you aren’t allowed to see the presenters, because they are reading their script.

merylnass: These data on omicron and delta carefully avoid any numbers after 4 months post vaccination, when efficacy goes to zero and worse

merylnass: But other charts that followed people to 6 months and beyond show how useless they become, and then worse than useless.

merylnass: I am going to post this speaker’s diagram on efficacy on my substack during the next break, so you can see how different the longer-term results are, and how the vaccine didn’t work well for delta either.

merylnass: No infant protection when pregnant women were vaccinated before 20 weeks!!!!

merylnass: This woman is working hard to get up the CDC ladder by throwing all women and children under the bus.

merylnass: Thanks Dr. Sanchez for asking about monoclonal antibodies in pregnancy. The briefer does not answer the question, turning it into a vaccine question. Someone else says we have not been collecting data on the use of other therapies.

merylnass: No one wants to talk about the monoclonal antibodies in pregnancy, which is relevant to my legal case, as the state has claimed I should have used monoclonals in a pregnant woman.

merylnass: But they (the vaccines) are experimental while the drugs I used are fully licensed and effective.

merylnass: More missing data for Sarah Long’s question.

merylnass: Some of the CDC people on MISC could not be here today. Let me point out that these slackers are working from home, and they could have been available for questions had CDC wanted them available.

merylnass: Sarah Long asks about what symptoms the hospitalized, covid-infected babies had…and 3 different CDC briefers refused to answer. Is that because they only had sniffles and were hospitalized for something else? Were they asymptomatic and tested positive incidentally?

merylnass: Great, someone points out that 77% of women are not vaxxed, though this telephone survey data says they are. In the data I have seen, about 1/3 of pregnant women took a covid shot, not 3/4. In this survey, CDC phones people and asks if they are vaccinated–and many people simply tell CDC they are vaxxed when they are not. If memory serves, once CDC used this NHANES survey to estimate that more Americans had gotten a flu shot than the number of flu shots that had been manufactured distributed in the US.

merylnass: The above paragraph is about pregnant women and now the members are saying “I find these data sketchy!”

merylnass: Fleming-Dutra: vaccine was less effective with omicron. She did not answer the question asked, which was what is the ideal time to vaccinate in pregnancy. I saw a slide go by that said the baby got no benefit during the first 20 weeks. Now these CDC apparatchiks want women to get 1 vaccination during the first 20 weeks and another dose during the second half of the pregnancy. I do not have a name for these evil doctors.

merylnass: They can still surprise me by how awful their suggestions are and how they just keep getting worse. Now the ACOG rep is calling them “pregnant individuals.” She is an obstetrician and she does not know the gender of her patients?

merylnass: Sara Oliver, oh no. 6month-4 year olds had the highest hospitalization rate she says. But a previous speaker said the 0-6 month olds had the highest rate. How fun that they cannot keep the lies straight.

merylnass: Sara fails to tell us where these data come from and what all the numbers were. She claims incorrectly that myocarditis is 1.8-5.6x higher after infection than after the shot.

merylnass: Sara says we are just discussing the current recommendations. Is she saying they are not going to put the vaxxes on the childhood schedule? Who knows what the forked tongue doctors of the Centers for Dissimulation, Craftiness and Prevarication really mean

merylnass: She is reminding us to give boosters to all kids aged 5 and up

merylnass: For immunocompromised kids, they want 3 initial doses. May I point out that although the CDC encourages mix and match mRNA vaccines, a very important study from 4 Nordic countries showed that by giving a Moderna after a Pfizer in children, you increased the likelihood of myocarditis by a factor of two compared to giving both doses of Moderna. Furthermore, many countries in Europe do not allow you to give the Moderna vaccine to children and younger adults because of this. So CDC should never have encouraged mixing the vaccines. Here is some info I put together in August about this:

 In 7 European countries, people below certain ages were not recommended to get Moderna shots, but as of June babies as young as 6 months can get Moderna injections.

Sweden—not under 30 https://www.wilx.com/2021/10/07/some-european-countries-suspend-moderna-shots-those-30-under/

Norway—not under 30 ”

Denmark—not under 18 ”

Finland—not under 30–https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/nordic-countries-are-restricting-the-use-of-modernas-covid-vaccine.html

Iceland:  “Iceland is using the vaccine almost exclusively as a booster for those 60 years and older, and advising men aged 18-39 against receiving Moderna’s vaccine (here).” https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-europe-moderna/fact-check-some-european-countries-halted-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-for-young-people-idUSL1N2RE22K

Germany —not under 30. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/

France—not under 30. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/

merylnass: Now she says that incorporating covid vaxxes in the immunization schedule and the vaccines for children program (govt paid) is a step toward including them into a regular routine schedule, which will happen once the vaccines are commercially sold, and can have the 75 cent excise tax added that is necessary to be placed on the childhood schedule.

merylnass: Jeanne Santoli notes the youngest kids got authorized 120 days ago. It appears this is getting the vaccines ready to become normal products for kids that are not EUA products. Commercialized. At that point vaccines can be ordered through the VFC, which is a govt program that supplies free vaccines for about 55% of US children. In other words, what the USG is doing si worming the vaccines slowly into the childhood schedule by taking baby steps toward that, and this is one baby step.

merylnass: A member is asking for clarity on whether this is going to put it on the schedule and mandate it. Jose Romero says they are not putting it on the childhood schedule yet.

merylnass: But now he is backpedalling–“CDC does not make state recommendations for vaccines”–yet CDC knows that many states have adopted the CDC recs as their own.

merylnass: A good question: will the vaccine still be part of the CICP or moved to the VICP? Melinda Wharton says the vaccines stay in the CICP.

merylnass: Things are ahead of schedule!

merylnass: Comments. I love David Wiseman, who point out that CDC is recommending use in pregnancy that is much broader than the manufacturers’ own claims.

merylnass: I noticed when the ex-officio members were listed today that 2 (TWO) of them had been commenters in favor of the vaccine program at a recent ACIP meeting (Stinchfield and Sean O’Leary). Isn’t it remarkable that an ex officio member of the ACIP had to grab a slot at the public comment time to laud the vaccines? Was CDC desperate to fill those slots in order to keep those of us with a different opinion out?

merylnass: The current speaker, a father, is great. COVID is not a childhood disease. It does not affect transmission. The benefit wanes quickly and new variants evade them. He calls out the multiple fraudulent efforts to fool us about the disease and the vaccine.

merylnass: Thayer Phillips is a spokesperson for ‘seniors speak out.’ Does CDC fund this organization? “Now is the time we must prepare ourselves to protect those most vulnerable.”

merylnass: He is boosting for the new expensive PCV vaccines for elders–which are currently available but will cost ya.

merylnass: Now we have a similar spokesperson from another older person organization. He too is a PCV booster. Maybe one was paid by Merck and the other by Pfizer. Now the National Grange is represented and it too is here to boost the new PCV vaccines. Incredible. I guess at $247 per dose the mfrs can afford to purchase lots of elders to lecture to CDC, and fill up spots that might otherwise go to discussing COVID vaccines.

merylnass: There were only 6 speakers. Now we go to the PCV vote and the VFC vote.

merylnass: Finally we get to see some faces as they vote and 2 female members of the ACIP are masked. 15 yeses zero nos for the vaccines for children vote, which as I said is only a baby step toward the childhood mandates.

merylnass: Now for the totally confusing PCV votes, because there are 3 adult PCV vaccines and another one coming soon, and they all have a different collection of serotypes…so how and when do you mix an match them, when there is very little data to inform us about the answer?

merylnass: And the answer is that it probably does not matter and most likely most of the members would not be able to explain what precisely they are voting on right now. So I predict you will get unanimous yeses on all 3 questions.

merylnass: You know what? I think that none of our CHD watchers care about the outcome. Maybe we can all simply shut down this meeting before we are all braindead. I told you no one understood these votes.

merylnass: I forgot, they have to talk about polio vaccines too, and that might be important. WHO just collected several billion dollars over the past few days to roll out a new polio program.

merylnass: They decided not to vote! CDC will have to make the questions simpler and clearer–or if CDC doesn’t want to do that, they will have to figure it out later.

merylnass: Polio vaccine: 1961-1999 used primarily live vaccine. In 2000 ACIP switched to inactivated vaccine because all polio cases were due to vaccine in the US.

merylnass: Numerous vaccine strain outbreaks are being detected.

merylnass: While only ‘wild type’ type 1 polio appears in the world, other types of polio exist due to vaccine strains 2 and 3.

merylnass: What is not being said is that it has long been known that some people shed the poliovirus after the injection for a lifetime.

merylnass: So there will be polio virus in wastewater over much of the world.

merylnass: Polio is shed in the stool.

merylnass: Interestingly, fractional injected polio vaccine at 20% the normal dose, given intradermally, is being used in some countries outside the US.

merylnass: This must be where some bright bulb got the idea to dilute the monkeypox vaccine.

merylnass: What I need to emphasize is that the NYC case does not mean much, nor does the wastewater analysis showing polio in multiple water systems. Because there has probably been vaccine strain polio in wastewater for many years, and probably many people have been exposed over the years. But only about 1 in 1000 people exposed actually develops a case of polio.

merylnass: It is probably more important to keep kids out of dirty water, and avoid contamination of drinking water, which can happen when sewer lines rupture, etc.

merylnass: Dr. Sanchez asks about earlier data on wastewater. The CDC person says we are following some guidelines that tell us only to look at water around cases. DUH. Don’t look don’t tell, right? Of course they do have this data, because we found from COVID that Europeans were able to test water from the past year for evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in the year before the pandemic started.

merylnass: They kept wastewater samples. But CDC does not want to go there and admit that polio is being shed in multiple locations.

merylnass: Dooling said they tested water in CT and NJ and the water tested was negative.

merylnass: Well, for once the CDC did not tell everyone to run out and get a polio booster! Maybe there is a shortage. BTW, the injected vaccine used in the US is not nearly as effective as the live vaccine that can revert to virulence. I guess they don’t want people to get boosted and then come down with polio, showing the vaccine did not work as well as claimed.

merylnass: Till 8:30 am tomorrow. G’nite.

___________________

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/what-will-happen-if-acip-does-recommend?

What Will Happen if ACIP Does Recommend the COVID-19 Vaccines for Children

This is a brief note of my speculative but informed expectation.

The states determine mandates, not the school.

A full ACIP recommendation for any pediatric vaccine carries the power of law under mandates in those states not smart enough to have or retain their philosophical exemptions.

That means that adults who will never take the boosters are going to have to enforce 2-3 COVID-19 shots per year in children and teens.

Never.

States will reinstate, or instate philosophical exemptions before that happens. This one will backfire and lead to more exemptions across the board.

That’s my prediction. I hope I’m right, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

__________________

**Comment**

All 50 states have different vaccine exemptions – but some don’t have any.  The three include: medical, religious, and philosophical or personal belief objections.  Go here to learn of the exemptions in your state.  Thankfully, Wisconsin has all three.

Proof Working With The Government Hasn’t Helped Lyme/MSIDS Patients

https://www.lymedisease.org/still-stuck-with-idsa-guidelines/

After 6 years of TBDWG, are we still stuck with IDSA guidelines?

By Dorothy Kupcha Leland

Oct. 11, 2022

When I was watching last week’s online Tick-Borne Disease Working Group meetings, I got a sick feeling in my stomach.

It came at the end of the first day, when after hours of watching this stuff on my computer screen, my brain was turning to mush anyway.

Then, my ears perked up. Dr. Elizabeth Maloney—who ably represents the interests of Lyme patients and their treating doctors on this panel—asked a question of the CDC’s Sue Visser.

Earlier in the meeting, Visser had given a presentation about the US Department of Health and Human Services’ national strategy to combat vector-borne diseases (which the CDC plays a big role in).

Vector-borne diseases (VBD) include those carried by mosquitoes, fleas and ticks—so Lyme disease is part of that mix.

Maloney wanted to know more about the role of medical guidelines in the VBD strategy. Specifically, she asked if the agencies included public stakeholders in the process of developing guidelines.

“Yes, we do,” Visser answered firmly.

(Let me emphasize how important public input is to the Lyme community. For years, the CDC and other federal entities have endorsed the IDSA’s Lyme guidelines—which allow no meaningful input from public stakeholders while at the same time actively HARMING Lyme patients. The need for public input was a driving force in the Lyme community’s push for the formation of the TBDWG in the first place.)

When Maloney asked Visser to elaborate on the public input process, the CDC employee said:

There’s certain guidance that’s developed by other professional organizations and we rely upon them because they have convened the experts and they publish guidance and then we reference that guidance. In the area where there is not development by appropriate clinical professional society, for example, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, we waited and we put out clinical guidance for that…If we are developing from scratch the guidance, there’s actually a protocol for patient involvement, external feedback, external participation in the process…but in the case of an issue or disease where there is already lots of clinical interest and leadership, then we defer.

“Then we defer…”

That’s kind of wordy, don’t you think? Let me drill down to what she’s basically saying: The VBD national strategy will use the IDSA Lyme guidelines, period. Because, hey, they’re the experts. When they speak, then we defer…

Maloney tried to press the point about the IDSA guidelines not following accepted guidelines development practices (for example, allowing public input). But Visser sidestepped the question, and for the moment, the subject was dropped.

Getting back to that queasy feeling in my stomach: Have we really slogged through six years of Working Group effort, only to be stuck with the dangerous, anti-patient IDSA Lyme guidelines? (See: 10 things you should know about the IDSA Lyme guidelines.)

The CDC and its sister agencies have deferred to the IDSA’s Lyme guidelines for years now. That’s a huge factor in why Lyme patients can’t get the care they need. And a big reason that the CDC website continues to have inaccurate, damaging information on its Lyme-related web pages.

The Tick-Borne Disease Working Group is nearing the end of its run. As the current (third) iteration of the panel prepares to submit its Report to Congress in December, the big question is “what happens next?”

The TBDWG still has decisions to make. It convenes again on October 25.

Stay tuned.

TOUCHED BY LYME is written by Dorothy Kupcha Leland, Board President of LymeDisease.org. She is co-author of When Your Child Has Lyme Disease: A Parent’s Survival Guide. Contact her at dleland@lymedisease.org.

____________________

**Comment**

I really wish I was wrong.  I desperately want to believe that working with government agencies will yield positive results, but I’m a pragmatist and the proof truly is in the pudding.

Six years is long enough to determine outcome.

And yes, advocates have slogged through 6 years of working group effort only to be stuck with antiquated, unscientific, damaging IDSA guidelines.

Time to move on and choose another avenue for change.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

ACTION NEEDED: CDC Advisory Meeting Today

Scientists Find Antibodies That Neutralize All COVID Strains

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/13/antibodies-neutralize-all-covid

Scientists Find Antibodies That Neutralize All COVID Strains

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

Story at-a-glance

  • Two antibodies have been uncovered that are so effective at neutralizing COVID-19 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines”
  • The antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — bind to a different area of the spike protein than other antibodies, one that doesn’t undergo many mutations
  • TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain
  • TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant
  • The researchers believe that with effective antibody treatment, “we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant”

Researchers at Tel Aviv University revealed two antibodies that are so effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines.”1 One of the glaring failures surrounding COVID-19 shots is their lack of effectiveness against emerging COVID-19 strains.

By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots, scientists picked a protein that not only was known to be toxic to humans but was not the part of the virus that prompted the best immune response.

Spike protein mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides shortly after it’s given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of annual shots and boosters, which can only offer rapidly waning protection. If the Israeli researchers’ findings are verified and the antibodies turn out to be as effective as suspected, it could eliminate COVID-19 booster shots entirely.2

Previous Antibody Treatments Had Mixed Results

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized multiple monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails for the treatment of COVID-19. However, as variants emerged, their effectiveness varied, with some becoming ineffective and others retaining their activity.

“This indicates that some antibodies elicited by infection are more variation-sensitive than others, and that antibody breadth of specificity, and not only potency, should be considered,” the researchers, from the department of clinical microbiology and immunology at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine,3 wrote in the journal Communications Biology.4

For instance, in January 2022, the FDA limited the use of two monoclonal antibody treatments — bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which are administered together, and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) — to patients infected with a variant known to be susceptible to them.5 The two antibody treatments mentioned had lost much of their effectiveness against the omicron variant, leading to the usage restriction in people infected with omicron.

On the other hand, in February 2022, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a monoclonal antibody treatment known as bebtelovimab, which retained activity against the omicron variant.6 According to the FDA:7

“Bebtelovimab works by binding to the spike protein of the virus that causes COVID-19, similar to other monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized for the treatment of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and shown a benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalization or death.”

The way the antibodies bind to the spike protein may hold the key to their ultimate effectiveness against various strains. In previous research conducted in October 2020, lead study author Natalia Freund and colleagues isolated nine antibodies from people who recovered from the original COVID-19 strain in Israel. Freund stated in a news release:8

“In the previous study, we showed that the various antibodies that are formed in response to infection with the original virus are directed against different sites of the virus. The most effective antibodies were those that bound to the virus’s ‘spike’ protein, in the same place where the spike binds the cellular receptor ACE2.

Of course, we were not the only ones to isolate these antibodies, and the global health system made extensive use of them until the arrival of the different variants of the coronavirus, which in fact rendered most of those antibodies useless.”

Two Antibodies Neutralize All COVID-19 Strains

The featured study picks up where the October 2020 study left off, revealing two antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — that bind to a different area of the spike protein — one that doesn’t undergo many mutations — making them capable of neutralizing all known strains of COVID-19. According to Freund:9

“In the current study, we proved that two other antibodies, TAU-1109 and TAU-2310, which bind the viral spike protein in a different area from the region where most of the antibodies were concentrated until now (and were therefore less effective in neutralizing the original strain) are actually very effective in neutralizing the Delta and Omicron variants.”

Specifically, they found TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain. TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant.10 The study was conducted in collaboration with the University of California at San Diego, where the two antibodies were sent for additional testing against live viruses in laboratory cultures.

The antibodies were also tested against pseudoviruses at Bar-Ilan University in the Galilee. “The results were identical and equally encouraging in both tests,” according to a news release.11 What’s interesting is that the mutating virus may have played a part in making the two antibodies so effective. Freund explained:12

“The infectivity of the virus increased with each variant because each time, it changed the amino acid sequence of the part of the spike protein that binds to the ACE2 receptor, thereby increasing its infectivity and at the same time evading the natural antibodies that were created following vaccinations.

In contrast, the antibodies TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 don’t bind to the ACE2 receptor binding site, but to another region of the spike protein – an area of the viral spike that for some reason does not undergo many mutations – and they are therefore effective in neutralizing more viral variants. These findings emerged as we tested all the known COVID strains to date.”

COVID Booster Shots Are Not the Answer

Freund believes that the antibodies are so effective they could ultimately replace COVID-19 booster shots. This is welcome news, as most protection gained from COVID-19 shots, including boosters, doesn’t last.

One study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021, to January 22, 2022, periods during which both the delta and omicron variants were circulating.13 Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot.

The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%. This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.14

Rather than admitting defeat, health officials are planning to hand out even more doses of their embarrassingly ineffective boosters with new so-called “updated” shots. On August 31, 2022, the FDA amended the EUAs of Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots to authorize bivalent formulations to be used as booster doses at least two months after a previous booster or primary serious of the shots.

“The bivalent vaccines, which we will also refer to as “updated boosters,” contain two messenger RNA (mRNA) components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the other one in common between the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2,” the FDA stated.15

In addition to the strong possibility that protection against COVID-19 will once again rapidly disappear following the booster, there’s a real risk of serious adverse events from repeatedly artificially inflating antibodies in your body via repeated booster shots.

This tricks your body into thinking it’s always infected with COVID-19, a condition that can only lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urged a retreat from the COVID shot “death zone” before it’s too late.16

With Antibody Treatment ‘We Will Not Have to’ Use ‘Boosters’

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, as Freund is confident the “cross-neutralizing capabilities of antibodies naturally elicited during wild type SARS-CoV-2 infection” may end up providing an alternative to booster shots. She stated:17

“For reasons we still don’t yet fully understand, the level of antibodies against COVID-19 declines significantly after three months, which is why we see people getting infected again and again, even after being vaccinated three times.

In our view, targeted treatment with antibodies and their delivery to the body in high concentrations can serve as an effective substitute for repeated boosters, especially for at-risk populations and those with weakened immune systems.

COVID-19 infection can cause serious illness, and we know that providing antibodies in the first days following infection can stop the spread of the virus. It is therefore possible that by using effective antibody treatment, we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant.”

Natural Immunity Is Key

This is encouraging, though not exactly surprising considering what’s known about natural immunity — the type earned by recovering from infection. A 2022 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)18 is just one example of research showing natural COVID-19 immunity is not only effective but lasts longer than the immunity that’s acquired from COVID-19 shots.19

What’s more, prior COVID-19 infection — i.e., natural immunity — offered better protection against symptomatic omicron infection more than one year later than three doses of COVID-19 shots did after one month.

To put it into numbers, a graph in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that previous infection was 54.9% effective against symptomatic omicron infection after more than 12 months, while three doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot were only 44.7% effective a month later. The same held true for three doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 shot, which were only 41.2 % effective after one month, compared to 53.5% effectiveness for natural immunity more than a year later.20

Another one of the most talked-about reports showing the superiority of natural immunity involved data presented July 17, 2021, to the Israeli Health Ministry, which revealed that, of more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 shot.21

In other words, those who were vaccinated were nearly 700% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection.22

Why is there a good chance you haven’t heard about this news? Repeated booster shots equate to ongoing dollar signs for Big Pharma and the health agencies and officials it controls. So it remains to be seen whether an antibody treatment that targets every COVID-19 variant effectively will ever see the light of day in hospitals and outpatient clinics.

For more:

Your Labs Are Normal – Full Movie & NY Theatrical Premiere of “The Quiet Epidemic”

http://

Nov. 2021

Your Labs Are Normal

Your Labs Are Normal is a powerful autobiographical short film highlighting one woman’s struggle with chronic Lyme disease, a widely misunderstood and politicized illness that affects thousands of people every year. When Rhisa, an otherwise healthy woman in her 20s, falls ill with debilitating headaches, fatigue, and chronic pain, she and her loved ones search New York for a diagnosis. Even as Rhisa’s health deteriorates, doctors insist that her lab tests don’t indicate illness. Wracked with pain and dismissed by healthcare professionals, she falls into despair until a chance encounter with a nurse finally gives Rhisa her answer: for years, she’s been suffering from undiagnosed Lyme disease. The story is only made more compelling by the fact that it’s completely rooted in personal experience— writer/director Rhisa Parera bares her soul as she recounts her own decades-long battle with chronic Lyme, and the result is a subtle, delicate, and moving story of chronic illness, endurance, and the complex failings of our healthcare system.

___________________

https://www.lymedisease.org/nyc-theatrical-premiere/

New York City theatrical premiere + Oscar-qualifying run

The Lyme documentary “The Quiet Epidemic” will have a week of Oscar-qualifying screenings at the IFC Center in New York City—with an opening night on Thursday, December 1.

According to the filmmakers, “This is a unique opportunity to build buzz around Lyme disease in one of the world’s largest cities, and to celebrate the completion of this film’s festival circuit.”

See below for ways you can view this important film.

Upcoming *VIRTUAL* and in-person screenings

1. Hamptons International Film Festival

In-person screening + Q&A: Sunday, October 16th @ 11:00 AM, Regal UA East Hampton (tickets)

2. New Haven Documentary Film Festival

In-person screenings: Sunday, October 16th @ 7:00 PM (tickets) and Saturday, October 22nd @ 12:30 PM, Bow-Tie Criterion Cinemas (tickets)

3. Twin Cities Film Festival

Online (in the U.S.): Thursday, October 20th – Saturday, October 29th (virtual tickets)

4. SCAD Savannah Film Festival (Georgia)

In-person screening + Q&A: Monday, October 24th @ 1:00 PM, SCAD Museum of Art (tickets)

5. DOCUTAH International Film Festival

In-person screenings + Q&As: Thursday, November 3rd @ 11:00 AM (tickets) and Friday, November 4th @ 4:50 PM (tickets)

6. Rocky Mountain Women’s Film Festival

In-person screening: Saturday, November 12th @ 9:00 AM (tickets)

7. DOCNYC

In-person screening + Q&A: Saturday, November 12th @ 11:15 AM, Cinépolis Chelsea (tickets)
Online (in the U.S.): Sunday, November 13th – Sunday, November 27th  (virtual tickets)

8. Oscar-qualifying Run *Opening Night* at the IFC Center

In-person screening + Q&A: Thursday, December 1st, IFC Center (time + tickets TBD)

Click below to watch the film’s trailer:

For more:

TV Specials on Lyme

There’s been some excellent coverage in the past few years on tick-borne illness, yet nothing changes.