Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

VCO as an Adjunct Supplement for COVID-19

https://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph/index.php/programs-and-projects/news-and-announcement/800-virgin-coconut-oil-vco-study-results-on-covid-19-suspect-and-probable-cases-released-by-dost-fnri

VCO-Study

Results of the study on virgin coconut oil (VCO) as dietary supplement among COVID-19 probable and suspect cases showed that 5 of the 29 patients who were served meals with VCO manifested diminishing signs and symptoms as early as the second day, while only one patient served with the same meals but without VCO showed similar improvement.

This is according to the Department of Science and Technology’s Food and Nutrition Research Institute (DOST-FNRI) in a virtual presser dubbed as “Seeing Beyond COVID-19: The VCO Study – Effects of Virgin Coconut Oil among Suspect and Probable Cases” on December 3, 2020.

The VCO Group of patients who were served meals with VCO showed no COVID-19 related symptoms at Day 18, while symptoms persisted in some patients of the Control Group of patients who were served the same meals without VCO until Day 23, DOST Secretary Fortunato T. dela Peña further stated in the presser.

Secretary dela Peña added that VCO could be used as an adjunct supplement to probable and suspect COVID-19 cases to help prevent symptoms from becoming severe.

However, more studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of VCO as adjunct therapy for COVID-19 patients with other co-morbidities, Secretary dela Peña clarified.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Imelda Angeles-Agdeppa, VCO study leader, Scientist II and Chief Science Research Specialist of DOST-FNRI, said that the study involved 57 suspect or probable COVID-19 cases randomly assigned to the Intervention or VCO Group and the Control Group at the Santa Rosa Community Hospital and Santa Rosa Community Isolation Units in Laguna.

Dr. Agdeppa added that aside from monitoring the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 among the study volunteers, the research team also noted that the mean C-Reactive Protein of CRP levels in the VCO Group normalized to 5 milligrams per liter or less as early as Day 14.

The C-Reactive Protein or CRP is a quantitative marker used to monitor inflammation or infection, and that a CRP equal or less than 5 milligrams per liter signifies recovery from inflammation or infection, Dr. Agdeppa explained.

Dr. Agdeppa further stated that while reduction to normal CRP levels in the Control Group was also evident from Day 1 to 14, it remained at the borderline of 5 milligrams per liter from Day 14 until end of intervention.

The VCO used in the study were strictly analyzed by the Laboratory Services Division of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) to ensure product quality and compliance to Philippine National Standard (PNS).

The PCA requests VCO producers to have their VCO samples analyzed by PCA prior to promotion and marketing, PCA Administrator Benjamin R. Madrigal, Jr. said in the presser.

Administrator Madrigal also states that PCA is planning to develop the protocol in establishing the seal of quality for VCO.

Funding and monitoring of the VCO study was provided by the DOST-Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (or PCHRD), through the overall supervision and motoring of the DOST.

The Ateneo de Manila University Faculty of Chemistry, through Dr. Fabian M. Dayrit, provided research inputs and protocols based on previous VCO studies among HIV patients, like the correct VCO dosages to be given and the analysis to be used.

Dr. Dayrit, also an Academician of the DOST-National Academy of Science and Technology and President of the Integrated Chemists of the Philippines, supported the results of the DOST-FNRI VCO study, saying that several studies have proven the promising anti-viral properties of VCO and more studies are warranted to explore its full potential.

The public is hereby advised to carefully read the label of VCO products to check for PCA or FDA approval and make sure that ingredients, nutrient analysis, manufacturing and expiration dates are clearly declared.

Some media partners attending the presser commented that this development on VCO as promising dietary supplement may cause the skyrocketing of the price of VCO products.

The study team agrees with this inevitable consequence, but stated that the health benefits backed by scientific proof far outweigh the impending price increase, adding that DTI will monitor this.

This VCO study does not only have promising contribution to the prevention and management of symptoms among COVID-19 suspect and probable cases, but could also provide a boost to the coconut industry and the millions of coconut farmers who depend on the “tree of life” to uplift their quality of life.

For more information on the VCO study and other food and nutrition concerns, contact: Dr. Milflor S. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Director, Department of Science and Technology – Food and Nutrition Research Institute, General Santos Avenue, Bicutan, Taguig City; Telephone/Fax Nos: 8-837-2934 or 8-837-3164; Direct Line: 8-839-1839; DOST Trunk Line: 837-2071 local 2296 or 2284; e-mail: dostfnri47@dost.fnri.gov.ph; DOST-FNRI website: http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph. Like our Facebook Page at facebook.com/DOST.FNRI or follow our Twitter account at twitter.com/DOST_FNRI.

____________________

For more COVID treatments:

All of these treatments are being debunked and ignored by the CDC.  Please see this to find out why.  

COVID-19 has a 99.991% recovery rate by doing nothing – but you’d never know it from mainstream media.

To read about the numerous deaths/adverse reactions due to this COVID injection, which isn’t a vaccine and doesn’t prevent infection: (list is being updated daily): https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/21/warning-3150-injuries-in-1st-week-of-covid-vaccines-among-american-healthcare-workers-pregnant-women-included/

Category:

Activism, Supplements, Treatment, Viruses

The Shaky Science Behind the “Deadly New Strains” of Sars-Cov-2

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/the-shaky-science-behind-the-deadly-new-strains-of-sars-cov-2/  9-Minute Video Here

The Shaky Science Behind the “Deadly New Strains” of Sars-Cov-2

Feb. 18, 2021

by Rosemary Frei
Off-Guardian

ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HEAR FROM OFFICIALS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, THE NEW VARIANTS ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS AND UNPREDICTABLE BEINGS SINCE OSAMA BIN LADEN.

Everyone needs to stay safe from these invisible but murderously mighty microbes by shunning contact with the unwashed, unmasked and unvaccinated.

But is that drastic approach — which is accompanied by severe curtailment of civil liberties and constitutional rights — warranted?

It turns out that the case for the variants’ contagiousness and dangerousness centres largely on the theoretical effects of just one change said to stem from a mutation in the virus’s genes.

And, as I’ll show in this article, that case is very shaky.

I also have an accompanying nine-minute ‘explainer’ video (Highly recommend. Please see link at top of page)

That one change is known as N501Y — scientific shorthand for the substitution of one protein building block (amino acid) for another at position 501 in the part of the virus called the spike protein.

Specifically, position 501 lies in the portion of the spike protein that’s responsible for the intimate coupling between the virus and cells that lets the virus slip inside and multiply.

[Note that any such amino-acid switcheroo is correctly called a change, not a mutation. Mutations occur only in genes. For some reason many scientists and scribes who ought to know better are mistakenly calling N501Y and other amino-acid changes ‘mutations.’ ]

A very preliminary study published Dec. 22, 2020, suggested that N501Y also is present in the South African variant named 501Y.V2. And another very preliminary study, published January 12, 2021, asserted it was also present in the new strain emerging from the Brazilian jungle, dubbed P.1.

On top of that, the South African variant is being reported as evading immunity and B.1.1.7 sharing this escape route. And scientists are depicting new variants with N501Y on board as spreading very fast. Some say they make herd immunity impossible, so every single person on earth has to be vaccinated. The models also suggest B.1.1.7 is up to 91% deadlier than the regular novel coronavirus.

(Yet so far it seems the main basis for officials saying it’s more deadly is shown in the minutes of the Jan. 21, 2021 meeting of an influential UK committee called New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group [NERVTAG ]. There, they cite modeling papers which haven’t yet been published – which means that until they’re published there’s no way to check their work.)

THREE NON-PEER-REVIEWED THEORETICAL-MODELING PAPERS WHICH CATAPULTED VARIANTS INTO THE SPOTLIGHT

Public-health officials, politicians and the mainstream media around the world turned their collective headlights on the variants right after the publication of three theoretical-modeling papers on B.1.1.7, a variant originating in the U.K. The first was a Technical Briefing by Public Health England published Dec. 21 (it’s the first of an ongoing series of reports on the variant authored by people working at the agency and at other institutions), the second a paper published Dec. 23 by a mathematical-modeling group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the third a theoretical-modeling manuscript posted Dec. 31 by a large group of UK scientists.

None of the three papers was checked over for accuracy by objective observers – a process called ‘peer review.’ Nonetheless, all three were portrayed as solid science by many scientists, politicians, public-health officials and the press.

(I reached out for comment to Public Health England, as well as to the first author of the second paper Nicholas Davies, and to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The only reply I received was from a media-relations person at Public Health England; she told me no one was available for an interview.)

(Neil Ferguson was a co-author of the first and third papers. The UK government has relied on Ferguson’s mathematical modeling for many years. This is despite his work turning out to be highly inaccurate time after time. He  also supposedly stepped down from his government-advisory role last May after being caught secretly meeting with his married lover during a time when it was illegal to make contact with anyone outside of one’s household, thanks in large part to his modelling. But he was quickly restored to positions of influence. In an article and accompanying video coming out next week, I describe the connections and conflicts of interest surrounding Ferguson and the modeling papers’ other authors.)

WHAT EFFECT IS N501Y SAID TO HAVE?

In N501Y, the amino acid that’s swapped out at position 501 in the spike protein is asparagine; by scientific convention it’s represented by the letter ‘N.’ The amino acid that’s swapped in in its place is tyrosine, and it’s represented by the letter ‘Y.’ Hence ‘N501Y.’

Position 501 in the amino-acid sequence sits in the part of the spike protein that protrudes from the surface of the virus. Specifically, it’s said to lie in the region of the spike protein that latches or ‘binds’ to the mechanism that is the gatekeeper for whether the virus can enter the cell. That gate-keeping mechanism is known as the ‘ACE2 receptor.’

This region of the spike protein – known as the ‘receptor binding domain’ (RBD) — binds to the gate keeping mechanism, the ACE2 receptor. When the RBD and the ACE2 receptor bind, the cell membrane, which is the circular barrier between the area outside the cell and the cell contents, opens up and allows the virus to enter.

N501Y is posited to make the spike protein bind tighter to the ACE2 receptor. Influential theoreticians have performed mathematical modeling based on this hypothesis. This modeling suggests that this tighter binding allows the virus to enter more easily, and that therefore this makes the virus more transmissible.

Yet as far as I’ve been able to find, there is still no concrete, direct proof of this. And note that epidemiological data cannot be used to definitively detect the effect of an amino-acid in a virus. Only experiments involving direct observation of the virus’s interaction with the body can determine that.

The main evidence that the top three theoretical-models cite as proof of stronger bonding between the N501Y form of the novel coronavirus and the RBD is from just three scientific manuscripts, and these describe experiments with the virus in mice or petri dishes, not observation of whether in fact the variants are truly more contagious or more deadly.

DETAILS OF THE THREE PAPERS THAT UNDERPIN THE ASSERTION THAT N501Y BOLSTERS CONTAGIOUSNESS

One of those three papers was published Sept. 25, 2020, in Science. It describe experiments involving involving six rounds of division of the virus in mice.

The researchers found a large amount of the virus in the mice lungs right from the first round of division. Based on this, they pronounced the virus to have “enhanced infectivity.” However, they didn’t actually test whether the virus is  more transmissible/contagious – that is, whether it moves from mouse to mouse more easily.

They performed ‘deep sequencing’ and reported that they found the N501Y change in the ‘mouse-adapted’ virus. Next they did ‘structural remodeling’ on it and wrote that this analysis…

suggested that the N501Y substitution in the RBD of SARS-CoV[-2] S protein increased the binding affinity of the protein to mouse ACE2.

All of this is very different than direct observations of the variant virus’s behaviour in mice or humans.

The second paper was posted on bioRχiv on Dec. 21, 2020. It describes an “engineered decoy receptor for SARS-CoV-2.” The complicated series of molecular-biological manoeuvers in vitro were performed that is hard to follow and understand – there is no ‘Methods’ section laying out the details and sequence of what they did; rather, the researchers’ approach to their experiments is scattered across all sections of the paper including in the accompanying Supplementary Material. This is many steps removed from real-life situations. The authors conclude from their manoeuvers that laboratory-mutated novel coronavirus with the N501Y mutation seems to bind more tightly to their ‘engineered decoy’ form of the RBD receptor than the RBD receptor that normally occurs in nature.  (The idea, it seems, is that this ‘engineered decoy’ could be injected into people with the goal of getting the new variant to bind to it rather than to cells, thereby stopping it from gaining entry into cells and reproducing.)

bioRχiv is an online-only journal. (It’s pronounced ‘bioarchive’; that’s because the Greek letter χ is pronounced ‘kai.’ I presume the letter χ is used in the journal’s title because the χ2 [‘chi-square’] test is a widely used form of statistical analysis in scientific papers.) The journal has the tagline ‘The Preprint Server for Biology.’ ‘Preprint’ means non-peer-reviewed. bioRχiv focuses entirely on Covid-19-papers and is sponsored by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. It has a sister publication medRχiv that also focuses on Covid-19,

The Initiative is the creation of Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Facebook has been among the very active censors of information including scientific papers that diverge from the official narrative about Covid.

The third paper  was posted on the website of the online journal bioRχiv on June 17, 2020, and then in Cell on Sept. 3, 2020.

Like the other two papers, it is extremely removed from direct observation of the virus’s behaviour in live animals or humans. In fact, the third paper doesn’t even use human or animal cells. It involves a ‘yeast-surface-display platform’ as a basis for performing ‘deep mutational scanning’ of the novel coronavirus’s RBD. That ‘platform’ is an artificial structure the paper’s authors constructed for measuring binding between antibodies and various RBD regions containing an array of mutations.

According to this paper, the N501Y amino-acid change results in stronger binding of the virus to the RBD.

However, the papers’ authors state in the last section of their paper that:

It is important to remember that our maps define biochemical phenotypes of the RBD, not how these phenotypes relate to viral fitness. There are many complexities in the relationship between biochemical phenotypes of yeast-displayed RBD and viral fitness.

Translation: “Just because our biochemistry experiments showed that the presence of N501Y or other changes in the RBD seems to make the RBD bind tighter to the ACE2 receptor, we don’t know whether any of these changes make the virus more ‘fit’/transmissible.”

And note also that one of the authors of the third paper, Allison Greaney, is quoted as saying in an August 2020 article from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center where she and several of the other authors work, that:

The virus already has a ‘good enough’ ability to bind to ACE2. There’s no reason to believe that going beyond that level will make it more pathogenic or transmissible…[b]ut the RBD may be able to tolerate a number of mutations.

As another note, the third paper was first published in bioRχiv and then published three months later in the peer-reviewed journal Cell. In Cell the paper is labelled ‘Elsevier-Sponsored Documents’ (see image below) (Elsevier is the publishing empire that owns Cell, among hundreds of other journals). I couldn’t find anything online about what ‘Sponsored’ means, nor about what or who sponsored this particular paper; and I couldn’t find any other papers with this designation. So I emailed Cell’s PR manager John Caputo on the evening of Jan. 18 and followed up by leaving him a voicemail message on Jan. 19. I haven’t heard back from him.

‘Deep Mutational Scanning of SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Reveals Constraints on Folding and ACE2 Binding’ (Tyler N. Starr et al.)

A BRIEF WORD ABOUT ANOTHER AMINO-ACID CHANGE IN B.1.1.7

I’ll quickly turn to another of the key changes said to be present in B.1.1.7. This change, the deletion of three amino acids was described in a paper published on the website of medRχiv on November 13, 2020. (Earlier in this article I mention that medRχiv is a creation of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.)

The mutation purportedly makes B.1.1.7 invisible to one of the three key functions of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. That function is detection of the gene that has the genetic code for one of the two main spike proteins on the outer surface of the novel coronavirus.

However, that conclusion is based on only sequencing of the virus in a mere six people who tested positive for the novel coronavirus. On top of that, the paper was not subjected to scrutiny by other scientists (a process known as ‘peer review’) before it was published.

In addition, the Covid diagnoses of those six people were themselves determined by PCR. And PCR has been shown to have a very high rate of false positives — that is, to very frequently give a positive result in people who in fact do not harbour the novel coronavirus at all.

The authors of that paper themselves conclude that:

this result should be interpreted with caution. As a limited number of samples with the S-negative profile [i.e., tests that were positive for two of the three portions of the PCR test but not for the third, S-gene, portion] were sequenced, we could not exclude the presence of other S mutations associated with this profile…. Moreover we could not determine whether the deletion affected the primer or other probe-binding region as their coordinates were not available.

It’s a good bet that similar sleights of hand are behind the new wave of papers and headlines focusing on the amino-acid change dubbed E484K.

WHAT’S THE LESSON FROM ALL THIS?

That the pronouncements about the dire danger posed by the new variants aren’t based on solid science.

They appear to be aimed more at scaring the public into submitting to harsher and longer restrictions than helping to create truly evidence-based policies.

So follow the golden rules. Read the primary scientific-paper sources. Analyze them and think for yourself. Don’t let your reasoning be swept away by the 24-7, fear-filled news cycle.

Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years and now is an independent investigative journalist. You can watch her June 15 interview on The Corbett Report, read her other Off-Guardian articles follow her on Twitter and read her website here.

Category:

Activism, research, Testing, Viruses

2007 Blast From the Past: “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t”

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

Credit…Jon Gilbert Fox for The New York Times

By Gina Kolata

Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing. For two weeks starting in mid-April last year, she coughed, seemingly nonstop, followed by another week when she coughed sporadically, annoying, she said, everyone who worked with her.

Before long, Dr. Kathryn Kirkland, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth, had a chilling thought: Could she be seeing the start of a whooping cough epidemic? By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing, and severe, intractable coughing is a whooping cough hallmark. And if it was whooping cough, the epidemic had to be contained immediately because the disease could be deadly to babies in the hospital and could lead to pneumonia in the frail and vulnerable adult patients there.

It was the start of a bizarre episode at the medical center: the story of the epidemic that wasn’t.  (See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

Testing fiascos are part and parcel of the CDC’s MO.

For more:

Category:

Activism, Testing, Viruses

Pathologist: FDA ‘Misled the Public’ on Pfizer Vaccine Efficacy & the Elderly Are Suddenly Dying

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-misled-public-pfizer-vaccine-efficacy/?

02/17/21

Pathologist: FDA ‘Misled the Public’ on Pfizer Vaccine Efficacy

In an amended reply to the FDA’s rejection of his concerns about Pfizer’s clinical trials, Dr. Sin Hang Lee says the FDA is glossing over potential risks of an mRNA vaccine while concealing its true efficacy.
"The FDA has misled the public."

Pfizer’s announcement in November 2020 that clinical trials showed its COVID-19 vaccine was “95% effective” prompted Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a Connecticut pathologist, to question Pfizer’s methodology and petition the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require accurate counts of COVID-19 cases in the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19mRNA vaccine trial before granting the vaccine Emergency Use Authorization (EAU).

As The Defender reported in November, Lee, who is director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, said:

“Until an accurate count of COVID-19 cases in the vaccinated and placebo groups has been determined for vaccine efficacy evaluation, we are asking the FDA to stay its decision regarding the emergency use authorization for this vaccine.”

Lee’s request was rejected by the FDA on Dec. 11, the same day the agency approved Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency use. On Feb. 8, Lee filed an amended reply. 

Here’s the sequence of events as they unfolded:

On Nov. 23, 2020, Lee, along with Informed Consent Action Network(ICAN) and its counsel, submitted a Citizen Petition and petition for administrative stay of action to the FDA relating to the phase 3 trial of the BNT162b/Pfizer vaccine to prevent the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. 

In the petition and stay, Lee requested the FDA amend the study design for the late-stage trial of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Specifically, Lee requests:

“Before an EUA or unrestricted license is issued for the Pfizer vaccine, or for other vaccines for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection, all “endpoints” or COVID-19 cases used to determine vaccine efficacy in the Phase 3 or 2/3 trials should have their infection status confirmed by Sanger sequencing, given the high cycle thresholds used in some trials. High cycle thresholds, or Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives … All RT-qPCR-positive test results used to categorize patient as “COVID-19 cases” and used to qualify the trial’s endpoints should be verified by Sanger sequencing to confirm that the tested samples in fact contain a unique SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA.”

The petition makes these requests because the phase 2/3 clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine uses a presumptive RT-qPCR (“PCR”) diagnostic test, which is known to generate high rates of false-positive results.

In addition, the Pfizer vaccine trial primarily uses a PCR test that employs cycle thresholds up to 44.9 to identify COVID-19 “cases” despite the fact that “positive” results that require cycle thresholds greater than 30 to 35 are usually false positives, according to Lee.

Lee offered to re-test the residues of tested samples in his laboratory if Pfizer is unable to do so in order to confirm Pfizer’s stated vaccine efficacy rate of 95%. 

Lee’s Sanger sequencing-based method for molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was published in International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation.

On Dec. 11, 2020, the same day the FDA granted Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA responded to Lee’s petition and request for stay.  The agency “conclude[d] that the petitions do not contain facts demonstrating any reasonable grounds for the requested action” and denied the petitions.

The FDA, among other things, stated that “PCR testing does not need to be followed by Sanger or other sequencing for purposes of clinical diagnosis. Currently, reverse real-time PCR (RT-PCR) tests can both amplify and confirm the identity of viral genetic material in a single reaction, without a separate sequencing step.”

On Feb. 8, Lee, through ICAN’s counsel, submitted a detailed and thoroughly cited reply to the FDA’s denial of his petition and stay. This reply points out the inaccuracies, contradictions and omissions in the FDA’s denial of the petition. 

Lee wrote that the FDA’s letter denying the petition and stay

“shows that the FDA has not conducted an adequate evaluation of the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy, especially concerning issues about the accuracy of RT-qPCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens.”

Lee’s detailed response, which can be read in full here, goes on to say:

“The FDA has misled the public. The key misleading statements are analyzed below point-by-point according to the sequence of their presentation in the Letter but under the following four categories for the convenience of the readers:

“A. Cherry-picking to eviscerate the guidance for issuance of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine.

B. Knowingly promoting inaccurate PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2.

C. Finding excuses for using PCR tests with high false-positive rates for this vaccine trial.

D. Glossing over potential risks of an mRNA vaccine while concealing its true efficacy.”

Lee, ICAN and others are weighing possible future actions.

_____________________

**Comment**

You may recognize Dr. Lee due to the following posts:

Dr. Sin Hang Lee is one of the true-blue researchers left who call a spade a spade.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-02-16-elderly-population-suddenly-dying-off-for-unexplained-reasons.html

Elderly population suddenly dying off for unexplained reasons, and it’s no longer coded as covid-19

Tuesday, February 16, 2021 by:  

Image: Elderly population suddenly dying off for unexplained reasons, and it’s no longer coded as covid-19

(Natural News) Around the world, medical authorities are seeing a spike in elderly deaths, after covid-19 vaccination. Gibraltar, a nation located at the southern tip of Spain, is suffering from an unexplained surge in elderly deaths. In the second week of January, a subset of the elderly population suddenly started to die off. The new wave of unexplained elderly deaths is occurring at nearly three times the magnitude of covid-19 deaths that were recorded during 2020.

The new, unexplained surge in elderly deaths is occurring approximately forty times faster when compared to the overall timeline of covid-19 deaths that occurred since a pandemic was first declared. This surge in elderly deaths occurred after 5,847 doses of experimental mRNA injections were administered to the citizens of Gibraltar. In just one week, 17 percent of the country’s population had been inoculated with the first dose of Pfizer’s mRNA experiment.

Before the vaccine experiment began, the covid-19 related death toll accounted for ten people. After the vaccine rollout, the total number of deaths had skyrocketed to forty-five people. In the first eight days of the vaccination program, thirty-five seniors suddenly passed away.  (See link for article)

___________________

**Comment**

But of course it is all being blamed on a new “covid-variant.”  Therefore more injections will be required.

Please read the updated list of deaths/adverse reactions:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/21/warning-3150-injuries-in-1st-week-of-covid-vaccines-among-american-healthcare-workers-pregnant-women-included/

 

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Scientists Warn of Potential COVID Vaccine-Related ‘Ticking Time Bomb’

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/potential-covid-vaccine-related-ticking-time-bomb/

02/11/2
Scientists Warn of Potential COVID Vaccine-Related ‘Ticking Time Bomb’
Studies suggest that COVID vaccines may trigger antibody-dependent enhancement in some people, a condition that could cause them to develop more severe symptoms when exposed to the wild virus than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.
Vaccine-Related ‘Ticking Time Bomb’?

Associate Professor of Health Sciences Adam MacNeil at Brock University, Canada and his Ph.D. student Jeremia Coish were among the earliest to warn, last June, of the dangers of not looking very carefully at the possibility that vaccines might trigger antibody-dependent enhancement(ADE) of disease. This could mean that people who are vaccinated might, paradoxically, suffer more severe disease when exposed to the wild virus than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.

In their aptly titled article, “Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19,” published in the journal Microbes and Infection in June 2020, MacNeil and Coish argue that ADE is well known to be a risk for coronavirus-mediated infections, as well as dengue.

For those not already familiar with ADE, it is the paradoxical immune response that makes a person who was previously exposed to the disease, or a vaccine targeting it, more — not less — susceptible in the event that they’re subsequently infected.

Proceed with caution

Seemingly countering this view, in August 2020, was viral epidemiologist Leah Katzelnick Ph.D., a dengue and zika specialist now in the employ of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases headed by Dr. Tony Fauci. Along with co-author Scott Halstead,. Katzelnick argued that ADE shouldn’t be something to be feared. Katzelnick and Halstead proposed that the fundamental differences between SARS-CoV-2 infection that can cause COVID-19 and other diseases, for which ADE has been shown, meant that ADE would be highly unlikely.

They supported their arguments with evidence from cases of classic, intrinsic ADE, notably infectious peritonitis, a coronavirus infection in cats, as well as from respiratory syncytial virus, dengue and SARS — suggesting significant differences in the pathology, epidemiology and immune responses involved in these diseases as compared with COVID and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Careful readers of Halstead and Katzelnick’s paper will note that while the authors largely dismiss the ADE risk, they very clearly identify a risk of vaccine hypersensitivity (or VAH), a closely related immunological hyper-reaction that was first identified in the late 1960s when children developed atypical measles following measles vaccination.

Many who’ve used the paper to dismiss ADE risks may only have read the title and abstract and not picked up that Katzelnick and Halstead dismiss only intrinsic ADE or iADE (i.e. the risk of disease enhancement on re-infection in the absence of vaccination).

They also may not have read the sombre advisory in the paper’s last sentence:

“Given the magnitude of the repertoire of COVID-19 problems and the need for an effective vaccine, the full force of worldwide investigative resources should be directed at unravelling the pathogenesis of VAH.”

There is not much to suggest that this advisory has been heeded, other than the fact that thousands of volunteers have been put through Phase 3 trials and there has been no evidence of spikes in more severe reactions among those vaccinated with the real thing, as opposed to the placebo.

Herbert Virgin, Ann Arvin and colleagues, writing in Nature, one of the most influential journals in the world, made a not dissimilar call for caution back in July. These authors discuss the great difficulties in identifying the incidence and frequency of ADE (and VAH) and suggest that “… it will be essential to depend on careful analysis of safety in humans as immune interventions for COVID-19 move forward.”

Transparency is key

This requires full transparency of surveillance data so that cases of infection and reinfection post-vaccination can be correlated against severe reactions following infection or vaccination. It also requires time — much more time than we’ve had so far.

Presently, data released by VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in the U.S. and the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) in the UK don’t come close to telling us anything about the ADE or VAH risk. In fact, there will have to be a lot more re-infection before we know conclusively one way or another. And will we be able to find out if there are genuine issues with ADE or VAH, or will the authorities manage to keep a lid on it by just not communicating them given many reactions will be substantially delayed following vaccination?

Timothy Cardozo from New York University and Ronald Veazy from Tulane University took it a step further in their article in the International Journal of Clinical Practice published in October, when Phase 3 trials for the COVID frontrunner vaccines were in full swing. They argued not only that vaccine-mediated ADE (i.e. VAH) risks were more than just theoretical, they also suggest that the risks may be greater following particular types of mutations in the circulating viruses.

In their discussion on SARS-CoV-2, they discuss how very tiny changes, such as changes in the conformity (shape) of its spike protein both before and after fusion with host cells, via ACE2 receptors might impact those who’ve been vaccinated. Several months on with emerging evidence that some variants are able to evade the immune response that has been trained to offer protection against the original Wuhan variants, there is cause for even greater concern. This risk also can’t be dismissed on the basis of the results of the Phase 3 trials

What Cardozo and Veazy also suggest is another point we’ve long been concerned about. That relates to the fact that trial subjects — let alone members of the public who’re now lining up for COVID vaccines — are just not being informed of these potential risks, and the delayed nature of possible ADE/VAH reactions.

What about vaccinees who become ill several months after being vaccinated, suffering the classic range of symptoms associated with many respiratory diseases (including COVID), such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, headache, fatigue, and so on? Will they know that these symptoms might be related to enhanced COVID disease mediated by the vaccination given to them months before, something that didn’t occur to them because they thought the vaccine gave them protection from COVID?

Cardozo and Veazy then show how informed consent forms for volunteer subjects in vaccine trials fail to meet the required ethical standards for informed consent. While ADE is mentioned, it is generally added at the end of the list of possible risks and its implications and identification are unlikely to be adequately understood by the lay public.

With a tick in the box and a sense from regulators and vaccine makers that they’ve successfully negotiated the hurdle of ADE/VAH risks, there’s been no further discussion of the issue. The vast majority of pre-vaccinees lining up as part of the global mass vaccination roll out simply have no idea of the risk — because they’re not being told.

Could ADE be a ticking time bomb?

Does non-disclosure as part of the informed consent process constitute not only a breach of medical ethics, but also a breach of law? In our view, that’s highly likely and should evidence accrue in the future, this will be something the courts will need to grapple with.

Presently there is no evidence of any significant ADE/VAH signal — but it is too early to tell and many cases could have gone undetected.

Is it possible that some instances of ‘long COVID’ could be a form of ADE? This is a possibility we have been considering. Typically people who get long COVID don’t test as positive from nasopharyngeal swab tests. But in deep seated systemic infections the mucosa may not show evidence of viral multiplication, whereas the infection may become systemic in certain tissues and be enhanced. This possibility cannot easily be dismissed.

Could the problem increase with new variants of SARS-CoV-2? Yes, as explained above.

What you can do:

  1. Anyone who is deciding to have the vaccine should inform themselves of the ADE and VAH risk, where there could be a considerable delay between vaccination and the experience of disease symptoms that may be more severe than those that would occur without the vaccine.
  2. Let those you know who are considering or planning to have the COVID vaccine of this risk. Read and share our article, “Informed consent — is this fundamental right being respected?“
  3. Share this article widely.

Originally published by Alliance for Natural Health International.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

___________________

**Comment**

Could this be ADE/VAH?

For more deaths and serious adverse reactions (including deafness, blindness, myocarditis, paralysis, and much more):

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/21/warning-3150-injuries-in-1st-week-of-covid-vaccines-among-american-healthcare-workers-pregnant-women-included/

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses