Pfizer likely knew that Paxlovid did not work in the vaccinated, and removed them from the EPIC-SR trial
Paxlovid was not AT ALL tested on children in both trials, but the FDA approved it for children anyway.
Introduction
You can skip this introduction and head straight into the next section if you are familiar with the Paxlovid story. Briefly, I wrote the following article on April 13, pointing out that the Internet is full of stories of Paxlovid-treated patients relapsing and having Covid re-emerge on Day 10 of their illness.
Igor’s Newsletter
Paxlovid, “Snake Oil” of the 21st Century?
Paxlovid is a combination of a protease inhibitor Nirmatrelvir and a HIV medication Ritonavir. At $895, it is definitely going to be a moneymaker for Pfizer. But how well does it work for the patients? This is what we all heard: The first study, that lasted for four weeks only, reported amazing success and “89% prevention of severe symptoms”. That first s…
Hundreds of stories are all over Twitter and Reddit. This one from yesterday 4/30/22:
Pfizer Purposely Excluded Vaccinated People from Trials. It had a Reason!
Two Pfizer trials for Paxlovid (High Risk and Standard Risk) had long lists of patients to exclude. Some, like HIV patients with complicated problems, are understandably excluded.
But why did Pfizer decide to exclude vaccinated people from the trials? That decision seems crazy since Pfizer intended to ”vaccinate the world” and have everyone vaccinated. So, considering that Pfizer knew about “breakthrough infections,” why did it decide to ban vaccinated people from both trials if it expected that most people would be vaccinated? Seems strange to exclude most people from being potential customers, no?
Well, it looks like Pfizer knew more than it disclosed. (hat tip, Dr. Buzz)
Actually, Pfizer did NOT want to exclude the vaccinated from at least one trial, EPIC-SR, from the start. In the beginning, EPIC-SR allowed vaccinated people with comorbidities. Original Epic-SR exclusion read:
Has received or is expected to receive any COVID-19 vaccine, except for participants with an underlying medical condition associated with an increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19. Participants with these conditions who are fully vaccinated are considered to be at lower risk of developing severe disease and are therefore considered eligible.
So, according to the above, vaccinated patients with comorbidities were considered “standard risk” and were in the trial.
However, between March 9 and April 5 of 2022, Pfizer decided to change the criteria and excluded ALL vaccinated people:
What made Pfizer change this criterion? My speculative answer is that Pfizer knew that Paxlovid did not work in the vaccinated. Having failed to hit the target when it came to vaccinated people, Pfizer decided to remove them from the trial and “move the target,” so to speak. This way, the EPIC-SR study would end up being a “success,” technically.
They removed their main target market — the vaccinated — from the trial, to make sure that the trial looks good. Then Pfizer turned around and asked the FDA to sell the drug to the very people whom they consciously excluded from the trial.
Despite intentionally removing and ignoring vaccinated people in both trials, Pfizer asked for and received FDA approval for all patients, vaccinated or not. So now, Pfizer gets $895 per treatment course and makes a lot of money. Does this treatment benefit vaccinated patients? You decide.
Paxlovid was not tested in Children; FDA Approved Paxlovid for Kids Anyway
It gets worse. Both EPIC-HR and EPIC-SR excluded children under 18.
I am slightly puzzled by this. I mean, surely the FDA cares for our children, right? So wouldn’t it want to ask Pfizer to at least test Paxlovid for children? Of course, it is just a few million dollars for Pfizer. Not a big deal. But testing on children was not done at all, and the FDA recommended Paxlovid for children anyway.
Mind you, Paxlovid is not a little harmless vitamin pill. It is a repackaged HIV/AIDS medication blocking certain liver functions, combined with a radically novel protease inhibitor affecting intricate intracellular processes. Who knows how Paxlovid affects growing kids going through puberty? I surely do not know, but does anyone else?
Question Is SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination associated with risk of myocarditis?
Findings In a cohort study of 23.1 million residents across 4 Nordic countries, risk of myocarditis after the first and second doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines was highest in young males aged 16 to 24 years after the second dose. For young males receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible with between 4 and 7 excess events in 28 days per 100 000 vaccinees after second-dose BNT162b2, and between 9 and 28 per 100 000 vaccinees after second-dose mRNA-1273.
Meaning The risk of myocarditis in this large cohort study was highest in young males after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose, and this risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.
Abstract
Importance Reports of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination have emerged.
Objective To evaluate the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.
Design, Setting, and Participants Four cohort studies were conducted according to a common protocol, and the results were combined using meta-analysis. Participants were 23 122 522 residents aged 12 years or older. They were followed up from December 27, 2020, until incident myocarditis or pericarditis, censoring, or study end (October 5, 2021). Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, hospital diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, and covariates for the participants were obtained from linked nationwide health registers in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
Exposures The 28-day risk periods after administration date of the first and second doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, including BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and AZD1222 or combinations thereof. A homologous schedule was defined as receiving the same vaccine type for doses 1 and 2.
Main Outcomes and Measures Incident outcome events were defined as the date of first inpatient hospital admission based on primary or secondary discharge diagnosis for myocarditis or pericarditis from December 27, 2020, onward. Secondary outcome was myocarditis or pericarditis combined from either inpatient or outpatient hospital care. Poisson regression yielded adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and excess rates with 95% CIs, comparing rates of myocarditis or pericarditis in the 28-day period following vaccination with rates among unvaccinated individuals.
Results Among 23 122 522 Nordic residents (81% vaccinated by study end; 50.2% female), 1077 incident myocarditis events and 1149 incident pericarditis events were identified. Within the 28-day period, for males and females 12 years or older combined who received a homologous schedule, the second dose was associated with higher risk of myocarditis, with adjusted IRRs of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.43-2.14) for BNT162b2 and 6.57 (95% CI, 4.64-9.28) for mRNA-1273. Among males 16 to 24 years of age, adjusted IRRs were 5.31 (95% CI, 3.68-7.68) for a second dose of BNT162b2 and 13.83 (95% CI, 8.08-23.68) for a second dose of mRNA-1273, and numbers of excess events were 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events per 100 000 vaccinees after the second dose of BNT162b2 and 18.39 (9.05-27.72) events per 100 000 vaccinees after the second dose of mRNA-1273. Estimates for pericarditis were similar.
Conclusions and Relevance Results of this large cohort study indicated that both first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. For individuals receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, risk of myocarditis was highest among young males (aged 16-24 years) after the second dose. These findings are compatible with between 4 and 7 excess events in 28 days per 100 000 vaccinees after BNT162b2, and between 9 and 28 excess events per 100 000 vaccinees after mRNA-1273. This risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.
Heart inflammation requiring hospital care was more common among people who received COVID-19 vaccines than those who did not, according to a new study of tens of millions of Europeans.
Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis, two types of heart inflammation, are above the levels in an unvaccinated cohort, pegged at 38 per 100,000 after receipt of a second dose of a vaccine built on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in males aged 16 to 24—the group studies have shown are most at risk of the post-vaccination condition—researchers with health agencies in Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway found.
“These extra cases among men aged 16–24 correspond to a 5 times increased risk after Comirnaty and 15 times increased risk after Spikevax compared to unvaccinated,” Dr. Rickard Ljung, a professor and physician at the Swedish Medical Products Agency and one of the principal investigators of the study, told The Epoch Times in an email.
Comirnaty is the brand name for Pfizer’s vaccine while Spikevax is the brand name for Moderna’s jab.
Rates were also higher among the age group for those who received any dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, both of which utilize mRNA technology. And rates were elevated among vaccinated males of all ages after the first or second dose, except for the first dose of Moderna’s shot for those 40 or older, and females 12- to 15-years-old.
Researchers pulled data from national health registers, analyzing 23.1 million people aged 12 or older. The analysis was of data from Dec. 27, 2020, to incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis, or the end of the study time period, which was Oct. 5, 2021.
“The risks of myocarditis and pericarditis were highest within the first 7 days of being vaccinated, were increased for all combinations of mRNA vaccines, and were more pronounced after the second dose,” researchers wrote in the study, which was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association following peer review.
Moderna and Pfizer did not respond to requests for comment.
Some previousstudieshave indicated that the risk of heart inflammation is higher from the companies’ vaccines, or certain doses of the vaccines, than from COVID-19 itself.
Others have concluded the opposite, including a recent non-peer-reviewed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though that is one of the papers that has estimated a higher rate of post-vaccination heart inflammation.
Authorities in the United States and many European countries continue recommending vaccination for virtually every eligible person, regardless of age, health condition, or prior infection.
The Nordic countries, however, halted use of Moderna’s vaccine in 2021 for youth and young adults due to concerns over post-vaccination heart inflammation.
Ljung said he could not answer whether the results mean some people should consider only a single dose, or no doses, of a COVID-19 vaccine because the Swedish Medical Products Agency doesn’t give those types of recommendations.
In a press release promoting the study, researchers said that occurrence of the heart inflammation is “very rare” and claimed that “the benefits of these vaccines to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 and death outweigh the risks of side effects.”
Dr. Peter McCullough, the chief medical adviser for the Truth for Health Foundation and a cardiologist who is seeing patients with post-vaccination heart inflammation, disagreed.
The benefits of the vaccines in no way outweigh the risks.
“In cardiology we spend our entire career trying to save every bit of heart muscle. We put in stents, we do heart catheterization, we do stress tests, we do CT angiograms. The whole game of cardiology is to pervert preserve heart muscle,” McCullough told The Epoch Times. “Under no circumstances would we accept a vaccine that causes even one person to stay sustain heart damage. Not one. And this idea that ‘oh, we’re going to ask a large number of people to sustain heart damage for some other theoretical benefit for a viral infection,’ which for most is less than a common cold, is untenable. The benefits of the vaccines in no way outweigh the risks.”
By:Jenna Schauer, MD Sujatha Buddhe, MD, MS Avanti Gulhane, MD, DNB, FSCMR Sathish Mallenahalli Chikkabyrappa, MD Yuk Law, MD Michael A. Portman, MD et al for The Journal of Pediatrics
Myopericarditis, , has emerged as an important adverse event following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, particularly in adolescents [1]
Patients typically exhibit chest pain and an elevated serum troponin level in the days following the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. They usually are hemodynamically stable, and symptoms and cardiac biomarkers normalize within a few days[2] cardiac magnetic resonance studies, when performed early, frequently demonstrate abnormalities such as edema and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), meeting Lake Louise Criteria for diagnosing myocarditis noninvasively [2],[3]
In classical myocarditis LGE can be predictive of a poor outcome [5]
Little is known about the prognostic value or expected evolution of these CMR abnormalities associated with post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myopericarditis. In this case series we report the evolution of CMR imaging compared with initial, acute phase, CMR in our cohort of patients with myopericarditis post COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.
Methods
This case review includes patients younger than 18 years of age presenting to Seattle Children’s Hospital with chest pain and elevated serum troponin level from April 1, 2021 to January 7, 2022 within one week of receiving the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. All patients were evaluated by a pediatric cardiologist, underwent ECG and echocardiogram, and were admitted for observation with telemetry, serial troponin measurements, and repeat cardiac testing as needed. All patients underwent CMR within 1 week of initial presentation and had repeat CMR imaging at 3-8 months follow up. CMR was performed on a 1.5 T Siemens scanner. CMR analysis was performed using CVI42 (version 5.11.4, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Alberta Canada). Patients were excluded if they did not undergo CMR or did not have a follow up CMR. Initial and follow up CMR data for each patient were reviewed and compared using paired Student t-test. Statistical significance was defined as a p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
Results
A total of 35 patients with the diagnosis of myopericarditis associated with Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine are followed at our institution. Twelve patients were excluded as they never had CMR due to delayed presentation after initial symptoms resolved or admission to other centers. Six patients were excluded as they did not have a follow up CMR, either because they followed up out of state or a study is still pending. One patient was excluded as initial CMR was performed 3 weeks after presentation. Sixteen patients who had both acute phase and follow-up CMR available for review comprised the final cohort. This group had a median age of 15 years (range, 12-17), were mostly male (n=15, 94%), white and non-Hispanic (n= 14, 88%). One patient was Asian and one patient was American Indian. Median time to presentation from the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was 3 days (range 2-4 days). All patients had chest pain. The most common other presenting symptoms were fever (n=6, 37.5%) and shortness of breath (n=6, 37.5%). All patients had elevated serum troponin levels (median 9.15 ng/mL, range 0.65-18.5, normal < 0.05 ng/mL). Twelve patients had c- reactive protein (CRP) measured with median value 3.45 mg/dL, range 0-6.5 mg/dL, normal < 0.08 mg/dL.
Ten (62.5%) patients had an abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG), with the most common finding being diffuse ST segment elevation. All patients had an echocardiogram on admission; 14/16 patients had normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function; two patients demonstrated mildly reduced LV systolic function with no dilation. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for these two patients was 45% and 53% (normal > 55%). Median left LVEF was 59% (range 45-69%). No patients had pericardial effusion.
The initial CMRs were performed within 1 week of presentation (median 2, range 0-7 days). All were abnormal; all showed evidence of edema by T2 imaging and 15/16 had LGE in a patchy subepicardial to transmural pattern with predilection for the inferior LV free wall. Distribution of LGE can be seen in Figure 1. LV regional wall motion abnormalities were noted in 2 patients. CMR median LVEF% was 54%, range 46-63%. CMR LVEF was mildly decreased in 7 patients. CMR global longitudinal strain (GLS%) measurements were abnormal in 12 patients (median -16.1%, range -13.2% to -18.1%, normal <-18%).
Figure 1Distribution of Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) in American Heart Association Myocardial Segments[12] Figure shows segment with number of patients and percent of cohort.
All patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): 75% (n=12) received scheduled dosing (mostly, 10 mg/kg ibuprofen every 8 hours) with the remaining 4 receiving NSAIDs as needed for pain. The median time from vaccination to NSAID initiation was 2.5 days (range 0-4 days) and from symptom onset to NSAID initiation was 1 day (range 0-4 days). The two patients who presented with echocardiographic LV dysfunction were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus a corticosteroid per our institutional pathway for treatment of myocarditis [2]
One additional patient received IVIG without corticosteroids. Median hospital length of stay was 2 days (range 1-4 days) with no ICU admission and no significant morbidity or mortality. All patients had resolution of chest pain and down-trending serum troponin level prior to discharge.
All patients underwent follow up CMR at 3-8 months after their initial study (median 3.7 months, range 2.8-8.1 months). The results are compared in Table I. Follow up CMR LVEF (57.7 ±2.8%) was significantly improved from initial (54.5 ± 5.5%, p < 0.05), and none of the patients had regional wall motion abnormalities. LVEF by echocardiogram was normal for all patients at the time of follow up. Eleven patients (68.8%) had persistent LGE, although there was a significant decrease in the quantifiable LGE% (8.16± 5.74%) from the initial study (13.77± 8.53%, p <0.05). Cardiac edema resolved in all but one patient. GLS% remained abnormal in most patients (75%, mean -16.4 ± 2.1%) at follow up without significant change from the initial study (-16.0 ± 1.7, p = 0.6). Examples of initial and follow up CMR images are shown in Figure 2. The patient who received IVIG alone and one patient who received IVIG plus corticosteroid had resolution of LGE, and the other had persistence of LGE.
Table 1Covid Vaccine-Associated Myopericarditis Findings in 16 patients
Initial (Mean±SD)
Follow up (Mean±SD)
P value
Echocardiographic LVEF %
59.4±6.0
62.6±2.8
<0.05
Electrocardiogram
Abnormal
Normal
10 (62.5%)
6 (37.5%)
Peak Serum Troponin (ng/mL)
9.0± 5.2
CMR LVEF %
54.5 ± 5.5
57.7 ±2.7
<0.05
CMR LGE % (n=15*)
13.5± 8.3
7.7 ± 5.7
<0.001
CMR global longitudinal strain % (n=15*)
-16.0 ± 1.7
-16.4 ± 2.1
0.5
*Initial source images were not available for reanalysis for one patient.
Figure 2CMR images from 3 days after admission of a 16-year-old male who presented to emergency room with chest pain and elevated troponin 3 days after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Initial CMR. 1a and 1b. subepicardial to midmyocardial LGE in inferior and inferolateral LV wall from base to apex (arrows). 1c shows T2 hyper-intensity in similar segments, consistent with edema. 1d, 1e and 1f. Follow up CMR 4.4 months later. LGE still persistent but decreased from 26% to 19.84% (arrows), LVEF remained stable at 58%. There is improved T2 hyperintensity.
Eight patients (5 of whom had persistent LGE) underwent 24-hour cardiac rhythm monitoring, all of which studies were normal. Six patients, all with persistent LGE, underwent exercise tests, all of which were normal. Four patients complained of intermittent chest pain at follow up with no identifiable abnormality on evaluation; no therapy or intervention was required. No patient received heart failure medication.
DISCUSSION
[3]We previously reported 15 patients with clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine induced myopericarditis. All patients had an abnormal CMR, with edema and or LGE in addition to clinical symptoms and troponin elevation, and some had abnormal ECG or echocardiogram
We have since established a clinical protocol for serial CMR performance in these patients consistent with the 2021 American Heart Association (AHA) statement that stressed the risk of sudden cardiac death, particularly with exercise, while active inflammation is present. [6]
our patients were restricted from exercise on discharge. Repeat CMR was performed within 3-6 months to guide next clinical decision-making steps; timing was modified in some individuals based on scanner accessibility and safety precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although symptoms were transient and most patients appeared to respond to treatment (soley with NSAIDS), we demonstrated persistence of abnormal findings on CMR at follow up in most patients, albeit with improvement in extent of LGE.
CMR has increasingly been identified as an important diagnostic tool for myocarditis given its ability to identify subclinical injury and fibrosis by markers of LGE and edema. CMR also has been utilized in longitudinal follow up of patients with myocarditis to help therapeutic management, although exact screening protocols remain controversial[6]
The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis. In a meta-analysis including 8 studies, Yang et al found that presence of LGE is a predictor of all cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support[5]]Similarly, Georgiopoulos et al found presence and extent of LGE to be a significant predictor of adverse cardiac outcomes in an 11 study meta-analysis[7]
The persistence of LGE over time and its prognostic value is less well established. Malek et al found that in a cohort of 18 patients with myocarditis, nearly 70% had persistent CMR changes at a median follow-up time of 7 months[5],[9] Dubey et al found similar findings in their cohort of 12 pediatric patients, with persistence of LGE in all patients despite resolution of edema.
Prognostic meaning of LGE in vaccine associated myopericarditis requires further study.
Strain analysis by CMR also has been shown to have prognostic utility in myocarditis even in the setting of normal LV function[10]Strain testing can be performed without use of contrast material and can be particularly useful in situations where contrast administration is challenging or contraindicated. Notably, in our cohort, though there was significant reduction in LGE at follow up, abnormal strain persisted for the majority of patients at follow up.
This study has certain limitations. Patients who did not seek medical attention during acute illness or did not present with significant symptoms and require hospitalization were not captured, and their disease course may be different. Incomplete CMR data on other patients precludes extrapolation of our CMR findings to all who experienced mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis. In addition, follow-up CMR timeframes varied from patient to patient making it difficult to predict the timing of CMR changes over time. the total number of patients reported is small, limiting ability to draw conclusions about the effect of treatment modalities or to generalize regarding outcomes of vaccine-associated myopericarditis.
In a cohort of adolescents with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis, a large portion have persistent LGE abnormalities, raising concerns for potential longer-term effects. Despite these persistent abnormalities, all patients had rapid clinical improvement and normalization of echocardiographic measures of systolic function. For patients with short acute illness, no dysfunction demonstrated by echocardiogram at presentation and resolution of symptoms at follow up, return to sports was guided by normalization of CMR alone. In patients with persistent CMR abnormalities we performed exercise stress testing prior to sports clearance per myocarditis recommendations[6] We plan to repeat CMR at 1 year post-vaccine for our cohort to assess for resolution or continued CMR changes.
The CDC notes that even though the absolute risk for myopericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is small, the relative risk is higher for particular groups, including males 12-39 years of age.
Some studies have suggested that increasing the interval between the first and second dose may reduce the incidence of myopericarditis in this population [11]
These data led to an extension in CDC recommended dosing interval between dose 1 and dose 2 to 8 weeks. Further follow up assessment and larger multicenter studies are needed to determine the ultimate clinical significance of persistent CMR abnormalities in patients with post COVID-19 vaccine myopericarditis
Gargano JW, Wallace M, Hadler SC, Langley G, Su JR, Oster ME, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-United States, June 2021 2021;70. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000239?url_.
mRNA Coronavirus-19 Vaccine–Associated Myopericarditis in Adolescents: A Survey Study.
Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Strain in Suspected Myocarditis With Preserved LV-EF: A Comparison Between Patients With Negative and Positive Late Gadolinium Enhancement Findings.
We describe the evolution of Cardiac MRI (CMR) findings in 16 patients, 12-17 years of age, with myopericarditis after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Although all patients showed rapid clinical improvement, many had persistent CMR findings at 3-8 month follow up.
Figures
[12]Figure 1Distribution of Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) in American Heart Association Myocardial Segments
. Figure shows segment with number of patients and percent of cohort.
Why not have a age limit for a sex change?
Photo My security sign
So think about it. We have laws that stop people from doing things before adulthood. Drinking, Smoking, Voting, serving in the Military, etc. Why not make it illegal for a child to have a sex change operation till they reach adulthood? 18-21. Even then they’re still very immature.
You have Progressives who have no problem with teaching 5-8 year olds about transgender and being gay. I just wonder if their parents taught them about that. Odds are no, So why force something like this on children?
Also is it something the government should pay for? Is this something that schools should be teaching? I can see it now. Class instead of learning how to read and write, we will discuss why you should or should not have a penis or vagina.
The Food and Drug Administration announced Wednesday that a healthcare company has recalled 45,500 COVID-19 rapid tests due to a “high number of false positive reports.”
Pharmaceutical company Celltrion USA announced on Feb. 28 it is recalling specific lots of the DiaTrust COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test due to the high number of false-positive reports, an FDA recall webpage read on Wednesday.
The FDA says that a false-positive test result can lead to a delay in “the correct diagnosis and treatment for the actual cause of a person’s illness.”
The COVID-19 rapid tests also displayed a shelf life of 18 months, but the FDA’s emergency use authorization states that the tests can only be used for 12 months.
Rapid tests are not the only thing giving out false positives.
Massachusetts was forced to lower its pandemic death count after a change in COVID reporting rules.
Nicolas Menzies, Associate Professor of Global Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health admitted that COVID deaths can not be identified with 100% certainty.
How many other COVID tests are giving out false positives?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been forced by court order to publish all confidential documents sent to them by Pfizer in regard to emergency use approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection. The latest round of documents were published 1st March 22, and one of the documents confirms that the Pfizer Covid-19 injection accumulates in the ovaries over time.
What are the consequences of this?
Well official UK data shows that cases of Ovarian cancer in 2021 were at an all time high, and the UK Medicine Regulator received over 40,000 reports relating to reproductive and menstrual disorders suspected as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections in 2021 alone.
The study, which can be found in the long list of confidential Pfizer documents that the FDA have been forced to publish via a court order here, was carried out on Wistar Han rats, 21 of which were female and 21 of which were male.
Each rat received a single intramuscular dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection and then the content and concentration of total radioactivity in blood, plasma and tissues were determined at pre-defined points following administration.
In other words, the scientists conducting the study measured how much of the Covid-19 injection has spread to other parts of the body such as the skin, liver, spleen, heart etc.SOURCE:
But one of the most concerning findings from the study is the fact that the Pfizer injection accumulates in the ovaries over time.
An ‘ovary’ is one of a pair of female glands in which the eggs form and the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone are made.
In the first 15 minutes following injection of the Pfizer jab, researchers found that the total lipid concentration in the ovaries measured 0.104ml. This then increased to 1.34ml after 1 hour, 2.34ml after 4 hours, and then 12.3ml after 48 hours.
The scientists, however, did not conduct any further research on the accumulation after a period of 48 hours, so we simply don’t know whether that concerning accumulation continued.
But official UK data published by Public Health Scotland offers some concerning clues as to the consequences of that accumulation on the ovaries.
Public Health Scotland (PHS) have a full dashboard on Covid-19 wider impacts on the health care system, found here, and it includes a whole range of data from mental health statistics to pregnancies, cardiovascular disorders data, and cancer.
The data available for all types of cancers shows that the total count of individuals suffering from cancer in 2021 was inline with the 2017-2019 average, but higher than the numbers recorded in 2020.
Unfortunately the data has a huge delay and as of March 2022 only covers up until June 2021.
However, data for the number of individuals suffering from ovarian cancer shows that the known trend in 2021 was significantly higher than 2020 and the 2017-2019 average.
On top of this we also have further official data from the UK that shows nearly 40,000 incidents of changes to period and unexpected vaginal bleeding had been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme as adverse reactions to all available Covid-19 injections as of November 2021.
Up to the 17th Nov 21, the UK Medicine Regulator, the MHRA, had received 1,724 reports of menstrual disorders, 3,034 of menstruation irregularities, 5,068 reports of heavy menstrual bleeding, amongst thousands of other reproductive disorders, as suspected adverse reactions to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
It is of course impossible to definitively conclude that the Covid-19 injections are responsible for a rise in ovarian cancer.
But with –
Confidential Pfizer documents showing that the Covid-19 vaccine accumulates in the ovaries over time,
and over 40,000 menstrual disorders being reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections,
It’s quite clear that the Covid-19 injections interfere with the reproductive system and further studies and investigation should be carried out with immediate effect.
Nurse practitioner Sarah Rauner fills a syringe with the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine to be administered to children from 5-11 years old are seen at the Beaumont Health offices in Southfield, Michigan on November 5, 2021. (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY / AFP) (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images)
By Meiling Lee for EPOCH TIMES March 2, 2022
The messenger RNA (mRNA) from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University.
The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA.
The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA.
Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.
“In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in Current Issues of Molecular Biology. “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.”
BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed under the brand name Comirnaty.
The whole process occurred rapidly within six hours. The vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen.
The CDC LIED
“The genetic material delivered by mRNA vaccines never enters the nucleus of your cells,” the CDC said on its web page titled “Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines.”
This is the first time that researchers have shown in vitro or inside a petri dish how an mRNA vaccine is converted into DNA on a human liver cell line, and is what health experts and fact-checkers said for over a year couldn’t occur.
The CDC says that the “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way,” claiming that all of the ingredients in both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (administered in the United States) are discarded from the body once antibodies are produced. These vaccines deliver genetic material that instructs cells to begin making spike proteins found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 to produce an immune response.
Pfizer lies.
Pfizer didn’t comment on the findings of the Swedish study and said only that its mRNA vaccine does not alter the human genome.
“Our COVID-19 vaccine does not alter the DNA sequence of a human cell,” a Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “It only presents the body with the instructions to build immunity.”
More than 215 million or 64.9 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated as of Feb. 28, with 94 million having received a booster dose.
Turns out the “conspiracy theory” about the jab actually being gene therapy isn’t so far fetched after all.
Be aware: That COVID-19 test kit in your home could contain a toxic substance that may be harmful to your children and you.
The substance is sodium azide, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center’s Drug and Poison Information Center has seen a surge in calls about exposures to the chemical since more people started self-testing for COVID-19 at home.
Fifty million U.S. households have received some version of the test kits, although it’s not clear how many contain sodium azide. The government has sent 200 million of the kits, with about 85% of initial orders filled, officials said at a White House briefing last week.
“We started getting our first exposures to these test kits around early November,” said Sheila Goertemoeller, pharmacist and clinical toxicologist for the center. “It was, really, all ages.” The calls to the local center mirror what’s been happening nationally.
What is sodium azide?
Sodium azide, often used as a preservative, is a liquid reagent in several of the COVID-19 test kits, she said. Ingesting it can cause low blood pressure, which can result in dizziness, headaches or palpitations. Exposure to it can also cause skin, eye or nostril irritation.
The Cincinnati Children’s Hospital-based Drug and Poison Information Center has logged 38 cases of sodium azide exposure, with cases peaking in January, around the time that the omicron variant triggered a high number of COVID-19 cases, Goertemoeller said. Adults exposed generally have experienced mild skin irritation, which can get worse if the area isn’t washed thoroughly, she said.
Nationwide Children’s Hospital Central Ohio Poison Center in Columbus also reported seeing an “uptick” in cases, as well, a spokeswoman said. The center did not immediately have a number of cases.
The Cincinnati Children’s Drug and Poison Information Center covers half of Ohio’s population, covering a swath of calls in Southwest Ohio and those in Northeast Ohio, including Akron. Nationwide Children’s Central Ohio Poison Center handles the other half of the state’s population.
“Mostly, I’ve been very worried about our young children,” Goertemoeller said.
The “good news” is that the cases reported to the Cincinnati Children’s center mostly have been minor and resolved at home, Goertemoeller said. She added that the amount of sodium azide in COVID-19 rapid tests is small.
Several poison centers throughout the United States have reported sodium azide exposures from the COVID-19 test kits. Goertemoeller estimated there have been 200-plus reported cases from the 55 poison centers nationwide.
[T]he National Poison Control Center issued a warning about the chemical:
“It is important to know that the extraction vial in many rapid antigen kits includes the chemical sodium azide as a preservative agent,” the center said. “The BinaxNow, BD Veritor, Flowflex, and Celltrion DiaTrust COVID-19 rapid antigen kits all contain this chemical.”
Sodium azide is a colorless, odorless powder that testers dip cotton swabs into. The chemical is found in herbicides, pest control agents, and airbags for cars.
Accidental exposure is occurring among both children and adults, said Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, with the National Capital Poison Center in Washington, told WNEP over the weekend.
“People might mistake them for eye drops. Children might drop it onto their skin. Adults will sometimes mistakenly put them into their eyes,” she said.
“You don’t want to leave it on the skin because it could potentially cause an allergic reaction or a skin rash.
“If someone drinks the solution, it’s really important to contact poison control right away. The solutions have different ingredients. Some have non-toxic ingredients and others have more dangerous ingredients.”
My opinion: if you need to keep the test kit locked away from children to prevent poisoning, then it’s NOT safe to shove up your nose.
CDC and Johns Hopkins studies show strength and duration of natural immunity protection
Two newly released studies show the power of natural immunity following recovery from COVID-19 sickness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says “previous SARS-CoV-2 infection also confers protection against severe outcomes in the event of reinfection.” Johns Hopkins found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant.
Natural immunity was six times stronger during the Delta wave than vaccination, according to one news report about the CDC study. The report published Jan. 19 analyzed COVID outcome data from New York and California, which make up about one in six of the nation’s total COVID deaths. “Whereas French and Israeli population-based studies noted waning protection from previous infection, this was not apparent in the results from this or other large U.K. and U.S. studies,” the CDC said.
Dr. Benjamin Silk of the CDC told the media last week, “Before the Delta variant, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection.”
“When looking at the summer and the fall of 2021, when Delta became the dominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection against subsequent infection than vaccination,” he added.
Omicron has become the focus of the pandemic as Washington state and the nation enter the third year of battling multiple variants of the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus. Until this past week, Omicron accounted for nearly all the new cases detected in the state. Early reports seemed to indicate it ignores both vaccine immunity and natural immunity.
Johns Hopkins Dr. Marty Makary says this is a pandemic of the non-immune. A new Johns Hopkins study shows natural immunity following recovery from COVID sickness is stronger and lasts longer than vaccine immunity. Tweet by Marty Makary
Clark County Public Health reports 72,239 total cases since the pandemic began. This means all those who have recovered now have natural immunity and protection. The two new natural immunity studies should boost public discussion regarding vaccine mandates by Gov. Jay Inslee.
This impacts citizen discussions about children in schools with or without vaccines. It also impacts the mini initiative petition the Clark County Council will consider. Should there be mandates when natural immunity provides protection as good if not better than vaccines alone?
The new CDC report was concluded before Omicron arrived on the scene. “After two years of accruing data, the superiority of natural immunity over vaccinated immunity is clear,” writes Dr. Marty Makary. He is a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University.
Last week, the CDC released data which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing COVID infection compared with vaccination, according to Makary.
One of the arguments that public health officials have used to discount natural immunity, is they claim they don’t know how long it lasts. Makary noted the U.S. is one of the few countries that ignores natural immunity. The NIH has $42 billion in resources, but has refused to study it.
“You could do the study with about 100 people,” Makary told Brian Kilmeade. “You just invite people who were infected in New York two years ago and test their blood.”
Dr. Makary and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins therefore did their own study. “We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had COVID, antibodies were present in 99.9 percent of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant,” he reports.
“We found that immunity was strong, nearly two years out from the infection,”he said. “So it is now settled science. Natural immunity is durable and effective for as long as the infection has been around.”
Omicron is likely to go through the entire U.S. population. Makary noted that Dr. Fauci said everybody will get it. “If Omicron is nature’s vaccine for those who have not had access to or been eligible for vaccine, what are we doing immunizing those already immune?” A booster shot offers only a modest and temporary benefit.
The World Health Organization reported natural immunity
following recovery from COVID-19 sickness is more robust and
longer lasting than vaccine immunity. The WHO study showed
cellular immunity elicited by natural infection also targets
other viral proteins, which last across multiple variants
rather than targeting just the spike protein.
Graphic courtesy of World Health Organization
Ali Mokdad, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, said he believes about half of the U.S. population will be infected with Omicron during the next three months, with most cases being asymptomatic.
The CDC found COVID-19 rates among the vaccinated with no previous infection were 6.2 times lower in California and 4.5 times lower in New York than among the unvaccinated with no previous infection.
However, among the unvaccinated with a previous infection, the COVID-19 rate was 29 times lower in California and 14.7 times lower in New York.
The individuals most protected against infection were those who had previously had COVID-19 and were also vaccinated. Their infection rate was 32.5 times lower in California and 19.8 times lower in New York.
The CDC study and the Johns Hopkins study confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found, Makary emphasized: “The immune system works,” he said. The largest of these studies, from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness.
Last September, Heidi Wetzler highlighted doctors from the St. Elizabeth Healthcare System in Ohio submitted a compelling letter to their administration logically and completely outlining their concerns with vaccine mandates. Their very first point states that “Natural immunity is at least equal to and likely superior to vaccine immunity, yet this has not been a part of the discussion for unclear reasons. A majority of healthcare providers in our system are declining the vaccine due to prior infection and already having sufficient immunity to COVID-19.”
Wetzler shared those who had SARS-CoV-1 in 2002-2003 were still found to be immune 17 years later, and those who survived the influenza pandemic of 1918 were still immune to the H1N1 outbreak in 2009-2010 a stunning 92 years later.
Researchers followed more than 52,000 Cleveland Clinic employees for five months in 2021. More than 1,300 of those employees already had a documented COVID infection and did not get vaccinated.
The study released last June, found none of them were re-infected during the five months they were monitored. They concluded those with laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID infection are unlikely to benefit from vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
The orange line corresponds to people who’ve been previously
infected but not vaccinated; the yellow line to those who’ve
been previously infected and vaccinated; and the green line to
those who’ve been vaccinated but not previously infected. The
y-axis gives the percentage reduction in the number of
infections, compared to those who haven’t been vaccinated or
previously infected. For example, a value of 90% means there
would be only 10 infections for every 100 in the comparison
group. The x-axis gives the number of days since the relevant
event.
Graphic courtesy of Danish Study — Statens Serum Institute
A Danish study published in December confirms that natural immunity protects better against infection than the vaccines. It shows vaccine-induced immunity wanes rapidly, beginning a few weeks after vaccination. At the five-month mark, protection is well below 50 percent. Natural immunity, by contrast, is robust: a full year after infection, protection is still above 70 percent.
The study shows hybrid immunity – conferred by the combination of vaccination and previous infection – is slightly better than natural immunity. However, the difference is small compared to that between natural and vaccine-induced immunity.
“While those who’ve already had Covid should be perfectly free to get vaccinated, there’s no obvious need for them to do so,” said Noah Carl of The Daily Sceptic. “The tricky part may be getting this message through to politicians.”
A May 2021 statement from the World Health Organization made the following points.
Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99 percent of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.
The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms. Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months). (Emphasis added)
Some variant SARS-CoV-2 viruses with key changes in the spike protein have a reduced susceptibility to neutralization by antibodies in the blood. While neutralizing antibodies mainly target the spike protein, cellular immunity elicited by natural infection also target other viral proteins, which tend to be more conserved across variants than the spike protein. (Emphasis added)
The ability of emerging virus variants (variants of interest and variants of concern) to evade immune responses is under investigation by researchers around the world.
“Public-health officials have a lot of explaining to do. They used the wrong starting hypothesis, ignored contrary preliminary data, and dug in as more evidence emerged that called their position into question,” Makary writes in his column.
“Many clinicians who talk to other physicians nationwide have long observed that we don’t see reinfected patients end up on a ventilator or die from Covid, with rare exceptions who almost always have immune disorders.”
He was asked if there was a variation in the strength of the immunity in the Johns Hopkins study. According to Makary, “99 percent of these subjects we studied had antibody levels that were almost as effective and consistent as they had in the earliest time of their recovery,” he said.
Essentially 100 percent of new infections now are Omicron, he noted. The data shows it is less dangerous than influenza, according to Makary.
A 3.8 percent increase in protection
Kilmeade asked if you were vaccinated, and then you had COVID or you got the virus and then got vaccinated, does that double your immunity?
“It increases it by 3.8 percent,” Makary responded. “So hybrid immunity is more effective. But remember, the vaccine gives you almost a sugar high of antibodies that will wear off in terms of its protection against getting the infection. Your protection against hospitalization and severe disease is still solid with vaccinated or natural immunity.”
“We’re really not seeing new vaccinations at this point,” he said. Makary believes people are so hardened by what they see as excessive government policies, they’re probably not going to get vaccinated. Chances are, they have natural immunity.
He also mentioned that “no healthy child has ever died of COVID that we know of.”
In South Africa, where officials first sounded the alarm about Omicron, the government in December eased protocols. They are betting that previous encounters with the virus have given the population enough immunity to prevent significant levels of severe illness. The Omicron wave there subsided quickly with modest hospitalizations. Scientists think one reason is that so many people — close to 80 percent — had previously been infected by earlier variants.
CATO
Last fall the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring businesses with 100 or more employees to enforce a vaccination‐or‐testing regime. That has since been overruled by the Supreme Court..
The CATO Institute weighed in, including the following.
Universal vaccine mandates are irrational in ignoring naturally acquired immunity from infection and recovery, which has come to be referred to as “natural immunity” in public discussion. This single‐minded focus on vaccination as the exclusive means to acquiring immunity is largely novel.
Contrary to conventional belief, states typically do not have “vaccine” requirements for children to attend school or any other purpose; they require evidence of immunity to certain viruses, whether through serological testing that evidences the presence of relevant protective antibodies or evidence of prior history “diagnosed or verified by a health care provider.”
Virtually all countries in the Western world that impose some form of vaccine passport or mandate recognize natural immunity to Covid as qualifying for at least six months post‐recovery.
If OSHA had reviewed the medical and scientific literature regarding the relative protective efficacy of natural immunity compared to vaccination, it is unlikely that the agency would be successful in establishing a factual basis for forced vaccination of Covid‐recovered individuals. Given the trivial — if any — benefit to either the individual or the public from compelled vaccination of Covid‐recovered individuals, that evidence of elevated adverse effects requires an especially high standard of proof by regulators to overcome.
Fighting for those terminated
Makary also spoke about those who have been terminated over refusal to get vaccinated. “By firing staff with natural immunity, employers got rid of those least likely to infect others,” he said. “It’s time to reinstate those employees with an apology.”
He writes in The High Cost of Disparaging Natural Immunity to Covid that “Public-health officials ruined many lives by insisting that workers with natural immunity to Covid-19 be fired if they weren’t fully vaccinated.”
“It’s time to reinstate American workers who were fired under the vaccine mandate, for a number of reasons,” he told Kilmeade. “Number one, it was unfair. Number two, we have therapeutics now that really mean no one should be dying of COVID. And number three, it turns out, many of them had natural immunity.”
“The risk of somebody who has natural immunity getting hospitalized is 3 per 10,000,” he said. “That’s identical to the risk of somebody with hybrid immunity, that is a vaccine and natural immunity. So getting the additional vaccination (booster) did nothing to change the numbers of hospitalization. That’s the honest data.”
“When employers fired workers with natural immunity, they got rid of the workers least likely to spread the infection,” he said. “That’s the great irony. The data are now in. It’s clear.”
Makary noted a disconnect in numbers being reported by public health officials. A California study of Omicron cases found only one death among over 52,000 cases. Yet the state is reporting much higher numbers of COVID deaths.
Reported COVID-19 deaths in California have begun to rise
rather quickly during the Omicron wave of the pandemic, yet
remain far below peak levels reached a year ago.
Graphic courtesy San Jose Mercury News
Termination Stupidity
Makary mentioned COVID-19 case numbers showing a steep decline for the past two weeks. In some parts of the country the virus is still peaking and hospitals are going to be strained. The hospitals are not necessarily strained from the influx of patients alone, he noted. “We normally have a massive influx of patients every winter, from a number of respiratory pathogens,” he said. “Sometimes it’s a bad flu season.”
“The difference is this time, we’ve got a massive staffing shortage,” Makary said. “One in five workers in health care have left. If you look at what happened at Washington State, they fired 55 workers from this hospital system called Multicare. They were so short staffed, they told people who tested positive who were working, even if you have COVID come back into work. Even if you have symptoms, we are that short staffed. That’s the problem with the staffing crisis that people don’t know about.”
According to an internal memo dated Jan. 6, MultiCare hospitals in the Puget Sound area moved into “crisis levels of staffing.” The impetus for the move was the rise in hospital visits, though not all due to COVID.
Consequently, the hospitals modified their return-to-work process, ordering staff “to work even if they are experiencing mild symptoms but are improving.” But a MultiCare staffer claimed that unless a staffer has a fever, “they want us coming in.” COVID-positive staffers are not required to disclose their status to patients or coworkers.
Makary believes we’ve got to reinstate all these workers. He noted that 50 to 60 percent of all truck drivers are not vaccinated. We have got to get the country moving, including the supply chain he said.
“People don’t just die of viral replication,” he said. “They die of hopelessness, poverty, and all kinds of substance abuse and mental problems. We’ve been blowing that data off. Those soldiers who were dishonorably discharged need to immediately be reinstated with their rank and back compensation, including restoring that period of lost pension pay.”
Omicron behaving like a different virus
Makary spoke to the reality of fighting Omicron. “It’s really not COVID; it’s acting and behaving like a different virus.” He pointed out there’s only been one death in 52,000 Omicron cases in the Kaiser Southern California study, which is lower than influenza.
Yet other news reports indicate Omicron deaths are increasing at a faster pace than during the Delta wave of COVID-19 last summer. As of Thursday, California was averaging 157 new COVID deaths a day. That’s more than last summer but less than a year ago.
Over the weekend, one case of natural immunity has been making headlines. A North Carolina man who said a hospital refused to carry out a kidney transplant because he’s unvaccinated against COVID-19. He is willing to “die free” rather than comply with their vaccine requirement. He is in need of a kidney transplant due to it operating at 4 percent, requiring him to get dialysis three times a week.
Chad Carswell said he’s had the coronavirus twice before and believes getting the vaccine should be a personal choice, not a requirement. Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem said both the donor and the recipient must be vaccinated.
“The reason it is recommended is to provide protection for the patient. Transplant patients are at high risk for severe illness if they don’t have preexisting immunity prior to being transplanted,” the hospital said
Carswell has preexisting immunity. The CDC and Johns Hopkins studies show his immunity is likely more robust than if he’d been vaccinated three or more months ago.
As Noah Carl noted in his review of the Danish study, there’s no obvious need for people who have recovered from COVID to get vaccinated.
“The tricky part may be getting this message through to politicians.”
Rapid COVID tests have proven to be a complete disaster.
00282-7&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}