It’s funny how they claim success rate out of such small number of cases. Statistical error to me.
My reading is 93~ cases out of 43~k vaccinations, 43k is small I suppose but we can hardly wait for years?
Here is a simple model looking at government statements that
a) one can have the virus for two weeks without knowing, and
b) the virus is highly infectious.
The model ignores death by virus, but assumes that ‘highly infectious’ means each infected person infects two other people. Each infectee has the virus for two weeks (asymptomatic) before simultaneously falling ill (and retreating from contact with others) and passing it on to two others
The model starts in mid-Feb this year with the arrival in Dublin of an asymptomatic Chinaman from Wuhan. He explores Dublin for two weeks, then on 1st March falls ill and simultaneously passes the virus on to two Dubliners.
(Note: by always passing on the virus at the end of the two week asymptomatic period, we play down the 'infectiousness of the virus, since the possible passing on after day 1, 2 , 3 etc. would increase the number of infectees, which the model aims to play down.)
On 16th March, the two Dubliners fall ill and simultaneously pass on the virus to four others.
And so on, the first of each month, the sixteenth of each month, the number of infectees doubling.
Today is 16th November. By the above reckoning, 262,144 should now have got the virus in this country. This does not need to align with government figures since government only knows which tested or ill people have or got the virus.
In another month, by this model, over 1 million should have got the virus, say 1/4 or 1/5 of the country.
A sample of our friends and family, or any sample, in different parts of the country should reflect this national trend, so we should be able to say in another month 1/4 or 1/5 of our contacts have got the virus (regardless mildly or badly).
The current indicators are most of us will not be anywhere close to able to say 1/4 or 1/5 of our family and friends got the virus by this time next month, which means either the model is plain wrong or RTE/the Government (RTG) is deliberately distorting the facts and must stop routinely telling listeners coronavirus is ‘highly infectious’.
or a more plausible answer is that the virus arrived much earlier and ripped through the population between December and late January infecting large sectors of the general (working & mobile) population.
My wife for one had a right dose around early January and so did many others I posed the question"did you have a dose of something around the new year?" A large number said yes they did.
So therefore by the time the panic button was pressed in March, the main pandemic had passed through the general population and was now hitting the vulnerable in nursing homes and the less mobile people along with the spike in deaths associated with weak or already sick people getting a nasty virus.
The Government and NPHET now in panic mode. Only a few days ago they were saying we were Best In Class. Now it looks like they’re scrambling around looking for easy scapegoats for the sudden turnaround in Covid fortunes (They found one in that video from South William St and the hysterical response to it.)
Looks like tonight they’ve backtracked on the plan to ban take-away sales. (Barry Cowan among the critics of the knee-jerk rush to change the rules.)
They never, ever learn…
Three extended family members have had it over the past 2 weeks. 6 members in the same family unit. Mother and 2 sons have it/had it. Father and 2 daughters havent had it. For all who contracted it has consisted of a headache and general flu like symptoms for a few days each. One also reported hia tea tasting funny at one point.
A friend’s daughter had it also 2 weeks ago. Same symptoms ie headaches and flu for a few days and asymptomatic thereafter.
In both instances, none of those involved would have even bothered going near a doctor without the wall to wall media hype. In both instances also, the likely source was the kids schools.
Make of it what you will but there is zero rationale for this blanket lockdown at this point.
Beyind that, National Geographic have run a story that is highly critical of the proposed Pfizer vaccine which is apparently getting zero traction across social media searches on google, twiter etc.
Apparently there is some manner of protest planned for the 28th of November. Assuming its not simply a collection of Chemtrails tyoes, it may be time to start lending public support to whatever opposition to this madness exists out there
When I read this then think of all the medic-pimps on Irish media pushing the vaccine 24/7 it makes me start thinking of extreme actions…
15 Nov, 43 tweets, 18 min read
Save as PDF
OK folks I can’t put this off any longer.
And I don’t care if @POTUSbelieves in it.
There is no #Covid19 vaccine. Let’s unpick it.
OK so @pfizer are telling you that they have a new mRNA vaccine that they have tested on 43,000 people and with a 90% efficacy.
It’s not true.
Pfizer Covid vaccine: what has the trial found and is this a breakthrough? Early results from phase 3 trial look promising but there are still many questions to be answeredhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/what-has-pfizers-covid-vaccine-trial-found-and-is-this-a-breakthrough
So what’s the study?
It’s supposed to be a concurrent phase 1-2-3 study.
We don’t do those. Why? Because you need the phase 1 study to see if your new drug is not going to kill people.
There was huge publicity for this and this prompted big changes in the way phase 1 studies are conducted. Not just in the UK.
Phase 1 studies are highly controlled, particularly for new classes of drugs - like mRNA VACCINES
Ten years after the ‘Elephant Man’ drug trial | Lexology In March 2006, six Young healthy men participated in a clinical trial for the drug TGN1412; within 16 hours all had been transferred to the intensive…https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c827f92c-2bb9-4276-a160-75a415788ddc
But, hey, we have “Operation Warp Speed” so that doesn’t matter I guess…
So what is the Pfizer study?
Here is the European registry entry. Note it was first registered in the EudraCT in August - 3 months ago.
The protocol is here if you want to read it…
You’ll notice it’s a phase 1-2-3 together, so there is no way to ascertain the safe dose of the drug before rolling it out to phase 2 and 3.
The protocol should be clearly dated with version number and it isn’t. It’s a document-in-flux (contravenes #ICHGCP)
Maybe Nick Kitchin can take a break from his work at Pfizer and comment. Anyway getting back to the subject…
Pfizer reported the Phase 1 part of the study in August, hence why the European phase was initiated then (US regs less stringent)
Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults - PubMed In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1, a pandemic…https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32785213/
Briefly a couple of interesting points.
First, that there was a toxic dose - 100mcg.
Second - and importantly - confirmation that the drug is stored at -80C.
Why so important? I’ll come back to it later but storing at -80c is no mean feat.
It usually requires liquid nitrogen or heavy duty freezers. You can’t do it in a standard clinic.
Dry ice will get you down to -78C, and evaporates.
Why Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine will be a nightmare to distribute Pfizer’s promising new COVID-19 vaccine could become a logistical nightmare to distribute to Americans — all because of the ultra-cold temperatures in which it must be stored, experts s…https://nypost.com/2020/11/10/why-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-will-be-a-nightmare-to-distribute/
Something else a bit fishy about the Phase 1 study report. The accession number.
The group say that they have deposited MN908947.3 with GenBank. This should be an RNA fragment.
This is what GenBank says…
The fact that they have reported the whole #SARSCOV2 genome as their “drug” might be important later. It certainly isn’t what I would consider mRNA.
Anyway back to the main study - the phase 2/3 study.
Pfizer report that 43,000 patients have received the “vaccine”
Most people don’t realise how intensive these studies are. They require multiple attendances and for each attendance a form needs to be filled in and all the protocols checked.
Each person involved has to know the 146-page protocol inside out.
For a study like this a small unit with doctor, research nurse and administrator could handle maybe 20 patients. A large centre maybe 100 patients. Beyond that this paperwork is unmanageable.
Pfizer said 43000 people have been recruited…
So there should be 400 - 4000 recruiting centres around, all with -80C storage facilities in the same place that there are nurses, doctors and established clinical researchers.
If you belong to one of these centres please join the conversation. I have some questions for you…
Just as an aside some of these apparently highly advanced medical centres are in the World Bank “Tier 2” category.
I guess it’s possible that they have many health centres with all these facilities and -80C freezers in these places.
Just like’s it possible to catch a live cicada.
Anything is possible.
On the subject of statistics let’s look at why a #covid19 vaccine study is problematic
Let’s assume that there are 100,000 cases a day (so we are being told) of #covid19 in the US, a population of 350m, with a disease that lasts about a week.
At the peak therefore:
700,000 infected at any one time = 0.2%
Transmission rate (various studies) <= 10%
This gives a susceptible prevalent population of 0.02%.
But this is a dwindling disease in most regions (actually it probably dwindled months ago but that’s a thread for another day).
Most people don’t realise that the “epidemic” that you are seeing on TV still has a prevalence of less than 0.1% in most regions.
It’s impossible to recruit this many patients in a short time. enough to see a difference.
But very few vaccines have that kind of effectiveness in real world use, i.e. out in the community.
[taking a break here]
OK resuming now. In case you don’t believe me about the prevalence issue check out Brazil - another “hotspot”. Averages 30000 cases/day = 210,000 cases/wk
Prevalence = 0.1%
Susceptible population = 0.01%
There is another factor. Pfizer are one of many in a race to produce a working vaccine. Reportedly there are 157 vaccine candidates.
So you don’t just need 100,000 (phase 3) trial patients.
You need 15.7m
Well that’s a lot of forms.
I’ve had a look at this again and it might just be bad wording.
The alternative interpretation is that their mRNA encodes for the spike protein RBD fragment but they don’t specify the sequence. The GenBank number then relates to the full genome of the target (SARS-Cov2)
Not just that, but each mRNA candidate needs to be stored at -80C - for all those hundreds of thousands or millions of potential patients.
This is just not going to be possible.
But, even if we give the benefit of the doubt, there’s another problem
mRNA vaccines have never been shown to work in a population. It’s a totally experimental drug delivery system.
Papers as recently as this year were saying this.
Self-amplifying RNA vaccines for infectious diseases Vaccinology is shifting toward synthetic RNA platforms which allow for rapid, scalable, and cell-free manufacturing of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines. The simple development pipeline is based o…https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580817/#CR82
There are others but here’s a Zika candidate vaccine published last year which failed in an animal model. That is ten years away from getting a functioning vaccine in humans.
Immunogenicity and Protection Efficacy of a Naked Self-Replicating mRNA-Based Zika Virus Vaccine To combat emerging infectious diseases like Zika virus (ZIKV), synthetic messenger RNAs (mRNAs) encoding viral antigens are very attractive as they allow a rapid, generic, and flexible production of v…https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6789535/
So, let’s say this technique is miraculously made to work in humans (as the test subjects, because there don’t seem to be any valid animal models)
What are they trying to do?
Pfizer says that they are encoding the #SARSCOV2 spike protein (the sticky out bits) using their mRNA.
There is a bit of a problem with this though. There is one good reason why we have never been able to make a #coronavirusvaccine. We’ve been trying for 20 years.
ADE and related inflammatory over-responses.
A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 - PubMed Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is a general concern for the development of vaccines and antibody therapies because the mechanisms that underlie antibody protection against any virus h…https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32659783/
Essentially coronavirus vaccines have been plagued with this problem for years.
You give a fragment of the spike protein.
The host mounts an antibody response but it’s not a neutralising antibody.
The host inflammatory system goes crazy - potentially lethal.
It’s a problem that has never been resolved yet the mRNA vaccine delivery system studies have no interest in it.
Gold nanoparticle-adjuvanted S protein induces a strong antigen-specific IgG response against severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus infection, but fails to induce protective antibodies and limit eosinophilic infiltration in lungs - PubMed The spike (S) protein of coronavirus, which binds to cellular receptors and mediates membrane fusion for cell entry, is a candidate vaccine target for blocking coronavirus infection. However, some ani…https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31692019/
The debate about ADE is still ongoing yet the mRNA vaccine systems (which in theory are merely a delivery system for a viral protein) don’t pay any attention to resolving it.
News Feature: Avoiding pitfalls in the pursuit of a COVID-19 vaccine As they race to devise a vaccine, researchers are trying to ensure that their candidates don’t spur a counterproductive, even dangerous, immune system reaction known as immune enhancement. The teams…https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218
Of course there is another aspect to the study sample size of the “huge” 43,000 Pfizer study. At 0.1% prevalence of covid (or less) the probability that the risk of ADE will be tested is low.
If the risk of ADE was 10% you would only see it in 2 patients in their study…
That risk would be presented as 2/43,000 and the vaccine would be considered “safe” because the risk of ADE was so low.
But it would still be far higher than the risk of an unvaccinated person dying of #SARSCOV2 in a post-covid environment.
It’s a numbers game for @pfizer and you can guarantee that the numbers will look favourable for them.
Especially the numbers in their bank account.
Just to labour the point about storage… Here’s how Pfizer say they’ll take care of it (without really explaining how)
Can you summarize post 3949?
Your assumption is wrong. The effective reproduction number has been below 2, as a result of the public health measures that have been taken. I couldn’t find a nice graph of this over time for Ireland, but here’s one for the US that gives the general idea:
Just scroll down. Quickly.
RTG regularly tells us the virus is ‘highly infectious’ but leaves listeners to decide what that actually means. A person infecting two others over a two week period…is that ‘highly infectious’? I don’t think so. We were told in one report (not from RTG) about one ‘superspreader’ who infected 50+ others, clearly a ‘highly infectious’ individual and no one would have a problem with RTG reporting that case as such.
All other things being equal I would speculate this is some evidence of herd immunity in Health care workers, there have been 11k recorded cases among 100k direct and indirect staff.
Here is the Pfizer Phase I trial paper from a few weeks ago…
Here is a good book on how to interpret the paper
The short version - Its purely Science by Press Release. The Phase I trial numbers do not support statements made in the press release.
And there is this big caveat at the end of the paper…
This trial and interim report have several limitations.
First, the relative importance of humoral and cellular immunity with regard to protection from Covid-19 has not yet been fully characterized. Although strong cell-mediated immune responses (Th1-biased CD4+ and CD8+) elicited by BNT162b1 have been observed and reported in the German trial,2 the cellular immune responses elicited by BNT162b2 are still being studied.
Second, although the serum neutralizing responses that were elicited by the vaccine candidates relative to those elicited by natural infection are highly encouraging, the degree of protection against Covid-19 provided by this or any other benchmark is unknown.
Third, the phase 1 portion of this trial tested many hypotheses and was not powered to make formal statistical comparisons.
Fourth, the human convalescent serum panels that have been used by different vaccine developers are not standardized among laboratories, and each represents a unique distribution of donor characteristics and times of collection. Therefore, the serum panel that we used does not provide a well-controlled benchmark for comparisons of the serologic responses elicited by these two BNT162 vaccine candidates with those elicited by other Covid-19 vaccine candidates.
Finally, the participants in this early-stage clinical trial were healthy and had limited racial and ethnic diversity as compared with the general population.
Now Phase II and Phase III has a much large test sample population and more comprehensive data collection. But guess what the infection test used by the study is? Its our old friend the NAAT test, RT/PCR.
So any efficacy rates claimed for this vaccine are basically statistically meaningless with their current testing protocols.
Government has now backed off from even fining people for street drinking and take-away pints. (Partially due to a backbench revolt - led by Barry Cowan!)
They’ve basically given the go-ahead for street parties to continue!!
Heads you die.
Tails you die.
It’s all a matter of timing right?
The middle graphic illustrates the mRNA using your cells machinery to grown a protein spike on your cells outer wall, that is genetically the same as the virus, so you get bunch of these little punk ass cells, bit like genetic tattoos, these cells think they’re bad ass with their hard-man shapes but wait till your immune systems police sort these lawless mutants out… as I type I being to drift away back to those early pictures of the the mouse with the human ear on it’s back, could be a tail, head or spike, I mean what does it matter?
My first question:
When does the spike production a the cellar level stop?
Eventually runs it course or,
We need another mRNA therapy to shut it off after so many months/years…
This then raises a second question
Which cells receive the mark?
Think about it, when these punk ass mutant cells start multiplying in considerable numbers, what factions of your own human cells will get the mark, muscle cells, blood cells, brain cells, which cells does the mRNA invade, is it indsicrimante or highly particular in the cells it enters to hijack and modify?
Hmm that reminds me of something else…
So the immune system starts to respond to these new genetic markers by attacking also, will it learn through attacks?.
Does it first attack your own cells, I mean these new GMO cells?
What I mean here, well, here is the thing, call me crazy but isn’t that an awful lot like an auto-immune disease?
Oh but it’s just the cells with the spike you say, the spike is harmless, sure ok the spike is harmless, it’s not like you’re going ot see an increase in pins and needles right (joke!)… work with me here, because these are you spiked cells, your cells are spiked, how many? Which ones, you know which cells get the spike and which do not, can we get that answered first?
Or will it be kindly and only go for a very spikey virus?
Perhaps such feeble musing is the output of a lay-drunk on the efficacy of their keyboard, but you know unless there is a vaccine for stupid questions (a bullet?), it’s still a question none the less, that seems highly important to at least moi, but sure don’t get me wrong, what could go wrong, after all it is the appliance of SCIENCE!
I mean, come on, what’s not to like, this is the beginning of GMO Humans.
Do you wish to become the first GMO human, what new roles and opportunities will be afforded to you versus the great unwashed unGMO’d masses, maybe a special shot at space missions requiring longevity and super strength and incredible mental acuity?
The question is when does it all stop and who get to call that shots?
Time to Die.
My wife had her nails done today, the girl who did that said our neighbours living under us were isolated with strong covid for a month. Its “older” couple maybe 45-50… she works as nurse in hospital nearby. Both had really bad cough, but the guy had extreme muscle pain as well.
Well official death stats for Poland keep growing… Covid + lack of access to medical service results in weekly deaths well above those from last 10 years. Week of 9 to 15th of November is not fully reported yet:
2 for 1 Political Special:
Revenge - Now with added Poetic Justice!
Another big win for the People & warning for all Western govts grossly abusing their powers without any scientific evidence “Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable” & deemed the forced confinement of people in quarantine centres “unlawful”
Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable
A Portuguese professor and lockdown sceptic has sent me a long and informative email about a recent ruling by the Portuguese Court of Appeal which casts doubt on the reliability of the PCR test. It is a great tribute to the integrity of the Portuguese legal system that the Court seems to understand in considerable detail the shortcomings of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool, particularly when not used in combination with a clinical diagnosis. I think this is the best news I’ve had all week. What follows is not the whole email. The professor doesn’t want to be identified, so I’m only publishing an extract.
With Spain and Greece, Portugal is one of the few countries in the so-called West where enough people are still alive to know what a dictatorship looks like. Our numbers are dwindling, as you have to be at least 60 to have experienced the 1974 revolution in any meaningful manner. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember very well what daily life was like under censorship, massively lying mass media, police brutality, arbitrary detention in the name of the “national interest”, etc. — all those things that I hoped never again have to experience but that the current Covid climate has brought very, very vividly to the fore. Yet, it may well be exactly because of such things having happened in living memory that our Government has been less heavy-handed about the pandemic than most others in Europe. And, now to the point, maybe that’s also why our high courts have issued rulings of potentially devastating consequences for the current Covid narrative. Portugal is a small country but is part of the EU and so what happens here still is of some international significance. That’s why I thought you’d be interested in learning about some recent developments.
In a recent decision, dated November 11, 2020, a Portuguese appeal court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority concerning a lower court decision to declare unlawful the quarantining of four persons. Of these, one had tested positive for Covid using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure. Consequently, the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. The lower court had ruled against the Health Authority, and the appeal court upheld that ruling with arguments that explicitly endorse the scientific case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests (e.g., as extensively explained in Lockdown Skeptics by Dr. Mike Yeadon, Dr. Clare Craig and others).
The court’s ruling is a long text. I provide below a summary of the key passage.
The court’s main points are as follows:
- A medical diagnosis is a medical act that only a physician is legally qualified to undertake and for which such physician will be solely and entirely responsible. No other person or institution, including government agencies or the courts, has such an authority. It is not up to the Azores Regional Health Authority to declare someone ill, or a health hazard. Only a physician can do that. No one can be declared ill or a health hazard by decree or law, nor as the automatic, administrative consequence of the outcome of a laboratory test, no matter which.
- From the above, the court concludes that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so, i.e., by someone who is not a certified physician [to practice medicine in Portugal a degree is not enough, you need to be accepted as qualified to practice medicine by undergoing examination with the Ordem dos Médicos, roughly our equivalent of the UK’s Royal College of Physicians].”
- In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them.
- From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.
The above would suffice to deem the forced quarantine of the four persons unlawful. The court thought it necessary, however, to add some very interesting considerations about the PCR tests:
- “Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”
- Citing Jaafar et al . (2020;), the court concludes that “if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown [N.B. – I know from acquaintances that in at least some Portuguese labs the threshold is 35 cycles].
- Citing Surkova et al . (2020)), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that “in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society.”
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:
- “Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”
I anticipate this ruling to have massive legal implications in my country. Note that it comes in the back of a previous ruling by the Constitutional Court, our highest court, declaring as an unlawful deprivation of liberty a decision by the Regional Government of the Azores to force into a 14-day quarantine every passenger landing in an airport of the territory.
And there’s more…