Covid-19: Treatments, Cures, and Vaccines

My guess is that the woman's departure from Pfizer was rather acrimonious and that this is her attempt at revenge and by the way it's not the first time. Here's her first example of a false narrative intended to disparage the company and the vaccine :
Fact Check-No evidence graphene oxide is present in available COVID-19 vaccines via lipid nanoparticles
I might add that she was previously employed by Pfizer as a marketing executive, not as a scientist.

 

There is plenty of real world data and studies to completely refute this. Chances are this disgruntled marketing exec had no understanding of the data she was looking at.

 

CDC-funded study: COVID shots have no effect on virus transmission (wnd.com)

People who are unvaccinated spread the COVID-19 delta variant virtually the same as the vaccinated, according to a study in a federal prison funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"In this investigation, we found no statistically significant difference in transmission potential between vaccinated persons and persons who were not fully vaccinated," the researchers said.

"Therefore, our findings indicate that prevention and mitigation measures should be applied without regard to vaccination status for persons in high-risk settings or those with significant exposures."

The study, published on medRxiv, was a joint project of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Yale University and the British Medical Journal.

The Centers for Disease Control identifies four of the top five U.S. counties with the highest percentage of the population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%) as "high" transmission counties.

 

I wonder if you read the actual study. Why were 84% of participants partially or fully vaccinated vs. 16% non-vaxxed? Why were the two partially vaxxed participants included in the non-vaxxed group?

Here, I'll help out - from the study:

This report is subject to several limitations. Due to the small proportion of participants who were not fully vaccinated (19%), statistical comparisons on the basis of vaccination status were underpowered, and negative findings reported here warrant cautious interpretation.

I wonder if the media source (WND "A free press for free people") paid any attention to this limitation while choosing to share the gotcha parts of the study.

The authors claim no statistically signif differences for Ct values among the populations, but the Ct values were consistently lower for vaxxed. You might direct your attention to this part of the study:

While our investigation did not find evidence of reduced transmission potential from vaccinated persons with infection, vaccination is known to reduce the risk of infection, which prevents secondary transmission. In addition, vaccination remains a strongly protective factor against morbidity and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2. Protection against infection, morbidity, and mortality underscores the importance of maximizing vaccination coverage, particularly in settings where challenges to physical distancing can result in rapid, widespread transmission when infections do occur.

There's also this:
Similarly, only four participants had known prior infection, of which a higher proportion occurred in those not fully vaccinated; therefore, these participants may appear to have slightly greater immunological protection than those without prior infection.

So two of the 78 vaxxed had a prior infection, while two of the 17 unvaxxed also had prior infection. Once again, that's an issue w proportionality.

Finally, I wonder if you read the disclaimer:
Disclaimer. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

So you didn't read the actual study.

 

I did. And i do believe those vaccinated spread it just as much or more.

 

You "believe".

Based upon what evidence or logic do you *believe* that the vaccinated may spread it perhaps more?

 

It is looking like after a few months the vaccines impact on transmission is minimal in close quarter settings. Vaccinated tend ed to spread as much as unvaxxed in home settings, and the resukts here are similar. It kind of make sense, given the high viral load of Delta, if you around another indoors a lot, the chances of transmission are high either way.

That's not to say vaccines are ineffective in the whole transmission process. Vaccines do reduce chance of infection, and if you aren't infected you don't transmit. And it is quite possible in places where contact may be more limited, like a store or some spaced workplaces that chance of transmission is smaller.

Others have mentioned the small sample size of "not fully vaxed" of 17. 2 of those were partially vaxed and 2 were previously infected. So 25% of that category had some of immunity.

The Pfizer vaccinated were on average about 5 months old, when infection protection has diminished somewhat.

The study did mention that 93% of unvaccinated got infected vs 70% of vaccinated did. From that perspective the vaccine provided modest protection from infection.

People will make of this what they will. However it is generally consistent with what we already know. Vaccines are not a panacea at preventing spread of Delta. They were somewhat better vs prior variants.

 

I wonder in part if there is some bias here, bear with me. If i’m unvaccinated and get sick am I more or less likely to get tested for Covid?
Whereas if i’m vaccinated am I more or less likely to get check?
Curious as to the rates of getting tested, or reported symptoms. Many of these vaccine trials rely on self reported symptoms to trigger who comes in to be formally tested. In the J&J trial subjects were unblinded after a short period of time so they knew if when they had been given the vaccine.

 

These were prisoners, so I'm not sure your logic applies about choosing to be tested or not.

 

Fair enough. Interesting that vaccinated and unvaccinated tested positive for the same median amount of time (save the Moderna) subjects who were a bit shorter 13 days vs 10 days.

 

Moderna is a stronger vaccine, but also the Moderna shots were about 3 months old vs Pfizer almost 5 months.

 

Peter Navarro to Newsmax: Overdeploying Vaccine Creating 'Vaccine Resistant Mutations' | Newsmax.com
"Everything the Joe Biden regime and Fauci are doing is wrong. It's against the science and the data. It's pure ideology they're jamming it down her throat."

"I'm not anti-vax," he stressed. "I was the guy that helped President Trump get that thing quickly to the finish line, but, here's the deal: I knew at the time that any vaccine that might come up would be leaky. It wouldn't be a silver bullet, right, and what we also needed was the widespread use of therapeutics."

Navarro added he co-wrote papers in July, along with "Dr. Robert Malone, who actually invented the RNA technology for this vaccine" – on the danger of universal vaccine policies potentially creating "vaccine resistant mutations" of COVID-19 that would threaten the vaccinated, who might not have been needed the immune assistance anyway.

"He and I wrote a series of two articles that basically said that a universal vax policy, because of basic virology, would likely lead to vaccine resistant mutations that could threaten, actually, the people who took the vaccines," Navarro said. "And now we're seeing exactly that.

"What you do when you force people to get the vaccination, who are healthy and don't need it, you raise this risk of creating vaccine resistant mutations, which can lead to a superbug," he added.

"You simply don't want to do that

 

There's is a lot of speculation about the virus.. Origin, treatments, effectiveness of vaccines, etc. If what some speculate is true, that the virus in it's initial stages, was subject to some type of 'gain of function ( whether funded by US or not ), where the virus was exposed to human cells until it mutated on it's own, and released somehow accidentally, then it was very infectious from day 1 of release.
We all know the virus also is infectious, regardless of the person's vaccination status. I know quite a few vaccinated people who got covid from other vaccinated people. What we do also know is that vaccines allow the vaccinated person's immune system to recognize covid (because it's no longer a 'novel' virus to the vaccinated person).. The vaccinated person's immune system will respond much quicker and will have less severe cases of covid when infected.
The question becomes not only how do you stop the spread of the virus, but also how do you protect people from getting seriously ill. I'm of the opinion that vaccines to help in protecting serious illness, however everyone must remain careful in their habits going forward. I absolutely think people should not be terminated due to vaccinations status. The best case scenario is if a simple test can be developed which would determine the level of resistance a person has to getting seriously ill from contracting the virus.

 

No one cares what a Trump droogie says on Newsmax. Or anything on Newsmax for that matter.

 

Sadly, most on here don't want to hear any differing opionins on anything, especially covid related.

 

FDA advisory panel narrowly approves use of Molupiravir despite risks. The disappointing final data showing only a 30% improvement in risk of hospitalization, coupled with the legitimate risk that the drug could potentially help to create variants were both factors in the close vote.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/30/fda...-treatment-pill-despite-reduced-efficacy.html

 

This seems to be the anti bacterial hand soap theory. Only the stronger germs survive. Also true of Z PAC with sinus infections. You can’t dismiss the theory but here are the problems with it:

- All of the current variants came from places where there was little or no vaccine.

- if the theory is true, it would also be true of natural immunity.

- the bigger threat is by not having vaccinations, the virus is spread more, exists longer and has more time and more chances to mutate

 

Navarro is an economist (and apparently not a very good one, since he pushes anti-free market nationalism and trade barriers).

As an economist, his opinion on virology isn’t worth much, it’s way outside his lane. Which I guess is why he pairs with the kook who claims to have “invented” mRNA. But hey, at least that guy is actually a virologist. Just one that doesn’t seem to be taken seriously by other virologists anymore.