So, a member of the CDC ACIP (Dr. Wilbur Chen) will be returning to give a follow-up presentation at my workplace on September 7th, to highlight the latest variants and success of the vaccines. His first presentation 2 months ago to us included a lot of cheerleading for how fast the vaccines were developed and distributed (claiming no safety shortcuts), and then outright excitement for the prospect of full FDA approval followed by authorization in September/October for administering to toddlers and eventually infants. The man is a shill of the highest order, and a lot of folks at my company are totally enthralled with him. Guessing it's because he wears a bow-tie and lab coat during his presentation....
Further muddying the issue is whether the case counts become decoupled from severe illness and death? We *are* seeing that, and is it solely attributable to higher rates of natural immunity? I'm not so sure.
Now, to a sane group of policymakers, the case count should not even be relevant should it? Wasn't the big push (I know, ancient history) to prevent overwhelmed hospitals? Our actions make no sense if that goal is kept in mind.
We are not primarily up against the issue of vaccine efficacy. We are primarily up against the dangerous utopian thinking that still harbors hopes of eradicating SARS-CoV-2 (but won't come right out and say it).
If you test people who aren't sick, OF COURSE 'case' counts will decouple from deaths. That's why in the past a 'case' was somebody who was actually sick.
Great stuff, gato. There is a small subset of us working in medicine that shares so many of your very pointed observations and concerns. The rest continue to drink the cool-aid in stunning fashion.
I was taught evidence-based medicine and to first do no harm. The management of covid has me question medicine's adherence to these basic tenets on a daily basis.
To flip the script on the terribly dishonest (and very poorly done) study released by the CDC in the MMWR last week touting the benefit of vaccinating those with natural immunity - I wonder if there is any longitudinal data comparing those vaccinated that did not have a prior infection to those vaccinated that did have documented prior infection? Perhaps not. The question, however, is very pertinent when considering the rate of breakthrough infections in each cohort and whether there is a meaningful difference.
Are the vaccines actually performing even worse than advertised if one removes the subset that also has previous natural immunity? It would seem an important question.
Are the vaccines actually performing even worse than advertised if one removes the subset that also has previous natural immunity? It would seem an important question.
----------
Holy crap why did I not think of this sooner? Very very very few of the previously infected can catch it again, so OF COURSE the vaccine will 'prevent' infections in these people. This entire time I've been wondering why we've been wasting vaccine doses on people who have had the virus........
SC, I think you might be on to something there. I have seen some data that the recovered vaxed are the most resistant to reinfection. They seem to do a bit better than the already infected un vaxed, but not by a huge amount. The not previously infected vaxed do much worse than both groups. Of course, who knows if that lasts past six months, but that is another story. I would love to see the stats for the vaxed who have never previously been infected.
Also, if you assume you are more likely to vax if you have not been infected, I think that implies the deterioration of effectiveness is even stronger. People who have had a longer period post-vax had a better chance of being infected in the interim, thus less likely to be +ve during this specific period of study.
I am not in medicine but this very point (not knowing how many prior infected that got vaxxed) has been perplexing my analysis, especially when there are quality studies showing that previously infected have "robust" protection. It appears obvious that the push to vax all has a sinister intentions.
I keep looking for an incompetence angle to explain it but then I add the "free ice cream", lotteries and all the other preposterous incentives that have been rolled out and I cannot help but surmise this is intentional malice. Isn't immunity protection from prior infection immunology 101? How can they come out with these contortions trying to claim that a prior infected person "needs" the vax? Something is very, very wrong (to state the obvious).
Wow, I'm surprised I didn't think of that angle, either. Of course, that's why they're pushing the already infected to vax, and why they are NOT doing antibody tests prior to vaxxing. They know a bunch of us already recovered, and they need our lack of susceptibility in the denominator. Dang, I feel like a dope now.
I sure hope you're right and this is the bridge too far. The data we're seeing from the rest of the world makes me much more nervous for winter this year than last.
In the White House Covid-19 Response Briefing yesterday, CDC Director Walensky admitted that the data coming out of Israel suggests that those who were vaxxed early are at increased risk of serious disease with infection...not just infection.
I'm no expert, but that seems like a possible signal of ADE.
I didn't understand the "booster" push in Israel (about a million injections already). If the problem is an escape variant, how is another injection of the potion for last year's virus gonna help? Two weeks ago, I saw an interview of the Israeli Health minister in which she claimed the problem was waning immunity...those vaxxed early had a significantly higher chance of breakthrough infection than those vaxxed late. Now, the CDC is saying they have a higher risk of serious disease. We've gone pretty far off the rails in a few weeks time.
As I understand it, there are three basic "channels" leading to ADE:
1.) The non-neutralizing antibodies recognize the new viral variant but don't prevent it from infecting cells. The immune system is tricked into believing it's got everything under control, so code red is not activated.
2.) The non-neutralizing antibodies recognize the new viral variant and literally help it infect cells. The immune system is tricked into believing it's got everything under control, so code red is not activated.
3.) The risk of ADE increases as the vaxx antibodies decrease. I'm not sure how this works with the first two "channels or if it's an independent risk.
Do we have any idea what is actually happening in the bodies of these people who have breakthrough infections?
Is there a study that has measured vaxx-induced B cell and T-cell immunity?
'Cause it would appear that these "vaccines" are not stimulating long term immunity.
I think the "public health experts" are scared that a whole lot of "fully vaxxed" people are going to become very ill and die this winter. On a positive note, that undercuts the claim that this was all done on purpose to kill off a good portion of the global population.
"the data coming out of Israel suggests that those who were vaxxed early are at increased risk of serious disease with infection...not just infection."
increased risk above the unvaxxed? I didn't find that one. Just increased .vs. earlier in time, previous months. That would be alarming indeed.
A couple weeks ago, Walensky told Blitzer that the fully vaxxed could be infected and transmit Delta and that they had similar viral loads to the unvaxxed. Then, she said that the immunity was waning over time...thus, the need for a booster...first for the vulnerable and later for everyone. A few weeks ago, the Israeli health minister said those vaxxed early (Jan) had a significantly higher rate of breakthrough infection than those vaxxed later (April). Until this week, Walensky claimed that the fully vaxxed were protected from severe disease. At the briefing, she amended that to say that those vaxxed early had an increased risk of severe disease with infection.
To you point, it isn't clear if she's comparing early vaxxed risk versus later vaxxed risk for severe disease with infection. I think that was the comparison she was making.
The point is that she is no longer just saying that there is a higher risk of breakthrough infection as immunity wanes (apparently), there is also an increased risk of severe disease...another change.
I would also point out that the PHE Delta variant data set has shown for weeks that the fully vaxxed are less likely to become infected with Delta, less likely to seek care or be hospitalized, but more likely to die if they do become infected...than the unvaxxed.
****************************************
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England/Technical briefing 21/August 20, 2021
Public Health England reports that Delta is the dominant variant in the UK. This variant accounted for 99% of sequenced and 98% genotyped cases from July 25 through July 31, 2021 in England (PHE technical briefing 20/August 8 ).
PHE last reported the Delta variant Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of ~0.2% - 0.3% in early July (PHE technical briefing 18/July 9).
PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values from routinely undertaken tests in England show that Ct values (and by inference viral load) are similar between individuals who are unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Delta in England as of 8/15/2021...
Unvaxxed: 183,133 cases/390 deaths/0.2130%
Unvaxxed <50: 178,240 cases/72 deaths/0.0404%
Unvaxxed 50+: 4,891 cases/318 deaths/6.502%
Fully Vaxxed: 73,372 cases/679 deaths/0.9254%
Fully Vaxxed <50: 40,544 cases/27 deaths/0.0666%
Fully Vaxxed 50+: 32,828 cases/652 deaths/1.986%
40,273 Unlinked Infections
89,957 Partially Vaxxed Infections
And there’s this…
73,372 Fully Vaxxed Infections
183,133 Unvaxxed Infections
1.12 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Partially/Fully Vaxxed.
2.5 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed.
(3.2 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed as of August 8.)
~57.1% of deaths were in fully vaxxed.
~60.6% of deaths were in fully vaxxed 50+.
~65.9% of deaths were in fully/partially vaxxed.
289 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed.
334 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed in 50+ cohort.
393 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed.
427 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed in 50+ cohort.
We don’t have the prior health status of those who died in any of the cohorts.
We don’t know the breakdown of “vaccines” taken by the vaxxed.
Thank you for that! The vaccinate only strategy is unraveling really fast. I'd like to think the authoritarian non sense will lessen but I'll probably be disappointed.
Walensky just came out and said they don’t anticipate annual shots being necessary. Aside from the fact that they didn’t anticipate boosters or waning efficacy, I see this as an attempt to get ahead of the reaction many are having to the prospect of infinite shots. So much dithering and backtracking, who could take these clowns seriously at this point but the covid faithful?
Correct. They also didn't anticipate: rapidly mounting breakthrough infections, people to question why we are vaccinating healthy kids and young adults, vaccine passports that marginalize those with natural immunity (who, it seems, are in far better shape as some have predicted...), novel variants, and other such foolishness. I remain secure among those who have questioned the rationale for mass vaccination using vaccines of novel mechanism in the midst of ongoing community spread. Ah, but such fools are we.
I commented on this Tweet yesterday in Twitter. A couple of notes.
Cases are only 500 in vaxxed but 1,200 in unvaxxed in those age group per 100k? No chance that true. He doesn't say if its cumulative or the latest week but they are virtually identical. One is not double the other. I can send the calcs if you'd like.
Second, these snapshots are frustrating. Simply put, if vaccines have any positive VE, the R should be much lower in vaxed groups. For example, if R in unvaxxed is 2, then 70% VE means R in vaxxed groups should be 1.4. You would see a significant widening in total cases for each group over time (hence the snapshot issue). But growth rates (actual R) in vaxxed and unvaxxed are extremely close - over the last 4 weeks in Israel they are 1.8/week unvaxxed vs 1.7/week vaxxed).
I also have all this data broken out by age group. since Israel has detailed data. We are also watching the over 60 group in Israel which is 70% boosted. If its actually boosting infection prevention we should see a rapid reduction in case group in the group vs unvaxxed and under 60. Nothing yet.
Do you have a view on monoclonal antibody treatment? If someone recovers with the aid of monoclonal antibodies, do they retain natural immunity? Or is it more like the vaccine-induced resistance?
i have not seen any data on it. i'd expect to see learned resistance acquired as actual virus was present, but whether it might be attenuated is unclear to me.
my base presumption would be that you'd have full acquired immunity, but i hesitate to make a strong claim in the absence of any data.
So glad to have found you again, Gato. I have missed all your brilliant analysis and wisdom (which is a whole lot clearer in 24 paragraphs than 240 characters!).
I came to read you today, because I needed some uplifting thoughts. Both of my double-vaxxed parents, in their 80s, have a bad case of COVID now. I am fearful that what some experts have been predicting is coming to pass--the vaccine might actually people *more* susceptible to the disease, once the honeymoon (early reaction period) is over.
On top of that, I can't convince them to try the now-vindicated therapeutics like Ivermectin or HCQ, due to the plethora of gas-lighting articles and reports that have convinced them these drugs are poisonous! And please understand, my parents are not "rubes" -- Mom was a bench chemist and Dad was an engineer. But when the gov't controls the narrative, even smart people can be fooled...and killed.
Well, enough rambling. Burying myself in good data and pretty charts is the nerdy girls' refuge. Thank you for your posts!
Dr Pierre Kory just relayed that the gamma, aka P1, Brasil variant makes delta look like nothing. It's WAY more severe. (odysee, FLCCC, Aug 18, 6m mark). Thank you for this blog. It's painfully clear, we are all on our own. Following these idiots in government just creates more disasters.
In an attempt to convince parents that children should be vaccinated, a pediatrician has stated that 1 in 5 people who experience Covid-19 infection develop heart damage that is permanent whereas 1 in 500 persons vaccinated develops myocarditis. Has anyone seen this comparison? Does real data refute this claim?
I emailed Dr. McCullough and he graciously replied within a few minutes. His answer was very helpful and refuted the pediatrician's claim. The pediatrician is online and I have no way to replace him. I suspect that any attempt to modify his opinion would be called "misinformation" - I've encountered this personally when I have offered information learned from el gato and others on the thread.
i presume the b and t cells are involved with making the anti bodies that they are selling as needing to be there. i suspect as do some others the cdc cabal is dissing the human immune system, why they want boosters to keep an anti body level, they do not want you to use the b cells.
i know a lot more about testing weapon systems and consumer risk in the test design.... which seems unaddressed in vaxx testing.
maybe early vaccinators self-deleted for some attribute that biased the samples. Maybe they were wrapped in plastic for 12 months then happily rushed out for the jab, suggesting a lower prevalence of unknown prior infection. Or maybe those who knew they had natural immunity got arm-twisted into the jab later in the process. Hard to control for levels of natural immunity and plenty of reasons for why it may not be consistent across vac-time cohorts.
to be sure, it's not RCT data, but the shape of that curve is proactive and the idea that the people getting vaxxed in these middle age groups varied that much moth to month is a bit of a stretch.
the israeli vaxx rate was over 50% by feb and 60% by march where it pretty much stabilized.
natural immunity would flow the other way here. if we were seeing a natural immunity signal, cohorts would get more, not less immune over time because the exposure rate only goes up. but we see the opposite. this likely means vaccines are attenuating faster than this rate if you control for it.
keep in mind we're controlling for "got covid, chose not to vaxx" by looking only at attenuation among the vaccinated. its' certainly not completely dispositive, but this signal is more than a little provocative
So, a member of the CDC ACIP (Dr. Wilbur Chen) will be returning to give a follow-up presentation at my workplace on September 7th, to highlight the latest variants and success of the vaccines. His first presentation 2 months ago to us included a lot of cheerleading for how fast the vaccines were developed and distributed (claiming no safety shortcuts), and then outright excitement for the prospect of full FDA approval followed by authorization in September/October for administering to toddlers and eventually infants. The man is a shill of the highest order, and a lot of folks at my company are totally enthralled with him. Guessing it's because he wears a bow-tie and lab coat during his presentation....
i have some awesome pictures of cats in white labcoats.
really wish i could post them in the comments here.
clearly, a big credibility enhancer.
Further muddying the issue is whether the case counts become decoupled from severe illness and death? We *are* seeing that, and is it solely attributable to higher rates of natural immunity? I'm not so sure.
Now, to a sane group of policymakers, the case count should not even be relevant should it? Wasn't the big push (I know, ancient history) to prevent overwhelmed hospitals? Our actions make no sense if that goal is kept in mind.
We are not primarily up against the issue of vaccine efficacy. We are primarily up against the dangerous utopian thinking that still harbors hopes of eradicating SARS-CoV-2 (but won't come right out and say it).
If you test people who aren't sick, OF COURSE 'case' counts will decouple from deaths. That's why in the past a 'case' was somebody who was actually sick.
"Third COVID vaccine dose could be the last". A few doritos later..."We need an additional 4th dose". Rinse and repeat.
Seriously, if two doses aren't looking good, what makes them think a 3rd (or more) are going to cut it? Where are the trials?
And natural immunity is still being ignored...
As one wise poster noted, "two doses to get back to normal" is the new "two weeks to slow the spread"...
Great stuff, gato. There is a small subset of us working in medicine that shares so many of your very pointed observations and concerns. The rest continue to drink the cool-aid in stunning fashion.
I was taught evidence-based medicine and to first do no harm. The management of covid has me question medicine's adherence to these basic tenets on a daily basis.
To flip the script on the terribly dishonest (and very poorly done) study released by the CDC in the MMWR last week touting the benefit of vaccinating those with natural immunity - I wonder if there is any longitudinal data comparing those vaccinated that did not have a prior infection to those vaccinated that did have documented prior infection? Perhaps not. The question, however, is very pertinent when considering the rate of breakthrough infections in each cohort and whether there is a meaningful difference.
Are the vaccines actually performing even worse than advertised if one removes the subset that also has previous natural immunity? It would seem an important question.
Are the vaccines actually performing even worse than advertised if one removes the subset that also has previous natural immunity? It would seem an important question.
----------
Holy crap why did I not think of this sooner? Very very very few of the previously infected can catch it again, so OF COURSE the vaccine will 'prevent' infections in these people. This entire time I've been wondering why we've been wasting vaccine doses on people who have had the virus........
SC, I think you might be on to something there. I have seen some data that the recovered vaxed are the most resistant to reinfection. They seem to do a bit better than the already infected un vaxed, but not by a huge amount. The not previously infected vaxed do much worse than both groups. Of course, who knows if that lasts past six months, but that is another story. I would love to see the stats for the vaxed who have never previously been infected.
Yes, this certainly corrupts the effectiveness numbers. I think that is a very safe assumption. What I lack is real data to back up the claim...
Also, if you assume you are more likely to vax if you have not been infected, I think that implies the deterioration of effectiveness is even stronger. People who have had a longer period post-vax had a better chance of being infected in the interim, thus less likely to be +ve during this specific period of study.
I am not in medicine but this very point (not knowing how many prior infected that got vaxxed) has been perplexing my analysis, especially when there are quality studies showing that previously infected have "robust" protection. It appears obvious that the push to vax all has a sinister intentions.
I keep looking for an incompetence angle to explain it but then I add the "free ice cream", lotteries and all the other preposterous incentives that have been rolled out and I cannot help but surmise this is intentional malice. Isn't immunity protection from prior infection immunology 101? How can they come out with these contortions trying to claim that a prior infected person "needs" the vax? Something is very, very wrong (to state the obvious).
Wow, I'm surprised I didn't think of that angle, either. Of course, that's why they're pushing the already infected to vax, and why they are NOT doing antibody tests prior to vaxxing. They know a bunch of us already recovered, and they need our lack of susceptibility in the denominator. Dang, I feel like a dope now.
I sure hope you're right and this is the bridge too far. The data we're seeing from the rest of the world makes me much more nervous for winter this year than last.
In the White House Covid-19 Response Briefing yesterday, CDC Director Walensky admitted that the data coming out of Israel suggests that those who were vaxxed early are at increased risk of serious disease with infection...not just infection.
I'm no expert, but that seems like a possible signal of ADE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2CESL6Ej1M&t=1s
I didn't understand the "booster" push in Israel (about a million injections already). If the problem is an escape variant, how is another injection of the potion for last year's virus gonna help? Two weeks ago, I saw an interview of the Israeli Health minister in which she claimed the problem was waning immunity...those vaxxed early had a significantly higher chance of breakthrough infection than those vaxxed late. Now, the CDC is saying they have a higher risk of serious disease. We've gone pretty far off the rails in a few weeks time.
As I understand it, there are three basic "channels" leading to ADE:
1.) The non-neutralizing antibodies recognize the new viral variant but don't prevent it from infecting cells. The immune system is tricked into believing it's got everything under control, so code red is not activated.
2.) The non-neutralizing antibodies recognize the new viral variant and literally help it infect cells. The immune system is tricked into believing it's got everything under control, so code red is not activated.
3.) The risk of ADE increases as the vaxx antibodies decrease. I'm not sure how this works with the first two "channels or if it's an independent risk.
Do we have any idea what is actually happening in the bodies of these people who have breakthrough infections?
Is there a study that has measured vaxx-induced B cell and T-cell immunity?
'Cause it would appear that these "vaccines" are not stimulating long term immunity.
I think the "public health experts" are scared that a whole lot of "fully vaxxed" people are going to become very ill and die this winter. On a positive note, that undercuts the claim that this was all done on purpose to kill off a good portion of the global population.
"the data coming out of Israel suggests that those who were vaxxed early are at increased risk of serious disease with infection...not just infection."
increased risk above the unvaxxed? I didn't find that one. Just increased .vs. earlier in time, previous months. That would be alarming indeed.
A couple weeks ago, Walensky told Blitzer that the fully vaxxed could be infected and transmit Delta and that they had similar viral loads to the unvaxxed. Then, she said that the immunity was waning over time...thus, the need for a booster...first for the vulnerable and later for everyone. A few weeks ago, the Israeli health minister said those vaxxed early (Jan) had a significantly higher rate of breakthrough infection than those vaxxed later (April). Until this week, Walensky claimed that the fully vaxxed were protected from severe disease. At the briefing, she amended that to say that those vaxxed early had an increased risk of severe disease with infection.
To you point, it isn't clear if she's comparing early vaxxed risk versus later vaxxed risk for severe disease with infection. I think that was the comparison she was making.
The point is that she is no longer just saying that there is a higher risk of breakthrough infection as immunity wanes (apparently), there is also an increased risk of severe disease...another change.
I would also point out that the PHE Delta variant data set has shown for weeks that the fully vaxxed are less likely to become infected with Delta, less likely to seek care or be hospitalized, but more likely to die if they do become infected...than the unvaxxed.
****************************************
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England/Technical briefing 21/August 20, 2021
Public Health England reports that Delta is the dominant variant in the UK. This variant accounted for 99% of sequenced and 98% genotyped cases from July 25 through July 31, 2021 in England (PHE technical briefing 20/August 8 ).
PHE last reported the Delta variant Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of ~0.2% - 0.3% in early July (PHE technical briefing 18/July 9).
PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values from routinely undertaken tests in England show that Ct values (and by inference viral load) are similar between individuals who are unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Delta in England as of 8/15/2021...
Unvaxxed: 183,133 cases/390 deaths/0.2130%
Unvaxxed <50: 178,240 cases/72 deaths/0.0404%
Unvaxxed 50+: 4,891 cases/318 deaths/6.502%
Fully Vaxxed: 73,372 cases/679 deaths/0.9254%
Fully Vaxxed <50: 40,544 cases/27 deaths/0.0666%
Fully Vaxxed 50+: 32,828 cases/652 deaths/1.986%
40,273 Unlinked Infections
89,957 Partially Vaxxed Infections
And there’s this…
73,372 Fully Vaxxed Infections
183,133 Unvaxxed Infections
1.12 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Partially/Fully Vaxxed.
2.5 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed.
(3.2 times more infections in Unvaxxed versus Fully Vaxxed as of August 8.)
~57.1% of deaths were in fully vaxxed.
~60.6% of deaths were in fully vaxxed 50+.
~65.9% of deaths were in fully/partially vaxxed.
289 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed.
334 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed in 50+ cohort.
393 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed.
427 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed in 50+ cohort.
We don’t have the prior health status of those who died in any of the cohorts.
We don’t know the breakdown of “vaccines” taken by the vaxxed.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012401/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001358/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_18.pdf
Thank you for that! The vaccinate only strategy is unraveling really fast. I'd like to think the authoritarian non sense will lessen but I'll probably be disappointed.
Hope and pray you're right.
They do seem to be worried: https://twitter.com/business/status/1429029306945187844
Walensky just came out and said they don’t anticipate annual shots being necessary. Aside from the fact that they didn’t anticipate boosters or waning efficacy, I see this as an attempt to get ahead of the reaction many are having to the prospect of infinite shots. So much dithering and backtracking, who could take these clowns seriously at this point but the covid faithful?
Correct. They also didn't anticipate: rapidly mounting breakthrough infections, people to question why we are vaccinating healthy kids and young adults, vaccine passports that marginalize those with natural immunity (who, it seems, are in far better shape as some have predicted...), novel variants, and other such foolishness. I remain secure among those who have questioned the rationale for mass vaccination using vaccines of novel mechanism in the midst of ongoing community spread. Ah, but such fools are we.
This was a great article today. You really knocked it out of the park especially concerning the very flimsy evidence supporting the booster.
I commented on this Tweet yesterday in Twitter. A couple of notes.
Cases are only 500 in vaxxed but 1,200 in unvaxxed in those age group per 100k? No chance that true. He doesn't say if its cumulative or the latest week but they are virtually identical. One is not double the other. I can send the calcs if you'd like.
Second, these snapshots are frustrating. Simply put, if vaccines have any positive VE, the R should be much lower in vaxed groups. For example, if R in unvaxxed is 2, then 70% VE means R in vaxxed groups should be 1.4. You would see a significant widening in total cases for each group over time (hence the snapshot issue). But growth rates (actual R) in vaxxed and unvaxxed are extremely close - over the last 4 weeks in Israel they are 1.8/week unvaxxed vs 1.7/week vaxxed).
I also have all this data broken out by age group. since Israel has detailed data. We are also watching the over 60 group in Israel which is 70% boosted. If its actually boosting infection prevention we should see a rapid reduction in case group in the group vs unvaxxed and under 60. Nothing yet.
I wish I could post images in a response...
Vaxxed an unvaxxed mingle and infect each other. Then the growth rates should also be similar.
Only if VE for infections is zero. If you put 100 people in a room and 50 are perfectly immune there is no growth rate in the perfectly immune
Do you have a view on monoclonal antibody treatment? If someone recovers with the aid of monoclonal antibodies, do they retain natural immunity? Or is it more like the vaccine-induced resistance?
i have not seen any data on it. i'd expect to see learned resistance acquired as actual virus was present, but whether it might be attenuated is unclear to me.
my base presumption would be that you'd have full acquired immunity, but i hesitate to make a strong claim in the absence of any data.
I wasn't aware that needing data for strong claims was a thing. My mistake.
LOL.
well, i suppose that depends on whether one seeks a career in biosciences or politics.
they are more or less polar opposites...
So glad to have found you again, Gato. I have missed all your brilliant analysis and wisdom (which is a whole lot clearer in 24 paragraphs than 240 characters!).
I came to read you today, because I needed some uplifting thoughts. Both of my double-vaxxed parents, in their 80s, have a bad case of COVID now. I am fearful that what some experts have been predicting is coming to pass--the vaccine might actually people *more* susceptible to the disease, once the honeymoon (early reaction period) is over.
On top of that, I can't convince them to try the now-vindicated therapeutics like Ivermectin or HCQ, due to the plethora of gas-lighting articles and reports that have convinced them these drugs are poisonous! And please understand, my parents are not "rubes" -- Mom was a bench chemist and Dad was an engineer. But when the gov't controls the narrative, even smart people can be fooled...and killed.
Well, enough rambling. Burying myself in good data and pretty charts is the nerdy girls' refuge. Thank you for your posts!
Here is an ongoing study in Texas you might find interesting
https://sph.uth.edu/projects/texascares/
Dr Pierre Kory just relayed that the gamma, aka P1, Brasil variant makes delta look like nothing. It's WAY more severe. (odysee, FLCCC, Aug 18, 6m mark). Thank you for this blog. It's painfully clear, we are all on our own. Following these idiots in government just creates more disasters.
In an attempt to convince parents that children should be vaccinated, a pediatrician has stated that 1 in 5 people who experience Covid-19 infection develop heart damage that is permanent whereas 1 in 500 persons vaccinated develops myocarditis. Has anyone seen this comparison? Does real data refute this claim?
Reach out to Dr. Peter McCullough for data.
https://www.heartplace.com/dr-peter-a-mccullough
And get a new pediatrician.
I emailed Dr. McCullough and he graciously replied within a few minutes. His answer was very helpful and refuted the pediatrician's claim. The pediatrician is online and I have no way to replace him. I suspect that any attempt to modify his opinion would be called "misinformation" - I've encountered this personally when I have offered information learned from el gato and others on the thread.
Note: Erans comment was only to show the need for boosters which he now proclaims will in fact save the day
https://twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1428428502139822089
seems like a very bad take on that data.
a booster will just decline again as soon as the immune activation wanes.
may be that 3rd stimulation of b and t cells may benefit.... but side effects!
Do we have any real data supporting the claim that these mRNA jabs stimulate B and T cell creation?
The free fall of vaxx immunity and the increased risk of serious disease with breakthrough in the early vaxxed would, imo, suggest they do not.
i presume the b and t cells are involved with making the anti bodies that they are selling as needing to be there. i suspect as do some others the cdc cabal is dissing the human immune system, why they want boosters to keep an anti body level, they do not want you to use the b cells.
i know a lot more about testing weapon systems and consumer risk in the test design.... which seems unaddressed in vaxx testing.
maybe early vaccinators self-deleted for some attribute that biased the samples. Maybe they were wrapped in plastic for 12 months then happily rushed out for the jab, suggesting a lower prevalence of unknown prior infection. Or maybe those who knew they had natural immunity got arm-twisted into the jab later in the process. Hard to control for levels of natural immunity and plenty of reasons for why it may not be consistent across vac-time cohorts.
to be sure, it's not RCT data, but the shape of that curve is proactive and the idea that the people getting vaxxed in these middle age groups varied that much moth to month is a bit of a stretch.
the israeli vaxx rate was over 50% by feb and 60% by march where it pretty much stabilized.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_cases&Metric=People+vaccinated&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=~ISR
natural immunity would flow the other way here. if we were seeing a natural immunity signal, cohorts would get more, not less immune over time because the exposure rate only goes up. but we see the opposite. this likely means vaccines are attenuating faster than this rate if you control for it.
keep in mind we're controlling for "got covid, chose not to vaxx" by looking only at attenuation among the vaccinated. its' certainly not completely dispositive, but this signal is more than a little provocative
moreover, at least here there was intense pressure for the recovered to vaccinate. so it can cut both ways