Welcome to Sott.net
Sat, 16 Oct 2021
The World for People who Think

Health & Wellness

Stock Down

Covid's IFR just keeps dropping

Covid Decline Chart
A new study says the infection fatality ratio of the "deadly virus" has fallen from 3.4% to 0.15%...that's plummeting 95% in less than a year

With every new study, with every new paper, the "deadly" pandemic gets less and less, well, deadly. The most recent data review, published in late March, puts the infection fatality ratio (IFR) at 0.15%.

That is, once again, pretty much the same as a normal flu season.

The new paper is the work of Dr John Ioannidis, whom you likely remember. He is an eminent epidemiologist and statistician who publicly urged the need for "good data" last spring.

Do you remember last spring? The blissful days of never having even heard of "infection fatality ratio"? (I do. Fondly.)

The phrase really rose to prominence last year, after the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the IFR of the scary new virus was 3.4%.

This is not, in and of itself, especially high. But it is significantly higher than most cold/flu viruses.

Comment: The story that Covid-19 doesn't exist and hasn't been isolated is equally dangerous as the story that the same virus is very dangerous and deadly. We have a lot of evidence and scientific papers showing that the virus was isolated in January 2020. But its IFR and mortality rate were exaggerated by some sick minds in powerful positions in order to impose total control over the world population and gain more power from the largely exaggerated pandemic.

See also:


MIT researchers challenge indoor social distancing rules: 'No safer at 60 feet than 6 feet'

mask social distance
© Getty Images
"Many spaces that have been shut down in fact don't need to be," said study coauthor Martin Bazant.
A new study out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is challenging major COVID-19 mitigation measures of the past year, claiming the widely accepted six-foot "social distancing" rule is more or less meaningless in indoor settings.

The study, authored by MIT chemical engineering Prof. Martin Bazant and applied mathematics Prof. John Bush, "characterize[s] the evolution of the concentration of pathogen-laden droplets in a well-mixed room, and the associated risk of infection to its occupants."

Indoor gatherings have been one of the most aggressive targets of COVID-19 mitigation measures over the past year. Health officials have warned that people congregating in indoor settings are at significant risk for COVID-19 infection. Authorities worldwide have mandated both that occupancy limits in public facilities and spaces be sharply decreased and that individuals should maintain strict 72-inch spaces between each other when inside them.

Comment: Which further proves that any decline in spread has had nothing to do with social distancing measures. It's just as well, then, that for the vast majority of people the coronavirus is harmless: Reuters: Sweden had 10% lower 2020 death spike than much of Europe


Covid can cause more pregnancy complications than thought - but only if the woman is suffering symptoms

Like everything in this pandemic, the knowledge we have about how COVID-19 affects pregnancy has changed since we first learnt about the virus at the start of 2020.

Unfortunately, gathering information and research in this area has been slower than many doctors would like, and a new study has now found that pregnancy risks could be greater than what we thought.

"We now know that the risks to mothers and babies are greater than we assumed at the start of the pandemic and that known health measures when implemented must include pregnant women," said University of Oxford reproductive medical researcher Stephen Kennedy, one of the study authors.

Comment: The above is certainly not an argument for pregnant women to be vaccine, because the vaccines themselves have been shown to actually cause problems in healthy people, and because the vast majority of people will become infected but not experience any significant symptoms: And check out SOTT radio's: Objective:Health - Kids and Covid Shots


New study on face-masks highlights problems with safety and efficacy


A new study on face masks highlight their inefficacy, lack of safety and ability to cause physiological, psychological and long-term health problems, which may culminate in immune suppression, worsened chronic disease, accelerated aging and premature death

Baruch Vainshelboim, who works with the cardiology division at Stanford's Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in California, is among the latest to sound the alarm that face masks should be avoided for the general public.

It's not simply an issue of whether or not they "work" - though as he writes, "scientific evidence supporting facemasks' efficacy is lacking" - or that wearing something is better than nothing because, as noted by Vainshelboim, "adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established."[i]

The paradox, he notes, has been apparent from the beginning as SARS-CoV-2 affects the respiratory system, potentially leading to respiratory failure and death (though it should be noted that the case fatality rate is low - considerably less than 1% or, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci and colleagues in March 2020, consequences may be "more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza"[ii]).

Comment: Masks are a ticking time bomb:


Covid19: Prior infection vs vaccination

Prior infection vs vaccination
© SebastianRushworth.com
Ever since the beginning of the covid pandemic, one of the big topics of discussion has been whether infection results in lasting immunity. Since the advent of the vaccines, that has expanded in to a discussion about whether prior infection or vaccination provides a higher degree of immunity.

Back in December, I wrote about a study that showed that 90% of people who get covid still have antibodies six months out from infection. This was encouraging news. However, all it really did was show that most people keep their antibodies for a decent period of time after infection. It didn't actually tell us anything about the probability of being re-infected.

Antibodies are a "surrogate" marker. We think they might tell us something useful, but we can't really be sure. It's kind of like looking at the share of a population that have high blood pressure instead of looking at the proportion that are having strokes. We really don't know whether the presence of antibodies after infection means that someone is immune, or whether the absence of antibodies means that someone has lost their immunity. In fact, we still don't really know whether antibodies play a meaningful role in fighting covid or not. Correlation isn't always causation. Antibodies appear to be a good marker for prior infection, but that doesn't mean that they have a causal role in preventing a re-infection.

So, what we really need is a study that looks at the degree to which people actually get re-infected, not more studies that look at antibodies. Once we have that, we can do a comparison with the results of the vaccine trials, and then we will finally have a reasonably good estimate of whether prior infection or vaccination provides a higher level of immunity, or if they are equivalent. That is now exactly what we have, thanks to a study that was recently published in The Lancet.


Army's own vaccine that could fight COVID variants begins clinical trials

Maryland Army National Guardsmen
© Sgt. Chazz Kibler/National Guard)
Maryland Army National Guardsmen fill out medical paperwork to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the U.S. Capitol Complex in Washington on Jan. 14, 2021.
A unique vaccine produced by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research started clinical testing Tuesday, and Army researchers hope it will combat variants of SARS-COV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

The vaccine, called spike ferritin nanoparticle, or SpFN, could also help fight other coronaviruses, a group of related RNA viruses that often cause respiratory-related diseases in mammals.

Army researchers have been tracking the threat posed by new coronaviruses even before the pandemic, according to Kayvon Modjarrad, director of emerging infectious diseases at Walter Reed. That threat has been accelerating in recent years.

"That's why we need a vaccine like this: one that has potential to protect broadly and proactively against multiple coronavirus species and strains," Modjarrad said in a statement announcing the SpFN testing.

Comment: Nano particles as an alternative doesn't really sound all that much better than mRNA tech. A bit on SpFN:
The vaccine, which is being developed for COVID-19, uses nanoparticles of an iron-containing protein called ferritin. Each of the ferritin nanoparticles has several of the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins attached to its surface. The spike protein is what the virus uses to enter cells, similar to a lock and key. The vaccines authorized to date employ various ways of introducing the virus's spike protein into the body so the immune system can recognize it and attack it if it encounters it again.

Prior to this focus, Kim's laboratory was working on a ferritin-based vaccine against the Ebola virus. In animal studies, nanoparticle vaccines of this design created a stronger immune response than injecting the animals with isolated viral proteins. This appears to be that the nanoparticle mimics whole viruses.

SOTT Logo Radio

Objective:Health - Kids and Covid Shots

O:H header
If there's one thing the elites seem to love to do, it's injecting kids with questionable biological material.

Take, for instance, the following: We know children do not transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children. Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. It is well-noted that asymptomatic cases are not the drivers of the pandemic; something particularly important in relation to children as they're generally asymptomatic.

In other words there are no data whatsoever that could be used to support the need for vaccination of children in this Covid-19 pandemic. Yet there are currently a number of trials in process for a number of covid shots where the subjects of the studies ARE CHILDREN. Why are we vaccinating children against Covid-19 when we know the vast majority don't catch it or spread it? Has anyone bothered to assess whether the risk of adverse reaction to the shot is worth the (possible) minuscule benefit?

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health for a rousing discussion about the pros and cons of injecting kids with experimental genetic material.

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
♥Odysee: https://odysee.com/@objectivehealth:f

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:


Running Time: 00:31:52

Download: MP3 — 29.2 MB


Feeling hungry all the time? Study confirms link to blood glucose levels

The interplay between blood sugar and appetite appears to be more complex than scientists realized, with new research showing that glucose levels in the blood even several hours after eating can still have a pronounced effect on how hungry people get later in the day.

Specifically, the new findings reveal that some people are prone to experiencing 'sugar dips' up to four hours after eating their last meal - a delayed glycemic response that turns out to be a more accurate indicator of appetite (and energy consumption) than glucose levels following meals.

"It has long been suspected that blood sugar levels play an important role in controlling hunger, but the results from previous studies have been inconclusive," says nutrition scientist Sarah Berry from King's College London.

Comment: As more people eschew evidently erroneous government dietary guidelines, it's becoming increasingly clear for the vast majority that when they increase healthy animal fats in their diet, whilst also lowering their carbohydrate and sugar, their satiety is increased, and for longer, blood sugar is better balanced, and they lose weight: Also check out SOTT radio's: Behind the Headlines: Dissecting the Vegetarian Myth - Interview with Lierre Keith

Microscope 1

Sweden's Professor Johan Giesecke, epidemiologist: "I think I got most things right, actually"

prof. dr. Johanom Gieseckeom
© Reuters
Swedish epidemiologist, Dr. Johan Giesecke
Johan Giesecke, an advisor to the Director General of the WHO, former Chief Scientist of the EU Centre for Disease Control, and former state epidemiologist of Sweden, returned to UnHerd yesterday to resume his discussion with editor Freddie Sayers, adjourned a year ago. He was one of the first major figures to come out against lockdowns last spring, saying they are not evidence-based, the correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only, and the Imperial College modelling was "not very good".

While he admits he made some mistakes, he believes that history will judge him kindly, and says: "I think I got most of the things right, actually."

He gives a solid defence of the outcome in Sweden, ably batting away the "neighbour argument" that says Sweden failed because Norway and Finland did better.

Comment: Sweden enacted the world's sanest 'pandemic' response policy and it's paying off


Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid

© Pixabay / Engin_Akyurt
The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.

Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the "science-loving" folks in Big Tech.

Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.

He was quoting directly from the NCBI publication of the study. The government website he linked to features a peer-reviewed study by Stanford University's Baruch Vainshelboim. In it, he cited 67 scholars, doctors, scientists, and other studies to support his conclusions.

Comment: See also: The Science of Masks