Welcome to Sott.net
Tue, 19 Oct 2021
The World for People who Think

Health & Wellness
Map

Attention

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.

Syringe

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:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16H-nK-N0ANdsA5JFTT12_HU5nUYRVS9YcQh331dG2MI/edit?usp=sharing

Running Time: 00:31:52

Download: MP3 — 29.2 MB


Cheeseburger

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

sandwich
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


Health

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

Masks
© 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


Red Flag

FDA to extend Emergency Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccine to adolescents without advice from Advisory Committee

pfizer
© Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Image
Trials with Covid-19 Vaccine stickers attached, with the logo of U.S. pharmaceutical company Pfizer, are seen on Nov. 17, 2020.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it will not require expert advice from its advisory committee that evaluates and reviews vaccine efficacy and safety to amend Pfizer-BioNTech's emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine to include adolescents aged 12 to 15, according to an FDA spokesperson. That decision will be made by the agency after reviewing the relevant data.

"As Pfizer has announced, the FDA has received the company's request to amend its emergency use authorization (EUA) in order to expand the age range for its COVID-19 vaccine to include individuals 12-15 years of age," a spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.

"Based on an initial evaluation of the information submitted, at this time, the agency does not plan to hold a meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on this request to amend the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which was discussed and recommended for authorization at a VRBPAC meeting in December 2020," she added.

Comment: Why are we vaccinating children against covid-19?
In terms of children and Covid-19, 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. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is settled science on this...

We cannot fathom how it is possible to suggest, as has Dr. Fauci, that children require vaccination for prevention of Covid-19! This is so abhorrent an idea that once again we realized that we had to take a stand against testing and/or provision of any of the current vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 in children. And unless Dr. Fauci has access to data that we have not seen (or are we expected to just trust and judgements and opinions?), we are compelled to demand that this atrocity (for that's what it is) not go forward.



Clipboard

18 reasons I won't be getting a Covid Vaccine

shot
A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these covid vaccines.

Nebula

Psychedelic experience may not be required for psilocybin's antidepressant-like benefits

psilocybin mushrooms
© CC0 Public Domain
University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) researchers have shown that psilocybin — the active chemical in 'magic mushrooms' — still works its antidepressant-like actions, at least in mice, even when the psychedelic experience is blocked. The new findings suggest that psychedelic drugs work in multiple ways in the brain and it may be possible to deliver the fast-acting antidepressant therapeutic benefit without requiring daylong guided therapy sessions. A version of the drug without, or with less of, the psychedelic effects could loosen restrictions on who could receive the therapy, and lower costs, making the benefits of psilocybin more available to more people in need.

In all clinical trials performed to date, the person treated with psilocybin remains under the care of a guide, who keeps the person calm and reassures them during their daylong experience. This can include hallucinations, altered perception of time and space, and intense emotional and spiritual encounters.

Comment: See also:


Health

Oxygen therapy and saturation levels

Hospital
© SebastianRushworth.com
Only a few years ago, back when I was in medical school, I was taught that the goal of oxygen therapy should be to push saturation above 95%, and that anyone who comes in to hospital with a saturation below that should receive oxygen therapy (with the exception of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, whose bodies have adjusted to lower oxygen levels). For those who aren't used to the terminology, the definition of oxygen saturation is the proportion of haemoglobin molecules in the arteries that are "saturated" with oxygen. A normal level for a healthy person is usually 97% or higher.

In the last few years, however, there's been a bit of a shift in thinking. It started with the realization that people with heart attacks who were treated oxygen didn't do any better than those who weren't. This is a good example of a medical reversal - it seemed logical to give oxygen to people with heart attacks, because a heart attack is a blockage in one of the arteries that supply the heart, which means that the heart muscle isn't getting enough oxygen. By increasing the oxygen level in the blood stream, even if only a small amount of that oxygen is able to get past the blockage, it should do some good. At least that was the thinking.

Unfortunately, logic often turns out be wrong, at least in medicine. As it turns out, oxygen isn't the utterly benign substance it's often made out to be. First, oxygen causes blood vessels to constrict, so by pushing up the oxygen saturation you could actually be worsening the blockage. Second, oxygen has an unfortunate tendency to form reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can wreak all kinds of havoc in our cells. We've evolved mechanisms to deal with these, but when a part of the body is depleted of oxygen for a while, many of our defences to deal with ROS are diminished. If you then push up the oxygen arriving in an area enormously, say an area of heart muscle that's been deprived of oxygen for a while but that now once again has good flow thanks to an intervention to remove the blockage, you might actually increase the damage to that area.

Long story short, it turned out that oxygen wasn't good to give to people with heart attacks. It might even be bad. Thankfully, that practice has now stopped in most places. The realization that oxygen might actually be harmful in certain situations has led to a change in thinking about oxygen therapy. No longer is it viewed uncritically as a universal panacea that can be doled out generously to everyone who comes in through the doors of the hospital. At least that's the case in theory. In practice, lots of patients still get oxygen who don't need it.