The FDA has approved an updated covid shot for everyone 6 months old and up, which renews a now-annual quandary for Americans: Get the shot now, with the latest covid outbreak sweeping the country, or hold it in reserve for the winter wave?

ABOut the partnership

Healthbeat is a newsroom partnership between KFF Health News and Civic News Company that produces reporting on public health and the systems of prevention that communities rely on to stay healthy. 

The new vaccine should provide some protection to everyone. But many healthy people who have already been vaccinated or have immunity because they’ve been exposed to covid enough times may want to wait a few months.

Covid has become commonplace. For some, it’s a minor illness with few symptoms. Others are laid up with fever, cough, and fatigue for days or weeks. A much smaller group — mostly older or chronically ill people — suffer hospitalization or death.

It’s important for those in high-risk groups to get vaccinated, but vaccine protection wanes after a few months. Those who run to get the new vaccine may be more likely to fall ill this winter when the next wave hits, said William Schaffner, an infectious disease professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

On the other hand, by late fall the major variants may have changed, rendering the vaccine less effective, said Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine official, at a briefing Aug. 23. He urged everyone eligible to get immunized, noting that the risk of long covid is greater in the un- and undervaccinated.

Of course, if last year’s covid vaccine rollout is any guide, few Americans will heed his advice, even though this summer’s surge has been unusually intense, with levels of the covid virus in wastewater suggesting infections are as widespread as they were in the winter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now looks to wastewater as fewer people are reporting test results to health authorities. The wastewater data shows the epidemic is worst in Western and Southern states. In New York, for example, levels are considered “high” — compared with “very high” in Georgia.

Hospitalizations and deaths due to covid have trended up, too. But unlike infections, these rates are nowhere near those seen in winter surges, or in summers past. More than 2,000 people died of covid in July — a high number but a small fraction of the at least 25,700 covid deaths in July 2020.

Partial immunity built up through vaccines and prior infections deserves credit for this relief. A new study suggests that current variants may be less virulent — in the study, one of the recent variants did not kill mice exposed to it, unlike most earlier covid variants.

Public health officials note that even with more cases this summer, people seem to be managing their sickness at home. “We did see a little rise in the number of cases, but it didn’t have a significant impact in terms of hospitalizations and emergency room visits,” said Manisha Juthani, public health commissioner of Connecticut, at a news briefing Aug. 21.

Unlike influenza or traditional cold viruses, covid seems to thrive outside the cold months, when germy schoolkids, dry air, and indoor activities are thought to enable the spread of air- and saliva-borne viruses. No one is exactly sure why.

“Covid is still very transmissible, very new, and people congregate inside in air-conditioned rooms during the summer,” said John Moore, a virologist and professor at Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medicine.

Or “maybe covid is more tolerant of humidity or other environmental conditions in the summer,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Because viruses evolve as they infect people, the CDC has recommended updated covid vaccines each year. Last fall’s booster was designed to target the omicron variant circulating in 2023. This year, mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer and the protein-based vaccine from Novavax — which has yet to be approved by the FDA — target a more recent omicron variant, JN.1.

The FDA determined that the mRNA vaccines strongly protected people from severe disease and death — and would do so even though earlier variants of JN.1 are now being overtaken by others.

Public interest in covid vaccines has waned, with only 1 in 5 adults getting vaccinated since last September, compared with about 80% who got the first dose. New Yorkers have been slightly above the national vaccination rate, while in Georgia only about 17% got the latest shot.

Vaccine uptake is lower in states where the majority voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and among those who have less money and education, less health care access, or less time off from work. These groups are also more likely to be hospitalized or die of the disease, according to a 2023 study in The Lancet.

While the newly formulated vaccines are better targeted at the circulating covid variants, uninsured and underinsured Americans may have to rush if they hope to get one for free. A CDC program that provided boosters to 1.5 million people over the last year ran out of money and is ending Aug. 31.

The agency drummed up $62 million in unspent funds to pay state and local health departments to provide the new shots to those not covered by insurance. But “that may not go very far” if the vaccine costs the agency around $86 a dose, as it did last year, said Kelly Moore, CEO of Immunize.org, which advocates for vaccination.

People who pay out-of-pocket at pharmacies face higher prices: CVS plans to sell the updated vaccine for $201.99, said Amy Thibault, a spokesperson for the company.

“Price can be a barrier, access can be a barrier” to vaccination, said David Scales, an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Without an access program that provides vaccines to uninsured adults, “we’ll see disparities in health outcomes and disproportionate outbreaks in the working poor, who can ill afford to take off work,” Kelly Moore said.

New York State has about $1 million to fill the gaps when the CDC’s program ends, said Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health. That will buy around 12,500 doses for uninsured and underinsured adults, she said. There are roughly one million uninsured people in the state.

CDC and FDA experts last year decided to promote annual fall vaccination against covid and influenza along with a one-time respiratory syncytial virus shot for some groups.

It would be impractical for the vaccine-makers to change the covid vaccine’s recipe twice every year, and offering the three vaccines during one or two health care visits appears to be the best way to increase uptake of all of them, said Schaffner, who consults for the CDC’s policy-setting Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At its next meeting, in October, the committee is likely to urge vulnerable people to get a second dose of the same covid vaccine in the spring, for protection against the next summer wave, he said.

If you’re in a vulnerable population and waiting to get vaccinated until closer to the holiday season, Schaffner said, it makes sense to wear a mask and avoid big crowds, and to get a test if you think you have covid. If positive, people in these groups should seek medical attention since the antiviral pill Paxlovid might ameliorate their symptoms and keep them out of the hospital.

As for conscientious others who feel they may be sick and don’t want to spread the covid virus, the best advice is to get a single test and, if positive, try to isolate for a few days and then wear a mask for several days while avoiding crowded rooms. Repeat testing after a positive result is pointless, since viral particles in the nose may remain for days without signifying a risk of infecting others, Schaffner said.

The Health and Human Services Department is making four free covid tests available to anyone who requests them starting in late September through covidtest.gov, said Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response, at the Aug. 23 briefing.

The government is focusing its fall vaccine advocacy campaign — which it’s calling “Risk Less. Do More.” — on older people and nursing home residents, said HHS spokesperson Jeff Nesbit.

Not everyone may really need a fall covid booster, but “it’s not wrong to give people options,” John Moore said. “The 20-year-old athlete is less at risk than the 70-year-old overweight dude. It’s as simple as that.”

******

KFF Health News correspondent Amy Maxmen contributed to this report. Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. This article was updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on Sept. 5, 2024, to correct the name of the Department of Health and Human Services’ fall vaccine advocacy campaign.

The post The New Covid Vaccine Is Out. Why You Might Not Want To Rush To Get It appeared first on Medika Life.

I always get my vaccinations in my left arm. Not because I anticipated the intriguing new study results.

Rather, I sleep on my right side and don’t want the discomfort associated with vaccination on my compressed arm.

Before we examine sidedness and vaccinations, I must share that winter has begun in Seattle. I define the season as dark and rainy.

Chilled-looking people walking along the riverside, the snow beginning, faintly, to pile up on the roofs of cars, the bare trees shaking their heads left and right, dry leaves tossing in the wind. The silver of the metal window sash sparkled coldly. Soon after, I heard sensei call, “Mikage! Are you awake? It’s snowing, look! It’s snowing!” “I’m coming!” I called out, standing up. I got dressed to begin another day. Over and over, we begin again. — Banana Yoshimoto

Arm-Sidedness and COVID Vaccination

I read the title of a recent article and thought, “Really?” But as you will see, there is a logic to the finding. Here’s the title:

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

In other words, individuals may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm.

The Study

German researchers examined health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and a subsequent booster shot. None had a history of COVID-19 infection.

They measured the antibody levels of the subjects two weeks after the second shot.

Here are the surprising results:

The number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm.

Scientists found killer T cells in 67 percent of cases when both shots entered the same arm. This number compares to 43 percent of cases with different arms.

My Take

Same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells providing the immune response are in nearby (underarm) lymph nodes.

There may be a more vigorous immune response if the immune cells in the nearby nodes are restimulated in the same location.

Since this study does not represent high-level evidence, we need more studies to validate the results. Moreover, we don’t know if the findings apply to other vaccines, including the flu.

Still, I will continue to get my vaccinations in my left arm. I sleep on my right side, so it is for the best.

The post Is Getting COVID Shots in the Same Arm Better? appeared first on Medika Life.

The most troubling news about the spread of COVID-19 comes from a recent CDC conference where 35 attendees came down with the virus. These people would appear to be part of a group that is eminently aware of the risks and the precautions that must be taken to avoid infection. But, they didn’t take precautions? Were they as worn out as the rest of us and wanted to be free to go to a “safe” conference?

Since 2018, the COVID-19 epidemic has affected people worldwide, and there have been hints recently that its spread might or might not be ending. As more people become immunized, disease rates decline, and restrictions are loosened, there is greater optimism than ever that this pandemic will end. But, some CDC members have run into heated arguments that have caused them to understand an alarming truth: It might never end.

Members of the CDC are becoming increasingly worried about the possibility that reduced vaccination rates in some areas would undercut the progress made in the fight against the flu and make it more difficult than originally anticipated to stop its spread.

The number of COVID-19 cases in India, brought on by the virus’s new variant strain, has increased alarmingly quickly, raising concerns throughout Southeast Asia and India, according to CDC experts and global health officials.

The Economic Times of May 1, 2023, indicated: “India on Monday reported 4,282 coronavirus infections, while the number of active cases dropped by over 1,750 to stand at 47,246, according to the latest Health Ministry data. The death toll has increased to 5,31,547 with 14 more fatalities, which includes six reconciled by Kerala, the data updated at 8 a.m. showed.”

In the face of the news coming out of India and, possibly being withheld in other countries, how can we say the pandemic is over and we no longer need to take precautions? The CDC has insisted that people who have received the flu shot are allowed to engage in a variety of activities without having to abide by specific rules, such as mask-wearing and physical distancing requirements. But people contract the virus despite immunization.

Although there are fewer cases and more people getting vaccinated, the difficulties CDC staff and public health professionals confront demonstrate that the H1N1 epidemic has not yet been defeated. How will the recent CDC ruling that one vaccine shot by a person coming into the US will be viewed as “fully vaccinated” now affect our citizens?

“Because some traveler vaccine records might not specify whether recent Moderna or Pfizer doses received were bivalent, CDC will consider anybody with record of a single dose of Moderna or Pfizer vaccine issued on or after August 16, 2022, to meet the requirements,” is the agency’s response.

Recent occurrences among CDC members demonstrate that the influenza pandemic is still running strong despite broad vaccination campaigns against the Delta subtype. More Delta cases must be immediately treated in order to combat the pandemic flu outbreak, as cases and hospitalizations may surge across the country.

Together, we can face this catastrophe head-on, but experts are showing concern that another pandemic may be on the horizon this coming fall and questioning whether or not current vaccines will be sufficiently robust to quell it and save lives. This doesn’t bode well for our continued health-related stress, and that may contribute to infection rates as well since we know stress has a tendency to lower our natural immunity anyway.

The post CDC Members Prove to Themselves the Pandemic Isn’t Over appeared first on Medika Life.

COVID-19 re-infection re-infection risk is relatively low, but not zero. Studies suggest that people who have had COVID-19 may have some level of immunity to the virus, at least for a certain period. However, this immunity may not be long-lasting and may vary depending on a person’s age, overall health, and other factors.

The risk of re-infection also depends on the prevalence of the virus in a person’s community and their level of exposure to it. If someone is exposed to the virus again, their immune system may be able to recognize and fight off the virus more quickly, potentially resulting in milder symptoms.

Several studies have reported cases of COVID-19 re-infection, although these cases appear relatively rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that re-infection with COVID-19 is uncommon within 90 days of the initial infection.

However, it is still important to follow public health guidelines to prevent the spread of the virus, even if you have previously been infected. Mitigation strategies include wearing a mask, practicing physical distancing, and getting vaccinated when a vaccine is available to you.

Let’s explore the most comprehensive data compiled to analyze national immunity protection against the virus. The researchers recently published their findings in The Lancet.

“I didn’t expect to recover from my second operation but since I did, I consider that I’m living on borrowed time. Every day that dawns is a gift to me and I take it in that way. I accept it gratefully without looking beyond it. I completely forget my physical suffering and all the unpleasantness of my present condition and I think only of the joy of seeing the sun rise once more and of being able to work a little bit, even under difficult conditions.”
― Henri Matisse

Covid-19 infection and future risk reduction

Researchers analyzed 65 studies from 19 countries. Let’s get right to the bottom-line conclusion of the study authors:

[The] meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for (COVID-19) ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants but were substantially lower for the Omicron BA.1 variant. A Covid infection provided some protection against re-infection from the original (ancestral), alpha, and delta variants. While the risk reduction diminished over time, it remained at 79 percent at 40 weeks.

Protection against re-infection by the Omicron BA.1 variant diminished more quickly, reaching 36 percent at 40 weeks.

Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained 78.6 percent at 40 weeks (around ten months).

The report notes that protection against re-infection by the Omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36 percent over that same 40-week period.

Covid infection and future severe infection

What about severe infection? Having an infection protects against severe infections from future infections. More specifically, the protection was 90.2 percent for the original, alpha, and delta variants and 88.9 percent for Omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks (about ten months).

As protection appears to wane over time, even individuals with natural immunity will likely still need an annual COVID booster shot to maximize risk reduction for severe illness.

The post Got Covid? How Long Do You Have Protection After Catching the Virus? appeared first on Medika Life.

Despite knowing what we know, groups continue to publish on questions that will not necessarily translate toward more meaningful clinical solutions. Recently, a group published another article, following up on a previous article on roughly the same topic, showing yet again that ivermectin does not help COVID-19 (Source). While exploring topics towards finding solutions is essential, especially if they could translate to saved or improved lives, when should we stop asking questions that we have already gathered fairly comprehensive answers to? While the abundance of misinformation necessitates continued public engagement, why not rely on our extensive, already-collected information? Is the extra financial investment worth it?

While such articles are often delayed from when they are submitted to a journal, meaning publications are not necessarily timely when they come out, I hope that fewer and fewer articles investigate such topics moving forward. If we have robust and reproducible findings, there is little need to continue proving it is believable if experts already feel that way. Due to misinformation campaigns, we will not convince everyone that ivermectin, among other “cures,” does not help COVID. We can move forward and emphasize topics that will translate toward greater clinical care improvements versus engaging naysayers who will not be satisfied with our answers, no matter how many ways we provide information.

The post COVID-19 Trials: Why Are We Asking Questions We Know Answers To? appeared first on Medika Life.

When President Joe Biden received a COVID-19 infection diagnosis, he almost immediately began an oral treatment of the anti-viral Paxlovid. Four days after he completed the Paxlovid regimen, the U.S. President tested positive for COVID. Again.

Biden’s case is a high-profile example of the “Paxlovid rebound.” Reports suggest that a minority of those receiving the anti-viral drug will suffer from a re-emergence of the infection.

Today we explore the remarkable drug Paxlovid before turning to a new report suggesting we were wrong. The drug now appears not associated with a higher probability of COVID-19 re-infection.

“O Rose, thou art sick.
The invisible worm
That flies in the night
In the howling storm

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy,
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.”
― William Blake, Songs of Experience

What is Paxlovid?

Paxlovid is an anti-viral medication used to treat COVID-19. Its active ingredients are nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, which work together to stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus from replicating in the body.

Paxlovid is designed to be taken orally and is typically prescribed to people with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of developing severe illness. The high-risk group can include older individuals, unvaccinated individuals, or other medical conditions ranging from cancer to diabetes.

The drug is not for people who are already hospitalized or require oxygen therapy. Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2021 and is available by prescription from healthcare providers.

Two of the three pills target COVID virus-specific enzymes and suppress viral replication. The third pill is ritonavir, a drug first developed to help treat HIV/AIDS, which boosts the level of the first medications by slowing their breakdown in the body.

Writing in Scientific American, Davey Smith, the head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego, observes the following:

“Everything that we’ve done for COVID came out of the HIV playbook, just flat out. That includes the development of vaccines, the development of treatments, how we did the testing, how we did epidemiology.”

Paxlovid is quite effective at reducing severe disease. The initial clinical trials showed the drug cut COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths by 89 percent compared to those who received a placebo pill.

What is Paxlovid rebound?

“Paxlovid rebound” is not a term that is commonly used for the medication Paxlovid. Viral rebound, however, is a potential concern with any anti-viral medication used to treat a viral infection, including COVID-19.

The United States Centers for Disease Control defines Paxlovid rebound as when an individual who, after receiving a full five-day treatment course, has a re-emergence of COVID symptoms or tests positive after an initial negative test.

With this definition, one can have COVID without symptoms, symptoms without virus, or virus with symptoms. The term “rebound” is not particularly accurate, as in virology, a “rebound” means a re-emergence of measurable amounts of a virus.

Viral rebound occurs when the level of the virus in the body increases after being undetectable or reduced by medication. This phenomenon can happen if one stops the medication too soon, if the dose is not strong enough, or if the virus develops resistance.

In the case of Paxlovid, it is important to take the medication as directed by a healthcare provider to reduce the risk of viral rebound.

How common is Paxlovid “rebound?”

The groundbreaking Pfizer clinical trial reported that one to two percent of those receiving Paxlovid tested positive for COVID after the anti-viral course — the illnesses rebounded.

Note that those rebound numbers did not appear statistically different from those who received a placebo.

Despite the growing use of Paxlovid in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID infection, many case reports have described symptom relapse or re-positive test results shortly after initial recovery or a negative test after a standard five-day treatment program.

Viral burden rebound in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving oral anti-virals in Hong Kong…

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, multiple drugs have been repurposed or developed for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2…

www.thelancet.com

A retrospective review of Mayo Clinic patients reported that about one percent of Paxlovid users rebounded, consistent with the Pfizer clinical trial findings.

In May last year, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health advisory in response to growing worries about the rebound phenomenon. Most cases appeared to be among those with mild illness; additional treatment was usually unnecessary.

The CDC recommends early initiation of Paxlovid for those at high risk of suffering from severe COVID-19.

Paxlovid rebound — New data

Researchers performed a retrospective analysis of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 in Hong Kong. They observed the subjects from February to July 2022 during the omicron BA.2.2 variant wave.

They included adult patients admitted three days before or after a positive COVID-19 test, gathered from Hospital Authority of Hong Kong records. No patients were oxygen-dependent at baseline.

They included adult patients admitted three days before or after a positive COVID-19 test, selected from medical records held by the Hospital Authority of Hong King. No patients were oxygen-dependent at baseline.

Here are the study results:

Those receiving anti-viral agents (such as the drugs contained in Paxlovid) had a similar viral burden rebound rate (five to seven percent) as the control group members (seven percent).

Groups more likely to suffer from a viral burden rebound included the following:

• Immunocompromised patients. They had a higher chance of viral burden rebound, regardless of the anti-viral approach (nirmatrelvir–ritonavir – 7.4 times higher risk; molnupiravir – 3 times higher risk).
• Younger patients (18 to 65). The odds appeared to be 3.1 times higher.
• Patients on steroids had a three to 7.5 times higher risk of a rebound.
• Vaccinated individuals appeared much more likely to experience a rebound than unvaccinated individuals (odds ratio for the latter 0.16).

Viral rebound rates appeared similar between patients with anti-viral treatment and those not receiving an anti-viral agent. Note that the viral burden rebound was not associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

My take — Paxlovid for Covid-19: Were We Wrong About Rebound Infection?

While Paxlovid is not a cure for COVID-19, it remains a powerful tool for managing COVID-19 for those at higher risk of severe illness. I often heard that more people in the field were getting rebound than the initial trials suggested.

If your healthcare provider recommends the anti-viral drug, please take it as directed and continue to follow other COVID-19 mitigation strategies (including masking and social distancing).

Viral burden rebound in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving oral anti-virals in Hong Kong…

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, multiple drugs have been repurposed or developed for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2…

www.thelancet.com

As scientists continue to learn more about Paxlovid rebound, all the doctors Scientific American spoke with emphasized that they will continue to prescribe Paxlovid to their patients who need it. “We can still use Paxlovid effectively,” Barczak says. “And we can protect one another by masking and testing and isolating when rebound happens.”

The post Paxlovid for Covid-19: Was I Wrong About Rebound Infection? appeared first on Medika Life.

Perhaps all we heard from the title and the take away is “I want it now.” When it comes to science and public health, that’s a mega problem. When do I want it? Now!

Clinical Trials Usually Take Years.  Enter Operation Warp Speed

How long do or should clinical trials take – well, it depends – but often years. Science takes time. It demands rigor and objectivity. It’s not a “now” pursuit. It’s why so many potential medicines fail to advance through clinical stages to our medicine chests as physicians and patients work diligently to evaluate their safety, effectiveness and long-term risks in observational studies. 

For example, the research into drugs to reduce life-threatening high cholesterol spans decades.  Many think of the incredible drugs now available as generic, which fueled continued research. Few think of the game-changing Framingham Heart Study or the groundbreaking and Nobel Prize-level work of scientists Drs. Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein. There is beauty to science.  In the famed Academy Award-winning movie The Agony and the Ecstasy with Charlton Heston, as Michelangelo and Rex Harrison playing Pope Julius II, Heston’s character is constantly asked by Harrison, when will the Sistine Chapel ceiling be completed.  The artist replies: “When it’s done.”  That’s science!

It’s possible that COVID threw science – the purity of the art of discovery to improve humanity’s lot – out with the peer-review bathwater.  Everyone is at fault in some way. Government agencies, elected officials, public health champions, media, and, yes, the public are all part of the now movement.  We all wanted a biomedical elixir to ward off the virus NOW! We have been conditioned to get what we want quickly.  We order online at Grub Hub or Amazon, and within hours – a day tops – a vehicle pulls up to our doorstep.  NOW!

Now, how about COVID? We expected salvation at warp speed.  Companies no longer wait to share data at peer-review forums or in top-notch journals.  When the public cries out, we send out a press release. We expect answers from pharma, the White House and CDC immediately. We moved to evaluate, approve and move to rally people to access the COVID vaccines a mere 13 months after trial initiation. The mRNA vaccine became the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine on August 23, 2021.  That’s the equivalent of now when it comes to drug development.

It Takes Years to Develop a Vaccine – NOW?

In comparison, the usual vaccine development timeline is five to 10 years and sometimes longer to determine if a product is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, completes the required regulatory approval processes, and a manufacturer has a sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for public access.  COVID broke the previous record of four years set by the development of a mumps vaccine in the 1960s.

But there are reasons we were able to go fast. The infectious disease community is collaborative. There are previous models of engagement, We have technologies that enable us to screen options that didn’t exist in the 1960s. It’s impossible to compare apples to apples or oranges. The times have changed. Science can move faster; however, objectivity and peer review remain musts.

Don’t point the finger of blame at any one institution or segment of the process.  Everyone created and bought into this urge for now!  We were frightened for our survival, mental health and economies.  The White House was responding to public pressure.  Events changed rapidly, and so did the news flow.  Media leaped into the fray to bring out their wagons of consulting experts aboard, with varied opinions to keep eyes glued to screens. Researchers slept at lab benches to sustain the world – to ward off the – then-deadly pandemic. 

We cannot forget that while we criticize the scientific process and unknown long-term effects of these vaccines, the “power of now” drives decisions and actions.  We cannot forget that the ERs were filling up, and people were dying at the start of the pandemic.  We were scared, and fear ignited non-reflective action. Countless public health challenges were pressing – addiction, poverty, isolation and more. We needed a response. Sometimes the process is imperfect. Let’s not forget to evaluate how all this impacted science and apply the learnings in the future.

Tech as a Scientific Accelerator

Technology has become the gas pedal for science.  AI, AR, machine learning, and big data are all variations of the same concept, but technology does enable scientists to move rapidly. The urgency to offer hope tips the hat to companies being permitted to update the public via news releases and later share detailed information in a peer-review setting. Industry scientists yearn to help sustain lives. Everyone had good intentions. However, we need to find better balance and return to a culture that encourages objective reflection and third-party (even uncensored) pushback,

The Power of Now was geared to get us to think beyond the moment.  To consider who we are and our purpose in the world.  However, like most things, we commercialize good ideas. COVID left too many casualties – most important among them precious people and, yes – scientific exchange.  Now is a competitive advantage – often a first-to-market must.  However, science is a reflective task accelerated by technology. 

Let’s Open the Door to the Power of Options

The Power of Now has given way to the Power of Options, a concept shared by David Noble and Carol Kauffman in the recent issue of HBR. Scientists remain societal leaders.  Scientists are curious and explorers.  We must encourage scientists to create their life-saving magic in coordination with the checks and balances of their peer-review culture.

The post How COVID and the Power of Now Killed Scientific Peer Review appeared first on Medika Life.

This article contains claims that many will consider incendiary and anti-science. It therefore requires context and if you indulge me for a minute or two, I’d like, at length, to provide background before we address the large mammal. Words have power and we use them to record our history, describe the world around us, create narratives and chart the future. We use words to communicate our deepest thoughts, describe our fears and share our joys. And then, in some instances we use words to lie, both to others and ourselves.

I understand fully the responsibility that comes with the gift of being able to convey complex ideas to others, more importantly however, I also grasp the moral obligation attached to the gift. It should only ever be used for truth, or in the pursuit thereof. Science isn’t that different. It relies on words to describe complex concepts, often utilizing its own specific language, one that for most laypeople, places much of what is discussed beyond reach.

I am, for the record, a disciple of science. I believe. I always have. The logical purity of numbers and the wonders of the natural world are intertwined in an almost mystical fashion and our salvation, as a species will undoubtedly depend on science. Much like the Spiderman character however, the ability to wield an understanding and control over the natural world grants the scientist almost unlimited power. Power that, you guessed it, requires responsibility. Responsibility, morals and a strong sense of ethics.

That it what this article is about. It is not about science per se, but rather about the consequences we now face from the abuse and corruption of the discipline, morphing it into a tool whose primary focus is profit and control, rather than the betterment of our species. That, unfortunately, makes the brand of science currently being practiced, a danger to you and I. A fact the pandemic has highlighted with stunning clarity.

mRNA is the Pandora’s box of science, one of many advancing technology has uncovered. Make no mistake, mRNA holds huge promise for medicine, potentially even rivalling the discovery of penicillin. You can read an article I wrote on that exact topic in 2021, exploring the promise the technology holds.

So no, I am clearly not anti-science, at least not when the science being practiced is honest, ethical and cautious science, science that is aware of the potential impact of its actions on society and our wellbeing. That is not the science we have endured for the last three years, and we need to speak up. We have been systematically and intentionally lied to, misled and chemically abused for the last two years of the pandemic, potentially even right from the outset. Misled with words, scientific phrases couched in ambiguity and force-fed fear by the mass media, at the behest of politicians and scientists.

Now, when the dust settles, we need to face uncomfortable truths and a world that has changed, in ways we have yet to fully grasp. So, to the article, and if you should find yourself at odds with it, please, at least consider the questions it raises.

The Viral Elephant

If, and the “if” is looking more and more likely, the entire human race was just exposed to the first genetically engineered virus, we need to be urgently addressing the elephant in the room. The effects of the SARS-COV2 virus on our physiology are widespread and complex and it is critical more time is spent reverse engineering exactly how the virus was altered to increase its transmissibility.

I came across an incredibly interesting article while writing this piece from one of Medika’s contributors, William Haseltine, that describes in detail one of the unique tools this novel virus utilizes to evade and suppress our immune system. The article may prove heavy going for some, but it is an excellent read and provides insight on just how well adapted the virus is at exploiting our defenses.

Far more than being a one trick pony, SARS-COV2 is the Swiss army knife of viruses and we, unfortunately, are the can of baked beans.

You may notice how I refer to the above tool as unique. Its a term used all the time when discussing this virus. It is unique and the more we discover about it, the more likely it becomes that it was intentionally weaponized (for whatever purpose) to exploit our physiology. Simply put, the virus that has killed millions across the globe was likely released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a product of science, American science, it is worth adding, practiced at a safe distance, on foreign soil and funded by American taxpayers.

For the first time in the history of humanity, over the course of the next two generations, this genetically manipulated virus will have infected the entire global population. For those who escaped the virus itself, there is no escaping the engineered bits (or spike protein) that have been artificially stimulated in your system by the mRNA vaccines. So the extent of the damage caused by the SARS-COV2 virus and its ability to access our entire physiology is not surprising, given it was designed for exactly that purpose.

We now face a new kind of threat, unknown medical risk by intentional design, a threat for which we are physiologically unprepared. This new world is filled with unknowns. Future mutations, revisited on us by livestock as we infect a host of animals that live in close proximity to us, or a reversion to the original SARS strain, far more deadly than SARS-COV2. How the virus and the vaccines impact our immune system’s response to future viral attacks is also up in the air. These are the issue’s we should be addressing now, with a sense of immediacy.

It is not melodramatic to suggest our species survival may depend on it, and if you think this is being melodramatic, then you still haven’t grasped the gravity of what has just unfolded.

The first step in this process requires accountability from the players involved, most notably EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen, Dr. Ralph S. Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli, et al. must be made to cooperate with a view to establishing the exact nature of their Gain of Function research on coronaviruses. Exactly what did they cook up in the lab in Wuhan and what else resides there on ice, patiently waiting for the next breach in safety protocols.?

It is also worth pausing a moment to consider the irony of the last three years, of looking to those who created the SARS-COV2 virus for our salvation.

The pandemic is rapidly transitioning from a global viral infection to chronic, long-term complications, with a range of symptoms so broad, doctors are at a loss as to how to define and treat them. Covid vaccines may play a significant, but as yet, unquantified role in many of these chronic and often fatal conditions, further muddying the waters. To truly understand which actor, the vaccine or the virus, both manufactured, may be to blame for the afflictions faced by millions, we need reliable, unbiased research and securing that is proving increasingly difficult.

Sifting Quicksand

Every corner of science and the politics that governs it has skin in the Covid game. The pharma industry, perhaps best positioned to carry out large-scale clinical research, can no longer be trusted. Any data released by pharma relating to anything pandemic related – especially in the absence of critical, independent third party review, cannot and must not be taken at face value.

The original Covid mRNA vaccine trials are evidence of this. The trials (170 people, in case you were not aware) were subjected to the most appalling “management” of candidates and data to validate the vaccine’s safety. Rapid development of a vaccine or treatment was of the essence to alleviate a collapsing medical infrastructure that was buckling under the pressure of the pandemic. Moderna took 28 days to solve the problem. 28 days. I’d say it again, but you can draw your own conclusions.

After nearly two decades, we hadn’t managed to develop a vaccine for the original SARS virus and yet, 28 days later, we had a working SARS-COV2 vaccine ready for clinical trials. The absurdity of this and the euphoric acceptance of this break with scientific reality go a long way to illustrating the desperation felt by many in the early days of the pandemic. Logic would rather suggest the virus was familiar to both Moderna and Pfizer prior to 2019.

Government agencies within the U.S. have been deeply complicit, providing funding via the NIH and the NIAID for developing and effectively weaponizing coronaviruses, ostensibly for the purposes of “further research.” Their ability to provide unbiased opinion on what poses a danger to the public they serve has been compromised. It is essential, moving forward, that both the FDA and CDC are overhauled, effectively preventing their pursuit of policies that place the public directly in harms way. Take their latest unanimous advice on vaccinating children as young as six months with mRNA vaccines.

Possibly the greatest indictment of the CDC is their mismanagement of VAERS. The CDC took 15 months before it finally evaluated data from the VAERS system in June of 2022. VAERS is a dedicated tool for collecting reports on vaccine side effects. So why wait 15 months? No sense in checking data for safety signals to simply verify what you already know, is there? Once you’ve checked that data, you can also no longer ignore it.

Every academic medical institution capable of performing the required research we so desperately need is at the same time beholden to outside funding. Research grants and future employment are dependent on not rocking the boat. To produce data that conflicts with, compromises or exposes funding sources (for the most part, pharma) is the equivalent of professional suicide and banishment to the land of the unfunded.

That leaves us with the politicians, whose agendas are rarely fueled by the best interests of the public. Although elected by us, they are all cling to the purse strings that enable them to reach their lofty heights. We will probably never know who orchestrated the official pandemic narrative, but it was the politicians who enforced it. In 2023, despite irrefutable evidence that disputes this narrative, most still repeat it ad nauseam.

To understand just how interwoven this has all become, take Peter Daszak, appointed by the WHO to head up a team to investigate the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan, effectively policing his own research. In record time he appeared on camera, stating that his investigation had turned up no evidence of a breach in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Lie upon lie, layer upon layer of deceit and deception. Little wonder then that trust is science is at an all time low.

Given the above, where do we then turn for reliable, agenda free research that is motivated only by the pursuit of the truth? We need to overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle before we can even consider unpacking the plethora of virus related questions that require answers. Some would suggest, the World Health Organization is best placed to oversee an investigation, but they too, possibly more than any other health body, are riddled with conflicts of interest on every level.

One thing is glaringly apparent though. There is large and growing body of evidence supporting the fact Covid vaccines are harming some, in many instances, fatally, which begs the following question.

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO USE THEM? Why have we extended vaccination to healthy children and why does the CDC support this and promote it? How, in good conscience and with the safety of the public in mind, can governments and regulatory bodies allow the current narrative to continue? The study I have linked to above, references post vaccine induced myocarditis. Myocarditis post the Pfizer-Moderna combo was 28 times more common than post-Covid in 16-24 year old males in this massive Nordic study.

Impunity and the Point of No Return

No one is coming to save us and any hands that reach out from the medical and scientific community must, in light of the last three years, be considered tainted by default, until proven otherwise. This is the sad reality of where we currently find ourselves. Everyone in a position to put an end to the current pandemic narrative is compromised. They have passed the point of no return and although many may be racked by feelings or remorse, there is no world in which anyone admits fault, in particular to the virus’s origin and the efficacy of the vaccines.

That wonderful phrase “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is absolutely applicable. Everyone sold the narrative and no one institutes an investigation in which they are also likely to be held accountable. Add to this, a growing number of individuals, intimately involved in the pandemic, who act with absolute impunity and concern only for shareholder and personal profit – or glory – and we seem to find ourselves in a spot of bother.

Realistically, no one in a position of power or acting from within the industry is going to the sound the alarm. Our only hope of getting to the truth lies in picking at the edges of the tapestry until it frays and pulls apart. It is left to fringe reporters to harass individuals like Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, who was accosted recently in Davos by two reporters from Rebel News. He was peppered with questions about their vaccine, its efficacy and more. Understandably, he diplomatically kept silent .

An eminent British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra has also taken a stance against the vaccines and their manufacturers after the death of his father from a vaccine related illness. He is among a rising number of influential voices now starting to speak out publicly to call for an end to the mRNA vaccination campaign.

It is by no means a simple task or one for the feint of heart. Censorship is still frequently applied to any information that questions the ongoing Covid narrative, and on many social media platforms, content and users are still frequently de-platformed and often professionally sanctioned. Many have turned to Twitter, which, in recent months, since it’s acquisition by Elon Musk, has stopped censoring information that conflicts with the official narrative on the pandemic.

I’ve shared many articles during the last three years, relying mostly on common sense to question the incredibly dubious public health decisions as they’ve unfolded on a very public platform. At this point in the pandemic, we are now confronted with a very new and real threat, in the face of which, who did what, where, when and why, become almost irrelevant.

Mankind 2.0

What legacy will SARS-COV2 leave in its wake and how does that impact us and future generations? What long term impacts will the continued boosting of a novel drug with an abysmal safety record have on our physiology? What has it done to us over the last three years?

The truth is, we really don’t know the answers, which, in some instances, will require time and separating the vaccine’s effects from those of the virus have now become a research nightmare, thanks to the billions already vaccinated. In 2021, a group of academics valiantly tried to sound warning bells, this incredibly detailed article highlighting the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines.

We are headed into troubled waters, from a public health perspective. We may yet be plagued for generations to come by the ill effects of both the virus and the vaccines, no matter their delivery methods. More so, there is swirl and mistrust in voices of influence.

Long Covid, vaccine Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s – to many to list here) and strokes and heart related damage, in many instances fatal, already blight the medical landscape. Worryingly, the younger members of society appear to be as prone, if not more so, to developing adverse reactions, perhaps because their immune responses to the vaccine are more pronounced.

Humanity may have undone humanity, only time will tell. Time is needed to sort-out fact from fiction – probability from certainty. The responsibility now rests with us (you and I) to ensure we attempt to repair the damage and prevent any further rushed science being put to trial in the public space.

What can you do, you ask? Research all sides of the conversation. Ask questions and demand answers from those you have placed into positions of accountability. The truth will out – over time. Make your own, informed decisions – balancing your personal care and risk/risk – the risk of the current virus variant alongside your health status.

I’d ask one more thing of you. Trust your instincts and try to approach public facing pandemic information with a critical mind. There is almost always an agenda, from both sides of the fence and a little digging will normally uncover it. It’s time to leave the safety of the flock. In case you hadn’t noticed they’ve appointed the wolf as shepherd.

As a parting thought, please don’t vilify science. It is as much a victim of the avarice and greed of humanity, as we are. Perhaps, while we attempt to save ourselves, we can, in the same moment, rescue science. We are going to need it.

Missed Part 5 of the Covid Files on The Origins of Covid? Catch up here.

[EDITORS NOTE: The author is pro public health, pro science and pro vaccination. In this situation, he raises important questions and concerns for readers around the Covid SARS2 virus and Covid treatment approaches. His goal is to get people thinking in the best interest of future health innovation.]

The post Covid’s Elephant in the Room. We Must Address it appeared first on Medika Life.

The answers to the origin questions matter, if not simply for accountability, then for the sake of science and allaying a growing theory that perhaps we had created a monster and unleashed it on the world. The ensuing investigation (still technically ongoing), as with everything related to Covid, became a daunting, conspiracy-laden undertaking, riddled with misinformation, coverups, disclosures, and plenty of ass-covering. No one wants to be held accountable for global chaos and a mounting body count.

Two main theories evolved, and we will examine both. The first was that the virus was artificial or engineered and leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, whether with nefarious intent or by accident. The second drew its basis from conventional science that the virus had crossed over from the animal population (a zoonotic origin), either a bat or another unfortunate animal sold in the Wuhan market and destined for dinner.

I have tried to eschew technical terms in the article in favor of plain English, and where it cannot be avoided, I have attempted to explain the science involved to the best of my limited abilities. The article is long and perhaps a tad tedious in places, but background matters if you are really looking to understand the two opposing arguments.

Before we look at the – what can only roughly be termed – “evidence” supporting both claims, a few things worth noting about any origin theory.

There is a third possible scenario related to the location of “patient zero” or the first person infected with the virus. There are research laboratories spread across the globe that engage in Gain of Function (GOF) research, something I’ll discuss further in the article. Essentially GOF is the process whereby a virus is engineered to be more deadly. For example, the virus’s ability to infect its host would be amplified with genetic manipulation. The laboratory in Wuhan would have shared its research with any of these institutions.

We only assume that Wuhan was the point of origin, but it is possible that the virus was circulating in the human population earlier than December 2019 in another location. Like either of the aforementioned scenarios, the waters surrounding this possibility are equally murky.

The real problem posed by the new Covid virus came down to one thing. How it attaches itself to its human host and exploits our ACE2 receptors. What follows is a bit technical and you can ignore it and skip on to the next paragraph, as a working understanding of the virus’s mechanism of action isn’t crucial to following the story

The SARS-CoV-2 genome contains typical coronavirus genes but the receptor binding domain (RBD) in the S protein is highly specific. The site for furin-like protease cleavage of the S protein into S1 and S2 subunits is also unique.

These specific and unique adaptations make the virus so at home in our bodies and fuel the artificial theory. They have also, to date, posed the most significant stumbling blocks to identifying a zoonotic (animal) origin.

Also, before we dive in, scientists have identified the sources for the zoonotic origin of the SARS-COV outbreak in 2002. It is a complicated and often painstakingly long process to track down a carrier, an animal providing a cross-over point from animals to humans. Similarly, MERS is passed to humans by dromedary. We live in proximity to these animals, and it is this proximity that adds to the risk of cross-over events. These viruses are the exception rather than the rule.

Theory 1. Animal infects man, man infects man, and the pandemic begins

I cannot, in all honesty, suggest that there can be many people, including leading scientists, who in 2023, still place much faith in this theory. It can only however be ruled out once a definitive answer is provided. So, let’s explore why the natural origin theory was promoted so vociferously and why, to prove the theory, an animal infected with the virus, sold in the markets in Wuhan, needed to be found.

How infectious are these new viruses that originate in animals?

What follows below may seem long winded, but it is a necessary preface for a very important point, one of transmissibility, and it’s an important point to grasp in the origin debate.

Luckily for us, novel viruses are rarely adept at person to person transmission. The process by which they escape their animal host and manage to infect a human host is usually a result of a new mutation of the virus, and most of the time, the genetic mechanisms the virus has evolved are not well enough developed to make it effective at jumping from one human host to another. Many of these terrifying new strains that pop up are self-limiting and relatively easy to contain.

That, from a public health point of view, is a huge blessing, but it is unfortunately not always the case. Take the Spanish or the Great Flu of 1918. The virus responsible for the outbreak (H1N1) originated in ducks or poultry, supposedly in the US, despite the term “Spanish Flu.” One of the first recorded cases was on March 11, 1918, at Fort Riley in Kansas. While there is some disagreement about the US as the point of origin, there is no doubt the original host was avian. This virus not only managed the cross-species jump, but it also proved a winner in the infectious stakes, moving with deadly ease from one person to another.

As an interesting aside, the H1N1 virus claimed more than 50 million lives out of an estimated 1.8 billion people alive in 1918 and disappeared as rapidly as it had emerged. Estimates vary, but figures suggest it claimed between 1 and 5% of the global population. The SARS-COV2 virus has killed 6.73 million globally out of a population of 7.7 billion, infecting, according to the WHO, 662 million, or roughly about 10 percent of the global population. Deaths only represent approximately 1% of the infected and 0.01% of the total population.

SARS-NCOV2 is very infectious and as it mutates and develops new strains, it follows a typical viral evolution, becoming less deadly in exchange for an increase in transmissibility. So, to the point. The novel virus first documented in Wuhan is immediately an outlier. Unlike most other novel viruses, it is perfectly adapted to infecting humans.

No prior recorded run-ins with the good folk of planet Earth, the virus simply appears out of the blue in 2019, perfectly adapted to infecting it’s human host and equally adept at passing from person to person, in other words, highly transmissible. Now while the odds of this occurring naturally cannot be ruled out, they are slim. Really slim. We encounter thousands of viruses in the course of our day to day lives with no ill effects.

The changes that enable a virus to cross over to humans from their animal hosts, are, as I discussed earlier, rare and often self limiting. The virus makes the jump, but is unable to spread itself effectively from human host to human host (low transmissibility). You may not be aware of this, but new pathogens emerge frequently and fortunately for us, aren’t sufficiently evolved to maintain a presence in their new hosts (us).

Also, the more deadly pathogens tend to kill off their victims before the person has the chance to spread the new disease very far., thereby also limiting the spread. There is a sweet spot for viruses that want to hit it off with mankind, and very few achieve it. From early analysis of the SARS-COV2 virus, it offered the perfect balance of transmissibility and lethalness.

A virus made for humanity, if you’ll excuse the phrase.

Tracking down the deadly courier

As members of the identified species responsible for the original SARS-COV virus outbreak in China in late 2002, bats and civets were immediately marked as prime suspects. In the 2002 outbreak, initial assessments determined that the virus crossed to human hosts from zoonotic reservoirs, including bats, Himalayan palm civets (Paguma larvata), and raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), sold in exotic animal markets in Guangdong Province.

Initial suspicion fell on the pangolin as the original reservoir for the SARS-COV2 virus and some even suggested that the virus may have evolved by combining pangolin and bat COV strains, a theory later dismissed as the virus was subsequently shown not to be recombinant (made of of two or more strains). Then, in October 2020, the pangolin was exonerated. It could not, it was shown, have been responsible for harboring the virus that infected us.

Science dug deeper. Setting aside the pangolin, SARS-CoV-2 was also reported to bind to ACE2 from Chinese horseshoe bats, civet, cat, turtle, ferret, monkey, dog, Chinese hamster, buffalo, cow, sheep, swine and even pigeon, but none proved feasible as either a reservoir or as an intermediary between the reservoir and man.

A lot hinged on the fact that we had an established pattern with SARS-COV that appeared to be repeating itself. In 2002 it had been the wet markets in Guangdong Province and the exotic animals traded there, now it was the wet markets in Wuhan, specifically the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where the first cases were supposedly recorded. Appearances can however be deceptive.

What if the Huanan market had not been ground zero for Covid-19? Could that rule out a zoonotic reservoir? As early as May of 2020, papers began circulating, questioning the publicly accepted narrative of the market and pointing to earlier cases in Wuhan, unrelated to the market. The quote below is lifted directly from one such paper published in Frontiers of Medicine.

COVID-19 is officially considered to have emerged at the Huanan
seafood wholesale market (HSWM) in Wuhan in December, however, epidemiological data show that early cases of COVID-19 were not related to HSWM and thus that it is not the site of emergence. Phylogenetic studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 might have circulated in Wuhan as early as October 2019 and that the virus then spread at low-level from person to person (the latency phase), before being imported to HSWM where it was detected in December 2019

Flaws in zoonotic theories for SARS and MERS predate SARS-COV2. Without getting into technical details (links included for those who wish to explore the topic in more depth) there are two basic models that allow a virus to jump species, the first being the spillover model and a second, referred to as the circulation model. In this model there is no requirement for zoonotic pressure or epizootic episode prior to the emergence of a human disease.

In layman’s terms, we (animals and humans) coexist with viruses (often shared) and are frequently infected with no ill effects. However, under the right conditions, one of these viral infections can mutate, perhaps in the presence of a host with a weakened immune system or genetic abnormality that predisposes the person to that specific virus’s genome. It is therefor possible that SARS-COV2 used a human chain as its intermediary and evolved in human hosts.

SARS-CoV2 is suggested to be one of nearly 900 zoonotic pathogens that have made the leap from nonhuman animals to human populations over millennia. Emerging evidence suggests we return the favor, according to  officially reported SARS-CoV-2 human infections in 23 nonhuman animal species, including not only big cats like tigers and lions but also domestic cats and dogs, gorillas, white-tailed deer, hamsters, farmed mink, otters, anteaters, manatees, hippopotamuses, and others, according to the World Organization for Animal Health.

There remains another issue, not frequently discussed. Technological advances in the sciences have outstripped our ability to fully comprehend what we can now observe and the intricate interdependencies of nature still elude us. A lot of what we see published is nothing more than an educated guess based on unfolding models. We may or may not be on the right track and the huge amount of conflicting opinion supports the fact that virology and its related fields are far from an exact science.

To date, no zoonotic reservoir or intermediary has been identified for the SARS-COV2 virus.

Theory 2. Man amplifies existing virus, dooms the world.

Subtitled: Wuhan, the Capital of Coincidences

I’ve written extensively on this topic during the last three years and you will find links to these articles interspersed below. For the sake of continuity, some of this older content is repeated, and has, where new information has emerged, been updated to reflect the ever evolving narrative. The information deals only with verifiable, known facts and where I digress into opinion, it will be clearly stated.

To fully understand what unfolds below, lets kick of with GOF research, as it plays an integral part of the man-made theory.

Gain of Function (GOF)

Gain-of-function research refers to the serial passaging of microorganisms to increase their transmissibility, virulence, immunogenicity, and host tropism by applying selective pressure to a culture. So in other words, in layman’s terms, it’s about creating something nastier, tougher, and more deadly than the original by manipulating it in a laboratory, for whatever purpose, military, scientific, or otherwise.

To level the playing field however, associating Gain of Function research as being mutually exclusive to influenza or coronaviruses is patently wrong. The field is immense and it is incorrect to equate GOF studies only with influenza transmission experiments. Virology is founded on adaptation approaches, and these have broad utility because they provide phenotypic evidence of a genotypic change when combined with a discriminatory biological assay.

Used responsibly, GOF is an incredibly useful and some would argue, essential tool in the virologists arsenal. Inadequate or flawed safety and ethics protocols are however commonplace in research laboratories where GOF is undertaken, particularly in countries like China. Without being dramatic, pursuing GOF research without properly ensuring its safety, could lead to an extinction-level event. Us being the species we wipe out. It’s an unlikely, but not impossible consequence.

For further reading, including the 2014 US moratorium on GOF, follow this link. Also you may be interested to know that another outbreak of the H1N1 strain in 1977 (the one that caused the Great Flu in 1918) was caused by a laboratory leak of the virus. You can read more about that here.

WIV or the Wuhan Institute of Virology

At the center of the web of coincidences surrounding the virus origin, sits the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or WIV, and one of it’s employees, a scientist affectionately known as batwoman. The WIV comes equipped with a biosafety laboratory, and of course, the facility works on coronaviruses, particularly the SARS-COV virus. That’s where batwoman comes into the picture.

Chinese virologist, Dr. Zheng-li Shi started out as a research assistant at the Wuhan Institute for Virology (WIV), with a focus on aquatic viruses. She trained in France and later pivoted to bats in 2004 after SARS broke out. She is widely recognized as a leader in the field and to facilitate her research, she has spent years collecting bats from caves across China, investigating how the coronavirus can jump from animal to human. Said bats are relocated to the Institute (where else) for further study.

Safety Levels in Laboratories handling Biohazards

SARS has not naturally recurred since 2003, but there have been six separate “escapes” from virology labs studying it: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and in four distinct events at the same laboratory in Beijing.

Many instances involving the accidental release of pathogens have taken place in labs around the world. Hundreds of breaches have occurred in the U.S., including a 2014 release of anthrax from a U.S. government lab that exposed 84 people. The SARS virus escaped four times from the Chinese National Institute of Virology in Beijing causing four infections and one death and also escaped facilities in Singapore and Taiwan.

Despite our best efforts, we cannot ensure viruses used in GOF remain secure. China, unfortunately, has a reputation for lax safety protocols, and the WIV is no exception. In 2014 scientists calling themselves the Cambridge Working Group urged caution on creating new viruses. In what may have been prescient words, they specified the risk of creating a dangerous virus.

“Accident risks with newly created ‘potential pandemic pathogens’ raise grave new concerns,” they wrote. “Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses, especially but not limited to influenza, poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control.”

If you’re thinking we ever learn, think again. In 2021 SARS-COV2 once again escaped from a high level biosecurity laboratory in Taiwan by infecting a laboratory worker. Clearly, we do not have sufficient technical prowess to deal safely with the viruses we create and collect.

Follow the Money

Did the NIH and the NIAID fund GOF research in Wuhan, or didn’t they? Enter the EcoHealth Alliance and Dr Peter Daszak, one of the strongest proponents (naturally) for the natural origin theory. More on that later. The short answer is an absolute, resounding yes. To avoid this article turning into a novel, you can reference the hard evidence in an article I published in 2021. Ironically, if you’re an American, your tax dollars may very well have contributed directly to the pandemic.

The referenced article does not deal with Dr Anthony Fauci’s role in this sordid saga, but given the volume of evidence that has emerged recently, you are free to draw your own conclusions regarding the extent of his involvement with EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak.

That pesky Furin cleavage site

As discussed earlier, one of the most prominent features of the virus relates to its S protein, in particular, the furin cleavage site, that, and the receptor binding domain (RBD) in the S protein is highly specific. So specific in fact, that many virologists took one look at them and had the same thought. Engineered. Not by nature, but by a far more malicious entity, man.

And that brings us back nicely to our friend from EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak. What follows is possibly either the greatest attempt to cover tracks in the history of science or intentional misdirection to further an alternate agenda. We may never know the true motivation, but we know the facts. Daszak lied.

On February 19th of 2020, a group of virologists and others published a letter in the Lancet on the origin, in their professional opinions, of the virus. This extract is taken directly from said letter.

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,”

The author of this letter was none other than Peter Daszak and the signatories to it included Charles Calisher, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B Corley, Christian Drosten, Luis Enjuanes, Jeremy Farrar, Hume Field, Josie Golding, Alexander Gorbalenya, Bart Haagmans, James M Hughes, William B Karesh, Gerald T Keusch, Sai Kit Lam, Juan Lubroth, John S Mackenzie, Larry Madoff, Jonna Mazet, Peter Palese, Stanley Perlman, Leo Poon, Bernard Roizman, Linda Saif, Kanta Subbarao and Mike Turner (no relation).

Now under normal circumstances, this statement of support for their poor beleaguered Chinese colleagues would have been in good form, and the strongly worded endorsement of a natural origin for the virus, well within their rights, however, on the release of emails from the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance under a Freedom of Information request, it came to light that Peter Daszak (whom you will note declared no conflicting interests) was pursuing an alternative agenda. One he had coerced other signatories to agree to, amny of whom workerd for, or were involved with EcoHealth Alliance.

An article highlighting the extent of the coercion was published in the U.S. Right to Know website on the day the statement was published in the Lancet. Titled “EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated key scientists’ statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2” the article’s introduction leaves no doubt as to its intent.

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that a statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Now, if I am not mistaken, that looks pretty conflicted to me. The extent of the funding Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance received can be viewed here. One of Dr Fauci’s last acts as director of the NIAID before retiring in late 2022 was to award one final lump sum to EcoHealth Alliance, despite dismal failures by the company to account for, or produce records relating to their involvement with WIV and the GOF research undertaken there.

Peter Daszak intentionally sought, and still seeks, to influence public and scientific opinion on the origins of the virus to deflect attention from the elephant in the room.

Since 2010, scientists, in particular, one Ralph. S Baric, had known that coronaviruses use the spike protein to gain a foothold in their human hosts. Baric published a paper in 2010 entitled “Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike: mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission” and was widely recognized as one of the leading figures experimenting on modifying the spike protein.

No prizes for guessing where Baric found gainful employment. He has developed genetic techniques to enhance the pandemic potential of existing bat coronaviruses, working in collaboration with Dr. Zheng-li Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and with the EcoHealth Alliance. Coincidence after coincidence.

Moderna and Pfizer drive the nail home

Lest we forget, both Moderna and Pfizer produced almost identical mRNA based vaccines in record time. In fact, Moderna had theirs ready to go on the 28th of January, 2020. Impressive you say, but what does this have to do with the virus origins? Perhaps nothing and perhaps everything.

We know Moderna was heavily invested in pursuing a vaccine for coronaviruses and was intimately familiar with the SARS-COV virus. The company would no doubt have been privy to the research being carried out in Wuhan and may well have met with early success against newly engineered strains, particularly if they knew specifically how these strains interacted with our bodies. Almost a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Pure conjecture on my part, of course, but far from unlikely.

Putting the facts aside

Given the unending list of coincidences surrounding Wuhan, it would seem statistically impossible for the virus to have originated anywhere else. If I were a betting man I would also most certainly place my cash on Theory 2, as each coincidence further reduces the likelihood of natural origin. Which then raises one final question which must be broached, as unpleasant as it may be.

If the virus did indeed originate from within the WIV, was it’s release into the wild intentional or accidental?

Profiteering and Smoking Guns

Perhaps the final straw on the wobbling camel-of-natural-origins back is provided by the billionaires, new and old, that profited immensely from the death and chaos that unfolded post 2019. How profitable was/is the pandemic? Here are a few eye watering numbers to make you wish you’d followed a career path in virology.

Now while every bloke is entitled to an honest days wage, whatever their profession, profiteering from a global event you may directly, or indirectly, have initiated tends to raise an eyebrow. It provides an excellent motive for aiding and abetting the virus’s escape and while the likelihood is that the leak was unintentional and purely down to poor security protocols, if there was indeed a leak, we cannot, until proven otherwise, dismiss any of the theories swirling around Wuhan.

Profit, of course is not the only motivating factor, as conspiracy theorists will be quick to point out. Population control on a global scale requires mass vaccination, which, of course is easily justified in the face of a global viral threat. Who would engage in such monstrous evils? Why the elites of course, with fingers pointing towards the likes of Klaus Schwab (chairman of the World Economic Forum, currently meeting in Davos as I write this, to plan their next move), Bill Gates and others.

There may very well be a “smoking gun” that will inadvertently turn up somewhere in the years that follow, a shooter emerging from the grassy knoll, that confirms finally, one way or another where SARS-COV2 originated. I suspect the virus itself will offer up the final answers. As our technology improves, definitively identifying natural and engineered viral sequences in minutes will become a reality. It will also make detailed analysis of the “vaccines” possible, essential for restoring trust in medicines we use to treat billions.

So to return to the original pandemic question. Where did our current coronavirus originate? We may never know with certainty, our best bet being an educated guess based on snippets we’re told are facts, buried in the shifting sands of political opinion and scientific agendas. I made a choice in 2021, to believe that when presented with coincidence upon coincidence, we’d be fools to try and disprove the obvious conclusions these coincidences point to. Let’s disprove the obvious first and then look to natural origin.

Perhaps after evaluating the history of the last three years, you’ll join me on that side of the wall.

Missed Part 4 of the Covid Files on When is a vaccine not a vaccine? Catch up here.

The post On the Origin of Covid. With Apologies to Darwin appeared first on Medika Life.

Here’s my initial response: It is no surprise that vaccination is better than infection. The vaccine is reasonably well-tolerated, while the infection can make me quite ill or even take my life.

But not so fast; that is different from what the research says. The study’s most provocative finding is that vaccination appeared to be more effective than infection, even among those who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. I am surprised by this observation.

“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, life, and the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one merely tries to comprehend a little of this mystery daily. ― Albert Einstein

COVID vaccination in the vaccinated and infected

When COVID-19 hit the world scene, it was remarkably dangerous because non of our immune systems had ever faced it.

I raced to teach my immune system; I remember how excited all of my radiation oncology staff were when our vaccination turn came. We all preferred this immune system education over exposure to COVID-19 and its unknown hazards.

But what about those who have already suffered a COVID-19 infection? Could the fact that a “real” infection exposes us to many more COVID-19 antigens (than does a vaccine) translate into more protection? You may be surprised that until now, we did not have an answer.

Indiana (USA) researchers recently reported thought-provoking results in their study “SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death in Vaccinated and Infected Individuals by Age Groups in Indiana, 2021–2022.”

The scientists identified COVID-infected individuals who had not been vaccinated. They also analyzed people who had been infected but had not suffered from an infection.

The researchers then matched individuals between the groups: For each vaccinated individual, they simultaneously located one who had been infected. They matched sex, age, race, zip code, and pre-existing conditions.

Thirty days after a vaccine or infection event, the analysis began. The investigators believed that exposure-induced immunity should have been established by that time. Here are the results:

The vaccinated individuals were approximately twice as likely to become infected in the next six months than the previously infected people.

But here’s an important supplement: The vaccinated folks did better regarding other outcomes, including emergency department encounters, hospitalizations, and death.

COVID-19 infection versus vaccination — My take

It seems obvious that if you had to choose one or the other, COVID-19 infection versus vaccination, you’d opt for the jab. But nothing is ever simple.

Are those of us who chose a vaccine the same as those who did not? While the study authors tried to control for confounding factors, this is a quite imperfect science. Are the vaccinated more healthy? I suspect so. Moreover, the vaccinated amongst us seem to be more careful about masking and cleaning surfaces.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” — Unknown author.

Yale’s F. Perry Wilson, MD, points out a problem with the study’s methods. I will let him explain the issue:

“The researchers censored matched pairs when an infected participant received a vaccination, or a vaccine recipient became infected. At first glance, this seems logical (as we no longer see the “benefit” of prior infection alone).

But censoring a matched pair when the vaccinated member of the pair gets COVID means that you can never observe things like death from COVID in that individual; all events must happen before infection. There is an argument that this is fair since the infected person in the pair, by design, had survived their COVID infection for at least 30 days. But I am concerned that this would bias the results to favor vaccination.”

While the study results are provocative, they are no longer relevant for many of us. I had a COVID-19 infection, and you probably did, too. Most of us don’t have to ask ourselves to choose between natural infection and vaccination. If you have been infected with COVID-19, how much value does a vaccine confer?

Thank you for joining me in this look at COVID vaccine versus infection — Which confers more immunity?

The post COVID Vaccine Versus Infection: Which Confers More Immunity? appeared first on Medika Life.