Unpopular Opinion: If the phylogenetic analysis of Omicron persists that it is a related but wild-type coronavirus (no furin cleavage site) that had an isolated existence, diverging from the main line of variants 16 months ago, and had a recent release that was noticed simply because of a lot of related testing going on, THEN it would stand to reason that mRNA and AVV jab sequences based on 2 year old Wuhan sequence might be something that could induce some immunity. I'm not saying it is a good idea, not saying that vaxx is a bright move, just that in the sequence-recognition sweepstakes, an older sequence is perhaps likely to be more susceptible.
Let me spitball to make sure I understand: the idea is to target the persistent part of the virus rather than mutations? Isn't that the elusive holy grail they've been searching for with the flu?
The MOST variable region of expressed proteins coded within the 29,000 bases of RNA in the Rona genome is the area that the mRNA and AVV vaxxen focus on. Indeed, it is the ONLY thing included in their payload: Spike (S1) protein. The most invariable region in Rona, is the Nucleocapsid (N), which makes up the viral package infrastructure. We have evidence from June and July out of Israel that recovered people (natural immunes) have a different set of cells that developed in their system that simply cannot develop in vaxxed. These people have memory T-cells that are directed against Nucleocapsid. Their immunity is long-lasting and variant-resistant. Why the wizards of smart at Big Pharma didn't at least try for that is astounding. They would have saved us all trillions, years of our lives, rebuked the CCP/PLA, and gotten a tickertape parade. Instead they are the most hated grifters on the planet right now.
The short duration comes from the inclusion of the engineered furin cleavage site in the vaxx code, which causes the protein to be snipped off and become soluble in the blood. This causes an immunoglobulin-dominant response. These responses are programmed to decay away over time in normal people.
A very important problem in a test negative design for things like Vaccine Efficacy study is that if study enforces that the first test positive (or negative) is counted only and that person is now dropped from the study for future events (say, the case is later vaccinated) which censors adverse outcomes, and blows up the denominator in those who haven't had it yet.
In real life, people are often positive or negative at different points in time and they vaccinate in an around that event which might be in a causal pathway. We cannot take any study seriously that cannot represent real life as time-dependent covariates rather than enforced censoring of multiple outcomes for the same person.
At least, in the Waning of Pfizer study, I detected this problem consistently where we would see negative efficacy for infection initially but positive efficacy for severe disease and death. Which makes no sense.
Well, it looked at the supplementary material and of course, there was a sensitivity analysis that did exactly what I wanted to see (let a case be a control and vice versa like real life). The positive efficacy in the first weeks against severe disease hospitalization and death flipped to -15.8% in line with infection susceptibility (and biological plausibility, how could getting an injection instantly save your life, but can't protect from infection?).
That was a 30% turn around. I expect this 29% reduction to be a similar scam. If you test positive while unvaccinated then decide to vaccinate and have an adverse event, the test negative studies tend to censor the event and just count the positive case when unvaccinated, bloating VE against severe disease.
The most important thing is knowing the disease susceptibility by age group. If the virus is predictably attacking younger people, then all gains are lost if the mean age of hospitalization drops from 85 to 28.
Of course, little mentioned fact is that they had just opened up the vaccination of 12-17 year olds on October 20, 12 days before Omicron. Never mentioned ever.
Source for Qatar Study showing 30% change in "VE"- Supplementary Appendix page25 Table S9
Another problem with Negative Case control studies - If the publisher of the peer reviewed journal doesn't like your results, they have enough time to ask you to "get more data". I saw this happen twice where shocking changes happened to the original dataset. In one case, completely new people added just enough to reverse the vaccine danger of severe disease and death for Delta variant in Qatar in first 14 days.
I knew that we are in for a long haul. That unrevised draft is still present on medarxiv. I am 100% certain that we will not get out of this mess unless people like you or others push back since researchers either under pressure or due to bias have completely been corrupted and are willing to look away until we can't look away anymore.
The first problem is eliminated by performing test negative designs like political surveys. Take a completely random sample of the population at any given time and test them. This can be done every day to bring us closer to true efficacy. There would still be some margin of error but it reduces bias in the extremes like taking only the first positive test. Researchers like test negative designs because it is essentially free. This would have some cost (but with all the public money floating around for covid, it could easily be a government run program).
It would also eliminate bias in the type of tests by injecting consistency in the method. It would still not be perfect, but if the design was used this way it would be closer to having the strong predictive power that the test was supposed to have.
Will never happen because of the corruption and obfuscation you mentioned, but it would be the kind of research I would actually find plausible.
What we should always focus on is age-standardized (mean age by exact number of years alive) trends. If the virus is attacking younger better, we are not doing something right.
Unpopular Opinion: If the phylogenetic analysis of Omicron persists that it is a related but wild-type coronavirus (no furin cleavage site) that had an isolated existence, diverging from the main line of variants 16 months ago, and had a recent release that was noticed simply because of a lot of related testing going on, THEN it would stand to reason that mRNA and AVV jab sequences based on 2 year old Wuhan sequence might be something that could induce some immunity. I'm not saying it is a good idea, not saying that vaxx is a bright move, just that in the sequence-recognition sweepstakes, an older sequence is perhaps likely to be more susceptible.
Let me spitball to make sure I understand: the idea is to target the persistent part of the virus rather than mutations? Isn't that the elusive holy grail they've been searching for with the flu?
The MOST variable region of expressed proteins coded within the 29,000 bases of RNA in the Rona genome is the area that the mRNA and AVV vaxxen focus on. Indeed, it is the ONLY thing included in their payload: Spike (S1) protein. The most invariable region in Rona, is the Nucleocapsid (N), which makes up the viral package infrastructure. We have evidence from June and July out of Israel that recovered people (natural immunes) have a different set of cells that developed in their system that simply cannot develop in vaxxed. These people have memory T-cells that are directed against Nucleocapsid. Their immunity is long-lasting and variant-resistant. Why the wizards of smart at Big Pharma didn't at least try for that is astounding. They would have saved us all trillions, years of our lives, rebuked the CCP/PLA, and gotten a tickertape parade. Instead they are the most hated grifters on the planet right now.
It sounds like manufactured obsolescence to me
They aren't smart enough. This was a blunder.
How much of targeting the most variable region plays into the short duration of protection?
The short duration comes from the inclusion of the engineered furin cleavage site in the vaxx code, which causes the protein to be snipped off and become soluble in the blood. This causes an immunoglobulin-dominant response. These responses are programmed to decay away over time in normal people.
A very important problem in a test negative design for things like Vaccine Efficacy study is that if study enforces that the first test positive (or negative) is counted only and that person is now dropped from the study for future events (say, the case is later vaccinated) which censors adverse outcomes, and blows up the denominator in those who haven't had it yet.
In real life, people are often positive or negative at different points in time and they vaccinate in an around that event which might be in a causal pathway. We cannot take any study seriously that cannot represent real life as time-dependent covariates rather than enforced censoring of multiple outcomes for the same person.
At least, in the Waning of Pfizer study, I detected this problem consistently where we would see negative efficacy for infection initially but positive efficacy for severe disease and death. Which makes no sense.
Well, it looked at the supplementary material and of course, there was a sensitivity analysis that did exactly what I wanted to see (let a case be a control and vice versa like real life). The positive efficacy in the first weeks against severe disease hospitalization and death flipped to -15.8% in line with infection susceptibility (and biological plausibility, how could getting an injection instantly save your life, but can't protect from infection?).
That was a 30% turn around. I expect this 29% reduction to be a similar scam. If you test positive while unvaccinated then decide to vaccinate and have an adverse event, the test negative studies tend to censor the event and just count the positive case when unvaccinated, bloating VE against severe disease.
The most important thing is knowing the disease susceptibility by age group. If the virus is predictably attacking younger people, then all gains are lost if the mean age of hospitalization drops from 85 to 28.
Of course, little mentioned fact is that they had just opened up the vaccination of 12-17 year olds on October 20, 12 days before Omicron. Never mentioned ever.
Source for Qatar Study showing 30% change in "VE"- Supplementary Appendix page25 Table S9
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114/suppl_file/nejmoa2114114_appendix.pdf
--
Another problem with Negative Case control studies - If the publisher of the peer reviewed journal doesn't like your results, they have enough time to ask you to "get more data". I saw this happen twice where shocking changes happened to the original dataset. In one case, completely new people added just enough to reverse the vaccine danger of severe disease and death for Delta variant in Qatar in first 14 days.
I knew that we are in for a long haul. That unrevised draft is still present on medarxiv. I am 100% certain that we will not get out of this mess unless people like you or others push back since researchers either under pressure or due to bias have completely been corrupted and are willing to look away until we can't look away anymore.
The first problem is eliminated by performing test negative designs like political surveys. Take a completely random sample of the population at any given time and test them. This can be done every day to bring us closer to true efficacy. There would still be some margin of error but it reduces bias in the extremes like taking only the first positive test. Researchers like test negative designs because it is essentially free. This would have some cost (but with all the public money floating around for covid, it could easily be a government run program).
It would also eliminate bias in the type of tests by injecting consistency in the method. It would still not be perfect, but if the design was used this way it would be closer to having the strong predictive power that the test was supposed to have.
Will never happen because of the corruption and obfuscation you mentioned, but it would be the kind of research I would actually find plausible.
What we should always focus on is age-standardized (mean age by exact number of years alive) trends. If the virus is attacking younger better, we are not doing something right.