"The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine no longer needs to be kept at ultra-freezing temperatures and can be safely stored inside normal medical freezers — making distribution easier, the firm said in a report Friday.

The makers of the shots, including the German biotechnology firm BioNTech, have discovered the doses can remain at between 5 and -13 degrees Fahrenheit without spoiling — instead of -94 degrees like previously thought, according to the Financial Times."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pfizer-says-its-covid-vaccine-doesnt-need-to-be-st...

So, out of the blue, they have found that the vaccine can indeed be stored at a temperature 100 degrees warmer than they first claimed? Not only does this conveniently make their vaccine much more competitive, and hence profitable, it calls into question everything else about it. If nothing else, this means they marketed this vaccine before they understood the very fundamentals of its chemistry. Either that, or they're lying. Neither explanation instills confidence.

But there's another aspect. Again assuming that COVID is with us to stay, wouldn't it be better for our species to deal with it naturally? Is there really any justification for a permanent, universal, yearly vaccine? It's just one more thing our species will be dependent on, like fossil fuels and Facebook.

Big Pharma has hit pay dirt here.

'Deal with it naturally'? Where's the money in that?

Relying on technological solutions to man-made problems involves applying downstream fixes to upstream causes.

Malaria is a good example. How many billions have been spent researching malaria vaccines (none of which proved successful long term) when in fact the disease is caused by political corruption - that is - poor water sanitation/management?

(this thread continues here)

I'm not against people getting the vaccine - if they want it - but forcing people to take some biological agent cooked up by scientists to prevent a disease which may well have been cooked up by scientists - that's another frightening high-tide mark in the state's intrusion into our private lives.

Agreed. And one particularly troubling aspect of all this is that it appears forces are at work to assure that we'll all be getting this vaccine regularly. Already big Pharma is working on boosters for various strains. This is like the war on terror; it's never ending.

So if you accept the notion that COVID will be with us forevermore, like the common cold or flu, then the implication is that big Pharma will push for regular, universal vaccines, forever. This is something that right now does not exist nor is there a need for. So it's a huge change, if it were to happen.

But there's another aspect. Again assuming that COVID is with us to stay, wouldn't it be better for our species to deal with it naturally? Is there really any justification for a permanent, universal, yearly vaccine? It's just one more thing our species will be dependent on, like fossil fuels and Facebook.

Big Pharma has hit pay dirt here.

Too bad there's no vaccine for stupidity.

Here's another Australian Premier (QLD) Annastacia Palaszczuk that would do well to get the stupidity vaccine if one is invented.

“For some industries, it may have to be (mandatory). I think the federal government will address …. that because they are the most vulnerable.

“If someone had it, and went into an aged care facility, if they had the UK strain, it would go right through.”

First point, presumably the residents have had the vaccine - so if it works as well as claimed then there's nothing to worry about.

Secondly, the vaccines, as we've said, don't prevent a person catching the virus - they just reduce the symptoms. So even if all the workers are given the vaccine, they can, presumably, still transmit it.

I'm not against people getting the vaccine - if they want it - but forcing people to take some biological agent cooked up by scientists to prevent a disease which may well have been cooked up by scientists - that's another frightening high-tide mark in the state's intrusion into our private lives.

Of course that didn't stop the barrage of irrational name-calling he was subjected to by the establishment.

This is a perfect example of how either side, in this case the anti-anti-vax side, can torpedo an honest, balanced, informed attempt to actually discuss an issue. Dr. Noorchashm clearly states his support of vaccination, "I want to be very clear that I am an ardent supporter of President Biden’s plan to vaccinate 150 Million Americans in 100 days." And yet the author of the poorly designed and misnamed site RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE clearly didn't bother to actually read the letter.

Too bad there's no vaccine for stupidity.

Sane, rational people just accept the science before it's been done!

"France's Health Authority made an official recommendation on 2 February that the vaccine should not be used for people over 65. It said more studies were needed before it was rolled out to older age groups.

Other European countries have taken a similar position: Germany, Austria, Sweden and Poland only recommend it for people under 65, and Italy and Belgium for those under 55."

That's an ever-growing list of "dangerous...crackpot" scientists from developed countries who aren't listening to the scientists.

"An antiviral product used to ensure safe sex is being deployed to fight COVID-19 in Europe - except it will be sprayed up noses instead of on condoms."

"Dr Fairley said the spray stops infection when applied to cells before and after exposure to the virus... and lasts about six to eight hours before needing to be reapplied."

"John Shine, president of the Australian Academy of Science and former CSL chairman, said such products were needed, given vaccines did not prevent transmission of COVID-19.

“Vaccinated individuals will be protected from the worst of COVID-19 but will not be protected from becoming infected,” Professor Shine said. “None of the vaccines that have been approved for use have demonstrated that they can stop transmission.”"

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/starpharma-deploys-safe-sex-antivir... (paywall)

"The vaccine is safe and effective in people with known medical conditions associated with increased risk of severe disease, such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver or kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.

Although further studies are required for immunocompromised persons, people in this category who are part of a group recommended for vaccination may be vaccinated after receiving information and counselling.

While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.

Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.

The vaccine should not be administered to persons younger than 18 years of age pending the results of further studies."

At the bottom WHO offers a disclaimer:

"We do not know whether the vaccine will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission. Immunity persists for several months, but the full duration is not yet known. These important questions are being studied."

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vac...

Given the survival rate for women under 50 who contract Covid, who are the only ones who will be pregnant, is, according to the CDC, 99.98%, why on earth would you advise pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent for which "very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy"?

"I am writing to warn that it is an almost certain immunological prognotication that if viral antigens are present in the tissues of subjects who undergo vaccination, the antigen specific immune response triggered by the vaccine will target those tissues and cause tissue inflammation and damage.

Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium. Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients.

I am recommending to you, as our lead FDA regulators, not to gloss over the real possibility that vaccinating persons with pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in their tissues could cause that subset of people grave harm — and especially the frail with cardiovascular disease."

The guy is not an anti-vaxxer - on the contrary - he's just pointing out that it's dangerous for the elderly or those who have Covid.

The German government appeared to arrive at the same conclusion - having banned the Astra Zeneca vaccine for over-65's until more data is available.

Of course that didn't stop the barrage of irrational name-calling he was subjected to by the establishment.

This is a growth industry!

It's a bit like that with trying to determine the effectiveness of vaccines against the UK and SA variants.

The Headline says: Moderna Vaccine appears to work against new variants

The word 'appears' is the troubling one. So i read on.

Early laboratory tests suggest antibodies triggered by the vaccine can recognise and fight the new variants.

Sounds good, but 'early' and 'suggest' are the qualifiers here.

For the Moderna study, researchers looked at blood samples taken from eight people who had received the recommended two doses of the Moderna vaccine.

Eight people? Hang on, haven't millions around the world been vaccinated by now? Why not do a study with 30 000 people? What's 8 people gonna prove?

The findings are yet to be peer reviewed, but suggest immunity from the vaccine recognises the new variants.

Hopefully the peer reviewer is going to say 'You've only sampled 8 people!'

Blood samples exposed to the new variants appeared to have sufficient antibodies to achieve this neutralising effect, although it was not as strong for the South Africa variant as for the UK one.

Hmm, so it doesn't work well against the SA variant?

Moderna says this could mean that protection against the South Africa variant might disappear more quickly.

Oh, finally the bottom line (which should be he headline): not as effective and protection disappears more quickly.

But Hey! just take it anyway - you'll be supporting a growing industry and boosting the economy - especially Moderna's.

“The current reports do not suggest any unexpected or untoward increase in fatalities in frail, elderly individuals or any unusual characteristics of adverse events following administration of BNT162b2,” it reported.

“Reports are in line with the expected, all-cause mortality rates and causes of death in the sub-population of frail, elderly individuals, and the available information does not confirm a contributory role for the vaccine in the reported fatal events.

“In view of this, the committee considers that the benefit-risk balance of BNT162b2 remains favourable in the elderly, and does not suggest any revision, at present, to the recommendations around the safety of this vaccine.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/weigh-merits-ofgiving-covid19-jab-to-the-frail... (paywall)

Having lost trust in the WHO's recommendations, we'll just record this here then check back later to see if it was right or not.

We're told that airlines (and countries) are going to require people to be vaccinated before being allowed to fly. But what if you haven't been vaccinated but have caught and recovered from Covid? Will that be considered equivalent to a vaccine? Or is that a stupid question coz how can anyone make money from that?

Noticed that a few of the tennis stars have actually had and recovered from Covid - but they are still required to do the 14-day quarantine.

On a different note, Israel has already vaccinated 38% of the population. That should give us a good idea of the efficacy, if not long term side effects.

“In terms of preventing death, it works 100 per cent of the time. In terms of preventing severe illness, it works 100 per cent of the time.” (paywall)

This statement was based on one small trial in which only 12% were over 55. The control group had one death and two severe cases, whereas the vaccine group had zero deaths and zero severe cases.

Tom Kompas, University of Melbourne professor of economics and biosecurity:

“I would say there was no basis for making that claim. Relying on that sample size is just absurd. You wouldn’t make any statements about that.”

Sounds like the nations' top scientific advisers' plan is to jab people with anything and everything until they find something that works. I wonder if any safety trials have been done that combine two different vaccines administered to the same person?

Does that mean we have the absurd situation of having a created a vaccine which is deadly to the people it's meant to protect?

It would appear that that's exactly what it means, at least for some people.

Let's say that in the course of Phase 3 trials, the trials that have really just gotten under way although the public is led to believe they've been completed, let's say they find a serious problem. What then? Are these companies and all the governments involved roll over and be transparent. "Whoops! Sorry everybody!" Think of the lawsuits.

Here's something disturbing - we've talked about how vaccines alter the immune system's response and that old people, the only ones at risk from Covid, have compromised immune systems. So what's the risk that vaccines might actually be dangerous to old people?

Given the Phase 3 trials haven't been completed, as you point out, we don't really know. Now we have this report from Norway on Pfizer vaccine:

"The British Medical Journal reports 23 frail and elderly patients in Norway died shortly after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA) told the BMJ it has investigated 13 of the deaths so far, and concluded that common side effects of mRNA vaccines, which include fever and diarrhoea, may have contributed to the deaths."

Does that mean we have the absurd situation of having a created a vaccine which is deadly to the people it's meant to protect?

Let's not forget that Covid is not dangerous for the vast majority of people. The vaccine doesn't prevent Covid, just reduces the symptoms, which are minimal for the young and healthy to begin with - so what's the difference? Why not vaccinate those who are vulnerable (and want it) and let Covid take its course amongst the rest of the population?

Good point. And I get tired of hearing experts say in the media that these vaccines prevent infection. They don't. The medically correct term is disease. They prevent disease, or symptoms, but they absolutely don't prevent infection, and the data is unclear on whether they prevent transmission of those who are vaccinated but infected. Just today I watched some smartly dressed, smug 'expert' talk about how two doses are needed to prevent infection.

I know why that won't be allowed to happen, but it seems to make sense: it's cheaper, the vaccine rollout could be targeted and done in a month or so, life could return to normal...

It also won't happen because they want to sell these vaccines. There's huge money involved. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars in time.

And this has me worried. Let's say that in the course of Phase 3 trials, the trials that have really just gotten under way although the public is led to believe they've been completed, let's say they find a serious problem. What then? Are these companies and all the governments involved roll over and be transparent. "Whoops! Sorry everybody!" Think of the lawsuits.

Here's a bit of click bait that nonetheless leads to a disturbing story: Death of Florida doctor after receiving COVID-19 vaccine under investigation.

This will be eaten up by the anti-vaxxer crowd, which in some ways is unfortunate because they peddle in a lot of BS and yet this story looks like it really should be discussed and addressed. I'm curious to see how the experts will respond.

From the story, "Michael's wife, Heidi Neckelmann, said he sought emergency care three days after the shot because he had dots on his skin that indicated internal bleeding. "

I think the US has completed something like 7 million vaccinations so far. With those numbers, of course, there are going to be weird coincidences that one shouldn't read too much into. So, let's follow the science. What will the science say about this?

The drug industry has no shortage of drugs once deemed safe but that had disastrous effects. A few that come to mind are Vioxx, Thalidamide, and more recently Oxycontin.

Now we have vaccines that have not even been tested for one year, a whole new class of drug as well. Granted, they may turn out to be very safe and effective. I hope they do. But until they've been tested for a few years, nobody will know.

Vioxx, Thalidamide, Oxycontin - they are some big names. Guess that's another one of those 'not to be talked about in polite company' topics.

"A coronavirus vaccine developed by China's Sinovac has been found to be 50.4% effective in Brazilian clinical trials, according to the latest results released by researchers."

So:

50.4% effective
no data on how long it provides protection
no data on whether it's effective against new strains
no data on pregnant women
no data on long term side-effects

Let's not forget that Covid is not dangerous for the vast majority of people. The vaccine doesn't prevent Covid, just reduces the symptoms, which are minimal for the young and healthy to begin with - so what's the difference? Why not vaccinate those who are vulnerable (and want it) and let Covid take its course amongst the rest of the population?

I know why that won't be allowed to happen, but it seems to make sense: it's cheaper, the vaccine rollout could be targeted and done in a month or so, life could return to normal...