For a different approach, here is a nice summary of the main issues with the present Covid-19 vaccinations and public policy issues, by Phillip M, Altman, a pharmacologist, at the opinion section of Quadrant.org, which always has items of interest. Altman’s piece contains nothing that the mainstream can dispute, since he draws inferences based upon their data and theories. For example, he states that it is well recognised that the standard Covid-19 test, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology. is so sensitive it can be set to detect a single molecule of the Covid-19 virus, but not the entire virus, or viral load. This tends to generate masses of false positives, yet this test is being used, which does not make much sense … at least outside of a conspiratorial framework, I would personally add.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/07/the-who-how-and-why-of-covid-19-and-its-treatment/
“How effective are the new vaccines?
The new mRNA vaccines were provisionally approved on the basis of a single randomised, controlled clinical trial involving about 40,000 volunteers. Regulatory bodies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration in the US and the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia, usually require many clinical trials for approval. However, this was an exceptional set of circumstances. Gaining approval after only a single clinical trial means that it becomes extremely important to gain additional post-market safety and efficacy data.
Now that millions of doses have been used, experience to date strongly suggests the genetic vaccines can prevent, to a large degree, more serious COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalisation and death, especially in those individuals with co-morbidities (age, diabetes, compromised lung and cardiovascular function).
It has been widely reported that the mRNA vaccines were about 95 per cent effective, but the question is: “effective at doing what”? In fact, the trials of the genetic vaccines did not find any difference in the death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (there were too few COVID-19 cases) and, furthermore, the primary criteria for being “effective” was a positive COVID-19 test and a symptom(s), including even a mild ones like a cough or fever. While this clinical trial result is one metric to indicate the level of immune efficacy, the selected criteria did not permit any reliable estimate of the level of protection against progressing to serious clinical conditions, being admitted to hospital or dying from COVID-19. This was because the numbers in these categories were too small to be statistically meaningful.
What does the daily reporting of “cases” tell us?
COVID-19 tests use long-established Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology. This test is so sensitive it can be set to detect even a single molecule of the target substance.
PCR tests measure a short nucleic acid sequence which is present in COVID-19 whether or not this is in the form of an intact COVID-19 virus or a fragment of a dead virus from a previously infected person. The test cannot tell if there is the presence of a live virus, nor can it determine the viral load (the amount of virus) in a positive test. Then why is the number of positive PCR tests the key metric driving public health policy in this pandemic, which is causing such massive economic and social damage? It makes no sense.
Given more than 99 per cent of people who are infected by COVID-19 experience either no symptoms or mild symptoms, shouldn’t our health policy be driven by the number of seriously ill subjects, patients admitted to hospital, or the number of deaths due to COVID-19 (not “with” COVID-19)?
Let’s keep a sense of perspective. There are normally more deaths expected due to ordinary pneumonia/influenza each year than have died with COVID-19 since the pandemic began.
How safe are the new mRNA and DNA vaccines?
Safety is a relative term in pharmacology. Anti-cancer drugs are highly toxic but they can also save your life. There is always, with any drug, an assessment of risk vs benefit. The benefit side of the equation is becoming clearer with widespread vaccine usage, but the risk side of the equation is far from clear because there has been no detailed, publicly available overall analysis of the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are likely or, probably, related to the vaccines.
The evaluation of ADRs includes a detailed analysis of the subject’s medical history, the circumstances surrounding the ADR, the temporal relationship to the drug and co-administered drugs, and consideration of the mechanism of action of the suspect drug. There are various guidelines and definitions used to estimate whether or not there is a causal relationship. It takes experts considerable time to assess with any precision which serious adverse effects observed are actually due to a drug’s administration.
In the past, safety concerns have led to the withdrawal of certain vaccines following widespread usage, and regulatory agencies routinely monitor the safety of vaccines via various ADR systems. There is a specific ADR system used by the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC), the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
As a general rule, as few as ten per cent of ADRs are reported. This observation, coupled with the government’s perceived need to overcome vaccine hesitancy in the population, work to minimise ADR reporting and underestimate the true incidence of any particular ADR. This frustrates an accurate assessment of risk.
For mRNA vaccines, it has been reported that nearly one-third of those deaths reported in the ADR system occurred within two days of vaccination. These reports and thousands of hospitalisations following vaccination need full investigation to determine if there is any causal association. To date the public has not been appraised of any comprehensive, reliable and detailed analysis of the type and incidence of adverse reactions likely to be associated with genetic vaccines given the worldwide experience.
Claims that the vaccines are “completely safe” should be considered premature until further safety data becomes available. Until that time, the risk-benefit proposition in healthy young people, those previously infected with COVID-19, infants, children and the pregnant remain unresolved.
Every vaccine is different. The use of more traditional vaccines, like Novavax in the near future, may present a relatively more attractive risk-benefit position, but only time will tell.
Masks
There is much misinformation about face masks.
First, there is no credible evidence in the literature that cloth models or the ubiqitous blue-paper surgical masks prevent to any significant degree the spread of airborne viruses. N95 masks can be effective, but they need to be fitted so there are no air gaps. If you do use a paper surgical mask of the common blue type, do not reuse it, do not place it on hard surfaces, do not put it on and off repeatedly — it is designed for aseptic single use. Surgeons use masks to prevent the infection of open surgical sites. They are not used to prevent the surgeon from getting an infection. There has been a dramatic increase in bacterial pneumonia worldwide associated with the use of masks mandated by governments. As to wearing masks outdoors, most authorities consider outdoor transmission of COVID-19 as improbable.
Recommending that very young children wear paper or cloth masks, given the incredibly low relative risk, has been the subject of experts’ criticism due to the deleterious effects on their physical and mental health. Apart from anything else, small children tend not to wear masks correctly and are most unlikely to follow aseptic procedures.
Delta variant
Various medical bureaucrats and politicians have exaggerated the threat posed by the Delta variant now sweeping the world. Multiple sources report the Delta variant to be more infectious but less deadly. Claims that the Delta variant is a “beast” that will kill thousands are not supported by current knowledge and contribute without justification to the creation of unnecessary fear.
Challenges of a vaccine-centric strategy
There are several problems in relying almost exclusively on vaccines to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Theoretically, putting all one’s eggs in a single basket seems to be a risky strategy when there is so much yet to be learned about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, and because so much depends on a successful outcome.
At this point in time we should be spending more effort in considering preventative and/or drug treatment strategies for ambulatory patients through to seriously ill COVID-19 subjects. The advice to those who have been determined as COVID-19-positive is to isolate. No treatment is actively recommended – just wait until you feel better or become so ill you need to be hospitalised.”
That is indeed true. Further reading: