Wonder how GitHub wasn't able to detect a single token downloading the entire organization's worth of repositories, especially if it's over 6 thousand of them. Surely that's not something that's done regularly? Seems like a pretty massive oversight if anyone can just grab a token and get themselves a full copy of the organization.
You’d be surprised. Repo mirroring systems, continual cloud backups, sysadmins/engineers cloning every repo of an org, 3rd party tools regularly inspecting repos, etc.
The best option is for the organization themselves to monitor their gh/ghes logs, exclude this sort of activity, and then detect it themselves. There’s no way gh can monitor all orgs for mass repo clones without a mess of false positives.
"Persons who received the BA.5-containing bivalent booster had better neutralizing activity against all Omicron subvariants (especially against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1 and XBB) than those who received 1 or 2 monovalent [original] boosters"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2214293
My assumption is that his/her problem is quite the opposite: those vaccines were once approved (?) and some might have even been promoted, and now they are no longer available due to low quality, high risks.
I'm really hoping that in twenty years we will not look back at these vaccines as one of the most impactful mistakes (or cases of corruption) of our century.
AstraZeneca was, IIRC, but its effectiveness against newer variants is pretty weak, to the extent of being pretty irrelevant, so it makes sense to withdraw.
I don’t think many people have ‘fled’ the land down under over the issues he brings up. Most folks here seem to think that the pandemic was handled pretty well compared to (for instance) the US or UK. Though that might be a WA thing. It may not though, for example the premiere of Victoria, despite having imposed lots of lockdowns that the wingnuts were very upset about, was recently voted back in with an increased majority.
(Edit — There does seem to have been an issue with motivated liars in other countries (USA) reporting exaggerations and falsehoods about the severity of it all though, for their own partisan gain. Stories about forced vaccinations at sports stadia, for instance.)
Personally I ‘fled’ the UK mid-pandemic to get here, though that was more for general quality of life reasons than anything specific to covid.
Only purpose of this kind of initiative is to cause trouble.. Marketed by the same trolls who spread medical disinfo, climate negationism, Russian propaganda..
What eliminates social cohesion and trust is
* the disease itself
* the people instrumentalizing the disease and/or the sanitary measures to partisan ends..
There actually is an significant increase in heart problem for young people. Especially in young women and it is assumed that it is connected to uptake of the pill in very early years.
Malone isn't worse than the standard CNN toyboy and the Atlantic isn't too reliable either. At least the online version.
Maybe you should listen to him instead of reading what The Atlantic wants you to believe about him? Have we not learned already that mainstream media is lying to us a lot?
Anyone who has followed politics since 2016 and has half a brain would not trust anything these people say.
Also, Dr. Robert Malone is just one of many who were censored.
>One thing is clear about the revelation of the 2021 military epidemiological data and the military’s response to it: There is undoubtedly a public health and national security crisis in the military, and the Pentagon’s reaction only seems to be concerned with exonerating the vaccine, not fixing its own alleged problem.
The vaccine antigen is only a small part of the virus. Furthermore is was modified and is inert.
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behi...
Because of international pharmacovigilance we know that ARNm vaccine induce some myocarditis and pericarditis, at a much lower rate than the virus and less severe.
There is not evidence that heart inflammation after vaccination is less common or severe than after COVID-19 infection. For instance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... suggests rates several fold higher for vaccination than infection. Not to say that on balance vaccination is anything but preferable to naive infection, but it's not a side effect free panacea.
Thanks for that link. It contradicts previous studies that put the risk of myocarditis from unvaccinated COVID infection at between 6 and 15 times higher than that from vaccination (and 30x general baseline rate).
So I read through it and in fact, it doesn't say what you assert to say it does. This is comparing vaccinated Vs vaccinated+COVID. See the comments from vepe for full explanation.
Is it comparing vaccinated vs vaccinated + infection or simply vaccinated vs infection (regardless of vaccination)?
Do we have data on specifically unvaccinated infections?
Otherwise we can only speculate on whether the long side effects of infection are less severe with vaccines than without. Considering the general hospitalization rate between unvaccinated vs vaccinated, I know what my guess would be.
> The free-floating Spike proteins synthetized by cells targeted by vaccine and destroyed by the immune response circulate in the blood and systematically interact with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors expressed by a variety of cells including platelets, thereby promoting ACE2 internalization and degradation. These reactions may ultimately lead to platelet aggregation, thrombosis and inflammation mediated by several mechanisms including platelet ACE2 receptors. Whereas Phase III vaccine trials generally excluded participants with previous immunization, vaccination of huge populations in the real life will inevitably include individuals with preexisting immunity. This might lead to excessively enhanced inflammatory and thrombotic reactions in occasional subjects. Further research is urgently needed in this area.
In the case of vaccine only / no infection, is vaccine-mediated inflammation long lasting and damaging? These effects in the paper (platelet aggregation, thrombosis) seem to be capable of causing permanent harm. Platelet aggregation seems like it would cause small amounts of systemic endothelial damage, atherosclerosis, thombrosis, ...
The level of inflammation no doubt varies on a case by case / individual basis, but is it possible that nobody gets out of the pandemic without some level of stress on their pulmonary and circulatory systems?
To state this succinctly, did Covid (whether infected or vaccinated) shave a few days off of all of our lives?
That paper was interesting and the bit about clinical trials is important, but they don’t really offer much evidence that there are substantial concentrations of free floating spike proteins in the blood following vaccination, or that this would be the cause of the inflammatory and thrombotic reactions, vs just the more general immune response
As far as I can tell they’re just citing this one paper about the ACE2 degradation, and the study doesn’t directly address SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination at all.
50% and lower rate (the hk children myocarditis study) isn't a "much lower rate". Factor in omnicron and the clear difference between vaccinating everyone and 10% of society getting the virus and unsolvable questions should begin to arise.
the CDC quite likely skews low, given the political ramifications. i've heard non-governmental estimates as high as 80% at this point. my expectation is that 2/3 of americans have had it, which is roughly borne out in my anecdotal experience, particularly since omicron. i think that's why we're seeing the mediopolitical machine starting to relent on covid policy in the past few weeks (that, and it's an election year).
But that's just an assumption. Many people seem to have pre-existing immunity. A study was done in which unvaccinated, non previously infected volunteers actually lay down in bed for a while with SARS-CoV-2 infected liquid in their noses (eww). So they were unequivocally exposed to a massive dose but only about half got COVID. There is no explanation for this within the bounds of the assumptions made by authorities.
In reality, even if you get Omicron now it's so mild it's unlikely to cause any more heart damage than any other common cold. The danger has passed. Except that, almost everyone decided to massively expose themselves to spike protein over and over. So if spikes cause heart damage and they do, especially when the vaccine gets into the bloodstream, then the vaccines will do more damage than the virus could ever do simply because nobody has pre-existing immunity to it.
Many patients who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 quickly fight off the infection with an innate immune response before the adaptive immune response really engages. That can happen with no pre-existing immunity. Some people just have better immune systems.
Are you trying to define an immune system that can fight off SARS-CoV-2 without having seen it before is not "pre-existing immunity"? If so isn't that merely playing with words? You seem to be agreeing with what I'm saying but arguing that the terminology should be different.
If you don't like the meta analysis, then sample underlying (cited) studies. I have and didn't find any misrepresentations. Ivermectin looks like a great drug to repurpose as an outpatient therapy for COVID-19.
>Nowhere in the paper I read that ADE was detected in the vaccined. Vaccine-induced ADE is only evocated as a possibility.
It's literally in the "highlights" of the paper at the top.
"Infection-enhancing antibodies have been detected in symptomatic Covid-19"
From the abstract:
"As the NTD is also targeted by neutralizing antibodies, our data suggest that the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neutralization for the original Wuhan/D614G strain. However, in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors)."
First, the line quoted from the highlights section is referring to the 1054 antibody, which was isolated from a patient infected with SARS-CoV-2, as opposed to one produced from vaccine response[1]. Second, the infection enhancing effect was determined in vitro.
So none of that supports the idea that ADE was actually detected in a human, and particularly the idea that vaccine induced ADE has actually been observed.
All that said, if the results of the paper hold up, they may help explain why the efficacy of the vaccines are reduced in the face of the delta variant. That would be extraordinarily useful in formulating better vaccines, so I'm cheering the science along. I'm less cheerful about the cherry-picking to support anti-vaccine narratives.
"In a recent publication, Li et al. (Cell 184 :1-17, 2021) have reported that infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein facilitate virus infection in vitro, but not in vivo. However, this study was performed with the original Wuhan/D614G strain. Since the Covid-19 pandemic is now dominated with Delta variants, we analyzed the interaction of facilitating antibodies with the NTD of these variants."
I'm sure this post will be taken down shortly, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Tess Lawrie co-wrote a meta-analysis that was crowd-funded, on the premises that ivermectin is working against covid.. That doesn't bode well for its neutrality, does it ?
Wonder how GitHub wasn't able to detect a single token downloading the entire organization's worth of repositories, especially if it's over 6 thousand of them. Surely that's not something that's done regularly? Seems like a pretty massive oversight if anyone can just grab a token and get themselves a full copy of the organization.