Search"t-cell"

Pre-existing T-cell responses in 81% of individuals unexposed to SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19)

figure1

This is the second study published in Nature that demonstrates cross-reactive T-cell immunity. I mentioned the other one here.

This one (SARS-CoV-2-derived peptides define heterologous and COVID-19-induced T cell recognition) says:

Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 peptides revealed pre-existing T cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals and validated similarity with common cold coronaviruses, providing a functional basis for heterologous immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in people that never had Covid-19

For all those who like to dismiss papers when they are either not yet peer-reviewed or published on journals that are not exactly mainstream, here is a paper published in Nature:

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls

Fig. 4

In short:

  1. Covid-19 infection obviously creates T-cell immunity which long lasting and will protect people who recovered from ever getting Covid-19 again
  2. People who caught SARS-CoV-1 (the first SARS) also have long lasting T-cell immunity (still working 17 years later) that works against Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2)
  3. Roughly 50% of the tested subjects who never caught either SARS viruses also had T-cell immunity that worked against Covid-19 due to a high degree of homology to the sequences of some proteins common to both SARS-CoV-2 and the common cold coronaviruses.

Pseudo-epidemics

Yes, you read it. Pseudo-epidemics. They are a real thing.

Though I am scientist by training, I am not a medical scientist or anything closely related. But I remain a scientist. The scientific method that underpins all the sciences doesn’t change.

That’s what allowed to have a critical eye on all this pandemic business.

Now, all the recent posts on this blog are there to point out one simple thing: the Covid-19 pandemic has ended in May. What we’re seeing now is what many scientists and medical doctors are calling a casedemic.

In short, due to pre-existing T-cell immunity and the now endemic nature of the virus, the over-reliance on PCR testing is causing a overwhelming high number of false positives. These false positives are what they call asymptomatic people. Unlike what the people in the media tell you, the reality about these people is that they are not actually sick.

A few days ago I found out that there’s an established term to refer to what’s happening right now with SARS-CoV-2. It’s called a pseudo-epidemic.

A sample of articles that talk about this phenomenon:

From the latter I quote:

Given current definitions COVID-19 will never end. People will be dying of it forever, even if the virus disappears completely. Worse still, the system is locked in a series of feedback loops — if something causes test numbers to rise then so will case numbers, which in turn will cause a further increase in testing, causing the rise to continue, triggering local lockdowns and pointless evidence free rituals, until people get depressed and stop trying to do things causing numbers being tested to fall again.

Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?

I have already talked about the mounting evidence supporting widespread T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19).

This study on the British Medical Journal (Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?) is interesting because it’s one of the few places where a similar situation from 2009 is recalled. In fact, in 2009 we experienced a casedemic with H1N1, that is, a growing number of cases which however did not lead to an actual high mortality rate. I quote:

Swine flu déjà vu

In late 2009, months after the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 “swine flu” virus to be a global pandemic, Alessandro Sette was part of a team working to explain why the so called “novel” virus did not seem to be causing more severe infections than seasonal flu.12

Their answer was pre-existing immunological responses in the adult population: B cells and, in particular, T cells, which “are known to blunt disease severity.”12 Other studies came to the same conclusion: people with pre-existing reactive T cells had less severe H1N1 disease.1314 In addition, a study carried out during the 2009 outbreak by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 33% of people over 60 years old had cross reactive antibodies to the 2009 H1N1 virus, leading the CDC to conclude that “some degree of pre-existing immunity” to the new H1N1 strains existed, especially among adults over age 60.15

The data forced a change in views at WHO and CDC, from an assumption before 2009 that most people “will have no immunity to the pandemic virus”16 to one that acknowledged that “the vulnerability of a population to a pandemic virus is related in part to the level of pre-existing immunity to the virus.”17 But by 2020 it seems that lesson had been forgotten.

Trajectory of COVID-19 epidemic in Europe and herd immunity

From this study (not yet peer-reviewed), we read:

«Whatever value is specified for the infection fatality ratio, a model that allows for heterogeneity has better fit to the data than the homogeneity model and supports herd immunity as the main factor underlying the reversal of the epidemic.»

This is compatible with the mounting evidence of pre-existing T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Immune cells for common cold may recognize SARS-CoV-2

More on cross-reactive T-cell immunity.

They found that of the SARS-CoV-2 and “common cold” coronavirus fragments that were most similar (at least 67% genetic similarity) 57% showed cross-reactivity by memory T cells.

The evidence for pre-existing T-cell immunity against Covid-19 keeps piling up, hence the case for a much lower threshold for herd immunity becomes stronger. Conversely, the case for a vaccine becomes way weaker.

Dr Mike Yeadon challenges the UK govt re Covid-19 second wave

Dr Mike Yeadon touches on many important points:

  • Coronaviruses don’t have second waves
  • Cross T-cell immunity has been an ignored reality from the start
  • PCR testing is causing tons of false positives

4 different factors contributing to poor PCR results for Covid-19

Mass PCR testing is creating a casedemic, that is, a pandemic of allegedly Covid-positive people, the overwhelming majority of which isn’t actually ill.

There are four main factors contributing to poor performance of PCR testing:

1. Low prevalence of disease. This is the case in the UK and most of Europe. «When virus levels in the population are very low, the chances of a test accurately detecting Covid-19 could be even less than 50 per cent»

2. High cycle threshold. The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious. This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are. Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, and yet most Covid-19 tests have a CT of 40, with some with a CT as high as 47, and just few with a CT of 37. In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles. This was observed and published about already in May: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples.

3. Cross T-cell immunity. There’s mounting evidence of cross T-cell immunity for coronaviruses, meaning that even exposure to common cold viruses (these, too, are coronaviruses) trains the immune system to respond to more dangerous coronaviruses (SARS 1 and 2, MERS). See, amongst others:

4. Lack of specific RNA sequences required by testing. There is no guidance providing details on the specific RNA sequences required by testing, a threshold for the test result and the need for confirmatory testing. It is therefore not clear what constitutes a positive result.

All this is creating a wave of cases, which in most part are people who are not actually sick. The pandemic seems to be over, and it also seems that many don’t want it to be.

This is clear from WHO guidance on what constitutes a positive case, which are pretty much followed in most of the western world:

  • A suspect case has clinical symptoms of respiratory disease, perhaps with other associated presentations. 
  • probable case is a suspect case for whom laboratory testing was inconclusive or not possible. 
  • confirmed case is “A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.” 

Notice how suspect and probable rely on a broader clinical picture, whereas the confirmed relies solely on the PCR test, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. This is very bad, since asymptomatic people are by and large not actually ill. This is why:

The one thing historically people need to realise [is] that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.

Dr ANthony Fauci

Italian — Covid-19, bugie, studi e rimedi: un riassunto

Il prof Harvey Risch della Yale School of Medicine ha pubblicato una recensione estesa di svariati trial con HCQ (Idrossiclorochina) + AZ (Azitromicina) + Zinco che abbassano il tasso di mortalitĂ  di quasi oltre il 70%. Si veda anche quest’altro articolo meno tecnico, mirato al pubblico.

Si noti che tra i vari trial recensiti c’è anche quello del Dr Zelenko, che persino in Italia era stato preso in giro, ma che in realtà ha curato centinaia di pazienti col suo protocollo.

Cosa non sorprendente visto che CQ (clorochina, di cui HCQ è una variante meno tossica) già nel 2005 fu trovata essere un potente inibitore di SARS-CoV-1 (che ricordiamo essere 79.1% simile geneticamente alla SARS-CoV-2).

La pazzia attuale di non usare questi medicinali ha una radice politica anzichĂ© scientifica ed è diventata mainstream con lo studio del Lancet, poi ritrattato causa utilizzo di dati fraudolenti forniti da un’azienda sospetta. Stiamo parlando di una delle piĂą antiche e rinomate riviste scientifiche mediche, che ha pubblicato dati falsi pur di gettare fango su medicinale sicurissimo ed efficace. 

In Italia il dott. Moreno Ferrarese aveva fino a maggio curato oltre 160 pazienti con un protocollo a base di HCQ, di cui solo 7% è finito in ospedale, senza però mai sviluppare complicanze gravi. E nessun decesso o altro effetto collaterale.

Lui ed altri mostrarono subito preoccupazione a seguito della pubblicazione (poi ritrattata) del Lancet.

Didier Raoult aveva dichiarato giĂ  a Febbraio che Covid-19 non sarebbe stato un problema grazie a HCQ. 

Negli ultimi due mesi le pubblicazioni a favore di HCQ si sono moltiplicate. Le bugie sulla non sicurezza del farmaco sono cadute in frantumi (ma ovviamente i media non ne parlano – e non dicono che gli studi che avevano trovato la HCQ tossica avevano usato dosi tossiche di 2400mg al giorno sui pazienti). Così come le bugie sulla sua inefficacia (gli studi confermano che il farmaco va usato presto ed è lì che funziona, non quando è troppo tardi e i pazienti hanno raggiunto la fase critica). 

A tutto questo si è aggiunto il prof. Thomas Borody col suo protocollo a base di Ivermectin. Dopo essere andato finalmente in onda su Sky News Australia, YouTube non ha potuto piĂą censurarlo (lo aveva fatto precedentemente). Guarda caso due giorni dopo è partita una macchina del fango contro l’ennesimo professionista di fama internazionale. 

Tutta questa ostinazione a voler trascinare tutto alla nuova stagione dell’influenza, così si potranno mescolare le carte tra influenza e Covid. Tutta questo voler negare l’efficacia di HCQ dimostrata sul campo da dozzine di dottori. Tutta questa manipolazione sociale mai vista prima, su basi scientifiche praticamente inesistenti (pubblicazioni dimostrano anche l’inutilitĂ  del lockdown e di mascherine). 

Poi c’è il negare l’evidenza della T-cell immunity ormai dimostrata da una recente ricerca di Oxford. Il che sta facendo raggiugnere immunitĂ  di gregge a 20% — ultima di tante regioni, la Florida proprio di recente. 

Tutto questo puntare irrazionalmente sul vaccino; vaccino per un RNA virus? Quand’è l’ultima volta che si e scommesso su un tale vaccino? Vaccini tradizionali per RNA virus di solito non funzionano. A meno che non si stia puntando su vaccini DNA/RNA.

Tutto questo negare (o non dire affatto) che aumentare il PCR testing quando c’è meno malattia in giro aumenta i falsi positivi

Tutto questo non spiegare a nessuno che gli asintomatici sono sostanzialmente una barzelletta e la ragione per cui si hanno PCR tests positivi su persone senza sintomi è, molto probabilmente, perchĂ© il virus è stato contratto da una persona immune che lo ha sconfitto. Certo una percentuale di queste persone potrebbe essere qualcuno ancora in fase di incubazione, ma la T-cell immunity spiega l’alta percentuale di “asintomatici”, ovvero persone immuni in cui si trova un virus morto che però viene rilevato dal test PCR, che non distingue tra virus vivo e attivo, e virus morto e sconfitto dal sistema immunitario. Questo spiegherebbe anche coloro che sono risultati positivi per mesi dopo essere guariti dall’effettiva malattia. Non erano piĂą malati. 

Coloro che hanno appoggiato tutta questa pazzia, in un modo o nell’altro, ne dovranno fare i conti. 

Perpetuating the pandemic

All over you’re hearing news of “new wave of Covid cases”. And yet you’re not hearing of hospitals collapsing, people dying by the dozens, etc. That’s because it’s not happening.

What’s going on?

Notice one thing: almost every country has increased its test capacity way after the peak was reached in their midst. There’s way more testing now than there ever was.

You might say “good”. I say “not good”.

Beda M Stadler, former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus, explains:

if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. That’s exactly what happened, when there was the global news, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans who already went through Covid-19 were infected a second time and that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus. The explanation of what really happened and an apology came only later, when it was clear that the immune Koreans were perfectly healthy and only had a short battle with the virus. The crux was that the virus debris registered with the overly sensitive test and therefore came back as “positive”. It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.

If you add to that:

  1. There’s now good evidence of previous immunity in population (called T-cell immunity, coming from exposure to previous coronavirus); see also: The impact of host resistance on cumulative mortality and the threshold of herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2;
  2. There’s also evidence of reached herd immunity because of that; notice that because of pre-existing immunity, herd immunity has been reached around 10-20% instead of 60% or more like many said, simply because it is a lie that this Coronavirus is a completely new virus.

then the obvious consequence is that there isn’t much disease around.

What happens when there isn’t much disease around? You get more false positive:

Mark Woolhouse, Prof of infectious disease epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, said: “This is the public health version of the Prosecutor’s Fallacy where just because a rare event has happened, such as testing positive for coronavirus, we think it can only have one cause.
“But at low prevalence we actually face a high probability that other factors can be involved, such as false positives and given the volume of testing we would expect some false positives to occur.
“The positive predictive value is much lower where there is not a lot of disease around and for any diagnostic test that is potentially a concern and can lead to misdiagnosis, hence clinicians are very concerned about false positives.”

This way the “pandemic” will never end

If we keep ramping up testing when there’s no disease around, we’ll continue to have “cases” without having actual disease. But the governments will continue to use “cases” to restrain our personal liberty, and impose a level of control on society that—this time—is truly unprecedented.

What’s the solution?

Prof Sheila Bird, formerly programme leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, said: “The answer to false positives is to repeat swab tests for a sufficient random sample of positives to find out, or to offer antibody tests four weeks after the first positive swab date.

I personally disagree with this, and I agree with Prof. Risch (already author of “The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” and “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis”): forget the testing, and just treat people early at the first show of symptoms, whether they are COVID-19 positive or not. First, because tests take too long to come back and, second, because they are likely to be wrong.

Risch suggests to do that only for high risk patients. God forbid I should elevate myself above an expert such as Risch, but in light of the fact that many (even young and healthy, allegedly) that have “rode” Covid have ended up with permanent damage (the so called “long haulers”), I would say that anyone that shows symptoms should just be treated with the Zelenko protocol and be done with it.

HCQ works and it is safe

Have a look at my first article regarding my recent discoveries about HCQ being safe and effective. And also remember that countries that have decided to use HCQ for early treatment have an incredibly lower death rate.

Image

The real pandemic is “fear”

It should be blatantly obvious by now that the “pandemic” is being perpetuated on purpose, and off the back of this, a number of social engineering experiments are being carried out.

The reason for this is perfectly clear under the Christian worldview: globalists are rehearsing techniques and ways to impose a global government on the world. To usher in the new world that eventually will be ruled by what is going to look like a saviour, but would instead be the anti-Christ.

© 2020 Diarium Neminis

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑