Does the coronavirus merit investment, or personal, concern or consideration?

No. They used a smaller dose for kids, and it wasn’t good enough for them to even ask for an FDA review. They backtracked, decided that obviously the solution to an ineffective vaccine was more of the same, and continued the trial with very small statistics and came to some plausible numbers after adding a 3rd dose. Background

Good summary article on the vax for young kids, PFE vs MRNA.

two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, given 21 days apart, didn’t trigger a strong enough immune response in young children, and the company announced in mid-December it was adding a third dose to its regimen. The third shot will be given at least eight weeks after the second dose, meaning the interval from the start of vaccination to completion of the series will be 11 weeks.

The third dose is critical, experts on an FDA advisory panel heard last week. Without it, children are likely not protected. After the second dose, there appears to be “very little or no effectiveness,” said panel member Amanda Cohn, a vaccines expert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Yes I understand that it requires 3 doses, but IIRC it was something like 80% effective after 3 doses. MRNA went ahead with just 2 doses and is only like 37% effective, right?

MNRA had over 250 covid cases in their trial of nearly 2000. PFE had 10 in their 3 dose extension… count em, 10 in less than a 400 trial. Any statistics PFE claimed on efficacy were worthless, but of course that didn’t stop them from doing it, or, more shockingly, the FDA from approving it! Say it with me -

“There is no statistical evidence that PFE’s 3 dose 0-5 age vaccine prevents symptomatic covid, hospitalization, death, or long covid”

Those are negatives on the first number in the confidence intervals above, showing they’re not statistically significant. Here are all the details.

MRNA was 50% for the younger group <2 years and 37% like you said for the 2-5 years, with ±25% or so on the statistical confidence. So it helps, just not a huge amount, against symptomatic disease. No kids were hospitalized at all IIRC, so they didn’t have vaccine efficacy against hospitalization or death figures for either trial.


Biden still testing positive, feeling slightly worse

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a brief address to the nation after once again testing positive for COVID, President Biden warned that we are now in a pandemic of the “quadruple vaccinated.”

“Four shots, it’s not enough anymore,” said Biden… The president is calling on all citizens to get quintuple-vaccinated before he catches COVID a third time.


Covid shots are 100% safe in the US, but elsewhere serious vaccine side effects (like death from stroke or that low platelet disorder) are at least sometimes admitted and the families compensated.

We have a general vaccine injury fund, but due to the EUA nature of the shots and the legal liability waivers granted, the only avenues in the US require a level fo proof that’s nearly impossible to attain.

1 Like

Love him or dislike him (like I do), President Biden is still our POTUS. And President Biden remains ill with COVID-19.

This is an intensely serious matter. The President of the United States of America has COVID-19 and is so far unable to shake it off. President Biden is in an older age group and older people too often have bad outcomes with COVID-19.

We need to hope and pray for President Biden to recover from this virus. The country is not in great shape with a President who is ill, and everyone knows . . . . . . including for example the red Chinese and Putin.

Come on, Mr. President, GET BETTER!!


Long term brain damage from severe covid suggested by this study. They compared covid hospitalization for mild covid (no oxygen needed) to those who needed more medical treatment, and found those who had a worse case of covid had more mental deficits after a year and scored 10-20% worse on mental faculties tests.

This study assessed cognitive function 13 months after hospital discharge for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), using computer-based cognitive tests. Compared to population norms, 14%–25% of patients were impaired in each dimension, and 53% had cognitive impairment in 1 or more of 4 tests. There was some association with acute COVID-19 disease severity.

survivors after hospitalization for COVID-19 scored lower than norms on the selected cognitive tests of short-term memory, working memory, attention, and executive function. Although the reductions in general were small, for these domains 14%–25% of the patients had scores suggesting impairment, defined as z -score < −1.5, compared to 6.7% as expected from the norm population. Those with severe COVID-19 scored lower on the DMS task than non-oxygen-treated patients.

People also get cognitive issues after mild covid and never needing to go to a hospital, so remember this is how much worse a bad hospitalization is than a minor hospitalization. The average is still likely worse than not getting sick at all.


Here’s a thorough review of the recent book Viral on the origins of covid, along with updated comments on the subsequent papers bearing on this since publication.

covid origins - unclear
regulatory bodies - conflicted and untrustworthy


Only some tin-foil conspiracy crank would believe the NIH was covering up their role in creating covid.

Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as the chair of the COVID-19 commission for leading medical journal the Lancet . Through his investigations as the head of the COVID-19 commission, Prof. Sachs has come to the conclusion that there is extremely dangerous biotechnology research being kept from public view, that the United States was supporting much of this research, and that it is very possible that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, originated through dangerous virus research gone awry.

Prof. Sachs recently co-authored a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences calling for an independent inquiry into the virus’s origins. He believes that there is clear proof that the National Institutes of Health and many members of the scientific community have been impeding a serious investigation of the origins of COVID-19 and deflecting attention away from the hypothesis that risky U.S.-supported research may have led to millions of deaths

regarding recent papers citing probably natural origins…

funny thing is those scientists who are saying that said the same thing on February 4, 2020, before they had done any research at all. And they published the same statement in March 2020, before they had any facts at all. So they’re creating a narrative. And they’re denying the alternative hypothesis without looking closely at it. That’s the basic point.

1 Like

. . . . . . Fauci’s legacy for the world.

1 Like

I respect the Lancet but take anything they publish with a boulder of salt. I remember when they published some article years ago linking MMR vaccination with autism. Any cursory review of the data used in the article, or any investigation of financial interests behind it, would have raised red flags. The Lancet retracted and denounced the article years later but by then the damage was done: a whole bunch of fools convinced children develop autism as a result of vaccination.


He was level headed … and then took the vaccine. :laughing:

At least the richest among us are protected …

… either in health or finances.

1 Like

Long covid, more questions than answers. Detailed article.