German pharmaceutical company BioNTech has begun construction of an COVID-19 vaccine plant in Rwanda. When completed, it will be the first mRNA vaccine plant in Africa.
BioNTech breaks ground on first mRNA vaccine plant in Africa
Recent modelling shows how many corona deaths vaccinating against Sars-CoV-2 has prevented in twelve months alone: almost 20 million.
Especially in the richer countries.
For the first year of vaccination, which began on 8 December 2020, the researchers from Imperial College London analysed the vaccinations administered in 185 countries and regions and correlated these with the deaths recorded in each case. Where these were not reliably counted, they used excess mortality data and estimates. As a result, they arrive at higher possible death figures overall than the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Moreover, they not only considered the deaths avoided by direct vaccination, but also took into account that fewer people became infected in the vicinity of vaccinated people.
Without vaccination, the modelling suggests that 31.4 million coronavirus-related deaths would have occurred during this period. 19.8 million of these would have been prevented by vaccination - 12.2 million of them in high- and middle-income countries. This shows the unfair distribution of vaccines, the study says: In many countries of the global south, vaccination rates are still significantly lower than in Europe, for example.
According to the study, another 600,000 deaths could have been prevented if the World Health Organisation's goal of vaccinating 40 per cent of the world's population against Sars-CoV-2 by the end of 2021 had been achieved. However, this target was clearly missed.
Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study
The Mainz-based pharmaceutical company Biontech and its US partner Pfizer say they have developed an effective vaccine against the new variants of the coronavirus. According to initial study results, the vaccine performed well against the highly contagious variant.
A booster vaccination with the partners' Omikron vaccine candidates elicited a much stronger immune response than the company's original agent, Biontech and Pfizer announced today. "We believe we have two very strong candidates matched to Omikron," Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla said.
Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Omicron-Adapted COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Demonstrate High Immune Response Against Omicron
@Walter Hinteler,
Have they made the study results available to the public? Cuz ya know, they've shown a dislike for doing that kind of thing.
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:Have they made the study results available to the public? Cuz ya know, they've shown a dislike for doing that kind of thing.
Here in Germany, the public does not decide on the approval of a vaccine.
@Walter Hinteler,
I didn't say that the public is involved in the approval process. I asked whether or not you've seen the studies.
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote: I asked whether or not you've seen the studies.
I'm neither an employee of BionTech nor of the Paul Ehrlich Institute or the European Medicines Agency or any other organisation the data are send to.
@Walter Hinteler,
Would you like to see an excerpt from the safety studies of mRNA from Pfizer that contradicts what they've been saying?
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:Would you like to see an excerpt from the safety studies of mRNA from Pfizer that contradicts what they've been saying?
No. I am not a doctor or a biologist, let alone a virologist.
But: on the BionTech website you can log in and easily get the data - according to the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act you only have to send your (medical) specialist data.
But why do you think that Pfizer used different "things" and data to BionTech?
@Walter Hinteler,
Because they are not working together nore actually takes the virus outbreak serious at all. They are rival companies who are only looking at their budgets, and if they could replace their employees with machines and robots they would. They ( these companies, owners, boards ) are making money off the virus and that is all that matters to them.
The virus is only spreading more because it wants to survive as with any virus and as with influenza will be as common as the common-cold. The problem is the current vaccines might also have hazardous effects on people. Ranging from death to many other problems.
So far what I learn they will use fear, racism, and even threat of income to get people to take the vaccine. Why? Because nobody listen when they were told to avoid people and stay in-doors.
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:No. I am not a doctor or a biologist, let alone a virologist.
Oh that's right, I forgot that some of you have mysteriously accepted that such things as the difference between 35 and 40 is just too hard to understand when it points to undeniable medical fraud.
Anyway, here's an excerpt from safety studies. Apparently nothing is a trouble signal to these guys.
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
@Glennn,
Are you a medical doctor Glennn?
@glitterbag,
I'm sure he isn't, he's a freaking nut job.
You know a lot of people I know now have COVID, a couple friends of mine have two kids, the little girl got it from school, her whole class tested positive and she brought it home to her parents and the baby boy who is only 9 months old. They've all been sick for two weeks now.
@jcboy,
Whoa there 'boy! How's about you and me do some talkin'. Let's start with the link I provided to the safety studies that Pfizer didn't want you to see for a long, long time. Now what is it about what you saw there that makes you resort to name-calling instead of making an intelligent response?
This is the time to for you to make your case. If you don't, it'll look like you never had one.
This document provides an integrated analysis of the cumulative post-authorization safety data, including U.S. and foreign post-authorization adverse event reports received through 28 February 2021.
(…)
Pfizer is responsible for the management post-authorization safety data on behalf of the MAH BioNTech according to the Pharmacovigilance Agreement in place. Data from BioNTech are included in the report when applicable.
Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.
(…)
Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021 [in less than three months], there was a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events. Most cases (34,762) were received from United States (13,739), United Kingdom (13,404) Italy (2,578), Germany (1913), France (1506), Portugal (866) and Spain (756); the remaining 7,324 were distributed among 56 other countries.
(…)
As shown in Figure 1 [see below], the System Organ Classes (SOCs) that contained the greatest number (≥2%) of events, in the overall dataset, were General disorders and administration site conditions (51,335 AEs), Nervous system disorders (25,957), Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), Gastrointestinal disorders (14,096), Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (8,476), Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (8,848), Infections and infestations (4,610), Injury, poisoning and procedural complications (5,590), and Investigations (3,693
@Walter Hinteler,
Regarding BionTech:
Biontech wants to invest more in the research of new antibiotics. As the firm announced at an investor event today, the plans are still at an early stage.
However, clinical tests are to begin in 2023.
Biontech's main focus is the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria with endolysins, an enzyme. The company's mRNA technology is also to be used here. "We believe that this approach in combination with mRNA technology could be very powerful," said CEO Ugur Sahin, according to the Reuters news agency. The first project he is targeting is an endolysin against bacterial vaginal infections.
Biontech also wants to continue working on vaccines and treatments against coronaviruses together with its US partner Pfizer. A vaccine adapted to the omicron variant should be ready in autumn. In the second half of the year, the Mainz-based company wants to start testing vaccines that protect against a variety of coronaviruses. The so-called "pan-coronavirus vaccinations" are to offer "lasting protection against different variants". T-cell boosting vaccines are also supposed to protect against severe courses.
So far, all studies indicate that the current vaccine is significantly less effective against the currently particularly dominant variant after only two vaccinations. Advisors to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday recommended changes for the autumn that would cover the currently circulating variants of the virus. By a large majority, the agency's advisory committee advocated that the new generation of booster vaccines should protect against the omicron variant. The FDA will now decide on the exact composition by the beginning of July.
BioNTech, Pfizer to start testing universal vaccine for coronaviruses
I don't think Pfizer can be trusted. They do break the laws concerning regulations and stuff. And they've paid dearly for their crimes; nobody went to jail, but boy were they fined.
Did you take note of all those adverse reactions from their safety studies?
someone wrote:This is the time to for you to make your case. If you don't, it'll look like you never had one.
No, it's more likely it will make
you look like someone who's not worth a response.
Where did Sars-CoV-2 come from? This question has been the subject of intense scientific debate for more than two years. Two new studies published in the journal "Science" clearly point in one direction: the starting point of the corona pandemic was not a laboratory , but a wild animal market in Wuhan, China.
The thesis that the virus could have come into the world from a safety laboratory is invalidated. The investigations had shown "that it is simply not plausible that this virus was introduced in any other way than through the trade in wild animals at the Wuhan market", said one of the scientists involved, virologist Michael Worobey from the University of Arizona.
The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemicQuote:Abstract
Understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in 2019 is critical to preventing zoonotic outbreaks before they become the next pandemic. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, was identified as a likely source of cases in early reports but later this conclusion became controversial. We show the earliest known COVID-19 cases from December 2019, including those without reported direct links, were geographically centered on this market. We report that live SARS-CoV-2 susceptible mammals were sold at the market in late 2019 and, within the market, SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples were spatially associated with vendors selling live mammals. While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 31 December 2019, the Chinese government notified the World Health Organization (WHO) of an outbreak of severe pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, Hubei province (1–4), a city of approximately 11 million people. Of the initial 41 people hospitalized with unknown pneumonia by 2 January 2020, 27 (66%) had direct exposure to the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market (hereafter, “Huanan market”) (2, 5, 6). These first cases were confirmed to be infected with a novel coronavirus, subsequently named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and were suffering from a disease later named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The initial diagnoses of COVID-19 were made in several hospitals independently between 18 and 29 December 2019 (5). These early reports were free from ascertainment bias as they were based on signs and symptoms before the Huanan market was identified as a shared risk factor (5). A subsequent systematic review of all cases notified to China’s National Notifiable Disease Reporting System by hospitals in Wuhan as part of the joint WHO-Chinese “WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part” (hereafter, “WHO mission report”) (7) showed that 55 of 168 of the earliest known COVID-19 cases were associated with this market. However, the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.
Sustained live mammal sales during 2019 occurred at the Huanan and three other markets in Wuhan, including wild and farmed wild-life (8). Several of these species are known to be experimentally susceptible to SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoVs), such as SARS-CoV (hereafter, “SARS-CoV-1”) and SARS-CoV-2 (9–11). During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, animals sold at the Huanan market were hypothesized to be the source of the unexplained pneumonia cases (12–19) (data S1), consistent with the emergence of SARS-CoV-1 from 2002-2004 (20), as well as other viral zoonoses (21–23). This led to the decision to close and sanitize the Huanan market on 1 January 2020, with environmental samples also being collected from vendors’ stalls (7, 12, 24) (data S1).
Determining the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic at a neighborhood- rather than city-level could help resolve if SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin, similar to SARS-CoV-1 (20). In this study, we obtained data from a range of sources to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic began at the Huanan market. Despite limited testing of live wildlife sold at the market, collectively, our results provide evidence that the Huanan market was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggest that SARS-CoV-2 likely emerged from the live wildlife trade in China. However, events upstream of the market, as well as exact circumstances at the market, remain obscure, highlighting the need for further studies to understand and lower the risk of future pandemics.
Just because something is possible does not make it probable. And yet the laboratory thesis persists.
