SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ggersh who wrote (172418)5/27/2021 7:19:37 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217656
 
Good news, 'they think they know what might be happening and how to fix it'

My hesitation is 'what if they actually discover that all vaccinated shall have a longterm issue with clots as a function of the vaccine that has not really been properly tested even as tome and reams published in a hurry?'

I do not have a good feeling about vaccination, and the faster 'they' discover all 'catches', the better.

Anything denigrating about any vaccine can be the work of the competitors, adding to the FUD

bloomberg.com

Is the Vaccine Blood-Clot Problem Fixed?

German scientists say they may know why certain Covid-19 vaccines are linked to rare but deadly side effects and could fix the problem. Here’s what we know.

Sam Fazeli
27 May 2021, 23:52 GMT+8
The rollout of Covid-19 vaccines developed by AstraZeneca Plc and the University of Oxford and Johnson & Johnson has been marred by rare but serious blood-clotting side effects that resulted in some deaths. Now, scientists in Germany say they have uncovered the cause of the clotting condition and can fix it. Sam Fazeli, a Bloomberg Opinion contributor who covers the pharmaceutical industry for Bloomberg Intelligence, answers questions about the new findings. The conversation has been edited and condensed.

Can you explain this latest development and how it may further our understanding of these side effects?

Everyone is keen to understand what is causing the very rare blood clotting issues seen with the so-called adenoviral-vectored vaccines developed by Astra-Oxford and J&J. What is unusual about these issues is that they are blood clots that form in odd parts of the body, such as the cerebral sinus vein, at the same time as a reduction in platelets, which normally leads to bleeding. If we know why they occur, maybe we can find a way to prevent them. To this end, we already know that some Astra and J&J vaccine recipients develop an antibody directed against what's known as platelet-factor 4, which then leads to a reduction in the number of platelets. But what about the blood clots? That is what this study tries to answer. And I am afraid some people have taken the results of these experiments as suggesting a solution. But that is not the case. They are a very interesting set of experiments, but that's what they are. Their laboratory analysis seems to suggest that the vaccines from Astra and J&J — which target the “spike protein,” or rod-like structures that are stuck on the outside of the virus — could produce soluble pieces of this protein. They then hypothesize that these soluble spike proteins could bind to what are known as ACE2 receptors on the inside of human blood vessels and set off an inflammatory cascade which leads to blood clotting.

How credible is this report? Does it seem like a plausible explanation for the blood clots we're seeing if confirmed by additional research?

From an experimental perspective, it looks fine. The issue is that the authors, in my view, have gone a bit too far, even in naming their finding “vaccine-induced Covid-19 mimicry” syndrome. They don't show actual evidence to support their hypothesis. Some key steps are required to prove that this is actually the way the vaccines induce blood clots, known as thromboses.

What would the process of confirming this hypothesis look like, and if it proves valid, of remediating the vaccines? Is there any regulatory or scientific precedent?

Several things can be done. The first is to prove that those vaccinated with the adenoviral vaccines actually have soluble spike protein in their blood stream and that it is higher than those who have been inoculated with shots based on messenger RNA (Pfizer Inc.-BioNTech SE and Moderna Inc.). Then they need to show that there is indeed inflammation at the site of blood clots involving immune complexes with soluble spike protein and anti-spike antibodies. Additionally, if there is indeed soluble spike protein produced in sufficient quantities to matter, we need data on the time course of this and how it relates to the evolution of neutralizing antibodies. The authors hypothesize that the reason the clotting problem is rare is because neutralizing antibodies generally tend to form in time to bind to the soluble spike protein and stop it from sticking to the ACE2 receptors on the inside of blood vessels, and “neutralize” them. All this has yet to be proved.

But if after taking these steps the hypothesis is found to be correct, it would be relatively good news, right? Rather than a fundamental problem with this whole category of vaccines, the solution may just be tweaking the spike protein?

That would be great, wouldn't it? The companies could go back and modify their vaccines. But then they would have to prove that the modified vaccines are equally effective and, more importantly, that they don't cause the side effect. This would involve vaccinating hundreds of thousands of individuals to test this. I am not sure how feasible that is.

Does the fact that J&J's vaccine seemingly has a lower rate of these events than Astra's give any additional credence to the theory?

The operative word here is “seemingly.” We have to wait for much more data. I won’t be convinced that the J&J vaccine has a lower rate of such events until I see data from about the same number of vaccinations that Astra's vaccine has had. It is possible that’s the case, though, given that the two use different adenoviruses, spike sequences and manufacturing processes. The authors do try and use that as potential evidence in support of their hypothesis, but given how immature the data is, I don't think it’s a given.

What happens with the existing vaccines and existing production if the hypothesis proves true?

Countries are still using the vaccines, so it is unlikely that this study alone would change anything. As I said, we need a lot more clinical data before anyone actually accepts this as a cause-and-effect situation. But if the hypothesis were proved to be true, then indeed those existing vaccines would have to be replaced with new ones that have the modification. All of this would take time. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be desirable to find a solution. These shots are seen as key in the race to vaccinate the world and tame the virus, so if we were able to remove the threat of these rare but possible deadly side effects from the equation, that would be a big step forward. But we’re not there yet.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Sam Fazeli at mfazeli@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Beth Williams at bewilliams@bloomberg.net

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: ggersh who wrote (172418)5/27/2021 7:19:43 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
ggersh

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217656
 
I was wondering why Team Biden shut down Team Trump's 'virus origin' investigation and replaced with own 90-days investigation, and then I realised that, 30-days would be unseemly short, and 120-days intolerably long, 60-days ideal, but 90-days covers the summer dull drum

What do we suppose the conclusion would be - wild guesses?

My guess? 90-days investigation concludes ...

(1) Trump withdrew USA team from WHO and relocated staff from Wuhan shortly before the breakout

(2) Trump did not take the virus seriously and allow a catastrophe

(3) Trump shutdown the economy

(4) Trump ... whatever, etc etc and allowed the virus to spread from USA to everywhere else

(5) Team Biden saved the day, with vaccines, trillions, infrastructure, and everything wonderful

(6) Back to Trump Trump Trump

BTW, eyeballing, re
Meanwhile, at a time of heightened tensions around the South China Sea, due to the US leaving Afghanistan in July --opening up USD1-3trn in mineral resources for anyone brave enough to dive in-- the US Navy is shifting the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan to help with the logistics. For the first time in a long time, the US has no aircraft carrier in the Pacific. The symbolism is clear: and it leaves some wondering what might happen if push comes to shove.
The USA withdraw (leaving behind 600 troops to guard embassy) is interesting, and tees up the next stage of the Great Gaming.

In the meantime, the carrier is doing a Saigon 1972 for yet another failed policy end, bigger and more expensive than ever but this time, even as carrier that backs the US$ moves in an arc from Japan Sea to Indian Ocean, the systems ~$7M DF21 / 26 en.wikipedia.org doing hand-offs as the big $4.5B boat transitorily pass from sea to ocean and back to sea, as long as within 3,100 miles of anything China China China. MSM is deliberately keeping mum, even as the US navy brass hums news.usni.org and hahs businessinsider.com

Disruptive technology and generation-skipping rollout changing the scenery fast

zerohedge.com

Rabobank: Biden Is Finally Searching For The Origin Of COVID: Will It Be Russia?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The Push-backThere are push-backs all round right now, and they are going to buffet markets – largely because they aren’t all pushing in the same direction.

We still have the “this inflation is transitory” mantra from the Fed, seeing market expectations for any tapering at Jackson Hole rolled back. And, to be fair, we are also seeing a continued decline in the price of most agri commodities, representing a real push back against the inflation narrative – or at least for food-eating US consumers. China temporarily cancelling a shipment of corn imports from the US is an extra little finger in that push in the last 24 hours. An Iran nuclear deal, regardless of the longer term risks involved, would also help on the oil front, which is another reason why it is being pursued even as Iran is playing hard ball.

Yet the RBNZ, are pushing the other way. The Kiwis just flagged that their first hike is likely to be in H2 2022, and that all being well they hope to be well into a normalising cycle by the end of next year, and to have hiked six times by the end of 2024. The BoC are also tapering, and the BoE are flagging a rate hike by the end of 2022. Somebody here is wrong (the Fed, or other Anglo economies): or we are going to see really high inflation and a really low USD vs. those crosses.

Serious people, like Stephen Roach, are looking past the latest dip in agri markets and still talking about 1970’s inflation coming back purely from the supply side, which is wrapped up in geopolitics, as I explained yesterday. Underlining the point, Germany’s Angela Merkel was yesterday wailing her country cannot produce the chips needed to complete the cars which are the crown jewels of its industrial economy: who has been running the place for fifteen years and yet didn’t see a scenario coming where there could be a shortage?

Meanwhile, crypto refuses to do what US, Chinese, Turkish, now Iranian, and perhaps Indian regulators want it to – which is to drop off our radar screens. This sends an embarrassing message to central banks that in the public eye, inflation rules, and they don’t. For example --and I am sure the person involved won’t mind me sharing this anecdote-- crypto is a market in which one can invest X in “diarrhoea coin”, and see it go up to 10X in a single day. Which should make anyone saying there isn’t too much liquidity out there feel sick to the stomach. Why bother schlepping when you can make instant 1,000% returns trading something of no intrinsic value? This may be something that China, the US, and all other central banks can agree on being opposed to, which would be a rare element of global cooperation we don’t see echoed elsewhere.

For example, US President Biden, in response to CNN reporting he had shut down a pre-existing Trump White House investigation, has now declared US intelligence services have 90 days to unearth the origins of Covid-19. Will it be Russia, given their recent form? Joking aside, this is the hottest of possible potatoes for agencies already up to their necks in politics. What will the domestic push-back be if the report is fudged? And what will the international push-back will be if it comes to at least one clear conclusion? 90 days, folks. Set your alarm clocks.

Meanwhile, at a time of heightened tensions around the South China Sea, due to the US leaving Afghanistan in July --opening up USD1-3trn in mineral resources for anyone brave enough to dive in-- the US Navy is shifting the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan to help with the logistics. For the first time in a long time, the US has no aircraft carrier in the Pacific. The symbolism is clear: and it leaves some wondering what might happen if push comes to shove.

Indeed, Australia is reportedly considering manufacturing and storing US ballistic missiles in Darwin (next to a port with a 99-year lease owned by a Chinese firm). That’s “levelling up” industrial policy of a sort: military-industrial policy; and at least we have a clearer idea of the targets for the potential Chinese missile strikes against Australia the Global Times recently threatened. Against this backdrop, the tail risk to supply-chains should be clear – even pacifist NZ now sees it.

On which front, an Air France flight to Moscow yesterday insisted on diverting around Belarussian airspace, in line with the new EU directives following the skyjacking of the Ryanair jet; but Russia refused to allow an alternative channel to be used, and the French flight was cancelled. Coincidence, or a push back against the EU’s own recent shove? If it is the latter, again we see the EU’s attempt to go on the front foot geopolitically has seen its ante upped, as happened with China and the now-frozen CAI deal. Russia may be implying if Belarus airspace is boycotted, it can prevent overflight of Russian airspace in sympathy: that used to be called ‘Workers of the World, Unite!’ until neoliberalism came along and took away all the (wage) inflation and threat of international conflict.

If so, the EU either has to back down, or face losing access to more than just Belarussian airspace (and, by the way, 90% of goods coming in to the EU from China via train also pass through Belarus). Or, the only logical strategic alternative would be for the EU to go on the offence and unilaterally cut off air travel to/over Belarus AND Russia, to encourage Moscow to force Minsk to change tactics.

Yet when you base your economy on importing gas from Russia, and exporting luxury cars to Russia, one tends to go weak at the knees at the idea of such realpolitik. Which is why Germany will remain at the mercy of global pricing on chips, among other things, and the EU’s “open strategic autonomy” will be mainly just “open”.

More broadly, this is the kind of ‘resilient’ decoupling the whole liberal world order is still refusing to act on “because markets”. Which, as noted yesterday, is why integrated supply chains aren’t shifting Westwards; and which means Build Back Better really means Back Imports Better, regardless of the push-back that will generate from voters; or that nasty supply-side inflation, regardless of the push-back (and “diarrhoea coins”) that will generate.



To: ggersh who wrote (172418)5/27/2021 11:11:43 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
pak73

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217656
 
I have always viewed and treated the Danes the same way amongst nations as I do about MSM, that they are politicised, weaponised, ... and and and not to be trusted, and only look harmless but very agenda-ed

and here below be one of them ...

bloomberg.com

Crypto Can Be Ignored as a Fad, Danish Central Banker Says

Anna Edwards
27 May 2021, 19:01 GMT+8

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are little more than a speculative fad that central bankers can probably ignore, according to Lars Rohde, the governor of Denmark’s central bank.

The much more serious threat stems from big tech, he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Thursday. If technology giants start “invading the currency area” and the means of transaction, then “that could be very interesting and maybe also a real threat to the autonomy and independence of central banks.”

He’s the latest central banker to warn that the disappearance of cash and the dominance of digital payments are upending the age-old framework within which monetary policy has operated. Earlier this month, Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe said governments and policy makers need to ensure they don’t get overtaken by private providers of payment services, and pointed to the “financial stability implications” of such a development.

Central bankers from China to Sweden are already working on their own digital currencies in response to the falling use of cash. But the process is fraught with technical and legal hurdles, making it harder to complete than initially anticipated. Denmark isn’t among the frontrunners, though neighboring Sweden may have a digital central bank currency within five years, according to Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves.


Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

Riksbank First Deputy Governor Cecilia Skingsley said she’s “observant but not concerned” about financial market novelties including cryptocurrencies, speaking at an online seminar on Thursday.

“Everyone can choose to invest in cryptocurrencies, but you should be aware that it’s very different from traditional financial assets,” Skingsley said, adding she hasn’t seen “any crypto assets with an underlying real value.”

The intense spike in speculation surrounding cryptocurrencies has raised questions as to whether they have the potential to disrupt major markets such as currencies and bonds. European Central Bank Vice President Luis de Guindos said earlier this month that the tokens shouldn’t be seen as real investments, while Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said people should buy them only if they’re prepared to lose their money.

Rohde said he’s “tempted to ignore” Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. “It’s a very speculative asset at best. There is no stability and no guarantee from any side about the value of cryptocurrencies.”

In Denmark, the main role of the central bank is to defend the krone’s peg to the euro. That’s required it to keep its main policy rate negative since mid-2012, which is longer than anywhere else in the world.

— With assistance by Christian Wienberg, Niclas Rolander, and Alice Atkins

(Adds Swedish central banker’s comments starting in 5th paragraph.)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE