COVID-19 >> New Drug Activity & VACCINE TRACKING!!

[Anonymous]

That vaccine is an mRNA and it's being developed by Providence Therapeutics..



Last I heard they were in stage two testing, but that was in September.

I wonder if they ran into a problem. I thought they were expecting to have approval from Health Canada by now.

Not sure - will try to find info / status



Edit - tried, didn't find status update but they did recently get 2 B in funding last month for use in poor countries   .. but none of us are going to like the source

I'll bring forward Fash's and IHJ's legit questions that got buried on previous page in hope of Reponses with updated info



It will be nice to see Canada back in the virus (across the board) game ... We used to be a world leader



Unfortunately, the 2 Billion in cash 3 weeks ago was from Gates  





PS Relax old man. No one is bothering you other that you are actively  "deliberately seeking to be bothered.

They got money from Gates? I thought got cash from the feds?

[cc]

That's what I had thot



Dec. 7, 2021 https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/providence-therapeutics-announces-2-118-million-usd-in-funding-to-support-process-development-and-validation-of-the-ptx-covid19-b-program-which-targets-high-quality-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-to-low-to-middle-income-countries-at-affordable-price-814232982.html">Providence Therapeutics announces $2.118 Million USD in funding to support process development and validation of the PTX-COVID19-B program, which targets high quality mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to low-to middle-income countries at affordable prices



CALGARY, AB, Dec. 7, 2021 /CNW/ - Providence Therapeutics announced today that their COVID-19 vaccine program, PTX-COVID19-B, has received $2.118 Million USD in funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Providence is using the grant towards funding ongoing PTX-COVID19-B program process development and validation activities that will ultimately improve access of the vaccine in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) through qualifying additional vendors for critical raw materials needed for mRNA vaccines and decreasing the cost of these key components. Additional work supported through this grant is for validation to facilitate the shipping of bulk materials to support regional partnerships in LMIC's that participate in the manufacturing process.



"With this support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we seek to bring our COVID-19 mRNA vaccine to emerging markets at affordable prices. The COVID-19 pandemic will not end until safe and effective vaccines are available throughout the world, including in LMICs, which until now have had limited access to mRNA vaccine technology. These funds will also empower regional partners to participate in the mRNA vaccine manufacturing process" says Jared Davis, President of Providence Therapeutics.



EDIT - To save another post space, I'll address the below post here >- mmmmOK

[deadskinmask]

the 'vaccine' provides less than 1% Absolute Risk Reduction.... i think thats important to note....

[Anonymous]

That's what I had thot



Dec. 7, 2021 https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/providence-therapeutics-announces-2-118-million-usd-in-funding-to-support-process-development-and-validation-of-the-ptx-covid19-b-program-which-targets-high-quality-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-to-low-to-middle-income-countries-at-affordable-price-814232982.html">Providence Therapeutics announces $2.118 Million USD in funding to support process development and validation of the PTX-COVID19-B program, which targets high quality mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to low-to middle-income countries at affordable prices



CALGARY, AB, Dec. 7, 2021 /CNW/ - Providence Therapeutics announced today that their COVID-19 vaccine program, PTX-COVID19-B, has received $2.118 Million USD in funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Providence is using the grant towards funding ongoing PTX-COVID19-B program process development and validation activities that will ultimately improve access of the vaccine in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) through qualifying additional vendors for critical raw materials needed for mRNA vaccines and decreasing the cost of these key components. Additional work supported through this grant is for validation to facilitate the shipping of bulk materials to support regional partnerships in LMIC's that participate in the manufacturing process.



"With this support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we seek to bring our COVID-19 mRNA vaccine to emerging markets at affordable prices. The COVID-19 pandemic will not end until safe and effective vaccines are available throughout the world, including in LMICs, which until now have had limited access to mRNA vaccine technology. These funds will also empower regional partners to participate in the mRNA vaccine manufacturing process" says Jared Davis, President of Providence Therapeutics.

They aint got a timeline when they expect to finish stage three testing and get approval.

[Anonymous]

the 'vaccine' provides less than 1% Absolute Risk Reduction.... i think thats important to note....

You ain part of the doctors carrying out the trials. You pulled that number out of your ass.

[deadskinmask]

the 'vaccine' provides less than 1% Absolute Risk Reduction.... i think thats important to note....

You ain part of the doctors carrying out the trials. You pulled that number out of your ass.

are you fuckin retarded? go look at Absolute Risk Reduction for the pfizer covid jab.... i'll wait patiently for my apology....

[deadskinmask]

spoiler alert - its 0.84%....

[cc]

Lancet - VOLUME 2, ISSUE 7, E279-E280, JULY 01, 2021



Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.



cc Jan 09, 2020

With the new variant, stopping its infection has a lower effectiveness, while the reduction of symptoms and hospitalizations has improved

No one has the current number right now



bitchute Scientific Laboratory   Jan 09, 2020  .. 0.84%

[Anonymous]

Lancet - VOLUME 2, ISSUE 7, E279-E280, JULY 01, 2021



Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.



cc Jan 09, 2020

With the new variant, stopping its infection has a lower effectiveness, while the reduction of symptoms and hospitalizations has improved

No one has the current number right now



bitchute Scientific Laboratory   Jan 09, 2020  .. 0.84%

I knew dsm was full of shit. Saskatchewan's Chief Public Health guy talked about this before and arrived at a very different number than the bitchute clinic where Dr dsm conducts his research.

[deadskinmask]

and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.



cc Jan 09, 2020

With the new variant, stopping its infection has a lower effectiveness, while the reduction of symptoms and hospitalizations has improved

No one has the current number right now



bitchute Scientific Laboratory   Jan 09, 2020  .. 0.84%

I knew dsm was full of shit. Saskatchewan's Chief Public Health guy talked about this before and arrived at a very different number than the bitchute clinic where Dr dsm conducts his research.

why can't johnny read? you're dumb as hell....

[cc]

Lancet - VOLUME 2, ISSUE 7, E279-E280, JULY 01, 2021



Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.



cc Jan 09, 2020

With the new variant, stopping its infection has a lower effectiveness, while the reduction of symptoms and hospitalizations has improved

No one has the current number right now



bitchute Scientific Laboratory   Jan 09, 2020  .. 0.84%

I knew dsm was full of shit. Saskatchewan's Chief Public Health guy talked about this before and arrived at a very different number than the bitchute clinic where Dr dsm conducts his research.

Rumors are it's a still hidden far into the woods.



 Is that true DSM?  

[deadskinmask]

fact check it.... 0.84 ARR.... case closed....

[cc]

Lancet - As a clinician or an epidemiologist, one should multiply the RRR(intrinsic property of a treatment) by the baseline risk of a given population or patient, individualizing the ARR and NNT.



"They are not scientific concepts, they are circumstantial information."

[Anonymous]

Lancet - As a clinician or an epidemiologist, one should multiply the RRR(intrinsic property of a treatment) by the baseline risk of a given population or patient, individualizing the ARR and NNT.



"They are not scientific concepts, they are circumstantial information."

Give him hell ceec.

[deadskinmask]

"They are not scientific concepts, they are circumstantial information."

Relative Risk Reduction is the based ENTIRELY on 'circumstantial information'.... and its the MOST deceptive means of showing efficacy....