COVID update: vaccine apartheid + the mRNA stocks are better than the shots

  • Vaccine coercion is having some effect on the economy as Southwest Airlines and many other companies are going out of their way to create a labour shortage problem with mandatory vaccination.  I don’t know if the vaccine apartheid madness will turn into a world-changing issue but it could have consequences for the political stability of the Western world, trust in doctors, and demand for pharma products.
  • Most people have such a low risk of dying from COVID that the risk of death shouldn’t matter.  Instead, their main concern should be disability from COVID or the vaccine.  Yes, disability is a side effect of the COVID vaccines.
  • Biontech (BNTX) looks undervalued because at least 2 booster shots every year looks like the new normal.  Their product may be terrible for your health but the stock may be wonderful for your wealth.
  • Most of humanity will catch the coronavirus but probably only 5-20% of the population in developed countries will test positive every year.

The narrative may switch to disability

Long COVID isn’t getting that much discussion but I think it’s inevitable that the medical establishment will eventually push it.  As I mentioned in my previous post, almost all of the deaths happen in old people.  People in the 60-69 age group have an average chance of death while those younger than 60 shouldn’t worry about death from COVID unless they have significant co-morbidities.

Once this becomes general knowledge, the medical establishment and pharma companies will have to do something to convince people that they need vaccines and expensive medical interventions.  The straightforward solution is to tell the truth about disability.

There isn’t good data on disability at the moment.  Roughly 10-30% of all infected people will get long COVID but it is mild for the majority of cases.  One observational study of Israeli healthcare workers found that 1 out of 39 infection cases led to the healthcare worker being unable to return to work after 6 weeks.  Being unable to work is one way to objectively measure disability among long COVID sufferers.  If we simply divide 1 by 39, the disability rate would be 2.6% among fully vaccinated Israeli healthcare workers who test positive.  If several percent of Israelis test positive every year, then the rate of significant disability may be one in several hundred every year.

There are different degrees of disability.  As well, the disability slowly goes away over time for most long COVID sufferers.  5 of the the 39 infection cases took at least 2 weeks off work, with 4 of those returning to work before 6 weeks.  It’s not clear how long disability will last for people who do not quickly recover.  Some long COVID sufferers have continually suffered since the beginning of the pandemic (over 1.5 years).  Even if they do get better, it is possible for them to relapse from re-infection or when they get vaccinated.  So while people do recover from disability, their problem does not entirely go away because they can become disabled again.

Disability could be more common than death from COVID since the death rate for COVID in Israel is about 0.5% of confirmed cases.

At the moment, it is unclear if full vaccinations decrease or increase the risk of disability.  The Israeli study shows that fully vaccinated healthcare workers can become disabled.

You can get disabled from the COVID vaccines

Maddie de Garay is a 13-year old girl who participated in Pfizer’s clinical trials for children/teenagers.  She can’t eat normally so she has to eat via a feeding tube, which you can see in the image above.  She also needs a wheelchair.  As well, she has a number of other health problems that has turned her life upside down.  I would point out vaccine injuries are very different from person to person, so most people don’t have her symptoms and aren’t as disabled as her.

I’ll try to estimate the prevalence of disability from vaccines even though there is very little data the moment.  Maddie de Garay was presumably in the trial NCT04816643, with an estimated enrollment of 7922.  While I don’t know how many other children in the trial became disabled, the prevalence in the trial is at least 1 in several thousand.

Let’s compare this to the risk of COVID death among children.  There are roughly 41 million American children in the 5 to 14 year old age group.  As of Oct 6, there were 161 COVID deaths in that age group.  The chance of dying has been roughly 1 in 255,000.  The >1 in several thousand chance of becoming disabled is much higher than the 1 in 255,000 chance of dying.

The awkward truth is that drug approval agencies are aware of what’s happening.  They know that the risks of giving COVID vaccines to children massively outweigh the benefits.  The unwarranted approval may seriously undermine public trust in health authorities.

Death from the vaccine may also be an issue.  For healthy adults, the Pfizer clinical trials on 44,165 people found that all-cause mortality was slightly higher in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group (15 versus 14 deaths, not statistically significant).  For that group, the evidence leans towards the vaccine slightly increasing your chance of death.

The mRNA vaccines are probably beneficial in high-risk groups, but no definitive evidence has been made public.  The existing RCTs have been small and the drug manufacturers have withheld the key results of those trials (despite receiving generous government subsidies).  There are observational studies as discussed in my previous post; however, they may be biased and are not as reliable as RCTs.  The publicly-available evidence, which may be biased, strongly suggests that mRNA vaccines cause more good than harm in high-risk groups.

Other data points

The World Health Organization maintains an adverse event reporting database which you can find at  Both the flu vaccine (influenza vaccine) and COVID-19 vaccines have seen widespread use so they should have similar numbers of deaths and adverse events.  The data strongly suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines have a dramatically higher rate of deaths and adverse events.

Adverse event reporting databases like VIGIAcesss and VAERS have biases in their data, so their numbers aren’t as reliable as randomized controlled trial data.

As far as disability goes, there is very little data being collected.  This is because:

  1. The medical establishment’s dogma is that “vaccines are safe”.  Doctors can lose their job for promoting non-conforming viewpoints.
  2. Before COVID, there has always been a tendency for many doctors to blame the patient if they cannot figure out what’s going on.  They can intentionally misdiagnose the patient as having a psychiatric disorder or anxiety.  This is an issue that has plagued patients suffering debilitating medical conditions such as chronic Lyme, ME/CFS, and autoimmune encephalitis.  This type of behaviour allows doctors to pretend that they are a medical expert.  Whereas patients have plenty of time and motivation to research their debilitating health condition, some doctors are lazy and don’t want to put in a little bit of work to learn about uncommon debilitating conditions.  Thanks to the Internet, some patients have read more of the scientific literature than their doctor (non-specialists cannot possibly have the time to research multiple disabling disorders).  All of this can cause underreporting because patients have serious health problems but their “doctors” may misreport them as healthy.  Disability will go underreported whenever it is miscoded as anxiety.

Medical institutions should be collecting data on the number of people unable to work because of their health.  That would be an objective way to measure disability caused by vaccine injury.  Unfortunately, there is no system in place to measure the extent of disability caused by vaccine injuries.  I haven’t seen observational studies (or randomized controlled trials) looking at that issue either.

Patient support groups for long COVID (from natural infection) tend to be larger than groups for vaccine injury.  r/CovidLongHaulers is 4.7x the size of r/VaccineLongHaulers.  However, there are biases in the relative group size numbers so I wouldn’t take that 4.7X frequency estimate too seriously.  Some of the more important biases are:

  1. COVID has been around longer than the vaccines.
  2. Reddit censorship continues to grow.  r/VaccineLongHaulers is still quarantined because it goes against the narrative that vaccines are safe.

I got wrecked by my second shot of Pfizer/Biontech

Click the play button below to see my finger twitch while I try to move it up and down slowly.

Long haul COVID and vaccine injury may be joined at the hip

There are many similarities between long COVID (PASC) and vaccine injury (post vaccination syndrome).  The symptoms overlap heavily and the same treatments seem to reduce symptoms for both (ivermectin, statins, CCR5 antagonists).  Bruce Patterson’s research has found that the S1 portion of the spike protein can be found in the non-classical monocyte cells of people with traditional long COVID (from natural infection) and vaccine injury.  His theory is that the S1 part of the spike protein is the root cause of health problems in both groups.

In the future, I suppose the medical establishment may try to gaslight everybody into believing that vaccine injury isn’t happening and that all of it is long COVID from natural infection.

Safer vaccines likely will not affect the market

The spike protein has a furin cleavage site where the spike can be cleaved into its S1 and S2 parts.  Removing this furin cleavage site might make vaccines safer because the body won’t have S1 spike protein sticking around for months after vaccination.  The body may clear the spike protein very quickly so vaccination injuries might happen over a week or two instead of sticking around for several months.  We really don’t know right now if that approach would have a safety advantage.

Novavax’s vaccine has a modified spike protein without a furin cleavage site.  Whenever that vaccine becomes commercially available, we may learn more about vaccine injury.  If removing the furin cleavage site improves safety, then mRNA vaccines would likely be re-formulated to remove it.
EDIT(11/7/2021):  I don’t believe that a modified furin cleavage site will help with safety.  According to Johnson and Johnson / Janssen, their vaccine does not “shed S1” because the furin cleavage site was “knocked out”.  However, there are many reports of vaccine injury with JnJ (view the source code on this webpage and search for “Johnson”).  This paper describes the JnJ vaccine’s furin cleavage site as being protease resistant, suggesting that it will resist cleavage but will eventually be cleaved.

The MMR vaccine has some effectiveness against COVID (demonstrated in this RCT) and has an excellent safety track record.  That vaccine (used regularly on all babies in most countries) provides a temporary boost to innate immunity and provides protection against COVID that way.  However, such a repurposed vaccine will see very little adoption in the real world because it doesn’t generate pharma profits and goes against the current vaccine madness.  The researchers of the RCT mentioned earlier have stated that the (live attenuated) MMR vaccine shouldn’t be used as a substitute for the current COVID vaccines.  It will not be commercially relevant unless attitudes change and medical professionals decide to prioritize health over politics.

It is also possible to design vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 without causing the spike protein to be in the body.  Research into livestock vaccines show that a vaccine could target the M and N proteins instead of the S (spike) protein.  However, companies aren’t seriously working on that problem at the moment and the vaccine development process would take several years once there is interest in safer COVID vaccines.

I don’t think that safer vaccines will pose a problem for the mRNA vaccine manufacturers anytime soon.

Massive political controversy ahead

Many Western countries have implemented policies that coerce people into taking a COVID vaccine against their wishes.  When the safety issues become more well-known, there is going to be a political firestorm.

Certain factors will make the controversy more heated:

  1. Many vaccine mandates are clearly unscientific.  Whereas a few countries like Israel recognize that prior infection leads to immunity, many Western countries ignore ‘the science’ and do not recognize that form of immunity when implementing vaccine mandates.
  2. Apartheid is controversial.  I understand that people among the illiberal left don’t like their bigotry being highlighted.  But that will not change the amount of controversy that will be generated.

I don’t know what the political implications will be.  I really, really worry about the political stability of the Western world.  One side of the culture wars has pushed through vaccine apartheid, resulting in death and disability.  It will not go over well because reciprocation is a social strategy that is wired into human beings.  It seems like the culture wars will end with one side forcefully imposing its will on the other side.

As far as the normal functioning of the pharma industry goes, I am slightly pessimistic.  In the past, consumers generally trusted medical authorities and were easily sold on expensive drugs and treatments.  They weren’t very knowledgeable or sophisticated about whether those interventions led to more benefit than harm.  Now, many areas of medicine like ‘zero COVID’, masks, vaccines, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin have become political battlegrounds.  With less trust, the medical market may shrink slightly as some patients avoid the excesses of the pharma industry and the hospital industry.  Some conservatives believe that they should avoid going for the hospital for COVID so that they can avoid remdesivir, avoid invasive ventilation, and be able to take ivermectin without the hospital going to great lengths to prevent ivermectin use (e.g. one hospital disobeyed court orders to administer ivermectin).

Humanity will live with COVID

I personally would have preferred the genocide of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, much like how humanity wiped out SARS1 and eliminated the Ebola virus multiple times.  The ‘zero COVID’ countries demonstrated that elimination is possible.  Hong Kong and Taiwan demonstrate that zero COVID is still possible.  However, the currently political reality is that zero COVID is dying as countries like Singapore and Mongolia have abandoned the strategy.  An ongoing pandemic allows politicians to justify:

  1. Higher government spending, which leads to more kickbacks for politicians on that spending.
  2. Authoritarian policies, apartheid, etc.

The politicians and political establishments in most countries prefer having the coronavirus pandemic persist.  If they were trying to end the pandemic, public health policy would not be so unscientific and ineffective.  It is what it is.

The implications are wonderful for pharma companies because selling a product for 10-30 years is much more profitable than selling it for only 1-3 years.  An investing opportunity exists because too many people erroneously believe that the pandemic will be over soon.

Everybody can get infected but most won’t test positive

A Korean case study describes a Navy ship where 90% of the crew became infected.  That incident suggests that at least 90% of people in the world are susceptible to infection from the coronavirus.

It is somewhat strange that the percentage infected was so high.  It may be the case that something about working on a ship that leads to very high exposure to viral particles.  Some observational studies suggest that a high viral load is associated with more severe disease, higher attack rates (percentage of close contacts becoming infected), and more symptomatic infections.  In more normal real-world settings, there should be lower viral loads that would lead to a much lower percentage of people developing a symptomatic infection.

If we look at the entire population of a country, the most infected countries in the world saw 10%-23% of their population test positive for COVID.  Here are some reasons why that number is so much lower than 90%:

  1. Most people get asymptomatic infections (no symptoms) so they have no idea that caught SARS-CoV-2.  This likely explains most of the difference.
  2. Mass testing of asymptomatic individuals will find more cases of COVID.  The rate of COVID positivity depends on how much testing is being done.
  3. Some people decide not to get tested when they have symptoms.
  4. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a shortage of tests.
  5. At the beginning of the pandemic, lockdowns in some countries slowed the spread of the coronavirus.

Going forward, I would expect 5-30% of the population to test positive every year.  The average will likely be in the neighborhood of 10%, though it is hard to predict the future at the moment.  The actual number will depend on variants, amount of testing, vaccine effectiveness, and how social behaviour affects the spread of the virus.

Czechia / the Czech Republic gives us some clues as to what the future will look like.  According to Worldometers, Czechia is the 7th most infected country in the world and saw about 16.2% of its population test positive since the start of the pandemic.  It is likely that the country had very high levels of immunity when the coronavirus ripped through the population.  Presumably, this immunity temporarily protected the country against the Delta variant.  Now that immunity is waning, the country is finally going through its Delta wave.

Despite widespread immunity from infection, only a portion of the population tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.  I would assume that something similar will happen to other countries as the coronavirus will rip through the population as social restrictions ease, leading to most of the population becoming infected.  However, only a fraction of those exposed/infected will test positive.

Going forward, we might expect that at least several percent of the population in developed countries will test positive for SARS-CoV-2.  That percentage will have a huge impact on the size of the early treatment market for interventions like monoclonal antibodies and molnupiravir.  I will try to do a future post explaining why I think monoclonal antibodies may generate more profit than mRNA vaccines.

Biontech versus Moderna

Biontech is partnered with Pfizer for its vaccine and owns roughly 50% of the partnership’s mRNA vaccine.  Moderna doesn’t split ownership of its mRNA vaccine.  Biontech currently trades at half of Moderna’s market cap but should probably trade significantly higher than half of Moderna’s market cap.

In terms of sales, the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine is outselling Moderna because Moderna is more supply-constrained than Pfizer.  Once the supply issues go away, the sales difference may continue because some countries are suspending the Moderna vaccine but not Pfizer/Biontech.

  • Sweden: Moderna suspended for 30 and under.
  • Denmark: Moderna suspended for under 18.
  • Norway: Moderna suspended for under 18.

The Moderna vaccine has a much higher dose of mRNA which theoretically leads to more side effects.  I don’t really know if the favouritism will continue in the future; at the moment it favours Pfizer/Biontech.


If governments coerce children into getting vaccinated two/three times a year via school mandates, then the global mRNA vaccine market might be around 11 billion doses a year.  California is the first US state to force students to become vaccinated, though the state has yet to mandate boosters.  I may be insufficiently cynical but I don’t think the current vaccine madness will last.

I will assume that that the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine will sell about 2 billion doses annually with $5 in after-tax profit going to Biontech.  Here are the relevant data points:

  • Pfizer is currently guiding for 2011 sales to be 2.3B doses with $36B in revenue for the Pfizer-Biontech partnership.
  • On the current Q3 earnings call, management stated that they expect to recognize revenue for at least 1.7B doses in 2022.  Quote: “And while it is not a normal practice to discuss 2022 outlook during the Q3 conference call, I wanted to make a brief comment related to potential Comirnaty sales next year, and we’ve noticed some estimates of those sales to be very high. While we have the capacity to produce 4 billion doses in 2022, at this point, we expect to recognize revenues for 1.7 billion doses in 2022, representing COVID vaccine direct sales and alliance revenues approximately $29 billion.”
  • If we divide revenue by doses, then we see that the average price of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine has been going up from ~$14.4/dose in 2021 to ~$15.6/dose in 2022.

At 2 billion doses/year with $5 going to Biontech per dose, that’s $10B in profit every year for Biontech.  At a 15X multiple, Biontech should trade at $615/share versus its current share price of $292.

A more aggressive valuation would be supported by:

  • Selling more than 2 billion doses/year.
    • Volumes will be higher if all adults get vaccinated instead of only high-risk individuals.
    • Volumes will be higher is more countries adopt the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines despite differences in healthcare politics.  For example, vaccine nationalism poses significant competition for mRNA vaccines as India and Russia may prefer home-grown vaccines due to national pride.
    • More frequent boosting schedule, e.g. 3 times a year.  Observational data from Sweden found that there was a significant drop in effectiveness to 48% after 4 months.
  • Price inflation.  The US healthcare system is designed for healthcare to become more and more expensive, similar to how thalidomide became a blockbuster drug decades after it was pulled from the market due to birth defects.  My previous post provides a few statistics on price inflation in vaccine franchises.
  • The value of Biontech’s cash and drug pipeline.

At the moment, vaccination 3 times a year seems justified by the data and would have a huge impact on mRNA profits.  I am probably underestimating how profitable the mRNA stocks will be.

Legal liabilities

As far as I can tell, vaccine manufacturers will face very little legal liability because they negotiated protections with the governments that they sold the vaccines to.

Vaccine injury compensation payments from governments could be massive in the future.  If you want more information on vaccine compensation, do a Google search for “vaccine injury” lawyer United States (or the name of the country that you’re interested in).  Law firms do engage in “content marketing” and publish legitimately useful information as a way of attracting clients.  In the United States, a government-run program (VICP) has collected fees on every vaccine sold and that program has paid out billions of dollars in compensation for vaccine injuries.  However, the situation with the COVID vaccines is a little different because the VICP doesn’t currently cover COVID vaccines.

The US government pays for COVID vaccines and is supposed to pay for the costs of compensating vaccine injuries.  This may be another political controversy because the COVID vaccines are unusually harmful compared to past vaccines.  Either (A) the US government pays out large sums of money or (B) it generates controversy by denying claims and leaving victims uncompensated.  The first option would discredit public health officials, mainstream media, and the Big Tech censors who pushed the “vaccines are safe” narrative.  Controversy will ensue regardless of what governments do.

There is a chance that Pfizer and Biontech could face legal trouble for hiding the risk of disability from the public (which is not the same as selling a product where the risk has been properly disclosed).  Maddie de Garay is a problem for Pfizer because it is now clear that Pfizer knew (from their clinical trial) that their vaccine can disable children.  I don’t believe that this risk will make a huge difference in the valuation of Pfizer, Biontech, or Moderna.  Pharma companies have engaged in all sorts of unethical practices and have paid many legal settlements.  I would see it as a recurring expense.

Should you worry about COVID?

I don’t know.  Humanity has lived with worse diseases like smallpox, polio, etc.

If you want to protect yourself against COVID while living a normal life, get early treatment as soon as possible- waiting a few days will render most treatments completely ineffective.  Early treatment includes:

  • Monoclonal antibodies
  • Repurposed drugs, many of which are being ignored

If your symptoms are very mild (or you have high risk of infection because a household member tested positive), it is probably a good idea to immediately start the safe and convenient treatments like gargling antiviral mouthwash.  We currently don’t have good methods for predicting the outcome of an infection (other than risk factors like age, co-morbidities, etc.); the severity of your symptoms may not tell you anything about whether you will become dead or disabled.  If a household member became infected and you are in a high risk group, you may want to research whether monoclonal antibodies are available to you.  The best time to take them is early on in an infection (or possible infection) when you have no symptoms.

To learn about repurposed drugs, see these two websites:

  1. The FLCCC’s early treatment protocol.
  2. – This website summarizes research on various repurposed drugs.  However, just because a drug is listed on that website does NOT mean that its benefits outweigh its risks.  So, I would focus on drugs that are sold over the counter.  Those drugs generally have a long track record of being safe and therefore carry very little risk.  They are not completely safe so you should read the packaging for those drugs and follow the instructions (e.g. melatonin makes you drowsy).

The recommended drugs will change over time as more research becomes available.  Some drugs may turn out to be ineffective or not worth taking.  You may want to talk to a doctor who is knowledgeable about early treatment of COVID- try the FLCCC’s list of doctors.

At the moment, these drugs are safe and show promise for early treatment:

  • Antiviral mouthwash.  e.g. one version of Betadine mouthwash will say “Povidone-Iodine” on the packaging.  See the FLCCC I-MASK protocol for information on whether you should apply it to your nose in addition to gargling.
  • Quercetin – found in many foods and sold as a supplement.
  • Nigella Sativa – this is a spice used in South Asian cooking.  It can come as seeds, as an oil, or as a supplement.
  • Curcumin – sold as a spice (tumeric) and as a supplement
  • Vitamin A
  • Zinc
  • Vitamin D
  • Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid)

The following repurposed drugs are also sold over the counter in some countries, but they may be extremely hard to get on short notice.  If you want the option of taking these drugs, you may need to buy them now for future use.

  • Ivermectin – the easiest way to get this is to buy it over the counter (e.g. Mexico) or to have a telemedicine doctor give you a prescription.  If that won’t work, see here and the list of international pharmacies on the FLCC website.
  • Melatonin – requires a prescription in the UK.
  • Bromhexine – sold over the counter in Australia, Japan, NZ, and Europe but is not approved in US/Canada.  The proper way to get this drug is to get a prescription from your doctor and to follow the instructions here.  Or, you can buy Chesty Forte (bromhexine hydrochloride) from Ebay resellers without a prescription.

You may also benefit from other interventions like prescription drugs (e.g. prednisone or other corticosteroid for late treatment, fluvoxamine, etc.).  Talk to a doctor about that.  The FLCCC website has a list of doctors who should be knowledgeable about early treatment.


COVID really did change the world because the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine will be the best-selling drug/treatment of 2021.  Its sales are currently projected to be $36B.  While the COVID vaccines are a political battleground, I don’t see a lot of investors seriously trying to analyze how much money the vaccines will make.

Wall Street analysts seem to think that COVID will magically disappear.  While that optimistic narrative helps investment banks sell its products to investors, it is highly unlikely that COVID will magically go away.  If COVID isn’t going away, then Pfizer/Biontech will probably sell at least 2 billion doses every year.  They could sell triple that if multiple governments coerce all adults into taking 3 boosters a year.  I would own the stock and avoid taking the shot.  The current vaccine madness is insane but you can make the most out of a bad situation.


*Disclosure: Long MRNA, BNTX, REGN, and VIR stock.  Long BNTX and REGN calls.  No position in GILD.

5 thoughts on “COVID update: vaccine apartheid + the mRNA stocks are better than the shots

  1. Hey Glenn – thanks so much for your continued work on covid! I find it very insightful!

    I must admit I am surprised by the combination of your bullishness on the vaccine stocks and your frankness about vaccine injury. I question the size of the market if/when awareness of vaccine injuries grows. I have also heard comments that damage from the vaccines may be cumulative (higher incidence of myorcaditis after 2nd dose would support this), which, if true, suggests the safety profile may deteriorate with more boosting.

    Random question for you: I’m surprised the manufacturers have not reformulated the vaccines for delta. Why are people receiving the same boost as the original series? I’ve seen comments from Pfizer CEO suggesting that if a vaccine-resistant variant emerges, they will just produce a new vaccine. So why haven’t they done that for delta? Manufacturing issue? Would it have to go through approvals again? Or I wonder if there could be an immunological problem boosting with a slightly different spike?

    I’m way out of my area of expertise here, but wondered if you’ve seen anything?

    Thanks again!


    On Thu., Nov. 4, 2021, 2:59 p.m. Glenn Chan’s Random Notes on Investing, wrote:

    > GlennC posted: ” Vaccine coercion is having some effect on the economy as > Southwest Airlines and many other companies are going out of their way to > create a labour shortage problem with mandatory vaccination. I don’t know > if the vaccine apartheid madness will turn in” >

    • Oooh soome great questions here.

      Regarding cumulative damage:  some side effects like myocarditis are higher with the 2nd shot than the first, so it’s very very possible that vaccine injuries may accumulate.  It’s also not clear why some people have no problem with the 1st round of natural infection or the 1st vax but get vax injured on the next shot of vaccine.
      I guess how I see it is that both natural infection and vaccination seem to cause similar damage.  In high-risk groups, the cumulative damage from being unvaccinated + catching COVID is probably worse than getting vaccinated (and catching COVID anyways).  However, it’s possible that the vaccines may be causing damage in ways that natural infection doesn’t.  The adenovirus vector vaccines (JnJ, AZ, and Sputnik V) may have more blood clotting issues than the mRNA vaccines, though we don’t know if reporting bias is to blame for that.

      We may see early safety signals from Israel, which is the first country to mass boost.  There are also some Americans who have gotten 3/4 shots (there are ways, e.g. some states are trying to vaxx the homeless who don’t have their medical records and vaccination histories).

      Regarding how good the drug is:  A lot of pharma drugs have questionable risk/benefit- statins, antidepressants, opioids, controlled substances like amphetamines, SSRIs, Vioxx, etc.  The mRNA vaccines look like one of the better drugs out there if you believe that they are protective against death in high-risk people.  As far as COVID drugs go, remdesivir is trash while the vaccines and monoclonal antibodies seem to be the best.  Molnupiravir will likely come to market with safety warnings that the monoclonals won’t have.
      I suppose I became enamored with the idea that COVID drugs will be huge- so far that has been true because a mRNA vaccine is the best-selling drug in the world.  My general plan is to invest in the best drugs and avoid inferior drugs like remdesivir and the Eli-Lilly monoclonal which isn’t quite as good as GSK/Vir’s and Regeneron’s.  (Though the second-rate drugs are worth investing into if they’re cheap enough.)

      Delta reformulation:  there are currently trials for a Delta booster.

    • Oh dangit your comment ended up in the spam folder. Anyways, to answer your questions… that study looked at proteins that aren’t being targeted by the mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines make your cells produce a modified version of the spike protein, either the full-length version or a shorter version with the S1 part of the spike (and the receptor binding domain). The inactivated vaccines would have those proteins, although I haven’t found a lot of safety data on those particular vaccines.

  2. Pingback: Monoclonal antibodies should become the best selling drug in the world – Glenn Chan's Random Notes on Investing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.