I changed my ways when my father died of a massive heart attack at the age of 62 which by the way was the oldest a male had lived on his side of family, his brother at 38, my grandfather at 58. My brother didn't change he died 6 years ago all from massive heart attacks. Do you care to poke some more fun asshole
I wasn’t poking fun… but if you insist, I would suggest in that its definitely in your interest to chill out a little bit.
I wasn’t poking fun… but if you insist, I would suggest in that its definitely in your interest to chill out a little bit.
Is that a threat?
No you silly boy, I’m suggesting you should avoid raising your heart rate. Can’t be too careful.
Outrageous Lack of Transparency—Pfizer Now Asks Court for 75 Years to Hide Details of COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Results
TrialSite has tracked attorney Aaron Siri and his client’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against Pfizer for full disclosure of clinical trials documentation. Siri shared in a previous post that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked a federal judge to delay the full disclosure of all relevant documentation till 2076—55 years from now! Siri, who is a partner with the law firm Siri Glimstad representing the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) countered to the court that Pfizer should disclose the entire batch of documentation within 108 days which just happens to be the amount of time it took for the Gold Standard regulatory agency to review and approve Pfizer’s vaccine. After the court-ordered both parties to submit updated briefs, now in what can only be considered an insult to injury, Pfizer “doubles down.” Meaning the pharmaceutical company now wants to hide the extent of all of the material information till 2096.
As attorney Siri writes “this is “Not a typo.” They are demanding 75 years of data secrecy. Yes, the FDA is agreeing to share about 12,000 pages in the first couple of months but thereafter they would release, at a snail’s pace, 500 pages per month till that 2096 date.
Why do these developments matter?
An unprecedented situation, with national mandates and even globalized pressure from the World Health Organization (WHO) on member countries, people in the United States deserve to better understand what actually occurred during this trial. Also, TrialSite has shared that under the PREP Act the pharmaceutical company has no liability in the United States. TrialSite was formed to help bring transparency and accessibility to clinical research—this actually serves to raise the trust levels and confidence in research.
Siri notes in his blog that the U.S. government awarded Pfizer $.195 billion in taxpayer’s money to promote the development of this vaccine via a forward procurement agreement. Thereafter, the government outlayed $15.7 billion to purchase the vaccine product—thus far a total of $18.75 billion in taxpayer money has been given to the company, not to mention hundreds of millions in support for the company’s clinical trials.
Ralph Norman, a congressman went on the record:
The FDA’s only priority should be the health and safety of consumers. The agency has compromised its integrity by delaying information that belongs to the public. Since the Biden administration is hell-bent on forcing these vaccine mandates on us, the public has every right to know how this vaccine was approved, especially in such a short amount of time. After all, the FDA managed to consider all 329,000 pages of data and grant emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine within just 108 days. So, it’s hard to rationalize why it now needs 55 years to fully release that information to the public.
While Senator Ted Cruz called the FDA’s position “Completely outrageous.”
What’s next?
According to Siri’s blog, Each side gets to file response briefs on December 13, 2021, followed by oral arguments on December 14, 2021, in front of the judge. Siri and partners list the FDA documents for your review
Arizona House Member Proposal to Ban Pharmacies from Obstructing Ivermectin Prescriptions for COVID-19
Arizona State legislator Kelly Townsend of Mesa, Arizona, seeks to ensure the state’s pharmacists don’t impede on the physician and patient relationship by proposing a bill that would ensure prescriptions for off-label treatments such as ivermectin are not interrupted. Pharmacies have experienced mounting public relations pressure, indirectly supported by the Biden White House, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and medical societies to block access to the anti-parasitic drug for use off-label for COVID-19. TrialSite’s own survey revealed just how difficult it is now becoming to access the once-easy-to-get drug. Prescriptions went from about 3,000 per week before the pandemic to nearly 90,000 per week deep into the pandemic due to many dozens of studies around the world showing some positive data points. In the meantime, prominent government and corporate-backed research investigates the benefits of ivermectin: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Duke University back ACTIV-6, while the University of Minnesota and UnitedHealthcare support the COVID-OUT study, both of which involve ivermectin.
Now Townsend went on the record, “It’s pharmacies themselves making the decision apart from the doctor and the patient to not fill a prescription, and during a health crisis like we’re in right now, that’s inappropriate,” as reported by local media KJZZ.
The Senator declared there should be nothing getting in the way of a doctor’s prescription to a consenting patient off-label.
Apparently, the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy recently assured Townsend that “they were not going to be getting in between doctors and patients.” However, just in case, Townsend contemplates a bill that would make that ethos law during public health emergencies. Language declares a pharmacy “may not refuse” to fill a prescription for the use of an off-label potentially “life-saving” drug.
Infections are not cumulative! Event one:: Either is an infection or not afterwards you start at 0 again.
This makes zero logical sense. It might be the dumbest thing I’ve read all week. Including the Rossi business.
Have you never heard of an R-number?
Jed Rothwell please pay attention. You once posted that this would never happen in the United States.
Did I predict that no doctor would be fired for prescribing ivermectin? I don't think I did. I probably said no doctor would be prosecuted by Federal or state officials because doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs off-label in the U.S. It is not against any law. However, hospitals can fire a doctor for any good reason, and prescribing ivermectin is a good reason. It is like prescribing blood pressure meds for COVID. We know it will not work, unless the patient is diagnosed with worms.
By that measure though, Ivermectin not only passes the anecdotal test, but has some science backing it.
Only in countries where worms and other parasites are common. There is no anecdotal or scientific double-blind test data showing that ivermectin works in other countries such as the U.S. On the contrary, all of the double-blind test data conclusively shows that it does not work.
Pfizer Now Asks Court for 75 Years to Hide Details of COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Results
May be there are none.... The whole Pfizer campaign was based on buddy bribing. Pfizer/Biontec did not complete any of the required animal studies for even going to phase II !!!!
my gig has been prevention through supplementation. I don't disagree with the experts and the studies I have posted. It is you who never finds a silver lining always asking for more. 40 years of living this lifestyle gives me the right to promote supplementation rather than waiting a year for a vaccine.
Everyone has the right to argue anything - science does not need to be experientially validated.
If it did we would have no evidence that cyanide kills people because all the people who truly appreciate that are dead.
You have a positive judgement of many supplements, more so than me. That is OK. As long as you do not tell other people that vitamin supplement are better than vaccination. I don't think you do that.
The whole Pfizer campaign was based on buddy bribing.
Guess they were juts lucky then that the Pfizer vaccine has been so stunningly successful in multiple countries...
Things are overall, looking good.
For clowns 50'000 gene therapy deaths do not matter. In contrary this is great success!
The live as a clown must be something very special. But what else can be expected from people that once kissed a scull? Historically clowns (a jester) was the lowest level slave of an emperor. But this does not bother a clown as his existence is just a running gag.
The live as a clown must be something very special. But what else can be expected from people that once kissed a scull? Historically clowns (a jester) was the lowest level slave of an emperor. But this does not bother a clown as his existence is just a running gag.
It sounds like you are missing my detailed rebuttals of your stuff.
The thing is, there is quite a lot of interesting new data, but you are not commenting on it, not saying anything new.
video probably worth watching
The 4 videos analysing properly those UK figures that W partially quotes and then analyses the way the report they are in says will not work (with reasons).
COVID vaccinations and antivaxxer heart scares (detailed analysis from cardiologist of the PULS test and what it means).
(How many US children have been hospitalised with COVID? And why do so many people get the number wrong by a factor of 10 or more?)
The live as a clown must be something very special. But what else can be expected from people that once kissed a scull? Historically clowns (a jester) was the lowest level slave of an emperor. But this does not bother a clown as his existence is just a running gag.
I realise this is the Playground, but I'd like to report this quoted text as plain and hurtful coulrophobia.
Anyone who has lived a life as a circus clown knows that coulrophobia is suffered by quite a number of the public, and can drive them to irrational states of hysteria quickly. The only solution is to forcibly remove them from the circus tent while any act that triggers their condition is on. It is a real pain.
My advice: be cautious taking young children to see scary circus acts, especially if they contain people with red noses.
Major Study Reveals Real Myocarditis Risk with mRNA Vaccines—Young Males Most at Risk
Recently, a substantial study involving numerous prominent academic medical centers investigated the problem of heart-related side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Led by an associate cardiologist-in-chief at Boston Children’s Hospital and a University of Utah pediatric cardiologist, the study results, published in the journal Circulation, evidence incidence of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle as a noted side effect of the COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents and young adults, especially males. Dongngan Truong, MD, with University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City along with Jane Newburger, MD, MPH, at Boston Children’s Hospital led this study finding that symptoms are usually mild and most often subside quickly. But some people had laboratory and cardiac MRI evidence of myocardial injury necessitating the need for monitoring programs associated with the mass vaccination program. The long-term effects of those vaccinated and experiencing myocarditis post the vaccine must be understood—with the necessary care available for them.
Recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Circulation, this retrospective study involved 26 pediatric centers across North America (USA and Canada) involving 139 patients age 12 to 20 years, who experienced suspected myocarditis within 30 days of the jab.
In an issued press release the authors report that 91% of the cases occurred in males, and the overwhelming majority (98%) of the cases involved mRNA-based vaccines (either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna).
Other findings included:
Chest pain reports 32% or fewer
Shortness of breath 27%
The symptoms appear on average between the day of vaccination and 22 days thereafter but a majority of the incidence occur between one and three days after the administration of the vaccine. On average the patient remains in the hospital for two days while 19% of the total were actually admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU).
Noteworthy is the frequency of injury evidenced in MRI imaging. Of the 97 patients who had an MRI done 75 of them or 77% revealed evidence of injury or inflammation associated with their heart muscle. Meanwhile, 19% of the patients had weakened left-ventricular pumping function, but function normalized in all 25 patients who had follow-up assessments. Thankfully, no patient required mechanical support and only one in seven had serious heart arrhythmias with only two needing drugs to boost augment heart function.
Limitations
The authors note that the study was limited by its retrospective nature. No patients had heart biopsies to definitively diagnose myocarditis, and medical decisions on treatment and what kinds of testing to pursue were at the discretion of local clinicians. Also, because patients were seen at academic medical centers, their symptoms might have been worse than average.
Principal Investigator Point of View
Dr. Newburger went on the record, “We found that teens and young adults who develop myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination generally have mild symptoms that improve quickly.” Thus, the medical establishment continues to consider this byproduct of the vaccine as “rare.”
Benefit-Risk Assessment Absolutely Vital
Importantly Dr. Newburger also raised the key issue with the vaccination of young people. That any vaccination program must factor in the benefits versus the risks of vaccination. Children face less risk than older people do with COVID-19. Yet with Delta more children became infected and even some ended up in the hospital.
True medical transparency involves the actual risks associated with COVID-19 compared to the risks of any adverse events or damaging side effects. Any vaccination of children, especially younger ones, must include a thorough and transparent benefit-risk assessment.
Lead Research/Investigator
Dongngan Truong, MD, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City
Jane Newburger, MD, MPH, Boston Children’s Hospital
Note dozens of other authors were involved with this study.
Call to Action: Read the entire study in the Journal Circulation.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056583
Dr. Peter McCullough: Vaccine-induced Myocarditis in Young People ‘Way More Serious’ than COVID-Induced Myocarditis
Dr. Peter McCullough, a top cardiologist and leader in the medical response to the COVID pandemic, said in a recent interview that myocarditis in young people post vaccine is far more dangerous than the COVID version of the heart disease.
Cases of myocarditis—inflammation of the heart muscle—have spiked dramatically among previously healthy people in heavily vaccinated countries. Health officials have maintained that vaccine-induced myocarditis is rare, and worth the risk because COVID-induced myocarditis is much more prevalent.
During a wide-ranging interview with Dr. Al Johnson of the Real News Communications Network, McCullough expressed an alternative viewpoint.
He told Dr. Johnson that the type of myocarditis that occurs with a natural infection is very different from the myocarditis seen in people who have been vaccinated.
In the COVID-19 cases, the heart inflammation happens mainly in those who are in the intensive care unit with severe COVID, and who have an elevation in their troponin levels, McCullough explained.
Troponin is a type of protein found in skeletal muscle and cardiac muscle. Measurements of cardiac-specific troponins are used as diagnostic and prognostic indicators in the management of myocardial infection and acute coronary syndrome.
The doctor emphasized that usually “the myocarditis in COVID-19 is mild, it’s inconsequential, and it’s largely a component of elevation [of troponin].”
Conversely, he said, “there are pre-clinical studies suggesting the lipid nanoparticles [from the vaccines] actually go right into the heart.”
“The heart expresses the spike protein, the body attacks the heart. There are dramatic EKG changes,” he explained.
“I don’t want anybody to think that the myocarditis of a natural infection is anything like what we’re seeing with the vaccines,” McCullough stressed.
“The [troponin] blood test for heart injury with the vaccine myocarditis, is 10 to 100 times higher than the troponin we see with a natural infection,” he continued. “It’s a totally different syndrome.”
McCullough said that the risk of heart disease in children who have received the jab, far outweigh the benefits.
“When kids get myocarditis after the vaccine, 90 percent have to be hospitalized, they have dramatic EKG changes, chest pain, heart failure, they need an echocardiogram,” he said, adding “they need medication to prevent heart failure.”
“Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a big deal, and in children, it’s way more serious, and more prominent than a post-COVID myocarditis,” he concluded.
Dr. McCullough has been a vocal proponent of early intervention to treat COVID patients, publishing “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” in August of 2020.
The doctor has 46 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in media appearances.
Right now, McCullough is focusing on educating parents and educators about the dangers of administering the vaccine to children.
He, along with Doctors Robert Malone, Paul Alexander, and Aaron Kheriaty, started “the Unity Project” last month, to “stop COVID vaccine mandates in healthy children ages K-12.”
WARNING : "That's Odd" SPECULATION
The research may help explain why people who are overweight and obese have been at higher risk of severe illness and death from Covid.
Now researchers have found that the coronavirus infects both fat cells and certain immune cells within body fat, prompting a damaging defensive response in the body.
“The bottom line is, ‘Oh my god, indeed, the virus can infect fat cells directly,’”
Hmmmm .... I already knew that Ivermectin has a higher concentration in fat cells.
Searched for a "obesity / IVM " papers.
Baseline - Table 1
Control arm is biased to overweight 53% : 20%
Ivermectin arm is biased to obese 27% : 43%
Fig. 2 Viral load by quantitative RT-PCR on upper respiratory tract secretions since baseline in patients receiving IVM 0•6 mg/kg/day for 5 days versus untreated controls.
IVM (particularly high-dose) is better than Control
Speculative deduction:
Covid19 selectively attack Fat Cells
IVM is more effective at higher doses
Obese people are overdosed after the loading dose
IVM concentrates in fat cells
These two combined might push the IVM concentration into the therapeutic range exactly where Covid19 is prevalent.
END SPECULATION
Display MoreI realise this is the Playground, but I'd like to report this quoted text as plain and hurtful coulrophobia.
Anyone who has lived a life as a circus clown knows that coulrophobia is suffered by quite a number of the public, and can drive them to irrational states of hysteria quickly. The only solution is to forcibly remove them from the circus tent while any act that triggers their condition is on. It is a real pain.
My advice: be cautious taking young children to see scary circus acts, especially if they contain people with red noses.
I guess your not aware of the epidemic of creepy clowns walking the streets of America. It's the creepy clowns being removed or in this case arrested.
Does UK Mortality Data Raise Possibility of Miscategorization of Vaccine Status Along with Uncertain Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination
Recently, a team of researchers led by a couple of PhDs in mathematics from Queen Mary University London as well as other specialists released a quantitative study in preprint mode in ResearchGate. While this piece shouldn’t be used as full evidence until validated in a peer review vetting process, it’s nonetheless worthy of attention. The scholars point out that the true risk-benefit of COVID-19 vaccines are probably most accurately assessed via an “all-cause mortality rate comparison of vaccinated against unvaccinated” as this method would overcome any confounder influence of case definition while also meeting World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of “vaccine effectiveness” associated with death. The findings raise serious questions about the data associated with the UK’s Office for National Statistics, known as “ONS.” But TrialSite reminds all the report isn’t yet peer-reviewed and, consequently, shouldn’t be cited as evidence. The output does however prompt a recommendation to further investigate the hypothesis.
With a PhD in mathematics, Professor Fenton is a Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London and is also a director of Agena, a company that specializes in risk management for critical systems. While Martin Neal also earned a PhD and is also affiliated with the university’s School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science. Their work, not reviewed as of yet, appeared in ResearchGate and should not be used as evidence. Nonetheless, their findings raise significant concern that should prompt further investigation. Other authors include Joel Smalley, Clare Craig, Joshua Guetzkow, Scott Mclachlan, Jonathan Engler and Jessica Rose.
Investigating a key ONS mortality report in the UK—the vaccine mortality surveillance report—the group of scholars accessed what they consider the necessary information to better compare this “crucial” information as a time series.
Problems with ONS Data
Initially, the data indicate that at least for people falling in “older age” cohorts that “all-cause mortality” is, as expected, lower among vaccinated persons as compared to those that haven’t been vaccinated (e.g., the unvaccinated). However, a closer examination of this data raises some significant questions. Why is this the case? According to the multi-national group of authors, they question the data due to a “range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies.” In fact, the authors publish that the data underlying official UK reports are “both unreliable and misleading.”
It could very well be those differences involving socio-demographics (e.g., age, income, social status, education levels, etc..) are a factor along with behavioral differences. But the authors point out “there is no evidence to support any of these.”
They point out that any truly honest and accurate assessment of vaccine effectiveness depends on an accurate measurement of key elements including the following:
People classified as having the disease
Vaccination status
Reporting of deaths
These are factored into an analysis based on the true numbers of the population that are vaccinated as well as unvaccinated both falling in the calculus as denominators.
If this data is off or not accurate in any way, then any major claims of safety or effectiveness are, according to the authors, not “reliable,” the team reminds the reader.
Raising Questions
Thus, the authors raise concerns of the data—declaring that “the risk/benefit of COVID vaccines is best—and most simply—measured by all-cause mortality of vaccinated against unvaccinated, since it avoids the thorny issues of what constitutes a COVID “case/infection.”
But because age hasn’t been included—until the most recent report—there has been no comparisons not potentially effectuated by confounding age factor—that is “older people are both disproportionately more vaccinated than younger people and disproportionately more likely to die.”
Claim: Official Data Both ‘Unreliable & Misleading’
The authors observe that the data coming out of the UK is “unreliable and misleading.” Some key bullet points introduced in the article:
Non-COVID mortality rates in the three different categories of vaccinated people fluctuate in a wild but consistent manner, considerably removed from expected historical mortality rates.
Non-COVID mortality rate for unvaccinated should be consistent with historical rates—perhaps even slightly slower than the vaccinated non-COVID mortality rate—yet it is not only higher than the vaccinated mortality rate, but it is far higher than historical morality rate.
In previous years the age cohort of 60-69, 70-79, and 80 years and up experience mortality rate peaks at the same time during the year—note this included 2020 when all suffered the April COVID-19 peak at the same time. However, by 2021 each age group has non-COVID mortality peaks for the unvaccinated at a different time, namely the time that vaccination rollout programs for those cohorts reached a peak.
The peaks in the COVID-19 mortality data for the unvaccinated are inconsistent with the actual COVID-19 wave.
Author’s Hypothesis
Referring to “Occam’s razor,” the authors point out that a “miscategorization” of mortality associated with the various categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated is likely a real problem in pursuing the actual truth behind these statistics.
They suggest the following:
Systematic miscategorization of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated
Delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations
Systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated
Incorrect population selection for COVID-19 deaths
Based on mathematically driven adjustments to the ONS data, the team argues: “The vaccinates do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.”
With introduced caveats, they go on and conclude that those with “competing explanations for the data” should “explain how and why the data is the way it is.” Regardless the authors fundamentally challenge the assumption that using the ONS data points to the vaccine reducing all-cause mortality.
Lead Research/Investigator
Martin University Neal, PhD, Queen Mary of London
Normal Elliot Fenton, PhD, Mathematics School of Electronic Engineering and School of Computer Science
Joel Smalley, Independent Researcher
Clare Craig, Independent Researcher
Joshua Guetzkow, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Scott Mclachlan, Queen Mary University of London
Jonathan Engler, Independent Researcher
Jessica Rose, Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge, Public Health Policy Initiative
