The Playground

Quote from JedRothwell

Only in counties such as India where worm parasites are very common, infecting up to half of patients, mostly undiagnosed. Parasites increase the severity of any illness, and the death rate. Treating every patient in India with ivermectin will improve their average prognosis, even though only half the patients are infected. It does not help the other half, but it doesn't hurt them either. Ivermectin is usually benign.

Jed - I want to point out that the "worm" hypothesis is highly speculative. Data to support it is contaminated (inevitably) by correlations between worms and socio-economic factors that feed into the likelihood of trials being well conducted as well as many other things. The same difficulty of analysis that makes the pro-ivermectin case bad also applies to more sophisticated examples of it - like the worm hypothesis.

I'm not saying it is not true - I have no evidence to rule that out, and it is possible. It is certainly neat! So are many things under the sun, only some of them actually pan out.

THH

All the compounds and herbal therapies we originally outlined for COVID treatments with anti-BAT (trademarked) have stood the test of time. They only work if prescribed in combination lozenges which can weigh up to 2g. I have stuck to this regimen, and have been double vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine which gives me added protection. Throughout the pandemic I have not even suffered the mildest of colds. So if it all works for me, all I can say is to add to Wyttenbach 's philosophy - if it works, use it!

World Health Organization Rejects Ivermectin & Fluvoxamine Yet Now Embraces Traditional Chinese Medicine Reports Communist Party-owned Media & Agency

World Health Organization Rejects Ivermectin & Fluvoxamine Yet Now Embraces Traditional Chinese Medicine Reports Communist Party-owned Media & Agency

www.trialsitenews.com

Haiwainet.cn, a subsidiary of the China state-owned media called the People’s Daily Online, the internet addition of China’s largest newspaper as measured by readership, one owned by the Central Committee of the Chinese Community Party (CCP) recently issued a press release that the World Health Organization (WHO) shared a report on a meeting titled “WHO Expert Meeting on Evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the Treatment of COVID-19” on its official website. The direct CCP-owned media source touted that WHO is acknowledging that based on clinically relevant outcome measures select TCMs show benefit when applied as a treatment against mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Is WHO now helping to market, indirectly, TCMs as a treatment for COVID-19?

The CCP-owned media declares that WHO “encourages Member States to consider the integration of traditional medicine interventions such as TCM in planning for the clinical management of COVID-19 in the context of their healthcare systems and regulatory frameworks.”

TS News sought to review the WHO report linked here.

Background

The move for WHO to embrace Communist China’s TCM (such as herbal medicine) as a COVID-19 treatment appears political. By early this year Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus conducted a “high-level policy dialogue with China’s National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (NATCM) in Geneva Switzerland on January 17, 2022, based on a WHO decision to hold the meetings to evaluate the role of TCM in treating COVID-19.

A follow-up virtual Expert Meeting on Evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Treatment of COVID-19 was held from February 28 to March 2, 2022. The group sought out the following objectives as reported by WHO:

to understand the methodology applied in producing the reports;

to review and analyze the reports and randomized controlled trials of TCM in various phases of the progression of COVID-19 disease;

to evaluate the contribution of a TCM integrated approach in the treatment of COVID-19; and

to discuss how effectively to enhance the contribution of traditional medicine in global pandemics.

21 international experts from six WHO regions attended the sessions including members of the WHO Expert Advisory Panel representing WHO collaborating centers, members of WHO International Regulatory Cooperation for Herbal Medicines (IRCH), and members of the China Academy of Chinse Medical Sciences.

After discussion, some consensus was reached reviewing three (3) reports associated with TCM and COVID-19 provided by Chinese groups as well as 12 randomized controlled trials which had been registered and published.

What were the recommendations? Was the CCP press overplaying the results?

TS News reviewed the findings which are included below:

The experts acknowledged that the included trials involved heterogeneous settings and various types of patients and outcome measures.

In addition to routine treatment, the results from the studied TCMs suggest that, on the basis of clinically relevant outcome measures, the studied TCMs are beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19, particularly in mild-to-moderate cases.

There is promising data to suggest that TCM is beneficial in reducing the risk of progression from mild-to-moderate cases to severe COVID-19.

The evidence on the benefit of TCM injection for severe cases is limited, and further evaluation is critically needed.

For mild-to-moderate cases, there is encouraging evidence that the studied TCMs, when administered as add-on interventions to conventional treatment, may shorten the time for viral clearance, resolution of clinical symptoms and length of hospital stay when compared to conventional treatment alone.

The results of the TCM trials do not substantiate the use of any specific plant species outside the general TCM framework in the context of COVID-19. • The studied TCM interventions given in addition to conventional treatment were well tolerated and have a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone.

There is encouraging evidence that early application of TCM may result in better clinical outcomes for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Despite inherent limitations, the results from the selected RCTs justify further investments in clinical trials to evaluate the potential benefits of selected TCMs in the management of COVID-19.

While WHO recommends several actions including the conduct of real-world observational studies to validate as well as consider improved clinical trials the Chinese group’s data clearly had an impact on the WHO.

In fact, WHO’s report recommends sharing the results with Member States “in a timely manner given the evolving nature of COVID-19 globally. Member states are encouraged to consider the potential use of TCM in the management of COVID-19 in the context of their healthcare systems and regulatory frameworks” reports the CCP-owned press.

Noteworthy that there seems to be no industry backlash yet when it came to the public health authorities in Uttar Pradesh and their embrace of home medicine kits including ivermectin and doxycycline while WHO praised the results, they forget to mention what was in the medicine kits while they in parallel attacked Indian states for using ivermectin. See one of TS News pieces on that topic here.

Drugs like Fluvoxamine have significant apparent benefits yet don’t get the time of day from Western health authorities nor WHO. Yet WHO now seems to be embracing Traditional Chinese Medicine. A fascinating, unfolding situation.

Yu Wenming, head of China's National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said China is willing to assist other WHO Member States to strengthen the role of traditional medicine in their health systems. Looks like China wants to muscle in on the early treatment market around the world, pushing away western repurposed drugs in favor of TCM.

Quote from Fm1

Drugs like Fluvoxamine have significant apparent benefits yet don’t get the time of day from Western health authorities nor WHO.

WHO world harassment organization, hijacked by the mafia to promote fake vaccines and dangerous drugs.

India so far is the only large country that did silence this criminal gang!

Quote from Wyttenbach

WHO world harassment organization, hijacked by the mafia to promote fake vaccines and dangerous drugs.

India so far is the only large country that did silence this criminal gang!

The WHO praised India over the kits but never mentioned what was in them!

WHO IHR to Override Constitutional Laws of Countries

WHO IHR to Override Constitutional Laws of Countries

www.trialsitenews.com

The World Health Organization (WHO), through the International Health Regulations (IHR), has been given more authority over people’s health. TrialSite previously reported on this development on April 6, 2022. Does this represent a global power grab or simply a rational measure to better synchronize national health agencies?

Cairns News, a right-leaning mainstream media (owned by News Corporation) channel across Australia, claims that the WHO, which remained silent on vaccine mandates in November 2021, will implement universal vaccinations under a Pandemic Treaty. The same media channel also claims that people are being robbed of their human rights under the guise of a pandemic response. Meanwhile, some members of the United Nations (UN) have already mandated complete COVID-19 vaccination if people want to access public spaces and continue performing their profession (e.g. healthcare or public service workers).

IHR

IHR requires countries to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events. Their scope includes travel and trade monitoring that may restrict inter-country travel or trade based on approved regulations.

In December 2021, the US pushed its amendments onto the WHO member states, disregarding and not being on equal footing with the amendment proposals of other countries. The US proposal contained the following:

Acceleration of information sharing to and from the WHO

Sharing of genetic sequence information

Compulsory acceptance of the WHO’s assistance/collaboration in preparedness and response

Opening of outbreak sites for international assessment

Promotion of a multi-stakeholder approach

This proposal did not address the concern of developing countries regarding financial and technical assistance to comply with the proposed amendments. After all, expecting low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) to ramp up to the technical capacity of rich nations is hardly rational, or fair.

Third World Network (TWN), an independent, non-profit international research and advocacy organization in Malaysia, reports that the call for developing countries to adopt a timeline and process for submitting proposals to the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to health emergencies (WGPR) was not recorded in its summary report. WGPR seems to be putting more importance on the interests of the US for the proposal over other developing countries, TWN adds.

In addition to the amendments, the WHO is currently drafting and negotiating a “Pandemic Treaty”.

The Pandemic Treaty

The Pandemic Treaty was proposed by Charles Michel, the president of the European Council in November 2020. In February 2021, EU leaders agreed to work on an international treaty on pandemics. A consensus was then reached in December 2021 to start the draft and negotiate a convention under the WHO. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was then constituted and held its first meeting in March 2022 to agree on ways of working and timelines; the second meeting will be in August 2022 to discuss working on a draft of the treaty.

The Council of the European Union authorized the opening of negotiations for an international pandemic treaty on March 3, 2022. The Pandemic Treaty aims to:

ensure higher, sustained, and long-term political engagement at the level of world leaders of states or governments;

define clear processes and tasks;

enhance long-term public and private-sector support at all levels; and

foster integration of health matters across all relevant policy areas.

It would support and focus on:

early detection and prevention of pandemics;

resilience to future pandemics;

response to any future pandemics, in particular by ensuring universal and equitable access to medical solutions, such as vaccines, medicines, and diagnostics;

a stronger international health framework with the WHO as the coordinating authority on global health matters; and

the "One Health" approach, connecting the health of humans, animals and our planet.

Its benefits would be:

better surveillance of pandemic risks;

better alerts;

better response;

better access to health supplies and services;

research and innovation;

better response mechanism;

better implementation; and

restoration of trust in the international health system.

The INB is currently accepting comments from the general public on topics to include in the Pandemic Treaty. The registration link can be found here, with the second public participation round planned for June 16 and 17, 2022.

The People

According to Julian Savulesco, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, mandatory COVID-19 vaccination can be justified when there is a significant threat to public health. Savulesco states that such a mandate can be imposed when there is a high chance of people harming others and meets the following conditions:

A grave threat to the public

The vaccine is safe and effective

Mandatory vaccination has a superior cost/benefit profile compared with other alternatives

Level of coercion is proportionate

The European Parliament expressed its concern about democracy and the rights of the citizens that might be affected by the decisions made by authorities. This is because as far as a pandemic response is concerned, the actions of governments have so far violated or manipulated many treaties, especially human rights agreements claim many.

Human rights concerns were been raised as soon as a global pandemic was announced in 2020. Such concerns are still ongoing as governments manage and address the global situation. Are authorities violating people’s rights by giving themselves greater power? Or should people’s rights be momentarily pushed aside for the betterment of the pandemic situation? Authoritarian and globally driven or more democratically and locally nuanced and directed---a fundamental conflict emerges, driven by health care.

Hmmm no mention of early treatments or protocols to test early treatments

The Failed Covid Policy of Mask Mandates | City Journal (city-journal.org)

A couple of good graphs that says it all:

More Evidence from the UK that Masks Don't Work ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed - I want to point out that the "worm" hypothesis is highly speculative.

I believe the evidence has improved since the hypothesis was first proposed. Because:

Large trials of ivermectin in the U.S. and elsewhere have been completed, and they showed no sign of efficacy. Clearly, it has no effect in most geographic areas.

The Bitterman data looks solid to me. Not speculative.

It seems unlikely to me that the four positive tests listed by Bitterman were all incompetent or wrong for some reason. There were 1,366 participants total, which is a substantial number. Assuming the effects they show are real, the only commonality is that they were in counties with endemic parasites. Not just worms, but other types. Ivermectin is effective against many types.

I am inclined to extend a measure of good faith to four positive tests. I know there are incompetent and even dishonest researchers, but it seems unlikely all four of these were. If they are right, there has to be a reason, and this reason best fits Ockham's (much abused) razor. It explains all the facts with simplicity, leaving nothing on the cutting room floor.

I am not saying the parasite hypothesis is a sure thing. On the other hand, the fact that ivermectin does not work in the U.S. is a sure thing. As sure as it can be, given the difficulties of double-blind medical studies. They are never as clear-cut as, say, a good physics experiment.

Level headed thinking from Leila.

Rodger is back. Let the Revolution begin at 10:20 minutes.

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe the evidence has improved since the hypothesis was first proposed. Because:

Large trials of ivermectin in the U.S. and elsewhere have been completed, and they showed no sign of efficacy. Clearly, it has no effect in most geographic areas.

The Bitterman data looks solid to me. Not speculative.

It seems unlikely to me that the four positive tests listed by Bitterman were all incompetent or wrong for some reason. There were 1,366 participants total, which is a substantial number. Assuming the effects they show are real, the only commonality is that they were in counties with endemic parasites. Not just worms, but other types. Ivermectin is effective against many types.

I am inclined to extend a measure of good faith to four positive tests. I know there are incompetent and even dishonest researchers, but it seems unlikely all four of these were. If they are right, there has to be a reason, and this reason best fits Ockham's (much abused) razor. It explains all the facts with simplicity, leaving nothing on the cutting room floor.

I am not saying the parasite hypothesis is a sure thing. On the other hand, the fact that ivermectin does not work in the U.S. is a sure thing. As sure as it can be, given the difficulties of double-blind medical studies. They are never as clear-cut as, say, a good physics experiment.

Display More

Jed can you name those trials in the US and elsewhere that show no efficacy. The Activ 6 trial is ongoing and still enrolling. The together trials conclusions are fraud pure and simple. The 82 studies showing a benefit for ivermectin doesn't convince you but 4 cherry picked studies on worms does?

Quote from Shane D.

More Evidence from the UK that Masks Don't Work ⋆ Brownstone Institute

1. That you think such a graph is evidence shows why you are not a scientist - nor even a mathematician.

2. That you continue to assert you are right over nearly all of the scientists shows extreme arrogance.

Quote from Fm1

Jed can you name those trials in the US and elsewhere that show no efficacy.

Several. Most notably:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Quote from THHuxleynew

That you think such a graph is evidence shows why you are not a scientist - nor even a mathematician

As you keep reminding me.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That you continue to assert you are right over nearly all of the scientists shows extreme arrogance

So posting an article by another scientist with a different viewpoint from yours, or the mainstream science "narrative", is being arrogant? If so, then I guess we can shut LF down then.

THH. I believed in masks when this pandemic first began. Any type I thought would do it, as long as it covered mouth and nose. I always admired the Japanese cultural norm of using them even before this. It seems so sensible on the face of it that they should stop a pandemic in it's tracks, as long as everyone used them.

But we are learning a great deal from study after study brought on by COVID, and it appears that masks may not be so effective as we thought. There are even some indications they may be detrimental...especially so for the children.

Yes, there are studies showing the N95 and greater masks do work when worn properly, but even those may have some drawbacks. And frankly, many people like myself just cannot tolerate them. They make me short of breath. I almost hyperventilate thinking of trying one on again.

Anyway, the science is still developing, and I have an open mind and will see how things shake out. Hopefully you do also.

Quote from Fm1

The together trials conclusions are fraud pure and simple.

They show a result, albeit weakly in favour of ivermectin, but that does not rise above significance.

Or other words… A null result.

Presumably you have repeated their Baysian credible interval calculations and found an error?

Quote from Shane D.

So posting an article by another scientist with a different viewpoint from yours

John Tierney is not a scientist, he’s a journalist who graduated in “American Studies”.

Quote from Shane D.

is being arrogant?

the original meaning of "ad hominem" at least in Huxley's time was arguing from"common sense"..

“I would sooner die than give up”: Huxley and Darwin's deep disagreement - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences

Thomas Henry Huxley and Charles Darwin discovered in 1857 that they had a fundamental disagreement about biological classification. Darwin believed that the…

link.springer.com

The definition of scientist and science is rather vague... especially post- Covid

Quote from Zeus46

John Tierney is not a scientist, he’s a journalist who graduated in “American Studies”.

Fair enough. The author of the one article THH was in a huff about is Ian Miller. The other was written by John Tierny who used Ian Miller's graphs. So without references I have to assume Ian made all the graph's in both articles.

Searched for his qualifications and all I could find is that he wrote a book. Now THH is going to really be angry with me! Not only am I not qualified to read a simple graph, but I posted a graph made by a journalist.

What is the world coming to? Merci me.

Quote from Shane D.

So posting an article by another scientist with a different viewpoint from yours, or the mainstream science "narrative", is being arrogant? If so, then I guess we can shut LF down then.

Why discussing with a clown? Even your dog will profit more...

Masks, at least surgical or FP2 are no help against aerosols . This has been shown by countless studies.

Masks only help to catch drops,droplets.. within a distance of 75cm. Everything that goes farther is an aerosol.

So there are situations where masks do help a little = max 25%! But of course they do not protect you, you protect the others .

When masks, then at least FP95 or better FP98!