Display MoreNo response then? Telling. Although I didn't expect much better.
Ultimately one guy was given ivermectin and lived, another received it and died.
But Dr Fm1 (We.B) claims the first is 'bullshit' - but the second is worthy evidence of ivermectin's benefits.
Clearly he is unable to offer any sensible reasoning why this might be, or why one differs case differs from the other, from his viewpoint.
Not the story numbnuts the headline you bloody fool
I am not denying India has a lot of youth.... I am stating that youth does not stop infection rates.
I explained that already. Youth does not stop infections, but young people often do not report their infections, because the cases are mild. This is especially true in India and other third world countries, because both young and old people cannot afford to go to a doctor. So, cases among young people are undercounted even more than the general population.
All in all, public health statistics from India are worse than useless. They give rise to nonsensical beliefs such as the notion that ivermectin has a positive effect for anything other than parasites.
Display MoreI never stated I was using quantitative analysis. I am looking at raw data and forming "possible" conclusions. I am also taking raw data and seeing how it stacks against some people's assertions.
I also never stated that you had done a quantitative analysis on India either. But I did point out that you have stated the low infection rates were likely due to youth, weather and immunity. All of which are not quantitative, are anecdotal and lacking....
all the very things you say against ivermectin.....
Indeed this is a very difficult thing to judge. You state that I am arrogant.. I think it is a bit arrogant that you dismiss so readily, 60+ trials and analysis' by people that have as much or more qualifications than you!
Do you not keep stating there is NO evidence that ivermectin works?! To me that is indeed a bit arrogant. My whole "India" thread is not meant to be quantitative, nor have I said it was. It is simply that there is evidence (circumstantial indeed, but quite significant) that ivermectin should be at least considered as one of the reasons why India is doing well..... yet you say there is NO evidence or reason to consider it.
That is my point and only my point. (and that the magnifying glass given to ivermectin is NOT applied to main stream pharma claims)
Signing off for today and I hope all have a good Holiday!
When you have many trials giving different results you do not dismiss them. You seek to synthesise from the overall evidence a coherent conclusion.
That is pretty difficult with ivermectin because the evidence is all over the place - and higher quality trials - on average - more negative. That is why most of the meta-analyses say "uncertain".
Saying the evidence is uncertain is not dismissing apparently positive, nor dismissing apparently negative, evidence. It is however true that were ivermectin to be as clearly effective as advocates claim the evidence would be much clearer.
I also never stated that you had done a quantitative analysis on India either. But I did point out that you have stated the low infection rates were likely due to youth, weather and immunity. All of which are not quantitative, are anecdotal and lacking....
I am not trying to prove anything. You are: you claim it is obvious that ivermectin works and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. If there was no possible reason for India to have lower R than UK (other than ivermectin) you would have an argument. Since there clearly is, you do not.
The other ivermectin evidence:
FDA’s forced hand drops Pfizer’s Bombshell Safety Document
By Sonia Elijah
The highly confidential Pfizer documents, which have been synonymous with the extreme lack of transparency revealed by the actions of pivotal governmental agencies, over the past 20 months, leads critics of the official narrative to demand “show us the data,” is finally being revealed–well sort of, the first few hundred redacted pages out of a trove of 451,000.
What led to the disclosure?
The crack in Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) iron dome-style data safeguarding, arrived in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release with the request filed on August 27, 2021, to access all the Pfizer documentation that the FDA had relied on to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use authorization. An agency that has received a FOIA request is required to ‘determine within 20 business days after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request,’ as set out by the 1967 FOIA law. It took the FDA though three months to release the first 91 redacted pages, on November 20.
The FOIA request was issued by a group of over 30 scientists and academics who filed a civil action lawsuit against the agency because they failed to fully comply with the request, since less than 1% of the documentation was released and with the FDA taking the position that all the data would be shared by 2076. Subsequently, the governmental agency had the audacity to push the date back even further to 2096. This was due to their recent disclosure of the existence of thousands of additional pages, totalling 451,000 versus the originally stated 320,000 pages. However, the rate at which the FDA is willing to release the documentation has not changed and remains at 500 pages a month. It’s worth noting that it took the FDA only 108 days to review all of Pfizer’s documentation before authorising the Pfizer BNT162B2 vaccine for emergency authorization use on December 1, 2020.
The scientists, public health officials and academics, led by Dr Peter McCullough, formed the plaintiff group, PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) and are being represented by the law firm of Aaron Siri, of Siri & Glimstad LLP.
In an exclusive interview with Trial Site News, Aaron Siri, managing partner of the firm, who has extensive civil litigation experience, stated:
“The court has not ordered a single page to be produced yet. For the most part, when our firm submits a FOIA request, they [the agency] will produce documents but the FDA wants to do it at a pace that’s incredibly slow, not commensurate with the needs of the request. The fight is not whether they’ll produce it-they’ll produce it. The fight is how long it will take and then the fight once we get it will be the redactions they put in.
When I asked him whether FOIA requests will be made to obtain Moderna and Janssen’s (a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson) documentation supplied to the FDA to secure emergency use authorisation, he responded:
“You can’t make a request until a vaccine has been licensed. Authorization for emergency use is not the same as licensure or approval. The Pfizer vaccine is the only vaccine that’s been licensed/approved as “safe and effective” according to the FDA on August 23rd2021.”
Details about the case and the relevant court documents can be found on Aaron Siri’s blog, Injecting Freedom.
The first several hundred pages of the newly released Pfizer documents were shared on the PHMPT’s website.
The focus of this investigative report centers on the 38-page document, entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 February 2021.” The report was prepared by Pfizer, between the time of December 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. The adverse events reports originate in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and ‘56 other countries.
It’s interesting to note that the artifact represents an amended analysis provided by Pfizer, a response to their failings associated with the incomplete submittal of a safety data package to the FDA, which the agency commented on. A reference is made to the FDA’s March 9th request to Pfizer ‘We are most interested in a cumulative analysis of post-authorization safety data to support your future BLA submission. Please submit an integrated analysis of your cumulative post-authorization safety data, including U.S. and foreign post-authorization experience, in your upcoming BLA submission. Please include a cumulative analysis of the Important Identified Risks, Important Potential Risks, and areas of Important Missing Information identified in your Pharmacovigilance Plan, as well as adverse events of special interest and vaccine administration errors (whether or not associated with an adverse event). Please also include distribution data and an analysis of the most common adverse events. In addition, please submit your updated Pharmacovigilance Plan with your BLA submission.’
The many unknowns
In the short three-month period in which the data was ‘reported spontaneously to Pfizer,’ 42,086 cases were recorded with 158,893 events. According to the data, one can interpret that the average person (case) would have suffered from just under four symptoms (events). Particularly troubling, the FDA opted to protect Pfizer’s interests by redacting the total number of doses to (b) (4), hindering the ability to calculate the incidence rates and provide a meaningful analysis of the data. Another deeply concerning fact centres on important limitations cited by Pfizer: ‘the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.’ In relation to this topic, investigators leading a prominent Harvard study conducted from 2007-2010, discovered that ‘less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the FDA.’ Assuming this math is correct, we can conclude that the 42,086 cases represent a staggeringly underreported amount.
Other significant ‘unknowns’ peppered throughout Pfizer’s analysis are:
2990 cases where the gender is unknown
6876 cases where the age is unknown
9440 cases where the outcomes are unknown
Another anomaly that stands out is that for case outcomes, Pfizer has chosen to include those recovering from adverse events in the same category with those recovered, under the label, ‘Recovered/Recovering’. This move alone seems questionable.
The large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports
Alarmingly, the analysis makes note of the fact that there has been such a large volume of adverse events, classified as ‘serious cases’ in that short period of time, that Pfizer has had to take on more full-time employees and make significant technology changes to cope with the processing of the voluminous reports while also meeting regulatory reporting timelines. As recorded in the document:
‘Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritised the processing of serious cases, to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity.’ The report went on to state how Pfizer has dealt with these large numbers of adverse event reports. ‘Pfizer has also taken multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately additional full-time employees (FTEs)..’
The 1228 Deaths
Within Pfizer’s self-generated document, a serious red flag surfaces: 1228 people were recorded to have died within three months after taking the vaccine, while no record accounts for the gender of the study participants who died. This data, which has significant safety implications, was known to Pfizer by end of February, yet on April 12, Dr Mace Rothenberg former Pfizer Chief Medical Officer, when talking to the Washington Journal about the development of the Pfizer vaccine said “I can tell you that no corners were cut” and “there have been no deaths that have occurred directly as a result of the vaccine alone.” Those defending the safety of the Pfizer vaccine have raised the argument that ‘correlation does not imply causation’, in which two events occurring together does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
Page 10 of the Pfizer analysis presents an important identified risk of anaphylaxis with nine reported fatalities. Four out of the nine occurred on the same day the individuals were vaccinated (see below).
Pfizer emphasized that these individuals had underlying medical conditions but for all four of them to die on the same day that they were received the vaccine, suggests potential vaccinal death causality.
In Table 7 of page 16-17, 1403 cases of Cardiovascular AESIs (Adverse Event of Specific Interest) were reported and segmented by the following: Arrhythmia; Cardiac failure; Cardiac failure acute; Cardiogenic shock; Coronary artery disease; Myocardial infarction; Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; Stress cardiomyopathy; Tachycardia.
The relevant event onset latency ranged from less than 24 hours to 21 days. This means that relevant events occurred from any time less than 24 hours up to 21 days of receiving the vaccine, with a median of less than 24 hours. 136 relevant event outcomes were fatal. Therefore, 50% of these relevant outcomes (including deaths) occurred less than 24 hours of receiving the vaccine. This points again to vaccine death causality.
Yet, Pfizer somehow concludes: ‘This cumulative case review does not raise any new safety issues. Surveillance will continue.’
When looking at the category ‘Immune-mediated/Autoimmune AESIs’, 1050 cases were reported, with just over three-times more females affected than males- there were 12 fatal outcomes. The median of the relevant event onset latency was less than 24 hours, which again suggests vaccine death causality.
The seriousness of the cases
Looking at the graph below, a significant portion of cases are reported as serious compared to non-serious with the highest number of serious cases in the ‘general disorders’ category. A serious case is one that is medically significant resulting in either hospitalization or that has a life-threatening consequence or death. It’s interesting to note that for cardiac, immune, vascular and infections, serious cases dominate and for immune cases, all are classified as serious.
Women were x3 times more affected by adverse events from the vaccine.
Across the board, in every category of AESI (adverse events of special interest), women were generally three-times more adversely affected than men. However, nowhere was this as pronounced as in the case of anaphylaxis (a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction), where women were over eight-times more affected. Out of the 1002 anaphylaxis cases reported meeting the Brighton Collaboration level of 1-4 (level 1 being the highest level of diagnostic certainty of anaphylaxis) 876 females were affected compared to 106 males. Women were also significantly more affected by cardiovascular events; 1076 females were reported as cases compared to 291 males. The statistically significant data reveals the real possibility of gender-specific vaccine safety risks.
Yet nowhere in Pfizer’s analysis does the company comment on this data, but instead confidently reasserts, ‘the cumulative case review does not raise any new safety issues.’
The missing information
Also noteworthy, the data associated with the ‘Use in pregnancy and lactation’ were somehow excluded in the original analysis submitted to the FDA. In the amended version, 413 adverse cases are reported with 84 classified as serious.
Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each).
It’s alarming that Pfizer makes the assertion that ‘there were no safety signals that emerged from the review of these cases of use in pregnancy and while breastfeeding.’ The data contained in the heavily redacted document appears to contradict this upbeat assessment.
In paediatric individuals < 12 years of age, which was originally missing from Pfizer’s analysis, 34 cases were reported with 24 categorized as serious. The fact young children were administered the Pfizer vaccine raises concern, since emergency use authorization was not awarded to the company to administer to the paediatric population at that time. Moreover, the age range raised considerable alarm given its ‘from 2 months to 9 years.’ The report lacks data on how many children in total were administered the vaccine, hence, there is no way of calculating incidence rates to extrapolate a meaningful analysis.
A sample list of the known AESIs in Pfizer’s cumulative analysis.
Blood and lymphatic system disorders: Lymphadenopathy
Cardiovascular events: acute myocardial infarction; Arrhythmia; Cardiac failure; Cardiac failure acute; Cardiogenic shock; Coronary artery disease; Myocardial infarction; Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; Stress cardiomyopathy; Tachycardia
Gastrointestinal disorders
General disorders and administration site conditions
Infection and infestations
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: Arthralgia; Arthritis; Arthritis bacterial; Chronic fatigue syndrome; Polyarthritis; Polyneuropathy; Post viral fatigue syndrome; Rheumatoid arthritis
Nervous system disorders
Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders: Lower respiratory tract infections; respiratory failures, Viral lower respiratory tract infections; acute respiratory distress syndrome; Endotracheal intubation; Hypoxia; Pulmonary hemorrhage; Respiratory disorder; Severe acute respiratory syndrome
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Anaphylaxis
Vaccine-Associated enhance Disease (VAED) including Vaccine-associated enhance respiratory disease (VAERD).
COVID-19
Facial paralysis
Immune-Mediated/Autoimmune disorders
Neurological (including demyelination): Convulsions; Ataxia; Cataplexy; Encephalopathy; Fibromyalgia; Intracranial pressure increased; Meningitis; Meningitis aseptic; Narcolepsy
Pregnancy-Related: Amniotic cavity infection; Caesarean section; Congenital anomaly; Death neonatal; Eclampsia; Foetal distress syndrome; Low birth weight baby; Maternal exposure during pregnancy; Placenta praevia; Pre-eclampsia; Premature labour; Stillbirth; Uterine rupture; Vasa praevia
Renal: Acute kidney injury, renal failure
Thromboembolic events: Embolism and thrombosis; Stroke AESIs, Deep vein thrombosis; Disseminated intravascular coagulation; Embolism; Embolism venous; Pulmonary embolism
It’s worth comparing the list above with the list below accessed via the FDA’s website under the document ‘Pfizer-BioNTech fact sheet for recipients and caregivers’, revised as of Dec 9, 2021. It’s evident to see that many of the serious and life-threatening side effects have not been included, even though Pfizer’s cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports was produced for the FDA on April 30, 2021.
Conclusion
While this author strives to remain as objective and unbiased as humanly possible, a thorough review of this one report suggests that the FDA and Pfizer have appeared to conceal the full extent of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine side effects from the public. If this assumption is in fact true, then the ‘Gold Standard’ regulatory agency and the prestigious multinational pharmaceutical company have thrown the entire concept of informed consent out the window.
It’s also a travesty that months later, the FDA dragged its feet and released this important safety document based on adverse event case reports under FOIA law. Case reports play an important role in pharmacovigilance. The recognition of the link between thalidomide given to mothers and malformations in their babies was triggered by a case report.
Perhaps even more devastating—and a mockery of the whole point of advanced regulatory systems meant to ensure public safety–would be if the FDA wins the ongoing dispute to delay information release, then the public must wait another 75 years to access all the data, which by then will be far too late
I explained that already. Youth does not stop infections, but young people often do not report their infections, because the cases are mild. This is especially true in India and other third world countries, because both young and old people cannot afford to go to a doctor. So, cases among young people are undercounted even more than the general population.
All in all, public health statistics from India are worse than useless. They give rise to nonsensical beliefs such as the notion that ivermectin has a positive effect for anything other than parasites.
Then I misunderstood as I my reading of your first two posts did not register with me as you tying the youth with bad data together.... My apologies then.
Still, the worms..... 
As far as the bad data... WHO publishes it and makes no disclaimers. That is where I directly linked the India data from.
So that is a very big statement saying "worse than useless". You are then directly stating published WHO data is unreliable and even "worse than useless". Then other countries results are suspect as well.... or are you saying only India is incapable? How do you know which country is accurate? Only the ones that support a particular agenda? WHO publishes this data as their official record. You are now stating it is useless.
hmmm.. what to trust.. what to trust.
This one?
Efficacy and safety of co-administered ivermectin and albendazole in school-aged children and adults infected with Trichuris trichiura in Côte d'Ivoire, Laos, and Pemba Island, Tanzania: a double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-3099(21)00421-7/fulltext
Treatment with ivermectin–albendazole resulted in higher efficacy against trichuriasis than albendazole alone in Laos and Pemba Island but not in Côte d'Ivoire. We recommend implementation of this combination therapy for soil-transmitted helminth control in countries with high T trichiura prevalence and proven enhanced efficacy of this treatment, particularly where ivermectin is beneficial against other endemic helminthiases.
The study was done in India and results uploaded for pre print on Nov 29
Fm1 Yes I noticed that.
So do you think he took the vaccine before he caught Covid, while he was telling everybody else not to take the vaccine?
Or do you think he asked for the vaccine when he found he had Covid in which case the vaccine would be of little use to him?
I assumed the latter since he said he wished he had taken it earlier.
Either way a tragedy for somebody.
I think you are right
Display MoreThen I misunderstood as I my reading of your first two posts did not register with me as you tying the youth with bad data together.... My apologies then.
Still, the worms.....
As far as the bad data... WHO publishes it and makes no disclaimers. That is where I directly linked the India data from.
https://covid19.who.int/region/searo/country/in
So that is a very big statement saying "worse than useless". You are then directly stating published WHO data is unreliable and even "worse than useless". Then other countries results are suspect as well.... or are you saying only India is incapable? How do you know which country is accurate? Only the ones that support a particular agenda? WHO publishes this data as their official record. You are now stating it is useless.
hmmm.. what to trust.. what to trust.
Bob I trust my coworker very much. A humble and hard working Indian. You just can't trust the statistic is his verdict. They could very well have up to 5 million deaths in covid by now
That's essentially doubling the world statistics of covid deaths. Could be less, the thing is nobody knows. Possibly you can study India as a case where the natural process have had it's
way and now the virus is endemic because everybody has antibodies. That's a real possibility.
Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies
Summary
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for a parasitic disease that has broad antiviral activity. This study aims to analyse the efficacy of ivermectin in improving the Covid-19 outcomes. We systematically searched the PubMed, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov database using specific keywords related to our aims until 10th May 2021. All published randomized clinical trial studies on Covid-19 and ivermectin were retrieved. The quality of the study was assessed using Jadad scale assessment tool for clinical trial studies. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 19 studies with 2768 Covid-19 patients were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that ivermectin was associated with reduction in severity of Covid-19 (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.23–0.81], p = 0.008), reduction of mortality (RR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15–0.62], p = 0.001), higher negative RT-PCR test results rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01–1.51], p = 0.04), shorter time to negative RT-PCR test results (mean difference [MD] −3.29 [95% CI −5.69, −0.89], p = 0.007), higher symptoms alleviations rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.03−1.46], p = 0.02), shorter time to symptoms alleviations (MD −0.68 [95% CI −1.07, −0.29], p = 0.0007) and shorter time to hospital discharge (MD −2.66 [95% CI −4.49, −0.82], p = 0.004). Our study suggests that ivermectin may offer beneficial effects towards Covid-19 outcomes. More randomized clinical trial studies are still needed to confirm the results of our study
This came out the other day, but the study was conducted from July 2020-Dec 2020:
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of actions that could potentially protect from both COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the existing literature and safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide program of prophylactic use of ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajai, a Southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the effects of the use of ivermectin for prevention of COVID-19 infection, risk of dying and mortality, compared to non-users.
Materials and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of registry data from the medical based citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program, between July 2020 to December of 2020. The whole population of Itajaí was invited for a medical visit to compile demographic and medical parameters. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment for 2 days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day. Patients’ preferences and medical autonomy were preserved. Ivermectin users were compared with the comorbidity-matched population of non-users for COVID-19 by age, sex, COVID-19 infection rate, and COVID-19 mortality rate. Results in terms of mortality were adjusted for all relevant variables and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was calculated.
Results: A total of 220,517 subjects were included in the analysis; 133,051 (60.3%) ivermectin users and 87,466 (39.7%) non-users.
COVID-19 infection occurred in 4,311 (3.2%) treated subjects, and 3,034 (3.5%) non-treated subjects. This evidence showed a 7% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate with use of ivermectin: COVID-19 infection rate ratio (Risk ratio (RR) of 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89 – 0.98; p = 0.003).
A total of 62 deaths (1.4% mortality rate) occurred among users and 79 deaths (2.6% mortality rate) among non-users, showing a 48% reduction in mortality rate (RR, 0,52; 95%CI, 0.37 – 0.72; p = 0.0001).
Risk of dying from COVID-19 among ivermectin users was 45% lower than non-users (RR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.40 – 0.77; p = 0.0004).
Conclusion: Prophylactic use of ivermectin showed significantly reduced COVID-19 infection rate, mortality rate and chance of dying from COVID-19 on a calculated population-level analysis, which controlled for all relevant confounding variables.
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for a parasitic disease that has broad antiviral activity.
No, it has no antiviral activity, except in vitro, in doses that would kill a person.
More great south american 'science'...
You can't report that:
Patients’ preferences and medical autonomy were preserved.
Then claim this:
which controlled for all relevant confounding variables.
Because you have clearly failed to control for attitude towards health / patient behaviour.
4th Child Died in Vietnam Due to ‘Overreaction’ from Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based COVID-19 Vaccine
Recently, TrialSite reported that 120 children became ill from the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine while at least three children died due to unfortunate responses to the vaccine. Now, news out of Vietnam raises more trouble as yet another child died after COVID-19 inoculation with BNT162b2. While still a rare event, the news is no less concerning.
A 15-year-old boy died representing the fourth pediatric death associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. The boy lived in Son La, a northern province in this Southeast Asian nation. The boy resided with his family in the Thuan Chau District and received the first BNT162b2 dose on Dec. 4 but all looked OK, with no symptoms an hour after the vaccine’s injection, reported Nguyen Huu Hung, deputy director of Son La’s health department to VnExpress. However, just a couple of days later, concerning symptoms surfaced including dizziness and nausea. The boy was taken to the local hospital, then transferred to Son La General Hospital where he passed away days later.
Four children have died due to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, including:
Child Province or City
12-year old boy Binh Phuoc
16-year old boy Bac Giang
9th grade girl (est. 14) City of Hanoi (capital)
Latest 15-year old boy Son La province
Cause of Death
Multiple press in Vietnam have identified the death as directly related to the vaccine or according to the national Health Ministry as an “overreaction to the vaccine,” however they clarify in the press as “not linked to the quality of the vaccine or the vaccination process.”
Immunization Continues
The nation continues to employ a mass eradication of COVID-19 pathogen via vaccination scheme as is nearly every country around the world. By December 6, VnExpress reports 53 million doses have been administered to this age group. To date, 936,200 children have been fully inoculated.
“These adverse events and deaths are extremely rare” reports Daniel O’Connor, founder of TrialSite, as the local press reports health ministry metrics that only 0.3% of the vaccinated children evidence even mild adverse events. TrialSite suggests that nonetheless, these types of incidents are troubling given the potential risk-benefit analysis outcomes for children of this age.
Are proper risk-benefit analyses undertaken for children in Vietnam? Meaning, are the associated risks higher in Vietnam for children of this age with SARS-CoV-2 infection as compared to the risk of vaccination? In America, depending on the data and source, zero to just a few children have died from the virus—all but a few hundred deaths to date are associated with significant comorbidities. However, with the Delta variant, more children became infected and some were even hospitalized with more severe conditions. There are no easy answers to this pandemic. Any death is a tragedy and over 5 million have died from this pathogen. TrialSite will continue to bring as much transparency and accessibility to medical research as possible.
Vaccinations take priority, while undiagnosed illness goes unchecked
Report: UK May Miss 5K Cancer Diagnoses a Month Over COVID Vaccination
https://www.newsmax.com/amp/newsfront/cancer-covid-boosters-united-kingdom/2021/12/14/id/1048694/
Doctors in the U.K. may miss 5,000 cancer diagnoses per month because general practitioners are being told to focus on making sure people have received COVID vaccinations over routine exams that typically catch the cancers, The Telegraph reported.
U.K. Health Secretary Sajid Javid said on Monday that general practitioners will be told to ''only focus on urgent needs and vaccinations'' over the next two to three weeks and hospitals will be told to cancel planned operations.
When Javid was asked whether the changes would affect cancer patients, he said they would be ''completely unaffected,'' The Telegraph reported.
Despite that assurance, The Telegraph noted that according to National Health Service data, 5,000 cancers per month are diagnosed only after being referred from a GP when cancer was not suspected.
Cancer patients in the U.K. already face record wait times and have been told to keep trying to get appointments.
''People affected by cancer can't afford any more delays,'' Shaun Walsh, of Cancer Research UK, told the newspaper. ''NHS leaders must protect cancer services and ensure that everyone gets the diagnosis and treatment they need for the best chance of survival, because cancer won't wait.''
''While it's vital everybody receives their COVID-19 booster, using GP capacity to help with this, at a time when access to appointments was already under huge pressure, may have unintended consequences for cancer diagnoses,'' Minesh Patel, of Macmillan Cancer Support, told The Telegraph.
Almost 50,000 people in the U.K. have missed cancer diagnoses since the beginning of the pandemic, he said. ''It is crucial that people continue to contact their GP if they have any symptoms that could be cancer and that all concerns about cancer are treated as urgently required appointments
Colchicine – new horizons for an ancient drug. Review based on the highest hierarchy of evidence
Highlights
●
Colchicine can inhibit myriad pathways of the inflammatory response that can be harmful to the host.
●
Colchicine's role (+NSAID) in ac. idiopathic pericarditis and postcardiac injury syndrome is well-established.
●
RCTs support significant secondary prevention of composite CVR endpoint by low-doses.
●
Initial results suggest a promising potential effects in COVID-19.
●
Colchicine is inexpensive, and in the low-doses used (≤ 1 mg/d), safe and well-tolerated.
Abstract
Colchicine is an old, inexpensive, and relatively safe anti-inflammatory drug traditionally used in gout and over the last 50 years in familial Mediterranean fever. A search of all high-hierarchy studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews and meta-analysis of RCTs) over the last 20 years revealed myriad other evidence-based applications. Colchicine seems efficacious in the treatment of acute pericarditis and prevention of recurrences and in the prevention of postcardiac injury syndrome and atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery or percutaneous interventions. In patients already fully treated with statins and antiplatelet agents following acute coronary syndromes or stable coronary disease, adding low-dose colchicine achieved secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) with pooled risk reduction 0.75. Colchicine may also be useful in Behcet's syndrome and most recently, in improving outcomes of COVID-19 infection. Colchicine in the low doses used in most trials (≤ 1 mg/d) was generally safe and well-tolerated, excepting diarrhea (approximately 10%) which sometimes led to drug discontinuation. Further RCTs are required to confirm these results, and will likely lead to expanding indications for low-dose colchicine. Increasing numbers of patients will be treated with colchicine in the near future, with improved health outcomes, as long as basic caveats are heeded
LOL. Why do people take take this idiot seriously? I'm the bigger Idiot! Please take me instead!!
Even children should know wikipedia!
This is caused by a fly!!!
All in all, public health statistics from India are worse than useless.
You are a XXXX! THH linked a paper about India COV-19 data that did show 2020 data was way off. But the paper did confirm that 2021 data is correct!!!
Greg Gutfeld: The only thing viruses can't penetrate is the immune system of a habitual liar
The people who are telling you to do something, are the same people who are talking you out of it
Happy Tuesday everyone. It's time for my favorite show: The But-Heads.
Our world is run by buttheads. These are people who tell you one thing, then follow up with a "but," that contradicts what they just said. They start with a panic line, but then condition it with: "but we still don’t know." That way they get to scare your ass, then cover their own. So let's follow the "buts", and see where these asses take us.
According to Axios, the website, not my Pilates instructor, the country is bracing for a terrifying wave of omicron. But, the new variant seems to be much less severe. But Boris Johnson says there is a tidal wave coming. But one of his experts adds: only ten people have been admitted to the hospital with it. But we should have known: never believe anything a person says who doesn't own a comb.
Still, you must get a third dose to bring the level of protection back up! Because the variant seems to spread among people who've received two jabs. But it's not a big deal for those who get it. Still, you gotta mask up and get another dose.
But this is nothing like the previous strains. Compared to delta -- you barely notice it, and it’s much less powerful. If Alec Baldwin were the first strain, this one is Billy... Or Danny... Or Steven
But! -- new data from Europe "hint" that omicron is poised to explode in the US. True, they said the same thing about the metric system. But the variant is less likely to lead to hospitalization in adults! So this is the PG version of an R-rated film. Like when they cut out all the swearing and boobs from "Old Yeller."
Fact is, more people are hospitalized for putting power tools in their butts, according to emergency rooms located near Home Depots. But two doses of Pfizer’s vaccine appear to be much less effective against severe disease -- but you should still get a booster. Although - we have not seen anyone with severe disease -- but hold on, it's coming! But, so was the medical device I ordered online, and I’m still waiting. I had to make my own using an attachment from an old vacuum.
But a senior Biden flack told Axios omicron will come fast! But it won't be as severe... But... There will be hospitalizations! But -- the analysis of South Africa data said that the risk of hospital admission was 30 percent lower than the first wave. But- a two-dose regimen was 70 percent effective against severe disease requiring hospital admission. But only 33 percent effective against omicron.
So- omicron is less severe – good. But it could still overwhelm the health care system even if a small percentage require hospital care! (s***!) The cases could reach a million a day here in America (s***!) But those cases could be asymptomatic and mild. (hooray!)
But --the growth of the cases could double quickly- - but it also appears to be already slowing down in other countries. But it's too soon to tell. But don't panic. But also, panic.
But maybe even in hospitalizations, adults are less sick than previous waves. But while vaccinations do help reduce infection -- but not transmission.
In Denmark, 75 percent of omicron cases are among fully-vaccinated people. But you can't compare countries – except when you do. But you can't!
So omicron has high transmissibility. But it appears to be mild. But it could lead to a huge projection of cases. But we don't have nearly enough data to make any firm predictions. So the people who are telling you to do something, are the same people who are talking you out of it! These people are sending more mixed messages than a straight hairdresser. So maybe call us when you know what the f*** you're talking about!
Because to quote Axios, again-- "there is certainly a strong possibility that a lot of Americans are about to get sick... Soon." Someone actually wrote that sentence. Imagine if your doctor had that mentality.
Skit of doctor sending mixed signals to a patient
So what's the bottom line for all the buttheads? Omicron is like that carton of Chinese food in the back of the fridge. It could be dangerous, but we can't find anyone who died from it. But we don't have enough data. So just in case, get a booster and mask up now, whether you're vaxxed or not.
But I thought that's why we got vaxxed? To stop with the masks. Not anymore. Look at Joe Biden. He's gotten three shots, but he still wears a mask. He's like one giant walking butt.
So even if you're alone at your desk, or alone driving a truck, or alone having sex... Mask up! But -- not if you're a politician! Then you can go to bars, parties, galas -- and do whatever you want.
So these buttheads cover their asses by temporarily covering their mouths when a camera is near. Problem is -- how can they tell the two holes apart? You can't go by the smell of their breath.
So turns out the only thing that all these different viruses can't penetrate are the immune systems of habitual liars. But it would be nice if they could. No ifs, ands, or buts.
This article is adapted from Greg Gutfeld's opening monologue on the December 14, 2021 edition of "Gutfeld!"
However, nowhere was this as pronounced as in the case of anaphylaxis (a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction), where women were over eight-times more affected. Out of the 1002 anaphylaxis cases reported meeting the Brighton Collaboration level of 1-4 (level 1 being the highest level of diagnostic certainty of anaphylaxis) 876 females were affected compared to 106 males.
This effect proves that at least 80% of all registered vaccine adverse effect are due to the vaccine. The 8x is against any natural distribution!!
Bob I trust my coworker very much.
You are an optimist. Ask him for his agenda. Or look at the India vaccine terror state Kerala (state of the bright...) that now has to correct the death toll by about 10'000 what daily spoils India's statistics.
