First from left sits the "puppet" ... "authenticity is thus improved".
Maximum prudence in judice is recommended. Sometimes autopilot in posting is dangerous.
Yes, he has been around since nearly the beginning of the ecats.
I was less specific, but what is in a name on the internet ?
Claude, Pierre, Lou Ferrigno, Prof Eng
Is Noah antivax?
Was Galileo fringe misinformation?
Kim Iversen on censorship
Was Galileo fringe misinformation?
Kim Iversen on censorship
The point Andy was making in that RebelWisdon video and article, is that while mainstream censorship of non-orthodox ideas is possible, and needs to be guarded against, it is easy to go too far and embrace uncritically wrong ideas which, because on the internet you can find an eco-chamber of uncritical like minds - any ideas can become the new orthodoxy.
It is only by continually questioning and critiquing all ideas, orthodox and heterodox, that you can work out truth. For every Galileo there are 20 like him who are just wrong. Though, actually, Galileo was also wrong on astronomy, Heliocentric circular orbits did not resolve the epicycle problem - we needed Kepler's insight - ellipses - for that. Galileo was however a great scientist for his later work, in prison, on gravity as shown by movement on inclined planes.
The antivax memes I refer to (and don't like here) come with no such self-critique. They are expected to be believed with the only evidence being that they are not the orthodoxy, and it is possible for the orthodox view to censor other views. And, the ones I critique, come with inbuilt contradictions and fallacies.
Your reaction in that post is not that of somone wanting to find the truth: but of somone who has worked out what is true and sees everything through that lens. But, maybe, is so cynical that they see no point in engaging with others who are not similarly minded, because you think everyone who does not agree with you is against you.
We all see things through our own lens - we should try and question it - not reaffirm it?
In the debates here with others I spend a lot of time looking at things, questioning them, revising my views when they do not fit facts. It is harder work than automatic replies, but it is the bit that is most fun.
Mahidol University Preclinical (Lab) Studies Indicate Potential of Ivermectin/Niclosamide Combination as Antiviral Targeting COVID-19
Recently, a team of scientists affiliated with Thailand-based academic medical centers, including Mahidol University’s Siriraj Hospital, investigated the use of repurposed antiparasitic drugs with in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity, as this continues to represent a promising approach for economical, available antiviral-like treatments targeting COVID-19. Of particular importance is the ability to alleviate stress on healthcare systems, especially in more vulnerable low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Thailand. The recent study acknowledges the limitations of the global mass vaccination scheme as a strategy to eradicate COVID-19—the pathogen continues to spread whether in 100% vaccinated locations such as Gibraltar, to nearly universally vaccinated Singapore. Thus, the importance of utilizing safe and effective, not to mention economical antiviral-like treatments, as a public health strategy, as well as augmenting vaccination and other measures. Novel pharmaceutical products from companies such as Merk and Pfizer, while showing some promise, also present possible safety and cost issues. Thus, the team out of Mahidol University sought to test repurposed drugs in vitro, evaluating their anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. They looked at combinations of Niclosamide, ivermectin, and Chloroquine. The results indicate that these combinations lead to over a 10-fold reduction in the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) as compared to the drugs by themselves. In the lab, combining Niclosamide and ivermectin produces a superior synergy score based on the synergy landscape analyses with a peak Loewe synergy score totaling over 20 with an average of 6.60 in Vero E6 cell and a peak Loewe synergy score equaling 13.2 and an associated average of 2.897 in Calu-3 cells. The authors suggest human clinical trials should look at combining ivermectin and Niclosamide. The study results are uploaded to a preprint server and thus haven’t been scientifically peer-reviewed yet.
Of course, TrialSite first reported on the phenomenal University of Monash-led in vitro study showing that ivermectin crushed SARS-CoV-2 in the cell culture, lab setting. Since then, 73 human studies have been conducted—the majority showing some positive data. TrialSite has been a leading media chronicling these studies.
Some of the studies failed to produce solid enough findings, and one study was marred with allegations of data manipulation. At least one of the studies showing neutral to negative results had potential concerns, from conflict of interest to data issues.
A majority of the human-based ivermectin studies were conducted in LMICs, and American and British health systems, for example, value those findings less than findings in wealthier, more advanced economic environments.
But Mahidol University remains a sophisticated place. The Thai authors point to the “promising results in many [ivermectin-based] clinical trials.” Of course, much hope was placed in chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, but later human trials results were disappointing. Critics argued that some of these studies had design flaws—administering the medicine later in the disease life cycle rather than upfront, for example.
The authors point out that Niclosamide, another anti-parasitic medicine, shows good anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity with a high selective index. TrialSite has chronicled a handful of Niclosamide-based studies.
Both drugs are widely available, inexpensive, and considered relatively safe for short-term usage. The Thai researchers emphasized the urgent need for repurposed medicines targeting COVID-19. Why not test an enhanced therapy combining some of these drugs? Thus, the basis of the study.
Study Data
Employing lab-based, in vitro studies, the Thai team isolated and cultivated the viruses in the cell-culture environment, employing various approaches and assays to determine select combinational anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity.
The table below reveals a single drug treatment against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro:
Drug Candidates Drug Class Drug Indication CC50µM IC50µMPlaque Assay IC50µMqRT-PCR
Niclosamide Anthelminthic Tapeworm, intestinal fluke infections 0.29 0.049 0.043
Ivermectin Antiparasitic onchocerciasis, and other worm infestations 10.55 1.23 1.27
Chloroquine Antiparasitic Treatment of malaria, rheumatic diseases and Zika virus infection 118.20 0.83 0.89
The above table reveals the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities and cytotoxicity of the generic, repurposed drugs in Vero E6 cells. The authors employed the plaque assay to evaluate viral production and it is measured as the percentage inhibition relative to the viral titer of DMSO-treated cells.
A one-step qRT-PCR reveals the viral RNA virus supernatants, expressed as the percent inhibition relative to the DMSO treated cells. IC50 values show a measure of dose-response based on the plaque assay for Niclosamide, ivermectin, and Chloroquine (see amounts in the table above). The data suggests viral RNA quantification via the one-step qRT-PCR precisely reveals the infectious virus output in the respective experiments.
What about the combinations?
The Thailand-based study team reports they assessed two-drug combinations in vitro in Vero E6 cells by applying treatment scenarios across 16 various pairwise combinations of two drugs, including A) Niclosamide-ivermectin, B) Niclosamide-Chloroquine, and C) ivermectin-chloroquine.
Thereafter, the authors summarized the findings for each combination mentioned above. In table 2 and table 3 of the yet-to-be-reviewed manuscript, the authors reveal the antiviral activity for the two-drug combinations treatment against SARS-CoV-2 in Vero E6 cells.
What did they find?
In their discussion section, the authors declared, “Our study shows that the repurposed anti-parasitic drugs, Niclosamide, ivermectin, and Chloroquine possess high in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, as the IC50 values are in the low micromolar range.”
The authors note that their findings regarding the testing of single drug effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 align with previous comparable preclinical lab-based investigations. The authors introduce that one reason why these drugs may show successful in vitro actions against SARS-CoV-2 yet not fare as well in human (in vivo) studies may be due to a lack of potency.
Thus, the impetus to use various combinations to enhance potency. A key rationale underlying this preclinical, lab-based study was to better understand what proper combinations of these available, economically approved drugs could be synergistic with efficacious results.
And the results are positive from this Mahidol University-led study: the authors demonstrate the benefit of combining ivermectin, Niclosamide, and Chloroquine and their anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities in the cell culture environment. But what was the superior combination? Ivermectin and Niclosamide produce the best synergistic profile.
Study Support
The study was supported with funds and resources associated with the Thailand-based Chair Professor Program (P-20-52262), The National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA). The study received additional support from the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University in Thailand.
TrialSite reminds us that this study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet.
Mahidol University
This autonomous research center in Thailand originated with the establishment of the Siriraj Hospital back in 1888. The institution was known as the University of Medical Science by 1943, ultimately recognized as the Southeast Asian nation’s fourth public university. By 1969, it was named by King Bhumibol Adulyadej after his father—Prince Mahidol of Songkhla, who happens to also be the “Father of Modern Medicine and Public Health of Thailand,” according to the most recent Wikipedia entry. By 2016, the acceptance rate into the school of medicine was 0.4%.
Mahidol University remains a hub of medical-related research in Thailand. The academic medical center has been recognized by the United Nations’ World Health Organization and consequently, has been designated a WHO collaboration center. Much of the research here delves into major problems facing this Southeast Asian nation, from public health to other social and economic challenges.
In the area of biomedical research, this university’s researchers have been at the forefront of important discoveries and breakthroughs in the following topics:
Better understanding of the molecular basis of thalassemia
Drug-resistance in malaria and avian influenza
Possible strategies and treatment and prevention including vaccine clinical trials
Lead Research/Investigator
Prasert Auewarakul, MD, Mahidol University Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital. Dr. Prasert Auewarakul was educated in Germany.
Other team members/authors are listed at the source. Call to Action: The study authors recommend clinical trials using the ivermectin and Niclosamide combination
UK’s Mass Media Increasingly Questions the Wisdom of Continuous COVID-19 Boosts
At least in the United Kingdom (UK), reports of growing apprehension of over-vaccination now become a topic ever more injected into the mainstream press. Growing numbers of mainstream experts now step forward suggesting greater amounts of data are needed before moving to a fourth boost, for example. Should SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosts be offered every quarter? Not according to a growing chorus suggesting not only health and safety risks but also a potential oppositional impact, adversely impacting immunity not to mention big economic costs. Could Omicron represent the “natural vaccine?” asks some, while others suggest that declaration is quite premature. Regardless, the mainstream media in Britain opens for a more critical view of ongoing COVID-19 vaccination efforts.
This emerging dialogue among Britons isn’t occurring in right-wing conspiracy websites and chat rooms but rather on the front page of media such as the Daily Mail, the UK’s highest-circulating newspaper.
Are the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel on the brink of over-vaccination? TrialSite suggests that mounting data indicate the appropriateness of caution moving forward. What are the true risk-benefit analyses associated with the COVID-19 vaccines? That is, when factoring in waning effectiveness, risks of adverse events, and the reality that 90%+ of COVID-19 cases are mild-to-moderate at most, a one-size-fit-all eradication of SARS-CoV-2 via vaccination must be carefully evaluated for true efficacy. Of course, industry, academia, and government that have large amounts of credibility invested in this approach become ever more defensive, even combative as critical questioning intensifies.
While a fourth boost regimen hasn’t been announced, nor are there any formal plans yet in other places such as Israel, those plans are already unfolding. But the bigger implication follows a very common sensible line of reasoning. If the vaccines wane in effectiveness with more transmissible variants, and in the case of Omicron where the current vaccines appear not as impactful, do continuous updates to vaccines based on mutant variants and a quarterly shot make sense? What are the risks for such a regimen? Some scientists become ever more concerned that a dangerous regimen of continuous vaccination threatens human health. Particularly given that all data points thus far indicate the highly transmissible Omicron appears to be far milder than Delta.
Recently, the Senior Health Reporter for Daily Mail’s MailOnline, John Ely, covers this topic for the mainstream media—again with the largest audience in the UK. The reporter’s piece evidences the growing cautionary tendencies emerging among Britons, a heavily vaccinated people. Over 70% of Britons are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 while nearly 50% of the nation have already received their third boost.
But could the Omicron variant of concern represent the transition of the pandemic to endemic, given the milder nature of associated infections? Mr. Ely reports that a University of Reading virologist and professor, Ian Jones, thinks so. He believes this to be the case as it is far more transmissible yet much milder than previous variants thus priming the immunity without much downside. Given the heavy vaccination already some data indicate infection plus vaccination provides superior long-term protection.
USA Infections Grow
America entered 2022 with record numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections thanks to not only continuous Delta-driven infections but also rapidly growing Omicron influence. Records for new infections in America were smashed on December 30 with 512,533 infections, according to Johns Hopkins University data, and 443,538 new infections on December 31, according to Our World in Data and New York Times originating data. While deaths in the U.S. are down, they still count over 1,300 in one day just yesterday based on a seven-day average. This still represents an unacceptable amount of mortality for this stage of the pandemic.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that as much as 40% to 70% of the new infections are due to the highly contagious Omicron variant of concern.
But what countries have administered the most doses per 100 persons? Daily Mail reports they include:
United Kingdom
srael
Canada
Australia
United States
Interestingly, the Anglo-influenced nations are the most vaccinated per population (Israel was a British colony).
What’s the Direction?
In the case of Professor Jones, the answer lies with moving away from frequent boosters, and instead moving to an influenza flu shot model where boosters are available on an annual basis for those deemed vulnerable and high-risk.
Also aligned with the annual flu-shot-like model is Warwick University virologist and professor Lawrence Young. Focus attention, suggests the British virologist, on the high-risk populations. While a University of Reading microbiologist named Dr. Simon Clark concurs, he cannot foresee governments aggressively pushing frequent boosters much longer. According to Clark, only long-term data will reveal if the vaccines are effective over the long run. While some more open-minded epidemiologists indicate there may be a need for more frequent boosts but labeled such a situation a “daunting prospect.”
Concerns
While there is no doubt that the COVID-19 vaccines have contributed value in the battle against COVID-19 (e.g., lowering hospitalization and death rates), the boosters behind them must also consider the costs, from health and safety to socio-economic given just a few companies are pocketing fortunes based on what has been taxpayer-subsidized efforts. True, Pfizer notably waved some of the R&D help from the U.S. government; they also benefited immensely from nationalized demand stimulation via mandates for example. Pfizer has taken home about $30 billion in the first 12 months of selling their vaccine called BNT162b2 or Comirnaty.
Moreover, in the UK, if a quarterly COVID-19 vaccine regimen was needed, the actual costs would threaten the viability of the UK nationalized health system called the NHS. The cost would be staggering for what would amount to 50 million vaccines per quarter equaling 550,000 per day, reports Mr. Ely. The price tag to the Briton taxpayers: $5.4 billion per annum based on the Pfizer price point of £20 per dose in the UK.
So, the situation is complex, nuanced, and incorporates both positives and negatives.
Time to Look Holistically at Risks & Benefits
“The British mainstream media increasingly embraces not just the science that shows positive association to the jabs but also the negative implications,“ declared Daniel O’Connor, founder of TrialSite. O’Connor shared with this staff writer that “numerous studies reveal challenges with the current early-stage COVID-19 vaccine products, particularly in a most recent investigation, the decline in effectiveness in just several weeks.”
In fact, Daily Mail’s John Ely reports on the latest study revealing that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness can wane to just 40% in 10 weeks (only 2.5 months).
With a growing recognition, at least in the UK, that the COVID-19 vaccines come with both benefits and costs, with the latest data indicating waning effectiveness, a growing chorus of academic scientists raise the specter of caution, even restraint as more data is needed to understand the true benefits of a fourth booster more comprehensively
Display MoreI was never more simple as today with CoV-19.
Sample::
1) Adrew Hill (Liverpool) runs pro Ivermectin presentations and programs. Gets 40 pharma millions and live damaging threats --> Cheats a paper about Ivermectin https://odysee.com/@FrontlineC…CC-WEBINAR-121521_FINAL:9
2) Yale school of medicine. Gets about 100 mio. pharma grants (40,million form crappy Remdesivir source) --> everybody including cook & cleaning woman sign an anti HCQ letter...Gilead sponsored medicine.yale.edu-Pharma and academia partner for better health.pdf
We are thrown back to archaic times. No more subtle corruption. It's kill or bill - mafia business.
I want to answer this slur on the integrity of Hill.
He is subject now to abuse because he changed his view on ivermectin when a large RCT that swayed his meta-analysis results proved at best so unprofessional as to be of no value and (more probably) fraudulent.
A lot of scientists were naive and just did not believe anyone would actually lie or hide the truth - but Elgazaar did that. I'd guess it was a big shock for
Hill, and not a nice one since he had to withdraw his own work. And then he gets a lot of abuse (much worse than me being repeatedly called a clown, senile, and controlled by sinister mafia handlers) from social media. It reminds me of religious apostasy - always a worse crime than someone with the same views who never believed.
As far as I can see Hill was just following a lot of people - the evidence seemed positive - he was involved in the details of that - when the evidence changed his views changed. Thus is science.
Now: who is Hill.
He is a University pharmacologist (e.g. - evaluating drugs is his thing) working evaluating cheap repurposed drugs that might help with Covid. (Previously HIV). Not surprising he was interested in Ivermectin. He is a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at Liverpool (not a permanent member of the University)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Hill
Here is the accusation levelled at Hill.
First: $40 million from Unitaid to Liverpool
This is money to Liverpool University (not to Andrew Hill) for a Centre of Excellence for Long-acting Therapeutics. This is not a new thing - these big centre's seldom are, the Universities who have prior work in that area get them. They take a long time to bid for and set up, so if it was announced around the time of Hill's revised meta-analysis, it would have been in the pipeline long before then. Universities get these grants all the time, and the Gates Foundation, as a major funder of medical research, will be involved in many. Better than pharma funding, in terms of independence.
In this case Unitaid had previously funded work at Liverpool on the related LONGEVITY project. So this is expected new funding, not kickback.
Hill works as a Visiting Research Fellow in the Pharmacology department. His research interests do not include the LONGEVITY project.
Dr. Andrew Hill, MD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in the Pharmacology Department at Liverpool University. His main research is on antiretroviral treatment for developing countries. He isan advisor to the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, designing clinical trial programmes of dose optimisation for antiretrovirals.
Dr. Hill graduated from Oxford University, and later completed a PhD at Amsterdam University. He has worked on the development of antiretrovirals for HIV since 1992, starting with 3TC at GlaxoWellcome, and later on saquinavir at Roche. He does consultancy work for Tibotec on the clinical trial programmes for darunavir, etravirine and rilpivirine.
In the past, hehas been involved in the use of HIV RNA and CD4 counts in the regulatory approval of antiretrovirals, the standardisation of HIV clinical trial analyses, and several systematic reviews of HIV clinical trials. Hiswork on lower doses of d4T led to the World Health Organisation changing the recommended dose from 40mg to 30mg BID.
Andrew Hill is the author of over 40 research papers on HIV. He has been on the editorial board of “AIDS” and is currently an editor for the “Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy”. He also runs a charity, “Living and Loving” which supports children with HIV/AIDS in Thailand. This year he is running the London Marathon to support a children’s HIV project in South Africa.
Now for the claims made that Hill admitted his change to his meta-analysis would cause some large number of deaths.
This is 3rd hand, from a conversation with Tess Lawrie. Please view the RebelWisdom video on Tess Lawrie and ivermectin. It is fair - but it shows that she has a certain steely fanaticism. When the interviewer politely and non-confrontationally questioned her belief that current evidence shows ivermectin is clearly effective she shut him down down with "I and my team have reviewed the evidence. We are right, anyone who disagrees is wrong. We are doing this for the WHO on another topic. It is our job. No-one is qualified to question us."
You can easily imagine how Andrew Hill properly asserting that although maybe ivermectin worked, the evidence was just not there from his metastudy given that the largest very highly positive paper he had originally included turned out to be fraudulent. Hill is professional - and whether he now believes on balance ivermectin will help (I don't know) he will not be prepared to falsify a metastudy as I expect Lawrie was asking him to do. I'm sure under pressure from Lawrie Hill would agree that if ivermectin works, delaying its widespread use will cost lives. That is sort of obvious. He could not think it might work as well as Lawrie claims given the data in his metastudy: but for smaller benefits you need much better data to tell.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug being investigated for repurposing against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Ivermectin showed in vitro activity against SARS-COV-2, but only at high concentrations. This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 23 randomized clinical trials (3349 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv, and trial registries. The primary meta-analysis was carried out by excluding studies at a high risk of bias. Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.42; P = .66) or hospitalizations (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.11; P = .11). Ivermectin displayed a borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care (mean difference, –1.14 days; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.00; P = .05). There was no significant effect of ivermectin on time to clinical recovery (mean difference, –0.57 days; 95% CI, –1.31 to 0.17; P = .13) or binary clinical recovery (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.50; P = .15). Currently, the World Health Organization recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials. A network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.
The above informedchoiceAustralia link is poisonous and the worst type of internet comment:
(1) makes a spurious association between a CELT grant to Liverpool long in the making and building on previous work there, and Hill's republication, omitting the LONGEVITY/CELT context or the fact that Hill is only a Visiting researcher at Liverpool, ignoring the nature of the grant where it would be in the pipeline long before being announced finally.
(2) does not provide the context for why the republication was needed - a paper was found to be fraudulent that had a large effect on the original results
What I do believe is Hill pointing out that it would make little difference - there were many ivermectin RCTs in progress at the time which if Tess Lawrie was right would show ivermectin clearly useful at Interim stage.
So far we have Interim results from Together. the results there were good enough that were you patient you would continue it and maybe find a 10% benefit from ivermectin - but the error bands were so large all you can say for sure is that there was not a large benefit. There are other big RCTs, ACTIV-6, PRINCIPLE.
The TOGETHER results are enough to prove Lawrie wrong and Hill's "no evidence" revised meta-study result consistent. Hill would have known at that time that if ivermectin is as Lawrie claimed the TOGETHER Interim results would be strongly positive - it had enough power to detect anything as good as that claim. Similarly the many other big RCTs including ivermectin.
They were not obviously good. And you can be sure when results are finally published, if it is a long time form now, it will be because ivermectin is very neutral. Everyone running these trials wants to find provably good candidates which get announced as soon as possible. Look at dexamethasone - equally a repurposed dirt cheap pharma would not make money from it drug now part of SOC everywhere.
It is possible Hill felt under pressure not to be pro-ivermectin.
It is also possible he felt under pressure from Tess Lawrie to be pro-ivermectin - when like others he could not know. He would be aware that if ivermectin actually helps by even 30%, same as dexamethasone, his negative revision would contribute to its delayed take-up. That is true of any drug trial - there a good reasons why we do not just approve all candidate drugs without evidence.
A false positive indication for ivermectin would kill people as well - causing false optimism and carelessness from people who believe FLCC that all you need is one white prophylactic pill a day and COVID is no risk.
It did not work for Kory (leader FLCC) who contracted COVID.
He says that he is fine. Indeed many people cite as evidence for ivermectin that they were on it and got mild COVID. That is absurd. Most people who get COVID recover fine. It does however prove that prophylaxis is not as has been claimed on this thread 100%.
To summarise:
FLCC are not a valiant pressure-group fighting for the truth against orthodoxy. Whether in the end ivermectin will prove a helpful drug or not, FLCC are doing PR not science, and by objecting to a large UK RCT to test ivermectin they are showing their true colors as people whose minds are not open to new ideas, or anything that might contradict their views.
THH
Of course not all ivermectin advocates will be anti-vaxxers.
I know nobody here that is an antivaxxer. May be your brain is suffering. We recommend gen therapy for some old and weak people - where it barely works as the data shows.
We simply do not like the idea that you damage 100 people with RNA gene therapy to claim one saved live among age < 50. The figures are more than clear now.
Your argumentation is pure FM mafia FUD aiming to define the narrative. Unluckily this time you cause much more harm than benefit. If you would restrict yourself to science and not just repeat your mafia buddies postings, then we could accept some weird ideas like gene therapy for healthy old people that know the treatment.. But you show not a single independent brain cell working for objective science.
We did recommend FP95/98 mask 1.5 years ago. The only masks that make sense for sensible people. But look, and go back: How often did you recommend something of real use?
This is the prize of being a member of a deaths sect that you & Jed seem to pay.
He is subject now to abuse because he changed his view on ivermectin when a large RCT that swayed his meta-analysis results proved at best so unprofessional as to be of no value and (more probably) fraudulent.
It is silly - clownish - to protect an FM buddy. Dr Andrew Hill from Liverpool cheated his paper by allowing a third person to enter his conclusion text. This has been confirmed by differential linguistic analysis made by a professional. He never changed his mind on his own. He has been threatened by our clowns buddies. He certainly soon will be accused of medical fraud.
Such posts of our jumping jack are 1000% unmasking and show his criminal nature.
I know nobody here that is an antivaxxer. May be your brain is suffering. We recommend gen therapy for some old and weak people - where it barely works as the data shows.
We simply do not like the idea that you damage 100 people with RNA gene therapy to claim one saved live among age < 50. The figures are more than clear now.
You have repeatedly used wrong statistics to try to make exaggerated claims about the the risk from vaccines. Similarly you have repeatedly used false statistics to claim efficacy of COVID vaccines is lower than it actually is.
You have used emotive terms (genocide, murderer) to describe governments with vaccination programs, companies selling vaccines.
All of that is not scientific debate - it is in the same territory as the antivaxxer PR.
I'm happy you are not an antivaxxer. I'd like you to be careful not to post antivaxxer memes and obviously false arguments on this thread.
Your figure above: 100 people damaged for 1 life saved in the < 50 cohort is grossly and obviously wrong - unless by damage you mean the minor side effects that 50% of people vaccinated will get (temperature, headache, etc). Perhaps we should start with where you get your figures for lives saved? Since most countries now are fairly well vaccinated it will require some care to get accurate figures for death rate amongst unvaccinated cohort < 50
Remember - if you start to count minor illness you need to compare that with the minor illness that people who get COVID have.
I am happy to go into precise figures but we will need precise definitions of illness if you start to compare things other than deaths.
If you wish not to follow antivaxxer memes you will take an interest in the evidence, lay it out, check the many ways in which raw stats can be misleading. You can be suspicious of the mainstream analyses, of course, but only if you compare them with similarly detailed alternate analyses and say what are the mistakes they make, etc. And please, so that others can check what you say, give precise links for all the figures you claim.
THH
PS - the figures show better vaccine risk reduction against death amongst younger people than older, in relative terms (though of course lower risk reduction against death in absolute terms).
It is silly - clownish - to protect an FM buddy. Dr Andrew Hill from Liverpool cheated his paper by allowing a third person to enter his conclusion text. This has been confirmed by differential linguistic analysis made by a professional. He never changed his mind on his own.
I posted the link I found accusing him of stuff, and answered it.
I'm happy to consider other evidence - but only if sourced. There is an issue here of reliability. I'm being very polite putting it that way.
What does "FM Buddy" mean. It is now 2022 and I am tired of your continual weird alphabet references which no-one else here understands.
I should say I've never met Hill, nor have I ever been to Liverpool Uni, nor do I know anyone working there (well - I guess I probably will have met such people - but not that I remember).
Meanwhile. Here in Ontario (Canada) we continue to break Covid case number records daily. I know that a few days ago we were 95 percent Omicron and were at an impressive 30 percent positivity rating for those getting tested. This is very good news for boosting natural immunity in the community. (Our hospital numbers are only slightly going up so far.) There were huge lineups for getting tested, and many (most?) people are unable to get tested because there isn't enough test units, and labs are backlogged. So starting today only certain people will qualify to get tested. Because of this, perhaps our case numbers will go down in the next few days. (I predict our numbers will be going down anyways in two weeks, and the omicron wave in Toronto will mostly over by the end of January.)
A few days ago it was acknowledged (if I heard the radio broadcast correctly) that up to half of hospitalized people in Ontario testing positive for Covid were in fact only incidentally positive : they were admitted to hospital for something else and only happened to test positive upon admittance. Because of this, they are considering not counting such incidental positive cases! Are we experiencing a moment of clarity and sanity here in Ontario? It can't be! If it happens that we do change our 'hospitalized with covid' counting method, our covid hospitalization numbers will take a sudden drop. Now, some here will wonder why they weren't doing this simple, no-brainer thing from the beginning. I suggest you don't think about it too much. It will eat away at your faith in the 'health' system, and we wouldn't want that to happen. Rather, think positive thoughts, like vaccines are safe and effective! There, much better now.
Display MoreBy Shabnam Palesa Mohamed – TrialSiteNews Africa
In an intriguing U-turn on the science and practicality on quarantining and tracing Covid-19 contacts in a so-called ‘third world country’, the South African Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) on C19 issued a recent recommendation that stirred up debate and raised questions on possible motives. TrialSite News Africa lead Shabnam Palesa Mohamed takes a closer look.
What is the crux of the MAC recommendation?The far reaching 4-page recommendation by the MAC, co-chaired by Professor Koleka Mlisana (National Health Laboratory Service) and Professor Marian Jacobs (University of Cape Town) were published 16 December 2021. Addressed to Health Minister Joe Paahla, they are based on the following admission: “quarantining and contact tracing are of negligible public health benefit…”
They recommend instead:
The abolition of quarantine (the isolation of well individuals who are believed to have come into contact with a person confirmed to have COVID-19).The immediate cessation of contact tracing (finding all contacts of a positive case).
What significant highlights are contained in the recommendation?
The failure of quarantining: With hunger and poverty at boiling point, the MAC finally admits the “substantial economic and social burden” of quarantining, including the “loss of income, loss of employment, and loss of schooling time”. But is this a case of too little, too late?
No discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated: Suggesting an acceptance of the equal transmission risk between the jabbed and the unjabbed, they say the vaccination status of people not diagnosed as having COVID-19 should not be a point of discrimination.
...
This reminds me in part of what Japan is saying. Jed may want to avoid reading, to avoid internal conflict. From https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/covid-19/vaccine.html
my underline:
Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.
So : Japan is about (truly) informed consent when it comes to vaccines. How refreshingly civilized and ethical! They even have warnings about other contents of the vaccine, presumably something like PEG. From
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/000759294.pdf
I hope Japan can continue hold the line and not go unhinged like other countries. Time will tell.
Omicron may well have been evolving in mice before returning to humans.
The molecular spectrum of mutations (i.e., the relative frequency of the 12 types of base substitutions) acquired by the progenitor of Omicron was significantly different from the spectrum for viruses that evolved in human patients, but resembled the spectra associated with virus evolution in a mouse cellular environment. Furthermore, mutations in the Omicron spike protein significantly overlapped with SARS-CoV-2 mutations known to promote adaptation to mouse hosts, particularly through enhanced spike protein binding affinity for the mouse cell entry receptor. Collectively, our results suggest that the progenitor of Omicron jumped from humans to mice, rapidly accumulated mutations conducive to infecting that host, then jumped back into humans, indicating an inter-species evolutionary trajectory for the Omicron outbreak.
Possible scenario : Sars-Cov-2 was taken from humans, serial passaged through a mixture of normal and humanized mice in the lab for several months, and reintroduced into humans. Four Chinese or US or ... (?) diplomats travelling through various countries bring it to Africa, and voila.
No slur from Tess Lawrie..
Just a fair warning
Hill's parent institution, the University of Liverpool, had just received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID four days before Hill's Ivermectin paper was published, and Dr. Hill's conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier.
Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, "I think I'm in a very sensitive position here."
Dr. Lawrie called Hill out. She stated, "Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they're in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine."
Lawrie criticized Hill, "This is what I don't get, you know, because you're not a clinician. You're not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don't need to die because there's Ivermectin."
Hill responded that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM.
Dr. Tess Lawrie fired back, "Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby...This is bad research. So at this point, I am really, really worried about you."
Hill answered, "Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult situation."
Lawrie responded, "No, you might be in a difficult situation. I'm not because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth...How can you deliberately try and mess up...you know? So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily - up to you? What is the timeline you've allowed for this, then?"
Andrew Hill reacted, "Well, I think...I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH, and the FDA, and the EMEA. And they've got to decide when they think enough is enough."
Dr. Lawrie pointed out the obvious, "You'd rather...risk loads of people's lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying...
I'm a doctor, and I'm going to save as many lives as I can. And I'm going to do that through getting the message [out] on Ivermectin...Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do."
Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill's conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.
"So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?"
Hill answered, "Well, it’s just the people there. I don't..."
Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, "Could you please give me a name of someone in UNITAID I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?
Dr. Hill evaded, "Oh, I'll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name...But I mean this is very difficult because I'm, you know, I've got this role where I'm supposed to produce this paper and we're in a very difficult, delicate balance...Yeah, it’s a very strong lobby..."
The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.
Dr. Lawrie, "So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?"
Dr. Hill, "From my side. Okay...I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks."
Dr. Tess Lawrie, "How many people die every day?"
Dr. Andrew Hill, "Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day."
Dr. Tess Lawrie, "Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks...Because at this rate, all other countries are getting Ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby."
Dr. Andrew Hill, "My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum..."
Dr. Tess Lawrie, The Conscience of Medicine, concluded with this, "You're not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, 'I can see this prevents deaths. So I'm not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I'm going to tell the truth.’"
Finally, Dr. Lawrie added, "Well, you're not going to get it approved the way you've written that conclusion. You've actually shot yourself in the foot, and you've shot us all in the foot. All of...everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it...I don't know how you sleep at night, honestly."
No this is not one of magician’s sock puppets... right?
QuoteDisplay More
- Andrea Rossi January 2, 2022 at 4:23 AM
Jason:
You can go here to find the order form:
Warm Regards,
A.R.
- Jason January 2, 2022 at 4:21 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
How can I order an Ecat Sklep ?
Jason
Over 1.89 Million Global Daily Cases Implicate Miscalculated COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy
Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial
Is it possible that public health authorities could have made such a bad miscalculation leading up to skyrocketing COVID-19 global daily cases? How could COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that showed so much promise in clinical trials with a reported vaccine efficacy of 95% fail so miserably as the winter of 2021-2022 barely gets underway? So many people are either partially or fully vaccinated, some with boosters—yet, daily new cases of COVID-19 are setting pandemic records, approaching 2 million new cases a day globally as of December 30, 2021: Coronavirus Graphs: Worldwide Cases and Deaths – Worldometer (worldometers.info).
Is the spike in cases due to immune escape by the new omicron variant, or the natural waning of vaccine effectiveness? Perhaps those factors might play a role. But the more plausible answer is that the 95% vaccine efficacy reported in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA clinical trials was miscalculated and is not the true absolute risk reduction of COVID-19 infections, which is actually more in the neighborhood of 1% vaccine efficacy.
How could such a miscalculation have happened? What, exactly, was miscalculated? Wasn’t someone checking for miscalculations? Who is responsible for this? Will they be held accountable? How can we prevent this from happening again?
The Pfizer Inoculations For COVID-19 – More Harm Than Good – VIDEO – Canadian Covid Care Alliance
Omicron SuperSpread Event in Faroe Islands Gathering: 21 out of 33 Attendees Triple Vaccinated & infected!
Recently uploaded to the preprint server medRxiv, epidemiologists, public health officials and physicians from the Faroe Islands, an autonomous Danish territory, report that at a recent private gathering 21 of the 33 triple-vaccinated healthcare workers were infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.
The authors included the Chief Medical Officer for a community on the Faroe Islands, a self-governing group of islands situated between Iceland and Norway have thus far fared well in keeping COVID-19 away. The authors report that by December 8, 74.6% of the territory’s population were vaccinated twice while 13.6% of the population by that date received a booster vaccine.
Since November the islands, heavily vaccinated, have experienced record surges in cases. By December 31, 2021, a new record for new cases based on the seven-day average was established at 93 infections per day. About 83% of the entire territory is classified as fully vaccinated with a third jab boost rate of about 30%. The islands’ population totals about 48,000.
Findings
The recent case series study write up covered an event where 33 persons attending a private gathering were exposed to the Omicron variant of concern. Several participants noticed symptoms during the following days and performed a PCR test, which was positive. The other participants subsequently also performed PCR tests, resulting in 21 of 33 participants testing positive, corresponding to an attack rate of 63.6%. The unusually high attack rate led the Chief Medical Officer to request genome sequencing of the virus, identifying the first Omicron variant in the Faroes on December 8. So far, 13 samples from the gathering, and an additional four from the extended transmission chain, have been verified as the Omicron variant through targeted sequencing.
All other cases the authors assume as Omicron variant based as well. It has not been possible to definitively identify the index case initiating this transmission chain, but presumably, the variant has been imported from abroad.
The study authors report that all infected participants were fully vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Comirnaty; BioNTech/Pfizer) and had received a third booster dose within the last two and a half months, and none had a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The authors reported a brief SARS-CoV-2 incubation period of 2 to 6 days with a mean incubation period of 3.24 days (95% CI 2.873.60). Time to symptom resolution varies with symptoms lasting from one to 9 days.
Conclusion
The Faroe Island authors warn that Omicron can most definitely lead to “super-spreader” events even in people with triple jabs. With all the reported cases symptomatic, thankfully no one had to be admitted to the hospital. The authors express an urgent need for a better understanding of the Omicron variant.
The team’s findings suggest Omicron displays potent immune-escape properties and that even recently boosted individuals face risk with this pathogen. By all accounts thus far the Omicron variant is more transmissible but less severe than the Delta variant. Did vaccines help mitigate and reduce the intensity of the breakthrough infection—very likely that status helped. But the dominant narrative that a third boost will protect against infection is challenged here on the Faroe Islands, a part of Denmark.
Lead Research/Investigator
Gunnhild Helmsdal, General Practitioner Service, Vestmanna, Corresponding Author
Olga K Hansen, Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Tórshavn
Lars F Møller, Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Tórshavn
Debes H Christiansen, Faroese Food and Veterinary Authority, Tórshavn
Maria Skaalum Petersen, Department of Occupational Medicine and Public Health, Faroe Islands
Marnar F Kristiansen, Center of health Science, University of the Faroe Islands, Tórshavn
US experts question whether counting Covid cases is still the right approach
Case counts ‘don’t reflect what they used to’, experts argue, as data suggests Omicron is less severe but more contagious
Some US infectious disease experts and public health officials are questioning whether to continue using the number of coronavirus cases as a metric for determining which mitigation efforts are appropriate, as data suggests Omicron is less severe but much more contagious than previous variants.
Covid pills are ‘very promising’ – but what are the challenges in using them?
Those experts argue that the US has reached a stage in the pandemic where reports of dramatic surges in case counts prompt unnecessary worries and that government officials and the public should instead review death and hospitalization data when considering precautions.
Case counts “are causing a lot of panic and fear, but they don’t reflect what they used to, which was that hospitalizations would track with cases”, said Dr Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco.
However, other infectious disease experts say that while they are encouraged by data from South Africa showing that its recent Omicron wave was not accompanied by a significant increase in deaths, the virus continues to strain hospitals in the US, therefore the number of Covid cases remains a vital measurement.
The US on Thursday had more than 580,000 new Covid cases, the second time this week that the country has broken its record for daily Covid cases, according to New York Times data. But over the past two weeks, while the number of Covid cases in the United States has increased by 181%, the number of hospitalizations has increased by 19% and the number of deaths has decreased by 5%.
“It seems to be less virulent for two reasons,” said Gandhi. “One, we seem to have so much more immunity in December 2021” than during previous waves, and “there are now five laboratory studies that show that it doesn’t seem to infect lungs very well”.
In reporting data on Covid, health departments should now take the same approach as they do with influenza, Gandhi said. That means releasing hospitalization and death data but not numbers concerning case counts because, like with the flu, it’s not possible to eliminate the virus, therefore we should only focus on its severity, she said.
“Once you have accepted the virus is endemic, just like influenza, then you never track cases because we never screen like this for any other viruses, we track what is causing disease and getting people hospitalized,” Gandhi said.
Other countries are now implementing an approach that is not focused on case counts. For example, in Canada, which has also seen record numbers of Covid cases recently, Dr Robert Strang, Nova Scotia’s chief medical officer of health, said at a news conference Thursday that the government agency would no longer focus on daily case counts.
“We no longer need to identify and have public health manage every single case of the variant because for most people, that will result in relatively mild illness, so we need to focus our efforts and resources on our most vulnerable groups,” said Strang. “Omicron is all around us and we have to recognize that you could be exposed anywhere … It’s about managing and slowing down the spread but not eliminating it.”
The Philippines government also announced this week that it would stop posting case updates on social media, which was similar to an approach employed by Singapore, according to Hawaii Public Radio.
But in the US, there are parts of the country where hospitals remains overwhelmed, largely because of unvaccinated patients with Covid. In Maryland, for example, which saw a more than 500% increase in Covid cases and 50% increase in hospitalizations, at least six hospitals have implemented crisis-mode standards of care, according to the Baltimore Sun.
At Johns Hopkins Bayview medical center, which saw a 360% increase in patients hospitalized with Covid in December, that means rescheduling elective surgical procedures and opening additional space to treat Covid patients.
Justin Lessler, an epidemiology professor at the University of North Carolina, still sees case counts as an “important leading indicator”, he said. “With Omicron are surges are so big, even if it’s on average … much less severe than previous variants, the sheer number of cases is such that hospital systems are going to be overwhelmed and there is risks to individuals because it’s so likely you will be infected.”
Mara Aspinall, a biomedical diagnostics professor at Arizona State University, also said case count data remains important because it prevents the public from overreacting or underreacting to the pandemic.
“The challenge we have had this whole time is finding that balance between keeping our physical health in check, but our mental health and the economy moving forward, and it’s all with the best information” that we are able to do that, Aspinall said.
For Gandhi, that balance lies in health departments tracking case counts internally and only alerting the public on hospitalizations and deaths.
“The reason we tracked cases is because we were hoping we could eliminate the virus, but it’s not in the nature of the virus to eliminate it,” said Gandhi. “The country hasn’t totally transitioned to this idea that we can’t eliminate it.”
