The Playground

  • EXCLUSIVE: Are we on the brink of OVER-vaccinating in the fight against Covid? Experts warn dishing out fourth jabs in spring may be unnecessary - and Omicron may be world's 'natural' vaccine that finally ends pandemic


    Experts warn dishing out fourth jabs in spring may be pointless
    EXCLUSIVE: Experts have warned against offer a second Covid booster arguing it is not practical to do so every three months. Claims of Omicron as a 'natural…
    www.dailymail.co.uk


    UK should hold off on a new booster and the wait for data on long term impact of current jabs, experts say

    Scientists say giving a booster every 3 months not feasible, and may not improve immunity significantly

    Some claim Omicron is now a 'natural vaccine', but one expert poured cold water on idea, saying it is 'bulls***'

    The US, the UK and other major economies could be on the brink of over-vaccinating people in the fight against Covid, experts say.


    Israeli officials have already announced their intentions to embark on dishing out another round of booster jabs, meaning both the US and UK will eventually face pressure to follow suit even though both nations have insisted there are no plans to administer fourth doses yet.


    ADVERTISEMENT


    But scientists argue that rolling out vaccines every three-to-four months simply isn't 'doable' and may not even be necessary because of Omicron, which some believe will speed up the process of endemicity and consign days of sky-high hospitalization and death figures to history.



    And they called for more data on dosing gaps between boosters before pressing ahead with plans to administer fourth jabs. Some experts claim the benefits of extra jabs are minimal because their primary purpose - preventing deaths and hospitalizations - has barely waned after a year and several Covid variants, effectively meaning boosters are adding to an already high base level immunity.


    Professor Ian Jones, a virologist at the University of Reading, said descriptions of Omicron being a 'natural vaccine' were right.


    The logic behind the argument is that as Omicron is highly transmissible but milder than other variants, it can give an immunity boost without causing as much serious illness, with some data suggesting a combination of infection than vaccination providing the best type of immunity in the long-run.


    On Thursday, the United States smashed another global COVID infection record when 647,067 new cases were reported, up 26 percent from the day before, when 512,533 new cases were reported, according to Johns Hopkins University data.


    In total, USA Today reports, the United States recorded 2.49 million cases within the past week, outpacing the country's previous record of 1.7 million new cases recorded in the one-week period from January 3 through January 9.


    Experts say the number of cases are rising so rapidly due to the spread of the highly-contagious Omicron variant, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says accounts for anywhere from 40 to 70 per cent of the new cases in the US. A UK-based expert says the variant could spread with just a 'whiff of infected breath.'


    ADVERTISEMENT


    At the same time, however, the number of daily deaths have halved from 2,800 to 1,400 between Wednesday and Thursday. The drop comes after multiple studies showed that Omicron was likely to cause up to 80 per cent fewer hospitalizations than Delta, although scientists have cautioned that more data is needed, and say the sheer number of infections caused by the new variant could ultimately cause an additional spike in serious illness and death.




    While only a mid-performer in the top 20 nations for vaccine doses per 100 people the UK is a top performer when it comes to comparing nations such as the US, Canada, Australia and Israel

    This map shows the number of vaccines administered per 100 people, Africa, where Omicron was first identified and is believed to have emerged, has, as a continent, among the lowest number of vaccinated people in proportion to its population in the world

    Future variants 'may be even more mild', Professor Jones told MailOnline, adding that the need for healthy adults to get top-up jabs could soon recede. Instead of doling out jabs every few months, he said annual boosters for the vulnerable ahead of the winter would be 'more feasible'.


    Professor Lawrence Young, a virologist from Warwick University, insisted vaccines should protect against severe illness for much longer than they do against getting infected or becoming ill, suggesting that an annual booster for the elderly and vulnerable groups will be enough to thwart off Covid in the coming years.


    Dr Simon Clarke, a microbiologist at the University of Reading, admitted he 'can't see' governments pushign out Covid vaccines every three months for much longer. He said: 'Although after two-and-a-half months immunity starts to wane, that doesn't mean it drops below being extremely effective.'


    But he told MailOnline that the only way to measure the long-term effectiveness of the boosters was to wait and see. 'We can only get that long term data over the long term, there's no crystal ball with this. We just don't know what the optimum strategy is,' he said.


    ADVERTISEMENT

    Other epidemiologists have said repeated and multiple outbreaks Covid each year might necessitate boosters every four to six months, which they branded a 'daunting prospect'.


    But even though data shows vaccines are less effective against Omicron, they are nowhere near redundant.


    Real-world data shows efficacy levels of the booster vaccine at stopping people getting symptoms plummet to around 40 per cent after just 10 weeks.


    But two jabs still drastically cut the risk of hospitalization and death, even against Omicron, as the body's immune system still retains some ability to help fight off virus even after some waning immunity. A third dose will bolster that protection even further, experts insist.


    It means a fourth dose may not be necessary yet for the entirety of the UK and could see ministers only advised to dish out extra doses to the elderly and immunocompromised in the coming months.


    For this reason some experts have called for caution about dishing out another round of vaccines so quickly.


    One of the UK Government's own advisers warned it would be impossible to 'defeat' Covid with vaccines if everyone needed a top-up every three months. It would see the UK's national Health Service have to dish out the equivalent of up to 50million jabs every 90 days, or around 550,000 every day. This would put the cost of an annual vaccination drive in the region of £4billion (around $5.4billion) , based on one jab being priced at around £20 ($27) per dose — similar to Pfizer.


    But government ministers may sign off on plans to dish out universal Covid jabs — which experts hope will offer better protection and hold up against variants that emerge in the future — but they aren't expected for another 18 months, England chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty told MPs earlier this month.


    Vaccine makers have been quietly working on as polyvalent Covid jabs but they are all in early development and way off clinical trials.


    Israel has already approved the use of fourth doses of Covid vaccines to vulnerable people, such as those with weakened immune systems, over fears that their immunity may already be fading .


    RELATED ARTICLES

    World Health Organization tells Boris to 'be careful about changing tactics' as PM faces pressure to cut Covid self-isolation period to FIVE days like the US... as Nicola Sturgeon keeps Scotland's original 10-day rule in place until next week

    Covid lateral flows ARE less effective at spotting Omicron, US officials fear... but UK health chiefs insist there's still no proof the variant can evade rapid swabs

    Death rates in South Africa's Omicron Covid wave were just a QUARTER of levels seen during previous surges as scientists say ultra-infectious variant may 'usher in endemic phase'

    Currently, the US has not indicated any plans regarding additional boosters, with health officials saying more data is needed on the protection improvement potentially offered by a fourth dose.


    Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said last week that it was too 'premature' to be talking about a fourth dose.


    'One of the things that we're going to be following very carefully is what the durability of the protection is following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,' he said.


    'If the protection is much more durable than the two-dose, non-boosted group, then we may go a significant period of time without requiring a fourth dose.


    'So, I do think it's premature, at least on the part of the US, to be talking about a fourth dose.'


    UK experts have also urged caution over offering fourth jabs, saying more data is needed on the long term protection offered by the booster.


    The rollout of a second set of boosters is being examined by experts on the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).


    Professor Anthony Harnden, deputy chair of the JCVI, said: 'We need to see more data. We are in different circumstances to Israel and we need to see more data on waning immunity and vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization.'


    Professor Jones said: 'The vaccine response clearly wanes but it is not clear if the boosted response will wane in the same way or at the same rate.'


    Israel has already started rolling out fourth doses of Covid vaccines to vulnerable people, the nation has been seen by many as a pioneer in vaccine policy with other nations, such as the UK, later following many of its policies

    After a rocky start the Covid booster campaign has accelerated with over 30million people boosted according to the latest data, whether the public have appetite for further boosters is unclear

    Death rates in South Africa's Omicron wave just a QUARTER of those from previous surges as scientists say ultra-infectious variant may 'usher in endemic phase'

    Covid death rates in South Africa's Omicron wave were just a quarter of levels seen during previous surges, real-world data suggests.


    Researchers examined records of 450 patients hospitalised in the City of Tshwane since the extremely-transmissible variant took off in the country.


    Their survival rates were then compared against nearly 4,000 patients hospitalised earlier on in the pandemic.


    Just 4.5 per cent of patients hospitalised with Covid in the last month died from the virus. For comparison, the rate stood at around 21.3 per cent earlier in the pandemic.


    The findings, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, also revealed ICU admissions were a quarter of the rate seen in previous waves, and patients' average hospital stay was halved.


    The City of Tshwane is an authority situated in Gauteng — the first province to fall victim to Omicron.


    Scientists behind the research said it shows 'a decoupling of cases, hospitalisations and deaths compared to previous waves'.


    Omicron could be a 'harbinger of the end' of the darkest days of the pandemic and could usher in the virus's endemic phase, the team wrote.


    Patients involved in the latest study were, however, much younger, which may have skewed the results.


    But the academics, from South Africa's National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) and the University of Pretoria, aren't the first to show the virus is milder.


    Other real-world studies from the UK and South Africa already reported that patients who catch the strain are up to 80 per cent less likely to be hospitalised.


    He also told MailOnline that he didn't think offering a regular booster to keep immunity up was feasible or effective.


    'Boosting every 10 weeks or every time a new variant appears to be on the rise is not doable and in consequence I think we need some sort of grading system for new variants to ensure we act appropriately and practically,' he said.


    Professor Jones said annual top-up jabs for the vulnerable ahead of the peak winter illness season, December to February, would make more sense.


    If all adults would need one depended on how Omicron continues to develop, Professor Jones said.


    'If Omicron is an attenuated strain already on its way to endemicity then later versions may be even more mild and the need for vaccination for an otherwise fit adult might recede,' he said.


    'You have to remember that making you very sick is no good to the virus at all, all it “wants” is to transmit, so virus evolution will tend towards a less severe strain which you will pass around as you will struggle on with work etc much as we do for common colds.'


    On Omicron generally Professor Jones said descriptions from others of the ultra-infectious variant being a 'natural vaccine' were right.


    He said that while any Covid variant boosts immunity the fact Omicron was highly transmissible yet milder worked to help boost population immunity.


    'Whatever version you were infected with your immunity would be boosted,' he told MailOnline. 'That mild bit suits us because it means we can get immunity without, or with much less, risk.'


    However, he warned against any 'chickenpox' style parties where people intentionally try to catch Omicron, saying we needed to protect people who could get severely ill from the virus.


    'You have to be careful here not to stretch it to things such as chickenpox parties because there will always be a vulnerable minority and to encourage infection puts them at risk,' he said.


    Hopes of Omicron ushering in the end of the pandemic stage of Covid were sparked by a South African study into Covid death rates in the nation's Omicron wave. It showed fatalities were just a quarter of levels seen during other surges.


    Researchers examined records of 450 patients hospitalized in the City of Tshwane, in the 'ground zero province of Gauteng, since the extremely-transmissible variant took off in the country. Their survival rates were compared to nearly 4,000 patients hospitalized earlier on in the pandemic.


    Just 4.5 per cent of patients hospitalized with Covid in the last month died from the virus. For comparison, the rate stood at around 21.3 per cent earlier in the pandemic


    Scientists from South Africa's National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) and the University of Pretoria, who carried out the research, said it shows 'a decoupling of cases, hospitalizations and deaths compared to previous waves'.


    Omicron could be a 'harbinger of the end' of the darkest days of the pandemic and could usher in the virus's endemic phase, the team wrote in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.


    Commentators around the world have latched on the findings and claimed Omicron could act as natural vaccine making the virus endemic to the population.


    One of these was a health official for the Indian state of Maharashtra, Dr Pradeep Awate who told the Press Trust of India, that although Omicron was spreading faster than Delta, there had been few hospitalizations.


    'If this happens, Omicron will act as a natural vaccination and may help in its (Covid's) progression towards the endemic stage,' he said.


    But Dr Clarke cautioned against the idea of labelling Omicron a 'natural vaccine'.


    ‘The immunity we’ve had from other variants doesn’t protect all that well against Omicron, so there is no reason to think it works in the other direction,’ he said.


    This is despite a new study from the Africa Health Research Institute showing blood taken from people infected with omicron recorded a 4.4-fold increase of antibodies when exposed to the the Delta version of the virus.


    In contrast other studies delving into the topic of cross-variant immunity showed antibodies made in response to Delta reacted poorly to Omicron.


    Dr Clarke added that just because Omicron was milder did not mean it, or other Covid variants, would remain so, adding: 'The idea that viral evolution is a one-way street to the common cold is absolute bull****.'


    On the idea of more boosters and how often, Dr Clarke emphasized the need for more data before we know time gap between more Covid jabs.


    He said there will be an 'optimum' gap between doses but 'we just don’t know what it is yet', adding that it 'won't be good' if jabs are done too far apart or close together.


    Dr Clarke also advised against general predictions on how Covid boosters are going to be rolled out in 2022, highlighting how despite an Omicron jab being in development, it might fail, or need two doses similar to the initial Covid jab.


    However he did say that boosters being used to keep immunity against infection topped-up through increased antibodies may be the preferred strategy going forward by the Government not wanting to impose restrictions and minimize disruption.


    'Population wide vaccination will drive down transmission, it won't eliminate it, but it will drive it down across the population,' he said.


    'And if you have lots of people who have more than the sniffles and are ill enough not to go to work, there is massive damage to public services and an economic slowdown.'


    Professor Young also said while data had suggested a drop in booster effectiveness against Omicron infection, the outlook for longer term protection from against severe disease was still good.


    'Preliminary data suggests that vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection with Omicron drops by between 15-25 per cent after 10 weeks,' he said.


    'Thus those older individuals who were boosted at the beginning of the booster campaign in mid-September may not be as well protected from symptomatic infection.


    'However, all current data indicates that booster jabs will protect from severe disease and that this should last for at least several months.'


    He said the broad hope is that this protection against severe disease will eventually mean an annual booster jab for the elderly and other vulnerable groups will be sufficient to protect them from a severe Omicron infection in the coming years.


    Professor Young also highlighted how immunity was a complex system, with different segments like antibodies rising in the short term when people get vaccinated. While other more difficult to measure parts like T-cells provide longer term protection.


    'The good news is that recent studies have shown that both vaccination and natural infection induce a strong and sustained T-cell response to Omicron and other variants,' he said.


    'This might be the key to longer term protection and the need for less frequent boosters.'


    There have also been concerns about over-vaccinating people in the UK when so many in other parts of the world are unvaccinated.


    Professor Adam Finn, a UK government vaccine adviser, previously told the BBC that over-vaccinating people, when other parts of the world had none, was 'a bit insane, it's not just inequitable, it's stupid'.


    Professor Young also highlighted that it might be more important to help other countries boost their vaccine uptake rather than offer all Britons another booster, to stop new variants from forming.


    He highlighted Africa, where Omicron was first identified and almost certainly emerged, as one particular example.


    'Virus variants will continue to be generated as long as the virus is allowed to spread particularly in countries where vaccination rates are low,' he said.


    'This emphasizes the need to control the pandemic at the global level as well as locally and that it is in all our interests to support the roll out of vaccines across the world.


    'In a situation where around 73 per cent of people in wealthy and middle-income countries have been vaccinated, this includes those who have had one, two or three doses, whereas only 12 per cent are vaccinated in Africa, we have to consider the value and luxury of additional booster doses if such vaccines are not widely available.'


    Jeffrey Shaman, an infectious disease modeler and epidemiologist in New York has also highlighted the need to tackle the Covid pandemic on a global scale

    He said: 'We may find ourselves in a different kind of endemic equilibrium in which boosting is needed every four-six months and highly effective therapeutics are needed to limit severe disease. All this would need to be available globally and equitably. This is a daunting prospect. And psychologically challenging.'

  • OK, please note everyone. This is what I mean by antivaxxer posts. It has no technical content: the substantive issues here our omitted (I've added them below). It is full of unsubstantiated insinuations which I've answered previously in as far as one can from public record. RB has ignored this answer. That lack of engagement with substance, and lack of engagement with answers to questions raised is MY definition of when heterodox opinion (always valued) crosses a liune and becomes antivaxxer propaganda.


    I'm quite sure RB is no antivaxxer. This post from him is therefore most unfortunate.


    This is written as a transcript. But it is quite obviously not. It is a write-up from Tess Lawrie's account of a conversation. See elsewhere for why I do not consider Tess reliable on this subject - watch the video of her to come to your own conclusions.


    We do know that most of the insinuations, from public record added by me below, are false.


    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.

    • Not Hill's parent institution - he is a Visiting Research Fellow there.
    • Not a "donation". It is a grant to set up a centre of excellence (CELT) which is a continuation of funds and expansion of long-term funding for a project (LONGEVITY) that has been running at Liverpool for a long time also funded by Unitaid.
    • The metastudy was withdrawn when Elgazaar's paper, which has a very significant effect on the metastudy results, was withdrawn after being shown fraudulent. The 180 degree change in conclusions is the result of that, and the ommission of one other RCT that has similar indications of bias to Elgazaar (lack of transparency, poor methodology). I agree, it was not the inevitable result. Hill and his co-authors could have ignored the new evidence that preprint RCTs with little transparency were shown to be (politely) of no value, and done a "include everything" metastudy that gave a positive result. They would surely HAVE to remove Elgazaar, but they could make no other changes. Technically this is not a 180 degree change. It is meta-study going from positive to neutral, after taking into account low quality of evidence (that was previously ignored).


    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."

    • No such admission. That is Lawrie's spin. He is saying he is in a sensitive position which is absolutely true, and that what as an academic you do in this situation is not simple. He is also maybe apologising for the fact that his personal gut feeling (ivermectin works) which aligns with Lawrie's, is not borne out by the data so far. See below. But see also Hill's comments to another interviewer, which indicate why he could not possibly support a positive meta-study after the re-analysis. (Lawrie is not an interviewer - she is a very biassed involved party).
    • To understand why Tess has this spin you have to realise her very absolutist views: anyone who does not agree with her is wrong (and by extension of the argument here) a killer. Ivermectin is (she thinks) known to work, so there is no academic grey area.
    • For Hill and co-authors you can't manipulate results to deliver the PR you personally think is good.

    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."

    • So here we have the sensitive matter. Hill was previously (and according to this telephone conversation still is) under pressure from BIRD to falsify his metastudy in such a way as to achieve their goal - which is to get ivermectin accepted as SOC. Remember - Lawrie knows ivermectin works, is working to make this happen - she does not care about little things like truth and academic integrity because her views are correct and cannot be challenged (sic).


    Here is a non-Tess Lawrie spin on the same sensitive matter


    "This has made me more wary about trusting results when you don't have access to the raw data," Hill told MedPage Today in an interview. "We took them on trust and that was a mistake."

    Hill and his co-authors on the re-analysis -- one who worked on the initial meta-analysis, and one who did not -- published their findings on Research Square, the preprint server that also published the study that was ultimately found to be fraudulent and was retracted, though it had carried much of the benefit seen in the initial meta-analysis.

    "I've been working in this field for 30 years and I have not seen anything like this," Hill noted. "I've never seen people make data up. People dying before the study even started. Databases duplicated and cut and pasted."

    The retracted study by Elgazzar et al. was reported to have included data that showed a third of the people who died from COVID-19 were already dead when trial recruitment began, and some appeared to have been hospitalized before they started -- raising questions about the study's prospective randomized nature.

    Hill said during the process of re-analysis, he also found a trial from Lebanon in which the same 11 patients had been "cut and pasted" repeatedly in the database.

    "It was quite shocking, really," he said.

    It's been a difficult road for Hill after the Elgazzar study was retracted. His meta-analysis that had included it got slapped with an "expression of concern" from publisher Open Forum Infectious Diseases, an Oxford journal.

    Hill immediately stated that his team would re-run their analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed. Then the threats intensified, he wrote in The Guardian.

    "Like others, I received death threats," he told MedPage Today. "People want to believe that having a treatment allows them not to be vaccinated, but that's simply not true."

    He felt he needed to run the re-analysis because "this is serious stuff," he said. "Unfortunately, people were looking at studies of ivermectin, concluding that it worked, and unfortunately deciding not to get vaccinated. Some of them ended up infected, in the hospital, or some even died. That's a very serious situation."

    For their re-analysis, Hill and colleagues conducted an in-depth evaluation of individual study quality, in addition to using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the CONSORT checklist.

    During the individual trial evaluations, they looked at the effectiveness of the randomization process by comparing baseline characteristics across treatment arms, checked randomization dates to ensure participants entered in a similar time frame, and checked to see if recruitment into treatment arms was balanced.

    They also analyzed patient-level data when they were available, to screen for things like duplicate participants and unexpected homogeneity or heterogeneity.

    Ultimately, their findings that the benefits of ivermectin diminished as trial quality increased suggested that "existing and widely used risk of bias assessment tools are not enough," they noted in their paper.

    "These tools provide a systematic framework for identifying potential key sources of bias in a trial's internal methodology, but work on the fundamental assumption that a published study is reporting accurate and complete findings," Hill and colleagues wrote. "They allow reviewers to make judgments on the assumption that basic standard procedure is followed, the data is real, and that no information is being intentionally hidden."

    The saga has made Hill something of an advocate for open data. He pointed to the two COVID-19 studies published in The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine that were retracted because they relied on potentially fraudulent data from a company called Surgisphere.

    Hill also noted that regulators like the FDA or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) "won't just believe a study until they're given the raw database and had the chance to check through it. Meta-analyses in journals don't have that degree of scrutiny."

    Going forward, it's "essential that access to patient-level databases is provided. If authors fail to provide this data, the study should be considered with a higher index of suspicion," Hill and colleagues concluded.


    Continuing the Lawrie spin:


    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."


    I actually think this is probably true, and it is revealing. The metastudy results are really not good for ivermectin - it is shocking the way the positive effect reduces to zero as you move towards more reliable bias-free data - for example RCTs are less positive than observational data even if you include the problematic RCTs with cut-and-paste data and unclear methodology - but that does not prove it does not work. Hill, having previously been convinced ivermectin worked, could well still feel it did work. And maybe it does. But, as pointed out by Hill in another interview and ignored by Lawrie, it is a serious matter both ways, where recommending ivermectin (when it does not work) will kill people as well.


    Synthesis


    You can see how what is a genuine and important academic issue - how do we work out which drugs are good from meta-study data when that data has not been peer reviewed and is of low quality? has been turned into a flame war where RB and many others similar to him believe Hill has been corrupted by an establishment controlled by Big Pharma.


    • I doubt I will change RB's mind, because this idea of Big Pharma corruption being present everywhere is impossible to disprove - if you have it everyone is corrupt.
    • I am quite sure I cannot change Tess Lawrie's mind. From the interview evidence (you need to watch it all) you can see how she is absolutely convinced that she is right and her views cannot be challenged. That lack of self-questioning for me is a red flag. Is she right? I can't tell. Is she reliable? No - no-one with such a response to criticism can be trusted.
    • I am also quite sure that both Lawrie and Hill genuinely care about this matter, and are doing what they think is right.
    • I am fairly sure that Hill and co-authors - especially the new co-author brought in specifically for this re-analysis - had a tough time working out what to do, with Hill under pressure to do an analysis of bias which Tess Lawrie and FLCC and all the pro-ivermectin website non-academic metastudies do not do. It is an academic matter how do you deal with this unprecedented situation where a lot of fraudulent preprints of trials are published. Academics have never before had to consider this. It is sensitive, and difficult.
    • I am fairly sure (and will happily look at details if anyone else wants to help):
    • RCTs including Elgazaar are highly positive
    • RCTs without Elgazaar but including everything with no check of data for sanity are still positive
    • RCTs checking raw data for sanity are neutral
    • Overall the current RCT dataset is inconclusive. It is clear some of the RCTs are so badly conducted as of no value, and that those on average have more positive results. How to decide which to include, which to leave out, will sway the overall results.
    • This is a real issue for science as has been remarked here. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
    • I can understand Hill's difficulty. He can, personally, have been sucked into the pro-ivermectin echo chamber - and be struggling between his echo chamber validated gut feeling that ivermectin probably works and given it seems to have no side effects it must be included in SOC, and co-authors who point out that the evidence is not there and that the ivermectin PR is such that if you add it to SOC incorrectly, on balance that kills people.

    RB thinks the argument here is between big pharma - who want to kill ivermectin - and heterodox scientists.

    Most orthodox scientists think the argument is between a non-science pressure group that is convinced it is right and happy to include studies with falsified (or at least obviously wrong) data to make fake evidence, and those who think we must wait for real evidence as argued academically here.


    The meta-argument behind these two views is also important:

    • From Lawrie's pro-ivermectin view it is quite simple. Ivermectin will save lives - there is no downside - it must be given to everyone as soon as possible
    • From the need evidence view the chances of ivermectin working are low because the original lab evidence on it is actually evidence against - and the evidence for all has probable bias, whereas quite a number of RCTs show no effect. It is very difficult to see how an RCT would have negative bias!
    • From the pro vaxx view. Ivermectin PR will cost lives, because people will incorrectly think dosing with ivermectin keeps them safe and therefore not get vaccinated.

    None of these meta-views are dishonourable, none of them corrupt. Mixing up the science with a pro-ivermectin or pro-vax view is however bad science.


    Personally -


    I side with the need evidence view. I follow pharmacokinetic and pharmocodynamic experts who argue the original lab evidence (without which no-one would have looked at ivermectin) as damningly negative. I'm willing to revise my view on this given evidence, and I certainly think the current high quality large RCTs will deliver evidence - positive or negative - that is definitive. So far all we have is the Interim evidence - not properly published - from the TOGETHER trial. That was negative (10% positive on mortality but with large error bands) but we need evidence from other studies, since TOGETHER stopped ivermectin after the meta-studies went negative following withdrawal of Elgazaar.


    I am quite sure that the errors in raw data, evidence of false raw data (cut and paste etc) is real. I am quite sure that some of it is fraudulent (because of lack of transparency), that where it just indicates poor methodology we should expect positive bias to come from poor methodology. It is only human and the result of in-experiment file drawer effect. With poor methodology you get things wrong with haphazard spreadsheets of results as you go and correct obvious mistakes. A negative or neutral result will be seen as a mistake - whereas a positive result will not. File drawer effect - and any study turns positive. This is not fraudulent but it is bias and it also is very bad science. (I have, to my shame, some personal experience of this type of mess - though I did at least recognise it. Most people need such lessons to get better at doing things properly. I am sure many readers here will know waht I mean from their own experience!).


    THH

  • So - what about those large trials that should provide evidence for or against ivermectin within 6 weeks?


    I have been waiting with baited breath. But the story is not simple.


    First TOGETHER:


    They stopped the Ivermectin branch on the grounds that data so far was negative and the previous evidence which made ivermectin look a good candidate changed:


    Links

    August 6, 2021: Early Treatment of COVID-19 with Repurposed Therapies: The TOGETHER Adaptive Platform Trial (Edward Mills, PhD, FRCP) - Rethinking Clinical Trials
     Speaker Edward Mills, PhD, FRCP Professor Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact McMaster University, Canada Topic…
    rethinkingclinicaltrials.org

    Column: Major study of ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'
    Ivermectin, touted as a treatment of COVID by the anti-vaccine crowd, has "no effect," according to a major study.
    www.latimes.com


    These results are NOT WHOLLY NEGATIVE

    They are NOT FLCC-style positive


    They show the study at this point is underpowered to determine a small positive effect.

    They prove that no large positive effect exists either for mortality or hospitalisation.


    So why was this trial stopped? You still might get some results as half as good as dexamethasone out of this continuing it from much longer?


    I’ve had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing Ivermectin. Others working in this area have been threatened, their families have been threatened, they’ve been defamed.

    EDWARD MILLS, TOGETHER STUDY PRESENTER


    Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, ivermectin showed “no effect whatsoever” on the trial’s outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.

    “In our specific trial,” he said, “we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of the advocates believe should have been” seen.


    In this case it seems FLCC have got their wish. By harnessing public/antivaxxer/social media opinion they have put researchers in an intolerable position where they would rather stop a trial than report what will probably be negative results.


    It looks to me like FLCC have shot themselves in the foot. That same public pressure that (maybe) helped get trials done is now (definitely) causing one group of scientists with a trial that look as though they will report negative results to abandon them!


    What about other trials?


    ACTIV-6 started August 10, still ongoing, no info yet on results

    PRINCIPLE added ivermectin in June, paused it recently due to supply issues


    Tess Lawrie (of course) sent a public letter requesting results before they would normally be released


    Other PRINCIPLE and ACTIV-6 info (but from before the pause):

    What we know about Ivermectin: correlation is not causation
    Unlike the huge amount of high-quality data we have gathered on vaccines (5.6 billion doses and counting), the available data on Ivermectin is a dog’s
    cosmosmagazine.com

    • Oxford is loathe to predict when they will have their results, but after badgering head investigator Christopher Butler, he guessed it might be in the first quarter of next year. The NIH apparently won’t have anything to say till 2023.
    • Carlos Chaccour, an infectious disease specialist at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health who works on Ivermectin for malaria control and has tested it in a small trial for COVID, helped clarify the situation for me. “The evidence so far doesn’t point to a large effect, if any at all. To detect a small effect you need a much larger sample size – hence it will take a long time.”

    So:

    NIH - will sit on results likely

    PRINCIPLE - will try to have some sort of interim results early next year - but given ivermectin shortage caused by massive rise in prescriptions (guess why!) they may not meet this

  • 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.

    I know that it is impossible to teach a clown. But in Australia we see 70'000 vaccine damage claims for 23 million people. This means 0.3% permanent damage what is ten times higher than what we did claim.


    Please shut up!

  • Together results, leaked to the press only shows the need to treat early, waiting till you experience moderate symptoms has been what makes this pandemic continue. The leak proves only that ivermectin DOES have a positive affect on MORTALITY!!!

  • PRINCIPLE study interim results


    You can see why it is not easy to pin this down:

    https://www.principletrial.org/files/trial-documents/principle-protocol-v6-1-23-11-2020.pdf


    At each interim analysis, all enrolled intervention arms will be evaluated for success and futility
    on both co-primary endpoints using the Bayesian primary analyses. These interim analyses will
    maintain the gate-keeping sequential order by first evaluating the hypothesis for time to recovery,
    and if the recovery endpoint null hypothesis is rejected, subsequently evaluating the hypothesis
    for hospitalisation and/or death. If the Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of a given
    intervention versus Usual Care is sufficiently large for a given endpoint (e.g. ≥ 0.99) within the
    gate-keeping structure, superiority will be declared versus Usual Care with respect to that
    endpoint.
    If the Bayesian posterior probability of a clinically meaningful treatment effect is sufficiently small
    (e.g. < 0.01) for the first co-primary endpoint (time to recovery), the intervention arm may be
    dropped from the study for futility. If there are no other intervention arms available, the trial may
    be suspended; otherwise accrual continues to the remaining treatment arms. The exact futility
    thresholds will be pre-specified in the Adaptive Design Report and determined via simulation.


    They are not likely to publish interim results until some of these pre-specified endpoints are reached for some of the drugs investigated - which will be determined by the data. Otherwise the Interim result would just be "nothing to report".


    Here is more information on how they do this - somehow I don't think a letter from Tess Laurie is going to change this peer reviewed protocol


    DEFINE_ME


    2.7 Blinding and code-breaking
    PRINCIPLE is an open-label trial. The participant, legal representative if applicable and the
    recruiting clinician will know the participant’s allocation. Therefore, no unblinding or code
    breaking is required. However, those managing the data will be blind to participant allocation.
    The trial team and recruiting clinicians will be blinded to emerging results. During the course of
    the trial, only those on the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee will have access to the
    unblinded interim results.



    4.1.1 Interim Superiority
    If the Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of a given intervention over Usual Care is greater
    than or equal to 0.99 for the recovery endpoint, and greater than or equal to 0.975 for the hospitalization endpoint, superiority versus Usual Care will be declared on both endpoints, in which the
    superior arm will replace the Usual Care arm as the new standard of care. If a second intervention
    is found to be superior to the new standard of care on both endpoints, the second intervention will
    replace the existing standard of care. However, the primary analysis of each intervention arm (with
    exception for combination arms; see Section 4.3.5) will always be versus the Usual Care arm, even
    if participants are no longer being randomized to Usual Care.
    If a decision of superiority is made for an intervention, additional enrollment and/or follow-up may
    continue on the randomized participants for that intervention, but any additional analyses or comparisons versus Usual Care will be considered secondary or sensitivity/exploratory analyses.
    If superiority of an intervention is achieved for both primary endpoints, the DMSC will inform the
    Trial Steering Committee that superiority has been obtained on both endpoints, with details on size
    of treatment effect and probability of superiority obtained for each endpoint, and will recommend
    that the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) disclose the results to the Trial Management Group (TMG).
    If the Bayesian posterior probability of superiority is achieved for the first co-primary endpoint
    (time to recovery) but not the second (hospitalization/death), the PRINCIPLE trial will continue
    randomizing to the Usual Care arm with allocation specified in Section (4.3.1). The DMSC will
    inform the TSC that superiority has been obtained on the first co-primary endpoint, with details
    on size of treatment effect and probability of superiority for both co-primary endpoints. The TSC
    will decide whether that information should be shared with the TMG based on guidelines detailed
    in the PRINCIPLE Data Sharing/Access Policy. In addition, interim results may be published by
    the TMG for a given intervention while the platform trial continues according to the PRINCIPLE
    Data Sharing/Access Policy.
    4.1.2 Interim Futility
    We define a futility rule based on the estimated median days of time to recovery. Note the primary
    analysis model in equation (6) produces a single additive treatment effect for each intervention on
    the log-hazard scale. Using the exponential framework of the model, we convert the treatment effect
    from a log-hazards scale to a median time to recovery, producing an estimated difference in the
    median days to recovery between each intervention and Usual Care. However, the treatment difference on the median time to recovery becomes approximately multiplicative rather than additive,
    and depends on the underlying control rate of recovery in the Usual Care population. This implies
    that the estimated treatment effect in median days recovery depends on covariates and on time
    interval (Section 3.1.1). For example, a hazard ratio of 1.2 corresponds to approximately 1.3 days
    benefit for an underlying Usual Care median of 8 days, but corresponds to a 2 day benefit for an
    underlying Usual Care median of 12 days. In order to define a futility rule using median recovery
    benefit, we use the underlying Usual Care median recovery for the most recent time interval, and
    estimate a difference in the population-averaged medians across the subgroups (based on equation 6).
    Let ζj be the model-based difference in population-averaged median days to recovery for intervention
    j versus Usual Care based on equation 6 using above assumptions, i.e. the median recovery benefit
    in days of treatment j. Let ω1j be the model-based Bayesian posterior probability of a clinically
    meaningful treatment effect of the recovery endpoint, defined as the probability that ζj is at least
    1.5 days (equation 16). If the probability of a meaningful effect on recovery, ω1j , is less than or
    equal to 0.05,
    ω1j = Pr(ζj ≥ 1.50) (16)
    8
    intervention j will be dropped from the study for futility. If there are no other intervention arms
    available, the trial will be suspended; otherwise accrual continues to the remaining treatment arms.
    If an intervention is superior for the first co-primary endpoint, a Bayesian posterior probability
    of a clinically meaningful treatment effect will be calculated for the second co-primary endpoint
    (hospitalization). This probability, ω2j , is defined as the probability that the absolute reduction in
    hospitalization rate for intervention j relative to Usual Care is at least 0.02 (i.e. two percentage
    points) as given by equation 17. Because the primary analysis model produces a single additive
    treatment effect on the log odds scale, the treatment on the effect on the proportion scale becomes
    a multiplicative effect and depends on covariates of the Usual Care arm. Hence we define ω2j using
    the difference in population-averaged hospitalization rates based on model 14.
    If ω2j is less than or equal to 0.05,
    ω2j = Pr(p0 − pj ≥ 0.02) (17)
    the comparison versus Usual Care for hospitalization will be deemed futile, where pj and p0 are the
    model-based proportions of hospitalizations for intervention j and Usual Care (respectively) based
    on the second co-primary analysis model (equation 14). However, randomization will continue to
    intervention j as described in Section (4.3.1).
    All futility thresholds are non-binding, meaning that the SAC and DMSC may choose to override
    futility decisions if they mutually agree it is in the best interests of the trial. For example, suppose
    there is only a single active intervention and a futility threshold is met, despite there being some
    evidence of a small treatment benefit. This is possible given the aggressive futility rule that is
    meant to find treatments with larger benefit. Rather than suspend the trial due to lack of active
    interventions, it may be desirable to continue randomization to the remaining intervention despite
    the futility threshold being met, with the TSC being informed that they should consider adding
    additional interventions as soon as possible.





    THH

  • The study team treated 24 patients with Long Covid with dual antiplatelet therapy (Plavix/Aspirin) plus a Direct Oral Anti-Coagulant DOAC (Eliquis). They discovered that all the Long COVID patients’ symptoms resolved during treatment. They also followed labs on these patients and confirmed that their microthrombosis resolved. They provide some excellent mechanism of action information and diagrams about how the microthrombosis and activated platelets stimulate the immune system and cause inflammation.

    Here the proper link for this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/p…their_persistent_symptoms


    Long Covid therapie!

  • Together results, leaked to the press only shows the need to treat early, waiting till you experience moderate symptoms has been what makes this pandemic continue. The leak proves only that ivermectin DOES have a positive affect on MORTALITY!!!

    Umm...


    I'm afraid FM1 you are 100% wrong.


    RR 0.82 (0.44-1.52)


    There is a 5% probability of RR being as bad as 1.52 or as low as 0.44


    The average comes in as 0.82 - 18% positive - or HALF AS GOOD AS DEXAMETHASONE


    Now here is the difficult bit. You say this average proves benefit. IT DOES NOT.


    Suppose I give you one die (1-6 random).


    You throw it 10 times.


    You get an average of 4.0.


    Does that prove it is weighted high and not a fair die?


    NO - because the chances of getting exactly the expected average - 3.5 - are very low from only 10 throws. You expect some variation, and which way it goes tells you nothing.


    Hope that helps.

  • I know that it is impossible to teach a clown. But in Australia we see 70'000 vaccine damage claims for 23 million people. This means 0.3% permanent damage what is ten times higher than what we did claim.


    Please shut up!

    Typical twisted Wyttenfact… total numbers of recorded adverse effects = total number of vaccine damage claims… bad math?


    „The Therapeutic Goods Administration recorded 78,880 adverse events linked to COVID-19 vaccination, representing a small minority (0.21 per cent) of the 37.8 million doses administered to 18.4 million people, by November 7. The vast majority of those 78,000 adverse events were mild side effects, including headache, nausea and sore arms.

    More than 10,000 people have registered their interest to make a claim since registration opened on the federal health department’s website in September, official data shows, meaning it would cost at least $50 million if each claim is approved.

  • Latency



    2022-01-02 04:06 Prof 

    Dr Rossi,

    Your stats on

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

    are continuing to skyrocket after the 9th December presentation: the paper is breaking any possible record:

    Total Readings 84000 (the average of RG is 200)- of which 77000 only for “Ecat SK and long range particle interactions”

    Reccomendations 6529 (the average of RG is 20)

    Citations 28 (the average of RG is 3)

    Total Research Interest index 1690 (the average of RG is 15)

    And counting…

    Cheers

    Prof


    2022-01-02 04:19 Andrea Rossi 

    Prof:

    Thank you for the update.

    I noticed that the numbers increased after the publication of the presentation of the Ecat SKLep on http://www.e-catworld.com

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    2022-01-02 04:21 Jason 

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    How can I order an Ecat Sklep ?

    Jason


    2022-01-02 04:23 Andrea Rossi 

    Jason:

    You can go here to find the order form:

    http://www.ecatorders.com

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • We can judge the "how much in error do you expect dice to be" thing quantitatively as follows


    Suppose you have no effect. What is the expected deviation of relative risk from 1 when the trial size is such as to make the 95% confidence interval 0.44 - 1.52?


    Take logs of relative risks:


    1.52 -> 0.41

    0.82 -> -0.19

    0.44 -> -0.82


    On a log scale the 95% confidence interval is 1.23, or +/- 0.615


    the log mean here is -0.19


    The 95% confidence interval is +/- 2 standard deviations (roughly).


    0.19 / 0.615 * 2 = 0.6


    In this case the average is 0.6 SD away from no effect (0)


    You can see from the table below that the expected error in this case (due to randomness) when there is no effect is about 0.6 SD.


    Thus in this case the slight positive result is as exactly as high as we would expect by chance if there were no effect.


    Now - that DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO EFFECT.


    It DOES MEAN there is no evidence for any effect from the data here.

    It also means that a positive (saves people) effect is more likely than a negative (kills people) effect. But not a lot more likely.








    Number of standard deviations (z)Probability of getting an observation at least as far from the mean (two sided P)
    01.00
    0.50.62
    1.00.31
    1.50.13
    2.00.045
    2.50.012
    3.00.0027
  • Wow - those robots he paid for are working well!


    Or maybe just lots of people think Rossi is a good physicist...? Or maybe not.

  • New Year: New Approaches Needed on COVID-19


    New Year: New Approaches Needed on COVID-19
    While the U.S. experiences the greatest number of new daily SARS-CoV-2 infections since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden recently
    trialsitenews.com



    While the U.S. experiences the greatest number of new daily SARS-CoV-2 infections since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden recently went on the record to state that he was pivoting away from federal responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic response. Rather, POTUS declared it would be increasingly the states’ roles to respond. Why is this the case? What about all his campaign promises that he would be the one to stop COVID-19? Were these promises purely political? What about all the directions from his chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci? In reality, the federal government has completely taken over medicine during this pandemic, reflecting an unprecedented power grab. For example, under POTUS and his top medical advisor, doctors that opt to prescribe FDA-approved products off-label could lose their licenses based on a confluence of forces joining to press doctors to follow their directions. The reality is that neither POTUS nor Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have followed the comprehensive science: They were part of an orchestrated, concerted effort to drive positive outcomes based on a series of faulty assumptions and just part of the science. The byproduct of such a regimen cannot be ignored anymore—More people died in 2021 from COVID-19 than all of 2020—a grim milestone, especially as in 2021 vaccines and several treatments were available.


    Era of Censorship

    In 2021, with the entrance of President Biden came a marked increase in censorship as fact checkers went wild. Driven in part by the Trusted News Initiative covered by the TrialSite, even the elite of medical journals are victims.


    For example senior editors from the British Medical Journal (the BMJ) wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg asking to get incompetent Facebook factcheckers out of the way and demanding a stop to the censorship on social media. Let’s not forget that White House press secretary Jenn Psaki went on the record earlier this year proudly declaring to media that the White House staff was working with social network technology companies to ensure alignment on the definition of “misinformation.”


    TrialSite isn’t a politically focused media, and frankly President Trump was just as problematic as Biden, but in different ways. Let’s not forget that Trump lied to the American public, telling them the disease wasn’t that bad early on. That created a sort of culture of denial for quite a while. After 2021, the people should remember that politicians are too often only concerned with their individual power, position and prospects, and should be held accountable for results. The American people, and other people throughout the world, need to remember that the confluence of political power, corporate money and special interests must be checked as the few will benefit over the vast majority every time.


    Legislation Needed?

    TrialSite suggests that the current political establishment needs a real shakeup. More than likely, the start of this process will occur in the next midterm election. With an emphasis on medical choice, agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA need to be empowered to meet their true charters—which is to protect the public. Arrangements with biopharma companies must be scrutinized. Evidence for improper power dynamics is everywhere; for example in the vaccine maker contracts with national governments are waivers of any corporate liability clauses for the seizure of national assets in some nations upon certain conditions, and these are a cautionary signal that no company should be given too much influence. This was a pandemic, not a rich fertile ground for financial and business exploitation. In the United States at least, legislation should be considered to protect physicians and related health care professionals (e.g., physician assistants, nurses) from onerous, unscientific censorship, bullying and social engineering directed by the federal government.


    Looking Forward to 2022

    If a physician and their patient decide to use an early-care treatment off-label, such as fluvoxamine or ivermectin, that should be between the two parties and not be interfered with by federal bureaucrats working through licensing boards to punish such physicians or pharmacists. Usually, we have suggested that the introduction of legislation would be an overkill that can harm innovation, but the overreach that has occurred under national governing institutions—in some cases in collaboration with the World Health Organization—has gone too far.


    Some important initiatives for 2022 include:


    An investigation into the true efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on real-world data. Of particular concern is the actual count of serious adverse events.

    Support for new and existing vaccine-injury advocacy groups, combined with pressure at the national and state level to offer ways to compensate those who have lost loved ones permanently or to injury that has impacted economic viability.

    Studies to better understand natural immunity, with all the COVID variants of relevance—there has been very little focus on this topic at the national health and research agencies and institutes.

    Ongoing improvement to early-care treatments, with encouragement to have a robust, abundant, and diverse array of treatment options for people that do get infected.

    Focus more federal research funds on underlying health deficiencies that materially contributed to the pandemic’s morbidity—such as obesity and other underlying conditions not to mention factors associated with the social determinants of health.

    Reset national/federal health agency conflict of interest policies to ensure minimal industry influence while ensuring true industry initiative and innovation continues to be supported

    Consider a framework to ensure doctors can treat their patients based on what’s good for the patient.

    Review of medical practices at hospitals and health systems in conjunction with COVID-19: plenty of chatter now suggests fixed payments to hospitals from the federal government led to problems with care for late state acute care—was there conflicts of interests hurting patients

    Proper investigation into the source of the pathogen—if this was a lab leak, provisions must be put in place to save the world from another COVID-19.

    Of course, there are many more areas for improvement. TrialSite hopes that in 2022 the world transitions from a pandemic to an endemic mode; that governing agencies, regulators, physician bodies and various health care organizations transition to a culture of health-encouraging prevention, support and funding to drive more healthy lifestyles, and, for those that are hit with COVID-19 or other sickness, an embrace of early-care as well as support for safe and effective vaccines. TrialSite suggests COVID-19 inoculation may evolve into an annual flu shot-like option for either people at risk or others who choose to mitigate the risk of illness.


    TrialSite will continue to bring objective, unbiased, apolitical news and analysis to an ever growing audience worldwide

  • Yes FM1. Have a look at some of the academic (independent) meta-analyses and see why just listing everthing and adding invariably (for any drug) but shockingly prevalently (for ivermectin in pandemic studies) gives false positives.


    Ivermectin debacle exposes flaws in meta-analysis methodology
    Health researchers warn that taking studies at face value is a luxury that they can no longer afford
    www.chemistryworld.com


    Evidence that anti-parasitic drug ivermectin can save lives in Covid-19 cases has gone up in smoke. Key studies have been deemed suspect or downright fraudulent.

    Supporters of this anti-parasitic drug pointed to a meta-analysis from the University of Liverpool, which reported that the death rate in those taking ivermectin was 56% lower, but this is now rejected by those who led the study.

    ‘When we take out the trials at risk of bias or fraud, we don’t see any effects of ivermectin on survival and don’t see any effects on clinical recovery,’ says Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool, who led the meta-analysis. Twenty-four randomised clinical trials of ivermectin with 3328 patients were assessed.

    Now, a letter in Nature Medicine argues that summary data alone are not to be trusted for such studies. It proposes all individual patient data should be requested and personally reviewed. ‘The way we do meta-analyses is fundamentally broken, because we take individual trials on trust,’ says medical researcher Kyle Sheldrick at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who signed the correspondence.

    He estimates that of the 18 randomised control trials about a third are either fake or not conducted as described. ‘There’s not a single randomised control trial which reliably says ivermectin saves lives,’ says Sheldrick. A key conclusion for him is that ‘trust is toxic in research’ and that starting from a position of trust ‘is one of the biggest things that needs to change’.

    The letter highlight two suspect trials from Egypt and Iran. In the case of the Egyptian study, there are 600 patients with values where the last digit is rarely number three, notes Sheldrick. ‘You were 50 times more likely to have a result ending in eight, than three.’

    An graph showing the effects of ivermectin on survival

    Source: © Andrew Hill/University of Liverpool

    A risk of bias (ROB) analysis of studies in a meta-review of ivermectin’s effects on patient survival found that studies that suggested the drug was beneficial against Covid-19 were more likely to be fraudulent. The greater the statistical significance of the study, the more likely it was to be suspect

    ‘The thing that really shocked me and my co-authors is how much of it is deliberate fraud,’ says Sheldrick. ‘Things like the same 11 patients copied and pasted, over and over.’ In another example, hundreds of patients were supposedly recruited using complicated protocols in incredibly short time scales with a team of three.



    THH

  • The BBC’s recent article “False Science” disintegrates under scrutiny.


    The BBC’s recent article “False Science” disintegrates under scrutiny. - British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group
    In their piece published under the ‘Reality Check’ banner, the BBC journalists have been fed untruths, manipulations and deceits. It seems that they didn’t…
    bird-group.org



    In their piece published under the ‘Reality Check’ banner, the BBC journalists have been fed untruths, manipulations and deceits. It seems that they didn’t make even minimal checks on the veracity of the material handed to them, nor apply journalistic balance to scrutinise the agenda- driven researchers.

    Prior to publication, the journalists were given detailed answers to their questions asked of Dr. Lawrie, yet they chose to completely ignore every single word and take as gospel these researchers’ as-yet-unavailable ‘findings’.


    A number of people have expertly exposed the blatant bias and low grade reporting that is a discredit to the BBC. Check out Dr John Campbell’s excellent video and http://www.ivmmeta.com


    This blog examines this BBC ‘reality check’, paragraph by paragraph and applies some reality to the assertions and expose the falsehoods they have apparently concealed.


    Cited extracts from article in bold, italic.

    Ivermectin has been called a Covid “miracle” drug championed by vaccine opponents,

    It has primarily been championed by doctors who are using it to treat patients. Many of whom support the vaccines (not mentioned). Ivermectin and vaccines do different things.


    … and recommended by health authorities in some countries.

    It has been recommended in 39 countries, about 28% of the world’s population. Some states with vastly greater geographical and population challenges than our own island, are treating with great success.


    Perhaps because many of these positive results for ivermectin are from LMIC (poorer) countries, their learnings aren’t perceived as valuable as those from Western countries. Keep up to date here: http://www.ivmmeta.com


    But the BBC can reveal there are serious errors in a number of key studies that the drug’s promoters rely on.

    This is not new commentary.


    Most of the content is old and has already been successfully rebutted in journals without further challenge. Those rebuttals are public unlike the unspecified sources here. Which studies have the journalists used and verified by whom?


    For some years ivermectin has been a vital anti-parasitic medicine used to treat humans and animals.

    This is faint praise for such a wonderful medicine. It is completely true and there is more:


    Used safely for 40 years for humans

    4 billion doses given.

    Nobel prize winning.

    List by WHO as an ‘Essential Medicine’.

    Safer than Aspirin.

    The health authorities in the US, UK and EU have found there is insufficient evidence for using the drug against Covid, but thousands of supporters, many of them anti-vaccine activists, have continued to vigorously campaign for its use.

    There is plenty of evidence.


    But the authorities have chosen to deny its existence. Possibly for the same reason that the BBC and others appear to be campaigning to undermine it.


    The BBC, with its wealth of journalistic experience, should know that governments have agendas and these journalists, Rachael Shraer and Jack Goodman, should be digging much deeper than the vacuous and barely researched positions displayed in this article.



    For example; how is it that remdesivir – a standard of care for covid in the UK – was approved for use against covid on the basis of one (yes, one) study? Although it showed a marginal shortening of hospital stay, there was no difference in mortality and that the WHO does not recommend using it against covid.


    On the other hand Ivermectin has 63 studies, of them 31 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT), 7 meta-analyses, 32 Observational Controlled Trials(OCT), multiple country case studies, expert opinion, patient testimony ALL pointing in favour of the medication.


    But the BBC ignores it all and just says there is ‘insufficient evidence’! The hypocrisy is unconscionable.


    Governments and public health bodies are no saints when it comes to public health. Pharmaceutical companies have been known to supress data for commercial reasons, costing lives. The authors tend to forget, how the authorities suppressed research and colluded with the tobacco industry over 40 years to keep us puffing away (and earning tax) to the detriment of the global population.


    Once more, Ivermectin is not ‘anti-vax’, it is supported by people of all walks of life both pro and anti vax, as well those unsure.


    Members of social media groups swap tips on getting hold of the drug, even advocating the versions used for animals.

    Obviously people should not take medicines formulated for animals.


    Did the journalists ever stop to ask why?


    Perhaps these are just ordinary people trying to exercise their individual agency and rights to healthcare in the best way they can?


    Perhaps consider that these are also everyday members of the public, discontent with the silence of the MHRA and unable to access the correct version of the drug that is available to over 1/3 of the rest of the planet?


    Perhaps these are the people who remember Vioxx, and how scientists from the pharmaceutical giant Merck skewed the results of clinical trials in favour of the arthritis drug to hide evidence that the drug increased patients’ risk of heart attack and have since spent billions of dollars settling claims of so many families who suffered and lost loved ones in their pursuit of profits.


    Does the BBC condone the banning of early treatment for covid? If so they should have the courage of their convictions and state it openly.


    The hype around ivermectin – based on the strength of belief in the research – has driven large numbers of people around the world to use it. Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up

    ‘Hype’, rather than ‘attention’ characterises it as a falsehood. ‘Belief’ rather than ‘knowledge’ characterises research as a faith not a science. Campaigners for the medication have robust evidence that it works and are intent on sharing the truth. So why does it appear that the BBC is trying to cover up the science behind ivermectin?


    The BBC has unquestionably nailed its flag to suppression rather than consider objectivity. It has confirmed the campaigners’ point by not reporting or interviewing those producing properly researched evidence, preferring only the opinions of self-styled partisan investigators. The journalists of this article are unqualified to make scientific judgements and they failed to consult an independent expert. This looks like sub-standard journalism.


    But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

    Independent?


    Dr. Sheldrick: In July 2020, his company received through the MRFF and BMTH program a grant for just under 1 million dollars for new technology from a government that completely banned the use of ivermectin for covid, even to the extent of off-label use by doctors. Dr Sheldrick is a spine specialist.


    Some journalists might consider this a conflict of interest whilst commenting on matters ivermectin, or at least mention it?


    Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, the main author in the group first referred to ivermectin as “something else to debunk” in December 2020, and later as a “horse dewormer”. He has taken a public position against early treatments for COVID-19 since at least July 2020, and even believed and propagated a made-up story that claimed ivermectin overdose was causing gunshot victims to wait at an Emergency Room.


    But far more concerning, retired research specialist Capt. Dr Wong Ang Peng accuses Meyerowitz-Katz of fabricating evidence to discredit Prof Elgazzar. (https://louisaclary.wixsite.co…ithdrawn-ivermectin-study)


    Why did the ‘fact checkers’ not report this as it directly concerns the reputation of those feeding information to the BBC?


    The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud.

    Unsubstantiated. On what evidence is this based?


    The only writings available are blogs by one ‘Gideon M-K; Health Nerd’ (presumably Mr Meyerowitz-Katz) critiquing various trials on ivermectin. Are these opinion pieces the evidence that this article is relying on?


    As far as can be seen, no evidence has been published for the scientific community in order to test its assertions, as is the norm when challenging clinical papers. We are aware of a letter to Nature Medicine with overview of the same claims without reference to supporting evidence.


    And to accuse a third of these scientists as potential fraudsters, without showing an iota of evidence (these are good men and women working hard to save lives and to help others for no financial gain) is nothing short of slanderous and the BBC owes these healthcare workers an apology.


    None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness.

    This displays pure scientific ignorance and is unworthy of a BBC article. As the journalists are unqualified to verify the research they have been supplied, they should get an independent expert to do so.


    Even if the trials mentioned on the blogs are excluded, ivermectin still shows a positive effect on covid. (Though these trials shouldn’t be excluded at this stage until there is proof.)


    Ivermectin has the evidence to show it works


    Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment Patients Authors

    47 84% [69 – 91%] 73% [63 – 80%] 46% [23 – 62%] 37,558 518

    (Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment even after exclusion of all studies claimed to be ‘flawed’.)

    In fact, 83%, or 52 of 63 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.


    And, as far as country case studies are concerned, here is proof from Uttar Pradesh, region that is home to 240 million people.


    They formed a group looking deeper into ivermectin studies after biomedical student Jack Lawrence spotted problems with an influential study from Egypt. … It has now been retracted by the journal that published it.

    Regarding the ‘exposé’ of Elgazzar et al; Jack Lawrence has admitted hacking into his data.


    According to a recent article, in an email to Research Square, Prof. Elgazzar accused Lawrence of “taking strange raw material that had been fabricated and added to another website and linked to my research, but after reviewing it I confirmed beyond any doubt that it does not belong to me at all.”


    Additionally, Prof. Elgazzar agrees with the assertions made by a researcher in an recently published review pointing out fabricated evidence to discredit the study,


    “The Table 4 regarding mortality outcome is fake. Gideon [Meyerowitz-Katz] added the last two columns. The original paper of Elgazzar et al is without the last two columns.”


    His paper was withdrawn by Research Square based on a singular complaint from Lawrence, a student, without giving Professor Elgazzar the opportunity to reply.


    It appears highly unusual that The Guardian article appeared immediately after the publication was pulled and without the journalistic integrity of giving Prof Elgazzar’s side of the story.


    As it stands his paper is still published in Research Gate


    Whether the Elgazzar paper is discredited or not remains to be decided, the issue is that the judgement has been delivered by the media without due process and in an unethical and highly partisan manner.


    The group of independent scientists examined virtually every randomised controlled trial (RCT) on ivermectin and Covid – in theory the highest quality evidence – including all the key studies regularly cited by the drug’s promoters.

    Again, no evidence of this examination of ‘virtually’ every trial is offered (66 studies? 31 RCTs?). There isn’t a study or examination of all the trials made by this ad hoc group. If it is published, why isn’t there a link to it?


    This sounds like an opinion is being offered as evidence without any data.


    And, as told to other journalists, they did not look at all the studies.


    And how do they explain that if they have investigated all of the studies why they haven’t flagged any of the very obviously problematic ones? (Eg; Lopez-Medina et al; a trial so dodgy >100 physicians wrote to the JAMA asking for it’s retraction (http://www.jamlatter.com). TOGETHER et al; protocol violations, patient mismatch etc. They remove mortality and adverse event outcomes, and sublingual administration mid-trial. Vallejos et al; A trial doing too little too late. Underpowered. They assigned people with a history of taking ivermectin into the placebo arm. No author declaration of conflict of interests. Dosage conditions not stated. The companion prophylaxis trial [Vallejos], which reported more positive results, has not yet been formally published, suggesting a negative publication bias. Etc.)


    This displays an extreme selection bias that the BBC authors have failed to notice. Why?


    Out of a total of 26 studies examined, there was evidence in five that the data may have been faked – for example they contained virtually impossible numbers or rows of identical patients copied and pasted. In a further five there were major red flags – for example, numbers didn’t add up, percentages were calculated incorrectly or local health bodies weren’t aware they had taken place.

    Evidence? No evidence offered for any the above claims. If the reporters were shown evidence why did they not consult an independent expert to interpret it? It is a serious accusation to claim 5 studies have been faked. The article reports that 26 studies were examined, however there are 66 studies, the authors have not reported their results for all 26 either, and have not even provided a list of the 26 studies nor link to them.



    All bad science should be flagged and exposed. And whilst there might be some issues with some studies – there always will be with a very large data base – questioning them needs to done with robust proof, not opinion. Mistakes happen, and underfunded studies, especially in LMIC countries, can have sloppy administration; data/dates get incorrectly typed and filed. Data collection errors occur. This is messy but does not constitute fraud nor faking.


    Referring to one of the ‘scientists’ quoted in this article, the website ivmmeta claims that “An influential anti-treatment Twitter personality, journalist, and student epidemiologist has made a number of incorrect, misleading, hyperbolic, and unsupported statements. Author has been paid for writing anti-treatment articles, first referred to ivermectin as “something else to debunk”, and later referred to it as a “horse dewormer”.”


    There are listed 22 other issues with his analysis and examples of his bias which prompts the question of his credibility in commenting on ivermectin and especially why the BBC journalists did not research this. (http://www.ivmmeta.com/#bbc)


    (Note: To date, not one author of any of the disputed or criticised studies by this group has retracted their papers. In fact they have all defended them vigorously. All the trials criticised are still published, including Elgazzar. Why was this not mentioned?)


    On top of these flawed trials, there were 14 authors of studies who failed to send data back. The independent scientists have flagged this as a possible indicator of fraud.

    Since when is non-supply of data a conviction of scientific ‘fraud’?


    It could be understandable that any self-respecting author of a report would be highly dubious about supplying information to this group given their track record of bias and accusation of falsification of evidence.


    But the major problems were all in the studies making big claims for ivermectin – in fact, the bigger the claim in terms of lives saved or infections prevented, the greater the concerns suggesting it might be faked or invalid, the researchers discovered.

    Pure speculation. Again, absolutely no evidence offered. Where is the actual data that shows this correlation? If the BBC has seen it why hasn’t it asked an independent expert to comment as the reporters who aren’t scientists are clearly unqualified to do so?


    While it’s extremely difficult to rule out human error in these trials, Dr Sheldrick, a medical doctor and researcher at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, believes it is highly likely at least some of them may have been knowingly manipulated.

    Pure opinion. How Dr. Sheldrick reach this conclusion?


    A recent study in Lebanon was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist. The study’s authors told the BBC that the “original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file” and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

    What study is this one? If one is going to criticise a clinical study then the usual method is to name the lead author. If this is Samaha et al, it is not in the Bryant nor Hill meta-analyses. What retraction? It is still published. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34073401/)


    But the Lebanon and Iran trials were excluded from a paper for Cochrane – the international experts in reviewing scientific evidence – because they were “such poorly reported studies”. The review concluded there was no evidence of benefit for ivermectin when it comes to Covid.

    See Cochrane rebuttal (https://osf.io/mp4f2/)


    The Cochrane paper excluded so many studies it rendered itself powerless. It used 4 out of 24 available studies. Bryant et al meta-analysis, ranked # 9 out of 18 million publications, found 24 eligible studies despite rigorous evidence grading.


    Why wasn’t this meta-analysis mentioned? It is one of the 10 most widely read clinical papers in history.


    Together trial at the McMaster University in Canada. It found no benefit for the drug when it comes to Covid.

    The Together Trial, in fact, confirms what ivermectin proponents have been saying all along: If you give a medication to a young cohort too late and in insufficient time intervals it will show little benefit.


    True of most medicines and patently obvious. It is like your doctor telling you, on confirming an infection, to wait a week before taking any antibiotics and then prescribing you a lower than recommended dosage frequency. They won’t work very well.


    The trial randomization chart does not match the protocol. There are major problems with the dosage frequency. The total number of patients for the ivermectin and placebo groups do not appear to match the totals in the presentation. Treatment was administered on an empty stomach, greatly reducing expected tissue concentration and making the effective dose about 1/5th of current clinical practice. The trial was conducted in Minas Gerais, Brazil which had substantial community use of ivermectin, and prior use of ivermectin is not listed in the exclusion criteria and could have skewed the placebo results.


    The previous studies that demonstrate the efficacy of ivermectin follow similar protocols and were summarily ignored by Together.


    Additionally, the Together authors admit themselves that the trial was too underpowered to provide a conclusion. Many experts agree that this trial was set up to fail and its authors were warned by colleagues of this.


    And, even though a parallel trial of Fluvoxamine was conducted at the same time and results released, the results for the ivermectin trial have not yet been published. Why?


    Why didn’t the ‘fact checkers’ pick any of this up? Is it to do with the fact that this flawed trail found no benefit for ivermectin?


    Ivermectin is generally considered a safe drug, though there have been some reports of side effects. Calls over suspected ivermectin poisonings in the US have increased a lot but from a very small base (435 to 1,143 this year) and most of these cases were not serious. Patients have had vomiting, diarrhoea, hallucinations, confusion, drowsiness and tremors.

    This story has been thoroughly debunked already. The calls were not for “poisonings” but for dosage advice. And no one has died. This rechurning of a lie illustrates desperation. Ivermectin is safer than aspirin, safer than paracetamol. Why did the journalists not look at the Adverse Drug Reactions for other drugs for a balanced comparison?


    (https://trialsitenews.com/u-s-…trialsite-some-surprises/)


    Dr Patricia Garcia, a public health expert in Peru, said at one stage she estimated that 14 out of every 15 patients she saw in hospital had been taking ivermectin and by the time they came in they were “really, really sick”.

    This is an anecdote. Not a study. We thought that this investigation was all about bonafide research from the independent experts here.


    And for the record, Peru had an astounding success with ivermectin until a new political order changed that when they stopped its use. Now reintroduced, it is having an enormous impact once again. (https://trialsitenews.com/real…vidence-the-case-of-peru/)


    The groups often provide a gateway to more fringe communities on the encrypted app Telegram.

    And, what is the point of this sentence? Whatsapp is also encrypted and home to many ‘fringe’ groups. This ‘gateway’ concept is a massive problem for all social media platforms especially Facebook, Twitter etc. But you seem to only be concerned about Telegram.


    These channels have co-ordinated harassment of doctors who fail to prescribe ivermectin and abuse has been aimed at scientists.

    Nobody should be harassed whatever their beliefs. Period.


    But where on earth is the proof they have coordinated attacks? To equate ivermectin supporters to harassers of doctors is disingenuous and exposes the very malicious intentions of the authors, once again.


    However no mention is made of those promoting the evidence for ivermectin being harassed by Authorities, Big Tech and Big Media, with bannings, demonetisations, etc, including the ad hominem attacks by the BBC.


    Prof Andrew Hill, from the University of Liverpool, wrote an influential positive review of ivermectin, originally saying the world should “get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [the drug]”. Now he says the studies don’t stand up to scrutiny – but after he changed his view, based on new evidence emerging, he received vicious abuse.

    Dr Andrew Hill is not a professor. Fact check. (It is curious how anyone who says anything negative about ivermectin suddenly gets awarded another degree or is promoted in status by the BBC team, and those who are pro get stripped of one!)


    Again, abuse is intolerable and there is no room for it in any debate.


    From what we can gather the abuse Dr Hill received was on Twitter and it was mainly strong comments on his sudden U-turn after previously publically endorsing ivermectin and his meta-analysis finding in its favour. (Dr Hill is accused of allowing the conclusion of his meta-analysis to be written by the sponsors of his trial.)


    (https://trialsitenews.com/news…ivermectin-meta-analysis/)


    Dr Tess Lawrie – a medical doctor who specialises in pregnancy and childbirth – founded the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (Bird) Group. She has called for a pause to the Covid-19 vaccination programme and has made unsubstantiated claims implying the Covid vaccine had led to a large number of deaths based on a common misreading of safety data.

    What on earth has this got to do with an article on ‘problematic studies? ‘ This seems to be a deliberate and clumsy attempt to denigrate credibility by weaving in an anti-vax association.


    For the record BiRD is not anti-vax. It is pro-choice.


    What poor research into Dr Tess Lawrie’s credentials led the authors to falsely describe her medical speciality (and omitting her PhD) ‘in pregnancy and childbirth’ (that would make her an obstetrician or a gynaecologist) and failing to mention her long-standing and, for the purposes of this report, far more pertinent world-class expertise of many years as a systematic reviewer and guideline methodologist for the World Health Organisation?


    Perhaps the journalists are too keen to discredit expert and credible view points that don’t fit the anti ivermectin narrative


    She is also the director of the independent Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Limited, and the community interest company EbMCsquared CiC and the convenor of BiRD, a group of international doctors and scientist promoting ivermectin based on evidential science. She is rated in the top 5% of researchers on Researchgate, a database of medical researchers. A journalist doesn’t miss this, they choose to ignore it and distort it.


    More importantly, Dr Lawrie is a brave doctor who has taken her Hippocratic oath seriously and is prepared to call it out as it is. She is concerned for human wellbeing and not appeasing her paymasters. Her call for a pause to the vaccination program is true and, in fact, follows MHRA’s specified use criteria for the Yellow Card system. She did not imply causality but called for the pause to establish causality or not. That is the purpose of the “early” warning Yellow Card set up. Why invent a safety system if one is going to ignore it? The authors of this article know this as Dr Lawrie answered this in questions to them. See the info provided to the BBC journalist and notice how much of it was reported. (https://trialsitenews.com/a-letter-to-the-bbc/)


    Whilst indulging in ad hominem slander, as self-styled fact checkers, the BBC journalists should at least get the facts right, they might be more credible.


    And of course, the true intentions of the journalists are made clear by their call back to anti-vax just to keep up the demonising quotient.


    Health authorities in Peru and India have stopped recommending ivermectin in treatment guidelines.

    Not true. Peru re-introduced it. In India, the ICMR only recommends, the states decide on protocols and Ivermectin remains in place. Uttar Pradesh , Delhi, Goa, Uttarkhand have all but eliminated covid as a threat due to ivermectin. The roll out, part of a medikit, being aided by the WHO and the American CDC. News in from Indonesia reporting astounding success in their roll-out. Learn more here: and here


    In February, Merck – one of the companies that makes the drug – said there was “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19”.


    When a statement from a Big Pharma PR department is taken as evidence for a BBC-position everyone should be very, very concerned about impartiality.


    Merck stated that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies”. This is contradicted by many papers and studies, including [Arévalo, Bello, Choudhury, de Melo, DiNicolantonio, DiNicolantonio (B), Errecalde, Eweas, Francés-Monerris, Heidary, Jans, Jeffreys, Kalfas, Kory, Lehrer, Li, Mody, Mountain Valley MD, Qureshi, Saha, Surnar, Udofia, Wehbe, Yesilbag, Zaidi, Zatloukal].


    They state that there is “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease“. This is contradicted by numerous studies including [Afsar, Alam, Aref, Babalola, Behera, Behera (B), Bernigaud, Budhiraja, Bukhari, Chaccour, Chahla, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Espitia-Hernandez, Faisal, Hashim, Huvemek, Khan, Lima-Morales, Loue, Mahmud, Mayer, Merino, Mohan, Mondal, Morgenstern, Mourya, Okumuş, Ravikirti, Seet].


    They also claim that there is “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies“. Safety analysis is found in [Descotes, Errecalde, Guzzo, Kory, Madrid], and safety data can be found in most studies, including [Abd-Elsalam, Afsar, Ahmed, Aref, Babalola, Behera (B), Bhattacharya, Biber, Bukhari, Camprubí, Carvallo (C), Chaccour, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Espitia-Hernandez, Gorial, Hazan, Huvemek, Khan, Kishoria, Krolewiecki, Lima-Morales, Loue, López-Medina, Mahmud, Mohan, Morgenstern, Mourya, Okumuş, Pott-Junior, Seet, Shahbaznejad, Shouman, Spoorthi, Szente Fonseca, Vallejos (B)].


    Merck didn’t show how they came to that conclusion – no research was presented.


    “Coincidentally”, they also are introducing an oral anti viral treatment (Monulpiravir) at $700 that uses a medication (originally developed for horses) and research has shown the principal ingredient to be mutagenic. Read more in this article.


    WHO’s science chief, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, is being taken to court as result of using this same Merck PR statement to try to suppress the ivermectin roll out in India.


    In the interests of balance, why did the journalists of this article not mention this as it is highly pertinent to the contradiction of this statement?


    One GP in the country described a relative, a registered nurse, who didn’t book a coronavirus vaccine she was eligible for and then caught the virus….

    A grossly cynical manipulation of a rare and tragic story to instil fear in people rather than to inform. And as an anecdote the BBC should have balanced this with a testimonial from one of the millions who have taken ivermectin and recovered at a greater rate than those who didn’t take it.


    But while on this subject, let’s also ask to 100 to 200 US congressmen, women their families and staff who have been treated with ivermectin.


    Let’s also look at India and now Indonesia. Between them over 300 million people will now have a relatively covid free experience thanks to ivermectin. Why is this being ignored when we have proof of alleviation from the pandemic staring at us in the face?


    It is very sad to see a once revered news source producing articles like this which represent an insult to all the good BBC journalists that uphold the integrity of their profession.




    Transparency Statement: The team at Bird are transparent in our operations. Bird is a campaign managed through EbMCsquared, a not-for-profit Community Interest Company. It means 100% of profits after tax are reinvested into the business or to the advancement of our social purpose, for example to work on projects such as the Ivermectin campaign. We are here to promote and provide evidence for health and wellbeing, to inform decision-making on matters of public health and safety. We do this to advance health and wellbeing for the benefit of humankind.


    Disclaimer: Nothing on this Website provides medical advice or any form of diagnosis or treatment of any kind to web users. Medical decisions should be made by the patient’s physician who can consider a review of the BIRD materials and knowledge of the patient’s medical history and condition. All information provided on the BIRD website or in connection with the Website are offered to promote consideration by trained health care professionals of possible treatments and for general informational purposes and are not medical advice to users. Errors and Omissions excepted.

  • As it is still the playground

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • University of Liverpool-led Study Demonstrates in Mouse Model that Omicron Variant 100-Fold Less Severe than Delta


    University of Liverpool-led Study Demonstrates in Mouse Model that Omicron Variant 100-Fold Less Severe than Delta
    Just how severe of a SARS-CoV-2 strain is Omicron? The initial batch of research into the matter provides some insight, but much is still up to discover.
    trialsitenews.com


    Just how severe of a SARS-CoV-2 strain is Omicron? The initial batch of research into the matter provides some insight, but much is still up to discover. Both are highly transmissible, and due to the many mutations involving spike glycoprotein substitutions, the pathogen’s ability to evade a spectrum of neutralizing antibodies emerges as distinct features of the variant of concern. Thus far the disease appears milder with initially less death and higher proportional hospitalization rates. Hospitalizations may rise regardless, due to the sheer number of cases. America has shattered pandemic records with new cases per day. On January 1, 2022, just under 400,000 cases were recorded, far exceeding infections during the worst surges. With 1,328 deaths per day based on a seven-day average and Omicron’s ability to infect the vaccinated, if this variant becomes more severe the pandemic crisis will intensify and worsen in the winter months. But just how severe is Omicron? This was a major question that a research team from a collection of academic medical centers in the United Kingdom sought to answer in a recent study. Led by James Stewart, corresponding author, and Chair of Molecular Biology at the University of Liverpool, the UK study team conducted a preclinical study based on a mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Based on a measurement of viral loads the team concluded that at various time points post-infection, Omicron is far less severe than both the Pango B and Delta variants of concern. While this represents good news, the authors remind all the mass number of infections represents real risks for a worsening widespread contagion, leading to a worsening pandemic—especially given the fact that this mutant can evade not only natural immunity but also vaccine-induced immunity.


    Dr. Stewart, a trained molecular biologist, known internationally for his work in the field of virus-host interactions, and team members from Liverpool as well as Imperial College of London, and an immunologist from the University of Zurich constructed a mouse model of infection replicating severe disease in humans to better understand outcomes, at least, in the controlled lab environment. This study was made possible thanks to funds from UK’s Medical Research Council and a contract with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).


    The Study

    Key to this experiment was what is known as K18-hACE2 mice which express human ACE2, the receptor used by the pathogen to penetrate the human host cell. These lab-engineered mice are susceptible to both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, so they are useful for investigations such as this one.


    These preclinical animal models offer the opportunity to contribute to knowledge gaps for this evolving disease in humans, reported the authors in their preprint, yet to be reviewed in manuscript. This form of study both complements parallel longitudinal tissue sample studies and offers a controlled environment generating significant data for knowledge advancement.



    The team infected some of the K18-hACE2 mice with either a Pango B, Delta, or Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, then compared relative pathogenesis, the process by which a disease or disorder develops. The team used stock viruses that matched non-synonymous and synonymous signatures associated with the respective variants. The investigators established three groups of mice (n=6 per group) for the study.


    The Results

    First and foremost, the authors noted expected weight loss manifests in the mice infected with Pango B and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2. While the mice infected with Omicron also lost weight in the first five days after infection, by day six they exhibited a noticeable improvement, which the authors point out represented a “statistically significant recovery in weight loss as compared to other groups based on two way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test which adjusts the data to ensure to check for false positives.


    Importantly, the study team determined that mice infected with the Omicron variant had a lower viral load, significantly less, in fact. Team members extracted RNA via oral swabs at three intervals plus lung and tissue samples at the end of the experiment. Utilizing qRT-PCR to quantify viral loads, the study authors measured viral RNA as a proxy.


    By day 2 post-infection, mice infected with Omicron exhibited 100-fold lower levels of viral RNA than Pango-B and Delta variant-infected animals (mean 2.5 x 103 vs 1 x 105 and 6 x 104 copies of N/µg of RNA respectively). Comparing the Omicron infected mice with each other, they found a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the newest strain and Pango B. By day 4 post-infection, they found viral loads similar between all the study groups. On day 6 post-infection, they found that both the Pango B and Delta variant infected mice exhibited 10-fold higher viral loads than in the Omicron-infected mice subjects. The study authors verified the statistical significance which was included in the uploaded manuscript.


    Additionally, the study authors identified that both Pango B and Delta-infected mice viral loads were approximately 100-fold greater in both nasal and lung tissue samples over a week post-infection.


    Discussion

    While more study and real-world evidence must be observed, the data points emerging from human observational research and this British study point to a less severe disease due to the mutant strain. Thus far this implies both good and bad news. On the positive side, this study introduces yet another important data point evidencing a milder strain.


    On the other hand, news can turn negative fast in this pandemic. Given high transmissibility and the mutant’s seeming ability to evade, at least partially, pre-existing immunity (natural, monoclonal antibody and vaccine), the mass number of infections could lead to a dramatic increase in hospitalization and severe disease and death.


    Public health systems undoubtedly emphasize the importance of protection, such as masks, not to mention social distancing, quarantining when infected, and of course, mass vaccination as primary methods for pathogen eradication. Of note, the study authors don’t recommend vaccination in their findings –this is because the current mutant can evade vaccine-induced antibodies, so undoubtedly, more research is necessary from industry, government, and academia, not to mention real-world observations for a more confident assessment as to the true protection levels presently existing.


    TrialSite reminds us that this study hasn’t been peer-reviewed, thus shouldn’t be used for any decision-making until it’s properly validated. Moreover, the study authors represent their own opinions and not necessarily those of their employers—University of Liverpool, etc.


    Lead Research/investigator

    James Stewart, corresponding author and Chair of Molecular Biology at the University of Liverpool.

    Steward is considered a global expert in virus-host interactions in the respiratory tract with an emphasis on respiratory pathogens from influenza to RSV and now of course SARS-CoV-2. He also teaches Veterinary, Medical, and Life Science students up to the Masters level. The Steward laboratory includes dozens of Ph.D. students.


    Other study authors can be reviewed at the source


    SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-B.1.1.529 Variant leads to less severe disease than Pango B and Delta variants strains in a mouse model of severe COVID-19
    COVID-19 is a spectrum of clinical symptoms in humans caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. The B.1.1.529 Omicron variant is rapidly emerging and has been…
    www.biorxiv.org

  • In their piece published under the ‘Reality Check’ banner, the BBC journalists have been fed untruths, manipulations and deceits. It seems that they didn’t make even minimal checks on the veracity of the material handed to them, nor apply journalistic balance to scrutinise the agenda- driven researchers.

    BBC/BCC world, in its core, was always a free mason disinformation platform, worldwide. What else do you expect form a today fascists ruled TV station? Today's free masons are fascists of the most pure form. Only money & power counts. People are cattle and can be slaughtered on demand e.g. by no treatment to sell vaccines. Greeting from Auschwitz.


    Pleas ignore all mass media. All are undermined ... Luckily its now all in plain sight and it is easily proved.


    Like we have a full testimony of the fraudulent free mason and Liverpool doctor Andrew Hill that has been forced by the criminal FM fascists to publish fake data!


    Only fascist clown or baby clown, here defend these outraging killer.

  • The magician is also a mathematician.

    Quote

    price of 1 kWh: 0.4 cents of Euro = 1.2 E/3 kWh

    1,2 E x 24 hours x 365 days = 10 512 E/year: as we said, the Ecat SKLep pays itself back in one year.

    This said, if you spend only 50 Euro/month for your energy consume, you do not need an Ecat SKLep assembly of 30 units.

    The question wasn't very precise as well, but this is simply idiotic. He really doesn't know the difference between kW and kWh.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.