Surely we still have 'freedom of speech' according to the British Model of Democracy?
We do, so long as nobody rich and powerful objects, the UK courts have become a playground for libel lawyers. We have a lot of rights,but they are undefined except by legal precedent, as we have no written constitution
In economics too we can only approach absolute zero in the digital economy of bitcoin. Which is why this digital currency is so open to FRAUD on the linux - dominated DARK WEB. All bitcoin is - is a way of generating ultra-complex pin numbers! It just takes subtle manipulation of computer graphics cards to guess the appropriate pin numbers and the FRAUD occurs when the bitcoin are transferred to fiat currencies, like pounds, shillings and pence. Or $$$, yen or rubles.
A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of nitazoxanide for treatment of mild or moderate COVID-19
Summary
Background
There is an urgent need for treatments of mild or moderate COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.
Methods
A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in 36 centers in the U.S. between August 2020 and February 2021 investigated the safety and effectiveness of oral nitazoxanide 600 mg twice daily for five days in outpatients with symptoms of mild or moderate COVID-19 enrolled within 72 h of symptom onset (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486313). Efficacy endpoints were time to sustained clinical recovery (TSR, a novel primary endpoint) and proportion of participants progressing to severe illness within 28 days (key secondary).
Findings
1092 participants were enrolled. 379 with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were analyzed. In the primary analysis, median (IQR) TSR were 13·3 (6·3, >21) and 12·4 (7·2, >21) days for the nitazoxanide and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0·88). 1 of 184 (0·5%) treated with nitazoxanide progressed to severe illness compared to 7 of 195 (3·6%) treated with placebo (key secondary analysis, odds ratio 5·6 [95% CI 0·7 - 46·1], relative risk reduction 85%, p = 0·07). In the pre-defined stratum with mild illness at baseline, nitazoxanide-treated participants experienced reductions in median TSR (3·1 days, p = 0·09) and usual health (5·2 days, p < 0·01) compared to placebo. Nitazoxanide was safe and well tolerated.
Interpretation
Further trials with larger numbers are warranted to evaluate efficacy of nitazoxanide therapy in preventing progression to severe illness in patients at high risk of severe illness and reducing TSR in patients with mild illness.
Evidence before this study
At the time of undertaking this study, SARS-CoV-2 had only been known for a few months. There was one published report that nitazoxanide inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture studies. A review of the PubMed online database for “nitazoxanide” and “coronavirus” identified several publications reporting in vitro activity of nitazoxanide in inhibiting replication of other coronaviruses and one study reporting the inhibition of IL-6 in mice. A further search for “nitazoxanide clinical trial” identified a large number of clinical trials of nitazoxanide, which identified no significant safety issues associated with its use in humans.
Added value of this study
This randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial provides evidence that treatment of outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19 with nitazoxanide 300 mg extended-release tablets administered orally 600 mg twice daily for five days may reduce the risk of progression to severe illness in participants at high risk and the time to sustained recovery in patients with mild illness.
Implications of all the available evidence
Further clinical trials with larger numbers are warranted. The availability of a safe, oral, scalable, host-directed therapeutic for mild or moderate COVID-19 could play an important role in reducing the number of severe illnesses and hospitalizations during the ongoing public health crisis.
For the interested, sadly in French mostly, with very long yet catching video
recent site, that is not recently updated because he focuses on video
All my cheers to the people in countries cited in those analyses...
I hope LENR will change the fate, it is a fate, of Europe and Asia.
I am looking for translation or reporoduction of those analysis in English...
Best regards, all by good vibes.
So I agree, Alan Smith we have to be careful what we say, even here........maybe I will write to my MP. And no more imogis in case we are mis- interpreted!
Continuing the school-mask mandate for under-5 kids is a cruel and anti-scientific pander to ignorance
Pandering to rank ignorance, Mayor Eric Adams is leaving the school-mask mandate in place for children under 5 — who face utterly trivial risk from COVID, and significant risk of learning failure from masking.
In the entire rest of the world, next to no one ever made toddlers mask at all — and the kids were fine.
In the 46 states in the American Academy of Pediatrics database, from zero to 0.01% (that’s one in 10,000) of all child COVID cases resulted in death, and those few overwhelmingly involved serious complicating factors.
The total US death toll for all under-18s in nearly two full years of the pandemic is below 800.
Yes, the CDC still advises school masking for the un-jabbed, and kids 5 and under can’t get vaxxed. But the CDC is plainly being anti-science here: The World Health Organization was never this hyper-cautious, nor (again) was the rest of the world.
And facial signals are crucial to small children’s development.
Yes, some misled parents may fear for their little ones, and resist sending tots to schools without mask rules. But they’ll learn soon enough that it’s safe.
The question is — when does this all end? Pfizer already has found that its vaccine is less effective for those 5-11, and doing the testing for those under 5, much less getting FDA approval, is moving at a glacial pace. Are we really going to wait until vaccines are allowed for babies before we let the kids go maskless?
If Adams is deferring to his health professionals here, he needs to find new ones. Continuing this mandate only harms the most vulnerable.
interesting....... “In Nigeria, where only about 6 percent of people are vaccinated…”
Nigeria: Nine day period with zero covid deaths recorded. March 4, 2022 no deaths.
And then we vaccinated america ...........
Is that when they put cash into your back pocket instead of into your bank?
Just look what they did with the poor Dr. Hill of Liverpool. 1000% bribing and threatening his live. This is Oligarchs and Putins game!
Did you know that the American Oligarchs wanted to remove Selensky? They offered him - as a replacement for the bunker live - a nice place in USA. Do you now understand that both sides cooperate?
interesting....... “In Nigeria, where only about 6 percent of people are vaccinated…”
Criminals like Gates still want to "vaccinate" Africa... I hope he took boosters too.
Criminals like Gates still want to "vaccinate" Africa... I hope he took boosters too.
South America is entering flu season, follow the countries with low vaccination rates. Also keep an eye on western Australia high vaccination rate. By July we will know the real story.
Here in Chinada, we have the highest Ukrainian population behind the Ukraine itself and Russia. There is a large Ukrainian Orthodox church just a minute's walk from where I live.
I love Ukrainians. But I also love Russians. Given the hating mindset of the West now, this is to Russia, with love.
Below the video is a short excerpt from a New York Times interview with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 2007, a year before his death.
From https://www.nytimes.com/2007/0…rld/europe/23spiegel.html
SPIEGEL: But Russia often finds itself alone. Recently relations between Russia and the West have gotten somewhat colder, and this includes Russian-European relations. What is the reason? What are the West's difficulties in understanding modern Russia?
Solzhenitsyn: I can name many reasons, but the most interesting ones are psychological, i.e. the clash of illusory hopes against reality. This happened both in Russia and in West. When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.
It seems obvious to me that the real winner of the current conflict will be China. In long-view geopolitical terms, they gain no matter what the outcome.
Display MoreWhat's the problem with mRNA vaccine?
The problem is it stopped being a nice MRNA long ago
It stopped playing nicely
Round about 2008..
Biontech wrote this
https://www.researchgate.net/p…_and_Biological_Stability
Incorporation of Pseudouridine Into mRNA Yields Superior Nonimmunogenic Vector With Increased Translational Capacity and Biological Stability
A not so nice mRNA which would evade the natural cellular defense which destroys mRNA very quickly.
This synthetic pseudouridine mRNA could stay around for weeks in the cell.
and end up in your spleen
then there was a problem to get it into the cell.
Well give it a lipid envelope..
the problem with this is that you fool the natural cell defenses so they end up
taking it in just like a retro virus
and then Pfizer says
oh but it can't get into the nucleus.
why not?
what stops it getting another lipid envelope.
Who understands the complexity of the internals of lipid transport in the cell.
Does Pfizer.?
Does Moderna?
Does our biology anti ANTIVAX ignoramus THH?
Does our Professor Rot?well?
Certainly not?
No.. this requires another few decades of work.
But anyone who questions the safety of mRNA vaccines is ANTIVAX
I think now you are providing real arguments you could perhaps leave off the other stuff? Nor is red type necessary.
So: this is an argument we always have about safety of medical interventions. It spills over into other stuff: for example GM foods. Personally I'm in favour of GM crops. For lots of reasons. But not ones that confer pesticide resistance. Also for lots of reasons.
I respect your fear. If you are saying you are expert here (are you?) and that you and a few other outliers are right over the mRNA-specific risks, whereas everyone else who is expert and has looked carefully at it is wrong or a mass-murderer (translate - careless of the possibility of harming large numbers of people), well that must be a possibility.
People who want (emotionally) to see risks in new medicine, or, given use here, in new vaccines, will agree with you. People who (emotionally) don't want to see those risks will not.
The antivaxxers are of course siding with you for all the wrong reasons.
And, just possibly, you are advocating this argument for similar distorted (emotional not rational) reasons: I would not know.
Nor can I know whether fears of mRNA technology are well-founded, I rely on experts to evaluate risks, while checking this enough to reckon something has not gone obviously wrong.
From a bystanders POV - given what you and other stuff posted here says:
(1) mRNA reverse transcription is possible but not likely. The fact that a transcriptase exists and appears to actually work in liver cells is interesting: and reason for caution. But surely we had that caution already with mRNA interventions? And we have some 20 years history of looking at what happens with them. I understand you think the technological advances (lipid encapsulation) that increase mRNA lifetime in the bloodstream, and (pseudouridine) increase lifetime of mRNA in cells, thereby making these things effective, increase the dangers.
(2) I balance that (after a 60 years life in which I've had my share of fears, both founded and unfounded) with the fact that the very many RNA viruses present similar possible dangers, but the viruses (and lipid-encapsulated viral fragments) very rarely present real long-term dangers. We know ones that do (HPV), so this is not dismissed.
(3) It is a stretch to reckon the risks (including specifically spike proteins being reverse-transcribed into cell genomes) from mRNA COVID vaccines are larger than the same from COVID infection, when the long-term harm mechanisms are similar.
(4) The short-term harm mechanisms are strongly in favour of the vaccines over COVID infection. (Unless you think you are an AE evaluation expert and know better than the many different ones who have signed off the vaccines and continue to do so reevaluating evidence over a longer time-scale).
(4) If spike proteins specifically are poisonous to cells that is a positive factor mitigating against both types of long-term risk - because any cell incorporating their sequences into genomes in a way that allowed transcription would die.
(5) The risks of mutagenic or carcinogenic results here are worth considering: both as an after-effect of COVID (virusses can cause cancer) and similarly COVID vaccine.
It is not that I dismiss risks of mRNA technology. I side with most of those looking at them who have much more expertise than me and think think they are low but not zero, and lower than COVID or other RNA virus infection - which is natural mRNA technology. I accept that all of life contains risks. And that is not to mention all the DNA viruses which directly incorporate themselves into the genome.
I'm not against arguments that vaccine risks are higher than COVID risks if presented without the antivaxxer lies and misrepresentations. People here tend to post the antivaxxers, not the real stuff. When , like you, they link the real stuff, they seem only to present one side of the arguments about it: the dangers of vaccine mRNA while downplaying the dangers of COVID-19 mRNA, or indeed the dangers of common Cold mRNAs - all of which have highly evolved natural delivery systems. I can see nothing in viral evolution that pushes such mechanisms not to have mutagenicity. Can you?
The big thing in many people's minds seems to be the word "natural" as synonymous with "not scary". This "natural immunity" which is more correctly labelled "COVID-survivor's immunity". Ironically, the same conspiracy theorists who dislike vaccines also claim that COVID-19 is an artificially engineered virus. And perhaps it is (the same arguments play here as do in the anti-GMO debate, but with more force). So "natural" immunity is really "artificial" as well.
Personally I see all that natural turnover of viruses, bacteria, bacteriophages, fungi, etc all living in the human body as symbiotes, parasites, or just physiologically neutral additions as being so immensely complex and variable that we can't yet say much about it. Maybe in 20 years with complete sequencing and AI-based protein-folding and drug-discovery technologies we will be able to simulate the whole thing, and look at what each of the thousands of components does?
What, in the rational elements of your risk assessment, have I left out here? And why do you think I am minimising the complexity of biology?
THH
The Chinese population, however, now has become a comfortable middle class whose population (as is the case in Ukraine) is concentrated in vast cities. As such, their population is thus extremely vulnerable to nuclear war. Hopefully, rather than having Mutually Assured Destruction, the Chinese will be instrumental in finding a solution which brings PEACE to the Russians and Ukraine. We can only hope for PEACE without appeasement. Let's see what the bleak FUTURE HOLDS!
SPIEGEL: But Russia often finds itself alone. Recently relations between Russia and the West have gotten somewhat colder, and this includes Russian-European relations. What is the reason? What are the West's difficulties in understanding modern Russia?
Solzhenitsyn: I can name many reasons, but the most interesting ones are psychological, i.e. the clash of illusory hopes against reality. This happened both in Russia and in West. When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.
Yes, Russia has always been the victim of a tendency to idealise belief systems - look at Marxism!
In the cynical West we know full well that all governments work pragmatically in the interests of their citizens (as they see it). Personally I think they work in the interests of the current systems, which are very imperfect, and would be better with some adjustment. But that is not the argument here. Governments in democracies do what they must to be elected, and at the same time have a decent share of people who are motivated to make society better - however wrong they may be.
Autocracies (Putin) transgress this imperfect balance.
It is not that Putin, or Xi, necessarily makes worse long-term decisions for their country. Sometimes they will be able and willing to make better long-term decisions. Which has always been the popular argument for autocrats.
It is that autocracy leads to tyranny and lack of transparency in decision-making. Inevitably that in the long-term is bad, because bad decisions can never be challenged, and power held over a long period corrupts. Putin can live in a world of his own making and when he gets things wrong (as he did over Ukraine) that will be because he does not listen to strong advice from others.
Russia has real concerns over its own security, and a strong feeling as a post-imperial power that it should have more power and importance in the world than it actually has. Both are tough feelings. NATO and the West were stupid not to realise from history that you cannot just ignore such things.
Putin carries those genuine concerns of the Russian population and adds his own very sinister twist:
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings.
In 2007 (Origin year of statement above) Russia was already a Putin terror state. Russia never stopped to support the Serbian genocide folks what was the main reason why most eastern states wanted to join NATO. Russia/Putin/Stalin leaders/fans are people with a mediocre mindset one finds in a primitive animal as we all can see today.
But the US government is no better. Up to today the sanctions did not hit any Russians daily live that could afford a VISA/master card. These 2 cards now stop working in Russia. But what about the rich men's cards like DINERS or AMEX?
USA so far did not forbid trade with Russia. E.g. a Swiss company is still allowed to ship parts for an ammunition plant as Russia always has to pay in advance.
So be aware that all western Oligarchs have the same primitive mindset as Putin. Its upon us to pressure them the same way as we pressure Russia. Ask Biden for real sanctions not for fake ones.
The antivaxxers are of course siding with you for all the wrong reasons.
Finally you agree that the free masons are antivaxxers and after loosing the game now try to join the science again.
But free mason (R) (In FDA/CDC) redefined vaccines in way that now every herb, orange juice or even an FP98 mask can be called a vaccine - according actual definition.
So FM is a fake science organization like Putin is a fake historian...
What 2 billion people so far did get: See homepage of Biontec:: An immune stimulating RNA gene tech (cancer) chemo therapy. All cancer gene tech chemo is a two component drug with a large macro molecule carrier and a short RNA pay load. The CoV-19 payload is highly toxic, stays in your body for months, is included in the cellular nucleus and gets enriched in the liver an the ovaries and many other locations as studies shows. Free floating spike proteins can destroy any blood vessel by scratching the endothelium what make the tissues permeable for virus bacteria etc.. Further it destroys capillary and leads to micro infarcts a source for early dementia. And of course spike antibodies block the virus defense interferon pathway.....
There is no real vaccine known with such a big "therapeutic" effect.
(virusses can cause cancer) and similarly COVID vaccine.
It is not that I dismiss risks of mRNA technology. I side with most of those looking at them who have much more expertise than me and think think they are low but not zero, and lower than COVID or other RNA virus infection - which is natural mRNA technology. I accept that all of life contains risks. And that is not to mention all the DNA viruses which directly incorporate themselves into the genome.
I'm not against arguments that vaccine risks are higher than COVID risks if presented without the antivaxxer lies and misrepresentations. People here tend to post the antivaxxers, not the real stuff. When , like you, they link the real stuff, they seem only to present one side of the arguments about it: the dangers of vaccine mRNA while downplaying the dangers of COVID-19 mRNA, or indeed the dangers of common Cold mRNAs - all of which have highly evolved natural delivery systems. I can see nothing in viral evolution that pushes such mechanisms not to have mutagenicity. Can you?
A Mea culpa? You are full of crap. I have posted the concerns of the vaccines with expert opinion. You have disagreed 100% with their concerns and the science they provide. Now you have some concerns? Time to cover your ass Thomas?
EMR Survey Suggests Ivermectin Associated with Lower Mortality Than Remdesivir
A team of University of Miami researchers compared fatality rates for COVID-19 patients who took ivermectin and those who took remdesivir and found the ivermectin cohort experienced reduced mortality.
“Ivermectin use was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to remdesivir,” the authors wrote.
Ivermectin vs. Remdesivir
Ivermectin has been discouraged as an early treatment option by the United States Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and other public health authorities, while remdesivir has been endorsed by those same authorities.
“To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality and ivermectin,” said the authors. “Further double-blinded placebo-controlled [random controlled trials] with large samples are required for definite conclusion.”
University of Miami Research Team
The researchers included medical student Iakov Efimenko, medical student Sirpi Nackeeran, Sinan K. Jabori, MD, Associate Program Director of the Infectious Disease Fellowship Jose Gonzalez Zamora, MD; Sara Danker, MD, and Devinder Singh, MD, all of whom are affiliated with University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine.
TriNetX Research Network Searched
The team searched patient records on the TriNetX Research network, a federated electronic medical records network of over 44 healthcare organizations and 68 million U.S. patients from 2009 to 2021 to identify adults with a recorded COVID-19 infection between January 1, 2020, and July 11, 2021.
The team then compared those with recorded use of ivermectin, but not remdesivir, against those with recorded use of remdesivir, but not ivermectin.
The team also controlled for comorbidities and treatments that may affect COVID-19 survival outcomes: age, gender, race, ethnicity, nicotine use diabetes mellitus, obesity, chronic lower respiratory disease, ischemic heart diseases, tocilizumab, glucocorticoids, or ventilator use.
Mortality Primary Outcome
The group measured association with mortality as the primary outcome.
The team identified a cohort of 1,072 people who were treated with ivermectin and another 40,536 who were treated with remdesivir.
In the ivermectin cohort, the average age was 51.9 + 17.8 years, 43% were male, 60% had glucocorticoids, and 1% required ventilator support, average age.
In the remdesivir cohort, the average age was 62.0 + 16.0 years, 54% were male, 64% had glucocorticoids, and 2% required ventilator support.
Ivermectin Reduced Mortality by 5.224%
After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir with a risk difference of -5.224%
Up to today the sanctions did not hit any Russians daily live that could afford a VISA/master card. These 2 cards now stop working in Russia. But what about the rich men's cards like DINERS or AMEX?
Latest news. VISA/Mastercard sanctions are pure disinformation. Russians can still use the cards not any restrictions inside Russia. So be aware that our Oligarchs use thesame bad propaganda as Putin. Ask Biden to order as stop of all business with Russia in and outside Russia!
