Dr Campbell is calling it a scandal.
Very interesting review on two Ivermectin studies.
I am sure that one poster here will say it is pure bull shit as no worms were involved. 
The other will say it is not a double blind RCT by a major pharma company (which none ever will be because pharma is not going to pay for it) and therefore automatically dumped into the "anti-vax / outlier" bin without actual review. 
The evidence keeps building in favor of Ivermectin use. However, at least two people are so far down the rabbit hole, they will never reconsider...... 
it is pure bull shit
JR never uses such vulgar vocabulary
as there is no BS on the CDC site..
so "the experts say" and their parrots
Display MoreVery interesting review on two Ivermectin studies.
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
I am sure that one poster here will say it is pure bull shit as no worms were involved.
The other will say it is not a double blind RCT by a major pharma company (which none ever will be because pharma is not going to pay for it) and therefore automatically dumped into the "anti-vax / outlier" bin without actual review.
The evidence keeps building in favor of Ivermectin use. However, at least two people are so far down the rabbit hole, they will never reconsider......
Bob - you are being careless with the truth.
When have I ever said that?
I have in fact said that ivermectin RCTs would never be done by Pharmas - however governments had mony to spend and are highly motivated to find any drug (preferably cheap) that will reduce hospitalisation.
Which is just common sense and why two government-backed RCTs (PRICIPLE in UK, Active-6 in US) are testing ivermectin. One other (TOGETHER) started testing it and gave up because of initial inconclusive results and the fear of its researchers who felt that any outcome other than very positive would result in threats of death and/or litigation claiming they are fraudulent from antivaxxer-cash-backed pro-ivermectin groups.
And, yes, I can back all of those things up (they have been posted here).
THH
Well,
#1, I named no names... so if the shoe fits????
#2, replace Pharma with government...same result, same end.
#3, Highly motivated?? Some countries may be, such as India. My nephew went through threats of having his doctors privilege's revoked at his hospital because he was treating Covid.... with great success and NO mortality and yes I can back that up as well. Why is Remedisvir still being used and promoted by the CDC when the WHO and majority of studies show it is useless? THAT truly shows the motivation.
If governments were truly motivated for inexpensive and safe treatment, they would have been at least encouraging Vit. D, C, Zinc and Quercetin along with almost useless masks, distancing and lockdowns. Yet they did not. It is absolutely known and proven that these help the immune system, regardless of Covid or not. Where do you think their motivation was with these?
#4, and most important...... no response on the actual posted studies... peer reviewed and pretty impressive. Yet to the dust bin they are relegated because they are not from Pharma,,I mean government...
See who is posting about the new positive IEEE Cold Fusion article.
8 days
Going pretty good... We may soon be lost in the crowd going viral about this stuff.
https://news.knowledia.com › articles
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power - Knowledia
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. in 14 hours. spectrum.ieee.org. 1 min read. standard. Science & Technology · lattice confinement fusion.
https://www.dailyadvent.com › news
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power - Opera News - Daily Advent
8 days ago — NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. Lattice confinement fusion eliminates massive magnets and powerful lasers There are currently about 440 ...
https://www.theskysearchers.com › ...
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power - TheSkySearchers.com
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. Post by GCoyote » Mon Feb 28, 2022 4:15 pm. This caught my attention today. While I'm on record as being skeptical of ...
https://myanimelist.net › forum
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power - Forums - MyAnimeList.net
6 days ago — Read the topic about NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power on MyAnimeList, and join in the discussion on the largest online anime and manga ... Related searches
https://www.newsbreak.com › news
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power - NewsBreak
8 days ago — NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power ... Physicists first suspected more than a century ago that the fusing of hydrogen into helium powers the sun.
https://m.facebook.com › posts
Hacker News - NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power :... | Facebook
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power : https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion #NASA Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30503111.
https://lzomedia.com › blog › nasas-...
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power - Lzo Media
7 days ago — NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power Article URL: https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion Comments URL: ...
https://www.newsnow.co.uk › Science
Nuclear Fusion news | Breaking News & Search 24/7 - NewsNow
Sunday. Nuclear fusion - how excited should we be? bizcommunity.com 22:42 Sun, 27 Feb. NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power IEEE Spectrum 08:04 Sun, 27 Feb.
http://google.com › news › section
News - Google
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. 2 days ago. more_vert. NASA. NASA Telescope Spots Highest-Energy Light Ever Detected From Jupiter. Feb 10. more_vert.
https://www.linkedin.com › posts
Darin Hitchings, Ph.D. on LinkedIn: Limitless power arriving too late
... interesting... sounds note theoretical then practical at this point though: IEEE Spectrum: NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. https://lnkd.in/egRKvfEN ... https://hn.buzzing.cc › ... NASA's new shortcut to fusion power - Buzzing on Hacker News
NASA's new shortcut to fusion power. Hacker News Logo. Loading... storyHacker News · logo. See what's buzzing on Hacker News in your native language on ... https://mobile.twitter.com › jorgebar... Jorge Barba (@jorgebarba) / Twitter
NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. Lattice confinement fusion eliminates massive magnets and powerful lasers · Jorge Barba. @jorgebarba. https://www.realclearscience.com › ... RealClearScience February 28, 2022 Archives
7 days ago — NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power. Steinetz Forsley Benyo & Baramsai IEEE. Scientists Describe the Physical Demands of Sex. https://weddingtonwitness.com › an-... An AI Makes a Major Breakthrough in Fusion Power – The ...
“NASA'S NEW SHORTCUT TO FUSION POWER.” IEEE Spectrum, 27 February 2022, https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion. Accessed 27 February 2022
E-Cat News – All news about the Rossi-Focardi Energy Catalyzer
Thanks to the readers who sent me a link to this article published in the IEEE Spectrum magagzine titled “NASA's New Shortcut to Fusion Power: Lattice ...
Russians can still use the cards not any restrictions inside Russia.
That is because in most cases the fund are drawn on Russian banks inside Russia. The Russians have their own card-payment system (Meti) that only works inside Russia if it cannot interface with the rest of the banking system.
Display MoreVery interesting review on two Ivermectin studies.
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
I am sure that one poster here will say it is pure bull shit as no worms were involved.
The other will say it is not a double blind RCT by a major pharma company (which none ever will be because pharma is not going to pay for it) and therefore automatically dumped into the "anti-vax / outlier" bin without actual review.
The evidence keeps building in favor of Ivermectin use. However, at least two people are so far down the rabbit hole, they will never reconsider......
Worms are nothing more than a hypothesis, no studies ever done no data to back it. One member is convinviced based on this hypothesis. Pretty sad when a leader in lenr acceptance is convinced by a passing thought
Display MoreBob - you are being careless with the truth.
When have I ever said that?
I have in fact said that ivermectin RCTs would never be done by Pharmas - however governments had mony to spend and are highly motivated to find any drug (preferably cheap) that will reduce hospitalisation.
Which is just common sense and why two government-backed RCTs (PRICIPLE in UK, Active-6 in US) are testing ivermectin. One other (TOGETHER) started testing it and gave up because of initial inconclusive results and the fear of its researchers who felt that any outcome other than very positive would result in threats of death and/or litigation claiming they are fraudulent from antivaxxer-cash-backed pro-ivermectin groups.
And, yes, I can back all of those things up (they have been posted here).
THH
Active 6 study on ivermectin has added two more large hospitals to the study 2/3 of the way thru the trails. You don't add this far into study unless you are seeing good results. If the trials were not showing positive results 9 months in based on ethics why enroll more? The truth is coming and it's going to be very uncomfortable for a few here!
Display MoreBob - you are being careless with the truth.
When have I ever said that?
I have in fact said that ivermectin RCTs would never be done by Pharmas - however governments had mony to spend and are highly motivated to find any drug (preferably cheap) that will reduce hospitalisation.
Which is just common sense and why two government-backed RCTs (PRICIPLE in UK, Active-6 in US) are testing ivermectin. One other (TOGETHER) started testing it and gave up because of initial inconclusive results and the fear of its researchers who felt that any outcome other than very positive would result in threats of death and/or litigation claiming they are fraudulent from antivaxxer-cash-backed pro-ivermectin groups.
And, yes, I can back all of those things up (they have been posted here).
THH
FLCCC Weekly Update Dec. 15, 2021: The Truth Behind Andrew Hill’s Reversal on the Efficacy of Ivermectin”
Here is the link to the chronological list of all of The FLCCC weekly updates (a treasure trove of information):
“FLCCC Weekly Updates – FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Here is one of the numerous videos from Dr. Kory on the outrageous war on Ivermectin (he begins five minutes into the recording):
FLCCC Weekly Update April 21, 2021: Efficacy of Ivermectin
Here are just 2 reports, but I will follow up with numerous others censored and banned:
Explosive! India State of 241 MILLION People Declared COVID-Free After Government Promotes Ivermectin
“Uttar Pradesh, India, wipes out Covid with ivermectin”
Uttar Pradesh, India, wipes out Covid with ivermectin « JoNova
Why we must demand that leaders who got COVID wrong admit it and apologize
As COVID restrictions end around the country, and Democratic politicians
pretend that something about the science has changed instead of their poll numbers being in the dirt, Americans must first demand: apologies.
Here, I’ll even go first. I spent much of 2020 and 2021 writing again and again arguing for the opening of schools throughout the country. But in March 2020, I was one of the leading voices urging schools to close.
It made no sense to me that my husband had stopped going into the office because of the mysterious new virus but my children continued to go to school. People were dying in large numbers in Italy and I was afraid.
I never imagined that “two weeks to slow the spread” would turn into two years, and counting, of pausing the lives of children to accommodate hypochondriac adults.
I was wrong. I’m sorry.
Now you go.
You, leadership in school districts that closed for the entirety of 2020-2021 school year because American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten told you to — and you were too afraid to counter. Whether school boards, mayors or governors, those in charge who kept schools closed have to be held accountable.
It wasn’t that the teachers unions were strong, it was that you were weak. It was a dereliction of your duty. Apologize.
But, of course, you couldn’t have done it without cover from our politicized health agencies. You, Rochelle Walensky at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, allowed Weingarten to craft absurd, unscientific policies that kept kids out of schoo
You let her block the schoolhouse door because you were on the same political team. You broke the trust Americans had in their health agencies and we will all suffer the repercussions of that for a long time.
Apologize to the children whose lives you’ve stunted and who may never recover from the educational loss. Apologize to the kids who received speech therapy through masks because you refused to acknowledge that masking had been pointless in stopping COVID-19 spread.
You may have permanently damaged these children because you refused to admit that you had been wrong for so long. Apologize.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, you fell in love with your own image and could not stay off the TV even as it caused us all harm.
In November 2021, you said that people who were criticizing you were “really criticizing science, because I represent science. That’s dangerous.” What’s dangerous is if you really believe that.
You frequently got things wrong on TV or reversed your previous comments with no explanations. The science hadn’t changed, you made political calculations to support the diktats of the Biden administration.
You actually argued for the passage of the stimulus bill as if you were some kind of lobbyist and not the director of one of our national health agencies.
Worst of all, you shut down dissenting opinions from other scientists because you knew yours could not withstand scrutiny. You have been a disaster for this country in leading us through the pandemic.
Apologize. Then exit stage left and let us never hear from you again.
You fearful, quiet politicians who let extended lockdowns destroy businesses, fray the fabric of our cities and cost us all so much: We saw you maskless, at concerts and parties, while our 2-year-olds stay masked to this day.
We know that you didn’t actually think masking was important like you implored us it was. You loved your power and nothing else mattered. Apologize.
And, you, compliant media, the disaster of the last two years is at your feet. You created heroes out of people like Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose nursing-home directive cost thousands of lives, while demonizing Gov. Ron DeSantis, who used all of his political capital to correctly force schools open, a decision everyone now pretends was easy but certainly was not.
You ran stories about high case numbers in Florida “as schools open” to project that schools were somehow unsafe. You were incurious and did not ever challenge the corrupt healthcare agencies. You let us down.
Don’t apologize, we don’t believe you anyway.
The pandemic could be waning, maybe, and the impulse might be to forgive, without any apologies, and forget. We can’t do that. A new variant can easily emerge and the people who have been wrong for two years will go right back to forcing their failed prescriptions on us all.
Last year, right around the same time, we saw a loosening of COVID regulations only to have them come roaring back with the Delta variant in summer. We can’t keep doing this.
When Mayor Eric Adams announced the lifting of restrictions on Gotham last week, the language was “suspension of the Key to NYC program” which required vaccine proof for indoor spaces. And the city Health Department released a “Recommended Action” plan that reverts to masking in schools during times of “medium spread” and everywhere during “high spread.”
That’s why we need the admission of failure of all of these policies, and who was responsible, before we can move on. Americans must insist on it for our collective future.
90% of the world wore cloth masks, and you wonder why the pandemic has gone on now for over 2 years. Great advice from so called experts.
Cloth face masks ‘lousy’ as protection against COVID-19, other viruses, warns study
WASHINGTON (StudyFinds.org) – Cloth masks are “lousy” when it comes to protecting people from COVID-19 and other airborne viruses, warns new research. Woven fabric doesn’t adequately filter out particles as well masks like N95s, scientists say.
Like many other viruses, COVID-19 is transmitted primarily via particles carried in the air. An infected person breathes out particles containing the virus into the air, which can then be inhaled by another person, who then becomes infected.
Face masks are widely considered an important first-line of defense against airborne transmission of the disease, as supported by previous studies. Fueled by the omicron variant, the latest wave of the pandemic prompted public health officials to recommend more protective face coverings because some masks offer significantly more protection than others..
For the new study, researchers from England, Germany, and France looked at the efficiency of particle filtration by woven fabric, which, unlike material used in standard air filters and masks, consists of fibers twisted together into yarns.
Using state of the art 3D imagery to see the air flow channels, the research team simulated the airflow through the channels and calculated filtration efficiency for particles a micrometer and larger in diameter. The study, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, concludes for particles in this size range, the filtration efficiency is low.
Masks are air filters, and woven fabrics, such as cotton, make for good jeans, shirts, and other apparel, but they are lousy air filters. So, use woven fabric for clothing, and N95s or FFP2s or KF94s for masks,” says study co-author Richard Sear, a computational physicist at the University of Surrey, in a statement.
He explains that the flow simulations suggest that when a person breathes through cloth, most of the air flows through the gaps between the yarns in the woven fabric, bringing with it with more than 90 percent of the particles.
“In other words, these relatively large gaps are responsible for cloth being a bad material to make air filters from,” he continues. “In contrast, the filtering layer of an N95 mask is made from much smaller, five-micrometer fibers with gaps that are 10 times smaller, making it much better for filtering nasty particles from the air, such as those containing virus.”
While earlier research revealed similar findings, the study represents the first to simulate particles going directly through the gaps in woven fabric.
Dr. Sear notes that good masks should feature the “two Fs: good filtration and good fit. Surgical masks fit badly, so a lot of air goes unfiltered past the edges of the mask by the cheeks and nose.”
South West News Service writer Stephen Beech contributed to this report.
So the Swedish results are wrong..impossible?????
No doubt. There have been many mistaken reports regarding COVID.
Why we must demand that leaders who got COVID wrong admit it and apologize
Indeed. Starting with Trump and the whole damn GOP, and every single so-called antivaxxer member of the Lunatic Anti-science Death Cult. They killed hundreds of thousands of people only to shore up their political power and bolster their delusions. A monumental massacre in the service of stupidity and ignorance.
The people cited in this article were only "wrong" in the sense they were not omniscient. They could not predict the outcome of evolution, because no one can.
A first look at the newly released Pfizer papers. Part 1: The errors and anomalies of the Case Report Forms
By Sonya Elijah
On March 1, the eagerly awaited new instalment of Pfizer’s documents was made publicly available thanks to the recent judicial ruling. 10,000 pages out of a cache of over 450,000 of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine-related data, which the FDA relied upon to grant Emergency Use Authorization, can now be reviewed.
The first wave of documents was released last November, following a FOIA request from the plaintiff group, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), made up of over 30 scientists, medical professionals and academics, led by Dr. Peter McCullough and represented by Aaron Siri, of Siri & Glimstad LLP.
Last December, I wrote an investigative report for TrialSite News reviewing Pfizer’s cumulative analysis of vaccine adverse events, a shocking 38-page document, which was part of the first wave of released records. The document revealed over 1228 deaths occurring after the administration of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine with 42,086 individuals (cases) reporting 158,893 vaccine adverse events, many of which were serious, within a 3-month period.
Up until January, the FDA has been fighting a legal battle not to release the data, in breach of FOIA law. The agency ‘dragged their feet’ and was willing to only produce 500 pages a month- meaning the public would have to wait 75 years to see all the documents. On 6 January, district judge, Justice Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to publicly release all the Pfizer documents within 8 months at a rate of 55,000 pages a month.
The following is a summary of my findings after an initial review of the plethora of papers in a limited space of time.
The Case Report Forms (CRFs)
A Case Report Form (CRF) is a printed or electronic document used in clinical trial research to capture standardised clinical data from each patient including adverse events. It’s a critical part of the clinical trial process and plays an important role in pharmacovigilance.
The majority of CRFs released originated from various trial sites run by Ventavia, one of the clinical research groups contracted by Pfizer to conduct the Covid-19 vaccine trials. The company is currently facing a law suit brought by Brook Jackson, the former Ventavia regional director, turned whistle-blower, who provided The BMJ with a preponderance of internal company documents and photos which revealed the Pfizer contactor’s poor laboratory management; their compromising of data integrity and patient safety. Ms Jackson will be talking exclusively with TrialSite News in an upcoming interview about this matter. Readers may remember that Facebook literally fact checked. The BMJ for reporting on this incident. They had no reason to censor the medical journal’s article indicating the possibility of programmatic algorithmic bias.
The errors and anomalies
Subject # 11281009 was part of Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trials in the healthy population. This cohort were deemed eligible by the clinical judgement of the investigator in meeting the criteria of ‘healthy.’
One can see evidence below that this participant was far from healthy, when revieing their general medical history. The participant was a type 2 diabetic; suffered from angina and had a cardiac stent placement following a myocardial infarction (heart attack).
It’s puzzling how a trial investigator from Ventavia would identify this participant as healthy and include them in the trial. There were other participants who I came across, who were included in these phases of the trials (on the healthy population) who had an extensive list of conditions as part of the general medical history. How much pressure was exerted by the sponsor (Pfizer) on the contract research organization and participating trial sites enrolling vaccine trial participants?
Another CRF for this participant reveals an adverse event of myocardial infarction (heart attack) requiring hospitalization, noted as serious; however, the serious adverse event (SAE) number was left blank (see screenshot below). Later, a SAE number was entered but it’s surprising that the clinical research associates would make such significant data reporting errors such as this. Were SAE numbers left blank a common occurrence at Ventavia trial sites? Again, what type of pressure were the CROs, and sites exposed to?
Another note-worthy point are the start and end dates of these SAEs. The myocardial infarction start date is recorded on 27October with the end date on very next day, which happens to be the start date of pneumonia (see screenshot below).
Interestingly, the myocardial infarction outcome is recorded as ‘recovered/resolved’ (see screenshot below) with the entered end date recorded only one day after the start date. This is unusual as a CRF reveals that the participant was hospitalized because of the event (see earlier screenshot).This anomaly raises doubt as to the accuracy of these recorded dates, potentially violating ALOCA-C clinical site documentation guidelines for clinical trials. That is the data must be:
Attributable
Legible
Contemporaneous
Original
Accurate
Complete
For the SAE of pneumonia, we can again see below that trial investigator, Salim Boguermouth entered ‘potential COVID-19 related pneumonia should have triggered a Covid illness visit.’ The fact this was an open query evidence that the protocol was not consistently followed.
Another investigator opens the same query, declaring that the AE term of pneumonia should be updated to Covid Pneumonia. The response back is interesting as it simply states ‘site has not been made aware that it was Covid pneumonia. Per PI (principal investigator) pneumonia is related to an infection, therefore the term cannot be updated as such.’ This response seems to satisfy the query and it’s closed. No other questions were asked; no investigations appear to be made. (See screenshot below)
Within Pfizer’s protocol (section 8.2.4), enhanced COVID-19 (antibody dependent enhancement potentially caused by the vaccine) was on their watchlist, which indicates that they had some concern about this condition. It’s important to note that unblinded teams were reviewing cases for severe COVID-19 and reviewing AEs for additional potential cases.
‘In Phase 2/3, the unblinded team supporting the DMC, including an unblinded medical monitor, will review cases of severe COVID-19 as they are received and will review AEs at least weekly for additional potential cases of severe COVID-19. At any point, the unblinded team may discuss with the DMC chair whether the DMC should review cases for an adverse imbalance of cases of COVID-19 and/or severe COVID-19 between the vaccine and placebo groups.’
Inadvertently, this could have led to bias, as the unblinded teams would have been aware which participants were assigned the placebo and those who received the vaccine. They might have been under pressure by the sponsor for the trial to go a certain way and for events like ‘Covid Pneumonia’ to be classified simply as pneumonia.
Given the FDA’s non-binding guidance to manufacturers of covid-19 vaccines urging them to devise a method to allow volunteers in their studies’ placebo arms to receive the vaccine, in October 2020- Pfizer’s trial participants assigned to the placebo were later offered the vaccine.
This would have triggered the unblinding of the participant and everyone else involved. Given close to half of the participants would have received the placebo in phase 1/2/3 of the trials, it’s fair to say that a significant portion of those would have been assessed as eligible for the actual vaccine. The data collected on those participants would have been completely unblinded. This raises an important issue where unblinded studies (observational) as opposed to double-blinded (where both the participant and those administering the treatment are blinded) are subject to substantial biases which can significantly affect data integrity.
A systematic review study was conducted and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, in its conclusions, it stated: ‘This study provides empirical evidence of pronounced bias due to lack of patient blinding in complementary/alternative randomized clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes.’
However, according to Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol, its trials (which are still in progress) are not double blinded but ‘observer-blinded’ where sponsor staff, study managers, clinical research associates and those who are involved with ‘ensuring protocol requirements’ are unblinded.
By Pfizer essentially unblinding the vaccine trials for what at least some experts refer to as a novel gene therapy product, did they establish a new precedent? In an interview with the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University said “by allowing unblinding it will set as de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come and that is dangerous.”
Perhaps one of the most significant errors and anomalies found on the CRFs for subject #11281009 is the one below, which astonishingly reveals the participant’s death being recorded before a ‘Covid ill’ visit. Of course, it’s impossible for a study subject to die and then visit and participate in the clinical trial.
The clinical investigator makes note of this by writing ‘There cannot be a date later than date of death. Please remove data from the COVID illness visit and add cough and shortness of breath as AEs (adverse events).’ What kind of pressure was being exerted here?
Subject # 11281014
This participant was enrolled at the same Ventavia site (1085). The participant was administered the first dose of the blinded treatment on July 31 and the second dose was administered on August 27 (outside the 3-week window protocol).
The screenshot above shows when the second dose was given. At this point this author would like to raise an area of concern given that close to every CRF reviewed at the standard entry for line 10 includes the term: ‘The protocol specified observation period’ has been entered, with some CRFs stating ‘30 minutes.’ This is in reference to the timeframe period which the subject is observed by trial staff after being administered the treatment. It’s worth noting that 30 minutes is the minimum amount of time that the subject should be observed after treatment. For the majority of the CRFs to simply state what appears an automatic entry for line 10 is cause for concern, raising the question that perhaps participants were not observed for adequate amounts of time, thus putting their safety at risk. This backs up what Brook Jackson, the Ventavia/Pfizer whistle-blower has stated in numerous interviews.
What’s unusual about the CRFs for this subject is that they reveal that this participant had a serious fall, the following day on August 28 after the second dose was given, resulting in them being hospitalized. (See screenshot below)
The fall caused facial lacerations, which was recorded as a separate AE but were not reported as serious, even though the toxicity grade level assigned was 2 and the participant was hospitalized for 26 days, see below.
Screenshot below shows AE report for facial lacerations.
Line 9 includes an unusual anomaly stating the event is ‘NOT RELATED’ to the study treatment but ‘Hypotension’ but in the AE report form for the ‘Fall’ (see screenshot below) it’s due to ‘fall.’
Screenshot below shows missing SAE number for ‘Facial lacerations.’
This was flagged by a trial investigator, see below
For these two SAEs the Ventavia staff share both events were due to ‘other reasons’ and not related to the study treatment. However, doubts can be raised over the credibility of this information given the fall and facial lacerations were intrinsically related. So, if facial lacerations were due to ‘hypotension’ then the fall should be due to that too.
It’s note-worthy that the fall happened the day after the second treatment dose was given, which at least raises the question of causality.
It’s also concerning that the screenshot below shows how AER #2020337848 (this number referenced in line 15 of the AE report above for the fall) ‘the causality was recorded as RELATED in SAE form however, reported as NOT RELATED on AE CRF’
Subject #11281103
The general medical history for this female participant shows no evidence of impaired kidney function (such as hypokalaemia and kidney stones).
She was administered dose 1 of the blinded treatment on August 12 and the second dose on September 1. A month later she is reported to have kidney stones, hypokalaemia, and a urinary tract infection on October 3.
All recorded start dates match and so do the recorded end dates.
The AE report for the kidney stones is below.
The line 9 entry shows ‘this event is due to other…renal calculus’ and for the AE of severe hypokalaemia (see below) the event is attributed to ‘hypokalaemia.’ Both events are ‘NOT RELATED’ to the study treatment as reported by trial staff.
Given this participant had no previous history of impaired renal function before taking part in the trial and the fact that kidney stones along with renal function impairment have been reported as side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine- it’s highly questionable why these AEs were not investigated further in relation to them being related to the study treatment, especially when they arose just one month after the second treatment dose.
The missing Serious Adverse Event (SAE) numbers
When looking through the CRFs for participant, subject # 10851246, an AE report is logged with ‘Exposure during pregnancy’ entered for the adverse event. This term is given when ‘a female participant is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.’
A query is made about the SAE number being left blank for this participant at another Ventavia site (1085).
For Subject #10851216, a serious adverse event number is left blank regarding a ‘left leg fracture’ after a fall.
At Ventavia site #1085 there seems to be a pattern of leaving SAE numbers left blank.
The missing barcodes
In the process of writing this report, this author not only reviewed thousands of CRFs, but also encountered lots of entries of missing barcodes for samples collected from participants, such as the one below. This suggests a serious possibility that sufficient evidence reveals a pattern of questionable Ventavia trial site data at best, perhaps compromised in more worse case scenarios.
All the evidence gleaned over a limited time appears to back up whistle-blower Jackson’s claims of poor trial site data management and raises questions as to how Ventavia conducted the Pfizer clinical trials. The errors and anomalies in the CRFs also allude to her claims that the clinical research associates were not trained adequately, with many having had no prior clinical experience history. If such egregious findings are true at these sites, could they manifest at other trial sites around North America and beyond?
It’s worth pointing out that the FDA conducted inspections of only 1% of the clinical trial sites
Display MoreWell,
#1, I named no names... so if the shoe fits????
#2, replace Pharma with government...same result, same end.
#3, Highly motivated?? Some countries may be, such as India. My nephew went through threats of having his doctors privilege's revoked at his hospital because he was treating Covid.... with great success and NO mortality and yes I can back that up as well. Why is Remedisvir still being used and promoted by the CDC when the WHO and majority of studies show it is useless? THAT truly shows the motivation.
If governments were truly motivated for inexpensive and safe treatment, they would have been at least encouraging Vit. D, C, Zinc and Quercetin along with almost useless masks, distancing and lockdowns. Yet they did not. It is absolutely known and proven that these help the immune system, regardless of Covid or not. Where do you think their motivation was with these?
#4, and most important...... no response on the actual posted studies... peer reviewed and pretty impressive. Yet to the dust bin they are relegated because they are not from Pharma,,I mean government...
#1 - I am happy for you to tell me who else that specific part of your post was addressed (honestly). Perhaps I mistook you but I don't think so.
#2 - your logic here is wrong. The profit incentive for pharma is not to test free drugs. the profit incentive for government is strongly to test free drugs (in fact any drug - but better if free). The political incentives align with the profit incentives in this case - governments badly want to reduce numbers of people in hospital. If ivermectin did this they would jump on it.
It is clearly not the same result - because pharma is not testing ivermectin at all, and governments are testing it.
#3 Bob - you now changing topics from highly motivated to find new drugs, to highly motivated to treat people outside of a clinical trial with a drug that is unproven and most doctors think will probably not work. You see the difference?
#4 Impressive to whom? You? I loose patience with people who on the basis of blog-style PR and pressure groups run by fanatics take a very one-sided view here. I won't repeat the arguments - but the mainstream view is supported by strong scientific arguments. If you want to go for some more eccentric view, you need a reason. It can't be "I find their PR convincing". Who are the independent scientists who support your view?
This is my best bet at a genuine independent reporter trying to sort out the science by engaging people with different views in detailed hard-hitting questioning by presenting to each side the views of the other - doing more research than you
Do you have better?
What it tells me is that Tess Lawrie is a fanatic who will not allow her views to be questioned. Not promising for that "side" of the argument having merit. The other sides are all open to evidence.
THH
Just a more recent review: 2022 will be an exciting year for anti-COVID drug discovery
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00562-0 (1 March)
Lots in there, just one bit about ivermectin...
This was reflected in the early attention given to people with severe COVID-19, who were coming to hospitals and being treated in intensive care units (ICUs). “In low-income countries, you don’t have ICU capacity,” says Guérin. “What you want to do is try to prevent the non-severe patients from becoming severe, and that was not clearly the priority of the funders.”
Much of the early research on treating mild COVID-19 focused on monoclonal antibodies, notes public-health specialist Borna Nyaoke, clinical operations representative for East Africa at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, a non-profit organization in Nairobi. But these drugs pose a challenge in lower- and middle-income countries, she says, because of their cost, and because they need to be stored at low temperatures and administered by trained medical personnel. And the newer, oral antivirals promise to be less expensive, but are still in short supply.
For more practical solutions, Nyaoke looks to the ANTICOV trial, which is enrolling participants in 19 sites across 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The trial is looking at a range of repurposed treatments, including the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin; an inhaled steroid called budesonide; and the antidepressant fluoxetine. (Other trials, including one run by ACTIV, are testing a similar antidepressant, called fluvoxamine, which has shown promise in some early clinical trials.)
Some of these treatments have already been tested — and sometimes failed — in smaller clinical trials. Ivermectin, in particular, has become a popular but controversial COVID-19 treatment in many countries, despite clinical trials indicating that the drug does not work as an antiviral in early stages of infection. Both ACTIV and ANTICOV are testing the treatment anew. ACTIV is running a trial in people with mild to moderate COVID-19, and results are due in the next few months. “No matter what we find, that will be of interest to many people,” says Tabak. The ANTICOV trial will test ivermectin for its potential anti-inflammatory properties in people seriously ill with COVID-19, and will combine it with an antimalarial drug. Preclinical data have been promising, says Nyaoke. “Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action increases a treatment’s chances of success,” she says.
Drug developers still face challenges when it comes to finding COVID-19 therapies. For instance, there is a shortage of non-human primates to use for research, and the costs of animals have skyrocketed, says Liang.
And although clinical-trial planners are not short of participants, running a trial in a pandemic is complicated: emerging viral variants can change the spectrum of symptoms, the severity of disease and the population that’s most affected. In some cases, variants have rendered COVID-19 therapies — particularly some of the monoclonal antibodies — obsolete. By contrast, broader-acting drugs such as remdesivir, which was developed in 2015 and tested against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in animal models, and against Ebola in humans, could be useful tools in future pandemics. In the middle of this chaos, it’s hard to know which of the many therapies in current trials will be successful, says Verdin. “The whole thing is such a big churning bubble; the goal posts are constantly moving,” he says. “It’s very difficult to pick a winner.”
despite clinical trials indicating that the drug does not work as an antiviral in early stages of infection.
Can you stop to post fake news?.. There are no clinical trials that did show a fail. There are only trials with fake conclusions.
But as a clown may be you are allowed to do so...
And this RCT (recent) is one of many that mean unless they are positively fraudulent (as we know some of the flakey ones pro-ivermectin were) mean that although ivermectin might still be helpful, it can't be obviously helkpful as the advocates and Bob ythink:
Between May 31 and October 9, 2021, 500 patients were enrolled and randomized. The last patient completed follow-up on October 25, 2021. Four patients were excluded after randomization. One patient in the control arm was diagnosed with dengue coinfection; in the intervention arm, 2 failed to meet inclusion criteria owing to symptom duration greater than 7 days and negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test result, while 1 had acute coronary syndrome before ivermectin initiation. In addition, 6 patients in the intervention arm withdrew consent before taking a dose of ivermectin. The modified intention-to-treat population for the primary analysis included 490 patients (98% of those enrolled), with 241 in the intervention group and 249 in the control group (Figure). Drug compliance analysis showed that 232 patients (96.3%) in the intervention group completed 5 doses of ivermectin.
Baseline demographics and characteristics of patients were well balanced between groups (Table 1). The mean (SD) age was 62.5 (8.7) years, with 267 women (54.5%); 254 patients (51.8%) were fully vaccinated with 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines. All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented in the study population. The majority had hypertension (369 [75.3%]), followed by diabetes mellitus (262 [53.5%]), dyslipidemia (184 [37.6%]), and obesity (117 [23.9%]).
The mean (SD) duration of symptoms at enrollment was 5.1 (1.3) days. The most common symptoms were cough (378 [77.1%]), fever (237 [48.4%]), and runny nose (149 [30.4%]). Approximately two-thirds of patients had moderate disease. The average baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and serum C-reactive protein level were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in the concomitant medications prescribed for both groups. In sensitivity analyses, baseline characteristics were similar in the intention-to-treat population (eTable 1 in Supplement 2).
Primary Outcome
Among the 490 patients, 95 (19.4%) progressed to severe disease during the study period; 52 of 241 (21.6%) received ivermectin plus standard of care, and 43 of 249 (17.3%) received standard of care alone (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25) (Table 2). Similar results were observed in the intention-to-treat population in the sensitivity analyses (eTable 2 in Supplement 2).
Doctors don't tend to assume studies are fraudulent, so results like this dampen any initiial enthusiasm they might have had.
And, for the science here, from somone initially very pro-ivermectin pushed to look at bias after clear bias skewed his earlier metastudy
- and BTW Hill has been villified and called frauduleneta nd worse by FLCC/BIRD for this -
If you are a normal scientist, this analysis reconciles the very positive views of Bob and Tess Lawrie with the neutral views of the makority scientists.
in one picture:
