The Playground

    just so you're aware of some missing data.

    External Content youtu.be
    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.

    Why the Together Trial on Ivermectin should be discarded by 0neday2soon A quick overview of all the things wrong with the recent propaganda to disregard Ivermectin.

    1. No mention of ivermectin in the exclusion criteria This point alone is enough to disqualify the entire study let alone the many others. People who were already taking Ivermectin may have been in the control group. That is to say, they were comparing ivermectin, against people likely on ivermectin. They clearly state that SSRI's are excluded, but for some strange reason not Ivermectin.
    2. Trial done during Gamma variant The high dose trial was performed when the gamma variant was dominant and this was easily the most deadly variant we've seen. So much so it was making vaccines 20% less effective against severe disease. Normally this wouldn't be an issue if both groups were affected equally but this is where we get to the next problem:
    3. The control group was run at a different time The control group recruited on average earlier, and therefore highly likely included people infected with variants other than Gamma. So why restart the Ivermectin group at a different time? Well because they dosed too low (Which was a problem we saw with other 'negative' trials). But then why not restart both groups together?
    4. Dosing was too low FLCCC (The most prominent proponents for ivm) have very clearly laid out the dosing they recommend since the beginning of the pandemic, so why would you chose to dose below this?
    5. No meal was recommended while taking it The FLCCC guidelines clearly recommend taking it with a fatty meal in order to help it work as when we do this we notice around 3 times the peak concentration. This study did not ask participants to take it with a meal.
    6. Timing of medication The data isn't fully clear on this but it seems like the majority of patients were treated more than 5 days after symptom onset which is too late. As recommended by the FLCCC it must be taken as early as possible, and keep in mind that Molnupiravir and Paxlovid trials excluded patients if they were past 5 days of symptom onset so why wouldn't they do that for ivm too. 3 days makes a huge difference when we're talking about antivirals.
    7. Composite endpoint (Primary endpoint fudge?) The odd endpoint of ">= 6 hr ER observation or hospitalization" was not used in any other trials so why use it in this one? If it was the endpoint, it would be a deviation from the pre-registration of the trial. This is the same thing we saw in other 'negative' findings: a soft endpoint.
    8. Watered down end points by focusing on less severe patients It is unclear why the exclusion criteria of "expected hospital stay of <=5 days" was included but it would bias towards less severe cases. And if we combine less severe + late treatments then patients would already be recovering. By doing this it would reduce the statistical significance of the results.
    9. Unscientific dissemination of results These issues listed mean that any signal from treatment would be lost in the noise.
    10. The principle investigator described ivermectin as having "no effect whatsoever" which sounds very familiar to other studies of ivm despite the effects shown being: 9% relative risk reduction in "Extended ER observation or Hospitalization" and, 18% reduction in mortality.
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why the Together Trial on Ivermectin should be discarded by 0neday2soon A quick overview of all the things wrong with the recent propaganda to disregard Ivermectin.

    1. No mention of ivermectin in the exclusion criteria This point alone is enough to disqualify the entire study let alone the many others. People who were already taking Ivermectin may have been in the control group. That is to say, they were comparing ivermectin, against people likely on ivermectin. They clearly state that SSRI's are excluded, but for some strange reason not Ivermectin.
    2. Trial done during Gamma variant The high dose trial was performed when the gamma variant was dominant and this was easily the most deadly variant we've seen. So much so it was making vaccines 20% less effective against severe disease. Normally this wouldn't be an issue if both groups were affected equally but this is where we get to the next problem:
    3. The control group was run at a different time The control group recruited on average earlier, and therefore highly likely included people infected with variants other than Gamma. So why restart the Ivermectin group at a different time? Well because they dosed too low (Which was a problem we saw with other 'negative' trials). But then why not restart both groups together?
    4. Dosing was too low FLCCC (The most prominent proponents for ivm) have very clearly laid out the dosing they recommend since the beginning of the pandemic, so why would you chose to dose below this?
    5. No meal was recommended while taking it The FLCCC guidelines clearly recommend taking it with a fatty meal in order to help it work as when we do this we notice around 3 times the peak concentration. This study did not ask participants to take it with a meal.
    6. Timing of medication The data isn't fully clear on this but it seems like the majority of patients were treated more than 5 days after symptom onset which is too late. As recommended by the FLCCC it must be taken as early as possible, and keep in mind that Molnupiravir and Paxlovid trials excluded patients if they were past 5 days of symptom onset so why wouldn't they do that for ivm too. 3 days makes a huge difference when we're talking about antivirals.
    7. Composite endpoint (Primary endpoint fudge?) The odd endpoint of ">= 6 hr ER observation or hospitalization" was not used in any other trials so why use it in this one? If it was the endpoint, it would be a deviation from the pre-registration of the trial. This is the same thing we saw in other 'negative' findings: a soft endpoint.
    8. Watered down end points by focusing on less severe patients It is unclear why the exclusion criteria of "expected hospital stay of <=5 days" was included but it would bias towards less severe cases. And if we combine less severe + late treatments then patients would already be recovering. By doing this it would reduce the statistical significance of the results.
    9. Unscientific dissemination of results These issues listed mean that any signal from treatment would be lost in the noise.
    10. The principle investigator described ivermectin as having "no effect whatsoever" which sounds very familiar to other studies of ivm despite the effects shown being: 9% relative risk reduction in "Extended ER observation or Hospitalization" and, 18% reduction in mortality.


    NEJM REPORTED 3/30 THAT IVERMECTIN IN THE TOGETHER TRIAL FAILED TO SHOW SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT—LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK


    NEJM REPORTED 3/30 THAT IVERMECTIN IN THE TOGETHER TRIAL FAILED TO SHOW SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT---LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.By Michael Goodkin On 3/30/22 the
    trialsitenews.com


    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.


    By Michael Goodkin


    On 3/30/22 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published the TOGETHER trial ivermectin results.


    The study results completed a while ago were published in the NEJM and simultaneously in the New York Times. The timing is of interest as is the bias inherent in the prominent news and medical journal publications opting to ignore key issues with the underlying study.


    NY Times Ivermectin in TOGETHER



    Although ivermectin is used around the world, in the United States, infectious disease doctors and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have decided that none of the substantial observational data, nor the randomized trial data or for that matter, no physician’s observational experience count for anything.


    NIH and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) are on record that only large, randomized trials should be used to decide if ivermectin can treat COVID patients. Even though there is no evidence of significant toxicity from pharmacy obtained ivermectin and thus no risk to patients, these institutions believe it is better for patients to receive no treatment rather than ivermectin in case it turns out that ivermectin is eventually proven to be ineffective. Does this make sense?


    Four large, randomized trials are tracked by the medical establishment. These studies include the TOGETHER led by McMaster University in Canada, COVID-OUT led by the University of Minnesota, ACTIV-6 sponsored by NIH and led by Duke University, and PRINCIPLE sponsored by University of Oxford in London. Industry observers assume these studies would be well-designed, properly conducted investigations into whether ivermectin is in fact useful for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these studies, and the accompanying data must be seriously questioned.


    The TOGETHER trial took place in an area of Brazil where at the time the most dangerous variant, gamma dominated SARS-CoV-2 circulation. The principal investigator, Dr. Edward Mills at McMaster University spent much of his career designing trials for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation although he has been on the record that this particular study wasn’t funded by that organization. The preliminary results had been announced 8/6/21 showcasing:


    Mortality 12% Improvement Relative Risk Mechanical ventilation 23% Hospitalization 17% Extended ER observation.. 10% primary Virological cure 0%. The NEJM paper said:


    “A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16).


    Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.”


    The study team concluded that the treatment with ivermectin failed to lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. The study team observed a decrease of 10% in admissions, 13% in deaths, and 24% in intubations.


    When the results were first announced by August, various critiques including the analysis below. Read the analysis to appreciate just how many problems there were in this study. I will list a few problems.


    Analysis of Ivermectin in Together


    1) At the time of the study, the gamma strain dominated the region, the nastiest of SARS-CoV-2 variants, one not only difficult to treat but one that needed significantly higher doses of ivermectin just as with the delta variant. The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, physician-advocates of early care and the use of prescribed ivermectin off label for the COVID-19 indication recommended 0.6 mg/kg with food for 5 days or until resolved. In the TOGETHER trial patients received 1.2 mg/kg total rather than the 3 mg/kg total as would have been recommended by the FLCCC. The study proved that giving patients 2.5 times less ivermectin than they should have received led to only small, statistically insignificant improvement. Data on increased absorption with food ranges from a 25% to 2.6 times increase in blood levels.


    2) Consistent with the difficulty in treating gamma accompanied the results in TOGETHER with fluvoxamine which were less than in previous trials. Still a 32% decrease in admissions along with a 91% decrease in mortality in those who finished the trial certainly was notable, yet apparently not good enough for emergency use authorization (EUA) in the United States, even though the efficacy was better than the potentially dangerous molnupiravir which was part of an EUA granted to Merck. The Biden Administration is planning to have pharmacists give molnpiravir along with paxlovid without physician supervision. Even the American Medical Association (AMA) knows this would be a foolish practice.


    3) TOGETHER also tested hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. It was stopped early for “futility,” even though the preliminary results showed a reduction of about one-quarter in hospitalizations in the HCQ group compared with placebo: 8 of 214 versus 11 of 227, not that much different from fluvoxamine. In the abstract they stated:


    Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir demonstrated any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic.


    The study actually revealed no significant benefit because the TOGETHER team ran the trial in low risk patients causing the trial to be grossly underpowered and insignificant. Moreover, the study allowed for late enrollment. Those treated late usually won’t respond to anything.


    This author suggests that many of those associated with the trial had conflicts of interest, which raised the eyebrows of some observers concerned about ethics, morals as well as pecuniary interests involved in monetizing the pandemic. Did these latter forces materially impact this study in any way?


    This article was easily available to NEJM, the New York Times, and those infectious disease specialists who commented on the trial. There was no effort on the part of any of them to address these or any other problems with the study suggesting material bias against the use of repurposed drugs.


    Infectious disease doctor, David Boulware, commented, “There’s really no sign of any benefit,” “Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully, that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said. It is very hard to know why he would not have said at the least that ivermectin had been severely underdosed in the trial.


    COVID-OUT from University of Minnesota, which Dr. Boulware helps oversee, enrolled obese patients assuming there would be more events. They are testing ivermectin, fluvoxamine 50 mg twice a day and metformin. Most people receive ivermectin about 0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days. The FLCCC Alliance believes it should be administered with food based on a study from 2001 indicating 2.6 times boost in blood levels. However, Dr. Boulware refers to a study from Japan showing only a 25% increase in blood levels with food.


    COVID-OUT checked with Dr. Kory about dosing in February when the alpha variant of concern was prevalent. COVID-OUT started in May. They had no money to do anything when they heard about TOGETHER on 8/6 which had treated gamma and the increased dosing needed for delta which they heard about on 10/18. The study data should be reported very soon. It will be interesting to see if the COVID-OUT study leadership acknowledges the underdosing of their delta patients who make up a large proportion of the trial.


    Dr. Boulware was also involved in randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine in early COVID which were reported as not demonstrating benefit, but which others felt the results were questionable because they were underpowered, enrolled low risk patients and treated patients too late.


    Hydroxychloroquine for high-risk COVID-19 outpatients


    Boulware took personal career risk and filed for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for fluvoxamine on 12/21 after NIH and IDSA declared the data was insufficient. It has not been acted on. Doing something to point out the deficiencies of the infectious disease set run by Don Anthony Fauci probably isn’t the most advantageous way to progress one’s academic career.


    COVID-OUT will be out with fluvoxamine 50 mg twice a day data soon. TOGETHER used 100 mg twice a day, which led to significant reports of nausea. Boulware has done a video on repurposed drugs for TrialSite News.


    Dr. Susanna Naggie, principal investigator of the NIH-backed ACTIV-6, decided to go ahead with the original plan of randomizing patients to placebo or ivermectin 0.3-0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days, less than in TOGETHER where it showed statistically insignificant benefit.


    On 10/18 Nagggie and others involved, including a private equity-backed central institutional review board company known as WCG IRB, were notified by Dr. Goodkin that delta, which was 80% of infections by August and nearly 100% by October–required a substantially higher dose of 0.6 mg/kg with food for 5 days or until symptoms resolved.


    ACTIV-6 could have added another arm with higher dosing which would have helped protect those patients randomized to ivermectin but made no changes and did not recommend the higher dose until February. By then omicron emerged making the higher dose not as necessary. When their data is reported this author sincerely hopes the study leadership acknowledges the undertreatment of their delta patients.


    PRINCIPLE, sponsored by Oxford, decided to use 0.3 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days. They made no adjustments when they found out about TOGETHER and the need for a higher ivermectin dose of delta. On 12/7 this author informed the study leadership that randomizing patients to 75% of a dose with no statistical benefit or placebo was unethical and that they would produce false negative results. Five days later they stopped enrollment claiming their ivermectin supply was threatened.


    Ivermectin supply issue called fraudulent


    Could it be the case that the NIH’s position that only large, randomized trials are sufficient to decide if ivermectin is effective is actually based on the fact that randomized trials can more easily be manipulated?


    Thank goodness Steve Kirsch funded and oversaw TOGETHER fluvoxamine or likely that repurposed approved and economical therapy would have been sabotaged like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. While this author cannot prove that the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin studies were purposely sabotaged the amount of vested economic and ideological allegiance to a unilateral, homogenized pandemic strategy involving the vaccine and specific pharma-branded drugs coupled with the problems with these larger studies cannot be ignored.


    While Dr. Edward Mills has designed a number of studies that just happen to connect to Bill Gates, the latter made a fortune on vaccines—see TrialSite’s article on their 10X return on BioNTech, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine partner; while the principal investigator is close with Fauci who hasn’t hidden his bias against ivermectin along with the World Health Organization (WHO)—in this latter case this author is aware that TrialSite has spoken with government representatives who asked that media platform to not publish stories that ivermectin was in use in their respective countries for fear of economic reprisal from the global health agency.


    By the way, this author, a life-long democrat and New York Times reading liberal, now unfortunately based on the unfolding data and associated behavior suggests a shocking level of bias, perhaps even corruption associated with the use of repurposed drugs during this pandemic. For whatever reason traditionally liberally minded institutions such as the Democratic Party or the New York Times appear to have done a great disservice to this country.


    NEJM like the New York Times has printed nothing but negative information about ivermectin. Despite the fact that a majority of 81 studies associate with positive data. Of course, this author is aware that many of these studies are smaller and will inevitably have one problem with the data or another. Then there are the doctors around the globe prescribing the drug off-label, the majority reporting success. Yet the journal won’t publish anything positive about any repurposed drugs.


    Editor in chief Eric Rubin is an infectious disease specialist involved with the FDA with vaccines. Most medical journals receive drug company support, often from reprints. Drug companies don’t want to see articles about repurposed drugs.


    NEJM refused to publish a study from Brazil in early 2021. In a 268 outpatient study antiandrogen proxalutamide in men lowered admissions 91% and shortened illness from 21.8 to 4,2 days. The reason was “It’s too good to be true.” Meanwhile, they published that sotrovomab lowered admissions 85% based on 24 patients reaching the endpoint. Can you imagine if men all over the world had proxalutamide or other antiandrogens like spironolactone available?


    Here is Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Flavio Cadegiani on an FLCCC video discussing the terrible problems they have faced in trying to get their research published. Find the recording here. The discussion starts at 6:40. Please listen. It’s stunning.


    Here is a recent BMJ article, The illusion of evidence based medicine, which puts what’s published in medical journals into perspective. It discusses the way drug company money runs everything in medicine.


    On the topic of drugs, politics, and money, I just watched “Dopesick” on Hulu about the oxycontin debacle. It’s a must-see. It delved into the depths of drug company corruption, the terrible performance of the FDA and how good pharma is at getting physicians to do what they want them to do. From the AMA Journal of Ethics.


    How FDA failures contributed to the Opioid Epidemic


    We are surrounded by coin-operated corruption today. Unfortunately, much of this moral and ethical decay in the context of healthcare comes from within medicine. It sickens me. I have reached out to the American College of Physicians and cardiology leaders recently, but I struggle to remain optimistic. Physicians don’t want to believe that so many in medicine are inappropriately biased to outright corruption and they won’t want to take the risk to expose this—the effort seems too hard while the costs are too dear. Remember many physicians today work for health systems meaning they have no real say in how the practice operates. With so much medical school debt and the trappings of a good life, economic fear becomes pervasive, and a weapon to keep doctors in check. Surprisingly an ally emerged in the form of a republican senator—Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson. He and former University of Wisconsin ICU director, Dr. Pierre Kory, historically a liberal democrat became good friends.


    Senator Johnson Introduces Legislation


    On February 16, 2022 U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), along with Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation to protect doctors, patients and prescribers. The Right to Treat Act S. 3670. will reaffirm that no federal agency has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and that no federal law, rule, or regulation of policy will prohibit or restrict the lawful prescribing or disbursing of any FDA-approved drug or Right to Try drug.


    Sen. Johnson said, “The pandemic exposed the fact that many doctors no longer call the shots when it comes to treating patients, the COVID Cartel does. The COVID Cartel includes the Biden Administration, federal health agencies, Big PHARMA, mainstream media, and Big Tech. The Right to Treat Act would ensure that federal health agencies return to their proper functions of gathering and providing public health data and regulating drug safety – not telling doctors how to practice medicine. Because federal health agencies sabotaged the early treatment of COVID-19 using widely available and safe generic drugs, an untold number of people needlessly died from COVID-19. Americans and doctors should have the freedom to use fully approved


    drugs without fear of reprisal. It’s time to once again let doctors be doctors and allow them to fully practice medicine.”


    Sen. Braun said, “Doctors, not the federal government, know their patients best. It is critical that they have the freedom to prescribe FDA-approved drugs and treatments that are the most appropriate for their patients.”


    Sen. Lee said, “The federal government should not dictate individual medical cases. Patients and their doctors should be able to decide the best course of treatment for themselves, and the government shouldn’t foreclose a primary tool of medical innovation. I’m proud to join Senator Johnson in introducing this bill to protect medical freedom.”


    16 state legislatures, almost all republican, are looking at similar legislation. In fact, one, Kansas just passed such a bill at both the House and Senate levels. I would think that physicians would believe that getting the government out of patient management is a good thing.


    I realize that many doctors, like me, are democrats and perhaps may disagree with some of Ron Johnson’s politics. The legislation will be more difficult with new COVID czar, Dr. Ashish Jha, who has not supported any repurposed drug and is actively opposing any republicans who propose that physicians be able to practice as they see fit Snake Oil Salesmen of the senate.


    Even if passed, the legislation can only get the federal healthcare agencies to stop interfering with physician management. It doesn’t mandate the NIH to fund the appropriate studies of repurposed drugs and recommend them if they have good data for example.


    Senator Johnson also introduced a bill to aid vaccine injured patients.


    GOP senators introduce bill to aid vaccine injured patients


    It should lead to studies to look at the degree of vaccine-induced injury from the production of large amounts of spike protein induced by the vaccines plus inflammation caused by the lipid nanoparticles which spread everywhere, including crossing the blood-brain barrier.


    Insurance companies have found marked increases in all-cause mortality in 2021 as stated by former Blackrock portfolio manager, Edward Dowd.


    Edward Dowd on vaccine fraud


    Department of Defense data has shown marked increases in many diagnoses in 2021. Senator Ron Johnson on DoD data dump


    Another friend of medicine is republican Rand Paul, a retired ophthalmologist, who proposed reorganizing NIAID and eliminating Dr. Fauci’s job, one that has amassed far too much power and control over billions of dollars of research and development federal funds.


    We all need to keep fighting for what is right. Talk to your friends. Call your congressman. Who knows? There may even be some democrats who will listen, perhaps realizing that an anti-corruption and medical freedom movement could save the party from oblivion

    Quote from Mark U

    That was from six months ago, when the proportion of seniors to younger people vaccinated was much more. It hardly applies anymore now. The fact of the matter is that in Canada if a doctor sees a covid patient now, chances are best that the patient is vaccinated. Any doctor in Canada now saying only unvaccinated patients are sick with Covid is lying or grossly misinformed.

    Mark U - you are extraordinarily resistant to simple (and common sense) stuff posted here on maths.


    In Canada now 14% of the population are unvaccinated, and those will predominantly be very low risk.


    1. Suppose doctors saw equal numbers of vax and novax patients. That would mean the vaccinated had a lower risk of being seen than the unvaccinated by a factor of 0.86/0.14 = 6. This is the first (base rate) fallacy.


    2. However because of vulnerable get vaccinated you will find that nearly all of the unvaccinated are at low risk of COVID anyway. This reduces the likelihood of unvaccinated being see by doctors by a large factor - not because being unvaccinated is lower risk, but because lower risk people choose to remain unvaccinated. this is the outcome correlates with vaccination decision fallacy (sorry - forgotten the name!). You say this no longer applies. If you look at the UK (or any other country) age vs vaccinated curves you will see it does apply.


    3. Finally, almost everyone who is not vaccinated will by now have caught COVID now. Many will have been seen by doctors. Some will have died. COVID survivors are less likely to die from COVD. I mean it is true - but only for the COVID survivors. They have survivor's immunity. And they are selected as the ones who did not die first time round. So there are now almost no naive unvaccinated and never caught COVID people. This is the ignore the first and most dangerous infection fallacy.


    Thus there are three fallacies here which you have been promoting for (at least) a year since they were pointed out. They combine together to mean that doctors are unlikely to see unvaccinated people in hospital with COVID. They do not in any way show that vaccination is not worth it. On the contrary, it is highly worth having, and greatly reduces chances of hospitalisation.


    I remain sort of interested in how politics (?) can so distort rational thought that many apparently normal people, like Mark U, can ignore these three fallacies - not even acknowledging that they all exist. The effect of each one combines with the others to skew what is seen in hospitals now that we have most people vaccinated, and most unvaccinated COVID survivors.


    I hope that you will acknowledge these three factors, each powerful, working together.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    1. Suppose doctors saw equal numbers of vax and novax patients. That would mean the vaccinated had a lower risk of being seen than the unvaccinated by a factor of 0.86/0.14 = 6. This is the first (base rate) fallacy.

    Our clown never will get it. Only the recovered are fully protected. The recovered rate in UK is >70% So your factor 6 becomes a factor 2 what shows that the "vaccinated" only visit hospitals at much higher frequency than unvaxx people. This is exactly what UK data tells.


    Only idiots take a 4th Pfizer booster...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Mark U - you are extraordinarily resistant to simple (and common sense) stuff posted here on maths.


    In Canada now 14% of the population are unvaccinated, and those will predominantly be very low risk.


    1. Suppose doctors saw equal numbers of vax and novax patients. That would mean the vaccinated had a lower risk of being seen than the unvaccinated by a factor of 0.86/0.14 = 6. This is the first (base rate) fallacy.


    2. However because of vulnerable get vaccinated you will find that nearly all of the unvaccinated are at low risk of COVID anyway. This reduces the likelihood of unvaccinated being see by doctors by a large factor - not because being unvaccinated is lower risk, but because lower risk people choose to remain unvaccinated. this is the outcome correlates with vaccination decision fallacy (sorry - forgotten the name!).

    Where specifically are you getting your information that the unvaccinated in Canada (besides those under 5 years who can't be vaccinated) are in fact at 'very low risk'? Please share. Are people who are suspicious about vaccines and health authorities generally more healthy and at less risk? What about the the relatively high rates of vaccine hesitancy among black and native Canadians? Are they at 'very low risk'?


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    3. Finally, almost everyone who is not vaccinated will by now have caught COVID now. Many will have been seen by doctors. Some will have died. This is the COVID survivors are less likely to die from COVD fallacy. I mean it is true - but only for the COVID survivors. They have survivor's immunity. And they are selected as the ones who did not die first time round. So there are now almost naive unvaccinated and never caught COVID people. This is the ignore the first and most dangerous infection fallacy.

    Well you are correct that most of the unvaccinated have caught Covid by now and have immunity. Very good immunity I might add.

    Know what is "first and most dangerous"? Getting the vaccine and then getting infected in the next week or so.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Thus there are three fallacies here which you have been promoting for (at least) a year since they were pointed out. They combine together to mean that doctors are highly likely to see unvaccinated people in hospital with COVID. They do not in any way show that vaccination is not worth it. On the contrary, it is highly worth having.


    I remain sort of interested in how politics (?) can so distort rational thought that many apparently normal people, like Mark U, can ignore these three fallacies - not even acknowledging that they all exist. The effect of each one combines with the others to skew what is seen in hospitals now that we have most people vaccinated, and most unvaccinated COVID survivors.

    Understand that my posts were in the context of Jed saying that doctors are saying almost all their covid patients are unvaccinated. This simply isn't true. Yes, getting injected will lower the rate of hospitalization, of ICU admittance, and death. Have I ever said otherwise? No I haven't. So maybe you have difficulties with nuance.


    The injection will help diminish the rate of serious covid infection, but what about other infections or conditions? The 'non specific' disease outcomes? What is the jab doing in that regard? Are people getting jabbed now suffering from higher rates of shingles, herpes, circulation problems, heart issues, etc ? I suspect they are. The truth will come to light.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    It's end of terror for Switzerland

    I wish. The infrastructure for quickly clamping down on the citizenry remains.


    Here in Canada, we also had some more freedom on April 1st. The vaccinated arriving in Canada from abroad don't have to be pre tested! Whoohoo!


    Meanwhile, unvaccinated Canadians over the age of five are still not able to board a commercial passenger jet, train or ship. Such a situation wouldn't make it into the script of a very bad movie, only a nonsensical disjointed dream.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Why the Together Trial on Ivermectin should be discarded by 0neday2soon A quick overview of all the things wrong with the recent propaganda to disregard Ivermectin.

    I spotted a coupla/few errors in the critique.

    1. No mention of ivermectin in the exclusion criteria This point alone is enough to disqualify the entire study let alone the many others. People who were already taking Ivermectin may have been in the control group. That is to say, they were comparing ivermectin, against people likely on ivermectin. They clearly state that SSRI's are excluded, but for some strange reason not Ivermectin

    It's not in the original exclusion list, but the paper says:

    ... in Brazil, in particular, the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 has been widely promoted. We ensured that trial participants did not have a history of ivermectin use for the treatment of Covid-19 by means of extensive screening of potential participants about this issue. [ plus some comments that they expect criticism.]


    3. The control group was run at a different time The control group recruited on average earlier, and therefore highly likely included people infected with variants other than Gamma. So why restart the Ivermectin group at a different time? Well because they dosed too low (Which was a problem we saw with other 'negative' trials). But then why not restart both groups together?


    Paper says:


    On the basis of feedback from advocacy groups, we modified the protocol to specify 3 days of administration of ivermectin. Here, we present data only on the patients who had been assigned to receive ivermectin for 3 days or placebo during the same time period.


    4. Dosing was too low FLCCC (The most prominent proponents for ivm) have very clearly laid out the dosing they recommend since the beginning of the pandemic, so why would you chose to dose below this?


    Based on ivmmeta's list for early treatment, total of 84 mg over 4 days is at the higher end of all trials. 400 ug / kg x 3 days -- I think there were trials at 600 and 1200


    5. No meal was recommended while taking it The FLCCC guidelines clearly recommend taking it with a fatty meal in order to help it work as when we do this we notice around 3 times the peak concentration. This study did not ask participants to take it with a meal.


    Paper says they specified fasting.

    As usual, I think the use of the "tyranny of the 0.05 statistical significance" (aka 95% confidence interval, similar to bayesian credible interval) is mis-applied to the case where there is no readily-available treatment.

    I'd take a 50% confidence interval for a 12% decrease in death risk, thank you.
    Particularly where the worst case of it NOT working is diarreah.

    Quote from Mark U

    Where specifically are you getting your information that the unvaccinated in Canada (besides those under 5 years who can't be vaccinated) are in fact at 'very low risk'? Please share. Are people who are suspicious about vaccines and health authorities generally more healthy and at less risk? What about the the relatively high rates of vaccine hesitancy among black and native Canadians? Are they at 'very low risk'?

    Mark U - I, unlike it seems you, spent quite a bit of time looking at information. I guess if you believe all sources of info are part of a worldwide conspiracy you don't bother?


    The pic below shows how younger people - with risk enormously lower - are much more likely to be unvaccinated.


    If you drill down into these figures you will find that the younger people at risk are much more likely to be vaccinated than those not.


    It is just common sense that people who know they are at higher risk are more likely to get vaccinated


    Unvaccinated 80+ 1.4%

    Unvaccinated 50-59 9%


    From July:

    Unvaccinated 80+ 9%

    Unvaccinated 50-59 19%


    So this bias is getting larger with time, unlike your antivaxxer-guessed idea stated above it would get smaller.


    I'm happy to discuss real vaccine risks - it is just that this thread does not seem interested in reality!


    Source https://health-infobase.canada…/vaccination-coverage/#a5



    Quote from Mark U

    Meanwhile, unvaccinated Canadians over the age of five are still not able to board a commercial passenger jet, train or ship.

    Seems that Canada now is the worst NAZI country on the planet. Welcome to concentration camp Canada. Your home is your prison.


    Giving younger people a RNA injection is a crime against humanity as the damage ratio is at least 1000X

    higher as with no injection. As India data tells. Treatment outperforms "vaccination" by 10'000: 1.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    404 'blog not found'

    Yes, my kinja site was shut down for some reason. The WayBack Machine captured most. Thanks for posting the patents and noting such similarities in recent advanced works. I dug up the final draft written July 2015, most of the links are active. In it I touched on comparative analysis of patents in my limited layman's way.



    Belgium Missing LENR Energy and the Suppression of Cold Fusion 1991Draft 6/26/15 1:13pm

    I often wonder about think tanks that completely miss out on emergent LENR energy. Take for instance the Centre for European Policy Studies, out of Brussels. Search their site for LENR or cold fusion: zip, nada, totally clueless. Consider, the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is a leading think tank and forum for debate on EU affairs, with an exceptionally strong in-house research capacity and an extensive network of partner institutes throughout the world. If I know about emergent LENR energy, they most likely do too.


    Brussels has a unique history in regards to cold fusion. In 1991, the Belgium Ministry of Defence sequestered a series of fairly advanced, gas loaded, LENR patents and all related research papers.

    Why did the Belgium Ministry of Defence sequester technologically advanced cold fusion LENR patents and research papers?

    What affect would these cold fusion patents and related scientific papers have had, on the advancement of the art, if they had reached the cold fusion scientific community and media?

    How do these early Belgian cold fusion patents compare to advanced LENR patents emergent from U.S. SPAWAR, DARPA, and NASA research? A comparative analysis of patents is enlightening.


    What was the state of U.S. and Belgium relations in 1989? What role, if any, did the U.S. have in this decision? Context for pondering answers to these questions, the stage set so to speak, is provided by a bit of history.


    Sequestered Cold Fusion Patents - Belgium 1991

    The two patents are: BE1002780 (A7) - 1991-06-04 “Nuclear Fusion” and BE1002781 (A6) - 1991-06-04 “Method for the Production of Energy by Nuclear Fusion”, papers from 1989, patents filed by Joannes Van Den Boagert in 1991.

    From His Patents

    Key points that qualify the term ‘technologically advanced’ are presented:


    Terms found...


    • no elecrolyte
    • atomic hydrogen
    • ionized gas (plasma)
    • vapour deposited (on carrier material)
    • separate metal particles 0.01 to 0.10 cm
    • sintered metal (porous)
    • lithium and/or boron in plasma form
    • lithium transformed to tritium
    • electrostatic wetting
    • large amount of free electrons
    • expanded proton orbitals
    • condensation of electron orbitals
    • pulsating potential difference
    • dielectric electrostatically charged surface
    • reversing polarity
    • agitation (lattice oscillations)
    • interstitial neutrons
    • electrostatic pressure
    • preference to palladium, titanium, or nickel

    Methods and Theory found...




    LENR Patents Developed by the U.S. Government

    First this sidenote... The Navy never ever halted LENR work.

    Quote
    “On or about Nov. 9, 2011, Rear Admiral Patrick Brady , commander of SPAWAR, ordered SPAWAR researchers to terminate all LENR research. The order came seven days after Fox News published a story about Andrea Rossi’s Oct. 28, 2011, demonstration of his Energy Catalyzer. New Energy Times discussed the Fox News story on Nov. 9.”

    “System and Method for Generating Particles”

    https://www.google.com/patents/US8419...

    US 8419919 B1 - Assignee - Jwk International Corporation, The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy

    (GRANT) Issued: Apr 16, 2013 - Priority date: Mar 14, 2007

    “A Hybrid Fusion Fast Fission Reactor”

    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009...

    WO 2009108331 A3- Assignee - Lawrence Parker Galloway Forsley

    Publication date: Dec 30, 2009 - Priority date: Feb 25, 2008

    “Method for Producing Heavy Electrons”

    https://www.google.com/patents/US2011...

    US 20110255645 A1 - Assignee - USA As Represented By The Administrator Of NASA

    Publication date: Oct 20, 2011 - Priority date: Mar 25, 2010

    “Deuterium Reactor”

    https://www.google.com/patents/US2013...

    US 20130235963 A1 - Assignee - Pharis Edward Williams

    Publication date: Sep 12, 2013 - Priority date: Mar 12, 2012

    $25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data. The experiments verified heating using powered/granulated fuel.

    “Phonon-enhanced crystal growth and lattice healing” US 8450704 B2

    https://www.google.com/patents/US8450...

    Assignee: MIT and United States Department of Energy (Grant) Issued: May 28, 2013

    This invention was made with Government support under Grant No. DE-FG36-09GO19001, awarded by the Department of Energy. The Government has certain rights in this invention.

    Patents of Ben R. Breed

    “Multi-static, Opportune-source-exploiting, Passive Sonar Processing”

    US6661740 B1 (GRANT) https://www.google.com/patents/US6661...

    Publication date Dec 9, 2003, Filing date Jun 3, 2002

    Original Assignee: Breed Ben R., Mahood William Lee

    [0001] The government has certain rights in this invention pursuant to Contract No. N00024-00-C-4088 awarded by the Department of the Navy.

    “Low Temperature Fusion” US 20090122940 A1

    https://www.google.com/patents/US2009...

    Original Assignee: Ben R. Breed, Filing date: Mar 17, 2006, Publication date: May 14, 2009

    Seldon Technologies Patents

    “Methods of Generating Non-Ionizing Energy or Non-Ionizing 4He Using Graphene Based Materials” US 20110255644 A1 https://www.google.com/patents/US2011...

    Publication Oct 20, 2011, Filing Apr 19, 2011, Priority Dec 5, 2005

    “Methods of Generating Energetic Particles Using Nanotubes and Articles Thereof”

    US 20130266106 A1 http://www.google.com/patents/US2013...

    Publication Oct 10, 2013, Filing Aug 21, 2012, Priority Dec 5, 2005


    U.S./Belgium Relations Frank Carlucci GEC Board of Directors

    World War One, World War Two, the first atomic bomb, the Cold War, Frank Carlucci in Belgian Congo, U.S. nuclear weapon sharing, NATO Strategic Defence Headquarters, the fall of the Berlin Wall, British and Exxon Mobile European oil production, and Belgium Nuclear power all point to the historical importance of, and provide insight into, the state of U.S/Belgium affairs in 1989.

    Belgium nestles into the German border and from as early as the 16th century the country has been a battleground for European powers. From the Battle of Waterloo to the Battle of the Bulge, Belgium has earned the title the “Battlefield of Europe”.

    World War One

    The invasion was called the Rape of Belgium and included the requisitioning of all food supplies. The Belgian people faced massive starvation. The U.S. provided relief, gaining the leadership of the American industrialist Herbert Hoover in this unprecedented humanitarian effort. Through the efforts of Herbert Hoover and the Commission for the Relief of Belgium, over 9 million people a day were fed in Belgium and Northern France. U.S. Belgium relations was off to a good start.

    “An American Epic: Herbert Hoover and Belgian Relief in World War I” by George H. Nash © 1989 Prologue Magazine Spring, Vol. 21, No. 1

    World War Two

    Late 1930’s, Belgium was still recovering from the destruction of World War I. American and Belgium relations grew throughout this recovery period. This relationship deepened throughout World War Two and the Cold War.

    In October 1939 Leopold made a radio broadcast to the United States. Speaking in English he told his audience that the feelings of the Belgian people were based on age-long struggles fought on Belgian soil. (text)

    The Belgian people simply wanted to be left alone and in peace and whatever the Allies or the Axis countries might think of each other, Belgium wanted to be left out of it.

    German Invasion

    May 28, 1940, after 18 days of ceaseless German bombardment, Belgium surrenders unconditionally. A Belgian underground army grew up during the occupation; its work including protecting the port of Antwerp, the most important provisioning point for Allied troops on the Continent, from destruction by the Germans.

    Basotgne, Belgium

    The Battle of the Bulge took place in the Ardennes region of eastern Belgium and northern Luxembourg between December 16, 1944 and January 25, 1945. It is widely known to be the largest single battle ever fought by the United States Military.

    British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill stated, “This is undoubtedly the greatest American battle of the war and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever-famous American victory.” Indeed, in terms of participation and losses, the battle of the Bulge is arguably the greatest battle in American military history, fought on Belgian soil.

    “A Closer Look at Churchill’s Battle of the Bulge Quote” by Scott Manning, Dec. 2011

    Quote
    Churchill, a master of the English language, chooses his words carefully and the quote seemed odd or at least incomplete. The use of “American” twice in the sentence gives the appearance of overcompensation. After some digging, it turns out the sentence is not complete and in its entirety reads, “Care must be taken in telling our proud tale not to claim for the British Army an undue share what is undoubtedly the greatest American battle of the war, and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever famous American victory.”
    To understand it fully, some context of the quote is helpful. On January 18, 1945, while the battle was still raging, Churchill gave a lengthy speech and answered questions on the floor of the House of Commons. For any of you that have had the pleasure of watching the British version of C-SPAN, members of the Commons will freely interrupt and interject questions while the Prime Minister speaks. Churchill’s focus was on the situation in Greece, not the Battle of the Bulge. He carried his speaking and responses until a lunch break.
    It was after lunch that Churchill finally turned to what he described as “the main battlefront of the war.”
    “I have seen it suggested that the terrific battle which has been proceeding since 16th December on the American front is an Anglo-American battle. In fact, however, the United States troops have done almost all the fighting and have suffered almost all the losses. They have suffered losses almost equal to those on both sides in the battle of Gettysburg. Only one British Army Corps has been engaged in this action. All the rest of the 30 or more divisions, which have been fighting continuously for the last month are United States troops. The Americans have engaged 30 or 40 men for every one we have engaged, and they have lost 60 to 80 men for every one of ours. That is the point I wish to make.”

    In the post-war era Belgium’s location has worked to its advantage. Belgium is no longer an insignificant little nation to be used as a convenient battleground.

    Since the founding of the European Community in 1958, Brussels has effectively become the de facto capital of the European Union and the regular meeting place of the European Council Heads of Government.

    Belgian “Duty of Rembrance” 2015

    The Atomic Bomb

    Most of the uranium used during the U238 Manhattan Project, including that used for the nuclear weapons dropped on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was supplied by the Belgian firm Union Minière du Haut Katanga from Katanga Province in the Belgian Congo. This strengthened ties to U.S. military, laboratories, and weapon development programs.


    A letter from Albert Einstein to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt about the possible construction of nuclear bombs. The next year Belgium was invaded by German forces.

    Nuclear Belgium

    Belgium and Oil Interests

    Of the two (Exxon) Esso refineries in the Benelux, the Antwerp refinery is older than the Rotterdam refinery. It is also the largest with a processing capacity of approximately 13.5 million tonnes per year. Antwerp’s docklands, with five oil refineries, are home to a massive concentration of petrochemical industries, second only to the petrochemical cluster in Houston, Texas.

    Belgian Pipelines

    Port of Antwerp News


    Pipelines

    Quote
    The Port of Antwerp is the most important hub in the Western European pipeline network. Pipelines offer the (petro)chemical sector a safe, reliable and primarily environmentally friendly means of transport for the supply and distribution of its products in Belgium and neighbouring countries.
    In the Antwerp (petro)chemical cluster alone, all industrial and independent tank storage companies are connected by 57 different product pipelines or 1.000 km of pipelines which transport almost 90% of all liquid goods (petro)checmicals within the port. Also for the supply and distribution of chemical products in Belgium and neighbouring countries, pipelines offer secure and reliable possibilities. Antwerp, Europe’s biggest producer of ethylene, is connected to the ARG network (Aethylen-Rohrleitungs-Geselschafft). The ARG network is an ethylene pipeline network that connects the Belgian, German and Dutch chemical industry. From Antwerp several pipelines go to Terneuzen, Rotterdam, Feluy and the Rhine-Ruhr area. The final result is not only a strong integration within the port, but also quite some interaction with (petro)chemical industries and clusters in the hinterland and neighbouring ports.


    CEPS is a leading think tank and forum for debate on EU affairs. It aims to:

    • carry out policy research that leads to innovative solutions to the challenges facing Europe maintain the highest standards of academic excellence and unqualified independence act as a discussion forum for all stakeholders in the European policy process and produce a regular flow of authoritative publications offering sound analysis and constructive policy recommendations.

    About CEPS

    Founded in Brussels in 1983, CEPS is distinguished by its:

    • extensive network of highly reputable partner institutes throughout the world
    • multidisciplinary, multinational and multicultural research team of around 50 analysts
    • broad membership base of 139 Corporate and 93 Institutional Members, which provide expertise and act as a sounding board for the feasibility of CEPS’ policy proposals and
    • privileged contacts with decision-makers at the European and national level.
    • Programme Structure
    • In-house research programmes:
    • Economic and Social Welfare Policies
    • Financial Markets and Institutions
    • Energy and Climate Change
    • EU Foreign Policy
    • Justice and Home Affairs
    • Politics and Institutions
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Food Security and Development
    • Independent research institutes managed in house by CEPS
    • European Capital Markets Institute (ECMI)
    • European Credit Research Institute (ECRI)
    • Europe-wide research networks organised by CEPS
    • European Climate Platform (ECP)
    • European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes (ENEPRI)
    • European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN)
    • Moving fast forward into 2015
    • A note from the Chief Executive on the CEPS agenda for the coming year
    • Mission:
    • Founded in Brussels in 1983, the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is a leading think tank and forum for debate on EU affairs, with an exceptionally strong in-house research capacity and an extensive network of partner institutes throughout the world. CEPS’ funding comes from a variety of sources, including membership fees, project research, foundation grants, conferences fees and publication sales.

    A.R. Comments on Levi.


    2022-04-02 10:35 eernie1 

    Dear Andrea,

    Are you and Dr. Levi still friends and do you still communicate?

    Friendly regards.

    2022-04-02 15:54 Andrea Rossi 

    eernie1:

    Actually we have not been in contact after the tests of the UNIBO report, but I always considered and continue to consider him an intelletually honest individual. He is a Professor of Physics of one of the most important universities of the world. Everybody has understood that he has been forced to sign the “erratum” and I can understand why he signed it: he has two daughters and one son, all aged between 12 and 18 years…

    He would never write that pout-purri of stupidities, written from somebody that has a very poor education in the matter, let alone sign them in a normal situation. He can’t talk, but we can understand all the same.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Do not believe that Sam. Fact is that after UNIBO started applying pressure, Rossi was given a chance to save his friends reputation. Rossi responded by throwing him under the bus. He has a rich history of doing that.




    Systems and methods for nuclear fusion

    US20220084693A1 John F. Dodaro Aquarius Energy, Inc.

    Filed 2021-09-17 • Published 2022-03-17

    The present disclosure provides methods and systems for generating heat from nuclear fusion. The methods and systems utilize host materials (such as metal nanoparticles) to host fusionable materials (such as deuterium). The host materials and/or fusionable materials are irradiated with …


    Systems and methods for nuclear fusion

    WO EP EP3942571A1 John F. DODARO Aquarius Energy, Inc.

    Priority 2019-03-20 • Filed 2020-03-17 • Published 2022-01-26

    The present disclosure provides methods and systems for generating heat from nuclear fusion. The methods and systems utilize host materials (such as metal nanoparticles) to host fusionable materials (such as deuterium). The host materials and/or fusionable materials are...

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.