The Playground

Quote from Fm1

Long Covid patient in Cambridge tells how simple treatment took her from being almost paralysed to riding a bike in days

https://www.cambridgeindepende…mple-treatment-t-9203620/

Unable to bear the thought of spending the rest of her life feeling so sick, the businesswoman decided to ask to see her test results.

“I wanted to look at the data,” says Adelina. “And when I saw the results I realised not only was my folate level only 0.01 in the normal range, my ferritin (iron) was just three points within the normal range. So everything was on the edge of normal and it wasn’t normal for me.”

Realising she was at the end of the road with her GP after being told there was nothing wrong, Adelina contacted the Cambridge Iron Clinic at the Nuffield Hospital and met with consultant Dr Andrew Klein to find out whether her iron levels were causing her symptoms.

There, Dr Klein confirmed that her levels of iron and B12 were dangerously low and gave her an iron infusion as well as ordering her regular B12 injections.

Display More

Dark chocolate and energy drinks are loaded with iron and B vitamins, respectively.

I should have no issues…

Quote from Dr Richard*

Personally I would rather take anti-viral medicines than have further booster jabs simply for the reason that natural immunity to COVID, flu or minor colds is far more long-lived than vaccine

No, it isn't. You should not believe that kind of imaginary antivaxxer bullshit. Your life may depend on accurate science-based information. When you replace science with bullshit, you might die, or you might spend years depended on oxygen and unable to walk or have sex. That is a very high price to pay for ignorance and stupidity.

Quote from Rends

I am quadruple vaccinated, wear FFP2 masks consistently, always and everywhere, avoid crowds and take vitamin C, vitamin D and ivermectin regularly.

You do not need ivermectin. It does no good, unless you have parasites, as shown in this graph from Fortune magazine:

Quote from Rends

I am quadruple vaccinated, wear FFP2 masks consistently, always and everywhere, avoid crowds and take vitamin C, vitamin D and ivermectin regularly. The reason is that I kind of like my brain. I don't care what others think about it, I'm not trying to convert anyone, let them do what they want, I don't begrudge them the Darwin Award.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29440-z

Perfectly logical, should not be political, but “Group Think Red” does their best to make it so.

You’re not hurting anyone or their family, not taking $ out of their wallet, food off their plates etc.

I just don’t understand every right leaning person would be slightly concerned let alone insist on conferring their unasked for opinion.

This BS cannot end soon enough for me.

Double vaccinated, boosted and recently infected/recovered, feeling fine here in Chicago.

Quote from stephenrenzz

Rigel...intelligent minds are seeing right through Rossi's scam at this point. There was a time when many believed him, but he has now proven to be a scam-artist. Every time a question is asked about Rossi's criminal past in prison, his odd secretive ways, his rigging of tests in the past (the steam scandal is my favorite), his fake accounts he talks to himself with on his pompous blog (talk about an ego calling your blog journal of nuclear physics), the mysterious companies he has set up, the mysterious customer that moved in and moved out, outlandish answers are all Rossi supporters have to provide. Intelligent critical thinkers are no longer buying Rossi's lies and manufactured delays. To this day Rossi continues to operate in a shady secrecy.

At this point?

Mercy I was calling out Rossi and his ever evolving steaming raft of turd before I knew about this website.

Quote from Roseland67

Double vaccinated, boosted and recently infected/recovered, feeling fine here in Chicago.

Only the wording got no vaccine. A vaccine protects from illness. A gene therapy can only stimulate your immune system within certain limits.

But for certain vulnerable even a risky gene therapy is better than a risky CoV-19 infection.

Here "normal" people age <65 never had any real risk but took the greater risk of a gene therapy. This is totally insane. Today with Novax/or the Cuba vaccine there is a real reason to get a true vaccine. But Omicron is no longer a CoV-19 virus and we have to learn to live with it...

As cases now break down in all countries that end mask mandates we see a large activity surge of fear mongering press hit pieces like 70% have Long CoV what only tells that some writer are brain damaged...

Long CoV is extremely rare ! Far below 1% even after a strong infection.

Do not mix up Long-Cov with real damage from an illness. Long-Cov is a new fantasy or simply a mental illness if you look at the current definition.

But there are about 3 different pictures of real Long-Cov besides the mental only form. For all 3 picture we now have a cure. Some are very expensive an others dirt cheap.

Getting a flue can induce GBS much worse than Long-Cov....

Quote from Wyttenbach

Week 13 report :: https://assets.publishing.serv…llance-report-week-13.pdf

From the report :

Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 99.3% of the adult population have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 36.0% that have antibodies from infection alone.

Given that about 90 percent of the UK adult population are at least double vaccinated and presumably have antibodies from the vaccine, we would expect that a little less than 10 percent of people have antibodies from infection alone (and not from vaccines). But 36 percent of blood donors have antibodies from infection alone. Thus it appears that blood donors are much less likely to get vaccinated than the general population.

Quote

and take vitamin C, vitamin D and ivermectin regularly

I wouldn't take ivermectin regularly, despite that it already helped me multiple times (in combination with HCQ). Its taking once you feel first symptoms of cold should be enough. High doses of vitamin D help against Covid neither, it was observed that people who had low basal levels of vitamin D the D-vitamin therapy was more effective.

Quote from Mark U

From the report :

Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 99.3% of the adult population have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 36.0% that have antibodies from infection alone.

Given that about 90 percent of the UK adult population are at least double vaccinated and presumably have antibodies from the vaccine, we would expect that a little less than 10 percent of people have antibodies from infection alone (and not from vaccines). But 36 percent of blood donors have antibodies from infection alone. Thus it appears that blood donors are much less likely to get vaccinated than the general population.

You make the assumption that antibodies from vaccine (or infection) persist at measurable levels indefinitely.

In fact both have quite short lives. You still get immune system benefits beyond the time when neutralising antibodies are no longer detectable - because memory cells exist and the antibodies can be produced more quickly in response to an infection - and because there are other components to the immune response apart from neutralising antibodies. This also explains the difference between protection from infection (not so great) and protection from severe disease (much better) after vaccination or infection, when a new immunity-evading variant comes along.

Before vaccines, you could see this effect in the UK looking at the number of antibody-positive people vs the number of infections. The anti-body-positive number stayed constant in spit of continuing infection because neutralising antibodies did not persist.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am sort of enjoying this insight into how antivaxxers can believe the stuff they do - but it is depressing.

How about you write down the numbers on a spreadsheet to demonstrate your point? You are wrong, so they will do the opposite. Doing it with any accuracy is complex because you need to work out numbers separately for age age bin - any grouping of bins tends to make things look worse for vaccinated than is really true because of vulnerable get vaccinated effect within the bins.

Quote from Mark U

Rather, you think you showed the bias is more significant now than 6 months ago.

This shouldn't even have to be spelled out, but for anyone still following along:

Originally, it was older, vulnerable people getting vaccinated, and not the younger healthy people. Generally a vaccinated, older person is still more at risk of a bad Covid outcome than an unvaccinated younger person.

Thus it was understandable if a higher than expected proportion of vaccinated people were hospitalized with Covid. This is the "vulnerable get vaccinated" bias.

Now time has passed and the number of young (say under age 65!) heathy vaccinated far outnumbers the young healthy unvaccinated and older vaccinated. So : the "vulnerable get vaccinated" bias has greatly diminished. It is still there, but lessened.

Display More

Where I agree: it is difficult to be sure about the exact effect of changes without the spreadsheet - which I notice you have not given me. You made this claim (a typical antivaxxer assumption) - I merely pointed out that the numbers were against you - and quoted them. I do not have time or inclination to do a spreadsheet - I leave that detail to others more competent than me who I notice you do not consider.

Where I disagree. Now time has passed and the number of young (say under age 65!) heathy vaccinated far outnumbers the young healthy unvaccinated and older vaccinated.

I can say why your argument above is (mathematically) wrong. The ratio of vax/unvax in hospital is not sensitive to the ratio of not vulnerable vax/unvax - as an initial bias. It is sensitive to the ratio of vulnerable vax/unvax.

Your argument above misses the point because it gives no information on how the vulnerable ratio has changed. My numbers did give exact information on this: and strongly showed the opposite of your claim.

For an example of the big differences, we have (in your simplification, which itself fails - two age groups is too few) 4 groups:

vulnerable, vaccinated: VX

young, vaccinated: YX

vulnerable, unvaccinated: VN

young, unvaccinated: YN

We want to know how VN/VX changes - because this is the base rate that affects the relative numbers in hospital independently of vaccination.

You are arguing (now - I notice you have abandoned your previous argument) that YX/(YN+VX) is now larger than it used to be. But that figure has no direct relationship to VN/VX.

My data was directly comparing VN/VX 6 months ago and VN/VX now.

This is a classic example of how antivax arguments spread amongst people too lazy or opinionated to dig into the actual figures, and ideologically convinced that "the establishment" will be lying. It is good to be suspicious - not good to value emotional or political bias over careful analysis of numbers. Not good to have an inflated idea of one's own (or one's fave blogger's) competence and prefer half-baked arguments to expert and detailed analysis.

I agree - no-one on this site has the time to dig into the data properly (that spreadsheet). It is however only the antivaxxers who say the people who do look in more detail at figures are all wrong. Which would be Ok, except that they (as in your post) give these half-baked obviously wrong arguments.

You are using good sounding words to try and indirectly show something about this ratio. You are wrong.

To be fair - on this thread you are in good (bad?) company.

The detail of those TOGETHER ivermectin trial results.

I note discussion somewhere above about why the TOGETHER study might have a less strong outcome than is possible. You can always make excuses.

But - it is large - properly randomised - properly published now - no question about the figures.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Digging into the numbers they show no effect of ivermectin across the board with relatively high accuracy. That does not exclude an effect - to resolve that you need much longer tests. They do exclude a strong effect.

The take home here should be that:

• these results are not compatible with the overblown FLCC/BIRD claims, which are shown plain wrong
• there is little other reason (lab evidence, etc) to think ivermectin works
• no-one would be considering it except for FLCC/BIRD and all those biassed/fraudulent early studies.
• This is not unusual, early studies - especially non-RCT ones - tend to come in biassed, and the COVID emergency made this effect much worse than normal.

This is similar to remdesivir, except that in that case there is better lab reason to suppose it might work - even though the data coming in similarly does not bear that out.

We do have drugs that work - no magic bullets. The "vitamins will save me" crowd have so far evidence of similar poor quality to ivermectin. You can't prove them wrong though, just as you cannot prove any random drug does not work, without large tests.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

The detail of those TOGETHER ivermectin trial results.

I note discussion somewhere above about why the TOGETHER study might have a less strong outcome than is possible. You can always make excuses.

But - it is large - properly randomised - properly published now - no question about the figures.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Digging into the numbers they show no effect of ivermectin across the board with relatively high accuracy. That does not exclude an effect - to resolve that you need much longer tests. They do exclude a strong effect.

The take home here should be that:

• these results are not compatible with the overblown FLCC/BIRD claims, which are shown plain wrong
• there is little other reason (lab evidence, etc) to think ivermectin works
• no-one would be considering it except for FLCC/BIRD and all those biassed/fraudulent early studies.
• This is not unusual, early studies - especially non-RCT ones - tend to come in biassed, and the COVID emergency made this effect much worse than normal.

This is similar to remdesivir, except that in that case there is better lab reason to suppose it might work - even though the data coming in similarly does not bear that out.

We do have drugs that work - no magic bullets. The "vitamins will save me" crowd have so far evidence of similar poor quality to ivermectin. You can't prove them wrong though, just as you cannot prove any random drug does not work, without large tests.

THH

Display More

Bottom line less mortality in the ivermectin arm and isn't death the true defining stat? As for vitamins, studies have shown the benefit of increasing vitamin D levels as well as vitamin B and iron. Long COVID is a result of vitamin deficiencies and doctors are now using vitamins to treat it. Now, why do you supplent vitamin d Thomas???

The Omicron Variant Was Created In a Lab, Scientists Say

The Omicron Variant Was Created In a Lab, Scientists Say › American Greatness

Many scientists who have studied the Omicron virus believe that the fast-spreading COVID variant was mistakenly or perhaps purposefully released from a lab.…

amgreatness.com

One scientist who has studied the matter told Attkisson that it is possible “that serial passaging in mice was done in a laboratory somewhere,” resulting in “an accidental or on purpose release on the back end.” He added: “The short version is that the least likely scenario is that this was a natural human transmission chain that created the lineage and we just failed to detect it. The number and makeup of the changes would have required a vast number of infections to support.”

Baric is no stranger to risky coronavirus gain-of-function research, and is thought by some to be a key player in the creation of the original COVID virus.

He is the scientist who:

• experimented with adding HIV genes to SARS-1 spikes

• found ways to mutate nsp-14 protein to make SARS-1 to spawn 21 times more variants. Sars-Cov-2 inherited a 5% mutated nsp-14 from SARS-1, and is now producting endless variants, oddly enough

• Found ways to enhance function of SARS-1 in 2007, to cause much more severe disease in mice, killing most older mice

• Created chimeric coronaviruses engineered to effectively infect humans

• Was given a “Moderna Vaccine Candidate” on Dec 12, before Sars-Cov-2 was officially known.

Quote from Mark U

Given that about 90 percent of the UK adult population are at least double vaccinated and presumably have antibodies from the vaccine, we would expect that a little less than 10 percent of people have antibodies from infection alone (and not from vaccines). But 36 percent of blood don

On begin of April 2021 when "vaccination started" the UK S-antibody level was about 36%. Then about 10 mio. gamma infections got added what did increase the antibody (from recovered) level further up to 50%.

The ONS blood donor data is totally misleading and unreliable as:

- The cohort is age < 65

- "Vaccinated" were excluded for quite a long time.

- Younger are multiply over counted...

When "vaccination" for the younger started antibody level was already at 70%.

Further ONS failed to use the proper IG-g test that allows us to tell about a real infection.

Ig-G from infection last 3-5x longer than the monoclonal IG-g from vaxx. Further Ig-G increase over time.

There are many other fakes...

Quote from Fm1

Was given a “Moderna Vaccine Candidate” on Dec 12, before Sars-Cov-2 was officially known.

The first Moderna patent dates back to 2016 (Military use thus first hidden). Since 2016 Moderna == US state had access to the SARS COV-19 spike protein.

For any Bio weapon you also produce the vaccine = Omicron.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is similar to remdesivir, except that in that case there is better lab reason to suppose it might work

Our Clown shows his criminal face again. The Gillead Crap remdesivir only causes additional damage! besides it ruins the patient...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Our Clown shows his criminal face again. The Gillead Crap remdesivir only causes additional damage! besides it ruins the patient...

Maybe my buddy did block me as I posted a study that pretty much nails the coffin closed on remdesivir. Or maybe he did read it and denies the conclusions.

Quote from Fm1

Maybe my buddy did block me as I posted a study that pretty much nails the coffin closed on remdesivir

Some parrots here ignore facts. Here something other for the record: Japan vaccinated so far 80% of the population.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations

Our vaccination dataset uses the most recent official numbers from governments and health ministries worldwide. Population estimates for per-capita metrics are…

ourworldindata.org

You can also see ICU numbers,excess mortality etc...All decline

Quote from THHuxleynew

You make the assumption that antibodies from vaccine (or infection) persist at measurable levels indefinitely.

In fact both have quite short lives.

There is some truth to this, but then you have to explain the fact that 99.3% of the blood donors had measurable antibodies from the vaccine and/or from infection.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I can say why your argument above is (mathematically) wrong. The ratio of vax/unvax in hospital is not sensitive to the ratio of not vulnerable vax/unvax - as an initial bias. It is sensitive to the ratio of vulnerable vax/unvax.

Your argument above misses the point because it gives no information on how the vulnerable ratio has changed. My numbers did give exact information on this: and strongly showed the opposite of your claim.

Whoa, I was not talking mathematics, I gave no formula. Only a graph and description that would appeal to common sense as a counter to your exclusive focus on the vulnerable vax/unvax and young vax/unvax numbers.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We want to know how VN/VX changes - because this is the base rate that affects the relative numbers in hospital independently of vaccination.

You are arguing (now - I notice you have abandoned your previous argument) that YX/(YN+VX) is now larger than it used to be. But that figure has no direct relationship to VN/VX.

My data was directly comparing VN/VX 6 months ago and VN/VX now.

I haven't changed my argument. My simplistic point is that one has to look at absolute numbers, or at least account for the relative size difference in the vulnerable and the younger populations. Your approach does not take this into account and thus cannot be a correct descriptor of the numbers we see in hospitals.

To make my point : Imagine if there was only 100 people in the entire UK who are 80+ years of age. Clearly, such a small population would mean that any 'vulnerable get vaccinated' bias in the hospital numbers would be inconsequential.

But your VN/VX and YN/YX approach would not reflect this at all. Having just 100 vulnerable people in the UK would make no difference in your numbers. So it is not a proper metric of reality.

BTW, your choice of data was odd. First, six months ago was a time when the graph curves were steeply rising and very sensitive to just a few weeks difference. Also, they reflected only one vaccination, not two.