The Playground

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Fact is: India did the best of all western countries. The Omicron wave peek was 1/20 of the western figures

    No, India actually has a higher per capita death rate than the U.S., which is the worst of the first-world countries. India reported 522,000 deaths but the actual total is at least 4 million.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    And best:: Thanks to Ivermectin++ Omicron is history since more than 2 weeks...

    Ivermectin is not used in most of the world, so it could not have had an effect. For example, it is not used in Japan, yet Omicron is declining there. It had no effect in India. The states within India that reported low death rates -- or magically, no deaths at all from any cause for months -- turned out to have among the worst COVID death rates in the world. The Modi government covered that up. It is a little odd that you believe the Modi government when you do not believe any other government, including Switzerland's. Do you also believe Putin? The numbers from Russia are also lies.

    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.

    Quote from h_l

    Sometimes on Rossilivecat there do appear almost empty posts from the magician like today:

    Parallel to that we can see this on JONP:

    Same time, but switched to a well known sock puppet.

    My guess is that he (accidently?) posts some kind of draft and then fills in what the puppet has to say. The rossilivecat script grabs the draft and replaces it the next time it visits the blog.

    We all know that he cheats, but this might be real evidence.

    I think that the Rossilivecat site software chokes on the @ at the beginning of a line.

    Had the CoV-19 terror regime any positive effect on the pandemic?? Less death ?


    https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf


    While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects,

    they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In

    consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy

    instrument.


    Look again at India how to manage a harmless pandemic. No lockdown, no gene therapy lowest cases world wide, freedom for all citizen. Nevertheless the state mafia still tries to harm people with classic, but also useless vaccines...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Look again at India how to manage a harmless pandemic. No lockdown, no gene therapy lowest cases world wide, freedom for all citizen.

    And with only 4 million dead and highest mortality rate in the world! What's not to like? We should all strive to emulate India. They have freedom to die without medical care or even oxygen. That's the goal of Wyttenbach and his fellow Death Cult Fanatics. They want as much suffering, agony and death as they can bring about, by lying and getting people to take ivermectin and other useless drugs, instead of vaccinations that actually prevent disease and death.


    Oh, by the way, India did have lockdowns. Mainly voluntary. People were afraid to leave their houses for weeks on end.



    Even in 2006 a pandemic scenario of lockdowns and such was studied, and the severe type of reaction we have taken for the last two years was firmly rejected on the grounds that there would be catastrophic damage to society.


    From https://www.aier.org/wp-conten…20/05/10.1.1.552.1109.pdf


    BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM: BIODEFENSE STRATEGY, PRACTICE, AND SCIENCE Volume 4, Number 4, 2006

    © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

    Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza

    THOMAS V. INGLESBY, JENNIFER B. NUZZO, TARA O’TOOLE, and D. A. HENDERSON


    (Abstract at beginning)

    The threat of an influenza pandemic has alarmed countries around the globe and given rise to an intense interest in disease mitigation measures. This article reviews what is known about the effectiveness and practical feasibility of a range of actions that might be taken in attempts to lessen the number of cases and deaths resulting from an influenza pandemic. The article also discusses potential adverse second- and third-order effects of mitigation actions that decision makers must take into account. Finally, the article summarizes the authors’ judgments of the likely effectiveness and likely adverse consequences of the range of disease mitigation measures and suggests priorities and practical actions to be taken.

    ...

    (Summary at end)

    Quarantine. As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable.


    Screening passengers at borders or closing air or rail hubs. Experience has shown that these actions are not effective and could have serious adverse consequences; thus, they are not recommended.


    An overriding principle. Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Look again at India how to manage a harmless pandemic. No lockdown, no gene therapy lowest cases world wide, freedom for all citizen.

    Saw a video last week of a women who had stayed in India (not sure what state) for a while and recently returned to America. She said that if anyone in a household tested positive, the entire household was given free Ziverdo kits for self treatment. Houston, we have a problem (in the west).

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The thing is, some national health ministries report reliable numbers. I am sure the ones in the UK, the U.S., Canada or Japan are accurate.

    I beg to differ about Canada. The provinces each report weekly deaths to Stats Canada who then reports. For many provinces the numbers are clearly off, way off. This is from the Stats Canada website today.


    Quebec's reporting looks good :



    The nursing home deaths in spring of 2020 were horrific in Quebec, and the numbers show.


    But for some other provinces some of the 2021 and into 2022 data is bonkers.


    The contractions, hypocrisy, and double standards associated with industry versus generic, repurposed approaches are clear for those in America and beyond that bother to take the time to look into these matters with any seriousness. Sit back and listen to the boob tube and one is subject to a point of view, a truth, and some propaganda.


    KHN Author: Blame the Lack of Repurposed Drugs on Proponents of Ivermectin in the Latest Hit Against the Drug


    KHN Author: Blame the Lack of Repurposed Drugs on Proponents of Ivermectin in the Latest Hit Against the Drug
    www.trialsitenews.com



    According to Arthur Allen, a Senior Correspondent writing about the pharma industry and FDA and COVID-related topics, ivermectin has been a complete “fiasco” with absolutely no proof of any efficacy or benefit. This KHN-employed author blames the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin “fiascoes” for souring physicians’ point of view on repurposed medicines. At the same time, he acknowledges that the pharmaceutical industry pursues billions of revenues and profits even with mediocre drugs, according to scientists in the field.


    Mr. Allen declared in the article that ivermectin, while showing “hints of value initially,” unfortunately, “failed in clinical trials” yet continues to remain in circulation.


    But what about the majority of the 82 studies to date involved with ivermectin? See the link to the tracker. Well, mainstream medicine has determined that although numerous studies reveal positive results, the ethics and integrity underlying these studies are questionable; thus, all of them should be discounted.


    Also, how can Allen declare failure when the U.S government is still studying ivermectin via the large ACTIV-6 trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) as well as the University of Minnesota and Optum (UnitedHealth)-backed COVID-OUT study? This makes no sense when the two biggest studies involving ivermectin in America aren’t even done yet. This is a tell-tale sign of either a biased or uninformed writer. Given his background in the industry, we lean toward the former over the latter. Has he referred to the NIH’s own recommendations? The NIH doesn’t declare studies have “Failed.” In fact, their formal position is:


    “There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”


    In the spirit of the divisive writing we have come to expect of the mainstream media, Allen blames the problem of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as symbols affiliated with a “culture war” for at least “some of President Donald Trump’s followers.”


    This media platform has no affinity to Donald Trump or his followers but simply follows what the data, the studies, and the real-world experience reveal. For example, several high-profile studies involving ivermectin haven’t met endpoints (we report on those just as we do others), yet many others show some efficacy. And we don’t believe all of the studies involving ivermectin are fraudulent, as some mainstream writers incorrectly allege. True, many of these studies were conducted in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the pandemic, so resources, capital, and capacity may have been stretched.


    Allen does introduce fluvoxamine but fails to mention that the drug wouldn’t have been investigated had it not been for the financing of Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch and the Early Treatment Fund. This was a heroic move on the part of Kirsch.


    Yet because Kirsch has been critical of the vaccines, he has become persona non grata among the mainstream. Thus, he does not even get credit from Allen where credit is due—putting millions of his own money up to evaluate fluvoxamine, something the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should have been doing with our public commitment to finding repurposed, economical drugs.


    Allen didn’t show the decency to even present the truth on how this drug emerged, which is unfortunate. Although, he does include Dr. Eric Lenze at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was absolutely essential, as was David Boulware.


    To Allen’s credit, he does educate that Boulware went ahead and filed an emergency use authorization (EUA) for fluvoxamine on December 21, 2021, something reported by TS News.


    Allen correctly features another parallel tract for pharma with a very different outcome. While Boulware waits…and waits…for any fluvoxamine action, Merck (just two days after Dr. Boulware’s submission) received authorization to market their far more costly molnupiravir yet the side effects and safety issues with this antiviral drug cannot be ignored. It’s not recommended for pregnant persons as it causes genetic and fetal harm in preclinical testing, reports the KHN author.


    Allen also highlights a positive Brazilian study involving fluvoxamine yet identifies that since the positive impacts of the Brazilian study, “fluvoxamine’s future has dimmed. Neither the NIH nor the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends fluvoxamine to prevent respiratory distress” despite significant data showing it, in fact, helps.


    However, Allen mentions some concerns about the drug and underlying studies. Yet, as TS News reported, the first remdesivir study leading to the EUA failed to meet the endpoint (death reduction), so the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) sponsor (part of the NIH) along with Gilead actually changed the endpoints toward the end of the study! That ensured Dr. Anthony Fauci could announce a new standard, although he mentioned it was “no knockout drug.”


    The contractions, hypocrisy, and double standards associated with industry versus generic, repurposed approaches are clear for those in America and beyond that bother to take the time to look into these matters with any seriousness. Sit back and listen to the boob tube and one is subject to a point of view, a truth, and some propaganda.


    Meanwhile, TS News recently reported that the World Health Organization (WHO), heavily influenced by industry, interestingly now embraces Traditional Chinese Medicine for COVID-19. Yet they completely ignored any signs of success with repurposed drugs such as fluvoxamine or ivermectin (remember WHO publicly praised the health authorities of Uttar Pradesh for their home health outreach during the delta surge of COVID-19, including the use of home medical kits—they forgot to mention, however, that ivermectin was included in those medicine kits). See a summary of that piece on TS News’ YouTube.


    Ivermectin isn’t a cure for COVID-19 and may or may not help in some instances, but significant research reveals some efficacy. Blaming this drug for the fact that doctors don’t want repurposed drugs is ingenuine at best, if not another attempt at social manipulation, this time by an esteemed health care foundation. It misses waves of misinformation campaigns as the health authorities wanted universal vaccination without dependence on what they considered unproven generic drugs used during early care by many front-line doctors.


    So, Allen gets partial credit for addressing some of the challenges with industry incentives yet gets poor scores from this media for what reeks of a hit piece with carefully placed political undertones

    India is already there we are heading to very low case number too.


    ::https://www.covid19.admin.ch/d…ologic/case?epiRelDev=abs


    But how low? Nobody goes for a test anymore. (positive rate still 37%!) I didn't go too. So lets say Omicron now is the soft cold we all like to see except for some older Pfizer boostered, as we see in Israel and elsewhere.


    Now you can learn which country is tightly ruled by the terror mafia - like Hongkong or China, Russia,Turkey, Germany,France,....The longer the rules - vaxx mandates - hold the deeper in mafia shit people are.

    Quote from Fm1

    Ivermectin isn’t a cure for COVID-19 and may or may not help in some instances, but significant research reveals some efficacy.

    Only in counties such as India where worm parasites are very common, infecting up to half of patients, mostly undiagnosed. Parasites increase the severity of any illness, and the death rate. Treating every patient in India with ivermectin will improve their average prognosis, even though only half the patients are infected. It does not help the other half, but it doesn't hurt them either. Ivermectin is usually benign.


    Ivermectin would improve the prognosis for any disease in India, including AIDS, cancer, influenza or the common cold. Not because it has any effect on these diseases, but because it improves the health of about half the patients. This is not complicated. It is not difficult to understand. Parasites are extremely rare in the U.S., so there is no chance ivermectin will help here. All of the double-blind tests demonstrate that.


    Here is a graph from Bitterman et al., showing the effect of ivermectin in different geographic areas:


    Quote from Fm1

    According to Arthur Allen, a Senior Correspondent writing about the pharma industry and FDA and COVID-related topics, ivermectin has been a complete “fiasco” with absolutely no proof of any efficacy or benefit. This KHN-employed author blames the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin “fiascoes” for souring physicians’ point of view on repurposed medicines. At the same time, he acknowledges that the pharmaceutical industry pursues billions of revenues and profits even with mediocre drugs, according to scientists in the field.

    If you put aside politics, and look at the science...


    There is a clear parallel here. In an emergency situation the need for any working drug is very great, and physicians jump on a boat that might sail as they have throughout history.


    The scientists point out the flaky evidence and how difficult it is to get real info on benefits - pointing to past fiascos.


    (Some of) the front-line doctors go for the easy solution of a miracle drug to peddle.


    This thread likes to point out that the pharma industry does not want cheaper drugs and influences scientists.


    That is true - but the desire for a solution when you are a front-line doctor facing terrible suffering with no tools available distorts just as strongly and leads to PR groups like FLCC/BIRD as well as faked or just plain wrong tests.


    Given that there are so many repurposed drugs that might help, and only a few that actually do help, the only solution is big trials conducted with great rigor. That requires patience.


    You can't say there are no cheap repurposed drugs that help with COVID. Look at dexamethazone. It does not look as though ivermectin is a winner here - although it is possible it might have some marginal benefit - after all it has plenty of immunomodulatory action, so it could change things. The evidence for antiviral action looks a lot flakier with negative (not neutral) lab evidence. (PS - that does not mean I think it has marginal benefit - it means that we cannot and should not rule that out).


    Anyway - regardless - the likes of FLCC and BIRD have made real investigation that could deliver best guess results quickly a lot more difficult. Who wants to be lead a trial for ivermectin when you know if your results are not positive you will get death threats on social media?

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.