Boosters for 5-11 approved yet show no benefit
CC:
True, and I think it gives evidence that our theoretical system is interesting,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
New Rossi scientific definition of SSM, needing connection to mains.
Audun:
Thank you for the suggestion, but the Ecat so far needs an energy source even in SSM. Your opinion contains a good suggestion, though, even if in a different context we are thinking about.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Severe COVID-19 ‘Rare’ In Unvaccinated People, Survey Reveals
A survey has found that people who did not get the vaccine had a lower rate of suffering severe COVID-19 amid the pandemic.
The survey uploaded to the preprint server ResearchGate presented data from more than 18,500 respondents from the “Control Group” project with more than 300,000 overall participants. An analysis revealed that compared to those who got jabbed, unvaccinated people reported fewer hospitalizations.
The international survey also found that the unvaccinated people from more than 175 countries were more likely to self-care to prevent and manage COVID-19 infection. They used natural products like vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, and drugs, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine
On my fourth day of testing positive. Zero symptoms.
Triple vaxxed, Starbucks Double Shot, 1 litre of multi-vegetable juice, and at least 50 g of 70-78% cocoa dark chocolate and one banana every day. (Not preventative measures, just normal diet for me).
Well I didn't know you were an expert at medical diagnostics or I would have run this by you. I
This is basic journalism 101 - the stuff anyone can do.
Antivaxxers claim to publish detailed novel (like no-one else thinks this) research in a whole load of different fields, none of which they are obviously qualified for, where the only unifying factor is that it is anti (any) vaccine.
It sticks to high heaven - any is something anyone can evaluate if you do some research to work out what are the other things a given person has published in this area.
No scientific expertise needed.
THH
Display MoreNew Rossi scientific definition of SSM, needing connection to mains.
Audun:
Thank you for the suggestion, but the Ecat so far needs an energy source even in SSM. Your opinion contains a good suggestion, though, even if in a different context we are thinking about.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I don’t know which is more stupid, Rossi’s SSM-but-with-an-AC-supply explanations or the gullible audience explanations for Rossi’s stupid explanations.
As of June 10, Ontario Canada is now following the UK example and is no longer reporting case rates, hospitalizations, icu and death by vaccination status perhaps now that the data clearly doesn't support the narrative.
Last time I checked it showed no difference in hospitalizations by vax status. A slight positive for vaxed people in ICU, a much higher case rate in triple jabbed folks and, at times, a much higher death rate in tripled jabbed folks.
to quote Monthy Python: "Run away, run away, run away"
If the Canadian Prepper goes missing.A clear communicator
and can be followed 2x speed.
The open circuit is where the ZPE enters
It must be at least slightly grounded on one side to the Earth or inter dimensional space AI tentacle monsters are attracted to the site in a frightening way. This makes it unsuitable for aeroplanes but does deter reverse engineering.
....and it seems like the other Rossi lawsuit is scheduled for the 23rd July......
Vitamin D and brain health: an observational and Mendelian randomization study
ABSTRACT
Background
Higher vitamin D status has been suggested to have beneficial effects on the brain.
Objectives
To investigate the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], neuroimaging features, and the risk of dementia and stroke.
Methods
We used prospective data from the UK Biobank (37–73 y at baseline) to examine the association between 25(OH)D concentrations with neuroimaging outcomes (N = 33,523) and the risk of dementia and stroke (N = 427,690; 3414 and 5339 incident cases, respectively). Observational analyses were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, month, center, and socioeconomic, lifestyle, sun behavior, and illness-related factors. Nonlinear Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were used to test for underlying causality for neuroimaging outcomes (N = 23,901) and dementia and stroke (N = 294,514; 2399 and 3760 cases, respectively).
Results
Associations between 25(OH)D and total, gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes were nonlinear, with lower volumes both for low and high concentrations (adjusted P-nonlinear ≤ 0.04). 25(OH)D had an inverse association with white matter hyperintensity volume [per 10 nmol/L 25(OH)D; adjusted β: –6.1; 95% CI: –11.5, –7.0]. Vitamin D deficiency was associated with an increased risk of dementia and stroke, with the strongest associations for those with 25(OH)D <25 nmol/L (compared with 50–75.9 nmol/L; adjusted HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.57, 2.04 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.26, 1.56, respectively). Nonlinear MR analyses confirmed the threshold effect of 25(OH)D on dementia, with the risk predicted to be 54% (95% CI: 1.21, 1.96) higher for participants at 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L. 25(OH)D was not associated with neuroimaging outcomes or the risk of stroke in MR analyses. Potential impact fraction suggests 17% (95% CI: 7.22, 30.58) of dementia could be prevented by increasing 25(OH)D to 50 nmol/L.
Conclusions
Low vitamin D status was associated with neuroimaging outcomes and the risks of dementia and stroke even after extensive covariate adjustment. MR analyses support a causal effect of vitamin D deficiency on dementia but not on stroke risk.
Display MoreSevere COVID-19 ‘Rare’ In Unvaccinated People, Survey Reveals
https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal…ar-AAYr5fF?ocid=Peregrine
A survey has found that people who did not get the vaccine had a lower rate of suffering severe COVID-19 amid the pandemic.
The survey uploaded to the preprint server ResearchGate presented data from more than 18,500 respondents from the “Control Group” project with more than 300,000 overall participants. An analysis revealed that compared to those who got jabbed, unvaccinated people reported fewer hospitalizations.
The international survey also found that the unvaccinated people from more than 175 countries were more likely to self-care to prevent and manage COVID-19 infection. They used natural products like vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, and drugs, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine
So: this is an example of MSN misreporting the results of a (self-published) study. It makes no comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated outcomes - nor could it do do.
The study itself is conducted by people working for natural health organisations:
Robert Verkerk
Alliance for Natural Health International
Christof Plothe
Praxis für Biophysikalische Osteopathie
Naseeba Kathrada
Dr Kat’s Weight Loss and Aesthetic centre
Katarina Lindley D.O. Facofp
World Council For Health
There is some cross-over between such people and antivaxxers, but it is not clear whether any of the authors fail my "quick test" as being antivaxxers.
They do have strong anti-vaccine opinions - and for example Kathrada has personally refused vaccination, and publicly proclaimed that. But the don't seem to be scientists.
I thought some here would appreciate the following helpful diagnostic Venn diagram:
THH
Display MoreAs of June 10, Ontario Canada is now following the UK example and is no longer reporting case rates, hospitalizations, icu and death by vaccination status perhaps now that the data clearly doesn't support the narrative.
Last time I checked it showed no difference in hospitalizations by vax status. A slight positive for vaxed people in ICU, a much higher case rate in triple jabbed folks and, at times, a much higher death rate in tripled jabbed folks.
to quote Monthy Python: "Run away, run away, run away"
The reason is quite simple - almost everyone not vaccinated has had COVID - those at greatest risk have died.
If by "narrative" you mean arguing that statistically those now vaccinated are at less risk than those now unvaccinated: fair enough, you are right.
No scientists has ever made that argument.
The argument is that getting vaccinated makes you safer - which is an entirely different one.
A more subtle argument is the following:
Conditional on having caught COVID and survived (N number of times, specify variants, specify when) how does vaccination as well affect personal safety going forward?
You need to drill down a lot on data and do very careful analysis (what anti-vaxxers do not do) to get an answer to this interesting question. The problem being that the time elapsed from disease, or vaccination, matters, as does the variant you caught, and variant that is now circulating, as do age etc. All of these variables get mixed together in mots data sets and it is not easy to extract smaller effects from larger ones.
And BTW I do not, in its generality, know the answer. In various simple forms there is good evidence that vaccination in addition to COVID survival is mildly (maybe halving risks) protective. Vaccination before COVID survival is strongly protective.
Another complexity is that for mots people now the risks we care about are long COVID, not survival or severe disease. There is much less data on this and it is difficult to get reliable data for obvious reasons. My default would be that protection from long COVID correlates with protection from severe disease, but it is not easy to prove that.
THH
The reason is quite simple - almost everyone not vaccinated has had COVID - those at greatest risk have died.
Now everybody at risk & tripple "vaccinated" is going to die of Omciron due to ADE. Clearly seen in the Swiss excess mortality statistic among age > 65 which (excess mortality) pertains albeit Omicron is very , very mild - far milder than any flu...
Prof knows the SLuRPI paper has zero citations but keeps the charade going anyways.
Ivermectin for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in the Outpatient Setting: A
Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.10.22276252v1.full.pdf
Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of ivermectin 400 µg/kg daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild-to-moderate COVID-19.
Methods: ACTIV-6 is an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Non-hospitalized adults age ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days were randomized to receive ivermectin 400 µg/kg daily for 3 days or placebo. The main outcome measure was time to sustained recovery, defined as achieving at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28.
Results: Of the 3457 participants who consented to be evaluated for inclusion in the ivermectin arm, 1591 were eligible for this study arm, randomized to receive ivermectin 400 µg/kg (n=817) or placebo (n=774), and received study drug. Of those enrolled, 47% reported receiving at least 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The posterior probability for any improvement in time to recovery was 0.91 (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% credible interval 0.96–1.17). The posterior probability of this benefit exceeding 24 hours was less than 0.01, as measured by the difference in mean time unwell. Hospitalizations or deaths were uncommon (ivermectin [n=10]; placebo [n=9]). Ivermectin at 400 µg/kg was safe and without serious adverse events as compared with placebo (ivermectin [n=10]; placebo [n=9]).
Conclusions: Ivermectin dosed at 400 µg/kg daily for 3 days resulted in less than one day of shortening of symptoms and did not lower incidence of hospitalization or death among outpatients with COVID-19 in the United States during the delta and omicron variant time periods.
EDIT:
Due to the remote nature of the trial and constraints related to timing of randomization, the average time from start of symptoms to receipt of study drug was 6 days, which is later in the disease course than recent antiviral trials. However, there was no benefit observed for those who started treatment earlier (≤3 days) versus later (>3 days) in the subgroup analysis.
This large ACTIV-6 trial did not identify a clinically relevant treatment effect with ivermectin 400 µg/kg dosed daily for 3 days; the subgroup analyses and overall totality of data supports further investigation of a higher dose and longer course of ivermectin for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.
Due to the remote nature of the trial and constraints related to timing of randomization, the average time from start of symptoms to receipt of study drug was 6 days,
Obviously designed to fail...
Virus replicate during the first 3-5 days after contact. That's why India dispenses Ivermectin++ (Ziverdo) to all contacts of an infected.
Doing studies without basic medicine knowledge is a criminal act and fraud.
Obviously designed to fail...
Virus replicate during the first 3-5 days after contact. That's why India dispenses Ivermectin++ (Ziverdo) to all contacts of an infected.
Doing studies without basic medicine knowledge is a criminal act and fraud.
But helpful they put there name to it.
