The Playground

  • Does this really reflect the current situation in Israel, if you take into account that the vaxx population vs unvaxx in that age group is ca. 95% vs 5% unvaxx? No wonder that much more vaxx people will get sick or die... I am not an expert as you in statistics, but in my opinion the numbers provided look at the population in genereal (e.g. per 100000), not at the rate in the individual groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated...but can be wrong.


  • Does this really reflect the current situation in Israel, if you take into account that the vaxx population vs unvaxx in that age group is ca. 95% vs 5% unvaxx?

    You look at the wrong cut-off. 3x,4x vaxx are in high danger for ADE. As you may note only 60% (age > 60) had a booster. The death rate (majority non CoV-19 excess deaths) among boostered is highly elevated in all countries.


    You can always find a group where the relativ rate is in favor of vaxx. But then you neglect the currently 5x higher "other death" rate among immune suppressed booster victims ....

    So you must compare 2x vaxx with 3x,4x vaxx to see the real problem!

  • Can you provide any reliable source? thx

    Unluckily we only get official (CH,Isr) hospital rates that for 3xx,4xx vaxx that are 2..5 x higher than for 2x vaxx or unvaxx

    But then you neglect the currently 5x higher "other death" rate among immune suppressed booster victims ....

    The excess mortality (normal = 0 + - 5% avg. in a period o e.g. 4 weeks) is 5x higher than normal not the absolute death rate... See UK data or US insurance data with an even higher rate...


    See:: https://www.experimental.bfs.a…vative-methoden/momo.html


    In CH with > 70% Moderna the effect is much much smaller than with 100% Pfizer crap in Israel or > 50% Pfizer crap UK.


    I can only recommend to stay off any "vaccine" that produces ACE2 signal antibodies. One shot looks to be OK but 3 definitely will shorten your live. Remember that we still are in the early signal phase but anytime we could see a strong ramp up in health degradation among boostered.

  • Maybe you should look at Mexico city who passed out ivermectin to positive patients. During the experiment, hospitalized and mortality fell like a rock, yet it was called unethical and the government stopped treatment. Although information wasn't suppressed it was called unethical and the media followed. Kory in my opinion has every right to be upset with the way ivermectin information is being peddled by a bought and paid media. You included!!!

  • Maybe you should look at Mexico city who passed out ivermectin to positive patients. During the experiment, hospitalized and mortality fell like a rock, yet it was called unethical and the government stopped treatment.

    That is not possible. If that had happened, similar dramatic results would have shown up in double-blind tests. No such results were seen. It cannot be that every single double blind test was wrong, or corrupt, and this one test was right. Science doesn't work that way. Something about this story is wrong. Either it did not happen, or it was misrepresented, or someone made a big mistake.

  • That is not possible. If that had happened, similar dramatic results would have shown up in double-blind tests. No such results were seen. It cannot be that every single double blind test was wrong, or corrupt, and this one test was right. Science doesn't work that way. Something about this story is wrong. Either it did not happen, or it was misrepresented, or someone made a big mistake.

    Sorry Jed it is possible and you are wrong.


    Mexico City government criticized for providing ivermectin to treat COVID

    Mexico City government criticized for providing ivermectin to treat COVID
    The Mexico City government has become engulfed in scandal due to its distribution of the anti-parasitic drug to people who tested positive.
    mexiconewsdaily.com


    The medications are not approved by the federal government or the World Health Organization for the treatment of COVID but the administration led by Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum nevertheless distributed them to some 200,000 people who tested positive, according to an investigation by the news website Animal Político.


    The drugs were distributed in medical kits handed out at Mexico City testing stations starting in December 2020. They continued to be distributed until September 2021.


    The Mexico City government as well as the federally-run Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) announced last year that they had carried out a “quasi experimental” analysis that found that people who received the ivermectin distributed in the capital were 68% less likely to develop serious symptoms that required treatment in hospital.


    “… The medical kit was a significant factor in the reduction of hospital admissions and of course possible deaths,” José Antonio Peña Merino, the head of the Mexico City government’s Digital Agency for Public Innovation (ADIP), said in May 2021.



    Your double blind trials used low dose and data overlooked in conclusions such as mortality but that's not the endpoint of the trials. Go figure eh!

  • Sorry Jed it is possible and you are wrong.

    Nope. Science does not work that way.


    Your double blind trials used low dose and data overlooked in conclusions

    There were a wide range of tests with low doses and high doses. The only ones that had any measurable positive effects were in countries with widespread parasitic infections. The effects were slight. Obviously that is because parasites were reduced.


    Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
    ...
    astralcodexten.substack.com


    lenr-forum.com/attachment/21295/


    I count 14 double blind RCTs with positive results:

    Slight effects. Nothing like what was reported from Mexico or anywhere else, in any careful study.

  • I'll try to make it simple so even you can see the bullshit in your replies. In the trials on ivermectin did any use the flccc protocol? The answer is no! In trials of hydroxychloroquine did any use zelenko protocol? Again the answer is no!! Now let's look at early replication of F&P that failed . They didn't follow F&P instruction and you railed against these experiments as poorly run. Are you starting to see a similarity?

  • I'll try to make it simple so even you can see the bullshit in your replies.

    I will make it even simpler. Over a million people in the U.S. died from COVID. Most of them were not vaccinated. Among the unvaccinated, hundreds of thousands of people have used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Many dosed themselves at much higher rates than recommended. It did not help them. They were hospitalized, or died, or got long COVID at the same rates as other unvaccinated people.


    Unless you are infected with worms, ivermectin will not affect your prognosis for COVID. That is a fact, and the stuff that you are coming up with here are lies. Lies that killed hundreds of thousands of people and continue killing 300 people a day now. This is what happens when you abandon rationality and science in favor of lies and conspiracy theories.

  • Maybe you should look at Mexico city who passed out ivermectin to positive patients. During the experiment, hospitalized and mortality fell like a rock, yet it was called unethical and the government stopped treatment. Although information wasn't suppressed it was called unethical and the media followed. Kory in my opinion has every right to be upset with the way ivermectin information is being peddled by a bought and paid media. You included!!!

    Covid-19: Mexico City gave ivermectin kits to people with covid in “unethical” experiment
    The government of Mexico City handed out nearly 200 000 “ivermectin based kits” last year to people who had tested positive for covid-19, without telling them…
    www.bmj.com


    and the withdrawn paper details: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4/


    It seems there were severe conflicts of interest here. And the author who agreed with the retraction was a data analyst...


    Hmmm - why would that be I wonder. Observational studies are very error-prone, even when well-conducted. Little details of how data is processed make a big difference to results. My question to you is why do you think this study is useful, when everyone else (except for like-minded antivaxxers and FLCC fanatics) thinks it is very low reliability? That is specially true for COVID where COVID rates vary so much over time and with age, so that comparing one set of results with another is very challenging. We have worked through all those stuff in detail here before, if you remember, when this thread was less of a political stomping ground for antivaxxers.


    This study may or may not have been unethical - but was certainly poorly conducted.


    We have any number of poorly conducted low reliability studies on ivermectin. It is pretty clear from evidence I posted a year ago that greater reliability => less strong results. The data fro this is compelling. In which case a low reliability trial with positive results tells us nothing.


    The ethical issue is quite interesting on the issue - raised by you and otehrs here - of why reliable studies do not use ultra-high doses of ivermectin.


    Two recent ethics scandals have cast a further shadow over ivermectin research. First, a report of an experimental study in Mexico City that gave almost 200 000 ivermectin based medical kits to residents with covid-19 was retracted from the preprint server SocArXiv.10 The report was retracted, says SocArXiv’s director, because the experiment was conducted “without proper consent or appropriate ethical protections.”11 Second, in an experiment in a jail in Arkansas, USA, four incarcerated men developed severe side effects after a physician gave them high dose ivermectin as a supposed covid-19 treatment without their knowledge.10 The four men are suing the jail.

    Lack of consent was not the only ethical violation in these two scandals. The research participants were exposed to a risk of drug side effects without knowing they had been given ivermectin. In Mexico, the failure to give information to the participants infringed on a human right established in Mexico’s constitution: the right to access information.12 The Arkansas case raises additional concerns as it involved incarcerated people, who risk coercion and exploitation when they are enrolled in clinical research.

    It is also arguably unethical and a waste of resources to conduct drug research in an emergency that is of such low quality that no conclusions can be drawn about the drug’s efficacy. That is the situation we find ourselves in today—it is still unclear whether ivermectin is safe or has any benefit in the treatment or prevention of covid-19.13 The flawed and potentially fraudulent research represents a huge missed opportunity to answer an important research question.


    At the doses suggested higher than those used in all the properly recorded trials side effects become a real issue. Since most people recover from COVID fine, in early-stage treatments, even 1% severe side effects are a real issue in a drug that works. We have as yet no evidence that ivermectin works, if it worked say 20% of the time that means that 0.2% bad side effects becomes relevant.


    This highlights the difference between politics, where facts are hard to find and even those well attested (like the validity of a US election) get trashed by politicians who find them inconvenient, And science where everyone admits to the (relative) certainties and uncertainties, and people are cautious, waiting for a coherent relationships between sets of studies before coming to conclusions and using known past information (e.g. that observational studies in preprint tend to bias results and that the urgency of COVID has greatly magnified this tendency) to inform views, rather than doing a political "cite only the views that support your position" thing.


    We cannot know that ivermectin in some form is not useful. But the big RCTs having results that are not clearly positive is very strongly inconsistent with all that FLCC evidence. Since the evidence is highly inconsistent (proven) we cannot give the least reliable bits of it weight. So your, and FLCCs arguments on this not scientifically justified.


    I could agree with the doses are too small argument if you had good data to contradict the maximum safe dose levels that everyone (even FLCC) seems to use for early-stage therapy. That could be discussed here properly with complete references till we get to the bottom of what evidence we have of lack of side effects at very high doses? It would need to include the time ivermectin stays in the body and the dose regime over time, compared with things we know are safe.


    THH

  • interested observer

    To get this thread back to a Pre Covid Normalcy I have been reviewing it's beginning. I've also been posting LENR Forum subject matter musings ponderings history poems related arts whatever... Anything but my ten rounds of vaccinations. My goal is to try out every one on the market. A unique case study... Objectively Subjective Comparative Analysis OSCA


    It seems that we are advised to "walk on eggs" dealing with any member of the generation whose arrogance and ignorance has kept investigation of CF / LENR deeply underfunded and poorly understood by the broader scientific community and by the general public. The wording of recent moderator missive here was "diplomatic" enough, but seems to curry favor with a particular "elder", regardless of his position on LENR. An elder who seems here to make sure nothing offensive to the "received view" of say 1948 is even recognized without the ridicule of "authority". Here at this Forum we see a few other such elder scientists who contribute to the very necessary efforts needed to move forward with CF/LENR. Many of them avoid most such public venues precisely because they have grown so disgusted with "mainstream" dogma, and its enforcement by dogmatists. To some extent this Forum is being gradually taken over by a cadre of dogmatists who are firmly set to oppose even the notion of CF / LENR. Typically they are physicists and don't have much experience with quantum chemistry, for example. They often have not the slightest notion that the "coulomb barrier" can be undercut. Their dogma in this regard has directed them down a decades long colossal waste of government funding toward a very difficult goal of surmounting that barrier, by ever increasing temperatures (velocity) and pressures (density). They continue down this failed path and by dint of prior commitment come to Fora such as this to spread their gospel of mistaken judgements.

  • Three year old Elmo of Sesame Street has just been vaccinated against Covid! No side effects, he only felt a little prick in his arm. We're all good. Paediatricians across the US agree, just ask them.


    But I reckon : Tiny tots, with their arms all aglow, will find it hard to sleep tonight.

    Elmo has far less risk of getting really sick from Covid than he does getting hit by a car while crossing Sesame Street.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

  • Covid Vaccines More Likely to Put You in Hospital Than Keep You Out, BMJ Editor’s Analysis of Pfizer and Moderna Trial Data Finds.


    Dr. Doshi and colleagues found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8, respectively). When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9).


    The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, which was 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna. This means that on this measure, the Pfizer vaccine results in a net increase in serious adverse events of 7.8 per 10,000 vaccinated and the Moderna vaccine of 8.7 per 10,000 vaccinated.


    Their results are compatible with a another recent analysis of COVID-19 vaccine trials by Benn et al., which foundno evidence of a reduction in overall mortality in the mRNA vaccine trials”, with 31 deaths in the vaccine arms versus 30 deaths in the placebo arms (a 3% increase; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71).


  • The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation in both Pfizer and Moderna trials


    Just a bunch of antivaxxers??

    Joseph Fraiman

    Louisiana State University - Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center

    Juan Erviti

    Navarre Health Service

    Mark Jones

    Bond University - Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare

    Sander Greenland

    University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health

    Patrick Whelan

    University of California at Los Angeles

    Robert M. Kaplan

    Stanford University

    Peter Doshi

    University of Maryland - School of Pharmacy

  • Covid Vaccines More Likely to Put You in Hospital Than Keep You Out, BMJ Editor’s Analysis of Pfizer and Moderna Trial Data Finds.

    Rebuttal at

    Studies show that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risks; preprint claiming to show otherwise is flawed



    Studies show that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risks; preprint claiming to show otherwise is flawed
    Multiple peer-reviewed published studies have shown that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh its risks. While some COVID-19 vaccines are associated…
    healthfeedback.org

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.