Covid-19 News

    • Official Post

    I've discovered that my skin is fairly sticky (at least a coin readily sticks to me on the vertical), and I just tried a battery as per the video. Same results as the girl : with the battery pointed almost vertically, it can roll left or right on the skin without falling down. To me this still comprises stickiness. The coefficient of sliding friction is very much greater along the battery's long axis.


    On another note, yesterday afternoon my 89 year old uncle (who lives a 10 minute drive away) called 911 because, according to a neighbour, he was experiencing increasing shortness of breath since his second vaccination on Tuesday. I just got off the phone with a nurse and they will be moving him from the emergency section to the cardiac section later today or tomorrow as he's now diagnosed with congestive heart failure with fluid around the heart. Because of Covid, no visitors allowed until he's moved, sigh.


    The magnetism is of course not the gravest concern about the vaccination, heart failure has been increasingly associated with the inoculation. However the magnetism hints at something much far reaching. This is a study published by a survey at Luxembourg about the observation of magnetism. TL/DR: 0 of 30 people not vaccinated showed magnet adherence, while 29 of 30 vaccinated did show adherence in at least one, But some on both, Their arms.


    https://lilianeheldkhawam.file…xembourg-amar-goudjil.doc

  • Something we should all be advocating for


    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.

  • Look to last year's data and you will see the same rise of alpha that you are seeing with delta during the approaching summer equinox and soon, like last year you will see a decrease only to have it start rising again in September. The # 1 driving force of this pandemic is the Sun!!! Countries still dealing with large case loads are all still in their flu seasons, India, brazile, African continent, south and central America. Interesting, the virus seems to gain strength as each season equinox approaches and wanes shortly after. Check the data

    Yes there seam to be a SUN effect, but factors are confounded, we had much less sun this spring than last spring and still the down trend is 2-4weeka ahead of last year alsow wec

    Well THH is not taking the bait. :) The drug with all those bad side effects is caffeine, not hat cup of coffee can kill! I could go down a huge list of commonly used OTC drugs, vitamins, pain relievers and foods that when overused can do harm.


    My point is Ivermectin has the potential to fight off COVID, and save the lives of millions, whereas the others won't (except food of course). Yet the worlds health governing bodies, and media are doing everything they can to block it.

    and t

    Like the Wuhan lab leak, something is wrong with this picture. They say "follow the science" but they themselves do not. They follow their politics.

    Well noted.


    Ivermectin given in controlled form is not an issue to me and should not be for others as it is a quite safe drug if prescribed correctly and there is good indications that it works. But things can go south if hearsay and anti science, non sientific social media frenzy starts to take over, that people do not protect themselves because they feel safe. That societies doesn't adapt to safer procedures, install plexiglass shields for cashiers, and all those myriad of quite simple but helpful things that reduces the probability of spread, because the drug is there. That companies that can, don't let their workers work from home (this is brilliant and if not people where killed I would thank mr covid). That people do not wear mask if the bus is crowded, That government decline vaccination offers due to it's confidence in the drug, it seams that the doses is given high and lo in this environment and there is reports that people overdose with the end result of needing a replacement of the liver and other side effects. I guess the logic can be like this, aunt takes x mg of the drug. Get's covid and dies. Then the rest of the family hear from an internet chat forum that the dose is too low, scared by the death they buy extra doses themselves and overmedicate. Also in this environment with low control of the drug, we can't monitor well for side effects, it's hard to verify what works and what not. What to expect and what not. Heck we can't prove that it works or not although it is taken by millions and millions of people. That is what anti science get you, one huge big mess. But yes, in a more controlled, non politisized and western style environment this should probably not be a huge risk.

  • Although it’s clear covid-19 has largely spared children from severe illness, the CDC says 456 American kids have died of the disease, though that is considered a conservative estimate.

    This is far less than from the yearly flu....

    Given a relatively small seasonal variation you don't expect anything else.

    You missed a basic math class. Stop posting such illiterate nonsense. You must multiply the R value with the change in infectivity (+60% = 1.6). So if you had 0.8 where do you end up?


    I agree. Much speedier viral clearance would be a big deal if significant.

    Here the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…05.31.21258081v1.full.pdf


    You certainly won't read

    Furthermore, anti-retroviral drugs used against SARS-CoV-2 like lopinavir/ritonavir and darunavir/cobicstat potently inhibit cytochrome P450 3A4 (ivermectin’s main metabolic pathway) and if used concurrently with ivermectin can increase the systemic exposure to ivermectin. Ritonavir and cobicistat also inhibits P-glycoprotein efflux pump in BBB

    Where do you find such nonsense: Are your round table buddies all Dr. Mengeles??

    This passage deserves the invented bullshit of the year prize. May be your kids take this stuff daily...

  • I guess the logic can be like this, aunt takes x mg of the drug. Get's covid and dies. Then the rest of the family hear from an internet chat forum that the dose is too low, scared by the death they buy extra doses themselves and overmedicate.

    In modern live you must be able to multiply by 2 and you should know the difference between a milligram and a gram...

    There is no risk to overdose Ivermectin unless you do it in the candy box...

    You can take a 6x dose for 2-3 days but not for months. The same for Voltaren and most other drugs. So your argument ha no value. In contrary: If the Dr. Mengeles go on the risk of a mess is for sure larger.


    I repeat it once more: Only idiots die from CoV-19. Idiots are people that believe in Medicine being something else than making big money. Of course I know a few correct doctors. But as CoV-19 proves, the vast majority are Dr.Mengeles.


    If you take a CoV-19 vaccine you do something good. You saved the live of a testing chimpanzee...

  • Well THH is not taking the bait. :) The drug with all those bad side effects is caffeine, not Lipitor. Yes my friends, that cup of coffee can kill! I could go down a huge list of commonly used OTC drugs, vitamins, pain relievers and foods that when overused can do harm.


    My point is Ivermectin has the potential to fight off COVID, and save the lives of millions, whereas the others won't (except food of course). Yet the worlds health governing bodies, and media are doing everything they can to block it.


    Like the Wuhan lab leak, something is wrong with this picture. They say "follow the science" but they themselves do not. They follow their politics.

    Shane, frankly you are not a good reporter of "what is the science". Read the paper I posted on science and politics, and why doctors would always be at odds with scientists over prescribing hyped readily available drugs.


    Scientists don't recommend not to prescribe these things because of politics - they use their best judgement - which may be right or wrong - but which they explain in research papers.


    More political is the question - should regulations (e.g. best practice as determined by scientists) limit what doctors can prescribe. I don't take a view on that myself:

    (1) when doctors do stupid things that kill patients I feel it is mainly up to their own conscience

    (2) society has been burnt so many times by doctors over-prescribing that it is understandable many people think regulating this is a good idea. As the paper I linked points out - there is almost impossible pressure on doctors in emergency situations, where they will tend to over-prescribe from the wish to try and help even when objectively it is a bad idea.


    Those on this thread (you) who think the scientists here are being political are just wrong. They are doing their best. The medical establishment is trying to draw a line between not allowing quack treatments that are bad for patients, and allowing treatments that are good for patients.


    This thread is not being consistent here:


    HCQ - this thread was (is?) in favour - bad idea

    IVM - this thread is in favour - probably not helpful, possibly a bad idea (read the thoughtful paper I posted for why a good safety profile normally is maybe not a good safety profile for those with COVID. Patients need to be used as guinea pigs to find that out)

    Remdesivir - this thread against - bad idea - medical establishment first allowed and then (rightly) backtracked

    Dexamethazone - this thread silent - amazingly good idea (and cheap)


    If the view is that the medical establishment is too strict in preventing doctors from prescribing - well fair enough. But then you should be in favour initially of remdesivir as well as those other hopefuls.


    Scientists don't care about politics - nor whether a drug is very expensive or dirt cheap. Nor whether it comes from Israel, China, or the US.


    But people here - and much of public opinion - does. New things from big pharma - whether vaccines or drugs - are treated with suspicion. Old drugs are hailed as a miracle guaranteed safe even when the safety of any drug taken by people who have COVID is unclear.


    Why does COVID so alter safety? because it interferes with the immune system altering many metabolic pathways. Drugs (in particular HCQ and IVM) are affected by those same pathways. So we do not know the risks without proper testing.


    I will go on saying these things whether liked or not (I realise mostly not liked here) because I believe them true and the arguments i hear here against them are political - and do not hold water. if the balance of decent trials shifts in favour of IVM I will change my view on that - but not my view on the sanity of current rules. They are not created by a coterie of sinister corrupt scientists, nor influenced by politics. The worst you can say is that they are influenced by understandable caution.


    Neither I, nor the scientists, are saying that Ivermectin does not work. Just that the evidence it does work is not strong. The evidence it is safe (for people with COVID) is also not strong. So the Jury is out and it needs good trials to change that.


    Whereas those on the other side of this argument seem certain on bad evidence (and I believe politics) that on balance it is clear ivermectin is much more likely to help than harm COVID patients, and therefore it should be prescribed.


    As you can see from these posts I quite like being mega-unpopular. It won't stop me saying what I think. And I say it not because I am paid, nor supporting my friends, but because it is my best understanding (which I admit may be wrong).


    In that, at least, I am more honest than some here.


    My best wishes to everyone - hoping that you are able to access vaccines, and that whether you can or not you and your families stay safe from COVID,


    THH

  • Ivermectin given in controlled form is not an issue to me and should not be for others as it is a quite safe drug if prescribed correctly and there is good indications that it works. (Stefan above)


    Stefan - what do you think of the arguments here on specific ways that COVID could enhance risks from IVM? It is all guesswork, so I'm not saying there are problems. Testing so far has shown a pattern of better conducted tests having poorer results - so I would not rely too much on those indications given that the obvious anti-viral in vitro activity does not work at safe levels in vivo. And you should factor in the enormous political impetus behind IVM - doctors are only human.




    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43440-020-00195-y


    From the evidence that is available and our artificial intelligence and molecular dynamics simulations based studies, ivermectin can be thought of as a potential drug for the treatment of COVID-19. Beneficial results have been observed with ivermectin in clinical studies. However, great diligence and regulatory review is required for testing of ivermectin in severe COVID-19 because of various reasons. As ivermectin targets the invertebrate’s glutamate gated chloride channels, it can also cross-target mammalian GABA-gated chloride channels in the CNS. In normal conditions, this is prevented by BBB; however, in individuals having hyper-inflammatory state, endothelial permeability at BBB may be enhanced, leading to drug leakage into the CNS and neurotoxicity. Furthermore, anti-retroviral drugs used against SARS-CoV-2 like lopinavir/ritonavir and darunavir/cobicstat potently inhibit cytochrome P450 3A4 (ivermectin’s main metabolic pathway) and if used concurrently with ivermectin can increase the systemic exposure to ivermectin. Ritonavir and cobicistat also inhibits P-glycoprotein efflux pump in BBB [34]. Moreover, well-controlled dose response study needs to be considered for carrying out a clinical trial of ivermectin. Schmith et al. carried out simulations with the help of available population pharmacokinetic model for predicting total and unbound plasma concentration–time profiles of ivermectin (200 µg/kg, 60 mg, and 120 mg) after administration of single and repeat fasted dose. According to their results, the IC50 value of ivermectin as reported by Caly et al. was much higher than the maximum plasma concentration achieved after administration of the above mentioned three doses of ivermectin when administered fasted. Hence, the chances of success of a trial that use the approved ivermectin dose (200 µg/kg) are less. They further suggested evaluation of use of combined therapy in vitro and ivermectin’s inhaled treatment if feasible [35]. Furthermore, Momekove et al. also reported that according to pharmacokinetic data that is available from clinically relevant and excessive dosing studies SARS-CoV 2 in vitro inhibitory concentrations (5 µM/L) are not probable to be achievable in humans [36]. Next, ivermectin’s cellular uptake by endothelial cells is limited, because it is highly bound (93%) to plasma proteins. Furthermore, ivermectin’s total lung concentration reached only 100 ng/g (around 0.1 μM) in lung tissue in calves injected with 200 μg/kg, suggesting that accumulation of ivermectin would not be enough to accomplish the antiviral effect with conventional doses [37]. Jermain et al. developed a minimal physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to simulate ivermectin’s exposure to human lungs post oral doses (12, 30, and 120 mg). The simulated exposure of ivermectin to lungs achieved a concentration of 772 ng/mL, lower than the reported IC50 for ivermectin in vitro (1750 ng/mL) [38].

    • Official Post

    Shane, frankly you are not a good reporter of "what is the science". Read the paper I posted on science and politics, and why doctors would always be at odds with scientists over prescribing hyped readily available drugs.


    Scientists don't recommend not to prescribe these things because of politics - they use their best judgement - which may be right or wrong - but which they explain in research papers.

    I read the paper, as I do everything you recommend...including the one you posted twice today about how Iver biochemical pathways could possibly be disrupted by COVID, turning a benign, safe drug into something that may hurt the patient.


    The other paper a few days ago I took note of, talked about the rift between scientists and doctors, as to how they (doctors) should follow their (scientists) recommendations. If not they may, and do, kill a lot of people. Not a very flattering picture of the integrity and intelligence of those in the medical field. And a theme you, an engineering, theoretical scientist -not a health care scientist, seem to agree fully with.


    I will let you and the doctors fight that out, but leave this one article for you to read. In it those health care scientists you claim you are not covering for, show that their public stance can be heavily influenced by their politics, or fear of political reprisal if they are at odds with the official narrative. And not necessarily what their own science tells them. That seems at odds with your pristine view of their field.


    https://www.nationalreview.com…t-trending&utm_term=first


    Plenty of other articles pointing out the many ways health care science has been corrupted. Did this pandemic create that, or has it been around a long time, but only exposed now because of the pandemic? I do not know, but will say I will never trust the "official" narrative again. Instead I will dig into the internet and read every opinion I can find, and decide for myself what is best for me and my family.

  • talked about the rift between scientists and doctors

    this distinction between doctors and scientists is misleading


    in practice many practising doctors in major hospitals are scientists...

    evaluating evidence daily..constructing experiments

    was Marshall a scientist or doctor.?

    Well .. the Nobel Prize in 2005.. I guess Marshall was both..


    BigPharma were not happy... NO PATENTS...

    Marshall's treatment for peptic ulcer used three existing drugs

    but BigPharma is getting more powerful over three decades

    I doubt whether Marshall types would succeed today.

    there are plenty of doctor-scientists who's results are diminished or ignored

    "


    For years an obscure doctor hailing from Australia’s hardscrabble west coast watched in horror as ulcer patients fell so ill that many had their stomach removed or bled until they died. That physician, an internist named Barry Marshall, was tormented because he knew there was a simple treatment for ulcers, which at that time afflicted 10 percent of all adults.

    In 1981 Marshall began working with Robin Warren, the Royal Perth Hospital pathologist who, two years earlier, discovered the gut could be overrun by hardy, corkscrew-shaped bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. Biopsying ulcer patients and culturing the organisms in the lab, Marshall traced not just ulcers but also stomach cancer to this gut infection. The cure, he realized, was readily available: anti­biotics. But mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.


    Unable to make his case in studies with lab mice (because H. pylori affects only primates) and prohibited from experimenting on people, Marshall grew desperate. Finally he ran an experiment on the only human patient he could ethically recruit: himself. He took some H. pylori from the gut of an ailing patient, stirred it into a broth, and drank it.


    https://www.discovermagazine.c…-solved-a-medical-mystery



  • x can be 0.001 just fine

  • The medical establishment is trying to draw a line between not allowing quack treatments that are bad for patients, and allowing treatments that are good for patients.

    The medical establishment = FM/R/J mafia tries to stop drugs/cure than lessen their in come or help people to avoid expensive treatment. This establishment is what provides your daily input to this thread.

    HCQ - this thread was (is?) in favour - bad idea

    IVM - this thread is in favour - probably not helpful, possibly a bad idea

    You are a totally disgusting person! I hope you too will end up in the following CoV-19 Nürnberg trial we will organize for all people that did support and spread Dr. Mengele advice and techniques.

    Plenty of other articles pointing out the many ways health care science has been corrupted. Did this pandemic create that, or has it been around a long time, but only exposed now because of the pandemic?

    It started in the seventies, when first - very profitable anti cancer treatment were introduces. They did, as a first action, forbid the use of Apricot kernels in the USA later Praziquantel was banned!! Now the health system is fully undermined. E.g. UNI hospital Zürich : All leading doctors are mafia members the same for other hospitals all are totally connected.

  • Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection

    A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines


    https://journals.lww.com/ameri…d_Treatment_of.98040.aspx


    Abstract

    Background:

    Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.


    Areas of uncertainty:

    We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.


    Data sources:

    We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.


    Therapeutic Advances:

    Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.


    Conclusions:

    Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

  • Although those infected with the variants were not at higher risk for death or intensive care admission, they were more likely to be hospitalized.”



    Potential Causes of Increased Transmission in COVID-19 Variants


    https://scitechdaily.com/poten…in-covid-19-variants/amp/


    Although two SARS-CoV-2 variants are associated with higher transmission, patients with these variants show no evidence of higher viral loads in their upper respiratory tracts compared to the control group, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine study found.


    The emergence and higher transmission of the evolving variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been concerning. The researchers investigated B.1.1.7, the variant first identified in the UK, and B.1.351, the variant first identified in South Africa, to evaluate if patients showed higher viral loads, and consequently increased shedding and transmissibility.


    Variants were identified using whole genome sequencing. Researchers used a large cohort of samples to show that the UK variant constituted 75% of the circulating viruses by April 2021. The researchers compared 134 variant samples to 126 control samples and with access to the patients’ clinical information, were able to correlate the genomics data with the clinical disease and outcomes. All samples underwent additional testing to determine their viral load. The information was associated with the stage of the disease by looking at the days after the start of symptoms which added clarity in comparing viral shedding between groups.


    “The reason why these variants show higher transmissibility is not yet clear,” said Adannaya Amadi, lead author on the study. “However, our findings did show that the patients infected with these variants are less likely to be asymptomatic compared to the control group. Although those infected with the variants were not at higher risk for death or intensive care admission, they were more likely to be hospitalized.”


    This study was performed at Dr. Heba Mostafa’s research laboratory at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, which has been performing large scale whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 for the State of Maryland and contributing data to the national publicly available surveillance figures.


    Alex Luo, C. Paul Morris, Matthew Schwartz, Eili Y. Klein and Heba H. Mostafa also contributed to this work. The study was funded by NIH, the Johns Hopkins Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University and the Maryland Department of Health.

    This abstract will be presented at the World Microbe Forum online from June 20-24 live from Baltimore, Maryland. World Microbe Forum is a collaboration between the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the Federation of European Microbiological Societies (FEMS), and several other societies, which is breaking barriers to share science and address the most pressing challenges facing humankind today.

  • “The reason why these variants show higher transmissibility is not yet clear,” said Adannaya Amadi, lead author on the study.

    No it's clear why. There was a modelling paper that did show an additional twist that (UK) 1.1.7.1 uses to stronger stick to the spike lock. So we wait only for the modelling of 1.6.1.4 that fits even better.

    1.3.5.1 is a different story. It evades RNA anti bodies what points to less sticky.

  • Has the United States reached herd immunity? President Biden announces that the us has injected 300 million doses of vaccine and with 33.5 million confirmed cases surely the us has reached herd immunity, but herd immunity is no longer a buzz phrase with the media and certainly not with big pharma. The goal post keeps getting moved.

  • New "old" antiviral wellknown "drug" under investigation as effective Covid-19 treatment in a study at German Charite University. Sounds promising!


    "The most pronounced antiviral effect was associated with niclosamide, which the researchers had shown to be effective against the MERS coronavirus during an earlier study. The tapeworm drug was found to reduce the production of infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles by more than 99 percent."


    https://idw-online.de/de/news771120

    • Official Post

    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/…ivermectin-become-a-dirty


    "Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?"


    "One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics."


    "A consequence is that issues like the ivermectin question have ended up in the same public bucket as debates over foreign misinformation, hate speech, and even incitement"