Covid-19 News

Critique if ivermectin causing reduction of Indian cases Post

This points out some weaknesses in the argument that ivermectin is a wonder drug helping India. That regions not taking ivermectin goes wild in cases is however a weakness in their argument as well. Also note that a moderate effect can cause r to go from 1.1 to 0.9 and exponential relationships means that with time you will have a 99% reduction. So we would should discuss r instead

Another piece of the same Fact check

Quote from Shane D.

The fact checkers have spoken. I guess that settles it then.

the fact checker failed to mention widespread use began in April in all but one state.

Quote from Navid

Q1: You think the vaccine reduces hospital load? I've looked at the epidemiological studies

Among people older 65 with comorbidity it is obvious. But if the virus mutates one or two more times then we will see all vaccinated in the hospital - Good night. (It started already with the Alpha version.. 50% have been fully vaccinated)

Quote from Navid

Q2: 80 out of 100? You mean 80% of the very vulnerable??

It was about Norway where 100 old people died of Pfizer/Astra... THH claims they died from

UK News FAZ:

Eine Auswertung der britischen Gesundheitsbehörde Public Health England hat ergeben, dass mehr als die Hälfte aller Personen, die bisher mit der sogenannten Delta-Variante gestorben sind, geimpft waren. Von den 117 Patienten, die zum Zeitpunkt ihres Todes mit der Virus-Variante infiziert waren, hatten 50 zwei Impfstoffdosen erhalten und 20 eine Dosis. Nur acht der 117 Toten waren unter fünfzig Jahre alt; sechs von ihnen waren ungeimpft, zwei einmal geimpft.

117 deaths from CoV-19 have been investigated. 50 were fully vaccinated by 2 doses 20 had a single dose. Only 8 of 117 were younger than 50 years.

Conclusion: The vaccine does not protect from death with the alpha version. At least for the older. Let's hope they make detailed section to find out whether the death is vaccine related - overreaction.

Quote from stefan

Another piece of the same Fact check

If you trust a milkman, and a gardener and may be a nurse then this is OK for you. I only trust scientific data but this takes time for reading. I suggest next time you read a paper and not just like/link a fake check site.

Researchers Find COVID-19 Virus Was “Highly Human Adapted” – Exact Origins Still a Mystery

https://scitechdaily.com/resea…gins-still-a-mystery/amp/

Scientists using computer modeling to study SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, have discovered the virus is most ideally adapted to infect human cells — rather than bat or pangolin cells, again raising questions of its origin.

In a paper published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, Australian scientists describe how they used high-performance computer modeling of the form of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the beginning of the pandemic to predict its ability to infect humans and a range of 12 domestic and exotic animals.

Their work aimed to help identify any intermediate animal vector that may have played a role in transmitting a bat virus to humans, and to understand any risk posed by the susceptibilities of companion animals such as cats and dogs, and commercial animals like cows, sheep, pigs, and horses.

The scientists, from Flinders University and La Trobe University, used genomic data from the 12 animal species to painstakingly build computer models of the key ACE2 protein receptors for each species. These models were then used to calculate the strength of binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to each species’ ACE2 receptor.

Surprisingly, the results showed that SARS-CoV-2 bound to ACE2 on human cells more tightly than any of the tested animal species, including bats and pangolins. If one of the animal species tested was the origin, it would normally be expected to show the highest binding to the virus.

Humans showed the strongest spike binding, consistent with the high susceptibility to the virus, but very surprising if an animal was the initial source of the infection in humans,” says La Trobe University Professor David Winkler.

The findings, originally released on the ArXiv preprint server, have now been peer-reviewed and published in Scientific Reports (Springer Nature).

“The computer modelling found the virus’s ability to bind to the bat ACE2 protein was poor relative to its ability to bind human cells. This argues against the virus being transmitted directly from bats to humans. Hence, if the virus has a natural source, it could only have come to humans via an intermediary species which has yet to be found,” says Flinders affiliated Professor Nikolai Petrovsky.

The team’s computer modeling shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus also bound relatively strongly to ACE2 from pangolins, a rare exotic ant-eater found in some parts of South-East Asia with occasional instances of use as food or traditional medicines. Professor Winkler says pangolins showed the highest spike binding energy of all the animals the study looked at — significantly higher than bats, monkeys and snakes.

“While it was incorrectly suggested early in the pandemic by some scientists that they had found SARS-CoV-2 in pangolins, this was due to a misunderstanding and this claim was rapidly retracted as the pangolin coronavirus they described had less than 90% genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2 and hence could not be its ancestor,” Professor Petrovsky says

This study and others have shown, however, that the specific part of the pangolin coronavirus spike protein that binds ACE2 was almost identical to that of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“This sharing of the almost identical spike protein almost certainly explains why SARS-CoV-2 binds so well to pangolin ACE2. Pangolin and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins may have evolved similarities through a process of convergent evolution, genetic recombination between viruses, or through genetic engineering, with no current way to distinguish between these possibilities,” Professor Petrovsky says.

“Overall, putting aside the intriguing pangolin ACE2 results, our study showed that the COVID-19 virus was very well adapted to infect humans.”

“We also deduced that some domesticated animals like cats, dogs, and cows are likely to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection too,” Professor Winkler adds.

The extremely important and open question of how the virus came to infect humans has two main explanations currently. The virus may have passed to humans from bats through an intermediary animal yet to be found (zoonotic origin), but it cannot yet be excluded that it was released accidentally from a virology lab. A thorough scientific, evidence-based investigation is needed to determine which of these explanations is correct.

How and where the SARS-CoV-2 virus adapted to become such an effective human pathogen remains a mystery, the researchers conclude, adding that finding the origins of the disease will help efforts to protect humanity against future coronavirus pandemics.

Reference: “In silico comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species and implications for virus origin” by Sakshi Piplani, Puneet Kumar Singh, David A. Winkler and Nikolai Petrovsky, 24 June 2021, Scientific Reports.

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92388-5

Is the CDC providing good data to promote policy?

Danish COVID-19 Genome Consortium study Raises Questions

https://trialsitenews.com/dani…m-study-raises-questions/

Recently, a group of Danish researchers known as the Danish COVID-19 Genome Consortium had their study of the B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant published in the peer-reviewed The Lancet. In this large observational cohort study out of Denmark on 50,958 individuals, they found that B.1.1.7 was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.25–1.60; p<0.0001) for hospitalization. Most other reports on B.1.1.7 have been based on epidemiology data and have concluded that it is more transmissible but does not drive worse clinical outcomes (see CDC report). Here in Denmark, the study team provides robust evidence that B.1.1.7 does indeed drive worse clinical outcomes, which is clearly illustrated in the significantly higher hospitalization rate.

It’s plausible to conclude that the Delta variant will likely yield a similar or possibly incremental increase in hospitalization rates over B.1.1.7 from the early data. We should all be looking to Denmark to leverage their high RT-PCR testing and whole genome sequencing capacities again to gain early insight into the Delta variant’s (and those that will follow) clinical implications. It’s desirable to ensure the right decisions are made.

The Danish COVID-19 Genome Consortium

must read for liers deniers and vaccine warriors

Asymptomatic COVID spread used to shut down the economy and close schools was false: in fact, it was a lie

https://trialsitenews.com/asym…-close-schools-was-false/

Paul Elias Alexander, PhD, Former COVID Pandemic consultant/advisor to WHO-PAHO and former COVID pandemic advisor to Health and Human Services (HHS), United States; Parvez Dara, MD, MBA; Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD

We will start this discussion on the corruption of ‘asymptomatic spread’ by stating emphatically, that there should be no vaccination of our children with these COVID vaccines. Zero. These vaccines have no long-term safety assessments, and they are working not alike the classical vaccines. We are talking about vaccinating millions of healthy infants, children, and adolescents, and we know the risk is not substantial in terms of acquiring the infection and going on to become severely ill or dying. The risk of severe outcome in infants, young children, and young persons is very low and essentially statistical zero (risk of survival persons 0-19 is 99.997%). Yet the potential risks of these vaccines to children can be catastrophic. Thus the basic question is, why would we subject our child to a vaccine that provides them with no benefit? This is illogical, irrational, absurd, and very reckless and dangerous. The threshold for safety must be set at the highest. Of course, high-risk young persons should be considered on a case-by-case basis based on an ethical informed assessment of the balance of the risk versus benefits. We say at this time, no, stop, put an immediate pause on this. We are very concerned with the potential harms to children if this is not done properly. Get the proper safety data collected and assessed first.

We are not against vaccines and in no way anti-vaxxers, rather, we support vaccines once developed properly. Vaccines have harmed our children in the past when not developed properly. We are pro-vaccine but are against these vaccines as the harms are potentially catastrophic. Children could be set up for a life time of disability and possible death. We cannot just rush into mass vaccinating healthy persons and importantly, our children, until we properly assess the risks. How can we be told that vaccines take 10 to 12 to 15 years to develop, yet these were developed in 3 months and they are safe? How? When we bypassed the proper animal studies and the safety assessment. We need to assess if there are potentially unsafe blood clots and bleeding connected to the vaccines. These are a pressing concern now as they have emerged. We have to assess the myocarditis and pericarditis risks and this is now a real unfolding catastrophe. We knew very early on that COVID is amenable to risk stratification and that your baseline risk was prognostic on mortality. Why not the same approach for these vaccines? Why are members of the public not allowed to have open public discussion if they think they have been vaccine injured? They must also be given care urgently and are dealt with optimally. Their adverse outcome information must be collected for us to make an accurate assessment of the risk subsequent to vaccination. Moreover, when we opine scientifically, we are talking to the US, Canada, Britain, France, Australia, Italy, all of Europe, the Caribbean, African nations, all of the globe. Every single person on this earth is important and all our lives matter, especially our minority children who often bear the worst from any illness. We are trying to help save ‘all’ lives. Now, on to the core thesis surrounding asymptomatic spread.

There was no credibility to ‘asymptomatic spread’ or transmission in COVID-19 as a key driver of the pandemic nor even as a driver of minimal infection. This is not only our hypothesis, we feel strongly that asymptomatic spread was bogus from the start and was used to underpin the lockdowns and had and has still today, no basis. This was part of pandemic corruption. We have looked at the evidence gathered across the last 16 months and can safely say this was a false narrative along with masking, lockdowns, social distancing, and school closure polices that visited crushing harms on the society and hurt the US and the world immensely. That the US Pandemic Task Force and these illogical, irrational, unscientific medical experts could use this falsehood and shutter the society and cost so much destruction of life, wealth and property is a scandal, shameful, and unforgiveable. This was all about corruption, this pandemic response, and there certainly were ingredients other than science at play throughout.

There are members of the US Task Force that some of us here got the pleasure of working with and some of them are incredibly smart, good people. Decent god-fearing people. But they were and are flat wrong! Have been on everything COVID. Every policy was based on their input and guidance and they created disaster. Many thousands of people died due to them! Their policies! Never has a President been as ill-served as by these Task Force members. They misled and undercut President Trump at each turn and one continues to mislead the current administration. Who knows, maybe the combination caused a chaotic frenetic collaboration, so maybe the combination doomed them from the start. But on a day-to-day basis, we were watching a clown car in the daily briefings! Their hypothesis cannot be borne out on asymptomatic spread, and we have decided once and for all, to lay out the evidence on asymptomatic spread and give our view. This should have never been about supposition, speculation, assumptions or even whimsy by them. This is not evidence-based research, that is not science. Speculation and assumption is not science. They failed catastrophically and must not be allowed to re-write their history.

As we lay out our op-ed and the evidence that underpins our reasoning, we ask any of the scientists to put forth their data, their science, their proof of its credibility and once shown and proven, we will gladly adjust our position and conclude otherwise. We also apologize for our writing is blunt on this matter, for we are angered at the catastrophic failures of the Task Forces and these unsound irrational experts who have caused so much damage.

This was such a significant aspect of the pandemic policy decisions, the issue of ‘asymptomatic spread’, that it could not be based on ‘possibility’ or assumptions. We are afraid however, that it was, and this had catastrophic consequences. They, these absurd and unscientific medical experts, made ‘asymptomatic spread’ the cornerstone of the societal lockdowns and they did this with no credible basis. There was no strong data or any evidence to underpin this and even if this was assumed for several weeks, and even if we took a more cautious approach initially and this was reasonable, we used and kept this false narrative in place far too long to keep draconian and punitive lockdown restrictions in place that had no basis. Lives were lost as a result! For us to buy this, we need to see the evidence and data and there is/was none! We operate in a world of evidence-based medicine and research whereby policies must be underpinned by credible evidence and even if it were ‘anecdotal’ ‘real-world evidence’, it must have some basis. This had none. The reality is that there is no verifiable evidence still today as we write, that persons have developed COVID-19 based on asymptomatic spread, evidence that is credible. You must torture the data or infections to find one and still, it is plagued with the very questionable RT-PCR results.

You just cannot discuss this asymptomatic issue without factoring in the very flawed RT-PCR test with its 97% to 100% false positives at cycle counts (Ct) of 34 to 35 and above (optimal Ct of 24 to 25 denotes real infectiousness and predictive of serious outcomes). This RT-PCR disastrous test cannot be omitted for it was part of the ‘asymptomatic’ deception. I cannot be generous in my language anymore. This was not a falsehood; it was meant to deceive!

This duplicitous ‘asymptomatic’ assertion hobbled and basically doomed the pandemic response from the start, for all the societal shutdowns and school closures revolved around the premise of asymptomatic spread. Dr. Anthony Fauci can be credited with perhaps the greatest falsehood to the American population and the then President Trump. He continues to advance this misleading and duplicitous narrative into the current President Biden’s administration.

They did not try to and failed to protect public health and our elderly in nursing homes, all these crazy lockdown insane lunatics! That’s what they are, lunatics! We have searched for a better descriptive. These bureaucrats and technocrats, this ruling elite, these television medical experts. Flat wrong on everything COVID, yet run around extolling each other patting each other on the back. For what? The destruction they caused? We begged them to secure the elderly and high-risk strongly but they did not and did not stop the lockdowns. Had we protected the elderly properly from the start, we would have not lost the lives we did. Had we allowed early outpatient treatment using a multi-drug approach (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, corticosteroids, anti-blood clotting drugs etc. under clinician supervision), we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We could minimize or stop symptoms and thus spread with multi-drug early treatment, which would reduce hospitalization and death. Early treatment can be much more effective than vaccine is stopping transmission.

They, these lunatic lockdown advocates, these medical experts, pretended there were no harms to their lockdowns. It was deliberate, a perverse cruelty on populations. Just look at the declining health due to the isolation from the lockdowns (the mental health costs, the dementia), the inactivity, the loss of education due to school closures, lost medical care, loss of jobs/employment, and income. “Some of these costs, sadly, remain ahead of us, including deaths from delays in cancer screening and treatment, rising opioid overdose, and harms to the life expectancy of today’s children due to lost schooling” (Collateral Global). Alarmingly, we see how COVID wreaks havoc differentially due to baseline risks that are often exaggerated in the underprivileged, but also in the underprivileged in terms of the harms and effects of the lockdowns. For example, “while breast cancer screening in Washington state fell by 50% for women overall, the drop was even more precipitous among minorities”. Look at how we have suffered our elderly in nursing homes, how our aged populations have died lonely, in fright, isolated, confused, in the last days, weeks of their lives. Look at what we have done! What a scandal!

Before we lay bare this ‘asymptomatic’ fraud, let us show just how duplicitous and incompetent these public health agencies can be and how much lies they (and their leaders) spew in an attempt to deceive and confuse the public. In this case to drive fear now in parents so as to push them to vaccinate their children. They, as public health leaders at the CDC and NIH must rise above the politics and work to inform the public based on truth, evidence, and a quest to help and inform. Not mislead and confuse!

So to help make our case on asymptomatic spread untruths, on Friday, the CDC put out a statement (based on their June 11th 2021 MMWR report) that there is a troubling rise in teens being hospitalized for COVID-19. The first fact that jumps out at us is that there were 0 (zero) deaths. CDC stated that adolescent hospitalization rates increased during March and April 2021 after decreases in January and February 2021. This message went viral in the media 24/7. This misinformation and lie by the CDC and clear effort to lie to the public was couched as a ‘troubling rise’. But the lie was that there was a rise in March and April but then a decrease in May back to the level it was at the close of February 2021. What garbage, what drivel the CDC has stated here!

The CDC and its Director Walensky had clear knowledge that the hospitalization rate had decreased but they cherry picked a portion of the graph and data (the upside of the graph) and presented that without the downside portion that shows the decline. What hubris and deceit by Walensky! Did she not read the data? Did someone or staff set her up to look substandard in the media for this once again, shows a badly mis-informed or prepared CDC director. And we have no reason to think she is incapable, in fact, her credentials are stellar. We have no reason to think she is that inept. We think something other than science is at play here. Persons in her agency must be feeding her the garbage to undermine her, and doing it repeatedly, and we ask her to please read and study the junk they are giving you before you make a public statement. It is not only your reputation Dr. Walensky, but that of this marque agency, the CDC. It, CDC, must not be dragged through the mud this way, and set for ridicule. The public is very informed and understand much more than public health officials think they do, and thus the preparation and public statements by the CDC must be open, transparent, explicit, and above all, accurate. No lies, no spin, no half-baked tripe. Pure evidence and truth, balanced information so that the public is informed for their decision-making. Do not mislead the public!

For she, Dr. Walensky, knew that this was a cherry-picking of the data to drive an erroneous misleading message, because across all age-groups, hospitalizations had declined during the prior 6 to 8 weeks. She knew this. “Allen says the latest data from May showed that hospitalization rates declined to 0.6 on May 29”. The real atrocity in this reporting by the CDC is that they did not include the data from May 2021. This was pure efforts to mislead the public because the same data used in the report showed a significant decline in the month following the slight increase”. So, the CDC took data that showed an increase in April 2021 and now reports it in June as if the May data of the clear decline does not exist. Just the April data and also, why is it now being reported? How incredibly duplicitous and such arrogance to think the American people are that stupid that they cannot see the decline in May?

She, Dr. Walensky, was actually mis-reporting (seemingly deliberately given the data was right there for her to see) CDC’s own data. Why? Is this the first time a CDC MMWR report was basically junk pseudo-science? Based on falsehoods? This MMWR report was based on a population-based surveillance system of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations in 99 counties across 14 states, covering approximately 10% of the U.S. population. Horowitz of the Blazemedia was beside himself as he discussed this duplicity by the CDC and rightly so. Dr. Walensky stated she was para ‘deeply concerned by the rise’. Yet she knew she was being deceitful, in plain view, understanding that the media cartel would gobble the erroneous tripe up and the public would be too lazy to do the reading just a bit further down in the MMWR to understand the mis-information. “It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points-an old trick they’ve used with mask studies”. Or is it that Dr. Walensky cannot read the science or understand the data or graphs? Or those reporting to her? They (Dr. Walensky) also made this type of deceitful error and omission when they reported and misled on the risk of outdoors transmission (< 1% but claiming it is more like 10%), among many others. Same issues with the summer camp rules and spread after vaccination, with flips and flops between Walensky and Fauci. Someone was or is lying, who? And importantly, why? They are routinely false and this is very bad science.

Makary of Johns Hopkins stated para “that the CDC did not report the key issues in that report. No child died, and the CDC should have said this. This is the great news! The hospitalization rate was lower for COVID than it was for influenza”. The CDC should have said this also as the headline. What about the heart swelling complications on teens due to the vaccine…one of the failures of the CDC is their ignoring of natural immunity and this insane rush to mass vaccinate people already immune…we are seeing another set of talking points on the Delta variant scare”. Hirschhorn writes eloquently about this refusal to recognize natural immunity as a major player in COVID. “The reason is simple. The more that natural immunity is accepted, the more reason there is to reject getting one of the experimental COVID vaccines. Half the US population from kids to adults likely have natural immunity, even though most never suffered any serious ill effects from being infected”.

CDC knew the number was coming down for months but misled in their report when they knew it was 20 hospitalizations per day of about 25 million teens, so a rate of approximately 0.00008%. This was to drive panic about a troubling rise in teen hospitalizations and the very small number was going down, and not up. They the CDC knew the % was very, very low. They duplicitously picked only one piece of data and this was terrible so as to exploit the fears of parents. This was to drive vaccinations, despite learning of the increasing myocarditis among teenagers who are vaccinated for COVID-19. The CDC’s very own VAERS database has near 6,000 deaths linked to the vaccine. The CDC pretends this does not exist, yet the deaths thus far from COVID vaccines are more than all deaths from all vaccines across the last 30 years. Do you understand this? This is not our data, this is CDC’s data.

How about the study out of Israel involving over 6 million participants that uncovered natural immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection was equivalent or even better to vaccination immunity in reducing risk of COVID infection. “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals”. How about the results from the Cleveland Clinic study that looked at 52,238 employees (Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio), whereby 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22,777 (41%) of 49,659 not previously infected. Any subject who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days earlier was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receipt of the second dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. “Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study” leading researchers to conclude that persons who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection would be unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. But CDC and the media medical cartel are pretending these studies and great news do not exist.

Dr. Walensky apparently does not get these research reports and prefers to rather mislead the nation and parents with inaccurate and half-presented data. How low has the CDC fallen and how come they have absolutely no common sense! Why is this incessant drive by the CDC day in, day out to mislead the public and how long has this been going on? Why are they working to undermine President Biden and his administration for this can only damage his administration’s credibility?

What about the CDC’s HEROES-RECOVER study? Look at that duplicity by the CDC. They stated in their protocol that “one of the study’s primary objectives was to, “Examine post-vaccine immunologic response in those previously infected.” Yet, despite the fact that there were prior infected persons in the study, they were excluded from the study results. “Among 5,077 participants, those with laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection before enrollment starting in July 2020 (608) or identified as part of longitudinal surveillance up until the first day of vaccine administration (240) were excluded.” Why would CDC do this when this was a group that was part of the study and a key group in terms of the primary purpose? Where did these people vanish to?

What about the misleading statements (see New York Post) by the CDC and Walensky recently about outdoor transmission risk (grossly over-stating it and seeking to drive fear), having to come back and retract and clarify. What about the director trying to blame the journal they took the data from? Do they at the CDC not read what they are publishing or read whatever, for accuracy or validity? This is shocking. Why must the CDC try each time to mislead the public? Why would the director do this given her prominent role?

We set the table for this op-ed with the falsehoods by the CDC on rising teen hospitalizations and omission of COVID-19 recovered persons in the HEROES-RECOVER study, in the quest by CDC to vaccinate. This is how the last 16 months has been with CDC’s actions and reporting. Late and false! Always one year behind the science. Always misleading. Politicized.

We will begin our op-ed on the lies of ‘asymptomatic spread’ by using the exact words of Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID. Dr. Fauci, previously stated the following as he advocated and moved to shut the society down: “historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all history of respiratory viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers”. Soon and without scientific evidence, he and his fellow Task Force people changed the narrative to the contrary.

But what did we know? That he knew yet sought to lie to the nation. In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They, asymptomatic positive persons (assuming they are ‘actually’ positive and not based on an incorrect test), may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Vanishingly small. Exceedingly small. Thus, asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics.

Dr. Fauci and his staff along with the help of the media repeatedly came to the podium and misled the nation for they repeatedly told us that due to asymptomatic spread, we would have to wear masks, and socially distance, and close schools, and shut everything down. Dr. Fauci’s recent e-mails exposing the issue of asymptomatic spread being a non-issue underscores the misinformation he broadcasted to the public. Recent e-mails uncovered show that Fauci stated that “most transmissions” of virus “occur from someone who is symptomatic” and “not asymptomatic”. His comments that were reiterated scores of times on national and international media were the cause of many a loss of life, property, liberty and wealth of an entire generation.

Equally misleading was the premise that all infections equated to severe illness and potential death. This was not only an untruth but has led to scores of teenagers and 20+ year-olds fearful for their lives. They cower below their beds thinking they, in all their health, are at the same risk as their 85 year-old grandmother who has three grave medical conditions. This not only devastated their outlook to the future but hobbled them into a state of depression which translated to an increase in suicides in that cohort. We as a nation (and world) were fed mistruths, lies, and half-truths by what we can only describe as ‘fallen’ nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and specious medical experts on television, on the stage with their government bureaucratic leaders, and academics.

We knew very early on that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and that your baseline risk was most prognostic for mortality, age and obesity being the principle ones along with renal disease and diabetes as well as heart disease. We realized early on that a more focused ‘targeted’ approach was needed and not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that would be devastating.

Like how we know that the FDA is misleading the public with its guidance that “If you have not been vaccinated: Be aware that a positive result from an antibody test does not mean you have a specific amount of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection.” What utter nonsense by the FDA and they know it, they know there is empirical evidence to refute this fully. Johns Hopkins Makary has stated “There’s ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health leaders should pay it heed.” A huge number of Americans have natural immunity because though “Only around 10% of Americans have had confirmed positive Covid tests, but four to six times as many have likely had the infection…the effect of natural immunity is all around us. The plummeting case numbers in late April and May weren’t the result of vaccination alone, and they came amid a loosening of both restrictions and behavior”. Turner et al. published in journal Nature recently that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans (a source of protective antibodies). The authors concluded that “prior Covid infection induces a ‘robust’ and ‘long-lived humoral immune response,’ leading some scientists to suggest that natural immunity is probably lifelong”.

Additional US research (Lancet) that tracked population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays, showed an encouraging timeline for the development and sustainability of antibodies up to ten months from natural infection. A similar type study (Nature) showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune response in humans. Moreover, a pre-print paper shows that without vaccination, the antibodies in the infected person is roughly stable for 6 to 12 months. Combined to the Israeli data and the Cleveland data, the case has been built and is indeed compelling.

Like how we know that the job of the media cartel and the inept medical experts on television now is to scare us and parents into vaccination, leading Makary to also weigh in with “Some health officials warn of possible variants resistant to natural immunity. But none of the hundreds of variants observed so far have evaded either natural or vaccinated immunity with the three vaccines authorized in the U.S”. They are trying in the media and the illogical and incompetent academically sloppy medical experts to drive fear, claiming children can die of COVID-19. We say not so, show us the evidence. Stop the lies! Makary even weighed in on this stating “In reviewing the medical literature and news reports, and in talking to pediatricians across the country, I am not aware of a single healthy child in the U.S. who has died of COVID-19 to date…We found that 100% of pediatric COVID-19 deaths were in children with a pre-existing condition”. Makary further stated “CDC’s own data show that MIS-C overwhelmingly targets black and Latino children, “likely due to the disproportionate rates of childhood obesity and chronic conditions in these populations.” While three dozen have died, the weekly rate of COVID-associated MIS-C is now at zero”.

It’s a lie, all a lie we say, all part of the bogusness to drive needless fear in parents. That could harm their children with potentially dangerous vaccines. Children must never be vaccinated with these vaccines, these ‘untested to exclude harms’ vaccines. We are not saying a child could die from this, but we are arguing that such a child (tragically) would likely be very ill absent of COVID and COVID did what it has done and done well, it exploits risks.

There were so many falsehoods thrown at the American people by persons in authority and with many credentials behind their names and these are the very people who have sucked at the teats of the tax-payers Treasury purse for decades. You would think at least our tax-payer research grant money would be well spent on these lunatics who could at least tell us the truth and not mislead us!. Take the issue of re-infections to drive fears so you rush to vaccinate. We have looked at the published evidence and can conclude based on the existing body of evidence, that reinfections are very rare, if at all, and based on typically one or two instances with questionable confirmation of an actual case of re-infection e.g. often easily explained by flawed PCR testing etc. (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). A very recent study in Qatar (Lancet) found that “natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months”.

Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins wrote “reinfection is extremely rare and even when it does happen, the symptoms are very rare or [those individuals] are asymptomatic”. Importantly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently (May 10th 2021 Scientific brief, WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Natural_immunity/2021.1) alluded to what has been clear for many months (one year now), which is that people are very rarely re-infected. The WHO was very late but better late than never.

Similarly, it was evident that the RT-PCR tests had large numbers of false positive results when certain criteria of using high Thermal Cycle Thresholds of greater than 30 were utilized leading to erroneous quarantines and closures when a positive test emerged. In fact, Dimitri Mouliou states, “New technologies have loss of standardization as the countless PCR kits vary in methods and cutoff values, thus, test results are paralleled in unassociated weights, and a realistic comparison between cases is trammeled. Thus, by preserving the existence of misleading COVID-19 cases in such way, scientific community is being prevented from clear-sighted advances. Since PCR assay cannot distinguish between active and residual RNA.”

We knew that what mattered most was the number of hospitalizations, ICU bed use, and deaths, not the infections. An infection did not mean one was a ‘case’ of disease. And likely a false positive. We became aware early on that a cycle threshold (Ct) of 24 was the limit in RT-PCR testing and everything above limit was likely false positive, picking up viral dust, fragments, old coronavirus, old recovered infection etc. We knew the CDC had set the Ct at 40 which contributed to the hundreds of thousands and millions of positive cases that were not positive leading to wrongful policy mandates of school closures and unnecessary quarantine. We were aware and made known that children were at near zero risk of acquiring the infection, spreading it, or getting ill from it, yet the experts and the media continued their narrative on frightening parents. The CDC, the teachers’ unions, and the television medical experts have spent the last 15 to 16 months lying and scaring parents needlessly and have been lying openly on risk to children.

Like how we know but are pretending, that the vaccines were approved for emergency use based on exceptionally and grossly inadequate studies to evaluate safety and effectiveness. Like how we know that the vaccine roll out during a pandemic is driving the mutant variants. Like how we know that vaccinating now is fruitless given the original spike is no longer dominant and that this will be a boon for the vaccine developers who will have to manufacture new versions of the vaccines routinely, with yearly booster shots etc. We know all of this, especially save for the very high-risk with compromising conditions, we had all that we needed societally to handle COVID, and that a vaccine was not needed and definitely not for low-risk populations and children.

We have stated previously and continue to reiterate that those individuals who have been infected with the SARSCoV2 need not be vaccinated since they have a durable and long-lasting immunity to the virus, as compared to the Vaccine that confers antibodies directed against the Spike Protein only. Perhaps such immunity against a selected and limited part of the virus is limited and we feel might also drive the viral variants due to selection pressure.

There was this pure falsehood and lie about no prior immunity. But we had also commented that the T-cell immunity was out there and represented a large portion of persons who were not candidates for vaccine and were already strongly immune to COVID e.g. had prior infection with other coronaviruses and common cold coronaviruses that confer ‘cross-protection’ cellular immunity via T-cell immunity etc. (Weiskopf , Grifoni, Le Bert, Mateus, Tavukcuoglu, Cassaniti, Dykema, Echeverría, Bonifacius, Nelde, Ansari, Ma, Lineburg, Borena) (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). The reader can draw their own conclusions.

We have also advocated that early outpatient treatment (references 1, 2, 3, 4) was very successful in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death (McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Tenenbaum, Kory, Smith, Bernstein, Fareed, Ladapo etc.). Unfortunately, the expert scientific community was misguided in it’s vitriol against the early treatment More evidence continues to emerge from well-designed studies that are proving the previous narrative wrong. We have been advocating for thorough testing of the vaccines prior to mass vaccinations for fear of Serious Adverse Events that might accrue over time from such a policy mandate. It appears our fears are well-founded and we are now seeing (CDC’s very own VAERS database). Given the risks and harm exposed on the CDC VAERS site, we have advocated that children must not be vaccinated with mRNA vaccines for fear of short-term and longer-term harm. The short-term harms are being revealed in the media news daily while the longer-term harm may unfold over time. There must be no EUA for children and only high-risk children should be considered and based only on ethical consenting between the parents, doctor, and child after considering the balance between the benefits of vaccine versus the harms.

Certain political and scientific experts have maintained a ‘ZERO COVID’ view which is ill-thought and ludicrous because it is impossible to attain. There is no way we could eliminate every infection/case as COVID is now endemic and all around us. ZERO was never possible as the Nature survey of scientists states, “It’s a beautiful dream but most scientists think it’s improbable. In January, Nature journal asked more than 100 immunologists, infectious-disease researchers and virologists working on the coronavirus whether it could be eradicated. Almost 90% of respondents think that the coronavirus will become endemic — meaning that it will continue to circulate in pockets of the global population for years to come.” We knew this while they forced their absurd intention to destroy the society by enforcing lockdowns to attain ZERO. Enforcing Lockdowns forces the pathogen to mutate more infectiously. Dr. Christopher Martin stated, “most experts believe the answer is no and predict that the virus will continue to circulate indefinitely, transitioning from the current pandemic to a steady, but much lower, endemic rate of infection.” We have always advocated that simple enhanced handwashing and isolation of only the symptomatic ill/sick persons are the best societal measures in controlling the viral infection. We have stated previously that the SARS-CoV-2 will eventually become endemic, less virulent and circulate through the population mutating as it does, mostly to find harmony with its human hosts. Thusly, any suggestions of “ZERO COVID” must be considered as entertainment for those that have taken leave of all science and reason and wish to impose undue harm on the populace.

We have advocated against the masks previously and current data bears it out that cloth face masks are ineffective and dangerous, specifically to the children as used, with no clear benefit. impacting their social, emotional, and health and well-being. It is also confirmed that the social distance rule of 6 feet was made up, not based on credible science. Same as the 3 feet in school, courtesy of the CDC experts. Made up.

In showing the gross efforts to mislead on asymptomatic spread, we have to also lightly treat issues around lockdowns, school closures, masking, and mask mandates. What did we know about lockdowns and school closures and masks? What evidence accumulated and very early? We recommend that you judge for yourself. We link the various catastrophic harms (consequences) and failures of lockdowns (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58) and school closures (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56). The basis for the societal lockdowns was that 40% to 50% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 could potentially spread it due to being asymptomatic. “But fears that the virus may be spread to a significant degree by asymptomatic carriers soon led government leaders to issue broad and lengthy stay-at-home orders and mask mandates out of concerns that anyone could be a silent spreader”. However, the evidence in support of common asymptomatic spread remains largely non-existent and we argue, was overstated, and potentially was made with no basis.

We were aware of the catastrophic harms due to mask use: (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24).

And of the ineffectiveness of masks (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) and the failure of mask mandates (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8).

During the past 16 months the “experts” and their willing accomplices have amassed great fortunes while the lockdowns and school closures have placed an astronomical burden on the poorer in society. The COVID pandemic created billionaires among the pharmaceutical industry while shoring up the fortunes of the wealthy and small business operators languished or outright lost all their life’s earnings. The nation has lost a brace of productive and innovative citizens from the sheer

academic sloppiness and overt politicization of a pandemic. These experts and their acolytes have exhibited a depth of cognitive dissonance to anything that disagreed with their absurdities that they spewed at the public, who yearned just honesty and the facts for their informed decision-making.

We also suggest the complete cessation of testing asymptomatic individuals for the virus, both because of false positive results (which drives fear) and because it serves no purpose since contact tracing in a full-blown pandemic is worthless from any scientific point of view in controlling it. We remain confident enough based on the existing literature to also agree that ‘it is a dangerous assumption to believe that there is persuasive, scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission’. We feel that only symptomatic individua’s should be tested for the SARSCoV2 virus, period. “Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling”.

Further Scientific Evidence against Asymptomatic Spread:

A high-quality review study by Madewell published in JAMA sought to estimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. In addition, researchers sought to estimate the proportion of households with index cases that had any secondary transmission, and compared the SARS-CoV-2 household secondary attack rate with that of other severe viruses and with that to close contacts for studies that reported the secondary attack rate for both close and household contacts. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment. “The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals”.

A study published in Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million persons. AIER’s Zucker responded this way “The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000”.

One study in May 2020 examined the 455 contacts of one asymptomatic person. Researchers found that “all CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test”.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also made this claim that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.

Additionally, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year, and while one must tease out the concept of no asymptomatic spread though we argue it is an easy argument to make, it clearly shows that children do not spread the virus.

Ludvigsson published a seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on Covid-19 among children 1 to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization. We include this study for it is seminal in showing that masks were never needed and children do not spread the virus or get sick or die from it. But importantly, if asymptomatic spread was so vast, and there were 2 million children, would there not be much more elevated numbers of infection reported?

A recent June 10th 2021 op-ed sheds more confirmatory light that asymptomatic spread was more a myth that a reality. Ballan and Tindall wrote “People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2… serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.

A person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. They explain further that the myth was driven by a single case report of an asymptomatic woman from China who had spread the virus to approximately 16 contacts in Germany. “Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission”.

Ballan and Tindall further explain that “a person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen: i) the test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected), ii) the person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test), the person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms, and iv) the person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms”.

Dr Clare Craig, a pathologist, and her colleague Dr Jonathan Engler have examined the research evidence behind the claim that Covid-19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic individuals. They wrote “harmful lockdown policies and mass testing have been justified on the assumption that asymptomatic transmission is a genuine risk. Given the harmful collateral effects of such policies, the precautionary principle should result in a very high evidential bar for asymptomatic transmission being set. However, the only word which can be used to describe the quality of evidence for this is woeful. A handful of questionable instances of spread have been massively amplified in the medical literature by repeatedly including them in meta-analyses that continue to be published, recycling the same evidence base.

It is important to carefully distinguish purely asymptomatic (individuals who never develop any symptoms) from pre-symptomatic transmission (where individuals do eventually develop symptoms). To the extent that the latter phenomenon, which has in fact happened only very rarely, is deemed worthy of public health action, appropriate strategies to manage it (in the absence of significant asymptomatic transmission) would be entirely different and much less disruptive than those adopted.

We state emphatically that the concept of ‘asymptomatic spread’ of COVID virus was devised to frighten the population into compliance and that it was not central to this pandemic as we were told. Evidence to support its existence remains lacking and absent. We close by offering our continued beliefs and thus opinion on how this pandemic should have been handled from the start. We would have as a basic, the strong double and triple down protection of the elderly high-risk populations. If this is not done properly and first, then there will be no success. We should have fostered improved hand-washing hygiene and isolation of only the ill/sick/symptomatic persons. No asymptomatic person is/was to be quarantined and there is only to be testing of symptomatic persons or when there is strong clinical suspicion. We would promote education in improving support for the immune system such as public service messages about vitamin D supplements (especially in societies with limited sunlight) and allow the rest of the low-risk society to live largely unfettered daily lives, taking sensible reasonable safety precautions. This would allow them to mingle and be exposed to each other harmlessly and naturally, so that this would drive population level immunity. At the same time, we would offer early outpatient treatment to high-risk positive persons (in nursing homes or their private homes). This includes the elderly, younger persons with underlying medical conditions, and obese persons.

We feel that had this approach been enacted from the very beginning, the devastating losses incurred by businesses and the economy, as well as the deaths of despair to the business owners, employees, and our school children would have been avoided. There were crushing harms to our societies and especially our children due tor he lockdowns and school closures, and this is unforgivable for the data was always available and we have been screaming loudly from March 2020 on the pending tragedy if our governments continued in that manner. The narrative and falsehood of ‘asymptomatic spread’ helped severely hobble and damage the pandemic response as it caused devastating personal and economic loses to accrue needlessly, and especially for our children. Especially for the poorer among us who could least afford!

I close by asking CDC, NIH, FDA and all of these alphabet agencies that have been failing us for so long, show me, show us the evidence! Stop spewing nonsense without the evidence. Stop lying to the nation about their immune systems’ incapability that is way more robust than you give it credit for! You are denying basic immunology and virology and acting a fool. “Natural immunity and vaccinated immunity are equally effective and “probably life-long”. Stop lying to the public and we call on the public that until you the CDC and NIH get your credibility and honesty ‘house’ in order, that the nation must turn you off, tune you out, for you spew inaccurate misleading nonsense 24/7 that defies common sense! Focus now on rebuilding your credibility that is so destroyed, now deeply buried, courtesy of you the CDC and NIH! Hopefully the FDA can unshackle itself from you and return to a non-political regulatory role it must hold, for the safety of the nation. You talk about ‘following the science’, well show us. Begin by following it. Shame on all of you so called experts!

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite

xMore Pandemic Corruption: Refusal to Fully Recognize Natural Immunity

https://trialsitenews.com/more…cognize-natural-immunity/

The newest wrinkle on pandemic corruption is how most of the medical and public health establishment refuses to accept natural immunity, obtained through COVID infection, as equivalent to or even better than the artificial immunity obtained from vaccines.

The reason is simple. The more that natural immunity is accepted, the more reason there is to reject getting one of the experimental COVID vaccines. Half the US population from kids to adults likely have natural immunity, even though most never suffered any serious ill effects from being infected.

And there clearly is an ongoing bulldozer over facts run by President Biden all the way through the entire federal and state public health system to coerce Americans to get vaccinated.

Their efforts could fail if most of those with natural immunity acted rationally and decided not to take any of the increasing risks from the experimental vaccines.

No big money can be made from all those with natural immunity. For that bonanza for drug companies to fully materialize natural immunity has to be ignored, dismissed or otherwise discounted and discredited. More bad science.

Think of the refusal to respect natural immunity akin to what the government has done to stop widespread use of cheap generics for early home/outpatient COVID treatment that cures and prevents infection. This early action was key for the success of the wait-for-the-vaccine pandemic strategy.

To understand the full measure of this latest corruption here are recent developments and revelations.

On May 19 the FDA issued guidance that clearly said “If you have not been vaccinated: Be aware that a positive result from an antibody test does not mean you have a specific amount of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Antibodies in blood are a basic way to determine immunity. So, the FDA clearly does not want people who have natural immunity to use antibody test results as a replacement for vaccine certification. If this was allowed, then millions of Americans who rightfully fear many negative health impacts from vaccines would have a way to prove with antibody test results that they do not need vaccination because they already have natural immunity. This could greatly reduce the financial bonanza sought by big drug companies and facilitated by the federal agencies.

The position of FDA is also that antibodies provided by the vaccines are superior to the antibodies developed from being infected by the virus. In other words, vaccines create antibodies and protection that the regular antibodies created by natural immunity do not provide. This is false and bad science.

That government position is contradicted by empirical study data according to the eminent Yale University epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch. He explained that serum antibodies and T-cell antibodies – the white blood cells that attack infections – demonstrate past history of infection. And that even though antibodies may be different between people with natural immunity versus those in vaccinated people this difference is irrelevant. “These natural antibodies are proof of past infection,” said Risch. “Past infection is extremely strong evidence of immunity.” But FDA does not want to jeopardize the vaccine market by acknowledging an antibody blood test could and should substitute for vaccine certification.

A key outspoken proponent for natural immunity is Johns Hopkins physician Marty Makary. In a powerful article, “The Power of Natural Immunity” he informs the public with sound science. Here are some of his key points. “There’s ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health leaders should pay it heed.” A huge number of Americans have natural immunity because though “Only around 10% of Americans have had confirmed positive Covid tests, but four to six times as many have likely had the infection.” Rather than credit vaccination for positive results, Makary makes this key point: “the effect of natural immunity is all around us. The plummeting case numbers in late April and May weren’t the result of vaccination alone, and they came amid a loosening of both restrictions and behavior.”

Here is another key scientific point from Makary. Natural immunity is durable. Researchers from Washington University in St. Louis reported last month that 11 months after a mild infection immune cells were still capable of producing protective antibodies. The authors concluded that prior Covid infection induces a ‘robust’ and ‘long-lived humoral immune response,’ leading some scientists to suggest that natural immunity is probably lifelong. Because infection began months earlier than vaccination, we have more follow-up data on the duration of natural immunity than on vaccinated immunity.” This is one expert the public should listen to, unlike the science babble coming from Fauci.

Here is yet another point Makary made to counter the views of other “experts.” “Some health officials warn of possible variants resistant to natural immunity. But none of the hundreds of variants observed so far have evaded either natural or vaccinated immunity with the three vaccines authorized in the U.S “

On the key point of whether people with natural immunity should get vaccinated, Makary noted, “My clinical advice to healthy patients with natural immunity is that one shot is sufficient, and maybe not even necessary, although it could increase the long-term durability of immunity.” However, he cites this new evidence: “Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic published a study this week of 1,359 people previously infected with Covid who were unvaccinated. None of the subjects subsequently became infected, leading the researchers to conclude that ‘individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.’” This message will not be found in what big media is telling the public.

Dr. Makary’s bottom line is this sage advice: “It’s time to stop the fear mongering and level with the public about the incredible capabilities of both modern medical research and the human body’s immune system.” This, too, is what he has said: “natural immunity and vaccinated immunity are equally effective and “probably life-long.” Also, “between the roughly 50% of Americans he thinks are naturally immune and the 41% fully vaccinated so far, the United States has already reached herd immunity – the point at which enough of the population is impervious to COVID-19 that the virus will run out of places to spread and die out.” Natural immunity is a key reason herd immunity has likely been reached, making all onerous contagion controls as critiqued in Pandemic Blunder no longer justified. And why the endless coercion for COVID vaccination is very far from following the science.

Interestingly, the World Health Organization removed from its website the scientific fact that natural immunity contributes to herd immunity which does not depend solely on artificial immunity from vaccination.

Other new research findings are relevant to the natural immunity discussion.

A recent study from the Cleveland Clinic found that individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection and have natural immunity are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among three groups — those previously infected who remained unvaccinated (of 2,579, 1,359, or 53%, remained unvaccinated,); those previously infected who were vaccinated; and those previously uninfected who were vaccinated — compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated.

One study, published in The Lancet’s journal EClinicalMedicine, examined data from antibodies in 39,086 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 from March 2020 and January 2021. It found an “encouraging timeline for the development and sustainability of antibodies up to ten months from natural infection.” This latest study adds to a growing body of scientific evidence indicating that natural immunity is long-lasting even without vaccination.

Another study, in Nature, found that COVID-19 infection “induces a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune response in humans,” with antibodies “remaining detectable at least 11 months after infection.” Another, published at BioRxiv, found that even without vaccination, antibodies in the infected “remain relatively stable from 6 to 12 months,” while “B cell clones expressing broad and potent antibodies are selectively retained in the repertoire over time and expand dramatically after vaccination.” Another study from Israel found that natural immunity was slightly more effective against reinfection than the Pfizer vaccine, at 94.8% versus 92.8%.

Dr. Suneel Dhand a frontline physician has openly said that after he got COVID he has measured his antibodies for over a year and they remain high.

“There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,” said Dr. Makary..” If only the government would share this view and big media would stop being a shill for the drug industry. Those pushing for vaccine passports fear anything that substantiates the benefits of natural immunity. And it is very difficult for people to get blood tests for antibodies, and the expense is not justified as long as the government denies the benefits of natural immunity.

For those who genuinely want to follow the science, the millions of people under the age of 70 who have gained natural immunity and have no serious chance of major bad health impacts from COVID should bet on natural immunity versus taking a chance with vaccines.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you trust a milkman, and a gardener and may be a nurse then this is OK for you. I only trust scientific data but this takes time for reading. I suggest next time you read a paper and not just like/link a fake check site.

Maybe you would have liked a link to Fact checking the fact checkers now we have to wait for the response of that

Is there a Problem with the Lopez-Medina, Colombia-based Study Implicating Ivermectin? Major Pharma Companies Including Merck Funding the Trial Site during the Study

https://trialsitenews.com/is-t…al-site-during-the-study/

By Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

Although a great majority of ivermectin-based studies have indicated real promise, one particular study conducted by a small trial site in Colombia received unprecedented media attention when the study results indicated negligible impact. What hasn’t been disclosed by media is the seriously questionable pharmaceutical industry support of this one trial site. During the study, a handful of some of the largest drug companies in the world gave this site money. What’s not clear is why this occurred and whether the funds are correlated to some nefarious agenda. This author suggests that the publisher should have scrutinized this industry funding perhaps more carefully.

On March 4th, 2021, an article appeared in JAMA titled, “Effect of Ivermectin On Time To Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID.” It concluded, “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”

Dr. Eduardo Lopez-Medina et al. from Cali, Colombia, randomized 400 mildly ill patients, averaging 37 years old, to ivermectin 0.3 mg/kg or placebo. The time to resolution for ivermectin-treated patients was 10 days and placebo patients 12 days, which was not statistically significant.

Much has been written about the methodologic problems of the study but few read to the bottom of the article to see this:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen as well as personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr. Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Torres reported receiving nonfinancial support from Tecnoquímicas unrelated to this project during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Considerable press outlets noted this study, we suspect due to the fact that the ivermectin results were negligible, but none of the media addressed the possibility of conflict with industry.

Absolutely nothing has been written about the fact that the study was sponsored by Centro de Estudios en Infectogía Pediatrica and the authors were paid by 3 drug companies making COVID vaccines–Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen– and two making COVID therapeutics–Gilead and Merck.

We have some questions about this. Why did the authors disclose that they were receiving industry sponsor funds during the conduct of the study? Were these funds to actually direct the ivermectin study? That would most certainly be a conflict of interest material.

Merck’s expressed their intent on competing against the ivermectin generic approach. Why would this company be funding this small trial site operation in Colombia?

How could JAMA even think about publishing an article sponsored by 5 drug companies centering on a study targeting a generic competitor? Any layperson seeing this could think that this was highly suspect.

The potential conflict of interest was so severe that no journal should have published it.

Why would anyone do this study?

Was there a pressing need to know if 37-year-old patients got better sooner with ivermectin than placebo? There were a lot of resources put into this study. The only possible reason to do the study was for drug companies to have a vehicle to publish negative data about ivermectin. Is there anyone who believes the study was sponsored to add to the scientific knowledge about ivermectin for the treatment of COVID?

On February 4th, 2021, Merck, who had the original patent on ivermectin, put out a statement regarding ivermectin for COVID:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease; and

• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

If Merck believed these statements to be true, why would they feel the need to go public with them?

Merck’s vaccine had failed. Merck had bought a company, Oncoimmune, for $425 million and gotten $356 million from HHS in taxpayer money to develop a therapeutic agent, CD24c. They had a material conflict of interest. Later, the European Medicines Agency and World Health Organization both quoted Merck’s statement while ignoring the conflict of interest and science in recommending against the use of ivermectin for COVID, other than for research. Were they influenced by Merck? CD24c was dropped, and Merck has oral antiviral molnupiravir in a phase II-III trial. Why would Merck sponsor a trial of ivermectin?

Why would JAMA publish an article showing that young patients who are expected to recover quickly don’t get better much more quickly with ivermectin?

This article did not warrant publication in JAMA. The only possible reason to publish it was to present false, negative information about ivermectin to readers.

Why was the age of the patients not mentioned in the key findings or conclusions?

The age of the patients made the article irrelevant. It could not have been an accident that the age was not mentioned in the key findings and conclusions. That would never happen at JAMA. The authors anticipated that many readers would miss the age of the patients and conclude that ivermectin is ineffective in early COVID. Dr. Adfarsh Bhimraj at Cleveland Clinic who heads the committee writing COVID recommendations for the Infectious Disease Association of America spoke with Helio Medical News on ivermectin. He had a similar observation in the Washington Post.

“This was a well-done, but small trial in patients with mild or moderate disease,” Bhimraj said. He suggested that this is a negative study for a non-mortality outcome, but because the numbers were small, it might not have produced a statistically significant difference in effect size. The evidence is not enough to warrant a recommendation for the use of ivermectin. Other US experts who commented on the article have failed to notice the age of the patients and drug company sponsorship. It has crossed few American physicians’ minds that JAMA could be corrupted and knowingly publish a study with deceptive results in order to help drug companies.

Was the data fraudulent?

If the purpose of the article was to make it appear that ivermectin was ineffective in mild COVID, there is no reason to believe the data was real. There is no published randomized data for comparison. In the Dominican Republic, Dr. Jose Natalio Redondo reported that in 1300 patients with all degrees of illness, the length of illness went from 21 days to 10 days with ivermectin treatment.

Was JAMA aware that there was concern they had been corrupted and the article unreliable?

Sixteen members of the AMA Board of Directors were emailed that it appeared that JAMA had been infiltrated and the article fraudulent on March 10th, 2021. Eleven JAMA editorial board members were emailed about it April 12th. And one was spoken to. The same email was sent to executive editor Dr. Phil Fontanarosa April 13th. This reply was sent:

“Your message was brought to my attention.

I will look into these issues as outlined in your letter.

Please bear with me, as this will take some time, given the number of issues and the complexity of the concerns you raise, as well as other urgent issues and priorities we are addressing right now.”

As of 6/8/21, the article has been read online 759,000 times. How many of those readers concluded that ivermectin is ineffective for mild COVID and, as a result, did not prescribe it for their patients? To put things in perspective, Uttar Pradesh, India, with 210 million people, started ivermectin in August. By December, their mortality rate was 0.26 per 100,000. In the US, in December, it was 11 times higher at 2.8 per 100,000. Admissions in Mexico are down 75% due to ivermectin.

The JAMA article of 3/4/21 was a cleverly devised drug company creation designed to create the false impression that ivermectin was ineffective in mild COVID by claiming it didn’t shorten the duration of illness significantly. They knew people would miss the age of the patients and not read to the bottom of the article to see that it was sponsored by 5 drug company competitors. They knew people would leap to the conclusion that ivermectin was completely ineffective for COVID, not realizing that the article could not address its effects on hospitalization and death. An infectious disease doctor friend sent it to me as proof that ivermectin does not work. Drug companies would not have gone to these lengths if they did not fear ivermectin as a competitor.

JAMA reviewers could not possibly have missed the obvious conflict of interest. It was obviously their intention to spread misinformation. Leaving out the age of the patients was intentional to make readers think it was ineffective in everyone. The article has not only led to patient care being adversely affected but the article has been widely quoted as evidence against the use of ivermectin. WHO says it is the number one article in support of its position.

Doctors should contact JAMA to understand what is going on with the investigation. JAMA should report on their findings as they committed to this author to undertake an investigation.

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Target of federal probe made key Ivermectin ruling

https://trialsitenews.com/the-…de-key-ivermectin-ruling/

A centerpiece of US policy on COVID-19 early treatment is the ACTIV-6 Ivermectin trial. As described in ClinicalTrials.gov, the trial will look at the effect of Ivermectin on COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization and death. The trial is described by the director of the NIH, Francis Collins:

““ACTIV-6 will evaluate whether certain drugs showing promise in small trials can pass the rigor of a larger trial.”

That statement is supported by the conclusion of the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines statement on Ivermectin:

“There are insufficient data 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.”

However, Collins’ statement and the supporting statement from the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines are controversial. In their May/June 2021 issue, The American Journal of Therapeutics published the following statement about the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19:

“In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”

The NIH does not have the final word on whether this clinical trial would be carried out. That decision is made by the designated institutional review board (IRB). The institution conducting the trial is the Duke University Health System (DUHS) but the ethics review was contracted to a commercial organization WCG IRB. WCG IRB approved that clinical trial on April 28. That organization is now the target of an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The probe was requested by US Senators Sanders, Warren and Brown. Earlier they had found the WCG and a second for-profit IRB had provided inadequate responses to their own inquiry. As reported by Relias Media, the Government Accountabity Office (GAO) was expected to begin an investigation of for-profit IRB’s including WCG IRB. Our inquiry to the GAO has confirmed that that investigation is now underway.

The senators recommended the investigation when WCG IRB provided an inadequate response to their inquiries. CEO Donald A. Deieso addressed the senator’s concerns:

“Our practices make certain that we scrupulously adhere to all regulatory requirements, that no panelist has any financial interest in any study that they review, and that there are no conflicts of interest in our mission to protect human subjects.”

However, the senators concluded:

“WCG Clinical provided no details whatsoever on how they identify, address, and prevent undue influence from panel members’ conflicts of interest.”

and further:

“”Our preliminary investigation, opened in November 2019, raises questions about whether the commercial IRBs’ reviews of these studies have significant vulnerabilities that may leave patients exposed to unnecessary risks during their participation in clinical trials…”

The controversy is further complicated by the question of whether the NIH held a vote to endorse its position statement on Ivermectin. Earlier reporting and a pending complaint in federal court suggests that no vote was held on the NIH position statement.

There are reasons for profound concern about the ethics of the ACTIV-6 Ivermectin trial. The evidence of the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin in COVID-19 raises the question of whether the placebo patients in the trial are being unnecessarily deprived of care. The trial approval may also have a broader, immediate impact: the trial approval may be considered to be tangible evidence that the effectiveness of Ivermectin in COVID-19 is lacking. This perception is evident in a recent article in Medscape. A more accurate perception should be that there is seemingly no end to suspicious behavior when it comes to NIH’s handling of this drug in COVID-19.

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Quote from Fm1

Is there a Problem with the Lopez-Medina, Colombia-based Study Implicating Ivermectin? Major Pharma Companies Including Merck Funding the Trial Site during the Study

https://trialsitenews.com/is-t…al-site-during-the-study/

By Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

Although a great majority of ivermectin-based studies have indicated real promise, one particular study conducted by a small trial site in Colombia received unprecedented media attention when the study results indicated negligible impact. What hasn’t been disclosed by media is the seriously questionable pharmaceutical industry support of this one trial site. During the study, a handful of some of the largest drug companies in the world gave this site money. What’s not clear is why this occurred and whether the funds are correlated to some nefarious agenda. This author suggests that the publisher should have scrutinized this industry funding perhaps more carefully.

On March 4th, 2021, an article appeared in JAMA titled, “Effect of Ivermectin On Time To Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID.” It concluded, “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”

Dr. Eduardo Lopez-Medina et al. from Cali, Colombia, randomized 400 mildly ill patients, averaging 37 years old, to ivermectin 0.3 mg/kg or placebo. The time to resolution for ivermectin-treated patients was 10 days and placebo patients 12 days, which was not statistically significant.

Much has been written about the methodologic problems of the study but few read to the bottom of the article to see this:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen as well as personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr. Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Torres reported receiving nonfinancial support from Tecnoquímicas unrelated to this project during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Considerable press outlets noted this study, we suspect due to the fact that the ivermectin results were negligible, but none of the media addressed the possibility of conflict with industry.

Absolutely nothing has been written about the fact that the study was sponsored by Centro de Estudios en Infectogía Pediatrica and the authors were paid by 3 drug companies making COVID vaccines–Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen– and two making COVID therapeutics–Gilead and Merck.

We have some questions about this. Why did the authors disclose that they were receiving industry sponsor funds during the conduct of the study? Were these funds to actually direct the ivermectin study? That would most certainly be a conflict of interest material.

Merck’s expressed their intent on competing against the ivermectin generic approach. Why would this company be funding this small trial site operation in Colombia?

How could JAMA even think about publishing an article sponsored by 5 drug companies centering on a study targeting a generic competitor? Any layperson seeing this could think that this was highly suspect.

The potential conflict of interest was so severe that no journal should have published it.

Why would anyone do this study?

Was there a pressing need to know if 37-year-old patients got better sooner with ivermectin than placebo? There were a lot of resources put into this study. The only possible reason to do the study was for drug companies to have a vehicle to publish negative data about ivermectin. Is there anyone who believes the study was sponsored to add to the scientific knowledge about ivermectin for the treatment of COVID?

On February 4th, 2021, Merck, who had the original patent on ivermectin, put out a statement regarding ivermectin for COVID:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease; and

• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

If Merck believed these statements to be true, why would they feel the need to go public with them?

Merck’s vaccine had failed. Merck had bought a company, Oncoimmune, for $425 million and gotten $356 million from HHS in taxpayer money to develop a therapeutic agent, CD24c. They had a material conflict of interest. Later, the European Medicines Agency and World Health Organization both quoted Merck’s statement while ignoring the conflict of interest and science in recommending against the use of ivermectin for COVID, other than for research. Were they influenced by Merck? CD24c was dropped, and Merck has oral antiviral molnupiravir in a phase II-III trial. Why would Merck sponsor a trial of ivermectin?

Why would JAMA publish an article showing that young patients who are expected to recover quickly don’t get better much more quickly with ivermectin?

This article did not warrant publication in JAMA. The only possible reason to publish it was to present false, negative information about ivermectin to readers.

Why was the age of the patients not mentioned in the key findings or conclusions?

The age of the patients made the article irrelevant. It could not have been an accident that the age was not mentioned in the key findings and conclusions. That would never happen at JAMA. The authors anticipated that many readers would miss the age of the patients and conclude that ivermectin is ineffective in early COVID. Dr. Adfarsh Bhimraj at Cleveland Clinic who heads the committee writing COVID recommendations for the Infectious Disease Association of America spoke with Helio Medical News on ivermectin. He had a similar observation in the Washington Post.

“This was a well-done, but small trial in patients with mild or moderate disease,” Bhimraj said. He suggested that this is a negative study for a non-mortality outcome, but because the numbers were small, it might not have produced a statistically significant difference in effect size. The evidence is not enough to warrant a recommendation for the use of ivermectin. Other US experts who commented on the article have failed to notice the age of the patients and drug company sponsorship. It has crossed few American physicians’ minds that JAMA could be corrupted and knowingly publish a study with deceptive results in order to help drug companies.

Was the data fraudulent?

If the purpose of the article was to make it appear that ivermectin was ineffective in mild COVID, there is no reason to believe the data was real. There is no published randomized data for comparison. In the Dominican Republic, Dr. Jose Natalio Redondo reported that in 1300 patients with all degrees of illness, the length of illness went from 21 days to 10 days with ivermectin treatment.

Was JAMA aware that there was concern they had been corrupted and the article unreliable?

Sixteen members of the AMA Board of Directors were emailed that it appeared that JAMA had been infiltrated and the article fraudulent on March 10th, 2021. Eleven JAMA editorial board members were emailed about it April 12th. And one was spoken to. The same email was sent to executive editor Dr. Phil Fontanarosa April 13th. This reply was sent:

“Your message was brought to my attention.

I will look into these issues as outlined in your letter.

Please bear with me, as this will take some time, given the number of issues and the complexity of the concerns you raise, as well as other urgent issues and priorities we are addressing right now.”

As of 6/8/21, the article has been read online 759,000 times. How many of those readers concluded that ivermectin is ineffective for mild COVID and, as a result, did not prescribe it for their patients? To put things in perspective, Uttar Pradesh, India, with 210 million people, started ivermectin in August. By December, their mortality rate was 0.26 per 100,000. In the US, in December, it was 11 times higher at 2.8 per 100,000. Admissions in Mexico are down 75% due to ivermectin.

The JAMA article of 3/4/21 was a cleverly devised drug company creation designed to create the false impression that ivermectin was ineffective in mild COVID by claiming it didn’t shorten the duration of illness significantly. They knew people would miss the age of the patients and not read to the bottom of the article to see that it was sponsored by 5 drug company competitors. They knew people would leap to the conclusion that ivermectin was completely ineffective for COVID, not realizing that the article could not address its effects on hospitalization and death. An infectious disease doctor friend sent it to me as proof that ivermectin does not work. Drug companies would not have gone to these lengths if they did not fear ivermectin as a competitor.

JAMA reviewers could not possibly have missed the obvious conflict of interest. It was obviously their intention to spread misinformation. Leaving out the age of the patients was intentional to make readers think it was ineffective in everyone. The article has not only led to patient care being adversely affected but the article has been widely quoted as evidence against the use of ivermectin. WHO says it is the number one article in support of its position.

Doctors should contact JAMA to understand what is going on with the investigation. JAMA should report on their findings as they committed to this author to undertake an investigation.

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Display More

Not publishing age distribution should mean that the result is unpublishable. How the heck was this possible. I really need to verify this.

And after reading the paper. Age is actually included, it's in the result section. People seam to just read the abstract it seams. No scam here at all. But weak as an evidens against ivermectin so those lifting this result as something big against ivermectin is simply incompetent and not someone to trust as an expert.

I usually prefer the incompetence explanation before malice. Also having an discussion about topics makes it way easier for a non expert to judge

I think that if the now starting high quality studies show a slam dunk for ivermectin. Something that essentially all of us here have been waiting for a looooong time we must question how we prioritize medical research. To me it really look like a weakness if it is true that usually the money from medical industry is shaping most of the activity. I know that independence for a long time have been in decline hitting actually lenr research hard as universities more and more want coop with external money in the name of relevance and economy. This Strategy is not wrong in most cases but as a side effect, what we see with the very alarming delaying of a good big rct study of ivermectin is not good as well. It is not strange at all for the medical companies to get their horse in the race tested first. It is not malice. It is normal business and a reflection of the preferences of those with power and how have we set up the system to fund our research. Maybe a slam dunk of ivermectin in these studies will change the tide and perhaps even be a plus for other research branches like lenr

Another Kind of Lock Down.

Quote from Curbina

I have seen it first hand, tested it with my own hands and thus I don’t need any more proof, but those who plainly deny it perhaps need to pay more attention.

Spoons and forks sticking to skin don't cut it for me. ( Bad word play intended.)

This is because they stick to me quite readily, yet I'm not magnetic.

But! Certain examples such as the one seen in the first 30 seconds of this video should arouse interest.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rfFai2Bpkgpi/

BTW I did contact the Luxembourg people to enquire more of their study. I was given a link to two short videos which were short and poorly done, not exactly instilling confidence in the result. One of the videos had various large surface area fridge magnets sticking to someone. Meh. The other video involved a magnetometer that flashed and beeped near a person's injection site. That was more interesting. So I considered buying a magnetometer, then I realized that my phone has one built in!

So ... two hours ago I downloaded a free magnetometer app and am having some fun with it. (It's called Physics Toolbox Magnetometer) The iPhone's magnetometer is physically located near the top right corner of the phone. I can now use my phone as a stud finder, pretty good. No beeps and sounds, but instead numbers flashing on the screen, even graphed over time if one likes.

You may recall a pic I posted some days ago of a stick magnet suspended by a thread. I should mention that it easily and quickly rotates to point in the north south direction - as a compass. I used that same magnet to see how it would effect the magnetometer app readings. I placed the phone flat down on a table, with the top end of the phone facing north. I approached the top right corner of the phone at a 45 degree angle, with the stick magnet parallel to the table and at table level. Here are the readings, in microteslas:

12 inches: 48 µT

6 inches: 52 µT

3 inches: 95 µT

2 inches: 177µT

1 inch: 513 µT

.5 inch: 1035 µT

The above readings are with the South pole of the magnet closest to the magnetometer, at the above distances. The North pole gives weaker readings. For instance at 2 inches it gives just 120µT rather than 177µT.

The phone app's magnetometer, displaying to a precision of .01 µT, fluctuates very rapidly over a range of roughly .5 µT just sitting on the table, averaging a value of about 47 µT at my computer desk.

In my area of the world the magnetic field strength of the earth is apparently about 30 µT, and about double that at the magnetic poles.

Something rather odd: If I position the magnet at a certain orientation and a certain distance and position from the phone (about 10 cm above and towards the base of the phone), I can actually decrease the magnetic field reading down from 47 µT to as low as 2µT!

To the matter at hand:

I discovered the magnetometer reading doesn't change noticeably when it is put anywhere against my body. I'm not magnetic. One has to keep in mind that the phone is sensitive to even slight changes in position and direction, ranging over as much as 5µT in value. So when checking for magnetism on someone's injection site the phone's movements should be very slow and minimal, as the top right corner edge is dragged over the injection site.

If any vaccinated person here would like to conduct this free experiment, please feel free to share, thanks!

This could help explain mortality in Covid in ages over 60

With age, insufficient tryptophan alters gut microbiota, increases inflammation

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub…021-06/mcog-wai062321.php

With age, a diet lacking in the essential amino acid tryptophan -- which has a key role in our mood, energy level and immune response -- makes the gut microbiome less protective and increases inflammation body-wide, investigators report.

In a normally reciprocal relationship that appears to go awry with age, sufficient tryptophan, which we consume in foods like milk, turkey, chicken and oats, helps keep our microbiota healthy.

A healthy microbiota in turn helps ensure that tryptophan mainly results in good things for us like producing the neurotransmitter serotonin, which reduces depression risk, and melatonin, which aids a good night's sleep, says Dr. Sadanand Fulzele, an aging researcher in the Medical College of Georgia Department of Medicine.

But in aged mice, just eight weeks on a low-tryptophan diet results in some unhealthy changes in the trillions of bacteria that comprise the gut microbiota and higher levels of systemic inflammation, they report in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

Diet has been directly linked to microbiota composition in humans and rodents, they write, and they were able to document impactful shifts.

For example, when tryptophan levels are low, the MCG investigators found lower levels of Clostridium sp., the bacterium that metabolizes the essential amino acid enabling production of good products like serotonin in the gut, and a threefold increase in the bacterium Acetatifactor, which is associated with intestinal inflammation.

"We think the microbiome plays an important role in the aging process and we think one of those players in the aging is tryptophan, which produces metabolites that affect every organ function," says Dr. Carlos M. Isales, co-director of the MCG Center for Healthy Aging and chief of the MCG Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism. "We also have evidence that the composition of the bacteria that utilize tryptophan changes so even if you eat more tryptophan, you may not use it correctly," he says.

Fulzele and Isales are co-corresponding authors of the new study further exploring the relationship between tryptophan, the gut microbiome and the inflammatory response, in which they fed the aged mice three different diets for eight weeks -- diets that were deficient, had recommended levels and high levels of tryptophan.

In the face of low tryptophan, they saw both a direct and indirect impact on the microbiota. These included changes like reduced levels of the bacterium Mucispirillum and Blautia, which play a big role in maintaining microbiota health in humans and animals. Some of these bacteria also have been found to be significantly decreased in patients with Crohn's and colitis, where inflammation can be rampant. Mucispirillum, for example, resists oxidative "bursts" associated with inflammation and produces numerous factors associated with reducing reactive oxygen species and consequently inflammation.

It was the unhealthy changes they saw in the microbiota that made Fulzele, Isales and their colleagues also suspect increased release of inflammation-promoting signaling molecules called cytokines, hypothesizing that microbiota changes might induce release of the molecules body-wide. They looked specifically at the largely inflammation-promoting IL-17 and IL-1a as well as IL-6 and IL-27, which can both promote and suppress inflammation, in the blood of mice on a low tryptophan diet. They found significant increases of IL-6, IL-17A and IL-1a and a significant decrease in IL-27, a cytokine which prevents transcription of inflammation-invoking IL-17 and helps do things like increase regulatory T cells in the gut, which suppress inflammation. Conversely, mice on a tryptophan-rich diet had higher levels of the calming IL-27.

Generally the low-tryptophan diet set the stage for inflammation body-wide, the investigators say.

When the aged mice resumed a healthy tryptophan intake, some of the unhealthy changes resolved in just a few days, Fulzele notes. But the reality that just increasing tryptophan did not always correct problems, and that some tryptophan metabolites are actually harmful, provides more evidence that a better option is giving select metabolites early on to help keep the microbiota functioning optimally, rather than attempting a tryptophan rescue, the investigators say.

Their current work is further exploring what a good metabolite mix would look like. "We want to define what products that the gut generates that are good versus bad," Isales says.

Each human has a unique microbiota that results from our birth mothers, and can change based on what we consume, breathe in or are otherwise exposed to over time. It is generally considered an organ system that enables us to digest food and has a key role in the immune response and our overall health. The microbiota also should help protect us from the ill effects of environmental exposures at all ages, and from the ravages of aging itself, Isales says.

Those ravages can include a reduced sense of smell, taste and appetite, and related dietary changes like inadequate or poor nutrition. Also, stem cells throughout the body, which are designed to keep us functioning at a premium by repairing or replacing dysfunctional cells, become less functional because of the cumulative effect of toxins we are exposed to. In a bit of a vicious cycle, our body systems become less efficient, most of us lose lean muscle mass and gain fat, which produces inflammatory molecules, and our weight shifts around so we store more of that fat in and around our abdominal area where it tends to be the most inflammatory and lethal. Fat is also less efficient than lean muscle at burning calories so our metabolism slows, which should in theory slow aging, but in the face of other changes mostly cannot.

"Basically your immune system has been dysregulated, you have continued inflammation from damaged tissue by the processes that normally keep you healthy," Isales says as chronic inflammation can replace the classic episodic immune response that fights infection and enables healing.

What Isales calls this "unnatural" process of aging, is associated with chronic disease conditions like impaired digestive health, declining cognitive function and a compromised immune system, and he and Fulzele agree that the gut microbiota is a significant modulator of these.

"We accept as normal that your organs stop working as well. We accept that the ejection fraction of your heart drops as you get older. We accept that your brain function decreases as you get older. We accept as normal what is not normal," says Isales, who along with Fulzele and their other colleagues in the MCG Center for Healthy Aging want to help reestablish for most of us what they consider the ability to live a significantly longer, and healthier life.

Amino acids like tryptophan are the building blocks for protein production, and proteins are the product our cells produce, which determine their function and ultimately the function of our organs and tissues.

###

The research was funded by the National Institute on Aging.

Read the full study.

Hacker news discusison about ivermectin can be found here It's quite discussed among hackers and I found it

interesting to follow. Clearly not a fan only discussion or the opposite. I would love if we could have a public experts

only forum that discusses heated things like this. Maybe this will be common in the future.