That is the trouble with all these one-off examples used to support this or that COVID therapy of prophylatic without randomised controls. There as so many variables - the signal to noise is very low.
How do I block somone????
Step one before going into therapy: Blocking reality... avoiding the mirror....
Doctors Say NO to Medical Tyranny
Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an outspoken Canadian pathologist and the doctor who took on BIG TOBACCO, now leading DOCTORS SAY NO to COVID tyranny, and Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Senior VP for Pfizer as Chief Scientist for the worldwide Respiratory and Allergic Disease Unit, now bringing critical medical information on COVID Vaccine risks to help save lives.
Our physician guest host this week, DrLee4America, brings a special INDEPENDENCE DAY program that may save your life with critical news from courageous physicians and scientists speaking out on the tyranny and sanger of the COVID mass vaccination mandates – one of the greatest threats to our freedom and our very lives as the vaccine-related deaths and injuries skyrocket worldwide.
A good reason for a block... ??? USA:: 2000 vaccine deaths last week??
Dr Yeadon ex-Pfizer
not a tree hugger.. just a very boring BBC watcher 
an "antivaxxer"?
https://www.brighteon.com/05c0…64-43fd-9e29-e5ed9652675f
also a signatory to the Drs4Ethics letter.. March 11.. ignored by the media..
https://doctors4covidethics.me…ing-covid-19-f6e17c311595
As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:
1. Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body [1]. We request evidence that this possibility was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
2. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that the vaccines will remain entrapped in the circulation and be taken up by endothelial cells. There is reason to assume that this will happen particularly at sites of slow blood flow, i.e. in small vessels and capillaries [2]. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
3. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I — pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus [3; 4] [5].
We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
4. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
5. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischaemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and haemorrhagic stroke. We request evidence that all these possibilities were excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
6. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation [6]. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection [7]. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals [8]. We request evidence that the potential danger of platelet activation that would also lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was excluded with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
7. The sweeping across the globe of SARS-CoV-2 created a pandemic of illness associated with many deaths. However, by the time of consideration for approval of the vaccines, the health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated. Consequently, we demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting Conditional Marketing Authorisation to the manufacturers of all three vaccines, to justify their approval for use in humans by the EMA, purportedly because of such an emergency.
4. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
Now verified by some 10'000 victims and a Japanese study showing the proliferation of the spike protein to all organs..
Why are these highly educated damn antivaxxers "always" right??? How made he his career????? Boss of Pfizer research?!
Hm... headache... not from vaccines only from the word. What helps from a word infection? Neusprech?
also a signatory to the Drs4Ethics letter..
The EMA reply was unconvincing..
Regrettably, your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable. We are dismayed that you choose to respond to our request for crucially important information in a dismissive and unscientific manner. Such a cavalier approach to vaccine safety creates the unwelcome impression that the EMA is serving the interests of the very pharmaceutical companies whose products it is your pledged duty to evaluate.
The evidence is clear that there are some serious adverse event risks & that a number of people, not at risk from SARS-CoV-2, have died following vaccination.
1. You concede that the “vaccines”, which are more accurately described as investigational gene-based agents, enter the bloodstream but you can obviously provide no quantitative data. In the absence of the latter, any scientific assessment you purport to have undertaken lacks foundation.
2. Your statement that non-clinical studies do not indicate any detectable uptake of the vaccines into endothelial cells lacks credibility. We demand to see the scientific evidence. If not available, it must be assumed that endothelial cells are targeted.
3. Auto-attack could not have been excluded in animals unless they had been immunologically primed beforehand. We demand evidence that such experiments had been performed. Similar experiments have been undertaken before with previous, unsuccessful candidate vaccines, and fatal, antibody-dependent enhancement of disease was observed.
4. We requested scientific evidence, not a vague description of what was purportedly seen in non-valid animal experiments. Your cursory mention of laboratory findings in humans is cynical. In view of the plausible connection between production of spike protein and the emergence of thromboembolic serious adverse events (SAEs), we demand to see the results of D-dimer determinations. As you are aware, D-dimer is a very good test as an aid to diagnose thrombosis.
After delivery of our letter to you on March 1, events followed that debunk your response to our last three queries to an extent that can only be termed embarrassing. As we feared, severe and fatal coagulopathies occurred in young individuals following “vaccination”, leading 15 countries to suspend their AZ-“vaccination” program. An official investigation by the EMA into the cases of afflicted younger individuals followed, the results of which were announced by the WHO on March 17, 2021, stating: “At this time, WHO considers that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.”
What was this decision based upon? The WHO is not a competent body for formally evaluating drug safety. That is explicitly the role of the agency you lead.
Mabuti... World Ivermectin Day July 24
for martial arts ...
Ivermectin anecdotes..from
"Oh Canada" 
Biberpectin ..works against the vaccine ""Spike" effect
TM 24.00
Graphene Oxide in the brave new vaccines.. ROS activators
Where was that in the "informed" consent??
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1kKnOS1hwgpW/
Coronavirus-induced myocarditis: A meta-summary of cases
A total of 31 studies on 51 patients were included; 12 cases were confirmed myocarditis while 39 had possible myocarditis. The median age was 55 and 69% were male. The most common presenting symptoms were fever, shortness of breath, cough and chest pain. Electrocardiogram changes included non-specific ST-segment and T-wave changes and ventricular tachycardia. Most patients had elevated cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers. Left ventricular dysfunction and hypokinesis was common. CMR established the diagnosis in 10 patients, with features of cardiac oedema and cardiac injury. Five patients had histopathological examination. Some cases required mechanical ventilation and extracoporeal membrane oxygenation, and 30% of patients recovered but 27% died.
COVID-19 myocarditis was associated with ECG, cardiac biomarker and echocardiographic changes, and the manifestation could be severe leading to mortality. Endomyocardial biopsy was not available in most cases but CMR was valuable.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8243311/
Myocarditis and COVID-19: A Tale of Two Articles
Whether myocarditis is serious or not depends on the symptoms it produces and the damages it does, not on its underlying cause. Those who write about COVID-19 and vaccines should try to be consistent and thorough.
Ivermectin
I'm all for the PRINCIPLE trial - and hope Ivermectin is useful as a take at home medicine. We will see. I'm also boringly in agreement with the following:
Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said:
“The inclusion of Ivermectin on the PRINCIPLE trial should provide a final answer to the questions over whether this drug might be repurposed as an antiviral targeting SARS-CoV2. Much like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) before, there has been a considerable amount of off-label use of this drug, based primarily upon in vitro cell culture data. However, antiviral effects have only been demonstrated in such systems at concentrations much higher than those corresponding to routine anti-parasitic treatment. This is an important consideration and reason for caution as one of the appealing aspects of this drug is its widespread use and safety record which are naturally at standard doses. It is hard to accurately judge the fidelity of this drug versus the virus as multiple mechanisms of action have been suggested, many of which act against host cell processes.
“There are numerous studies and meta analyses supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID therapy, yet there are no supportive RCTs and many other small studies showing no benefit, including a recent paper in the Lancet. The danger with such off-label use is that, much like HCQ, the use of the drug becomes driven by specific interest group or proponents of non-conventional treatments and becomes politicised. In this respect, a well conducted RCT would be welcome to resolve ongoing controversy, although one must question whether such resource is justified by available supporting data. Of note, Merck, the manufacturer of this drug, categorically states that it is not recommended for COVID therapy and the WHO have stipulated that it should not be used outside of a trial setting.”
and
Professor Chris Butler, from the University Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Joint Chief Investigator of the PRINCIPLE trial, said, ‘Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it’s a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries. By including ivermectin in a large-scale trial like PRINCIPLE, we hope to generate robust evidence to determine how effective the treatment is against COVID-19, and whether there are benefits or harms associated with its use.’
Following a screening questionnaire to confirm eligibility, participants enrolled in the study will be randomly assigned to receive a three-day course of oral ivermectin treatment. They will be followed-up for 28 days and will be compared with participants who have been assigned to receive the usual standard of NHS care only. People aged 18 to 64 with certain underlying health conditions or shortness of breath from COVID-19, or aged over 65, are eligible to join the trial within the first 14 days of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or receiving a positive test.
People with severe liver disease, who are on the blood-thinning medication warfarin, or taking other treatments known to interact with ivermectin, will be excluded.
The trial can be joined easily from anywhere in the UK either online, over the telephone or via a GP practice, and without the need for face-to-face visits with the trial team in Oxford.
Ivermectin is the seventh treatment to be investigated in the PRINCIPLE trial, and is currently being evaluated alongside the influenza antiviral favipiravir.
In April 2021, PRINCIPLE reported interim evidence of the UK’s first effective drug to treat COVID-19 in patients at home, inhaled budesonide, showing the treatment can reduce recovery time by a median of three days. The treatment has since been included in clinical guidelines for treating early-stage COVID-19 across the UK, Canada and India.
PRINCIPLE is funded by a grant to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research as part of the UK Government’s rapid research response fund.
The trial is supported by a vast network of health and care professionals in care homes, pharmacies, NHS 111 Hubs, hospitals and more than 1400 GP practices across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Beware the reverse elephant effect!
I'm sure you all know the story of the three blind men and the elephant, each observing a different part of the animal and coming to different conclusions. An example of how we sometimes do not have enough information to attribute cause accurately. You might see much of this thread as a celebration of that: putting together fragmentary evidence into what seems an obvious whole.
That is a very human undertaking. It is what has given us creation myths, anima loci, and, perhaps more recently - and for fun just to seal my unpopularity here - internet conspiracy memes.
I recommend a very old book on Anthropology (probably inexact but a good read nevertheless) From Ritual to Romance (Jesse Weston) and of course The Golden Bough (J. G. Frazer).
When applied to drug discovery, as here, it leads to unshakable belief in miracle drugs. A great example is Kory's summary of the evidence for Ivermectin, here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
I'm not sure how many of the people on this thread have read and reflected on it - certainly it is better written than most of what is posted here.
It also has a very honest title: Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
Note that it does not pretend to be an objective judgement of whether this evidence overall is convincing. In it Kory concludes that it is - well he would - and I very much hope he is right. Equally I have little expectation of it.
I believe this summary, and Kory's conclusion, is a great example of the reverse elephant effect. Putting together isolated information to make a much desired single explanatory cause. very human, and usually bad science.
From Kory's analysis, the suggestions are:
Ivermectin works as a prophylactic antiviral (in some not understood way, with in Vivo effects enhancing an anti-viral in vitro activity that only exists way above safe levels). There are thousands of other drugs with better in vitro anti-viral credentials. In spite of this it is proposed that low dose Ivermectin works as a prophylatic. Like many claims of religions, this one is very difficult to resolve. The bar for prophylactic trials is always higher because you need more people (you only get information from those who are exposed to COVID, a small subset) and there are ethical issues in using higher doses of drugs than are known safe on a large scale without careful testing.
Ivermectin works as a treatment for early-stage symptomatic COVID. Generally anti-virals are not effective here. There is scope for almost any drug that affects immune response (and most do) to combine with the COVID deregulation in some beneficial way. Anti-inflammatory drugs are obvious candidates (e.g. dexamethazone) but COVID deregulation is not simple and a drug that directly attacked one of the COVID-specific (and not yet much understood) pathways might be more effective.
Ivermectin works as a treatment for severe COVID - where the symptoms are caused not directly by the virus but by viral fragments destabilising the immune system, and the effects of previous destabilisation
This is covering all bases. And those with long memories will remember similar claims made for HCQ. That is right because when we do not know whether a drug is effective it could in principle be useful in any or all of tehse different ways.
However the chances of Ivermectin being a miracle drug with all of these uses, and just fortuitously being very cheap and well-tolerated? Well it seems too good to be true - and usually when stories are like that they are not true.
Of the evidence: that for anti-viral properties looks bad. That for treatment of early-stage symptoms (coughing etc) looks much better - although it could be symptomatic treatment with slightly better measured viral clearance an artifact of the change in symptoms. That for late-stage COVID improving the immune system deregulation... I don't think there is any real evidence here, but on the otehr hand almost any drug that has effects on the immune system might help, or hinder, so who knows? One of the ethical issues here is that (as with HCQ) drugs that are active are just as likely to make things worse as they are to make them better in severe COVID where cells throughout the body are being attacked by the bodies own immune system and because everything is so incredibly interlinked and complex we cannot easily work out theoretically what happens by considering single pathways.
Anyway - I will attempt now to take a step back - to block W for reasons you all know - to look with the sympathy of an agnostic non-believer (as my moniker) at the more strident declarations of belief found here, and to be interested as always in the science. I'm no expert (biology was my least favourite of the three sciences and maths that I took at school) and although doctors run in the family I've avoided it. Happily, in modern medicine, almost no-one is a real expert which makes everyone with decent science background capable of doing a thorough literature survey a potential half-expert. None of us, AFAIK, here have the time and skills for that (12 months full-time work?), so we make do with a half-hearted glance at the literature, and synthesising best guesses from sets of reviews. One of the thing that makes this thread fun, and also why I so strongly dislike the anti-science magical elements that get mixed in.
THH
.
Anyway - I will attempt now to take a step back - to block W for reasons you all know - to look with the sympathy of an agnostic non-believer (as my moniker) at the more strident declarations of belief found here, and to be interested as always in the science. I'm no expert (biology was my least favourite of the three sciences and maths that I took at school) and although doctors run in the family I've avoided it. Happily, in modern medicine, almost no-one is a real expert which makes everyone with decent science background capable of doing a thorough literature survey a potential half-expert. None of us, AFAIK, here have the time and skills for that (12 months full-time work?), so we make do with a half-hearted glance at the literature, and synthesising best guesses from sets of reviews. One of the thing that makes this thread fun, and also why I so strongly dislike the anti-science magical elements that get mixed in.
THH
Thomas, if you plan on following the science, blocking w is a foolish mistake. No one here has posted more science than me and only because I've followed w insight He has been 2-4 weeks ahead thru most of this pandemic. You want to block out of personal reasons not science, whatever happened to sticks and stones. Jed takes insults everyday and wears them like a badge, sticks and stones Thomas!
Alain's link Myocarditis and COVID-19 - a tale of two articles on vaccine-induced heart problems is truly wonderful - very balanced - accurately observant of bias on this topic while highlighting the facts - long and detailed. Also a good read.
It gives the following:
US reported 1:16,000 incidence myocarditis in the highest effected subgroup - males 12-17 years, with the caveat that Israel reported higher rates 1:3000 to 1:6000 for males 16-24.
From VAERS (at a given checkpoint in time)
The CDC noted that, of the 323 persons meeting their definition of vaccine-induced myocarditis, “309 (96%) were hospitalized. Acute clinical courses were generally mild; among 304 hospitalized patients with known clinical outcomes, 95% had been discharged at time of review, and none had died.”
Israel, which first sounded the alarm about the vaccine, also noted that “95% are considered to be mild cases…In most cases myocarditis took the form of mild illness that passed within a few days”. A co-author on his original article about “COVID heart”, Dr. Vinay Prasad, also wrote an article about vaccine-induced myocarditis with Drs. Venk Murthy and Brahmajee K. Nallamothu. It properly noted that rare side effects “could not have been detected in their clinical trials” and said about vaccine-induced myocarditis that, “Although most cases reported to date are mild and resolve without consequence, myocarditis can be a serious condition”.
And a nice summary:
Most importantly, according to Dr. Katherine Poehling, a pediatrician on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), no deaths or severe outcomes have been reported so far. (I’ve heard rumors on social media that the deaths of two teens are being investigated. Neither was diagnosed with myocarditis as far as I know, and history shows us why it is important not to jump to conclusions about these sad cases.)
Commenting on its favorable prognosis, Dr. Grace Lee, a pediatrician at Stanford said, “This is not like any myocarditis I’m used to seeing”. Dr. Sallie Permar, the chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital said children are being hospitalized “because we wanted to monitor them, out of an abundance of caution…Even the kids are asking, ‘Why am I going to the hospital?'” Other doctors who have treated and authored case series on these patients agree on the favorable outcome so far. Dr. James de Lemos, a professor of medicine, said, “They’ve all done well” and all recovered clinically after spending “just a couple of days” in the hospital. Dr. Pei-Ni Jone, a pediatric cardiologist, said, “The good news is, all these children recovered”.
Dr. Jone is right – this is good news, though these favorable outcomes are sometimes inexplicably omitted from articles on this subject. Dr. Mandrola’s article, for example, noted that no one has died from the vaccine and that “most of the affected kids recovered and were discharged from the hospital,” but otherwise provided no information on either the clinical course or frequency of vaccine-induced myocarditis.
So is vaccine-induced myocarditis “mild”? This is clearly a subjective question. I don’t think I’ve ever described it that way, though I’ve certainly quoted many others who have. In fact, as I wrote previously, to me it’s serious any time a young person gets admitted to the hospital, even if they leave after a few days of feeling well, as most seem to do. Cardiac injury, even if temporary, is obviously not trivial. Affected people are often advised to limit vigorous activity for 3-6 months, which must stink, especially during the summer.
Though vaccine-induced myocarditis is rare, rare harms multiple by tens of millions of people add up. Over 1,000 cases of myocarditis have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and there are certainly cases that have gone unreported. While reports to VAERS do not prove causality, it’s clear that a large number of people, most of them young, have suffered from this problem. I fully agree with Dr. Mandrola that vaccine-induced myocarditis shouldn’t be minimized.
Happily though, the overall outcome of these cases is quite encouraging so far. Almost all seem to resolve in a short time without symptoms and with normal cardiac tests, such as ECGs and echocardiograms. These cases will have to be monitored over time, but hopefully this pattern will continue. Overall, I think the CDC has done an admirable job of informing the public about vaccine-induced myocarditis in a transparent way. The CDC says that it will continue to “closely monitor reports of myocarditis after receipt of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and will bring any additional data to ACIP for consideration”. For now, if it is ever appropriate to call myocarditis mild, vaccine-induced myocarditis seems to fit the bill.
From Alain's link as well:
MIS-C occurs in about 1 in 3,200 children infected with COVID-19, and thus far it has affected at least 4,196 American children, perhaps many more as cases may be undercounted. According to the CDC, “The median age of patients with MIS-C was 9 years. Half of children with MIS-C were between the ages of 5 and 13 years.”
In one study of 191 children with MIS-C “53% had evidence of myocarditis, 80% were admitted to an intensive care unit and 2 died”. A systematic review of 15 case series/reports found that 75% of children with MIS-C have myocarditis. Of course, MIS-C is not the only way that COVID-19 can cause cardiac damage, especially in adults, but this damage is harder to define and quantify.
In contrast to vaccine-induced myocarditis, COVID-19 can cause severe cardiac complications. There have been cases of fulminant myocarditis in COVID-19, though it seems to be rare. Additionally, myocarditis and coronary artery aneurysms frequently occurs in children with MIS-C. Other studies have reported acute heart failure in children with MIS-C. Other common cardiac complications of myocarditis due to MIS-C include “shock, cardiac arrhythmias, pericardial effusion, and coronary artery dilatation”. Cardiac arrhythmias have led “to hemodynamic collapse and need for ECMO support” in some children. This heart damage doesn’t seem “modest” to me.
Children with MIS-C are extremely sick and are treated with much more than over-the-counter pain medications. Dr. Cleavon Gilman has a heart wrenching Twitter thread of some of their stories, though it’s not as devastating as his thread on children who have died of COVID-19. Dr. Gautam Singh, chief of pediatric cardiology at Children’s Hospital of Michigan who authored a study on cardiac dysfunction in children with MIS-C, said, “Almost invariably, half of them required going on mechanical ventilation or a breathing machine, heart-supporting medications”. 37 children have died of MIS-C. None of this has happened with vaccine-induced myocarditis, thankfully.
In contrast to vaccine-induced myocarditis, the effects are longer-lasting, though happily most children seem to recover well. Dr. Singh said about children in his study, “Fortunately, they all did very well, and they went home, which is great gratification. When we studied these children and followed them about five to six months (later), we found about 19% to 20% have some involvement of their heart function that was not clinically obvious, but by echocardiographic measurements.” One review found that 6%-14% of children had persistent ventricular dysfunction when they left the hospital. As with vaccine-induced myocarditis, the long-term consequences of this, if any, will only become apparent over time.
The somewhat acid commentary on Dr. Mandrola's writing can be understood better if you read the whole link
Dr. Mandrola wrote in his article that, “A neutral observer might wonder: well, if folks were that excited about myocarditis in young people after the infection, why are they not equally worried about this early signal of harm from the vaccine?” I understand this neutral observer’s confusion, especially if she has thus far only read articles that neglect to mention myocarditis due to MIS-C or elaborate on the favorable prognosis of vaccine-induced myocarditis. I imagine that once the neutral observer learns this information, she will better understand the asymmetries in the concern.
To summarize how COVID-19 has harmed children and young adults thus far, it has killed 488 children younger than 17 years and 2,682 young adults ages 18-29 years. It has hospitalized tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of children, even accounting for the fact that many tallies include incidental COVID-19 cases in children hospitalized for other reasons. Several studies (Kim et al and Havers et al) found that one-third of hospitalized children go to the ICU and about 5% need mechanical ventilation. There are more questions than answers about long-COVID in children, but I feel comfortable saying that a lot of children felt sick for a long time, even though fortunately the overwhelming majority are perfectly fine.
After reviewing all the data, the CDC concluded that “the benefits of vaccinating all recommended age groups with mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clearly outweigh the risks of vaccination, including the risk of myocarditis after vaccination.” They calculated that,
"Per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to males aged 12–29 years, 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 ICU admissions, and six deaths due to COVID-19 could be prevented, compared with 39–47 expected myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination."
That still does not give the risk balance per age. I'd expect it gets about level at age 12 since that is where regulators would normally determine the cut-off. These are low risks, but correspond to lives when millions of children are vaccinated. There must be uncertainty of the risk/benefit balance at very young ages - assuming the COVID harm graph stays exponential there - I have to say I have not looked at the detailed evidence on that. Nor has anyone else on this thread. It is frustrating. maybe COVID harm flattens out below say 15 years old? Not sure I've seen any data anywhere to confirm or deny this.
Thomas, if you plan on following the science, blocking w is a foolish mistake. No one here has posted more science than me and only because I've followed w insight He has been 2-4 weeks ahead thru most of this pandemic. You want to block out of personal reasons not science, whatever happened to sticks and stones. Jed takes insults everyday and wears them like a badge, sticks and stones Thomas!
Fm1 - have you ever noticed W to post a link to a preprint? It is common courtesy to do this, and saves the reader who wished to be more than a follower a lot of work. I actually think the lack of careful referencing is because he is insecure. It is more difficult to be called out if you refuse to give references.
The info to noise ratio is too low for me.
Jed has given up. I don't blame him. This thread - in terms of active posting - is a bit close minded with its settled (and IMHO usually wrong) views.
Blocking users:
For those who want to know (it is very non-obvious). Hover over the person's name in another post to get the hover info box. In this find the "no entry" icon at the top.
“There are numerous studies and meta analyses supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID therapy, yet there are no supportive RCTs and many other small studies showing no benefit, including a recent paper in the Lancet. The danger with such off-label use is that, much like HCQ, the use of the drug becomes driven by specific interest group or proponents of non-conventional treatments and becomes politicised.
How long is this criminal allowed to spread big pharma FUD??
Ivermectin works as a prophylactic antiviral (in some not understood way,
More criminal FUD: The mechanism is known since more than 10 years.
This is covering all bases. And those with long memories will remember similar claims made for HCQ.
Yes it works second best as RCT studies show.
Fm1 - have you ever noticed W to post a link to a preprint? It is common courtesy to do this, and saves the reader who wished to be more than a follower a lot of work. I actually think the lack of careful referencing is because he is insecure. It is more difficult to be called out if you refuse to give references.
The info to noise ratio is too low for me.
Jed has given up. I don't blame him. This thread - in terms of active posting - is a bit close minded with its settled (and IMHO usually wrong) views
I'm not sure I see it that way, I've had no problem following what's posted. Maybe you join the discussion later in and the links are just a page back. I'm retired and have the time to investigate and enjoy doing so. Maybe that's why i don't see it your way. I like what I do!
Maybe that's why i don't see it your way. I like what I do!
Well, FM1, we all like what we do, or we would not be posting here...
It is true that I do not follow this thread every day - I did in the beginning - but not now. So the shifts in consensus strike me more starkly perhaps than if I was always here.
"Per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to males aged 12–29 years, 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 ICU admissions, and six deaths due to COVID-19 could be prevented, compared with 39–47 expected myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination."
What about the 20 other deaths/1 mio vaccines and the > 500 nervous system disorders. Just for your memory: VAERS shows 2000 new vaccine deaths for last week. All database content has a backlog of about 3 months. EU data is just 3 months old but vaccination started in January.
So the above post is one more criminal try to justify vaccines just based on a rare side effect not mentioning the more serious ones.
Current total (EU,UK,USA) of listed death from vaccines is 30'000. If we assume 1 billion vaccinated, then we are at 30 death/mio. But in reality the (EU,UK,USA) population is below 1 bio.
Novel Korean Study Indicates SARS-CoV-2 Immune-based Cells Continue Post 10 Months
https://trialsitenews.com/nove…-continue-post-10-months/
Researchers out of Korea have identified in a study that a person’s protective immune memory T cells generated while recovering from a COVID-19 infection lasts over ten (10) months. The study is purportedly the world’s first one to investigate the development of stem-cell-like memory cells related to the novel coronavirus. The immune cells that develop post recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection were evaluated by Professors Shin Eui-chul at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) Graduate School of Medical Science and Engineering and Choi Won-seok at Korean University Ansan Hospital. Jung Hye-won at Chungbuk National University Hospital led the study.
The Background
While many suspected that memory T-cells as well as neutralizing antibodies form the basis of COVID-19 protective immunity, researchers haven’t been clear on what the sustainability of memory T cells is. Thus, in this study, the research team conducted a follow-up study after 10 months in subjects recovering from the coronavirus in Korea.
The Study
In this study, reported in KAIST News, the investigators employed the most advanced immunology research methods to analyze the characteristics and maintenance period of memory T cells as well as stem-cell-like cells and multifunctional memory T cells.
The Results
The group confirmed that in most patients, regardless of the severity of the underlying coronavirus infection, they continue to produce memory T cells. They noted even after 10 months that if the memory T-cell interfaces with the COVID-19 virus antigen that they interact, multiply, and trigger protective immune functions, activating multifunctional T cells in parallel.
Interestingly, and what looks to be novel findings, the Korean research group noted that patients that recovered from COVID-19 actually developed stem cell-like memory T cells, which also possess a regenerative function bolstering memory T cells for a much longer duration.
Investigator Point of View
“As the world’s longest-running study of memory T cell function and characteristics in patients recovering from COVID-19, the study is meaningful in that it has laid the foundation for designing a next-generation vaccine development strategy through time-dependent protective immunity analysis,” Professors Shin said.
As it turns out, “This study is the world’s longest longitudinal study on differentiation and functions of memory T cells among COVID-19 convalescent patients. The research on the temporal dynamics of immune responses has laid the groundwork for building a strategy for next-generation vaccine development,” Professor Shin added. This work was supported by the Samsung Science and Technology Foundation and KAIST, and was published in Nature Communications on June 30.
Lead Research/Investigator
Professor Shin Eui-chul at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) Graduate School of Medical Science and Engineering
Choi Won-seok at Korean University Ansan Hospital
Jung Hye-won at Chungbuk National University Hospital
Call to Action: The Korean group will investigate how the memory T cell formation works in those currently vaccinated as well as compare memory T cells with those who have recovered naturally from COVID-19.
I don't like the FDC age stratification of 12 - 29 years.
It is obvious that vaccine-related side effects vary less with age than COVID danger. Such stratification would only be reasonable if COVID risks were relatively flat over this wide range - which I doubt.
See Fig 2 here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0
over 15 -> 30 COVID mortality risk varies exponentially at roughly 10X for a 15 year increase in age, or
Assuming a uniform probability distribution (this is very approx as is the above exponential)
The average of this exponential is roughly 5 X higher than its value at the minimum end.
so for age 12 COVID risks take the CDC risk figures for age range 12 - 29 and divide by 5. For heart problem risks - they seem to be pretty flat.
Sorry - this is very approximate - but a lot better than not doing the calculation.
