Covid-19 News

    NyTimes:: Daily US-Cov-19 deaths over 2000!!!!


    The Godfathers (Potus) path is now plastered by dead bodies that no longer can cry for Ivermectin treatment.


    The only solution for CoV-19: Vaccination of the old people at risk and proper treatment of all infected and contacts.


    But in a mafia controlled state this seems not longer to be possible. So most western states now look like WWII concentration camps! And guess? Most people enjoy this.


    What did China tell the Uigurs? The people love the peoples liberation army - that takes you to the camp...


    Only difference here: You are already in!


    Quote from Shane D.

    Anyone have a link to this MSN article? Been looking, and all I see are negative stories.

    UTTAR PRADESH Going the last mile to stop COVID-19


    Uttar Pradesh government initiates team for house-to-house active case finding of COVID-19 in rural areas



    With only 214 active cases, 31 UP districts are Covid free - BAHIKHATA NEWS
    Share Uttar Pradesh now has only 214 active Covid cases left in the state and 31 of the total 75 districts are Covid free. This is lower than the count…
    bahikhatanews.com

    Global Takeover of Healthcare Comes to Switzerland As Pressures from Above Stop Doctors from Treating COVID-19 Patients with Ivermectin


    Global Takeover of Healthcare Comes to Switzerland As Pressures from Above Stop Doctors from Treating COVID-19 Patients with Ivermectin
    The ivermectin controversy continues to unfold worldwide as many doctors prescribing the drug, successfully they might add, face growing scrutiny and even
    trialsitenews.com


    The ivermectin controversy continues to unfold worldwide as many doctors prescribing the drug, successfully they might add, face growing scrutiny and even heavy-handed tactics leading to censorship and other repressive policies from governments and physician licensing boards. The latest news takes the TrialSite community to the shores of Lake Leman in French-speaking Switzerland. Apparently, doctors at Hospital Riviera-Chablais have been successfully treating patients here for COVID-19 since January 2021. According to physicians, 350 to 400 patients have been successfully treated, helping them to overcome COVID-19. But too much success broadcast on social media generates attention from elites in high places. As patients raved online of a great track record associated with ivermectin, the hospital’s Medical Committee undoubtedly was contacted by some powerful people—from within Switzerland and without. They summarily banned the use of ivermectin in this Swiss hospital, declaring that “only national and international recommendations concerning the treatment of COVID-19 should guide the management of COVID-19 cases,” reported Christophe Schull, Head of Communications.


    As reported by local French-speaking L’Impertinent Media in Switzerland, a recent move by the hospital’s leadership, which includes all of its chief medical officers, evidences an outright purge of any early-onset COVID-19 care treatments not ordained by international and national standards.


    An unprecedented almost international takeover of medicine itself, doctors are now subject to national and, even more disturbingly, international rules or standards promulgated by faceless bureaucrats—even politicians—all, of course, influenced by the deep pockets of industry.


    While the executives that run this local hospital cite “current literature” that the drug “does not demonstrate any benefit” for the treatment of COVID-19, another point of view suggests these actions reflect a top-down, specialist-interest-driven, biased information war that now reaches from the highest international power structures down to the local practice of medicine.


    TrialSite includes what is more of an objective, unbiased ivermectin fact sheet. In contrast, the Swiss HRC hospital leadership follows what bureaucrats at the World Health Organization or those at the national level in Switzerland declare. Doctors seemingly have little to no say anymore with their patients.


    Use of ‘Experts’ to Trounce Doctor’s & Patient’s Rights

    COVID-19 represents a convenient cover for what is, in fact, an unfolding geopolitical event, one that will permanently reset every facet of society. In this unprecedented takeover of the practice of medicine by a combination of supranational and subordinated national forces, a global reconfiguration of power, money and political influence usurp healthcare, the ultimate control over one’s very existence—the determination of life and death. Prominent academicians are employed to justify or validate what in some cases emerges as unconscionable moves, such as intervening between the care of a local doctor and consenting patient. Much like priests were used in medieval times to reinforce a draconian and, in reality, barbaric top-down order, esteemed medical professors and researchers now declare to the world what is safe to use versus what is taboo. Switzerland’s Professor Oriol Manuel, a CHUV professor, summarily decides on ivermectin’s fate for those doctors and patients at HRC—permanently interrupting the essential local physician and patient relationship.


    Call to Action: For those in Switzerland who want to know who decided that they couldn’t receive ivermectin from their local doctor, the answer is Professor Oriol Manuel.


    Média | L'Impertinent
    Vous recherchez de l'information, du journalisme indépendant, des médias porteurs de nouveaux concepts? Découvrez L'Impertinent, le site qui remet…
    www.limpertinentmedia.com

    Quote from Fm1

    Remdesivir !!!!

    I've addressed this before, but let us go there again.


    https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014962/full


    A Cochrane study in remdesivir, negative, on 16 April 2021


    This meta-analysis cuts off December 2020 and is positive for a small effect on hospital times, neutral on mortality


    Efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Infection
    Purpose This review was aimed to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in the treatment of moderate to severe…
    link.springer.com


    It has earlier cutoff, and less clear methodology, so is irrelevant. Ignore it.


    (1) remdesivir has lab results that say it is an anti-viral - ivermectin does not. That explains initial positivity about remdesivir but it does not trump high quality trial evidence.


    (2) this large UK-EU (low risk bias) large RCT was highly positive for hospitalisation time and positive for mortality


    Leading the UK-EU remdesivir study
    A team of UK researchers have been leading on an international clinical trial with the EU to test the effectiveness of the drug remdesivir on patients…
    www.ukri.org


    That was Nov 2020 so included in the Cochrane review. What is going on here?


    • The Cochrane review includes mortality data on many more patients - and ends up with a neutral result
    • The Cochrane review gets a positive result for hospitalisation from a smaller number of patients but rates this high bias because of high risk of bias and serious imprecision.
    • The Cochrane has a moderate certainty positive result for reduction in severe adverse events within 28 days.


    So remdesivir looks almost as bad as ivermectin. There is not the same risk in allowing it - because it is almost impossible for people to self-dose or self-overdose.


    The UK guidance has recently changed negatively for remdesivir as you'd expect, and is a conditional and "consider it" recommendation:


    MAGICapp - Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice - Guidelines and Evidence summaries

    Only in research settings

    Consider remdesivir for up to 5 days for COVID-19 pneumonia in adults, and young people 12 years and over weighing 40 kg or more, in hospital and needing low-flow supplemental oxygen.


    Do not use remdesivir for COVID-19 pneumonia in adults, young people and children in hospital and on high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation, except as part of a clinical trial.

    Quote from Fm1

    As reported by local French-speaking L’Impertinent Media in Switzerland, a recent move by the hospital’s leadership, which includes all of its chief medical officers, evidences an outright purge of any early-onset COVID-19 care treatments not ordained by international and national standards.

    In Switzerland all leading people of a hospital are Rotary members. Just a few are FM/X mafia members. So its mafia against patients/doctors. That's why we instruct (since 16 months now) people to cure themselves !


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (1) remdesivir has lab results that say it is an anti-viral - ivermectin does not.

    THH fake news altert:: Can you stop lying to the public please! Ivermectin - today -


    is the most potent antiviral on planet earth!

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The Godfathers (Potus) path is now plastered by dead bodies that no longer can cry for Ivermectin treatment.


    The only solution for CoV-19: Vaccination of the old people at risk and proper treatment of all infected and contacts.


    But in a mafia controlled state this seems not longer to be possible. So most western states now look like WWII concentration camps! And guess? Most people enjoy this.

    Ummm...


    The Uk has much lower per population death rate because it is better vaccinated.


    US vaccine-hesitancy is definitely increased by social media and politicians claiming that effective drug treatment (ivermectin) exists and is being prevented from use by the government.


    This increases the (large - anyway) US distrust in medicine and hence vaccines. It is a real shame for the country. When the ex-POTUS receives boos from his base at a rally saying rather quietly that he had been vaccinated and then steps back from telling them to get vaccinated - immediately you can see the level of political mixed messaging.


    And the result is high death rate. Not surprising the anti-vaxers want to try to blame deaths on lack of ivermectin!

    That PHE (Public Health England) data on vaccinations


    PHE published data on the ratio of people vaccinated and unvaccinated who are infected. According to their figures a higher proportion of vaccinated people make covid cases than uvaccinated.


    That is a bit strange, though you could imagine possible reasons.


    It is also false. There was a More-or-less radio program investigating this.


    BBC Radio 4 - More or Less: Behind the Stats, Death, Tax and Dishwashers
    Why is estimating the number of unvaccinated people so tricky? And how deadly is 2021?
    www.bbc.co.uk


    Basically, to get the ratio of cases/vaccinated is easy. We know both accurately.

    To get cases/unvaccinated is much more difficult because we do not know how many people are unvaccianted! You get it from subtracting vaccinated from total population. (This was age 45+ or something).


    Now, the PHE report used the MIMS database (GP data on patients) to estimate the number of people in the country, it also provides all the data about vaccination numbers. That overestimates the number of people by 2% or so due to people not de-registering with GP when they leave and a few people double-registering.


    The MIMS data shows 3.5 million unvaccinated.


    Using the more reliable ONS estimate of population you get 1.5m unvaccinated, because the population estimate in this age band is 2M lower.


    That leads to a difference in case per person ratio of more than 2 for the unvaccinated. With the innaccurate (off by 2%) population data it seems the unvaccinated are slightly less likely to be cases than the vaccinated. With the more accurate data the unvaccinated are about twice as likely as the vaccinated to become cases, roughly what you would expect from other evidence.


    The PHE report has buried in it something about not reading too much into the figures because of possible errors. Still, it was careless of them!

    Menstrual changes after covid-19 vaccination


    Menstrual changes after covid-19 vaccination
    A link is plausible and should be investigated Common side effects of covid-19 vaccination listed by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory…
    www.bmj.com


    A link is plausible and should be investigated


    Common side effects of covid-19 vaccination listed by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) include a sore arm, fever, fatigue, and myalgia.1 Changes to periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding are not listed, but primary care clinicians and those working in reproductive health are increasingly approached by people who have experienced these events shortly after vaccination. More than 30 000 reports of these events had been made to MHRA’s yellow card surveillance scheme for adverse drug reactions by 2 September 2021, across all covid-19 vaccines currently offered.1

    Most people who report a change to their period after vaccination find that it returns to normal the following cycle and, importantly, there is no evidence that covid-19 vaccination adversely affects fertility. In clinical trials, unintended pregnancies occurred at similar rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.2 In assisted reproduction clinics, fertility measures and pregnancy rates are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.3456


    MHRA states that evaluation of yellow card reports does not support a link between changes to menstrual periods and covid-19 vaccines since the number of reports is low relative to both the number of people vaccinated and the prevalence of menstrual disorders generally.7 However, the way in which yellow card data are collected makes firm conclusions difficult. Approaches better equipped to compare rates of menstrual variation in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations are needed, and the US National Institutes of Health has made $1.67m (£1.2m; €1.4m) available to encourage this important research.8


    Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA and adenovirus vectored covid-19 vaccines,1 suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes.9 Indeed, the menstrual cycle can be affected by immune activation in response to various stimuli, including viral infection: in one study of menstruating women, around a quarter of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced menstrual disruption.10


    Biologically plausible mechanisms linking immune stimulation with menstrual changes include immunological influences on the hormones driving the menstrual cycle11 or effects mediated by immune cells in the lining of the uterus, which are involved in the cyclical build-up and breakdown of this tissue.12 Research exploring a possible association between covid-19 vaccines and menstrual changes may also help understand the mechanism.


    Although reported changes to the menstrual cycle after vaccination are short lived, robust research into this possible adverse reaction remains critical to the overall success of the vaccination programme. Vaccine hesitancy among young women is largely driven by false claims that covid-19 vaccines could harm their chances of future pregnancy.13 Failing to thoroughly investigate reports of menstrual changes after vaccination is likely to fuel these fears. If a link between vaccination and menstrual changes is confirmed, this information will allow people to plan for potentially altered cycles. Clear and trusted information is particularly important for those who rely on being able to predict their menstrual cycles to either achieve or avoid pregnancy.

    We are still awaiting definitive evidence, but in the interim how should clinicians counsel those who have experienced these effects? Initially, they should be encouraged to report any changes to periods or unexpected vaginal bleeding to the MHRA’s yellow card scheme. This will provide more complete data to facilitate research into any link and signal to patients that their concerns about vaccine safety are taken seriously, building trust. In terms of management, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the MHRA recommend that anyone reporting a change in periods persisting over several cycles, or new vaginal bleeding after the menopause, should be managed according to the usual clinical guidelines for these conditions.714


    One important lesson is that the effects of medical interventions on menstruation should not be an afterthought in future research. Clinical trials provide the ideal setting in which to differentiate between menstrual changes caused by interventions from those that occur anyway, but participants are unlikely to report changes to periods unless specifically asked. Information about menstrual cycles and other vaginal bleeding should be actively solicited in future clinical trials, including trials of covid-19 vaccines.


    Footnotes

    Competing interests: The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The author declares the following other interests: research funding from the Wellcome Trust and research charity Borne; payments to act as an external examiner for the University of Cambridge and the University of Leeds; and royalties received for my contribution to Immunology 9th edition (Elsevier). Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests is here: https://www.bmj.com/sites/defa…mj-education-coi-form.pdf.

    Ivermectin Wars: Dr. Hector Carvallo Versus the Medical Establishment


    Ivermectin Wars: Dr. Hector Carvallo Versus the Medical Establishment
    A new profile of Dr. Hector Carvallo of Argentina is titled “A Lifeline from Buenos Aires,” and it focuses of his use of and advocacy for ivermectin as a
    trialsitenews.com


    A new profile of Dr. Hector Carvallo of Argentina is titled “A Lifeline from Buenos Aires,” and it focuses of his use of and advocacy for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. The doctor is a professor of medicine and former director of a large hospital, retired from University of Buenos Aires. TrialSite has followed his ivermectin studies. By February 2020, our pandemic was already looking dangerous to the world. And later that month, Hector’s wife, Mirta Carvallo, MD, heard that “something’s going on with ivermectin in Australia,” and she informed her husband of this: scientists at Monash University in Australia had shown that ivermectin could fight SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Hector was intrigued; the anti-parasite medicine had already saved millions of folks in the southern hemisphere from river blindness, known as onchocerciasis. The doctor and his wife had often prescribed the drug for scabies, rosacea, and other ailments, and he says it is “one of the safest medicines I’ve ever used. ”Considered one of the most important drugs of the 20th century, ivermectin’s creators won the Nobel Prize 2015 for their work on the drug.


    Crying for Joy, Then Crying from Frustration

    Mere weeks later, prior to any official reporting of the Australian findings, Hector and a colleague conducted the first human trials of ivermectin as a prophylactic preventative against COVID-19. “I am not ashamed to say I cried when we got the results,” Carvallo remembers. Yet months later, for a very different reason, Hector reports, “I cried again.” This time his emotions were due to the medical authorities in Argentina began an effort to suppress knowledge about ivermectin’s safety and efficacy, question Hector’s results, and even attack his reputation. The doctor is reportedly soft-spoken and gracious personally, and he speaks perfect English partially due to a childhood attachment to TV medical drama, the latter inspired him to be a doctor. Within days of his wife hearing rumors of ivermectin from down under, Dr. Carvallo met with a top Argentine infectious disease expert, Dr. Roberto Hirsch, to discuss ivermectin.


    Not an Animal Drug Only

    Little known in North America and Europe except for veterinary use—or perhaps for lice or scabies—ivermectin was reputed to inhibit RNA viruses such as dengue, Zika, and yellow fever in vitro. It is thought that the drug blocks virus’s capacity “to transport from a cell’s watery cytoplasm to its nucleus.” In early March 2020, Carvallo and his colleague penned a message to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Noting the drugs, “virucidal properties,” the letter offered that ivermectin might be “a safe, potent, widely available and cheap prophylaxis against Covid, urgently in need of swift investigation. ”They also posited that the drug might be effective against active COVID-19 cases, that it could be a treatment as well as a preventative. “But the editor of JAMA said he was not interested. He gave us no good reason,” Carvallo says. “I was surprised. I wrote to say, ‘At least take it as a possibility,’ but we never heard back. So, we decided to form our own trials. We would replicate what the Australians had done in vitro, but we would do it in vivo.”


    Observational Studies Show Great Promise

    The doctors then proposed an experiment to the ethics committee of Eurnekian Hospital: giving weekly ivermectin to about 100 hospital workers who were often exposed to COVID-19 patients. Another 100 who chose not to take ivermectin functioned as the control group. Carvallo and Hirsh both felt that lengthy RCT’s would be unethical: “If I had to post my hypothesis atop a pile of corpses, that’s criminal,” he said. Their approach was a “classic” type of research, an observational study. “Elated” by the proposed study, hospital officials, said yes to the idea, and the government health office quickly approved the protocols. The trial started in April, without funding or RCT formality, and utilizing donated medicine. 131 subjects used ivermectin, and 98 did not. The results were stunning: of the 98 who did not use ivermectin, 11 contracted the virus, of the 131 who had gotten the drug, zero cases of COVID-19 were found. “Word spread quickly through the hospital, and the union representing our health care workers demanded the prophylaxis be given to everyone [on staff] who wanted it. With this large “volunteer pool” available, the doctors started a second and expanded version of the trial. Due to running out of free medicine, this expanded study ended in August 2020. The findings: of 407 folks in the control group, 58.2 were infected with SARS-CoV-2, of 788 patients treated with ivermectin (and carrageenan), zero had contracted the virus.


    “Not Allowed to Keep Investigating Ivermectin”

    By this point, the doctors had begun a new study of folks already suffering with COVID-19. They signed up 135 outpatients with mild symptoms and 32 in patients with moderate to severe symptoms. All were given ivermectin on a weekly basis. The hospitalized also got steroids and a blood thinner if symptoms warranted. Four weeks later, none of the 135 required going to the hospital. One inpatient, an 82-year-old with “severe co-morbidities,” died. So, the doctors saw that there was a death rate of 3.2 percent of those using their protocol, far less than the 23.5 percent overall rate for hospitalized patients in Argentina. Days later, Carvallo got a call at home. The secretary for the health minister was on the line, and “he said I was not allowed to keep investigating ivermectin, or it would put my job in jeopardy. I was baffled. I said, ‘Why?’ and he would give me no answer—And that’s when I cried again, from frustration. I’m not ashamed to say I cried because it’s true.” Now, a year and a half later, “ivermectin still struggles for official recognition as an anti-Covid agent despite the large body of research in its favor.”


    Three Phases of Truth

    The May 2021 issue of Antibiotics Review, for example, put out a metanalysis of ivermectin which showed that 100% of 36 prophylaxis and early treatment studies showed positive results, and 26 of the studies showed “statistically significant improvements.” But in August 2021 FDA was “still pounding the same drum it first pounded in June 2020, when the Australian researchers published their findings.” FDA warned, “Taking a drug meant for horses and cattle to prevent or treat COVID-19 is dangerous and could be fatal.” To Carvallo, this mockery and bad information were “very frustrating.” Next, on September 2, the outlet BuzzFeed put out a lengthy and critical look at the doctor’s work. They reported that the studies “raised questions about how the study’s data was collected and analyzed.” Carvallo says the ivermectin backlash is “not a matter of ignorance.” He notes that NIH, CDC, and FDA have read the pertinent studies. The doctor feels that a double standard is in place: “The more expensive a compound is, the less quantity of evidence is required to get it approved. “But when a compound is cheap and available,” he opined, “that’s another matter.” He is confident that eventually, ivermectin will be widely used against COVID-19. “All truth passes through three phases,” he told BuzzFeed. “First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as self-evident. We are in phase two now.”

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    >50% of UK vaccinated are protected by a CoV-19 infection not by the vaccine...So vaccine protection is always over estimated.

    Yet another double Wyttenfact. Why do you do it?


    Vaccine protection against serious disease (what it does well for delta) is calculated comparing unvax and vax where silent prior infections affect both sides equally.


    Vaccine protection against infection (what it does not do well against delta, not least because of the lack of specific nasal passage antibody response) can be conflated with natural immunity: but again these figures have natural immunity on both sides.


    It is difficult to get accuracy on some of this stuff - and the thing we are least sure about is the protective effect of silent (asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, never detected as case) infections on subsequent immunity. it would be great if they conferred large and enduring immunity. That does not seem true.


    What we do know, now is that:


    Overall:

    UK population 70M

    UK cases total 3.4M


    And, this Summer:

    UK infection incidence rate (calculated carefully from high quality ONS infection survey data) 400,000/week @ 1 September

    UK case rate 35000/day (= 245,000/week) @ 1 September


    Thus the silent (not counted as cases) infection rate is now 60% higher than the case rate in the UK now. If we assume that throughout the epidemic:


    Total number of infections: 5.5M


    The number of cases was severely undercounted during the 1st wave - so this is an underestimate - but 10% of UK population with natural immunity seems about right. At this infection rate we have the entire population with natural immunity (if no double infection) in 90% * 70M/400K = 3 years! We can hope the effect of natural immunity is a bit better than that implies, because those with highest contact number tend preferentially to get infected, and their immunity counts more than average.


    From this same data, since UK infection rate has stayed roughly constant for quite some time, we have deaths 150/day or 1000/week, and so an IFR of 0.25%. Without the vaccine that would be around 1.5% (not entirely sure of this figure ut it seems plausible given delta double the mortality of original).


    All the data used in this pots, and the detailed methodology used to gather and estimate it, comes from the ONS infection survey. It is published, transparent, controlled by Oxford Uni academics and the Office for National statistics which is independent of government and quite often has arguments with government about statistics.


    No mafia, big pharma bias, deep state conspiracy here.


    These are the real COVID figures. They can be determined now with some confidence in countries with well-organised national epidemic surveillance like the ONS infection survey and the NHS. They show how, only because of the vaccines, we are in a position where we can move forward without a major health system disaster - though it may still be very difficult this winter. the UK does not have much excess capacity.


    The vaccines are not perfect, they may fail spectacularly given a variant that escapes better than delta. In that case we will all be waiting for a reformulated vaccine - which will be mRNA, because that technology allows new vaccine to be produced faster.


    Long-term - there are many possible ways to get better vaccines, more enduring, able to attack a wider range of COVID variants. Those may be mRNA as well, or not.


    Current vaccines are a short-term (1 or 2 years) fix. they give us breathing space. And a way forward is clear, with the same thing reformulated. A longer-term solution is less clear, but there are lots of viable ideas entering trials.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Current vaccines are a short-term (1 or 2 years) fix.

    Except for Pfizer and Astra Zeneca (Oxford). IF you call 15..30% protection as valuable against a deadly disease then yes 1-2 years...



    Israel:: Sees a slight decrease in cases in the range of 15..20%. Most likely due to reduced Pfizer CoV-19 induction as the old and vulnerable got the third jab.


    Quote from Fm1

    Days later, Carvallo got a call at home. The secretary for the health minister was on the line, and “he said I was not allowed to keep investigating ivermectin, or it would put my job in jeopardy.

    This is how the highly criminal FM/R/XX/B mafia works. Medicine = drugs is our business! It's not about you. It's about making (sucking) money out of you.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Except for Pfizer and Astra Zeneca (Oxford). IF you call 15..30% protection as valuable against a deadly disease then yes 1-2 years...

    OK. Let just just separate Wyttenfacts (where W has got something wrong) from WyttenSpin - where one ignores things that are inconvenient.


    This one is WyttenSpin.


    It is inconvenient for anyone with a vendetta against vaccine manufacturing companies that the vaccines are valuable for the protection they provide against serious disease, and this is at least 5X over a 6 month period for a second dose. In most cases a lot more than that. Of course, against the original COVID the vaccines are very effective against infection. Even with delta, they remain very effective against serious disease, and useful (50%) against infection.


    Protection against infection, as UK PHE figures show, is around 2X (assuming no difference in behaviour between vaccinated and unvaccinated). This is not so great. But, the protection against serious disease is large, and to ignore it in the statement above is just dishonest.


    It is not helpful to view the useful lifetime of a vaccine (before a new one is needed) as its utility from last dose in a person, when additional doses of a vaccine are effective. In any case we do not have figures for vaccine protection against serious disease 2 years after last jab. Thus far that protection remains very significant (5X).


    THH

    Kentucky Circuit Judge: Norton Healthcare Doesn’t Need to Treat a Severely Ill COVID-19 Patient with Ivermectin


    Kentucky Circuit Judge: Norton Healthcare Doesn’t Need to Treat a Severely Ill COVID-19 Patient with Ivermectin
    In yet another case involving a dying COVID-19 patient, a judge has overruled a previous decision denying the patient’s wife’s request that he be treated
    trialsitenews.com


    In yet another case involving a dying COVID-19 patient, a judge has overruled a previous decision denying the patient’s wife’s request that he be treated with ivermectin while in the hospital. The latest case occurred in a Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court where the patient’s wife, Angela Underwood, filed a lawsuit representing herself and her husband to compel a Norton Healthcare hospital to treat her ill husband with ivermectin. A registered nurse, she shared recently via social media that her husband is “…on the ventilator fighting for his life.” In what appears to be a recurring theme, the first judge in the case, Judith McDonald-Burkman, sided with the plaintiff, ordering the hospital to treat the husband, Lonnie Underwood, with ivermectin “If medically indicated and ordered by an appropriate physician.” This past Tuesday, the same judge also granted “an emergency junction to administer intravenous Vitamin C.


    Reporting for the Courier Journal, Mary Ramsey shared that after Judge McDonald-Burkman initially ruled in Angela Underwood’s favor, a new judge was assigned purportedly because McDonald-Burkman had to retrial a double homicide case and hence, not available for the Underwood case.


    But the first judge could be at the second hearing in a similar case to Ohio a week or so ago. Enter Circuit Judge Charles Cunningham who wrote mid-last week that the hospital confided that the doctor “Refused to come to see his patient,” and consequently, the court “cannot require a hospital to literally take orders from someone who does not routinely issue such orders.”


    Much of the mass media now completely vilify the drug, referring it to deworming medication for horses. In fact, there are two versions of the drug, including one for humans and one veterinary version. Over 4 billion doses have been administered over the past four decades, and the drug is on the World Health Essential Medicines List.


    TrialSite reports a more balanced, objective, and unbiased view of the drug. With 64 studies (the overwhelming majority with positive results), tremendous resistance to any affirmative interpretation from developed world medical establishments indicates some form of bias.


    See the TrialSite Fact Sheet for about as objective a view as possible. The legal system initially was more favorable to patient preference, but that trend has gone through an abrupt turnaround. The nation’s health system wants people vaccinated with no dependence on generic, low-cost drugs, no matter the perceived benefit.


    About Norton Healthcare

    The patient was at one of Norton Healthcare’s numerous hospitals. In fact, the health system runs over 40 clinics and hospitals around Louisville, KY, representing the state’s third-largest employer.


    The not-for-profit system includes five Louisville hospitals with 1,837 beds, seven outpatient centers, 12 Norton Immediate Care Centers with over 13,000 employees. Norton retains 653 employed medical providers and about 2,000 physicians on its medical staff.


    Judge denies Louisville woman's request for Norton to treat her husband with ivermectin
    Angela Underwood claimed in a Sept. 9 lawsuit she is a registered nurse and her husband, a COVID-19 patient at Norton Brownsboro, needs ivermectin.
    www.courier-journal.com

    Biden Could Dismiss FDA Committee’s Pfizer Decision: At Great Cost However


    Biden Could Dismiss FDA Committee's Pfizer Decision: At Great Cost However
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended that biotech Pfizer’s COVID-19 booster doses shouldn’t be provided to the general public yet. However,
    trialsitenews.com


    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended that biotech Pfizer’s COVID-19 booster doses shouldn’t be provided to the general public yet. However, booster doses for people who are 65 years or older or those who fall under high-risk classifications should get a booster dose. This could boost efforts to send vaccine doses to the global south.


    The FDA advisory committee overwhelmingly denied a proposal for booster shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which impacts President Joe Biden’s outspoken plans to vaccinate the entire US population with a booster dose once the initial full dosing is complete. The advisory committee voted 16 to 2 against booster vaccines for Americans aged 16 years and older before they unanimously endorsed a plan to give boosters to the high-risk groups that we already mentioned. The committee, known as the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, has reached a non-binding conclusion that the Pfizer application was a step too far at this current time.


    But that is a part of the issue. The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee can issue as many recommendations as they want, but they aren’t binding by law nor federal regulations. Since the Biden administration wants to begin offering booster shots to the general public in the next week, the decision could come from other sources rather than the actual body that regulates and approves would-be therapeutics and medicines for COVID-19. Rest assured, the FDA has followed the advice of the committee. It often does. But there have been instances where the final FDA decision made by the commissioner, Janet Woodcock, neglected the input of the committee and opted to approve or deny certain policies.


    “We are not bound at FDA by your vote, just so you understand that,” said Peter Marks, head of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “We can tweak this as need be.”


    National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins also said that he expects booster shots to be distributed and administered, despite the recommendations of the FDA committee. In fact, Collins hinted at this, snidely, during an interview with Fox News. Collins told “Fox News Sunday” that “we’re going to see what happens in the coming weeks.” “It would surprise me if it does not become clear over the next few weeks that the administration of boosters may need to be enlarged. Based upon the data that we’ve already seen both in the U.S. and in Israel, it’s clear that the waning of the effectiveness of those vaccines is a reality, and we need to respond to it,” Collins openly insinuated.


    The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reportedly. Is expected to hold a multi-day conference with stakeholders in the coming days to describe the requirements for a nationwide COVID-19 booster shot drive in the United States.


    Trial Site News reported recently that some high-ranking FDA scientists, flanked by colleagues at the World Health Organization, have come out against boosters at the current time. The scientists conducted an evidence review that highlighted the effectiveness of current vaccines, though waning, is still sufficient as a baseline to reach greater population-level herd immunity from vaccinations among the majority of Americans. Unfortunately, the eagerness to distribute booster doses lacks the pragmatism required to effectively navigate the pandemic. From a policy standpoint, the White House needs to be smart and cautious. Smart with regard to ensuring vaccine doses are given to the neediest populations. Caution should be urged when it comes to enforcing vaccine policies that further complicate other responsibilities of the government to be unbiased as much as possible and to make sure that safeguards are in place for such a potential failure to be smart and cautious.


    The geopolitical environment must, again, be noted. The White House should heed the calls of the World Health Organization and other world leaders as the global inequity in vaccination distribution persists thanks to the ten richest countries in the world. Biden should boost vaccine exports instead of asking other countries to pick up the slack. Plus, the White House needs to remain cognizant of the recommendations of their own advisory committees. If Biden proceeds with the distribution of vaccine booster doses, he’s betraying the consensus of scientists who have better grounds to issue informed medical opinions. Medical opinions and recommendations that are even counter and opposite of the political agenda of the president.


    For a pro-science presidential administration, choosing to dismiss the collective insight of a FDA advisory committee on vaccines could possibly be the most anti-science thing to do.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is inconvenient for anyone with a vendetta against vaccine manufacturing companies that the vaccines are valuable for the protection they provide against serious disease, and this is at least 5X over a 6 month period for a second dose.

    You are obviously sponsored by some big pharma. Did you notice that I did exclude Moderna? Israel data clearly says

    there is no (=15..30%) infection protection after 6 months.

    As said you have to divide all UK figures for vaccinated by at least 2 because 50% are protected by an infection not by the vaccine they got later...

    There is no vendetta: I just tell people that Pfizer and Oxford/Astra are crap vaccines.


    Quote from Fm1

    “We are not bound at FDA by your vote, just so you understand that,” said Peter Marks, head of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “We can tweak this as need be.”

    World 34th ranking healthcare system going down to somewhere > 100th....


    Quote from Fm1

    In yet another case involving a dying COVID-19 patient, a judge has overruled a previous decision denying the patient’s wife’s request that he be treated with ivermectin while in the hospital. The latest case occurred in a Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court where the patient’s wife, Angela Underwood, filed a lawsuit representing herself and her husband to compel a Norton Healthcare hospital to treat her ill husband with ivermectin.

    Why do these people go to a hospital at all? Dying at home is much more peaceful and more cost efficient...And may be you find a horse.


    I hope class action lawsuits start soon. Willful killing, not acting legis arta.

    Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients


    Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients  - LifeSite
    'Post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells,” said Dr. Ryan Cole.
    www.lifesitenews.com


    BOISE, Idaho (LifeSiteNews) — A doctor has found an increase in cancers since the COVID-19 inoculation rollout.


    On March 18, Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist and owner and operator of a diagnostics lab, reported to the public in a video produced by Idaho state government’s “Capitol Clarity” project, that he is seeing a massive ‘uptick’ in various autoimmune diseases and cancers in patients who have been vaccinated.

    Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis,” reported Dr. Cole in the video clip shared on Twitter.


    “I’m not exaggerating at all because I look at my numbers year over year, I’m like ‘Gosh, I’ve never seen this many endometrial cancers before’,” he continued.


    Explaining his findings at the March 18 event, Cole told Idahoans that the vaccines seem to be causing serious autoimmune issues, in a way he described as a “reverse HIV” response.


    Cole explained that two types of cells are required for adequate immune system function: “Helper T-cells,” also called “CD4 cells,” and “killer T-cells,” often known as “CD8 cells.”


    According to Cole, in patients with HIV, there is a massive suppression of “helper T-cells” which cause immune system functions to plummet, and leave the patient susceptible to a variety of illnesses.


    Similarly, Cole describes, “post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells,”


    “And what do CD8 cells do? They keep all other viruses in check,” he continued

    Much like HIV causes immune system disruption by suppressing CD4 “helper” cells, the same thing happens when CD8 “killer” cells are suppressed. In Dr. Cole’s expert view, this is what seems to be the case with the COVID-19 jabs.


    Cole goes on to state that as a result of this vaccine-induced “killer T-cell” suppression, he is seeing an “uptick” of not only endometrial cancer, but also melanomas, as well as herpes, shingles, mono, and a “huge uptick” in HPV when “looking at the cervical biopsies of women.”

    This is not the first time the COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to serious issues regarding women’s health.

    According to a German research study, polyethylene glycol, an ingredient found in the Pfizer and Moderna jabs, has been found to pose a “potential toxicity risk” to women’s ovaries.


    Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice president at Pfizer, has cited the German study as a possible explanation for the large number of menstrual irregularities and miscarriages being reported by vaccinated women.


    Yeadon warns young women to avoid the vaccine for, in his expert opinion as a toxicologist, the shots will likely impede a woman’s ability to get pregnant and carry a baby to term.


    Dr. Cole states in his video that, not only are melanomas showing up more frequently, like endometrial cancers, the melanomas are also developing more rapidly, and are more severe in younger people, than he has ever previously witnessed.


    “Most concerning of all, there is a pattern of these types of immune cells in the body keeping cancer in check,” stated the doctor.


    “I’m seeing invasive melanomas in younger patients; normally we catch those early, and they are thin melanomas, [but] I’m seeing thick melanomas skyrocketing in the last month or two,” he added.


    Cole came into prominence in January of 2021 when the Idaho government put in place an effort called “Capitol Clarity,” with the stated goal of keeping Idahoans informed about the facts surrounding COVID-19.


    Capitol Clarity has since hosted Dr. Ryan Cole multiple times to provide information to the public about vaccine safety and COVID-19 measures more broadly.


    The videos of Dr. Cole at these events, which were originally posted on YouTube, have since been deleted by the Google owned video platform in a continual effort of censorship by Big Tech.


    “You’re not being told the truth,” said Yeadon “Thinking about this, I try to imagine that I was speaking to my own young adult daughters, for whom I would be very concerned if they got these vaccines.”


    LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here

    COVID-19
    WATCH FREE CONFERENCE REPLAYS: Sign up to access Unmasking COVID-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health SPREAD THE TRUTH: COVID-19 Facts to print and share…
    lifefacts.lifesitenews.com

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.