Covid-19 News

  • Affidavit of Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long, MD, MPH: A Brave Indictment of COVID Vaccines


    Affidavit of Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long, MD, MPH: A Brave Indictment of COVID Vaccines
    Opinion Editorial by: Joel S. Hirschhorn Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of
    trialsitenews.com


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


    This article celebrates the amazing bravery of a physician and senior military officer attacking the evil stupidity and anti-science character of the public health establishment. Standing up to the coercive mandates to force COVID vaccine shots for large segments of the population that have far more risks than benefits from them. Notably children, those with natural immunity and healthy, young military personnel. This hero needs massive public support. She should become a shining example for all physicians to fight for both medical freedom and genuine science.


    In this pandemic where truths are crowded out by propaganda and political insanity it is critically important to credit a truly remarkable document by a courageous medical professional.


    Here are highlights from such a document, well worth the attention of all those who genuinely have informed concerns about current COVID vaccines.


    Physician and Army Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long is a rare courageous truth-teller willing to probably jeopardize a military career for the greater good. To try and steer the Department of Defense to policies that protect military personnel from dangerous and unnecessary COVID vaccines and defend our national defense.


    Here is an initial observation: “Use of mRNA vaccines in our fighting force, presents a risk of undetermined magnitude, in a population in which less than 20 active-duty personnel out of 1.4 million, died of the underlying SARs- CoV-2.” Statistical truths are routinely ignored by government officials mismanaging the pandemic.


    Dr. Long focused on a now widely recognized health impact of current COVID vaccines, saying “vaccination with mRNA increases the risk of myocarditis.” “Research shows that most individuals with myocarditis do not have any symptoms. Complications of myocarditis include dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death and carries a mortality rate of 20% at one year and 50% at 5 years. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, ‘despite optimal medical management, overall mortality has not changed in the last 30 years.’”


    ‘We must establish a screening program to identify those at increased risk of myocarditis, i.e., those that have, received mRNA vaccinations with [Pfizer] or Moderna, or have any of the following symptoms chest pain, shortness of breath or palpitations”


    With regard to the Pfizer vaccine, “One of the primary ingredients of the Lipid Nanoparticle delivery system is “ALC 1035.” This is a toxic material. It “comprises between 30-50% of the total ingredients.” Among a number of serious possible effects is this reality: “Caution: Product has not been fully validated for medical applications. For research use only.” Also noted: “Other journals and scientific papers also denote that this particular ingredient has never been used in humans before.” The Colonel correctly notes “My assessment is that ALC 1035 is a known toxin with little study, specifically restricted to ‘research only’ and effectively has no prior [medical] use history.”


    Another ingredient in the vaccine is a known toxic chemical: “Polyethylene Glycol is the active ingredient in antifreeze.” There have been countless cases where people have been fatally poisoned with this chemical. This comment by the Colonel is especially impressive: “I cannot discern what form of alchemy Pfizer and the FDA have discovered that would make antifreeze into a healthful cure to the human body.”


    Another important point is that “Moderna’s key ingredient, SM-102… is significantly more dangerous than the Pfizer ALC 3015.” Noted is that “This Moderna ingredient is deadly.”


    “I have also reviewed scientific data and peer reviewed studies that discuss, analyze results and conclude that natural immunity is at least as good if not far superior to any Covid Vaccine available at this time.” Exactly correct. Noted is that “natural immunity provides a 13-fold better protection against Covid 19 infections than any currently available Covid 19 Vaccine.” The Colonel points out that the Department of Defense disinterest in recognizing that “a military member’s prior [natural] immunity to Covid 19; even where it may be demonstrated with a recent antibody test.”


    Here is a detailed telling by the Colonel of recent empirical evidence she is personally informed about regarding the real health impacts of COVID vaccines on military people. It is truly worth reading:


    “I personally observed the most physically fit female Soldier I have seen in over 20 years in the Army, go from Colligate level athlete training for Ranger School, to being physically debilitated with cardiac problems, newly diagnosed pituitary brain tumor, thyroid dysfunction within weeks of getting vaccinated. Several military physicians have shared with me their firsthand experience with a significant increase in the number of young Soldiers with migraines, menstrual irregularities, cancer, suspected myocarditis and reporting cardiac symptoms after vaccination. Numerous Soldiers and DOD civilians have told me of how they were sick, bed-ridden, debilitated, and unable to work for days to weeks after vaccination. I have also recently reviewed three flight crew members’ medical records, all of which presented with both significant and aggressive systemic health issues. Today I received word of one fatality and two ICU cases on Fort Hood; the deceased was an Army pilot who could have been flying at the time. All three pulmonary embolism events happened within 48 hours of their vaccination. I cannot attribute this result to anything other than the Covid 19 vaccines as the source of these events. Each person was in top physical condition before the inoculation and each suffered the event within 2 days post vaccination. Correlation by itself does not equal causation, however, significant causal patterns do exist that raise correlation into a probable cause; and the burden to prove otherwise falls on the authorities such as the CDC, FDA, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. I find the illnesses, injuries and fatalities observed to be the proximate and causal effect of the Covid 19 vaccinations.”


    If only more physicians would have the good sense to make that last medically smart comment.


    This statement is also important: “I can report of knowing over fifteen military physicians and healthcare providers who have shared experiences of having their safety concerns ignored and being ostracized for expressing or reporting safety concerns as they relate to COVID vaccinations.”


    And here are several correct observations on harmful vaccine impacts: “None of the ordered Emergency Use Covid 19 vaccines can or will provide better immunity than an infection-recovered person [with natural immunity]. All [current] vaccines in the age group and fitness level of my patients, are more risky, harmful and dangerous than having no vaccine at all, whether a person is Covid recovered or facing a Covid 19 infection. Direct evidence exists and suggests that all persons who have received a Covid 19 Vaccine are damaged in their cardiovascular system in an irreparable and irrevocable manner. Due to the Spike protein production that is engineered into the user’s genome, each such recipient of the Covid 19 Vaccines already has micro clots in their cardiovascular system that present a danger to their health and safety. That such micro clots over time will become bigger clots by the very nature of the shape and composition of the Spike proteins being produced and said proteins are found throughout the user’s body, including the brain.” See this detailed account of vaccine induced blood problems.


    As to the vaccine dangers for the military personnel the Colonel is responsible for: “Flight crews present extraordinary risks to themselves and others given the equipment they operate, munitions carried thereon and areas of operation in close proximity to populated areas.”


    And most importantly: “I hereby recommend to the Secretary of Defense that all pilots, crew and flight personnel in the military service who required hospitalization from injection or received any Covid 19 vaccination be grounded similarly for further dispositive assessment.”


    The Colonel, like some other brave and honest medical professionals, also stressed this: “We must evaluate and immediately implement alternatives to mRNA vaccines, to include Ivermectin (FDA approved 1996) …and Hydroxychloroquine (FDA approved 1955).”


    To sum up, we have a highly educated and credentialed senior military officer stepping up to tell those above her and the public about the major risks of COVID vaccines for military personnel. This physician strongly needs public support in the fight for pandemic truths. What she has concluded is just as important for the public as for military leadership and personnel. She has revealed the evil idiocy of the current public health establishment mindlessly pushing COVID vaccines for everyone.


    AFFIDAVIT OF LTC. THERESA LONG M.D. IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER – Deep Capture


    COVID Vaccines Bloody Travesty: From Shots to Clots | Principia Scientific Intl.
    COVID Vaccines Bloody Travesty: From Shots to Clots
    principia-scientific.com

  • POTUS Program Prime the Pump for Boosters & Billions more to Pharma Vaccine Makers


    POTUS Program Prime the Pump for Boosters & Billions more to Pharma Vaccine Makers
    TrialSite has emphasized the interest, and frankly necessity, of biopharmaceutical companies  to monetize this pandemic has become palpable in the
    trialsitenews.com




    TrialSite has emphasized the interest, and frankly necessity, of biopharmaceutical companies to monetize this pandemic has become palpable in the pervasive influence of the pharmaceutical lobby permeating throughout society. Pfizer is on a trajectory to generate $33 billion in one year not necessarily counting full exploitation of the broad interpretation of booster needs across the U.S. and beyond. To put things in perspective, blockbuster drug status means sales over $1 billion or up per annum. Eli Lilly one of the more prominent American pharmaceutical companies targets nearly $27 billion in sales involving many products. Now imagine Pfizer now generates $33 billion for one product—during a pandemic.


    That’s partially the name of the COVID-19 game, shareholder wealth as the pressure has mounted to drive booster programs across the country. In an unprecedented alignment of interests, a Democrat Party lead mandate all but ensures not only a massive marketing and sales channel but also thanks to the enactment of the PREP Act during the pandemic the companies such as Pfizer have absolutely no liability unless a plaintiff can prove criminal behavior.


    AP News now reports the booster shots should lead to billions more in profits as POTUS primes the pump of ongoing demand for those products across the finish line first, despite the quality and ultimate outcomes. The size of the investor return correlates to just how big the rollout will in fact become.


    Priming the Pump

    While TrialSite reported that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided on a more limited scope of booster shots, the agency’s director made the rare move rejecting the advisory panel’s decision, aligning the agency with POTUS, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other cheerleading for a more broad-based inoculation program.


    The planets align for Pfizer management and shareholders now as not only are the recommendations in place but also a massive marketing apparatus, with externalized costs to taxpayers.


    Consequently as AP News declares “billions more in profits are at stake for some vaccine makers as the U.S. moves toward dispensing COVID-19 booster shots to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.” Of course the ultimate magnitude of payout depends on roll out size.


    What next?

    The mass vaccinate to eradicate strategy, embraced by POTUS and numerous other nations, assumes that A) the whole world can and will get vaccinated B) prevention of transmissibility remains strong and C) no strong variants will follow Delta. They also don’t factor in natural immunity into the model.


    Unfortunately all of these assumptions are mere theoretical points in a model, not pragmatic targets in the real world. So what happens if a fourth booster, a fifth, even a sixth is needed. The flu shot doesn’t eradicate the flu no more than the pharmaceutical industry has not been able to overcome HIV/AIDS with a vaccine.


    American society should start asking more profound questions about where the administration is headed, what interests its supporting and why its hell-bent on dividing those lining up for vaccines with the 80 million or so that remain hesitant.


    COVID-19 vaccine boosters could mean billions for drugmakers
    Billions more in profits are at stake for some vaccine makers as the U.S. moves toward dispensing COVID-19 booster shots to shore up Americans' protection…
    apnews.com

  • Look at the poor country of Uttar Pradesh. Since 3 months CoV-19 free

    I love the real world, metadata observations. We keep bringing up UP in defense of IVM use, but there have been other examples. Saw this one today while catching up on the thread. Thanks FM:


    Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p<0.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted
    Introduction. On May 8, 2020, Peru’s Ministry of Health approved ivermectin (IVM), a drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction, for inpatient and outpatient…
    osf.io


    "Introduction. On May 8, 2020, Peru’s Ministry of Health approved ivermectin (IVM), a drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction, for inpatient and outpatient treatment of COVID-19. As IVM treatments proceeded in that nation of 33 million residents, excess deaths decreased 14-fold over four months through December 1, 2020, consistent with clinical benefits of IVM for COVID-19 found in several RCTs. But after IVM use was sharply restricted under a new president, excess deaths then increased 13-fold."


    This gem is one of the studies listed as "proof" of IVM's efficacy, but is buried under so many others.

  • Aspiration of the needle is important according to this presenter.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Look at the poor country of Uttar Pradesh. Since 3 months CoV-19 free.


    My be you have to switch reality from Buddy fried to real word...

    There is no point reiterating the reasons ecological comparisons do not prove anything. Too many factors (including how bad were previous infection surges) affect R values. Too many factors (young population, under-reporting) affect deaths.

    So far nobody with a prior infection died form getting CoV-19 again. But double vaxx UK boys age 80+ today die more or less at the same rate as unvaccinated...

    I have given accurate real-world data that shows the real statistics. I realise you do not like them, but both of the two assertions you have made above are unevidenced. Nor do they make the (interesting) comparison between prior infection and vaccination (you need 80+ stats on prior infection without vaccination, and vaccination without prior infection. Numbers will be too small for the ONS survey to provide this, I doubt anyone else has it).


    What is true 3 months after vaccination is no longer true 6 months later!!


    See also::


    In those 18 to 64 years, VE of BNT162b2 against new PCR-positives reduced by 22% (95% CI 6% to 41%) for every 30 days from second vaccination (p=0.007; Figure 2).

    This is the only true conclusion. Exponential decay of protection


    We have to teach these students that you cannot use linear (over a long period) statistics if you have an exponential decaying variable. You can only make statistics for e.g. a short period of 4 weeks where one can eliminate the exponential effect.

    i am wondering here who needs to do the teaching!


    Agreed 3 months is not the same as 6 months. Those used to extrapolating curves (whether linear or exponential) will be able to take that 3 month curve and extrapolate it as I did. The result is slightly better than the ball park 50% I have been using.


    Your figure of 22% per 30 days is way wrong - from the UK real-world high quality data (my post above we have VE reduced from 82% to 73% over 90 days That is 3% / month not 22%/month change. The graph is bending the wrong way of linear, but only slightly. It is not exponential decay , which would be an exponential decrease in VE, and better than linear. An exponential increase in 100% - VE is mathematically impossible since the natural asymptote is VE = 0 (or infection rate relative to unvaccinated = 1).


    If you really want to assume VE decays exponentially then you get a figure better than my 60% (0.4 infection rate relative to unvaccinated). Probaby around 65-70-%. But it is quite clear from the graphs that the decay is worse than linear, not better than linear as exponential would be.


    Fact is from actual UK data as of today:: Vaccinated get 3x more COV-19 than unvaccinated in age group 40..80. Age 80+ with no prior infection - has no more protection from vaccines.

    There is no evidence for your 80%+ assertion.


    There is solid evidence from PHE figures (corrected for unvaccinated number) that > 45 years the UK unvaccinated infection rate is double the vaccinated infection rate. Uncorrected the two rates are similar. Your figure of 3 X more vaccinated infected than unvaccinated is just wrong, unless you are not correcting, and using an age cutoff higehr than 45, where due to higher vaccination rates the error in the unvaccinated population denominator from those statistics will be even larger than 2.


    In contrast the ONS figures are different - they are tracking both vaccinated and unvaccinated - and they are therefore muhc more reliable.


    It really surprises me that you have made claims based on misuse of those interesting PHE stats many many times, I have corrected you now 7 times, referring to a radio 4 more of less (maths program) that investigated the issue, and you have still not even acknowledged the correction, let alone tried to refute it.


    The PHE data cannot be used for 80+ infection protection data. The vaccinated data is secure, but the comparative uncvaccinated data is unknown because the number of unvaccinated people 80+ people in the Uk is not known. Vaccination rates here are so high that the uncertainty in population number causes very large changes in the estimate. this is the same problem as makes the 45+ figure for unvaccinated infection look half what it really is, only it gets worse as ages get higher and therefore vaccination rates approach more closely to 100%.


    It is I think time to look more clearly at the figures. Basically I am a pessimist, and in the absence of reliable data am willing to assume the worst compatible with the data we have, encouraged by the profoundly contra-factual anti-vaccine tone of this thread (it affects even me). So I guess (Alan note) I too am subject to pernicious influence from social media - this site!


    But this ONS data is so very useful and it settles a lot of unclear questions about subgroups, prior infection status, etc.


    I'd recommend it to anyone wishing to think for themselves and not accept predigested summaries - whether that be from national statements (no detail) or TrialSitenews (lots of detail but summaries are all wrong!).


    Best wishes, Tom

  • I love the real world, metadata observations. We keep bringing up UP in defense of IVM use, but there have been other examples. Saw this one today while catching up on the thread. Thanks FM:


    https://osf.io/9egh4/


    "Introduction. On May 8, 2020, Peru’s Ministry of Health approved ivermectin (IVM), a drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction, for inpatient and outpatient treatment of COVID-19. As IVM treatments proceeded in that nation of 33 million residents, excess deaths decreased 14-fold over four months through December 1, 2020, consistent with clinical benefits of IVM for COVID-19 found in several RCTs. But after IVM use was sharply restricted under a new president, excess deaths then increased 13-fold."

    We all love them - they make great video propaganda. They are scientifically worthless, since excess deaths rise and fall according to epidemic infection rate, and while a prophylatic might change R number that would only indirectly change deaths.


    More important, in all countries with little controls, epidemics sharply peak and then sharply decrease. Finding coincidentally then in which these changes are roughly comparable with changes in regulation of ivermectin is just a matter of looking.


    A real study (difficult given the flakey data) would look at every single country that changed ivermectin regulation - would check whether usage followed regulation and also how it was used, would relate that to deaths and R number:


    Prophylactic use (really difficult to make this effective even with a good prophylatic unless whole country is dosed) might change R number

    Therapeutic use might change death rate.


    and of course remember that all these pro-ivermectin countries have young populations and hence a typically 10X lower death rate just based on demographics...


    This site is meant to be one interested in science. I post here because I get annoyed when it seems to be drifting away from this towards politics, conspiracy theory, and plain wrong PR.



    OK - the Peru data

    Latin America’s embrace of unproven COVID treatment hinders drug trials
    Unchecked ivermectin use in region is making it difficult to test anti-parasite drug’s effectiveness against the coronavirus.
    www.nature.com

    The implementation of such policies kicked off on 8 May, when the Peruvian Ministry of Health recommended using ivermectin to treat mild and severe cases of COVID-19. Days later, Bolivia’s government added the drug to its guidelines for treating coronavirus infections. The municipality of Natal, in Rio Grande Do Norte, Brazil, also promoted it as a preventative — to be taken by health-care professionals and people at increased risk of severe illness from the virus, because of “its safe pharmacological profile, clinical experience using it against other diseases, cost and dosage convenience”.


    In Peru it is not used as prophylactic - but from may 8 was used as therapy. Its effect should be immediate - a fixed fraction reduction in deaths maybe 2 weeks after its introduction. The covid deaths curve shows no such change. In fact, from 8 May till 20 August the curve remains nice and high. The change downwards in August has no correlation with ivermectin usage.




    There is No Evidence Ivermectin Helped Fight COVID in Peru
    Ivermectin advocates like to claim that the drug was a major success in Peru, but there's little data to prove that.
    www.houstonpress.com


    Like a lot of countries eager for the vaccines but unable to acquire them, Peru approved ivermectin as a possible treatment. However, even the region’s own health officials made it clear that there was little evidence it would do any good.

    “It is a product that does not have scientific validation in the treatment of the coronavirus,” said Marcelo Navajas, health minister of nearby Bolivia, in a press conference on May 12.

    Around that time, Peru approved ivermectin. Its supposed impact was not immediately felt. Daily deaths from COVID were 454 on 8 May 2020 when the approval was given, and they would continue to rise throughout the summer. For three months, deaths stayed above 500 per day, and only began dropping below where they started in September. If ivermectin is so amazing, why did it take nearly four months to have any significant impact?

    One of the primary fallacies that ivermectin advocates use is assuming that just because ivermectin is approved for treatment by governments then it’s being widely used. In truth, it’s virtually impossible to tell how much ivermectin was actually being taken by Peruvians. A huge black market for the drug sprang up, meaning that solid numbers are hard to come by. We simply do not know how much ivermectin was used, or in what doses, so its efficacy can not be determined just by looking at graphs of deaths. Even if we could, the graphs themselves show that nothing much happened for months.

    It is something of a mystery exactly why deaths in Peru plummeted from September 2020 to the end of the year. The first lockdown in the country was over, and a second one would not start until January. It could be that the early oxygen shortages that led to people being turned away at hospitals were resolved and so more patients benefited from care. There's also the possibility the numbers reported are inaccurate, particularly as the Vizcarra government came under fire for bribery allegations that led to the president's impeachment. In such circumstances, it's best to look to the studies on the drug rather than reading the entrails of the reported deaths.

    There have been studies in Peru, but they have the same problem many other ivermectin studies have in that they are badly designed and rife with bias. Looking at the studies that have been done, a majority of them rank high for bias based on missing data that skewed the outcomes. Analysis of the results do show vaunted claims like 85 percent reduction in mortality, but the certainty of the evidence is in question because of poor execution.

    It's not enough to say "this one patient took ivermectin and got better," or even that a hundred did. A study has to show that the ivermectin was responsible for a better outcome, and most of the ones done so far simply don't meet that threshold. Only more clinical data done with proper controls will show if ivermectin has any benefit, though so far, no such study has.

    The giant uptick in deaths in Peru starting in the winter of 2020 has a much more reasonable possible cause than the new government cancelling the use of ivermectin: the Lambda variant. First discovered in the country in August of 2020, the much more contagious variant spread like wildfire in Peru, and by April 2021 it accounted for more than 80 percent of cases reported.

    The appearance of this more virulent strain of the virus is not mentioned in the FLCCC data, which instead implies the entirety of the blame belongs on stopping the use of ivermectin. That’s if use even did stop. As noted before, there is a very large black market in Peru.

    Nor does the FLCCC seem interested in a much more telling piece of data. In May 2021, average daily deaths from COVID plummeted in Peru without the reintroduction of ivermectin. The country had begun receiving Pfizer-BioNTech in March and April, and as the summer went on the government announced major donations of millions of vaccines. Though Peru still lags behind in terms of vaccinated population, millions have received inoculations now. As such, the daily deaths in the country are now as low as they’ve been since the pandemic began. The evidence that vaccines are responsible for Peru's current low rate of death from COVID is far more impressive than any for ivermectin, and yet that never seems to come up.

    It must be stated, again, that only the same level of robust, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that the vaccines have received will prove ivermectin is effective. Merely looking at a graph of deaths and assuming the drug was responsible for a dip without any exploitation of other possible factors is not going to cut it.

    The FLCCC continues to preach the ivermectin gospel despite this, and the way they frame their data is often misleading. It’s led people to think that ivermectin has been a miracle in foreign lands when there is simply no proof that this is true. In doing so, it’s set back vaccination efforts in this country as people claim ivermectin is a serviceable alternative.

    These claims are why people are taking horse medicine right now, and it’s not nearly as funny as it appears to be.



  • This article celebrates the amazing bravery of a physician and senior military officer attacking the evil stupidity and anti-science character of the public health establishment. Standing up to the coercive mandates to force COVID vaccine shots for large segments of the population that have far more risks than benefits from them. Notably children, those with natural immunity and healthy, young military personnel. This hero needs massive public support. She should become a shining example for all physicians to fight for both medical freedom and genuine science.

    FM1 - you should be paid by TSN for distributing the more horrendous bits of their propaganda. You think this stuff contributes to any decision of what are the facts? look at the hard comparative controlled data, not the anecdotes, not the ecological uncontrolled and cherry-pickec comparisons, not the human interest stories.

  • Your figure of 22% per 30 days is way wrong

    You obviously suffer from a mental illness. This is not my figure. It's from the report you defend through your post and now deny....

    There is solid evidence from PHE figures (corrected for unvaccinated number) that > 45 years the UK unvaccinated infection rate is double the vaccinated infection rate.

    Freemason cheated data is your profession. My data is direct from the UK vaccination report 37/38. You can calculate the CoV-19 infection rate using the UK 19th April infection/antibody statistics. Of course you have to remove all the FM FUD to get the real data.


    Do you know how long it takes until antibodies do show up after a vaccination?


    Conclusion: YOUR FUD is dangerous potentially killing people.

  • Quote

    look at the hard comparative controlled data

    The TSN webside - and @FM in this matter - makes invaluable service just by pointing to these data. Most of its articles is about factual information, linked inside of article. Or do you think, that news aggregator is less relevant source of information, than these news by itself? BTW Please consider, that @FM is not supposed to take advice from anyone here, we aren't visiting this thread for readings posts like this Yours one.

  • FM1 - you should be paid by TSN for distributing the more horrendous bits of their propaganda. You think this stuff contributes to any decision of what are the facts? look at the hard comparative controlled data, not the anecdotes, not the ecological uncontrolled and cherry-pickec comparisons, not the human interest stories.

    Thomas I would appreciate it if you would contact TSN and arrange payments, that would be cool! And yes I think it does contribute to the tread, you seem to take an inordinately amount of time to challenge each and every one of the posts. If they add nothing, why do you respond? TSN is transparent, your problem stems from articles that don't support your narrative of vaccine good, unvaxed bad. Worse for you, TSN is right and you are left to cry about it!

  • Israeli mask 99.95% protective against Delta variant, European lab says


    Israeli mask 99.95% protective against Delta variant, European lab says
    Sonovia fabric to be evaluated against Mu strain next
    m.jpost.com


    The Israeli mask company Sonovia has released a report from a leading Italian textile-testing laboratory showing that its fabric eliminates the COVID-19 Delta variant particles with over 99.95% effectiveness.

    At the announcement of the results, the company’s stock spiked by nearly 30%, company founder Shuki Hershcovich told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday during a meeting at his headquarters in Ramat Gan.

    Specifically, the masks were tested by VisMederi Textyle, the same lab that reported earlier that the unique fabric, which is coated in zinc nanoparticles, also protects against the British variant of COVID-19 and H1N1, otherwise known as swine flu.

    The lab is next expected to test the fabric against the Mu strain, which carries several mutations to the spike gene and is labeled a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization, said Sonovia chief technology officer Liat Goldhammer-Steinberg.

    The Mu strain has not yet entered Israel, according to any official reports, but Health Ministry officials have warned of its potential negative impact.

    VisMederi is a commercial research laboratory located in Italy. It says on its website that the company “currently receives orders worldwide in the field of vaccines, where it conducts analytical testing of biological samples and validation of bioanalytical methods for the pharmaceutical industry.”

    The Delta variant is currently the dominant coronavirus variant worldwide. It has been circulating for several months in Israel. This month alone, more than 530 people have died of the Delta variant.

    These latest results make the company the producer of the sole known textile proven to eliminate both the Alpha and the Delta COVID-19 strains and further proves the role that masks – and these masks specifically – could play in preventing the spread of the virus.

    “We want to give our customers the security that they are wearing masks that work,” said Sonovia’s creative director Jordan Fox.

    Sonovia was founded in 2013 but was virtually unknown before the coronavirus pandemic. In the last 18 months, the company has grown from a handful of employees to 60 staff members and nearly 200 contract workers.

    All of the masks are produced in Israel to achieve the highest level of quality control, the company said.

    Earlier this year, Sonovia announced a partnership with a pilot agreement with Delta Galil Industries, which produces clothing for major brands ranging from Victoria’s Secret to Calvin Klein, to provide sustainable sportswear and other apparel that prevent odor.

    “Our customers want tangible results,” said CEO Igal Zeitun, “and this is what we are giving them.”

    This article was written in cooperation with Sonovia. To learn more about the company, visit the Sonovia website.

  • I'm talking about VAERS and (the extremely unlikely event of) doctors being curious if unusual symptoms might be the result of a recent vaccination.

    This is not extremely unlikely. On the contrary it is 100% certain that if unusual symptoms followed a recent vaccination, doctors would take note of it. They have to! That is a Federal law. They have to take note, and report the event to the CDC for inclusion in VAERS. They all know that. It is written on a piece of paper they are legally obligated to give to the people they vaccinate.

  • Eric Trump will be the keynote speaker at an anti-vax event. The event features several people who have made millions of dollars campaigning against the vaccination. Their sources of income are quack cures and things like videos. QUOTE:


    Trump is set to speak at the Truth About Cancer Live! convention between Oct. 22 and 24 in Nashville, joining a speakers’ lineup that includes some of the most prominent promoters of disinformation about vaccines, as well as leading figures in the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.


    Eric Trump Signs Up to Hype Daddy’s Record at Anti-Vax Event
    Eric Trump said the vaccine push during his dad’s tenure could end up “one of the greatest accomplishments of any president in history.” His hosts called it a…
    www.thedailybeast.com

  • New Mexico’s Top Doc Declares Ivermectin Contributed to Death of Two COVID-19 Patients


    New Mexico’s Top Doc Declares Ivermectin Contributed to Death of Two COVID-19 Patients
    According to New Mexico’s Cabinet Secretary for the Health and Human Services Department, ivermectin directly contributed to the death of two individuals
    trialsitenews.com



    According to New Mexico’s Cabinet Secretary for the Health and Human Services Department, ivermectin directly contributed to the death of two individuals who were severely ill with COVID-19. According to a report in the New York Times, two patients, one a 38-year-old and another 79-year old, were both severely ill with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Apparently, the two self-medicated with veterinary ivermectin and were subsequently hospitalized, ultimately dying. Of note, Dr. David R. Scrase, the state’s top doctor, declared that ivermectin directly contributed to the deaths, causing kidney failure in one of the patients. Scrarse, an acting head of the state health department, further emphasized that the two patients had taken “ivermectin instead of proven treatments like monoclonal antibodies.”


    In what appears to be a significantly biased, slanted piece of journalism, the New York Times writer Alyssa Lukpat referred to the recent report by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) reporting 1,440 cases of “ivermectin poisoning this year” up to September 20. She notes, of course, the three-fold increase but doesn’t bother to review the data, or if she did, she avoids sharing material facts with the reader.


    TrialSite obtained the data from the AAPCC, and the analysis can be viewed here. 80% of the calls had nothing to do with poisoning and required no follow-up. Only 1% or 11 of the calls were classified as serious. And even then, there is no reference to what was actually done. There were no deaths according to the AAPCC report—in fact, TrialSite found that hand sanitizer had multiple deaths.


    Yet, Ms. Lukpat referred to all the calls as representing actual poisoning. Clearly, questionable reporting to say the least—possibly evidencing an agenda to continuously smear the drug that won accolades for helping hundreds of millions of people in the tropics every year.


    Importantly, TrialSite has no connection or interest in ivermectin other than a possible treatment that must be further studied. Moreover, this platform’s supportive of the physician and patient relationship and suggests that centralized, federal, or even state government grabs for discretionary power over doctors represents a dangerous trend.


    Ms. Lukpat continues the all-out information war on ivermectin, referring to Joe Rogan as well as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ usage of the drug. In what is yet another biased hit piece—although clearly the deaths of two individuals must be investigated—Lukpat makes no mention of the fact that the U.S. government is sponsoring a major ivermectin clinical trial—called ACTIV-6. Although several physicians tracking ivermectin studies suggest, the dosages are too low in this study.


    Moreover, the University of Minnesota, in partnership with United Healthcare’s Optum division, also presently sponsors the major late-stage COVID-OUT study. In this study, ivermectin-based product is shipped directly to the patient’s home.


    Many dozens of ivermectin studies have been completed around the world. In fact, several countries allow the use, at least provisionally, including India, until just recently. In Uttar Pradesh, the drug was part of a home medical kit sponsored by the public health authorities. However, the current evidence hasn’t been sufficient for U.S. and European regulatory authorities, for example.


    Misrepresentation of Data?

    The mass media have been playing a game conflating the use of ivermectin prescribed from a licensed physician off-label to desperate individuals self-medicating with veterinary medicine. These are different products, and on the one hand, it is perfectly legal in the United States—at least for now—for a licensed physician to prescribe off-label for a consenting patient. On the other hand, self-medication using any drug is dangerous, particularly with a veterinary drug.


    But the media has been conflating these very different scenarios to generally vilify the drug or any doctor that follows and subscribes to the evolving evidence.


    TrialSite notes that the New York Times writer also refers to what she refers to as a “staggering number of calls about the drug to poison control centers.” As TrialSite emphasized to the extent these state poison control centers, such as Mississippi or Oregon, report their findings to the AAPCC, then that data would fall under the TrialSite analysis.


    Ivermectin—Is it Proven?

    Not as a treatment for COVID-19, but it is used by doctors in many countries as an off-label treatment with patient consent. TrialSite notes most of these countries would fall in the low-and middle-income country (LMICs) classification.


    See TrialSite’s fact sheet for more of an unbiased, global perspective. TrialSite suggests that if the drug was so irrelevant and dangerous, why on earth would the U.S. government, via the National Institutes of Health, place it front and center in a $155 million study (ACTIV-6)? Or why would major universities and health insurers bother to make the investment in studying late?


    While warning people against self-medication with ivermectin and many other drugs (such as opioids) makes total sense, attacking licensed physicians for using an approved drug off-label that has some data backing the use case appears as an overreach.


    However, due to intensifying pressure indirectly from government as well via medical and pharmacy professional societies, the ability for the physician to even prescribe off-label becomes ever more difficult. TrialSite reports pharmacies are hesitant now to fill these prescriptions that went from a few thousand a week to nearly 90,000 per week.


    Ivermectin vs. Monoclonal Antibodies

    In the New York Times piece, Dr. Scrase establishes a false dilemma by pitting illicit use of ivermectin versus the use of monoclonal antibodies. Any prescribed use (off label) has been for early-onset use as a kind of antiviral medication—not for later stage serious COVID-19. So, the fact that Scrase even describes the situation in these terms evidences either naivete or an agenda.


    The current studies investigating ivermectin in the context of COVID-19 aren’t for a replacement to monoclonal antibodies. The current monoclonal antibody treatments are not approved yet (still under emergency use) and are only used at select stages and under certain conditions. For example, if an individual is tested positive for COVID-19 however has only mild to moderate symptoms and no high-risk factors, they will typically not have access to monoclonal antibodies.


    This scenario happens to represent most COVId-19 cases. Antivirals under development from Merck (Molnupiravir), Roche (AT-527), or Pfizer (PF-07321332) would be possibly used for these at-home ambulatory types of cases should they be authorized on an emergency basis or approved.


    More on the NM Situation

    For more from the state’s point of view, Scrase, who is Acting Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Health, Deputy Secretary Laura Parajón, M.D. and Christine Ross, M.D., NMDOH State Epidemiologist, hosted a remote news conference for an update on the state’s efforts to address COVID-19—this is published on Facebook.


    The State of New Mexico is correct to issue warnings to protect state residents from harming themselves, and that includes self-medicating with any drug—whether that is ivermectin or anything else.


    TrialSite emphasizes that that scenario is quite different than a licensed physician with the consent of their patient to assess possible treatments involving FDA-approved off label products. Unless, of course the federal authorities in the U.S. go the route of the Australian Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) and issue an executive order blocking any General Practitioners (GPs) from prescribing ivermectin. In Australia, only specialists can now access for any reason associated with COVID-19. TrialSite’s accounting of that severe action is here.


    U.S. Poison Control Ivermectin Data Analyzed by TrialSite – Some Surprises
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and prominent physician and pharmacy societies have stepped
    trialsitenews.com

    Ivermectin Fact Check—An Independent TrialSite Breakdown
    While a growing body of research indicates the potential of ivermectin as a possible treatment targeting COVID-19, much of the mainstream press of late
    trialsitenews.com

    Australia TGA Blocks GPs from Ivermectin—Issues Provisional Approval for Monoclonal Antibody from Vir Biotechnology & GSK
    While Australia’s drug regulator, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), recently all but banned ivermectin—declaring that General practitioners could
    trialsitenews.com

    New Mexico health officials link misuse of ivermectin to two Covid-19 deaths.
    Calls to poison control centers have soared across the country as misinformation spreads touting the anti-parasite drug as a Covid treatment.
    www.nytimes.com

  • In the New York Times piece, Dr. Scrase establishes a false dilemma by pitting illicit use of ivermectin versus the use of monoclonal antibodies.

    Its all about 10000x more revenue with monoclonal antibodies than from 10 cents ivermectin.


    NY-times is a free masons - thus big pharma trumpet and a 100% unreliable source regarding financial related CoV-19 information.


    Such news only show the disparate state of the US cleptocraty...

  • Its all about 10000x more revenue with monoclonal antibodies than from 10 cents ivermectin.


    NY-times is a free masons - thus big pharma trumpet and a 100% unreliable source regarding financial related CoV-19 information.


    Such news only show the disparate state of the US cleptocraty...

    It also shows the extreme bias of the national and international media.


  • I am beginning to question FM1's sanity - when he thanks you for abusive and evasive answers.


    I am actually quite annoyed that you should continue to insult and lie in this way, while ignoring my polite and repeated corrections.


    9th time correction.



    Interpretation (W please note)


    (1) superficially this shows the efficacy of the vaccine reducing and becoming negative, e.g rate of 921/100,000 vs 634 per 100,000 50-59 would imply that vaccination increased your chances of catching COVID by 50%

    (2) these rates follow no clear pattern, they are all over the plave for different age groups

    (3) The ** note tells you that extra caution should be used interpreting these figures because of changes in denominators. W has not used even normal caution.

    (4) The denominator that is highly uncertain is the number of unvaccinated people in the population. the highr this is estimated, the lower the apparent rate. I quoted a more-or-less BBC Radio 4 investigative journalism programme doing some work to show that this report, using the NIMS database, overestimates population by about 2% because it uses GP registrations which are not automatically cancelled so that when people leave country or re-register they can remain counted. Using the more accurate ONS census-based estimate gives you much lower unvaccinated population numbers, and hence higher infection rates. Small changes can make a very big change to results because nearly all of the higher age groups are vaccinated. Hence these figures are too imprecise to be very helpful.

    (5) We have other data, generated by reputable non-government and highly respected ONS + Oxford Uni academics. No freemasonry. This tracks whole households chronologically in random sample. It is statistically better, and does not suffer any error due to estimates of population size since it samples the whole population and determines characteristics of the sample. I quote this in detail above, and believe its results to be the clearest info we have yet on the topic.

    (6) The PHE data above, with extra caution warning , is anomalous and different from all other data.

    (7) the problem with using NIMS database for estimating number of unvaccinated people is discussed here in detail, I note with pleasure they also discuss the vulnerable-get-vaccinated effect (though they do not call it that).


    Vaccines do not raise your risk of catching Covid - Full Fact
    The headline of a Daily Sceptic article misinterpreted the data in a PHE report— even though the report specifically warned against this.
    fullfact.org



    How many unvaccinated people are there?



    There are essentially two reasons why PHE’s data does not reliably show us the effect of being vaccinated, which PHE’s note does not fully explain.

    Firstly, in order to know what proportion of unvaccinated people caught Covid, we need to know how many unvaccinated people there are in total, and we don’t.

    The number of vaccinated people is easier to know, because we can keep track of vaccinations given. But to know the number of unvaccinated people, we need to know the actual populations of each age group in England, and then subtract the vaccinated people from them.

    And with vaccination rates often around 90% or higher in these age groups, the population numbers have to be very accurate, or they can skew the infection rates substantially.

    This problem might well affect the PHE report, which uses population numbers drawn from the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS), using GP registrations, rather than estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

    In the latest figures for England, for example, up to 16 September 2021, 24,210,838 people aged 40-79 had received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine. If we subtract this from the NIMS estimate for the population in this age group, it leaves about 3.52 million people entirely unvaccinated. Whereas, if we subtract it from the ONS 2020 population estimate, it leaves about 1.35 million entirely unvaccinated.

    So if it turned out that 200,000 unvaccinated people tested positive for Covid in September, we wouldn’t know whether 15% of the unvaccinated population had caught it (using ONS figures)—or only 6% (using NIMS figures). The mathematical modeller James Ward made a similar point on the BBC’s More or Less programme. He has also reproduced the chart to show roughly how it would look if it used ONS population estimates instead.

    In short, we don’t have a very good idea what the rate of infection among all unvaccinated people was. The PHE data makes an estimate, based on NIMS population figures, but that estimate could be substantially wrong.


    Are these groups the same?



    And there is another kind of problem.

    These two groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated people have been roughly matched by age, but they might not be the same in other ways. And this might affect their chance of catching Covid for reasons that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccine.

    For example, if people who have already caught Covid are more likely not to get vaccinated—perhaps in the mistaken belief that it won’t benefit them—then unvaccinated people may already have some protection against Covid from a previous infection. This means that the full protective effect of vaccination won’t show up properly in comparison.

    On the other hand, it’s also possible that when people have been vaccinated they feel less worried about catching Covid, and so become more willing to do riskier things, like not using masks, or meeting groups of people indoors. If so, this means that vaccinated people could have much higher protection against Covid—but also be much more exposed to the chance of catching it. This in turn would mean that more cases would show up among vaccinated people, making the vaccine itself look less effective than it is.

    Again, we don’t know exactly how important factors like these might be, but we do know that the PHE data does not take them into account, so it simply isn’t a reliable basis on which to estimate the effectiveness of the vaccines—as the report said.


    (7) The recent ONS report post-dates the above, and answers most of its questions (it does not compensate for vulnerable-get-vaccinated. Anyone of sound mind will understand that for purposes of making comparisons between unvaccinated and vaccinated infection or death ratio the PHE data is highly imprecise especially at high ages, where vaccination is almost 100%, and the ONS infection survey data is much more accurate as well as providing more detailed insights.


    (8) Science is about correlating information from different sources, analysing it, looking for possible discrepancies, etc. Many other estimates including the most accurate and useful in terms of subgroups and statistical accuracy ONS data report have looked in the UK at the protection that vaccines provide against infections at rates between (low limit) 50% and (high limit) 82%. None of the other estimates show anything like no protection, let alone the W claimed negative protection.


    (9) I guess people reading this thread who have been mislead by W, and FM1 & jox (endorsing W's lies) will be glad to be able to consider the facts and reach a fair conclusion. I find it very annoying indeed that no-one other than me seems to want to decode this stuff and show W's Wyttenfacts up as the lie sthey are. In this case I say lie because I have corrected him 9 times repeated. (OK - it may be 7 times - i have lost count!).


    (10) No-one says the vaccines are highly protective against infections. They are not. they are highly protective against serious disease. Still they are protective (a bit) against infection. Lying about this, claiming they destroy your immune system etc, is what the most loathsome of the anti-vaxxers do and I just can't bear it that this thread should so ignore good scientific skepticism, looking through evidence to discover truth, in favour of conspiracy-theory induced non-science. it is bad. Bad, bad, bad.

  • See TrialSite’s fact sheet for more of an unbiased, global perspective. TrialSite suggests that if the drug was so irrelevant and dangerous, why on earth would the U.S. government, via the National Institutes of Health, place it front and center in a $155 million study (ACTIV-6)? Or why would major universities and health insurers bother to make the investment in studying late?

    To note the bias:


    TSN claims both that the medical establishment is biassed against ivermectin, and that because the medical establishment is willing to put serious effort into trialling ivermectin therefore it must be useful. Note the inconsistency? If there were no ivermectn trials it would be sure evidence (from TSN perspective) that the establishmnet is biased. 80% of the drugs trialled in big studies turn out not useful (like HCQ). and, of course, ivermectin is being trialled because of all that positive low quality observational data and the political campaign waged for it. Some doctors think it is given more than the amount of trial attention it deserves. I think most know it is a long shot, like all these trials, but hope for something useful.


    Personally, I don't know. I have not seen any good evidence for it, but I remain hopeful I will be pleasantly surprised by high quality evidence when it comes in. I'm not myself in a position to say what are the best drug candidates to trial - so I'm hoping that those doing the big trials are selecting them.