Covid-19 News

Quote from Alan Smith

We do need that plan B, and the government is dragging its feet again.

Our government is telling us now almost every day that there is only ONE plan - get the jab! - it doesn't matter if you are young or old, healthy or not.... get the jab and you will be fine and nobody is bothering you. You can go where you want and do what you want. You can behave like before covid! You get your life back. Get your jab and you are a GOOD Citizen, because you behave.

If you don't its all your fault, you are the scapegoat, we will single you out and lock you up. Yes, lockdown for unvaxx. if certain hospitalization numbers are reached and we need vaxx. / test passport to go to work effective Nov. 1st!

Complete ignorance of obvious alternatives like IVM and maximum pressure on unvaxx. persons!

I call this a CRIMINAL PLAN!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Your link (not controlling for other factors) show an effect of 20X on mortality. The controlled effect is 30% on mortality - that is 60X smaller.

Now that 30% effect is interesting, but only very mildly so. Your graph proves it!

If the apparent effect without controlling for confounding factors is 60X larger than when you do control - you can be sure there will be large errors in the final result.

Speaking of large errors in the final result. Not only is your 20X figure a mystery to me, but your resultant '60X' calculation has careened off in the wrong direction. It should have worked out to 20X x .72 =~ 14.3X .

Quote from JedRothwell

If we are going to vaccinate children for these other diseases, why would we not vaccinate them for COVID? I do not understand why you have a different standard for this one vaccination, for this one disease.

I think the better question is why this rush to vaccinate the children? The (short term) risks appear at this time very small getting vaxxed, and about the same getting infected. It is basically a wash either way, so out of an abundance of caution it would seem the prudent policy would be to await more long term data before mandating, or coercing parents to get their children vaxxed.

From the beginning with Alpha, and through this latest Delta wave, there has been a coordinated campaign by the media, healthcare celebrities, and the left to drag the young into this when the data always showed they were largely unaffected. I never understood that, and could only conclude there was some ulterior motive at play.

That has introduced an element of mistrust that parents now have to take into consideration. They were lied to about so many things before, why trust what they are told now?

Quote from Shane D.

and the left to drag the young

There is no political left or right in the USA. Both the claimed left and right are represented by FM/R/ /B. Is absurd to think there is a left or right mafia. May be some sit right of the table...

The fish smells from the head that has been cloned from Harvard business success = money is our credo!

So basically parents that vaccinate their kids for CoV-19 sell their kids for "peace"...

I never thought that most western states can be transformed into concentration camps with people begging for vaccines - like some clown here that begs for a booster...

Nobody could predict that people once would believe drug dealers, that sell fake studies for science to promote their drugs.

Just one sample: Pfizer had 300 day 1..7 vaccine promoted CoV-19 infection in the vaccine group. FDA did not ask why they have been removed from the study. Pfizer did not test among age 75+. So the study has been done among the 3% low risk population.

The Pfizer vaccine obviously destroys your immune system. Now we see 6x more infection among vaccinated age 40..50 in UK.

What did the Pfizer dealer tell you: Vaccines protect you ?! You help to protect others ????????????

The other way round!!

Or my tip of the day: Buy a booster ! This will save you some prayers....

Numbers:: USA

Southern let it go states (Florida,Mississippi Missouri,Kentucky) see a steep decline in cases/deaths where as most northern states show no or a faint decline.

May be some southern states are close to herd immunity thanks to natural infection. The big vaccine terror states (New York, Florida) will run into the same troubles as UK. The pandemic of the vaccinated is just taking off.

Quote from Mark U

Why be annoyed? Most anyone reading the study or looking at the map / graph knows it was not 'corrected', and that the data is subject to the limitations of the various countries producing it.

I get annoyed because people like you, who should know better, still don't understand the point. it is not about errors in the data, it is about attempting to find causal relationships by identifying and controlling for factors that make a 60X difference in mortality (comparing your data with an attempt at a proper study) and can correlate both with ivermectin and APOC. Like level of development. I agree it is nearly impossible to do this - but it is certain in this case results are meaningless if you don't do it. take your pick. But understand a little bit of how to understand data 101 or alas you will get it wrong. I can find you some nice easy apolitical maths-only blogs on that?

Quote from Mark U

You should know that such 'controlling' is a great way to fudge. Nevertheless I can appreciate that the poorer countries - which are very often the ones using the ivermectin - would seem more likely to undercount. But as a balance to this, note that the Japanese study found that the case fatality rate in both the ivermectin and non ivermectin countries was about the same, at 2 percent. In other words, if one was sick enough to present oneself to the community centre for testing, and then tested positive, the survival rate was about 98 percent for each set of countries. So the treatment appears comparable to each set of countries. (Note : the treatment would not have included ivermectin ; ivermectin was used for something else entirely.) What is not comparable for each set of countries is the number of people who presented as sick and got tested as positive in the first place, and subsequently died. Ivermectin countries reported 7 and 8.5 times less respectively (per capita) according to the Japanese study. Note that this study came after the one you cited, which at December 2020 came at the time when the differences were not as pronounced. And now, almost a year later, it seems the differences are even more pronounced if the graph is any indication.

I do know that controlling for confounders is a great way to fudge which is why i don't rate observational studies.

BUT - not controlling for confounders leaves you with nonsense like that page. Especially with COVID where confounders tend to be very large.

Quote from Mark U

Don't know where you are getting 20x from. Afaik the paper doesn't present that type of figure, but if it did it would have been been 8.5x.

I was eyeballing the average of the AOC and non-APOC mortality. happy if it is 8.5 though

Quote from Mark U

There could well be some truth in that, but it does come off as a bit of a desperate attempt to minimize ivermectin's effectiveness. Someone could just as easily say that the poorer countries are *more* prone to getting sick from Covid or anything else, because they have less access to proper nutrition, clean water, and hygiene measures.

Some truth?

We agree that it remains to be explained why a lower COVID-19 mortality is observed in many APOC countries compared to other parts of the world. However, we do not believe that this is related to CDTI programs. Indeed, in APOC countries ivermectin is distributed only once (most countries) or twice a year 2 . Moreover, April 1^st 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, CDTI programs were interrupted and were only recently restarted 2 .

Ivermectin has an in vitro anti-COVID-19 effect 3 and also certain clinical trials suggested a beneficial effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 disease outcome 4 . However, in a recent small double blind, randomized control trial in Colombia, five days of ivermectin, at a 10 times the recommended dose, did not reduce the duration of symptoms of mild COVID-19 disease compared to placebo 5 . Given the half-life of ivermectin, approximately 18h 6 , it is unlikely that CDTI, only one dose of ivermectin once or twice a year, may be able to reduce COVID-19 related mortality.

How could twice yearly doses of ivermectin - staying in the body for less that 24 hours, possibly have any effect on COVID?

It is you who are seeing the world through very tinted glasses here.

My piint is not really about ivermectin being good or bad.

i get very annoyed when people here like Mark U go on arguing things that are scientifically unsupportabkle - like that APOC (1 or 2 doses of ivermectin twice a year) could possibly be altering COVID rate through a prophylatic or therapeutic effect of ivermectin.

I get more annoyed when the issues are point out and Mark U does not agree this specific point has no validity.

Why is it so difficult to do that?

I mean - I am happy to note the UK vaccination / non-vaccination infection rates as something that needs explaining. Although an explanation is given in the report itself, that others have claimed is enough, I just don't have the figures to validate it and I don't like it when data is messy. You have to go on checking because it is always possible it represents something you have not considered.

It is that from the antivax side on this thread there is no questioning, no scientific curiosity, just a set of PR memes that get pushed even when obviously wrong. As though science was a debating chamber where what matters is good rhetoric.

Sheesh! (dictionary meaning - not Gen Z or Millennial version)

The anti treatment mafia clown is active again... Who will he help...

Quote from THHuxleynew

As though science was a debating chamber where what matters is good rhetoric

IMO, you keep forgetting that the healthcare sciences are much more influenced by subjective bias than the hard sciences you are more familiar with. So "good rhetoric"...and may I add "money and politics". do, unforunately, play a role also.

Quote from Shane D.

IMO, you keep forgetting that the healthcare sciences are much more influenced by subjective bias than the hard sciences you are more familiar with. So "good rhetoric"...and may I add "money and politics". do, unforunately, play a role also.

Yes, I agree the political decisions are more influenced. Also the science is less certain. That makes some stuff "let's guess". However, the antivax memes I object to are being certain about something which is clearly wrong, not taking one side on a let's guess.

The mainstream view of ivermectin is not that it does not work, just that there is no evidence it does work, and it does not work very much (from the evidence we have so far).

There is then a matter of medical practice - do you let doctors in this case prescribe what is essentially a quack remedy (ivermectin).

The merits of that decision, yes or no, are complicated and I agree politics comes into them a little bit. You might have a political view that even if quack remedies can harm people. people should be free to do what they want, and doctors who have patients should be free to treat them as they like. After all, the free market will deal with poor doctors.

I don't mind that. I do mind, for antivaxer political reasons, coming out with this false science narrative that ivermectin cures covid, and this is being suppressed by the establishment who are evil and want to inject people with vaccines/microchips.

Sounds silly, but it is the underlying meme here. And it is highly political, and highly contrafactual.

A lot of people buy into a weaker version of the same thing - because they see the evils of too much government, or of US medical establishment. And round the world people buy in because they feel powerless and no longer trust institutions and experts.

In this area, if you don't trust experts, you are at the mercy of any quack who sounds good or shares your politics.

trusting experts is not the same as losing freedom. You can make informed decisions based on expert advice. You can't make informed decisions based on internet memes and antivaxer propaganda.

Quote from THHuxleynew

How could twice yearly doses of ivermectin - staying in the body for less that 24 hours, possibly have any effect on COVID?

Now, *that* was a very good point and something I didn't know, that it is dosed so infrequently in Africa.

Upon some reading :

Ivermectin's half life in the body is 18 hours, and it exits the body primarily through the faeces, over the course of about 12 days. The average ivermectin molecule hangs around in the body for 3.7 days, mostly in fat.

When it is excreted, some of the ivermectin has been metabolized (by the liver), but much goes out intact. It gets into the environment and can bioaccumulate in soil organisms such as worms and beetles. See https://www.mncn.csic.es/en/co…-other-animals-food-chain

Now here's a wild idea : People of Africa are known to eat bugs, so I wonder if they are imbibing on some redistributed ivermectin!

A weightier possibility is this : although it *seems* ivermectin is eliminated from the body in a matter of days, it nevertheless seems to have lingering antiparasitic effects for months. Perhaps there is lingering antiviral effects too.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2751445/

"It was also suggested that the kinetics of ivermectin (its elimination half-life is around a day) were somewhat disconnected from its pharmacodynamics (antiparasitic events persisting for several months after a single dose of the drug) (11)."

There's a treatment plan I can support :

In healthy volunteers administered ivermectin orally (150 μg/kg), plasma levels were significantly higher when coadministered with 750 ml of beer than with 750 ml of water; the plasma concentrations were significantly higher in patients who drank beer (66.3, 109, and 97.2 ng/ml at 1, 3 and 4 h, respectively) vs. those who drank water (44.0, 67.5, and 58.7 ng/ml, respectively, P < 0.01 at each time point) (36).

Maybe we need to correlate the death rates of all those countries with beer-drinking rates.

Quote

How could twice yearly doses of ivermectin - staying in the body for less that 24 hours, possibly have any effect on COVID?

Ivermectin (+HCQ+Zinc combo) should be taken after occurrence of first cold or flu symptoms - i.e. essentially in the same way, like people are taking aspirin + paracetamol (completely ineffective yet way more toxic) against flu these days. I.e. with no waiting but also not without reason.

Regarding the CDTI program against onchocerciasis, I dunno how Ivermectin may help twice per year, I'm not an expert - but it apparently helps, as the parasite develops slowly. But what I can tell about my experience during my roughly one and half year standing self-treatment of covid/flu/colds with Ivermectin+HCQ+Zinc, I stopped being vulnerable to cold like after Priessnitz cold baths. Now I'm not urged to take it completely.

Quote from Mark U

Now here's a wild idea : People of Africa are known to eat bugs, so I wonder if they are imbibing on some redistributed ivermectin!

A weightier possibility is this : although it *seems* ivermectin is eliminated from the body in a matter of days, it nevertheless seems to have lingering antiparasitic effects for months. Perhaps there is lingering antiviral effects too.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2751445/

"It was also suggested that the kinetics of ivermectin (its elimination half-life is around a day) were somewhat disconnected from its pharmacodynamics (antiparasitic events persisting for several months after a single dose of the drug) (11)."

Mark - do you honestly believe this? I wonder are you arguing it to make a rhetorical point, or as something that in the whole context here is even remotely plausible?

You could fall back on "in medicine you can't rule anything out".

I agree. The point is that the antivaxer meme ivermectin chart is explained by counfounders (as a more careful study of the same point shows) and no-one except an antivaxxer wanting to deliver PR would seriously take ATOC membership a viable way to test the effects of ivermectin against COVID.

There should be a name for the type of thing where you have a hypothesis, and every negative evidence is dismissed, even if 99% likely, whereas every positive evidence is taken as strong, even if 1% likely. Since as Shane points out 1% is a low bar in medicine that thinking proves every hypothesis.

Quote from Mark U

People of Africa are known to eat bugs, so I wonder if they are imbibing on some redistributed ivermectin!

Or maybe eating bugs protects against COVID?

Or maybe - here is a radical idea - eating bugs causes collective hallucinations such that any subsequent death is viewed as transport to a higher ethereal plane and not counted.

Quote

I do mind, for antivaxer political reasons, coming out with this false science narrative that ivermectin cures covid

There are scientific reasons how Ivermectin cures covid and it also explains, why it's less effective in later stage of disease, when virus already managed to replicate inside cells. Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2 Note that (hydroxy)chloroquine acts in similar way. The clinical studies mostly deal with patients in late stage of disease, which aren't responsive to prophylaxis drugs, this is like to say, that vaccines don't work, because they didn't cure people in hospitals. The Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine are apparently first line therapy dedicated to over the counter drugs.

The reason why I'm still talking about Hydroxychloroquine in connection with Ivermectin is, these two cheap & safe generic drugs greatly complement mutually, as Hydroxychloroquine (in combination with Zinc) is toxic against virus: it actively destroys it, i.e. it does not only prohibit replication of virus. It's also immunosuppressive drug, i.e. it moderates cytokine storm, which coronavirus utilizes for invading the organism. As such it can also compensate negative allergenic effects of coronavirus etc. vaccines, which are doing exactly the opposite.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is larger than you realize. The risk of death is small, but the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and "long-haul" effects is large. Much larger than for chickenpox, measles, mumps and other diseases that all children must be vaccinated against. If we are going to vaccinate children for these other diseases, why would we not vaccinate them for COVID? I do not understand why you have a different standard for this one vaccination, for this one disease.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/s…imz/child-adolescent.html

Those vaccines actually work, most for a lifetime, not so with Covid vax. Protection begins waning at 2 months.

Austria’s Chancellor Plans to Lock Down Unvaccinated in their Homes—1930s Era Tactics Coming Back to Austria?

Austria’s Chancellor Plans to Lock Down Unvaccinated in their Homes—1930s Era Tactics Coming Back to Austria?

Austria’s COVID-19 cases are on the rise again—similar to many heavily vaccinated nations. If it wasn’t bad enough that the unvaccinated have become

trialsitenews.com

Austria’s COVID-19 cases are on the rise again—similar to many heavily vaccinated nations. If it wasn’t bad enough that the unvaccinated have become second-class citizens, not able to attend theatres or keep their jobs even if they agree to frequent testing, in Austria matters may become much worse. Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg declared after a meeting with state-level leaders on the topic of rising cases “The pandemic is not yet in the rearview mirror” extending an ominous message “We are about to stumble into a pandemic of the unprotected.” He went on to declare that if the resurging cases lead to 500 patients in the intensive care units (25% of country capacity) then the type of vaccine policy currently in New York or Los Angeles would be enforced. The unvaccinated would not be able to enter a bar or eatery for example. However, if the numbers hit 600 then the unvaccinated won’t be allowed to leave their homes except for specific reasons. This means a 1930s era policy of identifying people by certain characteristics is followed by targeted repression—even if the science behind such an action is highly in question.

With the ICU number in Austria currently at 220, Schallenberg’s message should be taken very seriously. The fact that leaders around the world aren’t recognizing that the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in heavily vaccinated communities blinds them to the social, economic, and political problems as well as health-related costs associated with disastrous mass vaccination policies now unfolding around the world.

Recently becoming Chancellor, Schallenberg quickly uses this apex position to intimidate, using fear and threats of suppression not seen in a European Western democracy since Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, to “encourage” those unvaccinated to get the jab. While he did promise to exclude those that have already recovered from the virus, the Austrian Chancellor’s approach demonstrates the incredible toll this pandemic now has on Western democracy.

Presently, Germany’s DW reports that Austria now has 20,408 new cases. The 7-day average equals 228.5 per 100,000 inhabitants—this has risen from 152.5 per 100,000 a week earlier. Currently, in Austria, the fully vaccinated represent 62.4% while partially vaccinated total 65.4% of the total population. According to Reuters 63.8% of the population is vaccinated.

Call to Action: TrialSite Community—what are your thoughts?

Coronavirus digest: Austria warns of lockdown for unvaccinated | DW | 23.10.2021

Unvaccinated Austrians could face new restrictions if pressure on the country's intensive care beds worsens. Follow DW for more.

www.dw.com