Covid-19 News

Quote from Mark U

The CDC is shamelessly and deceptively using a correlation between those who chose to get vaccinated and better health, to push the idea that the vaccine is safe and won't kill you. From the CDC study :

What are the implications for public health practice?

There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

There is nothing shameless about that. The study proves exactly that. This study shows that the health and longevity of the vaccinated people is no worse than it was before the pandemic. If vaccinated people and unvaccinated people died at the same rate from diseases other than COVID, that would indicate a problem with the vaccine. It would mean the vaccine is killing people. It would prove there is increased risk. We know that most of the people being vaccinated are from states and cities which before the pandemic had the best longevity, the lowest levels of obesity and the best healthcare. So of course they should continue to have fewer deaths today, from causes other than COVID.

We also know that Republicans are dying from COVID at a ratio of 5:1 compared to Democrats. That is because more Republicans are opposed to the vaccine. It is also because Republicans dominate in the poorest states with the worst healthcare and the lowest longevity. Especially places like rural Georgia, which have Third World healthcare, about the same life expectancy as Mexico, and only 20% to 35% of the population is vaccinated. Obesity is widespread, which greatly increases the risk of dying from COVID, and many other diseases. It would be a miracle if this population did not have more deaths from causes other than COVID than the blue state vaccinated population.

Was the Biden Administration’s Decision to Take Over Monoclonal Antibody Distribution for Equity or Red-state retaliation?

Was the Biden Administration’s Decision to Take Over Monoclonal Antibody Distribution for Equity or Red-state retaliation?

Clinical trials have demonstrated that monoclonal antibody treatments result in a 70% reduction in risk for hospitalization and death. In addition, these

trialsitenews.com

Clinical trials have demonstrated that monoclonal antibody treatments result in a 70% reduction in risk for hospitalization and death. In addition, these lifesaving but still investigational therapeutic treatments also proved to be 82% effective in reducing risk of contracting the virus for people who may have been exposed by other household members. (Florida Department of Health)

Since the beginning of August, President Joe Biden (POTUS) and Florida state Governor, Ron DeSantis, have been caught in a series of increasingly tense, very public, back-and-forth statements criticizing each other’s stance on alleviating COVID-19’s toll on America.

In September, the Biden administration announced it would take over the control of monoclonal antibody distribution, which were previously ordered directly from healthcare providers and fulfilled by AmerisourceBergen, arguably without any federal red tape.

Now, weekly distribution to states is determined by a formula maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The White House made this decision based on the claim that just a handful of states were ordering most of the monoclonal antibody products. They contended that it wasn’t fair to many other states that may be in need.

At the time Florida and a handful of other Southern states happened to be experiencing a bad Delta-variant-driven surge. The federal government was critical of this fact, declaring that the lower vaccination rates were the primary cause. DeSantis introduced a statewide program that essentially democratized monoclonal antibody treatment in a market-based model. Florida and a few other states ordered about 70% of the entire supply.

DeSantis accused Biden of seizing control of the supply calling it a “cruel” retaliation for DeSantis’ public opposition to and criticism of White House policies. While it is true that Southern states were using most of the therapies, Biden, on the other hand, pointed out that it was his responsibility to ensure an equitable distribution of these important investigational therapies authorized under emergency use.

Was this a case of pure good faith intentions concerned with equity, or conversely, was this further politicalizing of the COVID-19 pandemic? TrialSite internally has some insight and speculation, but no smoking gun evidence indicating one truth versus another has been obtained. What follows is a timeline breakdown of events.

DeSantis prohibits vaccine passports and calls for parent-directed freedom as paramount

At issue here are fundamental differences in points of view and perhaps even values. On the one hand is a centralized, federal mandate, and the other a decentralized state-based authority. With growing talk of vaccine passports and potential mandates as early as the start of the year, by March 2021, DeSantis was already drawing a line in the sand.

On March 9, 2021, the Florida governor’s office issued an executive order, “Prohibiting Vaccine Passports.” The order was issued, in part, to “protect the fundamental rights and privacies of Floridians” because vaccine passports “would create two classes of citizens based on vaccination status.”

The tension mounted as fundamental questions about the science behind the project afforded by masks became center stage. While there were few to any studies demonstrating that masks specifically prevented COVID-19 spread, some studies indicated possible benefits. Regardless of this lack, federal health authorities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) embrace masks to stop transmission.

DeSantis was opposed to any federal mandates. In a bid to reject any forced federal edicts, by July 29, 2021, the Florida governor issued another executive order, “Ensuring Parent’s Freedom to Choose – Mask Mandates.”

This order cites various reasons including, a lack of “well-grounded evidence” that mask-wearing in school settings drives community transmission. Mask-wearing can “inhibit breathing,” collect bacteria, and “adversely affect communications in the classroom and student performance…”

Another major opponent of the governor is Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Nicole “Nikki” Fried. Fried announced in 2021 that she will run against the incumbent for the 2022 election. She often calls DeSantis out on social media, asking him to “please follow the data and facts.” On her department’s official site, she provides information to assert the effectiveness of masking school students in Florida, claiming DeSantis “blocked” the data from the public. Despite this claim from Fried, all data used by the Governor, and the Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo is publicly available on the FDOH website.

“Every way you look at the data, kids were better off in schools requiring masks than those that did not. School districts that did nothing suffered four times higher COVID-19 cases than school districts that required masks, in direct contradiction to the governor’s disinformation,” says Fried.

The FDOH refuted the data from each claim made by Fried in a press release on October 7, 2021. DeSantis’ Press Secretary Christina Pushaw, in an email interview with TrialSite News, states that Fried’s data was “cherry-picked” to paint an inaccurate picture of the mask-wearing in schools.

Fried’s department didn’t utilize the eight required steps of the epidemiological methodology. Some of the main issues with Fried’s conclusions were failure to adjust for county vaccination rates, previous infection rates, community infection rates, failure to determine if infection was acquired in school or out of school, and other miscalculations. Fried’s claims were not removed from her page and her social followers (232.6K) were enraged by her misinformation.

The mask debates

The Delta variant surged causing many new infections during the summer of 2021. By August 2 during a White House Press Briefing, Jen Psaki used mask mandates and mask encouragement synonymously.

For example, she declared “… There are steps and precautions that can be taken, including encouraging people to get vaccinated, encouraging people to wear masks, including allowing schools to mandate masks, and allowing kids to wear masks, which is not the current state of play in Florida.”

Interpreted one way, Psaki seemed to imply that Florida’s governor was not allowing kids to wear masks. However, based on an objective review, he was more accurately against mandates.

Pushaw addressed the distinction between the two terms, stating the governor “does not oppose masks, he opposes mask mandates.” Masking is not a “clinically proven” intervention, but rather a preference that no one has the right to impose on others.

Striking a Balance

A conflict between fundamental values and associated points of view mounted during the summer. On the one hand, the White House sought out a way to accelerate the demise of COVID-19 in uniform actions purportedly backed by science.

Several governors in conservative-leaning states sought out to ensure that any rules or policies originating from the White House didn’t impede the economy nor trounce on the rights of residents.

However, during a pandemic, this resistance caused serious tension. By August 3, 2021, during a White House Press Briefing, both Jen Psaki and POTUS emphasized that any state leadership resisting the CDC guidance should simply “get out of the way.” For example, the press secretary went on to declare “…most Republican governors are doing exactly the right thing…advocating for — and taking steps to advocate for more people to get vaccinated.” However, in communicating in this way, many considered this an attack on DeSantis—that the governor wasn’t encouraging preventive measures as were other Republican governors.

Yet the Florida governor is certainly not an “Antivaxxer:” TrialSite reviewed some of the steps that DeSantis took towards vaccination:

In January, with the beginning of the vaccine rollout, FDOH prioritized the first offerings of the vaccine to the 65+ population and led the nation in vaccination rates.

There are now hundreds of locations across 52 counties, including virtually every major retail pharmacy, (Publix alone has 500+) malls, parks, schools, clinics, mobile sites, and even the Hard Rock Stadium. Additionally, there is an abundance of testing locations as well.

DeSantis had over 50 events, in 27 counties, to promote vaccination and increase accessibility. Pushaw notes that he “devoted more time to COVID-19 vaccination than any other policy issues this year.”

DeSantis has repeatedly stated vaccination saves lives, and voluntarily disclosed his vaccination status. “I took it, I think it’s effective.”

Biden comes out swinging

By early August, POTUS became more concerned about any impediments to COVID directives at the state leadership level. So, by August 3, 2021, the President vowed to “take on” his opponents declaring “My plan also takes on elected officials in states that are undermining you in these life-saving actions. Right now, local school officials are trying to keep children safe in a pandemic while their governor picks a fight with them, and even threatens their salaries or their jobs. Talk about bullying in schools.”

Biden suggested that DeSantis was “a bully” for taking corrective measures against school boards who violated his executive order. After all, one could argue that local school boards should be able to take preventive actions at the local level.

Even though Biden was on the subject of bullying, he did not address abusive acts of violence to students exacerbated by the insistence of CDC guidelines. Innocent children were berated, sprayed with disinfectant, slapped, and even had masks taped to their faces, by teachers and other adults. While these incidents were most likely outliers, they were no less disturbing.

Another important point that Biden failed to address was the legitimate concerns that the vaccine-hesitant have about the possibility of adverse events. In his speech, the president singled out the unvaccinated, rhetorically asking “what more do you need to see? We’ve made vaccination free, safe, and convenient. The vaccine is FDA approved. Over 200 million have gotten at least one shot.”

The president then condemned the unvaccinated. “You have cost all of us.” He also stoked the flames of frustration among the vaccinated viewers and their complaints against those who remain unsure of the vaccine’s unknown long-term effects. “I understand your anger at those who haven’t gotten vaccinated,” POTUS stated.

The president continued speaking exclusively to the vaccinated, stating he also understood their worries about unvaccinated children. “For any parent, it doesn’t matter how low the risk of any illness or accident is when it comes to the safety of your child or grandchild, trust me, I know.”

Assuming this statement is sincere, it’s worth considering why President Biden does not also empathize with parents who are reluctant to vaccinate themselves or their children based on obscured adverse event data. To them he only states, “we’ve been patient, but our patience is running thin.”

DeSantis’s Responds “I am standing in your way.”

The nasty political conflict turned to allegations that questionable immigration trends were leading to even more risk during this pandemic. By the summer, news reports of significant increases in illegal immigration put more conservative-minded Americans on edge. Was it a factor that increasing numbers of illegal border crossings were threatening to worsen the pandemic? (Later in September, Psaki did admit that immigrants were not required to be vaccinated upon entry, even as American businesses with more than 100 employees were mandated.)

The former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott made claims that so far in 2021, under the Biden administration, there have been, at minimum, 400,000 border crossings sited in which the individuals were not caught or documented.

By August 4, 2021 DeSantis criticized Biden for possibly influencing the spread of COVID-19 and its vicious variants declaring “You have over one-hundred different countries where people are pouring through,…they’re then farming them out all…across this country. Putting them on planes, putting them on busses. Do you think they’re being worried about COVID for that? Of course not.” The governor’s proposed point concerning the border could be also considered more politicization of the pandemic, now including immigration as yet another topic contributing to the spike in cases. There was no proof that such is the case.

However, one trend was clear. Mounting pressure for a vaccination mandate over U.S. residents and citizens felt imminent. DeSantis shared that Biden wanted to enforce a stricter vaccination regimen over citizens and legal residents while there were seemingly few controls at the rapidly crowded border points.

Moreover, DeSantis continued to criticize POTUS’ COVID solution to “mask kindergarteners” and force the American people to prove vaccination to participate in society. By September that mandate became a reality. Yet DeSantis reminded all “But yet, if you want to vote, he thinks it’s too much of a burden to show a picture ID…”

The governor continued that in Florida, “People are going to be free to choose, to make their own decisions about themselves, about their families, about their kids’ educations, and about putting food on the table.”

While the state went through a terrible spike, the economy continued to move. After ending the Federal Unemployment Bonus, Florida employers hired 1.3 million new workers, and Florida’s economy has grown by more than 60 billion from pre-pandemic levels.

Biden on DeSantis: ‘Governor Who?’

When a journalist asked Biden to comment on DeSantis’ remarks on August 5, 2021, Biden replied, “governor who? That’s my response.”

DeSantis replied in another press conference the following day. “I guess I’m not surprised that Biden doesn’t remember me. I guess the question is what else has he forgotten?” Here’s his reminder. “I’m the governor who answers to the people of Florida, not to bureaucrats in Washington.”

Florida sees a decline in cases

In less than two weeks, Florida’s average cases began trending down. Pushaw explained that Florida’s cases declined with the governor’s tireless efforts to promote monoclonal antibody treatments. “More than 135,000 Floridians have received this lifesaving treatment at our state-run sites alone; this does not count the thousands who have received the treatment from other healthcare providers.”

This is roughly the same time that utilization of monoclonal antibodies by Florida and other red states in the southern region gained the attention of HHS and the Biden Administration. When the White House announced its intention to take over, the press had questions about what would happen next.

Psaki explains the mAb takeover

–In a White House Press Briefing, on September 16, 2021, the Press Secretary explained the administration’s stance on regulating the ordering of mAbs per state.

Psaki was questioned about why Biden was cutting 50% of mAb supplies in the 7 ‘red’ states even though he said he was purchasing 50% more for the US.

Psaki clarifies that the Biden administration would be purchasing an extra 50,000 doses for the country, on top of the weekly average of 100,000. But the reduction from the 7 red states was a different story. “I think people need to understand for clarity…those monoclonal antibodies are lifesaving therapies that are used after infection to prevent more severe outcomes,” Psaki explains. “So, clearly, the way to protect people and save more lives is to get them vaccinated so that they don’t get COVID to begin with.”

This last statement is saturated with inaccuracy.

It is unclear why Psaki described the treatment as a measure of care only used after a COVID-19 infection, when the FDOH states eligibility for the treatment includes preventative care as well. “Individuals 12 years and older who are high-risk, that…have been exposed to COVID-19,” and that they have proven to be 82% effective in reducing risk of contracting the virus for those at-risk individuals.

Psaki seems to suggest that more vaccination in Florida would solve the issue of reduced mAb supply. However, those who are already vaccinated comprise 40-45% of the patients benefiting from the treatment.

Countless studies now from around the world that vaccines are not preventing infection or transmission, which contradicts her claim that Florida’s efforts should be redirected back to vaccines “so that they don’t get COVID to begin with.”

POTUS and team essentially believed DeSantis was using mAbs to detract from vaccination which of course isn’t the truth. But did POTUS and the team seek to punish the Governor? Their actions seem to indicate that Florida shouldn’t be able to order mAbs as a backup for a less vaccinated population.

Why does the introduction of another life-saving treatment mean that the Florida governor is not “doing his part,” as Biden and Psaki seem to suggest? In all fairness to DeSantis, what more can the governor do to increase vaccination rates aside from forceful coercion in the form of state-enforced mandates?

COVID-19 Treatment Just as Important

Pushaw refutes the suggestion that efforts in promoting vaccination and mAb treatments must be “mutually exclusive.” Arguably, it would behoove the medical community to have more awareness about mAbs positive outcomes.

In fact, on August 24th, even Dr. Anthony Fauci, Senior Medical Advisor to the Biden Administration, said in a White House Press Briefing, that there needs to be more focus on the effectiveness of monoclonal antibody treatments. When asked why more doctors around the country aren’t utilizing them, Fauci replied, “I can’t explain that.”

As one of the few FDA emergency-use-authorized treatments for COVID-19, popularity was bound to increase, and unsurprisingly, red states, with leaders who gave extra effort in raising awareness, embraced them for constituents. Their increased orders, (which HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra explained were 20 times higher in August than in July,) gave the Biden Administration a reason to pull back the reins in those states and reassess distribution for equity purposes.

Psaki continued to explain the administration’s decision was because “our supply is not unlimited, and we believe it should be equitable across states, across the country.”

Psaki’s phrasing is somewhat ambiguous, “our supply is not unlimited.” The fact that a supply of anything is “not unlimited,” does not confirm that there was an actual shortage. Confirmation of an actual shortage would help in clearing the White House of the red states retaliation allegations.

When asked outright why the administration made this decision without any reports of supply shortage, Psaki ignored the question.

In reviewing the timeline, there seems to be a pattern emerging here. Psaki is inexplicably unable to answer pivotal questions, and Biden won’t address core issues. What can we glean from an arguable lack of transparency?

Instead, Psaki reiterates equity. “We’re not going to give a greater percentage to Florida over Oklahoma…”

Fair enough, but was Oklahoma in jeopardy of not getting orders filled? Were any states in jeopardy of not getting orders filled? Just because ordering increased doesn’t necessarily mean the three mAb manufacturers, (Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eli Lilly) are not equipped to provide.

We asked HHS specifically for an answer. They did not confirm.

The Oklahoma State Department of Health, OSDH, has not responded to confirm supply issues either. However, a “Nursing LTC Provider Call,” summary on the OSDH site from September 9th, explained anticipated issues with the HHS takeover. Elyce Holloway, state hospital preparedness program (HPP) coordinator, wrote “there is not necessarily a shortage” but warned that after HHS takeover “you may have difficulty acquiring mAbs if you need them.” Unfortunately for Oklahoma, this came true.

On September 15th, Holloway issued another briefing on the status of mAbs for Oklahoma.

“OSDH will likely be unable to fill full requests for the next few weeks. We had roughly 11 days of most orders being denied, and the approved orders were not fully met. This has resulted in a statewide deficit for mAbs. As I stated in an earlier email, OK was allocated roughly a fifth of what had been ordered in those 11 days.”

Unfortunately, the White House’s intention to protect Oklahoma resulted in the opposite.

Still, in pursuit of an answer, we asked the three mAb manufacturers if they could confirm an issue. Eli Lilly didn’t respond, and GSK didn’t give an appropriate answer.

Associate Director, Product & Pipeline Communications, Tammy Allen, from Regeneron, said the manufacturer fulfills orders, but has no info on federal supply issues.

The good news. “We remain confident that we can fulfill this agreement and are actively making a new product to meet anticipated demands.” With the help of the world’s largest biotech company, Roche, Regeneron intends to increase global supply by 3.5 times.

Is there a verdict?

Ultimately, the case for equity turns up zero evidence other than the fact that most of the orders for monoclonal antibodies were from just a handful of southern states at the time. On the other hand, these states also faced significant spikes—higher than any of the other states. Now that Florida’s cases have plummeted, it is fair to assume that other parts of the nation experiencing increased infection rates, can utilize the nations’ supply as needed.

Concerning the case for retaliation, remember Biden’s “plan” to take on “elected officials in states that were undermining” those who comply with Biden’s mandates? That public announcement could be argued as an indicator of motive, coupled along with the means, and the opportunity to carry out his promise to the American people. “I’ll use my powers as president to get them out of the way.” This statement, made just over a month before the takeover certainly would give a detective a compelling reason to investigate, but without the smoking gun, it remains inconclusive

A doctor and father

Quote from JedRothwell

There is nothing shameless about that. The study proves exactly that. This study shows that the health and longevity of the vaccinated people is no worse than it was before the pandemic.

I don't know what study you have in mind now, but the CDC study in question made no comparison to pre pandemic numbers.

Membrane fusion and immune evasion by the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant

AAAS

Abstract

The Delta variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has outcompeted previously prevalent variants and become a dominant strain worldwide. We report the structure, function, and antigenicity of its full-length spike (S) trimer and those of the Gamma and Kappa variants and compare their characteristics with the G614, Alpha, and Beta variants. Delta S can fuse membranes more efficiently at low levels of cellular receptor ACE2, and its pseudotyped viruses infect target cells substantially faster than the other five variants, possibly accounting for its heightened transmissibility. Each variant shows different rearrangement of the antigenic surface of the N-terminal domain of the S protein, but only causes local changes in the receptor-binding domain (RBD), making the RBD a better target for therapeutic antibodies.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You always fail to read links that you don't like.... https://apnews.com/article/cor…cc3928a25b2916e5bd1df3f86

I did not read that one, so thanks for posting it. But I have now, and it is irrelevant.

You would know it was irrelevant if you read even 1% of my posts.

As you (would) know, maybe you do know but are not undestanding, the ONS infection survey (the only reliable way to estimate infection rates in the Uk, which everyone uses) does a random sample of households followed by high quality PCR tests. To gte high compliance they bribe people with several 100 pounds of vouchers. I should know, they are currently doing our household. It takes about 3 months, with a sequence of visits at which they take PCR samples and ask you a detailed set of questions (the process takes about 20 minute sper person).

Unlike Africa, the UK has had this very high quality active surveillance from 4 months through the pandemic onwards. which is why I have become increasingly confident in the things I've been posting. Not that this answers all the questions, but it does rule out most of the antivax memes.

Quote from Mark U

I don't know what study you have in mind now, but the CDC study in question made no comparison to pre pandemic numbers.

Yes, it did. The control group of unvaccinated people excluded all COVID cases, and it included only people vaccinated against influenza. So it was the same as a pre-pandemic control group. More to the point, the geographic death rate gap for both groups is the same as the pre-pandemic gap. The gap is between places such as New York and Georgia. (These two also split neatly into nearly-all-vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, outside of Atlanta.)

This is not complicated. Excluding COVID, longevity and health differences between New York and Georgia were the same in 2018 as they are today. New York has always been more healthy. Georgia has always had Third World healthcare, infant mortality and so on. All red states do. They are all behind blue states in healthcare, education, wealth and other factors that lower the death rate. Now, New York and other blue states have far higher vaccination rates, so the vaccinated population in the U.S. overall is much healthier in all other ways, but that is a coincidence. If you learned that New Yorkers eat more pizza than people in Georgia, you would find the same correlation with death rates. You would not conclude that eating pizza makes it less likely you will die!

COVID vaccines do not reduce the death rate any more than pizza does, except for COVID deaths, obviously. They have absolutely no efficacy against heart attacks, stroke, diabetes or anything else. People in New York have always died less often from heart attacks, strokes and diabetes than people from Georgia, and they still do, so it might look as if the vaccines are reducing heart attacks, but they are not.

If New York now had the same death rate as Georgia excluding COVID, that would be a warning sign that vaccines might be causing deaths. Fortunately, that is not the case. The same death rate gap that has been in place for all of U.S. history still continues. That is what this study shows.

Obviously, when you include COVID in the present death rates, Georgia and other red states are in a catastrophic situation, equivalent to a 9/11 attack every two days, or to the worst days of WWII. The blue states have recovered to the same extent Japan, Korea or Chile have recovered, with COVID infecting fewer people every day, and deaths approaching zero. The U.S. is split into two. One part is engaged in a self-imposed suicidal holocaust caused by antivaxxer death cult lunacy. The other is part of the civilized world.

Quote from Fm1

Each variant shows different rearrangement of the antigenic surface of the N-terminal domain of the S protein, but only causes local changes in the receptor-binding domain (RBD), making the RBD a better target for therapeutic antibodies.

Thus validating the "quick and simple" vaccine strategy of targeting S but not N proteins. Variants can easily modify n proteins to evade natural immunity there.

Big Tech vs Medicine

Big Tech vs Medicine

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

trialsitenews.com

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

The root cause of many of the disastrous responses to this pandemic is the global echo chamber created and sustained by Big Tech. Big Tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple – in that order) systematically endorse false information and harmful governmental decisions, reject effective treatments, and collude among themselves to eliminate any dissenting views.

For example, no matter how many doctors and even politicians become convinced that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, Big Tech maintains its anti-ivermectin position. The narrative that “Ivermectin as a treatment against COVID-19 is disinformation” is ingrained in the brains of Big Tech’s low- and middle-rank censors, encoded in its databases and AI, and even in its business relationships. It is highly unlikely that any of Big Tech’s high-level executives would step in to change this narrative. Initiating such a change would almost be an admission of guilt, acknowledging that their company imperiled millions of people who would have greatly benefited from the treatment.

Big Tech is much more powerful than Big Pharma. Big Tech is also accustomed to impunity, unlike Big Pharma. During this pandemic, Big Tech has added to its valuation >$3 Trillion (yes, with T), much more than Big Pharma can dream of.

Let’s take Google, for example. Regardless of what happens in the real world, Google always finds anti-ivermectin stories to display at the top of its search results. This is a screenshot from Google search for ivermectin (clean browser, Tyler TX, Oct 24, 2021; your results will differ):

As usual, the FDA’s horse hoax “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent …”) is at the top. It is followed by Google-selected news. The first piece is from the Atlantic, rejecting ivermectin because “Not All Science is Worth Following”. It is signed by a co-author of an anti-ivermectin letter published in Nature. Next comes a piece from the Hill, insinuating that the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 is in a trial phase. This top placement of anti-ivermectin articles naturally creates artificial demand for them, ensuring that Google never runs out of them.

In addition to disseminating false information, Big Tech companies threaten articles and publishers that support ivermectin (or other effective treatments like Hydroxychloroquine). These threats include removal from the Facebook News section, de-platforming, demonetizing, de-ranking, and every other sort of abuse. Conducted collusively, these actions become a kiss of death for almost every large publication. This type of chilling effect, accomplished by threats, usually flies under the radar, as opposed to outright public de-platforming, which often garners criticism.

Banning content with any positive information on ivermectin and penalizing its publishers creates a vicious spiral. Even without any additional human interference, Google’s AI concludes that treating COVID-19 with ivermectin is a fringe conspiracy theory and further downranks or penalizes such content and its publishers. And so, it continues.

YouTube suspended Australian Sky News for lukewarm clips about IVM and HCQ, stating that: “The clips didn’t provide ‘sufficient countervailing context’ to indicate the claims were false”. Sky News, a large TV network, was forced to bow to Google and feature no more ivermectin clips. Such successes embolden Big Tech and intimidate publishers.

Frequently, what passes for support for ivermectin is weak and ineffective. For example, Breitbart’s ivermectin articles usually point out the media’s lies about ivermectin, rather than presenting the surmounting evidence of ivermectin’s safety and effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment. Breitbart is still accepted in Facebook’s News Section, and apparently, it does not want to jeopardize this concession by going against the dominant narrative.

Most mainstream media companies depend on Big Tech both financially and for information, so they do not deserve a separate discussion here.

Such blatant controlling actions by Big Tech would be outrageous and likely illegal even if they were 100% correct on the subject matter. But considering how wrong they have been on so many pandemic responses, it’s staggering. Any other business would have been sued into oblivion by surviving COVID-19 patients and the relatives of deceased victims.

Big Tech’s systematic elimination of all positive information about IVM, combined with a constant barrage of negative stories, undermines the faith and will of doctors and impacts decision makers, from politicians to insurance companies to the DC health care bureaucracy (CDC, FDA, & NIH/NIAID). Big Tech, in turn, justifies its attitude toward ivermectin by the stance taken by the federal health bureaucracy. This creates a deadlock because the federal bureaucracy cannot change its mind in the atmosphere that muffles criticism and encourages it to harden its wrong stances.

All organizations, but especially federal agencies, are handicapped by forced telecommuting during the pandemic. It sharply decreases the amount of in-person communication and the quality of any communication. It also effectively puts everything on record, chilling both dissenting opinions and consideration of dissenting views. It also makes everyone more dependent on Big Tech.

Legal Action

For these reasons, I think that legal actions should target Big Tech first. Their immunity under Section 230 is a myth, propagated by themselves. Neither are they speakers, nor publishers protected by the First Amendment. Their impunity is more political than legal.

I think that a good lawyer, with knowledge of the medical facts and Big Tech operations, can obtain a temporary injunction against Google/Facebook/Twitter as state actors under the First Amendment. Such an injunction would stop them from suppressing information and debate about ivermectin, other COVID-19 drugs, and public health actions. Thousands of lives lost daily justify an immediate injunction.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are state actors, which requires them to respect the rights of all citizens, including free speech. Many federal government agencies (including the FDA), state and local governments publish some essential information exclusively on Google YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. To merely view this information on the Big Tech platforms, citizens must accept their unhinged Terms of Service (or so they think). The government has also created multiple accounts on these platforms and made them public forums for communication with citizens and for the public discussion of political matters. There are more factors making Big Tech companies state actors.

Other causes for actions against Big Tech include:

Big Tech has a duty to their consumers to deliver services as promised and fails to do so.

Fraud is illegal in the US. Interfering with witnesses or evidence in government proceedings is illegal, too. When committed at least twice in the conduct of a criminal enterprise, they become subject of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), allowing private action and triple damages.

Big Tech’s joint decisions to hide information from their consumers is an illegal collusive monopoly

Big Tech is not licensed to practice medicine (or whatever they practice instead of medicine)

After the first success, the road will be easy. But somebody must act

Quote from Fm1

Clinical trials have demonstrated that monoclonal antibody treatments result in a 70% reduction in risk for hospitalization and death.

This is crazy. Discussing about a 1000$ cure with 70% success when the 2$ ziverdo would do it with 99.99% success!

Quote from THHuxleynew

As you (would) know, maybe you do know but are not undestanding, the ONS infection survey (the only reliable way to estimate infection rates in the Uk, which everyone uses) does a random sample of households followed by high quality PCR tests.

PCR test is nonsense. You use Elisa for a serious antibody diagnostics.

The India vaccine terror state of Kerala reports again a very high death (480) number >80% of all India deaths.

As of 27.October 2021 : https://www.mygov.in/covid-19

Whereas Uttar Pradesh & Rajastan now tend to absolute 0 cases for > 300'000'000 people !!

Quote from Wyttenbach

The India vaccine terror state of Kerala reports again a very high death (480) number >80% of all India deaths.

As of 27.October 2021 : https://www.mygov.in/covid-19

Whereas Uttar Pradesh & Rajastan now tend to absolute 0 cases for > 300'000'000 people !!

You might as well start your own media service, none of this ever is seen in western countries. They have all sold their souls! R is below 1 here, yet the FDA just gave the thumbs up to jab 5-11 year olds. Insanity!

Quote from Fm1

They have all sold their souls!

I doubt that these people have something we could name a soul. The evolution has fallen back by 100 mio. year. These people are dumb eating robots = carnivore saurian driven by a tiny ganglion (cerebellum).

We just lost 10'000 years of culture...

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, it did. The control group of unvaccinated people excluded all COVID cases, and it included only people vaccinated against influenza. So it was the same as a pre-pandemic control group. More to the point, the geographic death rate gap for both groups is the same as the pre-pandemic gap. The gap is between places such as New York and Georgia. (These two also split neatly into nearly-all-vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, outside of Atlanta.)

Oh lordy. The study was not about geographic death rate gaps, nor how they changed from pre to post pandemic. The study was about comparing death rates from any cause (supposedly apart from Covid) before potential vaccination and after actual vaccination.

No, the unvaccinated people were not chosen to be 'excluded of all COVID cases'. More on that later. Yes, the unvaccinated people had to have at least one flu vaccine within the last two year. More on that later too.

Quote from JedRothwell

COVID vaccines do not reduce the death rate any more than pizza does, except for COVID deaths, obviously. They have absolutely no efficacy against heart attacks, stroke, diabetes or anything else.

That's what you say. But the CDC is implying there is indeed a health benefit (again, supposedly apart from Covid) to getting a Covid vaccine : "The lower mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination suggests substantial healthy vaccinee effects (i.e., vaccinated persons tend to be healthier than unvaccinated persons)"

Quote from JedRothwell

If New York now had the same death rate as Georgia excluding COVID,

I wouldn't pick on Georgia. Their death rate is apparently very close to New York's.

About excluding covid cases. Covid cases were not excluded in any group. Rather, what was excluded were deaths that occurred within 30 days of a positive Covid PCR test or diagnosis.

In this way they make it appear that they were focussing on non Covid health benefits of the vaccine. But the devil is in the details, and this study is devilish.

Imagine : A person is diagnosed with Covid, and after a week gets sick enough to be admitted to hospital. He spends two weeks in hospital, 'recovers', and is sent home. Now, such a person has about a ten percent chance of dying within two months after being sent home. He has about a twenty percent chance of being readmitted to hospital within two months after being sent home. This has been mentioned on this thread before. ( See

First 10 Days After Leaving Hospital Carry High Risk for COVID-19 Patients

The first 10 days after a COVID-19 hospital stay may be especially dangerous, compared with heart failure and pneumonia, study in veterans finds.

labblog.uofmhealth.org

If the person dies two weeks after he is discharged from hospital, guess what? He is not counted as a Covid death in this study, because the death occurred more than 30 days after a positive Covid test. So he is counted as a non covid death.

As a final note : Recall, as you mentioned, that those who did not receive a Covid vaccine had to have received a flu vaccine in the last two years. This was to supposedly "ensure comparable health care–seeking behavior" between the two groups. Note that the Covid vaccine group did not have to receive a flu vaccine ; odds are that about half of them did.

Here's the kicker : What if the flu vaccine - received by all the people who did not get the Covid vaccine - was a main driver for the higher death rate in that group? Oh oh...

Quote from Wyttenbach

PCR test is nonsense. You use Elisa for a serious antibody diagnostics.

The ONS survey does antigen tests and antibody tests.

Both are helpful to determine number of people infected - antibody tests alone are certainly not enough since the antibodies from natural immunity do not last that long in many people.

Anyway - the point is that this large-scale high volume true random sample testing, over along period, is the only way to get reliable data about the infection rate.and hence the true number of people previously infected.

In the UK we have it for all except the first wave. We can then extrapolate infections from deaths (more reliable than cases) together with mortality demographics for the number of infections then.

Which is why we know the antivax memes for very large numbers of people with prior infection now are untrue.

THH

Quote from Mark U

Imagine : A person is diagnosed with Covid, and after a week gets sick enough to be admitted to hospital. He spends two weeks in hospital, 'recovers', and is sent home. Now, such a person has about a ten percent chance of dying within two months after being sent home. He has about a twenty percent chance of being readmitted to hospital within two months after being sent home. This has been mentioned on this thread before. ( See

First 10 Days After Leaving Hospital Carry High Risk for COVID-19 Patients The first 10 days after a COVID-19 hospital stay may be especially dangerous, compared with heart failure and pneumonia, study in veterans finds. labblog.uofmhealth.org

If the person dies two weeks after he is discharged from hospital, guess what? He is not counted as a Covid death in this study, because the death occurred more than 30 days after a positive Covid test. So he is counted as a non covid death.

You have to pick a cutoff to measure deaths.

The UK originally had no cutoff - and ended up inflating the true COVID mortality figure by about 2%. The cases of COVID are skewed towards high ages, obviously, and old people are quite likely to die.

We (the ONS - it was non-political) made a change to within 28 days of a COVID test. That will sometimes undercount - and sometimes overcount.

THH

Quote from Mark U

Here's the kicker : What if the flu vaccine - received by all the people who did not get the Covid vaccine - was a main driver for the higher death rate in that group? Oh oh..

Well, if you are an antivaxer any hypothesis is believable I guess. You are used to extravagant flights of fancy.

However there is both theoretical and empirical evidence that Flu vaccines reduce COVID deaths. Not strong, because in this area getting any evidence short of a phase III RCT is difficult. But still something.

THH

CDC Slips in Guideline that Immunocompromised Can Get Fourth Dose

CDC Slips in Guideline that Immunocompromised Can Get Fourth Dose

Apparently, the shots may keep coming—especially for the immunocompromised—as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated their

trialsitenews.com

Apparently, the shots may keep coming—especially for the immunocompromised—as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated their guidelines. The CDC considers this fourth shot an actual “booster.” As it turns out, the CDC suggests that those with immunocompromised scenarios are essentially considered a different cohort than all else. Their third vaccine dose isn’t a booster but rather an “additional dose” with the same amount of dosage as the previous jabs.

While it’s not apparent what clinical trials have led to this decision, the immunocompromised fourth dose is now classified as a booster. This seems to be a lot of shots in a particular inoculation period. The recommendation of the fourth booster at greater than six months post the third jab applies to those individuals 18 and up that are “moderately to severely immunocompromised” who have completed the vaccine series from Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson and Johnson

Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

$4 antidepressant shows promise against early COVID-19 symptoms; more study needed

https://www.9news.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/cheap-fluvoxamine-treatment-for-covid-shows-promise/507-5b6d6569-2c5c-4c66-8da2-6a628f04c682

The results on fluvoxamine against COVID-19 came in a study looking at existing drugs that could be repurposed to treat the coronavirus.

Author: CARLA K. JOHNSON AP Medical Writer

Published: 9:38 PM MDT October 27, 2021

Updated: 9:38 PM MDT October 27, 2021

A cheap antidepressant reduced the need for hospitalization among high-risk adults with COVID-19 in a study hunting for existing drugs that could be repurposed to treat coronavirus.

Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder because it was known to reduce inflammation and looked promising in smaller studies.

They've shared the results with the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which publishes treatment guidelines, and they hope for a World Health Organization recommendation.

“If WHO recommends this, you will see it widely taken up,” said study co-author Dr. Edward Mills of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, adding that many poor nations have the drug readily available. “We hope it will lead to a lot of lives saved.”

The pill, called fluvoxamine, would cost $4 for a course of COVID-19 treatment. By comparison, antibody IV treatments cost about $2,000 and Merck's experimental antiviral pill for COVID-19 is about $700 per course. Some experts predict various treatments eventually will be used in combination to fight the coronavirus.

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial

DEFINE_ME