Covid-19 News

  • I think the UK volunteers taking the new vaccine to find out if it works against SARS-2 virus are extremely brave individuals (some are doing is purely for the £4000 cash grant to them). However, was this ever tried against the HIV?

    As far as I know, no AIDS vaccine has ever gotten past preliminary tests. I think it is extremely unlikely they ever vaccinated someone and then deliberately gave him or her AIDS. The only thing I heard about was vaccinating populations at risk and then waiting to see if the vaccinated individuals got sick. It would be a terrible thing to give someone AIDS deliberately because there is no natural acquired immunity to it, and because it lasts a lifetime, whereas most people recover from COVID-19 after a few weeks.


    Here is a history of AIDS vaccine research, which list the reason why no vaccine has been successfully developed so far:


    https://www.historyofvaccines.…/development-hiv-vaccines

  • Here is what I do not think:

    Nye knows darn well that cold fusion is real. He is part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny that and spread lies in the mass media.

    I agree. Nye has no inclination to look at the data himself, he just takes the word of wikipedia, or whatever.


    This is not the case with "Fauci, Redfield, Birx, Bright" as per the petition below. They actively thwarted outpatient treatment - known for decades to be safe - that would keep tens or hundreds of thousands of people out of the hospitals. The buck stops with them in their respective organizations.


    Quote

    In March 2020, Fauci, Redfield, Birx, Bright were insubordinate to POTUS and blocked HCQ / Zelenko Protocol access to the American people in the pre-hospital setting. As a result, over 160k people were hospitalized and died unnecessarily. Lets make life saving treatment available and end the pandemic. Let’s bring these criminals to justice.

  • This is not the case with "Fauci, Redfield, Birx, Bright" as per the petition below. They actively thwarted outpatient treatment - known for decades to be safe - that would keep tens or hundreds of thousands of people out of the hospitals.

    The thing is, they have scientifically valid reasons for doing this. They can cite studies showing the treatment does not work. That does not mean they are right. Any scientist dealing with a novel disease might be wrong. But you can be sure they sincerely believe what they say, because they have sterling reputations and they have done fantastic work for several GOP and Democratic administrations.


    It is okay to say you disagree with them, or that they have made a grievous mistake. It is not okay to say they are lying; they have some nefarious plan, and they are trying to kill people. That's outrageous. You have no proof of that. It would be totally out of character. Furthermore, every relevant expert in the world is working on COVID-19, and closely watching what these people do. If many of these outside experts disagreed, they would not hesitate to say so. There would be much more controversy than there is. There is always some degree of controversy in science, but it would be much greater if this was not the general consensus.


    Again, just because this is the consensus, that does not mean it is right. But it does mean this is not a crime and not some scheme to kill people. No large group of scientists would agree to a consensus that they think kills people. They cannot all be engaged in a conspiracy.

  • I don't believe they were "trying to kill people". (You have a way with the dramatic Jed.) But neither are they trying to save them. I conclude that they just don't care much about the health outcome of people, or if they do, it is superseded by other concerns. Yes, it seems they care about something else, enough to aggressively act against a promising medical protocol. What they care about is probably some combination of a political, financial, ideological or egotistical end, I can't say for sure. Again, they went out of their way to actively suppress a treatment that some independent doctors in the US, and entire other countries, have embraced to noteworthy effect. This unexpected, deliberative, active suppression reminds me of the deliberate, active fraud of the people behind the fake Lancet study. Why would they do such a thing? What was their motivation to go out of their way and go to the seeming conscience-defying effort of fabricating data against hydroxychloroquine? It seems too bizarre to even contemplate. I conclude that the people behind that fake study don't care much about people, they don't care much about truth, but they do care about something else. Then there is the simplifying possibility that they were just good little soldiers following orders from higher up.

  • I don't believe they were "trying to kill people". (You have a way with the dramatic Jed.) But neither are they trying to save them. I conclude that they just don't care much about the health outcome of people, or if they do, it is superseded by other concerns. Yes, it seems they care about something else, enough to aggressively act against a promising medical protocol. What they care about is probably some combination of a political, financial, ideological or egotistical end, I can't say for sure. Again, they went out of their way to actively suppress a treatment that some independent doctors in the US, and entire other countries, have embraced to noteworthy effect. This unexpected, deliberative, active suppression reminds me of the deliberate, active fraud of the people behind the fake Lancet study. Why would they do such a thing? What was their motivation to go out of their way and go to the seeming conscience-defying effort of fabricating data against hydroxychloroquine? It seems too bizarre to even contemplate. I conclude that the people behind that fake study don't care much about people, they don't care much about truth, but they do care about something else. Then there is the simplifying possibility that they were just good little soldiers following orders from higher up.


    So I promised to leave the whole HCQ thing alone, and i have mostly, but this is too much.


    Mark U thinks that the US medical establishment not allowing HCQ/zinc treatment of COVID is because they just don't care much about health outcomes.


    talk about armchair medics second guessing those with difficult decisions!


    During COVID:

    (1) we do not know (initially) what works (if anything)

    (2) we have history showing that all sorts of possible treatments anecdotally advocated as cures to new diseases not only do not help but actually cause harm. We know that finding useful anti-virals for new viruses has proven really difficult tin the past

    (3) We have people dying, and every single doctor is strongly motivated to stop that.


    Many here (e.g. Dr. R.) take the "more is better approach" to unproven treatments. OK, we can't be sure, but there is anecdotal info that X or Y or Z helps, let us add it to a treatment.


    Then some people here view the (larger part) of the medical establishment, who don't support "more is better" as either uncaring and callous (Mark U) or criminal, deliberately causing harm (Toffoli).


    What both miss is the reason so many doctors don't support "more is better" approach to pandemic treatments.


    There is a very good life-saving reason for that. It is then a matter of medical judgement - not moral culpability - how much you relax that reason when a disease is so bad that it kills people, with no known cure.


    Where your treatment is guaranteed safe it is difficult to argue against giving it. Except that no treatment is guaranteed safe. Take HCQ. Quite safe, but it is known to chnage immune response in complex ways. Therefore in later stages of COVID no-one can know without very careful testing whether it does harm or not.


    Giving HCQ is a gamble based on:

    maybe it is useful for its anti-viral properties

    let us hope the effect on late-stage cytokine storm is not negative.


    Now, I promised to stay out of these two questions, so i will.


    But they are valid questions, and your answers to them, if you do care about people's lives, determines whether you encourage HCQ/zinc treatment or ban it.


    I have no patience for people here thinking they are morally superior to those tasked with making these difficult decisions. Nor do iIhave much sympathy with people thinking they are better at judging medical risk and reward than those people. Some here might be: or maybe none are. not easy for anyone to know.


    And thus Zelencko - throwing around these accusations - seems to me to be despicable, I can't understand why he does it except he is so close to the situation he cannot see the wood for the trees,. and has the supreme arrogance of an ignorant person who does not realise they are ignorant.


    THH

  • Firstly, Zelenko targeted just four specific individuals in his petition to the White House, not some nebulous "larger part of the medical establishment" as you put it. Why you change it like that is beyond me.

    Secondly, "tasked with making difficult decisions"? How about the natural and default "decision" to let the doctors of America choose how to treat their patients with decades old approved medicines.

    Thirdly, it is only a petition, but it is done as a matter of principle and historic record and as a reminder to the unelected officials in bureaucratic positions of power that they are not above the scathing scrutiny of the citizens of America.

  • Hydroxychloroquine isn't needed to treat covid 19. It has been successful because through some mechanism in the imune systems it allows zinc to be efficiently absorbed. Vitamin D does the same thing, and more. Vitamin D regulates your body's imune system response releasing t and b cells, deficient and the storm takes over, both cytokine and Bradykinin. Take vitamin D, zinc, vitamin c and vitamn B1 through the fall and winter months. Remember the WHO just endorsed dexamethasone and I provided a link a page back to show why it works and again Vitamin D is the reason!

  • They can cite studies showing the treatment does not work. That does not mean they are right.

    JED: As you are a member of the F mafia your are obliged to spread this nonsense. There is no study that shows HCQ doesn't work as proposed in the Zelenko/Rauolt protocol. There are many fake studies paid by your friends (also the ones in WHO) that just want to tell the public that it doesn't work.

    Germany does make wide spread use of HCQ as most doctors still swear the oath for humanity and not the one for the free masons/rotary support. May be you once check the deaths/cases.

  • I don't believe they were "trying to kill people". (You have a way with the dramatic Jed.)

    Not me. Zelenko says they are guilty of "Crimes Against Humanity / Mass Murder." That is dramatic.

    But neither are they trying to save them. I conclude that they just don't care much about the health outcome of people, or if they do, it is superseded by other concerns.

    Their careers and publications show that you are completely wrong about that. The fact that they are standing up to Trump shows they have guts, and they will support science over politics.

    Yes, it seems they care about something else, enough to aggressively act against a promising medical protocol. What they care about is probably some combination of a political, financial, ideological or egotistical end, I can't say for sure.

    I can say for sure. I take their statements at face value. I believe they are telling the truth about their own judgements. Based on their best scientific judgement, they do not think this protocol is promising. You do, and some of the people here do, but I suppose Fauci knows more about this than you do. He is probably right, and you and Zelenko are probably wrong. In any case, you have no business claiming they have ulterior motives or they don't care about people's lives. As I said, you cannot read people's minds.


    Here is one lesson that cold fusion teaches, that I know better than just about anyone. The experts are usually right, and the amateurs are usually wrong. The people who have done the hard work in the labs or with epidemiology are right, and the wannabe non-experts -- including scientists -- are wrong. When experts say something is true, and amateurs such as you say it is not true, and you go on to say say those experts have some unspoken nefarious motivation and they are lying, it is 99.99999% certain you are wrong.


  • Hydroxychloroquine isn't needed to treat covid 19. It has been successful because through some mechanism in the imune systems it allows zinc to be efficiently absorbed. Vitamin D does the same thing, and more. Vitamin D regulates your body's imune system response releasing t and b cells, deficient and the storm takes over, both cytokine and Bradykinin. Take vitamin D, zinc, vitamin c and vitamn B1 through the fall and winter months. Remember the WHO just endorsed dexamethasone and I provided a link a page back to show why it works and again Vitamin D is the reason!

    HCQ has many mechanisms of action that have been established. Multiple things going on here. We can get into the research if interested.

  • Standard masks do help to reduce 50% of virus load! (only!)

    "Only" is the wrong word here. 50% is a lot. Combine that with hand washing or surgical gloves, and social distancing, and you can reduce the Rt transmission rate below 1. The number of infections begins to decline, rather than increasing.


    50% does not guarantee that you or any one person will be safe, but it greatly increases the chances you will be safe. Also, it reduces the Rt, which also increases your safety. A mask is good for you, and good for everyone else. It is a stopgap measure, not as good as a vaccine, but much better than nothing.


    Here is another study of masks. This one shows a droplet reduction of about 90% compared to no mask. (The droplets mass is are not the same as the viral load, but it is close):


    Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech


    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083

  • JED: As you are a member of the F mafia your are obliged to spread this nonsense.

    As a lunatic conspiracy theory believer, you feel compelled to spread that nonsense. If I were actually obligated, I suppose it would be because I am paid, so at least I would be getting something out of it, unlike you. Alas, I am not obligated or paid.


    I think you should refrain from accusing people here of being members of the mafia or some other malevolent organization. You have no evidence for this. It is not polite. It makes you look like an idiot. I should say, it reveals that you are an idiot.

  • Standard masks do help to reduce 50% of virus load! (only!) FP95 about 90% (only!)


    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/n…-masks-block-coronavirus/

    That seems to apply only in a coughing scenario.

    I wonder, among other things:

    1) how the size of particles from nebulizer compares to that of normal human breath.

    2) how they quantified the viral amounts


    This review does a meta analysis on the effectiveness of surgical masks in the general population to reduce ARI (acute respiratory illness):

    https://www.frontiersin.org/ar…389/fmed.2020.564280/full


    "Results: A total of 23,892 participants between 7 and 89 years old involved across 15 studies from 11 countries were involved. Key settings identified were Hajj, schools, and in-flight settings. A modest but non-significant protective effect of SM on ARI incidence was observed (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.8–1.15). Subgroup analysis according to age group, outcome ascertainment and different non-healthcare settings also revealed no significant associations between SM use and ARI incidence.

    Conclusion: Surgical mask wearing among individuals in non-healthcare settings is not significantly associated with reduction in ARI incidence in this meta-review."

  • A modest but non-significant protective effect of SM on ARI incidence was observed (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.8–1.15).

    The agreement is that you gain at most a 30%-50% protection from aerosols. There was an advanced test initiated by Swiss TV that did look at aerosols too. The big gain is that spreaders produce fine aerosols that lead to a huge number of soft infections that will immunize most of the population.


    We currently see exactly this effect in Europe. We (Switzerland) now have 8x the number of infections/100'000 than USA but almost all are harmless and the death rate (<0.1%) is tiny as the true experts say since long time.

    The only problem are old and vulnerable people that directly meet a super spreader.

  • The motivation for banning anti-bat therapy must have come from the central government directive, as Wyttenbach noted, the powers that control central government by groups like the Dominic Cummings think tanks, MENSA, freemasonry, scientologists and we might as well throw in the illuminati and knights of the flaming rose etc, etc,,,,,,,,my point is it doesn't really matter who or why the order was given by or for what reason, the Zelenko Four can not be held responsible for it . Somebody in the higher echelons certainly screwed up so specific individuals cannot be blamed, They were just the foot soldiers as @MU surmised. It was probably the Seven Ringmasters of Tolkein's Fable the Lord of the Rings!