Covid-19 News

Quote from Fm1

ouTube pointed to those comments as example of content that violated its standards about “COVID-19 medical misinformation.”

Let the idiots rule the world!! In Switzerland kids never had to wear masks...

Quote from Fm1

With an increasing number of patients being admitted to intensive care units, rising infections and not enough vaccinations, Germany is trying to manage another Covid-19 resurgence.

Germany is a free masons rotary ruled country since ever. Even the last king joined them.

Free mason are corrupt down to the bones and only want to take as much state money as possible.

Why do churches always burn during repairs? (since ever) Why are most large building project in Germany delayed by active sabotage?

So the poor German people are again in their Home KZ ... Because the FM/R mafia locks in Ivermectin!

Ivermectin paper removed.

https://www.the-scientist.com/…per-pre-publication-68505

Mean While in Montreal Canada

twin City to Moscow Russia.

https://www.rebelnews.com/lockdown_reports

The number of excess deaths in U.S. in 2020 is close to the number of COVID-19 deaths. Some of the excess deaths may have been from other diseases not treated, or from COVID-19 patients who died at home untreated. The number of excess deaths in Russia is considerably above the reported COVID-19 deaths.

Here is a table from the N.Y. Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…e/covid-russia-death.html

Quote from sam12

Ivermectin paper removed.

Has been reported by Corry's podcast already a week ago. The editors - usually members of the FM/R/J mafia had to satisfy their mafia round table friends.

The free masons playbook is clear: Something really dangerous (Ivermectin) does not even be mentioned the negative way. Tee word "Ivermectin" is banned from all major journals because:

- You can also treat the flue with it.

- Zikka

- Westnil, Hanta,..virus

- and you might get rid of some gut parasites (Lemblia, Giardina,) that cause long time damage in your body what leads to lower chemo sales and less expensive treatments. And all this at more or less no cost...Ask your horse....

Corona Inhibitors: X-ray Screening Identifies Promising Drugs for Treatment of COVID-19

https://scitechdaily.com/coron…reatment-of-covid-19/amp/

Extensive X-ray screening reveals binding to key virus protein.

A team of researchers, including scientists from the MPSD, has identified several candidates for drugs against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus using the PETRA III X-ray light source at the German Electron Synchrotron (DESY). They bind to an important protein of the virus and could thus be the basis for a drug against Covid-19. In a so-called X-ray screening, the DESY-led research team tested almost 6000 known active substances that already exist for the treatment of other diseases in a short amount of time. After measuring about 7000 samples, the team was able to identify a total of 37 substances that bind to the main protease (Mpro) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as the scientists report online today in the journal Science. Seven of these substances inhibit the activity of the protein and thus slow down the multiplication of the virus. Two of them do this so promisingly that they are currently under further investigation in preclinical studies. This drug screening – probably the largest of its kind – also revealed a new binding site on the main protease of the virus to which drugs can couple.

In contrast to vaccines, which help healthy people to defend themselves against the virus, drug research is looking for drugs that slow down or stop the reproduction of the virus in the body of people who are already infected. Viruses cannot reproduce on their own. Instead, they introduce their own genetic material into the cells of their host and make them produce new viruses. Proteins such as the main protease of the virus play an important role in this process. Protease cuts protein chains produced by the host cell according to the blueprint of the virus genetic material into smaller parts that are necessary for the reproduction of the virus. If the main protease can be blocked, the cycle can possibly be interrupted; the virus can no longer reproduce and the infection is defeated.

Beamline P11 of DESY´s PETRA III research lightsource specializes in structural biology studies. Here, the three-dimensional structure of proteins can be imaged with atomic precision. The research team led by DESY physicist Alke Meents used this special capability to examine several thousand active substances to see whether and how they “dock” to the main protease – the first important step in blocking it. Like a key in a lock, the drug molecule fits into a binding center of the protease. Since these active substances have already been approved for the treatment of humans or are currently being tested, suitable candidates to combat SARS-CoV-2 could therefore be used in clinical trials considerably faster, saving months or years of drug development.

Judge orders Batavia hospital to treat coronavirus patient with Ivermectin

https://buffalonews.com/news/l…eb-87cf-2bd34f11d3c2.html

State Supreme Court justice has ordered a Batavia hospital to administer the drug Ivermectin to an 81-year-old Covid-19 patient.

The case involving John W. Swanson, a farmer from Stafford in Genesee County, is the latest of several in which judges have ordered local hospitals to give Ivermectin to patients suffering from the virus. The drug is used to treat other ailments but is not yet approved by the federal government as a Covid-19 treatment.

Swanson was on a ventilator and “on death’s doorstep,” at the United Memorial Medical Center when doctors there gave him one dose of Ivermectin on April 1, according to an affidavit filed in court by attorneys for Swanson’s wife, Sandra.

“After that one dose, he started breathing on his own. He was taken off the ventilator and was making great progress,” said attorney Ralph C. Lorigo, who represents the Swanson family with Jon F. Minear. “Then, the hospital refused to give him additional doses.”

State Supreme Court Justice Frederick J. Marshall issued an order on April 2, directing the hospital to give Swanson four more doses of Ivermectin.

As of late Friday afternoon, his attorneys described Swanson as “stable.”

“I definitely think the Ivermectin is helping him,” Sandra Swanson told The Buffalo News, but she said she is upset and frustrated that hospital officials would not allow her to visit with her husband.

“They held the phone to his ear, and I read him a long list of people who are praying for him every day, about 20 people,” she said. “But I need to see him.”

While Ivermectin is not yet approved by the Food & Drug Administration as a treatment for Covid-19, many doctors – including some in Western New York – are offering the drug to their Covid-19 patients.

A hospital spokeswoman, Veronica R. Chiesi, declined to comment on Swanson’s case.

South African variant can 'break through' Pfizer vaccine, Israeli study says

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2BX0JZ

The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can "break through" Pfizer/BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found, though its prevalence in the country is low and the research has not been peer reviewed.

The study, released on Saturday, compared almost 400 people who had tested positive for COVID-19, 14 days or more after they received one or two doses of the vaccine, against the same number of unvaccinated patients with the disease. It matched age and gender, among other characteristics.

The South African variant, B.1.351, was found to make up about 1% of all the COVID-19 cases across all the people studied, according to the study by Tel Aviv University and Israel's largest healthcare provider, Clalit.

But among patients who had received two doses of the vaccine, the variant's prevalence rate was eight times higher than those unvaccinated - 5.4% versus 0.7%.

This suggests the vaccine is less effective against the South African variant, compared with the original coronavirus and a variant first identified in Britain that has come to comprise nearly all COVID-19 cases in Israel, the researchers said.

"We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine's protection," said Tel Aviv University's Adi Stern.

The researchers cautioned, though, that the study only had a small sample size of people infected with the South African variant because of its rarity in Israel.

Quote from Fm1

South African variant can 'break through' Pfizer vaccine, Israeli study says

Pfizer knows this latest since November last year from a smaller 20 blood sample test. They already run a phase III test for a modified vaccine...

It's all about maximizing profits: Selling outdated vaccines and clandestine replacing it by the tuned one.

In Switzerland the RSA cases are very low in number (0.01%). Brasil (E484) is more dominant (1.5%) and growing.

Next step/phase in the free masons playbook to shed away interest from a dangerous (profit reduction) solution:

https://covid19criticalcare.co…tegy-to-end-the-pandemic/

The same playbook has been extensively used by the Tobacco mafia to dissipate concerns from medical findings like tobacco causes cancer.

So what the mafia journalist say: Oh, all the people with late Covid did not recover from Ivermectin - this was just natural like the cancer from tobacco...

All large journals in the western world are owned by the FM/R/J mafia. As their top mafia board has only one goal make profit out of your damage it is obvious what is wrong. I canceled all journals some years ago already. I do not finance the mafia. Nor I'm interested in the opinions of fascist minds, that today hide behind old once renowned journals.

Question... 1/3 of the world is taking Chinese vaccine, how will this stop the pandemic?

Official: Chinese vaccines’ effectiveness low

https://apnews.com/article/bei…b5710c7329823148ffbff6ef9

In a rare admission of the weakness of Chinese coronavirus vaccines, the country’s top disease control official says their effectiveness is low and the government is considering mixing them to get a boost.

Chinese vaccines “don’t have very high protection rates,” said the director of the China Centers for Disease Control, Gao Fu, at a conference Saturday in the southwestern city of Chengdu.

Beijing has distributed hundreds of millions of doses abroad while trying to promote doubt about the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine made using the previously experimental messenger RNA, or mRNA, process.

“It’s now under formal consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process,” Gao said.

Randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of ivermectin versus placebo to negativize nasopharyngeal PCR in patients with early COVID-19 in Peru (SAINT-Peru): a structured summary of a study protocol for randomized controlled trial

https://www.docwirenews.com/ab…ummary-of-a-study-pr/amp/

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine the effect of a daily dose of ivermectin administered in three consecutive days to non-severe COVID-19 patients with no more than 96 hours of symptoms, on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs at day seven post-treatment initiation. The secondary objectives are: 1. To assess the efficacy of ivermectin to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the nasopharyngeal swab on days 4, 7, 14 and 21 post-treatment initiation 2. To assess the efficacy of ivermectin on the improvement of symptoms 3. To assess the proportion of seroconversions at day 21 4. To assess the safety of ivermectin at the proposed dose 5. To determine the magnitude of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 6. To assess correlation of the presence of intestinal helminths on participants on baseline and day 14 with COVID-19 progression and treatment.

TRIAL DESIGN: SAINT PERU is a triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with two parallel arms to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin in negativizing nasopharyngeal PCR in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PARTICIPANTS: The trial is conducted in two national hospitals in Lima-Peru. The study population is patients with a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in a nasopharyngeal specimen, symptomatic for 96 hours or less, with non-severe COVID-19 disease at baseline, regardless of the presence of risk factors for progression to severity. The study will not include pregnant women or minors (17 years old or younger). Inclusion criteria 1. COVID-19 symptomatology (cough, fever, anosmia, etc.) lasting no more than 96 hours, with a positive nasopharyngeal swab PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. 2. 18 years or older. 3. No use of ivermectin in the month prior to the visit. 4. No known history of ivermectin allergy. 5. Capable to give informed consent. 6. Not current use of CYP 3A4 or P-gp inhibitor drugs such as quinidine, amiodarone, diltiazem, spironolactone, verapamil, clarithromycin, erythromycin, itraconazole, ketoconazole, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, indinavir, ritonavir, cobicistat or critical CYP3A4 substrate drugs such as warfarin. Exclusion criteria 1. COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosed by the attending physician (oxygen saturation < 95% or lung examination) 2. Positive pregnancy test for women at childbearing age. 3. Positive IgG against SARS-CoV-2 by rapid diagnostic test at screening. Participants will be recruited by the investigators at the emergency services of the study sites. They are expected to remain in the trial for a period of 21 days. Follow-up visits will be conducted by the trial medical staff at the participant’s home or at a hospital in case of hospitalization. Follow-up visits will assess clinical and laboratory parameters of the patients.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Ivermectin (300 mcg/kg) or placebo will be administered in one daily dose for three consecutive days. Currently, there is no solid data on the efficacy of ivermectin against the virus in vivo; therefore the use of placebo in the control group is ethically justified.

MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary Proportion of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab at day 7 post-treatment. Secondary 1. Mean viral load as determined by PCR cycle threshold (Ct) on days 4, 7, 14, and 21 2. Proportion of patients with fever and cough at days 4, 7, 14, and 21 as well as proportion of patients progressing to severe disease or death during the trial 2. Proportion of patients with a positive rapid diagnostic test at day 21 3. Proportion of drug-related adverse events during the trial 4. Median levels of IgG, IgM, IgA measured by Luminex RANDOMIZATION: Participants will be randomized to receive one dose of 300 mcg/kg ivermectin or placebo daily for three consecutive days. The epidemiologist will generate a list of correlative numbers, in randomized blocks of size 4, with the assignment to the treatment groups (a and b). The randomization list will be kept in an encrypted file accessible only to the trial statistician. This list will be handed directly to the pharmacist. Independently, the principal investigator will randomly assign the intervention (ivermectin) to one of the two groups (a or b) by tossing a coin, and will inform the pharmacist of the result of this process. The pharmacist will prepare and label the treatment vials according to the randomization list prepared by the epidemiologist and the treatment assignment given by the principal investigator. Eligible patients will be allocated in a 1:1 ratio using this randomization list.

BLINDING (MASKING): The clinical trial team, the statistician, and the patients will be blinded as to arm allocation. The vials with placebo will be visibly identical to the ones with the active drug. Treatment will be administered by staff not involved in the clinical care or participant’s follow up.

NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): The planned sample size is 186 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive patients: 93 patients to treatment and 93 to the placebo group.

TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol version: 2.0 dated January 15th, 2021. Recruitment started on Aug 29th, 2020. Recruitment is expected to be completed April 30th 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: “Ensayo Clínico aleatorizado de Fase IIa para comparar la efectividad de la ivermectina versus placebo en la negativización del PCR en pacientes en fase temprana de COVID-19” Peru National Health Institute REPEC with number: PER-034-20 , registered July 17th 2020 (National Peruvian Registration before the first participant enrolled). “Randomized Phase IIA Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Ivermectin to Obtain Negative PCR Results in Patients With Early Phase COVID-19” Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04635943 , retrospectively registered in November 19th 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

PMID:33836826 | DOI:10.1186/s13063-021-05236-2

Quote from Shane D.

If so, this opens up the proverbial can-of-worms. Everything we have been told based on the PCR tests would have to be reevaluated...reported case numbers, and deaths attributed to COVID for starters.

Worthy enough news not to be relegated mostly to obscure websites.

If more than 80% of positives were false positives then that would be a huge problem. It must only be some limited numbers of machines that give that many false positives (i.e. more than 80%). I did some digging but haven't reached any conclusions.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90508

So how does a qualitative RT-PCR test work? Basically, the manufacturer sets the test to turn off the cycling or amplification process when a certain number is hit. For a qualitative test set at 40, after 40 amplification cycles, if any viral material is detected, it turns off and is reported as positive. If none is detected, it would be reported as negative. If the number of amplification cycles was really 15 or 25, it would still run until it gets to 40 and be reported as positive.

With these type of tests, it's critical to use an agreed-upon cycle threshold value such as 33 (CDC) or 35 (Dr. Fauci) rather than setting it at a potentially misleading 40 or 45. Many of the current tests in use are preset by the manufacturer to these higher numbers.

The World Health Organization issued a notice last week telling the labs "the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise." Could this be a reason why many people test positive but remain asymptomatic? In that same memo, WHO said all labs should report the cycle threshold value to treating physicians.

A quantitative test is designed to come up with the actual cycle threshold value as the cycling process turns off when detecting any virus. There is not a preset value, so a quantitative measure is obtained. A test that registers a positive result after 12 rounds of amplification for a Ct value of 12 starts out with 10 million times as much viral genetic material as a sample with a Ct value of 35. Above that level, Fauci has said the test is just finding destroyed nucleotides, not virus capable of replicating.

https://www.facebook.com/theja…r/posts/10158440117444864

it may play if you open it , its a ear full of whats going down all over the planet.

Quote from j9381

If more than 80% of positives were false positives then that would be a huge problem.

May be JulianBianchi can shed some light behind the szene.

What are the real world positive rates after e.g. 25,28,30,32 Cycles??

We know that in the Israel Ivermectin trial they started with 25 cycles and went up to 32 to qualify people free of virus.

But positive after 32 cycles does not mean that you ever will develop symptoms! Or spread the virus!

its why guys like Jed will not stop. he is protecting his family thinking this trap is un breakable. no way to ashore< him that the tech and ccp are not the most powerful on the earth, they are not.

Quote from j9381

If more than 80% of positives were false positives then that would be a huge problem.

I don't see how that could be. The numbers would not agree with other numbers, such as hospital admissions, deaths, excess deaths for the year, and so on. Also, doctors and others would surely notice such a gigantic discrepancy.

There are always false positives and false negatives in tests of this nature. There is always a margin of error. But researchers and doctors are careful to measure these things as best they can. They realize that false positives are a problem and must be estimated. They must be accounted for. An 80% false positive rate would make the test useless. People would see that. Most patients who took the test, got a positive result, and self-quarantined would report back to the doctor that nothing happened. They never developed any symptoms. There would be no antibodies in their bloodstream. The doctors would realize the test is not working.

Quote from JedRothwell

There are always false positives and false negatives in tests of this nature. There is always a margin of error.

The term false positive is misleading. If you are positive after 30..32 cycles then in the best case a few virus live in your nose what will, normally, not make you ill. So the right term is: You don't have covid under these conditions.

I would, after two days, retest all people that show marginal positive results. Then there is still enough time to treat them. If these already show symptoms, then its a different story. CoV-19 can (to a low percentage) also directly go the the lung without staying in the nose.

So people are always over simplifying the stuff.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The term false positive is misleading. If you are positive after 30..32 cycles then in the best case a few virus live in your nose what will, normally, not make you ill. So the right term is: You don't have covid under these conditions.

I would, after two days, retest all people that show marginal positive results. Then there is still enough time to treat them. If these already show symptoms, then its a different story. CoV-19 can (to a low percentage) also directly go the the lung without staying in the nose.

So people are always over simplifying the stuff.

Good data from Spain. 40% of PCR tests historically in Spain were non-infectious.

Two multiplications and we get the corrected case counts and deaths. I expect all the west is in about the same situation.