Covid-19 News

  • So why should I personally, with my particular set of circumstances, take the vaccine?

    I already got my first shot at 8.20 am this morning..and have not ever had Covid,

    I commented to the man from Yorkshire next to me

    "Ey up..Welcome to experimental science". He laughed then we moved onto talking about the UK.

    The weather is better here.

    The Covid vaccination/testing station is located on a former research science precinct

    now converted to a Business park with apartments(with Chinese finance)


    The only reason I would do a vaccine in your situation is if the powers=that-be

    start requiring vaccination certs for travel.


    As far as clotting risk.. the evidence from experimental science suggests

    that the risk of VITT clotting is low.


    Four of my pre- injection questions were directed at establishing that I had low clotting risk.

    Despite this prescreening we might expect 1 or 2 deaths at least

    among the 20 million doses to the over 50's

    that will be administered in the current rollout.


    "among 20.2 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the U.K., as of March 31. Of these, 44 were CVST and 35 were thromboses in major veins. These events occurred among 51 women and 28 men ages 18 to 79 years, among whom 19 died (13 women, 6 men). Of those who died, 11 were under age 50, and three were under 30. Fourteen had CVST with thrombocytopenia and five had thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/s…-reports/exclusives/92022

  • If Wyttenbach doesn't cut out his ad nauseam ad hominems (everyone who disagrees with him is a criminal/cult person), I'm going to filter him.

    Do you out yourself as a free mason too? Only JED so far shows clearly a criminal behavior. But he is a FM member. I follow these (FM/R/J) people since more than 15 years and can detect them without problems.

    JED did block me. So this is the last proof we needed...

    So why should I personally, with my particular set of circumstances, take the vaccine? If one gets Covid, they usually have a few days to fight it off, take ivermecton, etc. My friend got NO chance from a blood clot. No matter of days.

    This is exactly why the RNA vaccine is a no go for younger people age <45. Above it depends on preconditions.


    As said since 4 months now: If you have to vaccinate take J&J or Astra Zenenca. The cloth risk 4-10x lower at least. For J&J its a genetic precondition. These people would also die if they get Heparin.


    According BBC: 11 members of a care home, fully vaccinated, got very sick --> hospital - from the Indian strain. So vaccination gives no protection from a severe illness. Luckily so far all survived what indicates the vaccine at least did cause a minimal T-Cell memory. A normal infection will give you a much broader T-Cell memory than any vaccine can do.

  • This is how official looking site spread fake news:

    https://www.cmdrcoe.org/fls/CO…9_report_part_31_2021.pdf


    200 million vaccine doses no deaths.....


    As said >6000 in Europe alone even if we assume 90% are coincidental then still far to many do remain.


    For sceptics: Just compare the same figures taken from other vaccines e.g. for flu.


    The other question is: Why do Twitter, Facebook delete posts about vaccination deaths? Why are only a few boarder line death cases in the press and not the 6000 other ones?


    Answer: It's all about profit: And e.g. Facebook is entirely dependent on big industry advertisements.


    Why does this forum no longer list this thread?? Same answer....This prevents google indexing!


    The only reason I would do a vaccine in your situation is if the powers=that-be

    start requiring vaccination certs for travel.


    Welcome in XXXXXXX. Only Eugenic people will be allowed to survive.

  • True?


    CORONAVIRUS

    UW study estimates there have been twice as many COVID deaths as reported

    A research institution whose projections were often cited by the White House has a new estimate for how many deaths COVID-19 has actually caused.


    https://www.king5.com/amp/arti…0e-443c-beef-67d78415d5e7


    WASHINGTON — The researchers behind a key coronavirus projection now estimate the COVID-19 pandemic has actually caused 6.9 million deaths worldwide, more than double what official numbers show.


    The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington School of Medicine was regularly cited by the Trump administration early in the coronavirus pandemic for its projections on COVID-19 cases and deaths.

    The research organization said Thursday its new analysis found deaths have been significantly underreported in almost every country.


    As of Thursday, the official death count was 3.2 million globally and 579,929 in the U.S, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. However, according to IHME, the COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. is more than 905,000.


    In India, which has seen its daily cases break records almost daily, the IHME said the death toll is likely more than 654,000, not the 221,000 officially reported by India's health agency.


    “As terrible as the COVID-19 pandemic appears, this analysis shows that the actual toll is significantly worse,” said Dr. Chris Murray, IHME’s director. “Understanding the true number of COVID-19 deaths not only helps us appreciate the magnitude of this global crisis, but also provides valuable information to policymakers developing response and recovery plans.”


    As part of the new methodology to determine COVID-19 deaths, IHME said it compared anticipated deaths from all causes based on pre-pandemic trends with the actual number of all-cause deaths during the pandemic. Researchers then took this “excess mortality” figure and removed deaths that were indirectly attributable to the pandemic.


    The research institution explained in its announcement that many deaths from COVID-19 have gone unreported because countries only report deaths that occur in hospitals or when patients have a confirmed infection.

    In many places, weak health reporting systems and low access to health care magnify this challenge," the group said in a press release.

    The Trump administration had often brought up IHME's projections during the daily COVID-19 briefings. While the group's estimates provided a range of where the number of fatalities would fall, often the forecasts for COVID-19 deaths underestimated the numbers reported throughout the pandemic.

  • If the FDA has not even discussed ivermectin, then why are doctors "disappointed at the stance of regulatory bodies such as the FDA," as reported above? What are they disappointed about? Here is the FDA statement. I would say they have discussed it in this statement. They say they have not reviewed test data yet but "some initial research is underway." However, they give various reasons why they think it is a bad idea.


    https://www.fda.gov/consumers/…treat-or-prevent-covid-19


    The FDA may not have done an official evaluation of the test data yet, but other experts have published various opinions of the test data. Some pro, others con. There does not appear to be a consensus. I don't know what to make of it.

    Jed, you keep referring to the experts, just who are these experts, names please and the studies that prove those statements on ivermectin. I doubt you can provide one name along with a study to back their statement! I have provided all studies to you for some weekend reading some months ago. Had you bothered to read even one study you would understand, ivermectin is not a dangerous drug that the NIH has made it out to be. Your ignorance is quite telling!

  • The man has passion, and you know what the say, genius boarders on insanity, and Whyts traverses that line on roller skates. But he is right!

  • SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.617 is resistant to Bamlanivimab and evades antibodies induced by infection and vaccination


    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.04.442663v1


    Abstract

    The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants threatens efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in India has risen steeply in recent weeks and a novel SARS-CoV-2 variant, B.1.617, is believed to be responsible for many of these cases. The spike protein of B.1.617 harbors two mutations in the receptor binding domain, which interacts with the ACE2 receptor and constitutes the main target of neutralizing antibodies. Therefore, we analyzed whether B.1.617 is more adept in entering cells and/or evades antibody responses. B.1.617 entered two out of eight cell lines tested with slightly increased efficiency and was blocked by entry inhibitors. In contrast, B.1.617 was resistant against Bamlanivimab, an antibody used for COVID-19 treatment. Finally, B.1.617 evaded antibodies induced by infection or vaccination, although with moderate efficiency. Collectively, our study reveals that antibody evasion of B.1.617 may contribute to the rapid spread of this variant

  • ivermectin India study


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

  • FLCCC weekly update


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

  • I'm very sorry to hear that.

    It's always tough to relate personal experience to statistics.

    I *think* that I would go with the science.

    I agree in that "follow the science" would be the way to go..... however......

    On closer reading, your request was for proof, which there probably isn't.

    This is the problem..... "science" has become so politicized that it is nearly impossible to determine what is factual. So many of the so called "RCT's" were either intentionally designed to fail or they were simply bad to begin with . Some on both "sides" of the argument.


    One poster here continues to espouse "the experts", but then those experts are never named nor real data revealed. The sometimes provided statistics mean almost nothing. I can create statistics to meet whatever goal I want as well. Also, when reputable and well educated people propose "alternate" solutions such as Ivermectin, these scientist are quickly DISREGARDED as "experts" or "following the science". Simply because they do fall in line with main stream "group think" then are labeled quacks and "death cult" members.


    While science is indeed an evolving field, as more data comes out, there has rarely been the acknowledgment of failure or error. Such as the once described "this is a real leader" and people should follow his lead, now has been revealed that thousands died by his leadership and he is disgrace. Yet the political climate is that one NEVER castigates a fellow party member! There has been several studies to show both HCQ (probably to a less extent) and Ivermectin really ARE positive compounds, but this will NOT be explored because they go against the agenda. And YES I do state there is an agenda. The evidence that Ivermectin should be very actively investigated IS being buried and there is NO reason not to actively pursue it...... yet it is only derided???? Definitely not "following" the science here.


    One poster here keeps stating the "Experts" do not think Ivermectin works or is worth pursuing, but yet completely ignores the large amount of data supporting it. His is satisfied with "the experts" because they support his preconceived view and agenda. When main stream does not support LENR, then they are NOT "Experts", are not "following the science" and are wrong. Yet many here think he is doing the same exact same thing with Ivermectin.


    So the problem has been brought to the front. I do not deny that "following the science" is the correct path. But "the science" has become so biased that is really is difficult to get a "true" picture.


    MRNA vaccines have NOT been widely tested on humans. For those that argue, show me the facts then.

    They have been lightly tested with zitka, rabies, influenza and cytomegalovirus.

    They are NOT used anywhere currently other than for Covid as a standard treatment. There is MUCH we do not know yet and often only long term tests reveal negative issues. To say otherwise is NOT following science.

    Ivermectin has been PROVEN safe by 40 years of use and BILLIONS of doses. To now say it is not safe, only shows ones bias and true colors. There are actually more independent studies on Ivermectin use than on the vaccine! Vaccine studies were conducted by the pharma companies and were not truly independent. Larger numbers for sure, but no long term either. So some ignore the "science" of the ivermectin studies while bowing down to the pharma studies.


    No, this is not a clear cut case. ... regardless what some say!

  • Note: I think that vaccines are effective and mostly safe, .. and that they have very good statistics (30,000 enrolled in double-blinded trials, and now millions of closely followed vaccinations).

    The Ivermectin studies are mostly very small (60 enrolled) and merit further study. The "country-wide" analysis (pro and con) is not as clear cut.


    ps: I get my statistical information from this expert (on another forum):

    Code
    Chris Barker, Ph.D. has been a pharmaceutical clinical trial
    consultant for several decades prior to moving to a Sacramento CA
    suburb and (trying to) retire. He has been called back from
    retirement for statistical work on drugs, and diagnostics for
    covid19 in light of the pandemic.  In May 2021, he was elected as
    2022 Chair of the Statistical Consulting Section of the American
    Statistical Association (ASA). The ASA is the second oldest
    continuously operating professional association in the United States
    and currently has about 18,000 members. Some earlier ASA members
    include, Florence Nightingale, and former POTUS Martin van Buren.
  • UW study estimates there have been twice as many COVID deaths as reported

    An an UK study says only 14% of the PCR+ Covid deaths died from CoV-19 alone, all the other with CoV-19.

    Same with vaccines About 10'000 so far died from vaccines but also here possibly about 90% died a bit earlier with the vaccine.


    But what is the value of this "a bit earlier" or "the later" we would like to have?

    Why do we use different measures? Who is interested in the too high figure for CoV-19 deaths and the to low figure for vaccines?


    The answers are obvious and if we use clear words here some watch dogs always complain.

    There has been several studies to show both HCQ (probably to a less extent) and Ivermectin really ARE positive compounds, but this will NOT be explored because they go against the agenda. And YES I do state there is an agenda. The evidence that Ivermectin should be very actively investigated IS being buried and there is NO reason not to actively pursue it...... yet it is only derided???? Definitely not "following" the science here.


    This is the new reality. Fake studies are made for getting 10x more money out of an already approved drug. See Avastin/Lucentis case. But there are far worse examples.

    Big Pharma (Top management - investors) latest since Viox/Statines etc. is a bunch of criminal fraudsters that only lives for maximizing the personal income. Your health is only their secondary concern. But this is an exaggeration of course...May be its their ternary or even lesser interest...


    Look what FDA does with the vapor cigarettes - nothing as long as they get money for this nothing.

  • Note: I think that vaccines are effective and mostly safe, .. and that they have very good statistics (30,000 enrolled in double-blinded trials, and now millions of closely followed vaccinations).

    The Ivermectin studies are mostly very small (60 enrolled) and merit further study. The "country-wide" analysis (pro and con) is not as clear cut.

    With 30'000 it's easier to cheat. Pfizer kicked 200 more people out of the vaccine group than from the control group.


    Questions? Why as it possible? Because FDA supports fraud (for $$$$$$$) . It's that simple. But data does not lie.


    There were several large Ivermectin studies including 800/800 people. Far more than for e.g. Avastin/Lucentis. That generate some billions.


    You here mix up two different kind of studies. Drugs/Vaccines. So you post fake claims.

  • Note: I think that vaccines are effective and mostly safe, .. and that they have very good statistics (30,000 enrolled in double-blinded trials, and now millions of closely followed vaccinations).

    The Ivermectin studies are mostly very small (60 enrolled) and merit further study. The "country-wide" analysis (pro and con) is not as clear cut.

    Have you really looked into this? I find just the opposite, such as:


    https://assets.researchsquare.…a9a-b877-6d6cc8f79d54.pdf


    Main findings:
    Twenty-one RCTs (including 2 quasi-RCTs) involving 2741 participants were included, with sample sizes ranging from 24 to 363 participants. For trials of
    covid-19 treatment, 14 evaluated ivermectin among participants with mild to moderate covid-19 only; four trials included patients with severe covid-19. Most
    compared ivermectin with placebo or no ivermectin; four trials included an active comparator (Table 1). Three RCTs involving 738 participants were included in
    the prophylaxis studies. Most studies were registered, self-funded and undertaken by clinicians working in the eld. There were no obvious conicts of interest
    noted.
    Ivermectin treatment vs no ivermectin treatment
    Page 8/25
    Nineteen studies (2003 participants) contributed data to the comparison ivermectin treatment vs no ivermectin treatment for covid-19 treatment.
    Meta-analysis of 13 trials, assessing 1892 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 68% (95% CI, 28–86%) compared
    with no ivermectin treatment (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; I2 = 57%; risk of death 2.5% versus 9.1% among hospitalised patients in this
    analysis, respectively (Summary of Findings (SoF) Table 2a and Fig. 3). Heterogeneity was explained by the exclusion of one trial102
    in a sensitivity analysis
    (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.48, n = 1725, I2 = 12%), but since this trial was at low risk of bias it was retained in the main analysis. The source of
    heterogeneity may be due to the use of active comparators in the trial design. The results were also robust to sensitivity analyses excluding three other studies
    with an active treatment comparator (average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, n = 1083, I2 = 0%). The results were also not sensitive to the exclusion of studies
    that were potentially at higher risk of bias (average RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85, 11 studies, n = 1697, I2 = 67%), but in subgroup analysis it was unclear as to
    whether a single dose would be sucient. The effect on reducing deaths was consistent across mild to moderate and severe disease subgroups.

    Is one of several EASILY found studies where larger number of participants have been done. Where do you get the 60? This study alone is quite impressive.


    So again, as with many, I find your argument against Ivermectin seemingly unfounded and I hope not intentionally biased.


    As for the vaccines... I acknowledged that the data set included was large, which is good. However, it was from pretty much a single source and certainly not independent. As for safety? A growing number of countries that have discontinued one brand or another are not doing so because they think the vaccines are safe!


    I appreciate your input but hope that you dig deeper. I find it interesting that you "supported" Rossi's findings and yet are "skeptical" of ivermectin. The actual, factual data available between the two "subjects" are night and day! I would say that there is NO doubt that Rossi is a scammer and that Ivermectin shows great promise based upon known factual data. You supported him for several months and may still do? It did not matter what volume the pump "might" push, the overwhelming evidence was Rossi is a fraud.


    As the subject of this note is "following the science" , it goes to highlight how different people see different "facts". Rossi = Fraud vs Real deal. Ivermectin = Covid treatment vs wishful thinking. You supported one but not the other...... But then..... that is what makes the world interesting!

  • Fact Check-VAERS data does not prove thousands died from receiving COVID-19 vaccines

    https://www.reuters.com/articl…19-vaccines-idUSL1N2LV0NY

    Excellent article. It links to this CDC document, which is also very good:


    https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru…afety/adverse-events.html


    I would like to emphasize this sentence from the CDC: "The known and potential benefits of the J&J/Janssen vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks." It is not enough to establish there is some risk. Everything has some risk. Even a peanut butter sandwich can cause allergy or choking. You have to show the risks outweigh the benefits, for the individual and society as a whole. Even is the vaccine does cause deaths, you are more likely to die from COVID than from the vaccine. Plus, you have an obligation to society to help achieve herd immunity, to prevent others from getting sick, and hopeful to drive the virus into extinction.


    QUOTES FROM CDC:


    Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination


    . . .


    What you need to know

    • COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
    • Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history.
    • CDC recommends you get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can.
    • Adverse events described on this page have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon.
    • VAERS accepts reports of any adverse event following vaccination, even if it is not clear the vaccine caused the problem.
    • After a temporary pause to investigate thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following vaccination with Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 Vaccine, the data show that TTS is a rare adverse event. The known and potential benefits of the J&J/Janssen vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks.
    • CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other federal agencies will continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

    . . .

    Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination

    CDC uses the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to closely monitor reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination.

    • FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.
    • Reports to VAERS of death following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.
    • CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information to learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or was unrelated.
    • CDC, FDA, and other federal agencies will continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

    Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.