Covid-19 News

Quote from DnG

Sad

Tamil Nadu south Indian state population 80 million

reluctance to vaccinate following Famous Tamil actor/ambassador death 2 days after vaccination

vaccine shortages... perhaps they may go for ivermectin in meantime.

true news is always told,, like a adiabatic siberian snake

its a lot of bs mixed in.

Quote from Shane D.

100% blocked.

almost 100%?

99% blocked?... perhaps the immune reaction to the vaccine did the rest.. or the next curry..

Apparently one reason why the younger set don't get affected is

because they have cleaner arteries then the old folks..

Ivermectin proposed mode of action to relieve hypercoagulation,,,

coating the CD147 binding sites on the Covid virus..

stopping it sticking to the CD147 sites on red blood cells..and sticking them together in a clot.

Doses higher than the FLCCC recommended of 200 micrograms per kg may be needed

if you are treated belatedly with a high viral load of 200,000 viruses per ml of blood

conspiring to 100% block your arteries.

stat dose? 1000 micrograms IVM/ kg?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3636557

Saint Anthony lied to deceive congress of ongoing gain of function research

Biosafety Expert Explains Why Fauci’s NIH ‘Gain-of-Function’ Testimony Was ‘Demonstrably False’

https://www.nationalreview.com…s-demonstrably-false/amp/

Dr. Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and biosafety expert, is contesting NIH director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Tuesday.

Dr. Fauci’s claim — made during an exchange with Senator Rand Paul — that “the NIH [National Institutes of Health] has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” is “demonstrably false,” according to Ebright.

At least some of the NIH-funded research conducted at the WIV “unequivocally” qualifies as gain-of-function, Ebright told National Review.

A research article written by WIV scientists, “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus”, for example, qualifies as gain-of-function and was clearly a product of NIH-funding.

Ebright insists that the research can be classified as gain-of-function under a number of different definitions, including those found in two pieces of Department of Health and Human Services guidance on the subject.

The first details the Obama administration’s 2014 decision to halt domestic gain-of-function research, which it defines as that which “may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.”

The second — drafted in 2017 as Fauci was pushing to renew government funding for gain-of-function research — provides a definition of what are called “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” or those pathogens “resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.”

Ebright claims that the work being conducted at the WIV, using NIH funds originally granted to Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, “epitomizes” gain-of-function research under the definition HHS provided in its guidance, and is the exact kind of research that led the Obama administration to conclude that gain-of-function was too dangerous to continue domestically.

‘The Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals,” he said. “This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens (i.e., potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in a lab, not in nature). This research matches — indeed epitomizes — the definition of ‘gain of function research of concern’ for which federal funding was ‘paused’ in 2014-2017.”

Chimeric” coronaviruses refers to those that have been altered and enhanced by man, in this case in such a way as to make them more transmissible and dangerous to humans.

The paper drafted by WIV scientists clearly states that the underlying research was funded by, among other entities, the National Institutes of Health. The NIH’s own database of grantees lists this research and confirms that over $660,000 was spent supporting it.

Fauci appears to have been, at best, mistaken while sparring with Senator Paul on Tuesday. At worst, he was playing tenuous word games meant to deceive.

some really do understand virus transmission !!! To bad it's not the CDC

Scientists call for sweeping change in building design to reduce airborne diseases like COVID-19

SEATTLE — The failure to contain the COVID-19 pandemic has been blamed on ill-preparedness, poor leadership and political squabbling.

A group of scientists has identified another culprit: buildings.

In a paper published Thursday in the journal Science, 39 experts in various fields called for a “paradigm shift” in the design of buildings and their ventilation systems, a safety upgrade on par with the 19th century introduction of clean water supplies and centralized sewage systems.

The authors of the report have been at the forefront of a campaign to convince international health authorities that the coronavirus spreads through exhaled microscopic particles known as aerosols that can float in the air for hours — and that the risk is greatest indoors.

They wrote that with the exception of hospitals, few large buildings have been designed to limit the spread of airborne pathogens, despite the risk of fueling widespread illnesses and their related economic losses. Office towers and other commercial buildings are typically engineered for energy savings and odor and temperature control, but not public health.

The scientists envision futuristic buildings with systems that could detect a crowd gathering in a room and immediately adjust the ventilation to increase air turnover. Monitors would display air quality measurements in real time.

Lidia Morawska, the lead author of the paper and a physicist at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, said in an interview that many of the technologies already exist but that they have not been combined on a large scale in a targeted effort to reduce the spread of disease.

“Think of how many cases during this pandemic could have been prevented if this was taken seriously,” she said.

The paper cited estimates suggesting that the systems would increase the construction cost of a typical building by less than 1% — a price that the authors said would be more than offset by preventing the spread of influenza and other costly illnesses.

There needs to be a shift in the perception that we cannot afford the cost of control, because economic costs of infections can be massive,” the paper said.

Still, such ideas are likely to be met with resistance from building developers, owners and operators. One potential problem is that the increased power needed to heat and cool larger amounts of air and to push it through high-grade filters with bigger fans would conflict with energy-saving mandates introduced in recent years to slow climate change.

“It’s always a fight between these two groups, one wanting energy efficiency and the other wanting more healthy indoor air quality,” said John Zhai, a professor of architectural engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder, who was not involved in the Science paper.

But the pandemic makes this a good time to consider how to balance those needs, and if we don’t do anything now, people will just do business as usual.”

Buildings could be designed to achieve both aims if architects and engineers gave them the ability to switch back and forth between functions, said Liangzhu “Leon” Wang, a professor of building, civil and environmental engineering at Concordia University in Montreal, who was not a coauthor either.

Morawska said a failure by experts at the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to declare early in the pandemic that the coronavirus was an airborne pathogen led to muddled public health policies.

Since the 1800s, scientists have swung between accepting and rejecting findings that respiratory diseases can spread through the air, according to a recent paper by researchers including Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech environmental engineer who also helped write the paper in Science.

Marr said health authorities have required proponents of the theory of transmission via aerosols to meet a higher standard of proof, while accepting spread by large droplets without equivalent evidence.

I suspect that inhalation of aerosols is the dominant route of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, but have been afraid to say so because I have been ignored or ridiculed in the past,” she tweeted on May 7.

Morawska said she and her scientific allies wrote to the WHO and national public health authorities on April 1, 2020, challenging statements by the international agency’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who had maintained that the coronavirus was not airborne.

In July, after more than half a million people had died in the pandemic, the group followed up with an open letter to the WHO that was signed by 239 experts from 32 countries. In the letter — which was published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases after being rejected by Nature and the Lancet — they appealed for recognition of the potential for transmission of the virus through aerosols and urged preventive measures.

Despite mounting evidence in studies of superspreading events, the WHO and the CDC resisted the theory, only gradually changing their official guidance to acknowledge aerosol transmission of the virus.

Morawska said the WHO still doesn’t go far enough, continuing to emphasize transmission occurring within one meter, or about three feet.

There’s nothing magical about one meter,” she said. “It’s a continuum with the concentration of the virus the highest closest to the source.”

The Science paper noted that the WHO has some health-based indoor air quality guidelines for limiting toxic compounds such as benzene and carbon monoxide, but said the agency had no standards for mitigating respiratory viruses or bacteria inside buildings.

Building owners who already face a proliferating list of requirements — including carbon-neutrality deadlines and installation of emergency radio systems, staircase lights and glass lobby doors for fire control — may resist another set of mandates.

Rod Kauffman, president of the Seattle-area chapter of the national Building Owners and Managers Assn., said that some members who are preparing for workers to begin returning to offices are installing systems such as devices that use ultraviolet light to remove pathogens.

“We’re all looking forward to being able to do as much as we can,” he said. “But there are practical limits to what you can do as a building owner before you start having to raise the rates for your tenants.”

Quote from Wyttenbach

The RNA mafia seems to invest a lot money to block Astra and J&J despite their vaccines are the worst ever applied to humans > 10'000 direct deaths 1,3% of Pfizer vaccinated get CoV-19 after first jab.

Not 10,000. Zero (0). The 10,000 is a lie.

CNN's Sanjay Gupta summarizes some of aspects of the new CDC guidance for masks. He says some aspects are clear and others are confused. He wonders why the CDC still recommends people wear masks on airplanes. My guess is that the air in most older airplanes is recycled more and contains more viruses than buildings. I think newer airplanes have better microfilters.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/hea…eo/playlists/coronavirus/

The CDC recommendations are conservative. They err on the side of caution. I think that is typical of bureaucracy. You get in trouble for not warning people enough, but you don't get in trouble for warning them too much. According to the book "The Signal and the Noise" weather reports are slightly biased in favor of rain. It said something like: if rain is 90% likely, forecasts will say 95%. Suppose you tell people it will rain and they take their umbrellas. It doesn't rain. They don't think twice about it. But, suppose you tell them it probably will not rain. They don't take their umbrellas, yet it does rain. They are upset.

Quote from JedRothwell

Not 10,000. Zero (0). The 10,000 is a lie.

Just your opinion Jed, post facts to backup your retort. Wyttenbach has posted information from vaers !

Quote from Fm1

some really do understand virus transmission !!! To bad it's not the CDC

What makes you say that? These are the same recommendations the CDC has made. They are in line with the CDC's announcement yesterday that masks are not needed for vaccinated people in buildings, but they are still needed in airplanes. As I said above, I believe that is because ventilation systems in older airplanes are not as good as buildings. I read that years before COVID-19, with regard to colds and influenza. The Dreamliner ventilation is much improved, according to Boeing.

Quote from JedRothwell

What makes you say that? These are the same recommendations the CDC has made. They are in line with the CDC's announcement yesterday that masks are not needed for vaccinated people in buildings, but they are still needed in airplanes. As I said above, I believe that is because ventilation systems in older airplanes are not as good as buildings. I read that years before COVID-19, with regard to colds and influenza. The Dreamliner ventilation is much improved, according to Boeing.

Again I'll refer back to the New York Times article on Monday accusing the CDC of posting false data. This is why I called into question the CDC credibility . By the way, even after being caught the CDC stands by its statements . I have lost faith in the CDC and it looks like I'm in the majority. I'll admit it's very sad

Quote from Fm1

Just your opinion Jed, post facts to backup your retort. Wyttenbach has posted information from vaers !

No, it is not my opinion. This is what every expert says, for good reason. Heck, not just experts. This is what anyone who ever read a book about statistics will know without being told. That information is "from VAERS" but what Wyttenbach says it is a idiotic, grotesque misinterpretation of the data, as explained in the website; as explained by every single expert who has commented on it; and as I and other explained above. Frankly, I am appalled that you do not understand this. You have to compare the vaccinated group to a control group, which would be unvaccinated people this year, or any group of people from previous years of a similar age and level of health. When you compare them, you find no excess deaths in the vaccinated group. All of the deaths are coincidental, and all are expected.

The number is NOT repeat NOT 10,000. It is zero. Roughly 10,000 people died after getting the vaccine, but there is not a shred of evidence that any of them died because of the vaccine. When you vaccinate millions of elderly people, many will die within days. When you don't vaccinate them, the same number will die. When you give them a cookie and a pat on the head, the same number will die. The experts at VAERS explained again and again that they looked at the medical reports and autopsies and found that every death was caused by other factors. They looked for correlations, unusual deaths, deaths at an age that would not be expected from a given cause, and every other factor that might indicate causality. They found nothing.

See:

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

Of the 145 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020 through March 29, 2021, “VAERS received 2,509 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.” Having reviewed “available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records,” the CDC found “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths” (here).

Quote from Fm1

Again I'll refer back to the New York Times article on Monday accusing the CDC of posting false data.

Where is that? What is the link?

If you are saying that someone, somewhere does not agree with someone else at the CDC, that isn't news. If you saying that some hothead thinks a mistake is deliberate false data, that isn't news either.

See:

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

Of the 145 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020 through March 29, 2021, “VAERS received 2,509 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.” Having reviewed “available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records,” the CDC found “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths” (here).

As I have said the CDC has no credibility and an independent group of forensic specialists needs to be appointed to investigate these reports. The CDC could provide an accurate report but based on the actions over the past 14 months it would be met with widespread skepticism. And personally Jed, I don't question your motive, don't question mine! Understand?

Quote from JedRothwell

Where is that? What is the link?

If you are saying that someone, somewhere does not agree with someone else at the CDC, that isn't news. If you saying that some hothead thinks a mistake is deliberate false data, that isn't news either.

New York times google it genus

To put it another way, if you vaccinate 145 million people, mostly elderly people, and in the following days ~2,500 of them do not die, that would be a miracle. The vaccine does not confer immortality. It does not prevent old, sick people from dying of cancer, heart disease or old age. It does not prevent unexpected sudden deaths from heart attacks and strokes. It does not stop people from falling down stairs or breaking their pelvises. With this many people, such deaths are absolutely certain to occur. A detailed actuarial table will show how many deaths are expected per week. The numbers for vaccinated people are in line with expectations. There are no excess deaths. Clinical reports show that all of the deaths had other causes.

You MUST compare the vaccinated people to a control group, or the numbers are meaningless. You MUST show some evidence of plausible physical causality, such as an unusually high number of strokes for that age group.

If FM1 does not understand this, he needs refresher course in elementary statistics. (It goes without saying that Wyttenbach does not understand this, or any grade-school level science.)

Quote from Fm1

New York times google it genus

I did. What are the keywords other than "CDC"?

Quote from JedRothwell

I did. What are the keywords other than "CDC"

I posted this Tuesday, your computer must of crashed again.

#12,027

National news outlet finally beginning to call out the CDC . Ivermectin next?

CDC risk of coronavirus transmission outdoors greatly exaggerated, bombshell report finds

10% benchmark is based 'partly on a misclassification' of some transmission, report claims

https://www.foxnews.com/health…ly-exaggerated-report.amp

A stunning New York Times report claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's estimate that the risk of coronavirus transmission while outdoors is around 10% is greatly exaggerated.

The CDC has cited the estimate to back up its recommendation that vaccinated individuals do away with masks in certain outdoor situations, but should keep wearing masks during others.

According to the Times, the 10% benchmark is based "partly on a misclassification" of some virus transmission in Singapore at various construction sites that may have actually taken place in indoor settings. Singapore also classified settings that were a mix of indoors and outdoors as outdoors, including construction building sites, the outlet reported.

Still, the number of cases reported at the various sites did not add up to as much as 10% of transmission, but was more like 1% or less, the report stated.

In a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, pressed CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky on the report and said it was one of three recent examples of conflicting, confusing guidance issued by the agency, with the other two involving school reopenings and summer camps.

Walensky said the 10% benchmark came from a meta-analysis topline result from a study published in the Journal of Infectious Disease back in November.

"The topline result was less than 10%, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, one of our top infectious disease journals," she said. "That is where that came from, it was from a published study that synthesized studies from many places."

CDC COULD EASE CORONAVIRUS INDOOR MASK GUIDANCE: FAUCI, GOTTLIEB

Collins requested that the full report be placed in the record.

"There are limited data on outdoor transmission," a CDC official told the Times. "The data we do have supports the hypothesis that the risk of outdoor transmission is low. 10 percent is a conservative estimate from a recent systematic review of peer-reviewed papers. CDC cannot provide the specific risk level for every activity in every community and errs on the side of protection when it comes to recommending steps to protect health. It is important for people and communities to consider their own situations and risks and to take appropriate steps to protect their health."

Multiple officials have said that the CDC will continue to monitor the data in "real time" and make adjustments as needed, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Walensky. However, critics say the agency’s conservative approach to dropping mask mandates is discouraging some from seeking vaccines.

We’re at the point right now where we can start lifting these ordinances and allowing people to resume normal activity, certainly outdoors we shouldn’t be putting limits on gatherings anymore, we should be encouraging people to go outside," former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CBS’ "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "In the states where prevalence is low, vaccination rates are hgh and we have good testing in place and we’re identifying infections, I think we can start lifting these restrictions indoors as well on a broad basis

Quote from Fm1

As I have said the CDC has no credibility and an independent group of forensic specialists needs to be appointed to investigate these reports.

Every independent epidemiologist on earth has looked at this data, and the data from other national health agencies in Europe, Asia and Israel. No vaccine data in history has been more closely examined for anomalies. No vaccine has ever had this much detailed data collected. Never before in history have we had the kinds of supercomputers and AI now being used to look for anomalies. ("Anomalies" meaning correlations and unexplained excess deaths.) You say the CDC has no credibility. You have no reason to say this, but go ahead and ignore the CDC. Look at the data from any country. Look at analysis by any legitimate forensic specialists, doctors or epidemiologists. You will see they all agree.

That has to be actual, sane, qualified specialists. Not the lunatic Death Cult members and amateur idiots cited by Wyttenbach, who make up bullshit and who do not realize that with a group of 145 million elderly people, 2,500 dying is normal. They have no idea what a "control group" means. Do you know what that means?