Covid-19 News

  • I have found no evidence that Trump was treated with Ivermectin, so the author is probably mistaken.

    As seen from https://www.usatoday.com/in-de…al-antibodies/3630609001/

    Trump was (very quickly) administered monoclonal antibodies (expensive) and dexamethasone (cheap). That early, aggressive treatment as one two punch was probably critical in his quick recovery. He also got remdesivir (expensive) and was taking vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin.

    Trump's willingness to mention hydroxychloroquine and other treatments anathema to the establishment shows he would not have hindered the use of ivermectin. Unfortunately there may be no cure for TDS.

    Why would you say the author is mistaken when the author clearly says "unreported by the press."


    It is centered around the drug Ivermectin, which President Trump used at Walter Reed hospital, unreported by the press,

  • The word "bury" does not have to mean it was not reported on. How many positive vs negative stories about Ivermectin can you find on CNN, NYT's, or the Washington Post?

    The New York Times is neutral. It has only reported the facts, which is what newspapers are supposed to do. The two most recent examples:


    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…-goa-outbreak-oxygen.html


    Goa has also created headlines for approving the use of ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug, in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. The World Health Organization has said that there is not enough evidence to suggest that the drug reduces mortality in coronavirus patients.


    On Monday, Mr. Rane announced on Twitter that the state government would make the drug available for everyone over 18 as a prophylactic.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…ml?searchResultPosition=1


    Popular Drug Does Not Alleviate Mild Covid-19 Symptoms, Study Finds


    Ivermectin, a drug typically used to treat parasitic worms, has been prescribed widely during the coronavirus pandemic, but rigorous data has been lacking.



    What would you expect them to report? They are mainstream, conventional news source. They will say whatever the establishment says. They are in the spotlight. If they were to say something that contradicts mainstream public health organizations such as the CDC, they would be called out. Their readers (including me) want a place to find official policies, and the official point of view. As far as I know, nearly all mainstream public health organizations say that ivermectin does not work. The New York Times is not going to overrule them or pretend its reporters know better than the experts at the CDC. If you want alternative news written by reporters who think they are smarter than the experts at the CDC, go to Fox News or an alternative news site.


    It is not deceptive for an establishment organization to emphasize the establishment point of view. It is what you expect. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as you remember that the establishment is not always right, and there is some bias in it. Generally speaking, I do not find it more biased than alternative organizations. It is generally more honest because it is held to account when it lies or makes a mistake. Not because New York Times reporters are more honest than other people. You can get away with a lie if you write for a small alternative news site that few people read and no one expects will be highly credible.

  • He also got remdesivir

    Remdesivir is of zero use for CoV-19. He just made a commercial for Gilead... He used Solaantra with enough Ivermectin to prevent CoV-19.

    This is exactly what we know for Pfizer 2x more CoV-19 after the jabs. So simply said: Pfizer killed some 50-100 thousand people so far.

  • Popular Drug Does Not Alleviate Mild Covid-19 Symptoms, Study Finds


    Ivermectin, a drug typically used to treat parasitic worms, has been prescribed widely during the coronavirus pandemic, but rigorous data has been lacking.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…ivermectin-treatment.html


    This seems neutral to me. I have no opinion about ivermectin because I do not know enough about medical science or the tests to judge. But I see they have interviewed and quoted people on both sides. What more do you want?


    This article is mainly about a study in JAMA, which along with NEJM are the most mainstream medical journals around. This is like citing Nature. So of course the Times will make them its main source of information. Would you want it to ignore them, or contradict them?


    Compared to the coverage of cold fusion, this is even handed. It is unbiased, and unemotional. The New York TImes has never -- not once -- interviewed or quoted any cold fusion researcher, even though those researchers are nearly all mainstream people. Obviously that is because many mainstream physicists and organizations such as the DoE have it in for cold fusion. They despise it! Based on this article, I suppose the CDC and the WHO are mildly opposed to ivermectin but they are not campaigning against it. The W.H.O. says:


    "The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials. . .


    The panel did not look at the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, which is outside of scope of the current guidelines."


    https://www.who.int/news-room/…19-within-clinical-trials


    That does not sound like a blanket condemnation to me. If they wanted to say it is worthless garbage, they would.


    In other words, the New York Times will agree with whatever the most powerful, mainstream, elite, conventional scientific sources say. Because the reporters themselves are part of the elite. If you want to know what the elite thinks, read the New York Times. If you want some other point of view, read LENR-CANR.org. If you want a far-right, anti-science view, read Fox News. If you looking for a left-wing anti-establishment point of view, read something like https://www.alternet.org/ or the Huffington Post (https://www.huffpost.com/). I am sure there are plenty of left-wing loonies such as Kennedy opposed to vaccinations, but I do not what newspapers agree with them. There must be some. Obviously, the Times will say that Kennedy and the other anti-vaccine people are wrong. And dangerous. Because 99.99% of doctors and public health officials say that, as does any educated person with a modicum of knowledge of science, medicine and public health. Assertions that vaccines do not work when the overwhelming evidence proves they do work are obviously far out of the mainstream.

    • Official Post

    This reminds me of the Wuhan lab leak controversy. Until recently, the NYT's, claimed that theory was wrong and racially motivated. But now since the evidence is accumulating that it may have been a leak and the Chinese communist government lied, they have started covering their tracks. Many others are doing the same. Some even editing their previous reporting to whitewash their earlier stance.


    They (NYT's) were against Iver until recently; and now with whole countries touting it's effectiveness, they are switching to neutral. Next step will be to claim they always thought Iver was the best thing since sliced bread.

  • Why would you say the author is mistaken when the author clearly says "unreported by the press."


    It is centered around the drug Ivermectin, which President Trump used at Walter Reed hospital, unreported by the press,

    I said he is 'probably' mistaken. I haven't read anywhere else that Trump was given ivermectin, and the mainstream press isn't exactly a source I rely on. If you can find a source, please do. Now Wyttenbach has just mentioned that Trump uses Soolantra (a cream used for his rosacea), and yes that has Ivermectin in it, and indeed it may have helped him by 'luck'.

  • This article is mainly about a study in JAMA,

    The problem is that the author of NYtimes is paid by the Pharma mafia and twists the facts. All studies did find a significant difference between placebo and Ivermectin also the Jama cited one that anyway has no relevance for sick people. If you give Ivermectin to PCR positive people then this is the ideal idea to discredit a drug as 80% of the PCR positive will not become sick. Despite this the study did show 2 days overall shorter recovery.


    This articles only shows that the mafia feels the wind is growing and the storm is upfront. Look at India. Even people like you should understand that cases fall exponentially without vaccination just with Ivermectin.


    But I forgot that you are obliged to help your buddies....

  • 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.

  • For starters: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1…-johnson-coronavirus.html


    And why is HCQ different? Let me guess...

    I see nothing biased here. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1…-johnson-coronavirus.html) This is a straightforward report of the news, and the views of Sen. Johnson. It says


    Elevating Fringe Theories, Ron Johnson Questions Virus Science


    The Wisconsin Republican has transformed his Senate panel into a forum for amplifying dubious theories and questionable treatments pushed by President Trump.


    . . . Mr. Johnson has used his gavel on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to elevate voices who public health experts say represent fringe beliefs.


    In an interview on Monday, he said that while he supported widespread vaccination and masking, he believed that many of his colleagues had been too deferential to a public health establishment that, because of its obsession with finding a vaccine and lack of experience treating coronavirus patients, had undermined, neglected and even “censored” other potential treatments that he believes could help.


    Another, the Washington cardiologist Ramin Oskoui, said on Fox News last month that it was “settled science” that “social distancing doesn’t work, quarantining doesn’t work, masks don’t work.” On the contrary, it is settled science that all three are effective in limiting the spread of the virus. . . .


    Two others promote the use of ivermectin, a drug often used to fight lice and pinworms, to treat coronavirus patients, despite the National Institutes of Health’s recommendation against its use outside clinical trials. . . .



    Those are fringe views. The mainstream representing a large majority of researchers and doctors disagree. It is fact that most "public health experts say [these] represent fringe beliefs." I expect Johnson would acknowledge that. He would say that cardiologist Ramin Oskoui is probably right, and the experts at the CDC and all other public health agencies are wrong. He has a right to that opinion. If you think Oskoui is correct, and all those experts are wrong, you have a right to that opinion as well, but you have to admit it is a fringe view. Way out of the mainstream. Do you want the Times to omit that fact? Not to say these are dubious views (widely doubted) and not to mention that public health experts disagree? That would be deceptive. Readers must be told there is a dispute and that most experts disagree with Johnson.


    HCQ is also highly controversial.


    That does not mean the fringe minority is wrong, but "that's the way to bet." (Damon Runyon).


    This reminds me of the Wuhan lab leak controversy. Until recently, the NYT's, claimed that theory was wrong and racially motivated.

    I do not think the New York Times ever said that. I am aware that other, more left-wing newspapers said that. The Times did report that others said that.


    There are different Wuhan leak hypotheses:

    1. The virus came from a "wet market" near the institute. Chinese wet markets are notoriously filthy and dangerous. All observers say they the threaten zoonotic disease.
    2. The virus came from the institute, by accident.
    3. The virus came from the institute and it was engineered, not fully natural.
    4. The virus was deliberately released from the institute.

    The intelligence agencies under the Trump administration decided they could not tell the difference between 1 and 2, because they lack information. The Biden administration agreed, but now they want more information to resolve whether it is 1 or 2. I doubt they will get enough information from the Chinese government.


    No one in either administration agrees with 3 or 4 as far as I know. Most experts disagree with #3. #4 is ridiculous, because no military would release a bioweapon unless there is already a war underway. Releasing it before a war gives the enemy a heads-up and chance to develop a vaccine. Also, this would be the world's worst bio-weapon, since it kills mainly old people, and hardly any young soldiers. Furthermore, no sane military would release a bioweapon before they themselves had an antidote stockpiled. That would be like bombing your own army. It was clear the Chinese did not have an antidote.

    • Official Post

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/n…ns-and-deaths-disappeared


    Headline May 26 2021:

    "After Mexico City introduced ivermectin plan, COVID hospitalizations and deaths disappeared"


    -"An initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 positive patients has resulted in a 52–76 percent reduction in hospitalizations."


    -"Individuals testing positive for COVID from an antigen test, and who were experiencing at least mild symptoms, began receiving one of the government’s ivermectin-based treatment kits from December 29"

  • and the mainstream press isn't exactly a source I rely on. If

    You darn well should. It is much more reliable than the fringe press. Not because mainstream reporters are more honest than others, but because they are under scrutiny, so when they lie or make a mistake, they are more likely to be fired than fringe-press reporters.


    For a similar reason, you can usually trust a product manufactured by a major corporation more than one made by a small start-up. When big companies screw up, customers, regulators and Amazon reviewers take notice. Word gets out. Not always though. A couple of months ago I purchased a Samsung computer that turned out to be a dog. Many problems. I got a replacement, and it had the same problems (all but one). I looked more closely at on-line reviews and found many other people had these problems. Yikes! I sent it back and got a full refund, fortunately.


    When people say "I don't trust the mainstream press" they are being as naive as those who always trust the mainstream press. It is foolish to dismiss a news source just because it happens to be mainstream, unless you are living in Russia or China. The mainstream in the U.S. has usually been right more often than wrong, about most subjects. On the other hand, it is a mistake to always trust one particular news source, such as the New York TImes or Fox News. Anyone familiar with history and current events knows that every newspaper has made grave errors. Every person and all sources of information are biased. The Times was wrong about cold fusion and the Iraq War, and many other subjects. You need to compare sources and use your common sense. When there is a controversy, if you do not know much about a subject, such as ivermectin or RNA, then you do not have any applicable common sense, so you need to withhold judgement. Practice looking in the mirror and saying: "I don't know." It will do you good. Don't be a know-it-all about subjects you don't know anything about. That's one of the most important lessons of cold fusion.


    When you start believing fringe sources of anti-vaccine garbage -- such as the garbage peddled here by Wyttenbach -- you are probably being duped the Russian or Chinese governments. Those are extremely unreliable sources, to say the least. The Russians are not mistaken about vaccines the way that idiot Kennedy is; they are deliberately circulating what they know to be false information, in order to kill people and damage U.S. and European societies. They are not your friends. You should not believe them. They really are subverting our society. They really did subvert it during the cold war. That was not paranoia. It was exaggerated in the 1950s, but it was real.




    I think that both you and Shane D. are confused about what constitutes biased reporting. It is not the same as reporting "there is a controversy." Shane seems to think it is. The examples of biased reporting he has posted here have been reports of controversy, not reports that take sides in a controversy.


    The Times is reporting that ivermectin is controversial. Even supporters agree there is a controversy, so that is not a biased report. It would be biased if they only quoted one side, but as you see they quote both sides. Reporting the Sen. Johnson has controversial, fringe views, and that most experts think he has a screw loose is not in itself controversial. It is not biased. Most experts do think he is nuts. So do I. Okay, so I may be biased, but if you were to say: "Jed thinks Johnson is nuts" that would not make you biased.

  • If you think Oskoui is correct, and all those experts are wrong, you have a right to that opinion as well, but you have to admit it is a fringe view.

    You seem to be the last fool that tries to cheat clear thinking people! As I said now a hundred times your experts are members of FM/R/J they are elected and claimed experts by FM/R/J . Many of these guys have the worst education an their only chance to climb up the ladder was joining the FM/R/J mafia. I personally know this for many folks in CH/DE.

    Sad to say that the top of the hierarchy in the USA and all western countries is full of dumb nuts, that had no chance to get a good job in Big Pharma. So everything you say is based on Big Pharma steered agents consensus on dirty drug selling and damaging people.

  • https://www.lifesitenews.com/n…ns-and-deaths-disappeared


    Headline May 26 2021:"After Mexico City introduced ivermectin plan, COVID hospitalizations and deaths disappeared"


    -"An initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 positive patients has resulted in a 52–76 percent reduction in hospitalizations."

    What is your point? There are many news reports that ivermectin works. There are many other reports that it does not. A paper in JAMA says it does not. The WHO says the data is unclear. Is there some reason we should trust lifesitenews more than we trust JAMA? Are you sure the results from Mexico are not caused by social distancing or vaccinations? I wouldn't know, but vaccinations in Mexico are now at 15% and they may be higher in Mexico City. Can you explain why the JAMA study protocols were wrong, or what mistake they made in their analysis? If you cannot explain these things, I do not think you are in a position to judge which side is correct. I sure as heck cannot begin to judge -- and I am not judging: I am saying maybe you don't know either, and maybe you should not automatically second guess the JAMA researchers, or assume they are wrong, or assume there are not complex factors at work that make both sides sort of right and sort of wrong.


    I have never heard of lifesitenews. Is that a mainstream source? Left wing? Right wing? Neutral? Does it have a reputation for reporting medical news accurately? I have no idea. Obviously, I know there is a controversy about ivermectin. I know that Goa state government in India is all in on it, as reported by the Times. But I cannot tell whether JAMA or the Goa health minister is right. Can you tell? Are you sure you can tell?

  • I do not think the New York Times ever said that. I am aware that other, more left-wing newspapers said that. The Times did report that others said that.


    There are different Wuhan leak hypotheses:
    The virus came from a "wet market" near the institute. Chinese wet markets are notoriously filthy and dangerous. All observers say they the threaten zoonotic disease.
    The virus came from the institute, by accident.
    The virus came from the institute and it was engineered, not fully natural.
    The virus was deliberately released from the institute.

    Here is a timeline showing what the Washington Post and others reported about these 4 possibilities:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com…suddenly-became-credible/


    Nowhere do I see reports that the Post dismissed #2 as "racist." The Post never said there is evidence for #3 or #4, but it never dismissed #2. #3 and #4 have often been confused with #2 in news reports and comments. In February the Post reported all 4 possibilities. On March 27, 2020:


    A Defense Intelligence Agency assessment on the origin of the coronavirus is updated to include the possibility that the new coronavirus emerged “accidentally” due to “unsafe laboratory practices.”


    As far as I know, that has been the mainstream view expressed in the Times, in the Post and by both administration national security agencies such as the CIA ever since. No mainstream organization has denied that #2 is a possibility. The WHO tried to investigate, but they were more or less locked out of the institute. That is what they reported. They said they could not reach a conclusion.


    Scenario #3, that the virus was engineered, has not been accepted by any national security agency or government in the world, as far as I know. There are no reports of that. Most experts say the virus is definitely natural. A few say it looks engineered.


    I cannot find any mainstream scientific or national security report supporting #4. The Post does not mention any, and it covers all mainstream points of view, including those of the Washington Times, which does advocate #2. Sen. Cotton said that all 4 scenarios might be true, but he is not a national security employee. He used the same numbering scheme I just did:


    “1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market) 2. Good science, bad safety (e.g., they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred). 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach). 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn’t rule out till the evidence is in). Again, none of these are ‘theories’ and certainly not ‘conspiracy theories.’ They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence.”



    Here is what the Post itself reported:


    April 2, 2020: David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post [editorial], notes: “The prime suspect is ‘natural’ transmission from bats to humans, perhaps through unsanitary markets. But scientists don’t rule out that an accident at a research laboratory in Wuhan might have spread a deadly bat virus that had been collected for scientific study.”


    [Ignatius went on to say:

    To be clear: U.S. intelligence officials think there’s no evidence whatsoever that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory as a potential bioweapon. Solid scientific research demonstrates that the virus wasn’t engineered by humans and that it originated in bats.

    But how did the outbreak occur? Solving this medical mystery is important to prevent future pandemics. What’s increasingly clear is that the initial “origin story” — that the virus was spread by people who ate contaminated animals at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan — is shaky.]


    April 14: Josh Rogin, writing in The Post, reveals that in 2018, State Department officials visited the WIV and “sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats. The cables have fueled discussions inside the U.S. government about whether this or another Wuhan lab was the source of the virus — even though conclusive proof has yet to emerge.”


    As you see, the Post never dismissed scenario #2, and said nothing about racism.