doctors lounge with the FLCCC talks ivermectin
show the vaccine (2 shots) reduces hospitalisation and death by a factor of 10 or more.
death 2%, long COVID 10% (without vaccine).death 0.2%, long COVID 1%. (with vaccine).
It looks like THH is now confirming that the vaccine does not protect from death.
But Ivermectin does!
But once more THH fails with primary school math 75% don't even feel CoV-19. From the tested positive 80% have very mild symptoms. So in total 95% for sure never will have any complications.
Long Covid is very rare. Mostly among severe hospital patients or among people with > 15 days symptoms.
Here too 95% are cure after short time with Ivermectin.
But UK Dr. Mengele friends have a sadistic vein and like to make tons of money from their long-CoV victims.
Cell-to-cell contact helps in spreading SARS-CoV-2, finds study
https://www.news-medical.net/a…RS-CoV-2-finds-study.aspx
People aren’t the only ones who should be social distancing — new research shows our cells need to as well. Researchers from Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, USA, used in-culture techniques to confirm severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission via cell-to-cell contact.
While the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor is the entry point for viral infection of a host cell, results show its presence is not required for spreading the virus
Previous work has shown evidence of cell-to-cell contact in other viruses, including HIV, HCV, EBOV, and other plant viruses. However, the mode of transmission for coronaviruses remained relatively unknown for cell-free infection. The results will help better understand how SARS-CoV-2 rapidly spreads in the body — including the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern B.1.1.7 and B.1.351.
The study “SARS-CoV-2 Spreads through Cell-to-Cell Transmission” is available as a preprint on the bioRxiv* server.
Evidence of cell-free infection for SARS-CoV-2 and greater efficiency in infecting cells
The study authors used cell cultures to investigate potential cell-to-cell SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the context of cell-free infection. Lentiviral pseudotypes and replication-competent recombinant VSV were used to express either the SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV spike protein.
The virus expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein had greater cell-cell fusion activity than the SARS-CoV spike protein, suggesting it is more effective in mediating cell-to-cell transmission.
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also showed evidence of fine control of the spike-induced cell-cell fusion — reducing the risk of giant syncytia formation and cell death. Furthermore, when the researchers applied the membrane fusion inhibitor EK1, it weakened cell-to-cell transmission, suggesting SARS-CoV-2 operates through cell-cell fusion.
The presence of ACE2 also enhanced cell-to-cell transmission for both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV. However, further cellular work using H520 cells and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells with minimal ACE2 presence showed fusion activity, indicating that ACE2 is not necessary for cell-to-cell transmission.
There was also no evidence of cell-free infection.
To look at other factors that affect the transmission, the researchers introduced the CatL inhibitor III to block the endosomal entry pathway by blocking cleave of the viral glycoprotein and neutralizing the endosomal pH.
Results showed that cell-to-cell contact decreased, suggesting transmission is also modulated by endosomal entry and pathways. The inhibitors were less potent for lowering cell-to-cell transmission than cell-free infection, and they showed a weaker inhibitory effect towards SARS-CoV-2 than SARS-CoV.
Cell-to-cell transmission may explain immune evasion
New SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged with the ability to evade vaccine-induced antibodies. The researchers evaluated the role of SARS-CoV-2 cell-to-cell transmission and how it influences immune evasion. In addition, they added neutralizing monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma from recovered individuals previously infected with COVID-19.
The antibody treatments almost completely neutralized cell-free infection of SARS-CoV-2. However, when viruses expressed the spike protein of either the B.1.351, B.1.1.7, or the D614G variant, there were increases in cell-free infectivity but comparable cell-to-cell contact.
The B.1351 variant was more resistant to convalescent sera in cell-free infection. In contrast, the B.1.1.7 variant was more resistant to cell-to-cell transmission.
“The cell-free route is directly linked to the ability of viruses to infect target cells and result in spreading among humans through person-to-person contact. In contrast, cell-to-cell transmission has dominant roles in viral pathogenesis and disease progression,” concluded the research team.
Study limitations
The study results suggest greater viral infectivity from SARS-CoV-2 than the SARS-CoV virus. However, the findings require additional research comparing both viruses in the primary human lung and airway epithelial cells.
ACE2 plays an important role in the viral entry of host cells, but the researchers note that other host cofactors such as TMPRSS2 can also influence infectivity. Thus, future work would need to expand on other factors modulating SARS-CoV-2 disease progression and pathogenesis.
*Important notice
bioRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
Oxford Study Reports No Bats Or Pangolins Were Sold In The Wuhan Wet Market
https://www.oann.com/oxford-st…-in-the-wuhan-wet-market/
A new study by Oxford University has discovered there were no bats or pangolins sold in the Wuhan wet market. In fact, the study reported no bats or pangolins were found anywhere around Wuhan at the beginning of the Coronavirus outbreak.
Through their investigations, the scientists are believed to have effectively debunked the natural origin argument. China and Dr. Anthony Fauci have long claimed COVID-19 jumped from a bat to a pangolin, which was then sold at the wet market, leading to the spread among humans. However, recent studies have shown the virus likely originated in a lab.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) laid out evidence describing thousands of animals that have been tested in the wet market, with none of them infected with COVID-19.
“When you take COVID-19 and you try to infect bats, which is where most coronaviruses come from, what do you discover? You discover that COVID-19 is actually not very well infected in bats,” he explained. “The bats don’t catch it very easily. It seems as if COVID-19 is most adapted for humans.”
The Oxford study also reported that Chinese people rarely consume bats and the nearest natural habitat of bats is 1,500 miles away from Wuhan.
Study: Hydroxychloroquine Can Boost COVID-19 Survival Chances By Nearly 200%
https://www.oann.com/study-hyd…al-chances-by-nearly-200/
Another study has confirmed hydroxychloroquine to be effective in the treatment of COVID-19. Conducted by the Saint Barnabas Medical Center, the research has found the combination of hydroxychloroquine and antibiotic Zithromax effectively suppresses COVID-19.
The study has suggested this treatment can increase survival chances by nearly 200 percent if given at high doses in mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 illness. Scientists also reported that higher doses of hydroxychloroquine led to a quicker recovery in 87-percent of observed patients.
This comes after public health experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, have denied the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. Biological weapons expert, Dr. Steven Hatfill, has pointed blame at these experts for the hundreds of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the pandemic.
“It was false,” he asserted. “They didn’t want competition for the vaccines.”
The study also found hydroxychloroquine is particularly efficient in terminally ill patients who would otherwise have died without that drug.
How coronavirus aerosols travel through our lungs
New study models what happens when we inhale coronavirus aerosols
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2021/06/210607110235.htm
When we inhale isolated coronavirus particles, more than 65% reach the deepest region of our lungs where damage to cells can lead to low blood oxygen levels, new research has discovered, and more of these aerosols reach the right lung than the left.
Lead author of the study Dr Saidul Islam, from the University of Technology Sydney, said while previous research has revealed how virus aerosols travel through the upper airways including the nose, mouth and throat -- this study was the first to examine how they flow through the lower lungs.
"Our lungs resemble tree branches that divide up to 23 times into smaller and smaller branches. Due to the complexity of this geometry it is difficult to develop a computer simulation, however we were able to model what happens in the first 17 generations, or branches, of the airways," said Dr Islam.
"Depending on our breathing rate, between 32% and 35% of viral particles are deposited in these first 17 branches. This means around 65% of virus particles escape to the deepest regions of our lungs, which includes the alveoli or air sacs," he said.
The alveolar system is critical to our ability to absorb oxygen, so significant amounts of virus in this region, along with inflammation caused by our body's immune response, can cause severe damage, reducing the amount of oxygen in the blood and increasing the risk of death.
The study also revealed that more virus particles are deposited in the right lung, especially the right upper lobe and the right lower lobe, than in the left lung. This is due to the highly asymmetrical anatomical structure of the lungs and the way air flows through the different lobes.
The research is backed up by a recent study of chest CT scans of COVID-19 patients showing greater infection and disease in the regions predicted by the model.
The researchers modelled three different flow rates -- 7.5, 15 and 30 litres per minute. The model showed greater virus deposition at lower flow rates.
As well as improving our understanding of coronavirus transmission, the findings have implications for the development of targeted drug delivery devices that can deliver medicine to the areas of the respiratory system most affected by the virus.
"Normally when we inhale drugs from a drug delivery device most of it is deposited in the upper airways, and only a minimum amount of drugs can reach the targeted position of the lower airways. However, with diseases like COVID-19 we need to target the areas most affected," said Dr Islam.
"We are working to develop devices that can target specific regions, and we also hope to build age and patient specific whole lung models to increase understanding of how SARS CoV-2 aerosols affect individual patients," said co-author and group leader of the UTS Computer Simulations and Modelling group, Dr Suvash Saha.
The World Health Organisation recently updated its advice about the importance of aerosol transmission, warning that because aerosols can remain suspended in the air, crowded indoor settings and areas with poor ventilation pose a significant risk for transmission of Covid-19.
"When we use an aerosol deodorant, the smallest particles of that liquid fall on us under extreme pressure in the form of gas. Similarly, when an infected person speaks, sings, sneezes or coughs, the virus is spread through the air and can infect those nearby," said Dr Saha.
The study has further applications, with researchers using portable devices to examine air quality -- including PM2.5 and PM10 concentration and gasses such as carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and sulphur dioxide -- in spaces such as train carriages. The researchers can then use this data to model the impact on our lungs.
The study, SARS CoV-2 aerosol: How far it can travel to the lower airways, was recently published in the journal Physics of Fluids.
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.
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.
This didn't age well. Notable words
"notoriously"
"all observers"
"ridiculous"
"no sane"
Emotional hyperbole is a sign of fake skepticism.
Fake skepticism could be (I don't know in every case!) a result of an embargo of certain ideas, which is very effective way of keeping certain interests on top. The embargos are usually by those in secret pacts. They usually has been deceived themselves. Those clubs are not the way of the truth, and membership in any such club is contigent only on your will. People in them think they have an oath to secrecy higher than any other bond, but that is a fiction.
Back to fake skepticism.
Most of you are very unaware how big a problem this is. Bigger than the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Please educate yourself. I recommend The Ethical Skeptic who outs this important topic well.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/…hat-is-social-skepticism/
Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.
A link between Covid-19 vaccination and a cardiac illness may be getting clearer
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/0…n-link-clearer/index.html
(CNN)Vaccine advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there has been a higher-than-expected number of cases of a heart ailment among young people, most often males, who've recently received their second doses of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines. The CDC says the reports of the ailment are "rare" and that "most patients who received care responded well to medicine and rest and quickly felt better."
The advisers' statement, posted June 1 on the CDC website, strikes a different note from their statement about two weeks earlier, which said that the rates of myocarditis -- inflammation of the heart muscle -- were not higher among vaccinated people than among unvaccinated people.
The new report comes as the Israeli Ministry of Health finds a "likelihood of a link" between the second dose of the Covid-19 vaccine and myocarditis, most commonly among males ages 16 to 30.
The June 1 report by a work group of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices states that within 30 days of receiving the second dose of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, "there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16-24-year-olds."
This outside group of experts, many of them physicians at academic medical centers, advises the CDC, but doesn't represent the agency itself. The CDC has not said if the number of cases of the heart ailments is higher than expected.
The CDC says on its website that benefits of Covid-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks "including the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis," which is swelling of the tissue around the heart. The agency says it is "actively monitoring these reports, by reviewing data and medical records, to learn more about what happened and to see if there is any relationship to COVID-19 vaccination."
The cases occurred mostly among male adolescents and young adults age 16 years or older, typically within several days after vaccination and more often after getting the second shot than after the first, according to the CDC.
The agency advises people to be on the lookout for certain symptoms following Covid-19 vaccination, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and heart palpitations.
The myocarditis assessments come at a time when the Biden administration has been encouraging young people to get vaccinated to protect themselves and others.
"For young people who may think this doesn't affect you, listen up, please: This virus, even a mild case, can be with you for months. It will impact on your social life. It could have long-term implications for your health that we don't even know about yet or fully understand yet," President Joe Biden said at a White House briefing June 2, urging young people to get vaccinated for themselves and "to protect those more vulnerable than you: your friends, your family, your community."
There's concern the President's effort could be hindered by parental worries over the risk of myocarditis following vaccination.
Medical groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association say even if there is a very small risk of getting myocarditis after vaccination, it is heavily outweighed by the risk of complications from Covid-19.
"Young people need to be protected, and they also need to not be a reservoir for the virus," said Dr. Nelson Michael, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, noting that his son and daughter, who are in their 20s, were vaccinated against Covid-19.
The CDC has reached out directly to state health departments and medical societies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups about the myocarditis reports. The agency has also issued several statements on its website in the past few weeks about myocarditis following the two mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, including one for physicians and one for the public.
Aside from these pages, CDC officials have not directly communicated to the public about any possible risk of myocarditis with the vaccines. CDC declined CNN's request to speak with an expert, instead issuing a statement by a spokesman.
In early May, CDC first received reports from these systems about cases of myocarditis and pericarditis being reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination," according to the statement by agency spokesman Jason McDonald. "Given the risk of COVID-19 infection in adolescents, CDC continues to strongly recommend that adolescents age 12 to 17 get vaccinated."
Jerica Pitts, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, said the company is aware of the myocarditis reports, and that "a causal link to the vaccine has not been established" and that "with a vast number of people vaccinated to date, the benefit risk profile of our vaccine remains positive."
A Moderna spokesman did not respond to a request for comment to this story.
Link or no link?
The increase in myocarditis cases could be, at least in part, because the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatricians prompted doctors to be watchful for such cases.
But a source familiar with the situation told CNN it's appearing more and more likely that there is a real link between the vaccine and the cases.
It looks like this is a biological phenomenon rather than a chance event," the source said. "It looks to be a pattern and not just random."
"They're not sure yet whether there is a causal association, but they're keeping a close eye on this," the source said. "They're open to the notion that this may be a causal situation, but the case is not conclusive yet, and it's certainly not enough to change their recommendations -- they will continue to recommend very clearly that everyone over age 12 should get the vaccine."
Myocarditis documented early in vaccine rollout
In February, Israeli physicians reported the case of a 19-year-old man hospitalized with myocarditis five days after receiving his second dose of the coronavirus vaccine. The Jerusalem Post first reported the case, and the details of the article were confirmed to CNN by Natan Applebaum, chief executive officer of Terem, a chain of Israeli emergency clinics, where the man received care.
In March, the US Department of Defense started to receive reports of myocarditis among vaccinated military health patients, according to Military.com. As of April 23, there had been 14 reports, according to the website. Pentagon spokespersons did not respond to CNN inquiries.
In April, Spanish doctors published a report in a medical journal of a case of myocarditis in a 39-year-old physician with underlying health problems following his second dose of a Covid-19 vaccine.
In the US, 'relatively few reports' of myocarditis following vaccination
In the United States, if anything goes wrong after vaccination -- any vaccination, not just against Covid-19 -- doctors and patients are encouraged to report it to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a database managed by the CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration.
Once problems are reported, the next step is to assess whether they occurred by chance or if the vaccine is a possible cause.
First, experts have to look at the reports one by one to see what happened to the patient; reports of a particular illness might turn out to be something else or perhaps nothing at all.
Then biostatisticians and epidemiologists have to determine whether the illnesses are linked to the vaccine or just a coincidence. To do this, they compare how often the adverse event happened to people following Covid-19 vaccination versus unvaccinated people around the same age.
On May 20 a group of CDC vaccine advisers posted a report on the CDC website that there had been "relatively few reports" of myocarditis after vaccination.
In that May report, the CDC advisers wrote that the "rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 [with Moderna and Pfizer] have not differed from expected baseline rates," indicating that the number of reports was not higher than what would be expected among unvaccinated people. The advisers continued to direct doctors to report cases of myocarditis following coronavirus vaccination.
It's not clear what changed by June 1, when the CDC advisers reported that myocarditis cases following vaccination in the 16-to-24 age group were higher than expected.
Another CDC system, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, uses health information from nine US medical centers' reports to monitor vaccine safety and conduct studies about rare and serious adverse event after immunization.
This system did not find that recently vaccinated people were more likely to get myocarditis, but "analyses suggest that these data need to be carefully followed as more persons in younger age groups are vaccinated," according to the vaccine advisers' report.
Review of seven healthy teens with myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination
A commentary published last week in the medical journal Pediatrics reviewed a published account of seven cases of myocarditis in teen males following Covid-19 vaccination.
The authors concluded that "there are some concerns regarding this case series that might suggest a causal relationship" between the vaccine and myocarditis.
"There are some suggestions [the link] may be real, but it's not definitive yet," Dr. Sean O'Leary, a co-author of the commentary, told CNN.
O'Leary, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at University of Colorado Medicine and Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford Medicine, wrote that there were several reasons there could be a link.
The seven cases, which occurred at five medical centers among otherwise healthy males ages 14 to 19, had certain features in common.
All of the patients developed symptoms within four days after receiving the second dose of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine.
"The consistent timing of symptoms in these seven cases after the second vaccination suggests a uniform biological process," O'Leary and Maldonado wrote.
The patients had chest pain and five of them had fevers. They were hospitalized for between two and six days and their illnesses were "mild," responding "rapidly" to medications.
"While the authors are quick to point out that a causal relationship between vaccination and myocarditis has not been established, the temporal association of these cases with vaccination as well as the striking similarity in the clinical and laboratory presentations raise the possibility for such a relationship," O'Leary and Maldonado wrote.
They added that "a causal association, if it exists, is likely extraordinarily rare."
While the cause of a patient's myocarditis is often never identified, when it is known, an infection is often the culprit. O'Leary and Maldonado wrote that a thorough diagnostic workups on the seven patients failed to find an infectious cause, and they also noted the "dearth" this year of common respiratory viruses known to cause the heart condition.
Myocarditis statistics from Israel
The Israeli Ministry of Health has released the most detailed analysis yet of cases of myocarditis following Pfizer vaccination. In a June 2 statement to the press, the ministry reported 27 cases of myocarditis following the first dose of the vaccine out of 5.4 million vaccine recipients, and 121 cases after the second dose out of about 5 million vaccine recipients.
"To date, the phenomenon has been reported mainly among young men, especially aged 16-19, usually after the second dose of the vaccine. Most cases are hospitalized for up to 4 days only and 95% are defined as a mild illness," according to the statement. "There is a likelihood of a link between receiving a second dose of vaccine and the onset of myocarditis in young men aged 16-30, and the link is stronger in young people aged 16-19 relative to other ages. The relationship weakens with increasing age. In most cases, it is a mild illness that passes within a few days."
The Israeli health officials did not specify how much more common myocarditis was among the vaccinated people compared with the rest of the population. The authors of the article about the US cases said that the incidence of myocarditis "is unknown and varies by season, geography, and age."
After a "lengthy discussion," Israeli health experts decided on June 1 to allow vaccination of adolescents aged 12 to 15, noting that the risks of complications from Covid-19 are higher than the risk of receiving the vaccine.
Display MoreThe Pandemic is certainly having a strong effect on air-fares from Londo...
Bratislava Slovakia £ 4.99 One way
Carcassonne France £ 4.99 One way
Cluj Romania £ 4.99 One way
Cologne Germany £ 4.99 One way
Cork Ireland £ 4.99 One way . . .
I see these are all one way. Does that mean you can't come back? Or does it mean they charge £499,000 to come back, or optionally they let you swim the English Channel on your own?
Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans.
Who do you know that supports this nonsense? scientists in gen-tech or just free riders? I know nobody skilled in the art who believes in a natural origin of SARS-COV2. But I know some that can say this only in private talks...
Yes, you misunderstood. You were referring to RCT from treatments and said without, you wouldn't take one, so without long term RCT, you took the vaccine, just an observation.
Ok, now I think I understand your views. You think vaccines do not have RCTs, or, you think that I would never take a drug until it was validated by an RCT checking for side-effects over multiple years.
Vaccines have RCTs (very high quality) and track side effects over many months (COVID emergency use) or many years (normal vaccine process).
Vaccines have phase 1,2,3 trials.
Phase 1 & 2 & 3 are all RCT.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746
That is the phase 3 double-blind randomized trial for the Astrazeneca vaccine.
By the time anyone in the general population (not signing up for a study) gets to take even an emergency approval vaccine we have studies tracking possible side-effects over many months and the assurance that these are at a very low level.
But in any case for drugs I do not require months of study of putative long-term side-effects (nor does anyone ever check whether they have these). For drugs, the question is not even asked!
it is only because of the weird sociological phenomenon of anti-vax propaganda that this specific question of long-term side-effects is raised in the case of vaccines without evidence. You will remember the original lies that caused worldwide concern about links between Autism and MMR vaccine, when in fact repeated studies before and after those claims have found no such links, and the claims themselves have been shown to be falsified.
For me to think COVID drugs worthwhile, I just require short-term RCT evidence that they do more good than harm.
We know COVID has long-term side effects
In the case of COVID I know that COVID has very nasty long-term side-effects at a high level. Estimates for incidence of long COVID are still fragmentary, but I'd estimate 3X the mortality rate based on this evidence:
https://www.theguardian.com/so…t-experiencing-long-covid
367,000 people have long COVID > 1 year
125,000 COVID deaths
That looks a distinct under-estimate for the following reason: to have long COVID for more than a year you need to have been infected 12 months ago. Therefore the 2nd wave cases (more than 1/2) are not counted in this figure.
A more accurate estimate?
https://news.sky.com/story/cov…taken-first-wave-12206521
Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which are widely regarded as the most reliable measure of deaths involving the virus, show the total number of people who died in the UK with COVID-19 on their death certificate was just over 117,000 as of 22 January.
Of those deaths, 57,701 took place between the beginning of the pandemic last spring and the end of August.
Some 59,677 COVID deaths have happened since then.
1st and second wave number of deaths roughly equal (once under-testing is factored in).
Therefore a decent estimate of the long COVID / death rate is 367,000 / 57,701 = or 6X. given an IFR of 0.7% (it was quite high in the UK, fairly old population) that is a 4% risk of getting long COVID over the whole population.
Why check vaccines more carefully than drugs?
In fact, the standards for vaccine safety should be comparable with those for prophylatic drugs. in both cases the treatment is given to everyone - even those who may never get the disease. for example flu vaccine is given to many people, most of whom in any given year will never get Flu. Therefore risk benefit requires it to be very safe. notice though that flu vaccine actually might have beneficial additional effects. It appears to boosts immunity against other non-flu diseases. specifically, there is research that it significantly increases the chance of survival from COVID!
https://www.webmd.com/lung/new…d-you-from-severe-covid#1
However the evidence for Flu vaccine having a protective effect is not RCT and just as I treat correlation positive evidence for drugs cautiously, so I treat this evidence cautiously. There is a plausible mechanism based on stimulation of the innate immune system, but is speculative - just like the anti-viral evidence claimed for HCQ and IVT from in vitro studies. Historically in vitro studies have proven to be a poor predictor of in vivo performance, in addition the in vitro concentration needed for IVT to be effective is very high, higher than the safe dose in humans.
Caveat - the numbers above about long COVID are my back of envelope calculations - i have given links and methodology - such as it is. I expect a careful study will provide better figures, and I'd guess we will find this in print within a few months, as the quality of the evidence improves. I do not claim these figures are very accurate.
THH
Display MoreIt looks like THH is now confirming that the vaccine does not protect from death.
But Ivermectin does!
But once more THH fails with primary school math 75% don't even feel CoV-19. From the tested positive 80% have very mild symptoms. So in total 95% for sure never will have any complications.
Long Covid is very rare. Mostly among severe hospital patients or among people with > 15 days symptoms.
Here too 95% are cure after short time with Ivermectin.
But UK Dr. Mengele friends have a sadistic vein and like to make tons of money from their long-CoV victims.
Wyttenbach - just thought I'd give you a LOL for discovering that Ivermectin is the elixir of life!
should be worthy of a Nobel or two?
Where did W's analysis here lose contact with reality?
1. I was estimating delta variant figures (significantly more virulent than alpha variant, which itself is more virulent than vanilla COVID). Estimates for this are still a bit flaky, but 40% in both cases is reasonable for an overall doubling in IFR.
2. The 80% with mild symptoms (which W calls very mild symptoms) may still end up with long COVID.
THH
Display MoreWell, here's a couple of expert dissenters. Before anybody mentions it, the authors are based in Shanghai...
Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses
Abstract
The spike protein is a focused target of COVID-19, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. A 12-nt insertion at S1/S2 in the spike coding sequence yields a furin cleavage site, which raised controversy views on origin of the virus. Here we analyzed the phylogenetic relationships of coronavirus spike proteins and mapped furin recognition motif on the tree. Furin cleavage sites occurred independently for multiple times in the evolution of the coronavirus family, supporting the natural occurring hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.
The sequencing arguments over lab/natural seem to me unconvincing on both sides. It is very complex - we do not fully understand the mechanisms for natural selection in other hosts - not the full viral sequence biome out there. It is just rank speculation to say it is unlikely to be natural.
The other way round I don't see how sequence data could ever prove it was not a GOF escape.
Against that - we know coronoviruses in the past have had a zoonotic origin (which has taken a lot of detective work to uncover). We know GOF escapes are possible because lab safety protocols have holes called human error - though in theory that lab was not likely to have ever engineered viruses effective against humans.
Best route to certainty looks to me to discover a clear zoonotic origin. That is possible - it took 10 years with SARS. Or find a lab scientist defecting from China with a very plausible story of incompetence and error.
Notwithstanding the political statements, i still think natural more likely than lab, but cannot rule lab out.
THH
Display MoreWyttenbach - just thought I'd give you a LOL for discovering that Ivermectin is the elixir of life!
should be worthy of a Nobel or two?
Where did W's analysis here lose contact with reality?
1. I was estimating delta variant figures (significantly more virulent than alpha variant, which itself is more virulent than vanilla COVID). Estimates for this are still a bit flaky, but 40% in both cases is reasonable for an overall doubling in IFR.
2. The 80% with mild symptoms (which W calls very mild symptoms) may still end up with long COVID.
THH
The researchers who discovered ivermectin did win the Nobel in 2015. They called it a miracle drug. As for long covid , ivermectin has been very beneficial based on reports from the FLCCC, using the I MASK + protocol
The spike protein is a focused target of COVID-19, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2.
quote from Daszak 2016 about Wuhan Gain of function research,,
"“Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them. Some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. Then we. . .Well I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles; you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this, you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people. . .You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers.”
The sequencing arguments over lab/natural seem to me unconvincing on both sides.
Surely the fact that the same 'impossible' coding occurs in other 'wild' and common viruses of the same family suggests that it could have a natural origin. Which was the point of the paper - it doesn't have to be man-made. On the other hand, the lab-leak theory is not ruled out. You may remeber that the UK's last Bovine Foot & Mouth virus was shown to come from a laboratory leak via a drain some distance from the first outbreak.
Scientists Have Discovered an Achilles Heel of the Coronavirus
Structural basis of ribosomal frameshifting during translation of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome
https://science.sciencemag.org…021/05/12/science.abf3546
Abstract
Programmed ribosomal frameshifting is a key event during translation of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome allowing synthesis of the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and downstream proteins. Here we present the cryo-electron microscopy structure of a translating mammalian ribosome primed for frameshifting on the viral RNA. The viral RNA adopts a pseudoknot structure that lodges at the entry to the ribosomal mRNA channel to generate tension in the mRNA and promote frameshifting, whereas the nascent viral polyprotein forms distinct interactions with the ribosomal tunnel. Biochemical experiments validate the structural observations and reveal mechanistic and regulatory features that influence frameshifting efficiency. Finally, we compare compounds previously shown to reduce frameshifting with respect to their ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, establishing coronavirus frameshifting as a target for antiviral intervention.
Conclusions
Our results provide a mechanistic description of frameshifting that occurs during translation of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and reveal the features that may be exploited by the virus to finely control the stoichiometry of viral proteins at different stages of infection (Fig. 5). Interfering with the frameshifting process at the level of nascent chain interactions with the ribosomal tunnel, at the level of RNA folding that leads to the formation of the frameshift stimulatory pseudoknot, or to perturb the interactions between the pseudoknot and the mRNA channel, represent a viable strategy in our search for new drugs against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is currently causing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Our results will also be useful for understanding the mechanism of programmed ribosomal “-1” frameshifting (4) including that employed by many other medically important viruses.
Now a drug that interferes with viral transmitting......... IVERMECTIN!!!
This from a 2015 study
Ivermectin inhibits porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in cultured porcine alveolar macrophages
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00705-015-2653-2
Abstract
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) is a devastating viral pathogen of swine that causes huge financial losses in the pig industry worldwide. Ivermectin is known to be a potent inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and exhibits antiviral activity towards several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. Although PRRSV replication occurs exclusively in the cytoplasm of infected cells, the nucleocapsid (N) protein has been shown to distinctly localize in the nucleus and nucleolus throughout infection. Here, we sought to assess whether ivermectin suppresses PRRSV replication in cultured porcine alveolar macrophage (PAM) cells and to investigate the effect of ivermectin on the subcellular localization of the PRRSV N protein. Our data demonstrate that ivermectin treatment inhibits PRRSV infection in PAM-pCD163 cells in a dose-dependent manner. The antiviral activity of ivermectin on PRRSV replication was most effective when cells were treated during the early stage of infection. Treatment of PRRSV-infected cells with ivermectin significantly suppressed viral RNA synthesis, viral protein expression, and progeny virus production. However, immunofluorescence and cell fractionation assays revealed that ivermectin was incapable of disrupting the nuclear localization of the N protein, both in PRRSV-infected PAM-pCD163 cells and in PAM cells stably expressing the PRRSV N protein. This finding suggests that an alternative mechanism of action accounts for the ability of ivermectin to diminish PRRSV replication. Taken together, our results suggest that ivermectin is an invaluable therapeutic or preventative agent against PRRSV infection.
