Covid-19 News

Tess Lawrie on the modern corruption of medical evidence

, "The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history.

The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.

The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.

Had Ivermectin been employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy,

millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end."

"

Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public.

With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.

At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom

by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths,

or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?

The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.

https://www.thedesertreview.co…eb-adaa-ab952b1d2661.html

Quote from Wyttenbach

I urge you to follow the vaccination champion Israel, that now see an exponential raise in cases (like UK) that already passed 200/day. This is higher than Switzerland/Germany currently have.

I guess the details will be suppressed for the next 4-6 weeks because Pfizer marketing still invests a lot of money for the vaccine disinformation campaign. Fact is Pfizer does not protect against the RSA (1.3.5.1.x) strains and there seem to be strange reactions with the Indian version (No protection from hospital/death compared with unvaccinated in one tested set.)

I guess there is a lot to come. The situation can become very unpleasant for many...Not just for the vaccine killed/live long disabled children.

Over 50% of the new cases in Israel are of fully vaccinated people. The numbers are low but growing each day over the past 4 days

Quote from Wyttenbach

Great vaccine news. Sounds like the same effect we know from animal trials. Negative cross stimulation.

We can only reduce hospital load and social impact. Everything is fairy tales.

We here think that at least 80 out of the 100 old have been killed by the vaccine. This is still very conservative.

You can make simple comparisons. Look at how many old did die (within 5 days) after the flu vaccine and then compare with the CoV-19 vaccine. May be the true figure is more close to 90/100.

I am thinking now there is very little more I can contribute to this thread. I actually find it quite upsetting to deal continually with the level of blatant falsehood and misrepresentation that is being posted here on the subject of vaccines.

(1) Performance of vaccines against delta variant. The well collected and scrutinised data from the UK is reliable, and shows that vaccines reduce by at least a factor of 10 your chances of dying. This is FACT. Not speculation, extrapolation, but hard fact being tested every day in the Uk as a delta infection wave doubles every two weeks, and hospital cases still stay low. the specific data from which that factor of 10 comes have been posted here by me and can easily be found if anyone doubts. this is real world data from hospital admissions.

(2) counting deaths vaccinated / non-vaccinated.

in all countries, those who are most vulnerable get vaccinated first. therefore if you look at who is in hospital (and, strongly correlated, who dies) when 10%, or even 50%, of the population have been vaccinated you get two effects:

• those most at risk (and the age factor varies risk by 1000X) are more likely to be offered vaccine, also more likley to take it up. That means if the vaccine had no effect on death rates you would expect nearly all hospital admissions to be from those vaccinated.
• the vaccines reduce risk of hospitalisation, and risk of death, for people of given risk as determined by age and comorbities. They do this regardless of age.

To do a fair comparison you need to look at data stratified by age as the research preprints do. However the effect of the vaccine is so marked hat you do not need a maths PhD to work it out.

(3) vaccine side effects

these are very well monitored with public and regulatory attenstion whenever there are problems. the problems - it you look at real numbers (chances of something bad happenning to somone vaccinated) look much lower than the advantages (reduced chances of something COVID bad happening to unvaccinated). the calculations here are done over and over by different regulatory bodies in different countries.

i'm not sure what in the above anyone on this thread is arguing. Maybe all the posts above are spin, or maybe somone actually believes the vaccines are not highly protective against even delta COVID, or somone actually believes vaccines have side effects at more than an incredibly low rate?

Videos - figures without full analysis and context - maverick anti-vax doctors with pet way-out theories on causes - oh and 5G tower rollouts - are all unhelpful in making trye judgements. it is a shame they are posted here preferentially over careful and comprehensive analyses.

#Bob -

on the subject of PR videos from doctors about IVM.

I will take you up on your challenge, but it will take me some time to watch the video (which i resent) and then to do a good job some more time to marshal all of the hard research evidence and point out the weaknesses of the material quoted in the PR video.

I am not saying that I know IVM does not help. Just that the jury is out at the moment. That is because i have learnt over this pandemic paying attention to how things go that even apparently quite good non RCT evidence on COVID tends to be wrong. For the good reasons that we have explained many times (strong age dependence, over-reporting of positive results relative to negative, confounders not controlled). Population evidence tends to be worthless because of large uncontrolled confounders and the fact that countries with less comprehensive infection and case reporting systems tend to be those adopting IVM.

Perhaps, when I revisit this and answer you (it will maybe not be for a week) there will be new evidence out from trials that alters my previous view. You may be sure however that watching a video per se will not do this. except as a very slow way to reference serious trial data. I don't understand why people here make scientific or medical judgments on the basis of videos rather than reports or papers. the videos invariably have less content and more spin.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am thinking now there is very little more I can contribute to this thread. I actually find it quite upsetting to deal continually with the level of blatant falsehood and misrepresentation that is being posted here on the subject of vaccines.

(1) Performance of vaccines against delta variant. The well collected and scrutinised data from the UK is reliable, and shows that vaccines reduce by at least a factor of 10 your chances of dying. This is FACT. Not speculation, extrapolation, but hard fact being tested every day in the Uk as a delta infection wave doubles every two weeks, and hospital cases still stay low. the specific data from which that factor of 10 comes have been posted here by me and can easily be found if anyone doubts. this is real world data from hospital admissions.

(2) counting deaths vaccinated / non-vaccinated.

in all countries, those who are most vulnerable get vaccinated first. therefore if you look at who is in hospital (and, strongly correlated, who dies) when 10%, or even 50%, of the population have been vaccinated you get two effects:

• those most at risk (and the age factor varies risk by 1000X) are more likely to be offered vaccine, also more likley to take it up. That means if the vaccine had no effect on death rates you would expect nearly all hospital admissions to be from those vaccinated.
• the vaccines reduce risk of hospitalisation, and risk of death, for people of given risk as determined by age and comorbities. They do this regardless of age.

To do a fair comparison you need to look at data stratified by age as the research preprints do. However the effect of the vaccine is so marked hat you do not need a maths PhD to work it out.

i'm not sure what in the above anyone on this thread is arguing. Maybe all the posts above are spin, or maybe somone actually belives the vaccines are not highly protective against even delta COVID?

Display More

The tide is turning on risk reward. More and more, people with expertise are calling for vaccines to be halted. You did read Stefan's post on target end dates for vaccines, yet you don't feel they were rushed and keep claiming long term safety, which is nonsense and spin on your part. I suggest you read and watch the videos posted. They are not laymen slinging shit but experts in their fields of science that believe we are being lied to and have the science to back it!!!

Are Asymptomatics Sick Until Proven Healthy?

https://trialsitenews.com/are-…ick-until-proven-healthy/

By Abir Ballan, MPH- Coordinator of PANDA

Helen Tindall, BNg, MPH

Across the globe, official public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic has been underpinned by the concern that people without disease symptoms may transmit the virus. This has led to recommendations such as universal mask-wearing, social distancing, mass testing, stay at home orders, and school and business closures.

“Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling.” (Ref)

The concern that SARS-CoV-2 could be spread by people without symptoms originally came from a single case report. It was alleged that an asymptomatic woman from China had spread the virus to 16 other contacts in Germany. Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was actually taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission.

As with other common respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads by being exhaled, coughed or sneezed into the air (Ref). The largest droplets fall quickly and settle on the ground whilst the most lightweight particles, known as aerosols, may remain suspended in the air for days (Ref). Once the virus is present in the environment, it spreads by finding its way into the respiratory tract of new hosts in a large enough quantity (known as the ‘viral load’ or ‘infectious dose’) to infect them. The theory of fomite transmission (touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the face) is not supported by scientific evidence (Ref).

The most significant risk factor for COVID-19 disease is advanced age and the presence of underlying health issues such as cardiovascular disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes (Ref & Ref). Both factors contribute to a frail immune system. In addition to the health status of the exposed person, the environment in which exposure occurs also affects the probability of that person falling ill. Infectious aerosols remain suspended for longer in cold, dry air. Hence respiratory viruses transmit most efficiently during colder seasons (Ref). People spend more time indoors during cold weather, where poor ventilation leads to higher concentrations of infectious aerosols remaining in the air. Spending time in crowded indoor spaces also increases the risk of transmission (Ref, Ref, & Ref). Furthermore, lack of exposure to the sun in colder weather results in lower Vitamin D levels, and greater susceptibility to illness if infected (Ref).

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes some individuals to become ill with COVID-19. Many people have had previous exposure to other related coronaviruses. These individuals develop mild or no symptoms following infection with SARS-CoV2, most likely due to protection conferred by this exposure. Cross-immunity has been demonstrated in multiple studies (Ref, Ref, Ref, & Ref). “The evidence that a subset of people has a cross-reactive T cell repertoire through exposure to related coronaviruses is strong.” (Ref).

People presenting with symptoms of COVID-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick COVID-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes (Ref) and people living in the same household (Ref). ”The risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among close contacts increased with the severity of index [initial] cases.” (Ref). The more serious the individual’s symptoms are the more infectious they are.

A person showing no symptoms of COVID-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen:

The test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (Ref) (the person is not infected);

The person may have recovered from COVID-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test);

The person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms; or

The person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity (Ref) and will never develop symptoms.

In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics. As Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated in March 2020:

“In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person”.

A study in May 2020 found that all 455 contacts of an asymptomatic individual did not become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the researchers concluded that “the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.” (Ref). A recent study shows the minimal effect of asymptomatic transmission within the same household. 1000 asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals lead to 7 new infections, while 1000 symptomatic individuals lead to 180 new infections (Ref). The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals. The risk of asymptomatic spread outdoors would be even more insignificant.

The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility” (Ref). Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect (Ref).

A sensible recommendation is to ask sick individuals to stay at home until they are recovered, which may last for about eight days (Ref). This age-old commonsense practice would have saved the world incredible collateral damage. Instead of wasting resources by focusing on the healthy, it’s time to shift our attention to the vulnerable to improve their prognosis and survival. This strategy involves three key components: prevention (Vitamin D supplementation, healthy lifestyle, avoiding crowded indoor places during the peak of outbreaks, and safe and efficacious vaccination), early treatment of symptoms in the high-risk group, and effective treatment protocols in the event of hospitalization.

Quote from Fm1

Over 50% of the new cases in Israel are of fully vaccinated people. The numbers are low but growing each day over the past 4 days

israel. Currently 59% vaccinated

https://graphics.reuters.com/w…s-and-territories/israel/

Perhaps i will answer this same point from the UK, where the same effect exists:

https://www.theguardian.com/th…ovid-have-been-vaccinated

why are most of the popel who now die from COVID in the UK vaccinated?

i gave the reasons above, but maybe a longer description as in that article would help?

it is pretty obvious to anyone who knows statistics and the fact that those at risk from COVID (the elderly, those with underlying conditions) get offered vaccines first, and are much more likely to take them up.

Given this, posting such figures without analysis is just pure anti-vax (highly misleading) propaganda.

All Risk. Zero Benefit. 10 Reasons to Say No to the Jab for the Young

https://trialsitenews.com/all-…to-the-jab-for-the-young/

By Abir Ballan, MPH- Coordinator of PANDA

A needle in every arm seems to be the global directive. Inject the old and the young; the sick and the healthy; the recovered and the immune-naive. Just like lockdowns, another strategy that ignores demographic, geographic and immunological differences is being forced on the entire population without a risk-benefit analysis for the individual or a cost-benefit analysis for society.

The declaration for the protection of children and young people details the collateral damage done to the young by strategies not based on their needs. Are we prepared to find out in real-time what collateral damage could result from a vaccination strategy that is also not based on their needs? The declaration states, “Children and young people do not benefit from the COVID-19 vaccine as their risk from the disease is almost nil. Mass vaccination and vaccine trials on healthy children are therefore unethical.”

Parents need to know that COVID-19 vaccines are not yet approved by the regulatory authorities. The initial COVID-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization in young people aged 16 and 17 was not based on studies establishing safety and efficacy in this age group. Safety and efficacy was extrapolated from studies in adults under the pretext that 16 and 17 year-olds are similar to younger adults. Furthermore, the vaccine manufacturers did not adhere to their own protocols in the vaccine trials for the 12-15 year olds, leading to a more favorable safety profile. They also failed to report transparently on adverse events noted during the trials.

Given the lack of emergency for the young and the mounting evidence for available effective treatment for the high-risk population, many scientists have argued that the COVID-19 vaccines should have never received Emergency Use Authorization for children.

Children are being lured into taking the COVID-19 vaccine by manipulative tactics such as sweet offerings and social approval messaging. Some countries are also considering allowing children (minors) to decide for themselves to accept the vaccine without parental consent. Moral imperatives are proliferating to guilt the young into getting vaccinated for the sake of the old, completely disregarding the fact that vaccines are designed to protect the vaccinated. Parents are being scared by variants, claimed to be more lethal to children, while the data (3 min video) doesn’t show that any of the new variants are more lethal. Faulty arguments are being spread to perpetuate the lie that the entire population of the planet must be vaccinated to stop the virus from mutating into new variants. But viruses mutate. They will continue to mutate no matter what we do or who gets vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines do not offer sterilising immunity. Vaccinated individuals can still catch the virus and spread it to others. SARS-CoV-2 can also infect animals. As long as the virus continues to be passed on between hosts, it will continue to mutate.

Meanwhile, serious adverse events and deaths following the vaccine are being reported in the young, while Big Pharma enjoys complete indemnity from liability.

“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”– Nelson Mandela.

The situation is bleak. Biomedical ethics are being disregarded. Science is dead. Parents are misinformed and manipulated, in violation of the Nuremberg code. The children are being sacrificed at the altar of Big Pharma.

It’s time for your informed consent.

Here are 10 Reasons why children and young people should NOT get the COVID-19 vaccines:

Children and young people have a mostly mild or asymptomatic presentation when infected with SARS-CoV-2. They are at near-zero risk of death from COVID-19.

There is an unusually high rate of reported adverse events and deaths following the COVID-19 vaccines compared to other vaccines. Some adverse events are more common in the young, especially myocarditis. Where potential harm exists from an innovation and little is known about it, the precautionary principle dictates to first do no harm. Better safe than sorry.

Medium and long-term safety data about the COVID-19 vaccines are still lacking. Children and young people have a remaining life expectancy of 55 to 80 years. Unknown harmful long-term effects are far more consequential for the young than for the elderly.

Vaccination policies rely on expected benefits clearly outweighing the risk of adverse events from the vaccination. The risk-benefit analysis for the COVID-19 vaccines points to a high potential risk versus no benefit for children and young people.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children to adults is minimal and adults in contact with children do not have higher COVID-19 mortality.

It is unethical to put children and young people at risk to protect adults. Altruistic behaviors such as organ and blood donation are all voluntary.

Several prophylactic treatments as well as the COVID-19 vaccines are available to high-risk individuals so they can protect themselves.

Natural immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 is broad and robust and more effective than vaccine immunity, especially in combating variants. Children and young people are safer with natural immunity.

There are several prophylactic (preventive) protocols and effective treatments available to children and young people with comorbidities.

Vaccinating children and young people is not necessary for herd immunity. After a year and a half of the pandemic, most people either have pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses, have recovered from COVID-19 or have been vaccinated.

There is thus no medical or public health case for the mass vaccination of children and young people, or for coercive or restrictive measures affecting those who are unvaccinated. For the young, natural exposure to the virus instead of the vaccine is the right thing to do for the greater common good.

All parents should ask themselves a pertinent question: Why risk harm from the experimental vaccines when my child has near zero risk from COVID-19 and natural immunity is safer and more effective?

We have sacrificed the younger generations again and again throughout the pandemic; deprived them of their education, their peers, their grandparents, their joy, and even fresh air by masking them heartlessly.

It’s time to stop abusing our young.

“Our children are our greatest treasure. Those who abuse them tear at the fabric of our society and weaken our nation.” – Nelson Mandela

Three easy actions for parents to take matters into their own hands:

Sign PANDA’s declaration and support our campaign to stop the mass COVID-19 vaccine rollout for children and young people.

Launch a petition in your country, using a standard text prepared for your convenience.

Save lives and report any adverse events in children and young people following vaccination to the relevant authorities in your country (UK, US, CANADA, GERMANY, EUROPE, SOUTH AFRICA, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA)

This is where we draw a line. Our children are not guinea pigs. Our children are ours to protect. The price is too high. Just say NO. Just DO NOT consent to an all-risk, zero-benefit equation.

Quote from THHuxleynew

israel. Currently 59% vaccinated

https://graphics.reuters.com/w…s-and-territories/israel/

Perhaps i will answer this same point from the UK, where the same effect exists:

https://www.theguardian.com/th…ovid-have-been-vaccinated

why are most of the popel who now die from COVID in the UK vaccinated?

i gave the reasons above, but maybe a longer description as in that article would help?

it is pretty obvious to anyone who knows statistics and the fact that those at risk from COVID (the elderly, those with underlying conditions) get offered vaccines first, and are much more likely to take them up.

Given this, posting such figures without analysis is just pure anti-vax (highly misleading) propaganda.

Display More

Those numbers came from Israel health ministry not anti vac. You are full of shit thomas

The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. from https://trialsitenews.com/are-…ick-until-proven-healthy/

This is political misleading spin. It is very well established that most transmission from COVID occurs before the first symptoms, and therefore when the patient is still apparently healthy. that is why it is such an effective virus, and also why it had no direct evolutionary pressure to become milder (which would be the case if its primary mode of transmission were from symptomatic individuals).

Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility” (Ref). Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect (Ref).

The virus is tiny, but is carried in water droplets, these are either stopped or not stopped by the mask. there are two barriers, from a person expelling droplets/vapour, and from a person inhaling them. The effect on exhalation appears to be stronger because droplets that get into the air dry out and then will go through masks more easily - so catching them when still liquid is a good idea.

At very least, two unmasked people talking to each other will expel tiny droplets which are then directly inhaled. masks reduce this affect - at least for the larger (and therefore higher viral load) droplets. it is pretty obvious.

So how do arguments like this get any traction? beats me.

Having said that I'm not claiming masks are very protective. It is difficult to measure this and many factors change the result. But given that many studies (contradicting early medical opinion) show some worthwhile level of protection, given that wearing mask costs 1/1000000th of lockdowns and can make the difference between having one or no, it is surely a good idea to wear masks?

One more thing. Delta is different and maybe masks are more, or less, effective in reducing its r number. I have not seen evidence either way yet.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. from https://trialsitenews.com/are-…ick-until-proven-healthy/

This is political misleading spin. It is very well established that most transmission from COVID occurs before the first symptoms, and therefore when the patient is still apparently healthy. that is why it is such an effective virus, and also why it had no direct evolutionary pressure to become milder (which would be the case if its primary mode of transmission were from symptomatic individuals).

Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility” (Ref). Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect (Ref).

The virus is tiny, but is carried in water droplets, these are either stopped or not stopped by the mask. there are two barriers, from a person expelling droplets/vapour, and from a person inhaling them. The effect on exhalation appears to be stronger because droplets that get into the air dry out and then will go through masks more easily - so catching them when still liquid is a good idea.

At very least, two unmasked people talking to each other will expel tiny droplets which are then directly inhaled. masks reduce this affect - at least for the larger (and therefore higher viral load) droplets. it is pretty obvious.

So how do arguments like this get any traction? beats me.

Having said that I'm not claiming masks are very protective. It is difficult to measure this and many factors change the result. But given that many studies (contradicting early medical opinion) show some worthwhile level of protection, given that wearing mask costs 1/1000000th of lockdowns and can make the difference between having one or no, it is surely a good idea to wear masks?

One more thing. Delta is different and maybe masks are more, or less, effective in reducing its r number. I have not seen evidence either way yet.

THH

Display More

Pure crap as usual but such a nice writing style. You forgot Aerosol studies that say you are posting crap, or the studies that say Asymptomatics don't spread the virus efficiently. Do you really want to keep playing this game?

another cheap alternative nobody knows about?

Celebrex Adjuvant Therapy on Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Experimental Study

https://www.frontiersin.org/ar…89/fphar.2020.561674/full

Background: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in grave morbidity and mortality worldwide. There is currently no effective drug to cure COVID-19. Based on analyses of available data, we deduced that excessive prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) produced by cyclooxygenase-2 was a key pathological event of COVID-19.

Methods: A prospective clinical study was conducted in one hospital for COVID-19 treatment with Celebrex to suppress the excessive PGE2 production. A total of 44 COVID-19 cases were enrolled, 37 cases in the experimental group received Celebrex as adjuvant (full dose: 0.2 g, bid; half dose: 0.2 g, qd) for 7–14 days, and the dosage and duration was adjusted for individuals, while seven cases in the control group received the standard therapy. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by measuring the urine PGE2 levels, lab tests, CT scans, vital signs, and other clinical data. The urine PGE2 levels were measured by mass spectrometry. The study was registered and can be accessed at http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=50474.

Results: The concentrations of PGE2 in urine samples of COVID-19 patients were significantly higher than those of PGE2 in urine samples of healthy individuals (mean value: 170 ng/ml vs 18.8 ng/ml, p < 0.01) and positively correlated with the progression of COVID-19. Among those 37 experimental cases, there were 10 cases with age over 60 years (27%, 10/37) and 13 cases (35%, 13/37) with preexisting conditions including cancer, atherosclerosis, and diabetes. Twenty-five cases had full dose, 11 cases with half dose of Celebrex, and one case with ibuprofen. The remission rates in midterm were 100%, 82%, and 57% of the full dose, half dose, and control group, respectively, and the discharged rate was 100% at the endpoint with Celebrex treatment. Celebrex significantly reduced the PGE2 levels and promoted recovery of ordinary and severe COVID-19. Furthermore, more complications, severity, and death rate were widely observed and reported in the COVID-19 group of elders and with comorbidities; however, this phenomenon did not appear in this particular Celebrex adjunctive treatment study.

Conclusion: This clinical study indicates that Celebrex adjuvant treatment promotes the recovery of all types of COVID-19 and further reduces the mortality rate of elderly and those with comorbidities

Quote from stefan

On the other hand doctors is a top elite of the academics with highest grade in the country on pre-university tests,

Medical doctors are the lowest grade intellectuals on the planet. There science grade is what you did learn until age 18. A large part of the male doctors have only once reason to be there: Money.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Videos - figures without full analysis and context - maverick anti-vax doctors with pet way-out theories on causes - oh and 5G tower rollouts - are all unhelpful in making trye judgements. it is a shame they are posted here preferentially over careful and comprehensive analyses.

The only person here that references these fringe arguments are you the undergraduate of spin...

Quote from THHuxleynew

why are most of the popel who now die from COVID in the UK vaccinated?

i gave the reasons above, but maybe a longer description as in that article would help?

You should first ramp up your secondary school math skills again. You are a complete nonsense talker. Or may be you agree that the currently unvaccinated are immune by nature...

Quote from THHuxleynew

The virus is tiny, but is carried in water droplets, these are either stopped or not stopped by the mask.

Where did you read this bullshit??

The word droplet comes from drop!! But why should I explain you your language? You anyway use it only for spin. Aerosols are not droplets !!! Aerosols do not drop at all! Only FP98 mask can stop them to a certain extent, surgical masks at best for 5%. This is what science tells not THH.

Quote from Navid

So you have to take the graphene challenge on....

There is no graphene in the vaccine. Read the package leavlet!

Quote from stefan

Pitching a drug may mean that you believe in it and it's your role to pitch it, sales people do this all the time, listening to their researchers and be super smart at manipulating the customer. This is capitalism as we know it and that is what we as a people have said an ok for.

No: People never accepted to be ruled by the FM/R/J/B mafia . People never agreed to take worthless drugs like viox, statines, opioides Remdesivir, Pandermix, RNA vaccines. People were force to take them because the mafia refused to give them the well working treatments. Ivermectin/HCQ

Quote from stefan

We accept and vote for politicians that want the universities to have systems where there is a tight coupling between academics and companies in order to direct research towards good research, this has been an on going process for a long time and is actually working quite well in many ways.

Currently the FM/R/J/B mafia is destroying academic freedom. They already installed a large number of clerks unable to do proper science. Clerks with the only qualification being a member of FM/R/J/B with the only duty to control everything/everybody..

Quote from THHuxleynew

The well collected and scrutinised data from the UK is reliable, and shows that vaccines reduce by at least a factor of 10 your chances of dying. This is FACT. Not speculation, extrapolation, but hard fact being tested every day in the Uk as a delta infection wave doubles every two weeks, and hospital cases still stay low.

Ivermectin reduces the number of death by a factor for 40 at least. But vaccines only short time (up to 5 years) protect the old and vulnerable. For the rest the vaccines are a much higher risk I never will take.

The worst cases scenario is that most vaccinated will be killed by a mutated virus because of the well known - from animal test - hyper inflammation over reaction that can be triggered by certain corona virus.

Just so those posting misinformation realise what affect this behaviout -nreplicated in a wider and perhaps less critical population - can have:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01056-1

Widespread acceptance of a vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be the next major step in fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but achieving high uptake will be a challenge and may be impeded by online misinformation. To inform successful vaccination campaigns, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and the USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others. Here we show that in both countries—as of September 2020—fewer people would ‘definitely’ take a vaccine than is likely required for herd immunity, and that, relative to factual information, recent misinformation induced a decline in intent of 6.2 percentage points (95th percentile interval 3.9 to 8.5) in the UK and 6.4 percentage points (95th percentile interval 4.0 to 8.8) in the USA among those who stated that they would definitely accept a vaccine. We also find that some sociodemographic groups are differentially impacted by exposure to misinformation. Finally, we show that scientific-sounding misinformation is more strongly associated with declines in vaccination intent.

And on the subject of scientifc-sounding misinformation

Quote from Fm1

Pure crap as usual but such a nice writing style. You forgot Aerosol studies that say you are posting crap, or the studies that say Asymptomatics don't spread the virus efficiently. Do you really want to keep playing this game?

No Fm1 - I've had my fill of posting against a wave of people who have closed minds. I will however answr your abusive post here, because you have misunderstood my post.

I said:

It is very well established that most transmission from COVID occurs before the first symptoms, and therefore when the patient is still apparently healthy. that is why it is such an effective virus, and also why it had no direct evolutionary pressure to become milder (which would be the case if its primary mode of transmission were from symptomatic individuals).

You said:

You forgot [ ] the studies that say Asymptomatics don't spread the virus efficiently

Do you see the difference? Asymptomatics are never symptomatic and therefore have much less severe disease, much lower viral load. They can still transmit - there is plenty evidence - but this is less likely for obvious reasons. It may be getting more likley with delta if it manages to concentrate virus in the mouth or nasal passages - I don't know - but for pre-delta - where we have evidence - asymptomatics do transmit, although much less tha symptomatics.

Anyway - my point was not about asymptomatics. it was about pre-symptomatics. people who are apparently healthy but good virus transmitters and who will go on to develop symptoms.

The article conflates pre-symptomatic with asymptomatic. Your reply to me does the same.

Re masks. I'm not going to argue this one. The evidence for masks is more mixed - it is very complex. if you don't see the point, given a likely helpful effect, even if it is only say 20%, of wearing masks, then we must just disagree. I think it is pretty obvious. Wearing masks costs almost nothing, COVID spreading costs health, life, and livelihood (even without massive lockdowns - because people are more cautious and go out less, 3rd countries ban you, etc etc).

Quote from Wyttenbach

Medical doctors are the lowest grade intellectuals on the planet. There science grade is what you did learn until age 18. A large part of the male doctors have only once reason to be there: Money.

The only person here that references these fringe arguments are you the undergraduate of spin...

You should first ramp up your secondary school math skills again. You are a complete nonsense talker. Or may be you agree that the currently unvaccinated are immune by nature...

Where did you read this bullshit??

The word droplet comes from drop!! But why should I explain you your language? You anyway use it only for spin. Aerosols are not droplets !!! Aerosols do not drop at all! Only FP98 mask can stop them to a certain extent, surgical masks at best for 5%. This is what science tells not THH.

There is no graphene in the vaccine. Read the package leavlet!

No: People never accepted to be ruled by the FM/R/J/B mafia . People never agreed to take worthless drugs like viox, statines, opioides Remdesivir, Pandermix, RNA vaccines. People were force to take them because the mafia refused to give them the well working treatments. Ivermectin/HCQ

Currently the FM/R/J/B mafia is destroying academic freedom. They already installed a large number of clerks unable to do proper science. Clerks with the only qualification being a member of FM/R/J/B with the only duty to control everything/everybody..

Ivermectin reduces the number of death by a factor for 40 at least. But vaccines only short time (up to 5 years) protect the old and vulnerable. For the rest the vaccines are a much higher risk I never will take.

The worst cases scenario is that most vaccinated will be killed by a mutated virus because of the well known - from animal test - hyper inflammation over reaction that can be triggered by certain corona v

Display More

I agree with most of the post but I have to take issue with the claim of no graphene. As I understand this was how they stabilized the coding. Graphics is used in mRNA cancer treatment injections since 2018 of that, I am sure

Unexpected Discovery About Zinc Opens a New Way to Regulate Blood Pressure

https://scitechdaily.com/unexp…ulate-blood-pressure/amp/

International research team uncovers underappreciated metal’s role in lowering blood pressure.

High blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and premature death worldwide. And key to treating patients with conditions ranging from chest pain to stroke is understanding the intricacies of how the cells around arteries and other blood vessels work to control blood pressure. While the importance of metals like potassium and calcium in this process are known, a new discovery about a critical and underappreciated role of another metal — zinc — offers a potential new pathway for therapies to treat hypertension.

The study results were published recently in Nature Communications.

All the body’s functions depend on arteries channeling oxygen-rich blood — energy — to where it’s needed, and smooth muscle cells within these vessels direct how fast or slow the blood gets to each destination. As smooth muscles contract, they narrow the artery and increase the blood pressure, and as the muscle relaxes, the artery expands and blood pressure falls. If the blood pressure is too low the blood flow will not be enough to sustain a person’s body with oxygen and nutrients. If the blood pressure is too high, the blood vessels risk being damaged or even ruptured.

“Fundamental discoveries going back more than 60 years have established that the levels of the calcium and potassium in the muscle surrounding blood vessels control how they expand and contract,” say lead author Ashenafi Betrie, Ph.D., and senior authors Scott Ayton, Ph.D., and Christine Wright, Ph.D., of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health and The University of Melbourne in Australia.

Specifically, the researchers explain, potassium regulates calcium in the muscle, and calcium is known to be responsible for causing the narrowing of the arteries and veins that elevate blood pressure and restrict blood flow. Other cells that surround the blood vessel, including endothelial cells and sensory nerves, also regulate the calcium and potassium within the muscle of the artery, and are themselves regulated by the levels of these metals contained within them.

“Our discovery that zinc is also important was serendipitous because we’d been researching the brain, not blood pressure,” says Betrie. “We were investigating the impact of zinc-based drugs on brain function in Alzheimer’s disease when we noticed a pronounced and unexpected decrease in blood pressure in mouse models treated with the drugs.”

In collaboration with researchers at the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine in the United States and TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital in China, the investigators learned that coordinated action by zinc within sensory nerves, endothelial cells and the muscle of arteries triggers lower calcium levels in the muscle of the blood vessel. This makes the vessel relax, decreasing blood pressure and increasing blood flow. The scientists found that blood vessels in the brain and the heart were more sensitive to zinc than blood vessels in other areas of the body — an observation that warrants further research.

“Essentially, zinc has the opposite effect to calcium on blood flow and pressure,” says Ayton. “Zinc is an important metal ion in biology and, given that calcium and potassium are famous for controlling blood flow and pressure, it’s surprising that the role of zinc hasn’t previously been appreciated.”

Another surprising fact is that genes that control zinc levels within cells are known to be associated with cardiovascular diseases including hypertension, and hypertension is also a known side effect of zinc deficiency. This new research provides explanations for these previously known associations.

“While there are a range of existing drugs that are available to lower blood pressure, many people develop resistance to them,” says Wright, who added that a number of cardiovascular diseases, including pulmonary hypertension, are poorly treated by currently available therapies. “New zinc-based blood pressure drugs would be a huge outcome for an accidental discovery, reminding us that in research, it isn’t just about looking for something specific, but also about just looking.”

Reference: “Zinc drives vasorelaxation by acting in sensory nerves, endothelium and smooth muscle” by Ashenafi H. Betrie, James A. Brock, Osama F. Harraz, Ashley I. Bush, Guo-Wei He, Mark T. Nelson, James A. Angus, Christine E. Wright and Scott Ayton, 1 June 2021, Nature Communications.

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23198-6

Quote from THHuxleynew

Wearing masks costs almost nothing,

Wearing masks did cost the live of some 10'000 EU people that were forced to wear masks outdoors. Wearing the same mask indoors - contaminated region - and outdoors guarantees you an infection.

Switzerland never had masks outdoors. For more than 8 months we here had 3x less deaths than FR/GE etc...

Masks were forced to mind transfer the fascist thinking into the populations head and finally for making them abulic followers of the FM/R/J/B agenda.

Freedom for vaccine and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . Let's hope the virus mutates...

IVERMECTIN saves India!

Cases down to 50'000. Early adapters (Delhi -85 cases- , Uttar Pradesh 200 mio people even far less <1/mio) are now far below Israel level.

Why should we stop vaccination? Because the vulnerable already got it. For all others it's a crime against humanity.

Quote from THHuxleynew

To inform successful vaccination campaigns, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and the USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others

Here you can learn (from THHuxleynew ) how you sell bullshit to people. First ask how save the vaccine is for people not at risk and then go for a coffee.