Covid-19 News

    Wyttenbach - I have no idea what you mean here


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

    Quote
    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...


    I will give a simple example. Suppose 50% of population are vaccinated, and that boundary corresponds to age 30. Suppose (to take a clear example) that everyone over 30 years of age has propability 2% of dying, if they catch COVID. That everyone under 30 has probablity 0.2% of dying if they catch COVID. To gte the real figures you would need to integrate over the exponential age/risk curve.


    Suppose the vaccine does nothing. Then you expect 10X more vaccinated than unvaccinated people in hospitals and duying - because those most at risk are vaccinated.

    Suppose the vaccine is 10X protective. in otehr words it reduces your risk by 10X relative to being unvaccinated. in that case the population in hospitals dying of vaccinated and unvaccinated will be equal.


    I've simplified - statistics for dying and being in hospital are different. But they seem to align quite well. if you are higher risk of hospitalisation, you are also higher risk of dying.


    agree the unvaccinated are immune by nature?


    Currently the unvaccinated in the UK are predominately under 25. They are unlikely to die of COVID because of their age.


    Regards, THH

    THH,

    I am unfortunately disappointed.

    To follow science, one must enter a project with a non-biased and without preconceived determination of the outcome. You know this. While skepticism is not bad in itself, it going in, it clouds the eyesight, you wind up with ECW and like followers. Make no mistake, one can be just as "cult' minded on the skeptical side of an issue as the "cult followers". Could this be such a case? Normal scientific approach is to go into a project with an attitude that you are going to "disprove" your own theory.... in this case, you would go in with an attitude that you will disprove your own prejudice against the subject!


    Your post above shows little reason why you should watch the video. You have already pre-determined it to be a PR video and not only invalid, but intentionally misleading. That is PR. PR for what, I am unsure. These are qualified people in their field. They are not selling product nor will they make money on their proposals. Although you state "perhaps", it is clear your mind is made up. Not good science here.


    The real question I think needs to be asked with you is "who is the jury" going to be? Merck? Johnson and Johnson? There ARE studies, both RCT and meta data analysis that conclude Ivermectin works, done by qualified people in their own fields. Yet you reject the studies simply because they do not follow the mainstream narrative. I have have read only a couple of studies that conclude Ivermectin does not work and those studies look more suspect to bias (to me) than the positive ones. NONE report danger of use which is circulating the PR media. (Yes, I feel confident in saying that) However, overall, MANY more positive studies than negative. However it appears you will not read the positive ones as they have been predetermined to be PR..... PR for what again, I must ask?


    So, if you want, watch the video... however it appears it is of little use. You seem that you are not taking a scientific approach to it. Again, these people are qualified... if you think not, then you should state why. Is trumpeting Ivermectin sole reason enough for you to cast them as unqualified and uneducated?


    I hope not.

    Quote from Curbina

    I think Wyttenbach is being sarcastic with the statement “read the vaccine leaflet”. The correct statement is “there is official denial that the vaccines contain Graphene”, but they do.


    External Content m.youtube.com
    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.

    Given where we are in this op it is better to assume they do as a thought experiment, and then work backwards as to what we would expect and see if that matches observations.

    Bob - you are mistaking my fixed view of poor reporting, with a fixed view of content.


    For the obvious reasons i've stated videos are an inefficient way to convey scientific info, and an efficient way to do PR.

    I apply this equally to videos describing why vaccines are safe (which i would not watch of reference) even though my understanding is that vaccines delivered to mass populations are almost universally 9with a very few exceptions, withdrawn fairly quickly) safe.


    So: I judge videos; 1 they are inefficient, have inevitably small info content when compared to papers, are less useful. i don't like them. 2. because of 1. videos are more often used by people who have a cause when want to gain public optionon, influence people, etc, rather than those who want to lay down precisely scientific results as a contribution to the debate. Now it is true any specific video might be an exception - which is why i say perhaps. Also, maybe it is made by people who do not understand (perhaps they are not experts in science) why papers are a more useful way of disseminating results than videos. But in that case, as non-experts, their conclusions would be less likely to be of use.


    The above paragraph is not bias. It is just plain obvious when you think about the detail needed to draw any conclusion from scientific studies.


    if you require me to be "unbiassed" about videos that is just wrong. they are demonstrably lower quality, and slower to extract useful info from, than scientific reports. That is why you find real research results published in preprints as text, artehr than videos.


    If you require me to be "unbiassed" about IVM that is fair enough. I am. And I've given you no info to think otherwise. my delay is partly because you linked a video, and partly because i am very busy at the moment and taking a short break from it to post here.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Navid

    Given where we are in this op it is better to assume they do as a thought experiment, and then work backwards as to what we would expect and see if that matches observations.

    Agreed. But this has already been done and it matches observations. You can match all adverse reactions to the vaccines with the already existent in literature observations of toxicity of different forms of Graphene.

    #Bob - one more thing.


    Perhaps the difference is this. you trust experts more than me !!!! which is strange, because generally I trust experts (to be generally honest and good intentioned) except when they are outliers with weight of opinion against them, or behave in unprofessional way.


    Thus when qualified people say something - even if they do so in a way that does not hold water - you may be inclined to trust their judgement more than your own. in addition note that a qualified doctor may not be a qualified medical research scientist and vice versa.


    I do not trust qualified people when they behave in a way that is unusual (e.g. disseminating research results in a video). Even when they behave as usual i do not trust conclusions of research papers without evaluating them for myself, unless they are high quality high impact (some measure of quality) reviews articles. that is because many hot off the press research papers are juts wrong, or misleading. not from malice, but because science (particularly medicine) is uncertain. Scientific progress comes from putting together lots of stuff, seeing what fits, what does not. There are exceptions. Not many here where getting high quality uncontaminated info from medical trial data is difficult and takes some time (registered, RCTs with precise endpoints, results posted, results what was originally proposed rather than changed in the middle). evaluating the vast amount of low quality info is also difficult, because of possible biasses in the way low quality reporting happens.

    Quote from Curbina

    Agreed. But this has already been done and it matches observations. You can match all adverse reactions to the vaccines with the already existent in literature observations of toxicity of different forms of Graphene.

    At a big picture level I dont see we are there yet. How is toxicity of graphene, related to Sars-Cov-2? Why does Ivermectin work? Why do Sars-Cov-2 tests show IVM works? What is the relationship of spike to graphene? Do you think they are independent pieces (I do)

    If the vaccine would not work we should know by now from our authorities also if it is too dangerous to take the vaccine and that from our own data here in Sweden. I know the people doing the analysis, I basically studied together with them and they know their stuff. Our authorities here is not going to vaccinate the young until September October and by then we will know if it is safe.


    On the other hand I have analyzed some papers regarding ivermectin reported above. One that is used by fact checkers that ivermectin does not work and one spanish one (RCT) in lancet that suggest that we should do a big study of it.


    The Colombian study has a huge problem as a proof that ivermectin does not work that fact checkers incompetently miss and what wyttenbach correctly point out -(this paper has spread on the internet and is now all over the place). And that is the age distribution (50% where under 50 years old and in a narrow band). They should then not clump everyone together if they had a serius number older people indeed where in the study, but instead separate into different age groups. In all, although they have quite a lot of people in the study compared to other rct the effect to measure is small and if older people are included unessesary big error will result that enable no effect to be seen. There are other problems with the study as well but that's the biggest issue to me.


    N.B.

    It is quite common to say, in papers, that for the group they studied, it was significant or not and leave the description of the group to the results section. This was done here under the assumption that the experienced reader would search for it. Interesting the lancet study I think actually presented the age group more explicitly.


    No this age group could be interesting to study if you look at virological load, which is done in the lancet spanish rct. they did just have 20 persons in the study in a basically the same narrow age group, but they analysed virological load an did find indications that ivermectin can work, but the effect, which could be relevant was not significant, but then only 20 people means that only super big effects can be seen.


    I would very much like to see how the experts and fact checkers address the issue with the age group and if they can't retract their conclusion, clean the internet. Experts seam to have realized this issue though as they have included ivermectin in the big studies now, but seam to keep quit about it publically.


    The Indian case is indeed suggestioning that the viral load decreases with ivermectin, but the data is difficult. Other meassures was taken together with ivermectin recomendations and things are confounded. Also statistics of the number of people taking ivermectin seam to be missing so we end up in a guessing game. The fact that make me lean on that there is an effect is that we had one region that did not suggest ivermectin and cases went wild there, I have not seen anyone suggesting an alternative explanation of this fact, like if they did not recommend masks and social distansing or similar.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Bob - you are mistaking my fixed view of poor reporting, with a fixed view of content.

    Do you think that I am taking a Youtube video as a "report" or a technical write up" ? That is clearly preposterous of course. As you state, a 5 minute video is likely to contain very little significant data within itself.


    However, they CAN be an efficient method to summarize a subject and to provide summarized findings. If this is what you mean by "PR", perhaps there is a bit of truth in it. However, good "PR" videos WOULD link or list the studies, RCT's and data sources referenced by them so one can do further research if desired. Not all have automatic or free access to journals or research papers.


    Your approach is similar to this : "I will never listen to or take seriously any newscast. They are not experts, they are all "PR" with an agenda and do not contain any substantive or detailed data. Therefore they are useless and should not be viewed".......


    So if a video is written up by "Joe Blow" , from his apartment, while wearing his underwear and he has NO credentials nor links ANY supportive data sources, I would take anything he said with very little confidence and probably would not look deeper into his subject.


    However, if like FLCCC or some of other researchers, they ARE known, have credentials and provide sources, then I CAN have a measure of how confident I am in their presentation...... still needing confirmation by further research. However, I would not label these as PR, but more PSA... public service announcements


    Some here will swallow anything Merck or pharma has to say (with their incentive to make huge dollars) and yet discredit legitimate and qualified scientists who publish PSA that go against main stream medias grain and DO NOT HAVE monetary interest at stake. The only motive for them is to save lives. Yet their are labeled as "PR". Again.... PR for what? None of these videos I have references are anti-vaxers, anti-medicine, tin foil hat, UFO, or anything even close. They are all respected, long term, qualified doctors and scientists. Yet they are being lumped into the prior batch simply because they are not kow towing to main stream.....


    That is not science.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    #Bob - one more thing.


    Perhaps the difference is this. you trust experts more than me !!!! which is strange, because generally I trust experts (to be generally honest and good intentioned) except when they are outliers with weight of opinion against them, or behave in unprofessional way.

    I do not trust anyone.... even you! :) And myself sometimes even less. 8o

    That is why I look at many things, certainly NOT ONLY what main stream says. Outliers? You must be joking!


    Outliers are the only ones who will bring up corruption, greed, crime and deceit. I realize they can also be tin foil hat types, but not scarily by default.


    Remember... ANYONE who brings up a subject outside "mainstream" is an outlier. Such as Einstein or the Wright Brothers.


    No, these videos I references are not PR in my opinion... but PSA's trying to get helpful information out that is being resisted against....

    Feds Continue to Fund Moderna Including $144m Injection into 2/3 KidCOVE Study (11yr to 6 months) Despite Record Revenues & Profits & $8b cash reserves


    https://trialsitenews.com/feds…profits-8b-cash-reserves/


    Moderna, an innovative biotech leading the life-sciences-driven mRNA-based revolution, has proven just as adept at securing public (taxpayer) financing as developing breakthrough mRNA-based vaccines. Times have never been better for the Cambridge, MA-based company, one that was operating at well over a quarter billion dollar annual loss as the company transitioned from 2018 to 2019. TrialSite profiled this company’s IPO at $23 per share…the price is now $219.94 and a $88 billion market capitalization. With Q1 generating $1.73 billion in vaccine-related revenue, the innovative mRNA-focused biotech achieved profitability for the first time. Their annual forecast hits a staggering $19.2 billion thanks to the confluence of pandemic, quality product, and government subsidy. But they’ve turned out to become a business innovator, one originally profiled by the TrialSite as “Developing the Software of Life.” Yet a growing vaccine hesitancy does raise questions about not only public sentiment but also actual safety indicators. A recent FDA warning combined with other reports of safety anomalies suggest broader investigation. And debates about vaccinating young children grow, as prominent medical figures debate the true utility of such an imperative. Regardless, the U.S. federal government’s urgency to fight the pandemic led to unprecedented subsidization of vaccine and therapeutic development, and Moderna is at the nexus of activity. The company secured $1 billion of federal funds in support of the mRNA-1273 vaccine development effort and another $1.525 billion for supply agreements involving the commitment of the first 100 million doses. Now, not only has the federal government purchased an additional 200 million doses of mRNA-1273 currently on the market under emergency use authorization (EUA) but also via the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS), Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, announced an expanded relationship with the company, one where the government agency will offer program oversight and support, including a cash injection of up to $144 million for the Phase 2/3 clinical trial involving the vaccination of children or the KidCOVE study. Also, the U.S. federal government optioned “other” COVID-19 vaccine candidates in the Cambridge, MA-based company’s pipeline. With this deal, the U.S. government confirmed order commitment totals 500 million doses including 110 million doses expected to be delivered during Q4 2021 as well as 90 million expected for delivery in Q1 2022. As of June 14, Moderna has supplied 217 million doses of the investigational product to the U.S. government. The total price paid for this latest purchase wasn’t disclosed even though the funds are public.


    The KidCOVE Study


    The recent announcement in Medical Countermeasures showcases what actually amounts to an ongoing taxpayer subsidy of the mRNA-1273 based product despite Moderna’s staggering revenue forecast and record profitability. Specifically, up to $144 million will be used to support what could become a more controversial topic, the vaccination of young children. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently issued a statement declaring adolescents and children shouldn’t be vaccinated against COVID-19 but did make an update to include the recommendation that adolescents aged 12 to 15 should be vaccinated—this dovetails with emergency use authorization (EUA) in the U.S. as well as Europe (in the latter case its Pfizer’s Comirnaty authorized).


    The Phase 2/3 KidCOVE study (NCT04796896), formally called “Phase 2/3, Two-Part, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation, Age De-escalation and Randomized, Observer-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Expansion Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Reactogenicity, and Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Healthy Children 6 Months to Less Than 12 Years of Age,“ centers on the randomized, parallel assignment of just over 7,000 children to evaluate up to three dose levels of the investigational product given to healthy children in two (2) doses, 28 days apart.


    The study includes two arms, including 1) vaccine arm and 2) placebo. The vaccine arm includes two parts. In Part 1, participants receive 2 intramuscular injections of the vaccine at up to 3 doses pre-specified for the study 28 days apart—one at Day 1 and the other at Day 29. In Part 2, participants receive 2 intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 at the dose selected from Part 1, 28 Days Apart, again on Day 1 and then on Day 29.


    Government Involvement from the Start

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) via the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has been involved with this vaccine product from the beginning. In fact, NIH scientists are involved with some of the related patents for the product as reported by Public Citizen in “The NIH Vaccine.”


    NIAID as well as BARDA has been an active supporter of this vaccine starting back in April 2020 and included public funding for a Phase 2 dose confirmation study as well as aid for a crossover arm in the large Phase 3 COVE study in a bid to get the vaccine to study participants who first were randomized to the placebo arm.


    For example, in mid-April 2020, Moderna received $483 million from BARDA to help develop the vaccine. The funds were purportedly used to subsidize the vaccine’s clinical development program in addition to the manufacturing scale-up for mRNA-1273.


    Then just a couple of months later in June, the company received another $472 million from BARDA for additional support for clinical development (e.g. Phase 3 clinical trials) as reported by Reuters.


    The company then secured $1.525 billion for supply agreements involving the commitment of the first 100 million doses. It’s not clear exactly how much of the government is paying for this latest supply, including options for new COVID vaccines.


    Why Public Money Now?

    Moderna received over $2.4 billion in government support during the research, clinical, and supply phase during this pandemic. What did the combination of pandemic, innovative product development, and government financial backing do for Moderna? Well, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), it lifted the biotech company to profitability for the first time. In fact, in Q1 2021 alone, the company generated $1.73 billion in revenue.


    WSJ also reported that the company forecasts COVID-19 vaccine sales to $19.2 billion based on advance purchase agreements, north of its initial $18.4 billion forecast. The pandemic and government funding have been good for the innovative biotech leading the mRNA-based revolution in life sciences.


    Put another way, the company’s spectacular trajectory of value creation is in fact inexorably intertwined with government R&D subsidy and pandemic economics. Even when the company went public at the end of 2018 at $23 that value, again based on the confluence of forces, now totals 219.94 for an $88.31 billion market capitalization. The company now has nearly $8 billion in cash just sitting there. Why are the feds subsidizing the KidCOVE study?


    The benefits of a high-quality anti-COVID-19 vaccine undoubtedly is a rational target, worthy of public funding. But when does it end? Is there a continuous need for taxpayer subsidy for new studies when the company has not only crossed the profitability threshold but also headed to $20 billion in annual turnover from next to nothing in just 24 months?

    The lies by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Dr. Fauci on myocarditis risk and COVID-19 Delta variants. How many lies can one press release contain?


    https://trialsitenews.com/the-…ne-press-release-contain/


    Paul Elias Alexander, PhD


    We know that lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandate policies have made no sense whatsoever (particularly the prolonged restrictions) and as a consequence of their implementation, societal devastation has occurred and is still occurring and the impact on children’s health and well-being has yet to be examined in toto. We know of the devastating harms and costs due to lockdowns. The crushing harms are amplified and thus even more dramatic on women, children, and the poorer members of society. The lockdowns and school closures served to benefit the ‘laptop’ caffe latte upper crust of societies and worked to devastate the poorer ‘working class’.


    But these failed pandemic policies are not the focus of this op-ed. By now we have written about this ad nauseam. The core thesis in this offering surrounds the vaccination of children. We remain very concerned for nearly all children under 20 years of age, the risks from getting COVID-19 are extraordinarily small and for children, the risk is basically near zero in this population (statistical zero)— it is the closest to zero we can get — the cost-benefit argument against using an essentially untested vaccine is heavily in favor of risk and virtually no benefit. We can find no benefit, and especially when we refer to children less than 12 years of age. The potential risk of unknown and serious side effects from the brand-new and barely tested vaccines are — in truth — completely unknown. That’s because it is almost unheard of for a vaccine to be released to the public this quickly. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get the vaccine.


    In response to the pandemic emergency situation, we believe that those individuals, elderly over the age of 70 years, frail, with comorbid conditions identified as potential risks for infection, serious illness and where the potential for loss of life is high, vaccination might prove beneficial. We include morbidly obese persons or even younger persons with serious underlying medical conditions given COVID has shown itself to be amenable to risk stratification and one’s baseline risk is prognostic on mortality. We accept this and this is prudent. Under such circumstances, there is an acceptable trade-off. But when the “downside” of contracting COVID-19 becomes very, very small — as it is for children — taking even a “moderate” risk of serious side effects from a barely tested vaccine may be . . . the word that comes to mind is irresponsible.


    Just look at the deaths and adverse events reported in the CDC’s VAERS database for adverse vaccine-related events and the European vaccine adverse event database (6,000 deaths to June 27th 2021 and 15,000 adverse events, and 15,000 deaths and 1.5 million adverse reports respectively; there have been more deaths reported into VAERS temporally linked to the COVID vaccines than all deaths reported for the last 30 years for all 70 vaccines in the US). We are on record calling for a full ‘stop’ of no COVID-19 vaccinations in infants, children, teens, and young healthy persons given no opportunity for benefit yet only opportunity for harm. We called for and still do, an age, risk-based ‘focused’ approach to COVID responding (Great Barrington Declaration/Gupta, Kulldorff, Bhattacharya).


    As part of discussing our core thesis and argument, we seek to examine each statement made ex cathedra in the press release by the American Academic of Pediatrics (AAP) on the risk of myocarditis in teens taking the COVID-19 vaccine (this statement by the AAP made on June 23rd 2021). From such an esteemed organization, we found the release to be incredibly mendacious, sloppy, and duplicitous throughout and we thus sought to unpack and examine the statements and present our response to each statement, in terms of if it was an accurate statement by the AAP or a confabulation meant to deceive parents and the US population. We will do this examination by embedding the relevant portions of the statement which is basically the full statement, and insert our response in italics alongside the AAP statement and wrap our italicized response in quotations. We felt prior that the AAP was beyond reproach and above board but it appears now that the AAP has shown its biased politicized hand. We will also make comments on the existing reporting on the Delta variant. Let us begin:


    “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, “no, the AAP is being duplicitous and it is not rare as we are now witnessing by the elevated reports of adverse effects and even deaths to the CDC’s very own VAERS database for vaccine adverse events and with this, the dramatic spike in reports of myocarditis in teens (mainly young males though we see escalated risk in female teens) who have taken the vaccine” and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. “again, duplicity by the AAP and not so based on current reporting as the CDC itself has had to hold an emergency meeting to address these myocarditis cases and have recognized that this is indeed a problem” Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, “not so, as myocarditis can be deadly and with life long catastrophe like heart failure in years to come, and the seeds sown now as heart muscle is known to scar with inflammation and not recover or regenerate etc. and the danger is the ‘silent’ myocarditis that can only be detected with troponin etc. and via some incidental finding; there is chest pain, heart failure, contractile problems, damage to the heart’s electrical properties etc. and the concern is that this sets the person up for future serious heart anomalies and possible death” and individuals recover often “no, heart muscle is dead and recovery is often not complete, and it is the silent myocarditis that is a grave concern” on their own or with minimal treatment.


    In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, “based on what data? This is untrue. We do not know what data the AAP is referring to as we cannot find this data or evidence; no, we do not know this and we do not know the extent of the post vaccination myocarditis given the 1%-30% reporting capture by the VAERS database and thus gross under reporting” and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe. “we cannot make this statement given we do not have the information reporting completely; the vaccine developers followed the subjects for 2-3 months and thus how could they the AAP make this statement? They know full well that the vaccine trials were cut short and did not follow for the numerous years needed to exclude harm. This is very reckless and dangerous by the AAP”.


    Continuing, “The vaccines are safe and effective, “no, the efficacy data is in question as the 95% efficacy becomes 19% when the omitted infections (suspected but not lab confirmed) are re-introduced to the analysis, and these vaccines cannot be deemed safe given the proper toxicology and safety studies were not performed, nor was there ample follow-up; we are also having reports now that the spike protein itself is not just the mechanism that the virus uses to access the host cell, but also is an endothelial vascular pathogen on its own, a toxin” and they prevent COVID-19 illness. “no, AAP knows that it has lied in this statement for the trials were only set up for mild COVID, not to stop infection, not to stop transmission, not to prevent moderate or severe illness, hospitalization, or death. No such study was done by the vaccine manufacturers and the FDA gave only EUA for this is still and investigational experimental vaccine. only mild COVID was studied, such as reducing sniffles”.


    They will help protect you and your family and keep your community safe. We strongly encourage everyone age 12 and older who are eligible to receive the vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization to get vaccinated, “children were excluded from the trials and so must not be given these vaccines as the duration to exclude harm was not done. We do not know how these vaccines will behave in people, teens, and children longer term. This is the core concern. By strongly encouraging, is indeed coercing and this is prohibited and the AAP should know this for only with proper ethical informed consenting where the benefits vs the harms are carefully explained and the vaccinee understands, can this go forward. a 12-year-old cannot give consent as per law, we seriously question the legality of this” as the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any harm. “this alike most of this press release by the AAP, is untrue as written, there are no (statistical zero) harms to young children from COVID virus and only potential harms from the vaccine given harms were not excluded in the trials as they were just not studied and too short a duration. this is a lie by the AAP that is meant to mislead parents given the escalated myocarditis risk to teens. a reckless dangerous lie”


    Especially with the troubling Delta variant increasingly circulating “Delta variant increasing is a good thing, it is more infectious but not lethal and especially to children, the British data clearly shows this where it accounts for 80-90% of British infections today, in fact, data shows that deaths are very rare as are hospitalizations yet with the few deaths, the persons who are vaccinated are 6.6 (7) times more likely to die if vaccinated when exposed to the Delta variant and so vaccination should be stopped especially in young persons, anyone under 30 years of age; the pandemic is over, more infectious variants move to dominate and are usually very tame and non-lethal, just infectious trying to gain access to hosts to live on and more readily impacting younger people expected as they are co-mingling more and once infected, will be immune with natural broad robust natural immunity and will not have severe illness from Delta or die from it, the data is clear, this is a lie by AAP and a scare tactic” the risks of being unvaccinated are far greater than any rare side effects from the vaccines. “this is a lie, a child or young person (teen) is more likely to die or get serious illness from the vaccine than from the virus, all prior variants and now this Delta, the risk of serious illness for a child is exceedingly small; CDC data indicates that the risk of survival for persons 0-14 is 99.998%, 0-19 is 99.997%, 20-49 is 99.98%, 2 in 100,000 children die of COVID if infected, and the risk if far less than for seasonal influenza which is way more deadly for children than COVID-19 and the AAP knows this but is continuing a scare tactic and lie to the nation to scare parents and teens and children”


    If you get COVID-19, you could get severely ill and be hospitalized or even die. “the AAP knows this is a lie and duplicitous for children are at very low risk at statistical zero of getting severely ill or dying from COVID. this Delta is even less lethal than prior variants” Even if your infection is mild, you or your child could face long-term symptoms following COVID-19 infection such as neurological problems or diminished lung function. “where is the evidence to support this? this is possible as is for any one infected, and children die yearly due to the common cold or at greater risk from seasonal influenza than COVID has ever shown. but the damage from myocarditis and similar due to the vaccines pose a far greater threat to children than the vaccine based on existing data”.


    Who else has tried to mislead and scare the public with lies and falsehoods? Well, none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci who on June 24th 2021, said, “anyone who is not vaccinated is most at risk…the younger cohort is at greater risk….this virus can be more dangerous and it is now a variant of concern (VOC)…the vaccines are over 93% effective…so it is really good against getting infected….there is no doubt about it the way you stop the Delta variant is to get vaccinated”.


    Everything just written, the message it was meant to send, was a lie by Fauci and he knows it and the Biden White House knows it, pure duplicity and falsehoods and it is staggering that he would sit and pontificate this way knowing he is lying to the nation. What he said is pure nonsense and absurd and garbage, illogical, mendacious, and specious. Pure drivel as we have gotten from him for 16 months now! We do not wish to opine on the 40-year career of a technocrat and possibly exemplary service, but the statements made here on the Delta variant en face, is utterly absurd and completely inaccurate.


    We have preliminary data from England on the dominant Delta variant, which shows that the variant is much more infectious, yet far less lethal. It is causing less severe illness and this is seen by the non-impact on hospitalizations which have remained flat while infections have risen appreciably (Figures 1 & 2).


    Figure 1: Case numbers, proportion, death, and case fatality of variants of concern and variant under consideration from 1st October 2020 to 7th June 2021


    Image

    Strong reports are coming in that some of these reactions are extremely serious and particularly so for boys. The reality is that myocarditis can kill you or do permanent heart damage (Figure 2).


    Figure 2: VAERS preliminary myocarditis reports following dose 2 of the mRNA vaccination, expected numbers versus observed numbers with a 7-day risk window (June 11th 2021)



    Let us look at the infection and death data in the UK where it is estimated that 80% of the infections are now due to the Delta variant (Figure 3). What do we see? Well, there is a slight uptick in infections as is expected, for this variant is highly contagious but less lethal and we see it in the mortality which has been flat and stayed flat. We would expect after a two- to three-week time lag behind infections, that deaths would increase the infection increase but it has not (to June 13th 2021).


    Figure 3: Infections and deaths in UK as the Delta variant dominates



    These duplicitous mendacious public health officials know that viruses do what viruses do, they mutate. They do so even spontaneously and once we put selection pressure on them by the vaccine program itself and the lockdown strategies. This SARS-CoV-2 is the same and the Delta variant is a consequence of a natural next step where the mutations will produce much milder variants. But we have to ask, is the rise in Delta positive infections due to increased testing? Is the same RT-PCR cycle count threshold (Ct) of 40 to 45 being used that detects viral dust and fragments and non-consequential non-viable, non-culturable, non-infectious virus? We argue a combination of these factors may well be at play as they were throughout this pandemic. The flawed PCR test with the high Ct values and high false positives have created much of the panic and false fear in this pandemic. It has been used subversively. It served to drive fear and a positive test result which is near 100% a likely false positive due to a Ct of 40 is not a ‘case’. A case is whereby the person is sick and has symptoms and needs care. A positive test most often does not become a case yet in COVID-19 it did. Something other than science is at play for 16 months now.


    We actually argue that the Delta variant is a great thing, at this time, based on all that we have seen! A very good sign indeed for its CFR is much lower than traditional variants and it is akin to a common cold or mild flu. The virus does not seek to mutate to a more lethal version else it will kill the hosts it seeks to infect with low-level illness/symptoms. It is a biological evolutionary necessity for it to mutate into a non-lethal, highly infectious variant. It seeks to replicate and it is maladaptive to kill its host. The host being ‘you’ and as it approaches an ‘endemic equilibrium’ state (herd immunity with R0 of 1), it becomes more and more harmless, more infectious, but non-lethal. It is biologically driven and a near-absolute must to do this, namely mutate downward in lethality and upward in infectiousness.


    The Delta is the case in point, it is far less deadly than the original parental Wuhan strain/variant (some estimates are 1/28th based on an overall CFR of 2.8% in UK and thus 0.1/2.8=0.036 so 1/28th). Moreover, the CFR of the Delta is 0.1% which is approximately 75% less than that for the seasonal influenza. It, Delta, does seem to have a greater secondary attack rate than earlier variants. Highly more transmissible, but highly less lethal and can be regarded as almost like a common cold or mild influenza. It is not more harmful than any prior variant and actually far less so yet Dr. Fauci and the media and the television medical experts continue their hysteria and irrational behavior to scare you. It is a depth of academic sloppiness and cognitive dissonance that is averse to any science or evidence that differs or questions their often unscientific and unsound positions. One can argue that it is far safer for a young, healthy person to get infected from the delta variant COVID and become naturally immune, than to receive an mRNA vaccine and risk severe illness from the vaccine e.g. myocarditis.


    Vaccines take 10 to 15 years to develop, and why? Because we want to exclude harms. We want to rule out harm before putting it into arms. We failed to do this here. President Trump deserves tremendous credit and praise for his capacity to innovate. He squeezed all of the inefficiencies out of the regulatory “dead wood” that strangles the FDA. However, he was badly misled and misinformed by those on his Task Force and the vaccine developers as to the severe limitations of shortcutting the appropriate safety testing phase with the proper duration of follow-up that would exclude harms. They failed him in their counsel. A President relied on his experts to guide him and they failed him and we now have a mess on our hands. It is our hope that he steps forward and declares that these vaccines must not be given to our children. Not these vaccines.


    We have failed to exclude harms with these COVID vaccines and have now placed the public in serious harms way, especially our children. The data is accumulating of harms and the media is covering this up but it is there. The public has to understand that prior research with mRNA vaccines in animals saw the animals getting severely ill and dying from the mRNA vaccines. The trials failed! These mRNA vaccines have never been approved for use in humans and if you are told this or this is the message you are getting, then they, Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the CDC Director, the NIH, medical doctors, the television medical experts etc., governments, their technocrats, they have lied to you! Flat lied! They are lying in your face. Follow the money, the grant money, the pharma money! These vaccines are still not approved, just authorized for use on an emergency basis.


    We will step back still and not say yet that the vaccines ‘will kill you’, but for sure, we can say with assurance that no one has shown these to be safe in any sort of clinical research and we implore you to not use these on your children. We do not know the long-term implications of these vaccines given that they have not been studied. We are very concerned. As a risk management decision, these offer no benefit but only potential harm, especially for our children. For elderly high-risk persons, with proper ethical consenting and discussions with your doctor, if you want the vaccine, then this may be an entirely reasonable decision. But for any child, any infant, any young person, teen, young adult, even middle-aged persons less than 50 with no underlying risk, these vaccines are contra-indicated.


    In conclusion, the threat of myocarditis in teens (mainly males based on the data) is real from the vaccines. Moreover, the Delta variant is not the threat Dr. Fauci and the media is making it out to be in order to scare parents into vaccinating their children. The evidence mounts as to the lack of safety of these vaccines and the entire ‘myocarditis’ press release by the AAP who should be a Pretorian vanguard and safeguard for our children, is a confabulation of mistruths and half-truths that cannot be substantiated with any evidence. Shame on the AAP. The AAP should be ashamed that it is part of a campaign spear-headed by the CDC in misleading the nation and parents into vaccinating their children with a vaccine that is showing many harms and even deaths. A vaccine that offers children no benefit. We plead for caution with these vaccines in our children, teens, and young people and ask for a pause and full stoppage until we can assess the risks. We call for a full ‘stop’ of no COVID-19 vaccinations in infants, children, teens, and young healthy persons given no opportunity for benefit yet only opportunity for harm.

    Boston Children’s Hospital-led Study Finds COVID-19 Vaccines Lose Effectiveness Against Beta Variant Suggesting Need for Booster.


    https://trialsitenews.com/bost…gesting-need-for-booster/


    Recently, Bing Chen, PhD, from Boston Children’s Hospital, led a structural study of the SARS-CoV-2 variants “spike” protein, which revealed new properties of the UK variant now known as “Alpha” as well as the South African or “Beta” variant. Another variant of concern is the Delta variant from India. Remember, it’s these spike proteins on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that enable the pathogen to attach and enter the human cell machinery: all present-day COVID-19 vaccines target this spike. These vaccines were developed against the original version of the virus, not the variants that have emerged. The Boston Children’s Hospital-based study team recently used cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) to compare the spike protein from the original virus with the Alpha (UK) and Beta (South Africa) variants. The results suggest that the current vaccines may not be as effective against the Beta variant. With results recently published in Science, the research findings indicate that mutations in the Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, actually morph the shape of the spike surface at select locations on the pathogen. Consequently, argue the study authors, neutralizing antibodies induced by present-day vaccines such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson and Johnson are less able to bind to the Beta virus, which may allow it to evade the immune system when people are vaccinated. Some good news in the findings center on the fact that at least in the Beta variant, mutations render the spikeless effective in binding to ACE2—meaning that the variant is actually less transmissible than the Alpha variant. Overall, neither the Alpha (UK) nor the Beta (South African) meets a three-point test establishing heightened threat.” But at least for the Beta variant, a booster is probably necessary, suggests the study lead.


    Study Team Organizations

    Led by Professor Bing Chen with Boston Children’s Hospital, (corresponding author), a number of other investigators participated from Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center as well as the Harvard Institutes of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Codex BioSolutions in Gettysburg, MD, and Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, DC.


    Overall Good News but Booster Implied

    The researchers share with the public their point of view of what makes a variant more of a problem. First, they declare that the variant must lead to more easy spread or transmissibility. Second, the COVID-19 variant must be able to evade the immune system in either those people vaccinated or those that were previously exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. Finally, the variant of concern must be capable of triggering more severe disease.


    The authors write that, fortunately, neither the Alpha or Beta variants meet all three elements necessary for the “heightened threat” threshold.


    However, at least when it comes to the South African variant (Beta), the study’s corresponding author shared that a booster may be necessary to maintain vaccine effectiveness.


    Alpha (UK) Variant—Vaccines Remain Sufficient

    The Boston-based team’s findings indicate that for the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) a genetic change in the spike (a single amino acid substitution) augments the virus to better bind to ACE2 receptors, making it actually more infectious. But the study team found that antibodies elicited by existing vaccines remain potent against this variant.


    Study Author Point of View

    Professor Chen offered a quote to cover the study findings, noting, “The mutations make antibodies stimulated by the current vaccine less effective.” He continued, “The Beta variant is somewhat resistant to the current vaccines, and we think a booster with the new genetic sequence can be beneficial for protecting against this variant.”


    Funding

    This study was funded by Emergent Ventures, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).


    Emergent Ventures is a fellowship/grant program originating from the Mercatus Center with a focus on entrepreneurs and “brilliant minds” originally with a $1 million grant from the Thiel Foundation with the aim of jumpstarting high-risk, high-reward ideas that advance prosperity, opportunity, and wellbeing.


    The Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness is a group convened by Harvard Medical School in response to the public health crisis. Of course, the NIH is America’s apex public research agency.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Bing Chen, PhD, Division of Molecular Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital

    Conflict of Interest in WHO Recommendation Against Ivermectin


    https://trialsitenews.com/conf…ation-against-ivermectin/


    Andrew Bannister


    All dangerous diseases are best treated early. A major failure of the global COVID-19 strategy has been to wait a week for the disease to become dangerous, when breathing becomes a problem. Early treatment of COVID, even for those with mild symptoms, prevents later hospitalization. There are several early treatment drugs showing promise but ivermectin leads the pack regarding safety, effectiveness and price. Unfortunately, the biggest players in Western mainstream media are members of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). The TNI is a story for another day but it’s remarkable that big media companies barely report that they have agreed to promote global vaccination and to make sure any “disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks”[i]. Unfortunately, as a result early treatment seems to be seen as a disinformation myth and is not mentioned. Early treatment is vital in treating serious diseases and COVID-19 is no exception.


    Considering the human and economic cost, the avoidance of early treatment with a very safe, effective and off-patent drug is a criminal tragedy of immense proportions and a winning lottery ticket for some pharmaceutical companies that are designing and selling novel patented drugs that could not compete with ivermectin in a free market. Mercks’ molnupiravir, for instance, is seeking an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA and “Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government.”[ii]


    Ivermectin doesn’t need an EUA because it passed trials in 1986. It just needs to be recommended to treat COVID-19. However, if ivermectin was officially recognized as an effective treatment, it would legally prevent molnupiravir’s EUA until it passes trials and thus delay or endanger the $1.2 billion deal. An aggravating factor is the fact that molnupiravir (EIDD-2801) could cause harmful genetic mutations. [iii]


    In the face of a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, government authorities and international organizations have traditionally looked to the World Health Organization (WHO) for guidance – trusting that the WHO is free of commercial interests. Originally funded entirely by member states, the organization now receives less than 20% of its budget from these states and the rest from donors[iv] with their own financial and strategic agendas. Margret Chan, the previous Director General of the WHO, said in 2015: “I have to take my hat and go around the world to beg for money and when they give us the money [it is] highly linked to their preferences, what they like. It may not be the priority of the WHO, so if we do not solve this, we are not going to be as great as we were”. [v]


    Veteran journalist Robert Parsons explains that “the Smallpox eradication program was funded entirely by donors. That may have led to the problem that for special projects it [the WHO] has to raise the funding. But the private sector is unlikely to get involved unless it shows profit … Consequently, there is little independent public health research”.[vi] Since then, the undue financial influence of private stakeholders has further grown at the WHO. Donations come with caveats so that the organization is compromised on a number of issues that involve the interests of its donors.


    In 2010, for instance, after the H1N1 flu pandemic, an investigative inquiry by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that “key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as ‘conspiracy theories’.” [vii] These advisors managed to convince the UK government to spend more than $7 billion on a vaccine that was never needed.[viii]


    As of 2021, conflicts of interest such as these continue to be a problem – the undue influence of private stakeholders being a prime example. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the second largest funder of the WHO after the USA. Gates, however, also founded and funds The Vaccine Alliance (GAVI). In the period 2018–19, their combined voluntary contribution to the WHO was 27%[ix] greater than the US voluntary contribution, making Gates’ influence pervasive. As funds by the Gates conglomerate are earmarked for specific projects, the WHO doesn’t decide how the respective money is spent, Gates does.


    In addition to the undue financial influence exerted by the BMGF, there is also an overlap of personnel between the WHO and Gates’ endeavors. Tedros Adhanom, the current WHO Director General, has previously served on the board of GAVI and as the chair of the Gates funded Global Fund.[x] Arguably, he is still influenced by his previous employer’s ideology and financial power.


    Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s. The main priority of Gates is global COVID-19 vaccination, not public health systems providing early treatment. He has been pushing vaccination onto the global agenda since 2012. The power of Gates Foundation funding has dictated a drive towards vaccinations and away from other essential public health measures, a move which has been criticized for years by international NGOs involved in the health and development field.


    Generally, Gates also believes that capitalism is more efficient than public health agencies when it comes to reaching his goals in the area of global health.[xi] Capitalism is usually more efficient than government but it values profits above people. Accordingly, Gates as well as the pharmaceutical companies his foundation is invested in and whose products he is pushing globally are making billions from their endeavors. Morgan Stanley believes that Pfizer, for example, could earn $100 billion from vaccines developed with public tax money from the US, Germany and other places in the next five years.[xii] Pfizer is partnered with BioNTech. The Gates Foundation has investments in both companies, putting $ 55 million into BioNTech alone in September 2019. The Gates Foundation also owns shares in Merck which is positioning the drug molnupiravir on the market hoping to make billions from it.


    When it comes to ivermectin – in its off-patent form, Gates is funding work on a patentable, injectable form.[xiii] Organizations tied to Gates have taken an antagonistic stance thus far. Notably, GAVI has been going all out by running paid google ads against the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.[xiv]


    Given the significant financial and ideological conflict of interest of its main donor, the WHO recommendation on early treatment with an off-patent, highly efficient, safe and cheap drug such as ivermectin needs to be critically examined. In the WHO ivermectin guideline, despite showing a reduction of deaths by 80%,[xv] the organization puzzlingly recommends against ivermectin’s use.


    The WHO’s guideline document is “based on a living systematic review and network meta-analysis from investigators at McMaster University”.[xvi] McMaster University (including any of its direct affiliates) should have excused itself from conducting the guideline, given it has several objective conflicts of interest when it comes to ivermectin. For one, McMaster itself is designing and producing second generation COVID-19 vaccines.[xvii] It intends to produce hundreds of thousands of doses. It is likely that these experimental products would receive greater scrutiny if there is a viable safe prophylactic and treatment option for COVID-19. Secondly, McMaster University, like the WHO itself, receives millions in funding from the Gates Foundation. Additionally, McMaster, again like the WHO, shares personnel with the Gates Foundation.


    Edward Mills, for example, is both a McMaster associate professor and the clinical trial advisor for the Gates Foundation. In addition he has recently been appointed as the principal investigator of the Gates-funded Together Trial that is currently evaluating repurposed drugs such as ivermectin for their use in COVID-19[xviii]. Asked for comment, Mills denied that the Gates Foundation was having any “say on the conduct of the trial” even though he himself is it’s principal investigator and employed by the Gates Foundation. As past experiences show, no product should ever be tested in a trial funded by those gaining or losing financially or ideologically from it. Thus, ivermectin trials are best not done by anyone with a financial and ideological investment in competing drugs and vaccines. No reputable organization or government agency should be basing their opinion of ivermectin on trials conducted by the Gates Foundation or any other party with a conflict of interest.


    The recently announced Oxford University trial of Ivermectin shares a similar conflict as Oxford is profiting from the sales of the AstraZeneca vaccine and questions have been raised about the proposed trial possibly sabotaging the result by admitting elderly people already sick for 14 days but limiting the Ivermectin dose to three treatments.


    Unsurprisingly, in a recent interview, Edward Mills seemed to be downplaying the effect of ivermectin. “The evidence on prophylaxis use of ivermectin is not very convincing”, Mills doubts, even though ivermectin is not being evaluated as a prophylactic in his own trial. Data from different clinical trials clearly shows that ivermectin is exceptionally effective, specifically as a prophylactic. Bryant et al. (2021) who analyzed the existing data from clinical trials according to conservative Cochrane meta-analysis standards – a gold-standard in science – found that “ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86%” with the best-dosed study reaching an effectiveness of 91%.[xviv] There have been several studies that show that the regularity of the prophylactic dose is important with a weekly dose being more effective than bimonthly. Edward Mills curiously doesn’t find the prophylactic data interesting. The big money is not in running generic repurposed drug trials but in pharmaceutical company trials fighting for market share.


    Mills also suggests ivermectin might be efficient as a treatment but emphasizes the need for other drug interventions. “I am very optimistic that it will – it will just be one component of the interventions that we need.“[xix] While other components can be useful additions, downplaying the effect of ivermectin is not warranted. An expert meta-analysis by Karale et al. (2021) including researchers from the renowned Mayo Clinic comes to the conclusion that when given early in mild or moderate COVID-19, ivermectin reduces mortality by 90%.[xx] The findings further corroborate the results of the scientific review conducted by Kory et al. (2021) that has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics and shows ivermectin to be significantly effective in the treatment of COVID-19.[xxi]


    Given the conflicts of interest of McMaster University as well as the dubious interrelations between McMaster personnel and private stakeholders such as the Gates Foundation and other industry-related companies, the WHO should not have accepted McMaster’s involvement in the guidelines on ivermectin. Further, the WHO should ensure that no undue influence is exerted by its own donors – a task it has not yet been able to achieve.


    Questions sent to the WHO Ethics Office, asking for clarity about its recommendation against the use of ivermectin, were answered. However the organization refused to supply minutes of the meeting on ivermectin. It further declares that no interview will be granted. It does “not consider an assessment of ivermectin for prophylactic use in COVID-19 to be warranted”. It also does not consider trials by drug companies to be “biased per se” even though major pharmaceutical corporations have been repeatedly convicted of substantial fraud, manipulation and concealment of evidence and paying billions of dollars in fines. There was also an intimidatory confidentially clause in the WHO correspondence despite the author stating that they are writing about ivermectin.


    The WHO needs to prove that it followed a scientific and ethical process in its recommendation against the use of ivermectin. Public trust is crucial to beat the pandemic. We cannot continue to have the Gates foundation determining the WHO decisions on Ivermectin given the large conflict of interest. The minutes of the meeting in which the recommendation against ivermectin was taken need to be made public. The public needs to be told and shown invoices with regards to who paid for the steps that informed the WHO ivermectin guideline. The conflicts of interest of major WHO donors and the employer (McMaster University) of the scientists that are responsible for the guideline need to be made transparent. Without this, the recommendation against the use of ivermectin, remains mired in suspicion of corporate overreach.


    Few incidences make the general problem more apparent than the following: The WHO’s Chief Scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, was on Twitter recently warning Indian nationals in the midst of a deadly COVID-19 wave not to take ivermectin citing Merck marketing material.[xxii] As a reminder, the pharmaceutical giant Merck is hoping to make billions with its potentially mutagenic molnupiravir which won’t happen if off-patent ivermectin is a standard of care. Swaminathan’s statement went against the official Indian recommendation in favor of ivermectin issued by the most highly regarded health association in India after the country had been confronted with a new COVID-19 variant and regions were seeing improvement with early Ivermectin treatment. In the aftermath, the Indian Bar Association served Swaminathan a legal notice for spreading dangerous disinformation and causing a significant number of deaths by discouraging the use of a life-saving drug.[xxiii] Swaminathan’s tweet has since been deleted. The legal notice for aggravated offences against humanity concerning ivermectin has by now been extended to the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom.[xxiv]


    The once noble idea of a global public health system working for mankind’s best interests has been replaced by an organization largely driven by the financial and ideological interests of private stakeholders. This is not a new phenomenon. International groups have long called for a reform of the WHO. In a global pandemic, the disastrous consequences of these pervasive organizational issues become even more apparent.


    Distinguished scientists and frontline physicians from all over the world without conflicts of interest have called for the immediate use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and expert meta-analyses performed according to the highest standards of science have proven ivermectin’s effectiveness and reaffirmed its safety. Yet, a front of organizations including a significantly compromised WHO as well as wealthy private stakeholders with financial and ideological conflicts of interest have blocked the usage of this life-saving medication. Some observers have called this a crime against humanity which should be subjected to public scrutiny and an official criminal investigation. Ivermectin, meanwhile, should be used immediately to save lives as it has already been done successfully in a number of places worldwide.


    [i] https://www.bbc.com/mediacentr…ve-vaccine-disinformation


    [ii] https://www.merck.com/news/mer…ild-to-moderate-covid-19/


    [iii] https://www.sciencemag.org/new…d-potential-covid-19-drug


    [iv] https://www.who.int/about/funding/assessed-contributions


    [v] https://vimeo.com/ondemand/trustwho/260921911


    [vi]

    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.


    [vii] ] https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912.full


    [viii] https://www.theguardian.com/bu…xperts-big-pharmaceutical


    [ix] http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/overview/vcs


    [x] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/0…tes-global-health-policy/


    [xi] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000


    [xii] https://www.businessinsider.co…-stanley-2021-5?r=US&IR=T


    [xiii] https://trialsitenews.com/gate…trial-targeting-covid-19/


    [xiv] https://trialsitenews.com/my-favorite-conversation-starters/


    [xv] https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/5058/section/67421


    [xvi] WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19 Living Guideline. 31.3.2021.


    [xvii] https://urbanicity.com/hamilto…id-19-vaccine-candidates/


    [xviii] https://brighterworld.mcmaster…early-covid-19-treatment/


    [xviv] https://osf.io/k37ft/ (peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the American Journal of Therapeutics)


    [xix] https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca…ith-ivermectin-and-covid/


    [xx] https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2021.04.30.21256415v1


    [xxi]https://journals.lww.com/ameri…_demonstrating_the.4.aspx


    [xxii] https://timesofindia.indiatime…/articleshow/82546558.cms


    [xxiii] https://trialsitenews.com/indi…-the-chief-scientist-who/


    [xxiv] https://drive.google.com/file/…QNGPnkoW/view?usp=sharing

    Quote from Curbina

    I think Wyttenbach is being sarcastic with the statement “read the vaccine leaflet”.

    If you have real proof, then you should immediately file a lawsuit.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I do not trust qualified people when they behave in a way that is unusual

    Of course for a mafia member - like you - it is unusual, when an other mafia member tells the factual story...


    Did you improve now your undergrad math skills ? To better understand why 50% of the UK deaths come from the vaccine group??


    Just as a starter. If vaccines should protect you 95% from death then no vaccine should bring you "how much" death...? Unluckily both groups in UK now are now 50% of the population. So its really easy...

    Or do you think that the vaccines do - in reality - you only protect for 50% ?? Or even better no better than no vaccine?

    We will know the answers soon.


    My tip: The vaccinated will die more often from future mutations of Delta.


    Quote from stefan

    The fact that make me lean on that there is an effect is that we had one region that did not suggest ivermectin and cases went wild there, I have not seen anyone suggesting an alternative explanation of this fact, like if they did not recommend masks and social distansing or similar.

    In fact Tamil Nadu was hijaked by Pfizer - bribing the state mafia to use Remdesivir...

    After seeing infections triple (and the exponential decrease in others) they revised the decision and switched to Ivermectin with the same success as others... With a 1 billion size test group we don't need any more studies. I was happy that Tamil Nadu has been bribed. So we had a 3 weeks 70 million control group...with some 10'000 deaths... Peanuts for Pfizer and the FM/R/J/B mafia.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    If you have real proof, then you should immediately file a lawsuit.

    That’s an ongoing process. Many processes are already filed all over the world and also here in Chile, and some initial rejections have already happened, enabling the suits to get to a next phase. Is slow, next week the Spanish study that found the Graphene should be fully available.

    Zimbabwe Fully Authorizes Use of Ivermectin Targeting COVID-19 While It Hopes to Vaccinate 60% of Population with Sinovac by End of Year


    https://trialsitenews.com/zimb…h-sinovac-by-end-of-year/


    TrialSite chronicled ivermectin’s pathway in the African nation of Zimbabwe, from closely following the South African approach at first, nearly criminalizing access, to a complete turnaround and allowing for the research as a care option, via an off label policy. Now Zimbabwe formally authorizes the use of ivermectin, joining nations as diverse as Slovakia and Indonesia in allowing the use of the drug for the SARS-CoV-2 indication, the pathogen behind COVID-19. Recently, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) issued a government notice, declaring, “The secretary for health and child care has authorized the MCAZ to authorize the importation and use of ivermectin for COVID-19. MCAZ will issue bulk section 75 approval for importation of human formulations of ivermectin manufactured by compliant facilities.” TrialSite commends the authorities there for opening up a more diverse and dynamic market for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections while vaccination programs gear up. TrialSite interviewed a prominent local physician, Dr. Jackie Stone, who has been instrumental in achieving this regulatory milestone, although the physician has on more than one occasion landed in hot water for running afoul of local laws governing the drug. The reality is that the adoption of the therapy during a major spike in January 2021 was associated with a dramatic turnaround and reduction in cases. But with a new severe spike starting in June, the authorities have seen enough and moved forward with the formal declaration, according to multiple press sources on the African continent.


    The Third Wave Convinces All

    While ivermectin was widely understood to be key in controlling the second wave here, authorities quickly moved to reduce any prominent connection with the drug. While TrialSite cannot definitely prove the claim that groups such as the World Health Organization (WHO) pressure nations accepting the drug’s use, there are indicators that such activity is occurring based on interviews around the world. After all, WHO funding is very important in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs).


    But this recent wave is bad. As of Friday, 801 new COVID-19 cases were reported along with four deaths. The country with 14.65 million residents has only seen 747,000 vaccinations, representing only about 5% of the population. As an LMIC, vaccination rates will be slow for the time being although the country’s special relationship with China could yield dividends in the form of more doses. In fact, a South African news outlet reported recently that a shipment of 2.5 million doses of Sinovac, produced by China’s Sinopharm, was on its way and should be ready for local administration by as early as late June—more on that below.


    But perhaps the recent announcement that the University of Oxford would include the drug in its study was sufficient to convince elites here? That one of the most prominently branded English institutions of higher education and science would include the drug in a study could elicit reactions. Stranger things have occurred in a world with a legacy of Anglo-Saxon colonialism.


    Elites Here Know

    But the political and military elites in this country already know the reality, according to some influential people on the ground here. TrialSite reported back in February that regulators were already turning the other way as the drug was showing marked results. While perhaps wanting to send a particular signal to WHO and the Chinese, authorities proactively allowed for use off label because they experienced the results.


    In an interview, Dr. Jackie Stone shared with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor some of the breakthroughs, challenges, and opportunities the drug offered the local population. What was clear was that this committed, dedicated, and intelligent on-the-ground physician was producing real-world data that the drug was having at least some positive impact.


    But Stone made enemies along the way. While the good doctor and colleagues were caring for thousands, they were at first irritating and then outright angering at least elements of the medical establishment here. Apparently, in a seeming vendetta, they’ve found some technicalities to come after her—all just for caring and doing what all doctors are trained to do: fight to care for and save as many patients as possible.


    Vaccination Nation?

    Much like the rest of the world, African nations seek ubiquitous vaccination as TrialSite reported the continent was gearing up to securitize more debt for products in a series of vaccine bonds. Several billion were at stake, and at least some European financiers undoubtedly sought access to the proposed underwriting. TrialSite shared that the African Union took not too kindly to ivermectin because it’s perceived as A) competition to vaccination, B) cheap alternative to Chinese and Euro potential drugs, and C) all the other reasons the vast majority of national authorities seem opposed to low cost, available options.


    So, the recent MCAZ news in a way surprised some commentators and analysts in such affairs.


    But recently, the nation’s finance minister Mthuli Ncube reported, “We are receiving 2 million vaccines by the end of next week, and after that, we will order 1.5 million, and in the month of August, will order another 3.5 million vaccines.” The nation here is close with China and the latter’s ambitious imperative associated with vaccine diplomacy cannot be underestimated. Although the record with Sinovac is mixed thus far, Zimbabwe shares a tight diplomatic bond with the world’s second-largest economic power and to the pride of China’s R&D leadership, the African nation was one of the first to sign up to become a buying nation, reported multiple African presses, including Sowetan Live. Hence Zimbabwe remains a priority nation despite conflicting demands from other, perhaps richer places.


    Local African press reports the nation seeks to inoculate 60% of the population against COVID-19 in a bid to reach so-called herd immunity by the end of the year. Of course, as TrialSite has articulated, this isn’t possible to make such claims because the actual data needed for the proper calculation isn’t in fact known. Nothing against Zimbabwe, as TrialSite argues the U.S. government doesn’t understand this math either.

    Quote from Fm1

    although the country’s special relationship with China could yield dividends in the form of more doses. In fact, a South African news outlet reported recently that a shipment of 2.5 million doses of Sinovac, produced by China’s Sinopharm,

    The CCCP XJP-Pharma relationship is even more corrupt...

    if that is possible

    than the Bigpharma.-gov- media connections in the West.


    The CCCP will never resort to ivermectin.... too much power is divested to the people


    and there is no profit for XJP and his billionaire cronies.


    unfortunately ivermectin weakens Zimbabwe's 'special diplomatic connection ' with XJP

    so it may be on the Chinese hitlist

    Speaking of Africa, a few weeks ago Kim Iverson did an excellent video on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in India and Africa. The section on Africa starts at about 27:25

    https://vimeo.com/user132878668/review/557891970/2f44e43c0d

    Long story short : A Japanese study from the spring of 2021

    https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2021.03.26.21254377v1

    looked at Ivermectin use in the different countries in Africa, provided the country had adequate record keeping. Ivermectin is used to treat river blindness. In 31 countries in Africa river blindness is endemic, and Ivermectin use is widespread and it is sold over the counter. In 22 African countries river blindness is not endemic and Ivermectin is hardly used. The Japanese researchers compared Covid-19 outcomes between these two groups of countries and found that the countries using Ivermectin fared much better in their Covid-19 death rates. Kim Iverson found that at WorldOMeters.info, when one ranks African countries by Covid deaths per million population, all of the 22 countries using ivermectin fared better than the 31 countries that didn't.

    Quote from Mark U

    Kim Iverson did an excellent video

    Kim Iversen on youtube...

    44:38
    we should be outraged by this this is a crime

    .. people died of covid and they didn't have to

    anybody who had a loved one die should sue they should be going after this in a class action lawsuit

    against big pharma and the government

    the politicians every last one of them


    the delta variant has now entered fortress Australia

    my state, NSW state, is in lockdown.. and the vaccination 'plan' is a shambles

    a last minute retraction of the AZ vaccine for the 50's to 60's

    now the 'plan' is 15 million doses behind the original aim


    How many times have I emailed the chief medical officer about ivermectin?

    My last comment... was ... perhaps it will be needed for poor countries like Papua New Guinea

    The next comment will be... IVM is needed for rich countries like Australia..now

    Quote from Fm1

    Local African press reports the nation seeks to inoculate 60% of the population against COVID-19 in a bid to reach so-called herd immunity by the end of the year.

    There is no herd immunity with Pfizer: In Israel 50% of the cases are from fully vaccinated what indicates zero protection against CoV-19 delta virus.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    How many times have I emailed the chief medical officer about ivermectin?

    Sue him for supporting mass murder.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.