Covid-19 News

Researchers from Italy, UK & Pakistan Identify Nutraceutical as COVID-19 Crusher: More Trials Needed

https://trialsitenews.com/rese…usher-more-trials-needed/

Yet another nutraceutical showed promise as at least a supportive treatment against SARS-Cov-2, the virus behind COVID-19. This time it’s the safe nutraceutical product known as quercetin, and the results certainly justify additional investigation via larger, better-designed randomized controlled trials. TrialSite reminds all the gratitude that should be bestowed on subjects in clinical trials, those who make the sacrifice to help deliver this important data. In this case, the inclusion/exclusion criteria would prompt many a subject to reject the trial during the informed consent discussion which included “Study participants from both groups were asked not to change their usual diet and to abstain, if possible, from dietary supplements containing lactoferrin, zinc, vitamin C and vitamin D for the duration of the study.” Of course, TrialSite has reported that at least some of these supplements demonstrate promising signs of efficacy in COVID-19 early treatment and even prevention. At a minimum, one doesn’t want to fall short in critical supplements while battling COVID-19. As a side benefit, quercetin shows promise as a senolytic and in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

This study was recently published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of General Medicine, and included a number of investigators from Italy, the UK, and Pakistan.

The Treatment

Quercetin is a plant flavanol from the flavonoid group polyphenols. This substance is found in many fruits, vegetables, leaves, seeds, and grains, and even red onions and kale. A bitter flavor, flavanol is used as an ingredient in dietary supplements, beverages, and foods.

The Results

Thanks to the TrialSite community member for sending in these impressive study results, albeit with some study design limitations. A randomized, prospective, open-label study of 152 COVID-19 outpatients, the study team treated the patients with a proprietary formulation of quercetin at a dosage of 1000mg/day for 30 days. The results showed a significant reduction in hospitalization, days hospitalized, need for supplemental oxygen, ICU, and mortality. The results also confirmed the very high safety profile of quercetin and suggested possible anti-fatigue and pro-appetite properties. This suggests there are symptomatic relief benefits as a justification to use quercetin as an adjuvant therapy while results from larger, better-designed RCTs are conducted.

The authors recognized the limitations of their study and called attention to the fact that the groups were not well matched with respect to comorbidities. To account for this, the authors included a sub-group analysis in Table 5 (follow the link) that excluded all patients with preexisting comorbidities from both groups. The benefits of quercetin are reduced but there is still a clear signal that should be investigated further.

Interestingly, the findings here align with a recently published meta-analysis of preclinical studies where the authors concluded that the preclinical use of quercetin, or polyphenols of the quercetin type, in animal models of viral respiratory infection is able to significantly reduce: the mortality rate, the viral load, the release of proinflammatory cytokines, the presence of reactive oxygen species, the production of mucus and, therefore, also the resistance of the airways. Supplementing with quercetin-type molecules could therefore be considered a promising strategy for the treatment of viral respiratory infections, reported the team led by corresponding author Francesco Di Pierro with Velleja Research, Milan, Italy.

The authors concluded that quercetin, a safe agent, when combined with the standard of care and if used early on in the SARS-CoV-2 viral infection state, may in fact improve early symptoms while also aiding in the prevention of viral progression.

Lead Research/Investigator

Francesco Di Pierro, PhD Biologist, Pharmacologist, and PhD, Immunology, Scientific & Research Department, Velleja Research, Milan, Italy, Corresponding Author

Call to Action: The study team recommends that a double-blind, placebo-controlled study should be urgently carried out to confirm the results of this study.

Infections still rising in latest wave, vaccines confirmed to be working, COVID IS SEASONAL!

Effectiveness of an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Chile

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107715

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mass vaccination campaigns to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are occurring in many countries; estimates of vaccine effectiveness are urgently needed to support decision making. A countrywide mass vaccination campaign with the use of an inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine (CoronaVac) was conducted in Chile starting on February 2, 2021.

METHODS

We used a prospective national cohort, including participants 16 years of age or older who were affiliated with the public national health care system, to assess the effectiveness of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine with regard to preventing Covid-19 and related hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and death. We estimated hazard ratios using the extension of the Cox proportional-hazards model, accounting for time-varying vaccination status. We estimated the change in the hazard ratio associated with partial immunization (≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and before receipt of the second dose) and full immunization (≥14 days after receipt of the second dose). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated with adjustment for individual demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The study was conducted from February 2 through May 1, 2021, and the cohort included approximately 10.2 million persons. Among persons who were fully immunized, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 65.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.2 to 66.6) for the prevention of Covid-19 and 87.5% (95% CI, 86.7 to 88.2) for the prevention of hospitalization, 90.3% (95% CI, 89.1 to 91.4) for the prevention of ICU admission, and 86.3% (95% CI, 84.5 to 87.9) for the prevention of Covid-19–related death.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectively prevented Covid-19, including severe disease and death, a finding that is consistent with results of phase 2 trials of the vaccine. (Funded by Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo and others.)

Quote from stefan

Now you defined some information about a subgroup, death just hours after jab and younger cohorts.

Again it's not about death on day one is always about onset of symptoms that leads to death. Vaers contains at best 10% of the real cases worst 1%. I fear almost all cases with onset of symptoms at day one with death later than day 10 are not in VEARS.

Quote from stefan

For age 50-59 we have around 30 dead at 0 day.

And we have zero for flu. Official death-table CH man 4.4 mio. last column real deaths/year about 1000/mio would be 350'000 for USA (based on man) then divided it by 365 and most important divide it by the fraction of vaccinated/day = 1/1000  So we would expect 1 death!!! Sorry I worked for live insurance...With higher vaccination speed on some days may be 2-3. But only 1/10 of deaths are reported at best!

Quote from THHuxleynew

The "steep increase in cases" in many countries comes from more infectious variants: alpha (now everywhere and dominant) and more recently delta (now everywhere, will be dominant everywhere soon). The Israeli increase was down to delta:

Sorry THH: You missed the facts: During Israel vaccination it was 100% 1.1.7.1 (UK) and some few RSA 1.3.5.1. Here Pfizer offers almost "0" protection unluckily. (Study reports >80x reduction in neutralization that's below natural cross immunity)

Quote from THHuxleynew

I suspect - whether we like it or not - this is the best we will get. In many countries without access to population-wide vaccination delta or future variants will inevitably spread and very many will die.

This is flat wrong. Uttar Pradesh distributed some 200mio doses Ivermectin and now is the world wide leading state with an incidence of 0.05/100'000. This is 10'000x better than Israel with > 50% vaccines or 100'000 x better than UK.

And best:: No vaccine deaths...

Quote from Fm1

Interestingly, the findings here align with a recently published meta-analysis of preclinical studies where the authors concluded that the preclinical use of quercetin, or polyphenols of the quercetin type, in animal models of viral respiratory infection is able to significantly reduce: the mortality rate, the viral load, the release of proinflammatory cytokines, the presence of reactive oxygen species, the production of mucus and, therefore, also the resistance of the airways.

And how do mothers treat their sick kids since centuries?? Brown onions = the source of Quercetin...

Quote from Fm1

mong persons who were fully immunized, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 65.9%

We used it already in March 2020 because JulianBianchi did recommend it very early on! For Pfizer its now down to 64%. Let's wait for more statistics after next wave among people that do not have Ivermectin....

Is pfizer admitting their vaccine is failing?

Pfizer says it's time for a Covid booster; FDA and CDC say not so fast

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/0…ng-immunity-bn/index.html

(CNN)Drugmaker Pfizer said Thursday it is seeing waning immunity from its coronavirus vaccine and says it is picking up its efforts to develop a booster dose that will protect people from variants.

Pfizer said it would soon publish data about a third dose of vaccine and submit it to the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other regulators. The company specified it would seek FDA emergency use authorization for a booster dose in August.

But in an unusual move, two top federal agencies said Americans don't need boosters yet and said it was not up to companies alone to decide when they might be needed.

Hours after Pfizer issued its statement, the FDA and Centers for Disease and Control issued a joint statement saying Americans do not need booster shots yet.

"Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time," they said.

In a statement to CNN on Friday, the World Health Organization said, "We don't know whether booster vaccines will be needed to maintain protection against COVID-19 until additional data is collected," adding, "limited data available on how long the protection from current doses lasts and whether an additional booster dose would be beneficial and for whom."

Pfizer and its partner BioNTech said evidence was building that people's immunity starts to wane after they have been vaccinated. The Pfizer vaccine requires two doses to provide full immunity.

"As seen in real world data released from the Israel Ministry of Health, vaccine efficacy in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease has declined six months post-vaccination, although efficacy in preventing serious illnesses remains high," Pfizer said in a statement emailed to CNN.

"Additionally, during this period the Delta variant is becoming the dominant variant in Israel as well as many other countries. These findings are consistent with an ongoing analysis from the Companies' Phase 3 study," it added.

"While protection against severe disease remained high across the full six months, a decline in efficacy against symptomatic disease over time and the continued emergence of variants are expected. Based on the totality of the data they have to date, Pfizer and BioNTech believe that a third dose may be beneficial within 6 to 12 months following the second dose to maintain highest levels of protection." It gave no further details.

The announcement could have implications across the world. The Pfizer shot is the cornerstone of vaccination programs in many countries. Two-thirds of doses delivered across the European Union were made by Pfizer, according to the European Center. In Israel, Pfizer is the only vaccine used.

Of the 158 million fully vaccinated people in the US, more than half received the Pfizer shot.

US government officials have stressed that fully vaccinated people have a low risk of infection, even from the Delta or B.1.617.2 variant, which is more transmissible than earlier lineages of the virus.

Plus, several studies have indicated the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna confer longterm protection.

"FDA, CDC, and NIH (the National Institutes of Health) are engaged in a science-based, rigorous process to consider whether or when a booster might be necessary. This process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data, and cohort data -- which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but does not rely on those data exclusively," they added.

It was a clear message to Pfizer, which has been hinting at the need for a booster shot for months.

We continue to review any new data as it becomes available and will keep the public informed. We are prepared for booster doses if and when the science demonstrates that they are needed," the CDC and FDA said in the statement.

"The United States is fortunate to have highly effective vaccines that are widely available for those aged 12 and up. People who are fully vaccinated are protected from severe disease and death, including from the variants currently circulating in the country such as Delta," the statement continued.

"People who are not vaccinated remain at risk. Virtually all COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are among those who are unvaccinated. We encourage Americans who have not yet been vaccinated to get vaccinated as soon as possible to protect themselves and their community."

Israel's health ministry said in a statement earlier this week that it had seen efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine drop from more than 90% to about 64% as the B.1.617.2 or Delta variant spread.

Pfizer said research showed booster doses of its vaccine, developed with BioNTech, produced levels of neutralizing antibodies that are five to 10 times higher than what's produced after two doses.

It said it's also developing a new formulation for a booster dose that may more thoroughly protect people from new variants.

"While Pfizer and BioNTech believe a third dose of BNT162b2 has the potential to preserve the highest levels of protective efficacy against all currently known variants including Delta, the companies are remaining vigilant and are developing an updated version of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that targets the full spike protein of the Delta variant," the company said. Current vaccines target just a piece of the spike protein -- the part of the virus it uses to attach to cells.

"The first batch of the mRNA for the trial has already been manufactured at BioNTech's facility in Mainz, Germany. The Companies anticipate the clinical studies to begin in August, subject to regulatory approvals."

Inhaled COVID-19 vaccine prevents disease and transmission in animals

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub…021-07/uoih-icv070821.php

In a new study assessing the potential of a single-dose, intranasal COVID-19 vaccine, a team from the University of Iowa and the University of Georgia found that the vaccine fully protects mice against lethal COVID-19 infection. The vaccine also blocks animal-to-animal transmission of the virus. The findings were published July 2 in the journal Science Advances.

"The currently available vaccines against COVID-19 are very successful, but the majority of the world's population is still unvaccinated and there is a critical need for more vaccines that are easy to use and effective at stopping disease and transmission," says Paul McCray, MD, professor of pediatrics-pulmonary medicine, and microbiology and immunology at the UI Carver College of Medicine, and co-leader of the study. "If this new COVID-19 vaccine proves effective in people, it may help block SARS-CoV-2 transmission and help control the COVID-19 pandemic."

Unlike traditional vaccines that require an injection, this vaccine is administered through a nasal spray similar to those commonly used to vaccinate against influenza. The vaccine used in the study only requires a single dose and it may be stored at normal refrigerator temperatures for up to at least three months. Because it is given intranasally, the vaccine may also be easier to administer, especially for those who have a fear of needles.

"We have been developing this vaccine platform for more than 20 years, and we began working on new vaccine formulations to combat COVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic," says Biao He, PhD, a professor in the University of Georgia's Department of Infectious Diseases in the College of Veterinary Medicine and co-leader of the study. "Our preclinical data show that this vaccine not only protects against infection, but also significantly reduces the chances of transmission."

The experimental vaccine uses a harmless parainfluenza virus 5 (PIV5) to deliver the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into cells where it prompts an immune response that protects against COVID-19 infection. PIV5 is related to common cold viruses and easily infects different mammals, including humans, without causing significant disease. The research team has previously shown that this vaccine platform can completely protect experimental animals from another dangerous coronavirus disease called Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

The inhaled PIV5 vaccine developed by the team targets mucosal cells that line the nasal passages and airways. These cells are the main entry point for most SARS-CoV-2 infections and the site of early virus replication. Virus produced in these cells can invade deeper into the lungs and other organs in the body, which can lead to more severe disease. In addition, virus made in these cells can be easily shed through exhalation allowing transmission from one infected person to others.

The study showed that the vaccine produced a localized immune response, involving antibodies and cellular immunity, that completely protected mice from fatal doses of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccine also prevented infection and disease in ferrets and, importantly, appeared to block transmission of COVID-19 from infected ferrets to their unprotected and uninfected cage-mates.

###

In addition to McCray, UI researchers involved in the study included Kun Li, PhD, and associate research scientist, who helped lead the small animal studies at Iowa, documenting the vaccine's efficacy, and David Meyerholz, PhD, UI professor of pathology.

The research was supported by CyanVac LLC, a startup company based at University of Georgia that is developing vaccines based on the PIV5. McCray, who does not have a financial relationship with CyanVac, also received support from the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Quote from Bob#2

While I realize this is not proof, my wife is intelligent and not a hypochondriac. I am quite confident she really did feel better. I admit I cannot prove it was ivermectin, but it sure did not hurt the situation.... and has now done so twice. ........ All for $3.99 ...... no, other than asprin/ibuprofen, we do not self medicate..... well maybe a glass of red wine once in a great while.

This inspired me to take some of the kids out of the cupboard for a family pic.

Quote from Alan Smith

McKinsey view of things...

"For more than a year, the world has been battling SARS-CoV-2 and the economic impact of this great pandemic. While there is an enormous amount of work left to do across the globe, countries leading the COVID-19 exit have given us a glimpse of how hearts and minds can shift to reunions with friends and family, and a return to more normal work and life. As we emerge, what is the right paradigm to guide our collective effort of transitioning through the end of the pandemic to a better future for all?"

At the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, we engage with business executives, experts, and policymakers to help make Change that Matters. The Davos Agenda, a virtual event in January, convened global leaders under the theme of “A crucial year to rebuild trust.”

https://www.mckinsey.com/featu…onomic-forum/davos-agenda

Good news : You'll own nothing and be happy!

a little reading for the liars, deniers and vaccine warriors

Phase 1 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study in Healthy Adult Volunteers to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Orally Inhaled Aerosolized Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate – A Potential Treatment for COVID-19

https://www.jacionline.org/art…-6749(20)31774-7/fulltext

Rationale

The airways and lungs are the primary sites of SARS-CoV-2 entry, replication, and damage, so there is reason to administer drugs to these regions. Oral hydroxychloroquine (oHCQ) has produced mixed results in COVID-19, despite reported antiviral activity in vitro (EC50=0.72-119 μM). We tested the hypothesis that aerosolized HCQ sulfate (aHCQ) tolerably, safely, and rapidly achieves high respiratory tissue concentrations, while minimizing systemic toxicity.

Methods

aHCQ was administered via Aerogen nebulizer (oral inhalation, nasal exhalation) to healthy volunteers in a Phase 1 study to assess tolerability, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

10 volunteers (age 55±13 years, 60% female) were randomized to Placebo (n=2), or aHCQ (20 mg, n=2; 50 mg, n=6); all completed the inhalation. 6/8 receiving aHCQ had adverse events (all mild; 75% transient dysgeusia, 25% dizziness). FEV1 and FVC were essentially unchanged from baseline after 15-360 minutes and 1 and 7 days. QT segments were minimally changed from baseline (maximum change 34 msec) after 1-6 hours, and 1 and 7 days; all were ≤455 msec. Pharmacokinetics of 50 mg: Area Under the Blood Curve 0-24 hours post-inhalation was 377±127 ng*hr/mL, <15% of that reported for oHCQ 200 mg; Pharmacokinetic modelling predicts initial epithelial lining fluid concentrations in excess of reported EC50s, and peak respiratory tissue concentrations of 0.5 mM, decreasing to 0.01 mM at 24 hours as HCQ slowly releases into blood.

Conclusions

aHCQ was safe, well-tolerated, and appears to be sequestered in respiratory tissues. Administering aHCQ at a fraction of oral dosing may rapidly achieve respiratory tract concentrations sufficient to inhibit SARS-CoV-2.

Article Info

Publication History

L7

Identification

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.12.011

Copyright

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

ScienceDirect

Access this article on ScienceDirect

A New Study Shows, Again, That Hydroxychloroquine Works

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/…hloroquine-study-n2590700

A new study published by medRxiv shows hydroxychloroquine, combined with zinc, increased the survival rate of severely ill Wuhan coronavirus patients by 200 percent.

"This observational study looked at 255 COVID19 patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the first two months of the US pandemic. Through comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation and new consideration of all the data, we were able to better describe and understand factors affecting outcome after intubation," the study finding state. "By considering more factors and using new methods, we found that when increased doses of co-administered HCQ and AZM were associated with >100% increase in survival. Comparison of absolute with weight-adjusted cumulative doses proves administration =80 mg/kg of HCQ with > 1 gm AZM increases survival in IMV-requiring Covid patients by over 100%."

JUST IN: New study finds that the use of weight-adjusted hydroxychloroquine & azithromycin improved survival of ventilated COVID-19 patients by nearly 200% - medRxiv

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 8, 2021

While the study is new, the information about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine has been known since April of 2020. Doctors around the country were prescribing it with positive results.

Further, a survey from Jackson & Coker of more than 1000 doctors showed an overwhelming majority of would prescribe hydroxychloroquine to a family member suffering from Wuhan coronavirus.

"Sixty-five percent of physicians across the United States said they would prescribe the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member," the survey, which questioned 1,271 doctors in 50 states, found. "Only 11 percent said they would not use the drug at all."

In addition, a significant number of doctors said they would prescribe the drugs to those exposed to the virus as a preventative measure and would take it themselves if they became sick from the disease.

"Thirty-percent of the surveyed doctors said they would prescribe the medications to a family member prior to the onset of symptoms if they had been exposed to COVID-19," they found. "Sixty-seven percent of surveyed physicians said they would take the medications themselves to treat COVID-19. Fifty-six percent said they would take the anti-malarial if they displayed symptoms and another 11 percent said they would take the medications if they got very sick from the virus."

New emails belonging to Dr. Anthony Fauci and released last week show he was told about the efficacy of the drug but publicly stated it wasn't of good use for combatting the disease.

Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2021.05.28.21258012v1

NOTE: Medrxiv delayed publication for 11 months

Quote from Alan Smith

Future -proofing societies - suggestions for the UK.

https://drive.google.com/file/…KkGmmRSuTNmgzK3tNQbG/view

Out of the wreckage of the Second World War, the UK transformed itself. It rebuilt its

shattered economy. It founded the NHS. It created national insurance. And it helped establish

international institutions like the United Nations so that the world would never endure a

tragedy on this scale again.

Human progress doesn’t come in straight lines. Instead, there are rare moments where

transformative change is possible — where decades’ worth of progress can be achieved in a

matter of months.

Such an opportunity for transformative change may now be upon us. As the UK begins

to emerge from Covid-19, which has cost tens of thousands of lives and over £300 billion in

2020 alone,1

we have a similar opportunity to that which existed in 1945.

While the scale of national tragedy is alive in our minds, the Government must seize this

opportunity, and ensure we are much better prepared for the next extreme risk event that will

devastate lives and economies on a global scale. The UK must become a global leader in

ensuring long-term resilience to extreme risks, and keep pace with the significant steps the

United States is taking in this area.

We do not know which extreme risk event will come next — it might be another pandemic, or

it might be something completely different. But we do know what many of the most extreme

risks are, and how best to prepare for them. This report offers a roadmap for how to do just

that — it provides an insurance policy for Britain against the biggest threats we face.

Display More

Your in a good path with these statements Sir. This kind of preparedness comes from the inside, home/community growing and from cooperation between the health, tech and infrastructure people.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Again it's not about death on day one is always about onset of symptoms that leads to death. Vaers contains at best 10% of the real cases worst 1%. I fear almost all cases with onset of symptoms at day one with death later than day 10 are not in VEARS.

And we have zero for flu. Official death-table CH man 4.4 mio. last column real deaths/year about 1000/mio would be 350'000 for USA (based on man) then divided it by 365 and most important divide it by the fraction of vaccinated/day = 1/1000  So we would expect 1 death!!! Sorry I worked for live insurance...With higher vaccination speed on some days may be 2-3. But only 1/10 of deaths are reported at best!

50	0.002 649	0.997 351	96 517	256
51	0.002 936	0.997 064	96 261	282
52	0.003 252	0.996 748	95 979	312
53	0.003 600	0.996 400	95 667	345
54	0.003 981	0.996 019	95 322	379
55	0.004 397	0.995 603	94 943	418
56	0.004 851	0.995 149	94 525	458
57	0.005 346	0.994 654	94 067	503
58	0.005 883	0.994 117	93 564	551
59	0.006 467	0.993 533	93 013	601
60	0.007 101	0.992 899	92 412	656

Sorry THH: You missed the facts: During Israel vaccination it was 100% 1.1.7.1 (UK) and some few RSA 1.3.5.1. Here Pfizer offers almost "0" protection unluckily. (Study reports >80x reduction in neutralization that's below natural cross immunity)

This is flat wrong. Uttar Pradesh distributed some 200mio doses Ivermectin and now is the world wide leading state with an incidence of 0.05/100'000. This is 10'000x better than Israel with > 50% vaccines or 100'000 x better than UK.

And best:: No vaccine deaths...

Display More

Yes I may have errored, but I can try to improve the argument,

So, lets do a proper napkin mathematical analysis, a 50-59 year old i at time t (i,t) dies acording to the stochastic variable I(i,t) which is 1 if he dies that day t or 0 else

the probabiilty that he dies at day t is, P(I(i,t)=1) = EI(i,t) = p = (roughly) 500/20 000 000 -1000/20 000 000

Now for almost all individuals in this group (or a good fraction say 50%) at t(i) he take the jab, (actualy there is two dates that needs to be included here because of 2 jabs)

So the number of deaths in the same day a person got the jab is S = I(0,t(0)) + I(1,t(1)) + ... ( a sum of 10 000 0000 + 10 000 0000 (two jabs))

The expected number of deaths at the day of the jab is then ES = E I(0,t0)) + E(I(1,t(1)) + ... = p + p + p + ... = 20 000 000 p = 500 .. 1000

Is this clear? I can't find the 1/1000 factor you mentioned.

Quote from stefan

? I can't find the 1/1000 factor you mentioned.

The probe you are allowed to look at is just the people vaccinated over some days in an age group not the whole population., This you can elect if 100% has been vaccinated. Further the critical group is age 35..50 not age 50..59 this you already used to produce bias. Unluckily in the first phase only medical personal age 35..55 was allowed to vaccinate so your test group of this phase is tiny not so the number of deaths.

You can also have it much simpler. We have about 40..200 deaths/million vaccines. Further you should know why and how younger die. Certainly not spontaneous. So you must exclude all deaths (accident, suicide,shooting, sports,cancer, and chronic illness) from the statistic base value from known causes and can only take the ones from unknown causes.

If you read VAERS you will find that most people that died had no previous conditions. VAERS also is not up to date. The backlog now is some months and some 10'000 deaths are missing. Deaths you can easily extrapolate from Europe data. May be also Europe is just a bit more responsive.

To avoid all this complication, as said, look at the flu vaccine deaths and no more discussion is needed.

But I know big pharma does not like a simple picture as this avoids all bias they like to see!

Quote from Curbina

That’s got to be one of the most unintentionally frightening videos ever made on purpose.

It's not so bad. For instance in our home we rent our hot water heater and stream videos, none of which we own. Yet both make us happy when we use them. Why burden ourselves with material possessions when we can just rent, and be happy and free? The rent money will be well spent, going ultimately to global corporations which work along with a global governing body which will give guidance and dicates to the nations, including surveillance of the citizenry, to ensure everyone is acting harmoniously. Kind of like China is now. Just think of the wonderful example China has set for us in handling the Sars Cov-2 virus! What a great opportunity to change the world!

Quote from Wyttenbach

The probe you are allowed to look at is just the people vaccinated over some days in an age group not the whole population., This you can elect if 100% has been vaccinated. Further the critical group is age 35..50 not age 50..59 this you already used to produce bias. Unluckily in the first phase only medical personal age 35..55 was allowed to vaccinate so your test group of this phase is tiny not so the number of deaths.

You can also have it much simpler. We have about 40..200 deaths/million vaccines. Further you should know why and how younger die. Certainly not spontaneous. So you must exclude all deaths (accident, suicide,shooting, sports,cancer, and chronic illness) from the statistic base value from known causes and can only take the ones from unknown causes.

If you read VAERS you will find that most people that died had no previous conditions. VAERS also is not up to date. The backlog now is some months and some 10'000 deaths are missing. Deaths you can easily extrapolate from Europe data. May be also Europe is just a bit more responsive.

To avoid all this complication, as said, look at the flu vaccine deaths and no more discussion is needed.

But I know big pharma does not like a simple picture as this avoids all bias they like to see!

Display More

OK, the proof is in younger age groups, fair, also I agree that one need to subgroup the statistics for young people to those not having any preconditions. If as you say the deaths are without

comorbidities than that's the group has to be looked into and compared to. indeed, good point. Still I think that a lot of deaths seam to not be reported in VAERS and it is incomplete. The strength is in finding clues of how to subgroup in proper statistical databases I think - not to prove things. What do expert say about studying this subgroup? To early and too few vaccinated maybe.

Study Results: Time to Take More Seriously Adverse Event Reporting from Randomized Controlled Trials

https://trialsitenews.com/stud…omized-controlled-trials/

Recently, a team of researchers led by the University of York analyzed systematic reviews of 1,200 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to assess whether reporting had improved over time. However, the information the researchers needed to assess what adverse effects were reported (and how they were reported) was only included in less than half of the RCTs they analyzed. What’s the implication of this? Clinical trial sponsors—a company, academic medical center, or other entity—aren’t meeting their disclosure obligations nearly enough, at times suppressing key safety information, which in the aggregate can serve to endanger the public worldwide.

One-Sided Reporting Highlights Benefits While Ignoring Negative Data

Regulatory capture points to a kind of corruption that occurs when a regulatory body is essentially co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a specific constituency, such as a group of companies or a specific industry. So many data points have come to light during the pandemic that merits a separate investigation. What else explains the fact that necessary and required adverse event reporting repeatedly falls short of what’s required?

Regardless of broader implications, for purposes of summarizing this study, Co-Author Dr. Su Golder from the Department of Health Sciences, York University, sums it up: “Drug trials are conducted to give clinicians information on the benefits and adverse effects of treatments. Our study shows that, disappointingly, there’s only been a slight improvement in reporting the adverse effects in trials over the last 17 years.”

“There is also a tendency to focus only on those harms that are either common, or defined as serious which cause hospitalization, disability or death. Yet other seemingly minor harms which may be important to patients – everything from diarrhea and insomnia to rashes, coughs and muscle aches – may be important to capture, especially since it may stop people taking medication,” Dr. Golder added.

Study Authors Pick and Choose

The study reveals also that an unfortunate, unethical pattern persists, indicating authors are picking and choosing which actual adverse events they even publish. That is, they are selective as to the harm, suggests the data generated from this study.

Dr. Golder added: “We also need to know if a particular drug affected people differently, for example if it affected females more than males, or if a particular harm increased with age.”

Study Conclusion

The study concluded that the lack of reporting or selective reporting of adverse effects in published clinical trials can promote a false impression of safety and misinform clinical and policy decisions and that the NHS, policy makers, and patients all need reliable information about the benefits and adverse effects of treatments to make good, informed decisions.

In 2004, major new guidelines on reporting Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were published, with the aim of improving the reporting of adverse effects in trials.

Lead Research/Investigator

Daniela R. Junqueira, University of Alberta

Rachel Phillips, Imperial College London

Liliane Zorzela, University of Alberta

Sue Golder, University of York

Yoon Loke, University of East Anglia

David Moher, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa

John P. A. loannidis, Stanford University

Sunita Vohra, University of Alberta

Call to Action: Check out the study in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

Authoritarian Rise: YouTube Targeting TrialSite and Cutting Several News Rundown Episodes

https://trialsitenews.com/auth…al-news-rundown-episodes/

In a continuation of unprecedented censorship, YouTube, a Google holding, purged multiple TrialSite videos simply because Ivermectin was a topic in the video. TrialSite emphasizes in all of its videos that it’s an objective, unbiased news site and at no time is the drug recommended as a treatment. That’s not the place of a news site. The banned videos simply cover important information that’s factual, relevant, and current. But the good news: TrialSite’s an independent platform, and the videos will be reposted on the website. Site traffic surpassed record milestones in June and the demand and thirst for accurate research information trumps petty, authoritarian-minded fantasies.

For example, the purged list included our April 5th News Roundup “Scientific Misconduct Accusation with Dr. Andrew Hill’s Ivermectin Meta-Analysis,” which simply showcased the publishing in a scientific journal the meta-analysis completed by Dr. Andrew Hill, et al. After all, this was the meta-analysis referred to by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Or there was a meta-analysis TrialSite reported on in Italy where a group of Italian researchers analyzed a number of studies. Other News Roundups purged by YouTube included the Dr. Tess Lawrie discussion and the “Did Cali Colombia Ivermectin Trial include Protocol Deviations,” which is a straightforward review of allegations of scientific dissention.

Ironically, Ralph Lorigo has been suing hospitals on behalf of patients’ families requesting ivermectin. The Beyond the Roundup show titled “Judge Orders Use of Ivermectin: 80-year Old Mom Now Home & Well” was simply the actual, factual work being done by the attorney fighting for American patients’ rights.

Censorship Not the Answer

TrialSite isn’t an advocacy or activist group, or for that matter, a partisan political group whatsoever. TrialSite simply chronicles research, seeking to raise the bar of knowledge around the world. And that’s exactly why the censors turned their attention to us. It’s not the first time either, as a balanced, completely objective documentary we did was purged long ago.

But although Vice Media declared we “exaggerated” the case in “COVID-19 Censorship: Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts,” we are certain that’s not the case. Each and every time this sort of egregious action occurs, it simply hardens the resolve of those that seek to do what’s right and proper given the circumstances.

It’s clear that the social networks, and indirectly our government, doesn’t want people knowing any truth other than what’s approved by a cadre of removed, detached, myopic authoritarian-minded souls. But they don’t understand how dangerous the precedent they’re setting actually is to a democratic way of life.

TrialSite’s Independent Platform

TrialSite is an independent platform, and we will simply publish the videos on the website. Of course, we enjoy YouTube’s reach but they’re not the reason why we are in business. TrialSite surpassed a million viewers/readers for the month of June and that’s with no marketing or courting of the social media giants. We seek to bring transparency and accessibility to research to advance the overall healthcare of all.

The Purged Content

As mentioned soon, these will be reposed on the TrialSite News website.

April 5th, News Roundup | Scientific Misconduct Accusation with Dr. Andrew Hill’s Ivermectin Meta-Analysis

March 29th, Beyond The Roundup | Italian-led Ivermectin Meta-Analysis: Consider For Help Treating Covid-19?

March 15th, News Roundup | Dr. Tess Lawrie Discusses her Ivermectin Meta-Analysis, the FDA, and Dr. Andrew Hill

March 13th, Beyond The Roundup | Did Cali Colombia Ivermectin Trial Include Protocol Deviations?

March 6th, The Beyond The Roundup | UK BIRD Panel Sends Ivermectin Recommendation to World Health Organization

March 4th , Beyond The Roundup | Judge Orders Use of Ivermectin: 80-year Old Mom Now Home & Well (This last one is about the work being done by lawyer Ralph Lorigo)

Call to Action: Visit www.trialsitenews videos soon for these versions of the news show.