Covid-19 News

    Quote from Fm1

    First, I am vaccinated and not an anti Vaxer, nor do I spend any time reading those sites. Your personal opinion of trialsite shows your bias. I vaccinated because I'm heading towards 70 and have household considerations. No data from the UK shows delta is more lethal the vaccines are now in real-world time at 86% effective from death and now lower for mild and severe cases. Yes you are a vaccine warrior if you still continue to push children vaccination with all the data now available that points to cardiac issues in even healthy kids. The data clearly shows children severe cases or death from Covid is more rare than vaccine issues. Ivermectin in trials and studies has proven effective even in long covid. Oh and I really don't believe anything I read until I can find a second source. I don't think you can say the same.

    Sorry about the ramblings I just got up


    Quote from Fm1

    This is exactly why you are a vaccine warrior, you play samantics the data for 18-30 year olds seems pretty solid the 12-17 is less clear but still disturbing


    OK - so let us decode this.


    (1) we are agreed that vaccines are saving us from COVID (at least at the moment) and personally worthwhile for oldies.

    (2) we are in partial agreement about delta. Youa re saying there is no data on lethality - i am saying there is limited data i don't trust yet that shows it more lethal. I would look it up except that i do not think it if muhc value yet. if i find anything valuable i will post it. But, you agree that delta is not expected to be LESS lethal? Because there is currently no evolutionary pressure for that and we known it is more transmissable because more infective.

    (3) I don't understand "push children vaccination". Read my post above. We agree 18+ vaccination is worthwhile. We agree (I think) that the risks of both vaccines and COVID are low for - say 14 year old. We agree that we would like to know which is lower. I'm not sure where we disagree except you are showing bias. Specifically, when the vaccine AR rates are known low, but not known lower than the COVID AR rates you call this "disturbing" and (I think) would therefore avoid the vaccines.. My point is that this data is "uncertain" - a difficult position if you need to judge I agree. If you go out on a limb and follow some random article on trialsite and internet poeple here, rather than your national regulatory authorities, you are taking a lot of responsibility for yourself. So even though it is a worthwhile discussion here personally I don't see we disagree. You would not risk children - neither would I. So we will probably both follow local medical advice, while the data is uncertain.

    (4) I am not playing semantics. i pointed out that (what somone else posted) as a low-looking COVID death rate for young people was (a) comparable with that trialsite 1;10,000 figure and (b) meaningless without knowing the young people cutoff.


    As for being a vaccine warrior: anyone who things they know better than local medical authorities is taking a lot of responsibility. I'm not saying i would never do it. But i certainly would not do it on basis of trialsite published fringe papers. In fcat i would not think i could do a better job than a panel of scientists judging relative risks for local regulatory authorities - and that is how these decisions are made. it is juts that the regulatory decisions happen rather slowly.


    Back to trialsite. There is a good reason i do not trust it. I am not saying nothing there has merit. But, stuff there will be fringe ideas considered too poorly supported to be easily published in mainstream journals. there are an awful lot of mainstream journals, with many different editorial policies. So you have to be quite far out not to be published there is you have something significant.


    Does that mean I would ignore it? No. But I'd take it with three pinches of salt and if its papers are regarded as positive misinfrmation by mainstream outlets i'd reckon that is most likley because they are misinformation, not that there is some global conspiracy.


    The thing about the conspiracy option is that scientists never agree. You will always find different views, different countries will make different judgments, and the mavericks always exist at 1% level. That 1% is right, against the odds - maybe 1% of the time!


    So if you want the best available info you go for the mainstream papers - which still show a lot of variability - and the regulators - not the fringe stuff.


    Although i am not a vaccine warrior - for example I don't think we should vaccinate children for the overall good if the personal risk equation for them is bad - I am an anti-anti-vaxxer.


    The anti-vax memes tie into a very common distrust of experts and are poisonous generally, and lethal in this pandemic.


    THH

    Is there any evidence delta is more lethal than alpha?


    There is, you remember, solid evidence alpha is more lethal than origibnal COVID.


    I've tried to find evidence on delta lethality versus alpha and cannot find it. I think it will be more difficult because you have to factor in vaccination now, so fewer people will have reliable data. So i agree now with FM1 on this no evidence on lethality - except for the theoretical idea that since it is more highly infective of cells it is quite likely more lethal. That would be if it worked like alpha variant - it took a long time before we got any evidence on that. Overall pretty weak - but stronger than the idea that "viruses get less lethal". That does not work here for quite a number o reasons we could discuss if anyone is interested.


    THH

    Ok first, you are crazy, I never said the vaccine is saving us, I do agree if over 50 vaccines are the way to go. 2: delta is more contagious less lethal , your limited evidence is the ramblings of your idiot health minister, and it is now at the moment less lethal. The data is very clear on that but it is limited, I'll give you that. Now as for evolutionary pressure? Pure crap Thomas, look to 2010, but a nice buzz phrase! 3: vaccinating anyone under 50 should be halted and fully reviewed. As for 12 to 18 should never have been considered based on 16 months of data. I very rarely post any of my personal opinions, I will when trolls piss me off. But of coarse present company ............... As for trialsite again you don't like how they cover the pandemic, why? There is even balance showing both sides of the story but I guess you would rather read just the one side. YOURS!!! Don't ever try to spin anything I say as agreeing with you. That's trolling!!!

    Thomas you are making the same mistake I made when looking at alpha. In reality alpha was less lethal than the original. It was definitely more infectious but when you add the infections to death ratio keeping in mind that even it just twice as infectious the deaths were lower in alpha. Remember the media has been telling us deaths from the first wave were much more higher than reported. So Thomas did the media mislead us on this under reported first wave death count. Or is it misleading us now on the dangers and you fell for it? Can't have it both ways unless you spin spin spin

    This RNA expert deals with spin with aplomb..

    painted by the French gutter media as an antivaxxer..

    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.

    What do people think of this response to a question. 1:19:09

    David Martin is probably one of the deepest and most aware people in the world on intellectual patents and biodefense. I think he destroys fully any notion this is some random event. That's why he's a little hard to find and they won't talk about his evidence.


    1:19:09 on; and then 1:35:00 on

    https://odysee.com/@Corona-Aus…reis-5-Martin:f?src=embed

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


    So i'd like to thank FM1 for pushing me to re-examine this issue. Here trialsite is complaining about being censored. Specifically, it says it is balanced, objective, just posts scientific research.


    That is partly true. Not the whole truth. Its mission is:


    https://trialsitenews.com/about-us/


    TrialSiteNews was launched to drive more interest and awareness in clinical research, as well as to develop trust and facilitate engagement of researchers and the public. TrialSite started toward the end of 2018, financed solely by the founder, to create a new disruptive force in the world of biomedical research.

    TrialSite emphasizes the trial site organization and its staff, whether a hospital, health system, community clinic, or commercial research center, and the breakthroughs, challenges, best practices, and mishaps, all in a bid to provide more transparency for the broader population as to the nuts and bolts of clinical trials.

    Have something important to share with our editorial team? Email us

    Mission & Values

    TrialSite’s mission is to drive awareness, introduce transparency, and facilitate engagement among people all over the world, from pharmaceutical professionals and academic researchers to regulators and healthcare professionals along with a wide array of the consuming public.

    We value transparency, objectivity, and the scientific method in pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead us.


    Whereas the mainstream journals use peer review to sort out what has merit (imperfect - but diverse because every editorial board is different - and we have no better filter) trialsite says it is a news site. Therefore its publication will be determined by editorial policy, not science.


    I can see the need for independent views on medical trails - to counteract big pharma pushing fake positive results for profitable drugs. That does not apply in the same way for COVID vaccines which are subject to very strong regulatory interest and also are not money-spinners. Maybe trialsitenews does this job OK?


    Looking at the op ed authors:

    https://trialsitenews.com/op-ed-authors/


    (the only medic) Pierre Kory - FLCC. He is the strongest proponent of Ivermectin as an early COVID treatment. He may be right, or wrong. He sure is not neutral or objective on this issue, it is his hobbyhorse!


    Ron B Brown - PhD - published https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32782048/. This was questioning the lethality of COVID in June 2020, when the mainstream view was around an IFR of 0.5% - 1.5% - much higher than Flu. He says here that this is questionable, and suggests:


    In testimony before US Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was 10-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.


    [RBB says] Almost as a parenthetical afterthought, the NEJM editorial inaccurately stated that 0.1% is the approximate case fatality rate of seasonal influenza. By contrast, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 0.1% or lower is the approximate influenza infection fatality rate,5 not the case fatality rate


    Agreed, the Flu rate quoted is IFR not CFR. And that must therefore be compared with the COVID IFR, lower than the COVID CFR. But COVID IFR is still 0.7%ish (dependent on age profile - as also is Flu IFR). A lot higher than seasonal Flu.


    RBB argues in a way I find tricky (wrong) in his paper:

    In NIAID testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Hearing on Coronavirus response, Day 1,3 the Committee learned that mortality from seasonal influenza is 0.1%. Additionally, it was reported to Congress that the overall coronavirus mortality of approximately 2-3% had been reduced to 1% to take into account infected people who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The adjusted mortality rate from coronavirus of 1% was then compared with the 0.1% mortality rate from seasonal influenza, and the conclusion was reported to the House Committee that the coronavirus was 10-times more lethal than seasonal influenza.

    In a comparative analysis with WHO and CDC documents, the coronavirus mortality rate of 2-3% that was adjusted to 1% in Congressional testimony is consistent with the coronavirus CFR of 1.8-3.4% (median, 2.6%) reported by the CDC.13 Furthermore, the WHO reported that the CFR of the H1N1 influenza virus (1918) is also 2-3%,14 similar to the unadjusted 2-3% CFR of the coronavirus reported in Congressional testimony, with no meaningful difference in mortality. As previously mentioned, the WHO also reported that 0.1% is the IFR of seasonal influenza,5 not the CFR of seasonal influenza as reported in the NEJM editorial.


    So the adjusted COVID rate (down to 1% from 2-3%) referred to here is actually an estimated IFR, and it is correct to compare that with the Flu IFR of 0.1%.


    NEJM may have got this wrong (I have not checked). But we have still this 10X figure, because the adjustment here gives us an estimate IFR. The actual figure is 7X (original COVID) going up because of alpha which is more lethal - and maybe down because of better treatment. But those further adjustments could not be known in 2020. Oh, and the WHO 0.1%, RBB says, is an upper estimate for Flu IFR. So in this comparison these figures maybe need to go up a bit if Flu is less lethal than 0.1% IFR.


    RBB is right that confusion between IFR and CFR is common. Wrong that the 10X figure, from evidence presented, is not a fair initial assessment of the relative risk.


    Here is RBBs estimate which ironically suffers the problem he points out (confusion about CFR):


    In NIAID testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Hearing on Coronavirus response, Day 1,3 the Committee learned that mortality from seasonal influenza is 0.1%. Additionally, it was reported to Congress that the overall coronavirus mortality of approximately 2-3% had been reduced to 1% to take into account infected people who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The adjusted mortality rate from coronavirus of 1% was then compared with the 0.1% mortality rate from seasonal influenza, and the conclusion was reported to the House Committee that the coronavirus was 10-times more lethal than seasonal influenza.

    In a comparative analysis with WHO and CDC documents, the coronavirus mortality rate of 2-3% that was adjusted to 1% in Congressional testimony is consistent with the coronavirus CFR of 1.8-3.4% (median, 2.6%) reported by the CDC.13 Furthermore, the WHO reported that the CFR of the H1N1 influenza virus (1918) is also 2-3%,14 similar to the unadjusted 2-3% CFR of the coronavirus reported in Congressional testimony, with no meaningful difference in mortality. As previously mentioned, the WHO also reported that 0.1% is the IFR of seasonal influenza,5 not the CFR of seasonal influenza as reported in the NEJM editorial.


    RBB is now comparing Flu and COVID CFRs, noting they are similar, and deducing from that that there is no meaningful difference in mortality. Wrong. It is IFR not CFR that determines mortality. CFR dpends on case identification rate which varies widely and is not reliable.


    So the 2nd op-ed writer for trialsite is a PhD published on COVID - but his paper is an outlier and has this obvious fault in its argument. It is pushing the (politically right-wing) hope that COVID is in fact no more serious than Flu and therefore should be treated the same way. That was, even at the time, an obviously poor judgment.


    The other op-ed writers have no stated expertise on medicine:

    • Steve Kirsch - Tech Entrepeneur
    • Peter Yim - Computer Scientist
    • Mary Beth Pfeiffer - investigative journalist.


    As result of this investigation I would say the editorial policy at trialsitenews will certainly be colored by its in-house op-ed writers, and therefore will be:

    • biassed towards Ivermectin
    • biassed towards underestimating severity of COVID

    These two biasses are quite large in that the op-ed house writers have way out views.


    • I am of course sympathetic with any argument that says CFR overestimates severity and therefore should not be used. You remember how much time we spent trying to guess IFR on this thread. the resulting 0,7% or so (though higher than I was hoping initially) was about right for typical Western population demoraphucs. (W - please note this is NOT typical of Uttar Pradesh pop'n demographics! The adjusted IFR for them would be much much lower).
    • I am not sympathetic with RBB here who uses a CFR compariosn to estimate mortality of COVID! Influenza cases, from his figures, are massively undercounted because in most cases people just stay in bed and suffer a cold. or, for mild cases, go to work and ignore it! Anyway he should have known that CFR is a very unreliable way to judge the ratio, whereas correcting for IFR (the adjusted COVID figure) a better bet.
    • Would I ignore trialsitenews? No. Would I view it as reliable? No, it has no scientific peer review, calling itself a news organisation. It has people in charge with fringe views, one of whom has published a paper on COVID that makes really (known at time to be) poor arguments.
    • Do I dismiss Ivermectin as a possible helpful drug in treating COVID? No. But I see the likely bias from doctors, and non-RCT studies. I don't see convincing RCT evidence yet. I would want to go on testing it with more RCTs. Do I think Ivermectin would be pretty safe anyway? Probably, but I would have said that about HCQ in the early days not taking into account the issues about its interaction with the immune system that might combine with COVID. I think there is less likely to be a problem with Ivermectin but am no expert on this - so would not like to go against regulatory authorities. I also see the issue about people in this case maybe overdosing (because people will overdose on anything) Ivermectin - and perhaps using Ivermectin for animal which might be less safe. All of those things are reasons to be very cautious about the "take Ivermectin to save yourself from COVID" meme. I can see it as likely doing more harm than good if it means people take fewer other precautions, even if there are no safety issues. That does not apply to people here who are more careful no doubt.


    Quote from Navid

    What do people think of this response to a question. 1:19:09

    David Martin is probably one of the deepest and most aware people in the world on intellectual patents and biodefense. I think he destroys fully any notion this is some random event. That's why he's a little hard to find and they won't talk about his evidence.


    1:19:09 on; and then 1:35:00 on

    https://odysee.com/@Corona-Aus…reis-5-Martin:f?src=embed

    Thanks Navid for asking this. I welcome the chance to answer.


    (1) David Martin is one of many people who have looked at the sequence evidence on COVID. He maybe deep and aware - but based on the right-wing conspiracy site he donates material to that is presumably deeply aware of the existence of a US and world deep state, etc, etc. Those who agree with him will no doubt agree. But that type of deep awareness does not obviously correlate with zoonotic virus genetic tracking expertise.


    (2) Perhaps his elusivity is because he knows his views are not well grounded and would be destroyed by real experts? I guess, since he will not submit them for proper review, we will never know?


    This is conspiracy theory stuff - I do not rate it. Equally I realise if you accept the whole QAnon-related expert-trashing conspiracy mindset you might find this outlying person as like-minded. It is very tempting to trust like-minded people over most. That however is not good scientific practice.


    For those with a more boring mindset:


    https://www.factcheck.org/2020…information-conspiracies/

    So then of these med sites who exactly would you suggest I read more, JAMA, Lancet, medrex , web md, all of which have either suppressed publication or published outright lies. I posted a hydroxychloriquine study yesterday it was accepted for publication on June 1st 2020 it was published 11months later. JAMA accepted korys ivermectin white paper then refused to publish a peer reviewed paper. Suppression Thomas is very unbecoming in medical research and pick and choosing what to publish is not in the publics nor the medical communities best interest. You can't make good decisions if you only know have the equation. So I think you support suppressing information that you deem anti vac

    Quote from Fm1

    Thomas you are making the same mistake I made when looking at alpha. In reality alpha was less lethal than the original. It was definitely more infectious but when you add the infections to death ratio keeping in mind that even it just twice as infectious the deaths were lower in alpha. Remember the media has been telling us deaths from the first wave were much more higher than reported. So Thomas did the media mislead us on this under reported first wave death count. Or is it misleading us now on the dangers and you fell for it? Can't have it both ways unless you spin spin spin

    FM1 -


    evidence?


    My evidence is:


    https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n579


    Now - I agree - this only counts people swab tested in pillar 2. That will be those who ask for a COVID test because of symptoms, or who have been alerted by track and trace.


    You think figures from this population will give figures low by the infection rate (correlated with R number). No, no, no.


    R number is quite different from IFR/CFR (what you thought it was). In addition, these pillar 2 cases come from contact tracing and therefore will include many asymptomatic individuals. How much that happens depends on many things.


    So: I'd agree with the authors here that it is as good an estimate as we can get for relative lethality of alpha. I agree with you only that there is some possible underestimation if alpha results in a much higher asymptomatic/symptomatic ration than original COVID.


    You are going to hate this - but there might be evidence to settle this completely!


    The UK has its invaluable ONS random population sampling survey which tests for a random whole-population sample:

    • infection rate
    • seropositivity rate
    • symptoms (e.g. how many of those infected are asymptomatic).


    So it can give comparable asymptomatic/symptomatic rates for alpha and original infection. But I've done some initial googling and cannot yet find good data from this. They do not normally look at asymptomatic rates.


    https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-2667(21)00055-4/fulltext


    (no difference found, but from COVID symptom app results not ONS infection survey therefore not reliable)


    So: what is your evidence that the asymptomatic proportion of those infected varies between original and alpha and is larger for alpha (with figures?)

    Remember the media has been telling us deaths from the first wave were much more higher than reported. So Thomas did the media mislead us on this under reported first wave death count. Or is it misleading us now on the dangers and you fell for it? Can't have it both ways unless you spin spin spin


    Maybe it has in the US. I tend to prefer UK data where there is less spin and usually better statistics. We do not think deaths have been undercounted (there was one possible issue, now closed). We do not think deaths are being overcounted (there was a possible issue at low rates, now closed).


    So I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.



    Look guys we are now approaching Herd Immunity!!! Hah. All those who would have died anyway have now died. So it will soon all fizzle out won't it??? Win win for governments, drug companies the Chinese state etc etc. The losers are all dead. Great innit??? Same as when HIV was invented too wasn't it back in 1991.....everybody died before antiviral drugs were invented. Poor old Freddie Mercury etc etc etc....sarcasm or irony to you yanks..TG especially. :) :) :)

    1) So what do you see here that warrants them being censored?


    2) Some here say there is no censorship! This is absolute censorship. Yes or no?


    3) Is this worse than the Pharma push for Remedisvir? Remember, WHO experts do not approve and FDA approves. ?


    This is not a "minor" difference of opinion.... This is supposed to be "science based data" with a drug that can have severe side effects and costs thousands of dollars per dose...... Yet you question Remedisvir and I believe you will be censored on mainstream media posts.


    4) Yes, you point out some areas that you perhaps disagree with, or are alluding that discredits the Trialsite qualifications, method or even agenda. Shall we dig into several of the FDA, NIH, WHO schemes and apply the same yardstick? No, that would not do would it.... as we all know corruption abounds there. I am not saying that everything is corrupted about these, but to state there is NONE is naive.


    There is nothing good about censorship such as this. Remember, an antivaxer could be the owner of YouTube and censor anything YOU would want to post there...... OR.... the current owner will eventually run across subjects that you support that they will start censoring.


    The censorship road always leads to dictatorial and oppressive behavior.... ALWAYS!



    ........

    P.S. It is interesting to see what "side" calls for or thinks censorship is OK! While some here that are concerned about mRNA vaccines argue and even get rude, they may shout that there is much corruption and false data, they may claim government coverups and corporate malfeance, I do not see any of them calling for censorship or to "Cancel out" the voice of the vaccine warriors.


    No, only the "liberal elite" (self proclaimed by at least one) here have no issues with censorship.... as long as it is not their voice. One side clearly thinks "they know better" and therefore should be able to silence their critics, simply based upon their ego. That is what led to Nazism, Maoism and now extreme liberal leftism.


    History has shown dictatorships always start with censorship.

    Your evidence only points to a higher risk not deaths themselves. We are talking mortality not maybes

    I've found what I thought ought to exist above, which is estimates of asymptomatic COVID from the ONS infection survey data. This, because it random-samples UK households, is not contaminated by the biasses that any data set of cases will have. It is an invaluable longitudinal dataset which amazingly is less reported than the crude case and death counts.


    https://www.dovepress.com/thre…wed-fulltext-article-CLEP


    This is 26 April - 27 June 2020 and therefore original COVID, and claims an asymptomatic rate of 75% of all infections.


    However, this is actually asymptomatic + presymptomatic. The true asymptomatic rate will be lower than this.


    Other studies using meta-analyses of less reliable data have suggested asymptomatic rate for original COVID at around 45%. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3012


    That is consistent with this.


    What I cannot yet find is data on the asymptomatic fraction of alpha variant infections. Any study of asymptomatic fraction in a country after alpha took over from original (before delta) would do. I don't trust my ability to analyse the raw ONS data - it would take too long to do a good job - and surely somone else must have done

    1) So what do you see here that warrants them being censored?


    2) Some here say there is no censorship! This is absolute censorship. Yes or no?


    3) Is this worse than the Pharma push for Remedisvir? Remember, WHO experts do not approve and FDA approves. ?


    This is not a "minor" difference of opinion.... This is supposed to be "science based data" with a drug that can have severe side effects and costs thousands of dollars per dose...... Yet you question Remedisvir and I believe you will be censored on mainstream media posts.


    4) Yes, you point out some areas that you perhaps disagree with, or are alluding that discredits the Trialsite qualifications, method or even agenda. Shall we dig into several of the FDA, NIH, WHO schemes and apply the same yardstick? No, that would not do would it.... as we all know corruption abounds there. I am not saying that everything is corrupted about these, but to state there is NONE is naive.


    Bob - to answer:


    1) I have not looked at this "censorship". As I understand it they are saying that their Ivermectin stuff (on which they are clearly very biassed as i noted above) was taken down from Youtube. Probably becaise it did not fact check - you'd need to ask youtube? Or maybe some other reason. they are not in govt pocket. Otherwise - could it kill people? Yes - if they think ivermectin is protective against COVID and therefore do not take other precautions. before you say no-one is that stupid... You know some people are as stupid as you want. Always. Should stuff that is likely to kill people be posted on Youtube. Personally I would not worry about that. But i can see why some people get upset about it.


    2) No. YouTube is a private company allowed to do whatever it wants. And anyone who wants to read their stuff can read it - as you have been.


    3) Remdesivir was a regulatory decision that was questionable. But it had a very small effect. The wrong decision over ivermectin would have a very large effect. And posting stuff contrary to regulations that encourages people to self-dose has a large (adverse) effect. So yes, it is worse. It is quite similar except less blatant. The remdesivir approval was on grounds it would save hospitals money and beds, not that it would necessarily save lives - though there was some hope.


    4) Not quite. I am pointing out some areas (Ivermectin) where they are obviously not "objective" or "independent" where they have been very vocal. Then, i've been pointing out w=one of their guys who has written a paper that is poor. You can evaluate for yourself whether my argument of his has most merit.


    Because of (4) I don't see it is a big deal. They are just a very unreliable source of news on the topics of this thread. If that one Israeli Pfizer adverse reaction article is what you find important - fine. If enough people here think it has value i will read it carefully, find otehr related research, and see how it pans out.


    Since I do not believe the regulators everywhere (and not in UK or US) lie, and regulators in very many countries have all looked at Pfizer and authorised it, those figures (or rather thei naive interpretation) looks off to me. they would have been picked up. But maybe I'm wrong.


    THH

    Quote from Fm1

    Your evidence only points to a higher risk not deaths themselves. We are talking mortality not maybes

    Fm1 - probability of death is what all these things are about.


    Can you give me any figures that support your view that alpha variant has a largr proportion of asymptomatic infections than original COVID - because if not the paper i quoted which works out risks based on mortality figures is the best you will get.


    General point - everything in medicine is maybes. You look at a bunch of deaths and try to work out did a particular thing cause them. You end up with probablities.

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.