Covid-19 News

Vaccine problems? I thought this was anti Vaxer talk!!!!

FDA Plans to Warn J&J Covid-19 Vaccine Raises Risk of Rare Neurological Condition

Agency to warn that the vaccine increases risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome

https://www.wsj.com/articles/f…cal-condition-11626117261

U.S. health regulators are expected to warn that the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is linked to a very small incidence of cases of a rare neurological disorder associated with other shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to add the warning language to the J&J shot’s label, after finding a handful of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome among the millions of people who have gotten the vaccine, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare neurological disorder in which the immune system attacks nerves, causing temporary but potentially severe paralysis. The risk is a known one with vaccines, including some influenza vaccines and a leading shot to prevent shingles.

J&J didn’t immediately provide a comment.

The warning would be the latest for a vaccine that federal health officials had cautioned raises the risk of a rare blood-clotting condition.

Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/29/e2024597118

During a pandemic, governments face incentives to not disclose negative information about vaccines to not jeopardize public vaccine acceptance. Against these incentives, the current study provides an experimental, cross-national demonstration of the importance of transparency in communication about a vaccine against COVID-19. While disclosing negative information may increase hesitancy, transparency sustains trust in health authorities and hinders the spread of conspiracy beliefs. Accordingly, the current results provide a clear warning against succumbing to the short-term incentive of withholding information. Sustaining trust during the pandemic is critical for health authorities, both if repeated vaccinations are necessary and in preparation for future health emergencies. Among those who have already lost trust, health communication has little persuasive effect.

Abstract

During the rapid development and rolling out of vaccines against COVID-19, researchers have called for an approach of “radical transparency,” in which vaccine information is transparently disclosed to the public, even if negative information can decrease vaccine uptake. Consistent with theories about the psychology of conspiracy beliefs, these calls predict that a lack of transparency may reduce trust in health authorities and may facilitate the spread of conspiracy theories, which may limit the long-term capabilities of health authorities during and after the pandemic. On the basis of preregistered experiments conducted on large, representative samples of Americans and Danes (N > 13,000), the current study contrasts the effects of vague vaccine communication with transparent communication, which discloses either positive or negative vaccine features. The evidence demonstrates that transparent negative communication may indeed harm vaccine acceptance here and now but that it increases trust in health authorities. Furthermore, the alternative of vague, reassuring communication does not increase vaccine acceptance either and leads to both lower trust and higher endorsement of conspiracy theories.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Dumb, stupid rambling ... but I never did read that as Trump suggesting people should inject themselves.

It is certain that is what he meant. His conversations with the scientist in the meeting just before the press conference show that is what he meant. He misunderstood Bryan's presentation. There are extensive notes and sources on what happened. This is the President of the U.S. after all. Everything he does and says is documented. There is no doubt Bryan was talking about a study of viruses on metal surfaces, and there is no doubt Trump thought he meant viruses in the body. It was a misunderstanding, but any adult who would misunderstand this is an ignoramus. Trump introduced Bryan to the reporters and Bryan summarized his findings before Trump spoke. It was actually good news, and important. Any normally educated person would have known that, and would have presented it as good news about COVID-19.

Hazan,, Borody report finally...

Ivermectin based protocol given within 72 hours gives 100% survival in severe Covid..

( seems better than Remdesivir.. IVM had one adverse effect in one patient.. dizziness)

Effectiveness of Ivermectin-Based Multidrug Therapy in Severe Hypoxic Ambulatory COVID-19 Patients..

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…07.06.21259924v1.full.pdf

"Remdesivir recipients had a 28-day mortality rate of 7.7% (22 deaths) compared with 14.0% (40 deaths) among matched controls, but this difference was not statistically significant in the time-to-death analysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.28). "

https://jamanetwork.com/journa…kopen/fullarticle/2777863

Quote from RobertBryant

Effectiveness of Ivermectin-Based Multidrug Therapy in Severe Hypoxic Ambulatory COVID-19 Patients..

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…07.06.21259924v1.full.pdf

This mixture (Ziverdoo kit..) is sold in India since three months. Good idea to rebrand it...

Doxy is needed to get enough IVM into the cells as both are also among the 5 best antibodies for the spike.

Quote from Fm1

Merck’s been busy testing its Molnupiravir, the drug that was first developed at Emory University then licensed by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics. Now in partnership with the latter, Merck is competing against Roche and Pfizer for at least part of the COVID-19 antiviral therapeutic market with an emphasis on early-onset, at-risk cases.

Replay of the failed drug play book. Find a first reckless idiot that kills patients by not giving them the best therapy...

Gilead killed some 1000 patients with the crappy Remdesivir by not giving the patients access (not even telling about...) the working drugs.

This is the reason why big pharma today is = Dr. Mengele.

For people that like real data not the world wide fake and fear news::

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/e…rtality-causes-death.html

Real data about deaths show there was only tiny exception ( a few deaths) with a fractional excess mortality for people age <65.

So this statistics tells Swiss people age 0..64 in average do not die from CoV-19. Of course some die with CoV-19 but a flu or classic corona (This year missing 100%) possibly would do the same with them.

Also once more researched. All young < 35 (DE,CH) that died with CoV-19 have been in a serious condition like Chemo organ failures etc...

vaccines do not give you more protection than natural immunity. Another talking point for vaccine warriors that's no longer valid!

Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees

Abstract

Introduction The protective effect of previous infection versus vaccination is poorly studied. Among a clinical laboratory that has been conducting routine workforce screening since the beginning of the pandemic, we aimed to assess the relative risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among individuals who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve, previously infected, or vaccinated.

Methods Using an electronic laboratory information system, employees were divided into three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve and unvaccinated, (2) previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) vaccinated. Person-days were measured from the date of the employee first test and truncated at the end of the observation period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as two positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests in a 30-day period. Individuals with fewer than 14 days of follow up were excluded. Incidence estimates and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Poisson Exact equation. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) was used as a measure of association between groups. Analyses were performed on StataSE (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results We identified 4313, 254 and 739 employee records for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median age of employees was 29.0 years (interquartile range: 23.6, 39.9). During the observation period, 254, 0, and 4 infections were identified among groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 1 had an incidence of 25.9 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 22.8-29.3). Group 2 had an incidence of 0 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0-5.0). Group 3 had an incidence of 1.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0.04-4.2). The IRR of reinfection among those with previous infection compared to SARS-CoV-2 naïve was 0 (95% CI: 0-0.19). The IRR of those vaccinated compared to SARS-CoV-2 naïve was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.16). The IRR of those vaccinated compared to prior SARS-CoV-2 was 0 (95% CI: 0-4.98).

Conclusion Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection. Further research is needed to determine whether our results are consistent with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Immunized but banned: EU says not all COVID vaccines equal

But some experts describe the EU move as discriminatory and unscientific

https://apnews.com/article/eur…270470d9b35ce6259e48548bf

LONDON (AP) — After Dr. Ifeanyi Nsofor and his wife received two doses of AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine in Nigeria, they assumed they would be free to travel this summer to a European destination of their choice. They were wrong.

The couple — and millions of other people who have been vaccinated through a U.N.-backed effort — could find themselves barred from entering many European and other countries because those nations don’t recognize the Indian-made version of the vaccine for travel.

Although AstraZeneca vaccine produced in Europe has been authorized by the continent’s drug regulatory agency, the same shot manufactured in India hasn’t been given the green light.

EU regulators said AstraZeneca hasn’t completed the necessary paperwork on the Indian factory, including details on its production practices and quality control standards.

But some experts describe the EU move as discriminatory and unscientific, pointing out that the World Health Organization has inspected and approved the factory. Health officials say the situation won’t only complicate travel and frustrate fragile economies but also undermine vaccine confidence by appearing to label some shots substandard.

As vaccination coverage rises across Europe and other rich countries, authorities anxious to salvage the summer tourism season are increasingly relaxing coronavirus border restrictions.

Earlier this month, the European Union introduced its digital COVID-19 certificate, which allows EU residents to move freely in the 27-nation bloc as long as they have been vaccinated with one of the four shots authorized by the European Medicines Agency, have a fresh negative test, or have proof they recently recovered from the virus.

While the U.S. and Britain remain largely closed to outside visitors, the EU certificate is seen as a potential model for travel in the COVID-19 era and a way to boost economies.

The officially EU-endorsed vaccines also include those made by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. They don’t include the AstraZeneca shot made in India or many other vaccines used in developing countries, including those manufactured in China and Russia.

Individual EU countries are free to apply their own rules for travelers from inside and outside the bloc, and their rules vary widely, creating further confusion for tourists. Several EU countries, including Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, allow people to enter if they have had non-EU-endorsed vaccines; several others, including France and Italy, don’t.

For Nsofor, the realization he could be barred was “a rude awakening.” After a tough year of working during the pandemic in Abuja, Nsofor and his wife were looking forward to a European vacation with their two young daughters, perhaps admiring the Eiffel Tower in Paris or touring Salzburg in Austria.

Nsofor noted that the Indian-made vaccine he received had been authorized by WHO for emergency use and had been supplied through COVAX, the U.N.-backed program to provide shots to poor corners of the world. WHO’s approval included a visit to the Serum Institute of India factory to ensure that it had good manufacturing practices and that quality control standards were met.

“We’re grateful to the EU that they funded COVAX, but now they are essentially discriminating against a vaccine that they actively funded and promoted,” Nsofor said. “This will just give room to all kinds of conspiracy theories that the vaccines we’re getting in Africa are not as good as the ones they have for themselves in the West.”

Ivo Vlaev, a professor at Britain’s University of Warwick who advises the government on behavioral science during COVID-19, agreed that Western countries’ refusal to recognize vaccines used in poor countries could fuel mistrust.

“People who were already suspicious of vaccines will become even more suspicious,” Vlaev said. “They could also lose trust in public health messages from governments and be less willing to comply with COVID rules.”

Dr. Mesfin Teklu Tessema, director of health for the International Rescue Committee, said countries that have declined to recognize vaccines cleared by WHO are acting against the scientific evidence.

“Vaccines that have met WHO’s threshold should be accepted. Otherwise it looks like there’s an element of racism here,” he said.

WHO urged countries to recognize all of the vaccines it has authorized, including two Chinese-made ones. Countries that decline to do so are “undermining confidence in lifesaving vaccines that have already been shown to be safe and effective, affecting uptake of vaccines and potentially putting billions of people at risk,” the U.N. health agency said in a statement this month.

In June, the Serum Institute of India’s CEO, Adar Poonawalla, tweeted that he was concerned about vaccinated Indians facing problems traveling to the EU and said he was raising the problem at the highest levels with regulators and countries.

Stefan De Keersmaeker, a spokesman for the EU’s executive arm, said last week that regulators were obligated to check the production process at the Indian factory.

“We are not trying to create any doubts about this vaccine,” he said.

AstraZeneca said it only recently submitted the paperwork on the Indian factory to the EU drug regulatory agency. It didn’t say why it didn’t do so earlier, before the agency made its original decision in January.

The failure of some national authorities to recognize vaccines made outside the EU — but whose European-made versions are authorized — is also frustrating some Europeans immunized elsewhere, including the U.S.

Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the Israel, the U.S. and the U.N., tweeted this week that the country’s COVID-19 pass is a “disaster” for people vaccinated outside of France.

Public health experts warned that countries that decline to recognize vaccines backed by WHO are complicating global efforts to safely restart travel.

“You can’t just cut off countries from the rest of the world indefinitely,” said Dr. Raghib Ali of the University of Cambridge. “To exclude some people from certain countries because of the vaccine they’ve received is wholly inconsistent because we know that these approved vaccines are extremely protective.”

Nsofor said he and his wife are still deciding where to take their summer vacation and are leaning toward Singapore or East Africa.

“I didn’t realize there were so many layers to vaccine inequity,” he said.

Quote from Fm1

Earlier this month, the European Union introduced its digital COVID-19 certificate, which allows EU residents to move freely in the 27-nation bloc as long as they have been vaccinated with one of the four shots authorized by the European Medicines Agency, have a fresh negative test, or have proof they recently recovered from the virus.

This is a putting in place of a Fascists eugenic rule once used for Jews... Get a C in your passport to be a member of the transmuted group...

Unvaccinated people only endanger themselves. Restricting access to hospital/care home is the only form of exclusion we should tolerate as CoV-19 is a disease of the old.

So please help to stop reemerging fascism.

Quote from Shane D.

"IVM used alone can at times be only partially effective but not curative [6,1,19] yet a higher dose of IVM plus azithromycin and zinc has achieved a 92% mortality reduction vs. controls [14].

This is certainly true among the high risk group or when treatment does not start the day you have first symptoms or without symptoms you are tested positive. We had two cases where we started treatment before even symptoms occurred after long/heavy contacts.

There is no single wonder. But for prophylaxis IVM is 100% save. (But never believe in 100% and be cautious!)

Quote from Fm1

vaccines do not give you more protection than natural immunity. Another talking point for vaccine warriors that's no longer valid!

I believe you are missing the point. Suppose it is true that vaccines do not give you more protection. There is no doubt they give you enough protection, because vaccinated people seldom get sick. Why does it matter whether they give you more protection or less protection as long as it is enough protection?

The other gigantic advantage of vaccines is they do not make you sick, or with long term effects, or dead.

Universal Vaccine.

Quote from Fm1

vaccines do not give you more protection than natural immunity. Another talking point for vaccine warriors that's no longer valid!

Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees

Abstract

Introduction The protective effect of previous infection versus vaccination is poorly studied. Among a clinical laboratory that has been conducting routine workforce screening since the beginning of the pandemic, we aimed to assess the relative risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among individuals who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve, previously infected, or vaccinated.

Methods Using an electronic laboratory information system, employees were divided into three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve and unvaccinated, (2) previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) vaccinated. Person-days were measured from the date of the employee first test and truncated at the end of the observation period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as two positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests in a 30-day period. Individuals with fewer than 14 days of follow up were excluded. Incidence estimates and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Poisson Exact equation. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) was used as a measure of association between groups. Analyses were performed on StataSE (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results We identified 4313, 254 and 739 employee records for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median age of employees was 29.0 years (interquartile range: 23.6, 39.9). During the observation period, 254, 0, and 4 infections were identified among groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 1 had an incidence of 25.9 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 22.8-29.3). Group 2 had an incidence of 0 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0-5.0). Group 3 had an incidence of 1.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0.04-4.2). The IRR of reinfection among those with previous infection compared to SARS-CoV-2 naïve was 0 (95% CI: 0-0.19). The IRR of those vaccinated compared to SARS-CoV-2 naïve was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.16). The IRR of those vaccinated compared to prior SARS-CoV-2 was 0 (95% CI: 0-4.98).

Conclusion Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection. Further research is needed to determine whether our results are consistent with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Display More

This is not entirely relevant. The key question for most is whether if you have had original or alpha variant COVID, this gives you immunity from a different (e.g. delta) variant - and how much.

It seems both vaccines and natural immunity give you some protection in terms of reducing disease severity as well as the likelihood of being infected. There has been quite a bit of research showing the one vaccine dose after previous infection gives much better protection than either just previous infection or just one vaccine dose - as you would expect! But no good figures I have seen on two doses versus infection - I vaguely remember vaccines performing better but am not confident and anyway the devil is in the detail.

Personally, I think getting a mild delta infection on top of double vaccination would be perfect: it would boost immunity and possibly help with future variants. But you cannot tell whether infections will be mild, even though after vaccination this is much more likely than whatever your ab initio COVID risk (which depends on age etc) is.

Also to consider is that if you get even a mild delta infection you are exposing those you live with as well - so it is not a simple equation.

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe you are missing the point. Suppose it is true that vaccines do not give you more protection. There is no doubt they give you enough protection, because vaccinated people seldom get sick. Why does it matter whether they give you more protection or less protection as long as it is enough protection?

The other gigantic advantage of vaccines is they do not make you sick, or with long term effects, or dead.

This would pertain more towards the debate over Covid passports

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is not entirely relevant. The key question for most is whether if you have had original or alpha variant COVID, this gives you immunity from a different (e.g. delta) variant - and how much.

It seems both vaccines and natural immunity give you some protection in terms of reducing disease severity as well as the likelihood of being infected. There has been quite a bit of research showing the one vaccine dose after previous infection gives much better protection than either just previous infection or just one vaccine dose - as you would expect! But no good figures I have seen on two doses versus infection - I vaguely remember vaccines performing better but am not confident and anyway the devil is in the detail.

Personally, I think getting a mild delta infection on top of double vaccination would be perfect: it would boost immunity and possibly help with future variants. But you cannot tell whether infections will be mild, even though after vaccination this is much more likely than whatever your ab initio COVID risk (which depends on age etc) is.

Also to consider is that if you get even a mild delta infection you are exposing those you live with as well - so it is not a simple equation.

Display More

The only argument with that would be considerations of long COVID, and of coarse an effective early treatment

Quote from Fm1

This would pertain more towards the debate over Covid passports

I do not understand why. Studies have now shown that the vaccines prevent any level of illness and contagion. I recall there were some doubts about that before January. Some experts thought that vaccinated people might be infected enough to be contagious, but we now know that is not the case.

I read that it has now been established that vaccines produce somewhat less antibodies, but multiple doses and the upcoming booster shot may produce more antibodies than the disease. Especially a mild case of the disease. In any case, enough protection to prevent any symptoms or contagiousness is enough. What more do you need?

The vaccine also produces roughly a million times fewer circulating spike proteins than the disease, based on actual measurements of blood samples. See:

https://healthfeedback.org/cla…aims-by-peter-mccullough/

a link from animals to humans?

A selective sweep in the Spike gene has driven SARS-CoV-2 human adaptation

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0092867421008333

Highlights

•

Over 182,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes were screened for selective sweep signatures

•

An adaptive change within the Spike protein receptor-binding domain was identified

•

This change was predicted and experimentally confirmed to increase affinity to hACE2

•

As a result, viral replication is enhanced relative to the putative ancestral variant

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need to understand better animal-to-human transmission of coronaviruses and adaptive evolution within new hosts. We scanned over 182,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes for selective sweep signatures and found a distinct footprint of positive selection located around a non-synonymous change (A1114G; T372A) within the Spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD), predicted to remove glycosylation and increase binding to human ACE2 (hACE2), the cellular receptor. This change is present in all human SARS-CoV-2 sequences but not closely related viruses from bats and pangolins. As predicted, T372A RBD bound hACE2 with higher affinity in experimental binding assays. We engineered the reversion mutant (A372T) and found that A372 (WT-SARS-CoV-2) enhanced replication in human lung cells relative to its putative ancestral variant (T372), an effect which was 20x greater than the well-known D614G mutation. Our findings suggest that this mutation likely contributed to SARS-CoV-2’s emergence from animal reservoirs or enabled sustained human-to-human transmission.

A New Generic Favipiravir Version In India: A COVID-19 Early-Stage Treatment for the Lower-to-Middle-Income World?

https://trialsitenews.com/a-ne…r-to-middle-income-world/

Multiple varieties of Favipiravir continue to be marketed in India as a treatment for early-onset, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the world’s second-most populous nations. Now another Indian pharmaceutical company called FDC Ltd. launched oral suspension of Favipiravir, a prescription-only version called Favenza. TrialSite has tracked Favipiravir-based studies around the world. The treatment is used in many dozens of countries that have authorized the use of the drug for early-onset treatment at least in mild COVID-19 cases. Nations such as Russia and Turkey, not to mention Bangladesh and several other destinations from easter Europe, Middle East/Africa, and South American countries use it as an early-stage treatment option. A biotech company in Canada called Appili Therapeutics has sponsored clinical trials and back in December 2020, submitted via a generic drug partner an application for authorization with Health Canada. Over a half year later, it’s apparent that that application was rejected or the agency requested more data. TrialSite has found that this drug seems to be accepted in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) but not in nations with the wealthiest economies.

The original developer of the drug, FUJIFILM Toyama Chemical Co. Ltd., submitted an application to the Japanese regulatory authorities back in October 2020, reported TrialSite. That application was rejected and the company had to go back and conduct more studies. The reason? Lack of sufficient data.

Russia authorized a version of Favipiravir last summer known as Avifavir. Since then, multiple pharmaceutical companies have developed other generic Favipiravir-based products.

Originally developed for influenza and called Avigan, FUJIFILM Toyama Chemical was selected to supply the Japanese government with influenza emergencies. The drug went off patent in 2019.

The U.S. government’s Department of Defense, through a series of holding companies or partners, conducted $200+ million worth of Favipiravir clinical research back in 2015. One such partner, MediVector, conducted major Phase 3 studies.

Favipiravir is also used in Turkey extensively as an early-onset treatment for COVID-19. Several small studies were completed in that country.

India Choices

In India, multiple forms of Favipiravir are prescribed on the market as an early-onset treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19. The latest is FDC’s Favenza. India continues to be on edge. Although the terrible second wave of the pandemic has waned, the country still averages about 40,000 new cases per day along with the most recent seven-day average of 862 deaths per day.

Summary

Favipiravir is authorized, mostly under emergency use during the pandemic, in numerous countries; U.S. media rarely informs the public that there are, in fact, antivirals authorized and in use around the world. A rapid meta-analysis conducted last year involved four studies and indicated that the drug can lead to clinical and radiological improvements but the authors couldn’t demonstrate a reduction in mortality or differences in oxygen-support necessity and called for a more rigorous study.

The University of Oxford PRINCIPLE study announced the inclusion of Favipiravir back in April 2021. Overall, there are 50 favipiravir studies associated with COVID-19 disclosed in Clinicaltrials.gov.

TrialSite has chronicled a handful of Favipiravir studies in the United States during the pandemic and a few are complete. For example, a study (NCT04346638) sponsored by Stanford University apparently finished up in April. To date, the sponsor hasn’t reported on any results.

A study (NCT04542694) in Russia sponsored by a company called PromoMed appears to show modest improvement in at least some of the categories in the Favipiravir arm, however, there has been no formal report at least in English. The study was led by Dmitry Pushkar employed at Moscow State University.

Back when Favipiravir was authorized in Russia (last Spring), the Wall Street Journal reported that in a small Russian randomized controlled trial of 40 COVID-19 patients, 65% of the subjects that were administered favipiravir tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 within five days; that cut the treatment time in half as compared to the placebo group. This data was reported by the Russia Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the state’s sovereign-wealth fund that financed Avifavir (ChemRar Group) as well as the Sputnik V vaccine and other COVID-19 targets there.