Quote from Alan Smith

From a friend in Russia:-

The fact is that the situation with the coronavirus in Moscow recently is very bad, even worse than at the peak of the second wave. This happened due to the fact that in the spring, on the contrary, the situation was very good, and people stopped being careful. There was an opportunity to get vaccinated, but there were very few people who wanted to, despite the availability and free of charge (I was vaccinated in January). And now, with the appearance of the Indian strain, the situation has sharply worsened. Strict measures have been introduced. People have finally started to be vaccinated, but so far the changes for the better are not noticeable.

Could you ask your friend where the first cases started to rise. I suspect the east moving west but confirmation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Quote from AlainCo

Some data in the FAQ

Why COVID-19 Vaccines Offer Better Protection Than Infection

Vaccination offers longer, stronger immunity, says virologist Sabra Klein.

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19…ction-than-infection.html

I love this answers, very professional indeed:

and for the French readers

https://www.lexpress.fr/actual…vous-mentent_2154534.html

Display More

This is garbage and after one year we should all be educated enough not to fall for this. T-cells from blood from SARS cross react decades later. They are LYING and USING ANTIBODY Responses as a proxy for protection. It's pseudoscience because guess what inpatients have HIGHER levels than outpatients who cleared the virus.

Quote from RobertBryant

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

Display More

The Ivermectin study.

Looking up comments on this: for a range of expected responses try here: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID…vermectinbased_multidrug/

I doubt it will get any serious comment for the following reasons:

• This is not a properly registered study: Its registration in an indelible "you can't game it" database as below was done AFTER these results were collected. Which rather defeats the purpose of registering your trial!
• The actual study, as registered, does not any interim reporting - and this is very interim - with only 24/100 patients
• The study itself is non-randomised and the compared groups are very different.
• summary: N=24, non-randomised, observational, no pre-registration. About as low quality as you can get.

What is the study?

It is registered here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04949230

Clinical Trial Summary

Surveys administered to subjects who have recovered from COVID-19 to assess how effective their treatment was.

Description:

Subjects who have recovered from COVID-19 will answer questions regarding the severity of their illness, symptoms experienced, what treatment they received, and how long they were ill.

NB - this registration on clinicaltrials.gov is a post-hoc submission - submitted after the data disclosed in this interim paper were collected. They say the study was originally registered with https://www.eandireview.com/. But that is not an open trial registration service - it provides ethical approval servies. Why does this matter? Because without prior registration you never get negative results (no-one bothers to report) and you can get interim results like this which are reported with a cutoff, and outcome criteria, that makes them look as good as possible. So rmeember when looking at this that it is an undeepowered retrospective study.

Key Record dates

Comments on the data

Retrospective observational trials are always dangerous because things can be cherry-picked (not necessarily deliberately). In this case that is worse than usual due to the interim nature of the report here.

Abstract

In 24 consecutive COVID-19 subjects
with high risk features, hypoxia and untreated moderate-severe symptoms averaging 9 days,
we trialed this novel combination comprising ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc, and Vitamins D and
C. It was highly effective. All subjects resolved symptoms in 11 days on average, and oxygen
saturation improved in 24hrs (87.4% to 93.1%, p=0.001). Hospitalizations and deaths were
significantly fewer (p<0.002 or 0.05, respectively) than in background-matched controls from the
CDC database. Triple combination therapy is safe and effective even in moderate-severe patients
with hypoxia treated in the outpatient setting.

Subjects (more clarification - badly needed)

Subjects were identified from patients referred by physicians, or word-of-mouth in Los Angeles,

Ventura County, CA, and other states in the USA. These patients were referred to participate in
clinical trials under clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT04482686 (which is a double-blind Randomized
Control Trial). However some did not qualify for this trial as their oxygen saturation was less
than 90%, and were deemed too sick to enter a placebo-controlled trial. Given they were
excluded and refused to go to the hospital, they were treated off-label via telemedicine, during
Aug. 2020 and Feb. 2021. Subjects were given the opportunity to participate in this open label
trial with IRB oversight once the diagnosis was made via swab RT-qPCR testing

Inclusion criteria were as follows 1) positive
PCR for COVID-19; 2) informed consent; 3) age > 18 years, and 4) agreement to practice two
highly effective methods of birth control if of childbearing potential. Exclusion criteria included
1) allergies or drug interactions with the combination therapy components; 2) listed
comorbidities, including seizure risk; and 3) pregnancy.

Results

Successful treatment was reached for all subjects. That is, there was a 100%
restoration rate in terms of SpO2. No patient who accepted treatment required hospitalization.
Two subjects (#10 and #26) declined treatment. These subjects did not recover SpO2 and died
from COVID-19 infection. An adverse drug event of dizziness was reported by one subject, who
nevertheless continued with treatment successfully otherwise.

There is something unusual about this. These are patients who would normally be hospitalised

but have chosen not to be so. But even in hospitalised patients the recovery rate is quite high
https://theconversation.com/de…treatments-improve-148775

15% mortality is high. So for all the untreated patients in this group to die is very bad luck for them,

and a pretty unlikley occurrence.

100% survival rate was seen in patients, which is significantly higher (p = 0.044 via ꭓ2
test) than synthetic control from CDC database of equivalent or less COVID-vulnerable subjects.
Bottom, No (0%) patients required hospitalization, which is significantly less (p = 0.0011 via ꭓ2
test) than synthetic control from database.

Just a comment about this. These were patients who refused hospital treatment initially, when most
would have required hospitalisation otherwise. So it is not clear what (higher) benchmark was used for

post-trial-start hospitalisation. Therefore the second comparison is not well defined, and cannot be

like-for-like. The significance test is therefore invalid.

ECT Arm

This ECT, also known as a synthetic
control arm, was calculated from the public CDC database of COVID-19 subjects [21].
Available information includes age range, presence of any chronic condition (COVID-19-
vulnerability or otherwise, conditions not specified), date of infection, and whether the COVID19 diagnosis was laboratory-confirmed. We used information from all subjects who met the
following criteria: 1) age 50+ years; 2) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis; 3)
death/survival, race, and sex status available and known; 4) infection prior to March 2021; and 5)
subject had any co-morbidities. This synthetic control arm development was carried out after our
clinical data were obtained, and so selection criteria chose the control subjects closely matched
to the subjects in our study, all of whom had some underlying condition and a large majority
were over 50 years of age. The CDC database was analysed using CSViewer vs. 1.3 (EasyMorph
Inc, Toronto, ON, CA, http://easymorph.com).

One key issue here is how were the two groups matched. We do not know. the active group has 4/24 patients < 50 years of age,

so the cutoff 50+ yars in the synthetic control group makes straight matching impossible. The question is what

scoring system is used to do this matching. The only scoring system described here (Covidex, Covidex-F) would

be heavily biassed because it does not properly include the dependence of COVID mortality on age which is

particularly strong even when controlling for comorbidities. (The age dependence is +1 for > 60).

Of course, You would expect this measure is not used, but we do not know how the matching was done so cannot tell.

One thing not specified here is whether the matching was done based on initial disease characteristics as well as patient

characteristics. If not - it makes little sense. If it is, how is it done?

Covidex Scores

Covidex and Covidex-F are ambulatory SARS-CoV-2 infection disease severity measures that
we developed and validated in this study. They are weighted particularly to emphasize SpO2, and
Covidex-F includes a variable for body temperature.
Covidex score = 1 pt. (if history of sleep apnea) + 1 pt. (if history of COPD) + 1 pt. (if history of
cardiovascular disease) + 1pt. (if history of asthma) + 1pt (if history of prior clots, ischemia or
stroke) + 1pt (if obese, i.e. 30 kg/m2 < BMI < 40 kg/m2) + 2pts (if severely obese, i.e. BMI > 40)
+ 1pt (if age > 60 years) + [95-(SpO2 as a percentage)]pts. For instance, a hypothetical patient
with a history of asthma and morbid obesity with a SpO2 prior to treatment of 85% would have a
Covidex score of 1 (for asthma) + 2 (for obesity) + 10 (for SpO2 of 85%) = 12 pts.
Covidex-F score = Covidex score + 1 pt. (if temperature on presentation between 99.5F and 100.4F) + 2 pts. (if temp on presentation between 100.40
F and 103.5F) + 3 pts. (if temp on presentation > 103.5F).

Conclusions

It is very difficult to know what to conclude from this study because even within the limitations of small retrospective non-randomised studies

raises many questions. It was an out-patient study of people not willing to go to hospital - which raises concerns because of lack of

monitoring and possibility of error or deceit from subjects. it also introduces an unusual and difficult to evaluate bias - these are a very

selected set of patients, in a way not matched by the synthetic control group. The death-rate of the 2/26 who refused treatment - 100% - is highly unusual but also

convenient. The survival of 24/24 patients is significant (just) at p < 0.044. But not if cherry-picking of

the endpoint (when this contiguous set of 24 patients is stopped) is taken into account. There was no reason given for this specific endpoint, in a study designed to

last another 6 months, so cherry-picking must be assumed. And in any case that significance depends on the exact details of

the synthetic control selection about which we have not enough information.

Why use this study?

There are many better studies of Ivermectin around. This study uses a combination treatment: Vit D, C, Zinc, etc. There is (as with HCQ) a hypothesis that zinc helps

treatment because of the mechanism of the proposed anti-viral action here. If that hypothesis is correct then this treatment will give better results than Ivermectin-only.

However since a significant fraction of patients are not low in Zinc you would expect a positive signal from a non-combination therapy. That is why drugs are not tested as

novel combinations, but as best current treatment + the new drug. If a combination works better, it would still be unusual for its elements not to show some positive signal.

Testing the combination, if you have a positive signal, you do not know what caused it.

From Sabra Klein ( Alain's link )

Some people say they would rather be infected naturally than get vaccinated. Others say they’re worried about vaccine side effects. What would you tell them?

Vaccines are tested for their safety in ways that we could never do with a natural viral infection. A lot of what’s referred to as side effects are the precise things that we experience to a greater degree when we are infected: fever, headache, malaise, gastrointestinal issues, etc. With infection, you don’t know how bad it’s going to be. By not getting vaccinated, you’re rolling the dice. You may become severely ill. You may have to be hospitalized. You may die.

There’s also the risk of long COVID. I know a teenage girl who got COVID before the vaccines were available. She didn’t have a lot of symptoms, but now she has all of the symptoms of long COVID. A year later, she is trying to maintain a somewhat normal teenage life with profound fatigue. She has never recovered fully from having COVID.

It is the point about safety that is never considered by those who for whatever reason find vaccines worrying. COVID is a dangerous disease. It attacks the immune system in ways we still do not understand leaving many with long COVID. The long-terms effects are truly uncertain - we just know one year on that a lot of people will have bad problems going on for a long time - in some cases till they die.

So when comparing very small (not all known) vaccine risks you need to measure that against larger (not all known) COVID risks. And a lot of the problems are similar!

It is fair to look at that graph of COVID risk that goes down for younger people and work out is a specific vaccine riskier or less than COVID.

It is harming our young people to do that in a biassed way, counting the unknown long-term risks from vaccines (all we know from Phase II/II tracking is that they are very low) more than the unknown long-term risks from COVID (we know that long-lasting long COVID exists and affects young people).

it is equally harmful to our young people if we do not evaluate fairly which is more immediately risky - catching COVID or taking a vaccine. That means carefully evaluating both risks with proper analysis.

Note my assumption above - that everyone will either be vaccinated or catch COVID, and that the risks catching COVID after vaccination or much much smaller. Both are true.

Now that the highly infectious delta variant has spread - you can be pretty certain you will be vaccinated or have a COVID infection. If you have an infection it is the luck of the environmental (size of initial dose), lifestyle (state of your immune system) and genetic draw whether your COVID infection is light, or very severe. Delta appears to be (low confidence) around twice as bad as alpha, which we know was a bit worse than original COVID. Whole population IFR is still low - less than 2%. That figure means nothing personally until you factor in your age to make it go up or down.

THH

Quote from Navid

This is garbage and after one year we should all be educated enough not to fall for this. T-cells from blood from SARS cross react decades later. They are LYING and USING ANTIBODY Responses as a proxy for protection. It's pseudoscience because guess what inpatients have HIGHER levels than outpatients who cleared the virus.

Navid - I'm sorry you think Sabra Klein is lying. She is, in my view, more trustworthy than you. She is also, assuming equal levels of trust, I believe more qualified than you on this very specific topic by both education and practical work:

Virologist Sabra Klein, PhD ‘98, MS, MA, says an immense amount of data collected in a short time have made clear the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the limited immunity that comes from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Klein is co-director of a new National Cancer Institute Center of Excellence that seeks to understand more about the diversity of immune responses and how sex, age, and other factors lead some people to have longer lasting immunity than others.

Entry in centers of excellenec table https://www.cancer.gov/researc…u54-centers-of-excellence

To address your specific points (please correct me if I'm wrong):

Yes T-cell immunity can last a long time. There is good evidence that after COVID it usually does last a long time. Two problems:

(1) COVID recovery requires (in many cases) T-cell and B-cell responses.

(2) Noting that on average something lasts a long time is great. But not if it does not apply to those who are likely to get severe COVID - with weak T-cell immune systems.

Antibody response is the most specific response we have to infection and delivers adaptive immunity if good via B-cells. T-cell response to a new infection combines with this, so we want both T-cell and B-cell response. But T-cell is much less specific and although it is also adaptive, it is much less so than B-cells.

Antibody response is lower in out-patients who have cleared the virus. Of course - the measured antibody level is a response to the virus, which persists for quite a long time

In-patients on average have a much higher viral load than out-patients because they have more severe disease, which correlates with more virus, hence they develop more antibodies.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes T-cell immunity can last a long time. There is good evidence that after COVID it usually does last a long time. Two problems:

(1) COVID recovery requires (in many cases) T-cell and B-cell responses.

(2) Noting that on average something lasts a long time is great. But not if it does not apply to those who are likely to get severe COVID - with weak T-cell immune systems.

Death lasts even longer.

Seriously, it should be noted that many cases of long-haul COVID-19 respond well to the vaccine. Those patients must already have natural antibodies from the disease, or they would be dead. Yet the antibodies from the vaccine do a better job of clearing the disease. So, even if the mass of antibodies from the vaccine is smaller, or the types of antibodies are more limited, in these long-haul cases the vaccine antibodies are more effective. I have no idea why, but facts are facts.

(Not all cases of long-haul COVID-19 respond well to the vaccine, but many do, and it is now the recommended treatment.)

Quote from Alan Smith

From a friend in Russia:-

The fact is that the situation with the coronavirus in Moscow recently is very bad, even worse than at the peak of the second wave. This happened due to the fact that in the spring, on the contrary, the situation was very good, and people stopped being careful. There was an opportunity to get vaccinated, but there were very few people who wanted to, despite the availability and free of charge (I was vaccinated in January). And now, with the appearance of the Indian strain, the situation has sharply worsened. Strict measures have been introduced. People have finally started to be vaccinated, but so far the changes for the better are not noticeable.

It takes a long time to vaccinate a whole population, which is why good political leadership and clear information is needed before things get bad - not just after. Putin spent most of the pandemic playing up worries about the sfaety and efficacy of western vaccines. it is hardly surprising that then people did not take up Sputnik.

Quote from JedRothwell

Death lasts even longer.

Seriously, it should be noted that many cases of long-haul COVID-19 respond well to the vaccine. Those patients must already have natural antibodies from the disease, or they would be dead. Yet the antibodies from the vaccine do a better job of clearing the disease. So, even if the mass of antibodies from the vaccine is smaller, or the types of antibodies are more limited, in these long-haul cases the vaccine antibodies are more effective. I have no idea why, but facts are facts.

(Not all cases of long-haul COVID-19 respond well to the vaccine, but many do, and it is now the recommended treatment.)

Yes, it is fascinating because we really do not understand what causes long COVID. Virus sitting around somewhere and somehow with a stable population? Viral fragments (not sure a vaccine would be likely to get those). Maybe some malfunction of the immune system so that stimulating it again in a similar fashion helps? Perhaps something more complex that no-one is yet guessing...

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.

Now 4 papers clearly say infection an infection protect better than a vaccine for new variants. Real data (Israel) say Pfizer is now at 64% fro Delta.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not understand why. Studies have now shown that the vaccines prevent any level of illness and contagion.

Disney channel? Alice in wonderland?

Quote from Fm1

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.

Avigan run through several trials in Japan and none was conclusive. Within severely ill people it could stop damage to the lungs but other effects were not much better. So if ever it should be used in combination with Ivermectin. Problem:: Avigan is teratogen--> no sex for at least 3 months...No problem for teh death ones would Jed say...

Quote from AlainCo

Why COVID-19 Vaccines Offer Better Protection Than Infection

Bare nonsene and plain vanilla big pharma propaganda.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Vaccines are tested for their safety in ways that we could never do with a natural viral infection

Bare nonsene and even worse plain vanilla big pharma propaganda. CoV-19 vaccines have almost run through no serious tests. Not even the always mandatory primate test. There have never final products been used in tests.

Latest mafia try: We have a lot of data that support pregnant woman can take the vaccine as there is no risk for the kid. This is criminal wording. "No damage" in new born is usually confirmed only after two real live years...

Quote from THHuxleynew

It takes a long time to vaccinate a whole population, which is why good political leadership and clear information is needed before things get bad - not just after.

In Geneva now 67% of the total population has natural/vaccine antibodies. 1/2 or 33% (of total) is from natural infection - hospitals still empty....

So this tells nature was as fast as the pharma mafia...And now with delta teh rest will get it for free.

Power & Vaccine Politics Lead to State Usurpation of Ivermectin License

https://trialsitenews.com/iver…olitics-state-usurpation/

As it turns out, Indonesia during the pandemic has been home to one of the largest, most dynamic, yet borderline illegal ivermectin markets worldwide, targeting the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. That’s because an enterprising, well-known entrepreneur in his 70s capitalized on growing demand in the world’s fourth-most populated nation with the onset of the pandemic over a year ago. In what seems like an inadvertent, almost haphazard move by the central government to exploit positive sales growth of the drug actually appears to be far more about usurping control from the marketplace—and the people—restricting access to the drug and importantly, appeasing global influencers, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and various governments that may be positioning vaccines, for example. How else can such a rollercoaster of a story unfold, one where what appears to be a healthy supply of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 people coupled with a surprisingly stable management of the COVID-19 pandemic to a case where the supply became absolutely constrained directly in parallel with the most massive spike of the pandemic starting in June of 2021. While it would be foolish to suggest this was the result of a conspiracy, it’s certainly understandable how one could come to that conclusion.

TrialSite recently reviewed a piece in the Asia Times titled “Parasitic Politics Plague Ivermectin Use in Indonesia” for what is now a cynical view on the recent government taking of a private business that established a successful ivermectin production and distribution business. For those that think ivermectin can help treat COVID-19 based on the many dozens of studies evidencing promising results, prominent meta-analyses, and numerous countries that allow for off-label use, today this story will disappoint. But TrialSite’s mission is aiming for transparency and accessibility in research and, by extension, healthcare. And with that comes the gritty truth—or our interpretation thereof. We may not be 100 percent accurate here but we suspect the general trajectory is sound. So, here it goes.

Background

With the findings at Australia’s University of Monash that ivermectin absolutely inhibited SARS-CoV-2 in a lab came a widespread interest in this drug as a possible repurposed drug candidate to target the coronavirus.

Many studies across low-and middle-income countries (LMICs)—from small randomized controlled trials to case series and observational studies—produced overwhelmingly positive data that the impact first observed by Australians could be applied to humans at safe dosage levels. After all, ivermectin was already approved by regulatory authorities around the world, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as an antiparasitic treatment.

By last summer, sales of ivermectin were brisk in Indonesia and the pandemic was well contained. From June through August of last year, the nation only averaged between 1,000 to 2,500 cases per day, not that many given the country’s size of 270 million people.

The Businessman

A seasoned entrepreneur and philanthropist Mr. Haryoseno ran a company in Jakarta called Harsen Laboratories. By last summer, the shrewd businessman saw the potential with ivermectin and made the investments to essentially corner the market in Indonesia with Ivermax 12.

From sourcing raw ingredients and other inputs to optimizing a supply chain, Mr. Haryoseno designed an optimized ivermectin production and distribution apparatus supplying people all over the country, including the influential. He was even contracted to provide ivermectin to the Indonesian Air Force.

Harsen Laboratories ivermectin-based Ivermax 12 product was available at local pharmacies at the price point of $18 for a strip of 10 tablets, and sales continued to soar. Of course, TrialSite cannot prove any correlation with a stabilized pandemic but cases remained relatively contained except for a small wave in December through January, which quickly went down but no major wave occurred until June of this year.

With support from high-level contacts in government, he continued to receive support selling the product for COVID-19 off-label even though it was only indicated for parasite-borne disease. But all eyes were on Indonesia for dual purposes. On the one hand, the government’s state-sponsored enterprise group saw what was a lucrative business to move into and take, while on the other hand, the regulatory authorities had to align with other World Health Organization (WHO) protocols, meaning they needed to get control of ivermectin while preparing for a vaccination program. Ivermectin would only be used in clinical trials positioned by the regulatory agency called BPOM.

The Takeover

Hence the state moved in on Mr. Haryoseno’s business usurping the license for ivermectin. After all, he was breaking the law by distributing the drug for more than just parasite-borne illness. In June of this year, BPOM, the drug regulatory agency there, announced that ivermectin would be used for COVID-19 and that the license would be redirected to the company TrialSite reported on recently—PT Indofarma. BPOM’s ivermectin declaration can be reviewed here.

The State in Control

So when TrialSite reported that ivermectin was authorized and ready for the public, this was actually only a small sliver of the actual story. What really occurred was an orchestrated take-down of the entrepreneur that made the product available to the masses during the pandemic.

Now under firm control of the state-owned enterprise called PT Indofarma, BPOM stepped up its true agenda, which was to ban any and all off-label distribution via this channel. The only thing that ivermectin would be used for is large planned clinical trials with tens of thousands of participants as needed. These, of course, would take time and effort and hence any results would be half a year to a year away.

But what the state didn’t expect was the importance of that know-how, network, and wherewithal needed for a successful ivermectin production supply chain. From the sourcing of main inputs to supplies to manufacturing, the new company was out of its element. Hence the supply of ivermectin essentially dried up. PT Indofarma and the state via BPOM recently confronted Mr. Haryoseno and Harsen Laboratories to demand their supplies for a start. Not keen that his license was commandeered, Haryoseno has resisted and keeps his ivermectin supply under tight security in warehouses. Now the government is threatening him with up to ten years in prison and a fine of $70,000.

Summary

What TrialSite initially reported as a breakthrough for ivermectin was, in fact, just the opposite. It was a state-sponsored taking of what was a thriving private business that was distributing ivermectin to the masses. Was the Minister of State Enterprises in cahoots with BPOM to shut down ivermectin access for all except for clinical trials? No one can be certain unless one has an insider. But suffice to say, the plan worked if the goal was to stop mass ivermectin distribution. Certainly, the product still is available on the market; after all, Indonesia is a big country. But the quality is questionable, and there isn’t a major company backing the overall supply chain, ensuring scalable distribution. Note the laws of the land are that BPOM controls the licenses to drugs, and should the people of Indonesia want a different outcome, that would take a legal or political pathway.

In the meantime, only 5.5% of the nation’s population is fully vaccinated and only 13.4% have received a jab. The number of Delta-driven COVID-19 cases has skyrocketed and the one seemingly available treatment has been usurped from private business and the people.

The pure lies and absurdity told by the US Task Force (s) and governments with their medical advisors that have doomed and hobbled the COVID pandemic response

https://trialsitenews.com/the-…-covid-pandemic-response/

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Paul Elias Alexander, PhD

Expertise and teaching of epidemiology (clinical epidemiology), evidence-based medicine, and research methodology (former A Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine); former COVID Pandemic advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC, US government; education: graduate studies at University of Oxford England, University of Toronto Canada, McMaster University Canada, York University Canada; currently independent academic scientist and consultant

This op-ed seeks to highlight the pure lies and efforts to deceive the American people (and world) and the former President. These blatant lies severely hobbled and essentially doomed the US pandemic response from February 2020 and it continues till today under the new administration which is being advised by illogical, absurd, irrational, nonsensical, and simply inept and incompetent holdover advisors as well as new ones. These so called ‘experts’ are politicized and seemingly corrupted, and spew utter nonsense and dangerous advice that harms the people. They are aided by a hysterical and absurd corrupted media that seeks to confuse and deceive the public at every turn. I refer below to what I consider to be pure, flat out, bold-faced lies, and the lies are as follows and I will be brief (note, this is my opinion):

1) This COVID-19 pandemic was never the ‘emergency’ that governments and technocrats and the medical community told you it was. Everything that our governments and the media told us and did were lies. Pure lies! That the media medical cartel has said for 24/7 for 16 months now. With their television medical experts. This was a lie out of the gate for we knew very early on that this so called ‘pandemic’ could have been handled without even the vaccine. A bold-faced lie. This was akin to a bad flu season and could have been dealt with via early therapeutics and proper securing of the elderly high-risk populations, combined with improved hand hygiene, vitamin D supplements, weight control, and allowing the low risk ‘healthy’ and well in the population to live largely normal lives taking reasonable safety precautions. There was no need to lock the society down or close schools, never. Only the first 2 to 3 weeks was defensible to get a proper handle but we knew soon after the initial lockdowns who was at risk and how to manage. This was all a lie that costed business owner lives, employee lives, and children lives. People committed suicide due to the lockdowns. The collateral damage has been catastrophic.

No doubt, this virus is deadly to elderly with underlying risks as well as very obese persons, or younger persons who are ill etc. But this is a segment of the population and not the vast majority. The vast majority were never at risk from COVID as was told by the governments. A pure lie. It is akin to the falsehood about deaths in children when close examination of all the deaths in children, found that in all of them, there was a serious underlying medical condition and even Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins states that to date (July 2021), we are unable to be definitive as to whether these deaths were causal or incidental.

The RT-PCR test used to diagnose positive infections is not a suitable test and it is very flawed and inaccurate. Any cycle count (Ct) threshold (spin or amplification) above 20 to 24 is essentially detecting viral dust, fragments, old particles, non-culturable, non-viable, non-infectious virus. The CDC etc. had set the CT at 40 and this really means that over 90% of the ‘positives’ are false positives in terms of being infectious etc. The viral load is basically zero, so little and of no consequence. This test is a pure disaster and a lie.

2) An ‘infection’ is not a ‘case’. Saying we have 10,000 new ‘cases’ is false. A case is when someone has actual symptoms and is sick. This play with words were meant to deceive. You are being lied to. It is also a falsehood for the media to be hysterical on infections when it is actual hospitalizations, ICU use, and deaths that are important.

3) This vaccine for COVID is not ‘safe and effective’ It has never been shown to be this. One is prohibited from stating that these vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ by FDA’s very own regulations. The CDC and FDA and NIH and health officials continue to make this statement when they cannot under law, but principally because the COVID vaccines are still ‘investigational’ and experimental. FDA’s rules state that if a drug or vaccine is investigational, one is prohibited from stating they are ‘safe and effective’. Why? It is still under investigation. It is that simple. You are being lied to. My view is today they must be withdrawn from the market and not one vaccine must be given to children.

It is also important to understand that the vaccine never showed it reduced hospitalization or death, or ICU use, or moderate or severe COVID, nor stops infection or transmission. It was only geared toward reducing ‘mild’ COVID symptoms. The media and health experts and doctors who state it reduces hospitalization and death lie openly.

4) The silence by the academic scientific community, the clinical medical doctors, the public health officials, all of them, is near criminal for the disaster of the pandemic response with the failed lockdowns, school closures, the mask mandates etc. and now the seemingly harmful vaccines. This silence is devastating and this has damaged the public and costed lives. Shame on all of them and a pox on all of them. I am hoping there is accountability at some point especially for the pushing of vaccines on children and pregnant women when they know it has not been safety tested. I want them accountable legally in some manner for the roles they have played in this fake emergency.

5) Asymptomatic spread was a blatant lie. I have examined the ‘asymptomatic’ spread evidence and the premise is pure nonsense. It is junk and absurd statements by Fauci and CDC and NIH and the ‘talking head’ inept and illogical medical experts and those Task Forces. We all know of the relationship between how much virus you have in the respiratory tract or lung and the amount of symptoms you have. The more well you are, the less likely you are to infect someone. This is pure immunology 101, virology 101 and what is being imparted is pure garbage about this asymptomatic spread. A healthy person does not infect, an asymptotic person does not spread. If you have little or no symptoms, you are not infectious. Yet this pure garbage ‘asymptomatic spread’ was used to lock down our societies and cost so many lives. Even Dr. Fauci stated early on in 2020 that it is not a driver of pandemics and rare if at all. He is on record stating this. WHO is on record stating this. We have studies that show this. It is a flat lie that was used to close down the world!

6) The vaccine manufacturers were not required to study where the spike protein travels to in the body and for how long and how much of it and for how long it would be produced. As we speak, the spike protein can be produced ‘forever’ in you. This is a shocking understanding and is a devastating action by the vaccine. I need this explained to me of why this was done this way. Someone please tell me I am wrong. We do not know where the spike proteins go and how long it lasts. We are seeing that the spike protein triggers blood clotting in humans. And the FDA seems to not require this from the vaccine developers. I cannot find it anywhere. I plead, please do not take these vaccines. Never ever allow your children to be vaccinated with this. This was a pure lie used to close down society and close schools. A pure lie by the US Task Force.

7) The issue of re-current infection or of re-infection. I have examined the ‘recurrent’ infection narrative and the evidence and the premise is pure nonsense. Bogus! This is a lie, a complete lie used to also lockdown and scare you to vaccinate and it is rare, if at all. There is no definitive evidence that this occurs. All cases (which are a very few that have been published) can be counted on two hands and can be explained via a flaw in interpretation of the PCR test results. There is no evidence of re-current infection.

A protein called syncytin-1 is crucial for the formation of the placenta. There are emerging reports that there are antibodies due to the COVID vaccine against syncytin-1. It is a lie by the medical community to claim that there is no similarity between some sequences of the amino acids in SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and syncytin-1. It is a lie to state that the risk is small when it has not been studied in the vaccine trial. How can the medical community dismiss this potential risk when it has not been studied? Last time I checked pregnancy is 10 months long and the vaccine developers studied the vaccines for a few months and not the duration of pregnancy. How can they even know that it is safe in pregnant women given they did not study this? Or importantly, safe for the developing child in utero? Did they stop to think of the baby, the life in the womb? How the vaccine would affect the fetus in utero? How it would affect the pregnant woman?

9) It is a lie to state that these vaccines confer better, stronger immunity than natural exposure immunity. These vaccines with the narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity cannot compare to the broad, comprehensive, durable, long-lasting immunity with its rich immunity library, that natural immunity can confer.

10) Myocarditis is rare. This is a lie by the CDC and NIH etc. A pure lie when teens in the US have emerged with myocarditis due to the COVID vaccines. The seeds of heart failure are sown when there is myocarditis and there is elevated risk that 20 years into the future, those who get past myocarditis from the vaccines, will suffer heart failure and can potentially die.

11) It was a lie to state that we should not use a more ‘focused’ age-risk stratified approach. This was a pure lie for we knew early on that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and your baseline risk was prognostic on your mortality. A focused tailored approach was far more optimal than a broad ‘carte blanche’ one-size-fits-all approach that decimated the vast majority of the population.

12) It was a devastating lie to state that there were no therapeutic options for this pathogen. That there were no early drug treatments that could have saved lives. This was a pure lie and one can see today that the FDA issued an EUA for the vaccines that is based on the non-existence of any viable drug treatments. So, the FDA had to deny the existence of early safe, effective, and cheap therapeutics that would allow them to authorize the EUA, which I must remind, means the vaccines are only investigational and not deemed safe and effective. This is the most treatable respiratory viral infection ever. Estimates are that 80 to 90% of the deaths in the US could have been prevented, which means we could have saved 550,000 of the 630,000 who have died thus far. Denial of early drug treatment (anti-virals, corticosteroids, and anti-blood clotting drugs see McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Cory etc.) costed thousands of lives. This can be considered to be criminal.

13) It was a lie by the US Task Force to imply in March 2020 etc. that all persons were at equal risk of severe illness and/or death if infected with COVID virus. This one lie severely hobbled the response for the general public still believes this lie that was meant to drive fear and compliance.

14) It was a lie by the US Task Force and medical experts including the nonsensical television medical experts to allude to and suggest that lockdowns were effective, that masks were effective, that school closures were effective, that mask mandates were effective etc. when all evidence clearly showed and very early on, that all of these measures were complete failures. None of them reduce transmission or deaths. There is no nation, no setting, no where, in the entire world, where there is any evidence, after 16 months, that any lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates or any of the policy decision by these Task Forces, worked to reduce transmission or deaths. None! Not one! It was all a lie and a failure. I have examined all of the evidence on each of these lockdown and closure policies.

15) It is a lie to state (Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC and NIH and other medical experts) that children need to be vaccinated so that population level ‘herd’ immunity can be attained. This is a pure lie. The United States was at or past herd immunity late December 2020 and early January 2021 and certainly in many States, and way before any shots entered any arms and there were any possible effects. But importantly, when you consider cross-protection from prior coronaviruses and common cold coronaviruses, as well as the near 200 million Americans who had COVID and recovered (cleared the virus), then well over 75% of the population were immune. Dr. Fauci is mistaken and being untruthful when he claims that children must be vaccinated to arrive at herd immunity. These health officials are being duplicitous and using the very tame yet infectious Delta variant to scare parents into vaccinating their children. This is near criminal and Dr. Walensky who is the CDC director blatantly lied recently when she reported on a rise in teen hospitalization in the US by showing half of a graph and data, deliberately omitting the peak and downside slope of the graph. Shame on her as the head of the CDC to deliberately deceive the nation this way.

Children are at very low risk of acquiring the infection in the first place due to limited ACE 2 receptors in their nasal epithelia and upper respiratory tract and also cross-reactivity/cross-protection from prior coronaviruses. Children do not spread the virus to other children, do not spread it to adults, or take it home. This is stable settled science globally. No question. Children do not get ill or die from COVID and thus they are not at risk from it. So why the interest in vaccinating them with a vaccine that has been untested for safety?

The safety profile is unknown and there is a reasonable expectation for harm for the following groups at all age ranges: COVID-19 recovered, suspected COVID-19 recovered, women of childbearing potential, children, persons with one or more chronic diseases. But we are focusing on children here, and for children and young persons particularly, they have a near statistical zero risk of severe illness or death from COVID. and spread usually comes from adult home clusters to children. Children symptoms are usually non-existent and if there are, it is usually very mild and self-limiting. We lack the proper safety data to attest to the safety of these vaccines and with 80 odd years of life facing children, we ask again, why would we subject them to a vaccine with potential risk of serious harm, yet vaccine that confers no benefit? We simply do not know the long-term possible harms and as such, given the potential expectation, then we have to say a definitive ‘no’. Any reasonable risk-benefit analysis today will point to a potential for risk yet no benefit, and thus skew the risk-management decision to avoidance of the risk. Children must be fully exempted from these vaccines.

We also never ever ask our children to protect adults, it is always the other way around. We do not need children to be vaccinated to arrive at population level herd immunity and this is a falsehood being stated in the media and by public health leaders who know better. Between prior cross-protection/reactive immunity, immunity from persons who have recovered, and from those already vaccinated, we are already at or past herd immunity threshold and there is no need to include children.

Importantly, we have early treatment and prophylaxis (even suitable to children/young persons) that could be used in lieu of these potentially harmful vaccines especially for the groups outlined who should be exempted. Such treatments are optimal for high-risk persons, regardless of age. We must be willing to trust the immunity conferred by natural exposure rather than the sub-optimal narrow ‘spike-specific’ vaccine immunity with its very limited immune library. Natural immunity can offer way better protection than the vaccine immunity in these vaccines and especially against the variants e.g., Delta.

I close by saying how disappointed and dismayed I am, and I know many share this view, by the abhorrent, distasteful, and shameful behavior by doctors in the US and elsewhere. They have stood by and have been silent. Silent so that they will not lose their research grants and positions. Silent because they fear their university leadership. Silent because they are academically sloppy and lazy and refuse to do the work to read the science and are just not informed optimally. Silent because they are just hiding behind the pure garbage trickled down to them from their colleges and regulatory bodies. Silent because they are politicized and corrupted, and bring their biases to the table when they should have checked them at the door. Shame on them. Their silence cost thousands of lives. They know early drug treatment works via the use of anti-virals very early on in the disease sequelae. They know it. They know natural immunity is way better and robust than the ‘narrow’ immunity conferred from this sub-optimally developed vaccine. They know that the vaccine is unsafe. It cannot be safe if it was developed in months versus the decade it typically needs. They know the vaccine does not prevent transmission or infection, or death or hospitalization. They know children in no way require this vaccine, and they know it is potentially very dangerous for pregnant women. Shame on them and they are placing thousands in harms way by their silence. Their silence has garnered them a significant loss in credibility and I wonder if it can ever return.

Quote from Fm1

. The vast majority were never at risk from COVID as was told by the governments. A pure lie. It is akin to the falsehood about deaths in children when close examination of all the deaths in children, found that in all of them, there was a serious underlying medical condition and even Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins states that to date (July 2021), we are unable to be definitive as to whether these deaths were causal or incidental.

Most people are fools like sheep. Easy to manipulated. Just show them a picture of a wolf

Quote from Fm1

The media and health experts and doctors who state it reduces hospitalization and death lie openly.

No: This is the only lie in the above comment. For old people at risks there is a high benefit from vaccines. But only some 10% would really need it.

Quote from Fm1

I close by saying how disappointed and dismayed I am, and I know many share this view, by the abhorrent, distasteful, and shameful behavior by doctors in the US and elsewhere.

Why did he find out this now: This state we have since more than 10 years...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes, it is fascinating because we really do not understand what causes long COVID. Virus sitting around somewhere and somehow with a stable population? Viral fragments (not sure a vaccine would be likely to get those).

I wouldn't know, but I read somewhere that experts think the virus itself remains in isolated pockets in the body. I do not think that viral fragments alone could cause the problem because (I also read) any fragment of protein from any source is cleared from the bloodstream within a few days. Proteins from cells, viruses or contamination all go away. Also any RNA inside or outside the cell is soon dissolved. The virus shell is a protein. I don't think the RNA can survive in the bloodstream by itself. It has to be in the shell or injected into a cell. Of course it destroys the cell, reproduces, and some of it ends up in another cell. In other words, the virus has to be reproducing somewhere in the body in order to have an effect, or all traces of it will be cleared out. That is why the mRNA vaccines are safe. They are not self reproducing. The RNA generates spike proteins in human cells, but all RNA is self-limiting. It all dissolves in a few days. If that were not so, DNA could not regulate cell metabolism by expressing different RNA, because the RNA already present would remain indefinitely. After the vaccine RNA dissolves, it cannot produce any more spike proteins. Thus, the total volume of spike proteins from the vaccine is limited, and known in advance. It is millions of times less than the number of spike proteins the virus itself produces. See:

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

This also says they have tests nowadays that reveal picogram per milliliter levels of proteins, which I find astounding. I suppose they are using such tests to look for isolated pockets of viruses in long haul patients.

The RNA in a virus is protected by the protein shell. For a while, anyway. Long enough to infect the cell. The RNA in the vaccine is protected by a layer of lipid, which coats the RNA in a nanosecond when they are mixed together. The lipid is injected, comes in contact with cells, and some of the RNA infiltrates the cells. I do not think any natural infection works this way. It is a brand new way to infect a cell, invented by people instead of mother nature. If they infected the cell with the complete COVID genome they would give the patient the disease. Of course! They use only a small fragment of the genome, that produces the spike protein, making it self-limiting, as I said. The process of manufacturing the vaccine, including the lipid coating, is described in an excellent interactive article in the New York Times (not behind the paywall):

https://www.nytimes.com/intera…-coronavirus-vaccine.html

To learn how data is made presented:: Today UK 50 deaths = large increase but::

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

This is only deaths by day reported not deaths of this specific day. For deaths you can only look (at best) at weekly averages as reporting sometimes lags behind for many months!!!

Same for vaccine damage that usually is delayed for months too.

Here : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/

you can nicely see how deaths are related to cases. Use 3 days average in cases/deaths . Then you will see deaths are 10 days delayed. What is a bit short and points to the fact that most Japanese go to a doctor late as it is a shame to get CoV-19.

Quote from Fm1

1) This COVID-19 pandemic was never the ‘emergency’ that governments and technocrats and the medical community told you it was. Everything that our governments and the media told us and did were lies. Pure lies! That the media medical cartel has said for 24/7 for 16 months now. With their television medical experts. This was a lie out of the gate for we knew very early on that this so called ‘pandemic’ could have been handled without even the vaccine.

A disease that kills 600,000 people is a emergency, by definition. Even if it kills 30 to 100 times fewer per capita, as it did in Japan and Korea, it is still an emergency. It is much worse than seasonal influenza.

We know it could not have been handled without the vaccine because it was not handled. No country escaped from it. The best practices to handle it were those recommended by the WHO in January 2020. They include mainly masks, handwashing, social distancing and case tracking. They were used in Japan, Korea and Taiwan to keep the pandemic at bay, and to keep infections and deaths at far lower levels than in the U.S. Even so, it was an emergency. Those practices eventually failed to some extent, killing and disabling many people. Without the vaccine, Japan would remain in a partial lockdown indefinitely, years or decades into the future. Some days 10 people would die; other days hundreds or even thousands would die. Variants such as Delta would eventually infect the population, causing mass casualties. The only methods of "handling" the pandemic other than vaccines were stop-gap, limited; they were socially and economically destructive; and eventually they were bound to fail catastrophically.

Of course these methods should have been employed in the U.S. They would have saved ~500,000 lives. But another 100,000 would have died. If there were no vaccine, millions would eventually die before we reached herd immunity.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Same for vaccine damage that usually is delayed for months too.

These vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people a year or more ago. Other versions of the mRNA vaccine were tested 10 or 20 years ago in humans and animals. You say the delay is months? How many months? When will this boogeyman appear? The vaccine produces only spike proteins. The common cold and many other diseases produce millions of times more spike proteins, very similar to these. Colds have been doing this for millions of years. Yet this damage has not yet emerged. Where is it?

There is no evidence for your claims. They are nonsense. Fear-mongering, death-cult nonsense.

Quote from JedRothwell

death-cult nonsense.

There's that Southern hyperbole...

I prefer

"It doesn't amount to a hill of beans"

Quote from RobertBryant

There's that Southern hyperbole...

I prefer

"It doesn't amount to a hill of beans"

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

Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA

If people believe it, it amounts to a hill of human corpses