Covid-19 News

populism and rejection of democracy in the UK (not off-topic)

"I think we've reached the stage where we should no longer recognise parliament as the sovereign law-making body"

Reaction to the Uk vote to allow mandatory vaccinations (with medical opt-out) for care workers.

Quote from Curbina

FMD (and all highly transmissible and economic damaging veterinarian diseases responses, for that matter) focus on quarantining the sick individuals and not the healthy ones.

That is surely not quite right? They quarantine all the animals who might be sick. in the context of COVID, anyone not vaccinated might be sick.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mandatory vaccination is not exactly a new thing: countries can require vaccination to protect the health of their population. What is so diffiferent?

Which travel vaccines do I need?

You can find out which vaccinations are necessary or recommended for the areas you'll be visiting on these websites:

• Travel Health Pro
• NHS Fit for Travel

Some countries require proof of vaccination (for example, for polio or yellow fever vaccination), which must be documented on an International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) before you enter or when you leave a country.

Saudi Arabia requires proof of vaccination against certain types of meningitis for visitors arriving for the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages.

Even if an ICVP is not required, it's still a good idea to take a record of the vaccinations you have had with you.

Find out more about the vaccines available for travellers abroad

Display More

Not a good argument, each and every vaccine required to travel have years of data behind them to support their use, not so much with these vaccines yet.

Institut Pasteur Preclinical Study: Ivermectin a Powerful Immunomodulatory Drug Targeting SARS-CoV-2

https://trialsitenews.com/inst…rug-targeting-sars-cov-2/

A prestigious global research institute based in France has published a preclinical study in EMBO Molecular Medicine revealing that ivermectin is associated with a reduction in COVID-19 symptoms. Yet even after dozens of studies showcasing such results in real-world scenarios, the World Health Organization (WHO) has yet to embrace the opportunity of the drug for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Institut Pasteur’s Jean-Pierre Changeux suggests the drug acts on the nicotinic receptor, leading to what undoubtedly will fuel an interesting debate on the topic. In a comprehensive preclinical study involving hamsters, the study team concluded that ivermectin represents a powerful immunomodulatory drug, implying that it could help the world in its fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. The study results reveal that the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin prevents clinical deterioration, reduces olfactory deficit, and limits the inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts in the study animals. The investigators recommend consideration of the drug as a means to combat COVID-19.

The Challenge & Opportunity

A devastating pandemic continues with emergent new variants and a growing death toll while vaccines, while effective and seemingly safe, are distributed in a way that could be considered anything but equitable. Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) struggle to vaccinate even a fraction of the population as a market-based system directs product to the highest bidders.

Meanwhile, over 62 ivermectin studies (randomized controlled trials, observational and case series) have been conducted around the world with overwhelmingly positive outcomes. A few meta-analyses have added to the promising evidence yet regulatory authorities, apex research agencies, and global groups such as the World Health Organization (WHO) while monitoring the trends seek to act in ways to subvert the progress and potential for the generic repurposed drug. TrialSite has observed a directed, concerned, and orchestrated misinformation campaign against ivermectin that includes a prominent producer of the product, Merck. The American pharmaceutical company also was paid $356 million by the U.S. government to develop its own COVID-19 antiviral drug called Molnupiravir—and just months later, secured a $1.2 billion public procurement commitment. TrialSite suggests liberal government funding has led to a culture of public financial dependence during the pandemic, corrupting markets and outcomes.

TrialSite has been on record that WHO has failed its role as a global authority and allocator of funding and treatments to help member nations. If vaccination distribution is any measure, while the WHO blames the pharmaceutical companies, it was actually their responsibility for more equitable distribution. That hasn’t happened. Yet, WHO has in parallel resisted mounting evidence associated with ivermectin as a possible low-cost measure to help fight the pandemic.

Regardless of WHO’s disapproval of the drug, much success has been associated with ivermectin. TrialSite has chronicled study after study, from Bangladesh and Uttar Pradesh, India to Mexico City and even Broward County, Florida, where physicians and clinical investigators report on impactful results. TrialSite reported that because of WHO’s recalcitrant stance, a collection of lawyers out of Bombay announced a lawsuit against the WHO and its chief scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, accusing them of avoiding the mounting evidence in favor of the drug.

The Study Results

Now a prominent, globally focused, French, non-profit private foundation introduces compelling new information about ivermectin. The authors declare, “variants that jeopardize the efficacy of current vaccines create an urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19, including the contribution of inflammation to disease..”

The authors summarized that the pandemic also necessitates a “search for immunomodulatory drugs that could improve disease outcome.” In a preclinical hamster study, the scientists at the Pasteur Institute showcased that the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin prevents clinical deterioration, reduces olfactory deficit, and limits the inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts in SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters.

The preclinical investigators in France reported that the drug didn’t affect viral load in the infected animals’ airways. Moreover, after conducting transcriptomic analyses of infected lungs, scientists there report that ivermectin dampens type 1 interferon responses while modulating a number of additional inflammatory pathways. Noteworthy, they reported that ivermectin “dramatically reduces the Il-6/Il-10 ratio in lung tissue and promotes macrophage M2 polarization, which might account for the more favorable clinical presentation of IVM-treated animals.”

The French scientists concluded, “This study supports the use of immunomodulatory drugs such as ivermectin, to improve the clinical condition of SARS-CoV-infected patients.”

Principal Investigator Point of View

The researchers were quoted in the French press commenting on the significant positive results yet declaring that the effects seem to be immunomodulatory rather than antiviral in nature, reported Guilherme Dias de Melo, an epidemiologist and study co-author. Corresponding author Hervé Bourhy considers these “results provide significant progress and […] pave the way for development…for better treatment against COVID-19 in humans.”

Institut Pasteur

Founded in 1887, the Institut Pasteur has researched infectious diseases for over a century. This worldwide biomedical research organization based in Paris was the first to isolate HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in 1983. Over the years, it has been responsible for discoveries that have enabled medical science to control diseases from diphtheria and tetanus to tuberculosis and influenza to yellow fever and plague. Since 1908, ten Institut Pasteur scientists have been awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine and physiology.

Lead Research/Investigator

Herve Bourhy, Lyssavirus Epidemiology and Neuropathology Unit, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France, Corresponding Author

Jean-Pierre Changeux, Neuroscience Department, Institut Pasteur, Collège de France, Paris, France

Call to Action: To review the other authors or read the study, follow the link.

Attenuation of clinical and immunological outcomes during SARS-CoV-2 infection by ivermectin

https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202114122

Abstract

The devastating pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 and the emergence of antigenic variants that jeopardize the efficacy of current vaccines create an urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19, including the contribution of inflammation to disease. It also warrants for the search of immunomodulatory drugs that could improve disease outcome. Here, we show that standard doses of ivermectin (IVM), an anti-parasitic drug with potential immunomodulatory activities through the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, prevent clinical deterioration, reduce olfactory deficit, and limit the inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts in SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters. Whereas it has no effect on viral load in the airways of infected animals, transcriptomic analyses of infected lungs reveal that IVM dampens type I interferon responses and modulates several other inflammatory pathways. In particular, IVM dramatically reduces the Il-6/Il-10 ratio in lung tissue and promotes macrophage M2 polarization, which might account for the more favorable clinical presentation of IVM-treated animals. Altogether, this study supports the use of immunomodulatory drugs such as IVM, to improve the clinical condition of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.

Quote from Fm1

Not a good argument, each and every vaccine required to travel have years of data behind them to support their use, not so much with these vaccines yet.

There is more data behind the COVID vaccines than all data collected on all other vaccines in history. For two reasons: 1. Billions of people have been vaccinated, far more than most of the vaccines you need for international travel. 2. Big data computing resources have been used to collect and collate this data, and AI techniques used to analyze it. The mass of data, depth and reliability of this data is unprecedented. It would not have been possible to collect or analyze this much data even in the year 2000. Based on this information, we know this is the safest vaccine ever deployed.

If by "years of data" you mean patient-years of data that has actually been collected and analyzed in depth then we have far more years data than any other vaccine. If you mean calendar years, we have 20 years, counting tests with other, earlier mRNA vaccines.

The argument that the vaccine might cause problems in the future does not hold water. The vaccine does only one thing. It causes cells to produce spike proteins. This process stops automatically in a few days when all of the RNA and spike proteins from the vaccine are dissolved and removed from the body. In all, it produces about a million times fewer spike proteins than COVID itself does, or than the common cold and other coronaviruses do. The cold virus also takes over cells and causes them to make alien protein (and RNA). Yet the cold does no long term harm to the body. So there is no mechanism by which a million times fewer spike proteins could harm the body.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is a case rate of 20 : 1,000,000

Again problems with undergrad math:

Paper says:: ; and 436 000 second doses were administered to male military service members.

...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Whereas the vaccine risk of death is in the 1 : 1,000,000

Basic math failure.. Databases says its at least 40: 1'000'000. In reality 100 :: 1'000'000.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Look at that risk ratio - COVID is100s of times riskier for this guy.

50% of people age > 90 show no symptoms on CoV-19. But 10% get really sick...

In reality the COV-19 risk is = 0 if you have access to early treatment. But here many old fail so its better to vaccinate them. In my cases, I did provide the drugs in advance. So my uncle could get over it.

Vaccines are just a terrorist FM/R/J/B mafia business model.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is more data behind the COVID vaccines than all data collected on all other vaccines in history.

Exactly! > 50'000 deaths the best data you can get.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm sorry you don't like the words "benefits outweigh the risks".

I have no Pfizer shares so I'm unable to understand this....

Quote from THHuxleynew

Moreover, data extracted by the authors from the observational study by Dagan et al.3 concern short-term mortality after the first dose, which is not at all representative of mortality prevention in the long term after the second dose. In our opinion, the study misleadingly used data to yield conclusions that are wrong and may lead to public harm.

Brave FM/R/J/B member did follow the grand master call...No explanation given just general talk = opinion...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Harald Walach not only does not like vaccines, he does not like masks!

Here an overview of science about masks : https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

People -other than THHuxleynew - that really read the studies will learn that masks are of no help at all for preventing CoV-19. But this is science based not fascist mafia order based.

Quote from Shane D.

Sadly, they seem to be getting their way, and I see little choice left for those over the age of 12. Their access to a normal lifestyle is quickly being cut off...one right at a time. Either they submit...even if already naturally protected, or else they will have to learn to live with the limited options made available to them.

As said Fascism is reemerging fast thanks to the high profits behind the imposed rules.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Harald Wallach is now on my least fave persons list (you can guess who else is there).

He writes scientific-sounding rubbish that causes harm, and does not admit errors when critiqued.

What about undergrad math and reading papers?

You sound like Alexa with remote control...

Queen Mary, University of London Researchers’ Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Ivermectin Indicates Efficacy Targeting COVID-19

https://trialsitenews.com/quee…icacy-targeting-covid-19/

Recently, two researchers from Queen Mary, University of London, conducted a peer-reviewed meta-analysis evaluating ivermectin (Bryant et al, 2021) and concluded that this antiparasitic drug is a cheap and effective treatment for reducing COVID-19 deaths. Importantly, these conclusions were in stark contrast to those of a later study (Roman et al, 2021). Although (Roman et al, 2021) applied the same classical statistical approach to meta-analysis, and produced similar results based on a subset of the same trials data used by (Bryant et al), they claimed there was insufficient quality of evidence to support the conclusion Ivermectin was effective. The Queen Mary, University of London investigators apply a Bayesian approach, to a subset of the same trial data, to test several causal hypotheses linking COVID-19 severity and ivermectin to mortality and produce an alternative analysis to the classical approach. Applying diverse alternative analysis methods, which reach the same conclusions, should increase overall confidence in the result. The authors demonstrate that there is overwhelming evidence to support a causal link between ivermectin, COVID-19 severity and mortality, and: i) for severe COVID-19, there is a 90.7% probability the risk ratio favors ivermectin; ii) for mild/moderate COVID-19, there is an 84.1% probability the risk ratio favors ivermectin. Also, from the Bayesian meta-analysis, for patients with severe COVID-19, the mean probability of death without ivermectin treatment is 22.9%, while with the application of ivermectin treatment, it is 11.7%. The paper also highlights the advantages of using Bayesian methods over classical statistical methods for meta-analysis.

TrialSite both reported on Roman et al. as well as responses to the meta-analysis here. We reported on Bryant et al., suggesting the evidence indicates the repurposed, generic drug could be used as a public health weapon, along with vaccination and appropriate public health protocols in the war against COVID-19.

Lead Research/Investigator

Marin Neil, Queen Mary, University of London

Normal Elliott Fenton, Queen Mary, University of London

IVERMECTIN SAVES INDIA

Only one small state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala now accounts for 1/3 of all cases. What goes wrong there ?

Delhi (15mio) / Uttar Pradesh 205 mio. /Rajastan 70 mio., Madja Pradesh 70mio) stay below 100 cases for more than two weeks now despite Delta and no vaccines...

Wonder happen ??

Re compulsory vaccinations.

I'd say the following circumstances are ok:

(1) specialised workers (e.g. health workers). As Jed says this really is comparable to a surgeon putting on gloves - and it protects both sides. It should be mandatory because without it you cannot do the job safely.

(2) any private business. they should be free to mandate or not mandate vaccination from staff and customers, and advertise what they do. Those who require 100% full vaccination status will have some happy customers, those who do not will have a different set of happy customers. Employees can choose whether they work at vax or no-vax places.

(3) public transport. this is a difficult one. There are irreconcilable different wishes form different users. Maybe you have special vax-only 9or special "vax-not-needed" carriages. it is exactly comparable to smoking.

then you need to add:

(1) recent proof of antibody status could be equivalent to vaccination

(2) some sort of medical exemption for those unable to be vaccinated. I'm just not sure how you would do that.

Shane reckons that he should bear the risk of other people going around unnecessarily emitting lethal viruses. That is a pretty common US position - there is an analogy with letting everyone go around with lethal guns - people have more control over their guns, but as the stats show not a lot more control.

Personally my sense of what is a civilised society means I want to be able to go about my daily business without interference: no guns, unless those carrying guns take out hefty insurance ($10M per shooting) against accidentally "sorry - I thought that banana in your hand was a gun" shooting me. The insurance premiums would discourage unnecessary guns and also one way or another make gun use more responsible. Also, i want to go about my life reasonably safe from killer viruses.

i doubt I'd win any elections in the US!

Quote from Shane D.

I did some searching about the legal, and ethical pros and cons of mandatory vaccinations, and as expected opinions are all over the place regarding COVID.

Yeah? Vaccinations have been mandatory for both adults and children since the 19th century. Millions of people would have been killed or disabled if they had not been. Until recently, no sane person questioned the laws that force parents to vaccinate their children. Just about everyone saw the wisdom of saving millions of lives, because just about everyone remembered polio epidemics and other horrors.

Saying these things are controversial, or that there is some complex moral issue, is exactly like saying that roadway speed limits are morally suspect, or that we should not chlorinate water, or treat sewage. We should just spew untreated sewage into the streets. Let millions of people die of typhoid, encephalitis, e. coli, hepatitis . . . and so on.

There are no ethical cons to this. There is only insane death-worshiping right wing lunacy, in opposition to science, rationality, health and life itself. It is the most open and shut public health issue in the last 100 years. Do we kill hundreds of thousands of people for no reason, while we destroy the economy and ruin millions of lives? Or do we take public health measures that every generation of people going back to the Middle Ages took, such as quarantine and later vaccination?

Yes, I agree we should let adults kill themselves by not getting vaccinated. But we should not let them endanger other people. If the delta variant gets out of hand, and we have another surge, such people should not be allowed into airplanes, buses, shopping malls or even stores. Let them order in. Let them stay at home and starve. Do not let them give me the damn disease! There is no moral equivalence here between people who have a death wish and want to kill others, and people who take minimal responsibility for themselves and to protect others. We shouldn't even be paying their medical expenses via insurance, but I suppose it would be barbaric to leave them to die in the street, the way they do in India.

Quote from Shane D.

Because irresponsible people are running around spreading their virus to me, I have "armed" myself with a vaccine, and a mask.

So did I, and I hope it works, but the vaccine is less effective against the delta variant. And, more to the point, if hundreds of thousands of people keep getting infected, a much worse variant is likely to arise. It might take months to develop a new vaccine. Hundreds of thousands more people might die, and we will all be back in lock-downs and masking, which I think we all agree is a miserable, destructive, last ditch approach, only to be used when there are no alternatives.

We need to push COVID 19 into extinction. NOW. Worldwide. While we still can do it, with the vaccines we now have. You do not need to vaccinate everyone to achieve that. Somewhere between 70% and 80% should be enough, according to various expert estimates. The cost of doing that will be trivial compared to the cost of living with the disease indefinitely. It is much worse than seasonal influenza.

Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University’s New Research Says COVID-19 Variants May be Less Severe than Original Virus Strains

https://trialsitenews.com/clev…n-original-virus-strains/

New research from the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University has found that while newer strains and mutations of SARS-CoV-2 are often more contagious than the original COVID-19 strain, they may also be responsible for fewer hospitalizations and deaths.

Research Details

Scientists from both Northeast Ohio institutions tracked genome sequences for SARS-CoV-2 between March 11-April 22, 2020, recently found that clades, which are subgroups of an initial strain, were associated with a higher mortality rate than those of newer origin.

This group of researchers, led by Dr. Frank Esper, a pediatric infectious disease physician at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, also included scientists who study cancer genomics, computer and data sciences, neurology and pathology, including Dr. Brian Rubin, chair of Cleveland Clinic’s Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, and Jing Li, Ph.D., the Leonard Case Jr. Professor in Case Western Reserve University’s Department of Computer and Data Sciences.

“This study offers a detailed description of how the different COVID-19 clades evolved and competed once they were brought to Cleveland,” said Dr. Rubin. “The linkage of viral clades to outcomes is quite important and highlights the importance of viral genome sequencing to gain a deeper understanding of new diseases.”

The team analyzed RNA sequences from the bloodwork of more than 302 patients who contracted COVID-19 in Northeast Ohio within the first month of the pandemic.

Results

Results from the research also showed that during the first six weeks of the pandemic’s first wave, early strains contributed to the most hospitalizations and deaths, but mutations of the original strains quickly surpassed the original strain because they were more transmissible, but less severe.

“These findings offer greater insight into how COVID-19 infections significantly outpaced the rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths as the pandemic progressed,” said Dr. Esper. “The research also helps to validate how viral clades can play an important role in predicting patient outcomes.”

Quote from Fm1

Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University’s New Research Says COVID-19 Variants May be Less Severe than Original Virus Strains

I think the usual pattern is that some variants are less severe while others are more severe. Gradually, over time, the less severe forms tend to become more prevalent, I suppose because the severe ones kill off more patients. Some experts think that is what happened with the 1918 influenza. Others say it went extinct.

Of course the more contagious variant will spread fastest, whether it is more severe or less severe. That's why the delta variant is spreading so quickly. I think, though, that when two more or less equally contagious forms circulate, the benign one tends to dominate after a long time. That's what I read somewhere . . .

The population also "gets used" to the virus as variants circulate. Natural acquired immunity to one variant may reduce the symptoms of another. Or reduce mortality. Groups not exposed to any variant suffer the most. That is why isolated groups such as the Inuits suffered terribly from the 1918 influenza. More than the lower-48 U.S. population.