Covid-19 News

    • Official Post

    First injection of mRNA (agains cancer) nearly 20 years ago (in the author's body), published in 2007

    Spontaneous cellular uptake of exogenous messenger RNA in vivo is nucleic acid-specific, saturable and ion dependent - PubMed
    The development of new treatments in the post-genomic era requires methods for safe delivery of foreign genetic information in vivo. As a transient, natural…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    and in cancer patient for an anticancer vaccine, published in 2008

    Results of the first phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA - PubMed
    Vaccination against tumor antigens has been shown to be a safe and efficacious prophylactic and therapeutic antitumor treatment in many animal models. Clinical…
    t.co

  • Scientists protest against the great "Unlock"


    "“In New Zealand we have always looked to the UK for leadership when it comes to scientific expertise, which is why it’s so remarkable that it is not following even basic public health principles,” said Michael Baker at the University of Otago, a member of the New Zealand health ministry’s covid-19 technical advisory group"

    Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/a…scientists/#ixzz70pjuhmfA

    I stopped looking to the UK for leadership in 1977..

    The science is OK - it is BoJo that is the issue...

  • First injection of mRNA (agains cancer) nearly 20 years ago (in the author's body), published in 2007

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17476302/

    and in cancer patient for an anticancer vaccine, published in 2008

    https://t.co/hBS3MaXEiW?amp=1

    These are treatments not vaccination the treatments do not target the spike instead Targeting the n terminal. Some with overwhelming success but again they do not target the spike.

  • Ivermectin Study Appears Fraudulent but Not a ‘Surgisphere Moment’


    Ivermectin Study Appears Fraudulent but Not a ‘Surgisphere Moment’
    Watchers of COVID-19 repurposed drug trials are abuzz with the news that a sizable Egyptian trial sponsored by Benha University in Egypt is actually
    trialsitenews.com


    Watchers of COVID-19 repurposed drug trials are abuzz with the news that a sizable Egyptian trial sponsored by Benha University in Egypt is actually problematic. Why? It looks like a confluence of factors, from laziness and plagiarism to more than likely lack of resources and what appears to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of data, taint a widely cited study known as Elgazzar et al. TrialSite celebrates this moment. This is what this platform is all about—transparency is key, and one of the fundamental criticisms of some of the apex players in research evidence, from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the World Health Organization (WHO), have called out that a considerable number of the many dozen randomized controlled trials from around the world have the potential to reveal design problems, data inconsistency, etc. Their criticism includes some correct points in that the potential is there and, in this case, a sharp “medical student” did a great job finding them. That’s to be applauded. But there’s more to this story. As it turns out, the author, positioned as a humble medical student, turns out to be a disinformation buster in partnership with some sort of blogging network. Moreover, according to reports from the study author(s) from Egypt, they were not given a proper chance to respond to the allegations. TrialSite’s position herein is that while this is not a good look and most certainly heightens the overall risk premium perhaps applied to a bundle of studies conducted in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the accumulation of data based on feedback from other ivermectin meta-analyses authors evidences real potential as a public health tool in the COVID-19 pandemic—especially in poor countries that won’t see the majority of their populations vaccinated anytime soon. How do we know? Why else would the U.S. government spend $155 million on ACTIV-6 unless, in part, to study ivermectin? Why would the University of Oxford, even if begrudgingly—finally announce conclusively that they will include the antiparasitic tablets in the PRINCIPLE trial? Why would one of America’s largest health insurance companies, UnitedHealthcare, fund the COVID-OUT study, led by the University of Minnesota, featuring same-day shipment of ivermectin for early-onset COVID-19 patients for at-home care? These institutions wouldn’t make such investments of money, time, resources, and effort unless there was considerable potential. And to provide a different point of view, this Egypt-based study was but one out of 62 total studies to date, plus dozens of real-world care initiatives involving millions of people TrialSite has tracked from Mexico City and Bangladesh to Uttar Pradesh, India, that when aggregated continue to be at least a compelling unfolding story of potential.


    Money, Drugs & Power

    Whether this group that uncovered glaring issues in the Egyptian-based study (NCT04668469) was part of a campaign to dig up problems with ivermectin studies, doesn’t really matter to us at TrialSite. That comes with the territory. The authors claimed to have given the professor time to respond yet the word from speaking with others in touch with the authors is that they didn’t afford the Egyptian investigational team, led by Benha University’s Ahmed G. Elgazzar, a chance to respond. Who is correct? That answer will come forth.


    To explain the hypocrisy of the mainstream media, regulators, and industry, and a corresponding age of crony capitalism in medicine, one only needs to look at some of the episodes and articles in TrialSite’s Drugs, Politics, and Power. They go hand and hand with money and most recently, an unconstitutional lust for control.


    After all, how else can one explain the remdesivir situation? The World Health Organization (WHO) declared, based on findings in the Solidarity Trial, that remdesivir (the drug for which Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIAID changed the pivotal clinical trial endpoint to ensure acceptance by regulators) wasn’t effective for COVID-19 patients as TrialSite reported. WHO also declared remdesivir shouldn’t be recommended under any circumstances.


    Yet American and many other national regulatory bodies ignored those findings as most mainstream media, and Gilead continues to generate billions of dollars. No mainstream press made much of a stink of that. Float that on Facebook now and a White House censorship squad will censor—despite the fact that it’s true. They tend to beat up on the little, generic underdog like an underfunded Egyptian professor. But if it’s bad, it must be called out—hence TrialSite called it wrong before. That happens, and we own it.


    What follows is a breakdown of what appears to be a rotten ivermectin study and an argument as to why the ivermectin train has left the station, regardless of what Melissa Davey at the Guardian touts.


    Underlying Critique of Ivermectin Studies

    Drug development is a high-stakes, incredibly risky, expensive, time-consuming, and not to mention highly regulated affair. That’s because of the risks to health and human safety—that is, the regulatory oversight necessary to ensure high-quality clinical outcomes. That’s the reality of the pharmaceutical clinical development world, and that’s why the apex research and regulatory agencies are skeptical of many of the ivermectin trials particularly in LMICs, where there may not be the resources, capital, sufficient levels of talent, or the appropriate controls to produce quality data. They are not incorrect at least some of the time—that’s a reality. And the rooting out of plagiarism, misrepresented data, and other misconduct leading to the potential for scientific fraud is a good thing.


    The Foundation of Clinical Quality

    Those critics of underlying ivermectin studies, especially ones in LMICs, concern themselves particularly in areas of study design, process controls, data integrity, uniformity, and the like. The NIH, World Health Organization, FDA, and various other agencies are correct in theory for sure.


    That’s because, fundamentally, to achieve quality, one must be ever mindful of a principle known as “ALCOA-C.” That is, Good Clinical Practices (GcP) necessitate rigorous process controls, training combined with stellar talent—that is what is known as “vocational certainty.” The byproduct of such confluence of clinical quality comes data that is:


    Attributable

    Legible

    Contemporaneous

    Original

    Accurate

    Complete

    Attributable informs with transparency into who documented or did what on the study as all material data and documents need to be traceable to a responsible person, date, and subject visit. Legible shows that the clinical record is easy to read with signatures identifiable; fundamental to the clinical quality of data is the concept of Contemporaneous, that is that the study information at the site level should, in fact, be documented as the study occurs, not after the fact. If a study observation isn’t practical to document at the moment, it should be recorded as part of the study’s chronology. Any delays from the time of activity to documentation need to be defined and justified by the study team. And the clinical quality assurance must ensure all signatures attesting to such “late entry,” for instance, are attached to a date indicating when such signatures were affixed to the document. Additionally, study records must be the Original: the investigator at the trial site maintains the original source in the regulatory binder while the drug sponsor (or university’s investigator, such as is the case with the Benha University case) maintains a primary record or certified copy of each study record artifact. Whether study data is Accurate gets to the heart of the matter. That is, the particular information or data on the document or in the database is accurate, consistent, and represents an actual representation of the facts. Finally, the clinical records are Complete, that is, after the study, a holistic and comprehensive picture emerges, backed up by the who, what, when, where, why, and how.


    ALCOA-C elements apply to both paper and the digital world—that is, electronic source data and the systems and software applications that maintain such records. The net summary here is that such aggregation of source documentation depicts the comprehensive story of the study—an accurate and truthful one.


    The Findings: A Bad Study & A Shady Investigation?

    Jack Lawrence, positioned by the Guardian’s Melissa Davey as a humble London-based medical student, actually is “a journalist and disinformation researcher.” He also founded Grftr News and runs the @TimPoolClips Twitter project, according to his own website. He may also be a medical student but Mr. Lawrence was probably looking for dirt on ivermectin. We start to wonder if someone paid him but that doesn’t really matter. It’s his right, and he did find real trouble, we believe. But Ms. Davey should have disclosed the full apparent operation.


    First diving into Benha University’s findings, Jack Lawrence’s initial work ultimately led to the retraction of the non-peer-reviewed document. Apparently, part of the “medical student’s master’s degree assignment” according to Davey, upon first reviewing the study documents he found the authors took the liberty to simply undertake wholesale “cut and copy” plagiarism throughout. Lawrence undoubtedly knew that this initial observation would lead to more critical problems associated with data—that is, problems underlying the data and records would violate ALCOA-C principles.


    Lawrence shares that the study authors went through a total of four versions of the document, evidencing plenty of time to either do the right thing or do a lot of the wrong things, which in this case was the latter. In a key blow to any ALCOA-C principle, Lawrence stated:


    “When opening what the authors claim is their original data the first thing that any reader notices is that it’s remarkably complete. In many columns data for all patients are fully listed. The second thing the reader will likely notice is that the original data do not match the author’s public results. In three of the four study arms measuring patient death as an outcome, the numbers between the paper and original data differ.”


    This, of course, is a cardinal sin in the world of clinical trials. Lawrence found numerous other problems that can be read in detail in his own Grftr News. This blog requested the involvement of Nick Brown, a scientific fraud expert involved in the study reviews. Mr. Brown has since analyzed the Benha University-sponsored ivermectin study in detail in his blog.


    Brown breaks down the various analyses of the study with Lawrence, focusing on various topics from plagiarism to questionable activity associated with each version to an article by Gideon Meyerowitz which focuses on the overall “…implications of this study for the whole Ivermectin-for-Covid literature” and an article for the masses, one that’s partially a hit piece, according to TrialSite, authored by Melissa Davey. Note that Lawrence works with Gideon Meyerowitz frequently, indicating perhaps this was more than just an innocent school assignment.


    But back to Mr. Brown, who is apparently one of the top experts out there in the field of investigating inconsistencies in clinical trials data: his analysis centers on those important data and documentation that are supposed to be reflected in ALCOA-C principles.


    Brown made available the Elgazzar et al. data and found that it appeared the authors were still buzzing around, working on the study results by December 12, 2020, despite the fact that two versions of study results were already uploaded to the preprint site by November 16. This provides clear evidence that something was not right—that is, based on ALCOA-C principles, one wouldn’t see authors working on data and documents that should have already been locked down and completed. Brown does a decent job of breaking down the study data findings here.


    An Article for the Masses with the Appropriate ‘Hit’

    The Guardian’s recent piece made a big splash with the title, “Huge-study supporting ivermectin as covid-treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns.” Part accurate popular journalism, part ‘hit piece’ for the masses, the author, Ms. Davey attempts to kill two birds with one stone:


    “The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating COVID-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to ethical concerns.”


    This is a prime example of sensationalism for the multitudes—that is, using the mass media to both 1) politicize the matter of ivermectin (e.g. rightwing) while 2) imply that all of the good research gets thrown out because of this one study.


    That’s frankly not good journalism but it’s what sells, unfortunately, and more than likely helps a muckraking place like the Guardian pay its bills. Such tone and banter insults so many in poorer countries that have benefited from the use of the treatment and evidences a First World, entitled contempt of others below—indicating a false sense of superiority.


    What this bad study does, however, is most certainly raise questions about the quality (e.g. ALCOA-C) principles of the other ivermectin studies in many a skeptic’s mind. Should other key studies be further scrutinized for quality data and integrity? Why not? But we must also remember for many studies in the Third World—or emerging world—with limited resources, time, and money, not to mention in the midst of a pandemic, nothing will be perfect. I think we can say the same about the biggest most capitalized pharma studies—there are plenty of problems and certainly an inclination by some to manipulate the situation for wealth accumulation. And post-authorization? An entire industry got much of America hooked on opiates, for example. That’s reality.


    Doesn’t Make Much Difference

    The reality is, after communicating with people like Dr. Pierre Kory from the Front Line Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), authors of a meta-analysis or Tess Lawrie, co-author of Bryant et al., even the disqualification of this study doesn’t discredit their respective meta-analyses. They are as confident as ever. According to Dr. Lawrie, whose team conducted a post Lawrence analysis: “take out Elgazzar and the confidence interval is widened but the overall conclusions remains the same.”


    The prominent Dr. Andrew Hill from the University of Liverpool, a highly respected contributor to the WHO’s ongoing review of ivermectin, tweeted after the findings published in the Guardian:


    “After removal of the Elgazzar trial from ivermectin meta-analysis, borderline significant effects are still seen for hospitalization and survival, but small number of endpoints. More evidence still needed from a large ongoing randomized trial—must be continued.”


    Dr. Hill certainly isn’t ready to listen to Ms. Davey and throw in the proverbial towel on the potential of a low-cost way to treat at-risk people in LMICs with little access to safe and effective vaccines. It’s absolutely irresponsible of Davey to make such declarations with so much looming danger in this pandemic, especially in the LMIC world where people don’t have the luxury for vaccines anytime soon. Moreover, did Davey do responsible journalism and check into the authors from the pro-ivermectin meta-analyses for their opinion—of course not!


    TrialSite is still bullish about the prospects of this drug—the media platform’s team has chronicled clinical trials, observational studies, and case series around the globe. We have also interviewed many dozens of doctors and researchers in nearly two dozen countries. The confidence level is considerable in that there is some efficacy—how much, in exactly what dose and duration still is open for interpretation and debate. But clearly, clinical trials continue, and you don’t cast aside a sizable body of research and real-world data because of one funky study.


    But researchers and the media shouldn’t be playing information war games like Ms. Davey’s employer does. When they introduce the medical student, they should also introduce the other position the chap holds. They should also not just declare that the drug’s days are numbered because of this one study. Says who? The Guardian? Moreover, to remain objective and ethical, they should ensure that they provide the Egyptian professors sufficient time to provide their side of the story. Ditto for the ivermectin-focused meta-analyses.


    And to the fact that the Guardian’s writer starts the piece by positioning ivermectin as a “Rightwing” drug? Hogwash. Those tracking ivermectin studies in the developed and developing world aren’t some kind of right-wing movement. It’s a humanistic movement! These are scientists, researchers, public health professionals, and a myriad of other interests. In many cases, they swing way to the Left.


    The interest behind ivermectin is diverse, multifaceted, and spans the rainbow of ethnicity, economic level, political leaning, and socio-cultural background. This is an example of the media taking one piece of news to tear at the heart of something disliked, or feared. A classical tactic by today’s media, often making money on advertisers from the same industry they cannot critique. Try even reporting on an ivermectin fact, and FaceBook or YouTube immediately censor—now at the command of the White House. That sounds fundamentally flawed, particularly in America.


    But at the same time, even if we disagree with Lawrence, et al.’s motives and Davey’s sensationalism, the fact is that they found problems; and that’s important in the research and scientific endeavor. The quest for continuous improvement across the biomedical research enterprise and, for that matter, all facets of material life, is what makes everything over time better. Hence why TrialSite celebrates the uncovering of problems in this or any study.

  • It has alpha +61% and delta +137%, both measured from original COVID CFR.

    I will not read such rubbish as all statistical data clearly shows that alpha produces 3x less deaths than the original virus and for delta the factor tends in the same direction.

    All the mafia papers I so far read always look at hospitalized people but never at the whole picture of number of infected. OF course all these mafia papers are done in hospitals of NAZI doctors that do not give the patients Ivermectin and do not use teh standard protocol.

    Conclusion:: Please stop posting papers of criminals.

    Small correction - we do not have significant mafia in the UK.

    Today FM/R/J/B is a violent mafia and has infiltrated most western states and owns 99.9% of all media. But unluckily for these folks www still is free despite they managed to undermine google, facebook, twitter, Instagram. Trial site and many others are now leaving google. It's time to end the business of the mafia.

    In May, ivermectin was being offered to

    More proof that XXXXX a criminal: This cited site is a mafia site and of course India did not ditch Ivermectin. Tamil Nadu did it and after 4 weeks they did switch back to Ivermectin!


    Recently in the Jerusalem Post, it was reported that the mRNA-based vaccine was less effective against the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant than “health officials hoped,” reported Prime Minister Naftali Bennett last Friday.

    This is the cricket brain syndrome. Most members of FM/R/J/B are cricket brains because nobody else can live with this mass of lies and criminal business these folks today deal with. This only says: One cricket brains did believe the other had real knowledge/education.... So these folks now start to be killed by their own fantasies.

  • Thanks Thomas, I'm pleasantly surprised you took the time to watch, I know these are not at the top of your list for info but in my opinion Doc Bean, I am a coolbean and Doc Campbell give honest opinions and analysis of the data presented and dumb it down so you and I can understand. I'll presently stick with doc beens analysis, his background, treating of patients and breaking down all data not cherry picking. I do agree with your concerns on long covid but I see early treatment as the only way to finally put an end to this whole freaking mess we made for ourselves. You would rather jab a five year old based on your concerns. oh and I have to ask, are you Mary Yugo?

  • Trialsitenews - a troubling trend


    I've noticed quite a few of the trialsitenews articles are just scientifically wrong - in very obvious ways, like this one. There is i'm sure some good coverage of medical trials their. It just seems they have an editorial policy on two topics - Invermectin and vaccines - that is skewed so far they keep on saying silly things.


    As an example of a blatently political and biassed spin on a very clear set of facts - look at this:


    Watchers of COVID-19 repurposed drug trials are abuzz with the news that a sizable Egyptian trial sponsored by Benha University in Egypt is actually problematic. Why? It looks like a confluence of factors, from laziness and plagiarism to more than likely lack of resources and what appears to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of data, taint a widely cited study known as Elgazzar et al. TrialSite celebrates this moment. This is what this platform is all about—transparency is key, and one of the fundamental criticisms of some of the apex players in research evidence, from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the World Health Organization (WHO), have called out that a considerable number of the many dozen randomized controlled trials from around the world have the potential to reveal design problems, data inconsistency, etc. Their criticism includes some correct points in that the potential is there and, in this case, a sharp “medical student” did a great job finding them. That’s to be applauded. But there’s more to this story. As it turns out, the author, positioned as a humble medical student, turns out to be a disinformation buster in partnership with some sort of blogging network. Moreover, according to reports from the study author(s) from Egypt, they were not given a proper chance to respond to the allegations. TrialSite’s position herein is that while this is not a good look and most certainly heightens the overall risk premium perhaps applied to a bundle of studies conducted in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the accumulation of data based on feedback from other ivermectin meta-analyses authors evidences real potential as a public health tool in the COVID-19 pandemic—especially in poor countries that won’t see the majority of their populations vaccinated anytime soon. How do we know? Why else would the U.S. government spend $155 million on ACTIV-6 unless, in part, to study ivermectin? Why would the University of Oxford, even if begrudgingly—finally announce conclusively that they will include the antiparasitic tablets in the PRINCIPLE trial? Why would one of America’s largest health insurance companies, UnitedHealthcare, fund the COVID-OUT study, led by the University of Minnesota, featuring same-day shipment of ivermectin for early-onset COVID-19 patients for at-home care? These institutions wouldn’t make such investments of money, time, resources, and effort unless there was considerable potential. And to provide a different point of view, this Egypt-based study was but one out of 62 total studies to date, plus dozens of real-world care initiatives involving millions of people TrialSite has tracked from Mexico City and Bangladesh to Uttar Pradesh, India, that when aggregated continue to be at least a compelling unfolding story of potential.


    This is quite extraordinary spin.


    1. First they cast doubt on the Elgazzar take-down - which is quite extraordinarily clear - and somehow make the guy who did it when asked to read that study for uni work into a member of some sinister "blogging network".


    http://steamtraen.blogspot.com…a-from-a-Covid-study.html (just the data takedown - there are some other issues about blatant plagiarism in the text)


    2. Then they don't accept that the Bryant et al meta-study (comprehensive, well conducted, but with subjective decisions made by ivermectin advocacy group members) rests on this paper and one other equally bad in terms of its lack of transparency and therefore possible bias. It must be a subjective decision whether to include those two papers in those considered by the meta-study - when they are both omitted the conclusions for Ivermectin are negative. The point is that this meta-study was done by the pro-COVID BIRD and it is supposed to give the best possible view of the evidence.


    3. Finally they turn round and say that because mainstream science is looking at ivermectin it must work??? Most of their narrative has been that mainstream science has been falsely ignoring ivermectin in spite of good evidence for sinister reasons!


    There is, at the moment, no good evidence on ivermectin. Good quality RCTs do not show an effect. That low quality trials show an effect is irrelevant if it vanishes when a decent number of high quality trials are done. As always the RCT negative results does not prove no effect, just that it is not a large enough one to be easily seen. Certainly not the "miracle" drug that is proponents claim. And just as mainstream scientists are not fanatically supporting it, they are not fanatically against it. It was put in to those trials because the money and advocacy spent on it has been successful.


    What seems to me so sad is that these advocacy groups (who seem to be dominating trialsitenews editorial policy) are so one-sided. They are so invested in the idea that ivermectin must work that no evidence to the contrary can chnage their minds. That is very human, but a shame.


    Anyway, let us hope the trials ongoing to show Ivermectin helps - it would be great if it did. I wish though that similar amounts of campaigning and money had been put into repurposed drugs with better prospects like metformin.


    why do trialsitenews not like sciencebasedmedicine blog?


    Because it looks at the facts and exposes internet hype? TrialsiteNews has a lot of internet hype that is counterfactual or strongly biassed. I'm not saying it is all like that, just most of the stuff we have been looking at about vaccines and ivermectin.


    COVID is not much worse than Flu? - Covid-19 vs flu  child deaths ( 500 vs 1) (NB - if you Vaccinate populations the risk does go down to Flu level, but for children you need to balance COVID risk and Vaccine risk which is why everyone is cautious).


    Misrepresentation of VAERS data by Dr Joel Kahn - a "holistic cardilogist".


    Balancing the risks COVID vs the virus - (I have not read this - wonder whether their figures are different from the ones I posted here a while back)


    The point about this approach is that it is quantitative and fact-based so gets the science right. Unlike TrialSiteNews. It will, as any view of science, have at the margin some subjective bias. Don't confuse that with blatant bias that can easily be debunked.


    I'd hope this site, as one rooted in science, would always go for the numbers over the political spin - even if the numbers are uncomfortable.

  • Thanks Thomas, I'm pleasantly surprised you took the time to watch, I know these are not at the top of your list for info but in my opinion Doc Bean, I am a coolbean and Doc Campbell give honest opinions and analysis of the data presented and dumb it down so you and I can understand. I'll presently stick with doc beens analysis, his background, treating of patients and breaking down all data not cherry picking. I do agree with your concerns on long covid but I see early treatment as the only way to finally put an end to this whole freaking mess we made for ourselves. You would rather jab a five year old based on your concerns. oh and I have to ask, are you Mary Yugo?

    No - I have no connection with the internet poster who posts under "mary yugo" name.


    Given what I know now, I would accept the minuscule known risk from the vaccine over the definitely larger - but mostly unknown - risk from COVID. I would wait for the regulators, who are not yet recommending any vaccine for 5 years old's and will not do so unless the safety balance looks good.

  • will not read such rubbish as all statistical data clearly shows that alpha produces 3x less deaths than the original virus and for delta the factor tends in the same direction.

    You have I think now understood your mistake in interpreting efficacy (it is fraction relative to number of deaths unvaccinated - not absolute). you have perhaps a similar issue with this 3x less deaths data. But - i am very confident i know the alpha IFR relative to original - so i'm happy for you to post links showing your data and I will tell you where you have gone wrong.


    or you could look at them again and do it yourself?

  • Note that I don't hear much of the Mink farm hypothesis, that have good reason to be covered, and is not so cr

    You are a silly person to post such weird ideas. The first minks found with corona where teh Danish ones many , many months after teh outbreak.

    These are treatments not vaccination the treatments do not target the spike instead Targeting the n terminal. Some with overwhelming success but again they do not target the spike.

    And more important: About 30% are treated from cancer and 30% directly die from this vaccine...

  • No - I have no connection with the internet poster who posts under "mary yugo" name.


    Given what I know now, I would accept the minuscule known risk from the vaccine over the definitely larger - but mostly unknown - risk from COVID. I would wait for the regulators, who are not yet recommending any vaccine for 5 years old's and will not do so unless the safety balance looks good.

    Excellent, I wasn't sure if I should address you as Miss T. Now regulators are just waiting on ongoing trials, but think about this Thomas, now you can't use herd immunity as an argument for vaccination when you exclude a whole group. Untill their is an early ttreatment, confusion will continue to rule! Fact!!!!

  • Tamil Nadu did it and after 4 weeks they did switch back to Ivermectin!

    As far as I understand it was the only region to not use Ivermectin and the others did. To really get a strong case for ivermectin one need

    to show that this region did not skip other measures as well such as social distancing and/or lock down. As I understand this is a key

    fact that Wyttenbach found out about and would like to get @Thux take on it.


    Noted that in Sweden, we seam to have more vaccinated than US now, not sure if the newspaper is miss-handling statistics, but with the

    current anti vacc movement in US, this will be a fact in the end. We do not have much news about vaccines performing badly, just that some

    people is angry and mad because they get the Astra-Zenica vaccine and not Pfizer. We are mostly outside now and does not hide inside for the

    sun and there is vacation with less interaction with other people, as last year, we do not have much problem with covid-19 atm. Lets see what

    the autumn will bring.


    I'm wondering also if ivermectin is the right path forward e.g. that we bark up the right tree if we took that path. The reason is that if ivermectin

    is potent and we used it and got the numbers down, the virus could very likely mutate and make the drug ineffective, just as with vaccines.

    I think the right way to go is to have a system to make drugs, to fight covid-19 that can be easily be modified if new strains overcomes the protective

    shield of the drug.

  • Trialsitenews is extraordinary in its paranoia.


    This is a classic disinformation trope. They put forward an argument those they think of as opponents are not making, and knock it down.


    Thus from that sinister blogging network


    Ivermectin as a “cure” (or at least a highly effective treatment) for COVID-19 is basically science denial. It is still possible that science will show ivermectin to be effective against COVID-19, but from my perspective that outcome is looking less and less likely. Thus, not surprisingly, the promotion of ivermectin requires denying the inconvenient science, with all the techniques of denial used by denialists ranging from creationists, to antivaxxers, to cancer quacks, to climate science deniers being marshaled against disconfirming science.


    You won't find any scientist saying ivermectin does not work - although it is looking less likely because we have had a few well-conducted RCTs, and the results as in Bryant et all, with two wrong subjective paper inclusions removed, look poor.


    Moreover, to remain objective and ethical, they should ensure that they provide the Egyptian professors sufficient time to provide their side of the story. Ditto for the ivermectin-focused meta-analyses.

    But they did. They contacted Elgazzar, who did not reply. They suggested to the journal that in view of the many scientific issues with the data, and the apparent fraud, the writer should either correct or retract. There were so many bad problems it is difficult to see how they could be corrected, so it is not surprising that paper got retracted.


    A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master’s degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

    It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

    The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.

    “The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.

    “The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”

    There were other concerns.

    “In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

    Lawrence and the Guardian sent Elgazzar a comprehensive list of questions about the data, but did not receive a reply. The university’s press office also did not respond.

    Lawrence contacted an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and a data analyst affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden who reviews scientific papers for errors, Nick Brown, for help analysing the data and study results more thoroughly.

    Brown created a comprehensive document uncovering numerous data errors, discrepancies and concerns, which he provided to the Guardian. According to his findings the authors had clearly repeated data between patients.

    “The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”



    Those tracking ivermectin studies in the developed and developing world aren’t some kind of right-wing movement. It’s a humanistic movement!


    You will remember my analysis of the trialsitenews editors. There is a strong right-wing slant. Nothing wrong with that - as long as they stick to reality. Right-wing as in Liz Cheney - good. Right-wing as in Oath-keepers - not good.


    The pro-ivermectin lobby is quite interesting politically. I see no evidence Kory is right-wing. However the anti-vaccination lobby aligns a lot with the pro-any-claimed-miracle-cure-drug lobby. and is now motsly right-wing. That is also intresting - because anti-vax memes were originally tied into extreme left-wing anti chemical etc thinking. But have marked into a right-wing meme because of the idea that vaccination is a sinister state conspiracy and a set of views about bodily autonomy.


    Try even reporting on an ivermectin fact, and FaceBook or YouTube immediately censor—now at the command of the White House. That sounds fundamentally flawed, particularly in America.


    Facebook and Youtube are independent and have their own ethics panels - they do not do what the White House wants. (much to the dismay of both left and right in US politics). And trialsitenews is doing pro-ivermectin lobbying with videos - not reporting facts.


  • I'm glad you have decided to post more, probably more levelheaded than most. Take a look at the FLCCC in ivermectin use against the Variants. Without an early treatment and honestly I don't care how much it costs, if it is effective, your concerns of future mutations are moot. Attacking during viral phase will stop mutations before they can replicate and put an end to this pandemic

  • Stefan - the world needs everything - drugs and vaccines.


    Ivermectin - based on the BIRD (= FLCC) own meta-study, when corrected for Elgazzar fraudulent paper + one other high likley bias paper, looks negative. So it is still work looking at trials like PRINCIPLE but don't hold your breath.


    but there are many other avenues for effective drugs.


    We actually got one recently: budenoside


    Don't expect magic fast progress - that is all.


    Re one region - UP did have a lockdown (and then its rates went down). Basically everywhere in India with high COVID rates responded with a lockdown. To get any ivermectin-positive information you would need full details and timing of ivermectin administration throughout India, and then correlate that with exact infection curves, and lockdown changes. It is a bit of work. Without that you are just picking out coincidences.

  • FM1 - i'm not sure why you are so needing a drug?


    Vaccines work better (you don't have to keep on taking them). It is true viruses will evolve drug resistance just like vaccine-resistance. But making a tweaked vaccine and having a booster is easy. It is what we do every year with Flu and it works. Making a tweaked drug - not possible.

  • The reason is that if ivermectin is potent and we used it and got the numbers down, the virus could very likely mutate and make the drug ineffective, just as with vaccines.

    A virus will always mutate but inside the body/cell there is only one mechanism for replication. Ivermectin not only stops CoV-19 from replication is also stops Flu, Westnil, Zikka, Lav01 etc... So here the virus has no chance. Ivermectin is also an antibody to CoV-19 and for this reason you have to give it with an other antibody that can be given at larger concentration like DOXY,Heparin, or Orange juice (Hesperidin)...

    just that some

    people is angry and mad because they get the Astra-Zenica vaccine and not Pfizer.

    Both show the same problem as both use the same spike protein. Astra even has more problems due to carrier virus interactions, but seems to trigger a bit a broader response. Pfizer is the worst vaccine on market. Single shot useless, causing immune suppression and COV-19 promotion. Phase III shows Pfizer "shot one" protection was < - 400%. (4x more CoV-19 cases than control - but sorted out early before test..) Even 2 shots give still no protection against the RSA strain and only a bit against Delta.

    It is easy to see when a paper is cheating. Pfizer always sends 20 blood sample to a payed team. Usually there is no notion about the antibody level in relation to real world samples. Real papers use 100 or more sample as in fact with 20 samples you cannot do any really useful statistics with strongly varying data (Antibodies vary 1..100x) only medical doctors can do this...


    Trialsitenews is extraordinary in its paranoia.


    This is a classic disinformation trope.

    This "troop" exists since long. We all here think that NHS/CDC/FDA/WHO is a disinformation troop as most deputies are members of FM/R/J/B.

    Only thing you can complain about: FM/R/J/B did not yet manage to undermine them...

  • You sir are a wingnut, anti vax supporters are young stupid and left wing!!! Robert Kennedy? Right-wing? I've seen a lot of rewriting of history since the start of the pandemic but this is absolute bullshit!!! So now we have so called whytfacts and now -Huxley crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Facebook and Youtube are independent and have their own ethics panels - they do not do what the White House wants. (much to the dismay of both left and right in US politics).

    From one of my favourite Canadian Youtubers, from yesterday:

    Did Press Sec Psaki ADMIT Facebook is a STATE ACTOR? Viva Frei Vlawg


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    To slightly modify a Canadian motto in the Covid era:

    "They're all in this together"