Preach it sister! Do I hear an amen from THH?!
Here in Ontario (Canada) we entered stage 3 of the Great Reopening yesterday.
While obeying social distancing rules we can now eat indoors in restaurants and go to movie theatres and museums. Yay! I plan to go and see a movie.
The Canadian Museum for Human Rights is reopening on July 27th.
If you're 12 and older and not fully vaccinated, sorry, you're not allowed.
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
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.
Hmm Elgazzar looks suspicious indeed, but also the negative studies I looked at seam to look at too wide age groups, my analysis is that those studies may most likely
look better, and be more ethical, if they focused on more narrow age groups. Agree that we need PRINCIPLE etc
Remdesivir Use and Hospital Length of Stay—The Paradox of a Clinical Trial vs Real-Life Use
Remdesivir is the only antiviral drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19. It received its FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in May 20201,2 and its full approval in October 2020, largely on the heels of the ACTT-1 trial.3 The primary outcome of this placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was time to recovery, defined as how many days it took for the patient to either be discharged from the hospital or stay in the hospital but not require oxygen or ongoing medical care (ie, for infection control purposes only).3 The ACTT-1 trial3 showed that patients receiving remdesivir recovered after a median of 10 days, compared with 15 days for the placebo group. There was also a numerical but not a statistically significant difference in mortality between groups.3
The study by Ohl et al4 looked at the real-world outcomes associated with using remdesivir under this EUA in a large cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the nation’s largest integrated health care network, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). Like the ACTT-1 trial,3 they did not find a mortality difference but unlike it, Ohl et al4 found that the use of remdesivir was associated with increased length of stay, rather than decreased it. Why?
The simplest explanation would be that there is a significant selection bias: that patients receiving remdesivir in practice are likely to be more severely ill than those not receiving it and therefore likely to stay hospitalized longer. While that is always a possibility in retrospective cohort studies, Ohl et al4 were exhaustive in their selection of propensity score–matched patients, using demographic, comorbidity, illness severity, concomitant medications, and time-dependent covariates to obtain a comparable cohort. Every facility had equal access to remdesivir via a centralized distribution system, and facilities had to certify inclusion and exclusion criteria prior to getting the drug delivered to them.
The most likely explanation could be that patients were kept in the hospital longer than necessary to complete the 5-day or 10-day prescribed course of remdesivir. To understand why this may have happened, context is important. During the study period, remdesivir was under an EUA. Patients had to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria, give verbal consent, and be monitored for adverse events, including infusion reactions and daily renal and liver function laboratory tests.2 In addition, there was little else, other than dexamethasone, to offer patients who, by definition, had severe forms of COVID-19, and the management of COVID-19 was a new and continuously evolving field with a huge emotional component.
While the protocol of the ACTT-1 trial3 called for the remdesivir infusions to be stopped early if the patient met the primary outcome of the study and was ready to be discharged, this detail was not adequately translated to the clinicians treating these patients. The FDA EUA fact sheet for health care practitioners and the VA Pharmacy Benefits Management’s instructions for its clinicians only referred to a 5-day or a 10-day course recommendation but did not include explicit language about early termination for recovered patients.2,5 Additionally, VA facilities were sent 10-day courses of therapy for each of their patients who met the criteria.
The study by Ohl et al4 has several limitations, particularly those associated with the retrospective nature of the study. In this study, the median length of stay for remdesivir recipients was 6 days, compared with 3 days for the matched patients who did not receive remdesivir. This is in stark contrast to the patients in the ACTT-1 study,3 who achieved the primary outcome after 10 days compared with 15 days in the control group. Clearly, the groups in both studies were different and/or treated differently. Were the patients enrolled in ACTT-1 more severely ill? Were there other factors preventing early discharge, such as infection control discontinuation policies? Were clinicians less comfortable with early discharge of patients with COVID-19? Does the VA provide closer postdischarge monitoring than sites that enrolled patients in ACTT-1, allowing for early discharge? Regardless of the reason, it is evident from the study by Ohl et al4 that using remdesivir was associated with delaying the discharge of patients with COVID-19. However, approximately half of patients who received remdesivir were able to be matched to an appropriate control patient, and they generally had less severe illness than patients who were not matched with controls. Since most patients with severe COVID-19 received remdesivir, finding more suitable controls was not possible. Had patients who were more severely ill and their propensity score–match controls with more severe illness been included, the association of remdesivir with length of stay might have been diluted.
In medicine, we often prescribe medication on the promise of a statistical chance of some positive outcome. Most patients who receive the medication do well (or they do not), but at the individual level it is often difficult to know whether the outcome is related to the administration of the medication in question. Were they going to get better regardless? Were they going to have an adverse outcome regardless? Examples include oseltamivir for influenza, or antiplatelet drugs or cholesterol-lowering medication for cardiovascular disease. Sometimes the potential benefits are significant, and sometimes they are marginal. These potential benefits are usually weighed against the burden of administering the medication in terms of cost, adverse events, or need for monitoring. The real-life application of a drug promising to hasten discharge from the hospital as its primary beneficial outcome must include an assessment of how easy it is to do so and make it clear that once a patient reaches that point, they can discontinue the drug. The paradoxical findings in the study by Ohl et al4 compared with the study used for its authorization illustrate this point very clearly.
Back to topArticle Information
Published: July 15, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16057
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Baracco GJ. JAMA Network Open.
Corresponding Author: Gio J. Baracco MD, Hospital Epidemiology and Occupational Health Service, Miami VA Healthcare System, 1201 NW 16th St, Ste B1238, Miami, FL 33125 ([email protected]).
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Baracco reported receiving salary support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
Disclaimer: The statements contained in this article reflect the views of the author and do not represent the official positions of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the US government, or other author affiliate organizations.
Pfizer seems to be in panic mode. They try to force Israel to use a third jab.
In fact Israel now has the first real data - not made up by Pfizer - that shows the Pfizer crap limited value for Delta as serious studies already did show about 6 months ago...
Israel cases now double every week again with a record height on July 13th of 1198 just double of July 8th.
As we know already from the phase III study the vaccine flattens the reaction over all age groups and the infections are not much pushed by older people with weak immune response. So when now far more vaccinated people are infected than un-vaccinated this points to severe and really serious trouble. First it shows younger are a no risk at all. Second: Pfizer should be avoided.
As already said Switzerland clandestine Switched to Moderna. But buddies do not piss at buddies...at least not in public...
Top Israeli Immunologist from Bar Ilan University: Israel Doesn’t Need Lockdowns nor Endless Jabs—Be Mindful of the R-Value
Can Israel still rein in the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 in time before their mounting problems need “a lake-full of water instead of a bucket to put out the fire,” according to a leading immunologist in that nation? One of the most vaccinated countries in the world, this story comes to the world thanks to Nathan Jeffay writing for The Times of Israel. Professor Cyrille Cohen, a leading expert on these matters working out of Bar Ilan University, shared with Jeffay, “The numbers of infections are not going down, so we will eventually have a few hundred people in critical care if we don’t stop the spread.” The trajectory is real as reported by TrialSite, but Dr. Cohen declares this trend “can be stopped.”
The Situation
As TrialSite reported yesterday, data out of Israel indicate growing signals of concern involving the vaccines and the Delta variant of the novel coronavirus. The Times of Israel reports today the nation of just over 9 million people reported 855 new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection on Thursday with the active number of COVID-19 cases hitting 5,800. This is the highest Israel has experienced since April. Although not a big number by American standards, 52 patients in Israel are classified as “seriously ill.”
Due to this unfolding situation, new lockdowns may be on the table, according to Nachman Ash, the new director-general of the Health Ministry.
The Immunologist Point of View: No Lockdowns
However, according to Professor Cohen, lockdowns aren’t necessary. After all, these are economically destructive and, of course, punish the poor and working classes far beyond helping them, according to many commenters including economists. Key, according to the Bar Ilan University professor and head of the university immunology lab: “cut transmission rates” or the “R-value.” That equates to the average number an individual carrier of the virus actually goes on to infect. Cohen declared for The Times of Israel, “You don’t need a lockdown, you just need to get the R and 1 and it’s not too much effort.”
As it turns out, Cohen is an influential person concerning health matters in Israel. He also serves the national Health Ministry’s advisory committee on COVID-19 vaccines. He shared these thoughts recently in an interview covering a spectrum of topics involving the pandemic.
Delta Upside
Cohen reports that despite the fact the Delta variant is more transmissible, it may not be as potent—that is, people don’t get as sick. TrialSite has observed studies that show this but we have also observed the seemingly alternative situation in Russia. Cohen, however, thinks that infection may leave people’s immune systems stronger, and ready for the transition to herd immunity.
Of course, no one should catch the Delta strain on purpose, he emphasized, but if vaccinated people are infected and resist Delta, he shared this “can serve as something akin to a third dose, helping to protect against future variants that could be worse.”
Critical of Prime Minister’s Speech
Cohen suggests that the new Prime Minister’s speech was weak on detail—he does appreciate the “Revelry Pass,” which limits large gatherings to only those who are vaccinated.
Cohen went on, “The newly announced ‘revelry pass’ is a step in the right direction, but we need to enforce such regulations also in other places of gatherings such as prayer places and cinemas for example. Fighting Delta is like trying to put out a fire, and if we wait, we’ll need a lake-full of water instead of a bucket to put out the flames.” He didn’t emphasize countless booster shots, which isn’t a sustainable approach and doesn’t help low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) as the World Health Organization (WHO) made clear recently.
The Immunologist
Cyrille Cohen, PhD
Call to Action: Visit Nathan Jeffay’s piece in The Times of Israel.
early treatment during the viral phase will end this pandemic.
Characterisation of in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: a prospective, multicentre cohort study
Summary
Background
COVID-19 is a multisystem disease and patients who survive might have in-hospital complications. These complications are likely to have important short-term and long-term consequences for patients, health-care utilisation, health-care system preparedness, and society amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim was to characterise the extent and effect of COVID-19 complications, particularly in those who survive, using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK.
Methods
We did a prospective, multicentre cohort study in 302 UK health-care facilities. Adult patients aged 19 years or older, with confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 were included in the study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of in-hospital complications, defined as organ-specific diagnoses occurring alone or in addition to any hallmarks of COVID-19 illness. We used multilevel logistic regression and survival models to explore associations between these outcomes and in-hospital complications, age, and pre-existing comorbidities.
Findings
Between Jan 17 and Aug 4, 2020, 80 388 patients were included in the study. Of the patients admitted to hospital for management of COVID-19, 49·7% (36 367 of 73 197) had at least one complication. The mean age of our cohort was 71·1 years (SD 18·7), with 56·0% (41 025 of 73 197) being male and 81·0% (59 289 of 73 197) having at least one comorbidity. Males and those aged older than 60 years were most likely to have a complication (aged ≥60 years: 54·5% [16 579 of 30 416] in males and 48·2% [11 707 of 24 288] in females; aged <60 years: 48·8% [5179 of 10 609] in males and 36·6% [2814 of 7689] in females). Renal (24·3%, 17 752 of 73 197), complex respiratory (18·4%, 13 486 of 73 197), and systemic (16·3%, 11 895 of 73 197) complications were the most frequent. Cardiovascular (12·3%, 8973 of 73 197), neurological (4·3%, 3115 of 73 197), and gastrointestinal or liver (0·8%, 7901 of 73 197) complications were also reported.
Interpretation
Complications and worse functional outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are high, even in young, previously healthy individuals. Acute complications are associated with reduced ability to self-care at discharge, with neurological complications being associated with the worst functional outcomes. COVID-19 complications are likely to cause a substantial strain on health and social care in the coming years. These data will help in the design and provision of services aimed at the post-hospitalisation care of patients with COVID-19.
Aspirin Use is Associated with Decreased Mortality in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
ABSTRACT
Background Novel Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in more than three and half million deaths worldwide as of June 6, 2021. The role of aspirin in prevention of COVID-19 mortality has not been much studied. We aimed to study the relationship between aspirin use and covid-19 mortality.
Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database for studies from January 2019 till June 6, 2021 with inclusion criteria of RCT, Cohort study, studies reporting mortality, and comparison studies on aspirin versus non-aspirin. Statistical analysis was done with Review Manager 5.4 statistical software using the inverse variance method. We assessed the pooled hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval using the random effect model and I-squared test was used to determine statistical heterogeneity.
Results We included five retrospective cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria with total of 14065 participants in both groups. There were 6797 participants in the aspirin group and 7268 participants in the non-aspirin group. Our results show that the use of aspirin was associated with 53% decrease in mortality compared to non-aspirin in patients with COVID-19 (adjusted HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.63, P< 0.001, I2= 47%). In the analysis restricted to patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of aspirin was associated with a 49% reduction in the risk for in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.80, P = 0.004, I2= 39%).
Conclusions Our results show that aspirin is associated with decrease in both overall mortality and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.
A possible over the counter early treatment
Made-in-Israel anti-viral nasal spray found effective against COVID
An anti-viral nasal spray called Enovid that was developed in Canada and tested in the UK can reduce the viral loads in confirmed COVID-19 cases by 95% in 24 hours and 99% in 72 hours, a press release said on Sunday.
The Israeli-manufactured spray can be used up to five times a day after coming in contact with viruses, according to the release. It's suitable for children as young as 12 years old, and the Ministry of Health approved it in January this year. It will go on sale in the coming week.
The spray we developed has been proven not only as a virus blocker that causes Covid-19 but also as a killer," Dr. Gili Regev, CEO and founder of Snotize (the company that developed the spray) said.
Since most COVID-19 infections are nasal, SaNOtize believes this is an effective way to reduce the spread and infection of COVID-19. It has been able to suppress the SARS-CoV-2 virus within two minutes, including the Alpha and Gamma variants, according to the release. It is currently being tested against the Delta variant.
Just a hint for the promoters of the fascist vaccine passport for free travel...
Israel - thanks to Pfizer crap - has at least 2 million more potential victims that can infect their friends family etc.. thanks to the vaccine passport...
Of course in the case above the US doctor had no clue what it was and did not give any appropriate medication. The whole vaccinated family finally got it...
The victim had to rent a car to drive "home" ...
Preach it sister!
Pfizer is neighbor to millions...for $billions
Viagra..Lipitor and now Comirnaty..V102...3?
I gave ivermectin to my neighbor for free..
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FM1 - I have no idea quite what you mean and since what you say here bears no relation to anything I said I suggest you read my post carefully, think about it, before making assumptions?
Anti-vax supporters - well the point of my post is that it is interesting, and has shifted for the reasons I say, so if I'm right then you will find both left and right wing extremes bedfellows in the anti-vax movement.
In the context of US politics the simplest thing would be to say that anti-vax is neither right not left but Trump.
Vaccinations are without doubt one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine, and there is hope that they can constitute a solution to halt the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, the anti-vaccination movement is currently on the rise, spreading online misinformation about vaccine safety and causing a worrying reduction in vaccination rates worldwide. In this historical time, it is imperative to understand the reasons of vaccine hesitancy, and to find effective strategies to dismantle the rhetoric of anti-vaccination supporters. For this reason, we analyzed the behavior of anti-vaccination supporters on the platform Twitter. Here we identify that anti-vaccination supporters, in comparison with pro-vaccination supporters, share conspiracy theories and make use of emotional language. We demonstrate that anti-vaccination supporters are more engaged in discussions on Twitter and share their contents from a pull of strong influencers. We show that the movement’s success relies on a strong sense of community, based on the contents produced by a small fraction of profiles, with the community at large serving as a sounding board for anti-vaccination discourse to circulate online. Our data demonstrate that Donald Trump, before his profile was suspended, was the main driver of vaccine misinformation on Twitter. Based on these results, we welcome policies that aim at halting the circulation of false information about vaccines by targeting the anti-vaccination community on Twitter. Based on our data, we also propose solutions to improve the communication strategy of health organizations and build a community of engaged influencers that support the dissemination of scientific insights, including issues related to vaccines and their safety.
Since President Obama was elected in 2008, those on the right have had a much more negative opinion about the federal government. The 2014 Pew survey shows that those who were dissatisfied with the direction of the country in 2014 were 10 percent more likely to believe vaccination should be a parent’s choice than those who were satisfied (33.3 percent compared to 22.7 percent). Who were the most dissatisfied with the direction of the country in 2014? The very conservative (89.1 percent) and the conservative (81.5 percent).
Essentially, it doesn’t matter if you are conservative or liberal; the more political someone is, the more likely he or she is to think that vaccines are unsafe. Yet it is only the very conservative that are more likely to believe that vaccination should be a parent’s choice.
When it comes to political affiliation, it appears that the social forces that shape Americans’ personal beliefs about vaccination safety are not the same as the social forces that shape their views of U.S. vaccination policy.
Beliefs about U.S. vaccination policy and the role of parents’ choice may have more to do with what Americans believe about the proper role of the government and which political party is in power than what they think about vaccines.
As to whether liberals or conservatives are now more likely to be opposed to vaccination, some researchers have suggested that, while anti-vaccination beliefs have spread to libertarians on the right, the anti-vaccination movement originates and finds its strongest support in the political left. A later article by the same researchers similarly argues that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evidence shows that states that voted for Obama in 2012 have higher rates of nonmedical vaccination exemptions.
Yet, other research suggests that it is in fact conservatives who are more likely to believe that vaccines cause autism, that it is liberals who are more likely to endorse pro-vaccination statements and that the more strongly someone identifies with the Republican Party, the more likely he or she is to have a negative opinion of vaccination.
The Pew Research Center has conducted two surveys that asked about vaccination. One survey in early 2015 asked respondents about whether they thought vaccines were safe, and another survey in late 2014 asked respondents about U.S. vaccination policy and whether vaccination for children should be required or a parent’s choice.
When relating the answers to these questions in the Pew surveys to people’s political views, I find an interesting divergence. The more conservative and also the more liberal someone is, the more likely he or she is to believe that vaccination is unsafe.
Yet only those who are very conservative are more likely to believe that vaccination should be a parent’s choice. This suggests the social dynamics that shape Americans’ personal beliefs about vaccine safety are not the same as the social dynamics that shape their views about whether parents can decide not to vaccinate their children.
To examine this issue, I used a statistical technique called logistic regression that allows you to examine how the probability of a certain outcome will change depending on the characteristics of a survey respondent. I used it to examine whether someone is more or less likely to think that (a) vaccines are unsafe and (b) that vaccination should be a parent’s choice depending on what political beliefs they hold.
I did this while controlling for respondents’ level of education, income, race/ethnicity, age, gender, and parental status. I used the category of “moderates” (what statisticians call a “reference category”) to compare liberals and conservatives with. Let’s first look at people’s personal beliefs about vaccine safety.
What I found is that the more political someone is, the more likely he or she is to believe that vaccines are unsafe. Those who are “very conservative” are one-and-a-half times more likely to believe this than moderates.
Yet, the same is true for those on the left: compared to moderates, those who are very liberal are also one-and-a-half times more likely to believe vaccines are unsafe. It seems that it does not matter what your politics are, the more partisan, the more likely you believe vaccines are harmful.
When we look at whether people think that vaccination should be mandatory or a parent’s choice, a different story emerges.
Now it is only the very conservative who are more likely to think that it should not be mandatory: they are twice as likely as moderates to think that it should be a parent’s choice. Liberals are now more likely to think vaccination should be required: Compared to moderates, liberals are 43.5 percent less likely to think it should be a parent’s choice and those who are very liberal are 14.2 percent less likely.
What explains this divergence? First we have to realize that there is a difference in the overall number of Americans who believe that vaccinations are unsafe versus the number who believe it should be a parent’s choice. The Pew surveys indicate that 8 percent of the U.S. population think that vaccines are unsafe, while 28.2 percent think it should be a parent’s choice.
This suggests that there are a number of people who believe that vaccines are safe but also believe that vaccinations should be a parent’s choice. Why would someone believe that? It may have more to do with their views of the government than their beliefs about vaccines.
Why has the nation become gripped with conspiracy theories — including so many revolving around the shots that could end this devastating pandemic? “It’s precisely because we’ve had 450,000 deaths, and so much uncertainty and so much fear, that there’s fertile ground for this stuff to take hold,” says Ashish Jha, a physician and dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health. The pandemic is also occurring in the context of a 20-year decline of American trust in institutions, says Ethan Zuckerman, who formerly directed the Center for Civic Media at MIT. He describes the QAnon cult as a reservoir at the bottom of that slippery slope. “Q is what happens when you take that mistrust in a really damaging direction,” he says. “It’s usually people who lost trust in one institution and then found a coherent worldview that says, ‘Don’t just mistrust this one institution — mistrust all the institutions. All of them are in it together.’ ” This full rejection of confidence in doctors and drug companies, in media and philanthropy, in politicians and government agencies, Zuckerman says, is “how the anti-vax movement underwent almost a merger with QAnon.”
Pfizer is neighbor to millions...for $billions
Viagra..Lipitor and now Comirnaty..V102...3?
I gave ivermectin to my neighbor for free..
Let us hope it does them good not harm then. You could turn it into a trial (of 1) but you'd need silly things like ethical consent.
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)...
Does it mean you get to go to heaven, too?
Does it mean you get to go to heaven, too?
Seems you like the opposite direction much more...
Preach it sister! Do I hear an amen from THH?!
External Content twitter.comContent 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.
Well - in the US it seems any statement needs to be cloaked in this Christian rhetoric. Not my style.
But, since it is well established that wearing a mask protects you very little, and protects others quite a bit, what would you call wearing a mask in shared public space? And what would you call not doing that?
I mean - I understand that in the US masks are not masks - but political statements. In the UK they are still (thank the Lord) still masks.
In the UK they are still (thank the Lord) still masks.
Looks like Switzerland is the only free country - except really poor nations - that never had masks in public and also kids never had to wear some in School and not even in trains.
Oh we killed that many kids....thanks the Lord he protected all of them.
In Germany sick daddies and moms infected way more children that were locked in home...Thanks Lord for punishing the fools that followed the lockdown orders...
Danke Barty,,, Alles in ordnung ..Mary/Tom sind blau....
Indonesia authorizes Ivermectin...EUA..
unlikely to be reported in the Western media..
"Remdesivir, Favipiravir, Oseltamivir, Immunoglobulin, Ivermectin, Tocilizumab, Azithromycin, and Dexamethasone."
Oseltamivir?... not on the meta list...left over from Gilead/Roche failed flu treatment
Favipiravir... Japan's Avigan... another failed hope.
Pfizer seems to be in panic mode. They try to force Israel to use a third jab.
In fact Israel now has the first real data - not made up by Pfizer - that shows the Pfizer crap limited value for Delta as serious studies already did show about 6 months ago...
Israel cases now double every week again with a record height on July 13th of 1198 just double of July 8th.
As we know already from the phase III study the vaccine flattens the reaction over all age groups and the infections are not much pushed by older people with weak immune response. So when now far more vaccinated people are infected than un-vaccinated this points to severe and really serious trouble. First it shows younger are a no risk at all. Second: Pfizer should be avoided.
As already said Switzerland clandestine Switched to Moderna. But buddies do not piss at buddies...at least not in public...
OK - we do not know more vaccinated than unvaccinated people are infected. In fact we know the reverse. We know more vaccinated people end up in hospital - because although vaccine reduces risk that exponential age/risk curve gives a factor of 1000 risk difference - larger than the X10 risk reduction from the vaccine - and the oldest - most at risk - groups are those most likely to be vaccinated.
In reply to the rest of your anti-Pfizer rhetoric - all of the original COVID vaccines perform less well against delta than against the original COVID. It would be weird if they did as well. The mRNA ones still seem to perform slightly better than the others. And therefore all the vaccines they give less protection against infection, less protection against death. The point is that they still give a lot of protection against death (and infection). The Uk view is that a vaccinated person is 1/4 as likely to pass on COVID as a non-vaccinated. They are 50% less likely to catch it (remember that may be asymptomatic, and so more catch it than are included in figures for symptomatic infection) and they are 50% less likely to pass it on - due to lower viral load. I think those figures are very rough - but they give some idea.
Anyway it is true that while I am pretty patient - I'm obviously out of tune with this thread. When I post interesting science I feel it is not much interesting to others - when I attempt to correct clear factual mistakes it is just not wanted. The same false statements are repeated - and I've always thought it is impolite to nag people with corrections - you can see that I am doing with W.
I'll take a break.
Just remember - Bryant et al on ivermectin is a comprehensive and "friendly" meta-study. And with just two rather flakey (likely biased) papers removed, that study does not show ivermectin effective. One of those two turned out to be not just biassed but completely made up (cloned data).
From that you might be able to understand the mainstream view of ivermectin. It could be helpful, but so far good quality studies have not found this. The real question is why (here and elsewhere) does ivermectin have such a fanatical following? I think maybe it is hopeful thinking. COVID is so dire that we all would like a cheap safe at home medicine.
For me though it is strange that should happen now - when the vaccines are changing things so radically and making the risk profile of COVID much closer to that of the Flu. Surely that is good news for those countries lucky enough to have vaccines available?
We could be celebrating the extraordinary achievements of medical science in combating COVID - we have good vaccines which will stay good. The only reason they have not been tweaked for better efficacy against COVID is they are good enough. They can be tweaked, so we do not need to fear vaccine escape long-term as long as we have enough vaccine delivery capacity.
Personally, I'm also hopeful that increased understanding of the immune system will lead to custom drugs that vastly reduce the harmful effects of COVID. That will take quite a while. Till then we have a whole load of incremental treatments:
dexamethasone
budesonide
aspirin (?) - it does not seem to work at home, but maybe for serious COVID
other anti-inflammatories,
We are not powerless to deal with this pandemic, and we have got much better at that in the last 10 years. Had it happened 10 years ago we would not have been in as good a position to develop vaccines quickly. Next time round we will do even better I am sure. Drugs as well as vaccines - though at the moment the big technological breakthrough has been the ability to make targeted mRNA and other delivery vehicle vaccines quickly.
Pfizer is neighbor to millions...for $billions
Merck was a neighbor to billions for free..
that was the old Merck...1987
giving ivermectin to the WHO who gave it to the poor
the new Merck
still brags about Mectizan
but lusts after Molnupiravir..rejecting its old love
