Covid-19 News

  • Does White House spread misinformation about spreading vaccine misinformation?
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com

    (misinformation corrected)


    Proposed U.S. government censorship of vaccine misinformation, in partnership with Facebook, was announced during a recent White House press conference. White House wants Facebook to censor posts containing ‘COVID-19 misinformation’ . As people point fingers and accuse each other of censorship and misinformation, I hope to avoid further spreading vaccine misinformation about the White House spreading vaccine misinformation about the public spreading vaccine misinformation. So let’s straighten out this mess by first mis-defining vaccine misinformation. The word truth comes to mind. As long as vaccine information is truthful, even if it is quoted so out of context as to be 100% misleading, it is not misinformation. Furthermore, the whole misleading truth must not leave out information in a way that misleads one so as to draw untruthful conclusions.


    For example, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have a vaccine efficacy, or relative risk reduction, of approximately 95%. But the whole misleading truth is that the mRNA vaccines also have a much lower absolute risk reduction of approximately 1%, which is not more meaningful for clinical and public health purposes, and certainly more misleading for personal purposes.


    Most COVID-19 cases also occur in unvaccinated people. But the whole misleading truth is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer counts cases in vaccinated people unless they are hospitalized or die, potentially undercounting millions of breakthrough infections in people receiving mRNA vaccines, and equally undercounting millions of unvaccinated infections with practically no where vaccines have 65% - 85% clinical efficacy. CDC’s unbiased and inevitable undercount of COVID-19 breakthrough infections (trialsitenews.com) is similar to its also inevitable undercount of unvaccinated COVID infections - both are large - and because it is neither possible nor desirable to test asymptomatic people unlikely to be infected. The whole truth also includes the fact that lower socioeconomic groups, having higher susceptibility to COVID-19 before vaccine availability, also have more vaccine hesitancy , partly as the result of propaganda like this. AP analysis doesn’t prove COVID-19 vaccines prevent deaths (trialsitenews.com), but other things do, and AP analysis makes it seem very very likely.


    Let’s apply the whole a very partial subset of the truth about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to the recent White House press conference, in which the spokesperson claimed that the vaccines save lives. Where is the clinical evidence proving this claim? The only causative proof we have of vaccine efficacy are the clinical trials, which demonstrated that vaccine groups had fewer infections with mild symptoms than unvaccinated groups. Death is hardly a mild symptom, and no conclusive estimates of death risk can be drawn from these trials. Let us forget that the trials showed that many fewer people caught COVID, and that those who did had milder infections, and ignore the logical corrolary that therefore COVID deaths will be reduced. Let us ignore the real-world data from fewer total COVID deaths / infection by a factor of 10 or more in countries like the UK where deaths and infections are both well monitored.


    Nevertheless, White House misinformation that the COVID-19 vaccines save lives threatens to trample the public’s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech by censoring social media. After all, what good are First Amendment rights if you die from COVID-19 because you were convinced by someone’s Facebook blog to forego vaccination? Very little. In a statement that carefully avoided mention of misinformation censorship, Facebook boasted that it also saved lives by posting “authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines,” Facebook pushes back against White House criticism, says it’s ‘looking for scapegoats’


    The problem, of course, is that arguments to save lives by censoring misinformation are awash with their own misinformation contain broadly correct information that 90% of scientists would agree is our best understanding, but do not agree with my views so must be wrong. Where is the proof that people are dying because they declined vaccination after reading Aunt Millie’s rant against vaccines, posted along with her favorite meatloaf recipes on her homepage? No matter, according to proposed government policy, Aunt Millie must be censored from social media! While the chances are small of nieces or nephews being influenced by this, and then dying, even Aunt Millie would probably see the point of the deadly misinformation to be taken down in the rare cases when it does happen. I might reckon that Aunt Millie and her gullible family deserve all that they get, and killing a few people who are stupid is good for the country, but that is not a very empathetic attitude. Some would even say it is elitist and unfair.


    One in three people exposed to Covid anti-vax messages


  • Latest modelling suggests that COVID-19 vaccines have prevented 7.2m infections and 27,000 deaths


    Flu & COVID correct IFR comparison:


    The COVID-19 elimination debate – needs to use correct data


    Research conducted in New Zealand (NZ) and internationally suggests that the IFR for COVID-19 is typically at least an order of magnitude higher than for seasonal flu. The most detailed study of seasonal influenza mortality in NZ to date estimated average annual mortality of 13.5 (95%CI 13.4, 13.6) per 100,000 population [1]. Furthermore, the proportion of the NZ population infected with influenza in a year has been measured from a seroconversion study at 35% (95%CI: 32%-38%) [2]. Combining these figures suggests an IFR for seasonal influenza of about 0.039% (ie, 13.5/35,000) in NZ. This seasonal influenza IFR is 17 times lower than that estimated for COVID-19 at 0.68% [3] and 0.65% [4], based on international data (there have been too few COVID-19 cases in NZ to produce an IFR estimate).

  • Interesting tidbit.


    I decided to purchase a couple extra tubes of Ivermectin at the local farm store where I purchased my first tube, for $3.99


    They were out.... and the price tag had increased to $6.99. A 75% increase... of course inflation is rampant under the Biden administration. My business is seeing all prices sky rocket.


    But interestingly enough, there was a printed sign on the the rack that holds the ivermectin. I should have taken a photo... it stated... "contrary to some reports, Ivermectin does NOT work for Covid19. Consumption of this product is harmful to humans"


    Notice that they do not state is is unproven, they state it does NOT work! Now I wonder who required this sign????


    In any case, either the store pulled all the product or they simply sold out.... .I suspect the latter.


    -Bob

  • of course inflation is rampant under the Biden administration. My business is seeing all prices sky rocket.

    In the US, as many other countries, the extreme economic shifts followed by locking down (or natural demand suppression) due to COVID, and then unlocking have caused prices to do weird things. Too early to blame anyone for strange prices in the shops. And too early to know what will long-term post-lockdown inflation be.


    Bob#2 is I know fair and would agree that his attribution of this to Biden is not evidenced.


    Why Is Inflation Rising Right Now?
    Inflation is here. As in April and May, the most recent CPI inflation report showed that prices rose across the board in June. By a lot. Overall, prices in…
    www.forbes.com

  • I forgot to mention...

    I shopped in four other farm store brands within 30 miles of my location.... All were sold out. When I purchased my first lot, the bins were full. Interesting.


    I mentioned the price increase only because it was related to a controversial Covid treatment. Normally a 75% price increase would not have been seen in such a short time.


    THH -

    Lets just say that I am actually in current business in the US. I know exactly what is causing the huge inflation of my costs as my vendors tell me why their prices are going up. I know exactly why MY prices are going up as well.... I personally SET those prices and thus know exactly why! There is NOTHING mysterious about it.


    So let's leave it that I disagree with you 100% on this issue and DO feel that I am far more qualified knowing why my costs and prices are increasing. I have first hand knowledge of it and do not need a biased news agency or others to tell me why I do not know! I have no doubt on this subject what so ever and I have substantiated business facts (not hear say but actual knowledge) of why.


    But since this subject goes political and off topic, I will leave it at that! :thumbup:

  • Inflation has nothing to do with COVID.

    I'll leave the politics.


    But in the UK (not political) inflation is being blamed on lockdown.


    UK inflation more than doubles as post-lockdown price climb begins
    British inflation more than doubled in April, the start of a likely climb in prices this year as rich economies recover from pandemic lockdowns, but one that…
    www.reuters.com


    And most people seem to think the current economic situation is too weird for us to draw any conclusions from immediate price trajectory.

  • In Sweden we probably will reach over 70% of adults fully vaccinated in a about a months time Over 9 million doses as been given and 4000 severe side effects reported. They say that the side effects they see is expected. It is obvious that the vaccine worked against the British strain as death went down considerably compared to the number of infected so it seam to have saved lives here. No deaths is reported due to the vaccine and this data is from a well exercised and complete data collection. (All I know that has gotten a side effect was reported to the database) We do not have access to the raw data as by privacy laws you cannot share data willy-nilly. In order to perform analysis you need to go through an ethical board and if getting an ok, then the database managing unit mail you an USB stick with the data.


    masks is not political or right or left

    lock downs are not political or left or right

    vaccines are not political or left or right

    covid is not political or left or right


    Thinking that it is political is just crazy, as an example.


    Sweden is left-middle, we do not do hard lock downs and masks is moderately used but we are pro vaccine to a very high degree and we do not use ivermectin.


    What we have here is essentially letting just our version of Fauci and other medical staff run the press briefings, where the president would chime in from time to time to from request from the medical experts make laws that enables a good implementation of the strategy used. We have had discussions, for example of masks and the degree of our optional lock downs, but that was mostly between different experts, all vetted in news from both sides explaining their point of view thoroughly and you would typically understand both sides of the discussion are honest and act logically but used different judgement of data that many times was not clear. There is some politics but they mostly stayed out of the way. We also have crazy people that poor venom over the experts on the internetz and as well cheerers that likes what they are doing.

  • Getting vaccinated can cost you your job:


    “The vaccinated are a danger to the unvaccinated because of shedding!”: The latest COVID-19 antivaccine disinformation
    There's a new antivaccine trope going around. It's one I wrote about before over at my not-so-secret other blog a couple of weeks ago, but it's not going away.…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    This trope - that mRNA vaccines cause "shedding" that interferes with the menstrual cycles of women near to the person who has been vaccinated - is so absurd you would think no normal person could believe it.


    It is also based on wrong Biology.


    Anyway - teachers are being told that they cannot teach, in some private US schools, if they are vaccinated...


    Even among our own population, we have at least three women with menstrual cycles impacted after having spent time with a vaccinated person,” [Ms Centner] wrote, repeating a false claim that vaccinated people can somehow pass the vaccine to others and thereby affect their reproductive systems. (They can do neither.)

    In the letter, Ms. Centner gave employees three options:


    • Inform the school if they had already been vaccinated, so they could be kept physically distanced from students;
    • Let the school know if they get the vaccine before the end of the school year, “as we cannot allow recently vaccinated people to be near our students until more information is known”;
    • Wait until the school year is over to get vaccinated.
    Teachers who get the vaccine over the summer will not be allowed to return, the letter said, until clinical trials on the vaccine are completed, and then only “if a position is still available at that time” — effectively making teachers’ employment contingent on avoiding the vaccine.


    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article250973204.html

  • NIH COVID-19 Panel member received massive windfall from ivermectin non-recommendation
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. The NIH COVID-19 Treatment
    trialsitenews.com


    This poisonous article - saying that NIH are fraudulent - is completely incomprehensible in its leaps of non-logic:


    The explanation [invasion of privacy] for withholding the identifies of the contributors to US national policy on ivermectin is not credible or reasonable. The US public should know who is setting the national policy on a COVID-19 treatment option. The public can then form their own opinion on the possible biases or influences on those individuals. What is the purpose of providing an extensive list of relevant financial relationships of Panel members if the identities of the relevant Panel members are not disclosed? Since those identities are not disclosed we, the public, are left to speculate.


    Why would members of a panel that did not recommend IVM (but also did not ban its off-label use) have names redacted in e-mails released from an FOI request? Because the many somewhat unhinged and certainly fanatical ivermectin supporters would likely invade their privacy with demonstrations or worse around their homes


    About two months after the NIH meeting on ivermectin, the NIH announced the award NOT-TR-21–024; funding of ACTIV-6 to study the use of repurposed drugs in COVID-19. Duke University was the only institution in the country that met the criteria for the study, according to the NIH. Funding was thus distributed on a sole source basis. The “initial investment” in the trial was later announced to be $155 million. The principal investigator of the trial was not identified initially but, in a later announcement, was identified to be Susanna Naggie, who is also a member of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.

    The two positions Naggie holds clearly represent a conflict of interest. A positive recommendation on the use of the drug in COVID-19 would effectively end the clinical trial. The NIH award also raises the question of whether the prospect of the award played a role in the current recommendation on ivermectin.


    That is extraordinary. This is investigating many drugs - like RECOVERY or PRINCIPLE. Such trials quite often lose drugs (when evidence turns against them, or is obviously positive) or add new drugs. Why on earth would allowing ivermectin, along with dexamethesone and a handful of other repurposed drugs now allowed, prevent this trial from going ahead? It is bonkers. Linking this trial money to a decision on ivermectin is... Lying. There are other suitable drugs, with better (but less strongly advocated) credentials. E.g. metformin.


    It is all the more weird because they are criticising NIH, and this investigator, for trying - with real resources - to find new repurposed drugs for COVID of which ivermectin could be one. Lots of money going into high quality trials to determine that is surely what any supporter of ivermectin would want. This study is undoubtedly a success for the ivermectin lobbying. It will provide very high quality (randomised blinded 1-1 placebo-active, 15,000 participants) evidence. They have ivermectin as first drug, saying they will add more as time progresses. Let us hope they can conclude the ivermectin part quickly and move onto otehr more interesting possibilities.

  • We do not have access to the raw data as by privacy laws you cannot share data willy-nilly. In order to perform analysis you need to go through an ethical board and if getting an ok, then the database managing unit mail you an USB stick with the data.

    This is as fringe as the EU vigelence database where at least academics can have access. May be its also incompetence in anonymization of data... Usually it is big Pharma pressure that wants to avoid "bad news". Protection of data privacy is just a fake argument.

    So! Sweden has no vaccine deaths Norway some hundreds. Very, very strange forces at work. May be magic mushrooms...

    This trope - that mRNA vaccines cause "shedding" that interferes with the menstrual cycles of women near to the person who has been vaccinated - is so absurd you would think no normal person could believe it.

    THH your argument about wrong Biology is absurd as the influence on menstrual cycle is a common known side effect of many vaccines....


    So next time dig deeper. But doing misuse with this is a real problem. The other problem is that some vaccinated spread spike proteins. This is no joke as I had the same experience. Whether this causes harm we simply don't know yet. I had a kind of soft allergic reaction upon it. Reason could be that I with a high probability had contact - thus antibodies - with CoV-19 and also with the corona virus prior to CoV-19 that made its round in Japan.


    The shedding should only last a few days maximally but it is real and wide spread, as I hear it from many side that I trust.

    In my case it was from Moderna.

    Lets just say that I am actually in current business in the US. I know exactly what is causing the huge inflation of my costs as my vendors tell me why their prices are going up.

    The prizes for wood did heavily increase despite we harvest record amounts of wood. Why are they going up:: Speculation. There is no more easy way to make money than by buying a good on stock, that one daily needs. You only have to coordinate all buddies what currently is easy as FM/R/XXXX/B have daily meetings.

    The other issue is subvention. Germany gave money to burn excess wood = lowering carbon foot print = mad man in power. Guess who?

    Edited once, last by Shane D.: No more of the XXXXX Mafia I edited out, now that I have been informed what it stands for. ().

  • Why on earth would allowing ivermectin, along with dexamethesone and a handful of other repurposed drugs now allowed, prevent this trial from going ahead? It is bonkers.

    Because any RCT trial in a deadly pandemic situation simply is Dr. Mengele medicine. Remember El Gazzar killed 18 patients by giving them the second best drug (but still saving some 20). Way better than the Oxford doctors that intentionally killed the patients without second choise....

  • Real Israel world says: Pfizer works for 64% as of two week ago. This may change soon further downwards as the Israel cases now double every week. True - serious studies show Pfizer is a factor 7 less protective for Delta.

    Define "works" precisely as it applies to that 65% figure?


    Now note the consistency with the "95%" figure for a different, rather more important to personal health, type of "works".


    No-one except you is saying the original COVID vaccines should be equally effective against variants. Merely that now, after more than 6 months, they are still good enough. With any luck they will last a year. Same as flu vaccine.


    And the actual development of these vaccines started more than a year ago. Tweaked versions should be usable with a shorter time period from formulation to mass use.

  • That the recent cases of post-vaccination myocarditis are relatively mild is, to start, “very reassuring,” said Judith Guzman-Cottrill


    The real risks associated with Myocarditis


    Myocarditis

    Myocarditis
    Myocarditis is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening disease that presents with a wide range of symptoms in children and adults. Viral infection is the…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • Yes, FM1. Exactly the point that Judith Guzman-Cottril was making. The vaccine-induced disease is very different from typical non-vaccine myocarditis which whether in children or adults is very serious - or indeed COVOD-induced MIS-C in children.


    Details

  • Major Sub-Saharan ANTICOV Study Drops HCQ & Adopts Nitazoxanide & the Corticosteroid Ciclesonide


    Major Sub-Saharan ANTICOV Study Drops HCQ & Adopts Nitazoxanide & the Corticosteroid Ciclesonide
    TrialSite introduced the global community to the ANTICOV trial back on November 27, 2020. Sponsored by a consortium of African R&D organizations and
    trialsitenews.com


    TrialSite introduced the global community to the ANTICOV trial back on November 27, 2020. Sponsored by a consortium of African R&D organizations and international health organizations, the study is led by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi). This platform indicated that that multi-national sub-Saharan African study focused on low-cost repurposed drugs started with Hydroxychloroquine. That was apparently changed in December 2020, as the so-called ‘adaptive platform’ and innovative trial, allowing for study drug to be introduced and removed based on results, removed both the anti-malaria drug and the antiretroviral combination of lopinavir/ritonavir as the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended against the use of those drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, including those patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. By the start of 2021, the study sponsors swapped out the two replaced drugs with a new potential treatment that combined the well-known anti-parasitic drug nitazoxanide and the inhaled corticosteroid known as ciclesonide. Apparently, the pair of study drugs include a couple of mechanisms of action that could work at different stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection, first during the early viral replication stage of the coronavirus infection and then a drug for later on during the inflammatory stage of the viral infection progression that can occur days later. Note that both of these drugs are commercially available, and TrialSite has reported on other investigations into nitazoxanide. The ANTICOV study also mentions the study team may include other “safe and effective” drugs such as ivermectin—which they have not used as of yet.


    Listed as PACTR202006537901307 in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, the study sponsors acknowledge that at least in Africa, 80% of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain asymptomatic, while 20% develop mild-to-severe symptoms. About 10% of the cases out of that 20% progress to more severe pneumonia, for example.


    The study is led by a consortium of 26 partners, including African research groups and international health organizations, led by prime sponsor Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi). This is the largest clinical trial in Africa organized to identify early-onset COVID-19 treatments as a means of testing public health approaches to reduce the impact of COVID-19.


    The Current ANTICOV Study Drugs

    TrialSite reported that nitazoxanide has been under investigation targeting COVID-19 around the world, including the United States. For example, a 300 patient trial was conducted at a trial site in Northern Alabama and purportedly successfully in an off-label study in Laredo, Texas. The drugmaker Romark sponsored these U.S.-based efforts.


    According to the clinical trials registry Clinicaltrials.gov, at present, there are 29 disclosed studies involving the anti-parasite drug Nitazoxanide. As of this date, there are six studies involving ciclesonide targeting COVID-19.


    ANTICOV Background

    The ANTIVCOV study involves up to 3,000 patients and was designed from a public health perspective to limit the number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations for oxygen therapy and/or intensive care to a number that is “practicable.” What they mean here is that early treatment is important and can reduce the burden and strains on the public and private health care systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Finding low-cost, repurposed drugs that are safe and effective in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is mission-critical as vaccination rates are lagging well behind the rich economies. Both vaccination and low-cost therapies are ultimately needed to control this pandemic, along with appropriate public health measures.


    Thus the study’s primary objective seeks to compare the efficacy of alternative treatment strategies versus the study control (PARACETAMOL) on the risk of progression to severe disease while secondary objectives include the following:


    Compare safety

    Compare rate of hospitalization

    Compare time to hospitalization

    Compare the disease-free rate

    Compare death rate

    Compare worsening of clinical status

    Compare the capacity to prevent severe progression between study arms

    Identify risk factors for severe progression

    About DNDi

    With a diverse global team employing 250 staff and consultants, DNDi is led by Executive Director Bernard Pécoul and is based in Geneva Switzerland, with offices in Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa, and an affiliate in America.


    Formed back in 2003, DNDi develops new treatments for neglected diseases. The organization, injected with seed funding by Médecins Sans Frontieres, was originally set up and funded by both research and health institutions including organizations in Brazil (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation), India (Indian Council of Medical Research), Kenya (Kenya Medical Research Institute), Malaysia (Ministry of Health of Malaysia) and Pasteur Institute in France. The World Health Organization Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) has served as a research observer.


    Funding

    A consortium is behind the ANTICOV funding, including the German government via the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBGF) made possible by the German government’s development bank known as KfW. Formally called KfW Bankengruppe, this German state-owned investment and development bank is based in Frankfurt, Germany. It’s one of the world’s largest national development banks.


    Other funders for ANTICOV include the global health agency UnitAid and its “UnitAid and the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator” or ACT-A. Early on, ANTICOV funding came from the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) under its second program supported by the European Union with augmented financing from the Swedish government and the Starr International Foundation out of Switzerland.


    Lead/Principal Investigator

    Dr. Nathalie Strub Wourgaft, DNDi

  • No-one except you is saying the original COVID vaccines should be equally effective against variants. Merely that now, after more than 6 months, they are still good enough.

    This is a nonsense Pfizer marketing argument. The same I now said for Pfizer has been said by Pfizer about Sinovac, that was only 62% effective for alpha. So now Pfizer is on Sinovac level and it makes no sense to still use it of you want something like herd immunity...Moderna still is way better. So I just said what Pfizer said.


    That the recent cases of post-vaccination myocarditis are relatively mild is, to start, “very reassuring,” said Judith Guzman-Cottrill

    Sorry the death rate is 12% ! Mild deaths? We have 50 male!! cases /mio vaccines according US army!