Covid-19 News

    Quote from Fm1

    Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Remain Stable, or Even Increase, Seven Months after Infection

    The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24979-9.pdf



    Quote from Zeus46

    Yesterday the thought struck me that "65 years old" is a rather odd number

    You must complain by the Swiss statistics for the 65 year grouping. In fact nobody healthy any age with no comorbidity should take a CoV-19 gen therapy (Sinovac vaccine would be OK).


    But your intentions are well known... I can't even remember your Avatar did once post some real information here...

    Quote from Fm1

    For those wanting to see many examples of COVID vaccine negative health impacts this website is recommended. The mission is: “This website is dedicated to sharing the truth about these people and their testimonials. Watch for yourself and make up your own mind. Is it worth it to risk life-changing and even fatal side effects from a vaccine for a disease that is survived by 99.98% of people under 70?”

    This claims overall IFR of < 0.02% for all those < 70. It is not a useful claim, since risk varies so much with age. Even so it is false.


    It is in general an ill-defined problem, it depends which country and therefore what age profile you get, but let us see some options:.


    You can see from the table below that for all > 20 years age the risk is greater than 0.02%. It increases exponentially, so that age 50-70 it is > 0.38%


    You just can't find an age distribution in normal counties that has overall < 0.2% for the whole age < 70 cohort unless people die so young that the median age is 15 or so!


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I can't even remember your Avatar did once post some real information here...

    Well pointing out the all the misinformation, odd behaviours, fallacious reasoning, and unadulterated craziness is a full time job in itself.


    Speaking of which, here’s the latest haul of Wyttenfacts:


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The same= identical [mRNA] therapy is use against cancer since more than 10 years now. There it's called gen therapy. So please ask Roche to rebrand it as cancer vaccine...

    Two Wyttenfacts for the price of one here - and maybe three if you include the ‘fact’ that Roche is involved. Everything in this quotation is made up… A barefaced lie, basically.

    And if you think otherwise, please link to a website that provides evidence for your claims.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Long Covid among children is a myth. A study did reveal that the symptoms can not be distinguish among a cov-19 group and a healthy group.

    More nonsense from the Prince of BS… 34,000 children (2-16 year olds) have long covid in the UK according to the Office for National Statistics.


    34,000 children in UK suffering from long Covid, ONS survey suggests
    Overall, a total of 945,000 people are thought to be suffering from the syndrome in the UK
    www.independent.co.uk

    Pharmacists Fight Off COVID Truthers Demanding Horse Medicine Instead of the Jab
    These geniuses have been convinced to pass on the vaccine and raid rural farm stores so they can suck down “sheep drench” and take swine injections.
    www.thedailybeast.com


    Such an over-the-top Ivermectin hit piece, it is funny to read. It does report some new news at least:


    "Off-label ivermectin requests are also hitting legitimate pharmacies, to pharmacists’ displeasure.


    One pharmacist, who has worked in Missouri and Illinois over the course of the pandemic, said they’d received approximately 10 ivermectin prescriptions in recent months: an uncommon number for a drug typically used to treat scabies or serious lice infestations in humans. About six of those 10 prescriptions raised red flags, like weirdly large dosages or doctors who canceled orders when questioned.


    “If I could verify based on current dosage information for its available indications that the prescription appeared to be for a valid diagnosis I would dispense with no issue,” the pharmacist, who requested anonymity due to concerns of repercussions at work, told The Daily Beast. For the six unusual orders, the pharmacist called the prescriber. Half of those doctors never answered. Of the three that responded, “two canceled the prescription—one electronically and one verbally while on the phone. The third verbally confirmed it was for the treatment of acute COVID infection and did not deem to cancel it.”


    Unilateral actions like this, the constant condemnation, fear mongering, and mocking by the left wing media, and shunning by the medical organizations and public institutions, are effectively driving Iver underground, even though it is still legal to prescribe "off label". There it will be more likely to be misused, than had it been embraced, where it could be professionally prescribed.


    Already a large IVER blackmarket is developing in other countries such as South Africa, where -like here in the US, it has had so many obstacles thrown up preventing it's wide spread use, the people have no other option but to purchase it from questionable sources, and then self administering. It will happen here too, as slowly but surely access to it's use is being blocked in one way or another.


    Iver's opponents goal is clear...protect the vaccine. Leave the people no other choice but to get jabbed. Understandable maybe, but unfortunate IMO because it does not have to be that way. Those like myself are both pro-vaccine (how young still to be determined) and pro-Iver. They can, and should be used together for better results. Many feel the same way, so why this assault?


    With the latest data showing the vaccine, while still a game changer, is not the pandemic end-all as was first hoped it would be, Iver may be just what the doctor ordered to get us there.

    Quote from Shane D.

    With the latest data showing the vaccine, while still a game changer, is not the pandemic end-all as was first hoped it would be, Iver may be just what the doctor ordered to get us there.

    Israel doctors recommend it... Why? Vaccines no longer work in Israel. Cases just hit >4400/day with deaths now reaching 8/day , about 6x what we have here.


    For our kid: We usually look at worldometers for data...

    Quote from Shane D.

    Unilateral actions like this, the constant condemnation, fear mongering, and mocking by the left wing media,

    All media are fear mongering and promoting vaccines as all medias are owned/controlled by the FM/R/XXX/B mafia. I see no left right. Such primitive categories only work in low cultured societies like the old roman one.


    I guess we see much more damage from marsh mellows or coke than from Ivermectin as even if you take a full horse paste tube nothing will happen. But there are herd tubes for 100 horses. ma be some people did make muffins with such topping.

    Why is the NIH Holding Back Dr. Fauci’s Redacted Emails Concerning the Origins of SARS-CoV-2?


    Why is the NIH Holding Back Dr. Fauci’s Redacted Emails Concerning the Origins of SARS-CoV-2?
    Recently, at a Senate Homeland Committee hearing, Senator Representative Ron Johnson (R-WI) sought to compel executive branch administrative agencies such
    trialsitenews.com


    Recently, at a Senate Homeland Committee hearing, Senator Representative Ron Johnson (R-WI) sought to compel executive branch administrative agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce redacted information associated with emails from the director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Anthony Fauci. At the dawn of the pandemic in February 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci had discussions with an elite cadre of scientists that many believe could represent a coverup involving the lab-leak possible origins of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. While the freedom of information act (FOIA) requests secured by numerous parties acquired Dr. Fauci’s communications about the topic, a good majority of the content was redacted—meaning covered up, so that not only the public but not even the Congress via a senate oversight committee could access and read what the NIAID director had to say. Hence the demands by Rep. Ron Johnson, declaring the holding back of this information is a violation of the law. Congress, the representatives of the people via the House and the Senate, actually fund the executive branch administrative agencies, and the concern is that America’s bureaucracies, as manifested in executive branch administrative agencies, get ever more empowered, while simultaneously detached from the will and the interests of the people. It’s time to change that and retire some of the old-fashioned agency leadership.


    The Situation

    During the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak, an elite cadre of international scientists got together on a conference call to discuss the possibility that the virus looked to be engineered in a laboratory. Of course there was precedent for such an assumption as gain of function research had continued despite a ban imposed by President Barack Obama back in 2014. Thanks to an intermediary nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, Fauci’s NIAID directed millions of dollars in funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While, in theory, this research was banned in America, Fauci was able to continue the gain of function-like programs overseas in China.


    That teleconference occurred Feb 1. 2020, and most certainly helped shape the evolving views of the coronavirus, its origins, and public messaging moving forward. Although early on, an influential scientist within the NIH suggested that SARS-CoV-2 sure looked like an engineered pathogen, the elite cadre decided it was not, but rather likely a zoonotic event—evolving and transferring from animal to human. But that decision made by that group of scientists, led by Fauci, led to several influential research reports, studies, and papers (some of which were summarized by this media platform), essentially shutting down the so-called “lab theory” of COVID-19’s origin. In fact, after that meeting, even mentioning the lab theory on Facebook and other social media gained censorship as a response. After all, it was deemed “misinformation” to even discuss the matter. This was an example early on of government abuse of power during the pandemic.


    Thankful for the Cover?

    Now thanks to FOIA requests, emails from Fauci surfaced, even one where the head of the EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak, thanked Fauci for promoting in April that the virus is more than likely the result of zoonotic processes rather than a lab leak, which of course had already been reduced to a “conspiracy theory.”


    Many of the emails were made available by FOIA requests—such as the one from Buzzfeed that can be read here. Of course, much of the important content was redacted, leaving many unanswered questions.


    But again, Daszak was grateful to the funding source (Fauci), declaring, “I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Of course, Daszak was referring to comments Fauci made during a White House press briefing, which were reported as a rejection of the lab leak theory.


    Republicans Keep Pressure On

    Whether politically motivated or not, there are unanswered questions about the origins of this pandemic that must be answered should the world move on holistically and progressively. After all, a root cause analysis is merited, as societal mistakes must be scrutinized for present and future generational improvement.


    TrialSite listed a detailed chronology of events involving coronavirus-related gain of function research that include troubling elements. While previous coronavirus sources were ultimately identified within months, that’s not the case with SARS-CoV-2. And there’s lots of data that indicate a lab leak theory is certainly possible, if not probable.


    Thus the recent Rep. Ron Johnson activity in the Senate Oversight Committee, where the Wisconsin Senator declared that he had no idea why these communications would be redacted. The law here calls for transparency, suggests Johnson, and the rule of law needs to be followed.


    Johnson noted while he had the floor of the Senate oversight committee that five senators sent letters to NIH and CDC, invoking 5 USC 29 54, stating that executive agency on request of the committee of Homeland Security, or any five members thereof, “shall submit any information requested of it related to any matter within the jurisdiction of this committee.”


    Johnson emphasized that “This committee has broad oversight jurisdiction,” meaning if they request some material information then the specific executive brand administrative agency must be compelled to deliver such information. Again, the Congress (representatives of the people) fund the executive branch administrative agencies such as the NIH or CDC within the HHS.


    Johnson shared with the Senate Oversight Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-MI) that there hasn’t been a lawful response to the senators’ request. He emphasized that the administrative agencies, such as the NIH and CDC, must follow the law.


    Of course, these Republicans are after any smoking-gun evidence that Fauci was involved with some form of coverup, or at least a politically motivated attempt to squelch any investigations, early on, to the lab leak theory. Why would Fauci be so concerned? Well, his agency helped fund a lot of questionable research.


    Of course, the 80-year old bureaucrat is on record that they have done nothing wrong. But an ever-growing number of people question the ethics and bias associated with this prominent individual.


    TrialSite recommends that no 80-year old, let alone 50-year old, should be allowed to keep running any agency, decade after decade, with so little transparency and accountability. Democracy requires dynamic change, fresh ideas, and competitive meritocracy as compared to entrenched bureaucratic fiefdoms of the type Fauci has built over the decades.


    Call to Action: The quest for the unredacted Fauci emails shouldn’t be about politics at all but rather about the truth. What did the group of elite scientists declare during that early conference call at the dawn of the pandemic? Why was it taboo to discuss the lab leak theory, yet it became fair game with the new POTUS? The American people, and for that matter, the world, deserve some answers—we have all been through a hellish year-and-a-half and deserve accountability from our leaders. Otherwise, they should step down.

    Quote from Fm1

    TrialSite recommends that no 80-year old, let alone 50-year old, should be allowed to keep running any agency, decade after decade, with so little transparency and accountability. Democracy requires dynamic change, fresh ideas, and competitive meritocracy as compared to entrenched bureaucratic fiefdoms of the type Fauci has built over the decades.

    This happens if you delegate the state to a free masons lodge...and make the grand master chief....


    Much worse is the US handling of kiddies : https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage


    In Switzerland there never was any shutdown of Kindergarten and day care. Also there never was any mask requirement for children age <12 not even in buses/ trains.

    Only in the very first raising phase some vacations where extended by 1-2 weeks.


    Why do all the bad countries not following "pseudo science" like Sweden, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Zaire, most of India much better than the vaccine terror states??


    In India close to one billion people did take Ivermectin with the astonishing fact that all western journals/networks suddenly stopped to cover India. Couldn't they find any Ivermectin deaths...? Oh yes! India hides all dead people - this was the last I read last weak - for the 5th time or so...

    Quote from Shane D.

    .protect the vaccine.

    I tried the Boehringer-Ingelheim horse paste.. just a little...

    no ADR... just an irresistable impulse...to " Neigh"

    Then out came " I'm a horse... not a guinea pig"

    TM 2.04...Wilbur should have given Ed the Pfizer instead

    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    Regarding mRNA therapy for cancer:

    Quote from Zeus46

    Two Wyttenfacts for the price of one here - and maybe three if you include the ‘fact’ that Roche is involved. Everything in this quotation is made up…

    There is a germ of truth to this, mixed in with a ton of confusion and misinformation. mRNA vaccines are being tested for some forms of cancer. Not only that, but they are retrovirus style RNA doses that are designed to change the DNA (genome). People have confused these vaccines with the ones developed for COVID and a variety of other viral infections. This may have contributed to fears of changing people's DNA . . . but I doubt it. The people who express these fears are generally ignorant and do not know the difference between DNA and RNA, and they do not understand why ordinary (non-retrovirus) RNA cannot affect the cell nucleus.


    Here is a lecture by Tal Zacks of Moderna, from 2017. He discusses both uses of mRNA vaccines. For the first 3:41 minutes he describes anti-viral vaccines such the COVID one. Then he switches over to discussing an mRNA vaccine that changes the genome of cells.


    Starting at 6:20 he talks about a third application for mRNA vaccine genetic manipulation, for a birth defect.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Unilateral actions like this, the constant condemnation, fear mongering, and mocking by the left wing media, and shunning by the medical organizations and public institutions, are effectively driving Iver underground, even though it is still legal to prescribe "off label".

    To what extent? Can you tell us how many prescriptions have been cancelled, and how many doctors have stopped prescribing this? This article describes one or two incidents, which is anecdotal evidence. Without a careful investigation and a poll of doctors, there is no way of knowing how widespread this is.


    The article describes 10 prescriptions over several months. The pharmacist questioned 6, and filled the other 4. That's anecdotal evidence, by definition. You would have to look at thousands of prescriptions and outcomes before making any claims about condemnation, fear mongering or -- for that matter -- the efficacy of the drug in treating COVID.


    You say there is "constant condemnation." Where? In what journals or newspapers? How many articles are opposed to this drug, and how many in favor of it? How many have been peer reviewed? How many double-blind tests have there been, and what were the outcomes? Have any public health agencies condemned the use of this drug -- or endorsed it? How many doctors have been censured, or had their licenses revoked? If you cannot address these questions, you have no business claiming there is constant condemnation, or semi-constant, or occasional condemnation. You have no way of knowing whether this condemnation is having an effect on the behavior of doctors. In short, you need quantitative information to make this case. Not one or two anecdotal incidents.


    I am not able to access the article. Perhaps it has more evidence for your claim than I realize. But the quotes you provided are not evidence for anything other than a ludicrous situation at a pharmacy in Missouri.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Without a careful investigation and a poll of doctors, there is no way of knowing how widespread this is.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You say there is "constant condemnation." Where? In what journals or newspapers? How many articles are opposed to this drug, and how many in favor of it? How many have been peer reviewed? How many double-blind tests have there been, and what were the outcomes?

    I have reacted strongly here. Let me describe my reasons. Countless times I have read people saying: "most scientists do not believe cold fusion" or, "tests showed that cold fusion does not exist" or some other quantitative assertion that was not in evidence. It may be true in some sense that most scientists don't believe in cold fusion, but that is not useful information.


    I respond by asking: "How do you know what most scientists believe? Have you taken a poll? What percent of scientists do not believe cold fusion?" And, even more to the point: "If, in fact, a large number of scientists do not believe cold fusion, how many of them have any knowledge of the subject?" Scientists mainly get their information from the mass media, so their views of cold fusion will be mistaken. A poll of scientists about this issue would have to include questions such as: "How many papers about cold fusion have you read?" And "please list three researchers whose work in cold fusion influenced your views." Many scientists have told me that no papers were published and no replications ever reported. Such people know nothing and their opinions are meaningless. Including their opinions in a poll would tell us only that many scientists are ignorant. It would tell us nothing about cold fusion.


    Along the same lines, suppose for the sake of argument there is constant condemnation of the use of ivermectin. Suppose you prove this with some sort of poll, or a review of published papers and news articles. What have you proved? Have you shown that this condemnation has affected the use of this drug, or discouraged it? Has it resulted in double-blind tests being cancelled? Is it reflected in recommendations by public health agencies or the AMA? Probably not. But there is an ever larger question, which you have not addressed: Is this condemnation justified by the experimental and clinical evidence? I myself do not know about that, but I wouldn't dismiss it. Perhaps there is condemnation, and perhaps there should be. Are you sure you are qualified to judge this?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If you cannot address these questions, you have no business claiming there is constant condemnation, or semi-constant, or occasional condemnation.

    BS. I can fill pages with all the anti-Iver evidence if I wanted to belabor my point. They are all over the net. Just type in Ivermectin and most of what pops up is negative and amount to little more than scaremongering. Many such examples have been posted here, discussed, but you and THH seem to always miss them...how convenient.


    And yes, I know the particular article I linked to only has a few examples of pharmacists taking matters into their own hands. That is why I kept it general, and focused elsewhere. IMO, the author intended to start a band wagon effect, so that other Pharmacists who read it would be encouraged to do the same, because... well, everyone is doing it so I will.


    That is what passes for journalism nowadays. Most are just activists in disguise. That goes both ways also.


    Fact is, Ivermectin has been suppressed by the medical health institutions worldwide, with the help of the powerful big tech companies, and feigned outrage at those who point that out is not going to work.

    Quote from Shane D.

    , with the help of the powerful big tech companies

    Merck publically... the other Bigpharma quietly..


    "Merck Analysis
    Merck has recommended against ivermectin [Merck], however this recommendation has not been updated for 185 days.
    They stated that there is "no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies". This is contradicted by many papers and studies, including [Arévalo, Bello, Choudhury, de Melo, DiNicolantonio, DiNicolantonio (B), Errecalde, Eweas, Francés-Monerris, Heidary, Jans, Jeffreys, Kalfas, Kory, Lehrer, Li, Mody, Mountain Valley MD, Qureshi, Saha, Surnar, Udofia, Wehbe, Yesilbag, Zaidi, Zatloukal].
    They state that there is "no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease". This is contradicted by numerous studies including [Afsar, Alam, Aref, Babalola, Behera, Behera (B), Bernigaud, Budhiraja, Bukhari, Cadegiani, Carvallo (B), Carvallo (C), Chaccour, Chahla, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Espitia-Hernandez, Faisal, Hashim, Huvemek, Khan, Lima-Morales, Loue, Mahmud, Merino, Mohan, Mondal, Morgenstern, Mourya, Niaee, Okumuş, Ravikirti, Samaha, Seet].
    They also claim that there is "a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies". Safety analysis is found in [Descotes, Errecalde, Guzzo, Kory, Madrid], and safety data can be found in most studies, including [Abd-Elsalam, Afsar, Ahmed, Aref, Babalola, Behera (B), Bhattacharya, Biber, Bukhari, Camprubí, Carvallo, Chaccour, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Espitia-Hernandez, Gorial, Huvemek, Khan, Kishoria, Krolewiecki, Lima-Morales, Loue, López-Medina, Mahmud, Mohan, Morgenstern, Mourya, Niaee, Okumuş, Pott-Junior, Seet, Shahbaznejad, Shouman, Spoorthi, Szente Fonseca].
    Merck has a number of conflicts of interest:
    •Merck has committed to give ivermectin away for free "as much as needed, for as long as needed" in the Mectizan® Donation Program [Merck (B)], to help eliminate river blindness.
    •Merck has their own new COVID-19 treatments MK-7110 (formerly CD24Fc) [Adams] and Molnupiravir (MK-4482) [Wikipedia]. Merck has a ~$1.2B agreement to supply molnupiravir to the US government, if it receives EUA or approval [Khan (B)].
    •Ivermectin is off-patent, there are many manufacturers, and Merck is unlikely to be able to compete with low cost manufacturers.
    •Promoting the use of low cost off-patent medications compared to new products may be undesirable to some shareholders.
    •Japan requested Merck conduct clinical trials early in the pandemic and they declined. Merck may be reluctant to admit this mistake [Yagisawa].


    ivmmeta.com

    Quote from Shane D.

    BS. I can fill pages with all the anti-Iver evidence if I wanted to belabor my point. They are all over the net. Just type in Ivermectin and most of what pops up is negative and amount to little more than scaremongering. Many such examples have been posted here, discussed, but you and THH seem to always miss them...how convenient.

    Sorry Shane, I realise you are US type - and in the US all this stuff is politicised.


    It is not so in the UK. Doctors here pay attention to the (UK) regulators and the evidence. No-one is scaremongering about invermectin. But no-one likes non-scientific pressure groups telling lies about it claiming it is "obviously effective" when the scientists don't think this. Our guys would not be doing their job if they gave ivermectin to people just because some pressure groups said they should. And you cannot say people are biassed against IVM because it is first candidate in the PRINCIPLE trial. The medical establishment here would like ivermectin - or any other drug - to succeed. Especially if it is cheap and easily available.


    Now - here is the thing - you either have to claim that everyone in the UK - doing ivermectin tests because they want it to succeed - not convinced by the data so far - strongly believing it is wrong to recommend ivermectin use when there is no evidence - is stupid or corrupt or something. Or you have to note that the US authorities are doing the same thing. They also have a big RCT whose first candidate is ivermectin. They are allowing it, but not pushing it.


    I realise if you read TSN articles or FLCC propaganda you hear just one side. Of course, Shane, you are better than that?


    Those negative things all over the net. Well, you should maybe pay less attention to the fluff - positive and negative - and let the scientists get on with their job? The negative stuff is only there because a lot of people find the non-scientific (plain false) over-hyped PR from FLCC and TSN etc dangerous. But it does not cause the scientists to be unfairly negative - if they were that they would not be doing big ivermectin RCTs.


    You note that at least one person here has said it is a reason (or part of the reason) he did not get vaccinated.


    THH

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There is a germ of truth to this, mixed in with a ton of confusion and misinformation.


    Its simple… Gene therapy is editing a chromosome or inserting a gene into the nucleus, either way, any daughter cells will contain the same gene, and your body will be making the proteins for the foreseeable future.

    RNA vaccines stay outside of the nucleus and have a half life of about 10 hours.


    No one on the planet, other than a few weirdos with an agenda, manage to confuse the two. Roche definitely don’t pull such pinhead moves - as was spouted in the original Wyttenfact.

    Quote from Zeus46

    Its simple… Gene therapy is editing a chromosome or inserting a gene into the nucleus, either way, any daughter cells will contain the same gene, and your body will be making the proteins for the foreseeable future.

    RNA vaccines stay outside of the nucleus and have a half life of about 10 hours.


    No one on the planet, other than weirdos with an agenda, manage to confuse the two. Roche definitely don’t pull such pinhead moves - as was spouted in the original Wyttenfact.

    To be fair - W's confusion is perhaps understandable. he is, you remember, not a geneticist or even a medical doctor.


    What Zeus says is correct for the dictionary definition of gene therapy - and its popular meaning - and its regulatory meaning in the US.


    However due to a regulatory quirk in the EU - RNA therapy treatments there come under the regulatory umbrella of gene therapy as well - so they are treated just as strictly as (real) DNA-changing gene therapy.


    W has probably got confused by this, being an EU citizen.


    THH

    Just to remind RB - whose memory for things contrary to his own argument is a bit short:


    (1) When you look at the high quality evidence (well-conducted RCTs) there is quite a lot of neutral (e.g. ivermectin makes no difference - the positive and negative studies balance nicely) evidence. Even an FLCC-written meta-analysis shows no effect if you delete two obviously biassed RCTs they put in to make the numbers come out right. The large quantity of low quality positive evidence is expected - you would get it for any hyped drug that hsd lots of people trying it on spec.


    (2) Therefore Merck not changing their recommendation is expected? Unless you want them to go against the scientific evidence. It has not changed.


    (3) It would be great if we get positive evidence from the big "ivermectin-at-home" RCTs now being conducted. We should know before the end of the year.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.