Covid-19 News

  • Some Wisdom from Maryland: Vaccinated Individuals Aren’t as Safe as Assumed


    Some Wisdom from Maryland: Vaccinated Individuals Aren’t as Safe as Assumed
    Recently, an epidemiologist and biomedical researcher affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore penned an opinion piece
    trialsitenews.com


    Recently, an epidemiologist and biomedical researcher affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore penned an opinion piece with the Baltimore Sun. Allan B. Massie recalled an experience at an urgent care examination office in Timonium, Maryland. What he found out surprised him. Despite being fully vaccinated for months, he was infected with SARS-CoV-2. That’s because, as many healthy people do in the summer months, Dr. Massie attended a house party in Montgomery County five days earlier. After all, it was OK to have 15 friends come together, and everyone was fully vaccinated. Just a day after the party, the host fell ill and was tested positive for the coronavirus. She notified the rest of the guests, but the good doctor wasn’t too concerned because they were all vaccinated. According to the leading government officials, public health officials, regulators, and pharmaceutical interests backing them, this was how we would move to herd immunity. That is, the vaccines would prevent the transmission of the disease. That’s the science behind all of this—isn’t it?


    Not so, after all. As it turns out, we are just learning as we go with this pandemic, and any one person or group that claims to have “the answer” is to be most certainly scrutinized. So back to Dr. Massie. He referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that dictated that since he was fully vaccinated, he could continue on as usual unless symptoms manifest. But he soon discovered that other party attendees were falling ill and as of his opinion piece authored a few days ago, 11 of the 15 house party guests tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.


    ‘Breakthrough Infections’

    As it turns out, with the new Delta variant that originated in India, vaccination doesn’t mean protection from becoming a vector and transmitting the disease to other folks, vaccinated or not. Now the good news is that none of the house party guests became severely ill, and that trend seems to be holding up, although it’s not 100%—some vaccinated people get very ill and can even die.


    Massie went on the record that although his case is so-called mild COVID-19, it’s still “pretty miserable.” With symptoms from myalgia to fever and pervasive weakness, the Johns Hopkins Ph.D. doesn’t wish this ailment on anybody.


    TrialSite has reported on several breakthrough infection trends, from the UK and Israel to Iceland and Provincetown, MA, USA.


    Montgomery Co. House Party Outbreak Implications

    The epidemiologist contemplated in the Baltimore Sun what the implications are of this Montgomery County outbreak. He concluded the following, which TrialSite credits to the Baltimore Sun—recommending all visit the online paper and read Dr. Massie’s position here.


    First, Massie declared that “State and local health departments, and the CDC, need to do a better job collecting and reporting data on breakthrough infections.” Why is this important? Because the CDC declared in May, they would only track outbreak infections that lead to hospitalization or death. But due to that decision, America is now flying in the dark in terms of the actual breakthrough infection rate, how many vaccinated people are sick, and how many are infecting others, etc.


    Second, Massie noted, “Fully vaccinated people exposed to COVID need to isolate at home and get tested.” This, of course, flies in the face of current prevailing wisdom out of the CDC.


    Third, “Governments and businesses should consider bringing back masking requirements, even for vaccinated people.” Of course, the CDC recently announced just such a recommendation in regions with over 50 new infections per 100,000 people per week. One key question, however, is just how effective is masking? What does the latest data point to on this matter? What about the cheap masks so many wear—do they even work? TrialSite suggests even more masking research should be undertaken.


    Four, “Pharmaceutical companies, research institutions and governments should prioritize research into booster vaccines.” Massie is on the record that whether it’s due to the variants such as Delta or fading vaccine immunity, the current crop of vaccines are losing their quality luster. But what about the World Health Organization (WHO) opinion about health equity? Much of the third world has little if any vaccination, yet Delta variant-driven waves of sickness now infect many low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs). Should the existing product be used to help rich, affluent nations or be taken and systematically used to help poorer nations in far more need?


    TrialSite adds a fifth point—that is, early-onset treatment. One of TrialSite’s founders recently experienced a COVID-19 infection and used immediate treatment, including ivermectin and fluvoxamine, thanks to Dr. Pierre Kory, an advocate for early treatment with the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance or “FLCCC.”


    The net result for the founder—by day #3, the symptoms were 40% improved; by day #5, the condition was all but gone. Why has it taken the public health apparatus so long even to consider testing for drugs such as ivermectin? TrialSite’s unfortunately been jaded by numerous activities and initiatives involving large amounts of taxpayer- or U.S. Treasury-originated money to subsidize research, development, and production for the private sector (pharmaceutical companies). Of course, this platform supports industry and wealth accumulation, which is key to any social democratic reality—but this is when it’s done in the right way and adding real value. At the same time, we oppose state-crony capitalism in all its forms. This includes the ongoing and unnecessary public subsidization of powerful multinationals or, for that matter, a White House that personally advises near-monopolistic social media players on exactly what the definition of “misinformation” is.

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


    It is not so in the UK.


    I do not know about the UK. This Iver crusade is happening here in the US, South Africa, Philippines, Brazil, Malaysia and many other places.

    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.

    Iver sprung up as a grass roots movement from the medical profession. I do not consider that a "pressure group". Now since they have seen it work so many times, they are pressuring their medical hierarchy to ease up. That is to be expected of them. Their Hippocratic Oath demands it of them.

    strongly believing it is wrong to recommend ivermectin use when there is no evidence

    Repeating that over and over again will not change the fact that there IS evidence. You just do not like what you see,which is your right. It is also the right of others to like what they see, and consider it evidence of efficacy. The latest being the Israeli small RCT from the "smartest medical hospital in the world". Did you read that one?

    Not only have many doctors around the world adopted some type of Iver+ protocol, but up to 22 nations have also. Many incorporated it into their Standard of Care in May 2020 (a few earlier), and to this day I have yet to hear of any of them saying they made a mistake. But you are so convinced they have. Is that snobbery, or following the science?


    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?

    Patronizing is a pathetic way to debate.

  • Iver sprung up as a grass roots movement from the medical profession. I do not consider that a "pressure group". Now since they have seen it work so many times, they are pressuring their medical hierarchy to ease up. That is to be expected of them. Their Hippocratic Oath demands it of them.

    Shane - you are not a scientist. But you are capable of reading the blog descriptions of why RCTs are needed, and why doctors tend to latch onto anything they are giving and go on without evidence thinking it works. You have heard of this effect, and remember the examples, right? That is why the trial assessing medics don't agree with you. They have done that before and see the harm it does. Of course they might be wrong, but they have good reasons for decisions.


    Repeating that over and over again will not change the fact that there IS evidence. You just do not like what you see,which is your right. It is also the right of others to like what they see, and consider it evidence of efficacy. The latest being the Israeli small RCT from the "smartest medical hospital in the world". Did you read that one?

    Given that there is both positive and negative evidence (as you would expect) you cannot call it is effective unless the positives outweight the negatives. I think the trouble is that you are not thinking about these results they way somone trying to work out what that set of evidence means would do.


    One positive test, or one negative test, does not settle things unless it is very large and very high quality.


    Not only have many doctors around the world adopted some type of Iver+ protocol, but up to 22 nations have also. Many incorporated it into their Standard of Care in May 2020 (a few earlier), and to this day I have yet to hear of any of them saying they made a mistake. But you are so convinced they are. Is that snobbery, or following the science?

    That is doctors doing what doctors often do - which is clutch at straws. They may be right (and their care will work slightly better than normal) or wrong (and it will work slightly worse). They will obviously think they are right, as doctors always do. But they do not have evidence. You think that gut feeling without an RCT can settle these things. You are out of your depth assuming that - it is exactly gut feelings that have caused doctors to persist with harmful treatments for years and years.


    That is a pathetic way to debate.

    I was making a real point. PR and hype and popular ideas are one thing. Scientific evaluation is another. Ivermectin is in teh process of being evaluated. Thus far it does not look great because the better quality the study the more likley it is to deliver a negative result (that is roughly true). But, it is no way settled. And the only thing that will settle it, given that high quality meta-analyses can easily deliver positive and negative results - showing that current information is non-informative - is more trials.


    You seem to be quarrelling with that. Something like "I know better than the people looking at all of the evidence, because lots of doctors in countries with less regulated medical systems and a crying need for a cure jump on it. You are not qualified to make that judgement. Nor am I. The difference is I am reading and understanding what the (several different) people who are so qualified say. You are reading PR blogs and thinking that somehow weight of popular opinion makes it obvious what the answer is.


    You may think - well why not try it - it does no harm. I was pointing out that any idea that some drug that does not work provides good protection (as FLCC claim, but is not from RCT evidence true) is very dangerous. It will lead people who are at risk (e.g. W) to behave in a dangerous way, not gte vaccinated, etc, and will directly cause unnecessary deaths.


    If you are a regulator you have to think about the lives you may be saving or ending. It is not an easy decision - and it should be done as accurately as possible based on evidence, and analysis of that evidence - not a vote of doctors.


    You may not agree with this - that is your right - but i am very sure it is a sound argument. if therefore you consider it a pathetic way to debate you are wrong.


    Maybe though my sentence you objected to was a bit compressed? I thought you did not like me being too long-winded :)

  • Well, mistakes happen. And in some areas (not I guess politics) people can learn from them.


    Let us just be glad that the COVID vaccines are overall safe, effective, and if they had thalidomide effects (or any obvious bad effect on foetuses) we would know it by now. They do not.


    I'm not saying we can be absolutely sure - we cannot. But the uncertainty over the vaccines is mirrored by uncertainty over COVID. How do you know getting COVID when pregnant will not leave the child with some hidden defect? You don't. In fact a lot of the harm mechanisms for COVID are the same as those for the vaccine - only more so, because there is a lot more nasty RNA zooming around the body creating proteins in the case of a COVID infection. And the COVID RNA gets turned into DNA in cells and therefore self-replicates arbitrarily. No idea why W does not call it gene therapy.


    I can't understand how this much larger threat (from COVID RNA) is not in your mind when considering not evidenced highly unlikely effects from extremely tiny amounts of vaccine RNA.

  • The problem with gene therapy is that it needs lots of testing..


    often mooted as a cure for cystic fibrosis for the last two decades


    testing goes on ...its necessary.

    there have been some lessons learned from past errors... but people and $ are forgetful

    "

    Thalidomide as Teratogen
    The popular medical belief that the
    human fetus was protected from matemal
    drug exposures in the sanctum sanctorum of
    the uterus5 was shattered in 1961 when Lenz6
    in Germany and McBride7 in Australia independently suggested that prenatal exposure to
    thalidomide was the cause of serious birth
    defects. These abnormalities came to be
    known as thalidomide embryopathy, which
    includes amelia or phocomelia, cranial nerve
    palsies, microtia, choanal atresia, congenital
    heart defects (e.g., ductus, conotruncal
    defects), bowel atresias, gallbladder aplasia,
    and urogenital abnormalities.8 Thalidomide
    was first introduced in Germany in 1958 as
    an anticonvulsive agent but was soon found
    unsuitable for this indication. Nonetheless,
    clinicians recognized that this drug was
    useful for a variety of other ailments, including moming sickness caused by pregnancy,

    The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications
    American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)
    ajph.aphapublications.org

  • The problem with gene therapy is that it needs lots of testing..


    often mooted as a cure for ystic fibrosis for the last two decades

    Just hold that thought, and let us make a necessary distinction



    Treating Cystic Fibrosis with mRNA and CRISPR

    As the number of DNA and RNA reads from next-generation sequencing has grown exponentially,1 biologists have increasingly been able to identify genes that drive disease.2 An ideal way to address any genetic disease is by targeting the protein that the gene encodes using small molecules. However, less than 20% of encoded proteins are thought to be addressable using these compounds, since many diseases are caused by the absence of a wild-type protein or a protein that lacks an appropriate binding site.3


    RNA therapies are drugs partially or fully comprising RNA nucleotides that can either downregulate or overexpress any desired gene. For example, siRNAs and antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) can bind complementary mRNA and cleave it using Argonaute or RNase H1, respectively.4,5 In contrast, mRNA therapies seek to express a protein that is mutated in the patient, nonexistent or underexpressed by utilizing the cell's ribosomes.6 Alternatively, DNA-based therapies delivered with adeno-associated virus (AAV) enable long-term expression of a particular gene.7 As a result, DNA-based therapies lead to long-term gene expression, whereas mRNA therapies lead to transient gene expression.


    You are right - it is very tough to treat cystic fibrosis with RNA.


    Note however the detail here.


    In contrast, mRNA therapies seek to express a protein that is mutated in the patient, nonexistent or underexpressed by utilizing the cell's ribosomes.6 Alternatively, DNA-based therapies delivered with adeno-associated virus (AAV) enable long-term expression of a particular gene.7 As a result, DNA-based therapies lead to long-term gene expression, whereas mRNA therapies lead to transient gene expression.


    The problems are opposite. DNA therapies last for a long time, but are dangerous.

    mRNA therapies lead to transient gene expression, creating a protein for a short amount of time. That is in principle no more dangerous than some other vector that administers the protein. Of course it may be dangerous. And for Cystic Fibrosis the proteins expressed may be designed to have an epigenetic effect - so are quite dangerous drugs. Taking them continuously (needed for treatment) is a big deal.


    Whereas a vaccine mRNA generates a little bit of viral protein. What you get so much more of inside you from even a tiny viral infection.

    No DNA - v dangerous because long-term

    No epigenetic effect - a bit dangerous because maybe not fully understood - but still only transient so if there were one it would be muhc less dangerous than a drug taken continuously.

    Protein created transiently that is used to prime the immune system.


    The risks for mRNA vaccines are not comparable from those of Cystic Fibrosis treatments. Any effective CF treatment must work forever, which is clearly much more dangerous in terms of side effects than a protein generated transiently.


    Thanks for the useful example highlighting this big difference.

  • you are not a scientist Shane...

    or a dr of circuitry

    you are too easily fooled by the conspiratist antivaxxers ;)

    yep. There are lots of them here. But I think it is not full-on antivax. Even W will get the vaccine in two years time when he is 65, unless he thinks of another excuse.


    No - this thread is dominated by anti-vaxx lite themes.


    From Shanes's point of view they triangulate a middle way between anti-vax and full-on pro-vax arguments and therefore are balanced.

  • from our resident expert of biology and fluid mechanics

    I was just doing your job for you RB. YOU are our resident expert on biology. You could agree or disagree with my interpretation of that link.


    You'd make a more relevant contribution if you left the politics, snide remarks, hints, speculation, and told us about the real science.


    Even though no expert I can tell when you are, and when you are not, doing that.

  • Ivermectin sales surge on black market as authorities say it is not scientifically good | The Bharat Express News
    Cape Town - Black market sales of ivermectin are on the rise and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra) and the Western Cape
    www.thebharatexpressnews.com


    "Cape Town – Black market sales of ivermectin are on the rise and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra) and the Western Cape Department of Health have warned of stealing sales.


    The Argus Weekend spoke to vendors, doctors and experts on this controversial topic related to this pest control drug.....



    "Dr EV Rapiti, a clinical physician for over 30 years, recently spoke on the radio about his plight, speaking about his use of ivermectin with other drugs as part of his treatment for the Delta variant.


    He has documented his success in helping hundreds of patients with Covid-19 pneumonia.


    “I am basing myself on a call I received from a desperate lady whose brother was on oxygen in one of our teaching hospitals, they were unwilling to give his brother the infamous ivermectin tablets and the remark that was made and the comment that the doctor made was that, people believed that ivermectin belonged to another planet, ”he said.


    “To this doctor and a lot of these doctors working in academic institutions, in this country in particular, then I’m one of those doctors who belongs to one of these planets because the planet I live on helps to save people.


    “I believe that with this drug, I saved a lot of people, for the record, I treated more than 100 patients with Covid pneumonia, I treated them almost all well. Some of my worst cases were 60% oxygen. But with my modularity, my treatment and my oxygen, I managed to improve them and it is a sensitive point for me when academic institutions adopt this attitude of knowing everything and being the gods of society."

  • "Dr EV Rapiti, a clinical physician for over 30 years, recently spoke on the radio about his plight, speaking about his use of ivermectin with other drugs as part of his treatment for the Delta variant.


    He has documented his success in helping hundreds of patients with Covid-19 pneumonia.

    NPR Cookie Consent and Choices


    Between 2000 and 2005, as neighboring African countries were ramping up HIV prevention programs, South Africa stubbornly stuck to the notion that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. "I think Duesberg played the biggest role in giving [former South African President Thabo Mbeki] a convenient excuse to avoid supplying drugs," says Essex.

    Researchers including Essex examined the human toll of those lost years of treatment. Their results, published in 2008 in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, estimated that 330,000 South African adults died because of lack of treatment, and 35,000 infants were born with HIV.


    If that was the biggest disaster, no doubt the cruelest of the AIDS false cure claims was the virgin cleansing myth that took hold in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as parts of India and Thailand. Some men believed they could be cured of AIDS by having sex with a virgin. That reportedly led to the rape of younger and younger girls — even babies, by some accounts.

    Other unproven AIDS "cures" have kept people from seeking life-saving treatments: herbal remedies, potions to rub into the skin, chemicals like Virodene (derived from an industrial solvent), oxygen therapy and electronic zappers.



    SA - that place renowned for never having fake cures? But I guess it is good that this one does not require raping young girls. Glass half full.


    :)

  • SA - that place renowned for never having fake cures?

    South Africa the home of Dr Tess Lawrie

    unfortunately not a fake dr of circuitry with 24/7 rhetoric

    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.

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.