Quote from RobertBryant

Flavio's androgenic mechanism

+ spiranolactone,,,, needs a prescription

a cheaper antiandrogen than spiranolactone is soybean

25kg of soybean makes about 200kg of natto..

enough for awhile..

Soybean and Prostate Cancer

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

www.intechopen.com

Quote from JedRothwell

If the drug works dramatically well, it has to work dramatically well in some of the double-blind tests.

You missed the Argentina study with Ivermectin prophylaxis: 100% success rate placebo about 50% infections among health care personal!
Carvallo prophyllaxis RESULTADOS POSITIVOS DEL PROTOCOLO IVERCAR EN LA PROFILAXIS DE LOS AGENTES DE SALUD.pdf

Uttar Pradesh,Delhi,etc... treated all contacts of PCR+ tested.

Only blind mice eat poison or take a gen therapy...

Also, before anyone says it, may I ask you people not to say:

"The AMA is only doing this for profit! Follow the money!"

That is idiotic. Think about it for 5.2 seconds and you will see it is idiotic. The AMA wants you to be vaccinated. The vaccine costs far less than a course of ivermectin. Heck, it costs less than a week of decongestants and aspirin. You take one or two doses of vaccine and you are finished. It eliminates most hospital care and nearly all deaths, leaving the doctors with no work to do. If they were in for the money, they would not want you to take a drug that reduces the average cost of treatment from $51,000 down to $0.

The average cost of hospital care for COVID-19 ranges from $51,000 to $78,000 based on age

When one factors in length of stay, the average hospital charge increased the longer patients were there, and they continued to vary by age group.

www.healthcarefinancenews.com

Quote from JedRothwell

This article does not say these results are from ivermectin, but I assume that is what you meant.

Yes, we have been keeping an eye on UP since they started using IVM a few months back.

Quote from JedRothwell

If so, this not amazing. It is bogus. Impossible. There is zero chance ivermectin is this effective yet that has not been detected in a double-blind test.

Maybe so, but whatever it is that has led to their turnaround, it has been a remarkable story. No denying though that the turnaround started about the time IVM was incorporated into their preventive care program. Cause and effect?

Quote from JedRothwell

Furthermore -- and I am sorry to say this -- you should not trust public health statistics from India. That is not my opinion, or a bias against India. That is what many experts in India say.

I thought so at first. THH has made that argument and until some of the latest news out of India came out with more details about the UP/IVM success, I thought it could explain away the difference between states. But after reading it does appear they have a much better handle on the stats than what we give them credit for.

Good example: in one of the India Times stories they wrote about how UP had an aggressive track/trace program. How could that be if they don't have good stats? They went on to say that whoever is infected, they go into their homes and get everyone to take the UVM+ kit.

Another was an India Times article with a comment from a local. He made it very clear that things were horrible before, and then soon after the health officials started the IVM protocol, things were fine and now they are back to normal.

At the least there is enough positive, or potentially so, IVM/Vit D/Zinc feedback science from around around the world such that the forces now aligning against IVM to block it from the people, should stop with their campaign against. It is ridiculous IMO and destroying what little credibility they have left. It is also embarrassing for me to see how stupid, unreasonable, and vicious we can be when politics rule over science.

Quote from RobertBryant

Brazil.and ivermectin does not require a cold chain

In december Brazil said they couldn't do Pfizer...

maybe Pfizer will provide the deepcoldchain gratis out of their profits

..the alternative may be freeze-dried vaccines in the future? J&J?

Brazil sees one-dose, unfrozen vaccine as ideal for COVID-19, official says

A senior Brazilian Health Ministry official said on Tuesday that the ideal vaccine to immunize the country against COVID-19 would be one that could be stored…

www.reuters.com

Quote from Shane D.

Maybe so, but whatever it is that has led to their turnaround, it has been a remarkable story. No denying though that the turnaround started about the time IVM was incorporated into their preventive care program. Cause and effect?

Cause and effect cannot be established so easily. And they can only be confirmed by a double-blind test. You need to address that issue. If ivermectin can cause such a remarkable, unmistakable, obvious effect in a large population in India, then it must also produce a similar large effect in one or more of the double-blind tests. Granted, some of them might fail because the dose is wrong or for some other reason, but they cannot all be wrong. The doctors doing the tests are not that stupid, and the doctors in UP are not that smart.

Furthermore, the turnaround can probably be explained by conventional epidemiology. Regrettably, some of the statistics from India probably can be trusted. They are the grim ones. The horrifying ones. They probably explain what happened. Indications are that vulnerable groups of poor people died in far greater numbers than was reported, and they were infected in far greater numbers. Antibody tests in some of the worst districts show that a very high fraction of the population was infected. Enough to give them local herd immunity. In other words, the epidemic increased exponentially and then fell with a similar exponent for the same reason all epidemics always do when nothing is done to stop them. It is the curve you see in the 1918 influenza epidemic, or an epidemic of wild animals.

The antibody tests have been questioned by some experts in India. They say the sample sizes are not large enough. I wouldn't know, but if these tests hold up, that explains why the curve fell so suddenly. The virus sickened or killed off all the people it could reach. That is not to say it reached everyone it can reach, or will reach in the future. Communities went into self-imposed lockdown. Villages were shut off. People were afraid to leave their houses. That always happens during severe epidemics. The affected villages were decimated, but many other villages were not. In the next round, they may be. Unless the people are vaccinated first, it is certain they will be.

Horsewormer anecdotes

@ElijahSchaffer · Sep 2 I used to be a pharmacy technician & we never used the phrase “horse dewormer” in the pharmacy, we just called it Ivermectin Weird that media bros started a new way to name drugs that we weren’t taught in school Pretty cool being a journalist gives you credentials to do that!

@matthewdmarsden · 14h The fact that so many call ivermectin “ horse dewormer” on this thread, shows that the dishonest msm did their job. Ivermectin has been approved for humans for years. The discoverers even gotthe Nobel prize for it. If you want anecdotal evidence? I took it when I had Covid too.

@JordanSchachtel · Sep 2 Before Summer of 2021, Ivermectin was considered something of a wonder drug. Look at the countless studies and commendations. It's all there on the internet. Suddenly, Ivermectin is "horse paste," a term that has been repeated ad nauseam over past few weeks. Smells like an op.

Quote from Navid

Nobody understands anything as evidenced by this site. People are willing to discount mass observational evidence from now hundreds of doctors using it - and consider that "anecdotal" but are looking for some statistical darling study iinstead (that could only be funded by pharma but wont be funded by pharma)

I posted a careful meta-analysis of bias in ivermectin trials: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2021.08.19.21262304v1

Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review

Background and purpose
The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the
prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results
from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations.
Evidence review
We searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs)
comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects
pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and
performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias.
Results
We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very
low to low. Compared to standard of care, ivermectin may reduce mortality, may increase
symptom resolution or improvement, may increase viral clearance, may reduce infections in
exposed individuals and may decrease hospitalizations (Risk difference (RD) 21 fewer per 1000,
95%CI: 35 fewer to 4 more). However, after excluding trials classified as “high risk” or “some
concerns” in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially:
Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not
significantly reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 77 fewer to 108 more) nor
mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000, 95%CI: 43 fewer to 86 more), and moderate
certainty evidence shows that it probably does not significantly increase symptom resolution or
improvement (RD 14 more per 1000, 95%CI: 29 fewer to 71 more) nor viral clearance (RD 12
fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 84 fewer to 76 more). It is uncertain if ivermectin increases or decreases
severe adverse events and symptomatic infections in exposed individuals.
Conclusions and Relevance
Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its
effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports
concluding significant benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results
reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.

Ivermectin has been (and is still) heavily represented in large-scale expensive studies funded by govts

Here is why large high quality trials of ivermectin have already been funded and will still be funded:

• Governments (UK, US, etc) fund large repurposed drug discovery studies. The academics in charge of drug selection for these want to succeed finding drugs - no big pharma agenda
• First success (UK funded RECOVERY) was dexamethasone- 30% death reduction and cheap - not a profit maker for big pharma
• ACTIV-6 (NIH funded) testing ivermectin on large scale
• PRINCIPLE(UK govt funded)

Here is why this meta-analysis is not biased against ivermectin

This meta-review was done according to guidelines (PRISMA) established before ivermectin pressure groups started:

Methods
This systematic review was performed in consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.[15]

Protocol registration
This systematic review is part of a larger project that aims to conduct multiple systematic
reviews for different questions relevant to COVID-19. The protocol stating the shared objectives
and methodology of these reviews was published elsewhere.[16]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32255438/
Here is why this meta-analysis (explicitly and transparently taking into account bias) should be preferred over meta-analyses that do not explictly and objectively analyse bias

Other meta-analyses show different results (positive, negative). the difference needs to be understood. This review show that the results of trials look positive if you include low quality high likely bias, negative if you exclude them It shows that the statistical strength of the high quality trials is already quite high and will get higher when trials in progress report. It shows a very clear trend.

Here is the argument against the idea that anecdotal or low quality observational evidence should drive regulators:

Many drugs including ivermectin, were repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19, most often
based on biological plausibility, in vitro research, or pathophysiological considerations.
Ivermectin is a successful broad-spectrum anti-parasitic, included in WHO essential medicines
list used to treat several neglected tropical diseases.[5] It emerged as a potential treatment for
COVID-19 in mid-2020, following an in vitro study demonstrating its anti-viral properties.[6]
Multiple systematic reviews have assessed the benefits and harm of ivermectin for COVID-19
patients with inconsistent findings and conclusions.[7] Although some organizations and groups
have argued strongly in favor of implementing ivermectin for treatment and/or prevention of
COVID-19,[8] current key clinical practice guidelines recommend against its use outside the
context of clinical trials.[9-12]
Reasons for these major discrepancies are probably related to different evidence analytical and/or
interpretation approaches. Assessing the risk of bias is one of the pillars of any systematic review
and has proven to be essential for evidence interpretation in the present pandemic context where

results of studies with major methodological limitations have led to erroneous conclusions, waste
of resources and patients’ exposure to potentially harmful interventions.[3,13,14] Nevertheless,
most available systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 have not appropriately assessed
risk of bias as a potential explanation for inconsistency between trial results. Therefore, this
systematic review aims to summarize the best available evidence on ivermectin for prevention
and treatment of COVID-19 patients and explore potential explanations for heterogeneity in
RCTs results with focus on studies methodological limitations.

Here is what has made a lot of scientists at the moment are negative on ivermectin, but still want more data to be sure

The largest RCT on ivermectin (Elgazar) which delivered extraordinarily good results has been shown to be faked. Here is a good even-handed summary of where we are on that:

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.

www.nature.com

Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic.

“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.

Latin America’s embrace of an unproven COVID treatment is hindering drug trials

The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%¹ — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.

Ahmed Elgazzar at Benha University in Egypt, who is one of the authors on the paper, told Nature he was not given a chance to defend his work before it was removed.

Early in the pandemic, scientists showed that ivermectin could inhibit the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in cells in laboratory studies². But data on ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19 in people are still scarce, and study conclusions conflict greatly, making the withdrawal of a major trial particularly noteworthy.

Although the World Health Organization advises against taking ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment outside clinical trials, the over-the-counter drug has become popular in some regions of the world. Some view it as a stopgap until vaccines become available in their areas, even though it has not yet been proven effective; scientists worry that it will also be seen as an alternative to vaccines, which are highly effective.

Ripple effects

The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.

High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight

In an editorial note, Research Square said that it has launched a formal investigation into the concerns raised by Lawrence and his colleagues. According to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Shorouk, Egypt’s minister of higher education and scientific research is also examining the allegations.

The paper was “withdrawn from the Research Square platform without informing or asking me”, Elgazzar wrote in an e-mail to Nature. He defended the paper, and said of the plagiarism allegations that “often phrases or sentences are commonly used and referenced” when researchers read one another’s papers.

Although dozens of ivermectin clinical trials have been launched over the past year³, the Elgazzar paper was notable for announcing one of the first positive results, as well as for its size — it included 400 people with symptoms of COVID-19 — and the magnitude of the drug’s effect. Few therapies can claim such an impressive reduction in death rates. “It was a significant difference, and that stood out,” says Andrew Hill, who studies repurposed drugs at the University of Liverpool, UK. “It should have raised red flags even then.”

Lawrence agrees. “I was absolutely shocked that no one had uncovered it,” he says.

How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research

Before its withdrawal, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in a number of meta-analyses that collect trial findings into a single, statistically weighted result. In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths⁴, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.

One of the authors of the meta-analysis, statistician Andrew Bryant at Newcastle University, UK, says that his team corresponded with Elgazzar before publishing the work to clarify some data. “We had no reason to doubt the integrity of [Professor] Elgazzar,” he said in an e-mail. He added that in a pandemic setting, no one can reanalyse all of the raw data from patient records when writing a review. Bryant went on to say that his group will revise the conclusion if investigations find the study to be unreliable. However, even if the study is removed, the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19, he says.

Reliable data needed

The paper’s withdrawal is not the first scandal to dog studies of ivermectin and COVID-19. Hill thinks many of the other ivermectin trial papers that he has scanned are likely to be flawed or statistically biased. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well controlled, he says. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.”

Carlos Chaccour, a global-health researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain, says it has been difficult to conduct rigorous studies on ivermectin. That’s partly because funders and academics in wealthy countries haven’t supported them, and, he suspects, have often dismissed trials of ivermectin because most of them have been done in lower-income countries. Furthermore, says Rodrigo Zoni, a cardiologist at the Corrientes Cardiology Institute in Argentina, it is difficult to recruit participants because many people — particularly in Latin America — are already taking the widely available drug in an attempt to prevent COVID-19.

How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts

Adding to the difficulty are conspiracy theories holding that ivermectin has been proven to work and that drug companies are depriving the public of a cheap cure. Chaccour says he has been called ‘genocidal’ for doing research on the drug rather than just endorsing it.

Although the jury is still out on ivermectin, many say the retraction speaks to the difficulty of assessing research during a pandemic. “I personally have lost all faith in the results of [ivermectin] trials published to date,” says Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia who helped Lawrence to analyse the Elgazzar paper. It’s not yet possible to assess whether ivermectin works against COVID-19 because the data currently available are not of sufficiently high quality, he says, adding that he is reading other ivermectin papers in his spare time, looking for signs of fraud or other problems.

Chaccour and others studying ivermectin say that proof of whether the drug is effective against COVID-19 rests on a handful of large, ongoing studies, including a trial in Brazil with more than 3,500 participants. By the end of 2021, says Zoni, around 33,000 people will have participated in some kind of ivermectin trial.

“I think it is our duty to exhaust all potential benefits,” says Chaccour, especially given that most countries still do not have widespread access to vaccines. “Ultimately if you do a trial and it fails, fine, but at least we tried.”

Nature 596, 173-174 (2021)

Here is why my spidey-sense is currently mostly negative on ivermectin

Bryant et al are FLCC pressure group led. They are trying to gte a positive result while also constrained to use scientiifc principles. They get positive results from their meta-analysis by rating studies for what they have not been able to uncover much information about methodology etc as uncertain bias - and including them in the meta-analysis.

If the uncertain bias studies are excluded - ivermectin looks neutral in effect except some hope it might reduce hospitalisation - possibly because it relieves symptoms which would also explain why many doctors using it believe it works!

Elgazzar's study was rated uncertain by Bryant et al although it has been comprehensively shown to have major holes.

Triangulating the controversy about this study - the academic doing it may not be deliberately fraudulent. But he has undoubtedly committed bad academic practice (cut-and-paste text from other sources without reference, cut-and-paste raw data). He may claim those known problems do not affect the overall results, but for any science to be meaningful you require very high standards of integrity otherwise unconscious bias generates false results. In any case the very highly positive and statistically signiifcant results of his study, if true, would surely mean that other RCTs would have overall positive results.

Look in detail at the bias meta-analysis forest diagrams (Figure 2) to see this. It is fascinating with a whole load of detailed information I don't have time to post here.

Here is why a 'safe' drug is not 'safe'

• If not approved, few doctors will want to prescribe ivermectin off-label (primum non nocere even though this Latin translation is inacurate). Due to pressure-group PR and conspiracy theories in social media many desperate people will use animal-quality ivermectin and also overdose themselves. even safe drugs are not safe at high eenough doses - for example at the dose that in vitro studies says will kill COVID.
• If approved, partly as result of pressure groups and conspiracy theories, many people will believe themselves safe because of the drug and not take other precautions. Thus being more in danger. It is no good saying that sensible people will not do this. It is the duty of doctors to help everyone, not just science-reading internet nerds.

Quote from RobertBryant

I used to be a pharmacy technician & we never used the phrase “horse dewormer” in the pharmacy, we just called it Ivermectin Weird that media bros started a new way to name drugs that we weren’t taught in school Pretty cool being a journalist gives you credentials to do that!

horse dewormer is a response to conspiracy theories that tell the general population to ignore the advice of doctors and use a (horse and human) dewormer medication as an antiviral against COVID - for which there is at the moment no evidence. As in my post above this is dangerous.

There is some low quality evidence for its reducing COVID symptoms (symptomatic relief) balanced by increasing mild gastrointestinal symptoms.

Interesting findings....

Vaccines Cut "Long-Haul" COVID Risk in Half, While Kids Test Positive in Droves | BioSpace

A study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca or Moderna vaccines resulted in a drop in “long-haul”…

www.biospace.com

In addition there are signs, that children seem to develop more severe illness after infection...

"According to data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), more than 500,000 children tested positive in the U.S. for COVID-19 from August 5 to August 26. ...

In states reporting, 0.1% to 1.9% of all child COVID-19 cases ended up in the hospital. Seven states reported no child COVID-19 deaths, and in states reporting, children were 0.00% to 0.24% of all COVID-19 deaths. "

The Joe Rogan [Early Care Treatment] Experience

The Joe Rogan [Early Care Treatment] Experience

One of America’s top podcasters, the wildly popular Joe Rogan—with over 13 million Instagram followers—recently caught COVID-19 and announced to fans he

trialsitenews.com

One of America’s top podcasters, the wildly popular Joe Rogan—with over 13 million Instagram followers—recently caught COVID-19 and announced to fans he is taking precautions to protect himself and family, including isolation within the home and the embrace of an early care treatment regimen including ivermectin. While reporting he experienced one really bad day last Sunday, he recently declared via social media that he felt “great.” The controversial entertainment figure undoubtedly has the social listeners employed by various health authorities and corporations abuzz in chatter.

TrialSite has chronicled this generic, repurposed antiparasitic drug since the initial research in an Australian lab experiment demonstrating that at least in cell culture, the drug zaps SARS-CoV-2. What ensued was over a year of research and population health programs embraced by many low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) to use existing repurposed drugs to at least reduce the progression of the virus; the goal was to reduce strains on healthcare systems.

That the topic of ivermectin is controversial would be an understatement. However, the drug is currently under investigation in some prominent studies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) backed ACTIV-6 trial. But several physicians and researchers have shared with TrialSite that the regimen in ACTIV-6, much like what was embraced by the TOGETHER Trial, indicates the drug won’t do well. These large studies, critics argue, don’t include enough dosage for sufficient duration.

On the other hand, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and prestigious American medical societies are on a mission to thwart any usage of the drug declaring that any promotion as a treatment leads to unfettered, uncontrolled self-medication with the animal variety of the drug that leads to unacceptable safety risks. TrialSite concurs that rapidly growing self-medication represents a problem; however, recent government criticism of the drug doesn’t do much to differentiate the percentage of legitimate off-label prescriptions versus improper access via the purchase of the veterinary version of the drug.

TrialSite now investigates some of the information promulgated by the CDC and FDA. TrialSite also predicts that a confluence of interests will apply ever greater pressure on independent-minded doctors not to prescribe the drug for early COVID-19 treatment.

A Profoundly Influential Individual in America

Perhaps one of the most influential persons in America, nearly everyone, except for some government bureaucrats and some top pharmaceutical executives, loves Joe Rogan. Of Italian-Irish descent from the tough town of Newark, New Jersey, Rogan got his start in entertainment as a stand-up comic in New York. He later moved to Los Angeles, where he secured a national television appearance which ultimately led to a contract for $500 in the “dopey game show.” But the persistent, driven yet grounded Rogan soon became a hot property in Los Angeles as entertainment executives pursued deals leading to a Disney development deal. By 1994, Rogan landed his first acting gig, and by the late 1990s, he moved into the world of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, Fear Factor, and then on to several major comedy show deals with nationwide recognition.

Rogan launched his free podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, by 2009, and by 2010, he already secured a spot in the top 100 podcasts in America. With growing viewership, this podcast became his pathway to wealth when he inked a multi-year deal with Spotify worth an estimated $100 million, propelling Rogan into the 1%, yet with that very authentic 99% point of view and demeanor.

‘The Joe Rogan COVID-19 Experience’

Rogan interviewed many guests with varying perspectives on SARS-CoV-2, endearing him to fans who appreciate the apparent and obvious lack of any “agenda,” a certain openness to engage with his guests and the audience toward an appreciation of how elusive any one truth may be—usually laughing along the way. While Rogan has featured guests with various perspectives on how to deal with COVID-19, he is most certainly not an “anti-vaxxer.” However, some in the mainstream media undoubtedly will try to categorize him in that camp.

Now with COVID-19 himself, Rogan appears to have moved proactively and assertively to ensure he minimizes the probability of disease progression. Based on what he declared recently via social media, he had “one bad day” and was already feeling “great” a day later.

A Favorite of the ‘Social Listeners’

Mainstream media has accused Rogan of using his “…platform to flirt with coronavirus misinformation.” MSN’s Elahe Izadi and Emily Yahr wrote a piece criticizing his openness in considering other narratives than the vaccine-centric global COVID-19 eradication premise now driving U.S. pandemic policy under the PREP Act.

Due to his popularity and pervasive influence, Rogan is undoubtedly watched carefully by government health officials and their teams of “social listeners,” groups of government-employed or contracted professionals that use social media measurement and analytics to monitor and measure the popularity of topics online. Rogan’s independent views, such as the opinion that young, healthy people probably don’t need to be vaccinated based on the risk and benefit, caught the attention of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who pushed back on him publicly, reported MSN. Undoubtedly, his mention of ivermectin as part of his personal regimen didn’t go over well. Rich, influential, and wise, does he know something the majority doesn’t?

Study: COVID recovery gave Israelis longer-lasting Delta defense than vaccines

The variant was 27 times more likely to break through Pfizer protection from January-February and cause symptoms than it was to penetrate natural immunity from the same period

Study: COVID recovery gave Israelis longer-lasting Delta defense than vaccines

The variant was 27 times more likely to break through Pfizer protection from January-February and cause symptoms than it was to penetrate natural immunity from…

www.timesofisrael.com

Natural immunity from contracting coronavirus provided Israelis with longer-lasting protection against the Delta variant than two shots of the Pfizer vaccine given early this year, new Israeli research suggests.

The study by Maccabi Healthcare Service looked at individuals who had either gotten two shots of the vaccine by the end of February or tested positive for COVID-19 by that time.

It compared 46,035 Maccabi members who caught the coronavirus at some point during the pandemic and the same number of double-vaccinated people.

People who had two vaccine shots had a six-fold higher chance of getting infected with Delta than patients who hadn’t been vaccinated but previously contracted the coronavirus, according to the research.

The study, published online but not yet peer reviewed, is the largest of its kind. It doesn’t take booster shots — now widely given in Israel — into account, but given that most of the world is still giving a two-dose regimen, has international relevance.

But experts are stressing that the results shouldn’t be interpreted as discouragement from vaccinating. Immunologist Prof. Cyrille Cohen of Bar Ilan University, who was not involved in the study, told The Times of Israel: “Certain people who are not inclined to get vaccinated might be mistaken and think that this means you’d better get sick a priori and not get a vaccine. Such a thinking is medically wrong, and the results of the study do not mean that people should expose themselves on purpose and get sick.

“As with other disease, it is much safer to get the vaccine and prevent COVID-19, a disease that puts one at risk of hospitalization, death and long-running after-effects.”

In the two groups, there were 748 cases of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections, 640 of which were in the vaccinated group and 108 in the previously infected group, which was relying on natural immunity alone

The vaccine-dependent people had a seven-fold higher chance of symptomatic infection, and a 6.7-fold higher chance of being hospitalized.

In addition, a sample of 16,215 who were infected during Israel’s third wave in January-February 2021 was compared to an equal number of people vaccinated during that period. The contrast for these two groups was even starker: It showed that Delta had a 27-fold higher chance of breaking through vaccine protection from January and February and causing symptoms than breaking through natural immunity acquired in the same period and causing symptoms.

The study also found that when recovered patients boosted their natural protection with a single vaccine shot — as recommended by Israeli health officials — their protection reached new highs, and they had approximately half the infection risk of other recovered patients.

“Individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant,” the study suggested.

“The long-term protection provided by a third dose, recently administered in Israel, is still unknown.”

The authors, led by Dr. Sivan Gazit, deputy head of Maccabi’s research arm, noted that their study is significant for taking a wide time-frame and using a large data sample. They wrote: “Our large cohort, enabled by Israel’s rapid rollout of the mass-vaccination campaign, allowed us to investigate the risk for additional infection — either a breakthrough infection in vaccinated individuals or reinfection in previously infected ones — over a longer period than thus far described.”

Cohen said of the study: “The data presented is important and can draw a kind of immune hierarchy. From the most protected to the less, there are vaccinated convalescent, convalescent, then vaccinated and then preople who choose not to vaccinate, who are the most vulnerable.”

Texas A&M Researcher: New Drug Could Be ‘Game Changer’ Against COVID-19

A discovery by Wenshe Ray Liu and his team leads to an agreement with a California biopharmaceutical company.

A drug created by a Texas A&M University professor could be the most effective treatment yet of patients with COVID-19, including the aggressive variants of the virus such as Delta and others.

The drug compound, called MPI8, has stopped the replication of the virus in laboratory tests. It was created by a Texas A&M research team led by biological chemist Wenshe Ray Liu, a 2018 Texas A&M Presidential Impact Fellow and holder of the Gradipore Chair in the Department of Chemistry.

The potential effectiveness of MPI8 led Sorrento Therapeutics of San Diego, Calif., to seek exclusive intellectual property rights to the ingredient. An agreement between the company and The Texas A&M University System was announced Tuesday.

Liu said that Sorrento hopes to complete pre-clinical studies of MPI8 by the end of the year and seek FDA approval to begin clinical trials on humans in early 2022.

MPI8 could be the best weapon yet in the fight against the COVID-19 virus, Liu said.

“If it can be approved clinically, this will be a game changer,” he said.

Only one treatment, a drug called remdesivir, has been approved by the FDA and studies indicate it may provide only modest benefit to patients. A few other treatments have FDA’s emergency use authorization. A wide range of potential treatments are in early stages of research, including several others being pursued by Sorrento.

In January 2020, Liu was among the co-authors of the first paper to identify remdesivir as a viable treatment for SARS-CoV-2.

Liu said MPI8 shows the potential to be highly effective in treating not only the original COVID-19 viral strain, but also the more aggressive strains such as Delta, Alpha, Beta and Gamma.

The Delta variant was first identified in India in December of 2020. In just a few months, it spread to 98 countries around the world, becoming the dominant variant in numerous nations, including India, the U.K., Israel and the United States.

Delta is now responsible for almost 85 percent of the COVID-19 cases being reported in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Henry Ji, chairman and CEO of Sorrento, said the new findings by Liu and his team might turn out to be critical in the fight against COVID-19 and other diseases.

“We are excited to be collaborating with Dr. Liu and his team at Texas A&M and look forward to advancing the development of these novel drug candidates to address COVID-19 and a multitude of other respiratory viruses,” Ji said.

The juvenile ‘It’s horse paste!’ critique of ivermectin

The juvenile ‘It’s horse paste!’ critique of ivermectin

The Nobel Prize in medicine in 2015 went to two scientists whose experiments on a type of bacteria and subsequent modifications produced a compound that led to “a new class of drugs with extraordinary efficacy against parasitic diseases,” in the words of the Nobel Prize committee.

That compound is ivermectin, which “turned out to be highly effective in both animals and humans against a variety of parasites, including those that cause River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis.” The FDA approved the drug in 1996.

That’s why U.S. doctors wrote more than 100,000 prescriptions a year for ivermectin, which comes in tablets but also in a lotion. In 2020, the FDA approved one ivermectin lotion as an over-the-counter lice treatment.

So why does the major media want you to believe that ivermectin is simply a “horse paste”?

The answer is probably because the media are more interested in scoring cheap points in the game of culture-wars by mocking rednecks and conservatives than they are in informing their readers.

The situation is this: Many people believe that ivermectin is an effective treatment of COVID-19, but the drug is not proven to treat COVID-19 effectively. Nor is it approved by the FDA for that purpose. It’s an anti-parasitic drug, and coronavirus is not a parasite. Although it has been shown to break down the coronavirus in laboratory settings, it has not yet been shown to do so in humans.

Some people apparently have sought ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and have resorted to buying products for farm animals that contain ivermectin as the active ingredient. This is obviously far more foolish than taking human roundworm treatment for off-label purposes.

So, when a well-known and widely hated podcaster announces he is taking ivermectin, among other drugs, to treat his coronavirus, how does NPR cover it?

NPR presents no evidence that Rogan is taking horse-formulated ivermectin. They seem to be deliberately misleading their readers in order to get good guffaws at the neanderthals. And this is typical media behavior.

Unsurprisingly, this coverage has misled the public. It would be natural to conclude that most ivermectin taken these days is horse paste. But it isn't. The CDC reports that ivermectin prescriptions (human prescriptions) have risen 24-fold since before COVID-19, from 3,600 a week to 88,000 a week.

The CDC also says that people are calling poison-control centers for illness from taking ivermectin. “In July 2021, ivermectin calls have continued to sharply increase, to a five-fold increase from baseline,” the CDC says, suggesting unprescribed use of ivermectin and maybe uses of horse paste.

So, how many horse pills or horse paste is being taken? Read closely into the reports of this, and you see a lot of hand-waving, percentages, and second-hand stories, but almost no numbers.

Physicians are raising alarms about a growing number of people getting the drug from livestock supply centers…” reports the New York Times.

The New York Times also reported, “Mississippi’s health department said earlier this month that 70 percent of recent calls to the state poison control center had come from people who ingested ivermectin from livestock supply stores.”

Look at that alert, though, and there are no hard numbers, although there is language that implies some very low hard numbers: “85% of the callers had mild symptoms, but one individual was instructed to seek further evaluations.”

Does that mean that “one individual” was 15% of the callers, meaning there were seven ivermectin calls in the whole state, maybe five of which involved livestock-grade stuff? My queries to the state health agencies have not yet received replies.

From Texas, we got larger and more concrete numbers. The New York Times reports, “So far this year the center has received 260 calls [about exposure to ivermectin]. The vast majority of the recent calls came from people who took a veterinary product in an attempt to treat or prevent COVID-19.”

So let’s assume that’s about 200 people in the state of Texas so far this year. If Texas were representative of the whole United States, that would suggest 2,400 poisonings from horse paste all year nationwide. That’s one-fifth the number of ivermectin prescriptions handed out every day.

That suggests that vastly more people are taking prescription ivermectin in human formulations than in livestock formulations.

Again, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to take ivermectin. There are doctors who will sell prescriptions to anything. There’s no evidence this drug works against COVID-19. And surely many people’s anti-vaccine arguments are grounded in the efficacy of therapeutics, of which ivermectin is the most famous these days. If belief in an unproven therapeutic is dragging down vaccination rates, that's also bad.

It's better to get vaccinated against COVID-19. The vaccines are actually tested in massive clinical trials and have been proven in real-world studies.

But the media shouldn't describe ivermectin as a horse dewormer when it's definitely a drug for people. The media should not state definitively that it absolutely, certainly has no value as a COVID-19 therapeutic either because there are clinical trials currently underway to determine that. If one of those pans out, will NPR, et cetera revisit their snide and unprofessional mockery of a therapy?

What if these sneering journalists dissuade people with parasites from filling ivermectin prescriptions?

If you want to inform the public about what is effective and what is ineffective in avoiding serious COVID-19, maybe being honest and forthright is better than being snarky and inaccurate.

CDC study finds over 80% of US adults have some immunity to COVID, notes prior infection offers similar protection as vaccine

CDC study finds over 80% of US adults have some immunity to COVID, notes prior infection offers similar protection as vaccine

A recent survey of blood donations has found that more than 80% of Americans over the age of 16 have some level of immunity to COVID-19 — a figure that could…

www.theblaze.com

A recent survey of blood donations has found that more than 80% of Americans over the age of 16 have some level of immunity to COVID-19 — a figure that could have massive implications on the country's public health policy moving forward.

The survey, conducted by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found that twice as many people have been infected by the pathogen than have been officially counted, CNN reported. As of Thursday, more than 39 million Americans have tested positive for the virus.

According to CNN, the CDC team, led by Dr. Jefferson Jones, embarked on the study to "determine how close the US might be to some kind of herd immunity." Though the news outlet was sure to mention the researchers "do not claim to have any kind of handle on that yet."

They accomplished the task by testing about 1.4 million blood samples provided by 17 different blood collection organizations from all 50 states.

Upon studying the samples, the team found that between July 2020 and May 2021, the percentage of blood samples that carried SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies increased from 3.5% to 83.3% over that time period.

The researchers highlighted the prominent role widespread vaccine efforts have played in raising the percentage. Though they also noted that prior infection provides similar protection against the virus.

Several large studies have shown that among individuals who are seropositive from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 incidence is reduced by 80% to 95%, similar to vaccine efficacy estimates," they wrote.

The researchers acknowledged their study has "several limitations," however, including that all of the testing occurred prior to the Delta variant's full emergence in the U.S.

Of note, a recent study out of Israel found that unvaccinated individuals with prior infection were 13 times less likely to contract the Delta variant than vaccinated individuals without prior infection.

Likewise, the study focused only on the presence of antibodies in the blood samples and didn't measure other immune responses, including those involving memory T-cells.

"Additional research is needed on the association between combined seroprevalence, protection, and herd immunity," the researchers wrote.

"The study will continue until at least December 2021, and results will be made available on the CDC's website," they added.

Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of mRNA vaccines against Covid-19

Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 | The Rio Times

While the promises of mRNA technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention.

riotimesonline.com

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – No, this article will not be an easy read for you. We apologize. Reviewing a scientific study is always a challenge. However, if you are interested and concerned about Covid-19 vaccination, we recommend that you try to read it anyway. It might be worth the effort.

While the promises of mRNA technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention.

Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh from the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratoryof MIT intended to review several highly concerning aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology and correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.

The development of mRNA vaccines against infectious diseases is unprecedented in many ways.

In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented. Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies.

Unprecedented represents a category of a vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine.

Read also: Deaths occurring after Covid-19 vaccinations have become hot topic in the U.S.

In sum, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.”

With that in mind, two years later, we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy. In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020).

This defies not only predictions but also expectations. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy need re-evaluation.

Others have brought up important additional questions regarding Covid-19 vaccine development, questions with direct relevance to the mRNA vaccines reviewed here. For example, Haidere, et al. (2021) identify four “critical questions” related to the development of these vaccines, questions that are germane to both their safety and their efficacy:

• Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?

• Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?

• How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?

• Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?

The media has generated a great deal of excitement about this revolutionary technology. However, there are also concerns that we may not realize the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA and other ingredients in these vaccines that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein.

The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines are based on similar technologies encoding the spike protein. This process has now been commoditized, so it’s relatively straightforward to obtain a DNA molecule from a specification of the sequence of nucleotides.

Moderna executives have a grand vision of extending the technology for many applications where the body can be directed to produce therapeutic proteins not just for antibody production but also to treat genetic diseases and cancer, among others.

Read also: Scientific study from Israel shows natural immunity superior to Covid vaccine against Delta variant

They are developing a generic platform where DNA is the storage element, messenger RNA is the “software,” and the RNA’s proteins represent diverse application domains.

The vision is grandiose, and the theoretical potential applications are vast (Moderna, 2020). The technology is impressive, but manipulation of the code of life could lead to completely unanticipated negative effects, potentially long-term or even permanent.

ACTIVATION OF LATENT HERPES ZOSTER

An observational study conducted at Tel Aviv Medical Center and the Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, found a significantly increased herpes zoster incidence following the Pfizer vaccination.

This observational study monitored patients with pre-existing autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Among the 491 patients with AIIRD over the study period, 6 (1.2%) were diagnosed with herpes zoster as a first-ever diagnosis between 2 days and 2 weeks after the first or second vaccination. In the control group of 99 patients, there were no herpes zoster cases identified.

The CDC’s VAERS database, queried on April 19, 2021, contains 278 reports of herpes zoster following either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccinations. Given the documented under-reporting to VAERS and the associational nature of VAERS reports, it is impossible to prove any causal link between the vaccinations and the zoster reports. However, the authors of the study believe the occurrence of zoster is another important ‘signal’ in VAERS.

Multiple studies have shown that patients with primary or acquired immune deficiency are more susceptible to severe herpes zoster infection. This suggests that the mRNA vaccines may be suppressing the innate immune response.

SPIKE PROTEIN TOXICITY

The picture is now emerging that SARS-CoV-2 has serious effects on the vasculature (arrangement and distribution of blood vessels) in multiple organs, including the brain.

In a series of papers, Yuichiro Suzuki, in collaboration with other authors, presented a strong argument that the spike protein by itself can cause a signaling response in the vasculature with potentially widespread consequences. These authors observed that, in severe cases of Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 causes significant morphological changes to the pulmonary vasculature.

STROKE

They speculated that these effects would not be restricted to the lung vasculature. The signaling cascade triggered in the heart vasculature would cause coronary artery disease, and activation in the brain could lead to stroke.

Systemic hypertension would also be predicted. They hypothesized that this ability of the spike protein to promote pulmonary arterial hypertension could predispose patients who recover from SARS-CoV-2 to develop right ventricular heart failure later.

Furthermore, they suggested that a similar effect could happen in response to the mRNA vaccines, and they warned of potential long-term consequences to both children and adults who received Covid-19 vaccines based on the spike protein.

Read also: Original promise of Covid vaccines cannot be kept – when do we start talking about it?

In an in vitro study of the blood-brain barrier, the S1 component of the spike protein promoted loss of barrier integrity, suggesting that the spike protein acting alone triggers a pro-inflammatory response in brain endothelial cells, which could explain the neurological consequences of the disease.

The implications of this observation are disturbing because the mRNA vaccines induce a synthesis of the spike protein, which could theoretically act in a similar way to harm the brain.

A POSSIBLE LINK TO PRION DISEASES AND NEURODEGENERATION

Prion diseases are a collection of neurodegenerative diseases induced by the misfolding of important bodily proteins, which form toxic oligomers that eventually precipitate out as fibrils causing widespread damage to neurons.

The best-known prion disease is MADCOW disease, which became an epidemic in European cattle beginning in the 1980s. The CDC website on prion diseases states that “prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018).

A paper published by J. Bart Classen (2021) proposed that the spike protein in the mRNA vaccines could cause prion-like diseases through its ability to bind to many known proteins and induce their misfolding into potential prions. Idrees and Kumar (2021) have proposed that the spike protein’s S1 component is prone to act as functional amyloid and form toxic aggregates.

1. LESSONS FROM PARKINSON’S DISEASE

There are many parallels between α-synuclein and the spike protein, suggesting prion-like disease following vaccination. The authors have already shown that the mRNA in the vaccine ends up in high concentrations in the liver and spleen, two organs that are well connected to the vagus nerve.

The cationic lipids in the vaccine create an acidic pH conducive to misfolding, and they also induce a strong inflammatory response, another predisposing condition.

However, this also means that mRNA vaccines induce an ideal situation for prion formation from the spike protein and its transport via exosomes along the vagus nerve to the brain.

Studies have shown that prion spread from one animal to another first appears in the lymphoid tissues, particularly the spleen. Differentiated follicular dendritic cells are central to the process as they accumulate misfolded prion proteins (Al-Dybiat et al., 2019).

An inflammatory response upregulates the synthesis of α-synuclein in these dendritic cells, increasing the risk of prion formation.

2. VACCINE SHEDDING

There has been considerable chatter on the Internet about the possibility of vaccinated people causing disease in unvaccinated people nearby.

Contrary to what is stated on many so-called knowledge databases on the internet, study authors Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, say that ‘vaccine shedding’ is not mere misinformation from so-called anti-vaccine activists, but a real possibility that should not be disregarded.

While this may seem hard to believe, there is a plausible process by which it could occur by releasing exosomes from dendritic cells in the spleen containing misfolded spike proteins, in complex with other prion reconfirmed proteins.

A Phase 1/2/3 study undertaken by BioNTech on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine implied in their study protocol that they anticipated the possibility of secondary exposure to the vaccine (BioNTech, 2020).

They even suggested two levels of indirect exposure: “A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner before or around the time of conception.”

3. EMERGENCE OF NOVEL VARIANTS

An interesting hypothesis has been proposed in a paper published in Nature, which described a case of serious Covid-19 disease in a cancer patient who was taking immune-suppressing cancer chemotherapy drugs.

The patient survived for 101 days after admission to the hospital, finally succumbing in the battle against the virus. The patient constantly shed viruses over the entire 101 days, and therefore he was moved to a negative-pressure high air-change infectious disease isolation room to prevent contagious spread.

During the course of the hospital stay, the patient was treated with Remdesivir and subsequently with two rounds of antibody-containing plasma taken from individuals who had recovered from Covid-19 (convalescent plasma).

It was only after the plasma treatments that the virus began to mutate rapidly, and a dominant new strain eventually emerged, verified from samples taken from the nose and throat of the patient.

An in-vitro experiment demonstrated that this mutant strain had reduced sensitivity to multiple units of convalescent plasma taken from several recovered patients. The authors proposed that the administered antibodies had actually accelerated the mutation rate in the virus because the patient was unable to clear the virus due to their weak immune response fully.

There are at least two concerns that the authors have regarding this experiment in relation to the mRNA vaccines. The first is that, via continued infection of immune-compromised patients, one can expect continued emergence of more novel strains that are resistant to the antibodies induced by the vaccine, such that the vaccine may quickly become obsolete.

The vaccine was only 2/3 more effective against the South African strain than against the original strain (Liu et al., 2021).

The second more ominous consideration is to ponder what will happen with an immune-compromised patient following vaccination. It is conceivable that they will respond to the vaccine by producing antibodies, but those antibodies will be unable to contain the disease following exposure to Covid-19.

CONCLUSION

Experimental mRNA vaccines have been heralded as having the potential for great benefits, but they also harbor the possibility of potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences. The mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented with great fanfare, but many aspects of their widespread utilization merit concern.

The authors of the study have reviewed some, but not all, of those concerns here, and they want to emphasize that these concerns are potentially serious and might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally.

To rule out the adverse potentialities described in this paper, they recommend, at a minimum, that the following research and surveillance practices be adopted:

A national effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines with abundant funding allocation tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks

after vaccination.

Repeated autoantibody testing of the vaccine-recipient population. The autoantibodies tested could be standardized and based upon previously documented antibodies and

autoantibodies potentially elicited by the spike protein.

Immunological profiling related to cytokine balance and related biological effects. Tests

should include, at a minimum, IL-6, INF-α, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and C-reactive protein.

Studies comparing populations who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines and those

who did not confirm the expected decreased infection rate and milder symptoms of the vaccinated group, while at the same time comparing the rates of various autoimmune diseases and prion diseases in the same two populations.

Studies to assess whether an unvaccinated person can acquire vaccine-specific

forms of the spike proteins from a vaccinated person nearby.

In vitro studies to assess whether the mRNA nanoparticles can be taken up by sperm and converted into cDNA plasmids.

Animal studies to determine whether vaccination shortly before conception can result in

offspring carrying spike-protein-encoding plasmids in their tissues, possibly integrated into their genome.

In vitro studies aimed to better understand the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain,

heart, testes, etc.

The authors conclude that public policy around mass vaccination has generally proceeded on the assumption that the risk/benefit ratio for the novel mRNA vaccines is a “slam dunk.” With the massive vaccination campaign well underway in response to the declared international emergency of Covid-19, we have rushed into vaccine experiments on a worldwide scale.

At the very least, societies, countries, and rulers should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and previously untested technology. And, in the future, they so urge governments to proceed with more caution in the face of new biotechnologies.

Source: International Journal of vaccine theory practice and research, May 2021

Quote from Fm1

People who had two vaccine shots had a six-fold higher chance of getting infected with Delta than patients who hadn’t been vaccinated but previously contracted the coronavirus, according to the research.

The study, published online but not yet peer reviewed, is the largest of its kind. It doesn’t take booster shots — now widely given in Israel — into account, but given that most of the world is still giving a two-dose regimen, has international relevance.

But experts are stressing that the results shouldn’t be interpreted as discouragement from vaccinating. Immunologist Prof. Cyrille Cohen of Bar Ilan University, who was not involved in the study, told The Times of Israel: “Certain people who are not inclined to get vaccinated might be mistaken and think that this means you’d better get sick a priori and not get a vaccine. Such a thinking is medically wrong, and the results of the study do not mean that people should expose themselves on purpose and get sick.

Agreed - it is good news for future community immunity that catching COVID gives most people great immunity. That + vaccination can get us to a good state reasonably soon, let us hope, since the anti-vaxers and those with weak immune systems will all catch COVID.

Quote from Fm1

Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh from the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratoryof MIT intended to review several highly concerning aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology and correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.

Not agreed at all. (1) these people are not qualified to look properly at the evidence, they can do the same sort of amateur job as I or others here - with added bias. (2) Stephanie Seneff has form in this area, with screwball conspiracy theories that everything uner the sun is being caused by glyphosphate poisoning

Are the anti-GMO and anti-vaccine movements merging? - Alliance for Science

The anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements — driven by similar conspiracist fears about big corporations, ideological preference for "natural" alternatives and…

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

Seneff is notorious for promoting a bogus graph purporting to link glyphosate applied to corn and soy (and thus the real bogeyman, GMOs) with a rise in autism diagnoses. This graph has become a classic of correlation-causation confusion, and has been satirized by similar graphs showing an equally good correlation between the rise in organic food sales and Jim Carey movies and autism.

Further down the list is Sayer Ji, a long-time commercial promoter of natural health woo via his website GreenMedInfo. This carries enormous amounts of content opposing every vaccine around, from diptheria to flu shots. Ji appears alongside modern agriculture opponent Vandana Shiva, the president of the EU-funded International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, and other luminaries in the Global GMO Free Coalition steering group.

Sayer Ji recently promoted a conspiracy theory taken up by prominent Catholic priests in Kenya that “a WHO/UNICEF sponsored tetanus vaccination campaign may conceal an agenda of forced contraception for over 2 million Kenyan women.” This dangerous myth threatens the lives of thousands of Kenyan children, who are now exposed to tetanus, which is easily preventable with a safe vaccine.

The most influential anti-GMO group in the US, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), has also been directly involved in anti-vaccine campaigning. Earlier this year, OCA alongside anti-vaxxer groups the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota, the Minnesota Natural Health Coalition and the Minnesota Vaccine Freedom Coalition organized a meeting targeting Somali-Americans in the state, among whom vaccination rates have plunged.

According to National Public Radio, the activities of OCA and other anti-vaccine groups have led directly to a resurgence of measles among the Somali-American community. The measles outbreak resulted from myths spread by OCA and other groups about vaccines supposedly causing autism. As the Washington Post reported, discredited doctor Wakefield was another of those featured at events in the state. Wakefield’s theories about MMR vaccine and autism have led to a worldwide resurgence in preventable childhood diseases, leading inevitably to the deaths of some young children.

Despite these appalling activities, which include suggesting that Ebola can be cured by homeopathy and other such quackery, I am not aware of any move in the wider organic movement to censure the activities of the OCA or its leader, Ronnie Cummins. Cummins was one of the lead organizers of last year’s “Monsanto Tribunal” in The Hague, which attracted many of the anti-GMO scene’s other leading lights.

The OCA’s most influential activity has been its funding support of US Right to Know, which has targeted many biotech academics working at public universities with FoIA requests for thousands of their emails. OCA has pumped over half a million dollars into USRTK, enabling it to conduct influential campaigns to smear academics such as Kevin Folta, and to hire activists such as former Reuters journalist Carey Gillam to push out anti-GMO information in the media.

Another prominent funder of anti-GMO causes is the alternative health website Mercola.com, which has large amounts of coverage of the supposed health problems caused by vaccines, and even publishes a special supplement, “How to Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations of All Kinds.” Mercola.com broadcasts conspiracy theories against “big pharma,” enabling it to earn millions from selling “natural health” remedies as alternative treatments for those who believe its scare stories.

According to the Genetic Literacy Project, Mercola.com has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the OCA, and also America’s leading anti-vaccine group, the National Vaccine Information Center.

As the Alliance for Science reported last week, anti-vaccine scaremongering has become increasingly successful in recent years. In Japan, campaigners against the HPV vaccine have contributed to a collapse in the rate of vaccination against HPV, from 70 percent in 2013 to less than 1 percent today. With 3,000 Japanese women dying from cervical cancer annually, and hundreds of thousands more deaths across the world, the mortality toll from HPV anti-vaxxers is likely to be high.

Happy Joe "I dropped out and will never trust anyone with qualifications" alt medicine tyoccon again found in this space. An example of big alt pharma influence.

Don't disagree, they will try to kill you!!!!

Candace Owens denied medical treatment as Colorado lab cancels COVID test appointment

Candace Owens denied medical treatment as Colorado lab cancels COVID test appointment | Fox News

Conservative author and commentator Candace Owens was denied medical care in the form of a coronavirus test by a Colorado laboratory because of her political beliefs, Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson reported Thursday.

Owens was sent a letter by Aspen Laboratories co-founder Suzanna Lee informing her that her "booking" was being cancelled and that she would be "denied service" because of both her aversion to governmental facemask mandates and her analysis of the effectiveness of vaccination shots.

"We cannot support anyone who has pro-actively worked to make this pandemic worse by spreading misinformation, politicizing, and discouraging the wearing of masks and actively dissuading people from receiving life-saving vaccinations," Lee wrote in the letter obtained by "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

FAUCI: ‘MU’ COVID VARIANT NOT AN ‘IMMEDIATE THREAT’ TO AMERICANS

Carlson noted it has not been unusual for Americans of certain political affiliations to be "singled out, punished and denied services" – but that it is likely one of the first such cases of an American citizen being denied medical treatment on that basis.

This doesn't sound like America," he said, introducing Owens to the program

Owens said she does not actually want to be tested for coronavirus but that because of sudden governmental restrictions on "bodily autonomy", she has to get routine tests to be able to engage in normal activities.

"First and foremost, I'd like to not have to get COVID tested, but as you brought up in your previous segment – this is one of the only ways you can maintain your bodily autonomy right now and they're saying if you do not get the vaccination then you need a COVID test to move. If you go to an event you need a negative COVID test; if you want to leave the country or fly," she said.

"So I perpetually have to get tested to prove I'm negative," Owens said, noting she has traveled to three countries and 23 states in the last two years for her work and leisure

Owens added that Lee's refusal of services begs the question as to the rhetoric of people like her who say it is "a pandemic of the unvaccinated."

"If this is a real deadly virus – if the unvaccinated are the people that are behind this pandemic, people like me … and you really believe this, why would you prevent somebody from complying with local COVID measures and trying to get a test and do the right thing? That doesn't make sense."

Such behavior "defies the science [they] claim is so true," said Owens.

Carlson noted that there are laws prohibiting doctors from refusing medical care to illegal immigrants or people who show up at emergency rooms uninsured – but that somehow an American citizen who has chosen not to get the COVID jab can suddenly be denied the same medical attention.

"Is that legal?" he asked.

"This is not about health anymore, this is about politics," Owens replied. "These people are sadistic, they are sadists. They like to manipulate you, they like control. They don't care about public health. This is a public health crisis she would say 'you know what I hate Candace Owen but of course she is in my town I'm going to give her a test and make sure she doesn't infect anybody else.'"

Carlson said Owens is essentially being lectured because she doesn't care enough, yet she was denied a coronavirus test she was seeking to take to show she indeed cares about local laws and policies.

"You can't get a COVID test and can't have a credit card," Carlson added. "This is getting really, really dark and I hope Republican members of Congress who still have some power would stand up for their voters."

Quote from JedRothwell

The vaccine costs far less than a course in ivermectin.

Stop spreading nonsense. One vaccine dose costs between 15..50$ You will soon get your third dose to be able to continue spreading your FUD.

So we have 100$ for vaccines + 60$ for vaccine application versus 1$ for purchasing Ivermectin.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work.

You are outraging silly person. Plagiarism has nothing to do with the study data! This is a fake argument to discredit a study. There are > 100'000 corona papers now and the introduction of most is identical. So we have 100'000 plagiarism....

The other issue I explained already twice . Treat your Alzheimer first.

Quote from zorud

Interesting findings....

In fact https://www.thelancet.com/acti…S1473-3099%2821%2900460-6

this shows a poor protection (only 50%) of the vaccines much lower than form severe disease.

People with prior vaccination to breakthrough infection have a lower risk for long Covid. (Remember: There is no such disease as Long Covid. This is a very large summary set of symptoms that you also get as long flue or any other infection.)

Quote from Fm1

A recent survey of blood donations has found that more than 80% of Americans over the age of 16 have some level of immunity to COVID-19 — a figure that could have massive implications on the country's public health policy moving forward.

We say this since 1.5 years as such studies have been done 1.5 years ago already. This is important because vaccine efficiency never was 95% it was 95% among the 20% with no immunity. So in fact it was only 75% from the beginning! (You have to multiply the infected by 5 to get the real 100% number!)