Covid-19 News

    At the start of the pandemic we could not be sure what was the silent fraction of cases. It needed seroprevalence surverys - and then accurate longitudinal random sample seroprevalence and antigen surveys like ONS - to be sure. This matters because if as antivaxxers claimed for a long time the silent cases are a very large fraction of all cases the real deadliness of COVID is much lower. Just a note here that even when the real scientists were not certain - and the data from individual seroprevalence surveys was all over the place - the guestimate of around 50% asymptomatic proved right - the antivax hope of X10 or so proved wrong.


    So we see the pattern repeated again. In order to make vastly improved deaths data fit their fantasies the antivaxers (and W - anti-vaxer-lite) have to suppose delta is muhc less deadly than alpha - so that then the vaccine does not help. To do that, they have to suppose a much larger X6 level of silent infection. Just as before, when the data is not entirely certain they choose an unlikely outlier that supports their fixed views.


    Luckily, now, we have much better data than then, so it is easy to show that these anti-vax-lite memes are false.


    The anti-vaxers here - and the anti-vax lite contingent - operate under the assumption that all the research done by real researchers on the pandemic is incompetent or corrupt. They either don't bother to read it, or do read it and dismiss it. That puts them in a very difficult position because it is so much work accurately to work this stuff out for yourself. You can see also from the repeated mistakes W makes that they consistently work things out for themselves wrong, using partial data, wrong statistics, or in some cases I guess just wishful thinking. In factt I don't think W is interested in working stuff out, he is interested only in finding evidence that fits his predetermined views of an alphabet mafia throughout the developed world deliberately killing people.


    It is just a shame that scientific correctness of otehrwise makes no difference to the antivax crowd. whereas real people 9and even me) have to work stuff out and expalin any inconsistencies - the antivaxers just cherry-pick some isolated numbers that sound good.


    You can maybe tell that I despise that behaviour. It is dishonest and unprofessional. It is not that scientists have no biases. rather it is that they do their best - if they are any good - to be fair, curious of possible errors, check as much as possible, and not cherry-pick stuff that fits biases. The anti-vaxxers are not, by that benchmark, good scientists.

    Boris does not care, and his government is mostly overwhelmed and incompetent. The real risk is weird new variants getting in - and I think Boris just hopes it will not be a problem, but if it is he will deny any repsonsibility.

    Quote from Seatrout

    If you have to be persuaded, reminded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is not in your best interest

    You show an amazing belief in the goodness of humanity. I mean, most people are sensible most of the time, but what about the others?


    And I can think of many things - great example is wearing seatbelts in cars in the UK - where no-one did something that was greatly to their own benefit (I know I did not). Then it was made compulsory. Overnight we all started doing it, and after 12 months it was second nature, no problems, no-one grumbled, and car accident death and severe injury rate was cut by 50%. Sure, we were less free. I know no-one now who values that freedom we used to have.


    The good argument for not exerting pressure is actually quite different:


    If you have to bully and pressure people into doing something which is in their own interests, most will reset that and go out of their way to do it even more.

    Quote from Navid

    This is absolutely a global crime of a proportion so immense the people of the world are truly unable to comprehend the matrix they are in. The fact that this board is being used to promote this is despicable. The Towne Criers who are on constant post and respond are just a small bit of evidence.

    The fact that navid's post above gets 4 likes shows quite how much weird anti-vaxer conspiracy theory opinion we have around here.


    It is a bit rich antivaxers - who are masters of underhand false social media propaganda - complaining about people like me wanting to correct their lies and doing it transparently, with links, willing to be corrected?


    It took me some time to get to calling them lies - but the ones I've been correcting here are so obviously wrong, and repeated so many times, they have now got that status.


    If you have libertarian opinions where you believe society is best with a very light touch from government - maybe a form of anarchism - that is a respectable intellectual position. From a left-wing perspective I like many others thought Le Guin's the dispossessed: an ambiguous utopia was a wonderfully attractive - though totally batty - example of an anarchistic utopia.


    Advancing lies about COVID or vaccines to get others to fall in line with it is not respectable, and done en masse on social media has caused in the US unnecessary deaths and suffering, lockdowns and restrictive measures to be extended, etc. The fact that whenever we get to specifics you do not continue with arguments shows that you know you do not have good arguments on those specifics.


    How about you stop lying and make instead a more general case that all government interference is to be deplored, that 1% of the population dying unpleasantly of COVID is a price worth paying for no lockdown and not providing free mass-vaccination, etc, etc.


    I'd even agree with some of it, and what I did not agree with I would at least respect. I'm sure that is true of many others here.


    Shane - if you think me fighting against those who use lies that persuade others not to get vaccinated is politics I guess it says a lot that is bad for the political state of the USA. God help you all :)

    Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics


    Found it!


    This is the real asymptomatic rate for delta from UK. It is not quite the same as silent infections, because some of those will be symptomatic and never tested as COVID or thought to be that. Nor are cases the same as symptomatic infections, because some will be asymptomatic.


    So this is a much more accurate answer to W's speculation than my calculation above - unless by silent he juts meant not counted as case. In that case my estimate was exactly accurate and this one, measuring asymptomatics, is wrong.


    NB - it is from a random sample survey of households who were tested for COVID and asked about symptoms longitudinally over 4 weeks.


    In the UK, 61% of people testing positive for COVID-19 reported symptoms in July 2021. Symptoms reported were more likely to be "classic" symptoms than gastrointestinal or loss of taste or smell only. The prevalence of “classic” and any symptoms was higher in June and July, and January and February, compared with March and April. The most commonly reported symptoms have consistently been cough, fatigue and headache.


    Anyway, whether 55% or 39%, this does not significantly affect findings about the mortality of delta. Double hospitalisations is a real figure.

    Quote from Fm1

    Hospitals in Oklahoma have been so backed up with ivermectin overdoses that gunshot victims are unable to receive treatment quickly.

    Just a note on this as some here are quick to point out "fake news" by "anti- vaxers". It seems the vaccine warriors are just as guilty.


    This report is almost certainly false. When I first read about it, I was curious as to if it were true. If so, it would certainly be big news and more importantly important information as Ivermectin is a proven safe drug. For ER's to be filled with Ivermectin overdoses would be quite incredibile.


    So I did some research and this story is completely unsubstantiated.

    1) I could find no supportive articles... only a rehash of the same one. A certain Dr. Jason McElyea, was the cited source. No confirming reports I could find.


    2) The report and republished reprints had NO data. Simply claims...without any supportive evidence... such as to which hospital the ER was "filled" with. No numbers, no dates, no facts... just "ER filled".


    3)The "report" being republished by main stream is now stating "Oklahoma ER's", note the plural, giving the impression that all or at least several ER's are full! The reports now even state that "gunshot victims", note again plural...are being kept from the ER. Again, this would be quite the news if true.... Oklahoma has a quite low gun violence rate... now if this were left wing Chicago...... This propaganda method is the often used technique to make an issue seem larger,,, even when the story is not true to begin with.


    4) I tried to find the hospital name so I could give them a call... I could not find any reference in any story,


    5) The side effects of Ivermectin would never pre-empt a gun shot wound. The published effects are diarrhea, dizziness and nausea. Hardly life threatening.


    In spite of this story being false, mainstream has been quick to jump on board and widely report it... all without facts.

    hmmmm..... :/ as stated before... anything that may compete with vaccines MUST be buried quickly and completely.




    Edited update....


    Below is a retraction from "The Rolling Stone" who had earlier published the same repeated story.... at least they had the integrity of printing a retraction.... note the hospital stated there had been ZERO ivermectin overdoses at their facility, much less ER's full. Talk about outright disinformation campaign by mass media!


    UPDATE: Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah issued a statement: Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months. NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose. All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care. We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.”


    Gunshot Victims Wait as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Hospitals - Rolling Stone

    Just to add, a recent article claims calls to Florida poison control were up concerning ivermectin. The story is true but left out that 99% of the calls were for dosing information.

    A detailed and interesting examination of anti-vaxer claims that the spike protein used in mRNA vaccines is deadly.


    The “deadly” coronavirus spike protein (according to antivaxxers)
    Specific narratives of antivaccine misinformation about any given vaccine generally consist of a combination of a subset (or all) of the following elements.…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    As I stated near the beginning of this post, antivaxxers strive mightily, above all, to claim that vaccines are dangerous to those receiving them and those around the recipients, all with added conspiracy theories. It doesn’t matter how much they have to misinterpret or misrepresent scientific studies to do so. They’ll find a way to make their misrepresentations (or failure to put studies into proper context) sound like plausible evidence that vaccines are dangerous, and they’ve certainly been doing this with COVID-19 vaccines, starting with pointing to any study that finds a role for the spike protein alone in causing cell damage. Such studies are critical to the elucidation of the molecular mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 infects cells, replicates itself, and causes so much damage to the lungs. It’s also important to note that target effects matter. Location matters. The main infection starts in the lungs, which is where the highest concentration of virus and therefore spike protein would be expected in the case of real infections. In the case of vaccination, the location is the muscle cells of the shoulder, and any spike protein that escapes is rapidly diluted in the bloodstream to the pg/ml range.


    But what does Olgata’s finding for the Moderna mean regarding the safety of the vaccine? Basically nothing. The reason is simple. If there were a safety problem due to spike protein, after more than a quarter of a billion doses of vaccine administered in the US alone, there would have been safety signal by now, given the unprecedentedly intense vaccine safety surveillance effort that accompanied the rollout of these vaccines. Remember, this is a pharmacosurveillance effort that detected literally a one-in-a-million serious adverse event associated with vaccination with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within a month and a half of its being distributed under an emergency use authorization. It beggars the imagination to suggest that, even if the transient appearance of spike protein after vaccination at a concentration of (at most) tens of picograms/ml were toxic, there would be no safety signal after so many doses. It’s even more ridiculous to propose that such a minuscule concentration of spike protein can be “shed” in quantities that could affect other people, given the incredibly low and transient concentration produced after vaccination.


    Antivaxxers either don’t know or understand that themselves, or they know that the vast majority of people don’t know or understand that. All they need is a finding that any spike protein floats free in the bloodstream after vaccination, and they can use that finding to start an effective fear mongering campaign. That’s exactly what they are doing now.

    U.S. Poison Control Ivermectin Data Analyzed by TrialSite – Some Surprises


    U.S. Poison Control Ivermectin Data Analyzed by TrialSite – Some Surprises
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and prominent physician and pharmacy societies have stepped
    trialsitenews.com


    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and prominent physician and pharmacy societies have stepped up and intensified warnings about the use of ivermectin across mass media. While a recent American Medical Association warning press release cites a huge rise in ivermectin prescriptions and a 3-Fold increase in calls to poison control centers associated with the misuse of the generic, generic drug no context or data is offered. All of the prescriptions reported are associated with physician prescriptions to consenting patients for the off-label use against ivermectin. An improper channel involves the procurement and inappropriate use of the animal version of the drug. Media messaging appears to often conflate these two distinct use cases. TrialSite recently reported that the American Medical Association (AMA), prominent pharmacy societies, and one of the makers of ivermectin, Merck declared war on the economical, generic drug that’s treated over 4 billion people in the tropics alone helping to manage diseases such as River Blindness. Mainstream media seemingly without any critical questioning merely parrots what the various government agencies like CDC have instructed them to report. In this case that happens to be that based on reports from the Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) calls to poison centers grew 3-fold over the pre-pandemic baseline. But what was the baseline used for the analysis? Not one media person asked the question. The FDA in the past issued warnings against the use of the drug while providing no data to the public backing up the warning. TrialSite has been on the record asking the question “what is the baseline” and thankfully we were able to secure the actual AAPCC data. The situation appears different from what authorities, medical societies, and mass media are proclaiming publicly, indicating a significant delta between the government-directed media messaging and the actual facts. Does this represent a gross exaggeration of the actual situation? Are perhaps other agendas now unfolding, such as scare campaigns to deter any use, including the legitimate off-label option?


    Recently in TrialSite’s OpEd section, Ron Brown, Ph.D. wrote that growing media quotes conflated physician-prescribed use with dangerous abuses involving illicit use of the veterinary version of the drug. Brown asked about the media purposely confusing the two different versions of the drug and very different access scenarios asked the question “Do these sorts of suggestive comments hide a biased agenda against repurposing an inexpensive and readily available drug with the potential to undermine the return on investment of more contemporary pharmacotherapies?


    What’s the Actual Data Indicate?

    The data used for this analysis originates from the AAPCC and the National Poison Data System (NPDS) Bulletin. There were 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases reported from January-Aug 2021. This does represent a 163% increase in cases compared to the year prior or the “baseline” data of 435 such cases. Given the dramatic increase in prescriptions, 2,344%, this number could be expected.


    But does the CDC claim of “reports of severe illness” hold up to the actual data? That data reveals the following:


    Ivermectin Poison Control Calls by Category (total of 1,143 calls)


    AAPCC Ivermectin Data #

    Deaths 0

    Major Effects 11

    Moderate Effects 91

    Minor Effect 148

    Based on a review of the data only 22% of the total show any material effect as we will see below. But first, a chart depicting the data”:


    Medical Outcome: Ivermectin Cases



    The data herein indicates a different reality than what is projected to the public. The vast majority of the case calls (78%) fall under the category of “no problem” or an aggregate labeled herein as “not sure” and thus require no follow-up. Clearly, in these latter cases, any real threat to consumer safety would have been flagged for follow-up.


    754 out of the 1,143 cases were classified as no effect, non-toxic or minimal. 137 of the calls were potentially toxic, with no follow-up. This latter category indicates nothing severe. Calls deemed severe equaled 1% or approximately 11 cases and not these were classified to the media as self-medication-based abuse of the veterinary drug.


    This data must be compared to the magnitude of growth in the use of the product since the baseline. Overall ivermectin prescriptions have soared. Prescriptions rose from 3,600 per week pre-pandemic to 88,000 per week ending August 13, 2021, representing a 2,344% increase.


    See the graph below for ivermectin prescription growth:



    Hand Sanitizer more Dangerous

    To provide further context poison control also fielded lots of hand-sanitizer calls from “pre-pandemic baseline.” Those increased 58% from Jan-Aug 2019 to Jan-Aug 2021. However, 3,320 of them were major, moderate, or minor effects while 4 people died according to a CDC report.


    See below for more information for CDC information on cases of methanol poisoning in Arizona from people swallowing hand sanitizer:



    An Agenda?

    The FDA and CDC according to ivermectin proponents have “vilified” the drug by association with misuse of animal versions of the drug, such as horse paste. Importantly the rise in prescriptions — to 88,000 just last week — were all MD prescribed, non-animal, non-mail order ivermectin. In other words, the human version of the FDA-approved drug used off-label for the indication of COVID-19.


    TrialSite’s ivermectin fact sheet should be referred to for a more balanced point of view. Although it’s acknowledged here that the CDC is the nation’s health agency and the FDA the nation’s food and drug regulatory and both should be referred to as well for comparison.


    TrialSite emphasizes ivermectin is not a cure nor a silver bullet for COVID-19. Rather the result of mounting tension derives from what amounts to markedly different points of view on the clinical trials and real-world data to date behind the drug’s use during the pandemic.


    Several countries including India for months authorized the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. TrialSite reported on the tremendous turnaround in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state with over 220 million people. There, a state-wide public health, home-based care program involved both frequent testing, home isolation where possible, and medicine kits including ivermectin. This effort was associated with a dramatic reduction in COVID-19 Delta variant-based cases. TrialSite is on record that it cannot prove that the ivermectin correlates to the dramatic reduction in cases there. But the effort certainly caught the attention of the World Health Organization (WHO) celebrating the effort. Of course WHO opted to not mention the use of ivermectin.


    But a clash of points of view unfolds in real-time as from one vantage nearly all of the 63 clinical trials involving the drug reveal positive data attributes indicating a case for off-label use given the drug’s known high safety profile for the intended use.


    The opposing view, which TrialSite acknowledges represents a great majority of the nation’s regulators, public health, and physician societies, resists the acceptance of the drug, emphasizing that out of the 63 such trials only a handful are worth reviewing, and the ones showing any positive data aren’t reliable due to study design, dose variation and the like. Thus this dominant point of view posits there just isn’t enough data to merit approved use. But off-label use is legal and that just may be what the latest intensified campaign seeks to change.


    That is the daily messaging now via the mainstream news repeats over and over the 3-fold increase in calls to poison centers due to abusive self-medication yet appears to conflate this unfolding dynamic with the use of human ivermectin prescribed off label by a licensed doctor to a consenting patient and the misuse of the animal variety.


    AAPCC Ivermectin Summary Data



    Conclusion

    Ivermectin prescriptions have skyrocketed during the pandemic, 2,344% over the previous year—the baseline. The FDA first warned about ivermectin use, conflating animal and the human versions of the drug while precluding any data; the agency also recommends ongoing the drug should only be used in clinical trials. The CDC issued a more recent warning based on data from AAPCC which aggregated calls to 55 poison centers purportedly involving ivermectin.


    It’s this data that prominent medical and pharmacy societies declared war on ivermectin.


    But the actual data could be interpreted quite differently than the urgent messaging now proclaimed daily in the media. That is the agencies’ reference to the 3-fold increase in poison center calls. The actual data from the AAPCC now reveals that the baseline number is in fact 435 case counts (calls to poison centers) in 2020; and that the total calls to date in the same reporting period this year are 1,143.


    But this first must be understood in the context of ivermectin prescription growth, which has increased 2,344% for the reporting period. Moreover, a review of cases reveals the overwhelming majority (78%) fall in the category of no problem or not sure—and hence are not followed up. Of the total ivermectin cases thus far there have been no deaths reported and 1% of all calls involved any kind of major issue. There is no data as to whether that 1% required hospitalization.


    Thus one could make the case that the safety profile differs markedly from what is currently reported in the mainstream media and the health agencies once the data is reviewed and understood.


    But for comparison purposes poison control data implies that methanol-based hand sanitizer is far more dangerous than ivermectin based on the calls to the 55 poison control centers over the past year, given a handful of deaths.


    TrialSite suggests a review of the ivermectin fact sheet. By no means is ivermectin a cure for COVID-19, there are no cures for COVID-19. Nor can ivermectin be considered a silver bullet for the pathogen. The basis for the rapid growth in prescriptions has been the interpretation of over six dozen studies including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series plus considerable real-world data from numerous countries around the world– mostly from low-and middle-income countries.


    But the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as the WHO challenge the data from these clinical trials, suggesting that in most cases the studies are flawed, either due to design, dose variability, or other issues. Consequently, they only recommend the usage of ivermectin for COVID-19 in a controlled clinical trial.


    TrialSite has posited throughout this pandemic that transcending the COVID-19 pandemic requires a holistic, comprehensive, and proactive approach involving not only safe and effective vaccines but also ambulatory and home care antiviral-like treatments for early-onset mild-to-moderate COVID-19—representing 90% of all cases worldwide. Of course, data-driven, risk-based approaches to public health remain instrumental as should health campaigns bolster people’s health and immune systems.


    While the vaccines show incredible promise a number of issues are not fully addressed. The most recent Delta surge plus the revelation that the vaccine products’ effectiveness wane in a matter of months indicates that while important as a way to reduce the probability of hospitalization or worse, a vaccine-centric strategy alone is not sufficient to beat COVID-19.


    The TrialSite reader: What do you think about the data herein? Is the intensity and heightened urgency of the FDA and CDC warnings rational given what is disclosed? This platform will continue to remain as open, objective, and unbiased as humanly possible.

    Quote from Bob#2

    Just a note on this as some here are quick to point out "fake news" by "anti- vaxers". It seems the vaccine warriors are just as guilty.

    I would never believe stuff like that which I read in a newspaper. I'm sure you would not either. News is often highly speculative and exaggerated. My guess would be that in a hospital at one time that was full (as many are from COVID) they had to find room for a few ivermectin overdoses.


    The real difference is that anti-vaxers have nothing to say for themselves other than anecdotes and false arguments on social media and in the published record. Whereas the pro-vax position is set out in great detail in every doctor's surgery, and in research papers and regulatory documents,


    So just as guilty does not take that into account.

    I'm on the side of TSN here. I can easily believe that serious medical bad effects from ivermectin are unusual. From my POV the serious bad effects is common and non-medical. People who stock up on ivermectin and other possible helpful vitamins may believe themselves therefore to be well protected from COVID and do riskier things - whether that is not getting vaccinated or going to a COVID super-spreader.


    I also agree with TSN that a vaccine-centric standard alone is not enough to defeat COVID. That is why governments are putting so much money into developing new treatments and testing old drugs as possible treatments. Including ivermectin.


    I just want to point out the double standard - TSN talk about vaccine side effects citing VAERS reports without any such analysis of whether the report represents a vaccine-caused injury or a background event.


    What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    The choice of free will most will just go with the flow.

    The secret is not to get the good and bad to fight but trick them to thinking its for there own good.

    Attempting to control a population started a fight with the good and bad from attempting to control free will.

    As I say- its better to show the information and let each decide.

    as most will not interfere they get away with limiting or removing free will.

    As most think God will step in and fix this they wait not understanding He will not, Hes the good guy.

    On the other hand Satin thinks the world belongs to Him, he would rather burn it to the ground then let corruption control the world.

    Satin will not share,forgive,or stop,. for the good of- started a fight with Satin. the bad side in each of us.

    So you may be right about- you have to bully and pressure people into doing something which is in their own interests.

    Quote from Seatrout

    If you have to be persuaded, reminded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is not in your best interest

    Okay, so let's not do anything about drunk drivers. They don't want to stop, so it would be unethical for the rest of us to punish them, force them to stop, or take away their license. And people who drive at 60 mph in a 25 mph urban street? That's their right. They shouldn't be bullied. People who pollute, shoot people at random on the highways, rob banks, or sexually abuse children should not be persuaded, reminded, incentivized or punished for doing what they want to do, and what they feel they have a right to do.


    Oh, and by the way, no doctor or public health worker is lying about vaccines. The anti-vaxxers have published a torrent of lies -- a Niagara of lies -- but everything the CDC tells you is true.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Okay, so let's not do anything about drunk drivers. They don't want to stop, so it would be unethical for the rest of us to punish them, force them to stop, or take away their license. And people who drive at 60 mph in a 25 mph urban street? That's their right. They shouldn't be bullied. People who pollute, shoot people at random on the highways, rob banks, or sexually abuse children should not be persuaded, reminded, incentivized or punished for doing what they want to do, and what they feel they have a right to do.


    Oh, and by the way, no doctor or public health worker is lying about vaccines. The anti-vaxxers have published a torrent of lies -- a Niagara of lies -- but everything the CDC tells you is true.

    As everyone get away with everything in today's world only the fearful fear anything=

    that's about to change.

    Quote from Fm1

    The public is fighting back, we want ivermectin available!!! Get out of the way!

    It is available. 88,000 prescriptions are written per week. The only problem seems to be that it is sold out in some places. Even the animal versions are sold out, so obviously no one is stopping people from using it. The AMA advises against using it. That is not "getting in the way." Doctors are supposed to advise people how to deal with serious illness. That is their professional responsibility. They would be remiss if they did not use their best judgement, and to tell the public not to use ivermectin. As I said to Shane D., you might disagree, but doctors are supposed to follow their own best judgement, not yours. You would not want them to recommend whatever a bunch nitwits on the internet think is best.

    Quote from Fm1

    This study indicated the potential that vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved in those subjects receiving both vaccines compared to those with the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine alone.

    Please never take two vaccines at the same time. Else nobody can tell you what caused an odd reaction. Further in the near future most people will neither need a flu vaccine nor a CoV-10 vaccine. Post CoV-19 immunity lasts at least 10 years.

    But the Novavax CoV-19 vaccine so far look good. As usual we have to wait for real tests that last 2 years at least...

    Quote from Seatrout

    As everyone get away with everything in today's world only the fearful fear anything

    That is definitely not true of people who drive at 60 mph on 25 mph roads, people who rob banks, and people who sexually abuse children. Law enforcement officers usually find out about these crimes, they make vigorous efforts to arrest such people, and they usually succeed. People only get away with things when nobody notices. That is why drunk drivers often continue for years without being arrested.


    I do not think the conscience prevented people from committing crimes in the past more than it does today. I do not think people were more moral or decent in the past. They were about the same. Law enforcement and social standards have more of an effect on behavior than people's own personal morality. KKK terrorism in the south was much worse than anything we have nowadays. It was sanctioned by the states and by law enforcement, so the criminals had nothing to fear. If police officers were to look the other way and ignore bank robbers, many more banks would be robbed.


    For 20 years or so, political leaders decided it was okay to let the Sackler family kill 500,000 people for profit. The Sacklers had billions of dollars giving them political influence. They could hire so many hot shot lawyers they could not be touched. They never will be. The $4 billion fine is a minor annoyance for them. The Sackers are homicidal sociopaths, as I said. There are thousands, probably millions of other homicidal sociopaths in the U.S. and everywhere in the world, but they hardly ever manage to kill hundreds of people, never mind 500,000. The Sacklers are right up there with Pol Pot and Nazi regime in the annals of 20th century genocide. Millions of other people would love to do what they did, but law enforcement, courts, and other institutions usually prevent them. People here rail against Big Pharma, claiming it kills for profit, and it lies. Obviously some Big Pharma companies do that! The Sackler's company Purdue Pharma did. Many other pharma companies would do that, if they thought they could get away with it. Some of the CEOs are sociopaths. We know this because sociopaths are everywhere in society. But the CEOs know they cannot get away with murder. They would probably be caught and punished, unlike the Sacklers. So they abide by the law. No doubt they are jealous of the Sacklers, just as many people envy the Mafia.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The UK ONS survey is perfectly placed to determine "silent" cases from random-sample whole population testing longitudinally over 4 weeks (for individual households) and more than a year (for the overall results).

    This no longer works properly as most tests just look at the spike antibody that you can find in both groups. You only can test children age <18 to get the real picture!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    At the start of the pandemic we could not be sure what was the silent fraction of cases. It needed seroprevalence surverys - and then accurate longitudinal random sample seroprevalence and antigen surveys like ONS - to be sure. This matters because if as antivaxxers claimed for a long time the silent cases are a very large fraction of all cases the real deadliness of COVID is much lower.

    Real studies (USA,CH,AU,GE) not a faked data analysis did show as said 3x silent cases with Alpha. US,CH did show at least 6x with gamma. Now the vaxx rate is to high and the test are not sensitive.

    But we are lucky. Uttar Pradesh data shows at least 10x silent cases with delta.

    The same result we get from Swiss data by looking at test positive rate that went up from 1% to 20%.


    The problem is that vaccines hide the silent cases. And nobody is testing the vaccinated...This is how the mafia works.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Advancing lies about COVID or vaccines to get others to fall in line with it is not respectable, and done en masse on social media has caused in the US unnecessary deaths and suffering, lockdowns and restrictive measures to be extended, etc.

    THH FUD alert: Only the ban of HCQ and Ivermectin die kill more than 500'000 us folks. Not the missing vaccinations.

    But some extraordinary GOOP fools have been killed because they did believe they are invincible like goods...and did not ask for (miss-) treatment..

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.