Covid-19 News

  • Two studies in the last few days: One shows 40-45% Pediatric (children) patients listed in the stats as "hospitalized with COVID", were not there because of COVID, but were asymptomatic, or mildly so. The other study shows ~50% of adults listed as hospitalized COVID patients, were there WITH COVID, not because of.


    What does this tell us? Very obvious to me; it means that if those studies are representative of the entire US, the Delta variant surge here has been roughly half as bad as we believed. Brings up the question of...had we had better metrics as the authors of the one study puts it:


    "Conclusions and Relevance: The proportion of hospitalizations that are due to severe COVID-19 has changed with vaccine availability, thus, increasing proportions of mild and asymptomatic cases are included in hospitalization reporting metrics. The addition of simple measures of disease severity to the case definition of a SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization is a straightforward and objective change that should improve the value of the metric for tracking SARS-CoV-2 disease burden."


    would we have reacted differently?

  • Despite its anti-parasit intended use it seems to show at least the same if not more powerful antiviral performance....people don't seem to die or show severe side effects with the used medication in UP.... ?

    No, it has no antiviral performance. There is no clinical evidence that ivermectin has any effect on COVID, except for some substandard studies. The data from UP is so unreliable it is useless. In many districts, it shows no deaths at all from any cause for months at a time. Indian epidemiologists say the use of ivermectin has not had any effect on hospitalization or mortality. They say all of the recent curves are caused by the natural course of the epidemic. It has reached herd immunity in some districts, plus people are too frightened to go out of their houses. The epidemiologists have measured antibodies in sample populations. They found the infection rate was far higher than the official statistics from UP and other states show. Probably 10 to 20 times higher, which is enough to explain the curves. No one knows how many people died, but the epidemiologists estimate this too is 10 to 20 times higher than the official reports.


    Epidemiologists are better at analyzing this kind of thing than field doctors. In the history of medicine, doctors have often engaged in wishful thinking and ascribing cause and effect incorrectly. Doctors doing controlled, clinical double blind tests are usually better at statistics. So far, all of the quality tests show that ivermectin does not work. Even if it does, and even if we believe the best results from the clinical tests, it could not have produced the results ascribed to it in UP.


  • It would be refreshing to get some of these TSN drug studies on repurposed drugs that actually contributed something.


    Favipiravir compared to hydroxychloroquine- COVID treatment | IJGM
    Effectiveness and safety of favipiravir compared to hydroxychloroquine for management of Covid-19- Read for more information
    www.dovepress.com


    This study, as a retrospective, was published as a master's Thesis of a student (see above). Not done by experienced researchers

    It was not registered

    It has no systematic transparent system for capturing data

    It looks at some existing data from a trial, does some analysis on it, reports results.


    In that case the overall results can prove almost anything - even if the original data is low bias - becaue you can look for the thing that shows the type of result you want an ignore everything else. You can even look through 100 such trials and choose the one that gives you the results you want.


    It is true that retrospective studies can offer insight - when they provide insightful detail. This one does not - this type of analysis would be important if it were low bias and registered as a trial (rather than a retrospective).


    Given that, I don't see any point in looking at the analysis more.

  • Yes, the US is a weird over-medicalised place. I guess what happens when market forces push for more treatment and other restraints are loose.


    In addition, we would have the figures for vaccine efficacy against delta hospitalisation as better - though how much better cannot be determined without more information than we have here.

  • What does this tell us? Very obvious to me; it means that if those studies are representative of the entire US, the Delta variant surge here has been roughly half as bad as we believed. Brings up the question of...had we had better metrics as the authors of the one study puts it:

    Maybe this should tell you these studies are flawed. Have you looked closely? It is easy to diagnose COVID with high assurance. Doctors can usually tell by looking, and of course they always administer tests. The false positive rates for hospital tests is low. Tests are administered several times to be sure there is no false positive or negative. They are repeated every day for patients diagnosed with the illness. It is extremely unlikely that all these doctors and test kit operators are wrong by 40% to 45%.


    False positives for sick people are around 5% at most. Repeating the test greatly lowers this rate.


    The impact of false positive COVID-19 results in an area of low prevalence
    False negative results in COVID-19 testing are well recognised and frequently discussed. False positive results, while less common and less frequently…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    They are higher for the general population because of the base rate fallacy, as described here:


    Potential for False Positive Results with SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests
    Laboratories should expect some false positive results when screening large populations with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infection.
    www.fda.gov

  • Maybe this should tell you these studies are flawed. Have you looked closely? It is easy to diagnose COVID with high assurance. Doctors can usually tell by looking, and of course they always administer tests. The false positive rates for hospital tests is low. Tests are administered several times to be sure there is no false positive or negative. They are repeated every day for patients diagnosed with the illness. It is extremely unlikely that all these doctors and test kit operators are wrong by 40% to 45%.


    False positives for sick people are around 5% at most. Repeating the test greatly lowers this rate.

    I do not think we are on the same page. The studies were not about false positives and test accuracy. They were to determine how many hospitalized COVID patients were actually there because of COVID, and not with. Big difference between the two. If we are including patients with COVID (but not sick from it), as it appears is happening, we are getting a very skewed picture of what we are dealing with...as the authors tell us.


    This has been an ongoing problem since the first Alpha wave. One of the reasons is that hospitals are paid more for COVID patients, so there is an incentive to classify every patient that tests positive as a COVID patient. I am not sure that is still what is driving this though. If the reimbursement scheme has changed though, I have not heard about it.


    In a way, I can see the rationale of charging more for a patient who tests positive...even if asymptomatic. Once diagnosed, that patient then needs extra care to keep them isolated, and that adds to the costs.

  • I do not think we are on the same page. The studies were not about false positives and test accuracy. They were to determine how many hospitalized COVID patients were actually there because of COVID, and not with. Big difference between the two.

    The way to to determine this is with a test. The determination is only wrong with a false positive, or false negative. If the test works correctly you can be sure the patients is infected (or not).


    Perhaps you are saying the children were initially admitted for COVID, but the doctors diagnosis and tests revealed that 45% of them were sick with something else. Is that it? If so, I don't see a problem. The medical system is working the way it should. If the children are seriously ill they must be admitted and observed for a day or two, whether they have COVID or something else. Doctors do not admit you to a hospital unless you are seriously ill. They send you home. That happened to me once, even though I was throwing up every hour or so. They did give me an IV for a few hours as an outpatient.


    One of the reasons is that hospitals are paid more for COVID patients,

    I have heard that, but there is no evidence it is true. On the contrary, Atlanta hospitals complain they are making less money with their wards crammed with COVID patients. They say elective surgery and serious illness such as cancer brings in more money. One reason is that most COVID patients are poor, and uninsured or covered by Medicare. Medicare does not pay much. Uninsured people are billed for tens of thousands of dollars, or a hundred thousand or more. The hospitals send collection agencies after them. The agencies take everything not nailed down -- your car and all your worldly goods. But you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. Poor people in Atlanta can never pay $100,000 even in a lifetime.

  • The way to to determine this is with a test. The determination is only wrong with a false positive, or false negative. If the test works correctly you can be sure the patients is infected (or not).


    Perhaps you are saying the children were initially admitted for COVID, but the doctors diagnosis and tests revealed that 45% of them were sick with something else. Is that it? If so, I don't see a problem. The medical system is working the way it should. If the children are seriously ill they must be admitted and observed for a day or two, whether they have COVID or something else. Doctors do not admit you to a hospital unless you are seriously ill. They send you home. That happened to me once, even though I was throwing up every hour or so. They did give me an IV for a few hours as an outpatient.


    I have heard that, but there is no evidence it is true. On the contrary, Atlanta hospitals complain they are making less money with their wards crammed with COVID patients. They say elective surgery and serious illness such as cancer brings in more money. One reason is that most COVID patients are poor, and uninsured or covered by Medicare. Medicare does not pay much. Uninsured people are billed for tens of thousands of dollars, or a hundred thousand or more. The hospitals send collection agencies after them. The agencies take everything not nailed down -- your car and all your worldly goods. But you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. Poor people in Atlanta can never pay $100,000 even in a lifetime.

    Try reading this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/he…social&utm_campaign=share


    It covers the issue better than I did.

  • Ivermectin: Northern Ireland seizures of unproven horse drug used for Covid
    More than 8,500 of the tablets have been seized coming into Northern Ireland since 2020.
    www.bbc.com


    Thousands of tablets of a horse deworming drug promoted as an alternative Covid-19 treatment despite being unproven have been seized coming into Northern Ireland.


    Ivermectin is used for parasitic infections in animals and also has some application for humans in small doses.


    Between July 2020 and September 2021, 8,600 tablets were seized by the Medicines Regulatory Group (MRG).

    In the 12 months prior to that, no tablets were seized.


    The MRG is part of the Department of Health, and is responsible for overseeing the production and supply of controlled drugs in Northern Ireland.


    It works with police, Border Force, and customs officers to intercept unlicenced medicines at the UK's borders, being brought in through the postal system.


    A spokesperson for the Department of Health said the tablets had originated mostly from south Asia, and said it was aware of a "general upsurge in public demand for Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment, particularly via the internet". "At present there are no Ivermectin products approved for use in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of Covid-19," the department said.


    In Northern Ireland, it is a criminal offence to unlawfully import prescription medicines.


    The Department of Health said the MRG would continue to work with partner agencies to monitor illegal medicinal products coming into Northern Ireland.


    It said it would also "shut down websites and social media pages making false claims about health products related to Covid-19".


    The public is urged to report websites alleging to sell Covid-19 remedies to the MRG. A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association in Northern Ireland said it had not been alerted to the misuse of Ivermectin as an issue.


    Responsibility for approval of prescription drugs in the UK comes from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).


    "A marketing authorisation for an Ivermectin-containing medicine would only be issued based on robust data to show a positive risk benefit for the quality, safety and efficacy of the product," the department said.


  • Daily COVID deaths in Sweden hit zero


    Riots due to COVID restrictions in France, lockdown in Australia, new records in the number of infected in Europe, and in Sweden, one number dropped to zero.


    "Sweden was maligned in 2020 for foregoing a strict lockdown. The Guardian called its approach 'a catastrophe' in the making, while CBS News said Sweden had become 'an example of how not to handle COVID-19' ", fee.org portal reports.


    Despite these criticisms, Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic continues today. In contrast to its European neighbors, Sweden is welcoming tourists. Businesses and schools are open with almost no restrictions. And as far as masks are concerned, not only is there no mandate in place, Swedish health officials are not even recommending them.


    What are the results of Sweden’s much-derided laissez-faire policy? Data show the 7-day rolling average for COVID deaths yesterday was zero. And it’s been at zero for about a week now.


    So, it is concluded in the text of the fee.org portal, "even a year ago, it was clear the hyperbolic claims about “the Swedish catastrophe” were false; but a year later the evidence is overwhelming that Sweden got the pandemic mostly right".

    "Sweden’s overall mortality rate in 2020 was lower than most of Europe and its economy suffered far less. Meanwhile, today


    Sweden is freer and healthier than virtually any other country in Europe", Foundation for Economic Education, fee.org portal, concludes.

  • Try reading this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/he…social&utm_campaign=share


    It covers the issue better than I did.

    I read that. But I still don't see your point. Where is the problem? The hospitals and doctors are doing what they supposed to do. They are admitting patients who seem seriously ill. Whether they have COVID only, or some other mixture of illnesses, they should be admitted. I understand this makes the "admitted to hospital" COVID measuring metric less reliable, that doesn't matter. The patients must be taken care of. We can't send them home just to make the statistics accurate.


    The article says:


    But a new, nationwide study of hospitalization records, released as a preprint today (and not yet formally peer reviewed), suggests that the meaning of this gauge can easily be misinterpreted—and that it has been shifting over time.


    Many statistics about COVID are misinterpreted. People think the VAERS database shows thousands of people killed by the vaccine in the U.S. when in fact no one has been killed by it. People think the fact that more Israeli hospital patients were vaccinated than not vaccinated proves that the vaccine is not working. It is actually due to the base rate fallacy. This stuff is complicated and many people do not understand it. That can't be helped.


    The fact that the meaning has shifted over time also cannot be helped. It is not, in itself, a bad thing. We want people to be admitted when they need care. The shift complicates analysis but that is the least important thing about it.


    Yes, this is a technical problem with statistics. It is good that someone pointed it out. But it is not that important. Other metrics can be used. This one can be tweaked to make it work better.

  • There is a problem with severe lag in the reporting of dead due to covid here atm, but it is low for sure 0-5 / day i think

  • I read that. But I still don't see your point. Where is the problem? The hospitals and doctors are doing what they supposed to do. They are admitting patients who seem seriously ill.

    You are making this too complicated. We anti-vaxxers, horse paste eaters, and conspiracy theorists are not trying to pull a fast one on you, so you don't have to fight this.


    Here is what the Atlantic article, and the authors of one of the studies say is the point:


    1.But the study also demonstrates that hospitalization rates for COVID, as cited by journalists and policy makers, can be misleading, if not considered carefully. Clearly many patients right now are seriously ill. We also know that overcrowding of hospitals by COVID patients with even mild illness can have negative implications for patients in need of other care. At the same time, this study suggests that COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two. “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”


    2.The addition of simple measures of disease severity to the case definition of a SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization is a straightforward and objective change that should improve the value of the metric for tracking SARS-CoV-2 disease burden.

  • Major ICMR Study of Indian Healthcare Workers Reveals COVID-19 Vaccine Antibodies Wane within 2 Months for Covaxin & 3 Months for Covishield (AstraZeneca)


    Major ICMR Study of Indian Healthcare Workers Reveals COVID-19 Vaccine Antibodies Wane within 2 Months for Covaxin & 3 Months for Covishield (AstraZeneca)
    In what could be considered problematic implications for COVID-19 vaccination in India, a recent study involving 614 Indian health workers found a
    trialsitenews.com




    In what could be considered problematic implications for COVID-19 vaccination in India, a recent study involving 614 Indian health workers found a “significant” drop in the study participant’s COVID-19-fighting antibodies within a couple of months of the second dose in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine product Covaxin. Of course, more data is needed for a better understanding of these results, but such an outcome may indicate a need for a booster program in the world’s second-most populous nation. Led by the prestigious Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)—Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar, a state-run research institute and apex trial site organization, the findings don’t necessarily indicate that all vaccinated subjects lose their immune resistance, as memory cells may still be at work suggested Sanghamitra Pati in discussion with Reuters. However, the study findings suggest that those participants that received India’s first “indigenous” vaccine called Covaxin produced significantly less antibodies by the second month after the second jab, while with the Covishield vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca), antibodies materially dissipate by month number four. Emerging evidence suggests antibodies are important for not only blocking infection but also preventing transmission, while T cells may be highly relevant for preventing advanced disease and death.


    While research in the West, such as the United States and Britain, also indicates waning protection associated with advanced mRNA vaccines such as Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) and Moderna (mRNA-1273), the new Indian-based research results raise serious questions. The ICMR-RMRC-Bhubaneswar study results are uploaded on the preprint server Research Square.


    The Vaccines

    Generally, vaccines are considered effective with a rate of ≥50% with a >30% lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, according to a study authored by the Organization Solidarity Trial Expert Group. Of course, vaccine efficacy, closely related to effectiveness, does wane over time in all cases, as declared recently by Australian researchers.


    The latest ICMR-sponsored study investigated “India’s first indigenous COVID-19 vaccine” known as “Covaxin,” developed by Bharat Biotech, as well as Covishield, the vaccine originally developed at the University of Oxford (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). The latter vaccine was licensed from the university to AstraZeneca—thereafter, the British pharmaceutical company inked a co-development, production, and distribution deal with the Serum Institute of India (SII), the largest vaccine producer in the world as measured by volume of output.


    What follows is a brief introduction to the COVID-19 vaccine.


    Covaxin—India’s first ‘Indigenous’ COVID-19 Vaccine


    Produced in Bharat Biotech’s BSL-3 high containment facility, Covaxin was developed using whole-virion inactivated Vero Cell-derived platform technology reports the maker. This class of vaccine doesn’t replicate and hence according to Bharat Biotech, is “unlikely to revert and cause pathological effects.” This particular class of COVID-19 vaccine contains a dead virus incapable of infecting people; however, the product can trigger the immune system to mount some defense against SARS-CoV-2.


    TrialSite has reported on some controversy associated with this vaccine candidate, including what some critics have called a rushed approval to purported ethical breaches identified at a trial site in Bhopal associated with the clinical trials program.


    Bharat Biotech disclosed their vaccine was 64% (95% CI, 29-82%) effective against asymptomatic cases, 78% (65-86%) effective against symptomatic cases, 93% (57-100%) effective against severe COVID-19 infection, and 65% (33-83%) effective against the Delta variant as reported by the COVAXIN Study Group.


    Covishield—the Oxford/AstraZeneca Vaccine


    SII inked a deal with AstraZeneca to co-develop, produce, and distribute the “Oxford” vaccine known originally as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), developed from a virus (ChAdOx1), a weakened version of what is the common cold virus known as the adenovirus. The Oxford team added genetic material to produce the Spike glycoprotein (S).


    With mixed results, many nations have adopted this vaccine due to its overall economy and practicality—studies disclosed the candidate was 76% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 starting at 22 days following the first dose and 81% after the second jab. A study in Scotland demonstrated an 81% effective rate against the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) and 61% against the Delta variant (B.1.617.2).


    This vaccine, while representing enormous promise, triggered enough adverse effects that numerous counties have suspended its use. Although statistically considered rare, nonetheless, from South Africa to numerous nations in Europe stopped the use of this vaccine. The United States never completed Phase 3 clinical trials.


    ICMR Study

    The recent study was led by the government-financed Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the apex body in India for the formulation, coordination, and promotion of biomedical research and one of the oldest and largest medical research institutes in the world. ICMR, Bhubaneswar led the investigation into two vaccines in India, including Covaxin and Covishield.


    Published in Research Square, the study results are still not reviewed and, consequently, cannot be declared as any evidence.


    The study team sought to investigate the “dynamicity of vaccine-induced IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. A 614-patient cross-sectional cohort study, the team investigated IgG antibodies among healthcare workers with a completed dose of either Covaxin or Covishield by monitoring the subjects for 24 weeks after the first dose of either vaccine to document periodic changes in titer, concentration, clinical growth, and persistence of vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.


    Among the 614 study subjects, 308 (50.2%) received Covishield, while 306 (49.8%) took Covaxin.


    Results

    The study team collected serum samples from the 614 participants during established monitoring schedules while testing them in two CLIA-based platforms for testing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies both qualitatively and quantitatively.


    The ICMR-led investigators discovered 81 breakthrough cases (13%) among cohort participants for whom infection served as a form of booster. Of the total study subject count, 257 of the participants had actually been infected with SARS-CoV-2 prior to the study.


    The study team found that in the remaining 533 health care workers without any history of post-vaccination infection, a significant waning of antibody in both vaccines–by month two in Covaxin and month three in Covishield.


    For example, the authors reported “a significant decline of antibody post 2 months and 4 months among Covaxin and Covishield recipients after two doses of BBV-152 and AZD1222 vaccines.”


    The production of vaccine-induced IgG antibodies was found to be notability higher in Covishield as compared to Covaxin. In seronegative individuals, upon 28 days of the first jab, the rate of seroconversion was 81.9% for Covishield and 16.1% for Covaxin.


    Discussion

    Overall, the vaccines appear to be helpful in reducing more severe infection and hospitalization, although some of the breakthrough infections led to hospitalization for lower respiratory infection, reported Sumita Behera, Assistant Professor of Transfusion Medicine at MKCG. However, none of these subjects required a ventilator.


    However, rapid decline of the subject’s antibody production—in just two months for Covaxin and three for Covishield—could be deemed problematic. On the other hand, ICM-RMRC investigator Dr. Debdutta Bhattacharya suggested that just because antibody production wanes within a couple of months doesn’t mean that the subject is vulnerable to infection, declaring, “Memory cells develop due to natural immunity after the infection and vaccine-based immunity and these protect the body against the virus.”


    Dr. Behera advocates for a booster dose based on the study data declaring to Indian media Odishabytes, “It’s difficult to say how long the memory cells will provide the needed protection.”


    Meanwhile, ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar’s Sanghamitra Patti, revealed to all Indian media that the study will include a follow-up after six months, with plans to continue the study. Dr. Patti informed Reuters that “After six months, we should be able to tell you more clearly whether and when a booster would be needed.”


    The Trial Site Hub

    ICMR’s Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar, was established in 1981 to focus on investigation into locally prevailing communicable and non-communicable diseases, tribal health, and malnutrition in Odisha and neighboring states. Dr. Pati serves as the present-day director.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Debdutta Bhattacharya, ICMR Regional Medical Centre, Bhubaneswar


    Sanghamitra Pati, ICMR Regional Medical Centre, Bhubaneswar


    In Dr. Pati’s own words, he is a “physician turned laboratory epidemiologist and public health researcher.


    Call to Action: The study team suggests these findings indicate the need for a larger cohort study which would help to define correlates of protection to determine whether there is a need to produce modified vaccines or booster doses. Note that the authors shared that this study includes a follow-up plan for two years which will further help in understanding the kinetics model and also to provide a better estimate of the antibody response in both seropositive and seronegative individuals over a significant period.


    Persistence of antibodies against Spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 in health care workers post double dose of BBV-152 and AZD1222 vaccines
    Research Square is a preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.
    www.researchsquare.com

  • Philippines President: Doctors & Patients Have A Right to Use Ivermectin Off-Label to Target COVID-19


    Philippines President: Doctors & Patients Have A Right to Use Ivermectin Off-Label to Target COVID-19
    Recently the Philippines News Agency reported on President Roberto Duterte’s move, possibly to the chagrin of the World Health Organization (WHO), to
    trialsitenews.com


    Philippines President: Doctors & Patients Have A Right to Use Ivermectin Off-Label to Target COVID-19


    Recently the Philippines News Agency reported on President Roberto Duterte’s move, possibly to the chagrin of the World Health Organization (WHO), to leave the determination of what approved, off-label drugs to use with physicians and their consenting patients—the way it used to work in the United States. In this case, a presidential edict declared that this right is applicable to ivermectin as an off-label treatment for COVID-19. President Duterte’s remarks were pre-recorded in a major speech delivered to the Philippines population.


    Duterte has a reputation as a strong-armed nationalist, hostility to the West aside; the Philippines president declared the use of ivermectin was a “good gamble” for those physicians and their consenting patients seeking a treatment targeting COVID-19.


    Reporting for the government’s official news agency, Ruth Abbey Gita-Carlos wrote on the mounting tension in the country between most medical authorities that demand the drug only be used in a clinical trial and large numbers in civil society that have followed the dozens of clinical trials, primarily in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The reporter included a quote from Duterte, declaring, “I leave it really to the doctor-patient relationship. If the doctor believes in good faith that it can help, and the patient also believes in his heart that he will get well, we leave it up to you to decide.”


    Duterte said he could not ignore the claims that ivermectin is effective in treating Covid-19 patients.


    “Kasi mahirap naman masisi na kung totoo talagang effective tapos pipigilan mo with the testimony bound, plus ‘yung maraming taong nagsabi na gumaling sila (So, it’s hard to be blamed if it’s really effective and you will stop them despite testimonies and claims of some that they recovered [because of Ivermectin]. So for some people, it would be quite a good gamble to embark on,” he said.


    Different Reality

    Now travel over to Australia and discover that the nation’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), has all but banned any off-label prescribing for general practitioners (GPs). This undoubtedly makes it extremely difficult for specialists to get a hold of the drug for any reason remotely close to COVID-19.


    Meanwhile, a similar theme emerges in the United States. Recently, the powerful licensing boards have warned physicians their licenses will be yanked (and thus their livelihood) if they put forth any “misinformation.” Who determines the definition of misinformation increasingly points to a tripartite of a politicized executive branch, elites in academia, and the licensing boards themselves, perhaps with a whisper from the industry lobby.


    Back in the Philippines, while their Food and Drug Administration allows for compassionate use, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) has been planning for months to launch a clinical trial testing ivermectin. According to the official government media, the plan is to launch the eight-month study this month.

  • People think the VAERS database shows thousands of people killed by the vaccine in the U.S. when in fact no one has been killed by it

    I am not so sure about that. Do you have a reference? My understanding is that VAERS underestimates deaths, and probably only represents the tip of the iceberg. How many die from the vaccines above those in the VAERS database, is what is in dispute. I certainly have not seen anyone claim as you do: "in fact no one has been killed by it (vaccine)"...but I could be wrong.


    Even THH has admitted the vaccine kills, although much less so for certain age groups than the virus. I agree with that.

  • Attempted imports of Ivermectin spike in recent months
    The medication is largely used to worm farm animals, but it is falsely claimed to help treat Covid-19.
    www.tvnz.co.nz


    In the last nine months, the number of consignments containing the drug referred to New Zealand's medicine regulator totals 140.


    In January there were just 4, but by last month there were 51.

    Of the 140 consignments, only 19 were released. Two were referred to the Ministry for Primary Industries.

    Medsafe said given Ivermectin is a prescription medicine, it can only be released on the authority of an authorised prescriber, which is usually a medical practioner.


    "Medsafe is in discussions with Customs in relation to the increased volume of Ivermectin seen at the border," the regulatory body said when 1News asked if surveillance of the medicine was being ramped up at the border.


    At the Covid-19 press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfied rubbished the drug.


    "It's not a safe proven treatment," he said.


    "What people can do if they want to be safe from Covid-19 is get vaccinated."


    The news comes as health authorities call on people not to be sucked in by misinformation about the vaccine's safety.


    "There have also been claims on social media that people’s natural immunity or Vitamin C are sufficient to fight Covid-19 so there’s no need to get tested or, indeed, get vaccinated. This is not the case," Bloomfield said.


    In the past week, more than 5000 doctors signed a letter urging people to get vaccinated.


    "Talk to your GP, talk to your nurse," Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said on Wednesday.


    "Everybody should have questions when it comes to these things, but don't be sucked in by misinformation."


    It has left a lead researcher for a group monitoring Covid-19 misinformation to call the situation an "infodemic".


    "There's too much information about the pandemic and it's too hard to tell the difference between what is good information and what is helpful information," Kate Hannah said.


    "So it is about going back to those trusted voices, the people in your community who speak for you and with you."

  • No, it has no antiviral performance. There is no clinical evidence that ivermectin has any effect on COVID, except for some substandard studies. The data from UP is so unreliable it is useless. In many districts, it shows no deaths at all from any cause for months at a time. Indian epidemiologists say the use of ivermectin has not had any effect on hospitalization or mortality. They say all of the recent curves are caused by the natural course of the epidemic. It has reached herd immunity in some districts, plus people are too frightened to go out of their houses. The epidemiologists have measured antibodies in sample populations. They found the infection rate was far higher than the official statistics from UP and other states show. Probably 10 to 20 times higher, which is enough to explain the curves. No one knows how many people died, but the epidemiologists estimate this too is 10 to 20 times higher than the official reports.


    Epidemiologists are better at analyzing this kind of thing than field doctors. In the history of medicine, doctors have often engaged in wishful thinking and ascribing cause and effect incorrectly. Doctors doing controlled, clinical double blind tests are usually better at statistics. So far, all of the quality tests show that ivermectin does not work. Even if it does, and even if we believe the best results from the clinical tests, it could not have produced the results ascribed to it in UP.

    I wouldn't be so sure about that... based on your judgement all what is published and can be read here is a fairy tale?


    The Undeniable Ivermectin Miracle in India’s 240m Populated Largest State, Uttar Pradesh – Horowitz - NewsRescue.com
    NewsRescue by DANIEL HOROWITZ, TheBlaze Uttar Pradesh might sound obscure to most Americans, but it is the most populated state in India, with urban areas that…
    newsrescue.com


    We should look objectively on both sides of the coin, not only at the benefits of the new vaccines but also at using other "drugs" that seem to be safe and could potentially used easily in studies or even under EUA from the FDA (if wanted)....