Covid-19 News

  • It is strange that the ivermectin fanatics trumpet dubious 3rd world politicians and corrupt Latin American political initiatives as evidence that every major Western country with a good regulatory system is wrong!


    Just because from all the TSN links here you might not realise:

    • ivermectin is being actively investigated as therapy along with many other repurposed drugs, if it works it will get adopted quickly
    • currently the high quality data on ivermectin does not look good
    • the lab evidence for action never looked good
    • the two concerns about allowing its use are that people may believe the false propaganda and either overdose (many are already doing this) or false confidence
    • most doctors do not think it advisable to prescribe ivermectin because the evidence is not there for its use
  • 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)....

    I don't know about the US, but have no reason to think UK doctors are doing anything except what they believe is best for patients, and they do not recommend ivermectin.


    The evidence you quote is so-called ecological - and when you look closely it is just not tenable evidence. The nature of COVID (in very young population places like UP the mortality is only 0.1%) makes it easy for doctors to think they have a miracle cure just because almost everyone recovers.


    Have a close look at that meta-analysis I posted that specifically looked at how ivermectin evidence from trials varies with probable bias (as measured objectively). It is very instructive, and depressing.

  • I don't know about the US, but have no reason to think UK doctors are doing anything except what they believe is best for patients, and they do not recommend ivermectin.


    The evidence you quote is so-called ecological - and when you look closely it is just not tenable evidence. The nature of COVID (in very young population places like UP the mortality is only 0.1%) makes it easy for doctors to think they have a miracle cure just because almost everyone recovers.


    Have a close look at that meta-analysis I posted that specifically looked at how ivermectin evidence from trials varies with probable bias (as measured objectively). It is very instructive, and depressing.

    There are more "unexplainable" stories or to say "coincidences" related to IVM use and low Covid-19 infections, not only with young generation and low mortality....


    How would you explain the causilty of using IVM after a break out of scabies in a care home in Toronto in Canada among the old residents, and there were infections with Sars-Cov2 among the younger (!) medical staff only? The amazing results were reached just with the normal IVM medication to treat scabies, not with a single or mutiple overdosing, or with the recommended dosage from FLCCC...


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    or in another report in a similar environment from France:


    Error - Cookies Turned Off

  • How would you explain the causilty of using IVM after a break out of scabies in a care home in Toronto in Canada among the old residents, and there were infections with Sars-Cov2 among the younger (!) medical staff only? The amazing results were reached just with the normal IVM medication to treat scabies, not with a single or mutiple overdosing, or with the recommended dosage from FLCCC...

    So, as with all these anecdotes, we need to look at all the details to work out whether these are in fact amazing results, or merely something quite normal. A video from somone who thinks they are amazing does not cut it, since people's judgement of this tends to be flawed (hence all those miracles through human history).


    I'm not willing to look at videos for this - do we have stuff written down?


    THH

  • Spectrum Health’s Vaccine Mandate now Excludes Those who can Prove Natural Immunity


    Spectrum Health’s Vaccine Mandate now Excludes Those who can Prove Natural Immunity
    In a similar move seen by many hospital systems and administrations, Spectrum Health announced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all employees in July.
    trialsitenews.com


    In a similar move seen by many hospital systems and administrations, Spectrum Health announced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all employees in July. However, unlike many other officials, the health system will now allow exemptions for those with natural immunity to the virus. A few studies indicate the possibility that natural immunity may actually be stronger than vaccine-based immunity, although more study is undoubtedly needed. TrialSite reported that a large HMO in Israel sponsored a study indicating that natural immunity was, in fact, superior to vaccine immunity. A notable Cleveland Clinic observational study involving health care workers also indicated a strong natural immunity associated with COVID-19. However, that prestigious institution recently pointed out that the study focused on subjects before the emergence of the Delta variant. Regardless, numerous factors are relevant for this complex topic. More study is required for a broader systematic understanding of COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccine-based immunity. The topic becomes more top-of-mind now as some hospitals are introducing the natural immunity exemption. This suggests natural immunity may emerge as a prominent discussion in the broader vaccination policy context.


    TrialSite provides a brief overview of this topic reported by several local media in the Midwest, including WWZM13, Grand Rapids, Michigan.


    What are the details of exemption?

    Employees with a positive PCR or antigen test from a CLIA-certified lab, plus a positive qualitative antibody test within the past three months, are allowed an exemption.


    How did they justify this decision?

    The medical exemptions for the mandate are determined by a committee of clinical vaccine and infectious disease experts.


    Does this exemption follow FDA guidelines?

    Spectrum says their decisions are consistent with the FDA and available research.


    What do Spectrum Health officials say about a vaccine?

    Hospital officials stated they still recommend a vaccine for everyone, even those with prior COVID-19 infection. Although, they say new research shows that a natural infection affords protection from reinfection and severe symptoms for a period of time. It is not known how long natural immunity remains effective.


    “Vaccine trials and real-world data have shown that it is safe for previously infected individuals to receive the COVID-19 vaccine; side effects following vaccination were no greater in this group,” said the hospital system in a statement.


    Could this mandate and exemption change in the future?

    Officials say if further research shows a significant waning of protection, longer-lasting protection, or proof of full immunity, their requirements will be updated as they see fit.

  • Another trial shows no benefit from Remdesivir, yet it's still being administered thousands of times a day in US hospitals. Why should anyone trust the experts running the show in the US?


    DisCoVeRy Trial Results Mean More Bad News for Remdesivir—No Clinical Benefit


    DisCoVeRy Trial Results Mean More Bad News for Remdesivir—No Clinical Benefit
    INSERM, a successor to the French National Institute of Health, recently had results from the Phase 3 DisCoVeRy clinical trial published in The Lancet,
    trialsitenews.com


    INSERM, a successor to the French National Institute of Health, recently had results from the Phase 3 DisCoVeRy clinical trial published in The Lancet, Infectious Diseases. The major French investigation explored the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir, the only therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19. A controversial move by the FDA as the pivotal American clinical trial included controversial moves by the sponsor—the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to change the primary endpoint toward the end of the study. It turns out that the drug didn’t meet this endpoint, so as directed by NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, the apex government research institute worked with the industry sponsor, Gilead, to merely modify the endpoint to reduce the duration of hospitalization. The final results in that American trial weren’t impressive—a mere few days reduction in hospitalization. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial concluded remdesivir brought no benefit. The FDA proceeded first to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA). A few months later, they issued a formal approval paving the way for Gilead to generate approximately $3 billion in revenue during the first twelve months of the pandemic. Now more evidence backs the position that the drug does little to help hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After evaluating the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the study team found no clinical benefit in symptomatic patients hospitalized for over seven (7) days also in need of oxygen support.


    Background

    TrialSite has reported on the unorthodox way in which Gilead was able to secure the EUA—when Dr. Fauci declared for the world to hear that the drug was a “new standard” for treating COVID-19. Fauci quickly followed up, however, that remdesivir was “no knock out drug.”


    Gilead had what it needed to generate blockbuster returns in the middle of a pandemic, charging thousands of dollars per treatment with the true benefit of the drug up in the air. The move greatly benefited the company management, who could drive unprecedented revenue in the middle of the pandemic.


    By January 2021, TrialSite reported that the WHO Solidarity trial indicated that the drug neither helped reduce mortality nor hospitalization. Yet demand for the drug in key markets soared regardless. By October 2020, the FDA formally approved the drug, the first such approval for COVID-19 in America.


    INSERM DisCoVeRy Study

    Enter the INSERM-sponsored, randomized controlled DisCoVeRy study (NCT04315948) testing multiple drugs, including remdesivir, on those 18 and up hospitalized for COVID-19.


    This is an adaptive, multi-center, and country trial comparing the standard of care with various study drugs, including remdesivir.


    INSERM led this Phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at 48 trial sites across Europe, from France and Belgium to Austria, Portugal, and Luxembourg.


    Findings

    With findings generated during much of the initial year of the pandemic, the arm of the study investigated 857 participants, with 429 assigned to remdesivir plus the standard of care and 428 assigned to only standard of care. Using the WHO ordinal scale as an endpoint measure, the study authors communicated the following:


    WHO Ordinal Scale Stud Drug vs. Standard of Care

    Not hospitalized/No limitations on activities 61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group

    not hospitalized, limitation on activities 129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]

    hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]

    hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]

    hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices 15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]

    hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation 62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]

    death 21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]

    The authors disclosed that the delta associated with treatment groups was not “significant.” (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77–1·25]; p=0·85). They couldn’t find any significant differences in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs. control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48).


    Moreover, the investigator associated remdesivir to three deaths involving acute respiratory syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome. The sponsor’s safety team acknowledged only one of the deaths associated with hepatorenal syndrome.


    INSERM

    With approximately 13,000 scientists, including 5,100 permanent research staff, INSERM is the only public research institution solely focused on human health and medical research in France. The public institution operates with a scientific vocation under the dual auspices of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Research. Similar to the American NIH, INSERM sponsored research from translational to late state clinical trials via 339 research units.


    Study Funding

    This study was funded by a group of prominent governments and organizations, including:


    · European Union Commission


    · French Ministry of Health


    · Domaine d’intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France


    · REACTing


    · Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelle


    · Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre


    · Austrian Group Medical Tumor


    · European Regional Development Fund


    · Portugal Ministry of Health


    · Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Prof. Florence Ader, MD, Corresponding Author, département des Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France


    Legiopath, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CIRI, INSERM U1111, CNRS UMR5308, ENS Lyon, Lyon, France


    Call to Action: Follow the link to read the study at The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

  • So, as with all these anecdotes, we need to look at all the details to work out whether these are in fact amazing results, or merely something quite normal. A video from somone who thinks they are amazing does not cut it, since people's judgement of this tends to be flawed (hence all those miracles through human history).


    I'm not willing to look at videos for this - do we have stuff written down?


    THH

    Here is something to read...


    Could Scabies Save you from COVID-19?

  • I am not so sure about that. Do you have a reference?

    That is what all of the expert analyses of the VAERS data say, both inside the CDC (see below) and outside it. Actually, the ball is in your court. You will not find any expert analysis showing any deaths in the U.S. There were a few deaths in other countries, such as one in New Zealand.


    My understanding is that VAERS underestimates deaths, and probably only represents the tip of the iceberg.

    Your understanding is wrong. The FDA requires that all deaths be reported to the CDC and recorded in VAERS (see below). Some other less critical side effects may not be reported. Reports of death include the doctor's notes and coroner's statements, which are not made available to the public. Only CDC personnel are authorized to see the detailed data. To be sure, thousands of people have died soon after getting the vaccination, but these were all coincidental. When you vaccinate millions of people, especially old people, some of them are bound to die. We know this is a coincidence for two reasons:


    1. Comparing the vaccinated population to a normal population with the same age and health profile.

    2. Examination of the doctor's and coroner's reports. The doctors all ascribe the deaths to normal causes.


    How many die from the vaccines above those in the VAERS database, is what is in dispute.

    There are no deaths in the U.S. There is no dispute. Modern vaccines kill very few people, so this is no surprise.

    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.

    You are wrong; experts who analyzed the VAERS data all agree that it shows no deaths. People who say otherwise are amateurs who do not understand statistics or causality. Amateurs have made several mistakes analyzing VAERS. See:


    Are the mRNA vaccines really safe? Evaluating claims by Steven Kirsch on danger of spike proteins
    There are a number of individuals on social media confidently claiming the mRNA vaccines are dangerous and killing people, and implying the vaccine…
    www.covid-datascience.com

    Even THH has admitted the vaccine kills,

    Some of the adenovirus vaccines have killed a small number of people. The mRNA vaccines have not killed anyone in the U.S. as of Sept. 13, 2021. VAERS data only covers the U.S.


    QUOTE:


    Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through September 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,653 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths 


    COVID-19 Vaccination
    COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.
    www.cdc.gov


    QUOTE describing earlier data:


    Of the 145 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020 through March 29, 2021, “VAERS received 2,509 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.” Having reviewed “available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records,” the CDC found “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths”


    Fact Check-VAERS data does not prove thousands died from receiving COVID-19 vaccines
    Updated to correct repeated clause and quotation in paragraph 12.
    www.reuters.com

  • 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?

    Not my judgement. Based on the judgement of epidemiologists in India. It is not a fairy tale. It is a misinterpretation of the data by doctors, who are not trained in epidemiology or statistics. There are many examples in the history of medicine in which ordinary doctors thought some treatment was effective, but careful, expert clinical double-blind studies showed that the treatment did not work. Doctors are as prone to wishful thinking as anyone else. People recover from disease for many complex reasons, and often for no known reason. Most patients in India never visit a doctor and never receive any treatment. The recovery rate with no treatment and no visit to the doctor is the same as the rate for treatment with placebos. The rate for placebos is the same as for ivermectin in most studies.


    In other words, there is no doubt many patients in India treated with ivermectin recover. The doctors are right about that. No one disputes it. However, many patients always recover from COVID. If you were to treat those same patients with a placebo, just as many would recover. The ivermectin plays no role. It has no benefit. That is what the double-blind clinical studies show. Just having those patients see a doctor will likely help because of the other things the doctors provide, such as clean water and over-the-counter medication, which are often not available to poor people in India. A poor person who is wealthy enough to visit a doctor is more likely to survive than a poor person who cannot afford a doctor, or who has no means of transportation to get to a doctor. The poor but somewhat wealthier person is likely to have things like clean water from a well, screens, mosquito netting, and a bed free from fleas and lice.


    Mosquitoes do not give you COVID, but mosquitoes and other vermin give you various other diseases, which weaken you and make COVID more likely to be serious. They make it difficult to sleep.

  • Another trial shows no benefit from Remdesivir, yet it's still being administered thousands of times a day in US hospitals. Why should anyone trust the experts running the show in the US?

    You should trust them because they are right more often than non-experts, such as nitwits on YouTube and people who claim that ivermectin works, even though there is no quality clinical data. There is some good data for Remdesivir. Preliminary studies showed it might be beneficial. The results were better than for ivermectin. So the experts concluded it should be used. Perhaps additional studies show they were wrong. In that case they should retract their recommendations.


    Experts are human and they can always be wrong. If you are looking for omniscient people who know everything and who are always right, you will not find them. If you only "trust" omniscient people, then you cannot trust anyone. You have to settle for people who are right more often than other people; who do careful work; make recommendations on the best data available; and who will retract their recommendations if they later find out they were wrong. That latter is very important. You will not find proponents of HCQ or ivermectin who are willing to admit they were wrong. You will not find proponents who even understand how and why they were wrong.

  • My understanding is that VAERS underestimates deaths, and probably only represents the tip of the iceberg.

    To reiterate and clarify: All deaths must be reported to VAERS, and the reports must include death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. So, there is no hidden iceberg. There is no underestimation.


    Other, less serious adverse outcomes are reported at the discretion of the doctor or patient. So there may be serious side effects from the vaccines not included in the VAERS database. They may be underestimated. But all deaths are included. So far, all deaths following mRNA vaccines have been shown to be coincidental.

  • External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • For those who don‘t like to watch YouTube videos the scabies ivermectin story in a nursing home in Toronto in written text… ;)


    The Toronto Nursing Home Case

    This notorious case has been reported by health practitioner Dr Jennifer Hibberd. This report can be watched on the Hibberd Health Coronavirus Covid-19 Pandemic Series transmitted by YouTube Channel.

    To treat an outbreak of scabies, a nursing home in Toronto happened to administer the drug Ivermectin to its patients just before the coronavirus outbreak started. In late Feb 2020 or early March, they gave higher doses of Ivermectin to patients on the fourth floor of their building, where the scabies outbreak occurred, and in lower doses to patients on the third floor. They did not give Ivermectin to staff. Then when the coronavirus outbreak came to their facility, the patients on the fourth floor had no cases of COVID-19, the patients on the third floor (who had a lower dose of Ivermectin) had a few mild cases, and the fourth floor had the most infected staff.

    It was noticed that healthier, younger, staff on the fourth floor had the most cases of COVID- 19, while the very patients for whom they were caring, who were old and sick with other diseases had no cases. The difference: the patients on the fourth floor had the strong dose of Ivermectin.

    Unexpectedly, Dr. Jennifer Hibberd was blocked from getting information from the nursing home when it was told to stop communicating any of this information to the public. For some unknown reason, the institution did not want the potential of an effective and inexpensive therapeutic, Ivermectin, to go public.


    Source:

    http://www.spentamexico.org/v15-n2/A2.15(2)1-30.pdf

  • To treat an outbreak of scabies, a nursing home in Toronto happened to administer the drug Ivermectin to its patients just before the coronavirus outbreak started. In late Feb 2020 or early March, they gave higher doses of Ivermectin to patients on the fourth floor of their building, where the scabies outbreak occurred, and in lower doses to patients on the third floor. They did not give Ivermectin to staff.

    Happy,old people lets hope they had some contact with the virus and did develop antibodies.

    Ivermectin works perfectly for prevention. But if you don't do it like the Indian states you have to go on taking it for as long as big pharma wants to sell vaccines. (Virtually for ever..)


    Best is to wait for first symptoms get a PCR certificate and then take the the Ziverdo combo (IVR + 100mg Doxy, Zinc,+V-D3 high dose - you can also add an aspirin/day.

  • I wrote:

    To reiterate and clarify: All deaths must be reported to VAERS, and the reports must include death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. So, there is no hidden iceberg. There is no underestimation.

    Wyttenbach added a laughing face. He thinks that is funny. He thinks he knows better than the doctors and other experts who reviewed the 7,653 death certificates, autopsy, and medical records at the CDC. He himself has not reviewed these records. They are not available to the public. Still, he thinks the conclusions of the experts are risible, and he is sure that he knows better. It is hard to imagine a more warped, egotistical, extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Frankly, this is sickening.