Covid-19 News

Quote from Wyttenbach

Remember the faked the phase III study!

no faked phase III study

Another double Wyttenfact sentence:

Quote from Wyttenbach

Also the gen therapies (Astra, Moderna, Pfizer)

Moderna, Pfizer are mRNA therapies which deliver protein to prime the immune system - no genes

Astra is not even mRNA - it uses a chimpanzee virus (modified to show COVID spike proteins)

Quote from Wyttenbach

produce no mucosal T-Cells! === no protection from CoV-19

It is true, the current vaccines (delivered intramuscularily) deliver IgG but not IgA antibody response. That means they are much better at protecting people from serious disease than at preventing infection and transmission, which can happen via nasal-only mild infection.

Actually this is arguably exactly what we want - so that natural immunity can be built up as quickly as possible while preventing people from severe disease!

However, it results in high COVID rates and due to the anti-vaxer propaganda the US has a large number of at risk unvaccinated.

Anyway - help is on the way - maybe - https://www.europeanpharmaceut…mucosal-immune-responses/

Which is why I think if we can up vaccine production enough long-term eradication, with better vaccines, may be possible. Don't expect it any time soon.

Quote from Fm1

FDA Advisory Panel Overwhelmingly Votes Against The Powers-that-be

The FDA Advisory Panel IS The Powers-that-be. It is the epitome of powers-that-be.

As noted it voted in favor giving booster shots to people over 65. That is not a repudiation of the plan to give booster shots. It is a conditional "yes, but . . ."

Myocarditis and how to think about it… like a cardiologist

You may have seen multiple articles out there that describe myocarditis after COVID vaccination and how you should be concerned about it. There are many layers…

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Good perspective on risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis from a cardiologist

[selected extract - worth reading whole thing]

The now-famous study authored by Hoeg et al is deeply misleading – their core premise is that vaccination myocarditis occurs at a higher rate than in those who get COVID disease. If you purely look at VAERS reports without doing any other analysis, this is the unusual conclusion you will arrive at. VAERS in fact, specifically instructs the reader to not use their database in this way; it is meant as a tool to generate hypotheses, but not to search for causality. Databases such as the Vaccine Safety Datalink are much better databases to research this problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use very specific myocarditis criteria (which aligns with what most cardiologists use) to be as certain as possible, that cases are being estimated as accurately as possible.

At no point do I wish to downplay myocarditis – if I were to meet a patient with COVID vaccine myocarditis who was deathly ill, I would announce it to the world, and warn everyone of the risks. I thankfully have yet to meet such a patient, and the patients that are in my clinic, have all recovered. In my entire clinic, comprising all my cardiologist partners, I have counted approximately 5 total COVID vaccine myocarditis cases. I have similarly asked many colleagues about their experiences, and the consensus is that they are uniformly symptomatically recovering. Although this study had not collected many MRIs by the publication deadline, the study group is going to do a follow-up work that contains MRI studies. The patients in my clinic who are recovering from post-COVID vaccine myocarditis have cardiac MRIs that look very, very reassuring. Some unpublished data out there exist of patients who have had very concerning cardiac MRIs after COVID vaccination in the absence of documented COVID infection – each of those patients has cardiologists who are watching these patients very carefully. The CDC has convened a specific study group to monitor these patients. This is not the work of an organization that wishes to downplay myocarditis.

I support all efforts to mitigate the risk of mRNA vaccination myocarditis, but given the accelerating Pediatric Intensive Care Admissions, I would be against any effort that attempts to do this at the cost of vaccination efficacy or at the cost of even more PICU admissions. PICU admissions, even if they don’t result in serious long term complications, represent a significant hit to a teenager’s quality of life. I appreciate the efforts of Professor Shane Crotty’s group in elucidating the relative effectiveness of natural immunity versus immunity post-immunization, and eagerly await the Immunology community’s discussion on this hot topic. I won’t claim to be able to expertly interpret their studies and will refer you to them for their perspective. In the end, the risk of COVID vaccine myocarditis is larger than vaccination with many classical vaccines, but the absolute risk is still very, very small. Pediatric cardiologists are ready to give the necessary care to each patient who may have this complication. In the end, you are trading in a significant risk for a much smaller, calculated risk.

Evidence Against the Veracity of SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Intermediate between Lineages A and B

Evidence Against the Veracity of SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Intermediate between Lineages A and B

Evidence Against the Veracity of SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Intermediate between Lineages A and B Jonathan Pekar, Edyth Parker, Jennifer L. Havens, Marc A. Suchard,…

virological.org

Early SARS-CoV-2 genomic diversity can be separated into two primary lineages. Lineage B includes the reference genome Hu-1 and is defined by nucleotides C8782 and T28144, whereas lineage A is defined by substitutions C8782T and T28144C, relative to the reference genome. Intermediate sequences, containing either C8782T or T28144C—but not both—have been reported from early 2020. We refer to these genomes as C/C or T/T, because they have the same nucleotide at these two key sites. Here, we investigate the veracity of these sequences and conclude it is probable that neither C/C nor T/T genomes circulated at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; they are likely the result of sequencing or bioinformatics issues.

Methods

We downloaded from GISAID all complete, high-coverage SARS-CoV-2 consensus genomes collected by 28 February 2020 and submitted by 31 December 2020—a table with acknowledgments is given below (1). We restricted our analysis to this time period because we were concerned with diversity at the start of the pandemic. We excluded all animal samples (i.e., bat and pangolin), along with any sequences that had an incomplete collection date, leaving 1716 sequences. These genomes were aligned with MAFFT v7.453 (2) (options --auto --keeplength --addfragments) to reference genome MN908947.3 (GISAID accession EPI_ISL_402125). Genomes with an ambiguous nucleotide at site 8782 or 28144 were excluded. We masked all problematic sites associated with common sequencing errors identified by De Maio et al. (2020) (3).

We then looked for pairs of genomes comprising an intermediate genome (C/C or T/T) and a major lineage (lineage A or B) that shared derived mutations. As demonstrated in Figure 3 of Worobey et al. (2020) (4), the repeated observation of pairs of genomes with apparent homoplasies can more parsimoniously be explained by sequencing error. In other words, we looked at whether putative A/B intermediates shared with “pure” A or “pure” B virus genomes one or more mutations outside of those that define the two pure lineages. If so, then either those mutations arose independently in both the putative intermediate and its pure counterpart, or (more likely) the putative intermediate is not an intermediate at all, and is actually a pure A or B lineage very closely related to its pure-lineage counterpart. This latter scenario implies that the C/C or T/T pattern in the putative intermediate was due to an error in inferring either site 8782 or site 28144.

Results

There were 28 C/C genomes collected by 28 February 2020. Of the 28 C/C genomes, 6 have no additional mutations other than at 28144. We identified 16 C/C genomes that share nucleotide substitutions also found in lineage A (Fig. 1). For example, one C/C sequence from Anhui (EPI_ISL_1069206) shares the mutation A11430G with 7 lineage A genomes. Occasionally multiple such mutations are shared: for example, a C/C genome from Thailand (EPI_ISL_437614) sharing G20134T, A895G, and G24047A with 3 other lineage A genomes from Thailand.

We also identified 11 C/C genomes that share substitutions found within lineage B (Fig. 2), including a Spanish C/C sequence (EPI_ISL_539558) sharing C22444T with 4 lineage B genomes and C26088T with an additional lineage B genome (Fig. 2). This latter example showcases potential sequencing issues beyond the occurrence of putative homoplasies, where apparent mutations prevent straightforward pairing of sequences from separate lineages based on one or several mutations. There are multiple occurrences of several taxa from a particular lineage (e.g., C/C) containing different subsets of mutations from a (set of) taxa from another lineage (e.g., A), as indicated by the brackets on the line connecting sequences in Figures 1 and 2. Notably, 9 of the C/C genomes share substitutions with both A and B lineages, whereas 4 contain substitutions not seen in other lineages.

There were 10 T/T genomes collected by 28 February 2020. Two T/T genomes (EPI_ISL_418251 and EPI_ISL_418247) have additional mutations C3037T and A23403G common among later lineage B sequences. Another two T/T sequences (EPI_ISL_728154 and EPI_ISL_416615) possess mutations G11410A and G26211T. However, aside from the T/T lineage, these two mutations are only seen separately, with G11410A found frequently in lineage B sequences from Japan and the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and G26211T seen in a lineage B Chinese genome (EPI_ISL_411952). Additionally, one T/T genome sampled in Wuhan (EPI_ISL_493180) contains the mutation C13730T, which, though not seen in other sequences in our dataset, persists within a lineage B clade through early 2021 (e.g., EPI_ISL_1322330). One of the T/T sequences has a mutation not seen in other lineages, and 4 do not have any additional mutations.

Conclusion

As discussed in Worobey et al. (2020) (4), the repeated occurrence of numerous derived mutations on either side of a given mutation is difficult to reconcile through homoplasy events. Of the 77 mutations seen in C/C intermediate genomes, 32 (41.6%) would need to be homoplasies if these C/C intermediates actually existed. Similarly, 7 (58.3%) of the 12 mutations seen in T/T genomes would need to be homoplasies if the T/T intermediates truly existed. These apparent homoplasies can arise from issues regarding sample preparation, contamination, sequencing technology, and/or consensus calling approaches (3). In particular, it seems likely that the nucleotide of the Hu-1 lineage B reference is frequently being called at these two sites.

These findings cast substantial doubt on the veracity of C/C or T/T intermediate genomes in early 2020. We suggest that these early C/C and T/T genomes are erroneous and should be excluded from phylogenetic analyses

Israel to Take a ‘Fresh Look at Policy’ of COVID-19 Vaccinations in October

Israel to Take a ‘Fresh Look at Policy’ of COVID-19 Vaccinations in October

Israel has become a sort of real-world experiment for combatting SARS-CoV-2 with mass vaccination. The eastern Mediterranean nation of over 9 million

trialsitenews.com

Israel has become a sort of real-world experiment for combatting SARS-CoV-2 with mass vaccination. The eastern Mediterranean nation of over 9 million people is among the most inoculated against COVID-19 on the planet. With about 62% fully vaccinated, 90%+ of those in high-risk groups (middle-ages to the elderly), the nation faces unprecedented spikes in SARS-CoV-2 infections. The current wave surpasses all previous spikes during the pandemic. While deaths are not as high as previous spikes, viral transmission has never been higher, despite the implementation of the Green Pass System. This controversial program affords only Israelis classified as “immune” to COVID-19 or who can provide a recent COVID-19 negative test into spaces with lots of people (restaurants, gyms, and even synagogues). Yet the viral reproduction number or “R0 “used to identify if viral transmission wanes or grows now equals 1.01, which means that each infection in the country causes more than one new infection. Indicating a raging pandemic condition, this wasn’t supposed to happen with such pervasive immunization. While the United States press generally avoids the topic, real-world evidence in Israel indicates the current strategy isn’t working. Israeli’s health leadership carefully agrees. Although they recognize that vaccination, mainly with Pfizer-BioNTech’s BNT162b2, can reduce disease severity, the nation’s COVID-19 czar already plans for a fifth wave of infection while still in the middle of a terrible fourth wave. Salman Zarka indicates to the Israeli press that a “fresh look at their policy, including strategy, is planned for October.

Good science centers need a legitimate hypothesis, a series of well-designed tests, and lots of data to enable the scientist to verify or refute the premise. Data is fundamental to the scientific process. In this case, the data points and associated measurements leading to indicators associated with viral transmission, number of infections, severity of the condition, and more are constantly observed, analyzed, and hopefully used to determine whether the experiment is working or not.

Is this real-world experiment working in Israel? Mounting data indicate, at best, a mixed result for the BNT162b2 product. On the one hand, the vaccine does afford protection against more severe disease, at least for a handful of months, despite months of booster activity. On the other hand, a combination of A) widespread contagion, B) growing incidence of breakthrough infection and breakthrough hospitalization, and C) uncertainties as to the health and welfare of the population subjected to continuous boosters, raises the specter of uncertainty as to long-term viability of the current approach.

Ominous Indicators

Recently the Israel Ministry of Health, Director-General Nachman Ash, indicated that an average of 8,000 new infections occur each day, with that number reaching over 10,000 on some days. On September 8 alone, a record 22,291 new cases were recorded. Despite months of a third booster program, new infections are significantly higher than previous spikes in cases.

By late September 2020, the average new daily infection rate ranged from 5,000 to 7,000 cases, while a more severe spike occurred during January 2021, where average new cases also hovered between 5,000 to 10,000 cases. This surge of cases was the deadliest on record, with the highest number of deaths recorded.

Israel’s SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are among the world’s highest. With just over 9 million people, the country has recorded 1.21 million cases, according to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE). In addition, the country has recorded 7,494 deaths.

The First Mover

The fastest nation out of the gate to execute a mass vaccination program, by December 20, 2020, a methodically executed program centering on the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) positioned the nation to emerge out of the pandemic first. Leveraging the country’s four health maintenance organizations (HMOs), they immunized the population in rapid successive waves. Starting with high-risk cohorts such as the elderly, nursing home residents and healthcare workers, and other at-risk candidates such as people with severe comorbidities, the immunization campaign moved by February 4 to all eligible persons 16 years and older. All the while, the country’s HMOs emphasized vaccinating any high-risk people skipped over during the first phase of the program.

The program appeared to be working as new case counts precipitously declined, starting in early April 2021 to early June 2021. During that relatively stable period, the average of new coronavirus cases remained under 50 per day. However, by mid-June, COVID-19 trend-watchers observed a concerning uptick in cases. With the emergence of the Delta variant (B.1.617.2), first identified in India in May, health authorities faced a far more virulent and transmissible pathogen as compared to the original “wild-type” SARS-CoV-2 from Wuhan, China. A new health crisis emerged as cases skyrocketed despite the heavily immunized population.

The waning effectiveness of BNT162b2 combined with the overpowering Delta variant led Israel to its second mass booster program starting in July 2021. Fast forward a couple of months, and unfortunately, abundant data shows the Pfizer vaccine does little to spare the population of continuous transmission.

Mixed Signals

By August 2021, the Delta variant raged, circulating throughout the country. TrialSite reported the growing cases and noticeably high breakthrough infections followed by disturbing reports of breakthrough hospitalizations. To combat the pathogen’s attack, Israeli leadership doubled down on COVID-19 vaccine boosters betting on BNT162b2, and for at least a moment, some hospital leadership reported success.

On August 26, TrialSite had a series of communications with the management of Herzog Hospital. Leaders there reported that the unvaccinated aged 60 and above had at the time, an 11-fold increase of COVID-19 infection as compared to individuals that received BNT162b2.

TrialSite’s founder, Daniel O’Connor, interacted via email with the hospital leadership, commenting, “the leadership was concerned about a report we did on the sky-high rate of breakthrough hospitalizations. We learned of Herzog Hospital’s challenges from an Israeli TV interview, when Dr. Koby Haviv, the hospital’s director, described an extremely high number of breakthrough hospitalizations.” These are cases where the vaccinated wind up severely ill with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

TrialSite’s O’Connor continued, “But the hospital was in touch with us and wanted to clarify the importance of informing the world that the booster program was working. TrialSite is an open platform available to help any healthcare system, hospital, or clinic involved in research and care to impart important health-related messages to the public. So we engaged via email, and we were able to learn more about some powerful successes associated with the vaccine.”

The TrialSite founder concluded, however,

“The signals are really mixed in Israel. On the one hand, there is some evidence that in a concentrated way—for at least a period of time—the Pfizer vaccine affords people protection from more serious problems associated with the Delta variant.

However, we also continued to observe a tremendous number of new infections over there, including breakthrough infections involving severely ill, vaccinated people. So we were perplexed as to what was actually unfolding in Israel. Interestingly, the Herzog leadership was part of a group that was regularly communicating with Dr. Anthony Fauci and others from the United States, so most certainly there are a lot of eyes on Israel.”

Those with a critical eye became increasingly pessimistic. By August 16, Meredith Wadman writing for Science wrote Israel was becoming “the world’s real-life COVID-19 lab.” In “A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta,” the science writer chronicled that overall, 78% of the population 12 years and up were fully vaccinated, mostly with BNT162b2 (Pfizer). Wadman noted, “Yet the country is now logging one of the world’s highest infection rates, with nearly 650 new cases daily permission. More than half are fully vaccinated people.”

Vaccination Nation

Ms. Wadman wasn’t incorrect. The vaccination rates were among the highest worldwide. By August 26, Herzog Hospital shared with TrialSite the nation’s immunization rates. For example, nearly a month ago, 78.3% of the 30-39 age cohort were already covered by the booster shot, while those aged 40 to 49 were 81.7% immunized. The coverage was even higher for the age 50-59 cohort equaling 85.3%, and for the even more vulnerable age range of 60 to 69, 87.7% received a third Pfizer shot. Finally, 93% of people aged 70 to 79 were vaccinated in the country.

Yet, the infections and deaths were on the rise. Herzog Hospital’s Dr. Yehezkel Caine informed TrialSite on August 26 that the program was working from their vantage. From this point of view, what matters most is that the vaccine kept people out of the hospital and therefore alive while those not vaccinated faced far graver risk. But growing numbers of vaccinated people were also going to the hospital with worsening conditions. Moreover, transmission rates and overall deaths climbed by late August despite the intensive nationwide booster campaign initiated in July.

Look at the Data Objectively

In the 23 days since the interaction with Herzog Hospital, what has unfolded in Israel represents even higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and unacceptable levels of fatalities given the pervasiveness of the immunization program.

While constrained from deviating too much from any standard messaging parameters, the Israeli press acknowledged changes may be on the horizon. In a recent Times of Israel piece, Health Minister Director-General Nachman Ash all but recognized significant failures in the mass vaccination program, with over 10,000 new cases on some days. The Director-General indicated he hoped a recent downward trend would have continued. But in the age of COVID-19, messaging is key, and most politicians, health leaders, and journalists don’t dare deviate from established communication protocols.

In comments to the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, the top health official shared his concern about Israel’s climbing SARS-CoV-2 infections. With 8,000 new infections daily, Ash told the group, “That is a record that did not exist in the previous waves.” Times of Israel reporter Stuart Winer reminded all that these current numbers in this post-booster period beat the “massive third wave at the end of last year.”

During the video call, Ash also shared cases involving the seriously ill now spike at 670 and 700, which is slightly less than weeks ago but dangerously high compared to months ago. Meanwhile, the Minister shared concerning data involving growth in the number of patients needing ventilators—from 150 to 190 in the past ten days and growth in cases involving ECMO machines—from 23 to 31.

With an “R’ rate moving upwards at pandemic levels, the COVID-19 positivity rate grew from Sunday, September 12 to Tuesday, September 14, from 5.24% to 5.93%. The overall infection rate in this country is among the highest in the world.

Moving Forward

Israel’s unfolding situation should be a lesson for other nations. While the population is among the most immunized on the planet, the current data indicates real challenges with the current strategy depending on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Although this vaccine does appear to reduce the risks associated with severe symptomatic COVID-19, ongoing breakthrough infections suggest a rethink of vaccine product strategy. TrialSite reported on a recent study led by a team at Japan’s Osaka University, suggesting vaccine makers need to develop a product specifically engineered to attack Delta. Numerous data points indicate the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine loses its defensive powers within a handful of months when confronted with variants such as Delta. Studies in the U.S., such as one led by Mayo Clinic, point to the superiority of the Moderna mRNA-based vaccine over Pfizer.

While Pfizer will generate an unprecedented $33 billion for the current vaccine product, powerful people are taking notice.

Yesterday an independent U.S. FDA advisory panel voted to slow down America’s mass vaccination program, despite Pfizer’s position that the situation merits a broad-based booster immunization now. Significantly, the POTUS and his top physician, Dr. Anthony Fauci, also went on the record concurring with Pfizer to immunize mass numbers of the population now.

Israel’s coronavirus czar, Salman Zarka, indicated recently that the Health Ministry assumes a forthcoming fifth pandemic wave. Mr. Zarka was quoted by the Times of Israel that while preparing to continue the Green Pass system in a bid to prevent viral transmission, the hope is that the nation will get through September and “stabilize in October.” Interestingly, Zarka inserted, “Then we will take a fresh look at the policy.”

Does Zarka mean that Israel’s public health leadership questions the dependence on the Pfizer product? TrialSite suggests that health officials everywhere review the unfolding data carefully. Does real-world data associated with the Pfizer vaccine indicate success? Are the current booster program results considered a success, failure, or some form of mixed result? Do health authorities need a fresh look at their strategy and approach to transcending this pandemic?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Moderna, Pfizer are mRNA therapies which deliver protein to prime the immune system - no genes

In cancer therapy the same method is called gene therapy. Its just a big pharma fact! You deliver the same (RNA) what normally genes deliver. So its gen equivalent treatment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

no faked phase III study

Of course Pfizer faked the phase III study. We here linked already 3 time the report that shows Pfizer ordered doctors to sort out people with Pfizer induced CoV-19! This is a criminal act and will blow up Pfizer for sure. Same as in VIOX, Statin studies:

Quote from Wyttenbach

In cancer therapy the same method is called gene therapy.

No, that is a completely different method, using retrovirus type RNA. It has nothing to do with RNA vaccines. One of the developers explained how the two are completely different in the video below. Vaccines are discussed around minute 2. The cancer gene therapy explanation begins at 3:40.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The now-famous study authored by Hoeg et al is deeply misleading – their core premise is that vaccination myocarditis occurs at a higher rate than in those who get COVID disease.

This is how FUD usually starts. The only question is whether vaccines induce Myocarditis (always live long damage) or not . Not in comparison to anything else . Just comparing healthy people that never would get Cov-19 with vaxx damaged people.

Newest UK data: https://www.gov.uk/government/…-of-yellow-card-reporting Yellow cards included

Old style variants of concern report:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018416/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_37_v2.pdf

Still almost no mortality for risk group age < 50 from delta!

Still going into UK hospital ICU is 1/3 death risk.. No Ivermectin just classic crap care!

Unacademic.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The only question is whether vaccines induce Myocarditis (always live long damage)

^ Another easily checkable Wyttenfact. Who would have thought one XXXXX could be wrong so often?

"Most people with myocarditis recover completely, either with or without treatment, and have no lasting symptoms or complications. For example, if it is caused by a viral infection, the myocarditis may get better as the person’s immune system fights the infection and they recover from the virus."

Myocarditis and cardiomyopathy

Quote from Zeus46

"Most people with myocarditis recover completely, either with or without treatment, and have no lasting symptoms or complications. For example, if it is caused by a viral infection, the myocarditis may get better as the person’s immune system fights the infection and they recover from the virus."

The XXXXX falls back on you just citing an other Idiot that has written the big pharma propaganda.

Try once to read a medical text book. There you will learn that the heart tissue cannot recover and always a dead part (scar) remains. Small scars wont' harm you much as long as you do not plan to become a professional athlete.

You live in a children world.

Wow, the XXXX doubles down on his oddball claims but, (like every other wyttenfact) he fails to provide a link to any evidence.

Indeed, he just starts ranting about big pharma propaganda. Predictable, no?

Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone, medical textbook writer or not, disagrees with him that "myocarditis always causes lifelong damage"... As he could have discovered for himself, if he had the intellectual curiosity to perform a simple google query:

can you recover from myocarditis -covid - Google Suche

Rather than just spouting whatever misconstrued 'thought' pops into his diseased mind.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Of course Pfizer faked the phase III study. We here linked already 3 time the report that shows Pfizer ordered doctors to sort out people with Pfizer induced CoV-19! This is a criminal act and will blow up Pfizer for sure. Same as in VIOX, Statin studies:

I have not seen any such evidence, If you were to post what you think is evidence I could look at it. Based on your prior record here, with no other info, I reckon 90% you are wrong in interpreting it.

Given that companies which indulge in criminal acts get into trouble + press comment I'd put that up at 99%.

Quote from Zeus46

Wow, the dotard doubles down on his oddball claims but, (like every other wyttenfact) he fails to provide a link to any evidence.

Indeed, he just starts ranting about big pharma propaganda. Predictable, no?

Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone, medical textbook writer or not, disagrees with him that "myocarditis always causes lifelong damage"... As he could have discovered for himself, if he had the intellectual curiosity to perform a simple google query:

https://www.google.com/search?…r+from+myocarditis+-covid

Rather than just spouting whatever misconstrued 'thought' pops into his diseased mind.

Display More

I'd go for the considered opinion of the cardiologist with C-VAM patients that I linked over Wyttenfacts.

Actually I'd go for pretty much anything over Wyttenfacts.

The trouble is that there are just a few people here who encourage W. It is depressing.

To be fair, that article is likely above the reading age of the typical anti-vaxxer, or wyttenbach-encourager, for that matter.

You gotta dumb it down some more. Short sentences. Big red text.

Hopefully this will suffice:

Way back on this thread was a paper with an estimate that of all the covid19 deaths, between 10% and 50% were due to heart conditions (admittedly including pericarditis, and various flavors of myocarditis).

So (per worldometer) between 400,000 and 2,000,000 cardiac deaths.

How many was it from vaccines?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Way back on this thread was a paper with an estimate that of all the covid19 deaths, between 10% and 50% were due to heart conditions (admittedly including pericarditis, and various flavors of myocarditis).

So (per worldometer) between 400,000 and 2,000,000 cardiac deaths.

How many was it from vaccines?

(amongst children, the highest risk group by far) 0 I think. It is (from the vaccine, in children) much milder than normal, incl COVID, myocarditis?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Try once to read a medical text book. There you will learn that the heart tissue cannot recover and always a dead part (scar) remains. Small scars wont' harm you much as long as you do not plan to become a professional athlete.

You are thinking of heart attacks, not (mild, as in C-VAM) inflammation

(10s google - my normal check on Wyttenfact)

But the heart does have some ability to make new muscle and possibly repair itself. The rate of regeneration is so slow, though, that it can't fix the kind of damage caused by a heart attack. That's why the rapid healing that follows a heart attack creates scar tissue in place of working muscle tissue.

Cardiologists typically recommend a resting period of three to six months after viral myocarditis to allow the heart tissue to heal without intense physical exercise.

Note - C-VAM is much less severe than typical (viral) myocarditis., which is why cardiologists are so reassured that it will not do any harm to children.

But, even more serious myocarditis will heal (especially in children!).

THH

ivermectin

You have to be weird to think that the scientists doing a (Cochrane) systematic meta-analysis of ivermetin would be biassed against it working! The whole point of meta-analysis is not to be biassed and Cochrane is as good as it gets.

What is interesting is their comment on why ivermectin seems to have positive results from naive pooling of study data.

Like it or loath it, this is genuinely what research scientists believe, on good objective analysis of evidence and based on a long history of usage of poor trials to justify worthless treatments in many areas. They are in the business of evaluating reliability and making assessments as objective as possible. Neither pro nor con. They don't say ivermectin does not work, just that the claims that it clearly does work are not justified by the evidence.

Evidence on the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19: another story of apples and oranges

The antiparasitic ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment option for COVID-19. Understandably, there is high interest in…

ebm.bmj.com

The antiparasitic ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment option for COVID-19. Understandably, there is high interest in repurposing an approved inexpensive drug, readily available as an oral formulation. However, Garegnani et al1 recently pointed out the proportion of misleading information on ivermectin for COVID-19 published in journals, on preprint servers and websites.

A relevant number of systematic reviews report the use of methodological tools such as assessing bias at study level with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or grading the certainty of the evidence following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, thus suggesting a putative high credibility. Indeed, some published findings seem impressive. A recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al found that ivermectin reduces the risk of death by an average of 62% (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73) compared with no ivermectin in hospitalised patients.2

In our Cochrane Review,3 we assessed the identical set of trials. However, only 4 of the 15 trials included in Bryant’s meta-analysis on mortality met our predefined eligibility criteria, and our conclusion, incorporating careful grading of the certainty of evidence, reveals a less rosy picture. The bottom line demonstrates an important uncertainty whether ivermectin compared with placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality in moderately ill hospitalised patients (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.51; two studies) and mildly ill outpatients (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; two studies), due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. How do the different assessments come about? The answer lies partly in the baseline data of included studies. Bryant et al pooled heterogeneous patient populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes. In other words, they compare apples and oranges, serving a large bowl of a colourful fruit salad. Usually, pooling of heterogeneous studies increases imprecision of effects in meta-analyses. Why does this not apply to ivermectin? Its alleged effect is driven by studies where the effect size is extremely positive, which has influenced the conclusions in other reviews. One of these studies with a huge effect has now been retracted over ethical concern.4

Evidence syntheses must be pieces of the highest trustworthiness. However, reliability is at risk when researchers publish problematic trials or misuse established evidence assessment tools as a guise for quality of evidence synthesis in general, but especially during a pandemic, by trying to create pseudotrustworthiness for substances that cannot be considered effective and safe treatment options nor game changers, at this stage.