They need to keep justifying the numbers to get the cash grabs.
even the good guys are willing to play with the numbers so not to be left out of the free money.
Covid-19 News
- Alan Smith
- Closed
-
-
Sorry but did I just read an anti-vaxxer lecturing people about being useful to society?! Arf!
And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there either…
That will be useful instead of promoting a medical product like some magic elixir.
They know all of this (hcq, ivermecting). They ignore all of what you are saying, and they will lie in your face if you ever speak to them (e.g. Fauci).
Ivermectin works and HCQ works.
The best thing you can do at this moment, if you care, is advocate for Ivermectin.
Add Ivermectin and you're good.
close to 100% of those who supposedly are at risk from Covid19 can survive with ivermectin early, aspirin and steroids at the right dose when/if needed.
Turn off the tv, turn off the programming, step away from the media. Get yourself Ivermectin and live your life as unimpeded as you can.
Why does Ivermectin work? Why do Sars-Cov-2 tests show IVM works? What is the relationship of spike to graphene?
-
Large Retrospective Study Tracks Use of HCQ, Remdesivir & Dexamethasone in Real-World Settings
Large Retrospective Study Tracks Use of HCQ, Remdesivir & Dexamethasone in Real-World SettingsWhile research has uncovered ever more information about the safety and efficacy of various therapies targeting SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19,trialsitenews.comWhile research has uncovered ever more information about the safety and efficacy of various therapies targeting SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, little is known about how treatments perform in real-world settings. Consequently, a group of researchers known as the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) sought to study use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. The team designed a retrospective cohort study of three (3) COVID-19 therapies to better understand the real-world evidence for hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone. The results were published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)
The study team leveraged data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large multicenter longitudinal study sponsored by a partnership involving the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Center for Data to Health (CD2H), and NIGMS supported by the Institutional Development Award Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR). NCATS provided overall stewardship.
This particular sub-study within the broader N3C involved a subset of study data accessible via electronic medical records. With 137,870 hospitalized adults primarily in major academic medical centers, the study ran for a year, from February 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021.
Findings
Out of the entire patient base of 137.870, a total of 8754 (6.3%) patients received hydroxychloroquine, 29,272 (21.2% were administered remdesivir, and 53,909 received the corticosteroid dexamethasone. Hydroxychloroquine use in the study increased early in the pandemic but then declined due to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrawal of the emergency use authorization in 2020. While the use of remdesivir did rise, the use of dexamethasone was most prominent due to the findings of the University of Oxford RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) study.
The study authors reported that the use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varies measurably across participating health centers—reporting an intraclass correlation coefficient of 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir. The authors reported that variation was greater for remdesivir, which the authors declare reduced the length of hospital stay (based on NIH study) but not mortality.
The authors suggest that dexamethasone was underused by persons who are mechanically ventilated. Additionally, a number of influences impact the variation in remdesivir and dexamethasone, including patient case mix, drug access, protocols, and quality of care involved at the particular site.
Academic medical centers were the most prominent contributor of N3C data, hence don’t reflect community hospital setting experience.
Lead Research/Investigator
Caleb G. Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
-
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Bolivia Offer Medicine Kits for COVID-19 Without Anticipating Adverse Reactions
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Bolivia Offer Medicine Kits for COVID-19 Without Anticipating Adverse ReactionsTrialSite recently reported that in the Central American nation of El Salvador, the nation’s Ministry of Public Health (Ministerio de Saludtrialsitenews.comTrialSite recently reported that in the Central American nation of El Salvador, the nation’s Ministry of Public Health (Ministerio de Salud Publica—MINSAL) had embraced the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as part of a combination of recommendations for early-onset treatment of COVID-19 via an ambulatory home patient kit.
As shared by Salud Conlupa, every citizen in El Salvador (Central America) is provided with an “anti-COVID-19 kit” containing the following products free of charge by the government if needed.
The kit contains:
Paracetamol and aspirin (anti-inflammatory)
Loratadine (antihistamine)
Ivermectin (against parasite infestation)
Azithromycin (antibiotic)
Vitamin C (500mg)
Vitamin D (2000 IU)
Zinc (50mg)
Electrolytes (minerals)
Guatemala and Bolivia are now also implementing this program.
The world is a big place and depending on what nation different approaches are contemplated to help treat the coronavirus. While the mainstream media in the United States will only publish misinformation at best, and outright lies in more egregious cases, health consumers should understand what’s unfolding around the world. It’s important to note however that in places like America and Australia the health authorities are on the information warpath, ensuring that when the pharmaceutical companies testing antiviral drugs for COVID-19 are done, the market will be wide open for monetization.
Call to Action: Learn more about the details of this program here.
El Salvador, Guatemala y Bolivia ofrecen kits de medicinas para COVID-19 sin prever reacciones adversasLa entrega indiscriminada de una caja de medicamentos a los pacientes con sospechas de COVID-19 puede perjudicar su salud al no tomar en cuenta sus historias…saludconlupa.com -
But, to be fair, we would need to wait for 2 years for long-term effects.
I did hear of British people taking Ivermectin that afterwards could no longer sing the anthem.
-
Unless, like W, you simply view anyone over 65 as being too old to matter and don't count their deaths.
I think its you that supports all people that like to kill CoV-19 infected people by not giving them adequate treatment.
A gen therapy is no treatment for age 80+ !
Even if you are looking to do the best about reducing R - and hence infections, burden on health service - it is all about a comparison of infection rates, not absolute numbers infected.
You never will get it. Younger an healthy people never have the same death and infection rate as 70+ or morbid people. 50..75% of what you claim vaccine protection is in fact natural cross immunity or prior CoV-19.
Your rates are an illusion may be just to calm down yourself.
-
And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there either…
This is a deep mind contribution of a facebook junky. Just repeating big pharma posts without any reflection and no content. We still miss your first real contribution. How many of the 85 2GD Münster party people that contained CoV-19 had a prior CoV-19 infection? May real work is to hard for you. The first 54 checked were all double vaccinated...But the rest?
-
Analyzing the Ivermectin Data.
External Content youtu.beContent 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. -
just so you know sam
Founded just in time for cov.
1.5 b to help get them ready.
Daniel O'Connor on Trial Site NewsClick to read content from Daniel O'Connor on Trial Site News.trialsitenews.comTrialSite News Company Profile: Valuation & Investors | PitchBookInformation on valuation, funding, cap tables, investors, and executives for TrialSite News. Use the PitchBook Platform to explore the full profile.pitchbook.com -
You never will get it. Younger an healthy people never have the same death and infection rate as 70+ or morbid people. 50..75% of what you claim vaccine protection is in fact natural cross immunity or prior CoV-19.
Two claims here:
(1) I am neglecting the exponential age/mortality relationship.
That is not credible. I often refer to it. Indeed I continually correct you for making comparisons without considering this.
(2) vaccine protection is cross immunity
All the figures for vaccine protection are comparing vaccinated statistics with unvaccinated statistics. Cross-immunity, etc, will affect both equally. So while it is possible that many other factors alter mortality rates, the protective effect of vaccination can clearly be seen in the comparison. (As long as you don't use the PHE MIMS dataase to estimate unvaccinated numbers, since this over-counts them by a large amount).
-
This is very revealing, from FLCC well before the PRINCIPLE trial started.
FLCC (pro-ivermectin) argue that an RCT to test ivermectin should not be done (or not be done with a placebo, which comes to the same thing) because ivermectin is obviously beneficial to patients.
I have no doubt these fanatics are genuine believers, and this shows that they have such hubris that they do not want proper validation. it is how miracle drug claims get propagated. If you are convinced of the claim, it becomes unethical to test it! The nature of COVID mortality - only 1%, and much less in a young population where mostly ivermectin is used, with strong confounding factors, makes it very difficult for observational studies to be relied upon. That is especially so when the investigators start convinced that they have a miracle drug.
Of course, in these trials, as soon as a treatment shows obvious advantage, the trial is modified and the treatment is given as SOC.
We are now all awaiting the PRINCIPLE ivermectin results (and a few other trails doing essentially the same thing).
(the paper they refer to here has been withdrawn because its conclusions were highly dependent on the now also withdrawn, and clearly wrong, Elgazzar study results).
Open Letter to the Investigators of the Oxford PRINCIPLE Trial on Ivermectin in COVID-19
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance wishes to raise concerns about the proposed design
of the Oxford PRINCIPLE Trial of ivermectin in COVID-19. We believe that it is an ethical imperative
to provide those considering participation a truthful account of the available evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in COVID-19.The existing evidence base demonstrating the efficacy for Ivermectin
was recently presented to both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes
of Health.
Dr. Andrew Hill (WHO expert consultant) has posted a preliminary meta-analysis which includes
18 randomized controlled trials with over 2,100 patients included. This meta-analysis finds large,
statistically significant reductions in time to clinical recovery, length of hospitalization, and death.
These findings are further strengthened by “natural” controlled experiments that have occurred
within numerous cities and regions of the world where mass ivermectin distribution or treatment,
especially among older people, was closely followed by widespread and large reductions in both
case counts and case fatality rates from COVID-19. Please note that our manuscript which reviewed
both these epidemiologic data and the existing clinical trials evidence base concluded that
ivermectin should be the standard of care in COVID-19. This manuscript has been accepted for
publication in a prominent medical journal and can be found here: Review of the Emerging
Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19.
Inadequately communicating this information to potential participants would be a violation of the
primary responsibilities of clinical researchers as directed by the Belmont report to protect
human subjects of biomedical research. Nonmaleficence is a constant duty; that is, one ought
never cause harm to a patient, particularly when patient care and medical research co-exist. It
requires us to take steps to avoid harm or injury to the patient, either through acts of commission
or omission. While we support your organization’s impressive work, we must strongly question
whether the use of placebo given current scientific knowledge about ivermectin meets the criteria
for such an omission. The Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research involvingHuman Subjects” states that “when combining medical research with medical care, patients can
only be studied... if the physician has good reason to believe that participation in the research
study will not adversely affect the health of the patients who serve as research subjects.”
In the next few weeks, the result of four more randomized studies involving more than 3,000
additional patients will provide an even greater understanding of the efficacy of Ivermectin in
COVID-19. These studies’ findings will be critical to guide your impressive organization in the
ethical design of prospective trials comparing either the timing, dosage, or duration of treatment -
Ivermectin for Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisBackground. Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is…www.mdpi.com
Another, recent, careful meta-analysis of ivermectin.
What is striking is that the various different indicators are mostly negative. There is some hope from the positives but it is low certainty and the pattern here is not encouraging.
Enough to justify further testing - as is happening. In Navid's post above, in addition to not understanding base rate fallacy, and (it seems) seeing analysis as irrelevant to good work, he appears to view ivermectin as a COVID miracle cure which colors his view of the futility of vaccination. Why bother when you can instead dose with ivermectin? It is exactly this mindset that makes ivermectin (whether equine or human) dangerous for reasons other than direct medical ones.
Background. Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial. Objectives. We undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology. Methods. We searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results. The review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD −0.17; 95% CIs, −0.24/−0.10; p = 0.00001; low level of certainty). In terms of disease progression (to severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit, and/or mechanical ventilation), the results were much the same. At day 14, the rate of patients with a negative RT-PCR test was 21% higher (from 5 to 36% higher) for ivermectin recipients than it was for the controls (low quality of evidence). Three studies (736 subjects) indicated that prophylaxis with ivermectin increased the likelihood of preventing COVID-19 compared to controls (low quality of evidence). Serious adverse events were rarely reported. Conclusions. There is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
-
Wuhan Lab Wanted to Genetically Enhance Bat Viruses to Study Human Risks, Documents Show
Wuhan lab wanted to genetically enhance bat viruses to study human risks, documents showThe documents promise to fuel the controversy around the Wuhan lab's role in the pandemic.www.newsweek.comLess than two years before the COVID-19 pandemic began, scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology planned to genetically alter viruses to make them more infectious for humans and release them into bat caves
The research proposal was part of a trove of documents released this week by a group of scientists and activists who are trying to determine the origins of the pandemic, which has killed 4.7 million people around the world, according to Johns Hopkins University.
The Wuhan scientists were listed as partners on a funding proposal the environmental health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance made to the U.S. government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
DARPA rejected the proposal and it is not clear what happened to the research project, which the documents described as having "a good running start"
The proposal promises to fuel the controversy around the Wuhan lab's role in the pandemic. The Chinese government maintains that the outbreak began at a wet market and bristles at suggestions that experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology led to a leak of dangerous pathogens.
A growing number of scientists and governments around the world including the Biden administration, have refused to rule out the lab leak theory and demanded that China cooperate fully in a global scientific investigation.
fully in a global scientific investigation.
The growing suspicion of China's official version has been driven in large measure by the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 or DRASTIC, which released the documents this week. The documents could not be verified by Newsweek.
Throughout the pandemic, about two dozen DRASTIC researchers and correspondents, many anonymous, working independently from many different countries, have uncovered obscure documents, pieced together the information, and explained it all in long threads on Twitter. Gradually, the quality of their research has gained the acclaim of professional scientists and journalists.
Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and laboratory and director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, tweeted out the findings of the latest DRASTIC document dump and said the world should be furious at the news.
The documents showed researchers aspired to genetically alter coronaviruses and monitor their release and transmission in bat caves to determine the risks those viruses posed to humans.
In a Monday post on DRASTIC Research's website, the group said documents shared by an unnamed whistleblower showed the EcoHealth Alliance "collaborated" with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to "carry out advanced and dangerous human pathogenicity Bat Coronavirus research" through a grant proposal EcoHealth Alliance filed with DARPA.
DARPA is a research agency within the U.S. Department of Defense which aims to "preserve military readiness by protecting against the infectious disease threat" through its PREEMPT program.
In its funding request, EcoHealth Alliance "proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and 'batified' mice," DRASTIC Research said.
A copy of EcoHealth Alliance's proposal shared by DRASTIC Research said the proposed project aimed to "defuse the potential for spillover of novel bat-origin high-zoonotic risk SARS-related coronaviruses in Asia." The proposal's executive summary said researchers would "intensively sample bats" in field locations where scientists "identified high spillover risk" for coronaviruses.
EcoHealth Alliance wrote in the document shared by DRASTIC Research that it planned to work with researchers at the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, the University of North Carolina, the Palo Alto Research Center in California, U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. It requested $14 million from DARPA to conduct its research, which was estimated to take three and a half years.
The proposal was dated March 2018, less than two years before SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, began spreading around the world. The virus is believed to have begun spreading among humans in Wuhan, where the first wave of infections was reported.
Thanks to DRASTIC, the world now knows that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had an extensive collection of coronaviruses gathered over many years of foraging in the bat caves, and that many of them—including the closest known relative to the pandemic virus, SARS-CoV-2—came from a mineshaft where three men died from a suspected SARS-like disease in 2012. It knows that the Institute was actively working with these viruses, using inadequate safety protocols, in ways that could have triggered the pandemic, and that the lab and Chinese authorities have gone to great lengths to conceal these activities. It is also clear the first cases appeared weeks before the outbreak at the Huanan wet market that was once thought to be ground zero. None of that is conclusive proof that a lab leak caused the virus.
As the DRASTIC revelations swayed a once skeptical Western media and scientific community, President Joe Biden ordered a U.S. intelligence investigation to determine the origins of the pandemic. The intelligence agencies issued an inconclusive report last month.
In one document shared by DRASTIC Research, a DARPA official wrote he was not recommending funding for the project. DARPA's assessment of the project said it "aims to identify and model spillover risk of novel, pandemic-potential SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoVs) in Asia, focusing specifically on known hotspot bat caves in China."
-
70% of fully vaccinated prisoners caught COVID-19 in a Texas Delta outbreak, the CDC says — but vaccines protected against severe disease
70% vaccinated prisoners got COVID, 93% of unvaccinated: Texas studyOf 129 fully vaccinated prisoners who caught COVID-19, only one was hospitalized. Unvaccinated people at the prison caught COVID-19 at a higher rate.www.businessinsider.comAbout 70% of fully vaccinated people in a Texas prison caught COVID-19 in an outbreak, the CDC said.
The data suggests that while Delta can spread among vaccinated people, vaccines protect against severe COVID-19.
Of the unvaccinated prisoners, 93% caught COVID-19, and one died, the CDC said.
More than two-thirds of fully vaccinated people in a Texas prison caught COVID-19 during an outbreak of the Delta variant in July, but vaccines protected against severe illness, a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
Of 185 fully vaccinated prisoners at the unnamed prison, 129, or about 70%, caught the virus, data compiled by the CDC and the Federal Bureau of Prisons showed. This was a much lower rate than the unvaccinated prisoners, 39 of 42 of whom – or about 93% — caught COVID-19 during the outbreak, said the study, published Tuesday in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Four people, three of whom were unvaccinated, needed treatment in a hospital, the study said. One unvaccinated person died, it said.
Most of the prisoners were white men, and many had received Pfizer's vaccine at least four months before the outbreak, the data showed.
The study adds to growing evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cut the risk of severe disease and hospitalization. Prisons tend to have higher rates of COVID-19 and deaths because of cramped living conditions and underlying health conditions, the CDC said.
Another CDC study from this month found that unvaccinated Americans were 11 times as likely to die of COVID-19 as vaccinated people. About 45% of people in the US are unvaccinated, according to the CDC.
The latest CDC study showed that the Delta variant can spread among both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. "Infectious virus was cultured from vaccinated and unvaccinated infected persons," the study said.
Measures like masks and regular testing are "critical" where physical distancing is "challenging," even if vaccination rates are high, the CDC said.
-
Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in Exhaled Aerosols and Efficacy of Masks During Early Mild Infection
Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in Exhaled Aerosols and Efficacy of Masks During Early Mild InfectionAbstractBackground. SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology implicates airborne transmission; aerosol infectiousness and impacts of masks and variants on aerosol shedding are nacademic.oup.comAbstract
Background
SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology implicates airborne transmission; aerosol infectiousness and impacts of masks and variants on aerosol shedding are not well understood.
Methods
We recruited COVID-19 cases to give blood, saliva, mid-turbinate and fomite (phone) swabs, and 30-minute breath samples while vocalizing into a Gesundheit-II, with and without masks at up to two visits two days apart. We quantified and sequenced viral RNA, cultured virus, and assayed sera for anti-spike and anti-receptor binding domain antibodies.
Results
We enrolled 49 seronegative cases (mean days post onset 3.8 ±2.1), May 2020 through April 2021. We detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 45% of fine (≤5 µm), 31% of coarse (>5 µm) aerosols, and 65% of fomite samples overall and in all samples from four alpha-variant cases. Masks reduced viral RNA by 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3 to 72%) in fine and by 77% (95% CI, 51 to 89%) in coarse aerosols; cloth and surgical masks were not significantly different. The alpha variant was associated with a 43-fold (95% CI, 6.6 to 280-fold) increase in fine aerosol viral RNA, compared with earlier viruses, that remained a significant 18-fold (95% CI, 3.4 to 92-fold) increase adjusting for viral RNA in saliva, swabs, and other potential confounders. Two fine aerosol samples, collected while participants wore masks, were culture-positive.
Conclusion
SARS-CoV-2 is evolving toward more efficient aerosol generation and loose-fitting masks provide significant but only modest source control. Therefore, until vaccination rates are very high, continued layered controls and tight-fitting masks and respirators will be necessary.
-
Wuhan Lab Wanted to Genetically Enhance Bat Viruses to Study Human Risks
It's still not clear whether this plan wasn't actually carried out in its entirety, because it was part of DARPA grant proposal, the first part of which has been actually carried out (i.e. the massive collection of bat samples from caves)
-
Quote
What is striking is that the various different indicators are mostly negative. There is some hope from the positives but it is low certainty and the pattern here is not encouraging.
Ivermectin is prophylaxis drug, it prohibits coronavirus in binding to host cells. The clinical studies handle with people in developed stage of disease. In addition, once test group involves Ivermectin only, whereas the other gets treated with antihistamines and antibiotics, then its apparent, that Ivermectin alone or placebo must fail and it's ipso facto violation of Hippocratic oath. Such a comparative study thus must involve full treatment of patients with classical cures, with Ivermectin in addition.
And in general, Ivermectin isn't drug for hospitals, it's a prevention drug for all people via over-counter sales like aspirin.
-
Quote
But, to be fair, we would need to wait for 2 years for long-term effects.
To be even more fair, we don't have to, because A) Ivermectin is already FDA approved and B) Ivermectin is applied
in fifty countries of Africa against onchocerciasis. As of 2002 more than 119 million people were already treated with ivermectin.
You're not fair: you're biased Big Pharma shill and it's quite apparent here. If you're not paid for it, the worse for you, because you're engaging in harmful activity for free..;-)
-
Ivermectin is prophylaxis drug, it prohibits coronavirus in binding to host cells. The clinical studies handle with people in developed stage of disease.
The review I linked showed results from prophylatic studies also - and they were negative.
But the FLCC people don't view ivermectin is primarily a prophylactic. They say it is also a treatment.
One of the mistakes it is easy to make is having it both ways: you count positive studies for treatment, you don't count negative studies because you say it is meant to be used as prophylatic. This type of cheery picking helps to enhance a false impression of positive overall rsults - even though when looked at analytically (as the metas-analyses do) they are not so positive.
-
You're not fair: you're biased Big Pharma shill and it's quite apparent here. If you're not paid for it, the worse for you, because you're engaging in harmful activity for free..;-)
None of that is evidenced, or true.
You are, from the above post, an impolite person, who is propagating false ideas that kill people by casting unwarranted doubt upon the efficacy and safety of the COVID vaccines and therefore adding to vaccine hesitancy. That would be my definition of harmful activity.
I have justified everything I've said. in detail. And defended it when challenged.
