But the FLCC people don't view ivermectin is primarily a prophylactic. They say it is also a treatment.
It doesn't correspond Ivermectin mode of action: it competes virus in docking to ACE2 receptors, i.e. it prohibits infection in spreading.
Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist and operator of a diagnostics lab, reported to the public in a video produced by Idaho state government’s “Capitol Clarity” project, that he is seeing a massive ‘uptick’ in various autoimmune diseases and cancers in patients who have been vaccinated:
"I’m not exaggerating at all because I look at my numbers year over year, I’m like ‘Gosh, I’ve never seen this many endometrial cancers before’"
According to Cole, in patients with HIV, there is a massive suppression of “helper T-cells” which cause immune system functions to plummet, and leave the patient susceptible to a variety of illnesses. Similarly, Cole describes, “post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells” “And what do CD8 cells do? They keep all other viruses in check,” he continued.
It may be the same hoax like the recent reports about doctor from Oclahoma hospital witnessing people dying because of Ivermectin overdosing - but further attention is indeed required, as m-RNA is solely new technology and no one of Covid vaccines has been tested for long term effects. There is suspicion that Wuhan coronavirus which contains HIV fragments leaked into wild during development of HIV vaccine. From this reason Wuhan coronavirus also utilizes cytokine storm for its spreading in similar way, like HIV virus, which is immune cells killer. Every vaccine which would mimic Wuhan coronavirus behavior in an effort to elicit autoimmune response against it could thus also also exhibit immunosuppressive effects of HIV virus.
Ho Chi Minh City Dept. of Health Rolls out Investigational Molnupiravir: But Not in a Clinical Trial
At the pandemic’s onset, Vietnam’s fast and effective response efforts drew high praise, and rates of infection and deaths were low. Efforts included immediately closing the borders when the virus began circulating in China. However, early successes may have contributed to a very different situation in 2021. The government did not prioritize vaccinations and most Vietnamese to this day go unvaccinated. When the Delta variant crossed Vietnam’s borders in April 2021, the number of cases soared. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s biggest city, has become the epicenter of the virus. Some 80% of fatalities and half of infections originate in the city, and from August 23, Ho Chi Minh went into a government-imposed lockdown. The city’s Department of Health launched what could be considered a controversial COVID-19 home-based ambulatory care program. The program centers on the use of a medicine kit with Merck’s experimental Molnupiravir. Not part of a controlled clinical trial the use of the investigational product raises ethical questions although apparently the COVID-19 home medication program results will be evaluated by experts under a research protocol that has been approved by the nation’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research under the Vietnamese health ministry.
Response to the Latest Wave
As of September 16, 2021, the country reports 216,153 active cases and 16,425 COVID-19 deaths. Hospitals are full, and although Vietnam is due to receive vaccine supplies, they won’t accept them until the end of 2021. The government has been forced to look for other means to combat the pandemic and reduce the risk of patients requiring hospitalization. In particular, they are opting for early-onset antiviral treatments.
With a surge of new cases and deaths, low vaccine supplies, and the majority of the country in lockdown, Pham Minh Chinh, the newly elected prime minister, found himself under severe pressure. He has prioritized mass testing, and deployed soldiers to enforce lockdowns as well as distribute food and other necessities.
Exploration into Antivirals
While some Southeastern nations have embraced ivermectin at least informally that doesn’t seem to be the case here. By July Vietnam hadn’t embraced any antiviral drugs targeting COVID-19. As reported in Vietnamese news the Vice President of Vietnam Association of Infectious Diseases, Nguyen Hong Ha shared that the Southeast Asian nation had not embraced infectious diseases such as Favipiravir and Remdesivir in its treatment regimen for the novel coronavirus.
While remdesivir was approved in the U.S. the World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity study indicated the drug wasn’t effective and nonetheless for Vietnam the price tag was also too high.
But Vietnam was studying Favipiravir, the antiviral drug used to treat influenza in Japan and now used in dozens of nations targeting COVID-19, for domestic production. By early July scientists at the Institute of Chemistry under the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology announced they successfully synthesized Favipiravir in labs there. Called Avigan and produced by FUJIFILM Chemical Toyama (FUJIFILM) the drug was now off-patent.
But time was of the essence. By August 19 Vietnam’s Ministry of Health during a meeting with FUJIFILM announced their decision to acquire 1 million tablets Avigan from Japan’s FUJIFILM with an imminent expected arrival date reported Anh Kiet writing for the Hanoi Times. The FUJIFILM and Vietnam deal would be brokered by the Vietnamese conglomerate AIC Group.
The AIC Group would buy all the available Avigan tablets in FUJIFILM stock, turn around and distribute the drugs at no charge to fight the pandemic.
Home Program—App & Medicine Kits
However with an unfolding crisis particularly in Ho Chi Minh City more was needed. Undoubtedly the Vietnamese government observed the dramatic turnaround made by India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh. Public health agencies in this Indian state-led a dramatic turnaround for the better. By employing health outreach teams across tens of thousands of villages and districts the state government conducted frequent testing while distributing home medicine kits for those infected or even exposed to the pathogen. These kits included ivermectin and contributed to the complete turnaround in the pandemic. https://trialsitenews.com/msn-…based-home-medicine-kits/
The Ho Chi Minh City Department of Health developed a mobile application named HCM City Health that is downloadable via App Store and Google Play. The main purpose of the application is to make health consultations and declaration of health accessible to the patients. It also makes the contacting of health authorities easier, especially for patients who are receiving a home health medicine pack.
The city government needs to provide 11,000 tons of goods, including medicine packs, to residents each day. Of interest, a Vietnamese home program included at least three different for different situations. TrialSite reported a controversial part of one pilot involving Ho Chi Minh City Department of Health includes the experimental drug Molnupiravir. Still, in clinical trials, the investigational product hasn’t been approved or provisionally authorized for emergency anywhere.
A TrialSite investigation into the Vietnamese situation found that there are three types of medicine packs presently provided including the following:
Pack A: Paracetamol and vitamins to boost immunity. These are distributed to patients with mild symptoms.
Pack B: Either prednisolone, dexamethasone, or methylprednisolone. There are also anti-coagulants like rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran. These are distributed to patients who have more severe symptoms and may be waiting to be transferred to the hospital.
Pack C: Molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral drug produced by Merck and Ridgeback Biotechnology. These are also distributed to patients with mild symptoms. A total of 300,000 doses arrived on August 31, and another 1.7 million tablets arrived the following month. There’s still another batch expected to arrive. The Ho Chi Minh City Department of Health also uses the HCM City Health app in conjunction with the Molnupiravir home medicine kit.
Move to Molnupiravir
Molnupiravir, originally developed by Emory University, was licensed in March 2020 at the pandemic’s onset to Ridgeback Biotherapeutics via Emory’s Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory (DRIVE) LLC. Known as EIDD-2801, TrialSite notes that the majority of discovery and early development was funded by the American government via the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) as well as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) targeting a number of viruses.
Research or Care?
TrialSite shared that this Ho Chi Minh City initiative led by the Department of Health involved a home-based, self-care, ongoing monitoring (including app) including physicians monitors. Additionally, Department of Health teams monitor the patients to determine the rate of negative SARS-CoV-2 as well as the rate of any disease progression to a more severe level after five days.
Moreover, the care protocol calls for ongoing monitoring over a 14-day period for any side effects or adverse events. While this Ho Chi Minh City program isn’t a clinical trial Vietnam News reported that “The program results will be assessed by health experts under a scientific research protocol approved by the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research and the health ministry.”
The ethics of the Ho Chi Minh City are questionable. The investigational product has been licensed by producers in India and not by Merck directly. Merck acknowledged that they have licensed the investigational product to multiple Indian generic pharmaceutical producers and in fact disclosed in July that one of them, Hetero Labs Limited (Hetero) reported positive clinical trial data. The producers in India include Cipla Limited, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and the aforementioned Hetero.
Regardless this program appears to expose residents in Ho Chi Minh City to what is still an experimental drug not in a controlled clinical trial. This effort has not been covered by any trade press or media in the West other than TrialSite.
What is molnupiravir and how does it work?
Molnupiravir was originally developed to treat influenza at Emory University. The antiviral drug is also effective against COVID-19, reducing viral replication and pathogenesis in patients included in the clinical trial.
In February, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics initiated a US-based multicenter clinical study, where 204 outpatients with mild symptoms were randomly picked and divided into 4 groups that received 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg of Molnupiravir, or a placebo, twice a day for 5 days.
Only 7 patients experienced adverse effects of the drug, preventing further participation in the trial, but the remainder showed promising results. The tolerability and safety of the drug showed minimal side effects for most participants and those who had the 800mg dose had the lowest rate of adverse symptoms. The adverse symptoms reported were headache, insomnia, and increased alanine aminotransferase levels.
Results showed the drug was well tolerated and showed potent antiviral efficacy. When they swabbed the participants, they isolated infectious viruses from 43.5%. On the third day of taking the drug, the group who took an 800mg dose had an infection rate of 1.9% compared to 16.7% of patients who took a placebo. Participants in the 400mg group also showed a decrease of infection by the fifth day. All participants who took the drug had a reduced contagious level compared to the control group by the end of the study.
Currently, molnupiravir is undergoing the final phase of clinical trials for outpatients, the results of which will determine its status as an FDA authorized drug. Clinical trials for hospitalized patients were discontinued since they didn’t demonstrate a benefit in hospitalized patients.
The clinical trials are promising; however, there is no data on any long-term side effects after its use as a flu or COVID-19 antiviral. After the trial’s preliminary results, the US government established a $1.2 billion agreement with Merck to supply molnupiravir once the FDA approves or authorizes it on an emergency basis. TrialSite recently covered a move of Merck’s ‘Household Contacts’ molnupiravir study to a lead investigator in Arizona.
Final Thoughts on Molnupiravir Safety for HCM Residents
As mentioned above, the Vietnamese regulatory authority, nor any other regulatory agency have approved molnupiravir for use yet, but the Department of Health in Ho Chi Minh has given the green light for its distribution among patients isolating at home, raising critical questions about the government’s policies in distributing an unapproved drug for public use.
Within this framework, medical staff are taking steps to acquire informed consent about the use of molnupiravir. Patients are briefed on the program and must give their consent to receive the medications. They also receive written information sheets regarding the medication, monitoring, and who to contact if their symptoms worsen. Nevertheless, the point of informed consent could be considered moot when the only other option for these self-isolating Vietnamese patients is to refuse treatment. Under lockdown, they are unable to procure alternative medicines from a doctor or pharmacist.
The Department of Health states that patients will be monitored regularly throughout via the aforementioned 14-day treatment period, and that they will evaluate COVID antigen rates on day 2 of treatment and progression of disease on day 5. However, this monitoring is virtual; there appears to be no physician monitoring of the dosage, nor actual blood tests and physical check-ups to see how their body is reacting to the drug.
TrialSite News will continue to monitor the situation in Ho Chi Minh City and any data released by the Vietnam Department of Health.
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 outbrea
I would not call that a "much lower rate." I would say "significantly lower rate." The important thing though is that severe cases were reduced. Other sources say that vaccinated people respond to the infection more quickly and are contagious for fewer days. That would be a big advantage in a prison.
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.
And that's obviously wrong. If, as of today > 50% of the vaccinated had an infection, that protects 20..40x better than the vaccine you make a severe error. Vaccine protection only counts for people with no prior or post CoV-19 infection.
I have no doubt these fanatics are genuine believers,
Other fanatics (middle America states) just joined them. India cured itself with Ivermectin Only the vaccine terror states try to hide Ivermectin. And of course fascists like you.
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.
1 death = death rate 0.8. Here among unvaccinated death rate is 0.3. So no vaccine protection at all....
I have justified everything I've said. in detail. And defended it when challenged.
No: >You mix up reposting paid big pharma FUD with defending a real world study. I did not yet see any comment of you about the Israel study - not a fake meta study....
The city’s Department of Health launched what could be considered a controversial COVID-19 home-based ambulatory care program. The program centers on the use of a medicine kit with Merck’s experimental Molnupiravir.
is is totally out of bounds disgusting big pharma WWII Dr. Mengle trial. I hope people soon will understand that fascism is ruling the world again.
1 death = death rate 0.8. Here among unvaccinated death rate is 0.3. So no vaccine protection at all....
No: >You mix up reposting paid big pharma FUD with defending a real world study. I did not yet see any comment of you about the Israel study - not a fake meta study....
is is totally out of bounds disgusting big pharma WWII Dr. Mengle trial. I hope people soon will understand that fascism is ruling the world again.
The rainbow fascism groups are starting to show banners at the end of the popups that they will inherit the earth.
The rainbow fascism groups are starting to show banners at the end of the popups
No! - good news. The new fascist are cricket brains. They believe in the vaccines. So if we are happy they eradicate themselves...
Unluckily the CoV-19 PCR+ rate age class 40..80 (UK W37 report Tab.2) is about three times higher for the vaccinated than for the unvaccinated. (If you count in the prior infected). So may be they get immunity faster than the unvaxx people...
But the obviously the existing (persisting vaxx induced) immune defect will certainly work out soon....
In the US, the VAERS system is more robust that people think. It takes a lot of work and knowledge to be able to enter quality data to obtain a verified (rather than a temporary) entry in the database. The problem is, about merely one hundredth of possible adverse reactions to vaccines are recorded in VAERS. This has been known since 2017 when the Harvard Medical School, funded with one million dollars from the HHS, published their findings when actively data mining the results of 1.4 million vaccine doses given over 3 years. When Harvard contacted the CDC in the hopes of merging their proactive system to the VAERS system, the CDC gave them the silent treatment.
In the interview below, a whistleblower who is a physician's assistant (essentially someone doing the role of both a doctor and an administrator) explains that her hospital, and others, simply weren't reporting to VAERS, at all. They didn't know about it, let alone know it was required by law. When the whistleblower saw strange things happening with COVID vaccine recipients in her care, she investigated further, discovered VAERS, and started seeking out and reporting to VAERS the many vaccine adverse events at the hospital. Alarmed, the hospital higher ups eventually told her that her efforts were at potential odds with the hospital's pro vaccine message, and to stop most of her reporting work. She has since paid the price for her concern and diligence. An hour long but worth it for boots on the ground insights.
No! - good news. The new fascist are cricket brains. They believe in the vaccines. So if we are happy they eradicate themselves...
Unluckily the CoV-19 PCR+ rate age class 40..80 (UK W37 report Tab.2) is about three times higher for the vaccinated than for the unvaccinated. (If you count in the prior infected). So may be they get immunity faster than the unvaxx people...
But the obviously the existing (persisting vaxx induced) immune defect will certainly work out soon....
I'm watch, but you know my intentions. Its best they stop before I burn the planet to a crisp first.
The problem is, about merely one hundredth of possible adverse reactions to vaccines are recorded in VAERS.
I would not know about that. However, all deaths must be entered into VAERS, so there are no deaths unaccounted for:
QUOTE:
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.
I expect that nearly all serious adverse reactions are also reported. If only one hundredth of all adverse reactions are reported, I expect that is because nearly all adverse reactions are mild, expected and routine. Everyone who gets the vaccine has to sign a form acknowledging these adverse reactions. For example, the form says you might get a low grade fever. If you do, I see no point to reporting that to VAERS. They already know what percent of patients get fevers. They determined that in 2020, with tens of thousands of patients in the double-blind tests. Some number of people reporting fevers now will not improve the data because there is no way of knowing how many people got a fever and did not report anything.
In the interview below, a whistleblower who is a physician's assistant (essentially someone doing the role of both a doctor and an administrator) explains that her hospital, and others, simply weren't reporting to VAERS, at all. They didn't know about it, let alone know it was required by law.
THAT is preposterous. Completely ridiculous. Why do you believe such nonsense? Does this person also claim the doctor has never heard of the FDA? EVERY SINGLE TIME they vaccinate you for anything, they have to give you a form describing the VAERS. You, the patient, have to sign for it and acknowledge it. Is this whistleblower saying they have handed out this form thousands of times but they never read it? Or even glanced at it? Give me a break!
Serious Group of Scientists Declare COVID-19 Vaccine Risks Too High to Ignore
In what will most likely be ignored by the mainstream is a potential bombshell of a peer-reviewed, published paper warning the world to slow down on the mass COVID-19 vaccinations. A diverse, multi-disciplined group from both Europe and the U.S. recently raised questions about COVID-19 vaccination in children. About 42.5 million recorded COVID-19 cases in America have led to the highest number of deaths worldwide: approximately 681,222 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University. With their findings published in the journal Toxicology Reports, the researchers first clarify that the bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita in children are negligible. The paper’s authors write that the great majority of “normalized post-inoculation” deaths occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while “normalized post-inoculation” deaths in kids are small but not negligible. A provocative piece given the dominant societal narrative at this point in time, the authors’ data crunching leads to what undoubtedly is a claim rejected by much of the academic medical establishment, which is that COVID-19 vaccination leads to a five-fold increase in deaths in the most vulnerable age (65 and above) demographic. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio of the mass vaccination program for children must be thoroughly vetted. While most may disagree with these research findings, what if they are correct…, or even just partly correct?
A Serious Group
TrialSite emphasizes that the group of authors behind this controversial piece appear to pack a serious punch. Hailing from America, Russia, Greece, and Romania, the group appears to bring highly compatible skills and expertise to the investigational pursuit.
Corresponding author Ronald N. Kostoff, a Ph.D. in Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences from Princeton University, has collaborated with many biomedically-trained scientists to produce dozens of medical-related research papers. The Ph.D. led the writing of the paper.
Kostoff is joined by a highly credible group of authors that includes Daniela Calina, MD, Ph.D., PharmD, a professor at University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Craiova, Romania, who helped perform data analysis and manuscript authoring. A Professor of Medicine and Medical Sciences at University of Bari, Darja Kanduc, also helped crunch numbers while writing pieces of the manuscript.
Another author, Michael B. Briggs, earned a BS and MS in Nuclear Engineering and a ME in Radiological Health Engineering from the University of Michigan. Briggs, a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Marine Corps Reserve, has previously published with Kostoff and contributed data analysis, results validation, and graphics.
A Greek Professor of Medicine and Immunology at the prestigious National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Panayiotis Vlachoyiannopoulos, helped write the manuscript, while Andrey A. Svistunov, a pharmacologist affiliated with I.M Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), contributed an editorial review. Finally, Aristidis Tsatsakis, an expert in forensic sciences and toxicology with the University of Crete, Greece, also provided an editorial review.
Key Assumptions
Before delving into the authors’ controversial conclusions, a brief review of key assumptions is important. The data backing this study covers the span of the pandemic until May 2021. At that point, the authors shared that a total of 4,863 reports of death were entered into the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Noting the passively managed nature of VAERS, the authors claim that “[H]istorically, VAERS has been shown to report about 1% of actual vaccine/inoculation adverse events” based on conclusions from a previous study that corresponding author Kostoff helped produce.
The authors’ key assumptions for expected deaths associated with the mass COVID-19 vaccination program exist In Appendix A titled “Expected Deaths in 65+ Demographic vs. COVID-19 Inoculation Deaths.” The authors estimate the actual number of deaths associated with the vaccine based on the amount of deaths reported in VAERS.
They cite numerous issues with VAERS, including “gross underreporting of adverse events,” which they suggest associates with “a major conflict of interest for the CDC.” They argue this because the CDC funds mass inoculations by providing billions of dollars to various vaccination programs.
Fundamental to the Kostoff et al. argument for CDC conflict of interest centers on the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), where the agency received $8.75 billion “to plan, prepare for, promote, distribute, administer, monitor, and track coronavirus vaccines to ensure broad-based distribution, access and vaccine coverage.” That the CDC gets enormous sums of money to keep vaccination programs going could slant their focus to widespread vaccine distribution and maintaining good rapport with the funding elements within the U.S. government and vaccine manufacturers.
However, the CDC is also responsible for monitoring the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. But are they doing this thoroughly, systematically, and objectively? The authors declare they are not and state that with a waiver of liability, along with material interests in promoting vaccination, the CDC is not a trustworthy agency.
Central Position
The architects of mass vaccination programs should employ risk-benefit analyses, particularly in the case of vulnerable cohorts, like children, and when new vaccine technology is being used. The probability of severe COVID-19 and death must be thoroughly vetted, understood, and weighed against the risks vs. benefits of taking the vaccine. Parents deserve to have honest, reliable, nonpromotional information to make these choices for their children.
Data shows that the probability of severe disease or death is low among children infected with COVID, meaning that the bar for administering a new vaccine in this population must be high. Because the vaccines are given to healthy kids, the safety profile and vaccine efficacy need to be significantly high when compared to the very low probability of serious illness and death from the virus.
This study team highlighted issues that raise the risk premium associated with COVID-19 vaccination. They include:
Very short-term clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
Limited sampling of children, not representative of full population
Small size of study population for adolescent/children equals poor predictive power
Lack of focus on biomarkers that could be early warning indicators of risk of serious diseases
No focus on long-term effects whatsoever (children are monitored for a year, but studies are only months old; serious long-term effects would be a high price to pay for short-term gains)
Risks Associated with COVID-19 Vaccines
The authors present risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines that industry and government may reject. While the paper was peer-reviewed, TrialSite hopes a constructive dialogue ensues, one that ensures multiple points of view are included. The authors identify the following risk factors:
mRNA vaccines instruct the body to produce spike proteins, which according to some unfolding studies, may lead to vascular and “other forms of damage.”
Spike protein “bypasses front-line defenses of the innate immune system” and can enter the bloodstream. The authors assume the injection “ensures” the spike protein and the surrounding LNP are toxins that persist and can cause damage (Industry and the NIH both refute this claim)
While biodistribution ultimately determines where and when the aforementioned injected material ends up in the body, the authors cite the Pfizer biodistribution documentation from the Japanese submission. That document revealed that injected mRNA material could end up in “myriad critical organs throughout the body.” Pfizer has countered those biodistribution reports by stating that they were associated with far higher doses in rodents, not humans, and are not relevant for making conclusions about humans
Study focused on one injection, but two injections plus boosters could have “cumulative effects”
Findings
Using the expected death rate simulation, the authors report a novel “best-case scenario” where the “cost-benefit analysis” on a very conservative basis reveals that there are five-fold the number of deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccination versus deaths that are attributable to COVID-19 in the most at-risk cohort, age 65+. The authors argue that given “the risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases,” the unknown, long-term effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccines in the young-age cohort only serve to boost the risk-benefit ratio.
94% of deaths associated with COVID-19 are not due strictly to the coronavirus but include a combination of underlying factors, such as age, obesity, and other comorbidities, etc. The authors suggest the actual number of deaths attributed solely to COVID-19 amounts to 35,000 across all age groups. The study team argues that this number could be inflated due to A) high number of false-positive PCR tests and B) inclination of healthcare professionals to attribute more deaths to COVID-19 than may actually be the case.
The authors concur with two independent studies authored by Virginia Stoner and Jessica Rose that deaths recorded in VAERS are in fact “strongly related to inoculation” and not “coincidental” as government spokespersons, media favorites, and many in academia claim. But who is right?
Assuming the authors’ underlying premise is correct, that VAERS historically underreports adverse events by “two orders of magnitude,” the authors suggest that “COVID-19 inoculation deaths in the short-term could be in the hundreds of thousands for the USA.”
Given a mass vaccination strategy to eradicate COVID-19, intensified by the POTUS vaccine mandates and the government using OSHA to force nearly 100 million people to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs, the authors warn that lag times related to adverse events ensure that many people could be at grave risk.
Going back to the children…, regardless of whether the authors’ assumptions are correct or not, a rational and rigorous review of risks versus benefits must be accomplished in a very public way. This means full transparency from both industry and regulators and allowing for dissenting views to be heard, not buried. The people deserve this.
IVERMECTIN SAVES INDIA!
https://www.mygov.in/covid-19 Stand 23.9.2021
The > 10 States (Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Rajasthan, Gujarat , Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, Punjab, Jharkhand ,Uttarakhand, Tripura, Chandigarh) that went all in with Ivermectin make huge efforts to find the last few CoV-19 infection. Uttar Pradesh finds about 1 case/10'000'000 people...
The later runners like Tamil Nadu are already very good but with a 15...100 higher case load. Still far ahead of UK/USA/FR/GE/.. in respect to the affected population.
But the happy vaxxination terror victims of Kerala (2.5% of India's population) still make up 2/3 of all India cases and 50% of all India CoV-19 deaths!
The Origins of SARS-CoV-2 Are Elusive—Could it Be Because Too Many
In what sounds like something out of a B science fiction/horror movie, recently leaked documents associated with a group of researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19 indicate that in 2018 controversial director of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak proposed a collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology involving the manipulation of bat coronaviruses in the lab and then even more controversially, the releasing of the bats back into the wild to study what would happen in a sort of contemplated real-world study.
While his intentions were probably good, seeking to stop zoonotic transfer from bat to human, anyone with common sense could think of some adverse outcomes with such a scheme. After all, Daszak wanted to not only release a pathogen with ‘novel chimeric spike proteins’ into bat colonies in Yunnan over 1,200 miles southwest of Wuhan but also perform what appears to be gain-of-function research, genetically enhancing a coronavirus pathogen to make it more transmissible to humans. As part of what is known as the DEFUSE proposals, the research group sought $14.2 million from the taxpayer via the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Thankfully wiser minds in the Department of Defense prevailed, rejecting what in reality would be a grossly reckless scheme. The DoD asked, for example, the question: what about the local villagers in the human community?
The DEFUSE project was leaked by a group known as Drastic and TrialSite shares some of the documents here. The documents were apparently leaked by a whistleblower—a former member of the Trump administration, according to British press. An executive overview of the scheme can be viewed here.
TrialSite reported on leaked documents to The Intercept that possibly implicate Dr. Anthony Fauci’s association with gain-of-function research programs. These projects, it is claimed, were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Dr. Fauci heads up NIAID.
GOP House Members Target Fauci for Answers
In a hearing on Capitol Hill, Dr. Fauci has declared with full knowledge that it’s a crime to lie to Congress that he nor NIAID/NIH were involved with funding gain-of-function research. As TrialSite reported the recently leaked documents to The Intercept, however, implicate Fauci’s involvement in at least greenlighting payment
GOP lawmakers led by Rep. Chip Roy of Texas have sought more information from NIAID to no avail. Nearly two weeks ago, on Sept 14, this group of Republicans sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a bid to subpoena Fauci on the actual origins of SARS-CoV-2.
Conflict of Interest
At the start of the year, the World Health Organization (WHO) sent a team over to Wuhan as part of an ongoing effort to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Strangely only one person from America was invited to join the group—Peter Daszak, the President of the EcoHealth Alliance. It was Daszak that was adamantly opposed to any so-called lab-leak theory even though no proof existed at the time that there was another source of origin.
That group published results of their probe in the spring (March), reporting that the findings were inconclusive. They were highly dismissive of the lab leak theory. At the time, even writing about the topic got one censored on Facebook. Months later, it became politically acceptable to discuss showcasing how political interests trump science in the age of COVID-19. The origins of SARS-CoV-2 to date are not known—at least by the public.
TrialSite Chronology
In TrialSite’s “Origin of the Pandemic are Elusive & Timeline Reveals Glimpse into Path to Better Tomorrow,” the case is made that the U.S. government’s push for a “global biosafety system” gained momentum some years ago. The Wuhan Virology institute merely served as a regional node.
Much of the research centering on coronaviruses in China could well have good intentions, but with intensifying gain-of-function research, the prospects of an accident were real. That drove a prominent group of scientists, the Cambridge Working Group, to sign a consensus statement advising governments to stop gain-of-function testing. Citing the dangers of developing a highly pathogenic virus, the group sought that the ends (saving the world from future pandemics) didn’t justify the means, that is, tinkering with specific coronavirus pathogens in dangerous ways.
Consequently, in 2014 under the Obama administration put a halt to this dangerous research in the United States. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced a mandatory moratorium on research aimed at making the coronavirus pathogens more deadly.
Of course, the paper trail indicates that the EcoHealth Alliance thereafter served as an intermediary to get around this moratorium. Grants from NIAID—approved by Fauci—went to Daszak’s organization, and they distributed those funds in some cases to the Wuhan Virology Institute.
Right before the pandemic, Daszak was in an interview bragging about their research and the fact that there were hundreds of coronaviruses.
Of course, by 2015, a controversial study was published out of University of North Carolina. Led by a brilliant Ralph Baric and team—including Zhengli-Li Shi or the “Bat Lady” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology—the team showcased their tinkering with mother nature, generating a chimeric virus expressing the spike of a bat coronavirus in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-backbone.
Essentially a Frankenstein-like virus, the chimeric viruses are genetically engineered pathogens, consisting of combined components from multiple distinct viruses. The authors almost boasted of the pathogen’s highly infectious nature via transfer from human cells via the ACE2 receptor in the human epithelial airway. The authors sounded the alarm for more funding for vaccines due to the risks associated with their project. At this point, the reader should be exceedingly concerned.
The authors published in Nature to get the word out—funding was needed for more research.
TrialSite reviewed some of the names of the human-made pathogens, which were interesting, to say the least. Names such as WIV1-MA15 and WIV-CoV indicated “Wuhan Institute of Virology. Again the authors, including Baric, centered their attention on securing more money in a bid to protect the world from the type of pathogens that their experiments were actually creating.
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in th…
For the COVID-19 Pfizer trials, based on the data from Fig. 1, the trial
population should have been limited at most to the 45.. 100+ age
segment, appropriately weighted toward the higher end where the
deaths per capita are most frequent. That was almost the exact opposite
of what was done in the Pfizer clinical trials. In Fig. 1, approximately 58
% of the deaths occurred in the age range 75+, whereas 4.4 % of the
participants in the Pfizer clinical trial were 75 + . Thus, the age range
most impacted by COVID-19 deaths was minimally represented in the
Pfizer clinical trials, and the age range least impacted by COVID-19
deaths was maximally represented in the Pfizer clinical trials. This
skewed sampling has major implications for predicting the expected
numbers of deaths for the target population from the clinical trials.
Serious Group of Scientists Declare COVID-19 Vaccine Risks Too High to Ignore
But too small to measure. Less than 1 per billion. A risk that has not been detected in 20 years of testing this type of vaccine. This is not a serious group of scientists. It is an unserious group of nitwits.
High genetic barrier to SARS-CoV-2 polyclonal neutralizing antibody escape
High genetic barrier to SARS-CoV-2 polyclonal neutralizing antibody escape - Nature
Abstract
The number and variability of the neutralizing epitopes targeted by polyclonal antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent and vaccinated individuals are key determinants of neutralization breadth and the genetic barrier to viral escape1–4. Using HIV-1 pseudotypes and plasma-selection experiments with vesicular stomatitis virus/SARS-CoV-2 chimeras5, we show that multiple neutralizing epitopes, within and outside the receptor binding domain (RBD), are variably targeted by human polyclonal antibodies. Antibody targets coincide with spike sequences that are enriched for diversity in natural SARS-CoV-2 populations. By combining plasma-selected spike substitutions, we generated synthetic ‘polymutant’ spike protein pseudotypes that resisted polyclonal antibody neutralization to a similar degree as circulating variants of concern (VOC). By aggregating VOC-associated and antibody-selected spike substitutions into a single polymutant spike protein, we show that 20 naturally occurring mutations in SARS-CoV-2 spike are sufficient to generate pseudotypes with near-complete resistance to the polyclonal neutralizing antibodies generated by convalescents or mRNA vaccine recipients. Strikingly, however, plasma from individuals who had been infected and subsequently received mRNA vaccination, neutralized pseudotypes bearing this highly resistant SARS-CoV-2 polymutant spike, or diverse sarbecovirus spike proteins. Thus, optimally elicited human polyclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 should be resilient to substantial future SARS-CoV-2 variation and may confer protection against potential future sarbecovirus pandemics.
OkFauci Defends NIH Funding Wuhan Lab: 'Only Regret' Is That It's Caused 'Such a Degree of Distraction'
During an interview with CBS’ “The Takeout” podcast recorded on Wednesday and released on Thursday, White House Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci defended the NIH funding research at the Wuhan Institute Virology and said that “the only regret is that what it has caused right now is such a degree of distraction” from combating the pandemic.
Host Major Garrett asked, [relevant exchange begins around 7:35] “There were two grants from the National Institutes of Health into investigatory work in the field in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and another institution there. Have you run to ground what those did or didn’t do in terms of creating any atmosphere in which a leak could have occurred or might have occurred?”
Fauci responded, “Well, the grants that [were] funded were to do surveillance in the environment to ask and answer questions that I just mentioned, when you go out, do you see any viruses out there that could potentially evolve to infect humans and do you do surveillance among people in those areas in China to see if there’s any inkling that, under the radar screen, such viruses may have been circulating. In fact, one of the papers that came out from studies from that grant was extremely important in putting a definitive stamp of understanding of how the original SARS-CoV-1 was able to evolve. So, those were questions that got a high priority in peer review to do the research to try and understand that.”
Garrett then asked, “And to those who think there might be some type of scandal or something incorrect or ill-advised about those grants, what would you say, Dr. Fauci?”
Fauci answered, “Well, what you do, Major, is you take a look at the viruses that [were] worked on under the auspices of that grant and what the grant was directed for. And you look at the publications that came from the research associated with that grant. The viruses that were worked with in that environment, in that particular context of that grant could not possibly molecularly evolved into what we know now as SARS-CoV-2. Because when you look at how you can go from one virus and do something with it to get to be another, the viruses that the grant allowed the investigators, competent investigators to work with, molecularly, were so different than what ultimately came out to be SARS-CoV-2 that anyone that looks at those two viruses who knows anything about evolutionary virology will tell you that they’re so far apart that you couldn’t possibly have had it emerge into that particular virus.”
Garrett then asked, “Real quickly, no regrets about those grants?”
Fauci responded, “Well, the only regret is that what it has caused right now is such a degree of distraction [from] trying to do what we really should be doing, is addressing the outbreak, and what we did, and did quite successfully, was to develop vaccines that have now been life-saving. That’s what the job of myself and my team and my institute is, and, thankfully, we did that very successfully.”
The past administration was accused of not following the science and recommendations of the CDC, FDA, republicans in general don't follow science or recommendations, it's all over the news! Democrats follow the science or recommendations? Confusion rules!!!
CDC director recommends COVID-19 booster for younger at-risk workers, defying advisory panel
The CDC panel voted 9-6 against the recommendation
