Covid-19 News

Quote from JedRothwell

Oh, they are doing great, aren't they? 2,000 people dying every day, 99% of them unvaccinated.

I believe 110% unvaccinated is more accurate. Most US doctors and most FM/R mafia members missed the greed vaccine so far. So USA will die from greed.

Potus the - FM mafia - kills 2000 people a day by depriving them from treatment.

Look at Uttar Padesh and the 15 other India states that did show how to end the CoV-19 pandemic.

USA/UK/Israel are shocking dumb vaccine terror states. Following the own fake science..published in top fake news journals like Lancet...

We Switzerland have about the same vaccine status and same vaccines used as USA. But here > 20% of the deaths are double vaccinated. In UK/Israel its 75% but on a lower unvaccinated level.

Quote from Fm1

Florida’s Democratization of mAb Access for COVID-19 Working—So Biden Cuts Supply by Over 50%

https://trialsitenews.com/flor…n-cuts-supply-by-over-50/

Although Florida represents among the worst, if not the most severely hit of states in this most recent Delta variant-driven surge, the Biden administration recently cut back the state’s supply of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as part of a rationing program. Florida’s Governor Rick DeSantis and POTUS have been at odds over approach to the pandemic, perhaps driven by deeper underlying life philosophies and associated convictions. With a less vaccinated population, DeSantis aggressively rolled out monoclonal antibody infusion centers to care for people around the state. This approach appears to be working with a marked reduction in new COVID-19 infections recorded. However, deaths are still high, indicating the importance of monoclonal antibody access. But what a difference a few weeks make. Just a few weeks ago, Florida was receiving 40,000 treatments per week, but that supply was cut to under 18,000 doses of the Regeneron monoclonal antibody. DeSantis, in an urgent move to help the people of the state, ordered 3,000 doses of the new monoclonal antibody treatment from GlaxoSmithKline. This by no means makes up for the over 55% cut in doses. Why would POTUS cut the supply of life-saving therapies under emergency use authorization (EUA) to arguably the present-day worst-hit state during this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic?

DeSantis Democratization of mAbs Working

With more than 25 monoclonal antibody infusion sites around the state, the work by DeSantis appears to be paying off big time. For example, on August 16—the apex of the Delta surge in Florida—the state reported 56,036 cases in one day, shattering old records there. Just a month-and-a-half later and the daily case count stands at 8,804 and a 7-day average totaling 7,303.

According to local news NBC Miami, the democratization of the mAbs is, in fact, working, but now Governor DeSantis warns the drastic cut may force closures. Meaning the entire premise for the DeSantis democratization of COVID-19 is at stake. Did these cuts have any political underpinnings? TrialSite’s “Drugs, Power & Politics” point of view suggests that politics, unfortunately, could be a distinct possibility.

Horrible Consequences

In badly hit parts of the state, such as Tampa Bay, local hospitals are hurting from the loss of mAb supply. John Couris, CEO of Tampa General Hospital, reports the Biden decision to cut the state’s supply of mAbs, calling it in a recent meeting “plain wrong.”

As reported in NBC, Miami Couris declared, “I don’t know why they did it, because the supply chain was working perfectly the way it was,” Couris said before the Florida House Pandemics and Public Emergencies Committee. “This change is going to hurt people in Florida. It’s already starting to make us, for example, think about how we are going to have to limit the hours of operations associated with our ability to provide this life-saving therapy.”

Part of A Bigger Agenda?

POTUS issued an unprecedented federal mandate to use executive branch power to compel nearly 100 million people to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. While making that announcement, Biden expressed his frustration with those unvaccinated people, indicating the wrath now felt in Florida—that Biden moved to punish the residents of Florida. Perhaps not intended in this way, health authorities are essentially corralling the population to get vaccinated or pay the consequences.

The off-label use of ivermectin, for example, was targeted starting about six months ago in what appears to be a highly orchestrated campaign, involving the fabrication of misinformation and, in some cases, outright lies in what appears to be an attempt to identify all ivermectin (even the drug meant for humans, as merely a horse deworm pill) while attempt to secure care now are disrupted by POTUS.

https://www.miamiherald.com/ne…rus/article254397879.html

Display More

Good to see Regeneron is making a difference in post exposure prophylaxis. Here are the 9 studies (Regeneron funded Phase 3 trial not included) of the drug, which is administered subcutaneously via jab:

Casirivimab/imdevimab for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 9 studies

Casirivimab/imdevimab for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 9 studies

c19regn.com

Here are the 120 Ivermectin studies, which is taken orally by pill:

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 120 studies

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 120 studies

c19ivermectin.com

Quote from Fm1

Norfolk doctor leading charge for controversial COVID-19 treatment

https://www.wtkr.com/news/inve…ersial-covid-19-treatment

NORFOLK, Va. – Ivermectin, a drug widely used to treat worms in horses and cows, is now at the center of a controversial debate over COVID-19 care. A Norfolk doctor is leading an effort to make the drug a standard treatment for COVID-19 patients, even though government health agencies strongly warn against its use outside of clinical trials.

Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General and professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, believes ivermectin helps kill the COVID-19 virus.

However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health say there’s not enough data to prove ivermectin works against the virus. The World Health Organization joins the NIH, CDC and FDA, saying there’s not enough data from rigorous trials to prove ivermectin does more good than harm.

Marik believes the data he’s reviewed on ivermectin designed for humans proves it can put a dent in the pandemic. He shared his views in a YouTube video viewed more than 200,000 times.

The buzz over ivermectin began with the study “The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro” released in June 2020.

News 3 investigates tracked down the ivermectin policies at some of our local hospitals and urgent care centers

Display More

The news station ran their report today, and Dr Marick, nor any hospital, agreed to be interviewed. Smart move.

Norfolk doctor leading charge for controversial COVID-19 treatment

Ivermectin, a drug widely used to treat worms in horses and cows, is now at the center of a controversial debate over COVID-19 care.

www.wtkr.com

Quote from Fm1

Thomas my friend, I dare you, no, I double dog dare you. Here's your chance to challenge TSN

Challenge to the Scientific Community – It’s Time for Honest and Open Debate on Vaccine Safety

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/0…g-the-virus-diminish.html

Open Debate on Vaccine Safety

TrialSite Staff

September 28, 2021

TrialSite has published articles that counter the mainstream narrative promoted by the CDC, NIH, and the US government. While we have been criticized, we believe that transparent and open debate is the best way to uncover the risks as well as the benefits. The authors we have presented on TrialSite are experts in their fields with decades of experience and impeccable credentials. Silencing scientists and physicians with smear campaigns, bans, and threats strikes us as Un-American, and contrary to the public interest.

With disagreement on COVID vaccines reaching fever pitch, it’s time for the scientific community to embrace open and transparent debate on the issue of vaccine safety.

Our Challenge to the Scientific Community

Entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch has assembled a group of experts that are willing to debate a similarly credentialed group of pro-vaccine scientists on the issue of vaccine safety.

Two key issues will be addressed in the debate:

Kirsch and his team have asserted that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the COVID vaccines and that they can defend that number using multiple methods. They also point out that the peer-reviewed scientific literature supports their assertion. The CDC says the vaccine hasn’t killed anyone. Which is correct?

Kirsch and his team have asserted that the COVID vaccines kill more people than they are expected to save over a 6-month efficacy period and that this is true for all ages. Again, they point out that the peer-reviewed scientific literature supports their assertion. The CDC says the vaccine risk-benefit is justified for ages 12 and above. Which is correct?

If you are a pro-vaccine expert that believes the current Covid vaccines are ‘safe and effective,’ these two points should be easy to address. We invite you to apply to participate in this live debate which will be impartially hosted and moderated by TrialSiteNews as a live event.

Details of the Debate

Two-hour event hosted on Zoom

Broadcast live on social media

Impartially moderated by TrialSite staff

Up to five team members (or less) on each side

Each participant will receive a $3,000 honorarium for their participation (sponsored by Steve Kirsch).

Who Can Participate?

To participate, you must be a qualified expert on vaccine safety (as judged by TrialSite). We invite you to apply to participate.

Display More

TSN is honest in what it says it is, it is a news organisation., not a scientific one.

Personally, I like debate. Of course I'm not qualified in this case.

But... Even if I were qualified, teasing apart the strands of evidence takes time. I could not reply properly to some new idea without significant quantitative analysis and checking different sources. That will be true of experts, too, because no-one will know all of the latest research and in this area we are constantly getting new information.

So a 2 hour knockabout debate will show:

(1) how good are the participants at sounding confident and bullshiiting

(2) it will air arguments without any time for either side to make a considered reponse to the other

(3) Personally I'd hate it because I'd know all the time the format wasnot allowing nough reply for proper consideration. That would leave me feeling upset, I'd be rubbish at it. that will be true of any scientist who is open-minded.

In short it will be fun, maybe newsworthy, scientifically useless. In terms of anyone else gaining enlightenment on where the science is pointing it will be useless.

A format that would work better would be for each side to publish a position paper, say every week, replying point-by-point to the previous sides points. That would give enough time (if you can find people willing to do it and competent) for each side to check, research, and analyse the previous sides claims and make a proper preply.

THH

Back To First Principles: How Effective is Povidone-iodine Against COVID-19?

Back To First Principles: How Effective is Povidone-iodine Against COVID-19?

Overburdened health authorities are trying to contain the pandemic through early interventions that protect the vulnerable regions of the

trialsitenews.com

Overburdened health authorities are trying to contain the pandemic through early interventions that protect the vulnerable regions of the human respiratory tract: the oral and nasal cavities. These regions are home to millions of viral particles that can be transmitted long-range through aerosolized droplets, increasing the risk of infection to caretakers and other highly exposed groups, like frontline workers. Since early 2020, there have been diverse clinical studies in repurposed antivirals, which can act as an adjunct to vaccination. Among those studied were nasal sprays and mouth rinses or gargles, which contain active antiviral components. Research groups around the world have since attempted to determine whether mouth rinses could be an effective anti-COVID-19 prophylactic approach that contains the disease in its early stages, when the viral load is primarily found in the upper respiratory tract. The importance of such nasal and oral hygiene was covered by a recent TrialSite publication. One prophylactic mouth rinse of interest is Povidone-Iodine.

What is Povidone-Iodine, and why use it against COVID-19?

Recent evidence suggests that Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I), one of the active components in mouth rinses or gargles used by dentists, successfully decreases viral levels of COVID-19 in salivary samples of patients with COVID-19. PVP-I is the polymer polyvinylpyrrolidone complexed with iodine. As an antiviral agent, it targets the lipid envelope of several viruses, ranging from Influenza to Ebola. When the protective envelope has been compromised, viral proteins and nucleic acids can then be destroyed by lysis or oxidation.

COVID-19 viral particles recognize and attach to various receptor proteins on the human cellular membrane. One of its main targets, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, is found predominantly in the oral tissues of the body, especially on the tongue, making the oral cavity a very high-risk site for infection. The COVID-19 spike protein binds and infects human cells through this receptor. By disrupting the process, viral load and infectivity levels can be reduced in the oral cavity.

Current standing of PVP-I as a potential early intervention against COVID-19

Before examining PVP-I as an early prophylaxis for COVID-19, it’s important to evaluate its safety, contraindications, and adverse effects. It is also important to note here that commercially available formulations, such as Betadine, often contain 10% PVP-I, which is safe for external use but not for oral use. Most clinical studies concentrate on the use of PVP-I mouth rinses and nasal sprays between 0.5% and 2.5% concentration.

PVP-I gargles cannot be used by patients allergic to iodine, those with thyroid disease or undergoing iodine therapy, and in pregnant women. Apart from its iodine content, PVP-I poses no concern for patients considering its use. PVP-I has been safely used for 5-6 months as a mouth rinse (2.5%) and nasal spray (1.25%). Prolonged use of 1.25% gargles up to 28 months shows no adverse effects. A large study with 6692 patients evaluating the usability and tolerability of 0.5% PVP-I gargles has established its safety as an effective mouth rinse.

Once its safety was established, interest in the scientific community turned to its promise as an early-intervention antiviral approach. A comprehensive review of the literature as of November 2020 examined the effect of PVP-I on COVID-19 in 110 published studies. Based on the evidence, the review concluded that PVP-I can be regularly used in hospital settings where there’s inadequate PPI. The recommended dosage is 0.5% PVP-I gargle for 30s, at 2–3-hour intervals up to 4 times a day for high-risk hospital workers, COVID-19 patients, and other patients exposed to COVID-19 healthcare providers.

This routine is supported by pre-clinical in vitro studies, which show that the viral load in COVID-19-infected cells reduces to below detectable levels within 15s. In COVID-19 patients, a 30s gargle with 1% PVP-I caused a significant drop in viral load in salivary samples. This effect lasted for 3 hours. Regular use of PVP-I reduced hospital respiratory infections by 58%. Based on these results, the review concluded that PVP-I products should be used for a continuous period of 2 weeks to eradicate the virus; not as a cure, but as a means to contain the spread of COVID-19.

Apart from PVP-I, the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) recommends rinsing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), or cetylperidium chloride or essential oils (as present in the Listerine mouthwash), before any hospital procedure. PVP-I was found to be more effective than CHX as a nasal spray. PVP-I also required lower treatment times to reduce viral load by 5 times, compared to other frequently used antiseptics. Comparing the results from 20 unique trials, its effect was similar to Listerine, both of which reduced viral load in 20 participants. In addition, nasal sprays with high concentration saline solutions improved symptoms such as congestion and headache 7-9 days earlier than in patients taking placebo. Studies such as these demonstrate the vast potential of early-interventions in combatting COVID-19.

However, some results call the effectiveness of PVP-I into debate. Whereas in vitro studies consistently demonstrate reduced viral infectivity through PVP-I treatment, some clinical studies resulted in only 50% patients showing reduced viral levels. But this could be due to extremely small sample sizes (only 4 participants), and lack of a control group. There have been several trials since then with larger sample sizes and controls, and have excluded confounding factors such as comorbidities or other antiviral treatment. Ongoing trials are focusing on such randomized and non-randomized trials, where most patients have early-stage COVID-19 and are on the younger side (18-40 years). Future trials need to also consider whether COVID-19 will be effective for people with illnesses and comorbidities.

Clinical trials examining the effectiveness of mouth rinses and nasal sprays

As of September 19, 2021 a search on Clinicaltrials.gov for ‘COVID-19 and Povidone-Iodine’ yields 36 studies, of which 7 completed trials show positive results.

The following summarizes the results of the search query.

Clinical trials for prevention and reduction of viral load in mouth / throat / nose, total: 36

Efficacy and safety clinical trials, with the presence of Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I), total: 16

PVP-I alone, outcome: positive 7, negative 0, inconclusive 1, cancelled 1

PVP-I in comparison with other antiseptics: total 8, positive 2, ongoing 3, cancelled 1, still not published 2

Efficacy of saline solution: total 9, ongoing 4, still not published 5

Other antiseptics without PVP-I: total 5, ongoing 4, positive 1 negative 0

The trials with PVP-I examine the effect of different concentrations of Povidone-Iodine (such as 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%) on the viral levels of salivary samples before and after treatment, or compare PVP-I with other mouth rinses such as hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine (CHX), essential oils (as found in the commercial product Listerine), and saline.

Registered clinical trials have focused on small communities, or people who are in prolonged contact with each other, such as migrant workers living in dorms. Migrant workers are the focus group of an ongoing study in its Phase 3 trials, headed by the National University Hospital (NUH), Singapore. Various prophylactic treatments, including Zinc tablets, Ivermectin 3 mg tablets, and oral rinse with PVP-I are being compared to examine their efficacy to contain COVID-19 spread. Povidone-Iodine benefitted 46% of the migrant workers.

Preliminary results from two individual research groups from Dhaka, Bangladesh are promising. A randomized clinical trial led by Dr. Mohammad Jahid Hasan from Pi Research Consultancy Center studied the effect of PVP-I in 189 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Dhaka Medical College Hospital. PVP-I was administered nasally, through spray or irrigation at concentrations of 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6%, and was found to significantly clear viral levels in treated patients compared to the control group who were given distilled water. There were 27 patients in each group. The only possible drawback to this study is that viral clearance was ascertained through RT-PCR, rather than directly measuring the viral load before and after PVP-I treatment.

The second trial that indicates promising results was led by Dr. Abu Ahsan from Ad-Din Sakina Medical College, where 606 patients were separated into two groups: 303 in the treatment group and 303 in the control group. The treatment group was administered 1% PVP-I through gargle, nasal drops or eye drops. The results showed reduced mortality rates in the treatment group (0.6% vs 5% in control) and decreased number of patients requiring hospitalizations in those treated with PVP-I (3% vs 20% in control).

Can povidone-iodine prove to be truly effective in controlling COVID-19?

Research from ongoing trials indicates that PVP-I can be a potent adjunct to other interventions in the battle against COVID-19. It is interesting to speculate whether commercially available mouthwashes such a Listerine, formulations of PVP-I, and even cost-effective saline formulations could significantly change the approach of public health officials in controlling the pandemic.

As the majority of patients have mild-to-moderate COVID-19, it is equally important to focus on controlling the transmission of COVID-19 and reducing hospital visits through early-treatment practices as it is to roll out vaccines. Povidone-Iodine could prove to be an important prophylactic approach to control spread of infection.

Can povidone iodine gargle/mouthrinse inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and decrease the risk of nosocomial and community transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic? An evidence-based update

The Coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), also referred to as the novel ‘CoV19 (nCov19)’ is caused by a new coronavirus strain similar to Severe Acu…

www.sciencedirect.com

Search of: Povidone-Iodine | COVID-19 - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

www.clinicaltrials.gov

Nebraska Medicine Declares Natural Immunity Inferior to Vaccine—But What’s Their Evidence?

Nebraska Medicine Declares Natural Immunity Inferior to Vaccine—But What’s Their Evidence?

Nebraska Medicine, a large health network associated with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, recently shared an article on their website claiming

trialsitenews.com

Nebraska Medicine, a large health network associated with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, recently shared an article on their website claiming that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to natural immunity, basing their conclusion on one set of data with small sample size. For some reason, the writers of the article downplayed a prominent Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is superior. The Midwestern group declared that in that Israel-based study, led by Maccabi Health System, a leading HMO, the retrospective study design could not factor away survivorship bias and selection bias.

Nebraska Medicine bases its conclusion on one CDC-sponsored study finding that 36% of COVID-19 cases do not result in any SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The study suggests that the different tiers of severity levels may be associated with varying levels of antibodies. While the Israeli study involved hundreds of thousands of people, the CDC-based study included 72 people and 144 plasma samples collected at enrollment and follow-up visits for antibodies specific for the COVID-19 spike protein. They found that 36% of the cohort were “nonresponses.” Weimin Liu, a University of Pennsylvania virologist, led the study. Liu et al. noted that false-positive PCR tests were unlikely but could not be ruled out. Seroconverters and nonseroconverters would also most likely respond differently to the vaccine. Nebraska Medicine did not highlight the limitations of this small study, but noticeably pointed out potential shortcomings of the much larger Israeli study.

Nebraska Medicine completely ignored the Cleveland Clinic study involving over 50,000 healthcare workers. In the article, “Group Think USA,” TrialSite reported that the Cleveland Clinic actually pulled the study down, and in its place, uploaded a plea to get vaccinated. Their explanation was that more research was needed, and that the study took place before the emergence of the Delta variant.

The Cleveland Clinic study involved the testing of 52,238 employees at the prestigious medical center. The study established a positive RT-PCR equating to COVID-19 infection. Two thousand seven hundred fifty-nine of the total subjects were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 while 54% of that group (1359 people) never received a vaccine. Results showed that over a 5-month period, none of the 2,759 employees became reinfected. The study authors concluded that once an individual is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and recovers, they are unlikely to benefit from vaccination.

TrialSite respects Nebraska Medicine’s call to get vaccinated, but they should be careful basing an entire argument on a study with 144 samples, with possible false positives, while completely discounting a major real-world study in Israel involving hundreds of thousands of data points.

Call to Action: TrialSite Community—what are your thoughts?

Predictors of Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

wwwnc.cdc.gov

Quote from Fm1

Nebraska Medicine bases its conclusion on one CDC-sponsored study finding that 36% of COVID-19 cases do not result in any SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The study suggests that the different tiers of severity levels may be associated with varying levels of antibodies. While the Israeli study involved hundreds of thousands of people, the CDC-based study included 72 people and 144 plasma samples collected at enrollment and follow-up visits for antibodies specific for the COVID-19 spike protein. They found that 36% of the cohort were “nonresponses.”

Such results are fabricated at the free masons round table where most of the time unskilled "cricket brains" met.

S-antibodies are only a sign that the gen therapy did act. They are not a measure at all to indicate your ability fight off CoV-19! It is just marketing FUD. Real immunity starts with mucosal IG-A. Everybody that has strong mucosal IG-A for corona will not produce circulating antibodies despite a positive PCR test.

Gen therapy produce no mucosal IG-A. That's why it is a total fail for stopping the pandemics!

36% is a high number and only indicates the high previous infection rate in the USA. This is an excellent sign. But bad for big pharma marketing...

From today's Swiss news. Deep brain vein thromboses (ASTRA-Oxford, J&J) due to lack of platelets so far has been 50% deadly. Now with best therapy only 40%... Nobody talks of other permanent damage....

Israel:: Cases decline further.

But very concerning is the fact that the number of severe cases in hospitals (light blue line) does not decline (max 5..15%). Hospitalization of light cases (dark green) did see a sharp decline (>50%).

קורונה - לוח בקרה

See bottom left!

So we see a base effect with less cases going to hospital but no real reduction in ICU cases. One reason could be lower death rate = better treatment...

Intranasal Corticosteroids Are Associated with Better Outcomes in Coronavirus Disease 2019

Predictors of Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Nonseroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

wwwnc.cdc.gov

Background

Sites of entry for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells; however, little is known about the impact of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes.

Objective

To determine the association between baseline INCS use and COVID-19-related outcomes.

Methods

Using the Cleveland Clinic COVID-19 Research Registry, we performed a propensity score matching for treatment with INCS before SARS-CoV-2 infection (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021). Of the 82,096 individuals who tested positive, 72,147 met inclusion criteria. Our endpoints included the need for hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), or in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of the 12,608 (17.5%) who were hospitalized, 2935 (4.1%) required ICU admission and 1880 (2.6%) died during hospitalization. A significant proportion (n = 10,187; 14.1%) were using INCS before SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared with nonusers, INCS users demonstrated lower risk for hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.72; 0.85]), ICU admission (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 0.77 [0.65; 0.92]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 0.76 [0.61; 0.94]). These findings were replicated in sensitivity analyses where patients on inhaled corticosteroids and those with allergic rhinitis were excluded. The beneficial effect of INCS was significant after adjustment for baseline blood eosinophil count (measured before SARS-CoV-2 testing) in a subset of 30,289 individuals.

Conclusion

INCS therapy is associated with a lower risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death. Future randomized control trials are needed to determine if INCS reduces the risk for severe outcomes related to COVID-19.

Quote from JedRothwell

It says right there! Because they are rationing. I assume they are handing out doses in proportion to the number of patients in each state. How else would they do it? For DeSantis to complain about this is tantamount to saying that people in Florida have more right to live than people in other states.

The people at TrialSiteNews are dumbasses. Really stupid. Their arguments are so ridiculous they are self defeating.

The federal government has the ability to order more treatments so they don't have to ration. Florida is now buying the treatment directly from manufacturer in response to the federal government's rationing. Spin that ed!

https://www.winknews.com/2021/09/25/florida-begins-buying-monoclonal-antibody-treatment-doses-directly/

Florida begins buying monoclonal antibody treatment doses directly

Quote from Wyttenbach

Israel:: Cases decline further.

But very concerning is the fact that the number of severe cases in hospitals (light blue line) does not decline (max 5..15%). Hospitalization of light cases (dark green) did see a sharp decline (>50%).

https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general

See bottom left!

So we see a base effect with less cases going to hospital but no real reduction in ICU cases. One reason could be lower death rate = better treatment...

Display More

Whats wrong in Slovakia? Didn't they approve and use IVM prevention/medication?

The Health Ministry says the daily increase in new cases reached 1,459 on Tuesday, the highest number since April 7. It was 1,180 cases a week ago.

There were 14 reported deaths on Tuesday for a total of 12,620 in the nation of 5.5 million, the most since mid-June.

Also, the number of people needing hospitalization reached 531, the highest since May. The ministry says almost 85% are unvaccinated.

Israel (comment on a study published in mafia magazine Lancet)

"Thus, the results indicate that Israel would have at least three times more hospitalizations and deaths if the vaccination campaign did not take place. Furthermore, the study also found that 73% of SARS-CoV-2 infections and 79% COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths could be averted in fully vaccinated individuals"

A retrospective surveillance study of Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in Israel

One recent study provided nationwide estimates of the burden of SARS-CoV-2 that could be averted by Israel's vaccination campaign.

www.news-medical.net

Israel's 17% unvaccinated now account for 65% of all serious COVID-19 cases

***

www.haaretz.com

Is The State of Odisha Headed toward Herd Immunity?

Is The State of Odisha Headed toward Herd Immunity?

With nearly 50 million people, the Indian State of Odisha represents an important location in the eastern part of India. Much like the more populous Uttar

trialsitenews.com

Is The State of Odisha Headed toward Herd Immunity?

With nearly 50 million people, the Indian State of Odisha represents an important location in the eastern part of India. Much like the more populous Uttar Pradesh, Odisha appears to head toward herd immunity. Both states used means other than vaccinations to overcome the COVID-19 pathogen, from the use of low-cost generic early care drugs such as ivermectin to proactive public health policies involving multiple and frequent testing. Other means used included home medicine kits, participation of health outreach workers to support quarantines, and administration of treatment, and ongoing surveillance. Based on recent tests, Odisha moves to herd immunity. Could India slowly be moving out of the pandemic?

As reported in the local press called Odisha TV, the Regional Medical Research Centre (RMRC), Bhubaneswar, and the State Health and Family Welfare Department jointly conducted community testing revealing that 73% of the tested population had antibodies against the virus.

The Study

Between August 29 and September 15, the State sponsor secured 5,796 samples. Of which, 4,247 were found to have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. This means that nearly three-fourths of the state’s population surveyed across 12 districts has developed COVID-19 antibodies. Odisha TV reports that 93.5% of healthcare workers evidence antibodies.

Data Points

Sanghamitra Pati, Director of RMRC, reports that “The seroprevalence was found to be around 70% in the 6–10-year age group, for 11-18 years it was 74%. Children have developed antibodies after meeting their parents or family elders. The findings correspond with national zero-survey results.”

Local media shared that adults’ samples evidenced higher seroprevalence than children or the elderly. Interestingly, the rates of seroprevalence appear comparable, whether in the city or countryside.

The amazing turnarounds in places like Uttar Pradesh did not involve vaccination at all. Presently, less than 20% of India’s population is fully vaccinated. TrialSite suggests Indian state health authorities’ pragmatism may have led the way to the current ever more positive-looking update.

Call to Action: Could India be headed toward herd immunity?

73 % People In Odisha Have Developed Antibody Against Covid-19: ICMR

According to ICMR, 93 per cent of health workers have also developed antibody against the virus. Similarly, 70 per cent of children have also developed…

odishatv.in

So.......the 24 million dollar question.....have the vaccines worked at all??? Well yes they have but without taking anti covid measures like pepping up the immune system with anti-bat (TM) we would all be dead by now!!!!! Ha Ha Ha

Quote from zorud

Furthermore, the study also found that 73% of SARS-CoV-2 infections and 79% COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths could be averted in fully vaccinated individuals"

However, in the weeks since, hundreds of thousands of people have lined up to receive their first dose and the share of the eligible population that remained unvaccinated has declined to 17 percent.

• Israel's unvaccinated 17% now account for nearly half of COVID deaths

Israel's 17% unvaccinated now account for 65% of all serious COVID-19 cases

***

www.haaretz.com

This is what undergrad Haaretz reporters produce.... From eligible 17% they construct unvaccinated 17%. The reality is 33% of the Israel population are unvaccinated...

Before you post propaganda you should make the undergrad test...

We also know from UK data that age class 40..80 gets more CoV-19 infection than unvaccinated...As you said Lancet publishes selective nonsense...

Quote from Fm1

As reported in the local press called Odisha TV, the Regional Medical Research Centre (RMRC), Bhubaneswar, and the State Health and Family Welfare Department jointly conducted community testing revealing that 73% of the tested population had antibodies against the virus.

Sounds great. If you add (to 73%) the 15..30% people (38% one example USA) that have mucosal immunity then they reached the target!

Quote from Fm1

The federal government has the ability to order more treatments so they don't have to ration.

What does that mean? I do not understand this sentence. There is a limited supply of this drug. Putting in a purchase order does not magically make more appear. Because supplies are limited, it has to be rationed. It would not be fair to help more patients in Florida than other states.

Quote from Dr Richard

So.......the 24 million dollar question.....have the vaccines worked at all???

Yes, beyond any doubt. Look at the number of hospitalized and dead unvaccinated versus vaccinated people in a population with about 50% vaccinated. You will see that the vaccines work extremely well. This is simple arithmetic. You apparently do not believe it, which is a great deal like saying 2 plus 2 does not equal 4.

Quote from zorud

Israel (comment on a study published in mafia magazine Lancet)

The Mafia has a far greater reach than anyone (other than you) realized. It is astounding. It seems that everything wrong in the world -- or everything wrong in your imagination, anyway -- is caused by the Mafia.

OOPS! Poe's law.

Quote from JedRothwell

The Mafia has a far greater reach than anyone (other than you) realized. It is astounding. It seems that everything wrong in the world -- or everything wrong in your imagination, anyway -- is caused by the Mafia.

I suggest you step back and learn what a conspiracy theory delusion is.

Probably due to my non-native capabilities nobody did realize this Wyt-sarcasm...? I do see Lancet still as a serious medium since medical products (no vaccines nor pharmaceuticals) from our company play an important rule for many of scientific publications you can read there.... and I believe in vaccinations as an important tool to end this pandemic (double vaccinated with Morderna and still feel fine :-)).