Moreover, Shah attempted to persuade the judge that the actual number of COVID-19 vaccines exceeded all previous vaccines for the last three decades.
The 2020 flu vaccine coverage in USA was close to 60% = 210 million. So as CoV-19 needs two dose its now just a tick higher than the former largest (needless...) vaccination...
Next, the Rath letter notes that the CPSA has effectively threatened doctors about granting vaccine exemptions while at the same time denying the science from Israel, showing that natural immunity is over 10 times as effective as an mRNA product. And at this point, the vaccinated are now dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated in the UK. The attorneys note that their “clients are extremely concerned that we have now reached a stage in the course of the mutation of the virus that using a vaccine developed for an extinct pathogen in regard to viruses that have mutated is dangerous.
Nothing to add!
Merck sees the writing on the wall from latest India studies that merckmectin isn't all it's cracked up to be but the FDA will approve a med that they already paid 1.4 billion to develope a drug that was already set to be trialed for flu. Can't wait to see how they spin it
Merck seeks FDA emergency use authorization for antiviral Covid-19 treatment molnupiravir
Display MoreWorldwide the same false narrative is promoted::
https://mainichi.jp/english/ar…11009/p2a/00m/0na/009000c
>80% inoculation = herd immunity...
This is FUD of the worst kind. We know that vaccines do not give you any immunity for promoting the disease or stop the pandemic as there is no sterile immunity produced!
Only natural infection will stop the pandemic even if we have 100% vaccination!!!
As always details (those things that correct gut feelings and hunches and generate best guess estimates) matter.
Whether 80% vaccination delivers herd immunity depends on:
Each of these contributes to R and the result R < 1 or R > 1 tells you the answer. Cities tend to have different values from countryside - they might have larger previous infection rate, denser housing, etc. So it is really complex to put it all together.
Only children (sic) or fanatics or those badly informed would think otherwise. We have at least two of those (W and jox) on this site.
I have no idea how Japan scores on these factors - a vague idea that it scores well on the mitigation axis.
Jed can comment much more.
THH
more crap from up high.
Smoking marijuana could lead to breakthrough COVID cases, study finds
Marijuana advocates said the study did not show that marijuana could be a cause in breakthrough cases
Smoking marijuana could lead to breakthrough COVID cases, study finds | Fox News
Now let me point out that marijuana is not nor has ever been physically addictive. Many studies done in the last few years have pointed this out. All others are physically addicting! This is a bogus study published to promote vaccine in the younger age groups, where smoking pot might tend to be higher rates of use. By the way I posted 3 different studies on cannabis sativa and it's anti viral effect on Covid over the past 18 months
Ivermectin Saves Lives
Rath’s clients also fault CPSA for its position on ivermectin. Having banned this drug’s use for COVID-19 patients, the group is ignoring the fact that, “Physicians of good conscience in the Province of Alberta, having read studies indicating that Ivermectin is effective in the earliest stages of COVID in lessening viral replication within the patient, have properly prescribed Ivermectin to their patients in this province. Numerous studies and clinical observation of thousands of patients has indicated that Ivermectin is highly effective in this regard. Even low dose studies that were designed to reach the conclusion that ivermectin was not effective found a signal that indicated that Ivermectin effectively interacted with the COVID virus molecule to prevent or lessen replication of the virus.” And even poorer nations have used this drug to achieve dramatic reductions in morbidity.
There is no doubt that not all physician's of good conscience are correct all the time.: and equally no doubt that physician's, at a personaly and group level, have historically made egregious mistakes.
And it is well known that US lawyers will argue anything under the sun, especially when matters are politicised as is ivermectin there.
The vast majority of physicians (at least in the UK - maybe the US is weird but I doubt it) think ivermectin as a drug for COVID is experimental, not obviously effective, and should not be given outside of a trial. Like a long list of other things - homeopathy etc.
Unlike homeopathy most physicians would not yet dismiss ivermectin, which is why it is in serious trials as of now in US and UK.
Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said:
“The inclusion of Ivermectin on the PRINCIPLE trial should provide a final answer to the questions over whether this drug might be repurposed as an antiviral targeting SARS-CoV2. Much like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) before, there has been a considerable amount of off-label use of this drug, based primarily upon in vitro cell culture data. However, antiviral effects have only been demonstrated in such systems at concentrations much higher than those corresponding to routine anti-parasitic treatment. This is an important consideration and reason for caution as one of the appealing aspects of this drug is its widespread use and safety record which are naturally at standard doses. It is hard to accurately judge the fidelity of this drug versus the virus as multiple mechanisms of action have been suggested, many of which act against host cell processes.
“There are numerous studies and meta analyses supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID therapy, yet there are no supportive RCTs and many other small studies showing no benefit, including a recent paper in the Lancet. The danger with such off-label use is that, much like HCQ, the use of the drug becomes driven by specific interest group or proponents of non-conventional treatments and becomes politicised. In this respect, a well conducted RCT would be welcome to resolve ongoing controversy, although one must question whether such resource is justified by available supporting data. Of note, Merck, the manufacturer of this drug, categorically states that it is not recommended for COVID therapy and the WHO have stipulated that it should not be used outside of a trial setting.”
Display Moremore crap from up high.
Smoking marijuana could lead to breakthrough COVID cases, study finds
Marijuana advocates said the study did not show that marijuana could be a cause in breakthrough cases
https://www.foxnews.com/health…vid-cases-study-finds.amp
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20921
Now let me point out that marijuana is not nor has ever been physically addictive. Many studies done in the last few years have pointed this out. All others are physically addicting! This is a bogus study published to promote vaccine in the younger age groups, where smoking pot might tend to be higher rates of use. By the way I posted 3 different studies on cannabis sativa and it's anti viral effect on Covid over the past 18 months
Surely a study saying you get more breakthrough cases smoking marijuana would discourage - not encourage - weed smokers from getting vaccinated???
FM! - perhaps with this study you are reading only keywords and matching them to your preconceptions - in this case that there is much crap from up on high?
Anyway you know from the ivermectin fiasco (and your own correct cynicism of much of the small trial to show my expensive drug works literature) that not much can be read from most trials - they can be thought-provoking, only high quality very large RCTs prove anything, and they are expensive.
In emergency situations (e.g. molnupiravir) they can along with other evidence tip regulators into trying a drug. I'd bet ivermectin would have been tried early if the lab results on antiviral action had not been so highly negative.
THH
Display MoreThere is no doubt that not all physician's of good conscience are correct all the time.: and equally no doubt that physician's, at a personaly and group level, have historically made egregious mistakes.
And it is well known that US lawyers will argue anything under the sun, especially when matters are politicised as is ivermectin there.
The vast majority of physicians (at least in the UK - maybe the US is weird but I doubt it) think ivermectin as a drug for COVID is experimental, not obviously effective, and should not be given outside of a trial. Like a long list of other things - homeopathy etc.
Unlike homeopathy most physicians would not yet dismiss ivermectin, which is why it is in serious trials as of now in US and UK.
https://www.sciencemediacentre…er-non-hospital-settings/
Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said:
“The inclusion of Ivermectin on the PRINCIPLE trial should provide a final answer to the questions over whether this drug might be repurposed as an antiviral targeting SARS-CoV2. Much like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) before, there has been a considerable amount of off-label use of this drug, based primarily upon in vitro cell culture data. However, antiviral effects have only been demonstrated in such systems at concentrations much higher than those corresponding to routine anti-parasitic treatment. This is an important consideration and reason for caution as one of the appealing aspects of this drug is its widespread use and safety record which are naturally at standard doses. It is hard to accurately judge the fidelity of this drug versus the virus as multiple mechanisms of action have been suggested, many of which act against host cell processes.
“There are numerous studies and meta analyses supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID therapy, yet there are no supportive RCTs and many other small studies showing no benefit, including a recent paper in the Lancet. The danger with such off-label use is that, much like HCQ, the use of the drug becomes driven by specific interest group or proponents of non-conventional treatments and becomes politicised. In this respect, a well conducted RCT would be welcome to resolve ongoing controversy, although one must question whether such resource is justified by available supporting data. Of note, Merck, the manufacturer of this drug, categorically states that it is not recommended for COVID therapy and the WHO have stipulated that it should not be used outside of a trial setting.”
Typical as the tide starts turning, you become more and more wishy-washy. Remember Thomas I've been a silent member sitting in the peanut gallery for years on this site. I understand your MO, plate seeds, and it has worked to some extent as Shane has pointed out but Soon jed will insult you and you'll take your ball and go home, only to comeback when Kirk and the crazy Russian come out from under the rocks. Artifact and foam, you really amuse me Thomas. And Thomas I read every word you write, it may take me longer than most on here to cut thru the crap. You have made good points and I have acknowledge those but overall and no disrespect, you like to add in your own study points which throws off your analysis. This was pointed out to you recently. The tide is turning, follow that dot I've talked about for 18 months and join us in the light. You can bring jed too but don't talk cold fusion!
The one figure - which is what you might old against US medics in particular - that has "changed" is the efficacy against getting covid. I agree - when the US people were all saying breakthrough infections were very rare they were using non-delta data.
I have read that a third booster restores resistance against infection to the levels two doses produced for the alpha variant. It resets resistance back to around 90%. I think they do not know yet how long this lasts.
The mRNA vaccines can be reformulated to be more effective against delta. I suppose they will be, but I guess they don't want to slow production right now.
New study from France (based on data from national health system SNDS analyzes vaccinations in age group 50-74 and 75+. Vaccinated group shows 9x higher protection from seriuous illness and death vs unvaccinated. French only so far.
Typical as the tide starts turning, you become more and more wishy-washy. Remember Thomas I've been a silent member sitting in the peanut gallery for years on this site. I understand your MO, plate seeds, and it has worked to some extent as Shane has pointed out
Don't appreciate insults. Nor am afraid of them.
You have hardly been silent posting anti-vax propaganda (and other stuff) pretty well continuously.
You have made good points and I have acknowledge those but overall and no disrespect, you like to add in your own study points which throws off your analysis. This was pointed out to you recently. The tide is turning,
You have been studying TSN where they spin stories and damn with faint praise - appearing dispassionate but with a strong agenda.
You have a strong agenda: you are suspicious of all experts, and deeply suspicious of the US authorities, maybe by extension all authorities.
I have a less strong agenda: I treat experts neutrally but accept they are expert and I am not.
I argue strongly against TSN, antivax, etc, because they arrogantly (like you) set yourself up as knowing better than the experts.
The experts are sometimes wrong. But you and I are wrong too - and it is arrogance to think TSN op-eds which are obviously scientifically illiterate, or personal opinions, better than considered opinions of experts.
By experts I don't mean the politicians or political spokespeople, I mean the scientists who have the time and responsibility to look into this who have a range of views but centre of gravity way different from FM1/TSN (the two I'd guess quite similar).
If, BTW, you simply mean that experts have proven wrong many times over COVID that is true. And expected. No-one knows what will come next. But the antivax fringe has a much worse track record (0%) of being right than the mainstream views.
THH
Cities tend to have different values from countryside - they might have larger previous infection rate, denser housing, etc. So it is really complex to put it all together.
I think denser housing is a factor.
I have no idea how Japan scores on these factors - a vague idea that it scores well on the mitigation axis.
I don't much about the details. But I think one thing is clear from the data: denser housing and population do increase infections. All else being equal, rural districts with low population have had fewer cases per capita. This was also observed in places like New York City versus upstate New York. Example from Japan:
Yamaguchi Prefecture, 1.4 million population, 5,648 cases, 4,034 cases/million
Tokyo, 14.0 million population, 376,844 cases, 26,917 cases/million (7 times more)
Development of Coronavirus cases: Yamaguchi, Japan (5,648 cases)
Development of Coronavirus cases: Tokyo, Japan (376,844 cases)
This does not apply where all else is not equal. For example, in the U.S. the states with the highest number of infections per capita are Tennessee, North Dakota and Florida. That is because Tennessee and North Dakota have very low vaccination rates, and the governor of Florida is doing all he can to prevent vaccinations, masks and other public health measures. Whereas public health measures and vaccination rates are uniform in Japan, so you can compare Yamaguchi to Tokyo.
See:
(Click on the "Tot Cases/1M pop" column.)
How much COVID-prior-infection immunity (e.g.: India - 70%, UK: 20%)
All the experts I know say UK is >40% with CoV-19 infection. You should try to understand how ONS faked the data.
Good news from Switzerland:: Among the age class 0..29 CoV-19, within 6 weeks, cases have decreased 4x. This points to the fact that infection immunity is getting closer among the highest ever (age 10..19 weekly >500/100'000) infected group with lowest vaccination. Giving a shadow rate of 10 with Delta after the last 8 weeks > 50% should have a new natural immunity. This now, in total, points to India figures of 75..90% natural immunity among the younger (0..19).
The experts are sometimes wrong. But you and I are wrong too - and it is arrogance to think TSN op-eds which are obviously scientifically illiterate, or personal opinions, better than considered opinions of experts.
That is a key point. I am an amateur when it comes to COVID, public health, and statistics. But there are degrees of expertise in any subject. You can be a rank amateur, or you have have a high school level understanding, or an undergraduate level, or what I call "college department secretary" level understanding. The department secretary is the person who proofreads papers, files them, and knows what the researchers have been doing all these years. That is a level of knowledge similar to what I have regarding cold fusion. Ed Storms, Jean-Paul Biberian and I have probably read more cold fusion papers than anyone else. Many of these papers were far over my head. The theory ones are all but meaningless to me. Ed and Jean-Paul understand far more details than I do. But I did read the papers. I know what the abstracts say. I know the general conclusions. I know a lot about the calorimetry, tritium and helium detection. So I know more than any skeptic, including all of the skeptics with PhDs. All of them tied together. I know much more than the people here who cannot tell the difference between input power and noise. That's a mind-boggling mistake. I know more than Morrison, who did not understand the difference between power and energy.
Regarding COVID, I know enough about statistics and public health to judge that TSN articles are garbage. Anyone with a college level education can see this. Or, if you can't see it when you read a TSN article, you will see it if you read and understand the papers at https://www.covid-datascience.com/. I can understand the covid-datascience papers. They are addressed to the educated general public. They are much easier to understand than, say, research papers at the New England Journal of Medicine.
If, BTW, you simply mean that experts have proven wrong many times over COVID that is true. And expected. No-one knows what will come next. But the antivax fringe has a much worse track record (0%) of being right than the mainstream views.
You would have to be omniscient to "know" what comes next. What comes next is a function of evolution, which is a random process, similar to radioactive decay. It is physically impossible for anyone to predict what will happen. The antivaxx fringe people are not only wrong, they cannot be right in any sense, because what they claim violates laws of physics, public health and medical science going back 200 years. They can no more be "right" than people who believe in flat-earth theory, or people who think that germs do not cause infectious disease. Furthermore, antivaxx Death Cult fanatics such as Wyttenbach cannot do middle school arithmetic and do not understand concepts such as the base rate fallacy. Either that, or they are trolls who understand these things and they are trying to fool the readers here.
I could not tell whether Morrison really was so stupid he did not know the difference between power and energy, or whether he was a troll who was hoping to fool stupid people. I talked to him in person, and my impression is that he really was as stupid as he seemed. He once said that if cold fusion happens in metal lattices, why doesn't it happen in heavy water ice? He thought that was a "gotcha" question. To quote Groucho Marx in the movie "Duck Soup:"
"Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot."
All the experts I know say UK is >40% with CoV-19 infection. You should try to understand how ONS faked the data.
experts I know is not a good or believable reference.
I have explained how I calculate UK infection rate, two different ways. Neither is foolproof so I'm willing to be corrected. If you or the experts you know wish to refute that I'm sure it will be easy for you? With details?
I'd welcome more considered analysis.
Please also tell me in which way you believe ONS is falsifying data: then I, and others here also less clever than you, can be enlightened.
Please also tell me in which way you believe ONS is falsifying data: then I, and others here also less clever than you, can be enlightened.
I have made this during the the last two days.
You are fake troll ignoring facts.
It has no longer any value to discuss with you as you obviously suffer from vaccine damage.
Chaccour was highly enthusiastic about ivermectin, originally, from other early evidence. He was one of the early proponents. He became a less strong advocate after more evidence, but still hopes there will be some effect.
How reliable is https://ivmmeta.com/ ?
I was cross-checking some of their RCT data with Cochrane and other meta-studies, and noticed that they give Chaccour a "96% improvement" in symptoms.
I can't see where they get that number -- https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
Findings :
At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 0·92, 95% CI: 0·77–1·09, p = 1·0). The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001).
There is a general rule about sources of information: do not let the stupid rub off on you. When you find that TSN makes mistakes about one aspect of COVID, such as the base rate fallacy, do not read their other COVID articles. You might read another mistake, not realize it is a mistake, and add that to your store of knowledge. There is a history book about the White House during WWII. I think it was "No Ordinary Time." In the middle of it, I realized the author apparently did not know how many Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk during the Battle of Midway. Maybe she knew, but she and the editors left confusing text. That made me wonder "what else did they get wrong?" Then I caught another error, about Churchill. I don't want to read it again.
This rule only applies to one branch of knowledge. If you catch me making a stupid mistake about something I have no expertise in, you might still trust me when I pontificate about Japanese grammar.
