Covid-19 News

Steve Kirsch: Pfizer vaccines kill 2 people for every 1 saved . He transparently documented his calculations in presentation slides providing further details in a white paper co-authored by his collaborators Jessica Rose and Mathew Crawford. He mentions three different mutually consistent analyses:

• An analysis of 6 month follow up data from the Pfizer clinical trial proposing a 5:1 ratio
• A VAERs-based analysis proposing a 2:1 ratio (VAERS data tend to be undereported 1.3x to 8x)
• A report of 4 deaths at a specific nursing home after boosters were given from which he proposes a 6:1 ratio.

Kirsch also shows secondary calculation for URR based on a recent paper looking at incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in June and July 2021 at an academic health care system in Ottawa within 1 month of mRNA vaccination. They found 32 with myocarditis and/or pericarditis out of a purported 32,379 doses of vaccine given in the Ottawa area, suggesting an incidence rate of 32/32,379, for an incidence rate of 1 in 1000 vaccinated, or 100 per 100k.

Personally I'm sure these numbers are even way worse from simple reason: Covid-19 vaccines had not enough time for their side effects to fully manifest itself. For example over 20% of people dies of cancer, that's some 600.000 deaths per year just in USA. If vaccines would increase this probability by just 1% (i.e. within margin of statistical error in diagnosis), then we have additional 6.000 deaths per year and 450.000 additional deaths during average life-time (75 years) just from cancer-side effect of vaccines. Covid-19 is currently attributed to 750.000 deaths in USA (not considering the comorbities, which could trim this number 3-5x).

Quote from THHuxleynew

Thus, on VAERS, the antivax stories miss out key context:

The difference between reporting on a new vaccine and reporting on an old, known safe, vaccine
The fact that VAERS must record all (or at least) most serious background events because they might be vaccine side efefcts, and the background event level is quite high

Plus, the COVID vaccines are being given to most of the population in one year. Most vaccines are for children. They are given once or twice to small children, which is roughly 1/70th of the population per year. So, for COVID there is a lot more data coming in from many more vaccinations.

Are Major Ivermectin Studies Designed for Failure

Are Major Ivermectin Studies Designed for Failure?

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dear TrialSite News Readers,

trialsitenews.com

Dear TrialSite News Readers,

Below are emails to one of the sites of the ACTIV-6 study and Dr. Carolyn Bramante, director of COVID-OUT. There is nothing the enemies of ivermectin will not stoop to including calling ivermectin “horse dewormer,” making it unavailable at pharmacies, failing to report Uttar Pradesh, publishing bias, biased newspaper reporting, and “fake” randomized trials. The “fake” randomized trial has been weaponized by ivermectin’s opponents. There isn’t the slightest doubt that behind the scenes our government health care agencies, drug companies, and others have conspired to make ivermectin appear ineffective in Lopez-Medina, Together, ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT.

How else is it that the Together, ACTIV-6, and COVID-OUT studies all use basically the same protocol, 3 days of ivermectin 0.4 mg/kg or less on an empty stomach? ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT are giving a slightly lower dose than in the Together study after the higher dose of ivermectin failed to show statistical benefit in Together. That only makes sense if they are trying to make ivermectin fail. There were lots of problems with Together which appear intentional. Lead investigator, Edward Mills basically works for Bill Gates. Analysis of Ivermectin in Together

NIH and FDA stand to be humiliated if the NIH-sponsored ACTIV-6 or the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial show significant benefit of ivermectin. Why would the University of Minnesota, who should be independent, choose to treat patients with about the same dose that failed in Together? No one knowledgeable about ivermectin would in real life use it that way for the delta variant.

The Lopez-Medina study, published 3/4/21 in JAMA, was sponsored by pharma companies including Gilead, and Merck. It appears JAMA was complicit, ignoring a host of problems including identical side effects in the treatment and placebo groups and in publishing deceptive conclusions, saying ivermectin was not effective in “adults” with mild COVID. They also failed to mention that the patients ages averaged 37 years old. The WHO said it was their most important article in recommending against ivermectin. The AMA just came out stating that ivermectin should only be used in trials. They are supposed to be a private organization that represents physicians, not the FDA.

Would you put it past Merck to provide underdosed pills of stromectol, Merck’s generic ivermectin which is being used in ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT?

I spoke with a physician on the ACTIV-6 committee at one of the sites for ACTIV-6. I was concerned about the dose of ivermectin. They were receptive to changing it and offered me to write to their committee. I was very impressed that they were fair and honorable. I was told they were giving it on an empty stomach at the advice of the FDA. They didn’t know where the dose came from. I thought they were also underdosing fluvoxamine at 50 mg twice a day when 100 mg twice a day was successful in Together, but it turns out 50 mg twice a day was used in the racetrack study and the EUA that was submitted was for 50 mg. twice a day. I emailed them my concerns about ivermectin, and fluvoxamine dosing then wrote that after further research, my concerns about fluvoxamine dosing were unfounded.

I have the idea that the people involved in running ACTIV-6 at the individual sites and those at the University of Minnesota are honest and want to be involved in good science. I hope they do not want to be offering patients a dose of ivermectin that is known to be ineffective or a placebo. I hope they do not want to be part of a trial that will falsely brand ivermectin as ineffective, helping to prevent it from reaching the billions around the world who need to have it available.

I would suggest that readers reach out to all the ACTIV-6 trial sites and the COVID-OUT team, expressing your concerns about ivermectin dosing in ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT and asking that ivermectin be properly dosed. We need ivermectin experts to reach out to them with evidence that the correct treatment on the delta virus is ivermectin 0.4 mg/kg with food for at least a week.

Board members of the AMA, American College of Physicians, the Infectious Disease Society of America, the American Thoracic Society, American Lung Association, and Society of Critical Care Medicine need to be contacted with your concerns about irrational ivermectin dosing involved with these trials. So far major medical organizations have lined up behind the government healthcare agencies or remained silent. What is happening is obvious and we need to know where they stand. Many medical leaders are fearful of retribution by drug companies and government healthcare agencies. Those who cannot stand up for honest research that could affect billions of human beings should stand down.

Few people on television who have discussed how ivermectin has been demonized. CNN has authored “hit pieces.” The only ones saying the truth are the personalities on FOX, i.e., Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiroma, Laura Ingraham and others. The only politician doing anything is senator Ron Johnson. They need to know of the blatant misconduct in these studies regarding ivermectin treatment as well as what happened in Uttar Pradesh.

I would also suggest reaching out to the NIH ACTIV-6 committee. I would imagine that many committee members have no idea what the correct ivermectin dosage is but unfortunately, the possibility exists that the committee has agreed to intentionally give ivermectin incorrectly as part of the NIH strategy of suppressing repurposed drugs. This is the same committee that last year recommended against a large, randomized trial of famotidine, an over-the-counter H2 blocker of mast cells. This was cancelled despite the high probability that mast cells are involved in cytokine storm. Multiple published studies show the benefit of over-the-counter mast cell therapies, including one out of Harvard that showed individuals who regularly took famotidine did not get very sick from COVID-19. The Promise of Famotidine for COVID-19

Readers need to spring into action or more “fake” ivermectin data is coming. It might be enough to bury ivermectin for good. If we want things to change, we need to be activists and go to the people running these trials and those who will stand up for honesty in medicine. I hope that after being presented with the obvious evidence of deceit, they will act appropriately. All the anti-ivermectin forces involved with the “fake” studies read Trialsite News. They will do their best to prevent ivermectin from getting a fair shake. We must fight hard and dirty like them to prevail.

Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

—–Original Message—–

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Sent: Tue, Oct 12, 2021 9:47 pm

Subject: Fwd: Problems with dosing of Ivemectin in COVID-OUT

Dear ACTIV-6 team,

Below is an email I sent to Dr. Carolyn Bramante at University of Minnesota who is running the COVID-OUT trial. They are using a dose of ivermectin very similar to Together and slightly higher than in ACTIV-6. It seems quite a coincidence that all 3 studies are using about the same treatment strategy even though in Together ivermectin showed statistically insignificant benefit.

It appears that investigators in Together deliberately tried to make ivermectin not succeed . Comments by lead investigator, Dr. Edward Mills, who ran the trial, were very unprofessional and prejudicial against ivermectin. Initially Dr. Mills was going to use a single dose of ivermectin until ivermectin advocates complained loudly and he reluctantly agreed to 3 doses. There were many problems with the trial which I hope will be investigated when the study is peer reviewed.

Analysis of Ivermectin in Together

Why would NIH choose to give half the patients in ACTIV-6 less ivermectin than in Together? The FDA has shown blatant bias against ivermectin. Dr. Gentile told me it was the FDA who told you to give it on an empty stomach. Ivermectin experts always give it with a meal. Where did the arbitrary 3 days of treatment come from? It did not come from world experts who use ivermectin often.

Ivermectin is not the only repurposed drug for which NIH’s actions are questionable. It is highly probable that mast cell activation is responsible for much if not most of the inflammation in COVID. The NIH ACTIV committee chose to do nothing with mast cell therapies which include famotidine(pepcid), certirizine(zyrtec), luteolin and quercetin, all over the counter. A randomized trial showing statistically significant benefit from famotidine 80 mg orally 3 times a day will be reported soon. 3 trials of famotidine plus celecoxib will be starting shortly. The promise of famotidine for COVID-19

There is something very wrong with this series of trials of ivermectin. A great amount of academic dishonesty is going on. I hope you will look into my allegations and try to find a way for ivermectin to get a fair shake.

Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

Dr. Carolyn Bramante

University of Minnesota

Director COVID-OUT Trial

Dear Dr. Bramante,

I’m Dr. Michael Goodkin, retired cardiologist. I am concerned about the dosing of ivermectin in the COVID-OUT study. The vast majority of patients will be getting 0.39 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days. I have no idea how that dose was arrived at. In Together, patients got 0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days and it showed statistically insignificant benefit. In ACTIV-6 patients will be getting 0.3-0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days. It seems odd that all 3 studies are using basically the same dosing strategy, with ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT using the same dosing strategy even after it failed in Together.

A coordinator of ACTIV-6 told me the FDA gave them the dose and advised them to give it on an empty stomach. There is clear data that the blood level is 2.6 times greater with a meal and no evidence of toxicity from giving it with meals. Pharmacokinetics of Ivermectin in Healthy Volunteers

Much higher doses of ivermectin have been given safely.

1 Guzzo CA, Furtek CI, Porras AG, et al. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of escalating high doses of ivermectin in healthy adult subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;42(10):1122-1133

2. Navarro M, Camprubí D, Requena-Méndez A, et al. Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2020;75(4):827-834.

3. Krolewiecki A, Lifschitz A, Moragas M, et al. Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID- 19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;37.

Most ivermectin experts believe it should be used for at least 7 days and that ivermectin should be given with food. Dr. Pierre Kory has an enormous worldwide experience and is as expert as anyone in the world. His meta analysis was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. Dr. Kory Ivermectin American Journal of Therapeutics

I would like to see ivermectin put to a fair test. I don’t think Together was fair. Here is an analysis.

Analysis of Ivermectin in Together ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT will be nearly identical, will likely show similar results and not satisfy the question of whether ivernectin can be effective to early COVID.

Ivermectin worked extremely well in a very large population, possibly by preventing COVID transmission. as evidenced by Uttar Pradesh, India where in 230 million people ivermectin has almost eliminated COVID. Unfortunately the american press and US healthcare agencies have not reported it.

Ivermectin Miracle in Uttar Pradesh

COVID nearly eliminated in Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh COVID Free

MSN Features Uttar Pradesh Turnaround

The FDA has been overly aggressive against ivermectin. They recommended against it when NIH was neutral. Their “horse dewormer” campaign shows their blatant bias. They have gotten pharmacists to stop ordering and selling it. They got the AMA to say it should only be used in trials. Ivermectin has no significant toxicity at even very high doses and many believe the evidence clearly shows that it works.The FDA cannot be trusted on dosing due to the obvious bias. Very positive results for ivermectin would be an enormous black eye for them but a tremendous boon for COVID patients all over he world where vaccines will not be used in many places any time soon. Cheap generic treatments are badly needed. I think you owe it to the COVID patients of the world to make sure you are giving an adequate dose of ivermectin.

I hope you will rethink what your strategy. I would suggest talking to Dr. Pierre Kory at 212-518-1420(his cell).

Merck has a long track record of doing anything for money, ie. vioxx. Merck’s deadly vioxx playbook

Their public statement 2/4/21, Merck Ivermectin statement 2/4/21 was all lies. They had terrible conflict of interest as they had gotten $356 million from HHS and were working on a competitor for ivermectin which has turned out to be molnupiravir, a mutagen, on which they hope to make many billions. Ivermectin is in the way of their huge profits.

Merck is capable of anything. I don’t know where your stromectol came from but I would have it analyzed.

I hope to hear from you.

Sincerely,

Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

[email protected]

484-433-8283

Early Treatment of COVID-19 with Repurposed Therapies: The TOGETHER Adaptive Platform Trial

<sid>

c19ivermectin.com

The Undeniable Ivermectin Miracle in India’s 240m Populated Largest State, Uttar Pradesh – Horowitz - NewsRescue.com

NewsRescue by DANIEL HOROWITZ, TheBlaze Uttar Pradesh might sound obscure to most Americans, but it is the most populated state in India, with urban areas that…

newsrescue.com

India’s Uttar Pradesh State Now COVID-Free, Recovery Rate Up 98.6% Because Of Ivermectin

Thirty-three districts in an Indian state have won against COVID thanks to Ivermectin.

www.christianitydaily.com

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Steve Kirsch: Pfizer vaccines kill 2 people for every 1 saved . He transparently documented his calculations in presentation slides providing further details in a white paper co-authored by his collaborators Jessica Rose and Mathew Crawford.

The Kirsch paper is garbage. It is about the worst garbage I have ever seen in an academic paper, and that is saying a lot, because the cold fusion literature is chock full of garbage. Kirsch et al. are first class certified idiots, right up there Gary Taubes, the dumbest person in cold fusion. See:

Are the mRNA vaccines really safe? Evaluating claims by Steven Kirsch on danger of spike proteins

There are a number of individuals on social media confidently claiming the mRNA vaccines are dangerous and killing people, and implying the vaccine…

www.covid-datascience.com

Quote from Mark U

The data is not looking good for those who want to believe and promote the idea that getting vaccinated is stopping the spread of the virus. A

Except in the U.S., Japan and every other country in the world. What do you call a reduction down to 3% of the previous high in Japan, in a few months? A coincidence?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Vaccinated accounted for 82% of Covid-19 deaths, 69% of hospitalisations & 54% of cases in September according to official figures

but U.S. Hospitals are now refusing to operate on individuals who are NOT vaccinated

Good for them. If you want an operation, you have be vaccinated. It makes no sense to allow surgery on an unvaccinated person. It is too dangerous. If they are infected post-op they will likely die. It takes only two minutes to be vaccinated, and it is the safest vaccine in history, so there is no reason why any patient should refuse it. Surgery on an unvaccinated person is barbaric, like operating with dirty hands and street clothes, or without anesthetic.

If you want medical treatment, you have to follow the doctors' orders. you can't dictate how they do their job, any more than you can tell a commercial airline pilot what route he should follow. You don't get to choose how surgery is done, or what health measure they say you must take beforehand. Last summer, someone I know was in for a colonoscopy. Another patient in the other room came in having eaten a full meal that morning. They had to send him home, of course. He was complaining, but what did he expect? Did he think they could do the procedure if he did not follow instructions? Magically see around the stuff in his gut? Demanding an operation if you are not vaccinated is demanding the doctors commit malpractice.

Quote from Shane D.

Those behind the push to pressure the unvaccinated into getting jabbed, are in a race to the bottom. Each seemingly trying to out- do the other in how dehumanizing, and cruel they can be. In this case, going so far as holding a life hostage, and few are even raising an eyebrow about it. This is just getting out of hand, with no bottom in sight.

You refer here to the doctors who demand their patients get vaccinated. In other words, the doctors who refuse to let patients commit suicide. You call that tyranny. I call it the doctors not setting themselves up to be sued for malpractice. You can be sure that any person so stupid they would not get vaccinated is also the kind of idiot who would sue the hospital for something he did to himself, that the doctors warned him not to do. Like the guy who ignored instructions and ate a meal before going in for a colonoscopy.

What is with you, anyway? Do you think a patient can magically change the laws of biology, wave his hand, and make a new set of rules? Ignore the last 200 years of medical science? Because the germ theory holds us a life hostage!! Unfair! I want you to do surgery without cutting me!! This is getting out of hand, but not the way you think. People who think they can just ignore medical science and wing it are lunatics. You don't want to live? Fine! Don't go to the hospital. Don't get surgery. If you want surgery, do as the surgeons tell you.

Quote from JedRothwell

You refer here to the doctors who demand their patients get vaccinated. In other words, the doctors who refuse to let patients commit suicide. You call that tyranny. I call it the doctors not setting themselves up to be sued for malpractice. You can be sure that any person so stupid they would not get vaccinated is also the kind of idiot who would sue the hospital for something he did to himself, that the doctors warned him not to do. Like the guy who ignored instructions and ate a meal before going in for a colonoscopy.

What is with you, anyway? Do you think a patient can magically change the laws of biology, wave his hand, and make a new set of rules? Ignore the last 200 years of medical science? Because the germ theory holds us a life hostage!! Unfair! I want you to do surgery without cutting me!! This is getting out of hand, but not the way you think. People who think they can just ignore medical science and wing it are lunatics. You don't want to live? Fine! Don't go to the hospital. Don't get surgery. If you want surgery, do as the surgeons tell you.

If a doctor were to deny treatment to a drug addict, a gang related shooting victim, AIDS patient or the obese because he disapproved the behaviors that brought them under his care, he would lose his medical license for violating his oath. Then he would have been sued and certainly lose. Yet somehow, it is OK to deny a life saving procedure because of a vaccine and not face the same consequences?

The organ recipient in the story was being donated a kidney by a friend. There was absolutely no risk to others. They would have been tested prior to surgery, and if COVID positive the surgery would have been delayed. This doctor and hospital were being cruel and irresponsible. He should be fired and the hospital investigated.

Merck wants Americans to pay $712 for a Covid drug that taxpayers helped develop

Merck wants Americans to pay $712 for a Covid drug that taxpayers helped develop | US healthcare | The Guardian

The drug in question only costs $17.74 to produce. Unfortunately, this type of behaviour is widespread in US pharma

Last week, we learned that Merck is planning to charge Americans 40 times its cost for a Covid drug whose development was subsidized by the American government. The situation spotlights two sets of facts that have gone largely unmentioned in the legislative debate over whether to let Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices.

Fact one: Americans are facing not merely expensive drugs but prices that are examples of outright profiteering.

Fact two: in many cases, the medicines we are being gouged on are those that we the public already paid for.

These facts show us that pharma-bankrolled Democrats trying to kill drug pricing measures aren’t just bought and paid for in this particular skirmish – they are foot soldiers in the pharmaceutical industry’s larger multi-decade campaign to seal off and rig America’s alleged “free market”.

First, there’s the price point of drugs. It’s not merely that Americans are paying the world’s highest prices for pharmaceuticals, it’s that in many cases, we are paying prices that aren’t even close to what consumers in other countries pay.

A new Public Citizen analysis shows that the 20 top-selling medicines generated almost twice as much pharmaceutical industry revenue in the United States as in every other country combined. Sure, compared with others, Americans may buy a lot of prescription drugs, but this study reflects something much bigger at play: pharma-sculpted public policies that allow drug price levels to go beyond profits and into profiteering.

That term “profiteering” is important here because drugmakers aren’t losing lots of money in other countries where they sell medicines at lower prices.

Let’s remember: pharmaceutical companies aren’t altruistic charities that offer their products abroad at a loss. On the contrary, they are still making healthy profits at lower world-market prices – and as the Intercept’s Lee Fang notes, they are making those healthy profits while boasting of innovation and job growth in countries that have allowed their governments to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

The same arrangement could happen in the United States. We could significantly reduce medicine prices, which would save Medicare and individual consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, and in the process we would do little to significantly reduce pharmaceutical innovation. Indeed, a recent Congressional Budget Office study projected that even if profits on top drugs decreased by a whopping 25%, it would only result in a 0.5% average annual reduction in the number of new drugs entering the market over the next decade.

The reason that reduction in new drugs would be so small gets to the other inconvenient fact being left out of the conversation in Congress right now: for all the pharmaceutical industry’s self-congratulatory rhetoric about its own innovations, the federal government uses your tax dollars to fund a lot of that innovation, research and development.

All of this underscores how corrupt and insane the current conversation in Congress really is

A study from the National Academy of Sciences tells that story: the federal government spent $100bn to subsidize the research on every single one of the 200-plus drugs approved for sale in the United States between 2010 and 2016.

Because we the public invested early in these medicines, we reduced the R&D costs for pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, on the back end, the public should have received some sort of return in the form of affordable prices. After all, we took the initial risk, and we lowered the overhead costs that the drug companies might need to recoup through higher prices. In business terms, the public is the early venture investor in these products, and we deserve a share of the returns when the product proves valuable.

However, in the mid-1990s, that business axiom was tossed out when drug lobbyists persuaded the Clinton administration to repeal rules that allowed federal officials to require government-subsidized drugs to be offered to Americans at a “reasonable price”.

A few years later, Congress – with then-Senator Joe Biden’s help – voted down legislation to reinstate these rules, and later the Obama administration rejected House Democrats’ request that federal officials at least provide guidelines to government agencies about how they can exercise their remaining powers to combat drug price gouging.

The result: we now routinely face immoral situations like last week’s news that pharmaceutical giant Merck is planning to charge Americans $712 for a Covid drug that cost only $17.74 to produce and whose development was subsidized by the American government.

That’s just the latest example of the absurd paradigm: we take the risk of investing early in the product, but instead of that investment reaping us something valuable like affordable prices, we are rewarded with price gouging by the drugmakers that bankroll the lawmakers who’ve rigged the rules – and aim to keep them rigged.

All of this underscores how corrupt and insane the current conversation in Congress really is – and in truth, it’s way more corrupt than it even seems on the surface.

We aren’t merely watching pharma-bankrolled lawmakers try to stop Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs – they are trying to stop the government from negotiating lower prices for medicines that the government already paid for, and that we are being charged the world’s highest prices for.

This opposition is just the latest crusade to keep the American market walled off for maximum manipulation. Laws written by drug lobbyists prohibit wholesalers from importing lower-priced medicines from other countries, give drug companies 20-year patents on government-subsidized medicine, prevent the government from requiring reasonable prices for drugs the government pays for and block Medicare from using its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

That’s not a “free market”. It is a top-down command economy perfectly calibrated for price gouging, and the pharmaceutical industry and its puppet politicians want to keep it that way.

Quote from JedRothwell

Except in the U.S., Japan and every other country in the world. What do you call a reduction down to 3% of the previous high in Japan, in a few months? A coincidence?

In Uttar Pradesh the reduction is down to zero = "0" = nada = no virus with no vaccination at all....

And may be look at UK where vaccines in many place show no effect anymore!

Quote from JedRothwell

Good for them. If you want an operation, you have be vaccinated. It makes no sense to allow surgery on an unvaccinated person.

Heil H....!

Quote from Fm1

Merck wants Americans to pay $712 for a Covid drug that taxpayers helped develop

Fact is this drug is crap. It failed 100% in a hospital study and failed 100% in an India early treatment study. Only the mafia will try to sell this terratogenic pill to happy kids...May be they should combine it with speed or heroin...

Quote from Fm1

There were lots of problems with Together which appear intentional. Lead investigator, Edward Mills basically works for Bill Gates. Analysis of Ivermectin in Together

For some analysis of the Together Troubles, this is good :

Early Treatment of COVID-19 with Repurposed Therapies: The TOGETHER Adaptive Platform Trial

<sid>

c19ivermectin.com

What has been mentioned perhaps a month ago here is the strange fact that the study is being conducted in Brazil, where Ivermectin use is already widespread, and a particular area where the use is especially high : I've heard figures like 90 percent. But the slapper is seeing that there is no check if people in the control group are using Ivermectin! Did they check their blood for ivermectin use? No! Was ivermectin use listed in the exclusion criteria? No! But taking other drugs could get one excluded. Incredible.

Now, when I hear smarmy names like Recovery or Together, it puts me on alert.

It's like Ontario, enacting policies for shutting down certain businesses over Covid and the penalties involved for non compliance. It's called the Ontario Reopening Act.

It's like Lithuania, where their Covid pass with its QR code that denies the non vaxxed access to places like supermarkets, is called the Opportunity Pass.

It's a long read, but for anyone interested in where this is potentially going, take a look at the account of a Lithuanian man. He describes the persecution he and his wife and young family are going through in Lithuania, just because he chooses not to be vaccinated.

How recent vaccine mandate laws in Lithuania and throughout Europe have upended my family's life

By Arne Zukas* RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL - We live in the small European country of Lithuania. In the last few months, strict Covid Pass restrictions have

riotimesonline.com

If this was just about a criminal company pushing its product, that would be fine. We'd call that monopoly.

But this is grotesque. The fact that we are even talking about sticking jabs in arms to be allowed medical care is truly 4th Reich.

They are trying to incite societal upheaval --- and they will get a certain ways there yet but the wakeup has started -- and for their beloved coming of ages new world order plan that all of the Cabal Societies live for and train for. And how they think they are smart and conniving when they put the plan out and then shame people for talking about it. Pathetic Town Criers!

Then they rebrand NWO as Great Reset. Stick it on a website and formalize it, but it remains evil, done by evil, because evil is good, and good is evil.

Platforms | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Anytime a "new world" group says they are going to

Shape the Future of Healthcare

Shape the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems

Shape the Future of Consumption

Shape the Future of Technology

and even

Shape the Future of Energy

YOU RUN!

I've watched the Davos meetings. They are administrator puppets not innovators.
This is a scam, an obvious scam, for total destruction of the world as we know it and creation of digital feudalism. Spent 20 seconds and think why they want a new money system they privately own that is "programmable".

If you are silent and do nothing, you consent (that's what they believe). Do you consent?

Quote from Shane D.

If a doctor were to deny treatment to a drug addict, a gang related shooting victim, AIDS patient or the obese because he disapproved the behaviors that brought them under his care, he would lose his medical license for violating his oath. Then he would have been sued and certainly lose. Yet somehow, it is OK to deny a life saving procedure because of a vaccine and not face the same consequences?

When a doctor treats a gunshot victim, he does not allow the patient to say: "No you cannot take off my clothes or clean the wound. Just take the bullet out. Local anesthetic only. And I am going to hang on to my pistol. And don't give me any antibiotics. And no blood transfusion!" Patients are not allowed to dictate medical treatment instructions to doctors.

It is okay to deny a lifesaving procedure if the patient refuses the preparation or treatment. In the case you cite, with the lunatic who refuses a vaccine, they should have the patient sign an AMA (against medical advice) form and go shopping for some other doctor. Some doctor who does not mind endangering patients for no reason, and who is so stupid he will risk a malpractice lawsuit when the patient gets COVID. You can bet that lunatic will sue when she gets the disease the doctors warned her she might get. Being in a post-op hospital room is a dandy opportunity to get COVID.

COVID can be easily avoided with a vaccine. It would criminally stupid not to insist on this, a few weeks before the procedure. Obviously, if it is an emergency procedure or if the patient cannot get the vaccine for some medically valid reason, they should go ahead. Otherwise, the patient must follow the rules like everyone else.

Obese patients going in for stomach reduction surgery have to go for a few months beforehand eating less and losing weight, or the doctor will not do the procedure. They have to show some level of psychological preparedness, because even after the surgery they can still overeat.

Long time, severe alcoholics are denied many transplants because they are not likely to survive long. That is perfectly ethical.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is okay to deny a lifesaving procedure if the patient refuses the preparation or treatment. In the case you cite, with the lunatic who refuses a vaccine, they should have the patient sign an AMA (against medical advice) form and go shopping for some other doctor. Some doctor who does not mind endangering patients for no reason, and who is so stupid he will risk a malpractice lawsuit when the patient gets COVID. You can bet that lunatic will sue when she gets the disease the doctors warned her she might get. Being in a post-op hospital room is a dandy opportunity to get COVID.

I really think you should learn when to quit.

Quote from JedRothwell

Except in the U.S., Japan and every other country in the world. What do you call a reduction down to 3% of the previous high in Japan, in a few months? A coincidence?

What do you call Singapore's large rise in cases, despite an 84 percent double vaccination rate? A coincidence?

Tracking Singapore's Covid-19 vaccination progress | The Straits Times

The nation's vaccination rate has reached a new milestone, with over 80 per cent of the population fully vaccinated as at end-August.

www.straitstimes.com

Quote from Shane D.

I really think you should learn when to quit.

I really think the notion that we should allow lunatic Death Cult fanatics to dictate to doctors and take over hospital treatments is a BAD IDEA. It will lead to chaos and malpractice lawsuits. I am sure it is against the law. That is what you are advocating. I really think you should think twice. Be careful what you wish for. Are you also going to let random passengers into the cockpit to fly the airplane? Are you in favor of letting amateurs jump into cherry picker trucks to fix downed electric power lines? Are you going to let illiterate faith healers man the poison control hotlines? "Just pray it away" they'll say, as people die from drinking household cleaners.

You have gone off your rocker if you think we should let these people dictate safety procedures to surgeons! An anti-vaxxer is an ignorant idiot, by definition. Obviously she is not qualified to make any decision about a medical procedure.

Anyone going in for serious, life-threatening surgery who refuses to abide by the doctors' orders is also an ignorant idiot, by definition. A suicidal lunatic. Let her find some idiot doctor. No properly trained, ethical doctor will do a procedure that he knows is dangerous when the danger can easily be avoided. That is extremely unethical.

Quote from Mark U

What do you call Singapore's large rise in cases, despite an 84 percent double vaccination rate? A coincidence?

I would say the Chinese sinovac vaccine does not work well against the Delta variant, and it does not work well until after the second dose. That is the main one they are using. That is no coincidence. I would also say that 10 deaths out of 26,000 cases means the vaccine is preventing serious illness.