Inhalable vector-based COVID-19 vaccine increases antibodies 300-fold, better than mRNA & inactivated type as booster
For once a Chinese commercial. The question always is what type and quality of antibodies.
E.g. Pfizer produces only crap.
Covid-19 News
- Alan Smith
- Closed
-
-
For once a Chinese commercial. The question always is what type and quality of antibodies.
E.g. Pfizer produces only crap.
Maybe a commercial but it's not the point. If this vaccine was the greatest do all vaccine, it still would never be considered by western health authority's
-
E.g. Pfizer produces only crap.
That provides high protection against serious disease and death.
-
A nice result considering that Covid-19 vaccines are less than one year in action... How much VAERS data are under-reporting actual vaccination side-effects?
In November 2020, a paper was published in the journal Vaccines looking specifically at the question of estimating underreporting rates for VAERs for anaphylaxis (and Guillain Barre syndrome) for 7 different vaccines. They compared VAERs reporting rates to incident rates in the Vaccine Safety Database (VSD) network as a reference. VSD is organized by the CDC consisting of 9 healthcare organizations, shown to be representative of the USA population in many key demographic categories. This study found anaphylaxis had an URR between 1.3x to 8x, depending on the specific vaccine.
-
A nice result considering that Covid-19 vaccines are less than one year in action... How much VAERS data are under-reporting actual vaccination side-effects?
In November 2020, a paper was published in the journal Vaccines looking specifically at the question of estimating underreporting rates for VAERs for anaphylaxis (and Guillain Barre syndrome) for 7 different vaccines. They compared VAERs reporting rates to incident rates in the Vaccine Safety Database (VSD) network as a reference. VSD is organized by the CDC consisting of 9 healthcare organizations, shown to be representative of the USA population in many key demographic categories. This study found anaphylaxis had an URR between 1.3x to 8x, depending on the specific vaccine.
(1) Would you like to turn that table into deaths per person vaccinated, or per vaccination, so that we can evaluate it? It is meaningless in this form.
(2) Do you take my point that emergency novel vaccines, using new technology, which 20% of the population believes will implant them with a microchip, will have a higher VAERS reporting rate than a boring known vaccine?
(3) Did you take my point about how the VAERS deaths you quoted for COVID were approx 15% of the background death rate. In other words if just 15% of normal deaths within a 14 day window of the jab are reported to VAERS, you get those deaths.
(4) I applaud using VSD to evaluate VAERS reporting. Have you looked at it for the COVID vaccines? The antivaxxers seem to avoid it. I wonder why, when VAERS under-reports, so VSD is better?
It beggars belief how full of holes and vacuous (yes - both) the "VAERS shows vaccine side-effects are being underestimated" arguments are...
PS - another correction you should make is average age at which people are given vaccine. Childhood vaccines will have a lower natural background rate of death than whole population vaccinations. Vaccinations given only or mostly to old people will have a much higher background rate. COVID is whole population, but a bit skewed towards old because of the vulnerable get vaccinated effect.
-
The people here doing professional investigation on subjects try to give you early information and warnings.
The warning for Pfizer crap is severe. Clowns here still believe it gives you some protection. But at what price? After a first Pfizer (day 1..7) jab 1.2% get CoV-19, 0.3 after the second jab.
Your chance to get CoV-19 with 2 Pfizer crap jabs is 4x elevated now. We expect that also the rates for other viral infections will raise soon.
We also warn you from wasting your money for hospital treatment if you easily can avoid it with a 2$ Ziverdo package, that, taken early, gives you a 100% survival guarantee, where as in a standard hospital your chance to die still is 5..25%. Ask one billion happy Indian's!
So avoid Gillead crap (Remdesivir) or the new Merck crap the same for Avigan and its generics. Even the HCQ combo is 10x better than all this crap.
Be also aware that a bunch of medical clowns now does engage in fake studies to "disprove" Ivermectin. This sounds like explaining people that drinking water will not calm you thirst. The mechanism (blocking of virus replication/ reassembly) of Ivermectin is well studied and works for more than 10 different virus.
It is easy to predict that all countries that did use Pfizer/Oxford-Astra crap will soon see a sharp, increase in cases among vaccinated. UK will be the front runner. A booster will only delay the problem and introduce even more risk than we already do see now.
So if you vaccinate try to get a CoV-19 infection as soon as possible and have the Ivermectin combo ready!
Do not believe any Big pharma commercials like a vaccination will protect you. Only natural immunity can currently do this with 100% guarantee. Whether a vaccine can do it for you or not will may be one of the things your kids once might discuss on a memorial day....
-
Here is a nice DIY analyse safety signals in VAERS blog
Interpreting VAERs: What is the expected background death rate for the USA vaccinated population?VAERs is an open reporting system put together by the FDA and CDC for people to enter in adverse events after vaccination for post approval safety assessments.…www.covid-datascience.comJust a bit more sophisticated than the antivax stuff - it explains the key difficulties in using the data.
-
The mechanism (blocking of virus replication/ reassembly) of Ivermectin is well studied and works for more than 10 different virus.
Just wondering, in that case, why ivermectin is not used medically as an antiviral. For anything? Pretty well everything has some antiviral action - that is not the point.
So avoid Gillead crap (Remdesivir) or the new Merck crap
maybe just have good toilet practices all round?
It is easy to predict that all countries that did use Pfizer/Oxford-Astra crap will soon see a sharp, increase in cases among vaccinated. UK will be the front runner. A booster will only delay the problem and introduce even more risk than we already do see now.
Interesting prediction. Surely when a vaccine lasts 8 months or so, delaying the problem is sort of the definition of what it does. Even chickenpox vaccine only delays the problem, but by a much longer period.
Remind me not to ask you to review flu jabs. They only last 6 months, and are much less effective over that period than covid vaccines.
-
Only natural immunity can currently do this with 100% guarantee.
Wyttenfact. Natural immunity does not give 100% guarantee - as evidenced by the many people who have caught covid twice.
Intererestingly - it gives more protection when the original disease was more servere.
perhaps it gives 100% protection to all those who die from the original infection. I've not heard of any breakthrough cases amongst the dead.
-
How 4 Calls on Animal Ivermectin Launched a False FDA-Media Attack | BAK Message Board PostsBraskem S.A. Message board - Online Community of active, educated investors researching and discussing Braskem S.A. Stocks.www.investorvillage.com
Horse-Bleep: How 4 Calls on Animal Ivermectin Launched a False FDA-Media Attack on a Life-Saving Human Medicine
Our investigative reporters dug up the FDA memos documenting the start of a propaganda campaign, and got The New York Times to correct its false reporting.
Mary Beth Pfeiffer10 hr agoThe Propaganda That Started The Big Lie:
In a hokey tweet on August 21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told Americans the obvious: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Everyone knew what “it” was: an animal form of the drug ivermectin that folks were said to be using, widely, for covid-19. Don’t, said FDA.
Within two days, 23.7 million people had seen that Pulitzer-worthy bit of Twitter talk. Hundreds of thousands more got the message on Facebook, LinkedIn, and from the Today Show’s 3 million-follower Instagram account.
“That was great!” declared FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in an email to her media team. “Even I saw it!” For the FDA, the “not-a-horse” tweet was “a unique viral moment,” a senior FDA official wrote to Woodcock, “in a time of incredible misinformation.”
There was one problem, however. The tweet was a direct outgrowth of wrong data—call it misinformation—put out the day before by the Mississippi health department. The FDA did not vet the data, according to our review of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and questions to FDA officials. Instead, it saw Mississippi, as one email said, as “an opportunity to remind the public of our own warnings for ivermectin.”
The story behind the tweet that went ’round the world shows how a myth was born about a safe, if now controversial, human drug that was FDA-approved for parasitic disease in 1996 and bestowed the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015. It is a story in which the barest grain of truth morphed into an anything-goes media firestorm.
It began with one sentence in a Mississippi health alert on reports to the state’s poison control center: “At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.” In the thick of a fierce covid wave in the American South, no official at the FDA, or reporter for that matter, seemed to ask: 70 percent of what? Instead, government and media joined forces against a public health threat that, in retrospect, was vastly exaggerated.
Amid dozens of articles that ensued, Rolling Stone told of Oklahoma hospitals so jammed with ivermectin overdoses that gunshot victims had to wait for care—except it wasn’t true. Twice, The New York Times printed corrections of the same false information from Mississippi, which it described in one article and later removed, as “a staggering number of calls.” The Associated Press, Washington Post and, twice, the The Guardian in London also corrected its reporting on the alert.
The Times’ correction summed it up: “This article misstated the percentage of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center related to ivermectin. It was 2 percent, not 70 percent.” (The Times and Post both made corrections in direct response to our reporting for this article.)
In real numbers, six calls were received for ingestion of ivermectin. Four were for the antiparasitic drug given to livestock.
If ivermectin reports had indeed been 70 percent of calls in the twenty days covered by the alert, about 800 would have flooded the poison control line. Instead, eight came in. Two callers sought information.
Five had mild symptoms. One was advised to seek further care, according to data from the Mississippi Poison Control Center.
Without question, people should not take drugs made for animals, given issues of dosing and medical oversight, to name just two. That much is clear.
But in hopping on the Mississippi bandwagon, the FDA achieved a long-standing goal separate from warning against livestock dewormer. It obliterated the line between the ivermectin that saved millions from river blindness in Africa and the worm-killing animal medicine that—“Stop it, y’all”—only the deluded would try. It turned ivermectin, which doctors and health ministers in several countries say has saved many from covid-19, into a drug to be feared, human form or not.
This highly effective bait-and-switch began last March with a webpage, to which the FDA tweet linked, that conflates the two ivermectins. On one hand, the FDA tells of receiving “multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention” after taking the animal product. On the other, it describes the fate awaiting people who take large amounts of any ivermectin, ending a long list with “dizziness, ataxia, seizures, coma and even death.” The medical literature, nonetheless, shows ivermectin to be an extremely safe medicine.
So how big was the surge that FDA described as “multiple”? Four, an agency spokesperson said just after the page went up. Three people were hospitalized, but it wasn’t clear if that was for covid itself. When pressed for details, FDA cited privacy issues, and said in an email, “Some of these cases were lost to follow up.”
This is how government gets away with some whoppers, and with the media’s help.
Below, FDA officials crow over the deception that was “the most popular post we’ve ever had on Twitter:”
…and the FDA commissioner was thrilled:
(These excerpts are from emails obtained by Linda Bonvie under the Freedom of Information Act.)
Within days of the tweet, headlines crowed, “Say ‘neigh’ to ivermectin,” while cable hosts and comedians riffed on “horse paste.” USA Today, ABC News, The Hill, Slate and NPR picked up the story. When CNN retweeted “not-a-horse,” FDA was gleeful. “The numbers are racking up and I laughed out loud,” wrote FDA Associate Commissioner Erica Jefferson in one email.
On October 5, forty-six days after posting, the Mississippi health department “clarified” its alert to say that 70 percent of ivermectin calls—not of all calls—were for the animal kind. The image of dread, however, lives on in archived stories that often used nifty but hardly accurate shorthand, like overdose or poisoning. In reality, ten of twenty-four ivermectin calls to the Mississippi center from July 31 to Aug. 22—40 percent—merely sought information, our reporting found, which is common to poison control centers. In 2019, poison control centers logged more than 47,000 reports for acetaminophen and 83,000 for ibuprofen.
In this email obtained by Linda Bonvie under the Freedom of Information Act, FDA officials celebrate reaching the “everyday” American with a tweet that sparked a media firestorm of lies:
Amid the hubbub, the Northern New England Poison Control Center posted a notice September 15 stating it had “managed 14 human exposures to ivermectin in 2021,” mostly in early September. “None of these patients experienced significant effects from the ivermectin.” Other states—Illinois, Iowa—have reported similar numbers.
This isn’t to minimize potential poisoning from the livestock drug. Mississippi officials told us of two people hospitalized after their flawed alert, including one intubated and in cardiac arrest. But like the FDA, Mississippi officials had no details.
The Associated Press issued this correction on their wildly inaccurate reporting:
In New Mexico, officials linked two deaths in September to ivermectin poisoning, contending later the victims took the drug and died “after delaying treatment for COVID-19.” The state’s acting health secretary, David Scrase, even said he was taking a “calculated risk” in announcing the first death on September 9 though tests would likely take weeks. No one questioned his widely reported conclusions.
This is the correction the New York Times was forced to make—twice—as a result of inaccurate poison control reports from the Mississippi State Department of Health:
In the pandemic era, mainstream reporting is characterized by firmly drawn narratives. One is that ivermectin is an unproven, possibly unsafe, treatment for covid, with several dozen supporting trials largely dismissed as small, biased, and lacking rigor. We would argue that the potential and effectiveness is far more nuanced and worthy of serious exploration.
This media landscape, which marginalizes, censors, and uses political or anti-vaccine labels, set a perfect stage for the Mississippi-inspired onslaught of anti-ivermectin hype. Some of it was true. Much was not, in particular the lasting image of peril of a drug celebrated as “astonishingly safe for human use” in a 2011 article. Last March, a safety review of ivermectin by a renowned French toxicologist could not find a single accidental overdose death in the medical literature in more than 300 safety studies of the drug over decades. The study was performed for MedinCell, a French pharmaceutical company.
Since 1992, twenty deaths have been linked to inexpensive, off-patent ivermectin, according to a World Health Organization drug tracker called VigiAccess. By contrast, since just the spring of 2020, 570 deaths have been linked to remdesivir, an expensive, patented covid drug. The question is why remdesivir is being used at all, with a WHO recommendation against it and a new Lancet study finding “no clinical benefit.”
The other question is why ivermectin is not. The FDA tweet arrived just as ivermectin prescriptions were soaring, up twenty-four-fold in August from before the pandemic. These were legal prescriptions written by doctors who, presumably, had read the studies, learned from experience, and decided for themselves. Indeed, 20 percent of prescriptions are written off-label, namely for other than an approved use.
The effort to vilify ivermectin broadly has helped curb the legal supply of a safe drug. That’s what drove people to livestock medicine in the first place.
-
Display More
The people here doing professional investigation on subjects try to give you early information and warnings.
The warning for Pfizer crap is severe. Clowns here still believe it gives you some protection. But at what price? After a first Pfizer (day 1..7) jab 1.2% get CoV-19, 0.3 after the second jab.
Your chance to get CoV-19 with 2 Pfizer crap jabs is 4x elevated now. We expect that also the rates for other viral infections will raise soon.
We also warn you from wasting your money for hospital treatment if you easily can avoid it with a 2$ Ziverdo package, that, taken early, gives you a 100% survival guarantee, where as in a standard hospital your chance to die still is 5..25%. Ask one billion happy Indian's!
So avoid Gillead crap (Remdesivir) or the new Merck crap the same for Avigan and its generics. Even the HCQ combo is 10x better than all this crap.
Be also aware that a bunch of medical clowns now does engage in fake studies to "disprove" Ivermectin. This sounds like explaining people that drinking water will not calm you thirst. The mechanism (blocking of virus replication/ reassembly) of Ivermectin is well studied and works for more than 10 different virus.
It is easy to predict that all countries that did use Pfizer/Oxford-Astra crap will soon see a sharp, increase in cases among vaccinated. UK will be the front runner. A booster will only delay the problem and introduce even more risk than we already do see now.
So if you vaccinate try to get a CoV-19 infection as soon as possible and have the Ivermectin combo ready!
Do not believe any Big pharma commercials like a vaccination will protect you. Only natural immunity can currently do this with 100% guarantee. Whether a vaccine can do it for you or not will may be one of the things your kids once might discuss on a memorial day....
But the studies (the ones I have looked at) exclude people who get Covid after the 1st injection or they are "unvaccinated" grouped.
What is the best evidence that there is even 1% efficacy to the Vax's?For example: if people die after vax, or get Covid after vax they are going to boost the numbers of the "unvaccinated" so this fundamental flaw is in all the data.
Do you have a good study W that can actually tell us what is really going on? -
But the studies (the ones I have looked at) exclude people who get Covid after the 1st injection or they are "unvaccinated" grouped.
What is the best evidence that there is even 1% efficacy to the Vax's?For example: if people die after vax, or get Covid after vax they are going to boost the numbers of the "unvaccinated" so this fundamental flaw is in all the data.
Do you have a good study W that can actually tell us what is really going on?I agree, it is really difficult to work out what is going on in your brain.
Looking at efficacy against delta, one jab does not deliver muhc effect.
If you did not separate people who caught covid after the 1st injection it would be weird. We do not group them with the unvaccinated.
However, people have measured efficacy after one jab (it is positive). In the UK we delibrately had 3 months after 1st jab before 2nd to reduce total deaths during our vaccination porgram when suppies of vaccine were limited.
It reduced deaths. We have many studies showing that the protection from one jab against serious disease and death was large (though smaller than protection after two jabs).
That was shown from real-world data (how many people in the UK died). and after two jabs the number dying reduces again. This was tracked throughout our vaccination program in exquisite detail.
You suggest that if people die shortly after the vaccine, of COVID or something else, this skews the data.
This is relatively a very small number. There are some things here: if they catch covid within a week or so of 1st vaccination they are not protected by the vaccine, they should count as unvaccinated. If you think somehow that the rate of catching COVID goies up a lot just after vaccination that is wrong. We have tracked it. It goes up a bit, for a week or so. Why?
(1) Some people will catch COVID from vaccination centres
(2) Some people will be motivated to get a vaccine when somone they know gets COVID, to protect themselves. But then they may already have caught COVID (or catch it over the next week, when partially protected)
Both these effects clearly exist. Quantifying them is very difficult, but they explain the small transient uptick in COVID infection rate.
The antivaxxers, showing a stunning lack of curiosity about data, look at this uptick in the natural COVID rate for 1 week after vaccination and suggest that therefore the vaccination causes COVID (or, for just one week, weakens immunity). Weird.
Anyway, whether you are an antivaxxer, with compromised cognition in this one area, or not, the total numbers are very small relative to the overall number who die, whetehr vaccinated or unvaccinated.
-
Wyttenfact. Natural immunity does not give 100% guarantee - as evidenced by the many people who have caught covid twice.
Natural immunity gives you 100% protection from hospital or serious disease. The claimed breakthrough cases are among people that had no PCR test or an USA > 30 cycle positive test and never made an anti body test. Of course there will always be exceptions like people with high comorbidity dying with CoV-19...
-
Without question, people should not take drugs made for animals, given issues of dosing and medical oversight, to name just two. That much is clear.
Its clear:: People have to pay more than horses!! 10x to 100x. The Horse versions usually are 100% human compatible except they (rarely) intentionally added something that will give you a kind of diarrhea....
-
Do you have a good study W that can actually tell us what is really going on?
This is the wrong question as nobody will finance or no journal will allow to publish such a study. But the data (Israel,UK, Pfizer phase III is clear. Natural protection data for delta from Africa, India say one out of 7 can get Delta at most)
As said only a tiny vulernable group of (1..2% of total population) people might profit from cancer gene therapy (called vaccine). All the others already suffer from "vaccine" (cancer chemo -) damage.
-
There is still one grumpy clown here that denies the anti viral activity of Ivermectin. It's kind of fun to see how much (few) skills you need to become a teacher in Oxford. Science knowledge seems to be no selection criteria, but being a member of the FM/R mafia obviously allows that people with a cleaning woman level make it to teacher....
-
Display More
https://www.investorvillage.co…77369&pt=msg&mid=22509576
Horse-Bleep: How 4 Calls on Animal Ivermectin Launched a False FDA-Media Attack on a Life-Saving Human Medicine
Our investigative reporters dug up the FDA memos documenting the start of a propaganda campaign, and got The New York Times to correct its false reporting.
Mary Beth Pfeiffer10 hr agoThe Propaganda That Started The Big Lie:
In a hokey tweet on August 21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told Americans the obvious: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Everyone knew what “it” was: an animal form of the drug ivermectin that folks were said to be using, widely, for covid-19. Don’t, said FDA.
Within two days, 23.7 million people had seen that Pulitzer-worthy bit of Twitter talk. Hundreds of thousands more got the message on Facebook, LinkedIn, and from the Today Show’s 3 million-follower Instagram account.
“That was great!” declared FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in an email to her media team. “Even I saw it!” For the FDA, the “not-a-horse” tweet was “a unique viral moment,” a senior FDA official wrote to Woodcock, “in a time of incredible misinformation.”
There was one problem, however. The tweet was a direct outgrowth of wrong data—call it misinformation—put out the day before by the Mississippi health department. The FDA did not vet the data, according to our review of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and questions to FDA officials. Instead, it saw Mississippi, as one email said, as “an opportunity to remind the public of our own warnings for ivermectin.”
The story behind the tweet that went ’round the world shows how a myth was born about a safe, if now controversial, human drug that was FDA-approved for parasitic disease in 1996 and bestowed the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015. It is a story in which the barest grain of truth morphed into an anything-goes media firestorm.
It began with one sentence in a Mississippi health alert on reports to the state’s poison control center: “At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.” In the thick of a fierce covid wave in the American South, no official at the FDA, or reporter for that matter, seemed to ask: 70 percent of what? Instead, government and media joined forces against a public health threat that, in retrospect, was vastly exaggerated.
Amid dozens of articles that ensued, Rolling Stone told of Oklahoma hospitals so jammed with ivermectin overdoses that gunshot victims had to wait for care—except it wasn’t true. Twice, The New York Times printed corrections of the same false information from Mississippi, which it described in one article and later removed, as “a staggering number of calls.” The Associated Press, Washington Post and, twice, the The Guardian in London also corrected its reporting on the alert.
The Times’ correction summed it up: “This article misstated the percentage of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center related to ivermectin. It was 2 percent, not 70 percent.” (The Times and Post both made corrections in direct response to our reporting for this article.)
In real numbers, six calls were received for ingestion of ivermectin. Four were for the antiparasitic drug given to livestock.
If ivermectin reports had indeed been 70 percent of calls in the twenty days covered by the alert, about 800 would have flooded the poison control line. Instead, eight came in. Two callers sought information.
Five had mild symptoms. One was advised to seek further care, according to data from the Mississippi Poison Control Center.
Without question, people should not take drugs made for animals, given issues of dosing and medical oversight, to name just two. That much is clear.
But in hopping on the Mississippi bandwagon, the FDA achieved a long-standing goal separate from warning against livestock dewormer. It obliterated the line between the ivermectin that saved millions from river blindness in Africa and the worm-killing animal medicine that—“Stop it, y’all”—only the deluded would try. It turned ivermectin, which doctors and health ministers in several countries say has saved many from covid-19, into a drug to be feared, human form or not.
This highly effective bait-and-switch began last March with a webpage, to which the FDA tweet linked, that conflates the two ivermectins. On one hand, the FDA tells of receiving “multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention” after taking the animal product. On the other, it describes the fate awaiting people who take large amounts of any ivermectin, ending a long list with “dizziness, ataxia, seizures, coma and even death.” The medical literature, nonetheless, shows ivermectin to be an extremely safe medicine.
So how big was the surge that FDA described as “multiple”? Four, an agency spokesperson said just after the page went up. Three people were hospitalized, but it wasn’t clear if that was for covid itself. When pressed for details, FDA cited privacy issues, and said in an email, “Some of these cases were lost to follow up.”
This is how government gets away with some whoppers, and with the media’s help.
Below, FDA officials crow over the deception that was “the most popular post we’ve ever had on Twitter:”
…and the FDA commissioner was thrilled:
Within days of the tweet, headlines crowed, “Say ‘neigh’ to ivermectin,” while cable hosts and comedians riffed on “horse paste.” USA Today, ABC News, The Hill, Slate and NPR picked up the story. When CNN retweeted “not-a-horse,” FDA was gleeful. “The numbers are racking up and I laughed out loud,” wrote FDA Associate Commissioner Erica Jefferson in one email.
On October 5, forty-six days after posting, the Mississippi health department “clarified” its alert to say that 70 percent of ivermectin calls—not of all calls—were for the animal kind. The image of dread, however, lives on in archived stories that often used nifty but hardly accurate shorthand, like overdose or poisoning. In reality, ten of twenty-four ivermectin calls to the Mississippi center from July 31 to Aug. 22—40 percent—merely sought information, our reporting found, which is common to poison control centers. In 2019, poison control centers logged more than 47,000 reports for acetaminophen and 83,000 for ibuprofen.
In this email obtained by Linda Bonvie under the Freedom of Information Act, FDA officials celebrate reaching the “everyday” American with a tweet that sparked a media firestorm of lies:
Amid the hubbub, the Northern New England Poison Control Center posted a notice September 15 stating it had “managed 14 human exposures to ivermectin in 2021,” mostly in early September. “None of these patients experienced significant effects from the ivermectin.” Other states—Illinois, Iowa—have reported similar numbers.
This isn’t to minimize potential poisoning from the livestock drug. Mississippi officials told us of two people hospitalized after their flawed alert, including one intubated and in cardiac arrest. But like the FDA, Mississippi officials had no details.
The Associated Press issued this correction on their wildly inaccurate reporting:
In New Mexico, officials linked two deaths in September to ivermectin poisoning, contending later the victims took the drug and died “after delaying treatment for COVID-19.” The state’s acting health secretary, David Scrase, even said he was taking a “calculated risk” in announcing the first death on September 9 though tests would likely take weeks. No one questioned his widely reported conclusions.
This is the correction the New York Times was forced to make—twice—as a result of inaccurate poison control reports from the Mississippi State Department of Health:
In the pandemic era, mainstream reporting is characterized by firmly drawn narratives. One is that ivermectin is an unproven, possibly unsafe, treatment for covid, with several dozen supporting trials largely dismissed as small, biased, and lacking rigor. We would argue that the potential and effectiveness is far more nuanced and worthy of serious exploration.
This media landscape, which marginalizes, censors, and uses political or anti-vaccine labels, set a perfect stage for the Mississippi-inspired onslaught of anti-ivermectin hype. Some of it was true. Much was not, in particular the lasting image of peril of a drug celebrated as “astonishingly safe for human use” in a 2011 article. Last March, a safety review of ivermectin by a renowned French toxicologist could not find a single accidental overdose death in the medical literature in more than 300 safety studies of the drug over decades. The study was performed for MedinCell, a French pharmaceutical company.
Since 1992, twenty deaths have been linked to inexpensive, off-patent ivermectin, according to a World Health Organization drug tracker called VigiAccess. By contrast, since just the spring of 2020, 570 deaths have been linked to remdesivir, an expensive, patented covid drug. The question is why remdesivir is being used at all, with a WHO recommendation against it and a new Lancet study finding “no clinical benefit.”
The other question is why ivermectin is not. The FDA tweet arrived just as ivermectin prescriptions were soaring, up twenty-four-fold in August from before the pandemic. These were legal prescriptions written by doctors who, presumably, had read the studies, learned from experience, and decided for themselves. Indeed, 20 percent of prescriptions are written off-label, namely for other than an approved use.
The effort to vilify ivermectin broadly has helped curb the legal supply of a safe drug. That’s what drove people to livestock medicine in the first place.
As the Bias and lies regularly used by the international media to promote false narratives are unvailed it sure is making TSN look like a true guiding light. Thanks Shane!
-
Hopefully as the mandates go into effect the warriors will blink, it already starting. The vaccine warrior stance is crumbling under popular pressure!
A Question of Protection: The Chicago Police Vaccine Mandate
A Question of Protection: The Chicago Police Vaccine MandatePerhaps Chicago’s more flexible than other places—after all, there was a COVID-19 vaccine mandate deadline to go into effect on Friday, October 15, buttrialsitenews.comPerhaps Chicago’s more flexible than other places—after all, there was a COVID-19 vaccine mandate deadline to go into effect on Friday, October 15, but the date came and went. Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s vaccine mandate was for all Chicago city workers, including 13,000 police officers. According to Lightfoot’s decree, these city workers such as police, firefighters, and additional employees must get vaccinated or face unpaid leave. The mandate was first declared in August.
The Chicago branch of the Fraternal Order of Police is in open defiance of the mandate and now faces a lawsuit from the mayor. Chicago is not unique as other cities are facing the same obstacles enforcing vaccine mandates with their police departments. Last week, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Alex Villanueva, announced he would not enforce a vaccine mandate in his agency. According to Villanueva, his employees are willing to be fired rather than adhere to the mandate. “I don’t want to lose 5 to 10% of my workforce overnight on a vaccine mandate,” the sheriff said.
Labor Force Leverage—City Crime
Chicago has a bigger problem. According to recent statistics, violent crime is rising in Chicago, with murders up 56 percent. The head of the Chicago Police Union, John Cantanzara, has told his members to ignore Mayor Lightfoot’s mandate. In a time when crime is spiking in Chicago, the mayor risks losing almost half of her police force.
Lightfoot is faced with a serious conundrum. It’s not unique to Chicago and may grow around the country. Lightfoot has said that “once we understand that people have not complied…we will be moving forward and putting people into no-pay status.” Cantanzara, has said the mayor “can’t lay off or get rid of thousands of cops because you’ll never replace them.” Lightfoot’s Vaccine Mandate is meant to protect Chicago from COVID-19, but at the end of the day, who’s going to protect the city from rising crime? Lightfoot is accusing Cantanzara of supporting a strike, and that’s the basis for her lawsuit.
Key Police Employee Issue—Medical Freedom & Privacy
Cantazara’s position is one of many. Police departments across the country are refusing to disclose whether their officers have been vaccinated. It’s happening in Baltimore, Seattle, Ann Arbor, and San Jose, California, just to name a few. In Massachusetts and Oregon, state troopers are facing potential termination for not getting vaccinated. This situation appears to be a double-edged sword. Statistics show that more than 460 Police Officers around the country have died from COVID-19. The Coronavirus has been responsible for more police deaths in 2020 and 2021 than gunfire.
In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio is still weighing his options. Right now, the NYPD has a vaccination rate of 68% compared with a 76% vaccination rate for all adult New Yorkers. Last month De Blasio signed an executive order saying that NYPD officers must provide proof of vaccination or show a negative COVID-19 test on a weekly basis. The Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, the NYPD’s police union, has stated they have not received any word on a change in policy by de Blasio.
New York City is also in the midst of a rise in gun violence, yet de Blasio doesn’t seem ready to force the police department into a vaccine mandate. This past Friday, de Blasio said, “There’s a lot of other tools we have, and we’ll be talking about them in the next few days.”
America’s number 1 and 3 most populated cities, New York and Chicago respectively, face unfortunate spikes in crime during the pandemic to now. This has been blamed on the pandemic itself. Both mayors, de Blasio and Lightfoot, have been critical of their police departments. This past Spring, Lightfoot came out in favor of defunding the police until a Chicago officer was killed. After that, Lightfoot backtracked. Obviously, in Chicago, there’s animosity between the Mayor and the Police Union.
At this point, the question becomes obvious. With a city to protect and rising crime, what is more important, vaccine mandates or protecting the public?
Across the U.S., clashes intensify between city officials and the police over vaccination issues.Officers in many departments have been slow to get vaccinated and to report their vaccination status, and city officials are struggling to make them pick up…www.nytimes.com -
America’s number 1 and 3 most populated cities, New York and Chicago respectively, face unfortunate spikes in crime during the pandemic to now.
If the big criminals Fauci, Daszak, CDC/FDA boards, Pfizer/Merck-management & Potus himself (promotes his friends deadly cure..) now are allowed to act criminal in plain sight, then this for sure will motivate the small criminals to do the same...
-
If the big criminals Fauci, Daszak, CDC/FDA boards, Pfizer/Merck-management & Potus himself (promotes his friends deadly cure..) now are allowed to act criminal in plain sight, then this for sure will motivate the small criminals to do the same...
It may look that way at the moment but mandates are under fire by Biden and the Democratic party main backers, the labor unions. Biden and the criminals will have no choice but to blink. It's all crumbling for the warriors and more studies are being uploaded today that will destroy all their talking points.
