#IndiaFightsCorona COVID-19

www.mygov.in

India: The vaccine terror state Kerala still is on the way to get rid his hidden additional 6000 CoV-19 deaths. He books in 300/day so it will last 3 more weeks....

The early Ivermectin adapters show scary single digit daily in infections. Soon India will, in most parts, be "CoV-19 free" since 6 moths. But here the cattle will be killed with the useless Merck-Vectin.

1'000'000'000 Indians show in total less than 100 cases/day this is more than 10'000 less than all western vaccine terror states.

So early Ivermectin treatment, prophylaxis wins 10'000: 0 against vaccine terror states...

The Amish take on Covid.

Letter confirms Wuhan lab’s COVID-19 leak was funded by US taxpayers

Letter confirms Wuhan lab’s COVID-19 leak was funded by US taxpayers

A letter from the National Institutes of Health, who are led by Anthony Fauci, suggests COVID-19 was man-made from multiple varients of coronavirus — all on…

nypost.com

The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 remains unclear, but recent revelations reinforce the likelihood that the true source was a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Rep. James Comer of Kentucky confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1. Researchers at the institute grafted spike proteins from other coronaviruses onto WIV1 to see if the modified virus was capable of binding in a mouse that possessed the ACE2 receptors found in humans — the same receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 binds. The modified virus reproduced more rapidly and made infected humanized mice sicker than the unmodified virus.

Starting in 2014, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Anthony Fauci, funded the New York-based research nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance with annual grants through 2020 for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

Total funding was $3,748,715. More than $600,000 of that went to the Wuhan lab. Three other Chinese institutions received funding, as well. The principal investigator was EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who, from the onset of the pandemic, has consistently campaigned in public and behind the scenes to convince people that SARS-CoV-2 did not come from the WIV but evolved naturally from animal-to-human transmission.

Tabak’s letter asserts that the modified virus’ becoming more virulent “was an unexpected result” and not “something that the researchers set out to do” — an odd claim, considering that the whole point of manipulating the virus was to investigate things that could make it more virulent.

The 2018 research mentioned in Tabak’s letter is similar to earlier WIV research, funded in part by the NIH, that modified viruses related to SARS to see if they could infect human cells.

Publications of these studies in 2017 and 2016 were the subject of a contentious Senate hearing in which Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky pressed Fauci to admit that they constituted gain-of-function research, prompting Fauci’s denial and a statement that “NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Many, but not all, virologists believe that the WIV experimentation qualifies as gain-of-function research.

Such research was originally defined as “any modification of a biological agent that confers new or enhanced activity.”

The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity proposed that only a narrower category, gain-of-function research of concern — research that could make a pathogen likely to spread and cause disease in humans — needs extra regulatory oversight.

Following laboratory biosafety incidents at government research facilities, the US paused funding on gain-of-function research with influenza and the SARS and MERS coronaviruses in 2014 to determine additional oversight. Researchers conducted the 2017 and 2016 studies discussed in the Senate while this pause was in effect.

In 2017, officials lifted the moratorium and replaced it with oversight guidelines for research using potential pandemic pathogens (PPP) — pathogens likely to be highly transmissible, capable of uncontrollable spread and able to cause significant morbidity or mortality in humans. A PPP resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility or virulence of a pathogen is called an enhanced PPP (ePPP).

Tabak does not address whether the 2018 WIV experiments he cited in his letter were gain-of-function research. Instead, he maintains that NIH did not consider the WIV experiments so dangerous as to require special review and biosafety measures under the ePPP regulations adopted in 2017 “because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.”

But this is an unconvincing technicality. Other bat coronaviruses had already caused two deadly diseases, SARS and MERS, and other coronaviruses regularly circulate and infect humans to cause the common cold. It isn’t a stretch to think that a different coronavirus could become dangerous, too — particularly if used in an experiment designed to manipulate a virus that humans have never encountered to see if it could acquire the ability to infect humans.

After explaining why NIH didn’t review the proposal under its guidelines, Tabak’s letter claims that EcoHealth violated the terms of its grant stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold — terms that NIH inserted “out of an abundance of caution and as an added layer of oversight.”

But the letter never explains why this stipulation was necessary.

This blame-shifting is not only unseemly but also may be untrue: EcoHealth maintains that it reported the results in its April 2018, Year Four report.

The main point of the letter seems to be that any deficiencies in NIH’s grant-review and oversight processes didn’t make a difference.

Tabak repeatedly assures Rep. Comer that the viruses being studied “were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2,” so they “are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2

Whether this particular virus evolved into SARS-CoV-2 is beside the point: The WIV was engaged in this type of research, with US government support, and this makes it more, not less, likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is a manmade catastrophe.

Another WIV project, other than the specific one in the Tabak letter, could have created SARS-CoV-2.

Despite early attempts by the scientific community, with the aid of a credulous and politically motivated media, to downplay this possibility, the accumulating evidence suggests that the pandemic was more likely the result of laboratory creation and accidental release of SARS-CoV-2 than a product of natural viral evolution.

The first reported cases of COVID-19 occurred in Wuhan, China, the site of the WIV. In addition, both US intelligence sources and the State Department reported that several WIV researchers became ill and were hospitalized with COVID-19-like symptoms months prior to the Chinese government’s announcement of the first cases

In previous animal-to-human viral transmissions, such as the 2003 SARS outbreak in China, researchers ascertained intermediate animal hosts and serologic signs of infections in animal traders within months of the outbreaks. Despite intensive efforts over the past two years, no one has found a bat-source population, SARS-CoV-2 circulating in an intermediate species that functioned as a viral conduit between bats and humans, or evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was present anywhere else before it emerged in Wuhan.

Consider, too, the unique furin cleavage site between the S1 and S2 subunits of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Furin is an enzyme expressed by human cells that separates the spike protein subunits at the cleavage site, enabling the virus to bind more efficiently to human cells and release its genetic material into them. It is an important reason that SARS-CoV-2 is so easily transmissible.

The furin cleavage site is found nowhere else in the entire genus of SARS-related betacoronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is the only one that has it. This fact alone suggests that it did not arise naturally in SARS-CoV-2. In addition, while other, more distant coronaviruses do have furin cleavage sites, the protein components (amino acids) in the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site are coded for by a unique set of nucleotides in its RNA, not found in the other viruses, making natural recombination between the viruses unlikely.

It’s particularly concerning that in 2018 the EcoHealth Alliance reportedly submitted a proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to partner with the WIV in constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses by inserting such cleavage sites into their spike proteins. DARPA rejected the proposal because it failed to address the risks of gain-of-function research. EcoHealth’s president, Daszak, did not dispute details of the reporting.

In other words: There are many indications that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created in a lab, specifically the Wuhan lab, which was conducting gain-of-function-type research with coronaviruses, some of it funded by the NIH.

While the particular experiments revealed in Tabak’s letter may not have created SARS-CoV-2, other research at the WIV, including research that EcoHealth sought to fund with US grants, could have done so.

It’s doubtful that we will ever discover the true origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, since the Chinese will never cooperate with a full and open investigation. It doesn’t help that, until recently, our own NIH stonewalled on questions about its funding of WIV research.

Considering the release of the recent NIH letter and the revelations about EcoHealth Alliance, it remains entirely possible that US taxpayers funded a project at the Wuhan lab that may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D., is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and an associate clinical professor of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in Manhattan. Adapted with permission from City Journal.

Fauci staffers raised concern in 2016 about NIH funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan

Fauci staffers raised concern in 2016 about NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan

Two staffers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) raised concern in 2016 that U.S. grant-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) may be incorporating risky gain-of-function experiments.

NIAID staffers Jenny Greer and Erik Stemmy raised this concern in a May 28, 2016, letter to EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, according to documents obtained via a public records request by The Daily Caller. EcoHealth was the recipient of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) taxpayer-funded grant to perform research at WIV to study how coronaviruses move from bats to people. Critics argued the grant-facilitated research included controversial gain-of-function experiments

In a 2016 progress report to the NIH describing its research, EcoHealth indicated its plans to infect “humanized mice with hybrid viruses, known as ‘chimeras,’” reported The Intercept, which also reviewed notes on the 2016 NIH communications with Daszak.

These plans reportedly triggered concerns from Greer, a grant management expert, and Stemmy, a program manager handling coronavirus research, according to The Intercept. They both wrote to EcoHealth to warn the experiments described in the progress report “appear to involve research covered under the pause." That refers to a 2014 moratorium on the funding of gain-of-function research that would reasonably be expected to make MERS and SARS viruses more deadly and transmissible in humans.

During the hearing, Fauci repeatedly insisted that the NIH “has not ever, and does not now fund, gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

However, a letter released by the NIH last month appeared to contradict Fauci and the NIH’s adamant denials that any gain-of-function research occurred under the grant to EcoHealth.

The letter admitted that EcoHealth’s research was indeed “testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to” human receptors. However, the NIH concluded the research did not warrant further review “because the bat coronaviruses used in this research have not been shown to infect humans and the experiments were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”

EcoHealth disputed the NIH’s characterization of the nonprofit’s research, arguing the letter produced “misconceptions” about the research it was conducting.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced a bill this week that would ban government funding of gain-of-function research in China and hold those who aim to mislead Congress about their research accountable

We should not be funding dangerous experiments overseas, especially in one of the world’s most closed societies ruled by a ruthless authoritarian regime, with no tolerance for truth or transparency,” said Ernst, according to Radio Iowa. “The FAUCI Act will put an end to U.S. funding of gain-of-function research in Communist China, go after government officials who intentionally mislead Congress, and bring about badly needed transparency and accountability.”

Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines over time

Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines over time – The Seattle Times

As the delta variant became the dominant strain of coronavirus across the United States, all three COVID-19 vaccines available to Americans lost some of their protective power, with vaccine efficacy among a large group of veterans dropping between 35% and 85%, according to a new study.

Researchers who scoured the records of nearly 800,000 U.S. veterans found that in early March, just as the delta variant was gaining a toehold across American communities, the three vaccines were roughly equal in their ability to prevent infections.

But over the next six months, that changed dramatically.

By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.

The effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, which also employs two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.

And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.

Iowa study: 82.5% of deer tested positive for COVID-19

Iowa study: 82.5% of deer tested positive for COVID-19

Covid is not going away, it's endemic and early treatment controls it not vaccination!

Quote from Fm1

Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines over time

https://www.seattletimes.com/n…vaccines-over-time/?amp=1

As the delta variant became the dominant strain of coronavirus across the United States, all three COVID-19 vaccines available to Americans lost some of their protective power, with vaccine efficacy among a large group of veterans dropping between 35% and 85%, according to a new study.

Researchers who scoured the records of nearly 800,000 U.S. veterans found that in early March, just as the delta variant was gaining a toehold across American communities, the three vaccines were roughly equal in their ability to prevent infections.

But over the next six months, that changed dramatically.

By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.

The effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, which also employs two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.

And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.

Display More

The takeaway here, consistent with all other studies, is NOT that VE-D (efficacy against death) declines over time.

It is that VE-D is less good against delta variant than it is against previous variants. Not surprising, delta has some partial escape mutations, and the vaccinesa re still all targeted on original COVID.

Note, contrary to what some have said:

Importantly, endurance of VE-I in the face of the Delta variant in this large, population-based sample was dependent upon vaccine type, and this was consistent across all age groups and time since vaccination. Most studies of VE-I have examined Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines (16, 20, 21, 29–33), and our study adds to this literature by showing dramatic declines in VE-I for the Janssen vaccine. Similarly, we found VE-D for the Janssen vaccine was much lower– about 50% – compared to the randomized trial. These findings are consistent with the better neutralizing antibody response observed following vaccination with Moderna or Pfizer-BioNtech compared to Janssen vaccines, and in response to the Delta variant (34). In addition, differences in immune response to mRNA vaccines by type of immunity support the more enduring protection against death (via cellular immunity) compared to protection against infection (more dependent on antibodies) (35).

Our findings on increased risk of death following breakthrough infection provide further support for continuing efforts to discover and implement effective interventions to prevent infection in all persons, including those who have been fully vaccinated. Fully vaccinated Veterans were more likely to survive when infected with SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., breakthrough infections) compared to unvaccinated Veterans who were also infected – this was true even for older age groups, those with more chronic conditions, and during and after the Delta surge in July 2021. However, breakthrough infections still carried some risk, as evidenced by the higher risk of death in vaccinated Veterans who were subsequently infected compared to those who were vaccinated but remained infection-free.

Interesting, but also difficult to process since results depend crucially on infection rate and variant - both of which vary over this time, are these graphs.

They are raw data showing clearly that the vaccines do very well in increasing overall survival for young and older people.

Other data shows that the mRNA vaccines do better than J&J.

Quote from Fm1

Iowa study: 82.5% of deer tested positive for COVID-19

https://www.fox9.com/news/iowa…positive-for-covid-19.amp

Covid is not going away, it's endemic and early treatment controls it not vaccination!

I don't really understand this. Just recently we have at least one (I'm not counting molnupiravir yet) likely (not yet tested or fully safety profiled) good antiviral. Lets celebrate that.

But the vaccines are the only thing that will - combined with natural immunity - which takes ages at tolerabble infection rates - give us herd immunity.

And vaccines deliver results as good as the best antiviral promise. Of course the two together will be better than either one individually

UK government secures groundbreaking COVID-19 antivirals

The new antivirals could be rolled out through a clinical study from winter.

www.gov.uk

Should the treatments be approved by the UK’s renowned medicines regulator – the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – thousands of NHS patients will be able to access the treatments to prevent the infection from spreading and speed up recovery time.

The 2 new antivirals are expected to be given to those most at risk from the virus, helping reduce the severity of symptoms and ease pressure on the NHS over winter.

Health and Social Care Secretary Sajid Javid said:

Quote

Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have been building an armoury of life-saving measures to tackle the virus and protect the country – including our phenomenal vaccination programme and therapeutics.
I am delighted to confirm we may soon have a new defence in our arsenal with 2 new antiviral drugs that we have secured.
Our work is far from done though – and we’ll continue our tireless work to secure more innovative treatments so we can protect as many people as possible from the virus, its variants and future diseases.

The 2 antivirals are:

• Molnupiravir, from company Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), of which the government has secured 480,000 courses – it has proven in clinical trials to reduce the risk of hospitalisation or death for at-risk non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 by 50%
• PF-07321332/ritonavir, from company Pfizer, of which the government has secured 250,000 courses – 3 phase 2 and 3 trials are currently underway

The government and NHS are now working at pace on plans for deployment of the treatments, including the delivery of a national study.

This will allow medical experts to gather further data on the potential benefits these treatments bring to vaccinated patients. Further details on the study will be set out in due course.

Before the antivirals can be authorised, they would first need to be evaluated by the MHRA, to ensure they meet the regulator’s high standards of quality, safety and effectiveness.

Oral Covid-19 drugs: Merck's molnupiravir leads rivals from Pfizer, Roche

www.pharmaceutical-technology.com

Pfizer’s PF-07321332 tablet is a protease inhibitor, designed to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from replicating. Phase I data shows PF-07321332 led to more than five times the 90% effective concentration (EC90) needed for antiviral activity over the entire five-day treatment period, according to a 28 July presentation.

There are currently three PF-07321332 trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the three, the most relevant is the Phase II/III trial (NCT04960202) combining PF-07321332 with antiretroviral capsule ritonavir in infected people who do not require hospitalisation but are at increased risk of developing severe disease

I don't understand why ritonavir is included in these trials (money???) because on its own it has not done well. To be fair, there may be lab evidence indicating likely synergy?

Found it!

Far less data are available for Pfizer’s SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitor PF-07321332, either alone or in combination with low dose ritonavir. Ritonavir, which has an established safety profile, is commonly administered with other protease inhibitors as part of highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV, as it inhibits hepatic metabolism of the partner drug.8 A phase I study of PF-07321332+ritonavir was completed in mid-2021 but results have not yet been published.9 Phase II and III trials are currently underway, including in high risk outpatients with symptomatic covid-19 (n=3000, expected primary completion December 2021),10 low risk outpatients with symptomatic covid-19 (n=1140, expected October 2021),11 and a trial evaluating PF-07321332+ritonavir for post-exposure prophylaxis (n=2634, expected December 2021).12

And more recently:

(Pfizer claim) - note we will get proper independent UK validation or not of this soon

Pfizer’s Novel COVID-19 Oral Antiviral Treatment Candidate Reduced Risk of Hospitalization or Death by 89% in Interim Analysis of Phase 2/3 EPIC-HR Study | Pfizer

based on an interim analysis of the Phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. The scheduled interim analysis showed an 89% reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo in patients treated within three days of symptom onset (primary endpoint); 0.8% of patients who received PAXLOVID™ were hospitalized through Day 28 following randomization (3/389 hospitalized with no deaths), compared to 7.0% of patients who received placebo and were hospitalized or died (27/385 hospitalized with 7 subsequent deaths). The statistical significance of these results was high (p<0.0001). Similar reductions in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death were observed in patients treated within five days of symptom onset; 1.0% of patients who received PAXLOVID™ were hospitalized through Day 28 following randomization (6/607 hospitalized, with no deaths), compared to 6.7% of patients who received a placebo (41/612 hospitalized with 10 subsequent deaths), with high statistical significance (p<0.0001). In the overall study population through Day 28, no deaths were reported in patients who received PAXLOVID™ as compared to 10 (1.6%) deaths in patients who received placebo.

At the recommendation of an independent Data Monitoring Committee and in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer will cease further enrollment into the study due to the overwhelming efficacy demonstrated in these results and plans to submit the data as part of its ongoing rolling submission to the U.S. FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) as soon as possible.

These are the type of results we all hoped for, and thet the Ivermectin cheer-leaders claimed (on fraudulent evidence). Both ivermectin and this will be trialled in UK for home treatment. Let us see which wins, but I am going to say firmly:

• Real-world may not be as good as these stunning results but this is much much better than the dubious molunupiravir data
• In real-world trials this drug will beat ivermectin by very large amount.
• The good trial results are consistent with the lab result vs achievable concentration in tests (in vivo concentration of drug is continuously 5X larger than that show in vitro to kill COVID. Contrast that with the exact opposite lab evidence on ivermectin. Tissue concentration achieved from typical ivermectin FLCC dose is 10X lower than in vitro concentration needed to kill COVID. There can always be special pleading that may or may not help, but the raw figures here tick PF-07321322 and do not tick ivermectin.
• We still maybe have safety issues to consider, but the comparison is COVID, so it does not need to be super-safe.

In terms of cost - any drug that reduces COVID hospitalisation is saving a very large real cost - so it is cost effective even at a high cost per patient. The drug companies know this, and charge lots for the developed countries, selling the same things to underveloped countries and much lower cost.

Pfizer has been particularly unpleasant in its vaccine distribution policy - maximising profits from dev country sales by not being nice to underveloped countries so making it effectively impossible for them to get its vaccine. I don't like that. But, wise people evaluate drugs based on how well they work, not how much they like or hate the company providing them. If companies maximise profits in a way that is socially undesirable it is for governments (big state) to regulate things.

THH

and some unadulterated good news:

HPV vaccine cutting cervical cancer by nearly 90%

Researchers say regular cervical screening may not be necessary because of the success of the vaccine.

www.bbc.co.uk

Children, Underlying Conditions, and COVID-19

A common strategy for those who wish to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on children and young people is to claim that only those with underlying conditions die…

sciencebasedmedicine.org

A common strategy for those who wish to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on children and young people is to claim that only those with underlying conditions die from the virus. As such, it is worthwhile to explore the veracity of this claim, to examine the underlying conditions that endanger children, and to consider the implications of these findings. Information on this topic comes from two studies, one by McCormick et al. that examined 112 deceased people under age 21 years, and another by Bixler et al. that examined 121 deaths in this age group.

Quote from THHuxleynew

and some unadulterated good news:

And the related bad news::

Japan stopped HPV vaccinations. But then also CoV-19 vaccination should be immediately stopped...!

Quote from Wyttenbach

And the related bad news::

https://ijme.in/articles/lesso…-perspective/?galley=html

Japan stopped HPV vaccinations. But then also CoV-19 vaccination should be immediately stopped...!

Wow - comment on a successful UK vaccination program:

• Commenting on vaccination in Japan - published in an Indian Journal on medical ethics - Impact factor 0.38
• By contrast the Lancet (UK) has an impact factor of 80

Not sure you can describe an ethical discussion in a v low impact journal from India as bad news in the UK.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Japan stopped HPV vaccinations.

The HPV vaccines made a quick development from 2 to 4 and now 9 virus covered. The first version with 2 strains covered was a typical early shot with low effect and high return in benefit. I think the newest version that covers 9 HPV virus solves the problem we also see with corona virus escaping vaccines.

In most countries it will be a high benefit for girls over live time, we still hope. Japan as an "asexual country" feels less pressure than most western countries. So most girls that missed it still can do it also at age 25. Not so here...

Why boys shouldn't do it was simply a question of the initial prizing with 700$ a treatement!

USA:: CoV-19 cases are flattening out. In the north figures are already in the raise where as south east they still go down.

(See worldometers)

Will Florida soon have herd immunity thanks to natural infections?

In the vaccine terror states of Europe the pandemic of the vaccinated is accelerating. Here we have triple the cases too but most among age < 30! So no more ICU/death.

Lets hope Pfizer-Mectin will change the Agenda and pave the path for cheap Ivermectin and no more useless vaccines for age <50. So far only natural immunity protects.

Once more:: CH had about 2 dozen CoV-19 death age < 50. Far more die in care accidents that are record low in CH (<300 year). But the number of E-bike deaths is raising. 90 year old mom doing 40kmh...

Quote from Wyttenbach

In the vaccine terror states of Europe the pandemic of the vaccinated is accelerating. Here we have triple the cases too but most among age < 30! So no more ICU/death.

No more ICU?…

In the vaccine terror state Germany, in the state Thuringia the number of Covid ICU patients increased 25% within a week and still rising….still most of them are unvaccinated.

Thuringia is running out of beds: Ramelow threatens unvaccinated people with rejection from the clinic

05.11.2021 7

In Germany, the number of new infections has climbed to a record level, but the regional differences are very large. The situation in Thuringia is really dramatic. There is a lack of intensive care beds and the vulnerable groups can hardly be protected because: Almost every third test is positive.

Thuringia’s Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow warns urgently against one Aggravation of the corona situation and an overload of the hospitals in his state. “In the next few days we will come to the situation that we no longer have enough intensive care beds,” says the left-wing politician on ZDF. “We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And we will no longer be able to guarantee anyone who comes to the hospital unvaccinated that they will still be treated in Thuringia at all.” You can guarantee that you will be treated and everyone who needs help will get help. “But he will no longer be able to get them in Thuringian hospitals.”

In fact, according to the DIVI register, only 72 intensive care beds are free in Thuringia on Thursday. 668 intensive care beds are occupied, 99 of them with Covid patients. Between Monday and Thursday alone, the number of Covid patients in intensive care units rose by 20 – an increase of 25 percent within four days. Their share of all intensive care patients is currently 15.4 percent. According to the DIVI register, there is an emergency reserve capacity for beds. This is currently 324. However, these beds will only be available within seven days. With the current increase in occupied intensive care beds, it would only be a matter of time before these beds would also become scarce

Quote from zorud

In Germany, the number of new infections has climbed to a record level, but the regional differences are very large.

In Germany both parties are members of FM/R. Both leader are pure fascists worst example Lauterbach.

As long as DE makes no prevention/treatment I call them again a fascist state.

CH: So far has no increase in ICU. The added cases are from people age < 50. So far about 20 of them died with CoV-19 the whole year.

And please remember:: PCR+ > 28 cycles is 90..95% false positive. As long as they do not report CT number the raise in cases is fake. What has increased in Germany is the double vaxx age > 80 deaths and age >70 hospitalization. These people often die within a few days. Only early treatment helps.

In UK double vaxx:: unvaxx death is close to 5:1. Germany will soon see the same.

They cry for boosters. This will directly kill a few thousand of the old. Like in Israel (3..500) difficult to extract. The the case peek from booster victims was enormous. Boosters without Ivermectin = execution.

FDA’s Smoking Gun: Disinformation Campaign Targeting Ivermectin

FDA’s Smoking Gun: Disinformation Campaign Targeting Ivermectin

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. By Sonia Elijah It recently came

trialsitenews.com

By Sonia Elijah

It recently came to my attention that communication within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evidences the Gold Standard agency’s explicit involvement in the Ivermectin disinformation war. While the agency approves ivermectin as an anti-parasite medicine, physicians have increasingly embraced it as an off-label treatment for early-onset COVID-19. Over 60 studies around the world have, for the most part, found positive findings; however, the mainstream media embraced the handful that are neutral or had data problems, for example. Regardless of position, a disinformation campaign was initiated by the FDA and others to deter the use of the off-label treatment. See the email here.

In my investigative report: How ivermectin became a target for the ‘fraud detectives,’ published in TrialSite, I highlighted the relentless smear campaign against this life-saving generic drug by a certain group of scientists/bloggers, which has been amplified in the mainstream media. My report included the overtly biased and controversial ‘You’re not a horse’ tweeted by the FDA. However, the revelatory email communication within the FDA exposes the insidious nature of this government agency’s deep involvement as one of the major planners of this disinformation war against ivermectin.

The definition of disinformation is:

‘Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.’

Conflating Veterinary & Human Versions

Secured via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by investigative reporter Linda Bonvie, the email involves esteemed members of the world’s top regulatory body bragging and boasting about how many tweets the “You’re not a horse” tweet did with engagement.

Showcasing the agency’s front and central role in promoting propaganda, the author, Erica Jefferson, an associate commissioner for the FDA’s external affairs, boasts to Dr. Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s acting commissioner, how the “Not a Horse Tweet” got 14.5 million tweets. (See below)

Jefferson expresses her excitement of the ‘FDA ivermectin/COVID-19 tweet’ going viral. She writes, ‘needless to say the straightforward and clever (humourous) communication ..saw the tweet quickly going viral and being share across multiple social medium platforms (where it was amplified by other influencers) and resulted in additional news coverage by: NYT, CNN, NBC News and Rolling Stone to name but a few.’

FDA as Social Media Manipulator

Jefferson’s reference to ‘other influencers’ on social media amplifying the message and helping it go viral is very revealing, including the role of mainstream media. It can be said that this speaks to a larger network of entities involved in the disinformation campaign against ivermectin- like the Trusted News Initiative, a consortium of Big Tech (Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft) and Big Media set up to combat anti-vaccine ‘disinformation’ and from what is becoming evidently clear, early-treatments for Covid-19, too.

The tweet posted by the FDA (see below) was published on August 21, 2021, with the email from Erickson to Woodstock, sent the following day. Copied in were many high-ranking FDA officials, such as Julia Tierney, acting chief of staff, Melissa Safford, senior advisor to the commissioner.

FDA Purposely Creating Confusion Among Consumers

Yes, a version of ivermectin is used for veterinary purposes, but the massive increase in prescriptions that concerned the FDA was the human variety, prescribed by licensed physicians with consent from their patients. But the messaging was meant to confuse people to think that they were one and the same. Of course, those people that were involved with self-medication needed education, but what the FDA does here is try to kill two birds with one stone. The FDA doesn’t go out of its way to educate but instead spread disinformation.

Jefferson reveals in her email that the Office of External Affairs (OEA) team had spent ‘the past several weeks’ planning in how to effectively use their social media platforms ‘to share important public health information.’ She references the news coming out of Mississippi regarding the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19 ‘and the increase in adverse events (poisonings).’

It seems the FDA seized the opportunity in the Mississippi State Department of Health’s network alert sent out on August 20 stating that ‘70% of the recent calls have been related to the ingestion of livestock formulations of ivermectin.’ This is confirmed in her email, as Jefferson writes, ‘I’m sure you saw some of the news coming out of Mississippi on Friday night [August 20]..I expressed to the team late Friday night that we take the opportunity to remind the public of our warnings for ivermectin..’

What is very alarming is not only the level the FDA has stooped to in planning and executing a smear campaign against ivermectin but the fact that the ‘poisonings’ could be based on inaccurate data.

Nonetheless, the mainstream media jumped on the ‘poisonings’ bandwagon, citing the Mississippi department of health data. The Guardian ran with the headline, ‘A human is not a horse. So why is a livestock drug sweeping America?’ However, the department later clarified it was only 2 % of calls that were made to the state’s poison control center that related to the ingestion of animal formulations of ivermectin, not 70%.

The Rolling Stone (which turned out to be a fraudulent piece), The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and indeed, The Guardian all had to print corrections regarding the false information.

Both the CDC and FDA also pointed to data from the Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) that purported to show a three-fold increase in calls involving ivermectin. TrialSite secured that data and found that the number of calls went from 435 to 1,143, and the overwhelming number of them were harmless. TrialSite disclosed that 11 of the calls, or about 1%, involved a serious matter. However, it’s not clear if they were associated with any hospitalization. TrialSite found that at least by September, there were no deaths from ivermectin—although since then, there have been a few reported. Billions of doses of ivermectin have been administered by the Mectizan program, evidencing an extraordinary safety record. Of course, self-medication without physician oversight with any drug is wrong. Still, the FDA’s social media engagement sought to appropriately dissuade the veterinary variety’s use while inappropriately confusing the consumer by making them think all of the medication is for animals.

Why Wouldn’t the FDA Also Share the Truth with Consumers?

Over 60 studies have produced some overwhelmingly positive data points for ivermectin. While the FDA and others have discounted many of those studies, the drug is used by several countries as an emergency use authorized treatment—albeit in mostly low-income countries. But the important studies demonstrated potential, including the ICON case series study in America. The National Institutes of Health now sponsors ACTIV-6, a major clinical trial involving ivermectin. Led by Duke Clinical Research Institute, this is clear evidence that the government has enough interest in the drug to at least invest (finally) to evaluate. Although, some advisors of TrialSite have suggested the study is underdosed. The University of Minnesota, along with UnitedHealthcare, also funds an ivermectin study called COVID-Out.

Why didn’t the FDA take the time to educate the public about this and instead ‘create a unique viral moment’? Why just the singular message that served to conflate the illicit use with legitimate use by licensed physicians and consenting patients?

Regulatory agencies should be educating people not engaging in social medial disinformation campaigns. It was this same message that was used, for example, by CNN. TrialSite covered that interview on the Joe Rogan Show where Sanjay Gupta called this kind of tactic done by the FDA as “snarky.”

If this is how the FDA hopes to ‘reach the “everyday” American to “brand” FDA’ with a disinformation campaign targeting this life-saving drug, then the American public is in deep trouble, and so are the rest of us

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d4b2e17-c1d1-4d05-aecf-bcd323d8c24b_1484x2290.jpeg

Verizon And AT&T Agree To Delay 5G Rollout Over FAA Concerns On Airplane Interference

Verizon And AT&T Agree To Delay 5G Rollout Over FAA Concerns On Airplane Interference

AT&T said it is working with the FAA & FCC to ‘understand’ the FAA’s concerns.

www.forbes.com

One small point that nobody considers is that the COVID collection of SARS-2 viruses are living organisms and like all other living organisms must possess sexual reproduction which in bacteria and upwards in the phylo-genetic chain is termed meiosis as apposed to non-sexual reproduction or mitosis. This involves a sharing of genetic information which may account (in addition to mutation) for the rapid evolution of new COVID variants!

New coronavirus, likely from dogs, infects people in Malaysia and Haiti

November 5, 20214:22 PM ET

NPR Cookie Consent and Choices

Early in 2017, a team of medical personnel, including doctors, nurses and volunteers, returned home to Florida after volunteering at a clinic in Haiti. Soon after their return, 20 members of the team began to feel a bit under the weather. "They had a slight fever and didn't feel 100% right," says virologist John Lednicky at the University of Florida. "But they weren't very sick."

At the time, Zika virus was circulating in Haiti, and health officials were worried the travelers might have been infected, potentially importing the mosquito-borne illness to Florida. So officials took urine samples from each traveler and asked Lednicky to test for Zika.

Lednicky ran the standard PCR tests for the virus, and they all came back negative. But he wasn't satisfied. He had a hunch that the urine samples did contain a virus — not Zika but something else.

So he took a little bit of the urine from six of the travelers and added it to a special solution of monkey cells. The goal was deceptively simple: to see if any viruses in the urine would infect the monkey cells, start replicating and grow to detectable levels. Then Lednicky could collect the virus's genes and identify it.

This is what we do in our lab," Lednicky says. "We cast a wide net. We try to isolate viruses. And oftentimes, when we do that, the unexpected happens."

Indeed, the unexpected occurred.

"We found a coronavirus," he says. And not just any coronavirus, but one that many scientists believe may be a new human pathogen — likely the 8th coronavirus known to cause disease in people. Turns out, this coronavirus in the Haiti travelers has cropped up previously, on the other side of the globe.

Coronavirus From Dogs Likely Causes Pneumonia In Kids

Back in May, scientists at Duke University, reported they had detected a nearly identical virus coronavirus in children at a Malaysian hospital.

The researchers found the virus in the upper respiratory tract of 3% of the 301 patients they tested in 2017 and 2018.

The genetic sequence of the Malaysian virus suggested it likely originated in dogs and then jumped into people. "The majority of the genome was canine coronavirus," virologist Anastasia Vlasova told NPR in May.

Although the findings sounded alarming, the researchers had no evidence that the virus could spread between people or that it was widespread around the world.

"These human infections with ... canine coronaviruses appear to be isolated incidents which did not lead to extensive human transmission," virologist Vincent Racaniello wrote on the Virology Blog.

Now Lednicky and his colleagues have found an almost identical virus infecting people 11,000 miles away-- at the same time. The genetic sequence of the virus in Haiti is 99.4% identical to the one in Malaysia. Lednicky and his colleagues reported this past Sunday in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

And the big question is: How does a dog virus in Malaysia wind up in doctors and nurses in Haiti?

A Widespread Virus, But How It Spreads Is A Mystery

"The virus probably circulates widely, but no one has paid attention to it," Lednicky says. He suspects it's all over the world. And if you've been around dogs frequently you might have been infected with this virus — or developed an immunity to it by exposure to similar virus. "We'll know when scientists start looking for antibodies inside older blood samples taken from patients with respiratory disease. How many of them were misdiagnosed all along?"

Some scientists also think doctors and researchers should start actively looking for this virus in patients. "I think that's important for several reasons," says virologist Linda Saif at Ohio State University, who has studied coronaviruses for about 40 years.

"No. 1, this virus has been associated with a number of pneumonia cases in children, and no. 2, we really don't know if it can transmit from human to human," she adds.

The fact that scientists detected the almost-identical viruses in both Haiti and Malaysia, at the same time, suggests the virus does spread between people, Saif says.

"There's a temporal sequence here. These two viruses — which are very, very similar — have been detected in a similar time frame but in widely separated regions of the world," she explains. That could happen if a nearly-identical virus was circulating in dogs in both Haiti and Malaysia and then jumped over to people in both countries during the same year.

"I would be very surprised if that happened," Saif says.

The second hypothesis is that the virus is circulating in people, at low levels, in many parts of the world, under the radar. "That hypothesis is more likely," Saif says.

If that hypothesis turns out to be true, this canine coronavirus will be the eighth coronavirus known to spread among humans.

Why This Finding Is Good News

On the surface, these new findings sound like horrible news. The last thing the world needs right now is another coronavirus that may trigger pneumonia in children. But Jonna Mazet says it's actually good news because it means scientists have caught this virus before it has caused a big problem.

"The very exciting part is that people are starting to do virus discovery and characterization, even when large groups of people aren't dying and or getting severely ill, which is how most virus discovery has happened in the past," says Mazet, who's an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis and the founding executive director of the One Health Institute there.

By finding this virus early, scientists now have time to study it, create tools to diagnose it and understand what it might take to stop it. Although it's not a cause for deep concern at this time, there's always the risk the virus could evolve over time and become a bigger problem, Mazet says, as was likely the case with SARS-CoV-2.

"Almost certainly, SARS-CoV-2 was circulating for quite some time and making people either a tiny bit sick or not sick enough to be noticed," she says. If scientists had detected it at this stage, perhaps the world would have had time to develop a test for it, some promising treatments and even a preliminary vaccine. Perhaps the pandemic would have taken a much different — perhaps less deadly course.

"We need to find these novel viruses well before they fully adapt to humans and become a pandemic problem," writes epidemiologist Gregory Gray, from the University of Texas Medical Branch, in an email to NPR. "Fortunately, today we have the tools to both detect and evaluate the risk of such novel viruses. We just need the political will and financial support to do so."