Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • This is something a person living in a democracy will probably not know, or understand. It seems almost unbelievable that Stalin and the Japanese militarists had to concern themselves with public opinion, but it is true.


    There is also no doubt whatever that most Japanese people in 1945 revered the Emperor and respected the military, and were heartbroken when Japan surrendered. Some, of course, were delighted, but most people were in tears. It was not an act.

    It does not have to solicit votes, but it does have to stay in power, and that calls for keeping the population on its side.


    I think we can all understand this. Gates is a front man for a large system, just like Stalin had a large system of control and many who benefitted from him being the frontman. When Gates dies, you probably will be tearful -- and thinking he worked so hard to save humanity; meanwhile he is one of the most repugnant people in history (I'm not saying he is as criminal as Stalin, likely he has a long way to go there;).


    Gates does not need to solicit votes, but he spends a massive amount on public relations - in the same way Rockefeller did.


    All control systems have to keep the population on their side. Because population control is (a key) to their business model.

  • Question to the members:

    Assume that a vaccine is 100% effective. Also assume COVID-19 kills 1% of those that are infected (it may be 3% in the US). However, the vaccine kills 1 in 1000 individuals. Would you take it? If it kills 1 in 10K, would you take it? What level of safety is necessary for you to accept the vaccine? The MERS vaccine had issues in animal testing and I am told by reliable sources that it had problems in some human early trials that caused substantial health problems. In that case, MERS disappeared but was about 10% fatal so a vaccine was important.


    Coronavirus has a worst case IFR of 0-50 of 0.05%, and that is without proper standard treatments like HCQ and more. A respected German epidemiologist has said the risk reward is so high that nobody should take it in that group. However, if proven safe and effective to people who have immunocomprimise or who are older --- they should consider it.


  • The bar for vaccine safety is very high indeed. 1 in 1000 would be completely unacceptable for any vaccine. Serious adverse events are on the order of 2 per million (anaphylactic shock, live influenza vaccine). And that is not the same as deaths.


    As for what society might tolerate in a rushed through COVID vaccine - 1 in 100,000 severe adverse event causally linked? I doubt very much the vaccine companies will apply for approval with anything higher than that, even though politicians will want it.


    What would I personally be comfortable with? The thing about COVID is that 50% of those serious enough to be hospitalised have continuing effects after 6 months, so you need to add to the low death rate the "long-term effect" rate when considering the perils of COVID. That is maybe 5X higher - we cannot yet tell. The cytokine storm (sure, rename it bradykinin deregulation) bit is very nasty throughout the body, much worse than Flu.


    I am in a fortunate position where I can live and work with a very low COVID risk with little inconvenience and maintaining good social connections. Where I to go to work I'd estimate my chance of getting COVID over the next 12 months as 5% - but it depends entirely on the epidemic rate in London - difficult to tell what that will be, maybe it will stay low. At my age (the consequences are highly age dependent) I'd put death chances from COVID at 1% and nasty long-term effect chances at 5%. So that is 1 in 400 chances of something nasty without vaccine. Moving to 1 in 1000 chances of something nasty if aI take a 60% effective vaccine (maybe a significantly better because a vaccine can reduce severity even when you still catch COVID). So on those figures it is strongly in favour for even a 1 in 10,000 adverse event vaccine.


    Remember though that the population has severe adverse events anyway at higher levels than that even without COVID.

  • and that is without proper standard treatments like HCQ and more


    Do you have any figures on how much HCQ reduces or increases mortality as hospital treatment? I'll give you 50% mortality reduction from other standard treatments though. But, as in my last e-m, you need also to consider permanent damage to heart, brain, other organs due to leaking blood vessels after severe non-fatal COVID. What figure to you add for that?


    Lumping together 0-50 is the wrong calculation. If you are age 50 it will be about 10X higher, if under 30 it will be lower. Your post implies that at age 50 you bear that risk - untrue.

  • I think we can all understand this. Gates is a front man for a large system, just like Stalin had a large system of control and many who benefitted from him being the frontman. When Gates dies, you probably will be tearful -- and thinking he worked so hard to save humanity; meanwhile he is one of the most repugnant people in history


    You are entitled to your view: it is weird and (thank God) held by a small minority of people. Such views: making extreme bogeymen of those who are famous or powerful, are however themselves dangerous, and have themselves led to repugnant actions.

  • Border Controls?


    To enter Italy I had to fill in a 3 page paper document (A 'declaration') I believe that I already said nobody wanted it when I arrived there. In order to leave Italy and re-enter the UK I had to fill in a 1 page paper form, and also fill out a multi-question online UK government 'Entry Permit' that I was asked to print out and surrender on entry. I still have those two documents as well.


    This is the theatre of epidemic control, and has no contact with reality..

  • (Sept-12) Professor Thomas Borody Interview - Part 1

    - ivermectin works quickly and quite well on older patients

    - early onset treatment recommended

    - Good observational data rules out RCTs



    Dr. John Campbell - Mostly good news

    - very rapidly falling death rates


  • Good observational data rules out RCTs


    A bit like a student who got good coursework grades (with help?) and then claims good coursework rules out exams.


    More seriously - I understand how it goes. if physicians believe their treatment is good, they will feel they must give it to everyone. At which point they will never have any evidence of how good not giving the treatment would be.


    Again and again we have seen that observational data is not reliable. You can even look at the way COVID works and understand how it is difficult to make such data reliable.


    It does not stop people from wanting a cure, and wanting certainty. Such is human nature. If you want more than hope you need the science - not the speculation and anecdote.


    Just remember - early therapy => almost everyone given it would recover fine if not given it. And chances of something bad scale with age extraordinarily - doubling every +6 years.


    See the problem?


    THH

  • THHuxleynew wrote -

    "Again and again we have seen that observational data is not reliable."


    Yes. Medical science has leapt to the conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer

    - while never considering that cancer-prone people may be more likely to smoke.


    Also, insurance companies and the courts have perhaps unjustifiably punished

    drunk drivers - never testing the alternative hypothesis that accident-prone drivers

    just are more likely to drink. Cause and effect are easily confused. No?

  • What?????


    Pencils make mistakes?

    Guns kill people?

    Cars drive drunk!

    Spoons make people fat?


    Somewhere along the line, people have to take responsibility for their own actions.


    Don’t smoke, don’t drive drunk, don’t speed,

    don’t take narcotics,

    don’t run naked thru traffic.

  • Perhaps of interest --


    Ketogenesis restrains aging-induced exacerbation of COVID in a mouse model

    https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.09.11.294363v1.full.pdf

    Conclusion: "Finally, our results suggest that acutely switching infected or at-risk elderly

    patients to a KD may ameliorate COVID-19 and, therefore, is a relatively accessible and

    affordable intervention that can be promptly applied in most clinical settings. "

    - Possibly also ketogenesis could be induced by betahydroxybutyrate supplements

    (keto salts) available as nutraceuticals.


    The Effect of Early Hydroxychloroquine-based Therapy in COVID-19 Patients in

    Ambulatory Care Settings: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study

    https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…09.09.20184143v1.full.pdf

  • If true,


    “Group Think Blue” is not gonna be happy


    They have stolen trillions from people, have them locked in creating perhaps a depression greater than 2009, created wars of conquest across the middle east...there is no accountability. The story will go like this in the NY Times "HCQ - the challenges of doing science in a pandemic" or "Why healthcare needs an overhaul - their inability to respond to new therapies like Hydroxychloroquine in a pandemic." Everything will be spun. I'm not so good but we know some board members are solid at this artful dodging...

  • OK: just to put this stuff in perspective.


    HCQ: people keep on posting non-evidence as though it is data. E.g. - Africa has much lower COVID mortality than the UK, and uses HCQ. Therefore HCQ is a good treatment? WRONG - Africa has lower mortality because its population is younger. That is just the most obvious effect, there are many others. it is not easy to get good data out of observational comparisons between countries. Even within one country it is not at all easy to make good observational comparisons. If anyone thinks it is - stick up here your 9decently written) COVID preprint with killer observational data, saying why you think it shows HCQ reduces mortality rates.


    I can't say HCQ does not reduce mortality rates if used at very early stage - but that is because v early stage data is so difficult to get in a form which can be properly compared with "best available treatment". And, in general, if a drug only works early stage it is not very useful, except as prophylaxis.


    it would not harm anyone to look seriously at the observational data, consider the ways it can go wrong, present data that is least likely to go wrong. Some suggestions: make sure the study uses multivariate logistic regression with age as continuous variable. Make sure as many as possible of confounders are accurately captured. Make sure the study is large enough so it can have statistical power even after deconfounding age and other obvious confounders. Make sure it is registered with results stipulated before it is done, so we do not get cherry-picking the specific result that looks good. Make sure the data used is collected systematically and according to clearly stated methodology (again to avoid cherry picking).


    All the above is difficult to get right. For first cut look carefully and age and sex ratios - remember that average age matching is not enough, the dependence is nonlinear and large so you need a multivariate logistic model to deconfound effect of age in one study or between several. (Why logistic? it give you the exponential relationship you need).


    The same applies to Ivermectin - and Vitamin D. The study I liked did use logistic multivariable regression, and was randomised and masked (though not fully masked). It had small numbers though so the results could be a statistical fluke.


    Vitamin D:


    Indeed what I find fascinating is the possibility that it helps modulate bradykinin and therefore reduces COVID severity (we know that in later stage COVID HCQ does not help, and probably makes things worse). There are quite a number of other drugs that might do this same thing, and I think trialling these, working out doages etc of those which are effective as a combo, is what in the end will turn COVID into a treatable mild disease as long as you diagnose it before the disease has got all over the body: e.g. for people with clear symptoms but not yet in ICU. And it would also reduce mortality for those in ICU even if given late - as will sometimes be the case when patients do not go to hospital till O2 levels drop.


    Of course, if Vitamin D works really well for this it would be wonderful. Chances of that are low but still real. We have no negative evidence about Vitamin D and COVID. (Is that true?). And quite a bit of indirect positive evidence. I want to stress though that most of the positive evidence is exceptionally low quality - Vitamin D levels seem designed to be correlated with health regardless of anything else, so working out when high Vit D is causes good health is difficult.


    For those thinking of home dosing it is worth remembering that high levels of Vitamin D get buffered by the body and the levels of the active product (from liver metabolism of Vitamin D) do not go up linearly with Vitamin D intake. Whereas the active product (calcifediol) can be used directly and this allows much higher levels from direct intake of it, rather than using vitamin D. That is what the interesting Spanish trial did. Nevertheless it is obviously a good idea to keep your normal blood levels of Vitamin D up at high end of recommended.

  • Can you provide a quick link to Mizuno's recent results?


    There is nothing new after the two papers I uploaded:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf


    However, the vaccine kills 1 in 1000 individuals.


    Vaccines kill fewer than 1 in 10 million. You should post this kind of nonsense here. If that were true, hundreds of thousands of children would die every year from vaccinations, along with several hundred thousand adults. We would notice that. It would be in the news.


    The mortality rate from vaccines is so low, you cannot even measure it. Sample populations tend to have lower death rates after vaccinations, from all causes. See:


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/


    On the face of it, that means getting a vaccine for anything protects you from automobile accidents and heart attacks. That's preposterous. That is like my earlier observation that eating hotdogs reduces lung cancer. My guess is that this means people who get vaccinated tend to more careful about other things such as driving and overeating, so they are more healthy, so their overall mortality rate is lower.

  • Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.


    Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD)1, Shu Kang (PhD)1, Jie Guan (PhD)1, Shanchang Hu (PhD)1


    1Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA .Correspondence: [email protected]


    Abstract


    The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV- 2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.



    https://zenodo.org/record/4028…Yan_Report.pdf?download=1