The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Also in Japan medicine is organized by Rotary:


    They just decided to kill/disable a few hundred children by gene therapy : https://mainichi.jp/english/ar…20812/p2a/00m/0sc/006000c


    The JPS made the recommendation after it concluded that, based on domestic and international research confirming the vaccines' efficacy including preventing COVID-19 or serious illness if infected, the benefits supersede adverse reaction and other side effect risks.


    Shameless lying for profits. Japan now has converted into a Zombi culture like some places in USA/Canada/Australia/New Zealand (4 of 5 eyes...).

    Fact is: Boostered are more likely to develop a serious CoV-19 illness as Swiss hospital statistics shows clearly.

    Quote from GRMattson

    You say biases, I say closed minds. The problem is that scientist's are supposed to have open minds. They don't. They're like Richard Fynman

    Well, I wish we now had more scientists like Feynman!


    No-one has an open mind. We all have biasses, prejudices.


    Good scientists recognise their failings and do their best to counteract them while agreeing they will never succeed. Which is why independent replication of novel phenomena is so important.


    T. H. Huxley (my internet namesake)

    reply to Charles Kingsley (1860)

    "Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."



    Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1…-a-little-child-and-be-p/

    Quote from CoherentMembrane

    We need a third party that is above petty human corruption to guide us. When it comes to responses to pandemics, climate issues, and a range of other topics we need someone to tell us what must be done.

    Sadly, I doubt any human is above petty human corruption and greed. History seems to tell us so. Perhaps we need to dispel the notion that we need anyone to lead us, the answer may lie within individual empowerment rather that ceding power to some authority and hoping that they will be benevolent.

    Hello THH,


    I agree that everyone has biases and prejudices. Even someone who considers himself open minded to a wide variety of concepts will have areas that he's closed mind about. I do think, however, there are certain types of people who are far more likely to stick to the status quo or mainstream view point even if a mountain of contrary data points exist. The mainstream view is safer and more comfortable in their minds, not to mention less likely to earn them the scorn of their peers. Then again, there are people at the other end of the spectrum that form opinions based on too little evidence, too few data points, and a lack of understanding. Even if what they sometimes say has a nugget of truth, they say things that are so sloppy and over reaching it makes everything they say seem off. For example, I've met people who have, in my opinion, several valid points about COVID but they'll blurt out that the virus doesn't even exist or that the vaccine is going to mutate people's DNA (instead of specifying that it may change the epigenetic expression). It makes me cringe, because I realize that they're making everyone who has reasonable (yet non-mainstream) view points about COVID look bad.





    Quote from uncertainH

    Sadly, I doubt any human is above petty human corruption and greed. History seems to tell us so. Perhaps we need to dispel the notion that we need anyone to lead us, the answer may lie within individual empowerment rather that ceding power to some authority and hoping that they will be benevolent.

    I would say that no human of themselves is completely above petty human corruption and greed. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. I think that due to our nature we need someone or something to lead us, especially if we are going to remain in massive nations with millions of people. I really see only three answers. One, massive decentralization allowing for closer knit groups and communities with their own rules, regulations, etc. This would require LENR and other technologies that could provide the resources they would need to maintain their mini-civilization. Two, the diety that created the universe to return in an open and obvious way and take control. Three, for a species other than our own to arrive and tell us what to do.

    Quote from CoherentMembrane

    there are certain types of people who are far more likely to stick to the status quo or mainstream view point even if a mountain of contrary data points exist. The mainstream view is safer and more comfortable in their minds, not to mention less likely to earn them the scorn of their peers. Then again, there are people at the other end of the spectrum that form opinions based on too little evidence, too few data points, and a lack of understanding. Even if what they sometimes say has a nugget of truth, they say things that are so sloppy and over reaching it makes everything they say seem off. For example, I've met people who have, in my opinion, several valid points about COVID but they'll blurt out that the virus doesn't even exist or that the vaccine is going to mutate people's DNA (instead of specifying that it may change the epigenetic expression). It makes me cringe, because I realize that they're making everyone who has reasonable (yet non-mainstream) view points about COVID look bad.

    To take the COVID vaccine example - which is on topic this thread.


    In medicine almost anything is possible. But very little is actually likely.


    It is known that both COVID infection and COVID vaccines and here alter epigenetic markers - and not surprising. It is not known how permanent these alterations are nor whether they have any biological significance.


    The judgements about what is signiifcant are not simple ones, and not ones you are or can make with any level of confidence without a 6 months review of the literature and to back that up a lot of background in biology. (Also we need to put aside our hypochondria to do so - everyone is there own worst physician).


    So, unless we are arrogant, we need to take other people's judgement. There we are choosing people, not evaluating scientific research.


    There are five ways can do this:

    (1) I can identify when someone is behaving unprofessionally, or is just so obviously clueless even I can detect they are not expert.

    (2) I can note when they do the Rossi thing. An individual comes up with an isolated ground breaking invention - possible. Somone who invents - in completely different areas, many different new technologies far ahead of what now exists, they are deceiving you, and possibly also themselves. For antivaxxers this is when a non-biologist publishes striking new evidence of multiple quite distinct discoveries about vaccines, in unrelated fields, that no-one else credits, and that make it obvious all other scientists are wrong.

    (3) I can protect myself from people having biasses by going for the peer-reviewed scientific consensus. It is not immune to bias, but it is the best we have, because anyone can contribute, different ideas get rigorously tested against each other, everyone has a motivation to back something novel (if it has a decent chance of being correct). Alas it is low because (high quality) peer review in good journals takes time: and time again for the authors to respond to criticism and tighten their arguments, remove speculation presented as fact, etc.

    (4) I can look at detail from bloggers who meet (1), (2) and (3).


    One problem here is that I will not pick up outliers with zany ideas no-one much credits. Those outliers are occasionally right, and usually wrong. If I choose the ones that appeal to me I am simply amplifying my own biasses, conscious or unconscious. And on average it is a very poor strategy.


    I can do more than read the pre-digested and politically correct opinions. Reading 3 or 4 different serious scientists who have credible backgrounds, engage with the literature seriously, and are mainstream gives me a variety of different views - the mainstream has a lot of variation when it comes to something new like COVID, and srious differences of opinion as you would expect. Just not cast in the lurid populist and unscientific style used by the antivaxxers.


    THH

    Catecholamines Are the Key Trigger of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis: A Compelling Hypothesis Supported by Epidemiological, Anatomopathological, Molecular, and Physiological Findings


    https://www.cureus.com/article…nes,cause%20%5B21%2D23%5D.


    Abstract

    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis is a rare but well-documented complication in young males. The increased incidence of sudden death among athletes following vaccination has been reported and requires further investigation. Whether the risk of myocarditis, a known major cause of sudden death in young male athletes, also increases after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is unknown. The severity and implications of these critical adverse effects require a thorough analysis to elucidate their key triggering mechanisms. The present review aimed to evaluate whether there is a justification to hypothesize that catecholamines in a “hypercatecholaminergic” state are the key trigger of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis and related outcomes and whether similar risks are also present following COVID-19 infection.


    A thorough, structured scoping review of the literature was performed to build the hypothesis through three pillars: detection of myocarditis risk, potential alterations and abnormalities identified after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination or COVID-19 infection and consequent events, and physiological characteristics of the most affected population. The following terms were searched in indexed and non-indexed peer review articles and recent preprints (<12 months): agent, “SARS-CoV-2” or “COVID-19”; event, “myocarditis” or “sudden death(s)” or “myocarditis+sudden death(s)” or “cardiac event(s)”; underlying cause, “mRNA” or “spike protein” or “infection” or “vaccine”; proposed trigger, “catecholamine(s)” or “adrenaline” or “epinephrine” or “noradrenaline” or “norepinephrine” or “testosterone”; and affected population, “young male(s)” or “athlete(s).” The rationale and data that supported the hypothesis were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis primarily affected young males, while the risk was not observed following COVID-19 infection; independent autopsies or biopsies of patients who presented post-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine myocarditis in different geographical regions enabled the conclusion that a primary hypercatecholaminergic state was the key trigger of these events; SARS-CoV-2 mRNA was densely present, and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was progressively produced in adrenal medulla chromaffin cells, which are responsible for catecholamine production; the dihydroxyphenylalanine decarboxylase enzyme that converts dopamine into noradrenaline was overexpressed in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA, leading to enhanced noradrenaline activity; catecholamine responses were physiologically higher in young adults and males than in other populations; catecholamine responses and resting catecholamine production were higher in male athletes than in non-athletes; catecholamine responses to stress and its sensitivity were enhanced in the presence of androgens; and catecholamine expressions in young male athletes were already high at baseline, were higher following vaccination, and were higher than those in non-vaccinated athletes.


    The epidemiological, autopsy, molecular, and physiological findings unanimously and strongly suggest that a hypercatecholaminergic state is the critical trigger of the rare cases of myocarditis due to components from SARS-CoV-2, potentially increasing sudden deaths among elite male athletes.



    The Relationship Between Vitamin D Status and Adrenal Insufficiency in Critically Ill Children

    Relationship Between Vitamin D Status and Adrenal Insufficiency in Critically Ill Children
    Context:. Recent studies in critically ill populations have suggested both adrenal insufficiency (AI) and vitamin D deficiency to be associated with worse clini
    academic.oup.com


    Relationship between Vitamin D Status and Autonomic Nervous System Activity

    Relationship between Vitamin D Status and Autonomic Nervous System Activity
    Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased arterial stiffness. However, the mechanisms underlying this association have not been clarified. The aim was…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Re the Vit D paper, note that the before/after high dose Vit D supplementation:

    (1) shows much higher Vit D levels

    (2) does not show any statistically significant effect on the many other things measured.


    There may be an association between Vit D and arterial stiffness, but based on this study not one that supplementation changes.


    THH


    No, I am not suggesting any of those human managed organizations. I don't support corrupt humans pretending to be benevolent and telling the rest of the world what to do. There's not a single organization or institution on this planet that I would currently trust to lead humanity. The problem is that we all, to varying degrees, share the same weaknesses. No one is immune. That's why I think we need an outside non-human influence. Of course, I don't want this to be some soulless artificial intelligence, either.

    I keep attempting to stay out of topics like this but.. as the influence to do the right thing can only be achieved from a type of fear, like when mom and dad gave the child evidence of what will happen if..

    as the lesson of roads or paths taken, So the government stepped in and gave the child the ability to have the mom and dad face fear of retribution on them. "don;t attempt to teach the kids, that's our job now".

    without the fear of retaliation, what we have now all over the world is the end result of gov.after removing the tools we had.

    If your 16 year old was getting out of hand, .its mom and dads job to work and fix it.

    If the planet is getting out of hand its Time to fix it.

    with what ever tools are available.

    Quote from Seatrout

    So the government stepped in

    In USA there are just the free masons and the JF mafia that rule the state. There is no real government. May be just the FBI is left over... But for how long?


    This was no problem until the 1980-ties, but since then the lodges have been filled with extreme dumb but greedy people. So basically dilettantes and high criminals (Biden,Schulz,Putin,Xsi, "Erdowahn", Urban,..... ) rule most states.

    Still throwing shade Thomas and as usual you completely miss the point. Read the last line of the results and how it fits with Catecholamines Are the Key Trigger of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis


    The epidemiological, autopsy, molecular, and physiological findings unanimously and strongly suggest that a hypercatecholaminergic state is the critical trigger of the rare cases of myocarditis due to components from SARS-CoV-2, potentially increasing sudden deaths among elite male athletes.


    Results:

    Using 3 different thresholds to define vitamin D deficiency, no association was found between vitamin D status and AI. Furthermore, linear regression failed to identify a relationship between 25OHD and baseline or post-cosyntropin cortisol. However, the association between AI and cardiovascular dysfunction was influenced by vitamin D status; compared to children with 25OHD above 30 nmol/L, AI in the vitamin D-deficient group was associated with significantly higher odds of catecholamine use (odds ratio, 5.29 vs 1.63; P = .046).

    This is the enlightening graph of UK mortality.


    CoV-19 Alpha (summer 2020) /Gamma-Delta (winter 2021) did lead to large excess mortality that in 2021 was compensated during the following weeks.

    But shortly after vaccination start a broad unknown excess mortality started to raise that was not correlated with CoV-19. In fact during the peak Omicron wave it was anti correlated.

    So we must assume that in UK vaccination will kill at least an additional 10% of the older citizen.


    This is good news for the UK pension system and NHS...


    Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

    New Meta-Analysis Results Suggest Potential for Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis Against COVID-19



    New Meta-Analysis Results Suggest Potential for Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis Against COVID-19
    A group of researchers from Spain with ties to major academic centers such as the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard-MIT Division of Health…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 - European Journal of Epidemiology
    Background Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction…
    link.springer.com


    A group of researchers from Spain with ties to major academic centers such as the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, University de Malaga, Spain as well as the Spanish academia and importantly, the National Ministry of Health, Division for HIV, STI, Viral Hepatitis, and TB Control came together to complete what undoubtedly would be considered a controversial meta-analysis study. Why is this controversial? Because the topic of study was the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic regimen for COVID-19. This drug was the first of the politicized therapies. Starting with the previous POTUS (Trump) that touted its miraculous-like results, the American President acknowledged he was taking the drug. After conducting a thorough search via PubMed, medRxiv, and the national clinical trials registry, along with expert consultation uncovered 11 completed randomized controlled trials; 7 pre-exposure prophylaxis studies, and 4 post-exposure prophylaxis studies. Calculating the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to the approved repurposed study drug versus not accessing the study drug (placebo or usual care) for each study, the authors pooled the risk ratio estimates across all studies. The results? The pooled risk ratio calculated estimation of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials equaled 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58–0.90) when basing the formula on either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.95) when applying the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. What about corresponding estimates for post-exposure prophylaxis trials? 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72–1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62–1.35). The authors found comparable serious adverse effects across both study drug and placebo groups across all studies in the pool. Corresponding author Xabier Garcia-Albeniz and colleagues went on the record that the benefit of the repurposed drug, HCQ “cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials.” Recalling the early push to eliminate this drug as a candidate for treating COVID-19 based on a handful of studies evidencing higher risks of adverse events, the authors declared that importantly, the “not statistically significant” findings from early prophylaxis studies were widely understood by organized medicine to represent evidence of a lack of effectiveness associated with HCQ. This top-down interpretation served to disrupt the timely and expeditious completion of remaining Hydroxychloroquine studies, thereby adversely impacting the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management prior to the completion and roll out of the vaccines.


    No drug should be politically charged, but that’s unfortunately what HCQ became—synonymous with Trump and his followers at the time. This RX-driven red and blue divide markedly intensified what was already the worst pandemic in a century. What if decisions were made prematurely to cut and run from Hydroxychloroquine—could that have saved lives given the important need for initial treatment with a viral infection of COVID-19?


    What follows is a brief TrialSite breakdown of this study.


    What’s the key controversy behind this study?

    While HCQ is not considered an effective treatment for established SARS-CoV-2 infection illness (COVID-19), up to 30 studies investigating its prophylactic nature against the novel coronavirus were cut short based on the results from two studies. Thereafter, a thoroughly negative assessment associated with the drug—the medical establishment universally declared Hydroxychloroquine wasn’t effective at treating COVID-19 nor could it be used for prophylaxis even though no research existed definitively backing the latter sentiment.


    Why was this consensus that HCQ was ineffective for COVID-19 prophylaxis surprising?

    This consensus was based on findings from a mere two clinical trials reported in the summer of 2020. Importantly, these very studies found a lower risk of COVID-19 in the Hydroxychloroquine group, although this cohort was too small to immediately reject benefit or harm of the study drug.


    What was the ramification of this seemingly artificially rushed consensus?

    A compelling hypothesis was never fully tested. Could HCQ serve as a prophylactic agent against COVID-19? Well-designed studies were disrupted and even halted while ongoing ones lost patient recruitment drives. The authors point out in their study results published in the European Journal of Epidemiology that “As a result, key decisions were made based on insufficient evidence during the pre-vaccine period of the pandemic.”


    What did the present authors commence to study?

    They conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that investigated the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 either prior to known exposure (pre-exposure prophylaxis) or after known exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis.


    What’s the study details?

    The authors included available randomized trials studying hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis for COVID-19—see the table of studies involved.


    Pre-exposure prophylaxis trials


    Trial


    Publication Date


    Sample Size


    HCQ dose


    Primary Outcome Definition


    Effective Estimate (95% Cl)


    % of Patients fully adherent to regimen


    Rajasingham et al. (19)


    Sept 2020*


    494 HCQ (arm 1)

    495 HCQ (arm 2)

    494 Placebo


    Arm 1: 400 mg loading dose twice, then 400 mg once weekly for 12 weeks

    Arm 2: 400 mg loading dose twice, then 400 mg twice weekly for 12 weeks



    PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom



    HR: 0.73 (0.48, 1.09), both HCQ arms combined


    Not reported


    Abella et al. (20)


    Sept 2020


    66 HCQ

    66 Placebo


    600 mg daily for 56 days


    PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptoms


    RD: -0.3 (-8.9, 8.3) cases per 100


    97% HCQ

    98% placebo


    Seet et al. (21)


    April 2021


    432 HCQ

    619 ascorbic acid


    400 mg loading dose, then 200 mg daily for 42 days



    PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19



    RR: 0.70 (0.44, 0.97) c


    71.4% HCQd

    80.0% ascorbic acidd


    Rojas-Serrano et al. (25)


    May 2021*


    62 HCQ

    65 Placebo


    200 mg daily for 60 days


    PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19


    HR: 0.18 (0.21, 1.59)


    Not reportede


    Syed et al. (22)


    May 2021*


    48 HCQ arm 1

    51 HCQ arm 2

    55 HCQ arm 3

    46 Placebo


    Arm 1: 400 mg loading dose twice on day 1, then 400 mg weekly for 12 weeks

    Arm 2: 400 mg once every 3 weeks

    Arm 3: 200 mg once every 3 weeks


    Unclear: “COVID-19-free survival”


    Not reported

    Calculated RRg: 0.70 (0.19, 2.59)



    Not reported


    Naggie et al. (23)


    Aug 2021*


    683 HCQ

    676 Placebo


    600 mg loading dose twice on day 1, then 400 mg daily for 29 days


    Symptomatic COVID-19, PCR-confirmed or not


    RD: -1.98 (-4.6, 0.9) cases per 100


    94.4% HCQf

    95.7% placebof


    Grau-Pujol et al.h**. (17)


    Nov 2021


    142 HCQ

    127 Placebo


    400 mg daily x 4, then 400 mg weekly for 30 daysi


    Laboratory-confirmed (seroconversion or positive PCR) symptomatic COVID-19


    Not reportedj



    98% HCQ

    97% Placebo



    Polo et al. (24)


    March 2022


    231 HCQ

    223 Placebo


    200 mg daily for 12 weeks


    PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19


    RR: 0.49 (0.00, 2.29)


    85% HCQ

    86% placebo



    Post-exposure prophylaxis trials


    Trial


    Publication Date


    Sample Size


    HCQ dose


    Primary Outcome Definition


    Effective Estimate (95% Cl)


    % of Patients fully adherent to regimen


    Boulware et al. (4)


    June 2020


    414 HCQ

    407 Placebo


    800 mg on day 1, then 600 mg daily days 1–5


    Symptomatic COVID-19, PCR-confirmeda or not, by day 14



    RD: -2.4 (-7.0, 2.2) cases per 100


    75.4% HCQ

    82.6% placebo


    Mitja et al. (5)


    July 2020*


    1225 HCQ

    1300 Usual care


    800 mg day 1, then 400 mg daily days 1–6


    PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 by day 14


    RRk: 0.68 (0.34, 1.34)


    95.1% HCQ

    97.5% usual care



    Barnabas et al. (26)


    December 2020


    353 HCQ

    336 ascorbic acid


    400 mg daily for 3 days, then 200 mg daily for 11 days


    PRC-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptoms


    HR: 1.10 (0.73, 1.66)


    88.0% HCQf,l

    87% ascorbic acidf,l



    Liu et al** (18)


    May 2021


    32 HCQ

    19 Observation



    200 mg twice a day for 10 days


    PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 by day 14



    There were no incident outcomes


    Not Reported


    McKinnon et al. (27)m


    March 2022


    199 HCQ arm 1

    188 HCQ arm 2

    191 Placebo


    Arm 1: 400 mg weekly for 8 weeks

    Arm 2: 400 mg loading dose, then 200 mg daily


    PCR- or IgM/IgG serology-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19


    Not reported

    Calculated RR: 0.99 (0.09, 10.82)


    Not Reported



    * Date of posting to MedRxiv

    ** Not included in meta-analysis

    asThe result of the PCR was self-reported

    bOverall adherence was not provided. Week-specific adherence ranged from 73–93% in the placebo group, from 76–93% in the HCQ Arm 1 and from 69–93% in the HCQ Arm 2, but a non-adherent participant during the first week can be counted as adherent in subsequent weeks

    c75% confidence interval

    dPercentage of patients reporting > 70% adherence to trial intervention

    e39% of patients were lost to follow-up. Among those who were not, 36.4% reported missing at least one daily dose

    fAdherence was self-reported

    gRisk ratio calculated for positive PCR at 12 weeks. The three HCQ groups were aggregated. Patients without a PCR test (4 in the HCQ groups, 1 in the control group) were assumed to have a negative PCR

    hLabelled as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” study, but 25.7% of participants were in “close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case without using personal protective equipment” in the 20 days before screening

    iTreatment was planned for 6 months, but the study was halted after a month because of futility

    jThere were no cases in the HCQ group and one case in the placebo group

    kAmong participants who were PCR-negative at baseline

    lPercentage of patients receiving any dose

    mThe authors do not label the study as post-exposure prophylaxis, but report that “60% [of study participants] reported contact with a COVID-19 positive patient before study entry

    HCQ: hydroxychloroquine; RR: risk ratio; RD: risk difference; HR: hazard ratio

    How did the authors calculate their results?

    Calculating separately both the pre-and the post-exposure prophylaxis studies, the authors pooled the risk ratio estimates and the 95% confidence or compatibility interval (CI) via a fixed, or common effect approach combined with two types of random effects approaches.


    How did the authors overcome anticonservative outcome associated with the standard random effects method?

    The authors employed the Hartung-Knapp random effects method, which generally can outperform the standard random effects method with an ad hoc modification designed to ensure that its 95% CI remained wider than that of the standard method, even though the CI is expected to be conservative (too wide), when as in their meta-analysis type study, the number of underlying studies is small.


    What were the study authors’ finding?

    The authors report a pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis research at 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58–0.90) when using either a fixed effect or standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55–0.95) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72–1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62–1.35). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.


    Based on the data output of the study what do the authors suggest?

    The study authors go on the record that “the available pre-exposure prophylaxis randomized trials yield a point estimate of an approximately 28% lower risk of COVID-19 for assignment to HCQ compared with no HCQ among PCR-negative individuals at randomization.”


    They shared that “any effect between approximately 45% and a 5% reduction in risk is highly compatible with the data from these trials.” The pooled effect of the estimation data for the post-exposure randomization came closer to the null and both substantial reduction and moderate increase in risk where “highly compatible with the data from the trials.”


    Based on these findings can a benefit of using HCQ be ruled out?

    Not at all based on the available evidence from randomized trials.


    What is the bombshell potential implications of this study?

    The combination of adverse events with the study drug combined with a backlash against unsubstantiated claims in the corporate media could have adversely impacted the timely completion of the prophylaxis studies.


    Consequently, the authors suggest that for most of the pre-vaccine period of this COVID-19 pandemic, “the available evidence was compatible with HCQ being viable as prophylaxis.” But again, due to faulty interpretation of early inconclusive research the operation of existing HCQ studies at the time were disrupted.


    Do vaccines render the use of other prophylaxis unnecessary?

    Absolutely not. Many persons for whatever reason cannot be vaccinated, thus there is a gap in the market. This is what AstraZeneca’s long-acting antibody Evusheld under emergency use authorization is used for. But that requires an infusion. What if HCQ did serve to reduce the probability of infection?


    What’s at least one major key lesson learned, and takeaway?

    It is absolutely clear that the process involving evidence gathering and analysis must be improved prior to the next public health crisis. These authors suggest that both national regulators and international health organizations, such as WHO, could play a key role to coordinate and harmonize studies in a quest to avoid the proliferation of small studies employing varied methodologies.


    Could lives have been saved if this research interference wouldn’t have occurred?

    Very possibly yes.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Xabier García-Albéniz, RTI Health Solutions, Barcelona, Spain, CAUSALab. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA

    Julia del Amo, Division for HIV, STI, Viral Hepatitis and TB Control. Ministry of Health, Madrid, Spain

    Rosa Polo, Division for HIV, STI, Viral Hepatitis and TB Control. Ministry of Health, Madrid, Spain

    José Miguel Morales-Asencio, Department of Nursing and Podiatry, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica de Malaga, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain

    Miguel A Hernán, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA, USA

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    In USA there are just the free masons and the JF mafia that rule the state. There is no real government. May be just the FBI is left over... But for how long?


    This was no problem until the 1980-ties, but since then the lodges have been filled with extreme dumb but greedy people. So basically dilettantes and high criminals (Biden,Schulz,Putin,Xsi, "Erdowahn", Urban,..... ) rule most states.

    I remember the1980s as the test ground for the IRS traps.

    using overseas 3 letter outfits form the us.

    they would play a game with US small shops to fix equipment and rack up bills and not pay them.

    before long the irs would show up all fangs "like what I see about to happen now"

    open old quarters add fines ect.. show up and take your cars ect..

    lots of games are set up... lock boxs with meany payments are just sitting un-applyed most not knowing it.

    big money grab waiting and few know it from missing payments people know nothing about.

    The guy in the video below is very civil, and articulate. He is vaccine injured. He is an elected politician, Conservative member of parliament in the province of Alberta, Canada. His name is Shane Clayton Getson, and he is also a pilot. He has close family and friend ties to the medical field, and he shares his story of his Covid vaccine injuries and provides great insights into the incredible dysfunction that exists in the Canadian medical system surrounding vaccine injury. Getson was very healthy, but injured after his first vaccine and was punished politically and socially for not revealing his vaccine status or participating in the QR code system. Starts off slow, but very worth the watch.


    First time Member of Legislative Assembly for Alberta talks about his vaccine injury story.
    First time Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta Shane Clayton Getson talks about his vaccine injury story and acknowledges others are facing them as…
    rumble.com

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    But shortly after vaccination start a broad unknown excess mortality started to raise that was not correlated with CoV-19. In fact during the peak Omicron wave it was anti correlated.

    So we must assume that in UK vaccination will kill at least an additional 10% of the older citizen.

    It's not good news for much of the rest of Europe either, at least for the month of May 2022 :


Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.