Online New CDC report format (ongoing, currently from 16 jurisdictions - states or big cities)
Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status
<https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-da…/#rates-by-vaccine-status>
April to Sep 4 (One month behind to allow for correct coding)
Overall : Unvaxed 6.1 * chance of positive test 11.3 * chance of death
By vaccine : All better than unvaxed, but Moderna the best
By age: Very curious : 12-17 unvaxed has double the case rate of 80+ unvaxed.
Although IVMeta is associated (affiliated?) with pro-IVM FLACC etc, haven't found any major errors in their data or their methodology.
They are very open about what studies they include or exclude, and why. They excluded Elgazzar "same day", and others when the authors informed them of upcoming retractions.
Many meta-studies include Elgazzar, but most did a sensitivity study removing one at a time.
For example, Bryant used it, and then updated it in a letter - again, showing no major impact in the results.
Neil and Fenton do a Bayesian analysis with sensitivity to Elgazzar
A summary version of this article has been published as a letter in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2109/2109.13739.pdf
We show that there is strong evidence to support a causal link between ivermectin, Covid-19 severity and mortality, and: i) for severe Covid-19 there is a 90.7% probability the risk ratio favours ivermectin; ii) for mild/moderate Covid-19 there is an 84.1% probability the risk ratio favours ivermectin. Also, from the Bayesian metaanalysis for patients with severe Covid-19, the mean probability of death without ivermectin treatment is 22.9%, whilst with the application of ivermectin treatment it is 11.7%.
Edit : To address concerns expressed about the veracity of some of the studies we evaluate the sensitivity of the conclusions to any single study by removing one study at a time. In the worst case, where (Elgazzar 2020) is removed, the results remain robust, for both severe and mild to moderate Covid-19.
I just noticed a new eCat ad on ecatworld:
Ecat SK Heat for Industry
Leonardo Corporation has developed a revolutionary heating technology: the Ecat SK. This technology stands on 20 years of research and development, and is based on an innovative way to apply the physics of the electron (see a theoretical explication here).
Ecat SK heating can produce temperatures suitable for most current industrial process without producing carbon emissions or ionizing radiation. The Ecat SK is therefore is a safe, clean heating technology, perfectly suited for industries who are seeking to cut costs, and also reduce negative impacts on the environment.
Ecat SK heating is provided by Leonardo Corporation as a service, rather than a product. In other words, Leonardo installs the Ecat SK heating technology and retains ownership of it, while the customer pays a fee for the heat consumed.
Ecat SK heating is very versatile and can be used in many industrial applications, and can operate at a wide range of temperatures.
A few examples of suitable industrial uses of Ecat SK heat are:
Leonardo Corporation is seeking to establish business relationships with industrial customers who would like to incorporate Ecat SK heating into their operations. If you are interested in discussing this with us, please complete the form below. We will respond promptly.
A covid-19 vaccine made by Valneva produced stronger antibody responses and fewer side effects than the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in a clinical trial, the French company has announced. The trial included more than 4600 participants in the UK, who were randomly allocated one of the two vaccines, while delta was the predominant coronavirus variant in circulation. The rate of covid-19 cases was similar in the two groups and no participants developed severe illness from covid-19.
October 18, 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
I'm not sure where comparator AZ stands compared to Pfizer/Moderna/J&J
How many lives have coronavirus vaccines saved? We used state data on deaths and vaccination rates to find out
They developed a model, which gave results with vaccines which were within 2% of the actual deaths. They then turned off vaccines in the model.
Answer : 140,000 up to May 9th 2021
Paywalled paper at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00619
COVID-19 vaccination campaigns continue in the United States, with the expectation that vaccines will slow transmission of the virus, save lives, and enable a return to normal life in due course. However, the extent to which faster vaccine administration has affected COVID-19-related deaths is unknown. We assessed the association between US state-level vaccination rates and COVID-19 deaths during the first five months of vaccine availability. We estimated that by May 9, 2021, the US vaccination campaign was associated with a reduction of 139,393 COVID-19 deaths. The association varied in different states. In New York, for example, vaccinations led to an estimated 11.7 fewer COVID-19 deaths per 10,000, whereas Hawaii observed the smallest reduction, with an estimated 1.1 fewer deaths per 10,000. Overall, our analysis suggests that the early COVID-19 vaccination campaign was associated with reductions in COVID-19 deaths. As of May 9, 2021, reductions in COVID-19 deaths associated with vaccines had translated to value of statistical life benefit ranging between $625 billion and $1.4 trillion.
https://e-catworld.com/2021/10…heater-ever-made-calle-h/
The energy source, SKLed lamp Fig. 1, consumes 4 W so that the overall energy consumption is 12 x 4 = 48 W which is less than a conventional 60 W incandescent light bulb. Heat is produced by the lamp’s photons striking a black painted surface on the heat collector back side resulting in 12 x 32 = 384 W heat assuming that the lamp COP is 8. See Fig. 2a and 2b for illustration of the installation. During the 7 month heating period 245 kWh power is consumed while providing 1960 kWh of heat. This beats conventional heat pumps which typically perform at COP 4.
Maybe I'll up my order.
And unfortunately (Fig 1) the vax levels are heading asymtopically to numbers that are highly stratified by age ... 50%-ish at 25 to 90% at 90
(under 25 are still rising).
Dear Andrea,
I hope you can give us some details on the progress on the Ecat SKL.
1. Has it reached a stage that it can be integrated in a product?
2. I guess you will continue to develop it further, on which aspect is your focus?
a. reliability; b. higher output power; c. producibility; d. production cost; e. some other aspect
3. Will it definitely be demonstrated on the 9th of December 2021?
4. Will it be demonstrated in Self Sustaining Operation?
5. Will it be loaded (with lamps, heating elements or something else) to show clearly it is actually producing energy?
I know 9 December is approaching quickly and no doubt will increasingly take more time of you and your team.
The number of visitors to the presentation of the SKLed and SKL will be limited. Is it only open for invitees or can anyone ask for attending this great event?
I wish you good luck in the preparation of the presentation.
Kind regards, Gerard
Gerard McEk:
1. I think so
2. all of them
3. yes
4. probably
5. yes
There will not be invitations, but everybody will watch the presentation in streaming,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
[ Conflict of interest : I have pre-ordered two SKLeds and one domestic eCat - now called the SKL ]
If you don't want to be vaccinated, stay home.
That's a reversal. In the early days my local anti-maskers were saying "if you don't want to be infected, stay home"
gregha October 11, 2021 at 10:06 AM What is the current count of pre-orders for the SKLed?
OK, what is your opinion of whether you will meet the SKLed pre-order goal?
gregha:
I am positive about that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
COI: I pre-ordered two.
Plate of shrimp! (Coincidence) .. he likes ivmmeta.com (see a few posts up ...)
I didn't realize that in the Japanse review quoting Merck's refusal to trial it, that the last listed author is the co-nobel winner for IVM!!!
Chaccour was highly enthusiastic about ivermectin, originally, from other early evidence. He was one of the early proponents. He became a less strong advocate after more evidence, but still hopes there will be some effect.
How reliable is https://ivmmeta.com/ ?
I was cross-checking some of their RCT data with Cochrane and other meta-studies, and noticed that they give Chaccour a "96% improvement" in symptoms.
I can't see where they get that number -- https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
Findings :
At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 0·92, 95% CI: 0·77–1·09, p = 1·0). The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p < 0.001).
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
> Dr Patricia Garcia, a public health expert in Peru, said at one stage she estimated that 14 out of every 15 patients she saw in hospital had been taking ivermectin and by the time they came in they were "really, really sick".
Of course, this could be the same misinterpretation as for vax breakthrough cases. IVM has never been claimed as 100% effective (20-90% CI?) ... so if the majority in a region have been taking it, then the majority who get sick will be too.
A second study from Qatar looked at actual infections among the highly vaccinated population of that small Gulf nation. People there mostly got Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine, also known as BNT162b2.
"BNT162b2-induced protection against infection builds rapidly after the first dose, peaks in the first month after the second dose, and then gradually wanes in subsequent months," Laith Abu-Raddad of Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar and colleagues wrote. "The waning appears to accelerate after the fourth month, to reach a low level of approximately 20% in subsequent months," they added.
Nonetheless, protection against hospitalization and death stayed at above 90%, they said. [my bold]
The waning protection may involve behavior, they noted. "Vaccinated persons presumably have a higher rate of social contact than unvaccinated persons and may also have lower adherence to safety measures," they wrote. "This behavior could reduce real-world effectiveness of the vaccine as compared with its biologic effectiveness, possibly explaining the waning of protection."
Pharma insiders think natural immunity is better,
I only watched the first three minutes.
I'm inclined to agree with him (I'm addressing the first talker in the first minute here) that natural immunity is better than the vax, since it probably targets more proteins than just the spike.
But he fails to mention that you have to survive the covid19 infection first (and ignore long covid) in order to get the benefit.
Me: Since I'm in a high age-and-risk bracket I've taken the bet that the vax gives me better odds.
Interesting that they talk about using Copper as well as Nickel.
Their timeline says the Model K 1 kW is under test, and the Model M 10 kW will also be completed in the 2021-2023 timeframe.
Way back on this thread was a paper with an estimate that of all the covid19 deaths, between 10% and 50% were due to heart conditions (admittedly including pericarditis, and various flavors of myocarditis).
So (per worldometer) between 400,000 and 2,000,000 cardiac deaths.
How many was it from vaccines?
A RossiReader (Puppet) does a simple lux-to-watts calculation and estimates the SKLed COP to be about 8. (I haven't checked the numbers).
A few minutes googling gave me only two self-sustaining nuclear reactors (as opposed to passive radioactive decay).
Topaz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor -- two flew, but failed in (high) orbit.
Pele: https://www.thedrive.com/the-w…set-to-begin-taking-shape
There are probably some other ground-based military attempts.
Edit: I guess all Naval reactors are self-sustaining too.
