Posts by THHuxleynew

Quote from Fm1

You couldn't explain India, data sucks coming out of India is your usual excuse but tell me Thomas, how do you explain the southern hemisphere where ivermectin is used. Vaccination rates are about 29% for the southern hemisphere and that's at the top end, probably closer to 20%

FM1. I have noticed that I post long detailed explanations of things like - why do India COVID rates look low. Summary only below:

• Demographics (average 15 years younger than developed countries => 6X fewer COVID deaths just from age)
• Government suppression (applies variably but particularly in Uttar pradesh where independent on the ground newspaper investigation reporting is showing 10X more excess deaths in mortuaries than govt COVID figures)
• COVID cases and deaths not counted in country areas. Where there is no healthcare and no tests COVID cases, and deaths, are written off as fevers
• In some places COVID was allowed to run through the population in previous waves (less bad results because it is younger) who now have pretty good immunity.

You could not explain is incorrect when i referenced specific reporting proving what i was saying, and in any case it should surprise no-one.

Summary (there are exceptions, but this is mostly true):

Developed richer countries with good health systems, access to vaccines, and regulators not influenced by politics

• Do not allow ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine
• Have old populations and therefore high COVID death rates (until at risk population are fukly vaccinated, which in some countries has not yet happened)
• Have accurate reporting of cases and deaths (though in some countries testing may be limited and therefore cases may be not that accurate).

Poorer less developed countries, with less access to vaccines and regulators more influenced by politics:

• Do allow HCQ, ivermectin
• Have younger populations so much lower death rates and IFR anyway
• Many have under-reporting of cases and deaths (not enough tests or local healthcare in rural locations)
• A few have under-reporting of deaths (political interference)

These things are not rocket science, and they exaplin all the ecological data. Whereas, if ivermectin works well (rather than just marginally), you cannot explain the negative high quality trial data.

I've even suggested (this is my idea, and may be rubbish) how ivermectin might seem to work well by reducing symptoms (it has some known effect as an anti-inflammatory). That might make it a bit effective in treating early or late-stage COVID, ut it could equally mean it does harm. Reducing symptoms from mild infection is not the same as working in terms of reducing serious infection, but would be obvious to doctors prescribing it. Because COVID in these low population age countries has such a low severe disease rate that can explain why many people believe it works (and the fact that doctors notoriously go on believing treatments they give work, even when they don't).

I cannot believe, if you have paid attention to my posts on this, that you think this is no explanation.

If you give me a specific S hemisphere country we will look at the data in detail: but those same factors might apply - or there might be other country-specific reasons - or both.

I criticise your overall evaluation of this stuff because you are not paying attention to the details. They matter a lot.

Best wishes, THH

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why then e.g. (among others) did Merck get 1.2 Billion for an already failed drug to make it work for early treatment like Tamiflu that is of no use too???

You should stop your Big Pharma FUD. It simply is childish and silly.

1. Merck have not been payed 1.2 billion. They will be paid this if the drug is shown effective in upcoming Phase 3 trials and approved

2. molnupiravir is in Phase III trials https://www.clinicaltrialsaren…eback-molnupiravir-trial/

The trial is backed by Merck and its inventors. No public money spent unless phase III (high quality, large) is positive. This is the same standard as ivermectin is currently being tested for at public expense.

Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics have reported preliminary results from a Phase IIa trial of investigational oral antiviral agent molnupiravir EIDD-2801/MK-4482 for Covid-19.

An orally-bioavailable form of a potent ribonucleoside analogue, molnupiravir hinders multiple RNA virus replication, including SARS-CoV-2.

The agent was invented by Emory University’s not-for-profit biotechnology company, Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE). All funds used for developing EIDD-2801 after it was licenced by Ridgeback were provided by Wayne and Wendy Holman and Merck.

Quote from Fm1

TrialSite had declared for many months now that one reason for the intensified pressure against ivermectin was to clear the market of any low-cost competition for higher-priced, novel therapeutics. After all, Doctor Anthony Fauci and the federal research apparatus already declared over $3 billion will be spent on these companies.

It is only the non-science ivermectin pressure groups that claim there is this intensified pressure. They do that because:

• They do not evaluate the science as an objective scientist would - they conclude that it is obvious ivermectin is highly effective based on clearly flawed meta-analysis of variable data from trials and just wrong ecological arguments
• They ignore the expensive government-funded trials in US and UK that continue to evaluate ivermectin and will lead to immediate usage of these drugs if they work.

Given these trials (US ACTIV-6, UK PRINCIPLE) exist, will generate definitive results shortly, and any competing drugs will not be cleared for a long time, there is obviously no attempt to suppress ivermectin for financial reasons.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The idea that the delta variant is less severe for children has no evidence to back it up - as far as I know. If that graph of your is from the US the falling lines would be due to vaccination - especially vaccination of at risk and older children who represent most of the deaths - since the underlying death rate is very low - and who will be almost certainly vaccinated.

Sorry - I was careless (and too quick) here. That graph ending in June was before the latest delta wave of infections in the US, and the shape of the graph relates to infections (not shown), so provides pretty well no info about severity.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is not theory as it is a proven fact. A CoV-19 infection ramps up the expression of ACE-2 receptors that the virus needs for entering the cell. This has been shown already more than a year ago!

W - you quoted one part of Zephir's post which, I agree, is factual. I did not agree with the non sequitur final conclusion:

It thus hijacks immunity compromised with previous failed vaccinations and widespread viral vectors from GMO food and pollens.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Their immune system is untrained, so it doesn't react violently: immunosuppressives like Hydroxychloroquine or Fluvoxamine have similar effect. My theory is that coronavirus even utilizes violent immune reaction (cytokine storm) for its invading the organism and once it doesn't met with it, then it becomes harmless. It thus hijacks immunity compromised with previous failed vaccinations and widespread viral vectors from GMO food and pollens.

Hi Zephir. I prefer the explanations given in your link than your speculation which AFAIK has no evidence.

On the other hand, most young children do not develop severe complications from the measles and chickenpox, whereas those illnesses can be “disastrous” in adults, Pavia said. (Vaccination is recommended for those illnesses, too, but no vaccine is 100% effective.)

“This is where we really don’t have great answers,” Pavia said.

One theory is that when faced with certain unfamiliar viruses, children can fight them off because they have a robust layer of defense called the “innate” immune system. This consists of white blood cells called macrophages, which can detect and gobble up foreign particles in the bloodstream regardless of their identity.

Older people have an added deficit: The various layers of their immune systems start to become less effective. Many also have underlying conditions, such as heart disease. And increasingly, the bodies of older people suffer from chronic, low levels of age-related inflammation, nicknamed “inflammaging.”

So when older people become infected with a virus, the combination of even more inflammation and a weaker immune system can be deadly, Iwasaki said.

“You have this perfect storm of not having the right antiviral defenses and having elevated inflammaging,” Iwasaki said.

Every year, most flu-related deaths in the U.S. occur in older people. The same pattern appears so far with the new coronavirus, according to the summary of 44,672 confirmed cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The link is not entirely accurate, but here is a nature review: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8

Here is a good more recent summary of the nasty things COVID does to the immune system (which in some people persist) https://www.immunology.org/sit…ote_August_2020_FINAL.pdf

The idea that the delta variant is less severe for children has no evidence to back it up - as far as I know. If that graph of your is from the US the falling lines would be due to vaccination - especially vaccination of at risk and older children who represent most of the deaths - since the underlying death rate is very low - and who will be almost certainly vaccinated.

I've noticed that people with incorrect ideas about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines (maybe this is you) have to jump through hoops to find other reasons for the reductions in severity of disease caused by vaccination: e.g. thinking that delta is less severe than original (it is about twice as severe).

THH

Quote from Wyttenbach

Thanks for once agreeing that the AMA view (=16% of doctors) is just a minority position!

The AAPS is 1%.

But is AMA minority, or political? They seem to do a lot of lobbying on things that matter to doctors, and contribute about equally to republican and democratic parties.

I guess 16% for the AAPS is as good as it gets in the US - I can't find a bigger general medical organisation there.

American Medical Association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The American Medical Association (AMA) is a professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students. It was founded in 1847, is based in Chicago, Illinois, and has over 240,000 members.^[4][5]

The AMA's stated mission is "to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health."^[6] The Association also publishes the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).^[7] The AMA also publishes a list of Physician Specialty Codes which are the standard method in the U.S. for identifying physician and practice specialties.

The American Medical Association is governed by a House of Delegates^[8] as well as a board of trustees in addition to executive management.^[9] The organization maintains the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, and the AMA Physician Masterfile containing data on United States Physicians.^[10] The Current Procedural Terminology coding system was first published in 1966 and is maintained by the Association.^[11] It has also published works such as the Guides to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment^[12] and established the American Medical Association Foundation and the American Medical Political Action Committee.^[13]

Susan R. Bailey, an allergist and immunologist from Fort Worth, Texas, was sworn in as President in June 2020.^[14]

The AMA has one of the largest political lobbying budgets of any organization in the United States. Its political positions throughout its history have often been controversial. In the 1930s, the AMA attempted to prohibit its members from working for the health maintenance organizations established during the Great Depression, which violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and resulted in a conviction ultimately affirmed by the US Supreme Court.^[80] In the 1940s, the AMA opposed President Truman's proposed healthcare reforms, which would have expanded healthcare facilities in low-income and rural communities, bolstered public health services, increased investments in medical research and education, and provided a national health insurance plan to help relieve the burden of excessive healthcare bills from sick persons.^[81] The AMA condemned Truman's plan as "socialized medicine."^[82]

The American Medical Association's vehement campaign against Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s included Operation Coffee Cup, supported by Ronald Reagan. Since the enactment of Medicare, the AMA reversed its position and now opposes any "cut to Medicare funding or shift [of] increased costs to beneficiaries at the expense of the quality or accessibility of care". However, the AMA remains opposed to any single-payer health care plan, such as the United States National Health Care Act. In the 1990s, the organization was part of the coalition that defeated the health care reform advanced by Hillary and Bill Clinton.^{[citation needed]}

The AMA has also supported changes in medical malpractice law to limit damage awards, which, it contends, makes it difficult for patients to find appropriate medical care. In many states, high risk specialists have moved to other states that have enacted reform. For example, in 2004, all neurosurgeons had relocated out of the entire southern half of Illinois.^[83] The main legislative emphasis in multiple states has been to effect caps on the amount that patients can receive for pain and suffering. These costs for pain and suffering are only those that exceed the actual costs of healthcare and lost income. At the same time however, states without caps also experienced similar results, suggesting that other market factors may have contributed to the decreases. Some economic studies have found that caps have historically had an uncertain effect on premium rates.^[84] A recent report by the AMA found that, in a 12-month period, five percent of physicians had claims filed against them.^[85]

The AMA sponsors the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee, which is an influential group of 29 physicians, mostly specialists, who help determine the value of different physicians' labor in Medicare prices.

Quote from Seatrout

This is going to end one way or another.

That statement is unequivocally true but when used in argument it always sounds like a threat...

Quote from Shane D.

According to Mother Jones Magazine, the AMA represents ~16% of practicing US doctors. All the rest are members in their own specialties associations or colleges.

Here the Assoc of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) pushes back against the AMA's stance against IVM, and their calling on pharmacists to not fill IVM prescriptions:

Shane, you well know you will find 1% of scientists, or doctors, to argue anything under the sun.

If you allow such minority views equal status with the majority you will be wrong 99% of the time - and possibly right 1% of the time.

AAPS Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association that promotes medical disinformation, such as HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, vaccine and autism connections, and homosexuality reducing life expectancy. The association was founded in 1943 to oppose a government attempt to nationalize health care. The group has included notable members, including American Republican politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Tom Price.

1. They are highly political. Not what you should want your doctor to be
2. Last reported membership is 5000 in 2005. They are a splinter group who promote specific politics, they do not represent your or my doctor. Thank God.

There are 624,000 doctors in the US which makes this organisation neatly just under 1% of US medical opinion.

Shane you know all this - why are you arguing these people as a point in your favour?

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

But he is a charming scamp. And sometimes honest. He said "I was too fat," so now he goes jogging. He says, "the great thing about going for a run at the beginning of the day is that nothing could be worse for the rest of the day."

Also . . .

For he himself has said it, and it's greatly to his credit, that he was born in New York City.

I also like his plan to establish a rapid response laboratory to develop new mRNA vaccines in the event of a future pandemic.

Display More

Yes, we elected him because he was charming and a likable rogue. God help us.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Wow! This explains the high UK death rate! People wait until they no longer can escape....

But this explains nothing about all the hidden infections. As said 80% of all people do not notice an CoV-19 infection.

India: Uttar Pradesh 205 mio people: So far 1.7mio cases but seropositive rate > 70% --> >140 mio. silent cases...

OK - for sure many had symptoms but no money to visit a doctor .. but silently survived...

• We know the approx ratio from the UK because most people with COVID-like symptoms turn into cases (the 55% silent calculated)
• We know the exact ratio in the UK because we have high quality longitudinal mass random sample household testing that accurately determines infections, and also via questionnaire symptoms. (the 39% +/- not much).
• In UP they do not have high quality random sample testing of this type (or if they do I've not seen it published). In any case, if they did, the govt their is highly autocratic and political, it clearly is happy to massage figures.

I've posted before why in UP the cases and deaths figures are both vast underestimates. That is not just the government. Most of UP is peasants in the countryside without proper health care. COVID cases happen without testing. A lot of people die anyway - the median population age is 20 - very very young. That low median age means the natural COVID death rate is relatively low - and without good healthcare older people die often of fevers etc. All this means that silent COVID dominates.

The great claimed successes of ivermectin correlate with these 3rd world countries where there is very little healthcare, poor or no reporting of cases and deaths, and where the median age is young so that 30X fewer people die from COVID than in developed countries just from demographics.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

Many GOP politicians and everyone at FOX News is vaccinated, but they tell gullible followers not to get vaccinated. (The vaccine is mandated at FOX News.) Unlike doctors, those people have no professional obligations.

Yes, the problem with selling a powerful story that panders to a single coherent political group (in this case the Trump new republicans) is that you lose all sense of balance, and all sense of honour. But then TV talk show hosts are not all renowned for honour.

I've always thought politicians I did not agree with were wrong - because they did not agree with me. I often think politicians are stupid, say stupid things that I know are false. But this phenomena of politicians being deliberately and overtly deceitful - with everyone knowing it. It is a part of the post Truth world and I will resist it to my dying breath^*

^* False statement made for rhetoric - as so many do - I'm not one to die for political beliefs. But if I were this would do it.

Quote from Seatrout

doctors follow their own best judgement within the law written by criminals

The law may or may not be written by criminals. But people who are sure the law is written by criminals have given up on democracy - which is worse.

I don't like 80% of what our government does, I believe our PM is selfish, disorganised, negligent, and a thoroughly bad leader. But he, god help us, was elected and suffering this is our penance as a country for voting for the wrong person.

I'd rather suffer bad leaders than not be able to choose them in a democracy that offers peaceful change of power.

Quote from Fm1

U.S. Poison Control Ivermectin Data Analyzed by TrialSite – Some Surprises

https://trialsitenews.com/u-s-…trialsite-some-surprises/

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and prominent physician and pharmacy societies have stepped up and intensified warnings about the use of ivermectin across mass media. While a recent American Medical Association warning press release cites a huge rise in ivermectin prescriptions and a 3-Fold increase in calls to poison control centers associated with the misuse of the generic, generic drug no context or data is offered. All of the prescriptions reported are associated with physician prescriptions to consenting patients for the off-label use against ivermectin. An improper channel involves the procurement and inappropriate use of the animal version of the drug. Media messaging appears to often conflate these two distinct use cases. TrialSite recently reported that the American Medical Association (AMA), prominent pharmacy societies, and one of the makers of ivermectin, Merck declared war on the economical, generic drug that’s treated over 4 billion people in the tropics alone helping to manage diseases such as River Blindness. Mainstream media seemingly without any critical questioning merely parrots what the various government agencies like CDC have instructed them to report. In this case that happens to be that based on reports from the Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) calls to poison centers grew 3-fold over the pre-pandemic baseline. But what was the baseline used for the analysis? Not one media person asked the question. The FDA in the past issued warnings against the use of the drug while providing no data to the public backing up the warning. TrialSite has been on the record asking the question “what is the baseline” and thankfully we were able to secure the actual AAPCC data. The situation appears different from what authorities, medical societies, and mass media are proclaiming publicly, indicating a significant delta between the government-directed media messaging and the actual facts. Does this represent a gross exaggeration of the actual situation? Are perhaps other agendas now unfolding, such as scare campaigns to deter any use, including the legitimate off-label option?

Recently in TrialSite’s OpEd section, Ron Brown, Ph.D. wrote that growing media quotes conflated physician-prescribed use with dangerous abuses involving illicit use of the veterinary version of the drug. Brown asked about the media purposely confusing the two different versions of the drug and very different access scenarios asked the question “Do these sorts of suggestive comments hide a biased agenda against repurposing an inexpensive and readily available drug with the potential to undermine the return on investment of more contemporary pharmacotherapies?

What’s the Actual Data Indicate?

The data used for this analysis originates from the AAPCC and the National Poison Data System (NPDS) Bulletin. There were 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases reported from January-Aug 2021. This does represent a 163% increase in cases compared to the year prior or the “baseline” data of 435 such cases. Given the dramatic increase in prescriptions, 2,344%, this number could be expected.

But does the CDC claim of “reports of severe illness” hold up to the actual data? That data reveals the following:

Ivermectin Poison Control Calls by Category (total of 1,143 calls)

AAPCC Ivermectin Data #

Deaths 0

Major Effects 11

Moderate Effects 91

Minor Effect 148

Based on a review of the data only 22% of the total show any material effect as we will see below. But first, a chart depicting the data”:

Medical Outcome: Ivermectin Cases

The data herein indicates a different reality than what is projected to the public. The vast majority of the case calls (78%) fall under the category of “no problem” or an aggregate labeled herein as “not sure” and thus require no follow-up. Clearly, in these latter cases, any real threat to consumer safety would have been flagged for follow-up.

754 out of the 1,143 cases were classified as no effect, non-toxic or minimal. 137 of the calls were potentially toxic, with no follow-up. This latter category indicates nothing severe. Calls deemed severe equaled 1% or approximately 11 cases and not these were classified to the media as self-medication-based abuse of the veterinary drug.

This data must be compared to the magnitude of growth in the use of the product since the baseline. Overall ivermectin prescriptions have soared. Prescriptions rose from 3,600 per week pre-pandemic to 88,000 per week ending August 13, 2021, representing a 2,344% increase.

See the graph below for ivermectin prescription growth:

Hand Sanitizer more Dangerous

To provide further context poison control also fielded lots of hand-sanitizer calls from “pre-pandemic baseline.” Those increased 58% from Jan-Aug 2019 to Jan-Aug 2021. However, 3,320 of them were major, moderate, or minor effects while 4 people died according to a CDC report.

See below for more information for CDC information on cases of methanol poisoning in Arizona from people swallowing hand sanitizer:

An Agenda?

The FDA and CDC according to ivermectin proponents have “vilified” the drug by association with misuse of animal versions of the drug, such as horse paste. Importantly the rise in prescriptions — to 88,000 just last week — were all MD prescribed, non-animal, non-mail order ivermectin. In other words, the human version of the FDA-approved drug used off-label for the indication of COVID-19.

TrialSite’s ivermectin fact sheet should be referred to for a more balanced point of view. Although it’s acknowledged here that the CDC is the nation’s health agency and the FDA the nation’s food and drug regulatory and both should be referred to as well for comparison.

TrialSite emphasizes ivermectin is not a cure nor a silver bullet for COVID-19. Rather the result of mounting tension derives from what amounts to markedly different points of view on the clinical trials and real-world data to date behind the drug’s use during the pandemic.

Several countries including India for months authorized the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. TrialSite reported on the tremendous turnaround in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state with over 220 million people. There, a state-wide public health, home-based care program involved both frequent testing, home isolation where possible, and medicine kits including ivermectin. This effort was associated with a dramatic reduction in COVID-19 Delta variant-based cases. TrialSite is on record that it cannot prove that the ivermectin correlates to the dramatic reduction in cases there. But the effort certainly caught the attention of the World Health Organization (WHO) celebrating the effort. Of course WHO opted to not mention the use of ivermectin.

But a clash of points of view unfolds in real-time as from one vantage nearly all of the 63 clinical trials involving the drug reveal positive data attributes indicating a case for off-label use given the drug’s known high safety profile for the intended use.

The opposing view, which TrialSite acknowledges represents a great majority of the nation’s regulators, public health, and physician societies, resists the acceptance of the drug, emphasizing that out of the 63 such trials only a handful are worth reviewing, and the ones showing any positive data aren’t reliable due to study design, dose variation and the like. Thus this dominant point of view posits there just isn’t enough data to merit approved use. But off-label use is legal and that just may be what the latest intensified campaign seeks to change.

That is the daily messaging now via the mainstream news repeats over and over the 3-fold increase in calls to poison centers due to abusive self-medication yet appears to conflate this unfolding dynamic with the use of human ivermectin prescribed off label by a licensed doctor to a consenting patient and the misuse of the animal variety.

AAPCC Ivermectin Summary Data

Conclusion

Ivermectin prescriptions have skyrocketed during the pandemic, 2,344% over the previous year—the baseline. The FDA first warned about ivermectin use, conflating animal and the human versions of the drug while precluding any data; the agency also recommends ongoing the drug should only be used in clinical trials. The CDC issued a more recent warning based on data from AAPCC which aggregated calls to 55 poison centers purportedly involving ivermectin.

It’s this data that prominent medical and pharmacy societies declared war on ivermectin.

But the actual data could be interpreted quite differently than the urgent messaging now proclaimed daily in the media. That is the agencies’ reference to the 3-fold increase in poison center calls. The actual data from the AAPCC now reveals that the baseline number is in fact 435 case counts (calls to poison centers) in 2020; and that the total calls to date in the same reporting period this year are 1,143.

But this first must be understood in the context of ivermectin prescription growth, which has increased 2,344% for the reporting period. Moreover, a review of cases reveals the overwhelming majority (78%) fall in the category of no problem or not sure—and hence are not followed up. Of the total ivermectin cases thus far there have been no deaths reported and 1% of all calls involved any kind of major issue. There is no data as to whether that 1% required hospitalization.

Thus one could make the case that the safety profile differs markedly from what is currently reported in the mainstream media and the health agencies once the data is reviewed and understood.

But for comparison purposes poison control data implies that methanol-based hand sanitizer is far more dangerous than ivermectin based on the calls to the 55 poison control centers over the past year, given a handful of deaths.

TrialSite suggests a review of the ivermectin fact sheet. By no means is ivermectin a cure for COVID-19, there are no cures for COVID-19. Nor can ivermectin be considered a silver bullet for the pathogen. The basis for the rapid growth in prescriptions has been the interpretation of over six dozen studies including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series plus considerable real-world data from numerous countries around the world– mostly from low-and middle-income countries.

But the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as the WHO challenge the data from these clinical trials, suggesting that in most cases the studies are flawed, either due to design, dose variability, or other issues. Consequently, they only recommend the usage of ivermectin for COVID-19 in a controlled clinical trial.

TrialSite has posited throughout this pandemic that transcending the COVID-19 pandemic requires a holistic, comprehensive, and proactive approach involving not only safe and effective vaccines but also ambulatory and home care antiviral-like treatments for early-onset mild-to-moderate COVID-19—representing 90% of all cases worldwide. Of course, data-driven, risk-based approaches to public health remain instrumental as should health campaigns bolster people’s health and immune systems.

While the vaccines show incredible promise a number of issues are not fully addressed. The most recent Delta surge plus the revelation that the vaccine products’ effectiveness wane in a matter of months indicates that while important as a way to reduce the probability of hospitalization or worse, a vaccine-centric strategy alone is not sufficient to beat COVID-19.

The TrialSite reader: What do you think about the data herein? Is the intensity and heightened urgency of the FDA and CDC warnings rational given what is disclosed? This platform will continue to remain as open, objective, and unbiased as humanly possible.

Display More

I'm on the side of TSN here. I can easily believe that serious medical bad effects from ivermectin are unusual. From my POV the serious bad effects is common and non-medical. People who stock up on ivermectin and other possible helpful vitamins may believe themselves therefore to be well protected from COVID and do riskier things - whether that is not getting vaccinated or going to a COVID super-spreader.

I also agree with TSN that a vaccine-centric standard alone is not enough to defeat COVID. That is why governments are putting so much money into developing new treatments and testing old drugs as possible treatments. Including ivermectin.

I just want to point out the double standard - TSN talk about vaccine side effects citing VAERS reports without any such analysis of whether the report represents a vaccine-caused injury or a background event.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Quote from Bob#2

Just a note on this as some here are quick to point out "fake news" by "anti- vaxers". It seems the vaccine warriors are just as guilty.

I would never believe stuff like that which I read in a newspaper. I'm sure you would not either. News is often highly speculative and exaggerated. My guess would be that in a hospital at one time that was full (as many are from COVID) they had to find room for a few ivermectin overdoses.

The real difference is that anti-vaxers have nothing to say for themselves other than anecdotes and false arguments on social media and in the published record. Whereas the pro-vax position is set out in great detail in every doctor's surgery, and in research papers and regulatory documents,

So just as guilty does not take that into account.

A detailed and interesting examination of anti-vaxer claims that the spike protein used in mRNA vaccines is deadly.

The “deadly” coronavirus spike protein (according to antivaxxers)

Specific narratives of antivaccine misinformation about any given vaccine generally consist of a combination of a subset (or all) of the following elements.…

sciencebasedmedicine.org

As I stated near the beginning of this post, antivaxxers strive mightily, above all, to claim that vaccines are dangerous to those receiving them and those around the recipients, all with added conspiracy theories. It doesn’t matter how much they have to misinterpret or misrepresent scientific studies to do so. They’ll find a way to make their misrepresentations (or failure to put studies into proper context) sound like plausible evidence that vaccines are dangerous, and they’ve certainly been doing this with COVID-19 vaccines, starting with pointing to any study that finds a role for the spike protein alone in causing cell damage. Such studies are critical to the elucidation of the molecular mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 infects cells, replicates itself, and causes so much damage to the lungs. It’s also important to note that target effects matter. Location matters. The main infection starts in the lungs, which is where the highest concentration of virus and therefore spike protein would be expected in the case of real infections. In the case of vaccination, the location is the muscle cells of the shoulder, and any spike protein that escapes is rapidly diluted in the bloodstream to the pg/ml range.

But what does Olgata’s finding for the Moderna mean regarding the safety of the vaccine? Basically nothing. The reason is simple. If there were a safety problem due to spike protein, after more than a quarter of a billion doses of vaccine administered in the US alone, there would have been safety signal by now, given the unprecedentedly intense vaccine safety surveillance effort that accompanied the rollout of these vaccines. Remember, this is a pharmacosurveillance effort that detected literally a one-in-a-million serious adverse event associated with vaccination with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within a month and a half of its being distributed under an emergency use authorization. It beggars the imagination to suggest that, even if the transient appearance of spike protein after vaccination at a concentration of (at most) tens of picograms/ml were toxic, there would be no safety signal after so many doses. It’s even more ridiculous to propose that such a minuscule concentration of spike protein can be “shed” in quantities that could affect other people, given the incredibly low and transient concentration produced after vaccination.

Antivaxxers either don’t know or understand that themselves, or they know that the vast majority of people don’t know or understand that. All they need is a finding that any spike protein floats free in the bloodstream after vaccination, and they can use that finding to start an effective fear mongering campaign. That’s exactly what they are doing now.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics

Found it!

This is the real asymptomatic rate for delta from UK. It is not quite the same as silent infections, because some of those will be symptomatic and never tested as COVID or thought to be that. Nor are cases the same as symptomatic infections, because some will be asymptomatic.

So this is a much more accurate answer to W's speculation than my calculation above - unless by silent he juts meant not counted as case. In that case my estimate was exactly accurate and this one, measuring asymptomatics, is wrong.

NB - it is from a random sample survey of households who were tested for COVID and asked about symptoms longitudinally over 4 weeks.

In the UK, 61% of people testing positive for COVID-19 reported symptoms in July 2021. Symptoms reported were more likely to be "classic" symptoms than gastrointestinal or loss of taste or smell only. The prevalence of “classic” and any symptoms was higher in June and July, and January and February, compared with March and April. The most commonly reported symptoms have consistently been cough, fatigue and headache.

Anyway, whether 55% or 39%, this does not significantly affect findings about the mortality of delta. Double hospitalisations is a real figure.

Quote from Navid

This is absolutely a global crime of a proportion so immense the people of the world are truly unable to comprehend the matrix they are in. The fact that this board is being used to promote this is despicable. The Towne Criers who are on constant post and respond are just a small bit of evidence.

The fact that navid's post above gets 4 likes shows quite how much weird anti-vaxer conspiracy theory opinion we have around here.

It is a bit rich antivaxers - who are masters of underhand false social media propaganda - complaining about people like me wanting to correct their lies and doing it transparently, with links, willing to be corrected?

It took me some time to get to calling them lies - but the ones I've been correcting here are so obviously wrong, and repeated so many times, they have now got that status.

If you have libertarian opinions where you believe society is best with a very light touch from government - maybe a form of anarchism - that is a respectable intellectual position. From a left-wing perspective I like many others thought Le Guin's the dispossessed: an ambiguous utopia was a wonderfully attractive - though totally batty - example of an anarchistic utopia.

Advancing lies about COVID or vaccines to get others to fall in line with it is not respectable, and done en masse on social media has caused in the US unnecessary deaths and suffering, lockdowns and restrictive measures to be extended, etc. The fact that whenever we get to specifics you do not continue with arguments shows that you know you do not have good arguments on those specifics.

How about you stop lying and make instead a more general case that all government interference is to be deplored, that 1% of the population dying unpleasantly of COVID is a price worth paying for no lockdown and not providing free mass-vaccination, etc, etc.

I'd even agree with some of it, and what I did not agree with I would at least respect. I'm sure that is true of many others here.

Shane - if you think me fighting against those who use lies that persuade others not to get vaccinated is politics I guess it says a lot that is bad for the political state of the USA. God help you all

Quote from Seatrout

If you have to be persuaded, reminded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, coerced, socially shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is not in your best interest

You show an amazing belief in the goodness of humanity. I mean, most people are sensible most of the time, but what about the others?

And I can think of many things - great example is wearing seatbelts in cars in the UK - where no-one did something that was greatly to their own benefit (I know I did not). Then it was made compulsory. Overnight we all started doing it, and after 12 months it was second nature, no problems, no-one grumbled, and car accident death and severe injury rate was cut by 50%. Sure, we were less free. I know no-one now who values that freedom we used to have.

The good argument for not exerting pressure is actually quite different:

If you have to bully and pressure people into doing something which is in their own interests, most will reset that and go out of their way to do it even more.

Quote from Alan Smith

Away from the world of vaccinations, to the world of travel.

I had a whole file full of paperwork ready for flying from UK to Italy. Vaccination certification in English and Italian, 2 Covid test certificates,, passenger locator form for the Italian immigration. Nobody asked for any of it. Plane 1/4 full, airport running smoothly. People take mask-wearing seriously in airports, aeroplanes, and generally in Italy btw.

I took a free mandatory antigen test and filled in another passenger location form before returning to the UK. Bologna check-in wanted to see those, but nobody in England did.

The theatre of security...

Display More

Boris does not care, and his government is mostly overwhelmed and incompetent. The real risk is weird new variants getting in - and I think Boris just hopes it will not be a problem, but if it is he will deny any repsonsibility.