August 3rd, 2020 : Daily 57,921 cases No vaccine. Prior administration being blamed for everything by some here.
August 3rd, 2021 : Daily 104,758 cases. Vaccine for 7 months. Current administration cannot be at fault!
And now more mandates coming down the road, for both jabless and vaccinated alike!
And the "science" gap grows even wider.
I look to Nov 25/21 to see what Rossi has to offer and if he has
the important Safety Certification.
Sam12,
And what "Safety Certification" would that be.
Having done several UL certifications myself, I know that you can only get "certified" to standards that are published by industry or the government. For example, a safety standard for LED bulbs is :IEC 62471.
So what standard is Rossi getting certified too? Surely he can state that as it would not reveal any secrets. A certification is MEANT to be public, that is why you get one, so that customers can see your product is certified.
So is Rossi going to get certified for:
A LED? No, it is not a LED device.
Incandescent bulb? No
Fluorescent bulb? No
LCD ? No
The SKLED supposedly is some novel type of product unknown to current physics!
Sam12, what standard is Rossi getting certified too? Please ask him this question.
And as in the past, why is this so important? Do you think Rossi will show the certification? He did the SGS cert and it revealed the lies he telling. It had nothing to do with a novel reactor and SGS even sent him a cease and desist order because he was lying about it.
Why do you think he will be any different this time? Rossi lies and he lies about everything. Fake customers, fake invoices, fake engineers and fake certificates!
You have set goal posts before and have now moved them 3 times? I really would like to know why! What evidence at all do you have for moving the "wait and see date" and supporting Rossi?
You should really think about this!
Anyway - we will have no problem social distancing from deer
Being from a very rural area in the mid-west, I have different information.
I am sure not so much in the UK, but in the US, over 6 million deer are harvested annually. Practically speaking, ALL are processed for food. Having been deer hunting almost my entire life, I fully know what is invovled...immediately after taking a deer, one "field dresses" it. Certainly not distancing!
https://www.reference.com/pets…utomobiles%20every%20year.
So no, there could very well be a problem.... however, this is another "framework" the government should use to "nudge" evil guns from law abiding citizens! All for the greater good.... as many would applaud!.....
The food lobby, and capitalism, where things that people like can be marketed without constraint, is the problem.
A bit showing through here!
Is it that people are too stupid to manage their own lives and the government should manage it for them?
(without constraint... who constrains... only the government.. Who sets the constraints... those in power...who is in power... only the elite if they have their way)
It seems the elite think they "know better" and should be able to dictate to the stupid people what is best for them....
at least that is the way every dictatorship and oppressive regime starts..,,, indeed, capitalism is inherently evil. 
It is disappointing that Rossi sceptics can’t see past the end of there Noses.
And what, Sam12, may I ask, do you see past the end of your nose when looking at Rossi?
As many times before, please provide ANY verifiable and remotely believable evidence that Rossi has ANY thing that works... After 12+ years..... any verifiable evidence. Even someone who has seen a Rossi demo and will come out and currently say "yes I think it works". Not some obscure quote from 10 years ago, but say in the last 2 years......anyone one!
Perhaps you can ask Alan Smith.... he personally saw a QuarkX and the demo that was a masterpiece as described by many on ECW.... please ask him how believable Rossi is........
But he also wrote his thesis on Relativity at Bologna Uni and got a distinction for it. I think Rossi is smarter than your average bear,
Well... short memories I guess. Please look back and you will find that Rossi's "Physic thesis" was on the philosophy of physics and had nothing to do with actual physics calculations or theory. His degree is in philosophy and that is what he wrote his thesis for.... philosophy not physics....
yet another "thumbs up" for a clearly fraudulent person... I cannot understand why.
PRINCIPLE is just IVM. And you are wrong to hope that trials should be on compound treatments. If IVM + Zn works, then IVM on its own, or Zn on its own, will work. Maybe less well, but that does not matter. AFAIK there is no good evidence that Zn works.
" If IVM + Zn works, then IVM on its own, or Zn on its own, will work. "
I must disagree with this statement quite strongly. This certainly is NOT following science.
Of course chemistry is absolutely full of interactions.
Testing if certain chemicals are essential to life such as sodium or chlorine? So if I do an RCT seeing if sodium is essential to life and test only sodium, it will result in a complete negative...that sodium will destroy life. If an RCT tests chlorine is necessary for life by itself, it will show it is deadly.
Yet as we all know, sodium and chlorine ARE essential life, but only together as sodium chloride... common salt.
While a simple example, it is quite true. Your statement is simply unfounded that RCT's testing only one variable are full-proof and "will work" is falsifiable and easily disproved.
While it COULD be that a particular substance could work "some" on it's own and then work much better in conjunction with a complimentary agent, your statement that it "will work" and the RCT will tell us is simply opinion and not founded. I have done many, many design of experiments (DOE) in real life engineering... ignoring interactions is a fools errand.... perhaps not in academic math.... but absolutely in the real world!
This is the main problem with RCT's. They can easily leave out absolutely critical components (either intentionally or accidently) that result in incorrect results... .and then people will say "RCT rules" this is proof....... except when an RCT shows something positive against the worldview and then "it is a poor design or poorly conducted trial".
The often quoted saying.... "junk in".... "junk out".... or more scientifically stated .... "bad design in"..... "bad design out".... and the PRINCIPLE trial is NOT immune to this either!
The Swiss CoV-19 data collection has a serious - easily understandable presentation : https://www.covid19.admin.ch/d…logic/death?geoView=table
Go down to 3/4 of the page where you find CoV-19 death/age class - class size 10 years about 0.8.. 1.2 mio. people in each class. So any pop up value of 0.08..0.12 represents a single death/100'000/week of age class.
This is real state official base data that cannot be fudged...Albeit THH would like to do so ... You immediately see that the death risk from vaccine for people age < 50 is at least 10x higher than from CoV-19. (25..40/mio) Even a child can understand this data.
I do not read the language but Google translate seems to do the job.
I see the death/age class referenced above, but am not sure where the "age < 50 at least 10x higher than from Cov-19" is listed or compared. (Sometimes I do not see as a child!) Is the 25.4/million from another source?
Thanks!
But 97% of those 600 are still with mild symptoms so in a week or it will be known If you develop serious COVID or not. 50 out of the 600
Just trying to get a clear picture...
Is it not true that 97% of non-vaccinnated people also have mild symptoms? I guess I am missing the point here?
Is the main point that the vaccine is not stopping infections but assists in mild cases? I may be missing the point....
Bob - just a point here.
First, I want to express appreciation for discussion free of insult and personal innuendo. It certainly can help in bringing sides to a view each others perspective......
Although, I am not sure that my previous post has been really interpreted correctly. The post was the impact and severity that tribalism has and that education often plays a very minor role in one's world view. I gave a few clear examples, one being your and Wyttenbach's high education compared to widely differing views of Covid vaccines. (Not vaccines in general, but specifically Covid, not notably mRNA type)
Jed responded with "nonsense", the vaccines are the most tested ever in history, which is factually incorrect. They have no long term tests, nor have passed even the standard short term protocols. He can argue all he wants, but factually, the vaccines are being used under emergency use clauses because they have not yet passed standard protocols. I am not saying the vaccines are bad, just stating a fact, and he reacts extremely negative about it... proving my point.
You either misunderstand my "tribal" post or are disagreeing. I am not sure which. My point is that "W" apparently has very high math skills and education. Skills which on the surface should allow him to "follow the science" and come to a factual conclusion. You likewise, have high math skills have the same data sets available and yet come to a completely different conclusion, although you would also claim to be "following the science".
My point is that most people "join a tribe" very early in any debate and rarely change sides.....no matter what their education or what 'the data" says.
I look at it this way... I could be wrong.... you read a public service announcement from TSN and expect it to be a full RCT. Do you expect CNN to be the same? Also, the people that report on TSN for example, often have high degrees and field experience in medicine. However, because you do not agree with their conclusions, you can pick apart the submitted data to support your view. I fully expect that the Pfizer RCT data supporting their vaccines can be picked apart as well. "W" states it is bogus, and he has a high math aptitude!!!
Do you see what I am saying.... "follow the science" is in the eye of the beholder and often that eye is cast by the "Tribe" a person joins early. I know Chicago Cubs fans that possibly would get physically violent with a White Sox fan... or vice versa..... over a simple sport! Unfortunately, it is the same with this Covid arena.
Rothwell blames the Republicans and Fox news for Biden's incompetence. (See previous post) He has to blame someone, he cannot blame his own tribe! Covid cases are on the rise.. it cannot be the vaccines fault... it has to be "stupid conservatives".... (it certainly cannot be that the virus has mutated and the vaccines are losing strength.... that is a vaccine negative!
So that is my point and I am unsure there is a solution.
I would like to point out .... I do not know of any "anti-vaxxers" on this site. Perhaps one? But I believe just about everyone on this site HAS taken the vaccine, certainly the majority.... so much for "stupid conservatives"....... They are just concerned about long term safety of mRNA vaccines. Tribalism does not seem to allow that open and impersonal discussion. (From BOTH sides I might add!)
(P.S. I will acknowledge that I have not taken any Covid vaccines yet. To restate, I have contracted the virus and I have seen no studies that have convinced me natural protection is inferior to the vaccines. As with everything, there are reports with opposing conclusions. Actually I am leaning towards that natural is better than the artificial. I also take D, Zn and Quercetin, all having some level of studies showing efficacy, with NO side affects and other positives to take it.
I also had Ivermectin, which I took during my Covid case, which was extremely mild. My wife took it a second time a few weeks ago having some symptoms, which truthfully is almost impossible to detect from regular cold or flu without testing. Both times, we saw physically noticeable improvement, the next day! (Proof? No...but certainly not a negative)
However I have not been able to get Ivermectin locally so I reordered from Amazon.... it was supposed to be here today and it apparently has never shipped... I am concerned that there has been some type of stoppage on shipping Ivermectin similar to what happened with HCQ. We will see.
I plan to wait at least six months before making a final decision on a vaccine shot. )
More nonsense. Every reported side effect of the vaccine has been investigated in more detail, with better diagnostics and more data than any vaccine in history. In fact, with more data and in more detail than all previous vaccines combined, in all of medical history. There have never been such careful investigations of possible negative consequences. They would not have been possible in any earlier era because we did not have big data, AI, modern communications and the internet.
Prime example...
What to do???
Tribal warfare rages on....
Vaccine warriors.... anything that reduces vaccine importance by any amount must be censored as "against science" and "fake news". No questioning nor investigating possible negative issues of the vaccine is allowed. Certainly one must never give possible credence to a report that casts a dim light on vaccines, no matter the source or content.
Vaccine warriors.... anyone who supports vaccines are "an expert" and can be quoted and believed. Anyone who questions vaccine safety or efficacy, no matter what qualifications they have, is a quack and anti-vaxxer. They are to be censored and reviled.... preferably personally attacked. Papers that they may write should automatically be censored. No credence can be given to them in any way. Evidence.... ALL reports listed here that question vaccines or propose postive alternatives to vaccines have been attacked......regardless...
If a fish oil report should be questioned due to "who funded the study", vaccine trials done by the big pharma companies who have billions of dollars at stake and same reports provide the vast majority of positive evidence for vaccines, should be believed without any skeptisism.
hmmm.....interesing....
Anti-Vaxxers - indeed just as bad.. anything to do with vaccines is automatically bad....
HOWEVER...
I do not think there are any anti-vaxxers on this forum. Just people who have concerns with a novel type of vaccine, never before approved for human use (still not approved under normal standards) with a very concerning safety record for early testing (mRNA development) and no current long term safety testing. Remember, it took 5 years for thalomide to be banned. You can still purchase tobbacco even though the Surgeon General has stated it is extremely bad for several years.... after many years of not saying anything when tobacco industry "safety trials" said it was ok. Surely this would not happen today!?!?!?
Education?.... hmmm.. everyone on this site has some education... several advanced. Wyttenbach and THH both have advanced math.... yet are polar opposites.
Rothwell and THH both are educated and are pretty much in agreement with vaccines.... yet are bitterly opposed concerning LENR testing and results. While Rothwell and Wyttenbach both agree that LENR is a demonstrable event. Wyttenbach and Rothwell are bitterly opposed concerning Covid vaccinations. (Wyttenback is NOT an anti-vaxxer by the way and has said so many times)
Alan, Dennis Letts and I all have degrees. Yet Dennis and I disagree significantly with Alan concerning something as smple as IH! Where Dennis has personal experience with them and should have much more "weight" to his opinion. However, I doubt Alan has changed his view in the least about IH.
So education, while very important, does not solve tribal thnking.
"Following the science" meme is "BS" as everyone above states they ARE following the science.
Science is simply an interpetation of data, formed hypothoses and often faith. (Yes indeed). Some areas more concrete than others. ..
So it boils down to tribal association, whether you are of a political party, social system, a religion or yes, even a sports team fan, people are tribal and thier views and thinking are far, far more shaped by this than they would like to admit..... including my own! 
So the tribal warfare goes on.....I am unsure of anyway to fix it.
I forgot to mention...
I shopped in four other farm store brands within 30 miles of my location.... All were sold out. When I purchased my first lot, the bins were full. Interesting.
I mentioned the price increase only because it was related to a controversial Covid treatment. Normally a 75% price increase would not have been seen in such a short time.
THH -
Lets just say that I am actually in current business in the US. I know exactly what is causing the huge inflation of my costs as my vendors tell me why their prices are going up. I know exactly why MY prices are going up as well.... I personally SET those prices and thus know exactly why! There is NOTHING mysterious about it.
So let's leave it that I disagree with you 100% on this issue and DO feel that I am far more qualified knowing why my costs and prices are increasing. I have first hand knowledge of it and do not need a biased news agency or others to tell me why I do not know! I have no doubt on this subject what so ever and I have substantiated business facts (not hear say but actual knowledge) of why.
But since this subject goes political and off topic, I will leave it at that! 
Interesting tidbit.
I decided to purchase a couple extra tubes of Ivermectin at the local farm store where I purchased my first tube, for $3.99
They were out.... and the price tag had increased to $6.99. A 75% increase... of course inflation is rampant under the Biden administration. My business is seeing all prices sky rocket.
But interestingly enough, there was a printed sign on the the rack that holds the ivermectin. I should have taken a photo... it stated... "contrary to some reports, Ivermectin does NOT work for Covid19. Consumption of this product is harmful to humans"
Notice that they do not state is is unproven, they state it does NOT work! Now I wonder who required this sign????
In any case, either the store pulled all the product or they simply sold out.... .I suspect the latter.
-Bob
It will eliminate the inhuman treatment of animals, and the slaughterhouse.
Indeed it will. There will be several animal breeds be extinct very soon. Already several are endangered if you look at actual numbers. Some say 1 in 5 farm breeds are endangered.
https://www.livestockconservan…ved/internal/top-5-breeds
If a farm cannot make money selling animal products... meat... milk... leather....etc, they will not raise them.
This will cause their extinction.
These animals have no wild alternatives nor zoos....so they will indeed become extinct, but non-existence is better than the inhumane treatment!
Oh well.... who cares... they are not "real" animals anyway! They are "man-modified" through selective breeding. So it would be correct to set the world back in it's natural state by allowing these to become extinct. At least that is what some vegan sites say.
Display Morehttps://trialsitenews.com/auth…al-news-rundown-episodes/
So i'd like to thank FM1 for pushing me to re-examine this issue. Here trialsite is complaining about being censored. Specifically, it says it is balanced, objective, just posts scientific research.
That is partly true. Not the whole truth. Its mission is:
https://trialsitenews.com/about-us/
TrialSiteNews was launched to drive more interest and awareness in clinical research, as well as to develop trust and facilitate engagement of researchers and the public. TrialSite started toward the end of 2018, financed solely by the founder, to create a new disruptive force in the world of biomedical research.
TrialSite emphasizes the trial site organization and its staff, whether a hospital, health system, community clinic, or commercial research center, and the breakthroughs, challenges, best practices, and mishaps, all in a bid to provide more transparency for the broader population as to the nuts and bolts of clinical trials.
Have something important to share with our editorial team? Email us
Mission & Values
TrialSite’s mission is to drive awareness, introduce transparency, and facilitate engagement among people all over the world, from pharmaceutical professionals and academic researchers to regulators and healthcare professionals along with a wide array of the consuming public.
We value transparency, objectivity, and the scientific method in pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead us.
Whereas the mainstream journals use peer review to sort out what has merit (imperfect - but diverse because every editorial board is different - and we have no better filter) trialsite says it is a news site. Therefore its publication will be determined by editorial policy, not science.
I can see the need for independent views on medical trails - to counteract big pharma pushing fake positive results for profitable drugs. That does not apply in the same way for COVID vaccines which are subject to very strong regulatory interest and also are not money-spinners. Maybe trialsitenews does this job OK?
Looking at the op ed authors:
https://trialsitenews.com/op-ed-authors/
(the only medic) Pierre Kory - FLCC. He is the strongest proponent of Ivermectin as an early COVID treatment. He may be right, or wrong. He sure is not neutral or objective on this issue, it is his hobbyhorse!
Ron B Brown - PhD - published https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32782048/. This was questioning the lethality of COVID in June 2020, when the mainstream view was around an IFR of 0.5% - 1.5% - much higher than Flu. He says here that this is questionable, and suggests:
In testimony before US Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was 10-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.
[RBB says] Almost as a parenthetical afterthought, the NEJM editorial inaccurately stated that 0.1% is the approximate case fatality rate of seasonal influenza. By contrast, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 0.1% or lower is the approximate influenza infection fatality rate,5 not the case fatality rate
Agreed, the Flu rate quoted is IFR not CFR. And that must therefore be compared with the COVID IFR, lower than the COVID CFR. But COVID IFR is still 0.7%ish (dependent on age profile - as also is Flu IFR). A lot higher than seasonal Flu.
RBB argues in a way I find tricky (wrong) in his paper:
In NIAID testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Hearing on Coronavirus response, Day 1,3 the Committee learned that mortality from seasonal influenza is 0.1%. Additionally, it was reported to Congress that the overall coronavirus mortality of approximately 2-3% had been reduced to 1% to take into account infected people who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The adjusted mortality rate from coronavirus of 1% was then compared with the 0.1% mortality rate from seasonal influenza, and the conclusion was reported to the House Committee that the coronavirus was 10-times more lethal than seasonal influenza.
In a comparative analysis with WHO and CDC documents, the coronavirus mortality rate of 2-3% that was adjusted to 1% in Congressional testimony is consistent with the coronavirus CFR of 1.8-3.4% (median, 2.6%) reported by the CDC.13 Furthermore, the WHO reported that the CFR of the H1N1 influenza virus (1918) is also 2-3%,14 similar to the unadjusted 2-3% CFR of the coronavirus reported in Congressional testimony, with no meaningful difference in mortality. As previously mentioned, the WHO also reported that 0.1% is the IFR of seasonal influenza,5 not the CFR of seasonal influenza as reported in the NEJM editorial.
So the adjusted COVID rate (down to 1% from 2-3%) referred to here is actually an estimated IFR, and it is correct to compare that with the Flu IFR of 0.1%.
NEJM may have got this wrong (I have not checked). But we have still this 10X figure, because the adjustment here gives us an estimate IFR. The actual figure is 7X (original COVID) going up because of alpha which is more lethal - and maybe down because of better treatment. But those further adjustments could not be known in 2020. Oh, and the WHO 0.1%, RBB says, is an upper estimate for Flu IFR. So in this comparison these figures maybe need to go up a bit if Flu is less lethal than 0.1% IFR.
RBB is right that confusion between IFR and CFR is common. Wrong that the 10X figure, from evidence presented, is not a fair initial assessment of the relative risk.
Here is RBBs estimate which ironically suffers the problem he points out (confusion about CFR):
In NIAID testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Hearing on Coronavirus response, Day 1,3 the Committee learned that mortality from seasonal influenza is 0.1%. Additionally, it was reported to Congress that the overall coronavirus mortality of approximately 2-3% had been reduced to 1% to take into account infected people who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The adjusted mortality rate from coronavirus of 1% was then compared with the 0.1% mortality rate from seasonal influenza, and the conclusion was reported to the House Committee that the coronavirus was 10-times more lethal than seasonal influenza.
In a comparative analysis with WHO and CDC documents, the coronavirus mortality rate of 2-3% that was adjusted to 1% in Congressional testimony is consistent with the coronavirus CFR of 1.8-3.4% (median, 2.6%) reported by the CDC.13 Furthermore, the WHO reported that the CFR of the H1N1 influenza virus (1918) is also 2-3%,14 similar to the unadjusted 2-3% CFR of the coronavirus reported in Congressional testimony, with no meaningful difference in mortality. As previously mentioned, the WHO also reported that 0.1% is the IFR of seasonal influenza,5 not the CFR of seasonal influenza as reported in the NEJM editorial.
RBB is now comparing Flu and COVID CFRs, noting they are similar, and deducing from that that there is no meaningful difference in mortality. Wrong. It is IFR not CFR that determines mortality. CFR dpends on case identification rate which varies widely and is not reliable.
So the 2nd op-ed writer for trialsite is a PhD published on COVID - but his paper is an outlier and has this obvious fault in its argument. It is pushing the (politically right-wing) hope that COVID is in fact no more serious than Flu and therefore should be treated the same way. That was, even at the time, an obviously poor judgment.
The other op-ed writers have no stated expertise on medicine:
- Steve Kirsch - Tech Entrepeneur
- Peter Yim - Computer Scientist
- Mary Beth Pfeiffer - investigative journalist.
As result of this investigation I would say the editorial policy at trialsitenews will certainly be colored by its in-house op-ed writers, and therefore will be:
- biassed towards Ivermectin
- biassed towards underestimating severity of COVID
These two biasses are quite large in that the op-ed house writers have way out views.
- I am of course sympathetic with any argument that says CFR overestimates severity and therefore should not be used. You remember how much time we spent trying to guess IFR on this thread. the resulting 0,7% or so (though higher than I was hoping initially) was about right for typical Western population demoraphucs. (W - please note this is NOT typical of Uttar Pradesh pop'n demographics! The adjusted IFR for them would be much much lower).
- I am not sympathetic with RBB here who uses a CFR compariosn to estimate mortality of COVID! Influenza cases, from his figures, are massively undercounted because in most cases people just stay in bed and suffer a cold. or, for mild cases, go to work and ignore it! Anyway he should have known that CFR is a very unreliable way to judge the ratio, whereas correcting for IFR (the adjusted COVID figure) a better bet.
- Would I ignore trialsitenews? No. Would I view it as reliable? No, it has no scientific peer review, calling itself a news organisation. It has people in charge with fringe views, one of whom has published a paper on COVID that makes really (known at time to be) poor arguments.
- Do I dismiss Ivermectin as a possible helpful drug in treating COVID? No. But I see the likely bias from doctors, and non-RCT studies. I don't see convincing RCT evidence yet. I would want to go on testing it with more RCTs. Do I think Ivermectin would be pretty safe anyway? Probably, but I would have said that about HCQ in the early days not taking into account the issues about its interaction with the immune system that might combine with COVID. I think there is less likely to be a problem with Ivermectin but am no expert on this - so would not like to go against regulatory authorities. I also see the issue about people in this case maybe overdosing (because people will overdose on anything) Ivermectin - and perhaps using Ivermectin for animal which might be less safe. All of those things are reasons to be very cautious about the "take Ivermectin to save yourself from COVID" meme. I can see it as likely doing more harm than good if it means people take fewer other precautions, even if there are no safety issues. That does not apply to people here who are more careful no doubt.
1) So what do you see here that warrants them being censored?
2) Some here say there is no censorship! This is absolute censorship. Yes or no?
3) Is this worse than the Pharma push for Remedisvir? Remember, WHO experts do not approve and FDA approves. ?
This is not a "minor" difference of opinion.... This is supposed to be "science based data" with a drug that can have severe side effects and costs thousands of dollars per dose...... Yet you question Remedisvir and I believe you will be censored on mainstream media posts.
4) Yes, you point out some areas that you perhaps disagree with, or are alluding that discredits the Trialsite qualifications, method or even agenda. Shall we dig into several of the FDA, NIH, WHO schemes and apply the same yardstick? No, that would not do would it.... as we all know corruption abounds there. I am not saying that everything is corrupted about these, but to state there is NONE is naive.
There is nothing good about censorship such as this. Remember, an antivaxer could be the owner of YouTube and censor anything YOU would want to post there...... OR.... the current owner will eventually run across subjects that you support that they will start censoring.
The censorship road always leads to dictatorial and oppressive behavior.... ALWAYS!
........
P.S. It is interesting to see what "side" calls for or thinks censorship is OK! While some here that are concerned about mRNA vaccines argue and even get rude, they may shout that there is much corruption and false data, they may claim government coverups and corporate malfeance, I do not see any of them calling for censorship or to "Cancel out" the voice of the vaccine warriors.
No, only the "liberal elite" (self proclaimed by at least one) here have no issues with censorship.... as long as it is not their voice. One side clearly thinks "they know better" and therefore should be able to silence their critics, simply based upon their ego. That is what led to Nazism, Maoism and now extreme liberal leftism.
History has shown dictatorships always start with censorship.
Display MoreAuthoritarian Rise: YouTube Targeting TrialSite and Cutting Several News Rundown Episodes
https://trialsitenews.com/auth…al-news-rundown-episodes/
In a continuation of unprecedented censorship, YouTube, a Google holding, purged multiple TrialSite videos simply because Ivermectin was a topic in the video. TrialSite emphasizes in all of its videos that it’s an objective, unbiased news site and at no time is the drug recommended as a treatment. That’s not the place of a news site. The banned videos simply cover important information that’s factual, relevant, and current. But the good news: TrialSite’s an independent platform, and the videos will be reposted on the website. Site traffic surpassed record milestones in June and the demand and thirst for accurate research information trumps petty, authoritarian-minded fantasies.
For example, the purged list included our April 5th News Roundup “Scientific Misconduct Accusation with Dr. Andrew Hill’s Ivermectin Meta-Analysis,” which simply showcased the publishing in a scientific journal the meta-analysis completed by Dr. Andrew Hill, et al. After all, this was the meta-analysis referred to by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Or there was a meta-analysis TrialSite reported on in Italy where a group of Italian researchers analyzed a number of studies. Other News Roundups purged by YouTube included the Dr. Tess Lawrie discussion and the “Did Cali Colombia Ivermectin Trial include Protocol Deviations,” which is a straightforward review of allegations of scientific dissention.
Ironically, Ralph Lorigo has been suing hospitals on behalf of patients’ families requesting ivermectin. The Beyond the Roundup show titled “Judge Orders Use of Ivermectin: 80-year Old Mom Now Home & Well” was simply the actual, factual work being done by the attorney fighting for American patients’ rights.
Censorship Not the Answer
TrialSite isn’t an advocacy or activist group, or for that matter, a partisan political group whatsoever. TrialSite simply chronicles research, seeking to raise the bar of knowledge around the world. And that’s exactly why the censors turned their attention to us. It’s not the first time either, as a balanced, completely objective documentary we did was purged long ago.
But although Vice Media declared we “exaggerated” the case in “COVID-19 Censorship: Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts,” we are certain that’s not the case. Each and every time this sort of egregious action occurs, it simply hardens the resolve of those that seek to do what’s right and proper given the circumstances.
It’s clear that the social networks, and indirectly our government, doesn’t want people knowing any truth other than what’s approved by a cadre of removed, detached, myopic authoritarian-minded souls. But they don’t understand how dangerous the precedent they’re setting actually is to a democratic way of life.
TrialSite’s Independent Platform
TrialSite is an independent platform, and we will simply publish the videos on the website. Of course, we enjoy YouTube’s reach but they’re not the reason why we are in business. TrialSite surpassed a million viewers/readers for the month of June and that’s with no marketing or courting of the social media giants. We seek to bring transparency and accessibility to research to advance the overall healthcare of all.
The Purged Content
As mentioned soon, these will be reposed on the TrialSite News website.
April 5th, News Roundup | Scientific Misconduct Accusation with Dr. Andrew Hill’s Ivermectin Meta-Analysis
March 29th, Beyond The Roundup | Italian-led Ivermectin Meta-Analysis: Consider For Help Treating Covid-19?
March 15th, News Roundup | Dr. Tess Lawrie Discusses her Ivermectin Meta-Analysis, the FDA, and Dr. Andrew Hill
March 13th, Beyond The Roundup | Did Cali Colombia Ivermectin Trial Include Protocol Deviations?
March 6th, The Beyond The Roundup | UK BIRD Panel Sends Ivermectin Recommendation to World Health Organization
March 4th , Beyond The Roundup | Judge Orders Use of Ivermectin: 80-year Old Mom Now Home & Well (This last one is about the work being done by lawyer Ralph Lorigo)
Call to Action: Visit www.trialsitenews videos soon for these versions of the news show.
To those here who say there is no censorship against vaccine alternatives, especially ivermectin, this is a indefinable example.!
I have viewed several of their videos and agree that they are spot on with delivering news, not conjecture. This is Nazi / Communist type action.
Some here will disagree... that ivermectin needs "more study". BS! This is not about ivermectin, it is about censorship, plain and simple.
All I can say to those who agree with this censorship is "remember, YOU will be next! " It is always the case.
mRNA vaccine safety.
perhaps this overview, and its references, would form a good starting point for discussion?
I have had a chance to read this... some comments :
"Whereas, mRNA vaccines have been designed and developed for years against other pathogens, such as ebola, zika, rabies, influenza, and cytomegalovirus [22, 23]."
This is very misleading. yes, they have been worked on for years, but never approved NOR used via FDA approved standards! This statement is leading one uneducated to think mRNA vaccines are "old hat", often and successfully used. This is simply not true. In truth, they were attempted to be developed for the above, but never received FDA approval to my knowledge. Why did they not get approval????
"The immune cells then display the spike protein on their surface and break down the instructions to build the spike protein that was provided by the mRNA vaccine (Fig. 2). The immune system recognizes that this protein is foreign and instructs the immune system to develop antibodies against COVID-19 [24]."
This method has the body itself creating foreign matter! The attenuated virus is not subjected, but the body itself is being manipulated to create something it would never do otherwise. These particles are then detected by the bodies immune system and antibodies against it developed. One very serious question is how safe this is! Does the mRNA create ONLY a very limited spike? How well do we know? Also, the body is now creating antibodies for something the very same body created..... autoimmune risks!! Again, long term testing has not been done on this and it was a issue in early mRNA tests.
"As of publication of this review, there have been no serious side effects identified in the ongoing phase 3 clinical trials for both the Moderna and Pfzier/BioNTech mRNA vaccines "
We know more now! There are serious side effects starting to show up. Not frequent (and hopefully will stay rare, believe me I do not want these vaccines to fail) Yet there is no long term reliability tests yet.
", safety of the vaccine was comparable to that of other viral vaccines"
This statement is totally unsupported conjecture. Again, zero long term safety trials have been done for a completely unrelated and novel type of vaccine. It is irresponsible to state this.
"Acute, temporary, unilateral peripheral facial paralysis (Bell’s palsy, an idiopathic palsy of cranial nerve VII) was also reported [34]. "
I am not a doctor nor really qualified to interpret this. However, it would seem that this side effect would be of significant concern as it is neurological. That means the mRNA is creating some set of circumstances that is either not immune related or is causing an auto-immune response to certain nerve pathways. Either way, this should be most concerning, even if rare. Again, short term issues can increase in frequency with time!
No long term studies are known.
"These data raise apprehensions because favorable perinatal outcomes depend a great deal upon amplified helper T cell type 2 and regulatory T cell activity coupled with decreased Th1 responses. Alteration of CD4 + T cell responses during pregnancy is related to unfavorable pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth and fetal loss [43]. Moreover, some evidence suggests that babies born to mothers with variant CD4 + T cell responses may suffer enduring adverse consequences [44]."
Self explanatory..
"Vaccine hesitancy has been described as a “lack of confidence in vaccination and/or complacency about vaccination”"
Over half the article was centered on arguing against vaccine hesitancy and how to over come it.... not providing actual safety information.... Not bad in itself, but really showed the bias of the article... I would not expect any serious negative issues to be reported here.
"
The current data suggests that the currently approved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for the vast majority of the population.
The article was informative and I did increase my understanding of some aspects of the mRNA story,
However, over all it was not very convincing about safety... long term.
To recap my position, it is quite apparent that Covid vaccines work. Different brands seem to have different efficacy... some questionable such as the Sinopharm and others different levels against variants. (Something all vaccines fight against!) I believe the at risk population should educate themselves about thier condition and the risk of the vaccines, but in most cases, probably wise to take it.
For the young (especially under 20) I would not encourage them to take it. Long term studies simply are not proven yet. For those who have had Covid, I am not 100% decided. Natural immunity should as good or better than vaccines, until the variants are considered. I have not seen why the an unmodified vaccine would be any better than natural immunity against variants. Future modified ones certainly might have.
I myself have had Covid. It was extremely mild. I have no known conditional risks. So my stance is unchanged by this article. I will continue vit. D, C, Zn and Quercetin. I have Ivermectin ready. I will personally wait until more long term data is available.
P.S. I was a bit hesitant to post the following.
My wife started feeling a bit under the weather. Symptoms very similar to her previous bout of Covid. She asked me about taking ivermectin again. I re-read the IMASK protocol and related articles. I found nothing that worried me to follow it again.
So she started the prophylactic phase of the IMASK protocol, which includes 5 day, single dose of ivermectin. By day two she reported feeling 100% better. She is a firm believer. (No, we did not test for Covid again however, if ivermectin works against viral Covid, it could work with other viral bugs!)
While I realize this is not proof, my wife is intelligent and not a hypochondriac. I am quite confident she really did feel better. I admit I cannot prove it was ivermectin, but it sure did not hurt the situation.... and has now done so twice. ........ All for $3.99 ...... no, other than asprin/ibuprofen, we do not self medicate..... well maybe a glass of red wine once in a great while. 
Display MoreWell we should find out with the SKLed one way or another.
Rossi is not backing down in getting it to Market.
If he does get it to market it should
be easy to know if the product is
as advertised.
If he does get it to Market then we
can say it is not as advertised.
And the skeptics have won the day.
"If h;e goes to market....."
"If he does not......"
Sam,
Howe many times have you said this?
The original eCat
The Gas Cat
The Hot Cat
The 6 cylinder 1MW plant
The 30? cylinder 1MW plant
The Quark X
The QX
The SX
The SXL
The SXLED .....
and this list will go on and on and on.
I remember at least two drop dead dates for Rossi releases that you stated "if come April nothing happens"....
well those dates have all long past, Rossi has showed absolutely ZERO and now has went from heat.... to electricity... to now producing light! (Wow, a big development?) And yet here you and Mark U stand stating just like the Chicago Cub fans of old.....
"only wait until next year....!"
but like the CCR song states "next year never comes!".....
Again, what solid evidence do you base your hopes on? That is what amazes me! There is none!
If the Covid site is taken down......!!!
The Rossi forum accounts for 14,700 posts since 2016. 5 years to reach that number!
The Covid forum accounts for 13,216 posts since only 2020!
It is on a fast track to take over the #1 spot by far! 
Only one year!
(Although I do not think this is especially a good thing)
Unfortunately, this site might dry up!
Mizuno? going on three years and no confirmable advancement that I am aware of. Actually lowering of output if anything.
Brillouin - several years and nothing concrete.
BLP - The usual "Rossi like annual big announcement" and test, that always seems to fade away after decades.
And I hate to even mention "atom-ecology".
So things might get pretty quiet here.... Rossi seems to be fading and hopefully COVID will disappear. (The pandemic, not this thread)
Display MoreWill you ever acknowledge that the current mRNA COVID vaccines have NEVER went through ANY long term testing?
That prior mRNA vaccines were stopped due to horrid effects?
That HCQ and Ivermectin have been used for decades, with NO adverse effects worth mentioning while the mRNA vaccines are already showing more bad side effects as time goes along.
You bring up the HCQ "positively harmful" yet this is unsupported, MUCH less than the evidence that Ivermectin is positive and even HCQ is positive. Again, you take one "negative study" and place higher value on it than many positives.... it supports the main stream agenda.
Bob:
to address these points:
Agreed - mRNA vaccines have no long-term testing. I acknowledge. Will you acknowledge that the combination of HCQ with COVID attack on immune system (and its effect on long COVID) has no long-term testing. If you deamnd one, you muts demand the other.
BOTH HCQ and Ivermectin have a long, long history of being extremely safe, used around the world, over a huge demographic of ages, races, pre-existing conditions, etc. etc.
mRNA vaccines have zero history.
This is significant. Especially since mRNA vaccines are now starting to show issues. Long term, means long term... we simply do not have that history with the mRNA vaccines yet.
For HCQ or Ivermectin to have some unknown interaction with the virus itself that would cause significant harm, is highly unlikely. HCQ and Ivermectin both were used in other cases such as Zitka and no harmful effects were seen.
So yes, I will admit that I cannot say 100% that HCQ or Ivermectin can be stated to be 100% safe with COVID... BUT... I can confidently state that the history supports them being safe and absolutely MORE CONFIDENT over the zero safety record of mRNA vaccines, which have never been used on humans before.
I think this is issue is simply too clear to argue truthfully. If one questions HCQ or Ivermectin safety, then they should be extremely, extremely concerned about mRNA safety and it's zero long term history or testing.
mRNA vaccines have previously had horrible side effects. Please reference this and let us see what those are, why they happened, are they long term or short term, and then I will come back and eitehr agre with you thyere is unacknowledged risk here, or tell you why that risk is small. I can't comment now since I have not looked at this evidence (had not even heard of it), but am happy to do so.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
and many others, although you will need to filter pre 2020 to find any negative articles due to censorship.
That HCQ and Ivermectin have been used for decades. Yes, but they have not been used for decades with COVID. We know that HCQ interferes with the immune system, as does COVID. We know that this interference can cause long-term side effects (long COVID). We do not know whether long COVID is made on average worse by HCQ, but it looks quite likely. This is a clearly signposted likely risk, with a known mechanism. Whereas your "long-term side effects" of vaccines are highly unlikely.
All the above arguments can be said about mRNA vaccines. Especially "interfering with immune". Yet mRNA has no history nor long term testing. Yet you seem concerned about HCQ and not mRNA? This is illogical.
What is you "highly unlikely" based upon? MERCK statements? I know of no studies and past history (if you really look) of mRNA vaccines is ripe with serious issues. mRNA has been around for at least 20 years but NEVER approved for humans! Do you not think that means "highly unlikely"? This is a bit of doing yourself what you encourage others not to do....
You bring up the HCQ "positively harmful" yet this is unsupported. You know that is untrue, the RECOVERY trial showed danger. You mean maybe that lower doses of HCQ ae less harmful. The evidence on that is not clear. HCQ has had more RCTs than other drugs, can you point to why overall it is helpful?
I believe it well document that the Recovery Trial was fatally flawed and perhaps intentionally so. Again, the dosages given were never recommended by anyone.... this has been argued before and has become a political tool. I do believe if the study showed HCQ to really work, you would not use the results.
However, you do seem to dwell pretty much on HCQ. None of these arguments are available against Ivermectin!
Evidence that Ivermectin and HCQ are positive. You evaluate non-RCT evidence and low quality (not fully registered and carried out as initially intended) RCT evidence as positive - when I see the inevitable positive biasses in this type of evidence. So that is a big difference in how we view the overall evidence base. You will have read the paper i posted a week ago about how doctors and research scientists inevitably have different views about the efficacy of drugs used with emergency authorisation. Doctors will always be more positive.
You assume much here! No RCTs?, flawed studies? How many ivermectin studies have you actually read yourself to state that all of my references are flawed? I provided links to an accredited medical school, who published a formal protocol with Ivermectin as the main agent. They listed their sources of studies and evidence. By this statement, I must then assume you are stating this medical school is unqualified, baseless and should be discredited as an outlier, without really researching their source material? These are medical professional teaching medicine, not internet bloggers.
Should I take their advice or is your's more qualified? Simply put.
I am not saying I know Ivermectin or even lower-dose HCQ do not work. Just that the evidence for them is not good, and the possibilities of more harm than good are real.
"More harm than good are real", yes there are often unknowns. Yet you seem to state that the "possibilities" of medicine with decades of large volume use is "possibly" more harmful than mRNA vaccines that have NEVER been widely used, NEVER passed standard long term safety trials, HAVE HAD past serious issues, and ARE showing recent side effects. You do not show what data or studies support this claim and since we both agree that actual studies are important, what studies are you using to support your claim?
As far as the "good" HCQ or Ivermectin do.... that is a debated issue. As W states, India "seems" to have used ivermectin with extreme success. There are many studies that state it works. Not all are excellent studies, but not fatally flawed either. There are some very good studies. I have not seen any good studies (proper dosages, proper protocols, etc.) that state is does either harm nor does not work.
perhaps this overview, and its references, would form a good starting point for discussion?
Please scroll through the above block by clicking the "Display more" button. I inserted my answers in the referenced post and you cannot see them without scrolling down.....
I will read your link. It may take a while before I get time to give it proper study. Thank you.
