COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Buddy Rich]

REVEALED: Google Funded Wuhan Institute Of Virology's Top Research Partner Peter Daszak For Over A Decade.

Could this explain why big tech silenced debate on the origins of COVID-19?

REVEALED: Google & USAID Funded Wuhan Collaborator Peter Daszak's Virus Experiments For Over A Decade.

[od1]

Update on McCloskey's:

St. Louis gun-waving couple plead guilty to misdemeanor charges | Law and order | stltoday.com

[Gilead]

5 minutes 45 seconds in
Putin To Rude NBC Journo Who Keeps Interrupting Him: Don't Blame The Mirror If You Are Ugly! - YouTube

[mpalios]

This is great and all, but is any mainstream (lying) media going to run with this story? Doubt it.

REVEALED: Google Funded Wuhan Institute Of Virology's Top Research Partner Peter Daszak For Over A Decade.

Could this explain why big tech silenced debate on the origins of COVID-19?

REVEALED: Google & USAID Funded Wuhan Collaborator Peter Daszak's Virus Experiments For Over A Decade.

[johnst_nhb]

Amazing. You are completely unfamiliar with the topic. I think you must be an evil Hospital Administrator.

Or just from Seattle.

[Mark Rippetoe]

5 minutes 45 seconds in
Putin To Rude NBC Journo Who Keeps Interrupting Him: Don't Blame The Mirror If You Are Ugly! - YouTube

Amazing. It takes Putin to make the US state media talk about Jan. 6 and Ashli Babbitt.

[Michael Grantham]

Are you just not bothering to read or what? And it was in public discussion at least as far back to May 2020 so absolutely on the radar in clinical and research settings well before then. Antiviral and immune modulating effects of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had been out there for quite some time, for decades. It's not surprising to see benefits of oral admin of ivermectin for covid prevention and early treatment given its fecal/oral transmission, especially in places like India.

Please keep in mind that what was being done was to do nothing, no formal treatment, until people were really bad off. Nothing. Fully retarded.

As I am not fully retarded or so stupid to depend on the corrupt and compromised and herd-mentality modern medical industry, people who absolutely don't give a wet hammer about me, increasing stores of ivermectin was a first half 2020 thing.

You do realize that the institutions of the medical industry were the big vector in making people who were close to death already get sick? So the actions were a combination of doing nothing for the general population and spreading infection to the most compromised, while ignoring or doing the exact opposite of everything known over the last century plus about viral epidemics. Full retard. Made a bunch of money though.

As I said, I'm not claiming that everything was done correctly. I'm aware of the issues with some health-related facilities, nursing homes especially.
The data are simply unconvincing that this can be used as an effective prophylactic for at risk populations. Most of the studies are small, and do not even show enough of a protective effect to be relied on as the only line of defense. Of course you know this, but for the benefit of other folks...in vitro (lab-based) studies are only useful to give you a starting point for what might working a person. All sorts of compounds work fantastically in the lab, but are completely useless in people. Mouse studies are only slightly more useful. Even if we had the data available now in March of 2020, I still would not be convinced that this is sufficient to serve as the sole line of protection for populations that are at risk for severe disease. We didn't have those data. There may have been rumblings about some of this, but enough to rely on prophylaxis as the sole line of defense while transmission (and therefore potential exposure events for vulnerable populations) increases throughout the rest of the population?

And no, Rip...I'm not a hospital administrator. Just a virologist. I'm sure that will give folks plenty of reason to throw rocks, but such is life on the internet.

[cmdrfunk]

REVEALED: Google Funded Wuhan Institute Of Virology's Top Research Partner Peter Daszak For Over A Decade.

Could this explain why big tech silenced debate on the origins of COVID-19?

REVEALED: Google & USAID Funded Wuhan Collaborator Peter Daszak's Virus Experiments For Over A Decade.

Enjoy.
https://media.patriots.win/post/DL8j0Lli.png

[Gilead]

Kevin Mkernan
Now that Baker has wrecked the economy and wants to raise taxes for his mismanagement of the Pandemic, They start to come clean on their fraudulent fear porn campaign of over counting C19 deaths.
Many people spoke out about this but are silenced.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/23/nation/is-massachusetts-undercounting-covid-deaths-nursing-homes/?camp=bg:brief:rss:MSN&rss_id=MSN_rss_brief https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1406220459100807170/photo/1
https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/s...100807170?s=19
"Until April 15, on its daily dashboard Massachusetts had used a sweeping definition for COVID deaths in long-term care. It was counting any resident or staff who contracted COVID at any time prior to their death in a nursing home or a hospital or rest home. Even those who tested positive but later died of an apparently unrelated cause were counted as a nursing home COVID death."
Is Massachusetts undercounting COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes? - The Boston Globe

But it is not the fault of these malfeasance fucks. The definition from the WHO was and is still just as vague. Infact, official up to date policy is still a ghost chase (giving the authorities the ability to flick the switch when the time is right) and one of the main reasons why there are less cases is because of the cycle threshold amendments.

"Individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 may never develop symptoms (asymptomatic cases), they may have very mild disease
(pauci-symptomatic), or they may develop moderate to severe COVID-19 disease [18-26]. The most robust evidence for viral
infection comes from the detection of fragments of the virus, such as proteins or nucleic acids, through virological testing. Infected
individuals may test positive for viral nucleic acids or viral proteins without symptoms (asymptomatic), or before symptom onset
(pre-symptomatic), and throughout a disease episode (symptomatic). For those who develop COVID-19 illness, symptoms can be
wide-ranging at initial presentation of disease. Individuals may present with very mild symptoms, with apparent pneumonia, febrile
illnesses/sepsis, and less commonly with gastro-enteritis or neurological symptoms [99]. If required for case management, patients
should also be tested for other pathogens, as recommended in local clinical management guidelines, but this should never delay
testing for SARS-CoV-2 [99, 100]. Co-infections of SARS-CoV-2 with other pathogens have been reported, thus a positive test for
another pathogen does not rule out COVID-19 and vice versa [27, 101-109]. Cases of false positive dengue antibody test results
using a dengue rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in COVID-19 patients have been reported [110, 111]. There is also a risk of false positive
or false negative SARS-CoV-2 results, if testing is not performed with adequate assays or not done under adequate conditions."
Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2

As I said, I'm not claiming that everything was done correctly. I'm aware of the issues with some health-related facilities, nursing homes especially.
The data are simply unconvincing that this can be used as an effective prophylactic for at risk populations. Most of the studies are small, and do not even show enough of a protective effect to be relied on as the only line of defense. Of course you know this, but for the benefit of other folks...in vitro (lab-based) studies are only useful to give you a starting point for what might working a person. All sorts of compounds work fantastically in the lab, but are completely useless in people. Mouse studies are only slightly more useful. Even if we had the data available now in March of 2020, I still would not be convinced that this is sufficient to serve as the sole line of protection for populations that are at risk for severe disease. We didn't have those data. There may have been rumblings about some of this, but enough to rely on prophylaxis as the sole line of defense while transmission (and therefore potential exposure events for vulnerable populations) increases throughout the rest of the population?

And no, Rip...I'm not a hospital administrator. Just a virologist. I'm sure that will give folks plenty of reason to throw rocks, but such is life on the internet.

There was and is plenty of real life in vivo real life scenarios studies. Here is a starting point Health Professionals Resources - British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group
Just be open to looking at facts and details that are found from simple honest professionals that actually care for humanity. And not only wanting to use data from well funded huge organizations that care for their pockets before the people.
If you want I can find you more sites and studies as there is a plethora of them.
And at the end of the day especially in the case of Ivermectin, we had nothing to lose with just giving it a shot since it's safety profile is very robust and known. We have many years of experience with this drug, albeit in different settings, but that doesn't change the fact that it is safe. So at least try it! We are being told that this is a PANDEMIC after all. And if that is the case the gloves should be taken off and we should try all and everything especially if they are safe. Or maybe this pandemic is not that dangerous. I wish they would make up their minds already.

A nice casual listen into the mind of a true scientist and how his innocent naive exploration for truth started in his childhood.
Sons of Sputnik: Kary Mullis at TEDxOrangeCoast - YouTube

[Jovan Dragisic]

As I said, I'm not claiming that everything was done correctly. I'm aware of the issues with some health-related facilities, nursing homes especially.
The data are simply unconvincing that this can be used as an effective prophylactic for at risk populations. Most of the studies are small, and do not even show enough of a protective effect to be relied on as the only line of defense. Of course you know this, but for the benefit of other folks...in vitro (lab-based) studies are only useful to give you a starting point for what might working a person. All sorts of compounds work fantastically in the lab, but are completely useless in people. Mouse studies are only slightly more useful. Even if we had the data available now in March of 2020, I still would not be convinced that this is sufficient to serve as the sole line of protection for populations that are at risk for severe disease. We didn't have those data. There may have been rumblings about some of this, but enough to rely on prophylaxis as the sole line of defense while transmission (and therefore potential exposure events for vulnerable populations) increases throughout the rest of the population?

And no, Rip...I'm not a hospital administrator. Just a virologist. I'm sure that will give folks plenty of reason to throw rocks, but such is life on the internet.

The campaigns against hcq and ivermectin are anything but "we don't have a sample large enough to base assumptions on".