COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Gilead]

New Study: From mid-January through the end of June 2021, 48% of all hospitalized COVID patients may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

Researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System analyzed nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions across the country to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent (NIH definition of "severe COVID").

If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 were admitted for another reason entirely or have mild or asymptomatic cases.

COVID Hospitalization Numbers Can Be Misleading - The Atlantic

The COVID-19 Hospitalization Metric in the Pre- and Post-vaccination Eras as a Measure of Pandemic Severity: A Retrospective, Nationwide Cohort Study | Research Square

-----------------------
Scientific Evidence Doesn’t Back Booster Covid Shots, Researchers Warn — Even For The Delta Variant

[Ray Gillenwater]

I'm not going to do a detailed analysis

Is your position that Ivermectin doesn't work? If so, what evidence do you have? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Or is your position that there is no concrete evidence that Ivermectin works? If the latter, how can you come to a conclusion without doing a detailed analysis?

Our claim is that Ivermectin does work. If you venture away from Google, who are actively censoring information, you can find studies, RCTs, and a meta analysis. For example: Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

Check out the FLCCC's website too.

The body of evidence is compelling. And even if there wasn't a single piece of published scientific evidence, I personally know that it works because I've seen it with my own eyes, dozens of times. I know whether or not Ivermectin works as well as I know whether or not ibuprofen is a pain reliever.

If your position is anything other than "I don't know if it works or not," then please share how you arrived at your conclusion.

[Jovan Dragisic]

I'm wondering how far their incompetence goes, though. California has more conservatives than several other states combined. It's especially brazen, lately. I wouldn't be surprised if Cali actually becomes the epicenter for revolution.

I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled over and went back to sleep, either.

But what exactly makes you think that the recall vote will have anything to do with the votes? It’s like people in Europe are expecting the French people to vote in Marie le Pen as the next president. I mean, I don’t doubt they will, but what difference would it make?

[Jenni]

please name a single virus that is currently being treated with ivermectin

Drugs are constantly being studied for off-label use. My piggy got sick a couple of years ago so I happen to have gotten quite the schooling on Ivermectin. Turns out the shit shows promise in quite a lot of virus treatments including but not limited to Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle (which actually sounds a fuck of a lot like Covid), and equine encephalitis. It's also actively being prescribed for things like rosacea by dermatologists.
Before all this Covid shit, researchers seemed pretty psyched about the potential for the safe, cheap Ivermectin: Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted ?wonder? drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations | The Journal of Antibiotics
*Over the past decade, the global scientific community have begun to recognize the unmatched value of an extraordinary drug, ivermectin, that originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan.
*Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins.
*Over the past few years, there have been steadily increasing reports that ivermectin may have varying uses as an anti-cancer agent, as it has been shown to exhibit both anti-cancer and anti-cancer stem cell properties.

I don't know if it treats Covid. I haven't had the shit. But I do know one thing. Not one of the fuckers hollering about "horse paste" can seem to tell me exactly what the downside of letting people try it might be. It's a fuck of a lot safer than most of the drugs people take regularly. It's damn sure been around longer than a lot of them. So unless someone has a heavy load of loa loa worms in them I don't understand why the medical community isn't just handing people the scripts. What? Afraid to give people a taste of controlling their own medical situation? Afraid people will find out there's a cheap treatment for Covid? Or cancers? Or HIV? Educate people, tell them what they need to know (hey, don't take the dose for the 800lb horse) and then sit back and let them control their own bodies- why is this hard? What the fuck is with this need to control every little aspect of people's lives? Some of these people have way too much time on their hands.

[Gilead]

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

[Gilead]

Be aware of these tactics for your soldiers rights!
Israeli soldiers forced jab in middle of the night - YouTube

[Gilead]

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._-_week_36.pdf

UK: Why is the rate of Covid cases higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated?

Public Health England’s latest vaccine surveillance report has some interesting findings buried in it.

For the age group 40-79 (nearly half the population) the Covid case rate is HIGHER among the vaccinated than the non-vaccinated.

Recent studies showed that the viral load among the vaccinated and unvaccinated is similar. This latest data suggests that while the vaccines are reducing the probability of severe illness – important in the elderly - they are doing nothing to prevent transmission in the 40-79 age group. The opposite in fact.

PHE’s own commentary states: “In individuals aged 40 to 79, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.”

It makes yet another mockery of vaccine passports.

[Gilead]

Teenage boys more at risk from vaccines than Covid

A major study has found that teenage boys are 6 times more likely to suffer from heart problems from the vaccine than be hospitalised from Covid-19. During periods when Covid hospitalisations are low, this rises to more than 22 times.

The highest risk of a “cardiac adverse event” are boys aged between 12 and 15 and boys are more than 12 times more likely than girls of the same age to suffer these effects.

The risk of severe Covid in children is vanishingly small: the infection fatality rate for under 19s globally is just 0.003% according to the CDC. Neither is ‘Long Covid’ an issue in children, as PANDA has shown many times.

It’s for that reason that even relatively rare adverse effects from the vaccines quickly cancel out any potential benefit to children, as this study demonstrates. And that’s without even considering the unknown long-term effects of mRNA vaccines.

The UK’s Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, seemed to tacitly acknowledge this when he said, chillingly, that the government wanted to “consider the vaccination of 12- to 15-year-olds from a broader perspective.”

What “broader perspective” is there for giving millions of children a vaccine they don’t need, and very possibly does them net harm? Is he referring to the need to protect adults by lowering transmission? ‘Taking one for the team’?

Leaving aside the abhorrent morality in this, studies have shown again and again that children are not major vectors of transmission, and that the vaccines have poor efficacy against transmission, evidenced in real life by the record daily cases in highly-vaxxed countries like England and Israel.

Once again, science has been upended by politics and once again, it is children who will suffer most.

A 12-year-old has 70+ years of remaining life expectancy. That’s 70+ years for unknown long-term vaccine effects to manifest themselves. For vaccines using mRNA technology for the first time ever.

Taking that risk with millions of children for a disease that scarcely affects them is madness.

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis | medRxiv

Follow our channels:
pandata.org
Telegram | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
🐼

[3rdcoast_slope]

Pick any disease you want and we could take the same measures we did with Covid. This was a politically charged response by an anxious public with psychopaths in charge. We sooth our anxieties by allowing wolves to protect us… it’s a trade off most are willing to do. I have to quote your favorite philosopher here Rip..

“Society is in this respect like a fire -- the wise man warming himself at a proper distance from it; not coming too close, like the fool, who, on getting scorched, runs away and shivers in solitude, loud in his complaint that the fire burns.”

-Arthur Schopenhauer

There are smart people on this board… don’t let the rest of society get you down too much. If you listen to the podcast on home protection and self awareness, don’t live in a big city, and don’t consume too much bad news… there is a really good chance your life will be awesome.

[Farmer]

I'm not going to do a detailed analysis, but here are the type 5 journal articles that came up after typing "ivermectin covid" into google scholar that have been published since 2021. I am also admitting that I am not reading these in substantial detail. I am certain this is far more work than you have attempted with your responses


Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Infectious Diseases | JAMA | JAMA Network

"Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes."

This one^ is funny.
The invect.group resolved symptoms two days faster (10d) than control (12d).
But then its funny, they are worried about headaches out to 21 days or something.
"By day 21, 82% in the ivermectin group and 79% in the placebo group had resolved symptoms. The most common solicited adverse event was headache, reported by 104 patients (52%) given ivermectin and 111 (56%) who received placebo. "
This anaglous to the Long Covid^TM stuff .... where as if you have a headache, anexity, or some throat muscos 8 weeks after infection you have the Long Covid^TM.

oh, and here, I found this:

López-Medina et al., JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3071 (Peer Reviewed)
Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

An open letter, signed by >100 physicians, concluding this study is fatally flawed can be found at [1].

Phone survey based RCT with low risk patients, 200 ivermectin and 198 control, showing lower mortality, lower disease progression, lower treatment escalation, and faster resolution of symptoms with treatment, without reaching statistical significance. Authors find the results of this trial alone do not support the use of ivermectin. However the effects are all positive, especially for serious outcomes which are unable to reach statistical significance with the very small number of events in the low risk population.

With the low risk patient population, there is little room for improvement with an effective treatment - 59/57% (IVM/control) recovered within the first 2 days to either "no symptoms" or "not hospitalized and no limitation of activities"; 73/69% within 5 days. Less than 3% of all patients ever deteriorated.
The primary outcome was changed mid-trial, it was originally clinical deterioration, which is more meaningful, and shows greater benefit. The new outcome of resolution of symptoms includes "not hospitalized and no limitation of activities" as a negative outcome and is not very meaningful in terms of assessing how much treatment reduces serious outcomes. Using this measure could completely invalidate results - for example a treatment that eliminates all COVID-19 symptoms but has a temporary minor adverse event could be seen as worse.

Authors state that "preliminary reports of other randomized trials of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 with positive results have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals", however there were actually 8 peer-reviewed RCTs with positive effects published prior to this paper (and 19 total peer-reviewed studies with positive effects).

Authors advised taking ivermectin on an empty stomach, reducing lung tissue concentration by ~2.5x [2].

76 patients were excluded due to control patients receiving ivermectin. However, there was a similar percentage of adverse events like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain in both treatment and control groups. These are potential non-serious side effects of treatment and suggest that it is possible that many more control patients received some kind of treatment.

Ivermectin was widely used in the population and available OTC at the time of the study. The study protocol only excluded patients with previous ivermectin use within 5 days, however other trials often monitor effects 10+ days after the last dose [3].

This study reportedly has an ethical issue whereby participants were told the study drug was "D11AX22" [4]. The editor-in-chief of JAMA initially offered to help with this issue, but later indicated that "JAMA does not review consent forms", however the lead author reportedly confirmed the issue. Therefore this paper may be retracted (JAMA has not indicated their response yet) [5, 6, 7].

The study protocol specifically allows "the use of other treatments outside of clinical trials". The paper provides no information on what other treatments were used, but other treatments were commonly used at the time, for example [8]. Additionally, the control group did about 5x better than anticipated for deterioration, also suggesting that the control patients used some kind of treatment. Patients which enroll in such a study may be more likely to learn about and use other treatments, especially since they do not know if they are receiving the study medication.

Most data was collected via surveys, without physical examination.

The trial protocol lists “the duration of supplemental oxygen” as an outcome but the results for this outcome are missing.

The study protocol was amended 4 times. Amendments 2-4 are provided but amendment 1 is missing. Amendment 2 increased the inclusion criteria to within 7 days of onset, including more later stage patients and reducing the expected effectiveness.

Grants and/or personal fees, including in some cases during the conduct of the study, were provided by Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, and Gilead. For more details see [9].
Other issues can be found in the comments of the article [10].
For other confounding issues see: [11].
87% medication adherence. NCT04405843.

Do you want me to "do" the other studies you cite ?