Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Karmamatterz]

But masking while fully vaccinated entails a baffling contradiction, one that the British government has sometimes seemed to echo. We’re simultaneously to believe: 1) everyone must get vaccinated; 2) vaccines don’t work. Wrap your head round that. Because if your vaccination overwhelmingly prevents both transmission and disease (meaning it works), even unvaccinated people present no danger to you. So you don’t socially distance. You go to restaurants. You see your friends. And you don’t wear a mask. Yet, bizarrely, in surveys vaccinated Americans express far less willingness than the unvaccinated to resume once-normal activities like hopping on a bus, often by a factor of two. Calling that ‘cognitive dissonance’ may be too generous. Let’s go for ‘state-induced mass hysteria’ instead.

Brainwashing and mass hysteria induced to some degree by trauma. The trauma began with the fear porn, then was followed by actual lockdowns. The fake news lies of bodies piled up and video taken out of context or outright lies where it was filmed in other countries.

The whole masking theatre amounts to pointless, gesturing obeisance.

I've been thinking that things in the USA are worse off with the hysteria and obeisance because of the 2020 politics and that hysteria. The theater here was hysterical to the point of absurd. On top of that we had several riots, buildings burning, people killed and craziness following George Floyd's death. Couple that with the massive left groundswell of anti-OrangeMan and a vigor to set yourself apart from OrangeMan and supporting Biden. The mask wearing became not just something out of the fear porn hysteria, it became a symbol. It was an EASY symbol to wear, very easy. Unlike a t-shirt, flag or bumper sticker the mask was supposedly helping you protect yourself and grandma from dying. So it became super easy to adopt the face diapers as a symbol of what you support. Not that everyone wearing a mask was doing this, but I believe many were, and still are.

Mask wearing is virtue signaling on steroids coupled with a political statement.

[JackRiddler]

Holding out hope...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs

[drstrangelove]

As the corporate state escalates its mRNA vaccination coercion policies, grassroots opposition should be focused around proven alternatives, namely Ivermectin at this point.
1) It breaks free of the vaxx vs antivaxx dichotomy which conflates reasonable doubt with what amounts to QAnon lunacy.
2) The tactic used to attack Ivermectin on efficacy is the same one used to attack mRNA on safety. Thus, an attack on Ivermectin's efficacy can be deflected with an attack on mRNA's safety.
3) The position that there can only be one solution is always weaker than the position there can be many, which is pro-choice. Essentially, you stop fighting against the vaccines in an anti-vaxx movement, and start a pro-choice movement. The only response to the pro-choice movement is point 2, which opens up an attack on the vaccine's safety.

It would appear this is already starting to happen, and as each day passes the credibility of government health administrators declines. Time is on our side.

[stickdog99]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ca ... businesses

California’s new COVID-19 workplace rules will deal ‘crushing blow’ to businesses, critic warns

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board’s new rules allow workers to go maskless – only if every employee in a room is fully vaccinated against the coronavirus. If just one person, is not vaccinated, all employees must wear a mask. ...

Employers are also required to stockpile the most effective N95 masks for employees who want them starting July 1. ...

The board initially voted 4-to-3 to reject any changes to current rules but later reversed the decision to give the new rules the go-ahead on Thursday.

"I think a lot of people were stunned by that ultimate rule. I talked to various business groups who just felt it was arbitrary, capricious, (and) draconian," said DeMaio, who chairs "Reform California" an advocacy group that opposes tax increases and promotes government accountability. "You know, nobody agrees with the rule that they adopted."

The revised rules come as Gov. Gavin Newsom faces a likely recall election this fall brought on by public discontent over his handling of the pandemic. The Cal/OSHA workplace regulations apply in almost every workplace in the state – including workers in offices, factories and retail. ...

"You have all these vaccinated individuals and they're now being told that, ‘well, it doesn't matter if CDC says you don't need to wear a mask. We've decided to force you to wear a mask if any one person in your workplace ... is not vaccinated,’" DeMaio said. "Nowhere in CDC science is that justified. It's not called for. It doesn't provide a benefit to those people because CDC has come out and said that people who are vaccinated do not need to wear masks because there is no risk to them."

[stickdog99]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21258081v1

Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic agent, also has anti-viral properties. Our aim was to assess whether ivermectin can shorten the viral shedding in patients at an early-stage of COVID-19 infection.

Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab was obtained at recruitment and then every two days. Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level). The primary outcome was supported by determination of viral culture viability.

Results Eighty-nine patients were eligible (47 in ivermectin and 42 in placebo arm). Their median age was 35 years. Females accounted for 21·6%, and 16·8% were asymptomatic at recruitment. Median time from symptom onset was 4 days. There were no statistical differences in these parameters between the two groups.

On day 6, 34 out of 47 (72%) patients in the ivermectin arm reached the endpoint, compared to 21/ 42 (50%) in the placebo arm (OR 2·62; 95% CI: 1·09-6·31). In a multivariable logistic-regression model, the odds of a negative test at day 6 was 2.62 time higher in the ivermectin group (95% CI: 1·06–6·45). Cultures at days 2 to 6 were positive in 3/23 (13·0%) of ivermectin samples vs. 14/29 (48·2%) in the placebo group (p=0·008).

Conclusions There were significantly lower viral loads and viable cultures in the ivermectin group, which could lead to shortening isolation time in these patients.

[Grizzly]

Fauci is beyond criticism and can debunk everything, as he is now the living embodiment of science: "attacks on me are, quite frankly, attacks on science,"
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/fauci-blasts-preposterous-covid-conspiracies-accuses-critics-of-attacks-on-science.html

[stickdog99]

https://trialsitenews.com/canadian-cens ... opulation/

Apparently, it’s not appropriate to discuss the possibility of side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccines despite the fact that there are, in fact, side effects, and these are apparent even in formal documentation, whether it be from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Health Canada. As reported in True North News, Dr. Charles Hoffe from British Columbia, a family doctor, cannot work in the emergency room (ER) any longer, depriving this rural impoverished community predominantly consisting of Native Canadians.

Observing a number of alarming serious side effects, the physician did the needful and necessary writing to the local health authorities to inform them of the situation. In this case, a letter was sent to British Columbia Provincial Health Officer Bonne Henry based on the 900 Moderna jabs to mostly Indigenous Canadians in Lytton British Columbia. One of the victims here is dead, and apparently, two others are permanently disabled.

The doctor’s removal from the emergency room leaves the facility vacant for two weeks out of the month now. Who wanted Dr. Hoffe out for speaking up? It turns out a combination of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) and the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) declaring that such observations shared with the public (in this case mostly indigenous Canadians) were problematic, noting, “Public statements from physicians that contradict public health orders and guidance [being] confusing and potentially harmful to patients.” ...

Due to the top-down pressures of government to achieve targeted vaccination mandates, such as the U.S. POTUS mandate of 70% by July 4th, multifaceted communication programs drive specific and targeted messaging in a bid to meet government directives. But what if these programs are omitting key safety data. What are the bioethical, compliance, and even legal ramifications?

Up in British Columbia, the authorities are taking a hard line. Dr. Heidi Oetter, CEO and CPSBC registrar, vowed to go after those physicians that dare deviate from the government messaging, declaring “put the public at risk with misinformation may face an investigation by the College, and if warranted, regulatory action.”

[stickdog99]

https://trialsitenews.com/scripps-resea ... necessary/

Scripps Research announced study results indicating 90 existing drugs or drug candidates possessing antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen behind COVID-19. In what can only be described as a serious drug repurposing initiative, the top San Diego, California-based research institution identified four clinically approved drugs as well as nine compounds in other stages of clinical development with considerable potential to serve as repurposed, oral drugs targeting the coronavirus. In collaboration with the drug discovery division of the institute called Calibr, Scripps Research and a team from the venerable science-based research institute’s Department of Immunology and Microbiology tested over 12,000 drugs in two different types of human cells infected with SARS-CoV-2. TrialSite reported on a comparable study conducted by Scripps last year. In that case, Scripps announced that they identified possible COVID-19 repurposed drug candidates using their ActivPred AI Drug Discovery Platform. Now Scripps has been at it again and the promising results of this antiviral drug discovery research were published June 3 in the journal Nature Communications.

TrialSite raises an uncomfortable question here, however: given promising repurposed drug result studies from not only Scripps Research, but also the University of California, San Francisco, and Sanford Burnham Prebys, not to mention mounting evidence for some form of efficacy with repurposed agents, such as Ivermectin (over 50 clinical trials), Famotidine, fluvoxamine, and others, why didn’t the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in conjunction with COVID-19 fighters within the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the pharmaceutical industry step in and commit to investigating low-cost therapies that could help address 90% of the COVID-19 cases, those early-onset asymptomatic to mild-to-moderate cases that if not treated could progress to more severe stages of the disease? The answer is clearly indicative of an underlying economic incentive system, and reform of the research system to better embrace the war on infectious disease should now be front and center for new leadership. Even Janet Woodcock lately shared in an article in Wired that explains perhaps not enough was done soon enough to explore these early therapies. ...

TrialSite spent the last 1.5 years chronicling promising study after study that could introduce low-cost, generic therapies for COVID-19 yet the U.S. government’s allocation of taxpayer money centered squarely on vaccines and novel therapeutics at the expense of early-onset, oral administrative, antiviral care. Remdesivir received somewhat of a free pass, with lots of public funds and a last-minute changing of endpoints so that the study would be successful. The result? The company was able to generate over $3 billion in the first nine months of the pandemic thanks to this at least partial tee up by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) as discussed in “Not a Knockout Drug but Knocking it Out of the Ballpark: Gilead Windfall as Remdesivir COVID-19 Sales to Hit $1-$3 Billion in 2020.”

While TrialSite celebrates Scripps Research’s continuous effort to showcase to the world existing possible drug therapies that can target COVID-19, little has been done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g. NIH, FDA, etc.) nor the biopharmaceutical industry. As TrialSite as systematically documented, the NIH’s Accelerating COVID-19 Interventions and Vaccines (“ACTIV”) spent billions to support the studies of just a handful of pharmaceutical companies, ignoring for nearly a year promising repurposed drug candidates. Now the NIH initiated ACTIV-6, which includes ivermectin and fluvoxamine but many argue that it’s too little way too late. ...

For example, in addition to TrialSite’s continuous tracking of one ivermectin study after another, by last summer, Scripps had already provided a list of potential targets as did another research group known as Sanford Burnham Prebys, which discovered 21 repurposed drugs that could treat COVID-19 including clofazimine, hanfangchin-a, apilimod, and ONO-5334.

Moreover, an elite team assembled by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the university’s Quantitative Biosciences Institute (QBI) identified 29 FDA-approved drugs, 12 in clinical trials, and 28 preclinical compounds that represent potential COVID-19 medications.

As mentioned already, about 50 ivermectin studies around the world show considerable promise: in fact, the drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is authorized for use by regulatory bodies in a range of countries as diverse as Slovakia, India, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Other drugs with promise targeting COVID-19 include famotidine, fluvoxamine, and niclosamide to name a few that have undergone some trials.

But Kudos to Scripps Research

Despite the low odds of eliciting interest from government and pharmaceutical backers, Scripps continued to contribute important biomedical research to the war on COVID-19. The team leveraged the ReFRAME drug repurposing library, which was established by Calibr (again part of Scripps) in 2018 in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to tackle areas of unmet urgent medical need.

In this study, the scientists treated two different types of laboratory-cultured SARS-CoV-2-infected human cells with each of the 12,000 drugs from ReFRAME. After 24 or 48 hours, they measured the level of viral infection in the cells to determine if the drugs prevented the virus from replicating. In some cases, they applied two drugs at a time to see if the compounds would work together against the virus.

From the thousands of drugs screened, the researchers identified a total of 90 compounds that prevented SARS-CoV-2 from replicating in at least one of the human cell lines. Of those, 13 had the highest potential to be repurposed as COVID-19 therapies, based on their potency, cell line-independent activity or a likely mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, and human safety profiles.

Four of the drugs—halofantrine, nelfinavir, simeprevir annd manidipine—are already FDA approved, and nine others are in various stages of the drug development process. ...

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

https://trialsitenews.com/osha-waves-29 ... to-record/

OSHA Waives 29 CFR 1904’s Recording Requirements So Employers that Mandate Vaccines Have No Need to Record

COVID-19 times are indeed strange as behavior from the biggest government agency on down deviates from the norm to seemingly synchronize and harmonize a path toward seamless mass vaccination. This completely makes sense given this nasty pathogen that’s taken the lives of over 3.7 million people worldwide with over 610,000 deaths in America. But core fundamental principles of patient safety and quality, not to mention ethics, cannot be shortchanged in the process. An important rule that’s on the books of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) apparently was a problem for employers that were going to mandate vaccinations. You see if they actually did that and followed the federal rules, employers would have to record the events, which amounts to a form of adverse event reporting, and thus actually follow up on any such events with their employees. Employee safety is certainly important but not at the expense of getting in the way of mass vaccination, apparently.

Not a funny matter actually, OSHA apparently changed its rules in a bid to avoid “the appearance of discouraging workers” from taking advantage of on the job vaccination opportunity now ubiquitous given POTUS’ push to have 70% of the American public with at least one jab by the nation’s birthday, as reported by the agency itself. ...

[stickdog99]

https://trialsitenews.com/does-the-21st ... -vaccines/

Many have noticed the rampant denialism within the US government concerning adverse events or potential deaths associated with the investigational COVID-19 vaccines. What hasn’t made sense is why the government is so adamant about denying such obvious data points. Why is there such hesitancy to acknowledge any events? Government agencies are even changing the OSHA reporting rules in the cases of employer-mandated vaccines. The goal of vaccinating everyone so that society can collectively return to some semblance of normal after the COVID-19 pandemic is understandable. But TrialSite has delved deeper into what may be at least one driving rationale for such widespread and ubiquitous denial of any vaccine-associated adverse events, despite so many having been reported. There is no question that the CDC VAERS self-reporting system is imperfect. Even when this is factored in, some level of serious or even severe adverse incidents (often unusually delayed) are clearly associated with the investigational vaccines. Could it be that there is some federal legal or statutory reason for asserting that there are absolutely no vaccine-associated deaths (for example)? Is there some reason for keeping the vaccines under the emergency use authorization (EUA) classification while studies on children continue full speed ahead? ...

Back in 2016 when the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law (December 13, 2016), the mission, among other things, was to accelerate medical product development to support the expedited commercialization of new innovative advancements to the bedside of patients. No one can oppose such an important goal, but patient safety is of course sacrosanct and infused into the underlying clinical research mission.

When introduced by the 114th Congress, Section 3024 of the Act stated, “Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.”

The importance of informed consent and the Declaration of Helsinki cannot be overstated for anyone that knows the history of research. This particular clause ultimately couldn’t have remained in this version for the finalized legislation and indeed upon review of Section 3024 of the Act.

“ INFORMED CONSENT WAIVER OR ALTERATION FOR CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

(b) DRUGS.—Section 505(i)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘except where it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings’’ and inserting ‘‘except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed.” ..

But rules such as informed consent have been around for decades for a reason. And despite tremendous progress with vaccines during the pandemic, a concerted effort to block low-cost, generic, repurposed treatments is but one example of industry becoming too influential. ...

Were the modifications implemented a few years ago just “business as usual,” intended to establish more friendly conditions for expediting research and development? Or are they serious encroachments on a human subject’s expectations for true and transparent informed consent as has been defined in the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki, a cornerstone of subject safety arising ultimately out of the horrors of World War 2?

[stickdog99]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 2/rmv.2265

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for a parasitic disease that has broad antiviral activity. This study aims to analyse the efficacy of ivermectin in improving the Covid-19 outcomes. We systematically searched the PubMed, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov database using specific keywords related to our aims until 10th May 2021. All published randomized clinical trial studies on Covid-19 and ivermectin were retrieved. The quality of the study was assessed using Jadad scale assessment tool for clinical trial studies.

Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 19 studies with 2768 Covid-19 patients were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that ivermectin was associated with

reduction in severity of Covid-19 (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.23–0.81], p = 0.008),

reduction of mortality (RR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15–0.62], p = 0.001),

higher negative RT-PCR test results rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01–1.51], p = 0.04),

shorter time to negative RT-PCR test results (mean difference [MD] −3.29 [95% CI −5.69, −0.89], p = 0.007),

higher symptoms alleviations rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.03−1.46], p = 0.02),

shorter time to symptoms alleviations (MD −0.68 [95% CI −1.07, −0.29], p = 0.0007) and

shorter time to hospital discharge (MD −2.66 [95% CI −4.49, −0.82], p = 0.004).

Our study suggests that ivermectin may offer beneficial effects towards Covid-19 outcomes.

[mentalgongfu2]

Observing a number of alarming serious side effects, the physician did the needful and necessary writing to the local health authorities to inform them of the situation. In this case, a letter was sent to British Columbia Provincial Health Officer Bonne Henry based on the 900 Moderna jabs to mostly Indigenous Canadians in Lytton British Columbia. One of the victims here is dead, and apparently, two others are permanently disabled.

He posted a screed on an anti-vaccine website as an "open letter" in which he pretends a bunch of assertions qualify as legitimate questions. Is that a needful and necessary writing to the local health authorities?

Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from BC Physician re: Moderna Vaccine Reactions

April 12, 2021 By Vaccine Choice Canada

Dr. Charles D. Hoffe, BSc, MB, BCh, LMCC
Lytton Medical Clinic
Lytton BC V0K 1Z0

5 April, 2021

OPEN LETTER

Dr. Bonnie Henry,
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
1515 Blanchard Street
Victoria, BC, V8W 3C9

Dear Dr. Henry,

The first dose of the Moderna vaccine has now been administered to some of my patients in the community of Lytton, BC. This began with the First Nations members of our community in mid-January, 2021. 900 doses have now been administered.

I have been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment.
From this relatively small number of people vaccinated so far, we have had:

Numerous allergic reactions, with two cases of anaphylaxis.
One (presumed) vaccine induced sudden death, (in a 72 year old patient with COPD. This patient complained of being more short of breath continually after receiving the vaccine, and died very suddenly and unexpectedly on day 24, after the vaccine. He had no history of cardiovascular disease).
Three people with ongoing and disabling neurological deficits, with associated chronic pain, persisting for more than 10 weeks after their first vaccine. These neurological deficits include: continual and disabling dizziness, generalised or localized neuromuscular weakness, with or without sensory loss. The chronic pain in these patients is either generalised or regional, with or without headaches.

So in short, in our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age.

So I have a couple of questions and comments:

Are these considered normal and acceptable long term side-effects for[b] gene modification therapy[/b]? Judging by medical reports from around the world, our Lytton experience is not unusual.
Do you have any idea what disease processes may have been initiated, to be producing these ongoing neurological symptoms?
Do you have any suggestions as to how I should treat the vaccine induced neurological weakness, the dizziness, the sensory loss, and the chronic pain syndromes in these people, or should they be all simply referred to a neurologist? I anticipate that many more will follow, as the vaccine is rolled out. This was only phase one, and the first dose.
In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with Covid-19. So in our limited experience, this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than Covid-19.
I realize that every medical therapy has a risk-benefit ratio, and that serious disease calls for serious medicine. But we now know that the recovery rate of Covid-19, is similar to the seasonal flu, in every age category. Furthermore, it is well known that the side effects following a second shot, are significantly worse than the first. So the worst is still to come.
It must be emphasised, that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease. These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.
It is normally considered a fundamental principal of medical ethics, to discontinue a clinical trial if significant harm is demonstrated from the treatment under investigation.
So my last question is this: Is it medically ethical to continue this vaccine rollout, in view of the severity of these life altering side-effects, after just the first shot? In Lytton, BC, we have an incidence of 1 in 225 of severe life altering side-effects, from this experimental gene modification therapy.

I have also noticed that these vaccine induced side effects are going almost entirely unreported, by those responsible for the vaccine rollout. I am aware that this is often a problem, with vaccines in general, and that delayed side-effects after vaccines, are sometimes labelled as being “coincidences”, as causality is often hard to prove. However, in view of the fact that this is an experimental treatment, with no long-term safety data, I think that perhaps this issue should be addressed too.

Furthermore I have noticed, that the provincial vaccine injury reporting form, which was clearly designed for conventional vaccines, does not even have any place to report vaccine injuries of the nature and severity that we are seeing from this new mRNA therapy.

It is now clearly apparent with medical evidence from around the world, that the side-effect profiles of the various gene modification therapies against Covid-19, have been vastly understated by their manufacturers, who were eager to prove their safety.

Thank you for attention to this critically urgent public health matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Charles Hoffe

[stickdog99]

So, now "vaccine choice" is anti-vaccination, and a sober and reasoned medical judgment that the harm of the Moderna vaccine side effects clearly outweighs the harm of COVID-19 in a certain population of patients is a "screed" that should get a physician serving a woefully underserved population fired?

What is he supposed to do? Keep injecting his patients with a substance that his own clinical experience has shown him almost certainly does more harm than good? Would that make him a better or worse physician in your estimation?

And if anyone (for example, you) has trouble with his "bunch of assertions", then why not simply counter these assertions with scientific data and logical scientific analysis?

It's bizarre to me that you actually seem to think that the only legitimate response to this poor physician's wholly legitimate and obviously heartfelt concerns is "how dare he"!

[Karmamatterz]

Thanks for posting that letter.

It was absolutely appropriate and much needed.

In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with Covid-19. So in our limited experience, this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than Covid-19.

Spot on comment from the doctor. If rational minds were at play here in the USA then that very aspect of this entire charade would be addressed.