Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:04 pm

.
stickdog99 » Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:26 pm wrote:https://crywnews.com/business/market-close-mainfreight-chairman-bruce-plested-sells-75-million-worth-of-shares/

Global marketer a2 Milk’s recovery ran out of puff after falling 18c or 2.93 per cent to $5.97, impacted by a competitor’s comments in China. Feihe, China’s largest infant formula maker, said sales would drop sharply in the next one to two years since many women cannot bear children within six months of coronavirus vaccination – and thus delaying births.


Seems certain business execs know more about certain things -- things that directly, negatively impact consumers -- than the plebes do, eh? How, and why?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby elfismiles » Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:20 pm

And predictably ... YouTube deleted the long-form version ... how long until the short clip gets deleted as well?

elfismiles » 15 Jun 2021 13:18 wrote:Was just about to ... here is an excerpt:

Spike protein is very dangerous, it's cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY

Grizzly » 14 Jun 2021 01:15 wrote:Anyone posted this yet?



Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.
Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.

Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist.
Bret talks to Robert and Steve about the pandemic, treatment and the COVID vaccines.
Bret's Twitter: HTTPS://twitter.com/bretweinstein

Steve's paper on COVID vaccine reactions: https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-...
Steve's Twitter: HTTPS://twitter.com/stkirsch
COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund: https://www.treatearly.org/team/steve...

Dr. Malone's website: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/mrna-vacci...
Robert's LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rwmalonemd
Robert's Twitter: HTTPS://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:41 pm

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... 98040.aspx

Abstract
Background:
Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

Areas of uncertainty:
We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

Data sources:
We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Therapeutic Advances:
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:31 pm

stickdog99 » 21 Jun 2021 02:28 wrote:https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/06/16/nearly-4000-fully-vaccinated-people-in-massachusetts-have-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

Nearly 4,000 fully vaccinated people in Massachusetts have tested positive for coronavirus

That’s 0.1% of vaccinated people


Meanwhile, I am still waiting for any data that show that the overall mortality and hospitalization rates for all conditions of vaccinated populations are lower than those of unvaccinated populations when adjusted for age and socioeconomic status.

Can anyone please show me these data? I want to believe!


Does that mean 99.9% of people who were vaccinated didn't get COVID?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:58 am

.

Not necessarily. The article, from my admittedly cursory read, does not specify how many of the total amount of vaccinated persons in the area have taken a PCR test after full vaccination. We can speculate that, once fully vaccinated, those that would have otherwise submitted to PCR testing would not again volunteer to get tested unless they had clear flu-like symptoms.
And even if a percentage didn't test positive to date, it doesn't mean they won't test positive at some point in the future.

Remember: testing positive does not necessarily = having COVID. One can argue anyone that tests positive and is asymptomatic is likely not a true Covid case.

We also know that the PCR test is a flawed method, and that asymptomatic 'cases' never existed prior to 2020/covid.

We also know that the CDC released distinct Ct guidelines for testing vaccinated persons, essentially lowering the Ct thresholds only for those already vaccinated, which in turn means they will be far less likely to test positive than an unvaccinated person on criteria variance alone. This also means that if vaccinated persons were PCR tested using the same Ct thresholds as unvaccinated persons, the positive case rates for the vaccinated would surely be higher than whatever is currently reported.

But beyond that, what the article indicates is that these shots do NOT 'immunize' -- though this was already known by those actually reading the language put forth by the 'vaccine' manufacturers -- but only claim to lessen symptoms.
(Along with the risks of near-term and also long-term side effects).

Meanwhile, cheap and much safer drugs like Ivermectin are available for use, though largely suppressed.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:02 am

Never received a reply to the following:

Belligerent Savant » Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:33 pm wrote:
To all those RIers considering a Covid shot: have any of you even considered Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine as alternatives? If not, why not?


This question also applies to those that already took a covid shot: did you consider the alternative drug options? Why or why not?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:52 pm

Again, here's my fundamental problem with the "scientific" data touting the supposed real world efficacy of the 3 EAU approved vaccines in the USA.

1. These data are incredibly spotty.

2. There is a different Ct definition for positive COVID-19 test for vaccinated individuals vs. unvaccinated individuals as outlined by Belligerent Savant above.

3. There is a different definition for a COVID-19 case for vaccinated individuals. For them, only cases that require hospitalization and death are counted as cases. Now, imagine if this had been the standard for all COVID-19 cases since the start of this pandemic.

4. All of the studies I have seen so far compare person-days of vaccinated populations to person days of unvacinated populations. This means that the same individuals are often counted in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated populations in these studies. During the period these individuals are counted among unvaccinated population, overall COVID-19 rates were invariably much higher. Then, since the mRNA vaccines are by far the most common in the USA, there is a 6 week period in which these individuals are removed from the analysis, which conveniently also removes all consideration of immediate negative vaccine side effects from the analysis. And by the time these individuals' "person days" are again counted (now in the vaccinated population), again the overall rates of COVID-19 are much lower, perhaps somewhat due to increased vaccination rates, but also totally confounded with the clear seasonal reductions we see in most countries with or without high vaccination rates. And these "lower rates" are also totally confounded by the CDC's reduction of Ct count value for positive COVID-19 cases just among the vaccinated populations.

5. As the overall trend is toward increasing vaccinating rates, analyzing efficacy in terms of person-days ill necessarily credits vaccination induced "herd immunity" with reductions in cases that may just as probably be explained by seasonal variations, changes in COVID-19 case counting policies, and/or increases in natural immunity. Looking at trends all over the world, there is no clear indication that decreasing case and death rates have any correlation with increasing vaccination rates.

6. Finally, and in my opinion most critically, no attempt whatsoever has been made to compare the overall hospitalization and death rates of unvaccinated population to those of vaccinated populations in any manner whatsoever, much less any unbiased manner. Thus, the only data that actually matter to anyone trying to make an informed medical decision about whether to vaccinate themselves and their loved ones with an experimental vaccine are quite bafflingly nowhere to be found.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:47 pm

.

How, and why, does this happen? What is the explanation for this change?

Here is what the WHO had on their site up until recently:

Image
Image


...and this is what they have now, a day later:

Image

The text of the updated content:

Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.

WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups for vaccination.

Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy.



https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/14074 ... 42926?s=20

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status ... 23488?s=20
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:42 pm

Is your outrage merely that the website was edited?

The how and the why are self-evident: new information was added.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:39 pm

mentalgongfu2 » 23 Jun 2021 02:42 wrote:Is your outrage merely that the website was edited?

The how and the why are self-evident: new information was added.


The outrage is that the vaccine manufacturers' outrage caused the WHO to withdraw its clear and cogent advisory against kids' getting killed and injured by completely unnecessary vaccinations.
Last edited by stickdog99 on Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:39 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:26 am

Did you read it? They continue to have an advisory. They took out the bold "NO KIDS ALLOWED" followed by language stating they would update with more information, and replaced it with more detailed information.

I don't trust the screenshots are actually yesterday and today. There's probably six months between them. If the screenshots had dates associated with them, that might help make it seem malicious. But even then, anytime you make an edit, there are two days where they are back to back. And editing something that you actively say will be edited as more research is conducted is not exactly a sign of malfeasance.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:26 am

mentalgongfu2 » 23 Jun 2021 04:26 wrote:Did you read it? They continue to have an advisory. They took out the bold "NO KIDS ALLOWED" followed by language stating they would update with more information, and replaced it with more detailed information.

I don't trust the screenshots are actually yesterday and today. There's probably six months between them. If the screenshots had dates associated with them, that might help make it seem malicious. But even then, anytime you make an edit, there are two days where they are back to back. And editing something that you actively say will be edited as more research is conducted is not exactly a sign of malfeasance.


Why don't you trust reality?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:36 am

stickdog99 » 23 Jun 2021 16:26 wrote:Why don't you trust reality?


In a lot of ways its completely Ot but what? You do.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:37 am

Joe Hillshoist » 23 Jun 2021 21:36 wrote:
stickdog99 » 23 Jun 2021 16:26 wrote:Why don't you trust reality?


In a lot of ways its completely Ot but what? You do?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests