Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Grizzly]

[Grizzly]

Covid vaccination rioting in France?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23VaccinO ... head_click

[JackRiddler]

Covid vaccination rioting in France?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23VaccinO ... head_click

The real photos from the protests are bad enough and condemn the French state. Creating imaginary images of something that did not happen has the opposite effect.

[Grizzly]

jr

The real photos from the protests are bad enough and condemn the French state. Creating imaginary images of something that did not happen has the opposite effect.

God, you and other's here are a snobby pretentious bunch....

Here's another subjective view that you all will prolly snub too...

[JackRiddler]

jr

The real photos from the protests are bad enough and condemn the French state. Creating imaginary images of something that did not happen has the opposite effect.

God, you and other's here are a snobby pretentious bunch....

Here's another subjective view that you all will prolly snub too...

That one? Not at all. Sober little cartoon, not trying to overheat emotions on an irrational plane, not exaggerating current reality, making an important point clearly. Sure, I'd probably have "Capitalist System" doing the pushing, of which USG is a part, but six of one, half dozen of the other.

I reserve my right to voice occasional criticism of political art (and other art too, if that exists) and apologize in advance if this disturbs your desired echo chamber or is done with words you don't take well.

You make too many assumptions. All the time you're on here complaining preemptively about how someone or other is going to disrespect you (who hasn't yet) or how your stuff is too hot for the mods to allow (it almost never is) or some such, or if you're having some technical difficulty, you're deciding it must be due to an exotic censorship measure. I don't know, maybe you'd be happier with less preemptive rage against essentially random, inchoate targets online? There's enough real stuff to be pissed at, as many of your posts show.

.

[Karmamatterz]

That's really funny suggesting that the Capitalist System would be doing the pushing. Oh yeah, for sure that system has quite the history at pushing people over the metaphoric cliff. No more so than other "systems" that push people into "re-education" camps, gulags etc....

The current regime (they call themselves Democrats) is no different than any good committee member of your various flavors of another "ism."

I don't buy that any system gives a rats ass about us. The people running any show are in it for themselves. The truly honest people who actually do care and want to help people are squashed, shot, suicided, drowned in hot tubs or Wellstoned.

Across the entire globe we see several flavors of political and economic systems making really bad decisions. Some are quite evil and worthy of outrage. I don't fault Grizzly at all for how he expresses himself here. Frankly, if the American citizens were more outraged then perhaps these lockdowns and all this hsyteria about vaccines would cease. Not a fan of telling people to stop being outraged when their civil rights are being trampled and our "tax" dollars are spent on bullshit programs like these vaccine lotteries and pathetic gimmicks the big pharma marketers are drooling over.

I'll repeat myself again: How many ( and how often ) were elected officials, bureaucrats, big pharma shills and media talking botheads suggesting to the citizenry that they eat healthy, exercise, get outside for sunshine and fresh air? Did they do this daily? Weekly? How about almost never.
How many other medical treatments have been shoved down our throats like these experimental vaccines? None!

Without a doubt it is very clear that the above mentioned don't really care about our health or well being. This entire charade IS NOT ABOUT OUR HEALTH AND WELL BEING.

[DrEvil]

...

I'll repeat myself again: How many ( and how often ) were elected officials, bureaucrats, big pharma shills and media talking botheads suggesting to the citizenry that they eat healthy, exercise, get outside for sunshine and fresh air? Did they do this daily? Weekly? How about almost never.
How many other medical treatments have been shoved down our throats like these experimental vaccines? None!

...

Is it really necessary to inform people that healthy living is good for them? Pretty self-evident. If they're not doing it already it's not because they don't know any better.

How many other medical treatments have been shoved down our throats like these experimental vaccines? None!

There's a reason death rates started dropping before the vaccines came along, and that's because they figured out how to treat it better, but they don't shove treatments down your throat until you need them, at which point you're probably already at the hospital. The whole point of vaccines is to stop you from needing treatment at all.

[JackRiddler]

on karmamatterz, here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41979&start=3105#p696344

Currently and for the last couple of centuries in the US (as the cartoon is labeled), there's only capitalism. Capitalist state. Ruling class of globalized, private capital and a set of monopoly-holding corporations. Capitalist, corporate media. Duopoly of capitalist parties. Plus a few hundred ultra-beast guillotine-seeking wealth addicts whose importance can be exaggerated sometimes, but serve as a kind of ideological-performative glue, the Innovators (billionaires). There's little need to attribute recent social maladies to something else that doesn't exist here, or almost anywhere else currently on the planet. But OK, other systems have been bad too. Whatever. You the Rad!

Also, sure, have your way. Things bad! Very bad! We do all agree on this. And there are bad people conducting the badness, to varying degrees of responsibility, which is sometimes unclear. Who needs to figure that shit out? Things bad, therefore inchoate massive rage is always justified! It's perfect for communicating among a half-dozen online friends who repeat the same stuff daily on a discussion board. Just direct it at what seem like potentially right targets, no need to over-prioritize, GO LARGE ON THE RANDOM ONLINE RAGE BECAUSE THINGS BAD AND SOME BAD BAD PEOPLE ARE MORE OR LESS RESPONSIBLE! Very likely to work, hooray!

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

...

I'll repeat myself again: How many ( and how often ) were elected officials, bureaucrats, big pharma shills and media talking botheads suggesting to the citizenry that they eat healthy, exercise, get outside for sunshine and fresh air? Did they do this daily? Weekly? How about almost never.
How many other medical treatments have been shoved down our throats like these experimental vaccines? None!

...

Is it really necessary to inform people that healthy living is good for them? Pretty self-evident. If they're not doing it already it's not because they don't know any better.

How many other medical treatments have been shoved down our throats like these experimental vaccines? None!

There's a reason death rates started dropping before the vaccines came along, and that's because they figured out how to treat it better, but they don't shove treatments down your throat until you need them, at which point you're probably already at the hospital. The whole point of vaccines is to stop you from needing treatment at all.

There are treatments shown to be very effective and with practically no side effects, and you're saying they shouldn't be offered as alternatives to experimental shots (which already have a growing list of near-term side effects and ZERO data on long-term side effects)?

How is your comment a compelling or sensible argument for not offering such treatments? Why are these treatments being actively suppressed, and doctors/scientists being censored and/or ostracized, for simply raising the demonstrable benefits of these treatments?

And why the F would anyone NOT receiving compensation by a pharma company even raise objection or issue with MORE options being provided to those afflicted?

The pathology on display is disturbing, as it's unfortunately pervasive and clearly exacerbates the madness we've been enduring, and will continue to endure.

Millions of unpaid shills to pharma and govt encroachment.

The mental gymnastics on display would inspire awe if not so damaging.

You are giving far more credit to these 'vaccines' than merited, but that's to be expected with confirmation bias (and limited due diligence).

As mentioned before, this virus has shown itself to be seasonal/endemic, based on data going back to 2020. The cases and deaths began to drop in 2021 even before 'vaccination' hit anywhere near a sizable percentage to be a primary factor. Natural immunity and seasonal factors have also been contributors to lowered illness rates (arguably, they may have been primary factors) and yet such considerations are almost universally ignored by the narratives parroted by Establishment and their sycophants.

Did you miss the chart I shared earlier?

The states with the highest percentage of those that took these experimental shots have practically the same death rate as the states with the lowest percentage of shot-takers:

Remember, the formal literature from each shot manufacturer never claim to immunize, only lessen symptoms, and even that is no guarantee.

Everyone should be afforded every opportunity for informed consent and choice on treatment methods.
None of this should be mandated under any circumstances.

It's a testament to this currently mad world that the prior 2 sentences need to be typed at all.

[mentalgongfu2]

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19

Since WHO declared the COVID-19 as a pandemic,1 2 healthcare systems all over the world have focused their efforts on limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and despite the ceaseless development of strategies to struggle with the impact of COVID-19, there is no sign of let-up. And the stress and overburden elicited by the pandemic—especially in vulnerable or marginalised populations—remain unstoppable, while the possibility of massive vaccination gives hope for a respite.3 4 Beyond public health interventions, several drugs have been considered for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection,5 which triggers severe respiratory symptoms and critical illness in approximately 5%–20% of patients, with intensive care requirements and high mortality.6–10 In this article, we appraise and debate about the available evidence regarding the role of ivermectin for COVID-19.

Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial results have had a critical role establishing the most useful pharmacological interventions in COVID-19 critical care, such as dexamethasone.11 However, despite the development of new therapies and the attempts for implementing repurposed drugs (because of their potential immunomodulator or antiviral effects), no reliable specific therapy has been identified yet. Azithromycin, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are some of those drugs, whose adverse effects and/or concerns about efficacy on COVID-19 treatment12 have determined its deimplementation by different agencies and regulatory authorities.13–15 And despite the wide dissemination of these recommendations, paradoxically, its adherence in both high-income, and middle-income and low-income countries has been hindered not only by the COVID-19 social media infodemic, but also by authorities.16

Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the USA proved to be safe at the conventional dose of ≤200 µg/kg, although severe adverse effects ranging from ataxia to seizures have occasionally been reported.5 And due to its in vitro antiviral activity against a broad range of viruses, it has been used off-label for the treatment of some viral diseases.13 17

In a vertiginous search for COVID-19 treatments, Caly et al conducted an in vitro exploration that showed ivermectin’s inhibitor role on the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,17 18 among few other in silico and in vitro results suggesting the same.19–21 Thus, a considerable amount of preprints and protocol records quickly appeared, reporting the clinical efficacy of ivermectin in standard doses for COVID-19. The dissemination of these results caused confusion, and the general population and some clinicians endorsed the use of ivermectin, especially in Latin America.22 However, in a matter of days since the publication of Caly et al17 and its repercussions, a general publication from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) stated that “…ivermectin is incorrectly being used for the treatment of COVID-19, without any scientific evidence of its efficacy and safety for the treatment of this disease.”23

An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification).24 25 In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient. Among other reasons, we believe this might have led WHO to exclude ivermectin from its Solidarity Trial for repurposed drugs for COVID-19,12 which raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin.

Nevertheless, assessments of ivermectin as prophylaxis or treatment for mild to severe COVID-19 continue being published in preprints26 27 and protocol repositories,28 29 which do not follow the recommended process to ensure quality standards in publications; whereas peer-reviewed reports (both observational and experimental studies) are slowly emerging, yet methodologically limited by heterogeneity in population receiving ivermectin, dosis applied and uncontrolled cointerventions.28–30 Similarly, other studies that can be rapidly retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv and MEDLINE make up a quite heterogeneous body of evidence31–33 (including ivermectin as intervention, but with different underlying clinical questions), among other issues that do not contribute to the certainty of evidence—according to the systematic reviews that we comment on below.

Up to February 2021, the PAHO identified twenty two ivermectin randomised clinical trials through a rapid review of current available literature.34 There is considerable heterogeneity in the population receiving ivermectin, with studies administering it to family contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases as a prophylactic measure29 and other studies using ivermectin for treatment of mild and moderate infected cases28 or even severe hospitalised patients.30 Applied dosis and outcomes of interest were also highly variable. Additionally, patients also received various cointerventions, and control groups received different kinds of comparators ranging from placebo or no intervention to standard care or even hydroxychloroquine. The authors claim that pooled estimates suggest beneficial effects with ivermectin, but the certainty of the evidence was very low due to high risk of bias and small number of events throughout the included studies. Most study results have been made publicly available as preprints or unpublished, with no peer review or formal editorial process. Others incorporated their results only in the clinical trial register, but nearly half of these randomised clinical trials had not been registered. Registering clinical trials before they begin and making results available fulfils a large number of purposes, like reducing publication and selective outcome reporting biases, promoting more efficient allocation of research funds and facilitating evidence syntheses that will inform stakeholders and decision-makers in the future.

A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis35 compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. None of the analysed drugs was significantly associated with increased non-cardiac serious adverse events compared with standard care, but the overall certainty of the evidence was very low in all outcomes and reduced the ability for recommendation.

Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36

Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.

[Karmamatterz]

@JR

I see, outrage over Wall Street and the entire financial system is perfectly acceptable? A bit out Occupy Wall Street was totally in vogue and cool, but outrage over the implementation of the global bio-security state is just too???? Sweaty? Redneck?

The majority here in the USA are still brainwashed or traumatized enough that they are buying into this charade. Maybe you're cozy in the metropolis of NYC and are either numb or resigned to this thing that you aren't quite as uppity as others. Your choice. Sorry not sorry if you're offended by the boisterous and unwashed who are not as eloquent or coifed.

[Belligerent Savant]

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19

...

This opinion piece, to be clear, does not indicate Ivermectin is NOT effective.

But the larger issue for me is: why aren't you also doing the same form of casual online searching to raise scrutiny on these experimental shots?
You are reflexively looking for an "anti-ivermectin" piece but appear to support, without reservation, these covid injections (correct me if I'm wrong). Conditioning mechanisms can be powerful.

My position on these experimental shots -- to avoid any misrepresentation -- is essentially this: they remain EUA; they are by definition experimental and still in trials; they have been rushed for unprecedented mass deployment/use on humans with less than a year of trials (these abbreviated initial trials -- performed prior to public deployment -- did NOT include children, pregnant women, or those that already had the virus, FYI) and with no data on long-term side effects, implementing technology (mRNA) that has never before been mass-distributed. Since these shots have been administered, there have been significant reports of side-effects, including near-term death, that are charting several orders of magnitude higher in frequency than any other vaccines previously administered. Even if a percentage of these turn out not to be directly tied to these injections, the adverse effects reports remain significantly high. Prior vaccines have been shelved for far less death counts.

Meanwhile advertisements blared on the radio and TV repeatedly claim these shots to be "safe and effective". While the shots appear to have minimal/no near-term side effects for the majority, this is false advertising.

Despite all of the above, I've no objections with individuals choosing to take these shots, based on their risk profile, if provided proper informed consent, which we know is NOT happening most of the time (herein is another issue: what is the actual vs. perceived risk of serious illness/death due to covid infection? To what extent is propagandized FEAR and COERCION driving 'choice'? How many have taken these shots primarily so they can "go on with their lives" -- travel freely, not be treated as "outsiders", etc.? Anecdotally, I know many that have submitted to these shots precisely for these latter reasons, more so than health concerns).

Why do all dominant narratives -- including the CDC -- exclude any mention of the millions that have already achieved natural immunity through prior infection? This is also unprecedented, the blacking out of this key FACT. What possible reason can there be for this omission, other than yet another example of the hard push towards mass submission to 'vaccination'?

As mentioned before, these shots do not immunize; there is no mention of this term in the manufacturer literature. A number of those fully vaccinated have subsequently tested positive and/or fallen ill. The duration of the efficacy of these shots -- which appear to be no more than a lessening of severe symptoms, though even this is not certain -- apparently are only for a period of months. Yearly "booster shots" have already been raised as a likely downstream need. Good business model.

(All the while, executives and major investors tied to the manufacturers of these shots have all reaped massive profits.)

I object strongly to the coercion attempts, mandates and passports tied to these experimental shots, the propaganda surrounding these medical interventions, and the apparent march towards wide-scale mandates, all for an illness with an IFR of ~0.2.

I also strongly object to the censoring of alternative treatments that have minimal, if any, side-effects, and have been shown to be very effective.

How many will become wealthy by the mass distribution of Ivermectin (and related treatments)? NONE.

I remain perplexed at how obtuse many continue to be on this topic. It's sheer madness. Future generations (at this rate, it may not be for another 20+ years) will not be kind to you.

There are many prior links related to Ivermectin within this thread. I'm re-inserting one of them, along with a more recent item of note.

.

More on ivermectin, referenced above.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4220302011

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

Highlights
•
Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro.

•
A single treatment able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in virus at 48 h in cell culture.

•
Ivermectin is FDA-approved for parasitic infections, and therefore has a potential for repurposing.

•
Ivermectin is widely available, due to its inclusion on the WHO model list of essential medicines.

Abstract

Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited to monitoring/containment. We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h. Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans.

https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/jo ... ivermectin

Joint Statement of the FLCCC Alliance and British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group on Retraction of Early Research on Ivermectin

A reexamination of the data without the earlier research continues to prove that ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating COVID-19

Newswise — WASHINGTON, D.C. and BATH, SOMERSET, U.K. – The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars, and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), a U.K. based group of medical and scientific experts from over 15 countries, are concerned over the misrepresentation of science in the recent article published in the Guardian regarding the withdrawal of Professor Emeritus Ahmed Elgazzar’s study into ivermectin that was first posted December 16, 2020.

Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would ‘reverse results.’ Worryingly, this article’s insinuation is reported as if it is fact.

According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta-analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.

This article raise questions of journalistic integrity and we invite the Guardian to make appropriate corrections to the reporting and properly check the veracity of their claims.

“This is not just about correcting facts but about people’s lives,” said Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and organizer of the BIRD group. “Ivermectin is already in use around the world and can reach the poorest people long before other expensive COVID treatments will ever get to them. Ivermectin has an ever-increasing evidence base that shows that it works –even the prestigious Institute Pasteur in France has confirmed that the evidence is sound.”

“When we examine the extensive evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 without this latest study, we still see a significant reduction in the spread of COVID-19 as well as a reduction in hospitalizations and death,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “All science needs to be scrutinized. As some of the most published researchers in our fields, we are used to having our work examined by others. I hope that Dr. Elgazzar’s work will be impartially judged and any errors that might be found are corrected.”

About the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

The FLCCC Alliance was organized in March 2020 by a group of highly published, world renowned Critical Care physician/scholars – with the academic support of allied physicians from around the world – to research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness. Their MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol, introduced in March 2020, has saved thousands of patients who were critically ill with COVID-19. Now, the FLCCC’s new I-Mask+ Prophylaxis and Early At-Home Outpatient Treatment Protocol with Ivermectin has been released – and is a potential solution to the global pandemic.

For more information: http://www.FLCCC.net

About the BIRD group

Convened by The Evidenced-Based Medical Consultancy (E-BMC) in Bath, United Kingdom, the BIRD meeting was assembled according to the World Health Organization Handbook of Guideline Development to review the latest science on the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. The expert panel included medical and scientific experts from 16 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Peru, Nigeria, South Africa, Philippines, United States, United Kingdom

[PufPuf93]

I read almost everything you post Belligerent Savant and use the content for a litmus test.

Sorry you are so frustrated with those that do not agree with you.

Do you know the difference between in vitro and in vivo experimentation?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
No, I'm not frustrated by those that disagree with me, puff. You're misframing.

I'd like to believe the source(s) of my frustrations are quite clear, but apparently written language remains a barrier.

State your position, or not. The links I shared most recently, above, are only a small portion of available sources on the topic of Ivermectin. I also have spoken, in person, with doctors and covid-positive individuals that had direct experience with ivermectin's effectiveness (combined with other treatments), so there are anecdotal datapoints as well that inform my position.

Proceed as you all deem fit.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Related side-note:

Kulvinder Kaur MD
@dockaurG
·
Statement: pre-existing cross-reactive and post-infectious Tcell immunity to SARSCoV2 are more robust, broad and long-lasting than vaccine-acquired SARSCoV2 immunity

Question: please share & cite any published peer-reviewed scientific evidence that exists refuting this statement

@sincoscossin
·
Replying to
@dockaurG

This paper shows that people who recovered from SARS 17 years ago also had cross-immunity against COVID. This indicates that T-cell immunity works for a long time and is resistant to mutation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

https://twitter.com/dockaurG/status/141 ... 54240?s=20